Growing up as a young boy, I lived off “breakfast cereals” every morning. These are just sugar-coated wheat or rice pellets. I would put sugar in generous heaps piled on top of the pellets and then add icy cold milk to it.

Over the years, I have grown away from this expensive habit. Accepting warmer cooked foods, often not sugary, and coffee as replacements.

As we age; we change.

I call this growth.

Is it good or bad,  Time will tell. But right now, I feel healthier than I ever did when I lived in the USA; twenty years ago.

Things that make you go hum…

---

Personally, I view all this military and nuclear weapons systems, as China and Russia holding a “shotgun to the head” of the United States. They are telling “President” Biden that they know that the United States is either bat-shit crazy, or acting irrational (on the global Geo-political scene) intentionally for Geo-political advantage.

Don’t fuck with us. They say.

Just do though your death spasms, but don’t fuck with us.

If you do, well then…

---

BABYMETAL – Catch me if you can (Five Fox Festival ver.) [Subtitled]

The TikTok Hearing and Xiang Zhuang’s Sword Dance as Viewed by Two CICIR Analysts

“If incidents like TikTok were to occur repeatedly, the [world’s] digital future would indeed be a worrying one. In this sense, the TikTok saga cannot be given enough strategic scrutiny and attention”

Mar 31

Today’s edition of Sinification focuses on one of the many reactions in China to the US Congress’s recent hearing on the popular video-sharing app TikTok. The piece presented below is co-authored by two analysts from the influential China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR) and offers a somewhat more moderate appraisal of TikTok’s recent scrutiny in the US than others (for a more hawkish and propagandistic commentary, see for example Tian Feilong’s recent opinion piece for Guancha.cn). Their article is entitled “Xiang Zhuang’s Sword Dance: What is he after? — The Prismatic Effect of the TikTok Incident”, which refers to a famous plot by warlord Xiang Yu (项羽) to kill the future founder and first emperor of the Han dynasty Liu Bang (刘邦) in 206 BC. In TikTok’s case, the one performing this deceptive sword dance is, of course, the United States. The authors base most of their commentary on arguments made by Western analysts, another reminder perhaps of how much more closely the Chinese follow discussions in the West than we do theirs – yet also how much easier it is for them to do so. Beyond the language barrier, I am referring here to both the censorship and self-censorship that hinder public political discussions in China. Though less acute than what is often assumed, such constraints are nevertheless real and make the analysis of these debates all the more difficult.

SUMMARY

• US concerns that TikTok may pose a threat to its national security are, of course, dismissed with the company being compared to “an innocent man whose talent has aroused the envy of others”.
• The US’s crackdown on TikTok is said to be a case of “treating the symptoms but not the root cause” and the result of the politicisation of America’s tech and industrial policies.
• It is seen as a symbol of Washington’s quest for cyber “dominance and leadership” in the world and its desire to constrain China in this field.
• The TikTok affair is depicted as particularly worrying and as potentially auguring further TikTok-like crackdowns – a trend that would also exacerbate an already fragmented internet.

“It is widely believed that this [TikTok] affair, although seemingly targeted against TikTok, is in actual fact ‘unrelated’ to it [与其’无关’]. It is but the tip of the iceberg in the US government's many overpowering measures to crackdown on China in the digital sector. Thus, our attention should go beyond this event itself and focus on the various implications it brings to light.”

“[The crackdown on TikTok] is nothing other than a case of the innocent man whose talent has aroused the envy of others [无他，匹夫无罪，怀璧其罪罢了]. Washington’s new National Cybersecurity Strategy clearly states the need for the US to rebuild the digital ecosystem and cyberspace so that it can ensure America’s [global] dominance and leadership. And as we all know, the future digital ecosystem and cyberspace will be built on new technologies and apps. Digital market giants such as leading tech companies are undoubtedly one of these key elements.”

“Meanwhile, the rise of TikTok in recent years has seen it become one of the very few competitors to Facebook, Google and others.”

