The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Anglin Archive
What About China, Then?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Author’s Note: This article is effectively a short book. There are subheadings, so you should be able to read it in parts. But it was written in one sitting, so I am publishing it as a single post. It’s a personal record for most words in a single post in a single sitting, but the form definitely does degrade. It will need to be rewritten. If I have time, I would like to develop it into a full book. It’s about 15% of the way there, and I have all of the thoughts in my head, it’s just a matter of how fast I can type. The reason the China issue is important enough to me to put this kind of energy into it is quite simply that it is the second most important issue on earth at this current time. China is in the process of overcoming the United States as the dominant world superpower. This is a monumental shift in world history. And yet there is effectively no one talking about it in any objective or rational manner. The importance of China is continually overstated or understated, depending on the context, and while both right and left in America support antagonizing and threatening China, no one has an explanation of why that is not nonsensical. Meanwhile, we have full documentation of why: there is a program to create a centralized global government, and China is refusing to cooperate with it, and therefore the entire thrust of the West is towards attacking China. Perhaps most importantly, the irresponsible and entitled population of the West cannot imagine their behavior could ever have consequences, and so there is zero reflection on what exactly it means when Joe Biden says that he is fully committed to the defense of Taiwanese independence. As with the coronavirus issue, where I was very much alone in offering meaningful commentary, I feel I have an obligation to fill an informational void. -AA

Did you know: in the Chinese version of Star Wars, Darth Vader has a pet triceratops.
Did you know: in the Chinese version of Star Wars, Darth Vader has a pet triceratops.

The Western world is destroying its own population and basic social, political, and economic order, and effectively handing over control of the world to the Chinese. This seems confusing, but it actually isn’t that confusing. Rather, it should not be confusing, but it is, due to the amount of nonsense which abounds in our current cultural landscape.

The plan in the decades-old playbook for the establishment of a one world totalitarian government was for China to “democratize” following the collapse of the USSR and the economic development provided to them by their entry into the World Trade Organization in 1999. It had been generally assumed that the economic and political elite of China would get on board with the United Nations agenda, and that China would become a member of the “international community” in the way that most of the former communist states did in the 1990s.

According to the plan, laid down by a cartel of economic and intellectual elites, when every country’s government was on board with this “New World Order” agenda, the elite could then move to use false crises, such as the coronavirus and global warming hoaxes, to centralize tyrannical power, break down national borders, and eliminate the middle classes. This would then leave only an elite minority and a massive global peasantry, with a small body of a few million technocrat “managers” acting as enforcers of the elite agenda.

This managerial class was called “Davos Man” and “gold collar workers” by Samuel P. Huntington in his 2004 essay “Dead Souls: The Denationalization of the American Elite.” Huntington, a member of the World Economic Forum and a Harvard professor, stood among Henry Kissinger, George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Klaus Schwab, Carol Quigley, Alexander King, and David Rockefeller as one of the primary 20th century planners of the geopolitical side of this New World Order system. (Note that all of those men listed are good people to read up on if you want to grasp how my predictions about the direction of this coronavirus hoax have been so accurate.)

Huntington also originated the term “clash of civilizations” in reference to the need to destroy Islam in order to establish this global state. In his book, “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order” (1996) he also defined China as a major potential enemy because they were modernizing while maintaining their traditional patriarchal culture, but was hopeful that “opening up” would cause them to abandon tradition, and that the mainland would reunify with Taiwan and adopt the Western system. These people also seemed to put a lot into the idea that economic factors would drive the elite of every country to join their little club. Huntington was unique among NWO planning figures in his understanding of China (whereas his comments on Moslems largely echoed those of the Jewish neocons we all know and love). Along with China’s obvious allies in Southeast Asia, he believed that Iran and Pakistan could ultimately end up aligning with China, and that this could form a bloc of tradition that was opposed to the globalist project. Unfortunately, like almost all of the people who put together the current playbook, he is already dead, and therefore not available to give input to the Biden administration.

Needless to say, instead of getting on board with the globalist agenda, China went in a completely different direction, establishing itself as a merchant empire and embracing extreme nationalism. However, most of the people who put this agenda together are either dead or too old to be of much use. The new elite, best represented in current year by the membership of the World Economic Forum, are decadent and inept. They inherited an agenda that they are incapable of properly managing.

