|
The MoA Year In Review
The big stories of 2019 which Moon of Alabama covered were:
- The vindication of Donald Trump by the Mueller and Horowitz 'Russiagate' investigations. The Democrats, driven by the security state, then continued their coup attempt against Trump by impeaching him over 'Ukrainegate'.
- The slow but continuing retreat of the U.S. from the Middle East demonstrated by its lack of reaction even after the attack on the Saudi oil installations and the shooting down of a large U.S. drone by Iran.
My predictions on these issue for next year are:
- The unreasonable campaign against Trump will hurt the Democrats in the 2020 elections. Unless something unforeseeable happens Trump will be reelected.
- The U.S. will pull its troops out of Iraq and Syria.
- The MAX will not be allowed back into the air unless Boeing ditches MCAS and finds a better way to make the plane certifiable.
- Mainstream media have suppressed all news about the OPCW scandal. This will only change if major new evidence comes to light.
May all of you have a happy new year!
Bernie Sanders would be destroyed by media like Corbyn in UK. – above.
Corbyn was yes vilified (e.g. the anti-semitism hoopla), but that is not the reason Labour’s vote share dropped from a glorious high of 40% (Corbyn, 2017) to 32% (Corbyn, 2019), still better than Brown 2010, 29%, and Miliband, 2015, 30%. (The FPTP electoral system leads to a large loss of seats.)
Corbyn initially said he would respect the people’s vote, re. the Brexit referendum.
Labour attempted to block Brexit in various ways.
Corbyn’s ultimate message was: your vote is meaningless, voting is a mug’s game. We, Labour, did not, sincerely + rigorously (2016-2018) take it into account and now (2019) we will negate it with a new (proposed) vote, even attempting to *reverse* the original vote! Corbyn – no doubt under pressure – threw his support behind a second referendum following some new ‘nebulous’ yet-to-be-worked-out ‘deal.’
That Labour under Corbyn still got 30% is amazing, is due only to Tory-hate, austerity, and lack of alternatives.
Being bashed by the media in the Anglo-World is positive. Look at Trump, painted as a disgusting racist, woman-hater, crude boor, possibly a rapist, etc.
The problem with Sanders is that he should have been a candidate in 2016. (Or even before.) That he couldn’t attain that status brands him as a has-been. In any case, one can question if the Dem. Corporate-Core actually wants to win, for sure they won’t put Sanders up as a candidate. Imho they prefer not to try, to avoid the humiliation of losing. (Yet, they have to pretend to be super keen — TV reality junk for the mopes.)
They have nothing to propose politically. Neither do the Repubs, who will just go with Trump.
The Prez. Election is a weirdo popularity contest, resting on financial calculations, who spends what, who guarantees what legislation, underground deals, earnings, financial high jinks, etc. Utterly divorced from socio-economic, environmental, or other policies, principles, future plans or directions, that *might* actually be seen as being for the common (national) good.
Likklemore above made the point that standing against Killary (imho the most hated woman in the world) was a sure win, so yes, there is a measure of suspense.
Happy New Year to all!
Posted by: Noirette | Jan 2 2020 18:47 utc | 141
Posted by: Grieved | Jan 2 2020 2:37 utc | 119
thank you for the link to one of the videos with Zhang Weiwei. I never heard of him, but from the very beginning I learned to like his personality and how he explained the differences between West and East. In the progress I watched many more of his appearances on YT. There was one on which he was speaking at the Schiller Institute in 2017, where he got more time to go into more detail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7XIYP0LvgI
Interestingly, there was chatter and noise in the first ten minutes, but it became silent afterwards. Because what this man was saying had value. The audience started to listen carefully. Zhang Weiwei used only few slides, slides and charts are boring, he was speaking openly and freely. Compare this presentation to other presentations we know, where the speaker gets a frog in his throat, pronounces with difficulty, needs a sip of water, etc. Not so with Mr Zhang Weiwei. The later the presentation goes, the more energetic he becomes. You can see it in his movements, and the more frequent hand movement to his nose.
Besides, the hand movement to the nose means that the person has to smell the hand, smell the taste. Like a goal keeper right before a penalty kick. He has to get the ball. He sniffs his gloves that smell nothing like nature, but the behaviour is instinct. It is a very ancient behavior.
We can only assume that he could go on for two hours or more.
—
Here are my thoughts, which can be seen as some sort of summary:
the Chinese system is dynamic and pragmatic. The Western system is static and opportunistic.
In China, before election, there is selection. A governor has to prove his abilities for a certain time, ruling over a province of dozens of millions of people. If he succeeds, he may get elected into the state government. This reminds a bit of Plato, who said that each governor must be a philosopher. It appears the Chinese system goes even further: a governor doesn’t only have to be a philosopher, he also has to prove his wisdom in the real world for a prolonged time. And, by the way, this Chinese system was established and functioning before Plate was born.
We see that women are not on the list. Chinese society is probably as/more patriarchate as Western societies. I will leave it like that. At least China has a female speaker for the government, as well as the Russian government has a female speaker. Both are very good in my opinion.
An important fact is about language. In Western ancient culture, Greek and Latin language were the important languages. But they are all dead languages now. The Chinese language is older than Latin and Greek, and it is still living. With all its dialects in the vast country, as Zhang Weiwei points out, but with a common written language. To me, this is a very profound thing. And without a doubt for any researcher in linguistics and culture.
There is no word for love in Chinese? Winston Tong, one of the best musicians I know, once sang this line. As a Chinese he must know. I still wonder what it is what he meant to say. There certainly must be countless words for love in Chinese language, but I don’t know. I don’t speak Chinese, and don’t have Chinese friends I could call. We don’t have Chinese here on this blog, I guess. So the mystery continues for me.*
Globalisation: China defines globalisation only as economic globalisation. Not political globalisation. That’s the key point. Because over the past 20+ years globalisation was actually the so-called neo-liberal globalisation: privatisation, ‘Arab Spring’, ‘Color Revolutions’, fall of the Soviet Union, fall of the Berlin Wall, etc. For this reason, China has become the most beneficiary of globalisation.
China: people’s livelihood first. Government has to do something tangible for people’s life. Improving people’s living standards instead of chanting empty slogans. China in its entirety encompassed in comparison about 100 European states, and this has to be governed. Compare this to the EU. In my opinion, what China has achieved in the last decades is something Westerners hardly can imagine.
Another thought about the dynamic and adaptation of this Chinese system: in the 80’s, people in China were not allowed to wear individual clothing. They all wore Maoist suits. Uniforms. They were not allowed to leave the country. Today it is very different. Everyone can dress as she or he pleases, and there are about 120 million Chinese tourists. Or 130 million.
While it is the same one-party system, which has adapted and changed a lot over 40 years. Western systems are rigid and static. They cannot change that fast, they cannot change at all. Because before they could change, they would need to change the constitution. Which is an almost impossible thing to realise. The Chinese system however is able to adapt rather quickly.
The private sector in China has been built from scratch. The private sector is allowed to compete with the state sector, which forces the state sector to reform itself. They become partners. This is the overall approach. The same applies internationally, with building bridges with other countries. China coorperates with international institutions, the World Bank, etc.
This is all, I repeat, according to the words from Zhang Weiwei. These are not my own words. I added some of my thoughts in it.
* somehow I couldn’t find the lyrics of the song ‘Theoretical China’, neither in my library of lyrics, nor on the internet. What I found is rather scarce, but at least something:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCtc6DriJRA
http://www.electricityclub.co.uk/lost-albums-winston-tong-theoretically-chinese/
Posted by: Phil | Jan 2 2020 21:16 utc | 145
|
