Archive for the ‘GLOBAL CIVIL WAR’ Category


September 9, 2019

Spalding’s new book ”Stealth War” will be punlished in October 2019. It reveals the shocking success China has had infiltrating American institutions and compromising America’s national security.

Media often suggest that Russia poses the greatest threat to America’s national security, but the real danger lies farther east – in China. While the United States slept China has waged a six-front war on America’s economy, military, diplomacy, technology, education, and infrastructure–and they’re winning. It’s almost too late to undo the shocking, though nearly invisible, victories of the Chinese.

In his book, retired Air Force Brigadier General Robert Spalding reveals China’s motives and secret attacks on the West. Chronicling how our leaders have failed to protect us over recent decades, he provides shocking evidence of some of China’s most brilliant ploys, including:

Offering enormous sums to American experts who create investment funds that funnel technology to China.

Signing a thirty-year agreement with the US that allows China to share peaceful nuclear technology, ensuring that they have access to American nuclear know-how.

Placing Confucius Institutes in universities across the United States that serve to monitor and control Chinese students on campus and spread communist narratives to unsuspecting American students.

Spalding’s concern isn’t merely that America could lose its position on the world stage. More urgently, the Chinese Communist Party has a fundamental loathing of the legal protections America grants its people and seeks to create a world without those rights.

Despite all the damage done so far, Spalding shows how it’s still possible for the U.S. and the rest of the free world to combat–and win–China’s stealth war.

”Stealth War” is a must read for all who care about the security of the United States and the rest of the West.


September 7, 2019

Ret. USAF Brigadier General Robert Spalding in a June 2019 interview on radio warned that the geopolitical China threat to the United States had not been adressed strategically. Spalding has served at the White House as the Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the National Security Council, Washington D.C.:

China wages economic warfare against the U.S, said Spalding. It supports — and enriches itself off of — America’s competitors in Asia and the Middle East.

To approach this effectively the United States must work with its allies. In the Middle East with the Saudis and other Arab states and in Asia with mainly Japan and South Korea.

Spalding further said that in each of these regions, the partners there have to step up. America must reinvest in the country and grow the economy.

The focus has to be on deterrence and the growth of economy. Don’t spend all your money on weapons and focus on growing your economy. Military capacity cannot be separated from economic capacity, the brigadier general continued.

The United States must build and rebuild in the field of infrastructure and things that are actually growing the economy. If you don’t have a strong economy, it doesn’t matter, because you’re not going to be able to pay for the things you need to secure yourself.

When China entered the WTO, America closed 78,000 factories. 5.4 million people were put out of work. We closed ship-building facilities. We closed so much of our manufacturing capability that today we’re heavily reliant on the Chinese to provide the things we need to fight.

Spalding also said that the Chinese have managed to buy global ports and buying most of the global shipping — control the logistics. So think about that $800 billion defense budget we spend, and then all the money we’re spending to move and ship personnel and supplies all over the world, and you realize that the Chinese are making enormous sums out of what we do on a day-to-day basis. This is what they’ve built.

Spalding further highlighted China’s procurement of influence via financial relationship with America’s academia, businesses, entertainment and news media companies, non-profits and think tanks, and politicians.

The Chinese have studied the United States and the competition we had with the Soviet Union. They realized that if we ever became focused on their activities, then that would be tough for them because they relied on our openness in order to go after us. So they were essentially slowly eroding our personal freedoms through their economic and financial interaction with the country.

A large part of America’s elites have essentially aligned themselves — corporate interests, academia, politics, law firms, think tanks — with the Chinese Communist Party. The party knew that if it could go on to pursue that they could continue to slowly erode our competitive edge.

In essence, they want us to spend as much money as we can on defense, because that is not the area where they want to compete with us, Spalding warned. “They want us to bankrupt ourselves. That’s the goal.

President Donald Trump had in Spalding’s view reversed the status quo of America’s approach towards China set by his presidential predecessors. In 2017, the president basically said, ‘Enough is enough.’

They use the profits they make off the dealings with America to help the Iranians, to help the North Koreans, to help the Russians, both in a technological sense and economic sense,” concluded Spalding. He described Trump’s “decoupling” of America from dependence on Chinese exports and logistic as a means to reinforce America’s global positioning. China is aiding and abetting the countries that we try to put sanctions on. Whether or not they’re directly involved in the Iranians placing mines on tankers in the Persian Gulf, they’re complicit in that they’re enabling the Iranians to have the resources that enable them to do these things.


September 6, 2019

The South China Morning Post on November 30, 2018, published an article on a book by Stewart Paterson (”China, Trade and Power”) in which the decoupling of US and Chinese economies is described as ”inevitable”. For excerpts see below:

…the US should pursue an Anglophonic alliance to soften the blow, the author said…

The speed and extent of the decoupling will depend on negotiations between the world’s two superpowers, but it is already under way, with the shifting of US companies’ supply chains out of China and into other, cheaper Asian manufacturing hubs.

Stewart Paterson, a partner at fund management company Tiburon Partners…said that.. future trading blocs could be based on ideology and could be similar in structure to the Five Eyes security grouping, an intelligence alliance consisting of Australia, Canada, New Zealand the UK and US, formed after the Second World War.

