Silence Dogood Wire

One of the most widely used measures to subdue rogue countries and bring them into the sphere of normal activity is economic sanctions. These non-violent means of attempting to bring about change are widely used by the United States, the European Union, and the United Nations. Due to the apparent ease with which they can be imposed, they are very popular. However, it is important to remember that these tools are ultimately meant to bring about change in a country and if they don’t have that effect then they are mostly futile. With that being said it is important to understand whether or not sanctions will be effective when dealing with China and its gross violations of human rights.

When looking at whether or not sanctions will be effective it is imperative to avail ourselves of examples in which they have worked or are currently working. One of these places is North Korea. The reason that sanctions are such an effective tool to use against the regime in North Korea is because the people who live there are already living in squalor. Therefore, any additional suffering brought on by the sanctions will not cause the citizens to turn their ire against the U.S. Instead, they will be inclined to blame their leader, because his policies in the past have also led to their suffering.

Another reason why the sanctions against North Korea are correctly applied is because most of the resources of Kim Jong Un’s regime are consolidated at Pyongyang to uphold his rule. Therefore, extensive sanctions must necessarily encroach on the supplies of the capital which is the center of his power. This, coupled with the specific policy goal of stopping nuclear development could eventually induce the regime to give up their weapons.

However, sanctions are not always a feasible option when it comes to punishing countries. In Lebanon, sanctions could have quite the opposite of their intended effect. They have been imposed in order to bring Hezbollah, the regional terrorist group, to its knees. However, Foreign Policy Magazine states that, “the weakening of the state will in no way weaken Hezbollah, which is armed to the teeth and coming off an eight-year adventure in Syria.” Instead, there will be regions of sectarian instability. Hezbollah will then capitalize on this and assert their dominance in the Southern region of the country. Additionally, because the people of Lebanon do not regularly live in third world squalor, the loss of their resources will come as a shock which will drive them into the arms of our enemies.

With this being said, it is important that we do not impose extensive economic sanctions upon China. We should only confine ourselves to sanctioning national security threats such as Huawei. Additionally, we should impose smart sanctions. These types of sanctions are less extensive, cut off key commodities, and are less likely to affect the average Chinese citizens.

However, a more important means of stifling China’s ambition is through our assertion of military predominance. This can first be done by aiding our natural allies in the South China Sea such as Taiwan, with military ships. It would naturally be the next step in stopping what Secretary of Defense Mike Pompeo called, China’s unlawful actions in the South China Sea. Additionally, it is important to enter into formal military alliances with China’s neighbors. This is of the utmost importance, because when combined, Vietnam, Japan, and India (who are all disgruntled by China)  contain more wealth and people than China. This would be a powerful antidote to Chinese dominance in the region.

Another reason for the extreme importance of the military over economic measures is that it would be a huge blow to the prestige of the Chinese government. Chinese citizens will unquestioningly follow their government because it is powerful and they perceive it to be so. Propaganda has been a major focus of the communist party since Mao Zedong took power. He stated that,

 “We should carry on constant propaganda among the people on the facts of world progress and the bright future ahead so that they will build their confidence in victory.” Military measures by the U.S. and powerful allies would certainly dim that confidence.

Extensive economic action would merely drive the Chinese people further into the arms of their government and fuel increased aggression. On the other hand, Military assertions coupled with “smart sanctions” which are less extensive and don’t drastically affect citizens would severely hurt the reputation of the communist party and prevent them from expanding their influence. 

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: D.A. Peterson / Public domain

Throughout the recent protests and debates over racial inequality in the United States, people on the left side of the aisle have succumbed to an acute case of tunnel vision. To them, race is the only issue right now. Apparently racial issues are so important that the pandemic has receded into nothingness in their wake. Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, decided to march with protesters and not social distance during the recent protests. This was just three days after she stated that, “Outdoor social gatherings and events are permitted so long as people maintain six feet of distance from one another and the assemblage consists of no more than 100 people.” Hypocritically enough, the protests certainly had more than 100 people. Unfortunately, political virtue-signalling will always triumph over rational thinking when it helps a politician get reelected.