So, instead of figuring out a way to deal with the fact that China is not on board with the agenda, this current elite have decided to just go ahead and move forward with the next phase in the plan, leaving the China problem unsolved. There seems to be a kind of “it will all work out” attitude. Some of them probably think that they can confront China militarily, or that the impending global economic collapse will shake them loose, or something. Honestly, I read through their literature, and I watch their conferences, and there isn’t a clear strategy.

It’s a bit like if you are driving to work and look down and realize you forgot to put your pants on, and your underwear, and your dick and balls are hanging out. But instead of turning around and going home and getting your pants, you decide to just go ahead and show up at work with your dick out, because otherwise you’d be late to work. You rationalize that you can just hold your briefcase over your crotch, and no one will notice that you’ve got no pants on.

The entire globalist elite having devolved into a decadent and dumb state is the single explanation that explains everything that is going on right now, and does not require any kind of ridiculous leap in logic to mush everything together in a coherent way.

Furthermore, anyone who says something like “the New World Order is planning to move its base to China” has no idea what the hell they’re talking about. If you follow the literature, the globalists have always been pretty open about everything that they are doing and planning, simply assuming that no one will read their books or watch their talks, and if someone does, the media will call them a “conspiracy theorist,” and that will be the end of that. Furthermore, they frame everything as good, and basically assume anyone with an IQ high enough to read this stuff will likely agree with them.

This practice of publishing books about the agenda to establish a global scientific government goes all the way back to the turn of the century, when people like the Huxley family, Bertrand Russell, George Bernard Shaw, and H.G. Wells were publishing books about the plan. Wells actually titled a book “The Open Conspiracy” (he also coined the term “The New World Order” in his book “The New World Order“). Furthermore, after World War I, the League of Nations, which had been proposed by Wells, was openly writing about the establishment of a world government in order to prevent another war. After World War II, the LoN rebranded as the United Nations, and did the same thing.

The neoconservative group Project for the New American Century published in September of 2000 a document entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century,” wherein they claimed there would need to be a “Pearl Harbor like event” to get people behind invasions of various Middle Eastern countries. A year later – by sheer coincidence – the 911 attacks happened. Just so, in October of 2019, the World Economic Forum, Johns Hopkins University, and The Gates Foundation hosted “Event 201,” wherein they declared that a global pandemic was imminent, and ran a simulation on how the world would react to the spread of a novel coronavirus that emerged from bats. Again, by sheer coincidence, “the coronavirus pandemic” was announced a few months later.

This is to say: even diabolical secret plans are published, just under thin guises of “it sure would be helpful if this happened” (PNAC-911) or “sadly, we know this thing is going to happen soon” (WEF/Gates-coronavirus).

It’s also worth noting that sometimes, they do say the quiet part aloud. In The First Global Revolution (1991) published by the Club of Rome, an elite club akin to today’s WEF, the authors explain that they have decided to use the threat of global warming to force the population into accepting a new kind of feudal order with a vastly reduced quality of life.

This passage refers to discussions which took place in the 1970s:

I could go on and on, as there are just mountains of literature published by these people about their plans. And yet, there is no trace, anywhere, of anyone claiming that China is secretly on-board with the globalist agenda, or is anything other than a threat to it.

Coming to this conclusion from the initial assumption that China would get on-board was a process. As stated above, Stanley Huntington was worried about it from the beginning, while Henry Kissinger, along with various communist Jews, were very optimistic about China. But by the time Xi Jinping took office in 2012, no one was optimistic. When Xi effectively declared himself emperor in 2015, you began to see the beginnings of the really hardcore freakout, with the US government incentivizing companies to move out of China. When Xi officially made himself president for life in 2018, this is when they started making all of these various threats, and running nonstop propaganda about the suffering of the Moslems.

Then of course things got really hot and heavy when the State Department started that Antifa uprising in Hong Kong, trying to bait Beijing into doing some kind of “Tank Man” event, while also attempting to undermine faith in Xi as a competent authority figure (it was a Catch-22, where the people in China would have liked to have seen the military crush these foreign-backed terrorists creating mindless chaos, but doing so would have given the international community fuel for its anti-Sinoism campaign).

For all his faults, Donald Trump really tried to stick to not starting any new military conflicts, and pushed back against attempts to escalate political tensions with China. However, his American First economic agenda was exploited by the State Department to economically punish China (America didn’t actually benefit, and Mike Pompeo was literally telling companies to move their factories to Vietnam).