“Throughout the [TikTok] hearing, there was a common feeling among onlookers that ‘Xiang Zhuang was dancing with a sword’ [i.e. the US had ulterior motives]. The US government's wielding of its so-called data security weapon [数据安全大杀器] was the nominal focus of the questioning. However, members of the hearing committee consistently turned a deaf ear to the data security protection model that TikTok had agreed on during its discussions with the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Instead, they latched onto its Chinese-owned background and wouldn’t let go of this. Before the hearing, FBI Director Chris Wray claimed that the Chinese government could control TikTok's activities in the US remotely. During the hearing, House Committee on Energy and Commerce Chair Rodgers and [Ranking Member] Pallone both said that its Chinese-owned background made it impossible for TikTok to adhere to American values and continued to repeat the cliché that TikTok is a Chinese government proxy corporation in the US that has the potential to harm America’s domestic security. After the hearing, US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chair Mark Warner stated that the hearing had failed to allay lawmakers' concerns about TikTok's links to the Chinese government.”

“In fact, as the US side itself admits, all of this is just an excuse [一切只是由头]. According to Glenn Gerstell, a researcher at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and former general counsel of the US National Security Agency (NSA), the data held by TikTok does not in fact constitute a strategic risk [Comment: As far as I am aware, Glenn Gerstell has not said this. His arguments have been a lot more nuanced. See here and here for some of his thoughts on the matter].”

“Caitlin Chin, another researcher at CSIS, further stated that recent [measures], such as the US DATA Act and the RESTRICT Act, have all been targeted against China, and that TikTok's Chinese-owned background is itself an easy target to attack [Comment: I am not familiar with Caitlin Chin’s views, but here are two of her most recent commentaries on this issue: 1. Banning TikTok Will Not Solve U.S. Online Disinformation Problems; 2. The Plans to Ban TikTok Aren’t Really About TikTok].”

“All this shows that these various acts of political grandstanding [各种粉墨登场式的卖力表演] really have little to do with TikTok itself, which has become nothing more than a political mobilisation ‘tool [工具人]’ for the US government in the digital sphere.”

“Discussions are still underway on how to resolve this issue properly. For example, Justin Sherman, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, believes that the solution to the TikTok issue should not be limited to the binary choice of banning or not banning it. Additionally, US Secretary of State [Antony] Blinken has said that, apart from a ban, there were [other] ways of addressing the TikTok problem [Comment: In response to the question ‘Shouldn’t a threat to United States security be banned?’, Blinken’s word-for-word answer was, ‘It should be ended one way or another. But there are different ways of doing that’].”

“James Lewis, senior vice president of the American think tank CSIS, also recommended that while the US should take action against TikTok, it should not be banned [Comment: Since no references were provided in this article, the authors could be referring to Lewis’s argument that it would be unconstitutional to ban TikTok on account of America’s right to free speech]. Instead, CFIUS [could] set oversight conditions and form an oversight committee, thereby reducing the national security risks posed by TikTok.”

“In reality, however, these solutions will be treating only the symptoms and not the root cause [‘治标’不‘治本’]. That is because the issue itself is a result of the ‘politicisation’ of [the US’s] tech and industrial policies. If the politicisation problem is not addressed in a fundamental way, not only will the plight of TikTok itself be difficult to resolve, but one can even foresee many other such ‘TikTok’ incidents emerging in other areas.”

“Although the final outcome of the [TikTok] case has not yet been decided, the longer-term and deeper ramifications of this event have already emerged. These deserve deep consideration and very close attention. For example, does this episode indicate that the US government's regulation of global cyberspace is set to shift further from ‘behind the scenes’ to ‘the front of the stage’ [从’幕后’走向’台前’]? Well-known global cyber-surveillance incidents such as ‘PRISM gate’ have shown that the US’s [attitude towards] cyber-surveillance has both a dark and a light side. Ostensibly, [the US] has been a proponent of so-called freedom and equality online and has been promoting the flow of data and content. But following the TikTok saga, the international community is [now] worried that as Washington’s digital and online policies become increasingly assertive and politicised, its intervention in and regulation of [this space] will intensify. As Marietje Schaake, a researcher at Stanford University's Cyber Policy Centre and former Member of the European Parliament, has said, a by-product of [America’s] oversight of TikTok has been that the US has recognised the failure of its so-called hands-off approach towards online businesses and that a political consensus is emerging in government to further regulate cyberspace.”

