Archive for the ‘Foreign Relations’ Category


Monday, October 2nd, 2017

Note (13NOV2017): North Korea — No news. Is no news good news?
     Because we hear little does hearing little mean that Chairman Kim is doing little to develop further his rockets with nuclear tips? President Trump visits China. Supposedly President XI and he discuss trade, a discussion that ends with much hoopla amounting to little actual economic gain for these United States of America.
     So, what about North Korea? Nothing. Meanwhile, as China decreases trade with Pyongyang, Russia increases trade. So goes American foreign policy. So goes the world as it heads towards an unnecessary nuclear catastrophe.

Note (06NOV2017): The Pentagon issues a report about the North Korean situation essentially characterizing the situation as a choice between disaster and catastrophe. As the world edges closer to nuclear conflict amidst continuing hot air from politicians, no overt action — yet.
     This week, President Trump is visiting Japan and is scheduled to visit South Korea? Exactly why? Who knows.
     Meanwhile, some South Koreans are demonstrating against these United States of America. President Moon Jae demands no American military action against his fellow Koreans in the North while continuing to demand South Korean control over its military in case of war — demanding in the name of South Korean sovereignty. Would he like to defend Korean sovereignty without American aid? [See “The Chickens Come Home” (Chapter Twelve) in the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.]
     “Our top priority is to maintain peace on the Korean Peninsula,” President Moon said. Really! What should be top priority for the American people? Perhaps, securing these United States against nuclear attack by Moon’s fellow Koreans? Then again, what is the top priority for the American military-industrial complex?

Note (30OCT2017): The Korean Peninsula. An eerie calm continues. For how long? Top American military visit the Demilitarized Zone, seemingly engaging in double-speak as we slide towards war.
     In Japan, newly-reëlected Prime Minister Abe calls for an offensive military as a defense against North Korea. In South Korea, the left-winged governmentf demands control of its own military in the event of war with the North. In China, the Communist Party solidifies its long-range plan to best these United States of America under a unified semi-fascistic autocrat. It should be noted that both China and Japan find racial and ethnic diversity repugnant.
     Meanwhile, these declining United States of America, a nation on fire, celebrate such diversity. One example is a female academician of The Left with heritage south of the border who garners headlines by her characterizing Mathematics and Science as “racist” in a further step towards complete societal insanity. Undoubtedly, she is supported by the millionaire-Negroes playing in the National football League who continue to dishonor the national anthem and the national flag.
     Ah, the rewards of diversity! “Press one for English . . . Marque dos para español.” ¡Así es la vida; así es la guerra ahora en estos Estados Unidos! Don’t speak Spanish? Better learn or, maybe even better, Mandarin Chinese — Cantonese is next to impossible for us “Wide Eyes”.
     Oh yes! Curiously, White Nationalists seem to be gaining traction.

Americans and Russians
For those Russians unaware, be advised that few Americans realize that Russia is the only major power with which the United States of America never has been at war. Cold war? Yes. Hot war? No.

For those Russians unaware, be advised that many Americans, probably most, believe that Russia is a mortal enemy of the United States. Some politicians loudly and forcefully promote that concept.


With regard to the present crisis on the Korean Peninsula, you, President Putin, together with President Xi of China might have the opportunity to prevent everyone sliding down the slippery slope into nuclear catastrophe. Recall the prelude to World War One and its aftermath; namely, World War Two with 30-million Russians killed.

Fundamentally, the matter represents a civil war among Koreans. When presented with that basic fact, are most Russians willing to be annihilated in order to become involved in a battle of Koreans against Koreans? Are most Chinese? Are most Americans?

You two can offer Chairman Kim Jong-un and President Trump the following:
1) The United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty of 1953 as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

If you succeed, you would show the American and Russian people and the rest of the world that you promoted peace in a way from which everyone outside Korea benefitted. If you fail, you would have proven that you tried.

Consider the alternatives. Nuclear war? No nuclear war but a nuclear-armed Iran, Sudan, Hezbollah, etc. — a nuclear-armed Japan — a nuclear-armed who knows else?

See “KOREA: WHY?”.

Perhaps, you already have considered the above. Perhaps, President Xi has. Perhaps, President Trump has. If so, we Americans have not heard about any of you having done so.

