SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
of dragons and the view....Joe Rogan hit back at “The View” co-host Joy Behar who blasted the Spotify podcaster as an unreliable source of information who “believes in dragons.” Rogan confronted the Behar comments head-on during a special podcast episode that was released on Thanksgiving. The podcaster, who commands an audience that is estimated to exceed 11 million people, has been a hot topic of conversation during the recent election after he endorsed the eventual winner — President-elect Donald Trump. Rogan has been critical of legacy media outlets for being out of touch with ordinary Americans. “I had to read the thing about ‘The View’ because I just thought it was funny,” Rogan told guests and fellow comedians Mark Normand, Shane Gillis and Ari Shaffir on “The Joe Rogan Experience.” “Joy Behar was trying to say I believe in dragons! She said, ‘I checked it, I checked it!’ And then the lady goes, ‘Did you double check it,’ and she goes, ‘I checked it, he believes in dragons. They lived alongside people,’” Rogan said, laughing. Rogan took aim at Behar over her claim that “The View” provided solid information because it was backed up by the resources of ABC News. “This is the most important part. This is right after she was saying, ‘We are run by ABC News, you should trust us,’ not Joe Rogan who believes in dragons,’ so by saying we should trust them because they’re double checked by ABC News and then making the stupidest f–king statement — You didn’t listen to what I said, you didn’t listen to what the wildlife biologist said,” he said. Rogan accused Behar of “frantic” behavior in light of dwindling television ratings that could eventually cost her her job. https://nypost.com/2024/11/29/media/joe-rogan-blasts-joy-behar-for-claiming-he-believes-in-dragons/
IT'S DRAGON TIME TO RETIRE, OLD LADY....
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.
|
User login |
the chinese dragon....
29 November 2024, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)
Stephen Bryen, who is now retired from a stellar career at the very highest levels both in the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex and in the Executive and also the Legislative branches of the U.S. Government, and whose predictions about the war in Ukraine war thus far have consistently turned out to be true, is, for whatever reason, nonetheless a neocon (advocate for increasing yet further the U.S. empire) in the case of China; and, so, while he is realistic about the need for the U.S. Government to withdraw from Ukraine, he is a normal neocon in regards to China.
On November 29th, he headlined “China Alarmed As US Marine Prepare HIMARS and ATACMS for Yonaguni”, and argued that it’s a good move by Biden now, that he’ll be placing in Japan U.S. missiles that can hit Taiwan for the purpose of “stopping a Taiwan invasion,” by which stupid phrase he intends to mean that we’ll be stopping “an invasion of Taiwan,” by — you guess whom, which is, of course, according to the neocons’ plan, to be done by — China, as soon as Taiwan will announce that it is NOT a part of China, and for which purpose the U.S. Government has been arming Taiwan so that Taiwan can then resist the invasion by China that will be China’s inevitable response to this U.S.-planned breakaway by Taiwan. And THAT will then give the U.S. Government the ‘right’ to invade and conquer China — which is the real objective of all of this.
So, I posted a reader-comment to that article:
Here is why your article is shocking:
You have cited the Taiwan Relations Act as a ‘justification’ for your position regarding China.
The Taiwan Relations Act was merely concerning the U.S. Government and NOT America’s relations with China and with its province of Taiwan. It is logically SUBORDINATE TO the Shanghai Communique, which is an agreement BETWEEN China and U.S. Anything in the Taiwan Relations Act that contradicts the Shanghai Communique of 1972 is null and void automatically.
The Shanghai Communique, in 1972, committed the U.S. Government to — and agreed with China’s Government that — “Taiwan is a part of China.” Consistently since the 1972 Shanghai Communique, the official policy of the U.S. Government is and has been “Taiwan is a part of China.”
Your article logically implied, instead of overtly said, that Taiwan can declare independence from China — DESPITE BEING “a part of China.” Here is the (il)logic of your position:
Your article alleges that Taiwan should be able to declare independence from China despite America’s Government having formally committed itself that Taiwan is a part of China, and that U.S. taxpayers should fund this U.S. aggression against China.
Furthermore, you are assuming (likewise falsely) that Taiwan is of such vital national-security interest to the safety of America (protecting the safety of the residents in the USA), so that America, which is legally committed to Taiwan’s being a Chinese province, ought to arm Taiwan so that Taiwan can declare itself to be NOT a part of China, so that China can then be defeated by LOSING that “part of China.” That’s what you want. You want U.S. taxpayers to fund this U.S. aggression against China. It is crazy. It is loaded with false assumptions. And the very IDEA that U.S. taxpayers should fund U.S. aggression isn’t merely crazy, it is evil; and I, as a U.S. taxpayer, recognize this.