Then of course the coronavirus hoax was launched in China, and consistently used to demonize China. Trump really picked up on that one, given that his instincts were sometimes legitimately “fascist,” and he thought it would be a good idea to blame some group of different-looking foreigners for the fact that he listened to Anthony Fauci and destroyed the US economy.

Since Biden has taken over, there have been nonstop threats against China, and US warplanes and warships are racing in and out of their territories. Biden’s Secretary of Defense flew to Japan to demand that they sign a blood pact to defend Taiwan. Most of the US military activity is not much reported on in the American media (I usually read about it on RT), but we are hearing rising nonsense about the poor and pitiful Moslems, and the importance of Americans devoting their military to defending the sacred democracy of the very important nation of Taiwan.

What is incredible to me is that both the right and the left are so easily manipulated into thinking conflict with China is a good idea. For the left, I guess it makes sense. As we’ve mentioned before, the Antifa type neo-socialists who have been so heavily force-memed on social media as the Democrat Party’s internet defense force (Vaush, for example) spend a lot of time talking about how China is a “fascist state.”

For the right, the support for anti-China sentiment makes no real sense, and is mostly based on stupidity and a lack of information. Republican leaders are openly saying that they need to protect Antifa in Hong Kong, Islamic terrorists in Xinjiang, and gay marriage in Taiwan. But Sean Hannity and Mark Levin continue to talk about “the threat of Chinese communism.”

As I’ve written about before, China is not a “communist country.” The average Chinese person knows nothing about Marxism. They have a very free market (much more free than America’s), where small business is encouraged. As I’ve written before, the fact that it is even called “The Communist Party” in English is sort of deceitful, and an exploitation of the fact that Westerners know nothing about China or its culture, including the total difference of the nature of their language. “中国共产党” is translated as “communist party” consistently, yet a direct translation, as it would be spoken in Chinese, would be something like “The Party of People Working Together to be Productive.” That’s how Chinese people view it. Even with their supposed “communist” connections to Southeast Asian countries, they frame it as a historical cultural connection, rather than one based on a political system designed by a German Jew in London in the 19th century.

If you asked a working class Chinese person why China, Laos, and Vietnam all use the hammer and sickle, they would say something like: “this is the symbol of Asia people,” and laugh and point at their eyes, then say “eat rice, eat noodle,” and laugh again. A more educated Chinese person might be vaguely aware of the history, but would claim that no foreigner ever influenced China in any way, ever, in all of history: “we make a big, strong wall. Cannot allow.”

Under Emperor Xi, China has become increasingly more traditional, and backing away from the kind of modernism that had been encroaching. He is attempting to reestablish a form of Confucianism.

The Chinese are effectively the opposite of everything the modern West stands for:

  • Hardcore racists against all non-Chinese
  • Extreme ethno-nationalists
  • Patriarchal
  • Anti-feminist
  • Anti-gay
  • Pro-family
  • Pro-middle class and anti-elitism
  • Meritocratic

The Chinese government recently announced a program to build masculinity among boys, as they recognize that the school environment (which was largely imported from the West) is too feminizing, that the high tech environment itself is feminizing, and they recognize masculinity as a foundation of society.

In February, the Chinese government published “The Proposal to Prevent the Feminisation of Male Adolescents,” and said that they would use sports to toughen boys up.

The Western media outright declared this to be evil. (You might not have noticed, but at some point between 2018 and 2020, the media made the jump from talking about “toxic masculinity” as a social evil to simply referring to “masculinity” as a social evil. When they began talking about “toxic masculinity,” I noted that they were playing a terminology game, and that “toxic masculinity” just meant “masculinity.”)

This is what the BBC took issue with:

There were some earlier signs suggesting such a move was coming. Last May, a delegate of China’s top advisory body, Si Zefu, said that many of China’s young males had become “weak, timid, and self-abasing”.

There was a trend among young Chinese males towards “feminisation”, he claimed, which “would inevitably endanger the survival and development of the Chinese nation” unless it was “effectively managed”.

Si Zefu said the home environment was partly to blame, with most Chinese boys being raised by their mothers or grandmothers. He also noted that the growing appeal of certain male celebrities meant that many children “did not want to be ‘army heroes’” anymore.

So, he suggested, schools should play a greater role in ensuring young Chinese get a balanced education.

Meanwhile, China just mass-banned a bunch of feminists from social media, as they claimed they were harming the family.

This is from back in 2018.

We’re all against internet censorship on principle, but if that headline doesn’t bring you joy, you do not have a soul.

