stoneric

Hornberger's Blog
Tuesday, January 18, 2010

The Big Kingdom
by Jacob G. Hornberger

If you want to get a sense of why foreigners hate the U.S. Empire for its arrogance, elitism, and pomposity, just take a look at the following two editorials by the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Yes, I know that these two newspapers are not owned and operated by the U.S. government but the mindset expressed by the editorial writers easily mirrors that of Empire officials. The two editorials address China and, specifically, the upcoming trip to Washington, D.C., by China’s president, Hu Jintao.

According to the Times, one of the reasons that Jintao is coming to the United States is to seek respect. The Times says that “what will earn China respect as a major power is if it behaves responsibly.” The thought is also expressed by the Journal: “A China that understands that to be treated as an equal it must behave like one is a country whose progress will not be obstructed.”

This is the idea: The world is ruled and presided over by a grand, glorious, and exceptional Big Kingdom, one that is committed to spreading freedom and democracy around the world, through force of arms if necessary — e.g., coups, assassinations, kidnapping, torture, invasions, embargoes, sanctions, foreign aid, and occupations.

All other kingdoms are small kingdoms that are subordinate to the Big Kingdom. When the kings who rule over the small kingdoms begin rising in prosperity and power, it is incumbent on them to travel to the Big Kingdom seeking respect and requesting permission to continue rising in stature and influence. The respect and permission will be granted only if the small kingdom acknowledges its subservience and obedience to the Big Kingdom.

Needless to say, the Big Kingdom can do no wrong. It’s only the small kingdoms that can do wrong, especially by operating independently of the Big Kingdom. That sort of conduct subjects the small kingdom to harsh treatment. If the small kingdom has a weak military, it will be disciplined with such things as coups, assassinations, sanctions, embargoes, invasions, occupations, kidnapping, and torture. If, on the other hand, the small kingdom has a strong military, the penalty will be the denial of respect to the small kingdom.

The Times says that President Obama needs to raise the issue of human rights with China. No doubt that China’s communist regime is one of the most tyrannical regimes on the planet. But what would the Times say if Jintao were to ask Obama about the kidnapping, torture, indefinite detentions, denial of due process, denial of trial by jury, and denial of speedy trial for prisoners at Gitmo, Bagram, and secret U.S. prisons around the world, including in former Soviet-bloc countries? What if he were to ask Obama about the U.S. military’s treatment of Afghans and Iraqis during the past 10 years of brutal military occupation? What if he were to ask why Obama refuses to extradite convicted CIA felons to Italy, where they have been convicted of kidnaping and conspiracy to torture? What if Jintao were to ask Obama why he refuses to extradite CIA operative Jose Posada Carriles to Venezuela to face charges relating to the terrorist bombing of a Cuban airliner?

I’ll tell you how the Times and Journal would respond. They’d both go ballistic, screaming that no small kingdom within the realm has the right to speak to the Big Kingdom in such a manner. They both would say, “Punish China for such disrespectful and insubordinate conduct. Deny China the respect it seeks.”

According the Times, “Mr. Obama has made clear that he won’t stand by while China tries to bully its neighbors.”

While on the subject of bullying neighbors, did the Times mention the 50-year-old U.S. embargo against Cuba? Well, of course not. You see, that’s not bullying. That’s punishing the people of a small kingdom whose ruler does not show sufficient deference to the Big Kingdom. Thus, when Fidel Castro refused to kneel before the officials of the Big Kingdom and kiss their rings, he was denied respect and his country was placed under a cruel and brutal embargo — unlike, say, communist Vietnam or communist China, which are not suffering embargoes and whose rulers apparently have shown the necessary deference to the Big Kingdom.

Or consider what happened to the small kingdom of Yemen, when it went independent on the eve of the Iraq War by declining to vote to authorize President Bush’s war on the small kingdom of Iraq arising from the insubordinate actions of Saddam Hussein, who previously had been in the good graces of the Big Kingdom. As a result of its insubordination, Yemen lost $70 million in foreign aid from the Big Kingdom. As the U.S. ambassador to Yemen told Yemeni officials at the time, “That will be the most expensive vote you would ever cast.”

Hey, that’s not bullying! That’s simply disciplining small kingdoms who fail to do what they’re told.

