The western media went hysterical when a part of a Chinese rocket was falling back to earth, and they claimed that it was going to hit someone somewhere on earth. They ignored the fact that this is a normal process and all of these falling space debris would burnt out as they entered the earth's atmosphere and whatever remain would be so small, so few, and they have actually been programmed to drop in the ocean anyway. The western space debris can fall back to earth and it is normal, nothing unusual to smear, not Chinese space debris.
The latest news about what is happening in space is the near miss of two American satellites, owned by Elon Musk that went darting at the Chinese Space Station. It happened twice within a week, not a mere accident but clearly with a dangerous and irresponsible intent. The sophisticated science and engineering involved in satellite and space technologies would not allow such a thing to happen in space. Everyone knows at what height the CSS is cruising and there is a safety code to observe to keep away from each other and be safe.
The CSS has just been sent to space and is an envy of the Americans when their ISS is about to be mothballed. These two incidents were not coincidences. China is furious. The Chinese citizens are furious. But there is a stony silence in the western media. Can you imagine what they would be crying out loud if Chinese satellites were to head towards the ISS with the potential of crashing it?
The western media may look the other way, but the Chinese citizens are not going to let this passe. China has made a complaint to the UN. But nothing much is going to happen with this complaint. What is likely to happen is for the Chinese citizens to boycott and stop buying Tesla cars in China, strikes and stop work in Tesla factory in Shanghai, which may eventually lead to Tesla closing down its operation.
Elon Musk cannot take this lightly like it there is nothing to it. His connection and contracts with the American Military Industrial Complex are no secrets. Just wait for the sales number of Tesla in the coming months. Don't test the will of the Chinese people. Don't play this kind of silly and dangerous monkey trick. Tesla would be made to pay for this rash act. Period.
Walmart and Sam's Club would likely join H&M on the way out of China after they joined the Xinjiang farce.
9 comments:
This Elon Musk (Musketeer) is actually one of the greatest crooks in America, similar to Dotard Trump.
They are the white collar Mafias, outwardly pretend to be gentleman but behind the back, nothing they will not do to get things done their way.
Rb Tesla has 47% china market share not so easy lar as local just love tesla
If the Chinese turn more nationalistic, there are many alternative Chinese EVs to choose from, many as good if not better than Tesla.
It would be like choosing Huawei, Oppo, Xiaomi instead of Apple.
Where they cannot compete, they sabotage. That is their modus operandi. And that is why they can remain dominant. Is it surprising?
You see, the USA Military Establishment cannot do it themselves as that would be too obvious. So Tesla was probably given the dirty task and all that will happen if the satellites collide with the Space Station will be brush aside as a commercial accident, nothing to do with the USA Government. Exactly the same modus operandi of using the CIA stealthily and discreetly to stir up unrest all over the world, nothing to do with the USA Government.
The USA knows they have obviously lost the space race and are just doing catch up. So, like Huawei, erect obstacles and sabotage the competition until they themselves catch up. They are the dirtiest player on earth in every aspect of human behavior, economically, militarily, technologically and now trying to create chaos in space.
If China's satellites were to do the same to their space station, I think the sky will have fallen. Not just eh USA but all the Anglo Saxon countries, allies and poodles will be crying for blood. This is a double standard world clear and simple.
The USA had a shocking world record 1,082.549 COVID19 infections yesterday. Unbelievable!
Part 1 – 1
Top 20 Predictions in 2022
2022 Prediction (1) - Possible (Humongous) Miscalculation in Foreign Policies
In international politics, arguably there is no global jurisprudence like in nation states where there is existence of some form of national governance to maintain and enforce law and order to a large extent within certain geographical boundaries (up to the point where it breaks down; anarchy &/ or chaos ensue till another legitimate regime with the embracing support of the mass populace emerges, reunites the various segments of the society and imposes a new law and order, bringing about peace and resumption of development).
On the global front, history is littered with many instances where might is right in international politics and the law of jungle precedes at some point where brutish power finds laws in no other form than in its own might and on its own basis to enact domination over or violence on others not unlike the lions being the predators in the jungle and feeding on its preys whenever the needs arise with no necessity for any justification whatsoever.