This is from April 21 of this year.

And it gets funnier: the above headline came just two days after this headline:

Social media censorship in China is more complicated than it is in the West (as I will discuss later). Of course, the Western media complaining about social media censorship in China is about the dumbest thing you can even imagine. The situation is literally the precise same thing that happens in America right now: the government “recommends” that private companies “prevent the distribution of harmful information.”

Of course, we all know what happened next:

Yup.

That Breitbart article did not make any comparison to American censorship policy, and instead gives false information about the Chinese birthrate and one child policy (another thing I’ll get to later).

Chinese cultural values are virtually a direct inversion of the modern Western values created and promoted by the Jews. But it is simply the basic order of nature they are promoting. No one in any society anywhere in history before the development of the modern West could have imagined a reality in which instilling masculinity in boys or discouraging family-destroying feminist ideology was a negative thing.

Most of us still living are not old enough to even be able to imagine a situation in which a Western government encouraged masculinity or discouraged feminism. So it’s hard to say how a right-winger in America can look at Joe Biden’s government, then look at the Chinese government, and say “yes, Joe, I agree – these people are so evil that we need to put our own nation’s problems on hold and use our military to defend the Taiwanese secessionist movement from this encroaching communism or fascism or whatever.”

The only thing right-wingers can ever say about the Chinese is that they are “too authoritarian.” Generally, the person will immediately move to “muh social credit system.” When I think of these attacks on China, even more than Sean Hannity, I think of the Canadian “conservative Jew” Ezra Levant of Rebel Media, who has made attacking China second only to defending Israel. He sent the Israeli-Canadian-Conservative-Jew Avi Yemini to promote the State Department’s Antifa riots in Hong Kong.

He also appeared to support some type of Canadian military intervention to protect Hong Kongese Antifa from the Hong Kong police.

He’s tried to make himself the face of the Canadian anti-lockdown, anti-vaccine movement, while consistently asserting that there is a new virus different from the flu and that China is responsible for it. In March 2020, when it had already been established that the pandemic was a hoax, he was supporting “two weeks to flatten the curve” and blaming China.

He’s continually compared all of Canada’s brutal virus measures to China. The vaccine passport is “China’s social credit system employed in the West.”

Here he is evoking the evil Huawei in reference to the Australian lockdown app. This is while the enforcer of Canada’s lockdown, Justin Trudeau, was still holding the kidnapped CFO of Huawei as a geopolitical hostage.

Levant has played all the hits. Joe Biden surrendered Afghanistan to China (“we should have left troops to protect the Afghans from communistic Chinese Sharia Law”).

Chinese are also the real racists.

Just do a Twitter search for “China” or “Chinese” on @ezralevant or @rebelnewsonline. It’s very radical, the amount of time this man spends talking about China.

Of course, sometimes the narratives get a bit criss-crossed.

“Jewish conservatives” and shill conservatives in general have a script to inject China into everything, despite the fact that China is not running Western governments. This is partially a way to protect the people who are running our governments, by offering the distraction of a foreign enemy, but also a way to pump up anti-Chinese sentiment so that people will support conflict with them.

My goal is first and foremost to simply tell the truth. My goal is not to defend every aspect of Chinese society and culture. Politically, however, I am opposed to a war with the Chinese. Even more than that, I am against this obsession with the Chinese, which is so obviously a result of the fact that they are not on board with the globalist agenda. If you go around talking about China all the time, the only thing you are doing is shifting blame from our own leaders and feeding this drive for world government.

To the extent that I am a Chinese shill, this is the thing: as long as China is standing as an independent country, this world government cannot exist. Therefore, I am “pro-CCP” in that I am against this lunatic plan for a global tyrannical government. I also admire their strength as a people, nation, and race. How could I not admire them, when they’re the only thing standing between me and a brutal hell on earth? Furthermore, the Chinese haven’t ever done anything to me. Well, I take that back. One time I was staying at a hotel in Bangkok, and a group of Chinese tourists checked in, and they were spitting in the hallways and the elevator, so I had to switch to a different hotel. Eventually, in Bangkok, you learn that there are hotels that do not allow Chinese tourists.

But even with the spitting/yelling/cigarette-flicking – you can uncover something admirable about the Chinese. The reason that so many Chinese tourists behave in ways that we consider crude is that the overwhelming majority of the Chinese middle class are the children of literal rice farmers, who grew up in fields without electricity. Now, in one generation, their children are rich, living in a futuristic society.

