COOPETITION THE YELLOW PERIL IN BROAD DAYLIGHT

 Funny, she says we don't like Belt and Road.....She is suggesting that that is China Bashing, without actually saying China Bashing.

She totally avoids playing the race card overtly, but objections to Belt and Road objections imply the old bogey of The Yellow Peril.

The average American could not tell Belt and Road from his own ass.

The BRI has been and will be characterized as a liberal multiculturalist multiracialist globalist initiative. The Chinese know from long experience of Western liberalism that it pays to frame all things that way.

KINGSBURY CASTIGATES CHINA WHILE NYT HAD RELENTLESSLY CYNICALLY PROMOTED GLOBALIZATION INTO ITS TRAP

 JUST AS THE NYT HAD, MANY DECADES AGO, JOINED THE THRONG AGAINST JAPAN BASHERS WHO WERE TRYING TO MAKE THEM SEE WHERE IT WAS ALL HEADING, JAPAN HAVING ALREADY HOLLOWED OUT AMERICAN INDUSTRY.

NOTHING MORE CYNICAL SNAKELIKE, OR LIEO JEWISH SELF SERVING, A SMOKESCREEN OF EDITORIAL HISTORY  CAN POSSIBLY BE IMAGINED THAN KINGSBURY'S.

BUT IT IS ONLY ONE OF MANY, A VERITABLE CHORUS OF NON MEA CULPA.

IN TERMS OF REALITY, SAYING NIXON WAS KISSINGER'S CHINA MENTOR IS NONSENSE, AND KINGSBURY, OF ALL PEOPLE WITH HER APPARENT BACKGROUND, SHOULD KNOW NONSENSE LIKE THIS BY SMELL.

I LIKE PILLSBURY'S CONFESSIONS, THAT IS MY TERM.

HE POINTED OUT THAT IT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN THE CHINESE PREMIER'S STRATEGIC AND HOSTILE INITIATIVE TO SUGGEST WHAT BECAME THE NIXON SHOCK. 

PILLSBURY HAD PROMOTED IT SHAMELESSLY. ALTHOUGH HE CLAIMS IN HIS BOOK, HE DID NOT REALIZE WHAT REALLY WAS GOING ON, THAT MUST BE PURE BULLSHIT.

OF COURSE, THE CHINESE WANT OUR MILITARIES TO TALK AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL. OF COURSE.

TALK AND INTEREST RATES ARE CHEAP SO ARE OPINIONS OF EXPERTS AND HUMAN LIFE

"Ms Lund, maybe you haven't noticed, but in Casablanca, human life is cheap." Major Strasser

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WHAT IS IT INTENDED TO MEAN?

 DOES IT MEAN ANYTHING?

CAN IT MEAN ANYTHING DEFINITE?

TO WHOM IS IT INTENDED TO MEAN ANYTHING AT ALL?

Sanna Marin: The feminist PM who says trans people have a 'right to self-identify'

WHEN THE CHINESE TAKE OVER, I HOPE THEY ROUND THEM UP AND MATE WITH THEM!

POSTMODERNISM AIN'T NOBODY STRAIGHT IN POSTMODERNISM

 Ain't nobody straight in L.A

It seems that everybody is gay
Homosexuality is a part of society
I guess that they need some more variety
Freedom of expression is really the thing

Bisexuales es un grupo amoroso
Bisexuals on a loving spree

Homosexuality is a part of society
Well, I guess that they need some more variety
Freedom of expression is really the thing

Ain't nobody straight in L.A
(Ain't nobody in L.A. straight)
It seems that everybody is gay
Oooh oooh, oooh oooh,
Oooh, oooh, oooh, oooh

"Hey, man, check that out."
Ain't nobody straight in L.A
It seems that everybody is gay

