PANAMA CANAL: U.S. Evolutionary Failure; China “Hyena Strategy”

The American evolutionary failure rests on the fact that The United States had an entire Continent to the South, and instead of…………………………………………………………….

“America is changing from monkey to man, not quite man yet, the tail is still there… but it’s no longer a chimpanzee and its tail is not very long…………. America should start changing……………….”

_{(Mao’s comment to his top diplomats after the very first U.S. visit to China in 1971; the famous “secret visit” of Kissinger, before Nixon’s first official visit to China. The opening of Sino-U.S relations. Kissinger met with Zhou Enlai, July 1971.). (Foreign Ministry 1990off, vol 2, p 41)}

– The first thing that Kissinger offered to China was Taiwan; Kissinger offered the withdrawal of US troops from Indo-China; intelligence about Soviet Russia; a seat at the UN and more, etc. Without asking anything in return. Furthermore, all this was under the constant bitter hectoring by Zhou to Kissinger, who repeatedly made remarks such as:

“your oppression……; your interference…..; your cruelty….; your imperialism”

– Not to mention what it would have been a sight to behold: Zhou to Kissinger “you must answer this question !”; “you have to answer this question first !” …………….

– Even to the point that Zhou even told Kissinger:

“[Nixon] must make more and more concessions for the privilege of coming to China“……………………………………………..

_{(Burr doc. 34, 9 July)}

A most……..fascinating episode in the U.S. Post-War history, which directly links the U.S. to this recent Panama Canal imbroglio and its deep dependency on China: While the USA, in its epic struggle against the monstruous existential threat of global communism, was annihilating “Communist Guerrillas” in the Global South, supporting genocides such as the brutal Guatemalan Civil War; Operation Condor and numerous C.I.A operations, they themselves were kowtowing to “Communist China” (ultimately, the US would export their jobs and technology to Communist China).

It transpires that the U.S.A. global endeavors during the Cold War had nothing to do with combating the global danger of communism but rather a continuation of the same Colonial European impulse / policy of impoverishing the Global South: gaining access to cheap resources, keeping certain regions / peoples/ races poor and sunk in violence: killing each other. As any twenty-first century educated person knows: Neo-Liberalism = Neo-Colonialism. Same impulse/scheme/strategy, officially translated into Policies.

1. U.S.A Evolutionary Failure

The American evolutionary failure rests on the fact that The United States had an entire Continent to the South, and instead of forging cooperative structures and a relatively fair development with their immediate surrounding (environment), as evolutionarily species do so when they are inserted in a new system / ecosystem / environment, they simply continued the Old World’s colonial practices and policies of human & racial degradation, cultural humiliation and impoverishment upon the Global South.

_{(Now, U.S.A is trying to start manufacturing in Mexico (where they should have started in the first place); an attempt to decouple from China. but finds a place without any proper infrastructure – the consequence of their own policies upon South America)}

The United States; the European immigrants in the new world were never part of a new world. The entire enterprise and activity of Western nations in the “New World”, from the Spaniards to the British, were nothing new, but plainly the continuation of the old world’s practices, in a new land (scenario); not a New World. The white-man (as it became known from this period) did not find a “new land” for starting a new life and creating a new way of living. For this would have implied the adaptation to the means and a relative balance between the local environment (including peoples) and themselves. It would certainly be stupid to think in a primeval perfect harmony of idyllic happiness between all parties: but certainly an original clash, which does not necessarily entail the extermination of one or the other (or them or us); which leads to a relative balance between the natives and groups of immigrants, which would guarantee the survival of all, for there were enough resources in the region for the various peoples. And in the long run (shorter than in our current state, for sure), conceivably, a gradual integration of and cooperation among the various groups; as how systems and ecosystems tend to seek an equilibrium (which, in our present state, is suppressed, because of the accumulation of material wealth / power).