However, even though these protests were not well thought out and congregated large numbers of people during a pandemic, pundits and political leaders alike have failed to recognize one of the largest harms that they create. They force us to focus on issues that are peripheral in extent to what we should be facing as a nation.

The U.S. has gone farther than any other country in extending the legacy of freedom to every racial group. Under the law all people are equal. Additionally, when dealing with police there is virtually no evidence that black people are disproportionately shot. If the U.S. is truly a racist place, then how could a majority elect a black president? How is Oprah one of the highest paid celebrities? Why did many universities stop using the SAT to accommodate students of color? Why is the NBA embracing Black Lives Matter? The answer is because most Americans are good-hearted people who don’t care about your race or background. 

That is not to say that racial disparity is not an issue. However, the conversation has become so divisive and destructive that we are ignoring everything else. We are turning a blind eye to other abuses that are so sickening they make radical left wing groups like Black Lives Matter look absurd.

According to Foreign Policy over 1 million Turkic Uighurs are held in prison camps in China. They are sterilized, raped, killed, and tortured in an attempt to expunge their race from Chinese society. Additionally, around 500,000 Muslim children have been separated from their families and are held in Chinese custody. This is real and material racism to the highest degree.

Racism is certainly something we should address in this country, but the conversation has become so radical that no one can agree. The governmental policies in the United States are not perpetuating racism, but work can be done to stop racist incidents from happening in a calm and collected discussion of policy goals. However, the situation has gotten so out of control that college campuses focus on fighting microaggressions and people spend their energy trying to remove statues of Abraham Lincoln. All the while they ignore the fact that Uighur Muslims are being killed in China. In the United States, prosperity has been extended to all groups to a degree unparalleled in human history. Despite this, we are so stuck on inflated issues in our country that we are too selfish to extend that prosperity to others.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: John Lucia / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)

In an attempt to show how much they care about racial equality many people have chosen to adopt the slogan black lives matter and march at different protests. The slogan is good. Of course black lives matter. We should do the best we can to preserve the lives of people of all racial groups. However, what people often forget is that Black Lives Matter is not just a slogan, it is also a group with extremely radical designs and it is important to distinguish the two. In the famous words of Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist No. 1 “Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate on those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.” These words express precisely the state in which the BLM movement has found itself. It is not and has never been about police violence. Instead, radical politicians use the honorable pretext of racial equality to push forth political agendas that seldom have anything to do with promoting the welfare of the African-American community.

The #blacklivesmatter slogan originated on July 13, 2013 after Trayvon Martin was killed. The hashtag instantly blew up on twitter and has been growing in use ever since. During the recent protests over the killing of Floyd George many wore this slogan in solidarity with the black community.

The organization on the other hand is an entirely different story. They also have another slogan which has caught hold in the wake of recent events; #defundthepolice. This is not a slogan created to call attention to an issue. It is a policy decision this organization actually wants to carry out. However, if they really cared about black lives wouldn’t they want to see more police officers in Chicago to stop minority children from being shot and killed? It appears instead to be an organized attempt at inserting virtue-signalling nonsense into actual political policy. If it were carried out this idea would undoubtedly lead to more black death and the perpetual impoverishment of crime ridden minority areas. It is not an attempt to help black people. Instead, it is an attempt to mobilize a community of people who wish to see the best done for their neighbors by feeding them completely non-evidence based claims to further an agenda.

The cultural revolution that BLM is trying to bring about is also extremely radical and completely unrelated to promoting black life and prosperity. They are attempting to fight “cisgender privilege” and dismantle a Western family structure. None of these goals seems to be in line with an attempt to curb police violence or promote black livelihood. In fact, the reason that so many black people are suffering appears to be caused by them abandoning the Western family structure. A study that was sponsored by the Department of Justice stated that, “ past research on the family structure of a community has revealed father absence to be a consistent and potent predictor of variation in levels of violence across ecological contexts.” The breaking up of the “Western family” has had deleterious effects on the black community as shown by every available metric.