China’s social credit system is a result of something called “being Asian.” The Asian social contract is totally different than the white one. No one in China other than criminals and CIA cults opposes the social credit system.

Everyone has seen this clip (regularly used by Ezra Levant), and talked about how terrible it is.

But in the clip, the Chinese all say they support social credit scores. The response is “oh they’re scared not to say that.” Okay, well, we don’t see Chinese diaspora around the world opposing this system.

You can disagree with that, and I certainly would not want a social credit system in America, but nations should have self-determination. Whining about the social credit system and supporting anti-CCP policy because of it is no different than saying that you support the war in Afghanistan because you’re against Sharia Law. All of this stuff about how America is becoming like China is totally nonsensical.

I have a few simple questions for conservatives making these claims: Where are my masculinity classes for young boys? Where is my program to discourage feminism? Where is my nonstop propaganda about the superiority of my race, culture, and nation? Where is my economic program to strengthen the middle class? Where are my low taxes for family businesses and high taxes for large corporations? Where are my anti-trust laws?

Comparing the Chinese social credit system to the attempts to force this vax pass thing in the West is apples to Doritos. “We’re becoming more like China because of the vaccine passport being like the social credit system” is a shallow, stupid take aimed at people who have low IQs or are just uninformed about the world. It’s like saying America is becoming like Afghanistan because women have to cover their faces in public because of the virus. It’s moronic on par with Dinesh D’Souza saying that Black Lives Matter is inspired by Adolf Hitler. The only reason someone would make an argument so obviously dumb is if they were trying to manipulate you.

I will say again that I have no specific desire to defend everything the Chinese government does. I will certainly not defend everything they have done since the revolution. However, while I do not agree with it, the “one child policy” is very overstated by Western critics. Westerners generally have no idea at all how Asian culture works. And they shouldn’t be expected to. I personally find it interesting, but outside of that, no one in America should be under any obligation to understand the dynamics of Chinese culture. Unless of course, they are making judgements about them – which apparently everyone in the West feels compelled to do now.

There are many things that Westerners simply could not possibly ever understand about Asia, no matter how much information they had, simply because the historical development of the culture, and the genetics behind it, are too different. The role of law and the concept of law enforcement is an example of something no white person is ever going to grasp.

Firstly, outside of the former British colony of Singapore, “laws” are just not the solid concept that they are in the Western tradition. If something is a “law” in China, it is actually more of a “general guideline.”

As a simple example (a least as simple as you’re going to get), if you are driving the wrong way down a one-way street, and a police officer who is standing on the road flags you, he will say, as a question, “this is a one-way street?” Your response could be something along the lines of “yes [literally confirming that it is a one-way street, thereby showing agreement and reaching a consensus with the officer that it is indeed a one-way street], but the other road is very busy and there are no cars on this road.” The officer will then make a judgement about both the truthfulness and the reasonableness of this explanation. He may, for example, get on the radio and ask another officer to confirm if the other street is actually busy. If your story checks out, he might then decide to let you go. However, he may also question you further: “well, this is a narrow street, what would you do if another car came towards you and it created an impasse?” You might then explain that because you were in the wrong driving down the one-way street, you would drive in reverse and onto a side street. The officer may then analyze the situation to see if it would be possible for you to do that. If that seems reasonable, he may let you go. Or he may make you pay some money. There would probably be an option of both a bribe and an official ticket, with the official ticket being about 30% cheaper, but requiring you to go to an office and fill out a form, which is a kind of admission of guilt and an apology.

Of course, that example would not be something from a big city, and probably not much of China in 2021. Because of massive traffic problems in most Chinese cities, they’ve gotten much more strict about traffic laws, on a national level. They said recently they would integrate traffic violations into social credit as well, though I don’t know if that’s happened everywhere yet. Furthermore, Xi has cracked down on bribes. But the example I think illustrates the concept of how laws are viewed.

Also note that cops are also usually as a rule very lazy, and their authority is much more abstract than it is in the West. They function more as social mediators. Even as it is now totally high-tech, China remains a wacky and chaotic place. I have said, and will continue to assert, that the basic term “Asian police state” is an oxymoron. “Asian” necessarily implies a type of relationship to authority that excludes the concepts of external force associated with a “police state.” People cooperate with each other as a form of social obligation, not because of a threat of punishment. This article is already thousands of words long, so the details of that will need to be left for another time, but I just want to try to communicate how alien China actually is to a Westerner.