“I think an element of decoupling is inevitable,” Paterson said at the book’s launch in Hong Kong. “What is fairly certain is that the [Chinese Communist Party] is not prepared to give up control of the commanding heights of the Chinese economy. When you read [US Trade Representative Robert] Lighthizer’s criticisms of China, going back a decade at least, he would take a view that I would share, that a trade economy like this produces unfair outcomes,” he said.

Decoupling would involve disentangling complex supply chains established over many years. Most of these were set up after China’s accession to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 2001 and opened the floodgates for Western companies to establish low-cost manufacturing bases there.

Research from US-based firm Rhodium Group shows that US companies invested US$256.49 billion in China between 1990 and 2017.

Over the same period, Chinese companies invested US$139.81 billion in the US. However, this was largely through acquiring US firms.
Thanks in part to foreign investment, China subsequently became the “world’s factory”, but in recent years has lost some of its competitive advantage to emerging neighbours such as Vietnam and Malaysia.

There are also signs that other Western economies are starting to question their relationship with China. New Zealand has become the latest nation to freeze Chinese tech giant Huawei out of its plans to roll out a 5G internet network. This follows a decision by the Australian government to bar Huawei from bidding for similar work in Australia.

Paterson’s book argues that China’s rise has come at the expense of Western economies and societies and was facilitated by the governments of the time, notably the Clinton administration in the US.

Paterson said that the only two winners from China’s accession were “the [Chinese Communist Party] and the 1 per cent [wealthiest] in the West”. The US’ “naive” pursuit of low inflation at the same time led to lower wages and poorer societies, “stimulating the Chinese economy by taking on greater levels of debt” while “China got everything it wanted”.

“The Chinese have been surprised by it and wrong-footed by it, but America needs to do some relationship building around the world to ensure they’re not isolated. The good news for the US at this juncture is that China’s Belt and Road Initiative has alienated a lot of people. The Europeans have similar complaints to the US in terms of [intellectual property] theft, lack of market access and lack of reciprocity. It should be possible to build a global alliance to support this.”

“Whether or not a recession is avoidable in any circumstances, I don’t know. It might well not be,” Paterson said. “My point would be if the choice is between a continuation of the status quo or a recession but by standing up to China liberalism survives, I would go for that option.”

Comment: President Trump may be engaged in an endless trade war with China, according to Republican Senator Marco Rubio. The rivalry between the United States and China is intensifying. Another problem is China’s human rights abuses. A crackdown by the Chinese regime on Hongkong could further complicate the relations.

A vital question now is if the two largest economies in the world should decouple.

Robert Spalding, a retired Air Force general who helped craft the Trump administration’s official National Security Strategy, has noted that if the US cuts off China it will cause the regime in that country to stagnate. CCP will then loose the favor of the population.

President Trump is using tariffs and demands for American companies to leave China to gain leverage in the trade negotiations. Senator Rubio thinks the United States needs “to be more protective of” numerous industries that are targets for Chinese espionage

China’s intellectual property theft is catastrophic when it deals with industries that are critical to American and Western future for example rare earth minerals, telecommunications, quantum computing, and in other fields.


July 30, 2019

New York Post on June 1, 2019, published an article by US China expert Steven W. Mosher on the brutal China organ harvesting for profit. The world is beginning to understand that transplants in China are costing human lives – every time. Excerpts below:

Zheng Qiaozhi — we will call him George — still has nightmares. He was interning at China’s Shenyang Army General Hospital when he was drafted to be part of an organ-harvesting team.

The prisoner was brought in, tied hand and foot, but very much alive. The army doctor in charge sliced him open from chest to belly button and exposed his two kidneys. “Cut the veins and arteries,” he told his shocked intern. George did as he was told. Blood spurted everywhere.

The kidneys were placed in an organ-transplant container.

Then the doctor ordered George to remove the man’s eyeballs. Hearing that, the dying prisoner gave him a look of sheer terror, and George froze. “I can’t do it,” he told the doctor, who then quickly scooped out the man’s eyeballs himself.

George was so unnerved by what he had seen that he soon quit his job at the hospital and returned home. Later, afraid that he might be the next victim of China’s forced organ-transplant business, he fled to Canada and assumed a new identity.

First-person accounts like George’s are understandably rare.

Experts estimate that between 60,000 and 100,000 organs are transplanted annually in China. Multiply that number times the cost of a liver transplant ($170,000) or a kidney transplant ($130,000), and the result is an eye-popping $10 billion to 20 billion.

…experts like Ethan Gutmann, author of several books on the subject, believe that the vast majority [of organs] obtained by executing prisoners of conscience.
One particularly rich source of fresh organs for China’s transplant industry in recent years has been the Falun Gong, which was declared a heretical Buddhist sect in 1999 by then-Party Secretary Jiang Zemin.

The Muslim minorities of China’s far west are apparently next in line. Over the past couple of years, between one to three million Uighur and Kazakh men have been arrested and sent to concentration camps — Beijing calls them “vocational training centers” — in the region.