Policy goals in the economic arena have also expanded themselves in a direction that can only be loosely tied to the interests of black people. The Daily Wire recently reported on the Marxist upbringing of the leader of the Los Angeles Black Lives Matter chapter, Dr. Melina Abdullah. This woman wishes to destroy capitalism in order to promote black equality. However, capitalism has probably been the most important factor in lifting up black people. The fact that the government, especially in the South, didn’t control labor can be considered a massive advantage to black people given that they would have faced even more discrimination than was already present. Additionally, in our age which has become more enlightened on race, firms that choose to hire on the basis of race instead of efficiency drift into obsolescence due to the fact that the market naturally tends to promote the most effective workers regardless of race. However Dr. Abdullah believes that police excessive use of force is tied to a defense of the American capitalist order. The complete lack of evidence for this claim illustrates that her fulminations about racism in America seem to be about promoting a utopic agenda instead of one about supporting African-Americans.

The far left activists of the Black Lives Matter movement and those who attach themselves to it are not doing the black community many favors. They have expanded far beyond their supposed mandate of protecting black people from police brutality. Would George Floyd still be here if capitalism was abolished and the government controlled labor? Would Breonna Taylor be here if instead of having a traditional household with two loving parents she was raised by a large community of people? Would less black people die on the streets of Chicago if law enforcement officers were prevented from doing their jobs? The Black Lives Matter Movement doesn’t answer these questions honestly.

 Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Fibonacci Blue from Minnesota, USA / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)

Today, slavery reparations have become a hallmark policy that has been tied up in the democratic agenda for racial equality. CNN recently reported that in the wake of the George Floyd killing, democrats have sponsored a congressional bill to consider reparation payments to African Americans whose ancestors were enslaved. Unfortunately for anyone who supports this bill, they have the burden of proof. This burden of proof lies in them demonstrating three things. First they must prove that we live in a racist system, second they must prove that slave reparations will be helpful in unifying the country racially, and third, they must prove that their plan is feasible and in accordance with the principles of justice.  If any of these things is untrue then their case falls apart.

One concept that people supporting reparations must prove- that the U.S. is a racist system -is very scantily supported by the evidence. Nevertheless, attempts have been made. In the wake of recent police killings leftists have been very eager to capitalize and appeal to people’s emotions in order to get them to believe that an entire organization tasked with keeping peace and order actually promotes violence and oppression. If they have been successful at emotionally persuading people that the police are racist, they have certainly not been successful academically. In fact, the data do not support the contention that the police are racist at all. Statistics reported by the Wall Street Journal show that “a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer.” Additionally, the National Academy of Sciences conducted a study in which they produced the self-evident findings that the more often police officers are involved in situations with violent suspects in a specific racial group, the more likely it is that members of that racial group will be shot. The study found “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police.” The fact of the matter is that African-Americans are not being artificially oppressed by systemic barriers such as police bias.

The second proof also falls apart when it is looked into with an unbiased mind. Reparations would not at all help to racially unify the country. In fact, an AP-NORC poll found that only 29% of Americans favor cash reparations. To say that it is unifying to take money away from one group to give to another when 71% of people oppose it is at best, sheer nonsense. Slavery reparations might benefit a certain group in the short term but it might actually have the unfortunate effect of promoting racial animus among those who are forced to pay.

The third and final proof is probably demonstrated the worst. The plan for reparations is in no way in accordance with principles of justice. The idea of justice being done is that you have had an illegal act committed against you and therefore you will receive payment for what has been done to you either by the transgressor of the wrongs or by someone related to the person who transgressed the wrongs. This was the principle behind the most recent reparations to Holocaust survivors that was paid by Germany. A wrong that was committed is rectified by helping those who suffered the wrong not the descendants of those who suffered it.

Aside from the gross distortion of justice, advocates of reparations have also been unable to prove that their plan would be feasible. In order for reparations to work properly the descendants of slave-owners would need to be the ones required to pay. Otherwise descendants of people who were killed fighting to stop slavery would have to pay. What would then be required is a vast database where everyone in the United States was genetically tested to see if any of their ancestors owned slaves. This would be unconstitutional in the highest degree as it would severely encroach upon the privacy  of individuals.