So, if we look at the “one child policy” through this lens, it’s not this kind of barbaric forced abortion nightmare that American conservatives portray it as. Firstly, it was never enforced in rural areas. Secondly, the fine for children after the first one was less than $1,000. Thirdly, the reason it was implemented speaks to a kind of Asian logic that we can’t possibly go into here.

The above linked Breitbart article contains this very confusing lie, which more or less epitomizes Westerners making judgements about China:

That links to literal New York Times CIA propaganda, which does not contain these claims (it actually makes the opposite claim, quoting a woman who said she was encouraged by party members to get married just as her career was taking off).

Breitbart and New York Times propaganda aside, here are two graphs:

Mao Zedong was obsessed with increasing the birthrate, encouraging women to have like ten kids. He banned condoms. Part of that was due to the Great Leap Forward, which led to mass starvations. A few years before he died, he started telling women to slow down, because there were too many people.

Anyone who tries to analyze Mao’s policies is not a serious person. During the 20th century, every group of people on earth was coming to grips with the way the Industrial Revolution had changed society. Just like the printing press led to the Enlightenment and all of these different domino effects, the introduction of industrial machinery made everything go haywire all over the planet. Mao’s reign was just China working through that process. Look at what happened in Europe.

By the time he died in 1976, there were almost a billion Chinese people, which Deng Xiaoping decided was going to lead to mass starvation if they didn’t slow down. It was considered a “necessary evil.” It was not hatred of babies or families or whatever conservative talking point, it was literally a practical matter because there had been so many children born under Mao’s policy of telling women they were heroes of the nation for birthing as many children as possible.

However, all of that is totally not really relevant to anything, and bringing it up is just a way to stir up negative sentiments about Chinese people as part of this nonstop propaganda program. Xi Jinping has made it clear he wants to take the country in a traditional family direction, which is one more reason he is so hated by the left.

As far as the internet censorship: firstly, the West whining about that is totally absurd, as China does not have nearly as much of it as the West. Also, the censorship rules are enforced less enthusiastically. But, the underlying point is that Chinese culture is totally different, and they never made any promise of free speech. Free speech is a value of Western civilization, and necessary for the functioning of Western civilization. It is not a Chinese value, or something that the Chinese go around promoting. Because order is based on social obligation rather than a strict code of laws, political debate isn’t necessary in order for the Chinese to maintain civil society. They are also just generally reasonable and practical about the goals of politics, and do not have this weird partisan divide that Western style democracies purposefully incite to turn the population against itself.

The Western media made a big deal about a pastor going to jail, Wang Yi, as if he was sentenced for preaching the gospel. In fact, he was literally a State Department asset who regularly flew to Washington to meet with US government officials. He was allowed to do this for years on end, while calling for the abolishing of the Chinese government. They just kept asking him to stop doing that, and he wouldn’t stop doing it, so eventually they put him in jail. The reason they didn’t put him in jail immediately as soon as he broke the censorship laws is that the laws are more like guidelines, and they knew he had a lot of followers, and didn’t want to create disharmony by putting him in jail. But he pushed it too far. The guy was literally a university professor who converted to Christianity in 2005, and by 2006 he was having personal meetings with George W. Bush. He was not charged with “preaching the gospel,” he was changed with “inciting subversion.” He’d been profiled by The Atlantic, the Washington Post and the New York Times – publications not typically known for presenting Christians as heroes.

Here’s a big think for you: during most of 2020, Christians in America were banned from attending church, while Chinese Christians were not. In Australia, the number two country which claims to be fighting against China to create freedom, Christians are still banned from attending church.

It’s again just utterly dishonest and slimy to have these Jewish publications that express open hatred for Christianity claim that the Chinese government is at war with Christianity, while the CIA is using these home churches to incite revolution against the government. It’s like if the CIA were using hamburger stands to traffic guns into China and the Chinese government arrested them and the New York Times ran the headline “Inside China’s Brutal Crackdown on Hamburgers” – of course, right next to “You Must Eat Bugs: Americans Have Only One Week to Stop Eating Burgers Before Cow Farts Cause Deadly Earthquake.”

By pointing to “authoritarianism,” people who are trying to demonize China can make a superficial surface level critique without any context and leap to “China is the model for the New World Order.”

The attacks on China are disorganized and weird, but they are working very well. Frankly, I’m the only person I’m aware of that is offering meaningful analysis of the China situation in the English language, aside from a few white guys who live in China. China is a closed society, due not to communism, but to the massive language and cultural gap.

