China's bullying will lead to war

China should let Taiwan go, and thank Japan for Technology Transfer

by Peter Gerard Myers

Date: December 11, 2025; ; update January 11, 2026.

My comments are shown {thus}; write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/China-Taiwan-Japan.html

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

(1) China invokes the Enemy States Clauses of the UN to justify pre-emptive action against Japan
(2) China should let Taiwan go, and thank Japan for Technology Transfer
(3) Most Taiwanese have lost their connection with the Mainland
(4) China is now an Upper-Middle Income country, and becoming Imperialist
(5) Korea was part of the Mongol empire (Yuan dynasty)
(6) China is partly Communist, partly Capitalist, and partly National Socialist
(7) NYT Editorial Board Urges US To Prepare For Future War With China
(8) NYT Editorial: forget Aircraft carriers, no more pork. Build drones & subs, & rebuild the workforce
(9) NYT Editorial shows a return to Realism, & heralds the end of Woke
(10) The Great Deception of the Larouchites
(11) China demolished the Old City of Kashgar, the Silk Road capital of the Uighurs
(12) How credit was provided to companies in the Japan Miracle years, based on the theory of Gottfried Feder
(13) How Japan passed on the Secrets of the High-Growth Economy to China
(14) Japan won the Cold War - Chalmers Johnson (1991)
(15) Ellen Brown: China & Japan show how to fund infrastructure

(1) China invokes the Enemy States Clauses of the UN to justify pre-emptive action against Japan

Hua Bin says that China would not fire the first shot against the USA, but could take pre-emptive military action against Japan as an Enemy State, in full legal compliance with the UN Charter. - Peter M.

https://www.unz.com/bhua/what-happens-if-japan-joins-the-war-in-taiwan/

What Happens if Japan Joins the War in Taiwan

A special military operation will turn into a total war with no guardrail

HUA BIN

DECEMBER 8, 2025

Sanae Takaichi, the newly minted prime minister of Japan, addressed to the Japanese parliament in November that a conflict in Taiwan constituted a "survival-threatening situation" for Japan, implying Japan will directly and proactively involve itself in a fight with China.

The remark came shortly after the big meeting between President Xi and Trump in South Korea at the end of October to reset trade ties. The question of Taiwan was explicitly shelved by both during the meeting.

To say such a remark was provocative was like calling Tiger Woods "a good golfer".

A rough and imperfect analogy would be for Mark Carney to declare Canada will attack the US if Alaska secedes from the US because any US action to reunite Alaska will represent an existential threat to Canada.

You can imagine the US reactions to such an assertion and Canada has no historical baggage of crimes committed against the US or Alaska.

What Takaichi is asserting is that in a scenario where the secessionist government in Taiwan declares de jure independence and Beijing prepares for a military action, Japan could preemptively launch an attack on China without China first attacking Japanese forces or territories.

{Takaichi did not endorse a pre-emptive Japanese attack on China; but, below, Hua Bin endorses a pre-emptive Chinese attack on Japan - Peter M.}

The phrase "survival threatening situation" is not a casual slip of tongue. It has a specific and deadly meaning in Japanese official lingo.

Imperial Japan invoked the same exact phrase to justify its aggressions prior to the 1931 invasion of Manchuria in Northeast China, and again prior to the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

In the Japanese post-war constitution, its defense force is only allowed to activate for a foreign war in a "survival-threatening situation".

Over the Taiwan issue, even the US has long pursued the so called "strategic ambiguity" to avoid directly crossing China's red line. It recognizes a One China policy while rejecting any change of the status quo.

Washington has chosen to be deliberately vague about its reactions to any potential Chinese reunification by force.

While there is little doubt Washington has discussed Taiwan war scenarios with its regional vassals behind closed doors, overt strategic clarity is considered dangerous.

No sitting Japanese prime minister before Takaichi in post WW2 history ever voiced any "survival threatening" argument regarding Taiwan in official public setting, whatever their private thoughts.

Even Shinzo Abe, the right-wing politician and Takaichi's mentor, only hinted at this after he stepped down as prime minister.

He argued "a Taiwan contingency would be a Japan contingency".

While the essence is the same, the language is much vaguer. In the highly sensitized China Japan relationship over Taiwan, the word games Takaichi played are exceptionally dangerous.

This remark is immediately condemned by Beijing who considers this as a direct challenge by a defeated country against a victor country and a complete violation of the international order established in the aftermath of WW2.

Beijing has launched a series of diplomatic, economic and cultural counter actions.

More importantly, China has made formal representations to the United Nations and an official citation of the "Enemy States Clauses," according to Articles 53, 77, and 107 of the United Nations Charter.

These clauses were established for the Fascist or militaristic countries that were defeated in WW2 (i.e. Japan and Germany), aiming to prevent these nations from initiating wars of aggression again.

They are intended to create exceptions to the Charter's general rules against the use of force, specifically targeting the WW2 Axis powers.

The clauses define an "Enemy State" as any state that, during World War II, was an enemy of any signatory of the UN Charter.

Article 107 lays out the Core Provision: "Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action".

This article grandfathers actions taken by the Allied Powers against the defeated states (like occupation, war crimes trials, etc.) and stated that these post-war measures are legally valid and do not require Security Council approval.

Article 53 provides for Enemy State Exception for measures directed "against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state" (an Enemy State), pursuant to Article 107.

This means a former Allied power could take enforcement action against a former Enemy State, without prior Security Council authorization, if that state resumes an aggressive policy.

Chinese officials and media have explicitly stated that if Japan were to take action on the Taiwan issue, particularly military intervention, it could activate the "Enemy States Clauses" in the UN Charter.

This would permit China and other founding UN members to take pre-emptive military action against such Enemy State (former Axis powers) in full legal compliance of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, legal scholars in China are advocating the invocation of UN Article 77 on Trusteeship to negate any Japanese sovereignty over Ryukyu Islands, of which Okinawa is a part.

Japan annexed the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1879, establishing it as Okinawa Prefecture. China has never officially recognized the Ryukyu as part of Japan.

Furthermore, both the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration at the end of the WW2 ruled Japan's legal territory is limited to its four main islands. Its territorial expansion beyond these is considered legally voided.

UN Charter Article 77 concludes "territories which may be detached from Enemy States as a result of the Second World War" as categories of territories that could be placed under the UN trusteeship system.

Current Okinawa is administered under US Trusteeship.

These clauses provide a legal basis for action if Japan were to abandon its post-war pacifist stance and resume an "aggressive policy," particularly in connection with the Taiwan issue or territorial disputes.

Since the crisis broke out, Beijing has consulted with Russia. Both countries, as victor nations of WW2, have agreed the Japanese prime minister's remarks constitute a direct challenge to post WW2 order.

Russia has also aligned itself with China's citation of the "Enemy State" clause when Foreign Minister Wang Yi met with Sergei Lavrov, Russian Foreign Minister, and Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Security Council Secretary, on December 2.

In the press release after the meeting, they jointly announced "the two countries agreed to firmly uphold the victory of WWII and resolutely oppose any attempts to change the verdict on the history of colonization and aggression".

The sheer madness and stupidity of Takaichi is beyond comprehension.

No Chinese leader or political party will retain legitimacy in the eyes of the population if there is any softness towards resurgent militarism in Japan.

From military readiness, economic power, to sheer size and resources, Japan stands zero chance to win a military contest against China. In a fully-fledged war, Japan will be decimated.

Many Chinese are secretly gleeful when Takaichi crossed the absolute "red line" with Beijing. She just provided the perfect own goal for China to settle the score with Japan for its crimes and atrocities from 1895 to 1945.

Opinion polls on Chinese social media now show virtually 100% Chinese citizens support the government to take military actions against Japan if it threatens China again.

To understand Chinese animosity against Japan, you have to multiply the hatred born by the Americans against the Muslims after 9/11 by 1,000.

3,000 lives were lost on 9/11. In comparison, 300,000 Chinese were killed by the Japanese during the Rape of Nanjing. 17 to 20 million Chinese were killed in the 8 years of war with Japan from 1937 to 1945.

Unlike Germany after WW2, Japan has never fully repented or atoned for its crimes against China and other peoples of Asia.

It has never paid compensation to the hundreds of thousands of Comfort Women.

It has not atoned for its crimes against Southeast Asia where it massacred over 20,000 in one day on the beach of Changi after the fall of Singapore, or the "march of death" of English and Australian POWs.

Its political leaders pay regular visit to the Yasukuni Shrine founded to honor Japanese war dead, including Class A war criminals who were hanged after the war.

An act akin to German politicians going to pay annual respect to a monument to Nazi German soldiers as well as Hitler, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels.

A Chinese military takeover of Taiwan, in the event of a formal secession, is most likely conducted as a Special Military Operation with special care not to inflict unnecessary civilian casualties.

Precision strikes and avoidance of collateral damage will be paramount parameters of the conflict.