Tellingly, all these prisoners of conscience not only had their blood drawn upon entry but also had their organs examined, presumably so they could be more quickly matched with those willing to pay for them.

All this suggests that assembly-line harvesting of Uighur, Kazakh and Tibetan organs is already getting underway.

Despite China’s claims to the contrary, its transplant business is booming. And, thanks to a Western technology called ECMO — extracorporeal membrane oxygenation — it has become much, much more lucrative.

Twenty years ago, it was only possible to successfully harvest an organ or two — two kidneys, say, or a heart — from a transplant victim. The other organs, such as the lungs and liver, had to be discarded because they had been deprived of oxygen too long to be usable.

Now, the victims are put on an ECMO machine, which serves as an artificial heart and lung and keeps every last organ fresh enough to be harvested. Before ECMO, a victim’s few salvageable organs were worth maybe $250,000. Now, with ECMO, every organ can be harvested — even the skin — and the victim is easily worth two or three times as much. ECMO, which has saved countless lives in the West, has had the opposite effect in China: It has accelerated the killing of innocent people.

Proof that the slaughter of “donors” continues is revealed by the country’s amazingly short wait times for organs. In normal countries, sick people can wait for many months or years for an organ to become available.

Only in China do organ tourists receive a kidney, heart or liver transplant within days or weeks of arriving. In fact, in some cases patients have reported that their transplant surgeries were scheduled before they even arrived in China — something that could only happen as a result of forced organ harvesting.

The world is beginning to wake up to the fact that virtually every organ transplant in China costs the life of an innocent human being.

China’s organ-transplant assembly line is not only murder for hire but may turn out to be a kind of genocide as well.

Steven W. Mosher is the president of the Population Research Institute and the author of “Bully of Asia: Why China’s Dream is the New Threat to World Order,” out now.


July 28, 2019

Foundation for Economic Education’s ”FEE Daily” on July 28, 2019, published an article on Ukraine’s legislation making natioinal socialism and communism legally synonymous. Below is an excerpt from the article:

The Black Book of Communism, an international bestseller, reveals that the handiwork of twentieth-century communists more than matched the Nazis. In fact, a glance at the figures shows the communist death toll dwarfs the bloody work of the Nazis: In China, 65 million dead; in the Soviet Union, nearly 20 million; Vietnam, 1 million; Cambodia, 2 million. North Korea is 2 million and counting. Chalk up a few million more with Eastern Europe (1 million), Africa (1.7 million), and Afghanistan (1.5 million).

The different perceptions of the horrors of Nazi Germany to horrors of twentieth-century communism have long been a source of frustration for many who see cognitive dissonance in how the hammer-and-sickle is treated compared to the Swastika.

For lawmakers in Ukraine, this cognitive dissonance was apparently more than they could bear. In 2015, legislation was passed to make Nazism and communism legally synonymous.

In 2019, that law was upheld by a Ukrainian court.

“The communist regime, like the Nazi regime, inflicted irreparable damages to human rights because during its existence, it had total control over society and politically motivated persecutions and repressions, violated its international obligations, and its own constitutions and laws,” the court declared, in a ruling published on its website.

The ruling…paves the way for the removal of most of the remaining communist monuments and landmarks bearing Soviet names in Ukraine. It also prohibits the use of Nazi and communist symbols.

The Starvation of Ukraine

That communism is a touchy subject in Ukraine should come as no surprise. As the Pulitzer Prize-winning author Anne Applebaum chronicled in her 2017 book Red Famine: Stalin’s War on Ukraine, nearly 4 million Ukrainians died from starvation in the Soviet Union between 1931 and 1934. Applebaum makes is quite clear how this happened.

“The Soviet Union’s disastrous decision to force peasants to give up their land and join collective farms; the eviction of ‘kulaks,’ the wealthier peasants, from their homes; the chaos that followed,” she writes, “all [was] ultimately the responsibility of Joseph Stalin, the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party.”

Millions of people starving is horrifying. What’s more terrifying is that this policy was not accidental.

As late as the summer of 1932 mass starvation appeared avoidable, Applebaum writes. The Soviets could have asked for international aid, as they had in previous famines. It could have stopped exporting grain or halted grain requisitions. Party leaders chose not to.

Instead, in the autumn of 1932, the Soviet Politburo, the elite leadership of the Soviet Communist Party, took a series of decisions that widened and deepened the famine in the Ukrainian countryside and at the same time prevented peasants from leaving the republic in search of food. At the height of the crisis, organized teams of policemen and party activists, motivated by hunger, fear, and a decade of hateful and conspiratorial rhetoric, entered peasant households and took everything edible: potatoes, beets, squash, beans, peas, anything in the oven and anything in the cupboard, farm animals and pets.

As a result, 3.9 million Ukrainians died. In light of these horrors, it’s no surprise that many in Ukraine, which suffered under Nazi rule the following decade, see little difference between the collective atrocities of the Nazis and the collective atrocities of the communists.