Although advocates of slave reparations may have good intentions they have sorely failed at proving the merits of their case. Their logic is extremely flawed and even if you agree with them in principle, there is no way to effectively carry out their plans. People advocating for this policy have the burden of proof  and if they wish to have their policies accepted they must attempt to fulfill it much more effectively.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: © Yann Forget / Wikimedia Commons

As China ramps up its aggression on and around the Asian continent it is important for our foreign policy interests to remember that this aggression comes at the cost of making enemies and offending countries. On the Steve Bannon War Room Podcast, Edward Luttwak, a prominent global strategist who has made a living advising governments, said that China has not learned the lesson that the U.S. has; make friends with your neighbors. This has caused many tensions to be exacerbated and turned public opinion against China.  The Wall Street Journal recently reported on a border skirmish between India and China which left 20 Indian soldiers dead. The U.S. should use this opportunity to increase cooperation with China’s most populous neighbor in order to curb Chinese aggression in the region.

Indian-Chinese relations have been fraught with tensions since the time of Mao Zedong. According to Foreign Policy, Mao Zendong and Indian Prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed on a number of issues, but could not settle the border between the two countries. This dispute has continued to this day. However, with the end of the cold war and Western imperialism, India has less of a reason to be well disposed to China. 

Additionally relations between the U.S. and India have been steadily improving since the end of the Cold War. According to the Council on Foreing Relations, a New Defense Framework was agreed upon by the U.S. and India for maritime cooperation and joint naval exercises in 2005. Unfortunately, India is not yet involved in large-scale international military cooperation frameworks such as NATO. However, the benefits of supporting India and making the country a more integral part of our foreign policy are numerous. According to Statista, India had the third largest military expenditure of any country in 2019 which amounted to 71.1 billion dollars. This, coupled with their large population makes them an extremely valuable ally.

In addition to their conflict with China, India has also had a longstanding conflict with Pakistan over their Northwestern border known as Kashmir. Consequently, relations with this country have also been fractious.  This is important, because in 2018 The New York Times reported on a confidential plan between Pakistan and China which would be a part of their Belt and Road initiative. The plan proposed to increase Pakistan’s production of military equipment for China. Given that Pakistan is now extremely close with China it would also make sense for us to support Indian interests in this area of foreign policy as well.

Most importantly, closely allying ourselves with India would not be substituting one tyrannical regime for another. In fact, a Pew Research poll also found that a majority of Indians believe that democratic values including free speech are not stifled within the country. This makes the country a morally attractive state which could be used to defend Western ideals of freedom throughout the region of Asia.

Now, more than ever, it is important to establish deeper economic and especially military ties with India in order to curb Chinese influence in the region of Asia. Policymakers should seize the opportunity to swoop in and appease China’s disgruntled neighbors. Relations with India have been very good and establishing a NATO type military treaty with Asian countries who are worried by China’s hostilities is very important.  This will ensure military balance in the region and create a block of countries in favor of U.S. interests.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: Ph_general_map.png: Seav (=Eugene Villar)derivative work: Kpjas at pl.wikipedia / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)

There is no doubt that free trade provides enormous benefit to societies, by stimulating foreign investment, ramping up exports, and increasing the amount of goods and services available. That is why economists have been advocating free trade policies since 1776 when Adam Smith produced his landmark book on capitalist economics, The Wealth of Nations. To see this phenomena in action all you need to do is look to the four Asian tigers. Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore. These countries are all extremely wealthy and are hubs for tech and manufacturing. Compared to their other Asian neighbors such as the Philippines, or even China, their standard of living is much higher for all of their citizens. The fact that these countries are so well developed is extraordinary given the fact that they were not at the centers of the European dominated age of industrialization. Their rise to global prominence can be attributed to nothing less than free trade which has bestowed economic well being on every country that it has touched throughout the modern era. 

