There is a lot of excellent stuff in this video, but one point I came to fully endorse after a lot of research, soul searching and after having to comprehensively reject one of the key elements of my family’s education, is that all empires are bad, all empires end up hurting the nations which produce them, and all empires end more or less along a few basic models. When the authors of the video ask whether this empire will end with a bang or a whimper they ask the single most important question facing humanity today: can we, the world’s 99% (including the American people), bring down this AngloZionist empire without having it destroy our planet a hateful and rage-filled Götterdämmerung?
When I was still studying in college (getting an MA from one of the most Neocon-linked schools in the USA: SAIS, Johns Hopkins U. in Washington) I remember spending many hours with some very sharp students from all over the world discussing whether the US empire would collapse from internal tensions or as a result from of external factors. At that time, the Soviet Union was collapsing and even to ask that question seemed crazy to most people. I am proud to say that the students at SAIS knew better. What we could not foresee is such watershed events like 9/11, the crazy war on terror, then Obama and his mega-betrayal of all his promises. Nor, of course, could we in our wildest dreams have predicted Putin. From being the world’s sole superpower the USA has taken only 15 years to become the hated laughing stock of the entire planet and Obama a President who literally failed at everything he tried (or pretended trying) to do. The scary thing is that the next President might be even worse because, of course, the problem are not individuals or parties, but a system rotten to the core and run by individuals who have literally gone insane in their delusional and maniacal self-worship.
My maybe naive hope is that if the AngloZionist Empire does not go down in a big bang, countries such as the BRICS and the rest of the world will have the wisdom to finally recognize that the problem is not this or that empire, but Empire as such. I think that in Russia the vast majority of people have learned this lesson, albeit at a truly terrifying price. From my very limited knowledge of Chinese history, it appears that the Chinese do not have imperial designs and their way of expansion is trade and immigration. As for India, I am always concerned about strident nationalism a la BJP party, but I also hope that it can be contained. I might be naive, but I want to at least hope that no empire will rise to replace the current one. I would be very happy to live long enough to see our planet finally empire-free.
I hope that you will enjoy this short video as much as I did.
The Saker
Saker Message:
@ Song: the british empire never lost anything in America. They still own Canada and the original 13 states, Australia, NZ and the whole commonwealth. And even India. And americans still pay the tributes to the empire, as even your Declaration of Independence will tell you (“honoring the debts” etc.).
You need to learn “legalese” guys. Only that will help you see through all the nonsense.
On topic, we never had neither capitalism nor socialism. What we had was feudalism in disguise and rigged markets in the west and fascism in the east (meaning UdSSR etc., none of those countries was ever communist, they were all just fascist dictatorships. The state/elites/party owned everythig and the folks (slaves) owned nothing – that’s the very definition of fascism.
Saker,
I have only been following your blog since the Ukraine crisis blew up: between you and Dimitri Orlov we are, at least, guaranteed a binocular view of things. This is the first post I have felt compelled to comment on, so here is my contribution:
Your comment about China caught my attention. The history of this ancient land is one of my (amateur) interests. The point that Westerners need to get about Chinese history is that, since c. 1000BC, it had been ruled up to the 20th century by a succession of individual titled the Son of Heaven (tianzi), which this typically gets mistranslated into English as Emperor. The point here is that the Han people looked to him as the source of authority and the final arbiter in cultural and political matters–in fact, all swore to obey him absolutely. Furthermore, to the Han, China is constituted of the lands they occupy. The consequences of all this for China is that it never felt the need to establish an Empire: note, they tended to establish relations with other states by treaty, and made a point of protecting them against non-allied threats. This isn’t to say that bloody atrocities–both by our standards and theirs (note, their culture is not Judaeo-Christian)–didn’t occur, but they were not imperial ventures. Incidentally, one major fascination of Chinese history is that, due to its antiquity, one can easily find many examples of historical parallels with more recent events, e.g. the Southern Song dynasty’s problems with its own 1%.
Finally, let me ask “Are you familiar with the writer Frank Herbert’s view of imperialism (what he refers to as “hydraulic despotism”) in his Dune Chronicles?” If not, it bears examining.
In closing, let me congratulate you on producing a great blog!
Dear Angus Ogg,
Your observation is very interesting.
It seems that the Chinese do have a tendency to submit towards authoritarian rulers.
But at the same time there is I believe also a history of rebellious Chinese movements against authority.
The Taiping revolt , the Sun-yat-sen revolt against the remnants of manchu dynasty and the communist revolt against the nationalist Chiang-kai-shek also are examples of revolt against the central authority.
