The Fifth Communism

Asia Times considers the significance of the recent plenary assembly of the Chinese Communist Party that elevated Xi Jinping Thought to the highest ideological level:

Marx. Lenin. Mao. Deng. Xi.

Late last week in Beijing, the sixth plenum of the Chinese Communist Party adopted a historic resolution – only the third in its 100-year history – detailing major accomplishments and laying out a vision for the future.

Essentially, the resolution poses three questions. How did we get here? How come we were so successful? And what have we learned to make these successes long-lasting?

The importance of this resolution should not be underestimated. It imprints a major geopolitical fact: China is back. Big time. And doing it their way. No amount of fear and loathing deployed by the declining hegemon will alter this path….

Make Trade, Not War: that would be the motto of a Pax Sinica under Xi. The crucial aspect is that Beijing does not aim to replace Pax Americana, which always relied on the Pentagon’s variant of gunboat diplomacy.

The declaration subtly reinforced that Beijing is not interested in becoming a new hegemon. What matters above all is to remove any possible constraints that the outside world may impose over its own internal decisions, and especially over its unique political setup.

The West may embark on hysteria fits over anything – from Tibet and Hong Kong to Xinjiang and Taiwan. It won’t change a thing.

Concisely, this is how “socialism with Chinese characteristics” – a unique, always mutant economic system – arrived at the Covid-linked techno-feudalist era. But no one knows how long the system will last, and in which mutant form.

Corruption, debt – which tripled in ten years – political infighting – none of that has disappeared in China. To reach 5% annual growth, China would have to recover the growth in productivity comparable to those breakneck times in the 80s and 90s, but that will not happen because a decrease in growth is accompanied by a parallel decrease in productivity.

A final note on terminology. The CCP is always extremely precise. Xi’s two predecessors espoused “perspectives” or “visions.” Deng wrote “theory.” But only Mao was accredited with “thought.” The “new era” has now seen Xi, for all practical purposes, elevated to the status of “thought” – and part of the civilization-state’s constitution.

That’s why the party resolution last week in Beijing could be interpreted as the New Communist Manifesto. And its main author is, without a shadow of a doubt, Xi Jinping. Whether the manifesto will be the ideal road map for a wealthier, more educated and infinitely more complex society than in the times of Deng, all bets are off.

It is vital to accept that one can no more understand the current and future actions of the CPC – and therefore China – while ignoring Xi Jinping Thought than one could have comprehended the development of China since 1978 while attempting to ignore the Dengist revisionism that has completely transformed both China as well as the global order.

One cannot hope to grasp Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Dengist-Xism any better than one could have grasped Marxist-Leninism by reading nothing but Marx. Or than one can anticipate the actions of the fake Biden administration by referring to the US Constitution.


China Claims the Moral High Ground

For more than 100 years, the neo-liberal world order has claimed the international moral high ground on the basis of being “democratic”. The Allies who fought Germany in WWII – France, Britain, and the USA – were often referred to as “the Western democracies”, and “spreading democracy” has been the primary justification for US military invasions for the last three decades.

But now, in the aftermath of the shocking 2020 revelation that US democracy is a massive and fraudulent sham, China has launched a direct rhetorical assault on the West’s primary claim to possess the moral high ground on the international scene. This is a form of unrestricted warfare that strongly suggests Chinese strategists are very familiar with William S. Lind’s concept of 4th Generation Warfare.

China’s democracy is more extensive, more genuine and more effective than the US democracy, as the US politicians represent the interest groups but in China the whole-process democracy ensures implementation of policies that change people’s lives, senior Chinese officials said on Saturday as China issued a white paper titled “China: Democracy That Works.”

Under the US democratic system, politicians are agents of interest groups, rather than representing the interests of the majority of voters and the interests of the country as a whole, Tian Peiyan, Deputy Director of the Policy Research Office of the CPC Central Committee, said at a press conference on the launch of the white paper on Saturday.

“Those politicians can make random promises for the sake of elections, but they seldom fulfill their promises after being elected. Superficially they accept voters’ supervision, but in fact as long as they are elected, the voters have no option but to wait for the next election. They are only awakened during voting but become dormant after voting,” Tian said.