Biobehavioral Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.” For a full description of that law of nature as it applies to the four secular cornerstones of any society — government, law, education, and medicine — see the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences (2009). Inside, you will find that Chapter Twelve relates to the situation in Korea today. Even then, the situation did not require a fortune-teller to predict the consequences of American policies ill conceived and ill executed.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, August 21st, 2017

Note (04SEP2017): So, in the midst of the fruitless yak and the ineffective sanctions, North Korea may have tested successfully a fusion-based weapon suitable for fitting onto an ICBM. Hydrogen bomb, in commonplace parlance! Thank you, Mr. Clinton for your feckless lying in 1994.

Consequence of the testing? Talk and more talk; sanctions and more sanctions. Meanwhile, a possible alternative for us Americans, unpalatable as it may be, exists albeit ignored. Our so-called leaders have convinced us better to have dead Americans and Koreans than just dead Koreans. If and when, the “nukes” explode over these United States of America as a consequence of our involvement in a civil war among Koreans, in those moments between living and dying, perhaps those in favor of such involvement may have second thoughts.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is,in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

Korea! Why is our American military still there — there, so many decades after the end of the Korean Conflict; so many years after the collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union? Why are our political leaders so enthusiastic about risking the nuclear annihilation of these United States of America and the rest of the world in order to become involved in a civil war among Koreans? A treaty, you say?


The Korean-American Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is a dangerous joke. Mutual defense? Did we Americans then or do we now need the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to defend us against foreign aggression? The treaty represents a one-way street for us to defend them militarily while they rape us economically.

Military treaties are made with such ease. Military treaties are defended with such difficulty. Making a treaty involves words easily written. Defending a treaty involves lives brutally spent and treasure often wasted.

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

Democracy? By way of correcting a widespread misapprehension, these United States were founded neither as a pure democracy nor a republican democracy but as a democratic republic. Yes, there is a difference.


On principle and by tradition, however, a strong case can be made that these United States judiciously should support everywhere the cause of individual freedom embracing the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Support with words but not by blood unless the latter directly and overwhelmingly be in our own national interest.

Against the advice of our Founding Fathers, “Neo-Conservatives” and their supporters favor imposing democracy by force upon backward countries resistant to even the concept. Witness the abhorrent consequences and the cost to this nation in blood but much more in treasure of such adventurism to date. Afghanistan, where we had won with a thousand troops then lost with a hundred thousand?


The North Korean Perspective
As we humans creep closer to nuclear self-annihilation, consider the consequences of our ignoring consequences. Specifically, the consequences of President Truman’s ignoring the consequences of not winning the Korean Conflict. The consequences of Clinton’s ignoring the consequences of North Korean lies then compounding the matter with lies of his own; thereby, allowing that Communistic tyranny, now turning Fascistic, to develop nuclear weapons. The consequences of the fecklessness of Bush the Second then of Barack Hussein Obama II.

In contrast, the leaders of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) attended to consequences — consequences befalling others; for example, the trampling of Slobodan Miloševic’s Yugoslavia by American-led NATO with its civilian bombing. Would NATO have acted so cavalierly, whatever the claimed righteousness of its cause, if Miloševic had had nuclear weapons? Would the Europeans in front and these United States behind so cavalierly have attacked Muammar al-Gaddafi’s Libya had he succeeded in gaining nuclear weapons?

The consequence of the heavy-handedness of Americans’ behavior was to demonstrate to small, weaker nations the consequence of a behavioral deficit in gaining such weapons. The North Koreans claim, with obvious military justification, that they are protecting themselves from American military action. They understand consequences. We do not.


“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” -President Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961)

In these United States, who directly benefits most from wars? The dead and wounded? No. The taxpayers? No. The “military-industrial complex”? Yes.

Former General of the Army (5-stars) and President of these United States warned us to beware of its power and potentially pernicious influence. It represents a dual-edged sword. One edge, defense; the other, deceit combined with inefficiency. Witness the fiasco called the F-35.

“The problem with socialism is socialism; the problem with capitalism is capitalists.” – Milton Friedman (1912-2006)

Yes, we must maintain a strong military force and the industry that supports it. No, we must not allow misguided capitalists and militarists who place short-term profit before long-term patriotism to influence us towards our own annihilation and that of the rest of the world.

Recall the words of Vladimir Lenin when he supposedly said, “’The capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them.” In this instance, he knew of that which he spoke. Let us not be led down the Path to Perdition by propaganda from those in Big Business seeking only personal profit and politicians seeking only personal advantage at the expense of American security.