July 26, 2019

I början av 1970-talet uppmärksammades den framväxande amerikanska konservatismen i USA av författaren Bertil Häggman och statsvetaren Claes G Ryn. De publicerade 1971 boken ”Nykonservatismen i USA” vilken väckte häftig debatt. Den rosades i en rad borgerliga tidningar medan vänsterpressen riktade rasande angrepp mot den ”farliga nykonservatismen”. Boken recenserades bland annat i Intermediair, Svenska Dagbladet, av professor Herbert Tingsten i Göteborgs Handels- och Sjöfartstidning, Göteborgsposten, Nya Wermlandstidningen, Dagens Nyheter, Sundsvalls Tidning, Örebro-Kuriren, Barometern i Kalmar, Vestmanlands Läns Tidning och många fler. En mycket positiv recension publicerades av en av Danmarks ledande dagstidningar, Berlingske Tidende i Köpenhamn den 28 december 1971.

Svensk Tidskrift publicerade i nr 9/1971 en djuplodande artikel av universitetslektorn Birger Hagård, under många år en ledande moderatpolitiker. Snart ett halvsekel har gått sedan Häggman och Ryns bok utkom. I USA är konservatismen på nytt högaktuell men nu är det i stor utsträckning fråga om nationell konservatism, en reaktion mot den dominerande globalismen. Världsinbördeskriget publicerade nyligen en artikel om den sistnämnda konservatismen och har också i flera inlägg behandlat James Burnhams banbrytande böcker från andra världskriget och framåt.

Nedan återges ett avsnitt ur Hagårds recension i Svensk Tidskrift från 1971:

Mot bakgrund av den ideologiska debattens torftighet i landet och vänsteråskådningarnas dominans i massmedia föddes för ett par år sedan hos några yngre konservativa tanken att bilda en sammanslutning för att åstadkomma en konservativ renässans. Detta resulterade i en organisation, Konservativt Ideforum (KIF), som efter ett drygt år idag har förankring och studiegrupper på samtliga universitetsorter.

Det är inte en tillfällighet, att den första publikation, som utgivits av två av KIF:s initiativtagare, Claes G Ryn och Bertil Häggman, är en bok med titeln ”Nykonservatismen i USA” (Gebers 1971). Claes Ryn har tidigare varit stipendiat i USA, varvid han särskilt kom att intressera sig för nykonservatismen, och har nyligen återvänt till USA för att doktorera i statskunskap vid Louisiana State University. Bertil Häggman åter har liksom andra inom KIF under många år följt den konservativa idedebatten i USA.

Amerikansk nykonservatism

Den amerikanska nykonservatismen, som på 1950-talet visserligen bjöd åtskillig stimulans, har alltså nu kommit att i många hänseenden bli en ledstjärna även för svensk konservatism. Det finns anledning att skärskåda varför och i vilken utsträckning detta kommit att ske.

Alltsedan det amerikanska inbördeskriget fram till Roosevelteran på 1930-talet dominerade laissez-faire det politiska tänkandet i USA. Den nya liberalismen kom att kännetecknas av en stark förnuftstro, värderelativism och dragning mot centralism, en successiv ökning av presidentens och kongressens makt gentemot delstaterna. Liberalismen tror på genomgripande samhällsreformer. I icke ringa utsträckning har den åtskilligt gemensamt med det som i Europa kallas rätt och slätt socialism. Konservatismen åter har mycket mera gemensamt med kristendomen och den klassiska filosofien än med upplysningsfilosofin, liberalismens ankarfäste. De amerikanska nykonservativa betonar människans ofullkomlighet, omöjligheten att uppnå ett perfekt samhälle och menar, att den liberala kollektivismen leder till en absolut eller totalitär ”demokrati”.

Man framhåller främjandet av den individuella självuppfostran och den individuella sociala ansvarskänslan som något betydligt viktigare än kollektiva statliga åtgärder. Likaså avvisas helt den kollektivistiska jämlikhetsfilosofin. Den konstitutionella demokratin med dess checks and balances, en genomtänkt ansvars- och uppgiftsfördelning mellan olika organ, sätts i högsätet.

Det konservativa uppvaknandet i USA skedde på 1950-talet, då man i intellektuella kretsar blev varse varthän de kollektivistiska åtgärderna hotade att driva samhället. Russell Kirk, statsvetare med idehistorisk inriktning, är nykonservatismens kanske främste idegivare. Kirk uppfattar tillvaron som ett enda stort sammanhang, vilket bl a kommer till uttryck i den ofta citerade sentensen: ”Den sant konservative vet, att det ekonomiska problemet smälter samman med det politiska problemet, det politiska problemet med det etiska problemet och det etiska problemet med det religiösa problemet.”