Whatever, The “New World” was only a continuation of the Old World’s policies in a New Land, but never a New World. (a dichotomy which is still not comprehended until today, and in its place there is a centuries-old intellectual cheat of a linear, accumulative progress). And so there was never a New World, for the new “immigrants” and their new settlements / nations kept tied to the old world. And as the policies of the Old World gradually degraded the New Land and whatever life-style, people, culture or life-form could have existed before; the immigrants clang to the Old World’s identity, most of all the racial one.

But somehow it was impossible to have a real New World; for Europe has always been poor in resources and such natural and inherent poverty creates certain needs, about which Mark Davis is remarkably right when stating “The Creation of the Third World”. Poverty in our modern world is, indeed, engineered / fabricated.

The American evolutionary failure is rectified in the fact that even after the Treaty of Paris 1873, when The United States had an entire Continent to the South at their disposal, instead of forging cooperative structures and a relatively fair development with a culture closer to theirs (so as to create a strong block which they could have led); they simply, and perhaps without free choice, continued the same Old World’s Colonial practices of human and racial degradation; impoverishing the South through wars, political interferences and unfavorable trading policies. So, now that The USA, owing to their own historical immaturity, is trapped in a dependency, which threatens to undermine their economic interests (among others), the sole reality that The USA finds is the failure of their own practices and policies in their own continent:

• the fault of having impoverished and having kept the rest of its own continent and neighbors underdeveloped (where there is no infrastructure for USA interests now), divided; bipolarized; weary of US treatment; left at the expenses of any bribing policy and propaganda from whom might want to exploit such internal conflicts and division, and ultimately turning them against the US. As the ultimate aim of China has always been The US.

• And the fault of having entered into an economic dependency with a culture so alien to them; which they still do not understand, but merely sees it through the projection of their own cultural stereotypes and ideological ghosts; believing in Orientalized theories and business profit figures. A culture which has always carried and concealed, a historical resentment against The West. And there is where the US even exported their jobs and technology.

From evolutionary failure it becomes a historical one too. The problem lies not only with the short historical and intellectual tradition, but also with the narrow vision that an aristocracy of money and a business-driven “culture” provides. But all that reaches a boiling point when fueled by a blinding stupor of “superiority”.

Had the Romans focused on business and war only, as modern historiography is only capable of extracting from history, then the more than two hundred years of the Imperum would have been only 70.

2. China and The Hyena Strategy

• “The more land (of China) the Japanese took, the better _{(“Li Riu 1989, pg 223; cf Snow 1974, pg 169, Mao to Snow}). The communists would simply go behind the Japanese lines taking the leftovers. He [Mao ] knew that China was too big a territory for the Japanese, and that they could only garrison major cities and control the railroads. Reason why the cables to his commanders were about creating bases not engaging in combat against the invading force (Imperial Japan)”.

_{(Jung Chang – Jon Halliday, Mao The Unknown Story, pp 249 – 50; “Li Riu 1989, pg 223; cf Snow 1974, pg 169, Mao to Snow; Mao 1993a, vol 2, pp 57 – 61)}

• Mao had no strategy to drive the Japanese out of China………………All his hopes hinged on Soviet Russia……………………………….[his] Basic plan was to let the Japanese take as much land as they could, let the Nationalists be killed, and as the Japanese swept on, to seize territories behind the Japanese lines

_{(Jung Chang, Jon Hallyday, Mao The Unknown Story, pp 249, 250)}.

In sum:

1. Clinging onto a big modern power.
2. Going behind, picking-up leftovers

China’s relationship with the West, during the last two three centuries, has perpetually been, in psychological terms, equivalent to: a sick relationship; a feature which is intrinsic in Chinese relationships based on family, following the Confucian filial-piety.

Many features started already with the Soviet Russia-China Relationships.