See “Chinese Missile Allegations: Key Stories” .

With regard to Korea, when exposing ourselves to the self-inflated talking heads on radio and television, writers in the newspapers and magazines, and even commentators in social media, we continually should ask ourselves, “In the first place, why are we there?” Few ask that question.

Is there a solution to the current Korean mess dumped onto President Trump by his feckless, incompetent predecessors? Possibly.

No, we should not allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons with the means of delivery to the American mainland. The same admonition applies to the religious fanatics in Iran; its ilk poses a threat in which China, Russia, and these United States operate under a common variable.

Yes, we possibly can come to a non-violent accommodation with North Korea — non-violent for these United States, which should be the primary concern of our government. We can offer Kim Jong-un the following:
1) These United States will remove all military assets from the Korean Peninsula and cancel the military treaty as it pertains to North Korea.
2) North Korea will dismantle its nuclear arsenal and all IRBMs and ICBMs.
3) Removal and dismantling will occur in measured steps with verification by both sides overseen by China and India.

Would Kim accept such an offer? Possibly, mainly depending upon China. Consider the alternative of potential nuclear war involving the same China with the certain annihilation of Kim and much of his rump-state. Believe the following: There is no tactical nuclear war that does not lead to strategic nuclear war!

Should Kim accept the offer, would he attack South Korea afterwards? Possibly. His doing so, however, would amount to an active civil war among Koreans. It is not in our own overwhelming national interests to intervene? How? Diplomatically? Possibly. Militarily? No.

Science says, “Behavior has its consequences.”

Of note, in 2009 we published a semi-fictional novel entitled Inescapable Consequence. Chapter Twelve describes the events that are occurring today in Korea.

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, June 6th, 2016

“Americans should not go abroad to slay dragons they do not understand in the name of spreading democracy.” -John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)

What’s a young, Korean dictator to do when the West, especially these United States of America, is against him, and a reluctant China is his only real protector? Why, develop nuclear weapons, of course.

It’s obvious, isn’t it? The West, again especially these United States of America, attacks only non-nuclear countries. Think Afghanistan, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, North Vietnam, Panama, and Serbia.

What’s the dictator’s primary goal? To have retained his power.

What’s his secondary goal? To have enhanced his personal pride by gaining prestige.

What’s his tertiary goal? To have improved the living standards of his people? Probably. Well, maybe.

Plan? To develop nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them all the way to North America.

Then? Short term? To extort increased economic gain from a confused, declining, self-destructive West. Long term? To unify the Korean Peninsula under Pyongyang. Hey, the 21st-century is supposed to be the Asian century, isn’t it? The only question is, Which Asians?

Look, Europe already is under unarmed attack by millions of Mohammedans and Negroes — an attack that its governments refuse even to acknowledge as an attack, let alone repel. Besides, militarily Europe is close to impotent.

Meanwhile, these United States are under attack by millions of unarmed Latinos, mainly Mexicans pursuing “La Reconquista”; as well as assorted others, including Mohammedans who call their own brand of threat “The Silent Invasion” — an attack that the American government acknowledges but does little to thwart; at least, thus far. Besides, militarily the nation has been in decline and disorganization under a President whose primary goal in office is to have destroyed “White America” — White being defined as Euro-Caucasian. Remember Reverend Wright and his “God damn America!”?

Kim Jong-un (b. 1983) reigns as the Korean dictator faced with fulfilling the aforementioned goals; at least for the moment. He functions as the Chairman of the Workers’ Party of Korea as well as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). He’s ruthlessly homicidal as were his father and grandfather, dictators before him. His purges are reminiscent of Stalin’s; whom the “useful idiots” in the West, as Lenin called them, defended to the end.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see.” -John Heywood (1546)

In 1994, the feckless, deceitful philanderer who was sitting in the Oval Office at the time and who reportedly was allowing technological secrets to be traded to a hostile China in return for paltry political contributions had the last chance to thwart North Korean nuclear ambitions by whatever means necessary. .

Did he? No. “Slick Willie” Clinton failed to protect this nation and the rest of the world. Now, his angry, vicious wife wants her turn. Think Benghazi.

In the early 1990s, would the Chinese have gone to war against us again? Perhaps, but they were in no position to win a non-nuclear confrontation. As for nuclear? Nobody would have won, a fact that had stopped the much stronger Soviets as it would have the Chinese, their bluster notwithstanding. Better that we now face a nuclear North Korea?

