10 min read

The Day After the US-China War

The Day After the US-China War
Senator J.D. Vance

I respect Senator JD Vance—who will turn 40 in August—as one of the foremost patriots and the brightest minds of his generation. It is only natural that he is being considered as a potential Vice-President and future President. That’s why I was disappointed to learn that he accepts the popular, lunatic notion that US military forces must be gathered in from around the world to confront China around its maritime borders:

“So what are we going to do in that world?,” Vance asked. “I think, again, that world of multi-polarity, that means that we want the Israelis and the Sunnis to police their own region of the world. We want the Europeans to police their own region of the world, and we want to be able to focus more on East Asia.”  [Emphasis added.]

To be clear, Vance does not want war with China. But the ongoing campaign which he is thoughtlessly endorsing—to surround China militarily, build alliances against it, and challenge it militarily at its borders, especially Taiwan—will inevitably produce a war if it continues. Particularly, Washington must simply stop testing the red line around Taiwan—where can that end up other than war? It’s a slow-motion repeat of the process by which Washington ginned up the Ukraine war, as Branko Marcetic points out.

If You Liked Viet Nam…

If you liked the Viet Nam War, where we bled out our youth and destroyed a generation, fighting a country one-fifth our size—you’ll love the China War, where we will fight a nation with four times the US population—one which includes almost one of every five men and women alive. And remind me again what we were fighting for in Viet Nam, and what we gained from it?

Senator Vance is not alone in his delusion. The same tragic, lazy consensus is shared by the majority of Senators and Congressmen of both parties, the permanent government bureaucracy and academia. What has gotten into them all? One can only compare them to the zombie ant, his brain taken over by a parasite, who clambers drunkenly up, up above the forest floor. Eventually he chomps down on the vein of a leaf in a death grip. There he expires, and the parasitic fungus extends its tentacle up from his corpse, to scatter more spores down to infect the other ants.

Zombie ants: meet the parasitic fungi that take control of living insects
Infected ants help the fungus to spread its spores and reproduce.

President Trump does not buy into this consensus, as he made clear in a recent “All-In Podcast” (31:09-32:25). He was asked, “Do you think war with China is inevitable?” (This question itself is highly significant. The victim ants are somehow persuaded that it’s inevitable: “No, don’t try to save your life. That would only be a waste of effort. Don’t you see—it’s inevitable!”)

But President Trump responded instead, “I think it’s not inevitable; I think it’s unlikely. I know President Xi very well…. If you have the right President, we can live very well with China, compete with China.”

(Some smarty-pants Americans like the Clintons have thought it was a great idea to move our industries to China and leave the US economy a deindustrialized rubble. We have to bring them back—but that’s a separate issue which we don’t discuss here.)

Security Threat?

Speaking for myself, I’m not a pacifist. If ever our Constitution, our sovereignty, or our territorial integrity are threatened, we must repel the threat—even at the cost of nuclear war if necessary. And we must be prepared to repel and if necessary to defeat any potential adversary, including China—as we are not prepared today.

But today there is no such threat. Just as Russia does not threaten US interests in Ukraine, China does not threaten us along its land borders or in the South China Sea, halfway around the world. China’s disputes with its neighbors must be settled between them. The US is only inserting itself into these disputes in order to move towards war with China; no US security interests are involved. On the Taiwan issue in particular, US policy for 45 years has been that the status of Taiwan must be settled by negotiations between Taiwan and China. Why must we continually create provocations by sailing warships through the Taiwan Straits?

Xi Jinping has said the US is trying to goad him into invading Taiwan. It is.

Xi Jinping claimed US wants China to attack Taiwan
Chinese president told European Commission president that Washington was trying to goad Beijing into war

What kind of threat is it to our homeland, if we have to go halfway around the world to find it? And that at a time when thousands of unvetted people are crossing into the US daily from Mexico?

The So-Called Thucydides Trap

Harvard poobah Graham Allison has tried to find a scientific basis for the bogus claim that China and the US are doomed to a death-struggle on the brink of nuclear war. In his book, “Destined for War,” he claimed to carry out a (far-fetched) statistical study of what he called the “Thucydides Trap.” One power is hegemonic (leading). Another is rising. Allison assumes that the two inevitably contest for hegemony. Will there be war or not? What are the odds? History is contorted into a parody of popular ideas of geopolitics—resembling schoolyard rivalries.

Allison summarizes his scheme: “When one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result — but it doesn’t have to be.”

The Thucydides Trap
When one great power threatens to displace another, war is almost always the result — but it doesn’t have to be.

Allison’s notion of the “Thucydides Trap” is based on a sentence from the opening of Thucydides’ history of the 431-404 BC Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta—which destroyed both, along with Greek civilization. Thucydides wrote, “It was the rise of Athens and the fear that this instilled in Sparta that made war inevitable.”

Allison believes Thucydides thought this was the cause of the war—which is dubious. Then Allison applies that recipe willy-nilly throughout history for his grand statistical survey.

The Achaemenid Empire at its greatest territorial extent, approximately 500bc. Credit: Cattette / wikimedia / Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

A look at a map of the Persian Empire in this period clarifies the picture. It stretched from Macedonia in Europe and Libya in Africa on the West, all the way east through present-day Turkey and Iran, and on into India. All of Greece was just a tiny dot by its westernmost border. And yet tiny Greece had just dealt this earth-girdling empire a humiliating defeat, in the Persian Wars of 499-449 BC—just 18 years earlier.

Sparta was not the “hegemon.” The hegemon was the Persian Empire, and it used the fratricidal struggle among Greeks, to avenge itself and crush them all at last. Allison’s other historical studies are similarly bogus.