"Hey, man, let's ride out"
"Yeah c'mon, man!"
"I mean that's cool with me, uh, where we gon' go?"
"Hey, man, I know where a real hip place is on Sunset Boulevard and there's another place on La Cienega that's really..."
"Nah, nah, I saw that place on Hollywood Boulevard..."
"Hey, wait a minute, wait a minute, Bill, that place you took me the other night..."
"Yeah?"
"Hey, but wait a minute, man, that's a gay bar"
"Hey, man, ain't nothing but gay bars in Los Angeles"
"Yeah, Bill, that might be true though, but, uh... You know some of the finest women are in the gay bar"
"Hey, but dig, Bob, how do you know they women?"
"Well... uh... Hey, man, look, well, look, gay people are nice people too, man"
"Yeah, let's go, man. Let's go, man"

THE MENU

 I did a post on this. Just to reiterate, you can make a passably good ruby port as a mixed drink.

two to three ounces of dry or even semi dry california cabernet or merlot.

a teaspoon, more or less of sugar,

a dash of brandy or cognac.

Very important: if there is not enough sugar, it will not taste like a real port.

Too much sugar, and you need then to dilute it, and all is not lost.

Trust me, I have had $20 or $30 port that tastes less well than mine. Mine costs about $6. I use cognac, so maybe $8 a port bottle. You could use just American brandy, and cost would sit around $5, French brandy, maybe $6 a bottle. Why bother to pay big money for a sweet aperitif or after dinner dessert wine?

OREOS YESTERDAY'S NEWS BABY YOUR ASSES ARE GLOBAL ASIA TOAST

RACE AND IQ IF CHINESE HAVE IQS RECENTLY CLAIMED WHY MATE WITH WHITES HINDUS OR EVEN CONSIDER NEGROES?

 Nicholas Wade, A Troublesome Inheritance

Who gives a flying fuck about Western white negro chicken shit racism bullshit discussions, when the Chinese are fucking taking both your OREO dumbasses over anyway, baby!

DEMOCRAT TRANSITION DIALOGUE

What's he going to do about that one?
He's going to do what Hillary was going to do!

What about defense?

what Obama did.

Environment?

Hillary.

Homeland?

Obama.

What about.......?

Hillary.

What about......?

Obama.

What about.....?

Hillary.

What about?

Obama.

What?

Hillary.
What?

Obama.

R & D SOME PASSAGES THE WAR FOR WEALTH ESPECIALLY GOOD ON THIS STEINGART

 

Sunday, August 15, 2010

RE PREVIOUS PATENTS ARTICLE POST R & D AT HP AND MR HURD the back story article

This is more like it.
'Dumbly cutting costs'.
That makes some sense.

Yet, with the system we have got, and the way intellectual property is appropriated, used to say 'liberated', who can blame someone for thinking R & D spending doesn't help ' longterm competitiveness ' (oxymoron) that much, anymore?

NEANDERTHAL VERSUS MODERN HUMANS 15,000 YEAR LONG HAND TO HAND SMALL SCALE TRIBAL RACIAL STRUGGLES

 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201102-did-neanderthals-go-to-war-with-our-ancestors

THE 1619 BBC NYT WHIG NEGRO INTERPRETATION PROJECT PUTTING NEGROES NUMBER ONE MARTINIQUE

First we were enslaved. Then we were poisoned." That's how many on Martinique see the history of their French Caribbean island that, to tourists, means sun, rum, and palm-fringed beaches. Slavery was abolished in 1848.

He doesn't blame his negro ancestor for losing a battle, getting enslaved by the enemy Africa negro chief, getting traded to a swahili Muslim mulatto, then to a white slaver coastal ship captain.

He doesn't blame those bitches. The whites at the end of the slave food chain in Africa may have been frogs, not British, or Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, or whatever.

He blames your dumbass white American asses. Folks like Jake Silverstein.

The Jews did glory in the slave trade, but they specialized in white slaves for the Muslim trade! They trafficked in white slav captives, sold and sent down to the Sultan in Istanbul and elsewhere by Jewish middleman minority merchants, as Thomas Sowell put it so well!