Kirk är motståndare till allt vad som hör till kollektivismen och den ohöljda förnuftstron. Han har en stark förankring i det klassiska västerländska idealet. Traditionens betydelse framhävs, och Kirk tillkommer också äran att ha inspirerat till en omfattande forskning kring Edmund Burke. Jämlikhetssträvandena avvisas bestämt. Varje uniformering är av ondo. Det gäller inte att i första hand predika om rättigheter för den svage utan om skyldigheter för den starke. ”Människan skapades inte för jämlikhet utan för kampen uppåt från den råa naturen hän mot den värld, som inte är jordisk. Rättvisans princip är som en följd härav inte slaveri under enhetliga levnadsförhållanden utan befrielse från godtyckliga inskränkningar i hennes rätt att vara sig själv.” Decentralisering blir ett ledmotiv. De små sociala enheterna måste vara utgångspunkten. Största möjliga frihet måste finnas för familjen, församlingar, skolor och föreningar.

Men Kirk är inte den ende inspiratören. En lång rad akademiker och andra intellektuella har inspirerat nykonservatismen. Dit hör t ex filosofiprofessorn Leo Strauss med sin kamp mot värderelativismen, James Burnham, som i liberalismen ser den västerländska civilisationens dödgrävare, Frank S Meyer och inte minst William Buckley. Den senare har som litteratör, TV-man och chefredaktör för National Review betytt mer än många andra. National Review är en central tidskrift för de nykonservativa strävandena och har blivit en publicistisk framgång, som från början tycktes osannolik. Han har utgivit en rad böcker. Den senaste, en samlingsvolym, bär betecknande titeln ”Did You Ever See A Dream Walking?”

Från att ha varit praktiskt taget en ropande röst i öknen har nykonservatismen i USA vuxit ut till en mäktig intellektuell och politisk rörelse, både i kvalitativt och kvantitativt hänseende långt överlägsen de vänsterströmningar som en godtrogen svensk publik till följd av svenska massmedias enögdhet antagligen tror dominerar den amerikanska debatten. Ryn och Häggman redogör ingående för nykonservatismens organisatoriska styrka och det inflytande, som den utövar över president Nixons administration.

Amerikansk konservatism och svensk

Den amerikanska nykonservatismen och den svenska har ett delvis olika utgångsläge. Medan den amerikanska konservatismen av tradition kan framhäva frihetsbegreppet, betyder förankringen i en socialkonservativ syn mycket i Sverige. Det konservativa tänkandet i Sverige kring sekelskiftet växte fram främst som en reaktion mot en krasst materialistisk liberalism och krävde statliga reformåtgärder. Den starka statsmakten var i denna
situation ett konservativt alternativ, varvid inte minst den tyska inspirationen betydde åtskilligt.

Frågan är dock, om inte denna socialkonservativa förankring i viss mån inneburit en förlamning. Visserligen har kritik riktats mot de kollektivistiska åtgärder, som företagits av socialdemokratin, men den starka statsmakten har ju inte stått helt i motsats till äldre konservativa strävanden. Kritiken har därför ofta blivit halvhjärtad. Kanske borde svensk konservatism nu frigöra sig från denna syn.

Även om man inte i princip motsätter sig statliga engagemang, borde det likväl kunna sägas, att Sverige har fått en alltför kraftig överdos. Åtgärderna i kollektivistisk riktning har gått alldeles för långt. I stället för att främja individens strävanden till självfullkomning hotar de att förkväva dem, och tendenserna att förvandla den svenska demokratin i totalitär och plebiscitär riktning är uppenbara. Högskattesamhället tvingar fram en ny massfattigdom och hotar att kväva initiativkraften hos folket. Vi har drabbats av ett lagstiftningsraseri, som har föga gehör i det allmänna rättsmedvetandet.

Liksom de amerikanska nykonservativa trots olika ideologiskt utgångsläge allierar sig med de s k libertarianerna, kan det på allvar ifrågasättas, om inte också för svensk konservatism frihetsbegreppet måste sättas i centrum. Det behövs balans, och under de närmaste decennierna borde därför med bestämdhet hävdas, att de flesta lagar, som inskränker den enskilde individens frihet är av ondo. Det borde vara viktigare att upphäva lagar än att stifta nya. Hellre än att traska en bit bakefter socialdemokraterna och andra ivrare för ökad kollektivisering borde en målsättning för svensk konservatism vara att på allvar säga nej och i stället skjuta in sig på myten om välfärdssamhället. Kanske kan den nödvändiga balansen ha uppnåtts efter 20-30 år, och då är det dags att på nytt ställa frågan, om möjligtvis friheten är för stor för den enskilde individen.

Men i dagens läge måste återställandet av friheten för den enskilde vara det centrala. Liksom för de amerikanska nykonservativa är decentraliseringen en princip, som även i Sverige bör sättas i högsätet. I USA är det främst fråga om att återställa balansen mellan delstaterna och den federala administrationen. I Sverige har centralismen brett ut sig på såväl det statliga och kommunala som på det fackliga området. Det talas vackra ord om ”närdemokrati”, medinflytande etc, men de åtgärder som föreslås för att råda bot på det onda ligger i regel inom centralismens ram.

Vad som behövs är genomgripande åtgärder för att frånta de centrala organen en rad befogenheter och återställa självständigheten för de många celler, som samhället är uppbyggt av: kommuner, församlingar, familjen, skolan. Just på skolområdet borde mycket kunna göras – med rätt för privata skolor att etablera sig och konkurrera på lika villkor med det allmänna skolväsendet. Som ett motargument brukar ibland hävdas, att en decentralisering skulle leda till minskad effektivitet. Detta kan betvivlas, men även om så vore, finns det anledning att utropa: hellre större mänsklighet än ökad effektivitet till varje pris.