Clinging onto a bigger modern power from which a “model” is extracted, (apparent submission to it, whilst everything is absorbed) then comes a phase of denying it, as the shame brought by the loss of face is immense for Chinese, which then provokes an attitude of appropriation, by means of extracting something from within the Chinese culture or history in order to legitimize it and save face. Although to the meanest intelligence it is clear that it is a copy or a cheap appropriation, truth is not something important for Chinese, but rather to simply have something (even if it is a lie) to save face with. And so we see that they resort to infantile arguments which shock any modern educated mind: “communism was invented in China” or that by “ancestral rights” everything belongs to them, etc.

Soviet Russia founded the Chinese Communist Party; founded the Wampoa Military Academy; provided China with military equipment; sent economic aid to both: the Nationalists and the Communists. Provided pilots; sold Industries to China (which Chinese peasants paid them dearly and mortally); sent scientists to China……., etc, etc, etc, And also back then China wanted to usurp Russia’s leadership of the Communist Bloc (now is about surpassing the US), profiting from the Polish and Hungarian revolts in June and October (respectively) 1956. Criticizing Russia for its “great power chauvinism” and for envisaging ‘military intervention’ and proposing that the Soviet leadership should make self criticism (Liu Shao-Chi was sent to Moscow in October at Khrushchev’s invitation). And trying to present themselves as the champions of the Poles; Zhou was sent to Poland in January 1957 to try to pull Gomulka into his fold and to plant the idea of proposing China as the head of the Communist bloc. That same January a Chinese envoy already in Yugoslavia was instantly instructed to request an ultra-private meeting wit Tito, at which he asked the Yugoslavian president to co-sponsor Communist summit with Pekin, arguing that the Soviet party was in such disrepute that no one would listen to it. And so on and so forth during those decades. In fact, the quote cited above: “Mao had no strategy to drive the Japanese out of China………………All his hopes hinged on Soviet Russia……………………………….” It is based on Mao’s certainty that it was not convenient for Russia that China fell under the full control of Japan. Not that he did not want to see China being invaded by Imperial Japan, but he was simply under the belief that Russia would not allow it because it would not be convenient for Russia. Following the same logic, Xi Jinping said in one of his speeches in January 2023 : “The world needs China”. Translating it, it means: “it is not convenient to the world to have a weak China; the world needs China, not the other way around.

Russian know-how enabled China to copy every short-cut the Russians had made in the nuclear technology. The story with the US nowadays is not so different from it.

Did The U.S. think it was going to be different for them? Did the U.S’s delusion of “exceptionalism” make them think that they can dissolve cultural tendencies forged throughout centuries of history ? (the problem of having a short history?).

July 1960 Russia pulled-out of China all their scientists: “Letter, Khrushchev to the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany, regarding Soviet Specialist in China”. Bad conditions and maltreatment to the Soviet scientists. Chinese propagating false information to Soviet scientists about their own government; Chinese authorities started treating Soviet scientists as “spies”. How is it that until this day Chinese are still thinking and treating foreigners, most of all Westerners in China, as spies ?

Did the U.S. think it was really going to be different for them; or was it that miserable seek-for-cheap-resources around the world of the capitalist world which made them kowtow to China ? Perhaps it could be added that the stupor of supremacy in the American continent, keeping the old colonial sense of superiority through impoverishing lesser cultures and inferior races in the south, as once Europe did, and so it must be part of any great power’s portfolio. Part of the uniform.

Everything that The United States of America claim to have been enduring from China is nothing The United States of America did not know about China; nothing which they could not have foreseen before entering in a relationship of dependency with China.

Going behind, picking-up leftovers It seems self-explanatory and clear by simple logical inference applied to the Chinese geo-political strategies during the last decades, taking the leftovers of a previous colonial activity, but hiding (cowardly one must say) behind the deeds of previous colonial powers. As if ultimately, through passive-aggressivity, the results were not the same. The pick-up of the leftovers – we all have seen them in Africa, South East Asia, The Middle East, Latin America, etc.

Implied on that need of clinging onto a bigger power and to follow behind is: covering behind it / hiding behind it / shielding behind, and ultimately pointing at it (hidden behind).