BBC BABY!

This post is dedicated to Jake Stokely Silverstein. Folks like Vice President Kamala Harris got your NYT Lisa Lerer fucking number, baby. Get ready. 

Lisa Lerer, for me, should be done talking about race for the rest of her hopefully short life.

QUEERING THE SOUTH LGBTQ+

FALLOUT FROM THE CIVIL WAR 

I thought I would just cite this repellent thing to turn your stomach, 

or maybe upchuck your pig's breakfast.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBjNk9zPt1k

BBC FEMALE CEOS OF ANY COLOR HAVE COPED BETTER WITH COVID THAN MALES OF ANY COLOR ESPECIALLY WHITE MALES

  AND THEY NEED TO TAKE OVER ALL COMPANIES BY FORCE IF NECESSARY

CONJOINED TWINS WHITE STOKELYS AND MULATTO AMERICANS: WE ALWAYS KNEW WE WERE DIFFERENT

I AM JUST GOING TO PUT IT THIS WAY NOTHING YOU COULD DO AT DAVOS CAN DRAG YOUR SORRY ASSES OUT OF WHAT YOU HAVE CREATED

BEZOS AND ZUCKERBERG NEITHER GET NOR DESERVE MORE RESPECT FROM THEIR OWN SERVANTS OF COLOR THAN A DOG IN THE STREET

That is the long legacy of liberalism here, and of things like The 1619 Project, branding as sinners against coloreds all white people.

And Bezos and Zuckerberg are white males, and BLM branding all white rich people as the target for racial and economic equality and opprobrium.

FOR POSTMODERN EQUALITARIANS WESTERN CIVILIZATION BOOMERS AND GENERATIONS BEYOND

I want to explain to you the real nature of your global culture, the dark side not the bright, not its nature in your heads, and its changes, going forward, so that you will not be under any more illusions than necessary going forward, that either your wealth, or your race, your religion, or your ostensible social status, however much or little, but above near zero, of any, you happen to have, will mean much of anything, except a real social and political liability, the more wealth social political religious status white skin you have, and maybe even a price on your head, going forward.

How did that happen?

Why not save that question.

I AM GOING TO PUT IT THIS WAY A LA JEREMY CLARK AND MALTHUS

 Global growth has only appeared to keep pace with global population growth. 

More importantly, they are not causally conneccted.

Equalitarian efforts to connect them morally, racially, and politically have and will fail miserably.

Here's an old DK post re Krugman and equalitarianism:

Friday, June 10, 2016

Et tu, Paul Krugman

Like so many liberals, I regarded Paul Krugman as a beacon of light over the last 16 years.  While I was not so dependent upon him during the Bush years as one friend of mine who confessed that he often stayed up late the night before Krugman's next column was scheduled to appear so as to read it on line, he was a rare kindred spirit.  Although he is a full six years younger than I am, Krugman repeatedly expressed admiration for the strong points of the America of our youth--in particular, its relative economic equality and sense of concern for the public good--and regretted their eclipse as our own generation took power.  He was never afraid to call a spade a spade rather than referring to it metaphorically as a shovel, to quote Mark Twain, and he earned hysterical enmity from the right wing during the Bush years because he was the most visible figure willing to tell the truth about what the Bush Administration was doing.  During Bush's attempt to privatize social security Krugman actually quoted something I had written to the effect that a failure to pay benefits out of the Social Security Trust Fund would violate the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees the public debt of the United States.  Delighted, I made a few attempts to make personal contact with him, but never heard anything back.  Now I feel that is just as well.