Beijing will NOT take the first shot at the US even if the US declares it will come to Taiwan's defense. Beijing will let the US fire the first shot before retaliating.

However, if Japan proactively joins in the fight, there will be no guardrail with the Japanese and its home territory.

It will be a total war that will be taken to Tokyo and Osaka and Japan's home islands.

For those Taiwanese who side with the Japanese, they will be dealt with as Japanese collaborators without mercy.

Their one protection being Chinese will disappear and turn into the biggest liability being quasi-Japanese.

Given the transparent aggressiveness of her remarks and the entirely predictable Chinese reactions, one wonders what is the motivation for such assertion of the leader of a defeated nation is it pure madness or a calculated move to step forward as a willing proxy in the US cold war with China?

Takaichi's remark was made shortly after Trump's visit to Asia. Before meeting Xi, Trump met with the new Japanese prime minister. One wonders what Trump told her.

If Takaichi made the remarks purely on her own without consulting the Americans, is she expecting the US to come to Japan's aid when Tokyo provokes a war with China?

Is she expecting the American public to willingly fight and die for Japan, a mere vassal, in a war with a nuclear peer 7,000 miles from US homeland?

Any rational analysis will tell you the escalation dominance clearly lies with Beijing in a US-China confrontation over either Taiwan or Japan.

If the US doesn't come to her aid, does she expect Japan to prevail in a war with China? Doesn't she know it is a suicidal mission that will reduce her country to ruins far worse than Ukraine?

A far more likely scenario is Takaichi made the remark as a probe to test China's red line at the bequest of Washington.

She wouldn't have dared to make such provocative remark without the blessing of Washington, which is its official occupier and the real commander of the Japanese military and political structure.

She is a lap dog, no more no less.

The US itself is unwilling to shed its "strategic ambiguity" as it knows this is the best policy choice to preserve its flexibility, including "doing an art of the deal" with China over Taiwan.

But a disposable pawn like Japan can be used to test Beijing's resolve.

If China is adamant on the red line as expected, then Washington is not directly exposed. After all, Trump still needs Beijing to relax its critical minerals ban and buy US farm products. He doesn't want to burn the bridges.

If Beijing punishes Japan for the provocation, Tokyo will be paying the price, a non-concern for Washington which has every incentive to encourage maximum bad blood between China and Japan.

In Trump's eyes, Japan is as guilty as China in "taking advantage of the US" and worse Beijing at least doesn't freeride on the US coattail for protection.

In Trump's calculation, the more Japan depends on the US for its survival, the better to extract more weapon sales, US-bound investment and industrial relocation from it.

In the US National Security Strategy published in early December, the US has spelt out its intention to "outsource" securities to its "allies and partners" in both Europe and Asia.

The goal is clear just like Europe is asked to take on the burden for Ukraine, Japan is being asked to take on the burden for Taiwan, maybe with Australia and the Philippines, the other two junior partners in west Pacific.

Of course, the latter two are minor minions with negligible capabilities that will prove more liability than asset in a real showdown.

But Japan has the size and wealth that can be remilitarized as a guard dog for US interests in Asia.

Perhaps a docile South Korea as well, though the new President there seems a lot more intelligent than Takaichi.

The explicit US goal in the National Security Strategy is to turn these "allies" into frontline battlefields like Ukraine against US geostrategic adversaries while Washington moves the chess pieces from the security of "western hemisphere".

What the Japanese have not realized is in this case, Taiwan won't be the Ukraine, but Japan itself will be the Ukraine.

Taiwan is the equivalent of the Donbass region as a historical part of China and will be preserved and reconstructed after the war.

Japan will be west Ukraine that is being bombarded into a wasteland and will stay a rump state for the foreseeable future.

If a war breaks out between China and Japan, the result will be Japan again demilitarized, its Yasukuni Shrine demolished, and the Ryukyu Islands will revert back to independence.

Japan will live under permanent threat of blockade and sanctions by China, like the kind that the US has imposed upon Cuba since 1963.

Japan will never become a major power in Asia and will lose the protection of its American daddy forever.

As Kissinger shrewdly observed, being US's enemies is dangerous but being its "friends" is fatal.

(Republished from Substack by permission of author or representative)

(2) China should let Taiwan go, and thank Japan for Technology Transfer

by Peter Gerard Myers, December 11, 2025

China's claim to Taiwan is contentious, but if it pursues that claim, its claim to Tibet would also be on the table.

China's claim to Tibet derives from the Yuan Dynasty of Mongol ruler Kublai Khan, during which time Tibet was part of the (Mongol) Empire.

Korea was also part of China then. If Tibet belongs to China - on account of the Yuan Dynasty - then Korea does too.

A map of the Yuan Dynasty about 1300 AD is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Yuan_Dynasty#/media/File:MongolEmpire1300.png

The text states, "Map of the Yuan Dynasty c. 1300 - a succeeding eastern subdivision of the Mongol Empire. (Partially based on Atlas of World History (2007) - The World 1200-1300, map)"

Another map is at https://www.chinahighlights.com/map/ancient-china-map/yuan-dynasty-map.htm.

Rather than try to enforce its claim to Taiwan, China should be a good neighbour to surrounding countries. It already owns enough of the world. Pushing too much would risk the lot. I'm not suggesting that the West would win a clash with China; I accept the arguments of Fadi Lama that it cannot. But both sides could lose, and probably would.

During the 1980s, when Japan was the boom economy, some of its leaders sought to build an empire. Shortly after, Japan gave up such aspirations, and has since been a generous donor to development in Asia, e.g. it contributed sustantially to the building of metros (underground railways) of cities in India.

Chinese aquisition of Taiwan would be devastating to Japan. It is not only Sanae Takaichi who said so; Shinzo Abe also made it very clear. https://www.spectator.com.au/2021/12/whats-behind-shinzo-abes-reaganesque-straight-talk-on-china/

In 1978, while China was still in ruins after the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, Deng Xiaoping visited Japan, seeking the elixir of High Growth. He brought 300 experts, and Japanese leaders imparted the secrets of the High-Growth economy to Deng and his specialists during the 8-day visit and subsequently.

Deng met Saburo Okita, Director-General of the Planning Bureau, who had turned the ideas of Osamu Shimomura into reality.

The plan was neither Communist nor Capitalist, but a "guns not butter" version of National Socialism, derived from Germany of the 1930s.

The secret was that high growth needed an expansion in bank credit for investment. Foreign investment and foreign loans were not part of the plan; nor were domestic savings needed. The money would be created ex nihilo (as all banks create money) by Japanese banks, but the Bank of Japan would impose a Credit Rationing system called Window Guidance. This would prevent banks from loaning too much money for consumption or for asset puchases (which push up the price of homes and of stocks). Instead, the money would be allocated for projects that would create income via exports. In effect, the BoJ applied a Credit Squeeze on lending for consumption, and on lending that would create asset bubbles.

Shareholders would be sidelined, because they have selfish goals and a short-term horizon. Companies would obtain funding not from the Stock Market but from banks. Profits would not be distributed as dividends, but re-invested in the business. Companies would be run by managers not shareholders, and ownership would comprise cross-shareholdings to make entry by foreigners difficult.

The BoJ set Credit Rationing targets, and monitored the lending, but actual lending to businesses was done by privately owned banks, including numerous small banks. Small banks funded small businesses, and had a local orientation, unlike big urban banks. The proliferation of banks was an important part of the Japan Model.

The end of the Japanese Miracle began in the late 1980s, and had two causes. (a) The USA forced the Plaza Accord on Japan, aimed at raising the exchange rate of the Yen. The BoJ was required to lower interest rates. Normally, the lower interest rates in Japan would not have led to asset bubbles, because the bank lending that would produce them was rationed (i.e. in a Credit Squeeze), but under American pressure, the BoJ allowed asset bubbles to develop. (b) In 1988 British and American banks, at the Bank for International Settlements, forced Japan to accept the Basel Accord, which imposed an 8% Capital Adequacy Ratio; as a result, in the next few years Japanese banks had to sell assets to raise capital. In consequence, bank lending declined, and then asset prices collapsed. Werner says that the BoJ ceased Window Guidance in 1991.

But in the 1970s and 80s, Japan was the boom economy.

Richard A. Werner, who studied the Japanese economy intensively, wrote,

"Deng Xiaoping travelled to Japan with 300 experts. This group of 300 Chinese specialists was dominated by bureaucrats from the various Chinese ministries, as well as industrial and technical specialists, central planners and economists, all tasked to figure out the minutiae of Japan's high growth system." https://rwerner.substack.com/p/chinese-lessons-part-ii-the-elixir

"There would henceforth be regular working-level delegations from China visiting Japan. Since this crucial 1978 mission, official Chinese legations on state visits would almost always include Ministry of Finance officials, State Planning Commission bureaucrats, People's Bank of China representatives and financial planners and economists attached to industrial ministries."