What is the Plan Here?

Though it is clear that the globalist agenda hinges on regime change in China, that rampant anti-Chinese propaganda abounds, and that the entire political and military apparatus in Washington supports using the military to “defend Taiwan,” the US plan to destroy the CCP is completely unclear.

Right now, China is finally standing up and pushing back against this bullying. If they decided to “invade” Taiwan, the Taiwanese military would put up less of a fight than the Afghan military. Americans have no idea what is going on in Taiwan. I would be surprised if even one soldier fired a shot if the CCP military landed in Taipei, and at least 40% of the people would openly greet them as liberators. The people who are still against reunification in theory would just shrug, and carry on with their day.

No one in Taiwan even understands the concept of the mainland “taking their freedoms.” No one thinks that anything substantial that affects them personally would change, other than gays and maybe some feminist women. A lot of people want the CCP to come in and ban gay marriage. The US forcing the gay marriage thing really rustled a lot of people.

Imagine the internet being flooded with videos of PRC troops landing in Taiwan and people either smiling and waving or just going about their business. Imagine the female president of Taiwan giving a public statement apologizing to the Chinese people for “disrespectful behaviors and mean-spirited actions.” Chuck Schumer and Ben Sasse could call a bipartisan press conference to release secret satellite photos of buildings in Taiwan that look shockingly similar to the infamous Hitler steam chambers. They could bring in the daughter of the Taiwanese ambassador to cry and say she saw CCP soldiers eating babies. But the jig would be up.

Seriously: what is the US going to do if China takes Taiwan? They’re going to start World War III? I guess?

Every US military simulation about defending Taiwan from an “invasion” shows China winning, meaning the only option would be for the US to escalate.

China has consistently said they are going to fire nukes. So we’re going to go to nuclear war for gay sex in Taiwan?

How prepared is the US for nuclear war? Who has been running the strategy on that front for the last two decades or so? Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin?

I don’t think any of these people are ready for this eventuality, which is rapidly approaching.

Who is even running the US government? Where are the adults?

The people running the US government are going around trying to force vax everyone, turn children into trannies as part of a program to normalize sex with children, and claiming that there’s a secret QAnon terrorist group planning to overthrow the government. Then behind those freaks you’ve got freaks like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab planning to turn themselves into genetically-engineered cyborg immortals. Everything that is going on in the Western world is just as absurd and unserious as it is sickening and evil.

Here’s a thing which is happening: people – probably most of you reading this – are confusing the total power of the current US government for competence. This is very natural, psychologically – it makes fundamental sense that people with absurd amounts of power would have to have competence. But, if we break down the fact that these people inherited this power structure, then you might look at it like the logic of assuming a guy driving a Lamborghini must be rich, before you find out it was stolen. It took me a long while to process it myself, and I definitely didn’t have a full understanding of it until Joe Biden took over as our overlord, but these people are not competent. Upon closer inspection, we realize they are actual morons.

As a thought experiment: try to think of one single thing that the Democrats have done since assuming total domination of America that is indicative of competence. The only thing you will likely be able to think of is the fact that they’ve managed to keep this virus hoax rolling, but that is obviously virtually entirely managed by the media. And the success of the project is entirely dependent on the docility of the American people.

Even while they’ve prevented an uprising against the virus measures, the Biden people completely failed to meet their vaccination goals, and have instead handled the situation so badly that half the population believes the vax is a death shot – that is even while they have a mechanism of virtually complete censorship. (I actually believe they’re lying about the number of people who have taken the vax.)

The Afghanistan surrender was the most ridiculous debacle, but the border crisis is also completely moronic. They had total control, so if their goal was just to move as many brown people into the country as possible, they could have done it in an orderly way that didn’t result in an utter crisis. They’ve completely abandoned attempting to gain the approval of anyone other than their most hardcore left-wing cult members – which is a desperate non-strategy to begin with – but the border crisis has caused them to have to upset those hardcore cultist by announcing the border is closed and saying they’re going to deport people.

Their idiocy started with the election theft itself. The Supreme Court handed them a blank check, and they turned it into a complete debacle. Then after the debacle, they easily could have done some damage control, just by having Joe Biden say “I believe we won but I want to make sure everyone has faith in our elections, so I’m establishing a bipartisan independent committee to ensure there was no fraud.” Then he could have done a fake committee and released a report – probably half of the people who now believe the election was fake would have been convinced by that, or at least gone along with it as a way of comforting themselves. So why not do it? The only explanation is incompetence.