What is your view on this tendency ?
I am also interested to know about your views on what element in the Chinese psychology actually does not favor imperialism ?
In the end , is Imperialism as a thought is something which is historically inevitable and can not be extinguished ?
Take care
Debanjan
British financial interests continued to have great influence in the US after the war of independence because of their close ties with emerging US financial interests. It has nothing to do with the legal language per se. I am afraid that that view is deeply mistaken. Find me a major court case from the Supreme COurt in a Commonwealth country or the USA upheld the phrase honouring of debts as stating that Britain still rules the US as a matter of law. Legal language only has force if there is a court willing to enforce it. It does not magically enforce itself.
Furthermore, the Declaration of Independence contains nothing about honouring debts. I suspect that you are referring to the policy promoted by Alexander Hamilton and the early US financiers for the Federal government to finance itself through private borrowing rather than emitting its own money.
Furthermore, about capitalism, communism and fascism, we need to get the language straight. A lot of Anglos define capitalism as free market competition. That definition is too narrow because over time, that competition creates oligopolies or monopolies. There is no equality in human nature or society. Eventually some elements gain the most power and will take systemic measures to avoid losing that power. A market economy is not immune to that tendency.
The Soviet-bloc regimes could be defined as heavy-industry-based state capitalism with a generous dose of social welfare and general neglect of consumer goods. Those regimes never claimed to be Communist, but rather to be moving towards Communism.
The Fascist regimes were not simply the merger of corporate and state power as so many Americans seem to think. They were an attempt to recreate warrior aristocratic regimes in the industrial age as a third path between capitalism and communism. Fascists were initially supported by the capitalist West as a counter to the Soviet Union, but the economic success of Germany in particular made it into a greater rival to the West than the USSR was. Hence Britain ultimately chose to declare war on Germany in 1939 and remain at peace with the USSR when both attacked Poland rather than make peace with Germany and war on the USSR.
Dear Debanjan,
Thank you for your response. I’ll have to post my reply in parts, if the Saker would be so kind.
>But at the same time there is I believe also a history of rebellious Chinese movements against authority.
>What is your view on this tendency ?
To my mind, one has to consider what the historical roots of such rebellious behaviour are; as I pointed out, China isn’t a JC culture, so this has to be factored into one’s interpretation.
For convenience, Han culture is best viewed as coming out of the Zhou dynasty, which, as I trust you know, gave rise to the major currents of Confucianism and Daoism. History tells us that the former gained political favour at court at the expense of the latter during the early Han dynasty. (I skip the subject of the foreign religion of Buddhism as it did not markedly alter any of the older socio-political institutions; at worst it fell into the same political manipulations as did Confucianism.)
Confucianism’s success seems to be a result of its utility as a means of social organisation–ultimately social control, as can be seen in its later bureaucratic development. Daoism on the other hand espouses a far more naturalistic approach to both the world and man, and while it has a political dimension (see, e.g. the Huainanzi) the freedom it permits was evidently too “chaotic” (luan, a word with diametrically opposed meanings, depending whether one was Confucian or Daoist–for the Daoist it meant the hurly-burly of the natural order) for most of the ruling dynasties. Both of these schools, though, are based on the same Zhou dynasty moral understandings, which were essentially those explicitly embodied in Confucianism, despite slight(!) diffrences of interpretation. It is noteworthy, too, that its source text, the Daodejing, sides with the people against tyrannous authority, while propounding the principles by which a ruler might rule well; this is quite unlike Confucianism, which expounds “a place for every man, and every man in his place” doctrine, despite its admirable meritocratic elements.
Consequently, pre-modern Chinese rebellions, when they are not purely military matters, usually have Daoists involved, and when they occur they are explicitly aimed at corrupt officials and never the revered person and office of the Son of Heaven; in this way, the obligation between people and ruler was maintained. The general aim was the restoration of the harmony and peace that was seen as having been disrupted by the actions of officialdom. The ancient Chinese novel “All men are Brothers” (set in the Northern Song dynasty) captures this very well. The flip-side of this is given in the Han dynasty novel “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms”, which deals with dynastic change, but in this novel it is a military affair driven by the nobility, where some support the Son of Heaven, but others were covertly seeking to establish their lineage as the next dynasty.
Dear Debanjan,
Continuing on . . .