Since then, the Chinese economy has been managed using Window Guidance. It's a rationing system that Western countries (eg USA & Australia) used during wartime (WWII), but which Asia Model countries apply in peacetime.

Ezra Vogel said that Japan transferred a lot of technology to China after 1978, in lieu of Reparations.

"The Japanese feel that ... (they) were very generous, after 1978, in helping China. They were giving more aid, more technological assistance, to China than any other country," he says.

"That was given instead of reparations, and the Chinese leaders acknowledged privately at the time that that's what the meaning was. But the Chinese (leaders) haven't done so much publicly, and many Chinese are completely unaware of that." [...] https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/japan-apologise-china-say-thank-you-us-harvard-prof-ezra-vogel-12429600

Xi Jingping has undone the goodwill created by Deng.

Werner says that the Bank of Japan abandoned Window Guidance in 1991.

(3) Most Taiwanese have lost their connection with the Mainland

https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article7884

A Rightful Place for Taiwan on this Planet

By Au Loong-Yu

TUESDAY 15 NOVEMBER 2022

Beijing tries its best to make the world believes that its one China policy only means:

¥ There is only one China in the world
¥ Taiwan belongs to China
¥ The sole representative government of China is the People's Republic of China (PRC)
¥ Taiwan belongs to the PRC

[...] The indigenous people account for a very small proportion of the population 2.3 per cent. But Beijing is equally disrespectful of the major ethnicity there, namely the benshengren (descendants of Chinese immigrants dating back hundreds of years, mainly composed of Hoklo and Hakka, together they account for 86 per cent of the population). They are Han Chinese-speaking, but they have long lost connection with the Mainland and many see themselves as Taiwanese first in contrast to the case of Hong Kong, where many people still have close family connections in the Mainland. As for the waishengren (or Mainlanders who only moved to Taiwan after 1949), their younger generation also increasingly identify themselves more as Taiwanese than Chinese, although this is relatively new. ...

In the eyes of Beijing all Chinese speaking people are its subjects who should kowtow only to it. ==

Comment (Peter M.):

One might say that there is One Europe. But not all European countries are part of the EU; Switzerland is not.

(4) China is now an Upper-Middle Income country, and becoming Imperialist

https://www.greenleft.org.au/2023/1396/world/chinas-role-world-today-interview-au-loong-yu

China's role in the world today: An interview with Au Loong-Yu

Federico Fuentes Au Loong Yu

December 4, 2023, <https://www.greenleft.org.au/issue/1396> Issue 1396

Hong Kong labour rights and political activist Au Loong-Yu talks to Green Left's Federico Fuentes about China's position in the world today and its implications for peace and solidarity activism.

How should we understand China's status today?

For the past three decades China has not been a regular Third World country. From a largely peasant-populated country 40 years ago, today it is 60% urbanised and fully industrialised, manufacturing both low and high end products.

As a result, China has crossed the threshold to become an upper-middle income country according to the World Bank. Yet 600 million Chinese have a monthly income of only US$140. ...

{However that money goes a lot further in China. And a large % of British and Americans are poor too - Peter M.}

If China is not a regular developing country, does that make it imperialist?

China's status is complicated. There is no clear cut "yes or no" answer; rather the answer is "yes and no". ...

I think we can say that China is an emerging imperialist country - a very strong regional power with a global reach. It possesses the intention and potential to dominate lesser countries but has not yet consolidated its position as an imperialist power. ...

We must be able to grasp both the universal and the particularities when it comes to China. Its potential to develop into an imperialist power is immense. It is also the first emerging imperialist country to have previously been a semi-colonial country. ...

How does Taiwan fit into US-China tensions?

The fundamental issue here is that China's claim over Taiwan has never factored in the wishes of the Taiwanese people. This is the most important point. There is also the secondary issue of US-China tensions. But these tensions have no direct bearing on the fundamental issue.

Taiwanese people have a historic right to self-determination. The reason is simple: due to their distinct history, Taiwanese people are very different from those of mainland China.

Ethnically speaking, most Taiwanese are Chinese. But there are ethnic minorities, known as Austronesian peoples, who have inhabited Taiwan for thousands of years and their rights must be respected.

As for those who are ethnically Chinese, about 15% only moved to Taiwan in 1949 after the Chinese revolution.

The majority have descendants who have been living in Taiwan for up to 400 years. Most have no connection to mainland China - any such connections were broken hundreds of years ago.

Taiwan has been a separate nation for many years. It has a historic right to self-determination. ...

As a result of Deng's historic compromise, the US began offshoring manufacturing to China. What impact did this have on China's rise? And how can we explain current US-China tensions given this process of economic integration?

A decade after Hong Kong and Taiwanese companies started investing in and shifting manufacturing to China, Western and Japanese capital began to do the same. This process of offshoring was accompanied in China by the privatisation of many medium- and small-sized state companies and the sacking of more than 30 million workers.

The end result was that capitalists in the West and Japan as well as the Chinese regime benefited greatly from offshoring and the super-exploitation of 250 million powerless Chinese workers recruited from the countryside. At the same time, deindustrialisation in the West and Japan and privatisation and mass sackings in China made it a lose-lose situation for working people on both sides. That was the essence of the deal struck between Deng and [US president George HW] Bush.

It is important to understand, however, that this deal began to come to an end when Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. By that point, both sides were sensing that the honeymoon period was over, particularly as the US had not expected China to rise so quickly and - being the empire it is - could never allow a rising China to challenge its global status. ...

In all this, it is important to remember that the US empire is clearly not the "good cop" - but neither is China. The US empire is steadily declining, but China's rise has not reached a point where Beijing can impose its will on the West. Despite this, Xi has sought to strike out, creating enemies in the process. Xi's leadership has not only been a disaster for Chinese people but is now even a liability for the regime.

(5) Korea was part of the Mongol empire (Yuan dynasty)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goryeo_under_Mongol_rule

From about 1270 to 1356, the Korean kingdom of Goryeo was ruled by the Mongol Empire and the Mongol-led Yuan dynasty. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goryeo_under_Mongol_rule#cite_note-1>[1] After the <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasions_of_Korea> Mongol invasions of Korea and the capitulation of Goryeo in the 13th century, Goryeo became a semi-autonomous vassal state and compulsory ally of the Yuan dynasty for about 80 years. It has been referred to as a "son-in-law kingdom in the Mongol Empire." The ruling line of Goryeo, the House of Wang, was permitted to rule Korea as a vassal of the Yuan, which established the Branch Secretariat for Eastern Campaigns (????; literally "Branch Secretariat for Conquering the East") in Korea as an extension of Mongol supervision and political power. Members of the Goryeo royal family were taken to Khanbaliq, and typically married to spouses from the Yuan imperial clan, the House of Borjigin. As a result, princes who became monarchs of Goryeo during this period were effectively imperial sons in-law (khuregen). Yuan overlordship ended in the 1350s when the Yuan dynasty itself started to crumble and King Gongmin of Goryeo began to push the Yuan garrisons back.

[...] Korean women

Korean women first entered the Mongol Empire as war booty. Later in the 13th century, Kublai and the Mongol elites started demanding women from elite Goryeo families as wives and consorts. Goryeo refused these demands but created an official government bureau in Goryeo for the organization of and flow of tribute women to the Mongol Empire. ...

Yuan envoys regularly visited Goryeo to procure women in the name of the emperor, who distributed them to leading ministers on many occasions. Almost 1,500 Korean women were noted as tribute in Yuan and Goryeo documents but the number was likely greater if including personal maids and servants who accompanied the women and others who were undocumented. Another estimate gives a number of around 2,000 Korean tribute women. ...

Under Mongol rule, the northern defenses of Goryeo were reduced and the standing army was abolished. In their place, Goryeo relied on mobilizing men from the general populace on an ad hoc basis depending on military circumstances, while the Yuan-controlled Ssangseong Prefecture and Yuan forces north of the Yalu River became the true defense of Goryeo's northern border. ...

Mongol domination in both political and military life led to the adoption of Mongol cultural customs throughout Northeast Asia. Mongolian style clothing and hairstyles were well received among much of Goryeo's court. The Mongolian diet is also said to have had a deep impact on Korean cuisine. Mongol names, which were bestowed by the Yuan court for contributions rendered to the empire, began appearing in the Chinese and Korean populations.

This page was last edited on 24 August 2025, at 08:03 (UTC).

(6) China is partly Communist, partly Capitalist, and partly National Socialist

by Peter Gerard Myers, December 12, 2025; update January 11, 2026.

Tibet's accession to Greater China goes back to the Yuan (Mongol) dynasty. Korea was also part of Greater China then too. So if Tibet is part of China, Korea is too.

China is playing the victimhood card, like Israel. But China is a superpower which owns much of the world.