Despite the benefits, free trade also creates a huge amount of interdependence among countries which is sometimes a dangerous prospect. Given this fact, the outbreak of Covid-19 begs the question; How reliant do we want to be on China? This is a country who is encircling the sovereign country of Taiwan, asserting its power in the South China Sea, and expanding its international possessions so as to increase its global dominance. In fact, the alarms were being raised at the outset of this pandemic that China would block pharmaceuticals to the U.S. of which they control an immense supply. Although they have not directly blocked these goods the New York Times reported that at one point they actually cut off the exportation of face masks. 

Given the fact that the communist regime which holds power in China committed a massacre in Tiananmen Square and prevented its own citizens from spreading the word about the coronavirus it seems extremely short-sighted to place our fate in the hands of  a government hungry for global dominance. The benefits of free trade, as we know, flow both ways, and it is important not to lend our hand to a country who has taken aggressive action against its neighbors and oppressed its citizenry.

After this crisis is behind us it is important that the U.S. stop handing lucrative trade deals to China. According to the World Bank China has 373 million people living below $5.50 a day despite the fact that they have the second largest economy in the world. This extremely low level of income seems incompatible with the size of the Chinese economy.

The U.S. should instead move a majority of its manufacturing plants to the Philippines which will provide the benefits that come along with cheaper goods as well as curb China’s regional power. The Philippines is a perfect candidate for setting up U.S. owned factories, due to the fact that according to the World Bank they have a very stable economy which was previously expected to grow 6.1% in 2020 and 6.2% in 2021. This economic stability is an extremely important indicator of political stability which is a necessary prerequisite for any investment within a region. 

Additionally, it is important not to give trade deals to countries who let their citizens live in squalor such as China does. The Philippines would also alleviate this moral issue associated with free trade, because of their concern for the quality of life of their citizens. In fact, the Philippines has actually promoted overseas employment since the 1970s in order to increase the economic well being of its citizens, despite the obvious effect of brain waste which causes highly skilled workers to leave the country. This has made overseas remittances an integral part of the country as about 10% of the  population works abroad.

The benefits both morally and politically of moving manufacturing operations to a less aggressive Asian country are numerous. By providing the Philippines instead of China with trade deals, we would alleviate the potential of China using its economic power to cut off valuable supplies to us and we would illustrate to them that we do not support their aggression in the South China Sea. We would also provide a country who has been struggling to provide for its citizens with economically beneficial industries that would alleviate poverty in the region and prevent worker exploitation.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: This photo is a work of the U.S. federal govt. and in the public domain

With the outbreak of the novel coronavirus and the loss of almost all economic gains made under President Trump, many people are rightfully rethinking their decision on who to vote for in the upcoming election. However, it is important that we as voters do not vote for an opposing candidate for the simple reason that we don’t like the other one. If you don’t look at things carefully you may end up with someone even worse. With that being said we should compare President Trump’s response to the coronavirus to the hypothetical response of democratic frontrunner Joe Biden before we make our decision on who to vote for.

Joe Biden has claimed to be the hero America needs on the covid-19 issue. He has no doubt engaged in a huge amount of politicization of this pandemic and argued that he would be better equipped to address this issue. Additionally he has outlined a plan which he believes would stop the pandemic. However, when one goes over its contents, it is extremely similar to the actions which have already been taken by President Trump. On Joe Biden’s campaign page his plan for the coronavirus includes mortgage and rental relief, employer assistance for job maintenance, interest free loans to small businesses, providing needed jobs, and cash assistance or targeted refundable tax relief. His plan for alleviating burdens on the health side of the equation include making tests available to all and providing a number of makeshift hospitals.

This sounds extremely similar to the measures taken by President Trump. As reported by the New York Times, President Trump has asked Congress to pass funds to provide 500 billion dollars to give directly to taxpayers and early on he ordered federal agencies to prevent foreclosures and eviction before April is over. He also deployed two military hospital ships which is exactly in line with Biden’s proposal to increase the amount of makeshift hospitals. Additionally, he has utilized wartime laws to his advantage to increase production of medical supplies and has been working to increase the number of tests available. All of these actions fall directly in line with what presidential candidate Joe Biden has proposed which suggest that they are more unified on this issue than one might expect. 