Conversely, President Ronald Reagan did protect this nation by achieving his goal to have defeated the “Evil Empire” — i.e., the erstwhile Soviet Union. His successors, especially Bush the First, then made a total mess of the gift he bestowed. Now, the world faces the end of days, and the cornered, young murderer in Pyongyang is the prime illustration, even beyond the fanatics in Tehran.

So, what to do? Nobody seems to know.

See “If You Were POTUS” and related posts.

The question, therefore, arises, should we Americans now allow Pyongyang to capture Seoul? If not, why not? What is South Korea doing for us? We know that which it is doing to us, but what is it doing for us?

The previous issue of organized, international Communism capturing the world no longer exists. Thank you, President Reagan.

Hasn’t the strife on the Korean Peninsula become merely a civil war between North and South? If so, why are we Americans there? Why are we taxing ourselves economically and borrowing from adversaries, if not enemies, to defend South Koreans militarily — who, in turn, are raping us economically? Why are we willing possibly to plunge the world into a nuclear conflagration to settle a war involving only Koreans against Koreans?

These are questions that scream to be answered. Admittedly, addressing them will be dangerous. Ignoring them will be fatal.

Science tells us truly, “Behavior has its consequences.”

In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.


Monday, May 2nd, 2016

Note (16MAY2016): Russia is modernizing its military and fortifying its position in the Black Sea. What to do? Are we to go to war?

Consider these United States of America simultaneously conducting warfare in Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria while going to war against China in the South Pacific, North Korea, and Russia. Currently, this nation on fire has launched economic warfare with 28 other countries in the form of sanctions — sanctions that punish American enterprise whilst rewarding foreign enterprise. Such is American foreign policy.

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -George Washington’s Farewell Address (17 September 1796)

The government of these United States of America has characterized Russia as an enemy. It has done so by levying economic and political sanctions. Such sanctions are tantamount to a declaration of economic and political warfare. If Russia really is our enemy, in what way?

In contrast to China, Germany, Japan, and Mexico, economically what threat does Russia represent? Yes, it is the largest country geographically in the world. Yes, it contains immense natural resources, much of which remain undeveloped. Those natural resources comprise the substantial majority of Russian exports. Yet, a relatively small percentage go to these United States. Compared to the American trading deficit with China or even Mexico, they are negligible. So, does Russia represent an economic threat to these United States?

In contrast to our southern neighbor, politically what threat does Russia represent? Admittedly, yesteryear, cloaked in its garb of international socialism while waving the banner of the erstwhile Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, it did. The Communist Party USA, funded by the USSR and composed of those whom Lenin called “useful idiots”, boasted a sizable membership and influenced especially American academia and entertainment. Today, there remains no USSR. There remains only Russia — a Russia in political turmoil as it evolves from the chaos of collapsed Communism followed by ineffectual democracy heading towards the authoritative order of Fascism.

To what extent are the internal politics of Russia the official business of these United States, anyway? Cannot a case can be made that Russia needs a Tsar in whatever form, be it a Catherine the Great or a Stalin and that it now is getting a new one in the person of Vladimir Putin? So, does Russia represents a political threat to these United States?

In contrast to our own, homegrown, Marxist-oriented egalitarians, sociologically what threat does Russia represent? As these United States sink ever more deeply into a semi-psychotic, moral cesspool of abominations never before witnessed in history, Russia seems to represent something of the opposite. The government there has strengthened its ties to the Russian Orthodox Church and promotes traditional moral values based upon Judeo-Christian liturgy. Whereas ordinary Russians may not meet the standards set by church and government, the country remains one of the last bastions of those values. Meanwhile, Russia has intervened in American sociological affairs not at all. So, does Russia represent a sociological threat to these United States?

Ah, but what about militarily? Does not a nuclear-armed, militarily modernizing Russia represent a direct threat to the stability of the world, let alone these United States?

It depends upon one’s point of view. From the point of view of the neo-conservatives, who never met a war, especially a losing war, that they didn’t love, the answer is yes. To the financial profits and power to the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned us two generations ago, the answer is yes. From the pont of view of the Founding Fathers, however, might not the answer be no?

Is Russia invading these United States? Is it threatening to invade these United States? Is it massing armaments and troops on our borders or even anywhere near them as this nation is doing to Russia?