It's not showing any gratitude to Japan for modernising its economy. Without Japan's help. China would have remained a poor country.

China is partly Communist, partly Capitalist, and partly National Socialist. It acquired National Socialist features from Japan in 1978. The financial system is National Socialist, using Window Guidance to create and allocate capital (credit) to targeted industries and away from Consumption. Japan learned this technique from Germany in the 1930s, and passed the secrets to China in 1978. China has its own co-Prosperity Sphere, and is going down the path Japan trod in the 1930s.

We need to do whatever we can to stop it, because, otherwise, the world will be destroyed.

The Belt and Road is like a big version of Hitler's Autobahns. It is dual-use: a great benefit during peacetime, but also convenient for moving armies and navies during wartime.

We need to open our eyes, and stop believing Larouche propaganda.

Globalization has been imposed from the City of London; Larouche writers are correct about that. They have sided with China's Belt and Road because the original idea came from Lyndon Larouche and Executive Intelligence Review. But they have turned a blind eye to China's militarism and imperial ambitions, and the risk that it will plunge the world into a new World War.

The Ukraine War was not a new world war, but a continuation of the Cold War. Its architects were Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish Aristocrat, and the (mainly Jewish) Neocons. Their model was the 1980s war in Afghanistan, orchestrated by Brzezinski, which contributed to the breakup of the Soviet Union. By gaining control of Crimea and its Sevastopol naval base, they expected to defeat Russia and split it up. Instead, they forced Russia into the arms of China. and now its Tupelev bombers are patrolling the Sea of Japan.

(7) NYT Editorial Board Urges US To Prepare For Future War With China

https://www.zerohedge.com/military/nyt-editorial-board-urges-us-prepare-future-war-china

NYT Editorial Board Urges US To Prepare For Future War With China BY Tyler Durden FRIDAY, DEC 12, 2025 - 02:25 PM

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

The New York Times editorial board released a video this week calling for the US to "prepare for the future of war" and urged the Pentagon to take drastic steps to be better prepared for a potential fight with China, a conflict that could quickly turn nuclear.

"US politicians often boast that America has the 'Strongest and most powerful military in the history of the world' but behind closed doors, they're being told a different story," the editorial board said. "New York Times Opinion has learned that the Pentagon has been delivering a classified, comprehensive overview of US military power called the Overmatch brief. The report shows what could happen if a war were to break out between China and the United States. The results are alarming."

The video said that a war with China might seem "purely hypothetical," but claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping ordered the Chinese military to be ready to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027. However, that timeline is based on claims from the CIA and has never been confirmed by Chinese officials. Xi reportedly told President Biden last year that there were "no such plans" to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027.

The Times editorial board said that defending Taiwan Òwon't be easyÓ and called on the US to invest more in new technologies, such as drones, rather than "symbols of might," referring to large aircraft and warships.

"America must prepare for the future of war. This is the opinion of The New York Times editorial board. You might be thinking America should focus on peace, not war. But one of the most effective ways to prevent a war is to be strong enough to win it. That's why it's imperative that we change," the board said.

The board suggested several steps for the US to take to prepare for war with China, including building "new autonomous weapons and leading the world in controlling them" and relaxing rules on purchasing weapons to "make bets on young companies."

The video comes after Congress unveiled a $901 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that, when added to a supplemental spending bill passed earlier this year, will bring the official US military budget to over $1 trillion.

"It's been nearly 10 years since the Overmatch brief was first delivered. Its warnings have been updated and delivered again to the new Trump administration. We've been warned about the urgent need for change. The question is whether we'll change in time," the video concluded.

This refers to this NYT story (https://t.co/rdFRYttqF9) in which they reveal there now exists an "overmatch brief" at the Pentagon that details China vs US military power. The name says it all...

Apparently when a senior US official read the brief he "turned pale" as he realizedÉ https://t.co/fJBKMKzR08

- Arnaud Bertrand (@RnaudBertrand) December 11, 2025

For years now, the Pentagon has named China as the top "pacing threat" facing the US and has been openly preparing for war with China. President Trump's War Department is expected to prioritize the Homeland and the Western Hemisphere in its coming National Defense Strategy, as outlined by the recently released National Security Strategy, but it will still be putting a focus on a military buildup in the Asia Pacific to get ready for a future clash with China, while stressing that US allies in the region should spend more on their militaries.

(8) NYT Editorial: forget Aircraft carriers, no more pork. Build drones & subs, & rebuild the workforce

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000010573151/america-must-prepare-for-the-future-of-war.html

America Must Prepare for the Future of War The nature of war has drastically changed. The editorial board argues that the U.S. must reform its military.

By The Editorial Board and James Robinson

December 8, 2025

new video loaded: America Must Prepare for the Future of War

TRANSCRIPT America Must Prepare for the Future of War

The nature of war has drastically changed. The editorial board argues that the U.S. must reform its military.

U.S. politicians often boast that America has the - - "Strongest and most powerful military in the history of the world - - " but behind closed doors, they're being told a different story.

New York Times Opinion has learned that the Pentagon has been delivering a classified, comprehensive overview of U.S. military power called the Overmatch brief. The report shows what could happen if a war were to break out between China and the United States. The results are alarming. Last November, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that in all of the Pentagon's war games against China, we lose every time.

"China's military threats against Taiwan are becoming more pronounced." "They do not believe it's a question of if China will invade but when." A war with China might seem purely hypothetical. But China's leader has ordered the People's Liberation Army to be ready to seize the island of Taiwan by 2027, and past U.S. presidents have said that America would defend the island nation's thriving democracy.

"Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?" "Yes."

But defending Taiwan won't be easy because America now faces two new threats. War in the 21st century has fundamentally changed. "Drones are extremely cost-effective and can cause large amounts of damage." And China has become a rising power unlike any other that the U.S. has competed with.

As the Trump administration ramps up military spending, they're doubling down on symbols of might. "It'll be known as the F-47. There's never been anything even close to it." While overlooking alarming shortcomings.

America must prepare for the future of war. This is the opinion of The New York Times editorial board. You might be thinking America should focus on peace, not war. But one of the most effective ways to prevent a war is to be strong enough to win it. That's why it's imperative that we change.

The U.S. must reform not just its military, but also the political processes for funding it and the industrial base that supports it.

For decades, our military has been built around the idea that more sophistication is better. This made sense during the Cold War, when the West could outspend Russia. But today, our reliance on expensive and exquisite systems has become a vulnerability. In war games, large ships like the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford are often destroyed. Still, the Navy plans to build at least nine additional Ford-class carriers in the coming decades.

America must embrace new and more nimble means of warfare. This means simultaneously winning the war to build new autonomous weapons and leading the world in controlling them.

Doing so will require challenging the status quo for how weapons are designed and manufactured. Defense spending is routinely steered toward the five major defense contractors, who have become experts at navigating thousands of pages of regulations, but they're both slow and costly. To jump-start new technologies, the Pentagon must relax its byzantine rules for buying weapons and make bets on young companies that show promise to get results.

Congress needs to stop getting in the way. Each year, the United States spends billions of dollars that the military didn't ask for, often so that lawmakers can make their districts happy. Let's focus on winning wars, not elections.

We also have a work-force problem. In the next decade, the U.S. will need to add 140,000 shipbuilders to its work force, and that's just to meet the demand for submarine construction. We should intensify recruiting and training programs for manufacturing trades, and we should focus on recruiting young people interested in software and technology.

In long wars, the countries that can manufacture the most win. America now makes just 17 percent of all manufactured goods, while China makes almost twice as much and their lead is growing.

It's only by partnering with allies that the U.S. can match China's manufacturing capabilities. So, rather than slapping our allies with tariffs, we should be partnering with them.

It's been nearly 10 years since the Overmatch brief was first delivered. Its warnings have been updated and delivered again to the new Trump administration. We've been warned about the urgent need for change. The question is whether we'll change in time.

(9) NYT Editorial shows a return to Realism, & heralds the end of Woke

by Peter Gerard Myers, December 13, 2025

The New York Times and The Economist are probably the two leading Globalist publications in the world.

But the NYT Editorial board has just broken ranks with other Globalist outlets. It's taking China's preparations to invade Taiwan seriously, and warning that, on present trajectory, US efforts to stop it will fail.

The Culture War of the last 50 years has pitted Woke Americans against heterosexual Men and feminine Women.

Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, one of the founders of the E.U., noted in his book Practical Idealism (1925/2019) that Feminism made women more masculine:

QUOTE
The emancipation of women is also a symptom of the masculinization of our world, because it does not lead the feminine type to power, but the masculine. While in the past the feminine woman by her influence on the man participated in world leadership, today "men" of both sexes wield the scepter of economic and political power. The emancipation of women signifies the triumph of the "man-woman" over the real, feminine woman; it does not lead to the victory, but to the abolition of women. The "lady" is already extinct: the "woman" should follow her. (p. 112)
ENDQUOTE

(Coudenhove-Kalergi, Richard Nikolaus. (1925/2019). Practical Idealism (tr. Dimitra Ekmektsis). Omnia Veritas, 2019. Originally published as Praktischer Idealismus in 1925. Online at https://mailstar.net/kalergi.html)

As women became more masculine, the dynamic between the sexes expressed as "vive la difference" changed. The loss of feminine women deprived men of the polarity which sustained heterosexuality; it contributed to the rise of homosexuality.

Some Western men who had experienced the ravages of divorce sought wives from foreign countries, where women were still old-fashioned, feminine and religious; by this means, Feminism had a huge effect on the racial and cultural makeup of the West.

Another notable leftist, Dr H. C. Coombs of Australian National University, expressed a similar view to Kalergi's:

"But although I sympathise fully with the women's movement I don't like to see the extremist women's groups wanting power and to be like men. I realise that they, like other oppressed groups, may see the holding of power as the only way to bring about changes, but I hope it is only a transitional phase. I would rather see more attention in our society paid to what might be called 'feminine' characteristics or values - tenderness, concern for others, kindness, sympathy - ideally found in both sexes." (Mayne-Wilson, 1974)

The reason that the West is pro-LGBT, but the rest of the world is not, is that its traditional Christian civilization has been destroyed by Trotskyoid/Feminist culture warriors, based in the universities.

The Culture War has destroyed our nation's cohesion; in the current divided state, it cannot possibly survive against China.

Whereas the Culture War has destroyed the Family, Globalization has destroyed the Nation State. Left forces in the Weishaupt tradition aimed to destroy both the nation state and the family, being barriers to their World State. That's still the ambition of the World Economic Forum, but it will never happen, because China is beyond their control.

The Feminists and LGBT advocates who promoted Sex Change and Gay Marriage never imagined that the resultant Androgynous societies would have to face the test of war against more traditionalist enemies. But that is now the test that awaits us, and the NYT has woken up (without mentioning the Culture War) that we will fall.

Our situation is comparable to that of the Soviet Union once Hitler's challenge materialised.

Early Bolshevik Russia was a Jewish colony where anti-Semitism was an offense punishable by death, and gentile culture and religion were stamped out. The Russian people would not fight Hitler for the sake of Bolshevism, but only for Russia. To defeat Hitler, Stalin had to court the very Russian nationalist elements that early Bolsheviks had worked hard to stamp out. The regime, although heavily Jewish, had to rehabilitate Russian history, including its military heroes.

As Andrey Diky put it,

"The medals of Alexander Nevsky, Suvorov and Kutuzov were instituted, and, soon after, titles that were known in pre-revolutionary Russia and golden shoulder straps which were so much hated by those who created the U.S.S.R., were also introduced.

"The spirit of the past, against which various Goublemans, Apfelbaums, Suritzmans and their fellow tribesmen had fought to their utmost to eradicate it from the memory of the nation during quarter of a century and to deprecate it in every possible way, was let out from the bottle. As soon as this spirit got loose it found such response among those who had staunchly, with their blood, defended their Motherland, the land and the heritage of their ancestors, it was impossible to drive it back.

"The international-Cosmopolitan mist had disappeared and in its place life had returned to the seemingly dead patriotism of the Russian people and the patriotism of the whole population of the U.S.S.R., people who realized their own strength and their right to rule their own country."

(Diky, Andrey. Jews in Russia and in the USSR. Self-published in New York, 1967, p 272. A catalog entry for Diky's book at the National Library of Australia is at https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/2927034 . Diky's book is online at https://mailstar.net/Diky-Jews-Russia.html )

THAT is the challenge the Globalists face. Having wrecked the West, they are now trying to undo the damage, to head off the challenge from China.

(10) The Great Deception of the Larouchites

by Peter Gerard Myers, December 13, 2025

The great deception of the Larouchites is to brand the Globalists 'British'. whereas in fact they are Jewish and Masonic.

Lyndon Larouche never publicly revealed that he was a Grand Orient Freemason, or that his private war against the "British" was, in fact, against English Freemasonry.

That Lyndon Larouche was a Grand Orient Freemason is stated by John Daniel - a Larouche supporter - in his book Scarlet and the Beast: A History of the War between English and French Freemasonry.

He writes, in a footnote: "Personal interviews with the Lyndon LaRouche campaign over a period of six years" (Daniel, 1993, p. 558, fn 2072); and in another footnote, "Personal interviews with the Lyndon LaRouche campaign. LaRouche is a Grand Orient Freemason, who claims there are good Masons and bad Masons. Ben Franklin was a good Mason, says LaRouche. LaRouche also recognizes both Freemasonries, and says that the French style is good and the British wicked. He is bent on the destruction of English Freemasonry. See dossier on LaRouche in Appendix 1" (Daniel, 1993, p. 558, fn 2073).

Adam Weishaupt was not 'British'; the Kalergi Plan is not 'British'; Klaus Schwab is not British. Therefore, better see them as Illuminist rather than 'British'.

Weishaupt was based in Frankfurt, Germany. That was also the base of the Rothschilds - their name means "Red Shield". And it was the base of the Frankfurt School, which has demolished our universities. May Day, on May 1 each year, celebrates the founding of the Illuminati.

Marxism is a variant of Illuminism, and is closely associated with Grand Orient Freemasonry. Wikipedia's webpage on Karl Marx is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Marx

It shows this portrait photo of him. He's making a Masonic handsign; it's a sign to other Masons: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Karl_Marx_by_John_Jabez_Edwin_Mayall_1875_-_Restored_%26_Adjusted_%283x4_cropped_b%29.png

Trotsky and Stalin made the same handsign.

There once WAS a British Conspiracy: it created the British Empire, but it exists today only as the Anglosphere. It has been taken over by the Globalists. Rothschild rules, not Rhodes.

(11) China demolished the Old City of Kashgar, the Silk Road capital of the Uighurs

I am not Muslim, but I watched the video of this demolition, in 2009-10, and was appalled. It's no longer online.

During the 1980s, Deng Xiaoping sent Uighurs from Xinjiang to join the mujihadeen in Afghanistan. On return to China, some took up separatism.

Putin had the same problem with Chechens in their years of rebellion. He managed to pacify them without committing a genocide; but China has used genocidal methods against its Uighurs.

One such measure was bulldozing the Old City of Kashgar, in 2009-10. Films and videos from that time record the event, but have mostly been scrubbed from the internet. More recent videos comply with Chinese propaganda.

A photo of the demolition is at https://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-28/tensions-rise-as-historic-kashgar-falls-to/1369516

https://www.abc.net.au/foreign/the-uyghur-dilemma/1371154

The Uyghur Dilemma

ABC Australia - Foreign Correspondent

Posted Tue 28 Jul 2009, 10:38pm Updated Fri 11 Dec 2009, 2:13pm

Kashgar stands at the very western edge of China - an oasis city that has long provided relief for travellers on the ancient Silk Road.

Parts of the city have stood for more than 2000 years and within its labyrinth, Uighur traditions have played largely unchanged over time. It's a living history attracting hordes of tourists every year.

But Beijing is bringing in the bulldozers - knocking down great swathes of the old town - because it says there is an increasing risk of devastation from earthquake. Officials say they're worried about the safety of the people who live there.

The Uighurs though are a Muslim majority in the city and the region and many residents suspect other motives. They believe Beijing's agenda is to push the Uighurs out of the alley ways and corners of old Kashgar and into more manageable and uniform accommodation where they can be monitored and better kept in check.

China correspondent Stephen McDonell has managed to gain extraordinary access to Kashgar, its residents and local leadership, to assess the motives behind the demolition program and to explore more broadly the strategic security problems Beijing is trying to contain and cauterise.

Transcript

MCDONELL: The Taklamatan Desert in Western China is 337,000 square kilometres of arid, dramatic wasteland. It's the hottest place in China which, for many an emperor, was a natural barrier to potential invaders. Yet for hundreds of years, camel trains would brave this desolate expanse. Because traders carried Chinese silk to sell to the Western world, this became known as "the Silk Road". The camel trains took this dangerous journey knowing that if they could make it across the Taklamatan, there was relief on the other side.

They would arrive in Kashgar. The old city looks pretty similar today to how it would have been centuries ago. Tens of thousands of people still live in this romantic, crumbling rabbit warren.

At street level you can really feel the history oozing out of these walls. Imagine what it was like for travellers in the past. After spending weeks in the desert heat, they would arrive here and meander around these cool alleyways, tasting again the fruits of civilisation.

Kashgar is the cultural capital for the Uighurs. Though they look and sound like Turks, these people are officially Chinese and ten million of them live here in China's far Western Xinjiang Province. Apart from their language, music and clothes, the Uighurs are known for their mercantile spirit and it's there in abundance at Kashgar's Sunday livestock market.