Människan i samhället

Ett väsentligt område för den amerikanska nykonservatismen är som vi sett framhävandet av traditionens betydelse och i samband därmed människans ofullkomlighet men också hennes strävanden som andlig varelse. Detta är kvintessensen i klassiskt västerländskt tänkande och även det enda alternativet till den liberal-socialistiska materialismen. Människan är inte bara en homo economicus. Hon har en högre bestämning, alldeles oavsett i vilken klädedräkt man vill skruda hennes etiska mål. Att ge varje människa möjlighet att utveckla det goda i sin natur och nå fram till största tänkbara självfullkomning måste vara centralt också för svensk konservatism. Detta manar till kamp mot den materialistiska självgodheten och den utarmning av människan, som jämlikhetsmyten leder till. Det vittnar om en otrolig brist på ideologisk förankring, när moderata politiker jamar med i jämlikhetskören. I stället bör med eftertryck framhållas, att människorna dessbättre inte är lika och aldrig kan bli det. Att låta envar utveckla det bästa i sin natur framhäver människans innersta behov och står i bjärt kontrast till den konformism och det tvång, som den uniformerade jämlikheten innebär.

Suum cuique, åt var och en hans eget! Denna redan av Platon myntade princip är den enda ledstjärna, som kan höja människonaturen. Ett annat område, där det finns skäl att instämma med den amerikanska nykonservatismen, är dess antikommunism. I motsats till liberalismen och socialismen intar kampen mot kommunistisk aggression i alla dess olika former en framträdande plats för de konservativa. Detta innebär också ett aktivt stöd till alla rörelser på olika håll i världen, som bekämpar kommunismen. Det finns skäl att komma ihåg, att hittills har inte något land, som förslavats av kommunisterna, lyckats återvinna sin frihet.

Även om det finns en rad nyansskillnader mellan svensk •och europeisk konservatism å ena sidan och den amerikanska nykonservatismen å den andra, är det dock långt mera som förenar än som skiljer. Till detta kommer också, att den amerikanska nykonservatismen utgör ett manande exempel. Från ett totalt underläge har den steg för steg vunnit ökad terräng och utgör idag ett realistiskt alternativ för många amerikaner. Detta inger förhoppningar inte minst för Sverige, där en konservativ syn under de senaste decennierna inte har haft stora möjligheter att göra sig gällande. Det finns anledning att tro att den amerikanska nykonservatismen i fortsättningen kan komma att få en ökad betydelse för den svenska konservatismens •utveckling. Den kan vara det salt, som så länge behövts.


July 21, 2019

Radio Free Asia on July 18, 2019 reported on the increased number of Hong Kong protesters who were seekin asylum in Taiwan. See excerpts below:

More than a dozen anti-extradition protesters who broke into Hong Kong’s Legislative Council (LegCo) following a mass peaceful demonstration on July 1, 2019, have since fled to Taiwan, RFA has learned.

The young protesters, many of whom are students, could face jail terms of at least five years if they are convicted of “rioting” in a Hong Kong court, based on the treatment of leaders of the 2014 Occupy Central pro-democracy movement, their lawyers said.

But they also face formidable difficulties in applying for formal political asylum, as they are unable to prove that they were part of the storming of LegCo, because they were wearing masks to avoid detection at the time.

They have been offered temporary accommodation by Taiwanese NGOs,…

Hundreds of anti-extradition protesters broke into the legislative building on July 1 after huge crowds took to the streets to protest plans to allow extradition to mainland China, smashing through the reinforced glass with metal objects ripped from the nearby streets over several hours.

Clad in yellow construction helmets, face masks and using swimming floats strapped to their arms as shields, the protesters surged into the building after a long face-off with police in full riot gear, who appeared at first to offer no resistance.

Leung Man-to, a political science professor from Hong Kong who is currently at Taiwan National Cheng Kung University, said there had been a steady trickle of Hong Kong residents who had played a fairly up-front role in the protests into Taiwan in recent weeks.

Gary Cheung, who is currently in his first year of a bachelor’s degree at National Taiwan University of Arts, said he was among more than 80 people arrested and charged with “obstructing public servants in the course of their duty” during the final clearance of Occupy Central protesters from Hong Kong’s Mong Kok district.

He said that, five years on, the police appear to be taking a far more hard-line attitude to anti-extradition protesters than they did with those arrested during the Occupy, or Umbrella, movement.

Hong Kong Democratic Party lawmaker James To said the police are unlikely to be able to keep up with the sheer number of protesters now taking to the streets, however.

“We are looking at major clashes a couple of times a week, so I don’t think it’s going to be easy to start looking back at what happened on July 1,” To said. “Most of [the evidence] is in the form of digital images, and we’ve had four or five huge protests since then.”

“How can they comb through so much footage at the same time as preparing for big protests at the weekends? They can’t have enough people to do that,” he said.