Today’s True “Hegemon”

Likewise, today, the US is not the “hegemon” or the sole superpower, as Allison imagines. The sole superpower is that power which can somehow impose its policies on us—and not only us, but nations generally—and make us follow those policies even to the point of self-destruction. Our insane drive towards war with China is one such policy. If there’s one thing which could destroy the United States, it’s war with China—and yet our politicians, think-tanks and media continue to pursue it as the moth flies to the flame.

Then there’s the open border. President Trump has said “It’s a mystery—why do they do it? No one knows. It’s destroying our country.” And not only that—it’s incinerating Biden’s re-election chances. Hardly anyone supports it, but as Nov 3 approaches, the border remains open. Biden has his orders from the real “hegemon,” and he’s powerless to change course.

And it’s not only here. In Western Europe as well, nations struggle with mass migration and open-borders policies which no one supports—yet the borders remain open.

The same with the “Green” agenda. Of course, there are some young activists and other Green enthusiasts—but does that handful of true-believers really have the clout to shut down our coal-fired power plants, and forbid gasoline-engine cars to Americans? Of course not.

What is the “Sole Superpower?”

Many in the Trump movement will respond that the true “sole superpower,” the “hegemon,” is “the ruling class.” And they’re right. But let’s get a little deeper into exactly what that is.

In western civilization, the terms “Empire” and “oligarchy” refer to one and the same thing. It is not a theory, but an actual, still-existing dynasty, today’s sole superpower. It has continued, with ups and downs, victories and defeats, through millennia. It traces its history from ancient Babylon, through Persia and Rome, to the British Empire of today. It is a system of rule by an assortment of powerful, usurious families, who claim the same immortality—as families—as the legendary Greek gods of Olympus. If this seems incredible, consider how Winston Churchill saw his place in the immortality of the Marlborough family—one of these oligarchical families. (Churchill was far, far from the hero starstruck Americans imagine.)

These families of the European oligarchy cluster around the City of London and the British Royal Family. They own the Federal Reserve and the IMF’s floating-rate international monetary system. Although theirs is not an empire of the British people, it makes use of agencies associated with the British government, especially its secret intelligence services—which were the initiators and instigators of the Russiagate coup against President Trump.

These families merge into the foundations, which provide a practical form of immortal power (under our tax code) even long after the family blood-line has run dry. (Although the families which are immortalized are not the names on the marquee, like Ford and Rockefeller.) See Lyndon LaRouche on this, under the heading “How Oligarchism Really Works.”

This is what George Soros represents, for example. Except that he brags about doing what the real oligarchs do in secret, in order to serve as scapegoat. Let the Jew take the blame, they say.

Where Have All the Democrats Gone?
To win back the allegiance of working-class Americans, Democrats should stake out a middle ground in the culture war and prioritize a New Deal-style economic agenda.

Thus, the paradox which Ruy Teixeira and others name the “shadow party.” Supposedly the Democratic Party exists in order to represent its popular base and win their votes to govern. But in reality, the party insists on outlandish policies like open borders, transgenderism, and outlawing gasoline cars, which the base rejects. Why? Teixeira points to the “shadow party”: “These are the activist groups, think tanks, foundations, publications and websites, and big donors and prestigious intellectuals who are not part of official party organizations, but who influence and are identified with” the Democratic Party in this case. But the drivers of the “shadow party” car are the foundations, which fund and control the think-tanks and the rest.

The End of Progressive Intellectual Life
How the Foundation-NGO complex quashed innovative thinking and open debate, first on the American right and now on the center-left

A Fight to the Death—But Not with China

Our victory over Empire in our Revolutionary War and then our Civil War, was the greatest such victory ever. And it was not only ours as Americans—it was only possible thanks to support from patriots in France, Russia, Germany and indeed all over Europe. And it went on to unleash developments which have revolutionized human life for all men everywhere. Our Constitutional principles of republican freedom, fostered the breakthroughs of Thomas Edison, of the Wright Brothers and Henry Ford—all the way through to the Apollo Moon Landing in 1969. And when the Apollo astronauts toured the world after that Moon Landing—everywhere the crowds shouted out to them: “We did it! We did it!” Not “You did it,” but “We did it!”

Today the British empire is on its deathbed, but for just that reason, it is mobilized to take down the United States as never before since the Civil War. Lyndon LaRouche traced the origins of this turn back to the early 1960s, In 1997, he wrote in his “Return to the Machine-Tool Principle” (p. 51):

In the setting of the new “balance of power agreements” emerging in the aftermath of the 1962 “Cuba Missiles Crisis,” and of the November1963 assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, leading oligarchical family circles, in the United States and western Europe, assumed that there was no longer a danger of general nuclear warfare among the principal powers, but only diplomatically managed, “limited wars,” including “international terrorism.” Thus, leading circles among these wealthy oligarchical families, assumed, that, for the medium and long term, there was no foreseeable strategic need to continue the institution of the modern sovereign nation-state, or the form of agro-industrial policies associated with that form of nation-state. [Emphasis added.]

But what was then the “medium and long term,” is today. Thus, the insane policy of shipping all American manufacturing to China, had nothing to do with the reasons given for it. It was part of the plan to do away with the sovereign nation-state, most importantly the United States. By the same token, it is no coincidence that open borders and the other obsessions of the Democratic “shadow party” will destroy our country if they are continued—that is exactly their purpose. And the proposed war with China will destroy us the fastest of all.

This is our real fight to the death. Not with China, but with our oldest adversary. What some have called the “mother country,” but patriots dubbed “our Lady Macbeth mother”—the British Empire.