If you are unhappy with the way this virus has been handled as many voters probably are, it is important to keep in mind that voting for the other side will not always garner you the results you are looking for. If anything, the response to the coronavirus of President Trump and the proposed response of Joe Biden should be a wake up call to the American people that we can not put all of our trust in politicians to keep us safe. We need to rely on reporting, science, and our best judgement. Freedom comes at the cost of knowledge and if we are not willing to accept that cost then we will have professional bureaucrats such as these making our decisions for  us. 

Instead of voting on the covid-19 response we should instead look to the future and vote for whoever we think will provide us with the best shot at recovery. The politicians have played their part, but now it’s up to them to let the market do its job.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

Photo Attribution: Gage Skidmore, retouched by Wugapodes / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Many Americans probably let out a sigh of relief when Bernie Sanders dropped out of the election. He was an extremely radical politician who wished to fundamentally reshape American life. Although he is now out of the race it is important not to forget that he was a surprisingly popular candidate in many circles. It was alarming to see the fast rate at which Bernie Sanders moved up in the national 2020 presidential polls. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that Sanders was at a whopping 32 percent which was 15 percent above Biden who was then standing in second place. 

The more Sanders talked about his proposals the more and more it could be seen that he was merely a remnant of the cold war era in which intellectuals argued over the merits of capitalism or socialism. According to the Washington Post, he actually went on a ten day honeymoon to the Soviet Union in 1988 in which “he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that could be brought home.” Because many of his ideas were very popular it is important to remind anyone who espouses his viewpoint are actually endorsing.

Although many may seem to think he has shed his belief in the need for radical implementation of socialism because he uses the word democratic socialism, there is no way in which democratic socialism can be brought about. The word democratic implies that all economic decisions will be decided by the people, but this is untrue and Sanders knows it. The reason he wants to expand government activity and government agencies is because they have almost limitless power. In the book The Road to Serfdom, which decried socialism (a book which Sanders almost certainly read because he attended the same university where its author worked), F.A. Hayek correctly stated that, “the democratic statesman who sets out to plan economic life will soon be confronted with the alternative of either assuming dictatorial powers or abandoning his plans” (Hayek 158). The point being that while Sanders may still believe in democratic elections, a governmental superstructure that has no limited power and is necessary for socialism will be untouchable by the people. 

Democratic socialism  can be compared to the principle of democratic capitalism. In democratic capitalism there are individual actions upon which the economy runs that should not be interfered with, because human interaction should not be prevented from taking its natural course to improve the economy. And on the other hand, democratic socialism is also a set of values where the government directs which people can sit on the boards of companies and make financial decisions. Both consist of ultimate values on which the economy rests and a both consist of ultimate frameworks that cannot be changed. For example, in our constitutional democracy which was built on capitalism, even if most people in a state believe that a baker is wrong to refuse a same sex couple a wedding cake, there is no way that they can force him to make the cake, even with a majority, because the constitution provides a set of ultimate values. Democratic socialism would consist of the same principle in which certain overarching values could not easily be changed by the people.

Not only his plans for the economy, but also his plans for the future of journalism, have an authoritarian note to them. In an op-ed he published for Columbia Journalism Review Sanders explains how the government will take a more active role in journalism right after he laments the fact that people are not talking about the issues he is concerned about as much as he would like. Interesting how a man who believes his viewpoints aren’t being expressed enough in the media would have his administration take a more active hand in it. I can’t help but recall how Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman stated that, “From 1933 to the outbreak of World War II, Churchill was not permitted to talk over the  British radio, which was, of course, a government monopoly administered by the British Broadcasting Company” (Friedman 19). Governments should never have a hand in the dissemination of information, especially when they decry the fact that the viewpoints that they wish to see are not being propagated enough. This will inevitably lead to the government spoon-feeding the people information that will keep them in power while trying to stop the spread of controversial information.