Writing in the Ming Pao, Chinese University of Hong Kong journalism professor Francis Lee also called for an independent inquiry.

“Now that the above-mentioned radicalization process has taken shape, condemning it won’t change the direction of its development,” Lee said, noting polls that indicate widespread public support in Hong Kong for increasingly radical forms of political protest.

“The only ones who can solve the crisis are the government,” Lee wrote. “The establishment of an independent investigation committee, although not the same thing as resolving the issue, is the best way to ease tensions at the current time.”

“If we can’t even do this, it’s no wonder that some people feel that the government simply wants to escalate the conflict until ‘something happens’. In the current climate of distrust, if something really serious happens, those who support the movement will only see the government as the instigator.”


May 13, 2019

Cultures are complex systems, made up of a large number of interacting components asymmetrically organized. They often operate somewhere between order and disorder. Such systems can appear to operate quite stably for some time, but they are actually adapting. But there comes a moment when complex cultures reach a crisis point. A very small trigger can set off a crisis — a single grain of sand can cause a collapse

Mycenaean culture, the most important in ancient Greece would reach a peak in around 1300 BC. Only 100 years later, around 1200 BC, the civilization began to disappear. The Mycenaean palaces, still functioning and filled with treasure, were abandoned. Villages and towns were burned to the ground. By the end of the twelfth century, the palace system had vanished.

The main scientific theory has been that the collapse was caused by ”attacks from northern lands” and ”peoples of the countries of the sea”. There were also other collapses in the Mediterranean region (Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, and Cyprus). The ancient Egyptian kingdom was attacked but managed to resist.

A widespread myth in recent years has been that earthquakes caused the Mycenenaean collapse. A recent German academic study has provided evidence to the contrary.

Bronze Age Mycenaean palaces in Greece were not destroyed by an earthquake catastrophe according to German archaeoseismologist Klaus-Günter Hinzen from the University of Cologne and archaeologist Joseph Maran from the University of Heidelberg. They have reassessed the demise of the ancient cities Tiryns and Midea, part of the culture.

There are a number of hypotheses concerning the perishing of the Mycenaean palaces in the 1180s BC. It was not one earthquake or an ‘earthquake storm’ at the end of the Bronze Age in the eastern Mediterranean that was the cause.

The citadels of Tiryns and Midea, for example, were both built on ridges. The upper town of Tiryns stands on a limestone ridge, while the surrounding lower town stands on loose sediments. The effects of earthquakes on sediments are much stronger, Hinzen and Maran point out. In an earthquake the lower town would be destroyed first, not the palace. Especially in the lower town, however, no damage has been proven.

The ongoing exhibition that will end in June 2019 at Badisches Landesmuseum, Schloss Karlsruhe, in the catalogue ”Mykene – Die sagenhafte Welt des Agamemnon” (wbg Philipp von Zabern Verlag, 2018) has provided the latest and most likely hypothesis for the catastrophe-collapse:

In Kleinasien ging, um 1200 v-Chr. das Grosskönigtum der Hethiter unter. Ähnlich verhielt es sich in den hethitischen Vasallenstaaten entlang der syrischen Küste (Kömigreich von Ugarit). In Königreich Amurru in Libanon, gingen Städten und Palästen unter. In heutigen Israel verliessen Bewohner ihre Städte. Auf Zypern brannte Enkoni nieder. Es herrschte Hungersnot.

Aus den letzten Jahrzehnten vor 1200 v.Chr. liegen vermehrt Indizien für Beutezuege von Piraten und Seeschlachten im östlichen Mittelmeer vor. Die Ausrüstung dieser feindlichen Seefahrer mit Hörnerhelm, Rundschild sowie geradem Schwert mit konischen Heft hebt sich deutlich vor. Sie lebten auf Schiffen. Seevölkereinheiten kämpften als Gardekrieger des Pharaos gegen die Hethither. Diese militärische Strategie des Pharaos erinnert an das Vorgehen römischer Kaiser der Spätantike, die ebenfalls Krieger feindlicher Nachbarvölker (germanischer Stämme etwa) in ihre Armeen eingliederten.

Interne Krisen wirtschaftlicher und politischer Art waren auch möglich. Ein Aufruhr von mykenischen Bauern und Handwerkern, vielleicht?

Using the experience of the method of applied history might be useful to explain what caused the disaster at the end of the Greek Heroic Age when the complex and highly developed Mycenaean culture fell apart.


May 3, 2019

On May 1, 2019, National Interest published an article that questioned the importance of the Middle East to broader strategic interests of the United States. The author concludes that this region is small but politically explosive. Still U.S. global interests demands a shift to the Indo-Pacific region. Excerpts below:

People with long memories may believe that the United States is dependent on Middle East oil, but in reality, the oil crises of the 1970s were an aberration. Throughout most of its history, the United States has been an oil exporter…And over the last two decades, the United States has developed more effective ways to combat terrorism than with large-scale military operations.

…America’s political leadership should be looking to shift resources to those areas of the world where they are most needed to promote the country’s interests. Top of the list for a beef-up is the Indo-Pacific region.

