Category: international affairs

Categories
international affairs

Sharing Power with Evil

shared power, world police, war, foreign policy, Israel, China, North Korea

“What does America do next?” Tucker Carlson recently asked Jiang Xueqin, the Chinese Canadian known for his Predictive History YouTube channel.

“So, what I would do is basically sit down everyone, okay, including Russia, China, Iran, and say, ‘it’s time for a new world order where we are partners in this relationship,’” explained ‘Professor’ Jiang. “Before America was a hegemon, before the U.S. dollar was a world reserve currency, but now what we want to do is open a dialogue where everyone is respected, where America is no longer the bully but a willing partner in creating a new economic order that benefits everyone and not just a few.”

To which, Mr. Carlson responded: “I think that’s the wisest possible advice and probably the only path that preserves civilization.”

The previous day, he declared, “The U.S. is not going to defend and cannot defend Taiwan.” 

After informing Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist’s editor-in-chief, that “we’ve reached the limits of our power and power has limits,” she inquired, “What about Japan and South Korea?” 

“Oh, man, it’s hard,” acknowledged Tucker. “I don’t understand exactly how that’s going to go . . . But, in the end, big powers want to and get to control their regions . . . hopefully in a non-brutal, enlightened way, but they want some influence over their neighbors. 

“We can no longer be the sole author of terms, of commerce, of anything,” he offered. “We have to share power.” 

“With China?” injected Beddoes.

“Of course,” he shot back, “because of their scale. And so, there’s got to be a non-destructive way to do this.”

The Chinese Communist Party’s regime is the most destructive in world history. Let’s not partner.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs

Posting Past Armageddon 

Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, madman theory, madman strategy

“I call it the Madman Theory, Bob,” President Richard M. Nixon told his chief of staff, H.R. Haldeman. 

“I want the North Vietnamese to believe I’ve reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We’ll just slip the word to them that, ‘for God’s sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can’t restrain him when he’s angry — and he has his hand on the nuclear button’ and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.”

It’s not a theory, of course. It’s a ploy — and one that did not work out great for Nixon.*

So how’s it working for Donald Trump?

Buried in his book about being a wheeler-dealer, Mr. Trump notoriously advances a notion eerily similar to Nixon’s Madman strategy. Trump likes to keep those with whom he is negotiating “guessing.”

He says this often. We cannot be shocked, then, if we’re all kept guessing about his Iran strategy.

His litany of flip-flops from early March to the present day has been breathtaking, even for Trump. “We won the war.”; “We defeated Iran”; “You never like to say too early you won. We won. In the first hour it was over.”; “If NATO doesn’t help, they will suffer something very bad.”; “We neither need nor want NATO’s help.”; “I don’t need Congressional approval to withdraw from NATO.”; “The Strait of Hormuz must be protected by the countries that use it. We don’t use it, we don’t need to open it.”; “Open the fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell — JUST WATCH! Praise be to Allah.”

Upping the ante on Tuesday, Trump posted that “a whole civilization will die tonight.” Then he agreed, a few hours later, to “suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks.”

Did the madman ploy work?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* When Nixon and Trump corresponded years ago, Dick told Donald that Mrs. Nixon thought Trump would win if he ran for office. Did Pat sniff another practitioner of her husband’s infamous ploy?

NOTE: See H.R. Haldeman, The Ends of Power (1978), p. 122.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall international affairs

Alberta Shrugs?

Alberta, Canada, Ottowa, secession, nationalism

Political dysfunction is not limited to the United States of America. 

Take Canada. Things have gotten bad enough there that one province is taking measures to “dissolve the political bands which have connected them” with the folks running everything from Ottawa.

“While Canada’s new prime minister jets off to Davos to click glasses with his fellow globalists over at the World Economic Forum,” Dr. Steve Turley explained a few months ago, “back home, tens of thousands of Albertans are lining up in the freezing cold for a chance to vote their province out of the country. The length of the lines are astonishing. Thousands are showing up at high school gyms and community centers all across Alberta with one message: ‘We’re done; we’re leaving.”