So, when you say “The Taiping revolt , the Sun-yat-sen revolt against the remnants of manchu dynasty and the communist revolt against the nationalist Chiang-kai-shek also are examples of revolt against the central authority”, while agreeing, I would have to point out that these are best understood as events accompanying dynastic change (as in “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms”). There is the proviso, though, that the Taiping rebellion partook of the same dynamic as intra-dynastic rebellions, such as the Han Yellow Turbans, in that they were essentially Chinese-style reform movements following the Daoist paradigm, which just goes to show that things are rarely clean-cut. Two old Chinese notions are useful to understand these: yi, “righteousness”, i.e. doing the right thing, and rong, “retribution”, i.e. “payback”, such as looking after one’s elders in return for the care they lavished on one during childhood, or one’s duty to the state or feudal lord for the good they have done one; ideally, these relations are to be reciprocated by those in power. Obviously, to the Han mind, payback to the unrighteous is inevitably in kind–and may I say, to my mind, quite right too!
Dear Debanjan,
Continuing on . . .
>It seems that the Chinese do have a tendency to submit towards authoritarian rulers.
From a Western perspective, this is certainly true. However, the root of this tendency shows a fascinating difference to the West. Anciently, pre-Han culture (i.e. the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties) was clan based with obedience being to members of the extended family older than oneself, a trait which is still extrordinarily strong even today. Within a clan, its undisputed head was its gong, a word that later became a feudal tile, corresponding roughly to our “duke”. Obedience was buttressed not just by custom but by oaths, these oaths being essentially contractual in nature. When the early states evolved into proto-feudal societies these relations were transferred to the representatives of the body-politic, i.e. the feudal lords, and the relations between them were defined by historical precedence and accomplishments. In such a culture, keeping one’s word was the same as keeping one’s position within society, and fulfilling one’s obligations well increased one’s status (and of one’s family/clan). The political consequence is simple, to the Han, “All men are brothers”, and so rebellion is a bloody squabble between clans/familes/lineages; this can be an extraordinarily protracted and ruthless affair, especially when there are obligations that cross partisan lines. These oaths are ranked, such that the obligation to the Son of Heaven comes first.
However, what I haven’t yet mentioned is one of the most under emphasised points about Chinese culture: in the pre-Han period the most important aspect of spiritual life (and I do not mean the ritual practices to pacify angry spirits or conjure rain) was the ancestral cult. We know remarkably little about this aspect of ancient China. It appears that the beliefs and practices were either not talked about (being taboo) or the commonalities were too well known to be remarked upon. When we think of a religious motive for the actions of the common people, and their tendency to obey superiors, it is here that we should look: piety and familial love, imho, are a potent mix that explains much about the history of the Han. For instance, the word xiao, “filial piety”, refers to the reveretial love of son for father (a virtue much stressed by the Confucians), but it also comports the notion that the son obey the father, and it is a bond that does not end with death. Thus, obligations laid on one by the father, even those obtained through mediumism in the ancestral cult, had to be fulfilled. Transfer these notions to the wider state and one gets an appreciation as to just why the Son of Heaven, his officials and the nobility could stand in loco parentis and exercise the power they do, while, at the same, running the risk of rebellion.
Dear Debanjan,
Continuing on . . .
>I am also interested to know about your views on what element in the Chinese psychology actually does not favor imperialism ?
The Saker captured it pretty well. The Chinese prefer to trade (the name of a foundational dynasty, the Shang, is used to mean “trader”, a thing which that dynasty was known for) and are fascinated by the strange (i.e. foreign). The Han attitude to the non-Han is important. They view themselves as an ancient, cultured and civilised family, while others are not so fortunate. Even so, historically, they have been willing to show others how to be so, at least by their own lights. So, if you do what the Han do–i.e. speak one of the Han tongues, eat with chopsticks, dress as they do, accept their norms, etc.–then you become Han. Many peoples have done so. Significantly, prior to the Han, the people who adhered to this culture called themselves Zhou; after Qin was overthrown, the first Han Tianzi Liu Bang essentially created the Han people by taking all the previously subject peoples and foreign allies with the Zhou population into the new Han dominion. This is the general trend in Chinese expansionism: they ally with neighbours (and either absorb them or keep on good neighbourly terms with them), but decisively attack invaders when able. I would argue that it is usually China that is forced to expand by a contiguous threat rather than a resource driven Imperium. The main reason, I would say, that that they don’t favour imperialism, is that they don’t view it as something that civilised folk do, it is dishonourable. As for what the Han want, I would say that the dream embodied in the Daoist notion of Taiping still applies as much now as it always did.
Dear Debanjan,
Continuing on . . .
>In the end , is Imperialism as a thought is something which is historically inevitable and can not be extinguished?
