The „West of the 15 percent“ against the rest
British analysts of the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) have jolted the Atlantic vassals on the European mainland out of their political dreams with their report dated 11.4.2023 „How to survive a superpower split“:
After more than a year of the Ukraine conflict, EIU analysts checked how each of the 193 UN members actually feels about the West and the Eastern campaign of their collective Atlantic warriors today. The result was devastating for the „value community“ with only a meagre 15 percent of the world’s population still backing the Atlantic warriors. In the report of the EIU it is stated:
A world map in the EIU report still shows the handful of the „15 percent“ who are chosen to compete against the „rest of the 85 percent“: USA, Canada, EU-Europe together with a last battalion in the Far East consisting of Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. This unpleasant message must subsequently have reached the Hamburg weekly magazine SPIEGEL, whereupon it published an article on the subject in its print edition No. 21/23, entitled as follows:
At the end of the report, the six SPIEGEL authors seem still perplexed, offering the following insights in summary only: „Yes, globalization has made the world complicated and created interdependencies.“ Although, it seems, that often issues appear only complicated to outsiders, unable to oversee the whole picture and fully grasping the overall context.
The mentioned „15 percent“ will probably have a hard time admitting the following:
- the final failure of the Western dominated monetary‑, financial- & currency order.
- the failure of the current globalization concept with its responsible protagonists.
Transnational plutocrats responsible for these shambles have every reason not to admit this publicly: Because, they pursue the plan to clean-up their global mess, which they have caused thanks to their globalization model, top down – in feudal style – once more to be overseen by themselves only: The creative name „Great Re-Set“ is supposed to conceal the fact that nothing should change with the previous concept of one-world rule according to their model of old-established elite-mass societies. On the contrary: The „Great Re-Set“ is supposed to cement that very gap!
In addition, globalists have started to shift the hitherto Atlantic – as well as European global-control-centre to other regions, which is going to make the majority of the U.S. country-elites superfluous: They are not prepared, however, to give up their parasitic role over 100 years without resistance. The prelude to this has already been seen in Ukraine, to make a start and take warlike actions first against Russia and China subsequently. In doing so, U.S. hawks recklessly accept the risk of a „limited nuclear war“ in both Europe and the Far East, despite all the collateral risks.
Globalists, on the other hand, are not prepared to take even a bit of any risk of perishing together with the global masses in a nuclear inferno thanks to miscalculations orchestrated by the country-elites. It explains why an existential fight has broken out between the warmongers of the US country-elites and globalists: This confrontation could finally end with the destruction of the USA!
Today’s turn of an era is characterized by a hybrid world war, for which other forms of warfare are characteristic besides the classical, purely military confrontation. In comparison with a purely military struggle, the hybrid forms of war are much more time-consuming, but in comparison with the war by pure military means they are much more lasting as well as effective. Those forms are:
💥Information wars including influence on worldview/ideology as well as education.
💥 Economic wars, which are part of the fixed repertoire of Anglo-American power.
💥 Biological wars including the war with narcotics for consumers & their markets.
The implementation of the corresponding concepts renders the creation and dissemination of specific information, news and narratives via the media extremely important. The Atlantic cartel & monopoly media in combination with supranational think tanks, flanked by intelligence services typical of Atlantic hegemonic rule, form cornerstones of their global politics from the past till today.
In contrast to Russia and China, the major clans of the globalists as well as U.S. country-elites pursue the concept of a monopolar-world-order. Nevertheless, the clans differ drastically among themselves in terms of origin, method and style: Globalists have ancient roots, are conceptually extremely strong and, because of their small numbers, know how to handle the methodology of unstructured control with virtuosity. Unstructured control, unlike direct control, requires a longer lead time, but is much more effective in the end, once it has finally taken hold. Atlantic country elites, on the other hand, represent «snap-shots» only seen from a historical perspective, are conceptually barely existent, yet seriously believe they can compensate for their serious deficiencies through the use of brute force head-on: But in the struggle against globalists, mere tactical elements are far from sufficient to endure and survive in the long run.
The current power struggle between globalists and national elites is being fought between plutocrats of the transnational level and oligarchs of the national level: It is above all the struggle between these power groups that creates the existential challenges of the current turning in history.