Yesterday, this new Alberta First-like movement achieved a new milestone — or so says a “leading figure in the Alberta separatist movement,” according to Matthew Black of the Edmonton Journal.

The claim is that “separatist canvassers” have exceeded “the required 177,732 signatures and expect to far surpass that number before the May 2 deadline.”

Alberta’s secession is going to the ballot. 

Will the voters choose yes?

Secession is a messy, difficult business. But it’s easier in Canada than in, say, the United States (where it led to war). So we will see how the people of the province really feel about how horrific the government in Ottawa really is.

Just remember, this is not out of the blue or crazy or unthinkable even in the U.S. The more dysfunctional federal — “central” — governments get, the more they risk being abandoned by political entities “below” them.

You might think this would incentivize politicians to listen to constituents in the hinterlands, but . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Alberta, Canada, Ottowa, secession, nationalism

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs national politics & policies

What, We Worry?

foreign policy, Bill Clinton, George Bush, Barack Obama, China, technology

For many decades, U.S. presidents have cited national security as a reason for this or that exercise of power . . . and spending. 

Watching CBS’s 60 Minutes two weeks ago, it became painfully obvious that “national security” are simply two words our past leaders spat out when politically convenient and not at all a concept to which they have paid serious attention.

The first story in the popular TV news magazine’s March 22nd episode concerned rare earth metals. 

“Right now, China holds a near-monopoly over these strategic metals that are key components in so much that makes the modern world go: smartphones, robotics, EV’s; also fighter jets, drones and radar technology,” explained correspondent Jon Wertheim. “That is, China controls materials essential to America’s ability to wage war.”

Quite a problem, especially considering that China is our most powerful and aggressive adversary. 

Shipbuilding, or the lack thereof, was the subject of the segment that followed. 

“The war in Iran is highlighting the importance of ships — not just warships but cargo vessels — like those carrying oil or gas trapped near the Strait of Hormuz,” Lesley Stahl reported. “But American shipbuilding is in shambles, due to decades of shortsighted policies and neglect.

“Our submarine building program is sluggish. And our commercial shipbuilding is nearly extinct,” she continued. “China makes roughly 1,000 cargo ships a year. The U.S.? Maybe three. The Trump administration has called this a national security crisis.”

Had presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama been awake and competent, and not lapdogs for Beijing, I wonder what they would have called it. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs

Fecklessly Fining 4chan

UK, censorship, 4CHAN, surveillance

You host a website. Users can say whatever they want on this site. Next thing you know, a UK regulatory agency is sending you, an American organization based in the United States, a letter announcing a trillion-dollar fine for failure to comply with UK censorship demands. How much do you panic?

If you’re 4chan, not much.

4chan hasn’t been fined a trillion dollars yet. But some day the ever-increasing meaningless fine may reach that level.

The redcoat-staffed regulatory agency is called Ofcom. It has fined 4chan £520,000 — in dollars that’s about $693,000 — “Under a Law That Doesn’t Apply in the US.” The bulk of the fine is for failing to implement age verification — that is, failure to force users who are by and large anonymous to identify themselves.

The back-and-forth between Ofcom and 4chan started in April 2025. Ofcom isn’t getting the message. 4chan’s lawyer says the company “has broken no laws in the United States, my client will not pay any penalty. Increasing the size of a censorship fine does not cure its legal invalidity in the United States. . . . As has been explained to your agency, ad nauseam, the United Kingdom lost the American Revolutionary War. We are not in the mood to discuss the matter further. . . .”