US voters listen to those dazzling slogans only during the election, but they have no say after the election, the Chinese official said.

However, China’s democracy is whole process people’s democracy under the leadership of the CPC, the Chinese official continued. Party members and leaders at all levels must accept the whole process and all-round supervision of the Party and the people when performing their duties to ensure that the power granted by the people is always used for serving the people’s interest.

And they also maintain a close contact with the public, listening to people’s requests and striving to solve their problems.

The different behavior of US politicians before and after elections is due to the lack of a supervising mechanism for politicians including congressmen after they are elected, Guo Zhenhua, Deputy Secretary General of the Standing Committee of the NPC, told the press conference.

Don’t be surprised if the concept of “whole-process democracy” is successful in superseding the increasingly outmoded concept of “representative democracy” that is neither representative nor democratic, and which completely fails to represent the will of the people in any way, shape, or form. Because it is entirely obvious to any honest observer that the USA and the European Union are not only exhibiting democratic deficits, but now possess overtly anti-democratic regimes.

Chinese Foreign Ministry on Sunday released a report on US democracy, exposing the deficiencies and abuse of democracy in the US as well as the harm of it exporting such democracy…. Democracy is a common value shared by all humanity, said the report. It is a right for all nations, not a prerogative reserved for a few. Democracy takes different forms, and there is no one-size-fits-all model. It would be totally undemocratic to measure the diverse political systems of the world with a single yardstick or examine different political civilizations from a single perspective. The political system of a country should be independently decided by its own people, the report said.

And, of course, all the complaints about China’s social credit scores and violations of human rights sound very thin in light of the bannings, prison terms, deplatformings, lockdowns, disemployments, mandates, and even forced vaccinations presently being imposed throughout the West.


A Very Dangerous Game

The Biden Fake Administration is playing with fire by inviting the representatives of Taiwan island to the Summit of Democracies in less than two weeks.

The Biden administration this week brazenly announced its intention to walk over China’s red line warning on Taiwan. The move by the US is a recklessly provocative step that dares an inevitable military response from Beijing. If that happens then all bets are off for a full-scale military confrontation between the United States, its allies, and China. It is not alarmist to say such a clash would escalate into World War III.

Australia and Britain are explicitly committed to a military alliance with the United States in the Asia-Pacific through the recently formed AUKUS pact. Russia will be obliged to defend China.

The date in question is December 9-10 when the Biden administration plays host to a so-called “Summit of Democracies”. This week the State Department announced a list of “participants” that include 110 countries. China and Russia are not invited, among other excluded nations.

Most provocatively, the separatist Chinese territory of Taiwan is invited to attend the video conference. The US is careful to refer to Taiwan as a “participant” not as a “nation”. Nevertheless, this semantical device aside, the invitation is a blatant violation of China’s sovereign claim of authority over Taiwan….

At a teleconference summit on November 16, China’s President Xi Jinping admonished US policy on Taiwan as “playing with fire”. Xi drew a red line that Washington must desist from inciting separatist ambitions of the Taiwanese government.

The announcement this week of the “Summit of Democracies” and specifically the invitation of Taiwan while excluding China is about as bold as it can get by the Biden administration in undermining China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. That it comes only days after a verbal commitment from Biden to Xi that the US adheres to One China Policy and is not seeking Taiwan’s independence makes the provocation all the more contemptuous.

I suppose we’ll find out soon enough if Xi is prone to posturing with regards to Taiwan or not. Based on his domestic record, I don’t have the impression that he is. And while I wouldn’t characterize a hot war over Taiwan as WWIII – I doubt it would last as long as the Falklands War – it strikes me as being as patently ludicrous as it is unnecessary.

But it is clear that the global imperialists will take war with China if they can’t get it with Russia or Iran. Although they might get a 3-for-1 bargain if they’re foolish enough.

The Russia-India-China (RIC) format has contributed to building a multipolar world order and rule of international law, and is a key global and regional policy factor, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reported on Friday at the online meeting of the RIC foreign ministers.