The Uighurs are Sunni Muslims. Throughout history their homeland has been in and out of Beijing's control. It became part of Communist China when the People's Liberation Army entered the region in 1949. For the many Uighurs who've never accepted being Chinese, their relationship with the government is at best tense.

Everywhere you go in this labyrinth of a place, there are working examples of a very different way of life. Tradition permeates everything and even dictates people's jobs. Fifty-year-old Tursun Zunun was born in this 400-year-old house. He's a 6th generation pot thrower.

TURSUN ZUNUN: "We live as we did in the old times. We don't use electric lights. I use my feet to turn the wheel to make pots. If I was to stop doing this the souls of my father and grandfather would also stop".

MCDONELL: As the oldest of twelve children, Tursun Zunun inherited this trade from his forefathers. He has three daughters and also a son who he hopes will take over after him. Yet he worries that his culture is under threat.

TURSUN ZUNUN: "In the past we had no hair - we had to shave our heads. We wore these dopas. But everything is changing - am I right? We didn't wear this type of clothing, but now we do. The old things are going. We've put away the dopa, and wear nothing on our heads. We're Uighurs in name only - so much of our culture has already changed".

MCDONELL: Kashgar's blacksmiths have occupied the same corner of this city for many hundreds of years. As with other crafts, their skills have been passed down from generation to generation. But here, like elsewhere, change is only days away and the fear of what's coming is palpable.

BLACKSMITH: "I spent my whole childhood in this place and if they destroy it, we can't continue our business".

MCDONELL: Whether they're bakers or noodle makers, tailors or painters, for many the old ways are about to end. And this is not some slow erosion but an upheaval in front of their faces. The government has declared that most of the old city will have to be knocked down. It's already levelled parts of the town as big as football fields, other areas have been cleared the size of large city office blocks.

XU JIANRONG: "The reality is that dangerous buildings are everywhere in the old town of Kashgar".

MCDONELL: Deputy Mayor, Xu Jianrong, is responsible for the old town's reconstruction. He says he's worried that an earthquake, like that in Sichuan last year, could one day strike Kashgar.

XU JIANRONG: "If there was an earthquake in Kashgar like the one at Sichuan you can't imagine the consequences. The streets are very narrow - we couldn't conduct an evacuation or rescue. The basic infrastructure in the old town is backward and the living and working conditions for the people are also comparatively backward".

MCDONELL: When you look at some of these buildings you do wonder how this ramshackle old city has held together. It's true that many houses here don't have modern facilities and there are those that could be dangerous in an earthquake, but this has been a living, breathing slice of history and the fear is that it's about to become a shallow fake copy of its former self. Either way, Old Kashgar will never be the same again.

The arguments for and against demolition are complex. Some Uighurs suspect that this is all about control, but most people are afraid to speak openly about government decisions. That is unless you're ninety years old and believe the authorities can't hurt you.

OLD MAN: "They never tell the truth. There's not one official who speaks the truth in Kashgar. All of them have lied or sent people to jail. They beat people. They wrong people. They receive money from the rich and that's who they promote". ...

MCDONELL: We asked if the real reason for moving Kashgar's Uighurs into flats was to make it easier to control them. The Deputy Mayor said this was totally groundless nonsense.

OLD MAN: "We won't move! They'll only achieve their goal by burying us in the ground. We won't move from here. This is where we've lived for generations. These houses are ours".

MCDONELL: Yet plenty of people are already moving. They can be seen driving through the streets of Kashgar with all their worldly possessions.

A propaganda program runs every night on local television. It extols the virtues of moving out of the old city and into new apartment blocks. Smiling and waving Uighurs are shown, celebrating this big change. Artists' impressions show the new buildings, which will replace the old.

On the outskirts of the city, identical blocks of flats are being built to receive the old town's population. Some here are finding it hard to adjust.

MAN IN NEW APARTMENTS: "Our lives in Kashgar city were good. With our neighbours, we sent regards to each other. We cried the deaths of our relatives together. We blessed each other at weddings but here we don't know each other." ...

WOMAN: "I love my ancient house. This place is like a temple of heaven. We really don't want to move. Could a new place equal this? It's impossible".

MCDONELL: The traditional courtyard house is also a refuge for Muslim women who can dress how they want without being seen in public. ...

BLACKSMITH: "We really like the old place, but to tell the truth it's also really dangerous here. The government needs to rebuild it".

MCDONELL: By the time we put these pictures to air, the historic blacksmith shops will have been levelled but the government has promised to rebuild the entire blacksmith quarter on the same location and in a traditional style. Many Uighurs are worried about their future. The livelihood of artisans depends on its location in the old city - nobody is going to head out to a new block of flats to buy traditional Uighur arts and crafts.

Parts of Kashgar are already like any other provincial Chinese city. The main square is full of Han Chinese motifs. The locals joke that the statue of former leader Mao Zedong turns its back on the old town and points towards a different future. But the current leaders say all will be well here. ... ==

ALSO SEE https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/demolishing-kashgars-history-7324895/

Demolishing Kashgar's History

Smithsonian Magazine

MARCH 2010

ALSO SEE https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/07/bulldozing-mosques-china-war-uighur-culture-xinjiang

Bulldozing mosques: the latest tactic in China's war against Uighur culture
Rachel Harris
The levelling of ancient sites in Xinjiang, alongside mass detention, is part of an attempt to destroy an entire society

The Guardian

[...] A reporter visited the eastern region of Qumul in 2017 and learned from local officials that over 200 of the region's 800 mosques had already been destroyed, with over 500 scheduled for demolition in 2018. Residents said that their local mosques had disappeared overnight, levelled without warning.

Mosques are not the only targets. Whole cities are being redesigned to facilitate maximum security and surveillance of the local population. Sites of architectural interest such as the ancient city of Kashgar have been demolished and rebuilt to suit the needs of what the government proclaims will be a flourishing tourism industry in Xinjiang. And it's not just the built heritage that is being destroyed. The bulldozer is also at work on communities, culture and people's lives. ...

END

(12) How credit was provided to companies in the Japan Miracle years, based on the theory of Gottfried Feder

by Peter Gerard Myers

December 14, 2025; update December 24, 2025.

Most Economics books are written by Capitalists or their proxies, and they do not want to reveal alternative ways of running an economy.

The Japan Model and the China Model, which produced 'Miracle' economies, used a differrent method of Credit Creation and Allocation from that practised in the capitalist West.

The Japan and China Models used a socialist method of Credit Allocation. To illustrate the difference from capitalist money-creation, the early years of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia provide an example; it also used a socialist method.

The official history of the Commonwealth Bank says,

"The capital of the Bank was fixed at £1,000,000, to be raised by the sale and issue of debentures.*" (p. 5)

but the footnote says

"* Actually the Bank was started with no capital whatever, its security being the credit of the whole Commonwealth." (p. 5)

The Governor of the bank had the option of issuing bonds to provide capital, but decided not to do so, because he did not want the bank to have shareholders to whom it would be indebted, and to whom interest would have to be paid. Instead, the official history says,

"though the Commonwealth Bank Act provided for a capital of £1,000,000, the Governor had already formed a plan to do without it. The Act provided that the security of the whole Commonwealth should be behind the Bank, and the Governor perceived that with this security the cash capital provided need not be called up." (p. 21).

The Governor of the Bank, Denison Miller, said during the official opening ceremony in 1913,

"The Bank is being started without capital, as none is required at the present time, but it is backed by the entire wealth and credit of the whole of the Commonwealth of Australia." (p. 34)

State and Federal Governments transferred their accounts from state banks to the Commonwealth Bank.

Jack Lang, in his book The Great Bust: The Depression of the Thirties, depicted Miller in class terms, where most bankers are loyal to the greedy 1%, but Miller was loyal to the people, and funded projects at lower interest rates. On Miller he writes,

QUOTE
One of the first demonstrations of his vigor came when the Melbourne Board of Works went on the market for money to redeem old loans, and also to raise new money. Up to that time, apart from Treasury Bills and advances by their own Savings Banks, Governments had depended on overseas loans from London.

The Victorians obtained their quote from London. In addition to stiff underwriting charges, they found that the best they could expect would be £1 million at 4 1/2 per cent., at 97 1/2 net.

They then decided to approach Denison Miller, who had promised to provide special terms for such bodies. He immediately offered to lend them £3 millions at 95 on which the interest rate would be 4 per cent. They immediately clinched the deal. Asked where his very juvenile bank had raised all that money, Miller replied, "On the credit of the nation. It is unlimited."
ENDQUOTE (p. 22)

Miller funded many operations during World War I, including ships to carry troops and equipment to the war; these ships became the Australian National Line, a publicly-owned fleet which was later sold off during the Thatcherite/Reagan years, along with much other publicly-owned infrastructure.