Bryen’s false assumptions here have been advocated in the greatest detail by an article from A. Wess Mitchell, who had been the successor to Victoria Nuland as the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs during 2017-2019 in the Trump Administration; and Mitchell, like his predecessor, was a total neocon; but, unlike her, didn’t believe that America should be trying simultaneously to conquer BOTH Russia and China; he believed that we should instead aim for a temporary negotiated-with-Russia stalemate and abeyance of the war in Ukraine, so that we can then devote all of our resources to conquering China first.
Mitchell headlined in the so-called National Interest magazine, on 21 August, 2021, his influential article, “A Strategy for Avoiding Two-Front War”, and he opened:
The greatest risk facing the twenty-first-century United States, short of an outright nuclear attack, is a two-front war involving its strongest military rivals, China and Russia. Such a conflict would entail a scale of national effort and risk unseen in generations, effectively pitting America against the resources of nearly half of the Eurasian landmass.
It would stretch and likely exceed the current capabilities of the U.S. military, requiring great sacrifices of the American people with far-reaching consequences for U.S. influence, alliances, and prosperity. Should it escalate into a nuclear confrontation, it could possibly even imperil the country’s very existence.
Given these high stakes, avoiding a two-front war with China and Russia must rank among the foremost objectives of contemporary U.S. grand strategy. Yet the United States has been slow to comprehend this danger, let alone the implications it holds for U.S. policy. So far, Washington’s efforts to grapple with the “simultaneity” problem (as it’s called in Pentagon circles) have been overwhelmingly focused on the military side of the problem. The 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) replaced the two-war standard with a laser focus on fighting one major war with America’s most capable adversary—China. In its wake, a debate has erupted among defense intellectuals about how to handle a second-front contingency.
By comparison, there has been much less discussion of how, if at all, U.S. diplomacy should evolve to avert two-front war and, more broadly, alleviate the pressures of strategic simultaneity. While the Trump administration rightly inaugurated a more confrontational approach toward China, this was not accompanied by a rebalancing of diplomatic priorities and resources in other regions to complement the NDS’ justified focus on the Indo-Pacific. Nor does the Biden administration appear to be contemplating a redistribution of strategic focus and resources among regions. This misalignment in the objects of U.S. military and diplomatic power is neither desirable nor sustainable. America will have to limit the number of active rivalries requiring major U.S. military attention, improve the functionality of its existing alliances for offsetting the pressures of simultaneity, or significantly grow defense budgets—or some combination of the three. …
Basically, the U.S. Government — in BOTH of its Parties — is set upon conquering both Russia and China but not yet exactly clear about whether to do both of them simultaneously or instead one-after-another (in accord wth the “forever-war” tradition of the United States Government ever since the end of World War Two (WW2) in 1945.
Both of these plans — aggression against Russia, and aggression against China — both using as excuses that ‘we’ are ‘democracies’ whereas ‘they’ are ‘autocracies’, and ignoring that the ONLY country that has been scientifically analyzed to determine whether it is a “democracy” is the U.S. and all of those studies have found that it definitely is NOT at all a democracy but instead an aristocracy, rule-by-only-the-richest — are plain evil. But what keeps them going is the insanity of neocons, and it is bleeding dry the U.S. itself, and is at the same time turning the U.S. into a blood-sucker against its colonies, which are required to pitch in even more, year after year, in order to do the mast-nation’s bidding, and, like Trump keeps saying “pay their fair share”.
Of course, the reality is that if EITHER of these wars starts, it will end up going nuclear and so being WW3, for the simple reason that neither Russians NOR Chinese will accept coming under the U.S. yoke; BOTH nations — Russia and China — would rather have a WW3 than become a part of such a supremely evil empire as the U.S. empire — and ALL of its supporters, or “neocons” — undoubtedly is. The U.S.-and-allied side would win because the aggressor is CLEARLY the U.S., and because both Russia and China have the means to annihilate the aggressors and would do that even if it will mean annihilating the entire world.
The least damaging outcome that still remains possible for the American people — after the latest “Tweedle-dum versus Tweedle-dee” ‘election’ — is a Second American Revolution, this one not to get rid of the British imperialists, but to get rid of the American-and-British imperialists. This would, tragically, be a war, but what other option would be available to us in order to prevent WW3, a global war, which would be vastly worse than a merely domestic war would be.
The insane people who rule in Washington DC are enemies of the entire world, including of the American people, and CAN be dealt with BY the American people. It would be a service not only to ourselves but to the entire world. It would be a noble thing to do.
Or, to put this another way: How much longer will the U.S. Government’s war against the world continue?
PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.
https://theduran.com/the-insanity-of-neocons-2/
READ FROM TOP.
YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.
Gus Leonisky
POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.
PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.