The Times also takes China to task for “its recent challenge to American naval supremacy in the western Pacific.” Did you catch that? Not “in the Gulf of Mexico” and not “in waters near the U.S. coastlines.” Since the job of the Big Kingdom is to monitor, supervise, and police the world, all of the small kingdoms are expected to maintain a limited and deferential military buildup in their respective areas. If the subordinate kingdoms begin building up their militaries without permission of the Big Kingdom, that is a sure sign that they are getting uppity, assertive, and aggressive and, therefore, need to be put in their place, perhaps even by denying them respect.

Of course, all this insubordination on the part of China means that that the budget for the Pentagon and the CIA must continue to soar forever. What better excuse for ever-increasing military budgets than insubordination by the small kingdoms within the realm?

No wonder foreigners despise the U.S. Empire. No wonder our American ancestors despised the British Empire and instituted a republic rather than an empire. As people in different parts of the world begin challenging the authoritarian regimes under which they have been born and raised, it’s time for modern-day Americans to begin challenging the paradigm of empire and militarism under we have been born and raised in favor of restoring a limited-government, constitutional republic to our land.

Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.

John F. Kerry

its not a question of subordination though. We just happen, basically by providential accident, to have the most powerful country on earth and also have the earliest modern democracy. stoneric, the problem with your argument is that it ignores centuries of human history. the world didnt get to 1914 by accident, it got there because of the way all those "small kingdoms" had developed- they developed into warring violent and openly competitive rivals for world domination, and they ruined the world and killed millions fighting for nationalistic aims.

ok, so when america came along, huckleberry finn and those other backwoods wankers shucking cotton and chopping down trees, suddenly we looked at the world around us as saw this horrible nightmare. im talking 1914 here... wars ravaging across what was supposed to be the "civilized" world, millions dying in trenches and thru gas poisoning....

so what did we do? well we said look folks, we have a better way to run the world... to quote 2pac, the old way wasnt working so its on us now....

what your talking about, and the article you posted, its basically talking about the world of today, perhaps of the last 5 years, and saying, well why should the us boss everyone around... and framing it in terms of subordination. etc.

but ask the UAE if they feel "subordinated" to us, or ask South korea if they feel subordinate to us- now yes, we could obviously subordinate those places if we really wanted to, but we havent, and we continue not to, and if you ask the average citizen in uae or s korea or other places like that if they consider the us on the whole undesireable i would be interested to see what people in those places would say.

we got to a position of power, before international entanglements, before any of that crap.... when we built the erie canal, the transcontinental railroad, steamboats, etc... that stuff made us a world power.... all the while we avoided entanglements with europe.. then after a while we had to come in and rescue europe....twice in 20 years.

so i just cant start the analysis 5 years ago, if u want to understand why we "subjugate" other places, u have to look at how we originally got into the position of "subjugator".... we didnt ask for it, we were thrust into it, and the hundreds of thousands of americans who lie on the beaches of normandy and across europe attest to the fact that we won, but didnt conquor....um.... yea... i know u probably disagree so im not gonna bother typing any more rite this minute but theres my 2 cents.


....all of that leaves room and indeed the fact that we founded the UN etc, for the eventual time when we wont call all the shots. woodrow wilson himself wanted the worlds major powers to discuss disagreements and resolve them peacefully, and i dont see any reason why that cant eventually happen. but for us to take our hands of the reins of the stagecoach we had better be damn well sure that it is moving along fine and isnt going to crash without us leading it.... i dont think that will happen for a while, at least several decades like the last 1 has been. (with no major agression between large states .etc)

__________________
Nasa under Obama

John F. Kerry

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi..._Apr10_rpt.pdf one inter esting example, the number of russians who view us influence worldwide positively has gone up from 7% last year to 25% this year.

interesting read, its also neat to see the favorability of various countries in all the other countries. a place like n korea has low favorability almost everywhere, except subsaharan africa where they probably dont even know what its doing... china has positive views in asia but negative views in europe, japan and uk have positive views almost worldwide, and the us has "the highest overall world approval ratings since tracking began"... obviously this is thanks to the obaminator, but still, pretty nice.

__________________
Nasa under Obama

zerodown

from 7% to 25%? You will lose 99.9% of your life waiting for that elusive 100%.

Statistics are the easiest thing in the world to manipulate, that makes it the most useful tool to keep the masses in a dormant state, the american dream.