After Denison Miller died in 1923, right-wing governments changed the Commonwealth Bank from a socialist one to a capitalist one serving the 1%, ending low-interest loans, and restoring control to the Bank of England.

ALL banks create money ex nihilo (out of thin air); this is the secret that they do not want the public to know.

Bank credit-creation is a form of Capital Allocation. In this way, banks get to decide what things get funded and what don't. Western banks mainly lend money for housing, pushing up prices beyond affordability for young people (our future, remember), but they don't lend much to the real economy. In the West businesses are forced to get capital from the stock market, which is the domain of speculators with greedy motives and short-term horizons; so the whole economy lacks long-term planning. When private banks lend for infrastructure, their profit motive keeps interest rates high; greed takes precedence over the common good.

Bank credit creation was part of the Japan Miracle, and is the most hidden part.

At one stage in the years after World war II, Japan took a loan from the World Bank, but it paid it off and became a creditor to that bank.

Contrary to advice peddled by the IMF and the World Bank, foreign investment and foreign loans were not wanted to fund the Miracle economy. Nor were domestic savings a prerequisite, nor Gold. The money to fund the Japan Miracle would be created ex nihilo by Japanese banks.

The savings of the Japanese people came later; they were a byproduct of the Japan Model, not a cause of it. Suppressed consumption contributed to the savings; the same applies to the savings of the Chinese people today.

The theory behind the Japan Model derived from Gottfried Feder, the founder of the German Workers Party. Feder explained that there are two kinds of Capital, exploitative Capital which extracts wealth using usurious interest rates, and productive Capital which works for the Common Good.

The German Workers Party was a socialist party founded by Feder, Anton Drexler and Karl Harer. Hitler joined it and took it over, renaming it the NSDAP.

The fact that we are discussing Hitler's government does not mean that we are endorsing it. Our purpose is to show that its novel method of money-creation worked; that it created the German Miracle of the 1930s and 40s, the Japan Miracle of the late 1930s until 1991, and, after Japan transferred its secrets to China in 1978, the China Miracle, which has just produced a trade surplus of over $1 trillion in 2025, despite Trump's tariffs.

It works, and the rest of the world needs to understand it, fast; or be taken over.

Not every country can use such a model, because it's a zero sum game (protection at home, but exporting into free-trade economies).

From Feder, Hitler learned that Governments do not need Gold to operate an economy. As long as there are workers and resources, the economy can operate on a "Fiat" basis. The Central Bank can create as much money as is needed to fund employment, infrastructure and social programs. In this respect, Hermann Rauschning was wrong and Hitler was right. Whereas Rauschning argued that such money-creation would be inflationary, Hitler insisted that he would control prices and wages, to stop it; and that is what happened, the same as in the Soviet Union.

However, Hitler did not nationalize private property, as Feder had demanded and as happened in the Soviet Union. He simply placed control over private business in the hands of a managerial bureaucracy, subject to the Government. James Burnham's book The Managerial Revolution was the second book about the similarity between Soviet and Nazi management of the economy. Burnham was a Trotskyist who became a leading anti-Communist, and later worked for the CIA.

Burnham's book was not the first on that theme. It had been preceded by one other book, The Bureaucratisation of the World, by Bruno Rizzi (1939). He was also a Trotskyist, who praised the Nazi economic management: http://www.marxists.org/archive/rizzi/bureaucratisation/index.htm .

Trotsky himself commented on Rizzi's book: http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/09/ussr-war.htm .

A century later, using the method of Capital Allocation pioneered by Feder, China achieved a trade surplus of over $1 trillion in 2025, despite Trump's tariffs.

Feder belonged to the Left (socialist) wing of the NSDAP, along with Ernst Rohm, Gregor Strasser, and Otto Strasser. The socialist Left opposed Hitler's emphasis on racial purity and his foreign-policy adventurism. They wanted nationalisation of industry, but this scared the capitalists who Hitler approached to supply funds to contest elections. Hitler killed off many leaders of the socialist Left in the Night of Long Knives; Otto Strasser escaped and became the most wanted man in Europe.

Once in power, Hitler sidelined Feder and placed Schacht in charge of the economy instead. A good reference on the finance policies of that era is Zarlenga, Stephen A. (2002). The Lost Science of Money: the Mythology of Money - the Story of Power. American Monetary Institute.

Richard A. Werner discovered how the Japan Model worked. He was Professor and Chair of International Banking at the University of Southampton. Previously he was Assistant Professor of Economics at Sophia University in Tokyo. He spent over a decade working at the Bank of Japan, the Japanese Ministry of Finance, Jardine Fleming Securities (Asia) Ltd, the Asian Development Bank, and as asset allocator of a major pension fund. His book Princes of the Yen, about the Bank of Japan, was a best-seller in Japan.

The secret was that high growth needed an expansion in bank credit for investment. Foreign investment and foreign loans were not wanted; nor were domestic savings a prerequisite, nor Gold. The money would be created ex nihilo by Japanese banks (as all banks create money), but the Bank of Japan would impose a Credit Rationing system called Window Guidance. This would prevent banks from loaning too much money for consumption or for asset puchases (which push up the price of homes and of stocks). Instead, the money would be allocated for projects that would create income via exports. In effect, the BoJ applied a Credit Squeeze on lending for consumption, and on lending that would create asset bubbles.

Products produced by big-name companies required numerous components from small firms, which were all part of the supply chain. Each small firm required loans from small banks. The Credit Allocation system of the BoJ ensured that all these small firms had the bank loans they needed. Small firms employed much of the workforce.

Werner traces the links between the Japan Miracle and the German Reichsbank. The Bank of Japan Law of 1942 was largely a translation of Hitler's Reichsbank Law of 1939. The BoJ's "window guidance" was copied from the Reichsbank; a key postwar BoJ governor had been an apprentice at the Reichsbank under Hjalmar Schacht in the 1920s.

Japan's trade Surplus and the United States trade Deficit brought strong pressure from Ronald Reagan. Chalmers Johnson, the expert on the Japan Miracle, advocated a 25 percent surcharge on Japanese goods in the USA: johnson.html. This would have been a Protectionist measure, but Wall Street wanted Free Trade, and got Reagan to impose the Plaza Accord on Japan.

The vulnerability of the Japan Model was that bank loans required collateral, namely land and stocks, but their valuations would be unreliable were an asset bubble to develop.

The end of the Japanese Miracle began in the late 1980s, and had two causes.

(a) The USA forced the Plaza Accord on Japan, aimed at raising the exchange rate of the Yen. The Plaza Accord was dated Sept. 22, 1985; in January 1986, the BoJ began cutting interest rates. Normally, the lower interest rates in Japan would not have led to asset bubbles, because the bank lending that would produce them was rationed (i.e. in a Credit Squeeze), but under American pressure, the BoJ allowed asset bubbles to develop.

The Plaza Accord doubled the exchange-value of the yen, prompting manufacturers to move factories from Japan to South-East Asia. This caused unemployment and recession in Japan, as a result of which the BoJ kept interest rates low and encouraged consumption. This, in turn, created an asset bubble.

Despite the high yen, Japan did not import more American products; Japan had "structural import restrictions": https://medium.com/@aldiseptian/the-plaza-accord-and-its-profound-impact-on-the-japanese-economy-64a8dcab1350.

(b) In 1988 British and American banks, at the Bank for International Settlements, forced Japan to accept the Basel Accord, which imposed an 8% Capital Adequacy Ratio; as a result, in the next few years Japanese banks had to sell assets to raise capital. In consequence, bank lending declined, and then asset prices collapsed.

But in the 1970s and 80s, Japan was the boom economy.

Werner says that the BoJ ceased Window Guidance in 1991.

(13) How Japan passed on the Secrets of the High-Growth Economy to China

Werner says that during his 1978 visit to Japan, Deng Xiaoping met Saburo Okita, Director-General of the Planning Bureau of the Economic Planning Agency, several times, and invited him to China. https://rwerner.substack.com/p/chinese-lessons-part-ii-the-elixir

QUOTE
On 25 October 1978, Deng Xiaoping met Saburo Okita, then President of the Japan Economic Research Center, for an informal lunch. ... Deng Xiaoping was well aware who Saburo Okita was and how he had worked on planning the implementation of the high growth system ... The meeting went well. After that lunch, the visiting foreign leader let it be known that he wished to meet Mr Okita again before he was to return to China. Consequently, a significant 90-minute one-on-one meeting was organised at the Hotel Okura in Tokyo on 27 October 1978, the day before his flight back (the hotel featuring in some of the James Bond scenes in with Sean Connery).

Deng asked Okita: "How did Japan rebuild so quickly after the war? We want to learn from your experience". Okita responded. Deng reportedly took notes and later cited Okita in discussions. Apparently, Deng said to Okita at the end of their meeting: "Please come to China next week. We need your advice on how to modernise." Deng departed the next day.