The only problem for 4chan I see on the horizon is the struggle in the U.S. to impose a similar regulatory regime here. Fortunately, our own courts still somewhat recognize the relevance of our First Amendment.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Illustration created with Nano Banana

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability international affairs national politics & policies

Weaponized Data via Silencer

data collection, China, surveillance, authoritarianism

“Authoritarian regimes have developed strong cyber espionage capabilities that enable their influence and coercion operations,” explains a National Intelligence Council “assessment,” dated April 7, 2020.

This report goes on to say that the “collection and aggregation of vast quantities of personal data” by commercial enterprises, and the willingness to share this data with third parties, “increases both the likelihood and the impact of data breaches.”

The report, which is highly redacted though declassified in late 2022, fingers Iranian hackers as well as foreign governments for having obtained private data on U.S. citizens. In 2013, Russia’s Federal Security Service “sponsored a theft of 3 billion accounts” off an American web service, and in 2017 Chinese agents “stole 147 million from a US credit-reporting agency.” And more.

Reading on, a sense of déjà vu develops. The report calls this technological capacity “digital authoritarian capabilities” — yet our own government has the same. 

It accuses China of marshaling “mass surveillance and AI-driven algorithmic tracking of its citizens’ behavior at home to inform the use of soft or coercive incentives and disincentives to control them,” but that, I’m afraid, is what our government does, too.

Now we learn that all this and more was known by American intelligence agencies during the first Trump administration.

But was kept from him. 

That is, “intelligence analysts downplayed China’s actions because they had disdain for the ‘vulgarian’ Trump,” explains Just the News, and at least one agent kept evidence of possible Chinese interference in the 2020 election from the president because that might have led to “policies against China” that the agent didn’t like.

That, right there, we call a datum.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture international affairs

Tropic of AOC

AOC, this is fine

On her European junket, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.-D) elicited chuckles over her comments on the arrest of Nicolás Maduro by means of a military incursion, mistakenly identifying Venezuela as “below the Equator.” The country lies entirely north of the dividing line between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn. 

Was this her “Aleppo moment”?

Hardly. Darlings of the major parties get away with faux pas that minor party challengers cannot escape. (Remember in 2016, when Governor Gary Johnson, running as a Libertarian, spaced out on the Syrian city then in the news?) 

Besides, AOC said (or didn’t say) worse.

Asked about China, she yammered interminably, very understanding of the “ascending global power . . . acting in its own self-interest” but not once mentioning the authoritarian, anti-democratic and generally tyrannical-exploitative nature of communist rule there. 

Instead, Ocasio-Cortez castigated the United States for not “investing in science and technology” enough. A very left-Democrat thing to do, going on to characterize “privatized research” as not helping a country maintain global power status. 

China does the internal improvements thing oh-so-much-better than the U.S., she insinuates.

But “would and should the U.S. actually commit U.S. troops,” she was asked, “to defend Taiwan if China were to move?”

AOC stammered for 20 seconds. All that public investment in alternative energy is supposed to, somehow, prevent China from trying to nab Taiwan!

The U.S. should “make sure that we are moving,” she concluded, “to avoid any such confrontation and for that question to even arise.” 

Can we retreat that quickly? It has arisen.

On the world stage, our Bronx savant is in her own very special hemisphere.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with ChatGPT

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
insider corruption international affairs media and media people

Goofy Wig and All

James O'keefe, WEF, World Economic Forum, chemtrails, conspiracy

One of P.J. O’Rourke’s better books is Age and Guile Beat Youth, Innocence, and a Bad Haircut. My purpose in mentioning it is not to praise it but merely to adapt it for the James O’Keefe story, where middle age and guile and a bad haircut beat Creepiness and Guilt. 

“Disguised and undercover,” explains the O’Keefe Media Group article, “James O’Keefe embeds inside the World Economic Forum, slipping past armed security and exclusive guest lists to capture what the global climate elite say when they think no one is listening.” 

The bad haircut? A goofy blond wig that Mr. O’Keefe (1984– ) donned to fool the European bigwigs (er, elites). He looked like Andy Warhol as a special guest on “Sprockets.”

