Deadly Feud Between US-Country Elites and Globa­lists Over One-World Domination

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