Is not the irony that these United States may be under attack, but the attack is not from Russia? Are not the real invaders illegal aliens who may be unarmed but represent invaders, nonetheless? Are not the primary nations attacking these United States Mexico and some other Latin American countries? Do not the Mexicans label their particular invasion “La Reconquista”?

“Make war on them until idolatry shall cease, and God’s religion shall reign supreme.” -The Recital (The Koran), The Spoils 8:36

Also, what about the Mohammedans? Despite smaller numbers, no small matter is the invasion by Mohammedans, who soon will outnumber Jews in this nation on fire. Do not they label their aggression as “The Silent Invasion” although it is anything but silent in Europe?

So, to what extent does Russia represent a military threat as the aggressor to these United States? To what extent do these United States represent a military threat as the aggressor to Russia?


In discussing Russo-American relations, any defense of the Russian position automatically generates vituperative responses ad hominem from those who place opinion before knowledge. To adopt their myopic, biased viewpoint is to place this nation and the rest of the world in danger of a nuclear annihilation that nobody but a fanatical Mohammedan wants. Let us, therefore, attempt a more dispassionate analysis and offer an alternative to current American, foreign policy — an alternative consistent with advice of the father of this nation.

Who Is The Real Aggressor?
Is it not the fact of the matter that it is these United States that has acted as the aggressor toward Russia? Is it not we who instigated a successful plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of Ukraine in order to prevent it linking closer to its historic ally, Russia? Is it not we who have levied international sanctions against Russia for retaliating against this American-inspired plot?

Russia has not been the only target in that regard. We have levied international sanctions against almost thirty other nations, as well. Who suffers most? American commercial enterprises.

Is not demanding other nations obey our economic and political dictates a form of extraterritoriality? Is it not we who have placed arms and troops on the Russian border, using an otherwise impotent NATO as camouflage?

After World War Two, we created NATO as an agency for the defense of Western Europe against an aggressive and hostile USSR. Today, there remains no USSR, but there still remains a NATO that we have expanded to include nations far from the Atlantic Ocean — nations bordering on Russia itself. Are we willing to engage in total, nuclear war with Russia, a war that will exterminate all aerobic life on Earth, to defend Estonia, assuming Estonia even needs defending?

Indeed, Russia may be attempting to expand its sphere of national interest to include nations historically under its influence. Do history and tradition justify such an attempt? Once again, the answer depends upon one’s point of view.

In its attempt to expand its influence, did Russia invade Ukraine? Did it not merely negotiate agreements with the freely elected government in Kiev? Was it not these United States that intervened, promoting rebellion to overthrow that legitimate government? The rebellion was successful. Had there been no American-inspired rebellion, would Russia have reclaimed Crimea militarily?

So, does not the issue become reduced to the quest by these United States to retain hegemony worldwide? Can we? Even if we can, is it in our interests? Can we afford it?

In the words of former Speaker of the House of Representative, John Boehner, “We’re broke!”

Does President Washington’s advice, as quoted above, mean to become isolationist? Does it not mean to become non-interventionist, intervening only when it is in our direct, immediate, national interest in a way that also is in our national interest? Should these United States not support republican liberty wherever we find it — support it in spirit but neither in blood nor coin?

An Alternative
“In matters of international diplomacy and foreign affairs, we shall return to the principles and guidelines laid down by our Founding Fathers.  The principles and guidelines are readily available for anyone to read in the Constitution of the United States of America, in the Federalist Papers, and in Washington’s Farewell Address.  Accordingly and effective immediately, the United States of America recognizes diplomatically the de facto existence of any nation with which we are not officially at war.  We shall withdraw our military forces from all bases outside the Western Hemisphere by the end of this year, including withdrawal from NATO … the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  If any nation wishes our military to remain or to establish installations, we shall review that request with regard to our national interests.  If we decide that specific installations are in our national interest, that nation will pay us for our helping it to defend itself.  It will pay all direct costs plus fifteen percent for administrative overhead.  No longer will Americans pay to protect others while they divert money from their own military defenses to commercial offensives against us, their protectors.  If others want American military protection, they must pay for it.  We re-affirm that the Western Hemisphere comprises the primary area of United States’ national interest.  In that regard, we also re-affirm the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 prohibiting the stationing of African, Asian, or European troops or bases in the Western Hemisphere outside Africa or Europe.”
-Excerpt from the semi-fictional novel, Inescapable Consequences.


In order to comment, you must be registered with WordPress.