Sunday, December 02, 2012
"We Have Always Been In Second Place to Eastasia"
This is, as Spengler explains, a major development in international relations. The American/NATO "New World Order" has become very much the second class power across half the world.
What is equally, perhaps more, important for those living in Britain and the US is that it has been almost entirely censored from US news reports (minor mention in WSJ & Chicago Tribune) and entirely so by ours.
It is symptomatic of the national condition of the United States that the worst humiliation ever suffered by it as a nation, and by a US president personally, passed almost without comment last week. I refer to the November 20 announcement at a summit meeting in Phnom Penh that 15 Asian nations, comprising half the world's population, would form a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership excluding the United States.
President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn't. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.
Instead, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, will form a club and leave out the United States. As 3 billion Asians become prosperous, interest fades in the prospective contribution of 300million Americans - especially when those Americans decline to take risks on new technologies. America's great economic strength, namely its capacity to innovate, exists mainly in memory four years after the 2008 economic crisis.
Anybody relying on our press and broadcsters to keep informed is, byu definition, ignorant. I suppose it was always like this but nowadays the net gives us the option of being informed.
You will get more real news in the Asia Times than in a dozen British newspapers.
If Australia and New Zealand choose a Chinese club in preference to a western one things have clearly changed.
==================
And incidentally the Asia Times is one of only 3 papers worldwide, to deal with something I raised (the others being Brian Monteith in the Scotsman & James Delingpole in the online Telegraph).:
Meanwhile, a letter writer by the name of Neil Craig from the United Kingdom to Asia Times Online on March 17th points out:
We see the "environmentalists" are eager to talk about the Japanese catastrophe. Not the earthquake and tsunami which looks to have killed 10,000 people, but the consequent reactor failure which has caused neither death not injury to anybody. This ten thousandfold lack of balance is typical of the way the word "nuclear" is reported as if it were a form of black magic ... The LNT hypothesis has never been anything but an evidence free scare story. Despite its "official" acceptance by government apparatchiks in both the Soviet and "democratic" worlds it has never had any scientific evidence whatsoever behind it.
LNT & the inaccuracy of nuclear scares is another of those subjects that western newspapers not only simply won't report, but also which they censor even in letters pages which are supposed to rpresent the various views of readers not of owners.
What is the meaning of the term "free press" when they censor so continuously and blatantly?
What is equally, perhaps more, important for those living in Britain and the US is that it has been almost entirely censored from US news reports (minor mention in WSJ & Chicago Tribune) and entirely so by ours.
It is symptomatic of the national condition of the United States that the worst humiliation ever suffered by it as a nation, and by a US president personally, passed almost without comment last week. I refer to the November 20 announcement at a summit meeting in Phnom Penh that 15 Asian nations, comprising half the world's population, would form a Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership excluding the United States.
President Barack Obama attended the summit to sell a US-based Trans-Pacific Partnership excluding China. He didn't. The American led-partnership became a party to which no-one came.
Instead, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, plus China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, will form a club and leave out the United States. As 3 billion Asians become prosperous, interest fades in the prospective contribution of 300million Americans - especially when those Americans decline to take risks on new technologies. America's great economic strength, namely its capacity to innovate, exists mainly in memory four years after the 2008 economic crisis.
Anybody relying on our press and broadcsters to keep informed is, byu definition, ignorant. I suppose it was always like this but nowadays the net gives us the option of being informed.
You will get more real news in the Asia Times than in a dozen British newspapers.
If Australia and New Zealand choose a Chinese club in preference to a western one things have clearly changed.
==================
And incidentally the Asia Times is one of only 3 papers worldwide, to deal with something I raised (the others being Brian Monteith in the Scotsman & James Delingpole in the online Telegraph).:
Meanwhile, a letter writer by the name of Neil Craig from the United Kingdom to Asia Times Online on March 17th points out:
We see the "environmentalists" are eager to talk about the Japanese catastrophe. Not the earthquake and tsunami which looks to have killed 10,000 people, but the consequent reactor failure which has caused neither death not injury to anybody. This ten thousandfold lack of balance is typical of the way the word "nuclear" is reported as if it were a form of black magic ... The LNT hypothesis has never been anything but an evidence free scare story. Despite its "official" acceptance by government apparatchiks in both the Soviet and "democratic" worlds it has never had any scientific evidence whatsoever behind it.
LNT & the inaccuracy of nuclear scares is another of those subjects that western newspapers not only simply won't report, but also which they censor even in letters pages which are supposed to rpresent the various views of readers not of owners.
What is the meaning of the term "free press" when they censor so continuously and blatantly?
Labels: British politics, International politics, Media