The information warfare of both groups addresses their global power claims via tailored narratives primarily to the following target groups, namely:
- National decision-makers for war against the „enemies“ of the one-world model.
- National populations for polarization against said „enemies“ at home & abroad.
- To their protectorates to shoulder & finance the wars.
The following excerpt from a discourse between Michael Yu, China Director of the Hudson Institute and Michael Swaine, Program Director-East Asia of the Quincy Institute exemplifies the contrasts of different schools of thought. The mentioned protagonists and their institutes show the following characteristics:
Hudson Institute: Since 7/20/1961; location: Washington DC; Revenues (2021) USD 37,400,000; Total employees (2016) 300; they accept payments from Taiwanese authorities. Institute’s mission statement: security, freedom, prosperity.
Miles Yu (1962): Historian & political strategist; U.S. resident since 1985; as Senior Advisor for China & Planning under Mike Pompeo in the Trump Administration, he helped develop and implement an anti-China strategy that has remained effective across party lines(!) for Democrats and Republicans to this day.
Quincey Institute for Responsible Statecraft: Since 2019 in Washington DC; named after U.S. President John Quincy Adams, who warned against foreign policy adventures in a speech dated July 4, 1821. The Institute stands for a restrained U.S. foreign policy. It has positioned itself against the military-industrial complex.
Michael D. Swaine (1951): PhD and MA from Harvard – and George Washington University; worked on research programs in China, Taiwan, and Japan; he coordinates annual conference of Chinese & US scholars on crisis management.
Washington Journal, Feb. 5, 2023, by C‑Span:
Miles Yu and Michael Swaine on U.S.-China Relations
Excerpts from that debate:
Moderator: … Speaking of doom and gloom, we had a top Air Force General, Michael Minihan with a leaked memo, that says he expects a war with China. I want to read this memo to you all and get your response to it.
In this memo, a leaked memo from a U.S. Air Force General, he says,
Michael, is he right?
Michael Swaine: Just a point of clarification this was written as part of an internal memo that the General had been sending within his command. It was leaked to the outside. Never supposed to be seen. We can see I think why it was never supposed to be seen: Serving generals in the United States military have no business making such statement, that it’s their gut instinct that we are going to be at war with the Chinese in two years.
It’s based upon speculation, pure speculation, and it serves to hype even further the kind of war mongering, war hysteria in some quarters that is really gaining ground in the United States. The idea that we are almost in an inevitable course towards war.
In response to what Miles said before, I am not by any means predicting a war over Taiwan. I am just saying that the trends are not going in a good direction to try and avoid a serious crisis and possibly even conflict. Generals talking like this do not serve American interests: The United States military is a very potent and capable tool, a tool of the U.S. government. The civilian government and military leadership should be talking about their capabilities, they should be talking about how they can best serve the national interests as a military. They should not be riffing about whether or not the Chinese are going to be attacking in two years or so.
And after this came out, the Department of Defence explicitly came out and said this does not represent our policy. They directly refuted what the general had to say. So, people need to understand that we are not – our interests are not being served by this kind of loose talk in this way.
Let me just say one word about the President Biden statement which Miles had remarked on. Yes, it’s true, president Biden has now said three times that if China attacks Taiwan, we will come to the defence of Taiwan.
Three times, the State Department has corrected it. Because it is in fact a violation of American policy. We can say well, the President said it, so it must be true. Presidents say a lot of things. They don’t necessarily say things that are convergent with what the existing American policy is.
I know why president Biden said that. He wanted to show resolve. He wanted to show in the context of the war with Ukraine that the United States will be standing there supporting Taiwan, all good. But to say, predict, we will come to the defence of Taiwan in direct violation of existing U.S. policy has been corrected.
Miles Yu: Michael is absolutely wrong. The State Department did not correct the President. The State Department – what President is consistent – has been consistent with our prevailing policy. That policy is strategic clarity. What the State Department says is always that what president Biden has said and has been consistent with our policy toward China, period. No more other comments.
So, the idea, the myth, that somehow there is a conflicting view about our commitment to Taiwan’s defence is totally false: Factually and conceptually.