Despite the fact that Sanders uses the guise of democratic socialism to disguise his true motives, the end result will have the effect of removing our political and civil freedoms for the service of his faulty conclusions. Bernie Sanders is either ignorant or intellectually dishonest and I am inclined to believe the latter given that Paul R. Gregory who has a PhD in economics from Harvard writes that the Democratic Socialists of America want “to abolish capitalism as we know it.” The fundamental assumption of capitalism is that you have control over where you employ your labor. Who decides where we employ are labour in a government run society? Most likely the government.

Although Sanders is out of the race it is important to recognize that even though his ideas seem radical they are extremely appealing to many people. Let’s not forget about the Bern, because if we discard him as a crazy old man, we may forget that his ideas carry real weight. It is important to spread the world left, right, or center, that these sorts of ideas are tyrannical and should have absolutely no place in  American politics.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood

We should all be ashamed of our politicians. It should not have taken a global outbreak for us to realize that we have a monster in this world to be reckoned with. This is a monster that extends its grasp over its citizens by controlling their access to online materials and censoring the media. This is a monster who opened fire on its citizens and committed the Tiananmen Square massacre. This is a monster who imprisoned millions of Uighur Muslims in internment camps in order to prevent political dissent. This is a monster who forced women to abort their babies and abandon them in the streets during their one child policy. This is a monster that is the product of a communist regime who killed millions upon millions of people. This monster is China and the nations of the world can no longer grant them the privileges that come with being a part of the international community.

The actions of China within its borders are inexcusable on every moral level. However, domestic suppression has turned to international tyranny which the world must reckon with. The Chinese government has sought to encircle Taiwan, a state with a democratically elected president and the United States government has failed to recognize this state’s sovereignty for fear of our relations with China being harmed. In fact, President Donald J. Trump made a phone call with their leader and the politicians lashed out at him as if he had committed some irrevocable evil. The Guardian reported that one Democratic Senator stated that “This may make for great reality TV, but it doesn’t make for great leadership in a divided world.” I don’t know about you, but allowing China to assert its dominance over a sovereign state with 23 million people and a democratically elected president doesn’t sound like it will heal a divided world.

This pandering to China is not merely a phenomena reserved for its relations with the U.S. The UN provides for the wants and needs of China on a daily basis. As reported by Foreign Policy 4 out of 15 of the specialized UN agencies are run by Chinese Nationals. By comparison the U.S., Britain, and France lead the same number. This country who has been rapidly developing its economy and military to establish dominance in the South China Sea currently portrays itself as a developing country to the WTO. This is despite having the second largest economy in the entire world according to the World Bank. It would be expected that this high status among the nations would be predicated on good behavior from China, but the country’s past and present show that this is not the case.

The outbreak of Covid-19 must be the final straw in Chinese dominance and any privileges which it has had from either the U.S. or the global community. The Chinese government suppressed American reporters, allowed its citizens to live in filth and contract the disease, and prevented its own doctors from spreading the news about the severity of this disease. The New York Times reported the death of Dr. Li Wenliang who spoke out about the coronavirus long before it became a global pandemic. This man was silenced by the censorship of the Chinese government and was prevented from warning all of us of the impending disaster. Even if the Chinese government did not engineer this virus, they must be held responsible for at least some of the havoc it has wrought on the world and we must realize that this path to global destruction has been long in the making.

Right now the virus has caused layoffs and sent the economy into a downward spiral. When single mothers and fathers are put out of jobs and need to go on food stamps to feed their children it is time to take action. The dominance of China is no longer contained in their borders. This communist regime is attempting to spread the disease of oppression and tyranny across the world and it is up to every one of us to prevent that from happening. Democrat or Republican it is up to us to raise this issue to our representatives, because it is not enough to isolate ourselves in our own country. Oppression in the world will always end up on the doorstep of the most free country in the world. Just as we did in the Cold War it is up to us to defend the values of the West and prevent this dragon from consuming us.

Your humble servant,

Silence Dogood