How the US saved China from nuclear war. The UN,  North Korea, Iran and the nukes. The General’s stars. The Tea Party’s critical test is still ahead. Be a woman, support Pelosi who is also one.
 

1. According to Russia’s Izvestiya, which is a “Putin-paper”, the Chinese Party’s central organ has published what is classed  as “sensational” material. The reported event took place a bit after the “mini  war” on the Ussuri, that is along Chinese - Soviet border. Moscow was provoked,  but also frightened by the resolution exhibited by her at the time still weaker  rival. The enemy in the West, albeit militarily an equal but in matters of  conviction under-supplied, has never summoned anything reminiscent of the stiff  resistance shown by the Chinese. Aiming to exploit the window of opportunity  created by the Mao-state’s weakness, the USSR prepared to put an end to “Chinese  revisionism”. This proved more difficult than the application of “Panzer  Communism” in the case of recalcitrant Eastern Germany, Czechoslovakia or even  Hungary.

Acting on his suspicions, Mao had the Central  Committee’s members, the air force, her ships and the army dispersed. A single sneaky blow could then hardly wipe out, in Pearl Harbor or Port Arthur style,  China’s system and its military-industrial assets. As a precaution against  parachutist landings and as a down payment on partisan counter punches,  civilians were supplied with weapons.           

Ready to pounce, the USSR informed its Eastern European dependencies of  the pending action against the “adventurists.” The final card of the game about to be completed was to be supplied from the USA. On August 20th, Moscow’s Ambassador in Washington called on Nixon. Old Washington-hand Dobrynin informed the President of Russia’s intentions. Having done that, he asked that the US remain neutral. This made some sense because, at the time, for America China had been more of an enemy than the Soviet Union. Mao’s successful lobotomy of his country’s collective brain made the PRC a nervous and unpredictable as well as hostile pariah.

The US’ reaction has been quite typical; a sanitized and edited version of the plan was leaked to the press. Then on October 15, Kissinger “threatened” (sic.) the Ambassador. Instead of remaining neutral, America will get involved and nuke 130 Soviet targets. Obviously to us, in a “world of three”, the States did not wish to be in a “world of two” that would come about as the result of a nuclear war against the removed third player. Thus warned, Moscow dropped the idea of a preventive attack. Talks with Peking were initiated just a few days later.

2. After the nuclear past, there is renewed reason to deal with that part of the nuclear present that points to the future. The  news item that led to this entry is not exactly fresh from the frying pan. Under Chinese pressure, the UN report on which these lines are based, has been kept under cover for six months. Now the world organization’s experts report to the  Security Council that North Korea is supplying Iran, Syria and Burma with  nuclear technology. Naturally, there is still a bounteous supply of sand into which heads can be stuck. After all, the countries named have only an interest  in access to nuclear energy. Just ask them. Saying anything else is, well,  undiplomatic. Worse, it could be classified as being racist, neo-colonialistic, an  expression of religious intolerance and an act of aggression.

3. Burma votes. “Burma’s choice” would hardly be a  fitting title. One cannot convincingly claim to have spent sleepless nights  while calculating the results of this cliffhanger. What we have witnessed is a  tyranny that orders, precisely because it is a dictatorship, its people to  approve of it. Such votes, not being elections, are telltale signs of  dictatorship. Letting the outside world think that the ritual will be an excuse  for a future moderate course, is likely to turn out to be a chimera. In this  case the mirage, regardless of the good news that Suu Kyi is free, is not a  trick of nature but self-generated by the observers. Still about Burma. The title could be: Need to say  more? A picture from the international press. It shows General Than Shwe after  the election. He is standing in an open car. Thanks to the invention of the  automobile at first glance this is  a  typical picture of the Führers, Vozhds, Duces and Conducators of our age. It is  the license plate that is revealing. Besides wiping out some badly armed native  tribes, the General has never conducted a campaign. But his car is decorated by  five stars. One is made to think of the Milky Way. For Eisenhower, Montgomery, Zhukov four stars sufficed.

4. The Tea Party movement is an expression of a new  public affairs trend and a symptom of discontent that stretches beyond the  boundaries of the “system”. The movement has proven that it is effective as an  opposition and as a dragon killer. Whether it will prevail or share the fate of  other American third parties by fading, will be answered in a second test. The  exam involves the movement’s ability to yield power, to govern consensually, to  extend its firming base and to present qualified candidates. In the latter  realm, beyond electability, the knack to govern is crucial. Equally important  will be the projected image. The media will remain consistent and continue to  depict the TP as an association of loud, obnoxious, uncouth know-nothing  extremists that replace their deficiency of brainpower with a moving mass’  crushing pressure. It is incumbent upon the leadership to prove the projected  picture untrue through the TP’s actual praxis. At the same time, the enthusiasm  must be cultivated but must not become a substitute for  substance.           

Comparable choices face the Democrats, too. The party’s dominant Left wishes to stay the course Farragut-style (“damn the torpedoes”). Pelosi allowed  to continue in her position is symptomatic. (Is the GOP sending “thank you” letters?) Or will Obama shift, Clinton style, to where the majority is? Political common sense dictates “do it!”. BHO’s inner self will resent the tactic.

5. An article’s summary appeared on the writer’s  screen. “Female Democrats Throw Support Behind Pelosi.” Pondering that one, you  become perplexed. Obviously, the support mentioned is not a response to Ms  Pelosi’s qualities as a legislator or to her record as the leader of the House  majority. As the phrase reveals, succor is asked for and is to be given only  based on one criterion. Typically, this solicitation of solidarity happens to be  a bad one. Pelosi is deemed worth of support because she is a woman, and not a  person that just happens to be female. This is, naturally and regrettably,  fashionable. Throughout the world, measured and objective approval and  opposition is not based on the persuasive virtue of the case that can be made.  Much rather, a cause is taken up because its advocate and the supporter share a  common trait of identity. In these regretted instances, this bond has nothing to  do with the merits of a policy and is irrelevant for the conduct of public  affairs. By the logic of the trend, women are to close ranks behind anything  that is female; Blacks are to line up behind other Blacks while the Hispanic must aid other Hispanics regardless of all other considerations. The same applies to Muslims, members of ethnic groups globally, and so on. What is not supposed to be done and which is, therefore anathema, is men rallying behind their gender (male chauvinism). The same goes for Whites closing their ranks behind other Whites (racism). If this continues, soon PC users will be asked to unite against Mac owners and vegetarians will be told to enter the ring against the photo-fans lined up in their order of battle.

Conducted in the name of equality and fairness, the  age-old fight for equal treatment has advocated something else. It demanded that  people be judged as individuals because of their personal worth expressed by  their contribution to society. No advantage was to be extended on account of  “belonging” and, by the same logic, accidental membership in a group was to warrant no discrimination. The abusers of this goal are, in the name of the PC  they have invented, now dividing mankind into old and newly invented tribes.  This is not only an attack on individualism. It is also a negation of the genuine achievements of the struggle to attain a “color blind” justice that rewards persons according to their personal merit.

Equality as a practice means no disadvantage and no privileges. This, regardless of where you come from because it only asks what you are worth. It is telling of what is wrong that those that advocate this much are radicals that risk ostracism.