The Four Clashing Civilizations

Even Francis Fukuyama now accepts that his End of History thesis was incorrect, and that Sam Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations model is much more descriptive of the real world. But this clash is not, as this article states, a coming clash, it is an ongoing one.

It is often argued, mainly by those in the West, that the current geopolitical rivalries can’t be compared to the Cold War, because there is no clash of ideologies. Communism has been vanquished and capitalist triumph is eternal.
Their view is one of the ‘end of history’, as proclaimed by the scholar Francis Fukuyama. The problem is, Fukuyama proclaimed the triumph of liberal democracy more than three decades ago. It’s fair to say the world has moved on a little bit since then.

It is hard to deny that ideological competition is now making a comeback. And it looks as though in the coming decades the clash of ideologies will only become more intense. All three contemporary great powers – the United States, China, and Russia – are competing for more than material power. Representing distinct ideological faiths, they are also in competition for human souls. There is also a fourth competing ideology – radical Islamism – but it is now disembodied and lacks a ‘carrier state’ after the defeat of its most vociferous advocates.

The US now champions a liberal-progressivist ideology, which, in its most extreme version, is known as wokeness. In wokeness, the two main ideological strands of the modern West that have their origins in the European Enlightenment – liberalism and communism – finally reunite after a bitter internecine feud. When the opponents of wokeness compare it to radical Bolshevism, it is not without reason. In its fight against structural oppression, wokeness is ultimately about destroying social hierarchies for the sake of justice – and at the expense of order.

Taken to its extremes, this new Western ideological struggle for equity and equality leads to universal homogenization, inevitably destroying the diversity of social and even physical identities. In a novel by Mikhail Sholokhov, one of the characters, a fiery Bolshevik, was dreaming about a post-revolutionary world in which the borders come crashing down and people intermarry so there are no dominant and oppressed groups any more: “everyone’s appearance will be pleasantly brown – and everyone will be the same.” This Russian Bolshevik from the 1920s could join the woke squads in Seattle or Bristol in the 2020s.

China and Russia are often lumped together as ‘fellow autocracies’. But, in fact, Beijing and Moscow stand for very different ideological models. China’s is a synthesis of Marxist-Leninist-Maoist socialism blended with traditional Chinese ways, such as Confucianism and legalism, all boosted by advanced digital technology. The West increasingly fears China not only due to the growth in Beijing’s economic and military power, but also because modern China’s hugely successful record of development seems to validate the CCP’s ideology….

Putin’s Russia has its ideals mainly in the past. That’s a major reason why the ideology of modern Russia appeals to many right-wing conservatives in Europe and North America who see Russia as the last major state that adheres to the values of what used to be European Christian civilization. Putin’s Russia has another advantage. Among the competing ideologies, it is the most appealing aesthetically. This may be because for Putin’s state, order is prioritised over justice.

This is a useful, and generally accurate summary of the current state of the civilizational clash. But what it leaves out is the religious and ethnic angles which actually delineate the lines of grand strategic conflict. Although it is now based in the US, the Western power is neither American nor liberal-progressive; it is not even Western, but actually a satanic shadow power in which the dominant ethnicity is Jewish and the ambitions are global. Russia is the Christian nationalist power, and China, under Xi and his Wangist ideology, is the virtuous pagan nationalist power.

This is why the Promethean-ruled US is already engaged in a virtual war with both nationalist powers and the other globalist power. The Prometheans are at war with China because China broke its alliance with them in 2015. They are at war with Russia because Russia, as a Christian nation, rejects their satanism and because Russia escaped their influence in 2000. And they are at war with their fellow globalists in the Dar al-Islam over the territory of Palestine in general and Jerusalem in particular, even as they use them to suppress Christian nationalism in Europe.

The reason Trump is so furiously hated is because he represented – however well or poorly – the Christian West’s attempt to break free of Promethean rule. Whether he failed or whether he is still engaged in some sort of secretive Q-like battle is irrelevant to understanding the shape of the overall situation; he is the West’s equivalent of Putin and Xi, ergo he represents the fundamental danger to the shadow power.

And the fundamental weakness of the Prometheans is that, unlike the other three powers, they do not represent a true civilization. They are not, technically, even civilized, as they have never progressed beyond tribalism. This is why they so reliably fail once they achieve enough power in a society to become responsible for it, as they do not know how to maintain a civilization, let alone build one. It is always much easier to destroy than to create.


Keeping Big Tech in Line

Not the United States, unfortunately. But China continues to crack down on the corporate elite and their rapacious financial parasitism:

China’s state market regulator said it was fining e-commerce giant Alibaba, along with other Big Tech majors including Baidu and, over violations of the country’s anti-monopoly legislation. The State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) slapped fines of $78,300 on each corporation, saying they failed to declare 43 deals, dating back to 2012, to the proper authorities.

The list of antitrust violation cases that have been brought to light include Beijing Baidu Wangxun Technology and Nanjing Wangdian Technology’s joint purchase of Nanjing Xinfeng Network Technology, Alibaba’s acquisition of the equity of AutoNavi Software Holdings, and Tencent’s acquisition of equity in China Medical Online.

All the cases announced represent transactions that should have been declared but weren’t. SAMR noted that the list includes a raft of firms and a long transaction time span.

“With the in-depth advancement of anti-monopoly law enforcement, the awareness of corporate operators’ concentration declarations has continued to increase, proactively sorting out and reporting the concentration of operators that have not previously been declared illegally … and actively cooperating with investigations,” the watchdog said on Saturday on its official WeChat account.

The penalties are the latest development in Beijing’s major clampdown on technology-focused businesses, amid a nationwide move towards increasing national security. The country’s tech giants, particularly the ones operating in the financial sector, have been under close scrutiny from state authorities due to their increasing power.

In October, the SAMR imposed a fine of $533.5 million on food delivery platform Meituan. The penalty over monopolistic practices was the second-biggest fine on the Chinese platform economy since Alibaba was slapped a record $2.8 billion antitrust fine in April, for exclusionary practices.

The corporations, both Chinese and US-based, should have seen this coming. There can be no question that Xi is genuinely committed to fighting all forms of corruption; an intelligence report on him written before he came to power even highlighted the expectation that he would “aggressively attempt to address these evils”.

Xi knows how very corrupt China is and is repulsed by the all-encompassing commercialization of Chinese society,
with its attendant nouveau riche, official corruption, loss of values, dignity, and self-respect, and such “moral evils”
as drugs and prostitution, the professor stated. The professor speculated that if Xi were to become the Party General Secretary, he would likely aggressively attempt to address these evils, perhaps at the expense of the new moneyed class.


The Temptation of Empire

The War on Russia / War on China crowd constantly engages in psychological projection, insisting that their own dreams of ruling over a global empire is shared by both the Russian and Chinese leaders. But as anyone who has paid any attention to the thoughts of Vladimir Putin and Xi Xinping in this regard knows, both leaders are very well aware of the fatal trap that empire poses to any powerful nation, and both leaders seek to avoid the temptation.

You know what the problem is? I will tell you as a citizen of the former Soviet Union. What is the problem with an empire? They think they are so mighty they can afford minor faults and mistakes. It is okay, we will buy these people and scare other people; we will reach an agreement with still others, give beads to those and threaten others with our warships – problem solved. But problems are piling up, and there comes a time when it is no longer possible to cope with them all. And the United States is firmly and steadily following in the footsteps of the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin

Xi Jinping’s thinking is never as transparent or straightforward as the Russian leader’s, being occluded by Communist Party jargon, the customary Chinese ornamentation, and a vast panoply of classical quotes and allusions, but those who are familiar with them don’t have too much trouble interpreting what he’s saying.

“Governing a state with vast territory is a heavy burden; succeeding to the crown is much harder than building an empire.”

Founding a state requires a multitude of talents, while succeeding and strengthening the inheritance of ancestors requires even more. By quoting the sentence, President Xi Jinping indicated that the glorious and resplendent Chinese civilization was founded by large numbers of outstanding people throughout history. Today we are being passed the baton from previous generations and carrying on a great historical mission. Strengthening and rejuvenating the country by cultivating talent has become a priority for the Party and the country. To carry forward Chinese civilization, to build a strong and prosperous country, we must use history as mirror and study and utilize outstanding intellects.

How to Read Confucius and other Chinese Classical Thinkers, Xi Jinping

The point is that neither the Russians nor the Chinese are foolish enough to seek empire because they do not wish to lose control of their national destinies. While both nations have the power required to pursue it, they also have a clear and obvious disinclination to do so, as Hazony recognizes in The Virtue of Nationalism.

The most natural state is, therefore, one nation, an extended family with one national character. This it retains for ages and develops most naturally if the leaders come from the people.… Nothing, therefore, is more manifestly contrary to the purposes of political government than the unnatural enlargement of states, the wild mixing of various races and nationalities under one scepter. A human scepter is far too weak and slender for such incongruous parts to be engrafted upon it. Such states are but patched up contraptions, fragile machines,… and their component parts are connected by mechanical contrivances instead of bonds of sentiment.… It would only be the curse of fate that would condemn to immortality these forced unions, these lifeless monstrosities. But history shows sufficiently that the instruments of human pride are formed of clay, and like all clay, they will dissolve or crumble to pieces.

In this passage, Herder describes the imperial state as nothing other than a “curse” to all involved. According to this point of view, human government is inherently limited in what it can attain, and can be strong and effective only when it relies on the “bonds of sentiment” that unite a single nation in a national state whose leaders are drawn from the people. The “unnatural enlargement of states,” which forces many nations together under a single rule, is not based on such bonds of sentiment. It only increases the burdens and difficulties piled on the state as “incongruous parts” that are not bound together by mutual loyalty are added to it, until eventually it survives only as a “patched up contraption” groaning under the weight of these troubles.

Underlying such an approach is the recognition that the health of a nation is measured not only in terms of its military and economic strength, but also along other dimensions that are no less significant. What Herder describes as a “national character[, which] it retains for ages and develops,” refers to what I have called the internal integrity and cultural inheritance of the nation. And it is these things that tend to be lost as the imperial state expands. This is because conquered nations bring their own aspirations, troubles, and interests into the state. And this growing diversity makes the state more difficult to govern, weakening the mutual loyalties that had held it together, dissipating its attention and resources in the effort to suppress internal conflicts and violence that had previously been unknown to it, and forcing the rulers to adopt oppressive means of maintaining the peace. As this happens, the rulers become absorbed in intrigues and negotiations among distant parties in distant lands. This appeals to their vanity, as it allows them to see themselves as “men of the world.” But in reality, their understanding of the foreign nations they seek to pacify is nearly always limited to externals, to hollowed-out caricatures, so that they tend to do as much harm as good by applying the shallow, supposedly “universal” categories at their disposal to circumstances at the ends of the earth.52 In the meantime, when anyone approaches them with a matter that concerns the health and prosperity of their own nation, they have only scant attention to devote to it, and secretly resent this intrusion of “domestic affairs” when greater things are pressing. In this way, the minds of the rulers turn away, and they become almost as unaware of the concerns of their own people as they are of the interests of the foreign nations they seek to govern.

All of this is regarded with horror by peoples with strong national-state traditions, which tend to scorn the idea that their country’s leaders should lose themselves in efforts for the preservation and government of an empire of foreign nations, rather than strengthening the tribes of their own nation in their own land.

The Virtue of Nationalism, Yoram Hazony


The 4th Ideology

Very, very few in the West will understand the significance of the historic resolution passed by the CPC at its most recent plenary session:

The Chinese Communist Party has passed a “historical resolution”, cementing Xi Jinping’s status in political history.

The document, a summary of the party’s 100-year history, addresses its key achievements and future directions.

It is only the third of its kind since the founding of the party – the first was passed by Mao Zedong in 1945 and the second by Deng Xiaoping in 1981.

It was passed on Thursday at the sixth plenary session, one of China’s most important political meetings.

As only the third Chinese leader to have issued such a resolution, the move aims to establish Mr Xi as an equal to party founder Mao and his successor Deng.

“Just like the previous two resolutions, [this resolution] will play an important role in helping to unite the theory, will and action of the party – to achieve future progress and in realising the second centenary goal and the great Chinese dream of rejuvenation,” senior party official Qu Qingshan said at a press conference on Friday.

What this action signifies is that China’s ideology, which has not been Maoist since 1978, is officially no longer Dengist either. This third adaptation marks the triumph of the brilliant Wang Huning, China’s chief ideologist and the architect of the new Xiist ideology that rejects the Western-influenced Dengist economics-first approach that has been the official party line since Mao’s successor rejected doctrinaire Marxist-Leninism and publicly declared “to get rich is glorious” in 1978.

The CPC has historically recognized three political cultures:

  • Traditional Confucianism
  • Marxist-Leninism as interpreted by Mao
  • Communo-Corporatism as interpreted by Deng

The globalists of the neo-liberal world order loved Dengism and were intimately involved in its formation. Consider how George Soros described his own involvement with “the bold reform agenda” and Deng’s conception of “China’s place in the world.”

Mr. Xi came to power in 2013, but he was the beneficiary of the bold reform agenda of his predecessor Deng Xiaoping, who had a very different concept of China’s place in the world. Deng realized that the West was much more developed and China had much to learn from it. Far from being diametrically opposed to the Western-dominated global system, Deng wanted China to rise within it. His approach worked wonders. China was accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization in 2001 with the privileges that come with the status of a less-developed country. China embarked on a period of unprecedented growth. It even dealt with the global financial crisis of 2007-08 better than the developed world.

Xi’s Dictatorship Threatens the Chinese State, George Soros, 14 August 2021

However, the highly influential Wang pointed out the flaws inherent to the third political culture in his famous text known as The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture:

The bourgeois revolution in the West promoted the basic values of freedom, equality, fraternity, and democracy, and on this basis a political culture evolved over the succeeding centuries. The ancient Chinese core values emphasizing the respective roles and duties of ruler, subject, father, and son similarly dominated the political culture at that time. But there are no core values in China’s most recent structure. This lack has multiple meanings: it may mean that the value itself has yet to evolve; it may mean that the value exists but has not universally entered political culture; and it may mean that we do not have vehicles to carry out the transmission of values. Since 1949, we have criticized the core values of the classical and modern structures, but have not paid enough attention to shaping our own core values. In and of itself, Marxism transcended the Western rule-based worldview, but in China, which never possessed that worldview, the results of the adoption of Marxism were not always positive. Therefore, to forge core values today means grasping the overall process of transformation from a culturally oriented political culture to an institutionally oriented political culture, and to choose core values conducive to this transformation.

The Structure of China’s Changing Political Culture, Wang Hunin

What the elevation of Xiism – Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, to be specific – to equal status with Maoism (Mao Zedong Thought) and Dengism (Deng Xiaoping Theory) signifies is the complete rejection of what presently passes for “democracy” as well as the neo-liberal world order. That is why the international corporations are fleeing China, why the chief executives of major Chinese corporations are stepping down in disgrace, and why globalist figures are furiously denouncing Xi as the latest “new Hitler”. Like Vladimir Putin, and unlike Donald Trump, Xi Jinping has successfully overcome the agents of the neo-liberal world order in defense of his nation.

This official declaration marks the completion of the rejection of the globalists that first became apparent in 2015, when Xi publicly declined to provide what was intended to be a symbol of Sino-Globo unity by giving the offspring of Priscilla Chan and Mark Zuckerberg an honorary Chinese name.

Nationalism is rising, in China as elsewhere, and this is a development to be celebrated by nationalists everywhere. While the Christian West is not China, and while China is not necessarily a friend to the Christian West, neither is China an enemy. To the contrary, China is now the most formidable enemy of the ancient evil that has subjugated the Christian West. And what is the enemy of one’s enemy, if not a friend?


Hitting Them Where it Hurts

China is going directly after the wallets of the wealthy and well-connected Taipei politicians who seek separation from the mainland.

The Chinese mainland on Friday announced specific measures to punish diehard secessionists from the island of Taiwan, including prohibiting them and their families from entering the mainland and the Hong Kong and Macao special administrative regions, and restricting their associated institutions from cooperating with organizations and individuals in the mainland for economic benefits, and they will be persecuted for life long for criminal liability.

Experts said the move on Friday is just the beginning to hold secessionists accountable, and shows that the complete reunification of the country is irresistible as the mainland is taking concrete measures on laws to remove obstacles. Those who attempt to split the island of Taiwan from the motherland would have no place to hide, and will face a life-long pursuit for their crimes.

Aside from entry ban, we would not allow the companies or paymasters of these diehard secessionists to profit from Chinese mainland, and will also take other measures to punish them, Zhu Fenglian, spokesperson of the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council, told a press conference on Friday.

Mainland slaps punishment for diehard Taiwan secessionists, Global Times, 5 November 2021

This is a just and rhetorically effective approach to create pressure for reunification on the leadership of the independence movement. Most of them profit considerably from their business with the mainland, and denying it to them will tend to reduce both their will and their influence while increasing the influence of the friends of the mainland.

After all, if they want separation from the mainland, why should they enjoy any benefits from its massive market? And the warning that they will be held accountable for life means that their future wealth and influence will be completely dependent upon the success of their secession plans.

It’s also evidence that the Chinese leadership has learned that subtlety and soft power can be more useful in some circumstances than overt threats of massive violence.


Independence is Not Imperialism

The ignorant Chi-Com haters, whose perspective on China is literally 43 years out of date and who stubbornly project their own imperialism on the world’s largest nation, have now managed to completely misunderstand Xi Jinping’s policy of pursuing economic independence:

The Financial Times reported that the head of the U.S. business lobbying agency in China warned that as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) tightens its control of COVID-19, Western executives are withdrawing from the world’s largest consumer market.

Today, as the rest of the world has reopened, American business leaders, including Mr. Ker Gibbs and Alan Beebe, Presidents of the American Chambers of Commerce in Shanghai and Beijing, are warning the CCP that the evacuation of foreigners from China may accelerate.

The British Financial Times also cites a recent survey of 338 American Chamber of Commerce members in Shanghai. The survey shows that more than 70% of companies have difficulty in attracting and retaining foreign talent. “Restrictions related to travel visas,” have become the main issue.

China’s strict entry quarantine policies include the abolition of tax incentives enjoyed by foreigners for decades; the rising cost of living in Chinese cities. Power shortages, power cuts, and increases in electricity prices, along with the CCP’s relentless surveillance, are also essential factors in driving foreign executives to return to their home countries.

China is still conducting a policy of “Zero COVID-19”. Anxious foreigners, uncertain of how long they would be locked up in their houses, quickly fled.

TFI Global points out that the flight of investors from China is due to the strict blockade by COVID-19, government surveillance, and a series of repressive economic policies implemented by the authorities.

Since last November, China has launched an all-out attack against businesses, companies, and entrepreneurs. The technology industry, education and training, private schools, and most private companies are “harvested” by the government. In the face of such anti-trade measures, investors will inevitably flee from China to escape the dictatorship.

Foreigners flee China, the separation is almost complete?, 3 November 2021

This has very little, if anything, to do with “Covid-19”. That’s merely a code word for the international financial regime, in both China and the West. And the self-deportation of foreigners is a feature, not a bug. Literally every nation in the West, beginning with America, would benefit greatly from the same behavior on the part of the foreign peoples who have invaded them. How anyone can look at the ongoing collapse of the USA due to its evil policies of mass immigration, free trade, and free speech and conclude that the failing state provides a functional model worthy of imitation, much less an ideal model that morally requires installation by force, completely mystifies me.

China is voluntarily choosing the fate that was imposed upon Russia by angry neocon imperialists who wished to punish the Putin regime for expelling its elite servants who were financializing and parasitizing the Russian economy. China is doing so because it has seen the way in which the Russian people and the Russian economy have greatly benefited from being expelled from the evil and vampiric neo-liberal world order, which in any event is in the process of collapsing. Hence all the “Great Reset” talk, which is the financial elite’s attempt to succeed itself in the aftermath of their own failure.