__________________
"I've seen people so poor all they got is money."

We have to learn to unlearn
Its not contradiction, its amendment
Not everything we see is reality
Not everything we hear is the truth
Not everything we're taught helps us grow
~Cultura Profetica

"La locura se lleva en la cabeza y las drogas en los bolsillos"
~Roberto Iniesta

stoneric

Even if I agreed with any of the nonsense you just printed, it still wouldn't justify our hypocrisy. Re-read the article, maybe you'll get its point.

mothernature

Speaking of the Chinese and the transcontinental railroad....

Digital History

"The Central Pacific's Chinese immigrant workers received just $26-$35 a month for a 12-hour day, 6-day work week and had to provide their own food and tents. White workers received about $35 a month and were furnished with food and shelter. Incredibly, the Chinese immigrant workers saved as much as $20 a month which many eventually used to buy land. These workers quickly earned a reputation as tireless and extraordinarily reliable workers--"quiet, peaceable, patient, industrious, and economical." Within two years, 12,000 of the Central Pacific railroad's 13,500 employees were Chinese immigrants.

The work was grueling, performed almost entirely by hand. With pickaxes, hammers, and crowbars, workers chipped out railbeds. Dirt and rock were carried away in baskets and carts. Tree stumps had to be rooted out, tracks laid, spikes driven, and aqua ducts and tunnels constructed.

To carve out a rail bed from ridges that jutted up 2,000 over the valley below, Chinese immigrants were lowered in baskets to hammer at solid shale and granite and insert dynamite. During the winter of 1865-1866, when the railroad carved passages through the summit of the Sierra Nevadas, 3,000 lived and worked in tunnels dug beneath 40-foot snowdrifts. Accidents, avalanches, and explosions left as estimated 1,200 Chinese immigrant workers dead.

Despite their heroic labors, California's Chinese immigrants became the objects of discriminatory laws and racial violence. California barred these immigrants from appearing as witnesses in court, prohibited them from voting or becoming naturalized citizens, and placed their children in segregated school. The state imposed special taxes on "foreign" miners and Chinese fishermen."

Štulic

Most definitely 100% of his life, just had a glimpse on his link and saw another funny stat that shows only 60% of Americans have a positive view on US influence in the world.

Also:

__________________

farmergiles

TBH I don't think the Chinese (govmnt or people) care that much what we think as long as we keep buying their manufactured products. They're quite used to the idea of western hypocrisy.

__________________
Cultivate a stoic calmness

FourtySecondRip

china will not be a free society in our lifetime. for something like that to happen it would take a civil war that would last for many many years. think about how long the US civil war would have lasted if the generals in charge had 1 billion troops to throw at the enemy. the only reason ours ended when it did was because of the large percent of the male population that was being killed or wounded. it took until over 25% of the total soldiers were dead for one side to surrender. the south had 40% of their total troops as casualties when they surrendered. the south had 9 million citizens and 1.1 million became soldiers. north had 22 mil citizens and over 2 million soldiers. so lets say conservatively that 10% of china picks up arms. thats still 100 million troops. and even if we say that one side will surrender after 10% losses thats 10 million dead.

considering chinas mandatory military service you can bet there would be more like 200 million+ soldiers in their civil war.

"It is a sacred duty of every citizen of the People's Republic of China to defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honored Obligation of the citizens of the People's Republic of China to perform military service and to join the militia forces."

since china wont give up even basic rights at the moment, you can bet your ass that it would take a complete overthrow for them to become a free society.

that many people in a civil war would last for decades unless they used nukes. and if they used nukes then of course the established government would win and a free china would take another 100 years before the population dared try that again.

__________________
..,,,O,,,..
<\FSR/>
.,._/\_.,

stoneric

If the people are united against the government, it's not a civil war.

FourtySecondRip

you wont get the entire population behind that kind of a movement. the people currently enlisted would be threatened with death for for going against the government. even if its the entire country vs just the current military+government its still going to be one hell of a battle for the civis to pull that off.

also the government would probably go to town if given a reason to thin out their population a bit. they already murder millions of baby girls because no one wants them and families can only have one child and they want a son to carry on the name. they wouldnt be setback in the slightest in their longterm economic goals if they killed off 5-10 million people who were trying to overthrow the government

__________________
..,,,O,,,..
<\FSR/>
.,._/\_.,

stoneric

I was just saying I don't consider that to be a civil war. Civil war would be like what happened in Iraq after we invaded.