Secondly, I will say that as Americans, we are very good at beating to death the remarks like “Dr. Strangelove – he is a war monger”. If you really want to find war hysteria, war mongering, you go to China. On a daily basis, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the number one man, Xi Jinping said repeatedly the P.L.A. should be ready tomorrow to get into major war. That’s war mongering. That’s extremely irresponsible. So, I think this should be known to the American people, that real war mongering – war hysteria is not in the West, it’s in China. That’s why the stakes are so high.
Michael Swaine: I just simply say: Two wrongs don’t make a right in this sense. U.S. officials have said – U.S. military people have said exactly what Miles said, which is that we need to be ready to fight tomorrow. Peace through strength. We need to have a military second to none. We have to have the capability – the capability to fight and win. Is that war mongering? You have a statement by the United States military saying it wants to be capable. It needs to be capable to protect its interests. The Chinese have said the same exact thing.
So, both sides are engaged in similar types of sabre rattling, expressions of resolve, emphasis on deterrence, very little in the way of trying to reassure each other that the worst-case fears of the other side will not come true, and on Taiwan this is absolutely critical.
The United States needs to do more to reassure the Chinese that it is not going to bankroll Taiwan’s independence, that it still adheres to the One-China-Policy which is the only basis for stability in the Taiwan Strait and by the same token, the Chinese need to send credible messages to the United States that it remains committed to peaceful reunification as a top priority of its government, which it has been committed to for decades.
We can argue about whether or not these two things are being violated right now. I would say they are by both sides and the process is interactive. One side says something, that provokes the other. That provokes the other side. We go back and forth.
U.S. War Party ready for a Two-Front World War
The narratives of the U.S. War Party are turning increasingly extreme to attune the populations of the „15 percent“ to a looming new world war. Representatives of the U.S. war faction, such as Miles Yu have taken on the role of super-hardliners, spreading the war narratives of the U.S. country-elite among previously unprepared populations and get them “ready”:
In an interview dated 15 April, 2023 by „The Sunday Guardian“ Miles Yu advocates even a two-front war of the USA against both countries, Russia and China:
Question by Sunday Guardian: You have worked closely in the administration on the measures that the US can employ to tackle China. The United States is already tied with the events taking place in Ukraine. Will the US risk intervening militarily in Taiwan and does it have the wherewithal to operate on two fronts, against two major adversaries?
Miles Yu: Yes. Ukraine is not the US’ problem alone, the same is with Taiwan. Joining hands with America’s global allies and partners, matching different capabilities with different battlefield requirements in Ukraine and Taiwan, the US and its allies will be able to prevail, should there be a military invasion of Taiwan by the CCP [Chinese Communist Party].
War propaganda reminiscent of the Vietnam War
In the course of the current propaganda for a world-war, the age-old fairy tale of the so-called „domino effect“, which evokes memories of the U.S. mess in the Vietnam War, has not got missing once again – just note the following statements:
Question by Sunday Guardian: As you are aware, India is in the midst of a three-year-long border confrontation with China. As someone who has been watching this whole development from Washington, what role will India be expected to play in case of a China-Taiwan military confrontation?
Miles Yu: An attack on Taiwan will be just the beginning of a chain of aggression by the CCP which has multiple territorial disputes with multiple neighbours, especially India. India must do its utmost to stop the aggression at the outset for the next target of the revanchist regime in Beijing might well be India itself. A major role India could play, and should play, is to form a regional response coalition with countries that share the CCP threat, such as Japan and Vietnam, to prepare for a Taiwan invasion scenario.
NAIPTO – North-Atlantic-Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization
On July 11, 2022, a guest commentary under the name of Miles Yu appeared in the Taipei Times, in which Yu raises the spectre of a Moscow-Beijing axis and proposes as counter-strategy the envisioned one-world domination under the banner of the U.S. along the lines of NATO with its multilateral collective defence pact but, which in the future should even encompass the entire world, supposed to be named the North Atlantic-Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization (NAIPTO).