What happened next changed the course of history. Okita immediately assembled a 12-member expert team and planned their intended trip to China, coordinating with the Chinese embassy on 29 and 30 October. The team received their China visas on 31 October and departed for Beijing on 1 November 1978. Okita met Deng in China just six days after their lunch, with a delegation of 12 experts in high growth economic planning.

There were immediate talks on 2-4 November with Deng Xiaoping and his economy right-hand man, Vice-Premier Gu Mu. Deng greeted Okita, saying "You came faster than we expected!". ... On 3 November, Okita spent another 2 hours in Beijing with Deng Xiaoping, Gu Mu and top lieutenants. ... Okita brought with him more economic planners and managers, because he knew how large the group of their counterparts was in China. It is less well known that Deng didn't just travel to Japan with his immediate official entourage.

Deng Xiaoping travelled to Japan with 300 experts. This group of 300 Chinese specialists was dominated by bureaucrats from the various Chinese ministries, as well as industrial and technical specialists, central planners and economists, all tasked to figure out the minutiae of Japan's high growth system. ...

By 1981, Okita had formed a forum for Japanese-Chinese economic knowledge sharing (íÜâ'), which was co-founded by the Chinese Deputy Prime Minister Gu Mu. It is also recorded that Okita, after retiring in November 1978 from his official positions, expanded his activities of advising developing countries to "share Japanese experiences of economic development".
END QUOTE

China adopted the Japan Model, with State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) playing a similar role to the Keiretsu in Japan.

Protection was a part of the Japan Model.

The Protection took the form of Non-Tariff Barriers, eg licensing restrictions and long delays on licensing, and currency manipulation. When Japan's exporters brought Dollars home, the BoJ would buy them with newly-created Yen (ex nihilo), and then use the Dollars to buy Treasury Bonds in the USA. This kept the value of the Yen down, so that exports could continue. The Yen Carry Trade also kept the Yen down. Western economists argued that Free Trade benefits consumers through lower prices, and turned a blind eye to the loss of jobs, skills and the tax base. Working Class voices were not heard until Trump came along.

Contrary to the claim that China developed by opening its markets, Stephen Schwarzman, co-founder of the Blackstone investment group, noted of the China miracle: "they did it behind tariff walls"; China protected its economy while the West adopted Free Trade. <https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/17/blackstone-ceo-stephen-schwarzman-china-economic-miracle-hurt-us-economy.html>

In December 2025 it was announced that China achieved a Trade Surplus of $1 trillion, despite Trump's tariffs. Yet the value of the Yuan did not rise, no doubt because of currency manipulation.

(14) Japan won the Cold War - Chalmers Johnson (1991)

https://mailstar.net/johnson.html

Radio interview: Chalmers Johnson

ABC Radio National's program called "INDIAN PACIFIC"; Sydney, December 30, 1991.

Announcer: Peter Meares. Interviewer: DR RICHARD TANTER, (teaches International Relations at Kyoto Sec University in Kyoto). Transcipt produced from the audio by Peter Myers; Japanese names may be spelled incorrectly. At the time, Johnson was Professor of International Relations at the University of California in San Diego.

(announcer) ... Professor Chalmers Johnson, the leading U.S. expert on Japan. With the Cold War over, the most significant relationship in the world is no longer that between Washington and Moscow, but now it's between Washington and Tokyo. And though in this case we don't have to worry about Mutually Assured Nuclear Destruction, the Japan-U.S. relationship does have its own set of serious tensions, with the potential to send shock-waves through the rest of the world. United States politicians are upset at Japan's massive trade surplus, and they want the Japanese to even things up a bit, by buying more American goods. The so-called Structural Impediments Initiative was supposed to help this process along, for example by getting the Japanese to spend instead of save, and ideally to do so in big American-style supermarkets, rather than those quaint little corner shops. Those small shops, the end-point of Japan's complicated distribution system, infuriate U.S. economists, because they defy orthodox economic logic. But then, so much about Japan's economy does. Professor Chalmers Johnson documented the unique role of the State in Japan's economy, in his famous book on MITI, the Ministry of International Trade and Industry. In Canberra, he was interviewed for Indian Pacific by Richard Tanter.

(Tanter) Professor Johnson, you said in your address at Canberra that you thought that economists were precisely the wrong people to help in negotiations between the United States and Japan, in their trade and general economic difficulty. Why not economists?

(Johnson) The economics profession has become the priesthood of the West in the Cold War. I mean, the Cold War is over and Japan won. The economists have been the defenders of Saint Adam Smith against Karl Marx. We got Karl Marx and he's gone, but meanwhile some people playing by different rules of the game have blindsided both of us. The economics profession did not anticipate great wealth in East Asia, still can't fully explain it, and is so threatened by it, they tend to alter the data in order to sustain the theory. [...]

I mean, for example, the famous Japanese savings rate, highest rate of savings out of personal disposable income, households', of any capitalist economy in peacetime. The Japanese would have you believe that this comes about because they are naturally frugal. The savings rate in Japan in 1930 was about what it is in the United States today, that is, households spent every yen they got. It's been turned around by institutional change, by massive incentives from the Ministry of Finance to save, ease of savings at the Postal Savings System, lack of enforcement of laws against tax avoidance, and numerous other such things that produce this goose that lays the golden eggs.

Comment (Peter M.): Johnson was saying that the high Savings Rate was not a CAUSE of the Japan Model, but a CONSEQUENCE of it, and a feature which helped maintain it. The same applies to the high Savings Rate in China today.

I was privileged to hear Chalmers Johnson address academics at Australian National University in Canberra. I also heard Ezra Vogel make an address there.

(15) Ellen Brown: China & Japan show how to fund infrastructure

The United States needs a High-Speed Rail network; Australia needs a Fast Rail network.

One of the stumbling blocks is the question, how to pay for it without raising taxes or borrowing funds at interest?

Ellen Brown shows that Japan and China have solved this problem, and would be a model for us, except that vested interests are blocking such methods.

Both countries get their own Central Bank to fund massive infrastructure at low cost.

We hear about the National Debt of Japan, but it's a debt that Japan owes to its own Central Bank. It could be wiped if need be, as the national debts of both Japan and Germany were wiped clean after World War II.

https://ellenbrown.com/2019/07/10/how-to-pay-for-it-all-an-option-the-candidates-missed/

How to Pay for It All: An Option the Candidates Missed

Posted on July 10, 2019 by Ellen Brown

In Japan, the massive stimulus programs called "Abenomics" have been funded through its central bank. The Bank of Japan has now "monetized" nearly 50% of the government's debt, turning it into new money by purchasing it with yen created on the bank's books. ...

[In China] massive growth has been funded with credit created on the books of China's banks, most of which are state-owned. Even in the US, course, most money today is created on the books of banks. That is what our money supply is - bank credit. What is different about the Chinese model is that the Chinese government can and does intervene to direct where the credit goes. In a July 2018 article titled "China Invents a Different Way to Run an Economy," Noah Smith suggests that China's novel approach to macroeconomic stabilization by regulating bank credit represents a new economic model, one that may hold valuable lessons for developed economies. ...

The Bank of Japan now holds government bonds amounting to more than 100% of GDP. In other words, the government has managed to finance itself "with the printing press" to the amount of about 100% of GDP, with no inflationary consequences. ...

Japanese law does not allow the government to sell its bonds directly to the central bank. ... But as Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Kikuo Iwata observed in a 2013 Reuters article, where the bonds are sold does not matter. What is important is that the central bank has agreed to buy them, and it is here that US banking law diverges from the laws of both Japan and China. ...

In Japan, the Bank of Japan is legally free to set interest rates, but it must cooperate closely with the Ministry of Finance in setting policy. ...

Unlike in the US, Prime Minister Abe can negotiate with the head of the central bank to buy the government's bonds, ensuring that the debt is in fact turned into new money that will stimulate domestic economic growth; and he is completely within his legal rights in doing it.

The leverage of China's central government over its central bank is even stronger than the Japanese prime minister's. The 1995 Law of the People's Republic of China on the People's Bank of China states:

The People's Bank of China shall, under the leadership of the State Council, formulate and implement monetary policies, guard against and eliminate financial risks, and maintain financial stability.

The State Council has final decision-making power on such things as the annual money supply, interest rates and exchange rates; and it has used this power to stabilize the economy by directing and regulating the issuance of bank credit, the new Chinese macroeconomic model that Noah Smith says holds important lessons for us.

The successful six-year run of Abenomics, along with China's decades of unprecedented economic growth, have proven that governments can indeed monetize their debts, expanding the money supply and stimulating the economy, without driving up consumer prices. The monetarist theories of US policymakers are obsolete and need to be discarded.

END

Copyright: Peter Myers asserts the right to be identified as the author of the material written by him on this website, being material that is not otherwise attributed to another author.

END

Write to me at contact.html.

HOME