The basis of human political organisation comes, I think, from the fact (as the Chinese observe) that there are leaders and there are followers. Normally people only follow another when the other is consistently successful, but when deception and force appear we get the tedious politics with which we are familiar. By removing–or outgrowing–these, we would then be left with normal boisterous humans, and one has to admit, that the average unpressured human (i.e. some hypothetical “human in the wild”) is a pretty amiable cove on the whole. Those who do use such deception and force are (following the Chinese again) divisable into two groups, the bad and the inhuman. The latter are the psychopathic type describe by people such as Dr Robert Hare; the former are what we would consider evil folk, i.e. they have a conscience but are either corrupted or choose to act out of their own self-interest against others’ interests.
To my mind, the imperial endeavour is not something that is historically inevitable. For it to occur, the conditions have to be right, but like a chemical explosion, many mixtures can go bang. In the abstract, consider an elite keen on perpetuating itself faced with a problem of a lack of vital resources to do so, and it would rather carry on rather than adapting to the new circumstances. Of the options available, the best is obviously colonial expansion at the borders, but if that is not possible due to the land being occupied, then invasion becomes a viable option. (Note, the contiguity of states is only important with pre-modern technology.) Due to the elites’ (putative) control over its followers, they have them subjugate others to effect the elite’s desires, while the elite fobs off its followers with a position analogous to their own over the subject population. The problems that started the process go unaddressed, and the cycle, based on the same or another need, begins again. Once you have this institutionalised, and the bad and the inhuman are thrown into the mix, the imperial virus is born. Clearly, the route to extinguishing it is by dealing with its vectors and conditions, a thing that I don’t believe is beyond human wit.
My apologies for the length of this reply, I hope I don’t bore you (and apologies for any overlooked errors)!
Take care.
Angus Ogg,
Thanks for putting together your insights.
T1
T1,
Your welcome.
It would be nice to think that I’ve helped to dispel some of the wrong-headed paranoia about China.
Keep the points in mind that I highlighted and you’ll find news from China much more intelligible.
Dearest Saker,
I have posted the following verses before, but I am going to post them again. I want you and everyone, including Mindfriedo to think really hard:
They are not all the same. There is a community among the People of the Book (Jew, Christians, Sabians, ….) who are upright. They recite God’s signs throughout the night, and they prostrate. They believe in God and the Last Day, and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong, and compete in doing good. They are among the righteous. You will not be denied the reward for any good thing you do. God knows those who guard against evil. (Quran, Surah Family of Imran (Virgin Mary), Verses 113-115)
Note: The singular You in above, refer to any human being regardless of his/her faith.
Then in reply to one of your question, I posted the following:
It is like Dante in his Inferno. He gets the idea of 7 levels of Hells from the Quran. But he makes 9 levels. He puts Prophet Mohammad (saws) and Imam Ali (as) in the 8th level with some very foul language. Below is the 9th level where Satan resides.
As a Shia, I believe in 7 levels of Hell and 8 levels of Heaven as God being Merciful. A funnel at the bottom and upside funnel at the top. Where the two rims of the funnels meet is the 8th level (1st level) of Heaven, the biggest. So, on Judgement Day, there will be more people in Heaven than in Hell.
And, slowly, slowly the people of the Hell will move upward into the Heaven. Hell will then be destroyed. And, eventually Heaven will perish too. God is First and God is Last.
Note: I have mentioned above that on Judgement Day, there will be more people in Heaven than Hell. If one takes the total Muslims world wide, they make up about 1/4 of the total population. Think about the statement.
Let me give another example. For a brief minute let us consider that Shia religion is right and Hindu religion is wrong. (My apologizes to Hindu, I am just trying to make a point.) BTW, Hindus are also Monotheistic and they believe in Holy TriMurti. Their God name is from Quran.
Now the example:
Shia second Principle (Pillar) is that God is Just. This is the most hardest concept for me or any other Shia to explain. There are two girls, one Shia and Hindu. We established above that Shia is the right religion and Hindu is not. So the Shia girl is worshiping the True God, and the Hindu girl is worshiping the False God.
The both of these girls are same in their piety. They both honor their mother and father. They are both good to their husbands and children. They both establish regular prayer and give lots of charity. The are both same in their deeds but worship different Gods.
Now, of course, since Shia religion is right, then on Judgement Day, they will be both presented to Shia Just God.
Now dear Saker, what do you think the Just God will decide?
Note: I know that the you are debating that Orthodox is the True Christian religion. Rest of the Christian religions are False.
Best regards,
Mohamed.