Excerpts from a guest commentary by Miles Yu in Taipei Times:
«Miles Yu On Taiwan»: NAIPTO—Toward an Eurasian, transoceanic multilateral collective defence alliance
- There is an emerging international alliance, forged in the face of today’s greatest global threat to freedom and democracy. That threat comes from the China-led, Beijing-Moscow axis of tyranny and aggression. And the new alliance to counter that axis may be called the North-Atlantic-Indo-Pacific Treaty Organization — NAIPTO…
- The urgency of this alliance has become more acute in recent months. Russia’s war on Ukraine crystalizes the common sources of aggression by the world’s two remaining civilization states: China and Russia…
- Democratic nations should take the China-Russia bloc at its word. Russia threatens freedom and democracy in Europe. China threatens freedom and democracy in the Indo-Pacific, and around the world. Together, they form a global axis. NAIPTO would be a powerful, global, democratic response that would renew confidence in freedom’s strength and durability.
- Allowing Russia’s regional gambits in Europe to distract from the much more formidable global challenge posed by China would be an unthinkable blunder…
Russia is seeking global relevance. China is seeking global dominance…
- Today, the threat from China has gone from remote to acute, from regional to a much wider swath of the globe, and it is shared by nearly every major country in the Indo-Pacific region, including Japan, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and the ten ASEAN nations…
- A coalition of the willing, NAIPTO’s multilateral structure will further deepen ties, moving members beyond parochial, historical squabbles, and placing the common defence over narrow self-interest. NATO has, for decades, pacified Europeans’ longstanding internecine battles and internal strife. NAIPTO has the potential to do the same in the Indo-Pacific for countries like South Korea and Japan, as well as others…
- The time has come to give new strength and purpose to old alliances, and to build new ones to meet today’s challenges. If we treasure the success of NATO in the 20th century, the best way to ensure that the gains it made possible is to endure and expand its promise to NAIPTO in the 21st, for an attack on one democracy is an attack on all democracies regardless of geographic boundaries.
How warmongers of the „15 percent“ distort the facts
After NATO’s five eastward expansions Europe having once again been plunged into war, U.S. hawks and Atlantic warmongers are trying to carry-over their war to the Far East by their attempt to restore fading Western global dominance by means of a new world war. Miles Yu’s concept for a US-led global military pact shows clearly how Atlantic political scientists and demagogues know not only how to circumvent historical facts, but finally to have them turned into their opposite:
China, which after 100 years of colonial humiliation – 1839 to 1949 – had itself become victim of colonial powers, gets accused by Miles Yu for a global policy, which does not correspond to China at all, but has been typical instead for the colonial & hegemonic policies of the „15 percent“ powers only – up to our present days:
Not China or Russia are notoriously threatening and attacking the world with ever new campaigns of conquest, but the instrumentalized states of the „15 percent“, which have to join the Atlantic wars, in order to revive the waning Western hegemony by methods of the 20th century, which had been based on a world-war-policy. U.S. country-elites are aware that 1945 had marked the climax of Anglo-American might: Their war policy today has been derived from this very historical experience, which they seek to repeat once more – even to our days!
War on the inside calls for hybrid means
The U.S. war party aims not only against supposed enemy states in far away lands, but also target against the citizens in their own country who are ethnically or familiarly supposedly connected with countries in competition with the Atlantic. Based purely on ethnic criteria, some 125,000 citizens of Japanese, German, and Italian descent were sent to U.S. concentration camps as early as 1942. At that time, Executive Order 9066 provided the U.S. military with the legal basis to execute that round-up. In 1983, an investigation set up under President Jimmy Carter concluded that those detentions in the wake of World War II were merely the result of racism.
In this tradition, the U.S. Department of Justice launched a new witch hunt in November 2018 under the title „China Initiative“ and the pretext of fighting economic espionage, this time to persecute researchers and students of Chinese origin to chase them out from U.S. research sites under this new disguise. The result of the „China Initiative“ was the destruction of countless livelihoods of scientists of Asian origin, but without any alleged cases of industrial espionage leading to convictions: The U.S. Department of Justice had finally to officially announce on 23 February 2023 the termination and failure of that campaign.
Today it is up to the remaining „85 percent“ of the world population to protect the existence of mankind more effectively and put a stop to further escalations and provocations as well as to the clans of global warmongering in a hard and uncompromising way: Too much is at stake for the world!
A study provided by UNSER-MITTELEUROPA Global Research