“In light of this, there have been increasing concerns about the further fragmentation of the internet. As Lewis claims, a US ban on TikTok is bound to trigger Chinese countermeasures. Alena Epifanova, a researcher at the German Council on Foreign Relations, believes that should a US ban trigger an escalation in conflicting US and Chinese policies, the impact would go far beyond China and the US and could jeopardise the future of the global internet. Katja Muñoz, [another] researcher at the German Council on Foreign Relations, says that a US ban could trigger emulation around the world, setting a bad precedent for internet protectionism across countries and prompting the introduction of more bans against online businesses, which would be extremely destructive.”

“Therefore, from the perspective of geopolitical security and strategic rivalry, the TikTok issue may be only the tip of the iceberg. But the entire future of the online and digital space ecosystem will be shaped by [the fact that] ‘many a little makes a muckle’ [聚沙成塔: lit. grains of sand put together can make a tower] or even ‘dripping water turns into ice’ [滴水成冰]. If incidents like TikTok were to occur again and again, the [world’s] digital future would indeed be a worrying one. In this sense, the TikTok saga cannot be given enough strategic scrutiny and attention.”

When Dize Does Matter – Bestiarum Vocabulum: Last Of The Earth’s Giants

US GOV “LEAVE NOW” China MOBILIZING for “LARGE WAR”

The American hypersonic “Dagger” died without being born

The United States took the appearance of Russian hypersonic missiles “Dagger” and “Zircon” very painfully and in recent years has been desperately trying to catch up with us in this critically important segment of weapons.

One of the “answers” to Russia was to be the new AGM-183A air-launched missile (ARRW). It was supposed to be deployed in the first half of the 2020s.

But, this “product”, having failed its next test on March 13, 2023, completely lost the “trust” of the US Air Force command and yesterday it was announced that work on this program was being curtailed.

In general, the American “Dagger” died without being born, and ours has successfully hit the enemy for the umpteenth time, incl. and officers of the NATO countries who had the imprudence to end up in Ukraine in specially protected bunkers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

P.S. How did they write in the USA about “Daggers” several years ago – “beautiful pictures for Putin”? Well, now let them admire their pictures, which will forever remain just pictures…”

Twitter HERE

Looks like they never solved the maneuverability, ramjet and communication problems related to hypersonic technology, needed to create a weapon like Zircon. They might be able to make some missile that can fly over mach 5 intermediary flight stage, but has to slow down and become regular supersonic missile for target acquirement and maneuvering.

Posted by: unimperator | Mar 30 2023 14:03 utc | 2

US Dollar LOST 86% Of Its Value & Continues To Lose Its Global Hegemony To Chinese Yuan

Yeah, I learned I'm feeling sick , whats happening to my country. Born in '57, it was great, you youngsters wouldn't believe how cool it was. Really you wouldn't .

.

.

.

.

Spending spree

The most dramatic effects of a weakening dollar will be scrutiny of the Pentagon budget. So long as the dollar is protected by its reserve currency status the party can continue. It is a pity that the US wasted the enormous value it got from its seignorage on arms destined to be useless but that is life. The public, as noted in the Boston Review article cited @16 above, has been axcuded from foreign policy decisions since 1945 so the enormous amounts spent on what is laughably called ‘Defence’ have been subject to very little public or congressional scrutiny.
The Pentagon says “Jump” and the American People reply “How High?”

De-dollarisation will put an end to that. Having to fork out money for weapons that are never used except on targets that they are totally inappropriate for (cf B52s and Afghan wedding parties) will help concentrate minds as Americans are asked to finance expenditure out of the taxes that they pay. And which bear disproportionately on those least able to pay them.
This year’s budget is discussed by William D. Hartung at Information Clearing House, which is returning to form after a lean period due to ill health.

“On March 13th, the Pentagon rolled out its proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2024. The results were — or at least should have been — stunning, even by the standards of a department that’s used to getting what it wants when it wants it.

“The new Pentagon budget would come in at $842 billion. That’s the highest level requested since World War II, except for the peak moment of the Afghan and Iraq wars, when the United States had nearly 200,000 troops deployed in those two countries.