The Road to Nowhere

China is understandably tired of having their country surrounded by the US military, they are tired of being threatened and bullied, and they’re tired of the humiliation of not being able to control their own internationally recognized national borders (yes, even the US recognizes Taiwan as a part of China – I guess people apparently don’t even know that).

Maybe the US will go to war, maybe they won’t – I have no way of predicting that. I think it’s impossible to predict, given that there is no real order to the decisions being made by the people running the US government, other than that they are following this “New World Order” plot that was laid out by people who are already dead.

Most likely, if China took Taiwan, the leaders of the US would flinch, and that would signal the end of US global supremacy. The empire would then enter into rapid decline, as without US military supremacy, there is no logic to the dollar as global reserve currency. This would be a total tailspin, and America would look like the opening of that Dawn of the Dead remake.

It’s going to be a rough scene. The best thing for you in such a situation would be if you – wait for it – lived in a rural community. There will be serious rioting and all of the Walking Dead type stuff. The blacks will probably form cannibal gangs pretty early on, but they’ll just end up eating each other. After eating his last remaining lieutenant, the last cannibal warlord in any given city will be totally alone, and his last words before he starves to death will be: “muffuggen wite ppl did dis.”

What will not happen: the Chinese will not invade America to enslave people in communism with their social credit system. If you think that the Chinese want to invade America and enslave people, then you basically need to accept that you just don’t really have any idea what is going on. Why would the Chinese want to invade and enslave Americans? Just to be mean? Do Chinese people strike you as that emotional, that they would waste huge amounts of resources in order to engage in an act of geopolitical meanness? The entire Chinese mindset, and their entire marketing strategy as a superpower, is that they don’t invade countries, and instead trade with countries and invest in countries’ infrastructure.

There are all of these books published by Western universities over the last five years talking about how the US strategy of trying to convince countries to side with them over the Chinese was failing, and that all the countries who had made economic pacts with the Chinese were generally happy with the results. China’s strategy has been to basically portray the US as a country of violent lunatics trying to enslave the planet with their military and their debt economic system. Anthony Blinken was apparently chosen as Secretary of State because, along with being a Jewish Zionist, he’d given a bunch of speeches about the need for a new strategy to confront China in order to maintain US dominance. It turns out he does’t have any such strategy, but he’s adamant that there needs to be a new one, which is more than the other candidates for Secretary of State were able to offer, apparently.

During his March meeting with Chinese adults, his first and thus far only major appearance on the global stage, Blinken brought a woman with purple hair and channeled Holden Caulfield when the Chinese “phonies” said that Americans need to start applying themselves to their job of maintaining world order.

It’s rumored that during his interview for the job, Blinken did a pretty decent rendition of “Stairway to Heaven,” which Biden’s wife and caretaker “Doctor” Biden found “so dreamy.”

(Yes, Blinken actually was in a band and has admitted that his first choice for a career was “pop star.” Yes, he really had a single called “Lip Service,” which he wrote for Kamala Harris. Yes, that last part is a joke. I mean the Kamala Harris part. He really did release a single called “Lip Service,” which is on Spotify. This is going to go down in history alongside Caligula marrying his horse.)

Yes, after the total collapse, if you survive, then in 2050, there’s a high likelihood you will have a Chinese landlord. Except maybe not, because if you survive the meltdown, it probably means you own rural land.

The point is: everything is probably all going to work out. The ZOG empire is going to collapse, and the world is going to then be controlled by a Chinese merchant network, where the concept of “empire” is based on trade rather than military strength. White people will be fine in such a situation. Certainly a lot better than we are now, under these Jews.

In the Chinese version of Star Wars, Darth Vader has a pet triceratops.

Also, instead of blowing up Alderaan, he blows up the Kennedy Space Center.

Furthermore, Obi-Wan rides a motorcycle and wears a knight’s armor.

Han Solo is heavily grizzled, but he wears a heart locket.

Ask yourself: wouldn’t the new Star Wars movies have been better if instead of being about feminism and race-mixing, they explored Darth Vader’s relationship with his triceratops?

I rest my case.

(Republished from The Daily Stormer by permission of author or representative)
 
The China/America Series
All Comments Hidden • Show  385 Comments • Reply
PastClassics
From the Leo Frank Case to the Present Day
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement