Sometimes the truth is a bitter medicine. But a bitter medicine that saves the patient is always better than a sugar-coated poison.
“Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”
-Matthew 7:20
On January 17, President Xi Jinping delivered remarks to the annual Davos Summit where a coterie of billionaires with larger than life aspirations for reshaping the world into a new techno-feudal dystopia conglomerated for several days of self-congratulatory speeches and networking.
As could be expected, Xi’s speech garnered a fair bit of hysteria from many nationalists across the Trans Atlantic who are obviously not reacting well to the ugly fact that their governments have been hijacked and their lives threatened by a very sociopathic supranational entity that wants to reset the clock on human civilization.
One particular nationalist news outline named LaRouche PAC- historically supportive of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), took the occasion of Xi’s remarks to suffer an uncomfortable meltdown with a January 22 editorial authored by Robert Ingraham stating:
“Xi’s speech was reprehensible. Despite the references to ‘global cooperation’ and ‘win-win,’ his remarks can only be read as a veiled attack on Donald Trump and an unambiguous endorsement of the Davos agenda. He endorsed ‘holistic’ environmentalism, carbon neutrality, and a ‘complete transition to a green economy.’ He endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, praised free trade and condemned protectionism. He expressed effusive admiration for the COP26 agenda, as well as the WTO and WHO. Perhaps, most disgusting was his strong praise (twice in his speech) of the United Nation’s genocidal policy of ‘sustainable development.’ “
Although LaRouche PAC was but one of many news outlets decrying Xi’s speech as proof of China’s complicit role in the WEF’s Global Great Reset, I decided to direct the thrust of my defense of Xi to this organization for two reasons.
- They otherwise represent many very good ideas which I sincerely believe could play an important role in putting out the fires engulfing civilization… as long as they don’t self-sabotage by giving into simple-minded populism when it matters most.
- The author of the editorial has conducted some of the best historical research I have ever read which should have inoculated him from making the sorts of inexcusable errors in judgement which will do great damage to the minds of his own readers, his organization, and the cause of truth more generally.
Perhaps my words are harsh, but I hope to demonstrate in the following response, that I am absolutely serious in my claim that the author is misguided in his analysis of China’s motives.
Claim 1: “China Supports Decarbonization and is thus Evil”
For those who have come to discover that COP26 de-carbonization targets are actually driven by an intention to dismantle industrial civilization (and the means of sustaining modern population levels), congratulations. You have earned an intellectual edge to cut through misinformation lacking in those cave dwellers who still wish to believe that Greta Thunberg, Prince Charles and Bill Gates are climate experts or that the world will end in a hellish oven in 12 years unless we radically alter our collective behavior and shut down industrial civilization pronto.
To those who have stepped out of the cave on this issue, Xi’s public remarks have certainly drawn some confusion. Does the Chinese President actually support the “globalist” depopulation agenda? Does he support the dismantling of advanced industrial civilization?
If we focus on those actions beyond the mere surface words used by Xi at Davos, the answer is a resounding “no”.
Eurasian vs Trans Atlantic “Decarbonization”
China’s approach to “decarbonization” and “sustainable development” are very different from those dominant in the NATO-Five Eyes cage on numerous levels. Unlike the western occupied states who are being told to brace for a reduction in living standards, production, and even ownership of possessions under a new age of scarcity, China’s “green agenda” is geared towards hydrocarbon development with a focus on natural gas, coal, oil and nuclear.
In terms of China’s robust nuclear power sector (which emits zero CO2), theirs is the only nation currently utilizing EVERY single third and fourth generation reactor design existent including molten salt thorium, and fast breeder reactors with more advanced initiatives to break through to practicable commercial fusion than any other state.
While China is also a leading investor in so-called “renewable” energy including windmills and solar panels, unlike the Trans Atlantic community, they have not made their capital-intensive industrial productive bases reliant on these low intensity, unreliable and expensive forms of electricity, preferring to use “green” energy principally for residential consumption.
It is also no secret that China has become the world’s primary user of concrete, steel, iron, and other minerals vital for building large scale megaprojects emblematic in the evolving Belt and Road Initiative.
Claim 2: “China Supports TPP and is Thus Evil”
To say Xi “is pro-Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)” is beyond simplistic.
As Pepe Escobar explains extraordinarily well, there is a fight over who will shape the rules of globalization 2.0.
The globalization 1.0 that has run rough shod over the world for 50 years is dead in the water waiting only for the immanent snap to break the ship apart like a new Titanic being pulled into the dark abyss. This collapse is not actually a flaw in the system as many conjecture, but was in fact always designed to be a time bomb from the moment the dollar was floated off the gold reserve in 1971 to the current systemic bubble breakdown.
The question is thus not ‘WILL the system collapse’ but rather: WHO will shape this new system and upon WHAT operating system will its rules be based?
Will it be an open system capable of creative growth and self-directed improvement or would it be a closed system defined by the assumed immutable laws of entropy and diminishing returns? Would the system be zero sum (win-lose) or would the whole be more than the parts (win-win)?
The Obama-era TPP which Trump rightfully killed in 2016 was nothing but a blatant economic assault onto both the Peoples’ Republic of China specifically the Sovereign Nation State system generally. This assault was premised on several factors:
- A) Binding all TPP-member nations of the Pacific into a top-down NAFTA-like system controlled by London and Wall Street.
- B) Giving corporations the right to sue nations directly for breaking the rules of TPP’s version of “free trade” (which in truth were never free as multinational private interests like those coordinating through such outlets as the World Economic Forum were always working to stay in control).
- C) Cutting off China from its neighbors since the pre-2016 version of TPP always excluded China.
The “TPP 2.0” to which Xi is referring is only “TPP” in name.
In regards to its operating system, this version looks more like an extension of the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) launched in 2020 as the largest trade deal in history involving 15 Pacific nations representing 30% of the world’s population.
Does it involve free trade? YES. Is this version of free trade being used to justify the imperial rape of poor nations? NO.
Free Trade Governed by What Intention?
It should be an obvious fact that much evil has been done behind the cover of “free trade” since Adam Smith wrote his infamous Wealth of Nations in 1776.
From opium wars, to potato famines, to repeated Indian genocides, to modern cases of pillage under globalization, British “free trade” has often been used as a means to get nation states to turn off their security systems while bandits robbed them naked.
The difference between the Chinese vs Anglo-American versions of free trade comes down to INTENTION.
Where the Anglo-American variants were designed to destroy national development, the Chinese (or earlier U.S. Hamiltonian System) variations are inextricably tied to the industrial improvement of all participating nations. Where one intends to divide, conquer and destroy, the other intends to unite, cooperate and create. Big difference.
One might here scream: “YOU CAN’T KNOW INTENTIONS!”
As Jesus once responded to the question: “you will know them by their fruits”. A materialist would not know how to process this, but anyone looking at world history would quickly recognize that in politics, using words that make your intention transparent will nearly always undo your objectives. We love John F. Kennedy’s robust candor, but his murder after only 1000 days in office resulted in the destruction of many great goods which a more wise and savvy statesman like Benjamin Franklin would never have permitted to occur.
Let me say it one more way: sometimes bad men committed to bad acts use good words and sometimes good men committed to good acts use bad words. How do you know their intention or goodness? Not through their words, but through their fruits.
China’s Hamiltonian Fruits
China has provably pulled over 800 million souls out of abject poverty while the unipolar system of empire has only created decades of starvation, poverty and war. China has launched trillions of dollars worth of productive long-term credit through state-owned banks tied not to speculating on debts, but building actual infrastructure both within their own nation and internationally.
Where our western system is entirely dependent on hyperbolically increasing rates of speculative/fictitious capital, the Chinese system is premised on PHYSICAL systems of production and value. An Evergrande bubble popping in the west would be an atomic force of destruction, whereas in China, it is an extremely containable aberration.
IF the LaRouchePAC-affiliated author attacking Xi actually read the original works of economist Alexander Hamilton (which the author professes openly to have done), he would know that the American System which he espouses is not intrinsically against free trade, nor is it always pro-protectionism.
What Did Hamilton Create?
The point Hamilton made in his reports to congress of 1791 was that every bankrupt, undeveloped state of the new nation were condemned to disastrous internal division and chaos. During its first 7 years, America was a financial wreck waiting to be retaken by the British Empire. Each state controlled its own economic priorities, currency issuance and none of the 13 states even had free trade among each other making it not much of a union at all.
This lack of unity among the early confederacy made the formation of common action impossible. Without a power of common action, there was no weapon sufficient in power to do battle with the highly centralized globally extended financier oligarchy centered in the heart of London.
Hamilton solved this crisis by federalizing the many local unpayable state debts incurred during the war and converting them into assets of a new national banking system that began issuing credit for comprehensive national infrastructure goals. Although each state lost some of its personal liberty “to do whatever they wanted”, trade barriers were broken down, a national currency was launched and this quantum leap allowed the young nation to not only survive but thrive. Under Hamilton, debts were no longer usurious inflation machines, but rather self-liquidating “national blessings” serving the interests of the entire people. China’s tendency to cite Hamilton in their state-news coverage is also not a coincidence on this point.
In the first several decades of the Hamiltonian program, America’s population grew four-fold, technical knowledge, industrial productivity, interconnectivity and inventions grew in leaps soon challenging the world’s largest empire.
Mr. Ingraham might be surprised to know that Hamilton was not a dogmatic supporter of tariffs, supporting free trade as long as it was shaped by a unifying intention to develop the many parts of the whole to their fullest industrial and creative potential. This was the essential purpose of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution including the important Article I Section VIII.
Hamilton’s later follower Friedrich List (who coined the term “American System of Political Economy” in 1828) used this system to unite a disjointed Germany under a “Zollvereine” (aka: custom’s union) driven by free trade among the regional divergent states for the first time in history. Under List’s program, national credit tied to internal improvements (rail, canals, new industries and pure science) launched Germany into the modern age.
Wherever this system was applied (including 19th century Russia) population growth improved in quantity and quality, harmonious relations between the member states improved, oligarchism lost its hold onto its hosts and creative change governed the self-perfectibility of the increasingly open systems.
These were good fruits.
British Free Trade, like “Globalization 1.0” ALWAYS used nice words, but bore rotten fruit.
Wherever it was applied, British Free Trade destroyed economic sovereign nation states, crippled long-term planning, dismantled the regulation of private capital, and always divided to conquer.
Adherents to this system indoctrinated across Anglo-American Ivy League universities found themselves assimilated ever more into myopic money crazed fiends incapable of seeing a whole beyond their local self-serving identities… which was just the way an oligarchical elite running the system like a nightmarish video game always wanted it.
Claim 3: “Xi Spoke Well of WTO and is Thus Evil”
The World Trade Organization (WTO), much like the UN Charter, has many fine words and rules of economic conduct embedded in it. IF said rules and words were followed, neither organization would do any harm to anyone and might in fact do quite a lot of good.
The problem isn’t with the nice words promoting healthy competition, fairness, or freedom to trade.
The problem is found in the MINDS of those forces who wrote many of those rules with the intention of breaking them.
WTO rules, much like the British demands for national obedience to free trade that kept the tiny island in the dominant alpha position over the majority of the world during the 19th century, were meant to be believed by credulous victims, but were always understood to be just another tool of colonialism and slavery by those shaping the Great Game.
In this sense, the WTO of 1999 has much in common with Adam Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations.
Does Adam Smith extoll the virtues of evil or promote the right of a hegemon to control the weak?
Not at all.
One would find many laudable words in his text and if the world was truly an equal playing field of nations living together aspiring for improving their quality of life and without any internationally extended financier oligarchy, then one would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with it at all.
The problem, as Ben Franklin, Hamilton and many of the most potent founding fathers understood (or Friedrich List afterwards), is that Adam Smith was just a political hack who never actually believed anything he himself wrote. As historian Anton Chaitkin points out in volume 1 of Who We Are, Adam Smith was directly tied to the inner echelons of the British Empire and had been groomed for years by none other than Lord Shelburne himself before publishing his Wealth of Nations (not coincidentally the same year of the U.S. Declaration of Independence).
Smith and his oligarchical masters in London always understood that they were the true owners of his “hidden hand” which they wished their victims believed were the “magical ordering principles” of the unregulated marketplace.
BRI-oriented free trade zones as we have seen applied in the past seven years are shaped by the intention to build real measurable infrastructure and industrial powers among all participating states. Whether we look at the Africa-China Free Trade Agreement, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, China’s RCEP, China-EAEU deals or China-South America free trade agreements, we see the opposite of anything done during the dark years of the British Empire or post-JFK age of imperial capital. Rather than looting and debt slavery, we have seen the largest explosion of industrial growth, large scale infrastructure, manufacturing and education pop up wherever these treaties have been applied. The intention is just very different from anything seen in the age of globalization 1.0.
China knows that if the UN Charter and WTO rules can be actually enforced for once, within the context shaped by the $3+ trillion Belt and Road Initiative, then globalization 2.0 becomes governed by rules that are fundamentally anti-oligarchical, pro-population growth, pro-nation state, pro-cooperation and anti-depopulation.
Good fruit.
Claim 4: “Xi said good things about WHO and COVID Cooperation and is thus Evil”
A final word must be said about Xi’s World Health Organization/pandemic response remarks.
It may not be popular to state this, but I’m going to do it.
To date, China still has not fully purged the transhumanist-oriented west leaning fifth column set into motion during the 1980s under the reign of Soros’ agent Zhao Ziyang.
During Zhao’s period of influence over China’s government, vast infusions of transhumanists, monetarists and technocrats shaped China’s modern deep state. Many of these parasites were thankfully flushed in phases starting in 1989, again in 1997, and with the most recent purge launched with Xi’s ascension in 2012 with over 1.5 million officials nailed on corruption charges to this day.
Despite these purges, there is still a World Economic Forum/Anglo-American presence felt within certain quarters, seen most clearly in “the Shanghai Clique” centered around former President Jiang Zemin and his coterie of western leaning billionaires like Jack Ma who have at various times made attempts to subvert China’s economic sovereignty.
Russia also suffers from its own deep state problems built up during the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years.
Unlike China which has maintained national controls of banking, Moscow’s technocratic deep state still enjoys more influence over their Keynesian-infested liberal central banking system which is closely linked up to Russian big pharma giants (see: Sberbank as one of many instances).
Unlike North America or Europe, China has always provided alternative COVID remedies that do not simply fixate on vaccines or shutting down their economy on behalf of computer models. China’s use of hydroxychloroquine-zinc and various eastern medicine treatments have been provided from the get-go to great effect resulting in a 0.6% covid death rate compared to America’s. China has made it clear that it has no idea if COVID emerged out of one of the 200+ Pentagon connected biolabs, or if a future genetically targeted creation will be released onto their society as was outlined in blood curdling detail in the 2000 PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses. What is clear is that since January 2020, they have responded to COVID as if it were a possible war scenario.
Just as in the case with Russia, we have seen numerous clashes between various regional powers and the federal government on the issue of mandatory vaccination protocols.
Unlike most western governments whose federal institutions have become the primary enforcers of tyrannical vaccination mandates (vs. regional/state government resistance), the opposite pattern is seen in both Russia and China.
In these Eurasian states, it is the federal government that has principally intervened against the tyrannical excesses of local authorities cattle herding their citizens.
The leaders of both Russia and China are fighting not only for the survival of their own civilizations but something much bigger than themselves. Moreover, they not only intend to emerge from this fight alive, but in a dominant position as the system crumbles and globalization 2.0 is brought online.
It is hard for some Americans to accept the fact that their beloved republic has fallen to a fascist coup. It is hard to accept that Donald Trump may not have the moral or intellectual capacity to do anything about this, and it is hard to accept that the USA does not currently have the internal fortitude to change itself without a broader global change being forced upon it externally by nations of Eurasia.
Sometimes the truth is a bitter medicine. But a bitter medicine that saves the patient is always better than a sugar-coated poison.