The Pacific Ocean has been strategically important for American commerce since the early nineteenth century. It has been a virtual American lake since the Spanish-American War of 1898.

But the Pacific is a big lake, and costly to patrol. Moreover, there are many security hot spots along its shores. Russia’s Pacific fleet is busy modernizing its ballistic missile submarines. North Korea’s unpredictable Kim Jong-un is armed to the teeth and playing a never-ending game of nuclear brinksmanship. Indonesia and the Philippines need help fighting low-level Islamist insurgencies. And then there’s China.

As a global challenger to American national interests, no other country comes close to China. China repeatedly protests, harasses and threatens U.S. Navy ships operating off its coasts. It has built and militarized several artificial islands in the South China Sea in violation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which it is a signatory. And it has begun to systematically challenge the legitimacy of the rule of law in international and commercial relations more broadly.

The Pacific is the heart of America’s new economy. The then-Senator (and later Secretary of State) John Seward foresaw in 1852 that “the Pacific Ocean, its shores, its islands, and the vast regions beyond, will become the chief theatre of events in the World’s great Hereafter.” More than a century and a half later, the Pacific has been fully integrated into American economic networks…

An American pivot in Asia, from Western Asia…to eastern Asia… makes economic and political sense. The ties that bind the United States to democracies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan…will ultimately prove strong..More importantly, the American national interest is much more closely bound up with the Indo-Pacific region than with the Middle East. As technology advances…America’s footprint in Asia should shift east, from the Middle East to the Indo-Pacific region.

Comment: The basic argument in the May 1 article is sound. The West and its American hegemon is facing the perhaps strongest challenge ever. More military strength is indeed needed in the Pacific but the Middle East still demands attention. The Iranian theocratic empire is threatening Israel and the stability of the region.

In the Far East Western allies need to provide more resources for the protection of the sea-lanes from the Sea of Japan to the South China Sea. Under Xi Jinping the hawks have the upper hand. The policy since the 1990s has been not to alert the West from its complacency in the regard to China’s rise. To achieve victory China has indeed been patient. It has concentrated not on military strength but on the economy. Behind the benign surface has been an iron will to depose the United States as global hegemon. Without the United States in the lead the West’s influence in the world would quickly disappear. The Chinese leaders have had the use of a highly developed metrics for measuring power status using algorithms. Meanwhile in the West the use of National Power Assessment has been neglected.

China managed 19 years ago to achieve trade normalization. From the beginning the intention was not to accept the provisions of the World Trade Organization. When normalization was approved by the U.S. Congress in 2000 the minority of 197 in the House that voted no was correct in judging China and so were the 17 senators voting no.

The All-Under-Heaven System provides the classical Chinese view of global domination. The establishment of Tianxia is described as a Chinese-led empire that values order over freedom, ethics over law, and elite governance over democracy and human rights. What really is the Chinese intention when taking over in 2049 can be studied in the records of the Tiananmen Square massacre of freedom fighters in 1989.


May 2, 2019

National Interest on April 22, 2019, published a thoughtful article on Russia’s grand strategy. The author went through a number of earlier views on Russia’s long term strategy and concluded:

[The] vision is one in which Moscow is one of several centers of power, perhaps as U.S. hegemony gives way to a multipolar or even a Chinese-centric world order…While Russia is not about to copy a Chinese model of economic or political development, it seeks to position itself in such a way as to embrace China in a soft alliance; one in which Moscow can maintain a position of sovereignty and independence as its eastern flank becomes home to the world’s largest economy, most populous state, and perhaps the next global hegemon.

Both Russia and China have come a long way since the 1990s, and the “friendship” that emerged in the immediate post-Tiananmen period and continued to grow over the years now today appears to be one of the strongest bilateral alliances on the planet. Not only does the alliance provide each country with a secure rear flank, technology transfers and weapons sales support each other’s military-industrial complexes and military modernization. While Russia is still ahead of China in certain areas, including maritime, aviation, and weapons systems, the Kremlin knows that this edge will likely give way in the next ten to twenty years, as China emerges as the more advanced and powerful of the pair.

Together, Russia’s influence on its former Soviet neighbors and Moscow’s strategic alliance with Beijing in pursuit of a multipolar world form the two main pillars upon which Putin’s grand strategy rests. All other aspects of its foreign policy behavior can be traced back to this dual-pronged grand strategy. As the 2018 [U.S.]National Defense Strategy puts it, “Russia seeks veto authority over nations on its periphery in terms of their governmental, economic, and diplomatic decisions, to shatter the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and change European and Middle East security and economic structures to its favor.” These, in a nutshell, are the objectives of Russia’s grand strategy. All of Moscow’s machinations—both foreign and domestic, from clamping down on civil liberties at home to meddling in Venezuela’s revolution abroad, are all in support of these larger strategic objectives.

Comment: The author of the article is Christopher Marsh. He is the president of the Special Operations Research Association and editor of its professional journal, “Special Operations Journal”. He was also the past executive editor of “Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization”. Marsh is fluent in Chinese and Russian, and his research interests are many but particularly military cooperation between Russia and China.