China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has published a 4,000 word characterization of “US Hegemony and its Perils”. Apparently, China’s diplomatic corps is spreading this to countries around the world.
Will the Biden* MalAdministration wake up in time? It is probably not a good idea to annoy the country which supplies BidenLand with much of its real goods, from electronics to medications to nuts& bolts.
I. Political Hegemony—Throwing Its Weight Around
II. Military Hegemony—Wanton Use of Force
III. Economic Hegemony—Looting and Exploitation
IV. Technological Hegemony—Monopoly and Suppression
V. Cultural Hegemony—Spreading False Narratives
Hmmm. It seems each of these items applies equally to the hegemon’s relations with its so-called citizens. When it come to governance of its captive population, the federal government no longer accepts any limit to its powers. Given the futility of resistance by Leviathin’s domestic subjects (some still recall that America once stood for individual liberty and autonomy), it is odd to find one’s self buoyed by effective push-back at the international level. Too bad it comes from another totalitarian nation whose “it takes one to know one” mastery of enslavement is undoubtedly envied by our betters in brain-Wash -ington.
Indeed! It is so strange that, post-WWII, capitalists and communists have both converged on fascism.
It is understandable that the residents of formerly communist countries have no recourse. What is discouraging is that nor do the residents of formerly capitalist countries. All we get is the chance to cast a meaningless vote every few years, with the knowledge that the vote counting is highly suspect and the drone who gets “elected” will slavishly follow her party leaders and make no effort to represent her constitutents.
Indeed! For years, now, those allied with the federal tyrant have successfully, it seems, immunized themselves from being called the very fascists they - so obviously, themselves - are! It has long been known that language is the first victim of revolution and this is a telling example. Who can deny we have an authoritarian government with near-total control of business, industry, the currency and the means of communication? If anything, we are enjoying the apotheosis of fascism. Prior efforts paled in comparison. theunitedstatesofraytheonlockheedmartinboeinggeneraldynamicscocacolagooglefacebookmicrosoftappleamazonattverizonetc.
A brief perusal of a day’s ‘news’ reveals who is in bed with whom. I recall that during the Obama Administration the feds bought about 1.6 billion rounds of ammo (including hundreds of thousands of rounds of hollow point) for federal agencies - not for the military. One need only search a list of federal agencies armed with’ real assault weapons (not mere semi-automatic rifles the MSM labels assault rifles) to clearly understand the nature of our betters who have ‘our consent’ to govern us. What else need be said, besides - how did it happen so fast?
Back in 2007, I wrote a post on my original Fourmilog blog, “Pistol Packing Feds” about federal agencies employing people authorised to carry lethal weapons. This was based upon a 2004 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This report was issued irregularly.
The most recent equivalent report is titled “Federal Law Enforcement Officers, 2020 – Statistical Tables” [PDF]. This edition does not explicitly identify those authorised to employ lethal force, but instead “full-time federal law enforcement officers who were authorized to make arrests, carry firearms, or both”, totalling 136,815 people, excluding “the U.S. Armed Forces, officers stationed overseas, and agencies with confidentiality restrictions, such as the Federal Air Marshal Service.”
Under “Weapons and equipment”:
About 60% of agencies authorized shotguns or manual rifles for officers while on duty in FY 2020 (table 8). Fifty percent authorized semiautomatic rifles and 20% authorized fully automatic rifles for officers while on duty.
More than 80% of agencies authorized officers to carry handguns off duty. Less than 10% of agencies authorized shotguns or manual rifles (9%), semiautomatic rifles (7%), or fully automatic rifles (3%) while officers were off duty.
Most federal law enforcement agencies reported allowing officers to use open hand techniques (97%), takedown techniques (97%), and closed hand techniques (96%) (table 9)
More than half (57%) of federal law enforcement agencies authorized oleoresin capsicum spray (OC spray or pepper spray), while about a quarter (24%) authorized chemical agent projectiles.
More than half (58%) of agencies employing more than 250 federal law enforcement officers authorized chemical agent projectiles (such as tear gas), compared to 18% of agencies employing 51 to 250 officers and no agencies employing 50 or fewer officers.
About a quarter (24%) of federal law enforcement agencies authorized carotid holds, and a fifth (20%) authorized neck restraints.
This publication is in a long tradition, which China now appears to be joining. In October 1981, the newly-installed Reagan administration published a 100 page booklet, Soviet Military Power, which was issued every year thereafter until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed. The document was issued in English, French, German, Italian, Japanese, and Spanish. Here is the original 1981 edition of Soviet Military Power [PDF]. As a U.S. government publication, it is in the public domain.
The Soviet Union did not take long to respond. In 1982, Military Publishing House of Moscow issued Whence the Threat to Peace, their own 100 page analysis of U.S. military forces, worldwide deployments, and strategy.
A copy of Whence the Threat to Peace is available from the Internet Archive. You cannot download it, but can “borrow it” from their library for reading on-line, after logging in with an Internet Archive login (which is free) or with your Google account. If somebody else has borrowed the book, you’ll have to wait until they return it. The usual borrow time is one hour, renewable. (There is no claim of copyright in this document, and I doubt the Soviet Ministry of Defence is likely to come after one who makes a copy, so I’m not sure why access is restricted this way. As it happens, I have a paper copy of this booklet and may scan it and post a cleaner PDF on Fourmilab for anybody to read and download.)