Perhaps this attitude of going behind and using the active element for cowardly hiding behind it (as China is a passively aggressive element) is best exemplified in the original version of this Chinese strategy in the modern world: China-Japan

• “Our Party’s tactics with the Japanese and collaborators was: “Use the hand of the enemy to strike the other enemy……..comrade Kang Sheng told us this many times… Collaborators’ organisations were filled with our comrades who used the knives of the Japanese to slaughter Nationalists…….Of the things I knew personally, the Japanese annihilation of the [Nationalist Underground Army] South of the Yangtze [was one of the] masterpieces of cooperation between the Japanese and our Party“
• _{(The Russian GRU in Yenan reported one occasion when Chinese Communist forces attacked Chinese Nationalist forces in Shandong in coordination with Japanese troops in the summer of 1943) (Jung Chang – Jon Halliday, Mao the Unknown Story, The Most desirable Scenario, pp 271)}

China nowadays is plagued with the Japanese occupation propaganda; anti-Japanese sentiment, and even a Japanese kid was stabbed in Shenzhen the 18th of October 2024. When actually the ruling CCP party directly collaborated with the Japanese in their expansion in China and the entire massacre of other Chinese (Moscow even had a file about Mao, possibly being a Japanese spy). Passively-aggressively going behind ……..picking-up…….

As we can glean, the said strategy which can resemble that of not only a hyena but of many other beings perceived as opportunistic, can actually be extended to what Modern China is, namely: China in the Modern World. The existential condition that China adopted for adapting to the modern world, as an adaptive mechanism in order to first to adapt and survive, then to thrive and expand. China was not the Ottoman Empire modernizing through western ideas; Ottomans had always been in contact with the world, and so were many other “modernized” nations. China was coming from a seclusive history, intermittently opening and closing to the rest of the world (tendency, which they still keep as a core cultural characteristic). The foreign merchants were relegated to an enclave outside the city walls of Canton before the Opium Wars. All the collection of treaties which the Western powers imposed on China opened it. Adding the fact that (which is still bothering China like a splinter) China modernized relatively late in history; and it would be clear to any secondary school students that the result of such an addition cannot be the same than for another nation; not even to Japan (with a closely similar cultural background), who had the courage and tenacity of overtly fighting the West.

China follows, hides behind, copies and pastes, conceals….: goes behind, following, picking-up; appropriates then fabricates great victories and achievements; which in turn the U.S have almost one hundred years of repeatedly being fooled with, time and again. Fooled even by their own “free-minded” journalists and intellectuals: from all those pre-conceived and calculated interviews of Edgar Snow and many others from the “Hankow gang” of journalist until good US business men nowadays.

Well, that is the result of having only an aristocracy of money as historical background and a business-driven “culture”. A short history (experience) and a business-driven “culture”, invested with a sense of “supremacy”, and there you have the US cycle coming to its closure: front by front, particle by particle. And it is closing not because of “enemies”, but it is simply the inevitable moment in which the consequences of previous decision (policies) are bringing about the logical results; as simple arithmetic does. The results of immaturity, playing at being superpower. And one can already see the sequence to come: embedded in the new administration, blinded by the same founding spirit which arrived to the Americas (prevailing until now); and which is simply running its natural course, exhausted. And also all the things around, and which pend of it, can give sign of; should one is capable of reading them. But it is simply seeking a fresh impulse which would propel its course up in a new cycle; perhaps a force closer to its “ideals” rather than to its present, old, rancid interests. But to awake and see the reality of the natural course of things has hardly been the case in history. And even harder among very logical linearly spellbound fools. And mostly of all in this era when the banausic class has emerged to power. They prefer destructions, butcheries and deaths that the inevitable conflict of maladaptive moves/decisions bring about. So much that it somehow appears they have come to masochistically enjoy witnessing misery and bloodshed, to the point that they dogmatically have come to call it: human nature.

Evolutionary Failures and cycles of sick relationships