Unlike the Boomer-tier China critics, I have read the writings of Lee Kuan Yew, Xi Jinping, and Wang Huning. They are not only far more intelligent than their critics, they are great and admirable men who have taken on incredibly challenging burdens on behalf of their people that bear an almost unfathomable degree of difficulty. Xi and Wang may fail, like Donald Trump, or they may succeed, like Vladimir Putin. But the entire world should wish them well in their endeavors.

China does not seek world dominance any more than Russia does. That is pure projection on the part of people who not only want to rule the world, but believe it is their Satan-given right to do so. When you read stories of Chinese hunger for global domination in the media, consider the fucking source! Both Russia and China simply seek to be powerful enough to rule themselves and keep the evil globalists at bay; both countries have already suffered at their hands and both countries already possess sufficient military power to invade and occupy their neighbors more easily than the USA invaded and occupied Iraq.

What China is doing is exactly what Americans should be doing as a nation, but can’t because they have been the victims of the largest invasion in world history, and because they are demoralized, denationalized, and subjected. And it should be obvious to even the most slow-witted right now that the USA is currently on a path that will, if it is not abandoned, lead to the same horrors that both China and Russia endured in the 20th century.

UPDATE: China experts recognize that China is beginning to utilize its increasingly formidable economic power in pursuit of its geostrategic ends.

Beijing is using legislative power to punish supporters of “Taiwan independence” (again, deliberately undefined) with travel bans and prosecutions. Some people might argue back, “Well, just don’t go to China”- but it’s not as simple as that. On a business and organizational level, this is a move with huge ramifications. If you have a business, you could lose access to the huge Chinese market and never has that been more relevant in Taiwan, whose largest economic and trading partner is China. Both geography and commerce talk.

In addition, China has extradition treaties with 59 countries. While the majority of those are outside the West, this creates a legal reach stretching beyond China’s borders. Certain countries near China are willing to comply with this kind of request due to their own mutual interests in anti-separatism and unrest. Consider, for example, how Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong was banned from both Thailand and Malaysia. This means that vocal supporters of Taiwan who end up blacklisted should not assume they are safe just because they do not have a stake in China or Hong Kong, or wish to go there. Beijing is using long-arm jurisdiction.


An Empire in Decline

It might seem a little strange that the Chinese media is still discussing the English empire in terms of decline, given that everyone recognizes the empire “on which the sun never sets” is no more. Except it is apparent that in doing so, they are actually referring to the declining imperial USA, as the Russian media clearly understands.

The United States must come to terms with the reality that it no longer enjoys “military primacy” in the Western Pacific, and confront the “ugly” reality that it may lose a military conflict with China over Taiwan, Graham Allison, professor of government at the Harvard Kennedy School, has warned.

In a piece for The National Interest, Allison pointed to recent analyses on the possibility of war over Taiwan by a number of senior current and former officials, including ex-Vice Joint Chiefs Chairman James Winnefeld and former-CIA Director Michael Morell, who recently concluded that the Chinese military could deliver a fait accompli on Taiwan before Washington even mustered its forces.

Col. Bob Work, former deputy secretary of defence under Barack Obama and Joe Biden, has expressed even greater pessimism, stating publicly (Allison’s paraphrasing) that “in the most realistic war games the Pentagon has been able to design simulating war over Taiwan, the score is eighteen to zero. And the eighteen is not Team USA.”

The reasons for this are twofold, according to Allison. The first, as former Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis said in his 2018 National Defence Strategy, is that the US no longer enjoys its post-Cold War “dominant superiority in every operating domain,” including the ability to “generally deploy our forces when we wanted, assemble them where we wanted, and operate how we wanted. Today, every domain is contested – air, land, sea, space and cyberspace.”

The second, Allison notes, relates to China’s radical advances in its anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities – consisting of everything from anti-ship and anti-air missile systems to long range ballistic and cruise missiles, electronic warfare and interceptor aircraft.

This loss of global imperial hegemony is actually good for Americans, as the rise of the nationalist regional powers increases the chances that Americans will finally begin to recognize that their democracy is a fraud, they no longer rule themselves, and they have not done so for some time now.

One need not be a particular fan of China, Russia, or Iran to observe that their rise is detrimental to America’s enemies.