The great turning point in Krugman's career occurred late last year, when he came down squarely on the side of Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders, claiming that her vision of "incremental change" was superior to his sweeping proposals.  Exactly how and why a man who had written so eloquently about the catastrophic consequences of the deregulation of the financial industry under Bill Clinton could come to embrace the candidate who is herself the darling of Wall Street is something I will not try to guess, but I don't see how anyone can deny that it represents an extraordinary change in his position.  Some of his columns on the Clinton-Sanders contest carried the clear implication that we no longer had any choice but to live with the society our generation has created, simply tweaking it around the edges to make it a little less unjust.  Sanders was the candidate, it seemed to me, who was standing for the New Deal values Krugman had always embraced--and he was opposing him.

Today, however, Krugman's evolution has taken a further disastrous step.  Drawing on a question he was asked a ta conference, he endorses the concept of the primacy of "horizontal inequality"--inequality among groups--over what he calls "vertical inequality," that is inequality among individuals.  What really shocked me about this dichotomy is that it leaves out a third, rather relevant concept, class inequality, which surely, in the age of the 1% and in a column claiming the superiority of Clinton over Sanders, was worth at least a mention.  What has happened to Krugman, however, is that he has succumbed to prevailing economic fashion.  Thus he repeats the canard, immortalized some time ago in a book, that Irish-Americans at one time were not regarded as white.  This is absurd: they were not, indeed, regarded as "Americans," a term which until the Second World War was often reserved for what we would call WASPS, but they were certainly regarded as white, and they were among the most anti-black ethnic groups in America.  More importantly, he suddenly encourages us all identify primarily with the groups to which we belong, citing even his own Judaism.  He even implies that Hispanics and black Americans are rightly Democratic in their politics that white people because the Obama Administration has done more for them than for white people, specifically in the area of health care.  And he suddenly seems willing to concede the votes of most white Americans to Donald Trump.

Now in my own case the option of reverting to some ancient group identity is not available.  Being half Jewish, but not eligible for Israeli citizenship and lacking any religion whatever, I have no tribe to which I can return--but I have never wanted one either. Yes, I am white, but I don't vote the way the majority of white people do, that is, Republican.  I have never wanted to be identified as anything but an American citizen, and even today I know there are a great many more like me out there.  But Krguman's and my personal feelings aren't very important.   The real question is whether the United States can continue to exist as a nation in which its citizens primarily identify themselves as member of a particular ethnic group--or, for that matter, gender or sexual orientation.  And I am convinced that it cannot.

The great crises of the past--1774-1794, 1861-69, 1929-45--were all periods in which our citizenry had to pull together as Americans and put their differences aside.  Every one of those crises strengthened national identity and helped integrate previously excluded groups.  Slavery was abolished in the northern states in the wake of the revolution and the suffrage was broadened.  Irish were assimilated after the Civil War in large part because of their service in that war.  Jewish and Italian Americans became fully equal citizens in the wake of the Second World War, and black Americans drew on the capital they had accumulated serving in the military and in war plants to create the triumphs of the civil rights movement. Those great efforts created a new sense of American identity in which minorities wanted to be included.  In addition, as I have pointed out again and again, programs to help the less well off became unpopular at the very moment--50 years ago--when they became identified with the interests of minorities.  And today, the problems of health care, mass incarceration, the costs of college, opioid addiction, economic inequality, and infrastructure, are not specific to any racial or ethnic group.  They affect us all, and a concerted attack on any or all of them could bring us together just as the fight against the Depression and the Axis did 80 years ago.   And that is what Bernie Sanders wanted to start.

There will be more women in high positions in Washington than ever before after 4 or 8 years of Hillary Clinton in the White House--but will there be significantly fewer numbers of women (and men) in prison?  Will there be more women (and men) graduating debt free from college?  Will it be easier for young women (and men) to find affordable housing in major metropolitan areas?  There comes a time in the life of generations--and particularly Prophet generations like the Boom, to which Krugman and I belong--when many of us must recognize that history is not going our way.  Some of us however refuse to bend with the wind, and I think in the long run our country is stronger for it.

MR HUMPHRIES FROM ARE YOU BEING SERVED