“It’s important to note that the $842 billion proposed price tag for the Pentagon next year will only be the beginning of what taxpayers will be asked to shell out in the name of “defense.” If you add in nuclear weapons work at the Department of Energy and small amounts of military spending spread across other agencies, you’re already at a total military budget of $886 billion. And if last year is any guide, Congress will add tens of billions of dollars extra to that sum, while yet more billions will go for emergency aid to Ukraine to help it fend off Russia’s brutal (sic)* invasion. In short, we’re talking about possible total spending of well over $950 billion on war and preparations for more of it — within striking distance, in other words, of the $1 trillion mark that hawkish officials and pundits could only dream about a few short years ago.

“The ultimate driver of that enormous spending spree is a seldom-commented-upon strategy of global military overreach, including 750 U.S. military bases scattered on every continent except Antarctica, 170,000 troops stationed overseas, and counterterror operations in at least 85 — no, that is not a typo — countries (a count offered by Brown University’s Costs of War Project). Worse yet, the Biden administration only seems to be preparing for more of the same. Its National Defense Strategy, released late last year, manages to find the potential for conflict virtually everywhere on the planet and calls for preparations to win a war with Russia and/or China, fight Iran and North Korea, and continue to wage a global war on terror, which, in recent times, has been redubbed “countering violent extremism.” Think of such a strategic view of the world as the exact opposite of the “diplomacy first” approach touted by President Joe Biden and his team during his early months in office. Worse yet, it’s more likely to serve as a recipe for conflict than a blueprint for peace and security….”
HERE

* The (sic) is mine. The ‘brutal invasion’ hyperbole part of the price that Tom Englehard and Hartung pay for not thinking things through. After seventy years of Cold War its as unsurprising as it is lamentable

Posted by: bevin | Mar 30 2023 21:58 utc | 60

UN Spokesman Claims U.S. Soldiers Are Not In Syria – Gets IMMEDIATELY Owned!

In Ukraine, Russia enjoys armaments escalation dominance, thanks to its massive weapons industry, which dwarfs America’s and produces 50,000 shells and missiles every day. Ukraine gets 5,000 from the all the armories of the West – and no likelihood of more.

Outside Divine intervention, the contest can end only one way. Russia’s capacity to escalate its existing manufacturing dominance means it can do more of anything Ukraine can do.

That’s why military professionals spend so much time on economics and logistics. They’re taught that fleets win battles and economies win wars. But since fleets fight battles, we must look more closely at how things are shaping up in the Pacific.

Fleet escalation dominance

The PLAN enjoys fleet escalation dominance over the US Navy in the West Pacific.

China’s 340 warships are newer and better armed than America’s 290. And, thanks to launching five Burke-class destroyers simultaneously this year, the PLAN will have 400 boats in 2025, while the USN hopes for 300 by 2030.

Says US Naval War College Professor – and former Navy Captain – Sam Tangredi, “In naval warfare, the bigger fleet almost always wins. In 28 naval wars, from the Greco-Persian Wars of 500 BC, through Cold War interventions, we found just three where superior technology defeated bigger numbers”.

Armaments escalation dominance

China has turned its research lead in chemistry and math into powerful, innovative weapons. Beijing contends with Moscow for the lead in hypersonic missiles while the US has yet to test one.

Even conventional Chinese missiles outrange their American counterparts by 50%-100%, and in some cases, the US has no counterpart to their innovative, specialized weapons.

Quality

China’s naval technology is superior to America’s simply because it’s a generation younger. PLAN boats have much lower mileage, and are more powerfully armed than ours.

We’re Number Three!

If the foregoing is accurate, we’re Number Two in the West Pacific.

Russia’s victory in Ukraine, over the USA, NATO and the EU, will drop us another notch. Do voters want to spend $1 trillion a year to boast, “We’re Number Three!”?

Politically and economically, navally and terrestrially, can the US even afford industrial warfare?

And if we to go to war, we know who has morale escalation..

“We’re DONE with you!” – Zelensky STUNNED as they walk out | Redacted

BABYMETAL – Light and Darkness (OFFICIAL)