At best, world order since the early 20th century consists of some “loose or weak form” of international institutions such as the League of Nations formed after World War One which was replaced by the United Nations after World War Two. The many cases of international armed conflicts since the 1930s despite the existence of “supranational institutions” and with losses far outweighing the benefits (if any) certainly do not obfuscate the realities of international politics which in many ways are corollaries of political actions taken and foreign policies conducted.
In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”
Rational foreign policies may be seen in the light of a photograph and a painting. The photograph shows everything the naked eyes can see; the painting cannot but attempts to show what is not visible to the naked eyes: elements that encompasses biases, intellectual weaknesses, personal preferences … deviations that could misdirect foreign policies from rationality.
Part 1 – 2
History as recent as the 20th century may have accorded us some tools to even conceptualise a theory based on irrationality in foreign policies. What have the countless wars waged in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s and currently achieved?
What relationship if any exists between the minds of political leadership and the international political realm that ultimately had led to war after war, destruction after destruction, foreign policy irrationality after foreign policy irrationality with no clear victors or benefits for all.
What makes political leadership assumes military conflicts rather than cooperation &/ or peaceful coexistence would restore disequilibrium in the world order?
Yale University’s political scholar Irving L. Janis wrote:
Quote
“Groups can bring out the worst as well as the best in man. Nietzsche went so far as to say that madness is the exception in individuals but the rule in groups. A considerable amount of social science literature shows that in circumstances of extreme crisis, group contagion occasionally gives rise to collective panic, violent acts of scapegoating, and other forms of what could be called group madness. Much more frequent, however, are instances of mindless conformity and collective misjudgement of serious risks, which are collectively laughed off in a clubby atmosphere of relaxed conviviality.”
“What is groupthink?”
“I use the term “groupthink” as a quick and easy way to refer to a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a collective ingroup, when the members’ strivings for unanimity override their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. “Groupthink” is a term of the same order as the words in the newspeak vocabulary George Orwell presents in his dismaying 1984 – a vocabulary with terms such as “doublethink” and “crimethink.” By putting groupthink with those Orwellian words, I realise that groupthink takes on an invidious connotation. The invidiousness is intentional. Groupthink refers to a deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgement that results from in-group pressures.”
Unquote
Part 1 – 3
MIT’s economic historian Charles Kindleberger developed the well-known Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST) where a prevailing hegemon maintains stability in the world order in an otherwise anarchic international system.
He attributed the inter-war years 1929 – 1939 as the period where there was an international power vacuum in terms of the lack of a leading hegemon fulfilling the role of a global policeman, inevitably resulting in a treacherous period of untenable international instability.
The dismaying conclusion by many learned political scientists and others alike is that a hegemonic war eventually breaks out under such scenario to determine the next hegemon, be it the original hegemon or the rising power. This script seems to emanate since the time of Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War in ancient Greece between two powerful city states Athens and Sparta during 431 BC to 405 BC.
The KEY question is NOT:
Is it rational for the disequilibrium in the international system to be resolved via military conflicts?
The KEY question is:
Since the two atomic bombs dropped in 1945 over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, can the world afford for the disequilibrium in the international system to be resolved via military conflicts to determine the next hegemon to maintain a stable world order?
Would there be any hegemon left standing after another hegemonic war?
Is it rational (in conducting foreign policies) to go by the narrative of Thucydides’ Peloponnesian War or Thucydides Trap (TT) and Charles Kindleberger’s HST or Kindleberger’s Trap (KT)?
Would a hegemonic war resolve anything (in the end)?
As chess pieces are being moved (globally) step by step, piece by piece, is the world inching closer towards the unthinkable by accident or otherwise?
When events get out of control, is it very real that the unthinkable taking place has a non-zero probability?
What makes political leadership assumes military conflicts rather than cooperation &/ or peaceful coexistence would restore disequilibrium in the world order?
IRRATIONAL GROUPTHINK?
Leo 81
Leo 81
Thanks for the 3 parts. Will put up over the next few days.
Also thanks to Queen of Hearts and anonymouses. Will put your articles over the next few days.
Cheers
Redbean
Post a Comment