What did this subterfuge accomplish? “Posing as an employee of a fictional climate engineering firm, O’Keefe and the OMG team are welcomed into late-night events, luxury hotels, and mountaintop forums where climate financiers openly discuss carbon taxes, geoengineering, and weather modification, commonly referred to as ‘chemtrails.’”

Yes, chemtrails!

I’ve been programmed to chuckle right now, hence that exclamation point.

Speaking of programmed — Grok gave me plenty of excuses to keep on chuckling. It also gave me the wrong URL for the O’Keefe Media Group (O’Keefe’s successor to Project Veritas) and words of wisdom like this: “If O’Keefe’s video shows attendees discussing it casually, it might be speculative chit-chat rather than official policy.”

One thing Grok couldn’t understand is the “optics.” O’Keefe is not wrong to note that some of the WEFers cheerleading for BlackRock do indeed “look like Bond villains.” A conference where people enthuse about seeding the upper atmosphere with chemicals to cool off the planet? That should be the premise of the next James Bond flick.

Has weather modification actually been going on . . . for decades? 

I don’t know. But if these folks are talking about climate geo-engineering, what wouldn’t they do?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights international affairs

The Skeleton Haunting Europe

skeleton, Europe, EU, control, authoritarianism, censorship, obey

Give Emanuel Brünishol credit for pluck.

The man uttered opinions on social media with which some people disagreed. A Swiss court fined him 500 Swiss francs. He refused to pay — believing that one should not be fined or condescend to pay fines for merely uttering opinions, no matter how annoying they may be.

So the Swiss government sent Brünishol to prison for ten days.

His terrible views?

That skeletons can be only male or female. He also seemed to suggest that trans people are mentally ill.

The post: “If you excavate LGBTQI [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex] people after 200 years, you will only find men and women among the skeletons; everything else is a mental illness that was fostered by the curriculum!”

Agree, disagree, in whole or in part — not the issue. The issue is why Brünisholz’s wading into issues of sex and gender caused the Swiss police to haul him in for questioning “on suspicion of incitement to hatred.”

If somebody’s gonna hate you because you disagree with them on a question, the only alternative to “inciting hatred” is staying mute or uttering opinions so empty that not even the most eager censor would think to call the cops about it. And then how can we ever discuss anything that is both controversial and important?

Of course, none of the sensitive Europeans forwarding Facebook posts to the police are being fined for their own hatred — of freedom of speech.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

skeleton, Europe, EU, control, authoritarianism, censorship, obey

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
international affairs Internet controversy

Starlinking Iranian Protest

Iran, protests, Elon Musk, Starlink, technology, freedom

In June 2025, Elon Musk helped protesters in Iran by providing free access to his Starlink satellite service. The service restored a means of communicating with each other and the rest of the world that had been blocked when the Iranian government shut down the country’s Internet. 

The mullahs tend to do that when the pressure on their regime reaches a certain pitch. As has certainly happened again over the last few weeks.

Some 500 protesters have been killed so far, according to the group Human Rights Activists in Iran, as the unrest spreads.

Again, the Iranian government has shut down the country’s Internet.

Is Musk stepping in? Middle East Online has reported that Iranians with smuggled Starlink terminals, which are illegal to possess in Iran, will again have Starlink-provided Internet access, asElon Musk’s Space X activated Starlink “as of January 9, 2026.” If the story is accurate, protesters with a terminal will again have free access to the Internet for a limited time.

In the past, Iran has complained to international bodies about Starlink’s satellites . . . and tried to jam their signals, but to no avail.

The few reports on the Starlink access attribute the news to Israeli Channel 14. Other recent reports, though, suggest that President Trump “will speak with SpaceX owner Elon Musk” about restoring Iran’s Internet.

Let’s just stipulate that if Starlink has not yet been made available to the protesters, it would be great if it were.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Nano Banana

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts