The Facts on the Ground

Karl Denninger reminds us of what we now know from experience, rather than theory, as the media begins its latest round of fearmongering over the so-called “omicron” variant which supposedly emerged in Botswana. Or South Africa. Or, possibly, Australia.

This “variant” has been found all over the world already. Therefore its already everywhere. Locking down travel after it is already in your nation is stupid and does nothing. The variant is either going to become dominant or it will not. You cannot alter that course once it gets to you — and no matter where you are it already has.

This “variant” has no evidence of being more deadly; it may in fact be less-so. Indeed that is the natural mutational pattern coronaviruses follow over time. There is no evidence in the form, for example, of higher hospital admissions, ICU utilization and death in those in which this variant has been detected. In other words thus far all the scaremongering has been based on….. exactly nothing as there are no facts currently in evidence to support such fear.

The vaccines clearly do not work. International travel has been vaccinated-only everywhere for quite some time. So the person(s) who brought the virus into your nation with this “variant” were vaccinated. The market, of course, responded to this news by spiking the vaccine companies, specifically Moderna. You have to wonder what sort of stupidity would drive someone to consider a firm that has one product which clearly did not work a “buy” in a situation like this. Mass psychosis is the only reasonable explanation.

Lockdowns and constraints clearly do not work either. The virus mutated because that’s what viruses do, and specifically coronaviruses do this all the time. It’s common. Further, vaccinating into an outbreak promotes vaccine-resistant strains because that’s just how natural selection works. You want the opposite but you can’t get there from here by vaccinating people while an outbreak is going on so the better option is to focus on early treatments and even prophylaxis which does not place immune pressure on the virus to evade your jabs.

Meanwhile the evidence continues to mount that prior infection confers better resistance than vaccines. Perfect immunity? No. But much better immunity and, to three nines, perfect protection against critical illness and death.
There were no cases of critical disease at reinfection and 28 cases at primary infection (Table S3), for an odds ratio of 0.00 (95% CI, 0.00 to 0.64). There were no cases of death from Covid-19 at reinfection and 7 cases at primary infection resulting in an odds ratio of 0.00…

So which do you prefer, since while the jabs do appear to provide some protection it wanes and it certainly does not prevent 100% of the severe and fatal outcomes.

Never mind the jab side effect profiles, which are quite dangerous, the evidence is mounting that the intermediate and long-term dangers are very significant and, in addition, there is mounting evidence that if you get jabbed and then are infected, and you will get infected, you are likely to not build “N” protein recognition so you can get infected again and again until you get the bad case that screws you. This is due to a well-recognized phenomena called “OAS” (“Original Antigenic Sin”) and is directly caused by the vaccines as they “train” your body to produce “S” antibodies, which is all they contain coding for and not “N” protein antibodies which are critical as the virus cannot mutate in that part to any material degree and remain a viable virus.

On the other hand the evidence is that beating the disease without a jab once means you have durable protection against critical and fatal outcomes on an extremely reliable basis including potential mutations since the “N” protein does not and cannot undergo substantial change.

The latter, by the way, is the pattern for every serious viral disease outbreak through history.

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that this entire two-year global anti-virus campaign has been a charade. Whatever the true objective was, neither saving lives nor health care was actually the purpose. Which reminds us, once again, that the one thing we can be absolutely certain is not true is whatever the official story being pushed by the government-media complex is.


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.


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?


Protecting the Pedos

The media abruptly falls silent when Elon Musk openly calls out the pedos at the United Nations:

On Sunday, Elon Musk left UN bosses in shock when he openly revealed a vast pedophilia network run by UN officials.

Elon Musk questioned the UN over its child sex ring during a heated Twitter dispute over whether enormous sums of money can address world hunger.

Much of the media attention has focused on Musk’s response to UN World Food Programme Director David Beasley, who said on CNN last week that if Musk donated 2 percent of his wealth, $6 billion, then he might save 42 million people who are “literally going to die if we don’t reach them.”

Dr. Eli David pointed out that the UN World Food Programme (WFP) couldn’t “solve world hunger” with a budget of $8.4 billion.

“If WFP can describe on this Twitter thread exactly how $6B will solve world hunger, I will sell Tesla stock right now and do it,” responded Musk, adding, “But it must be open source accounting, so the public sees precisely how the money is spent.”

Musk then asked Beasley “What happened here?” along with a link to an Express article headlined ‘Starving children ‘as young as NINE forced to give UN officials oral sex to get food’.

The article details a report exposing how UN peacekeepers “orally and anally raped” children in the Central African Republic and how top officials at the UN’s children agency, UNICEF ignored the scandal in an apparent attempt to cover it up.

“No one has been arrested more than a year and a half after UN authorities were made aware of the sexual abuse allegations,” the report, which was published in 2015, concluded.

Most of the media reports concerning the Twitter exchange didn’t even mention Musk challenging Beasley about the child abuse sex scandal.

The mainstream world is much more evil than most people realize. That’s why iron-fisted control of the mainstream media is so vital to the very servants of Satan who once advanced the cause of “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech”, and who still cloak their activities under those Enlightenment banners.

The Éminence Grise

If you ever wondered why my views have tended to sound so harmonious with Chinese policy in recent years, it’s because the leading Chinese intellectual has been looking at the same things I’ve been looking at, reading the same books I’ve been reading, observing the same things I’ve been observing, and reaching strikingly similar conclusions… only he did it 13 years before I did. Of course, it’s extremely informative to observe the difference between the way Wang Huning was embraced by the Chinese elite and the way I was systematically banished and minimized by the Western elite.

At this point, like many during those heady years of reform and opening, Wang remained hopeful that liberalism could play a positive role in China, writing that his recommendations could allow “the components of the modern structure that embody the spirit of modern democracy and humanism [to] find the support they need to take root and grow.”

That would soon change.

Also in 1988, Wang—having risen with unprecedented speed to become Fudan’s youngest full professor at age 30—won a coveted scholarship (facilitated by the American Political Science Association) to spend six months in the United States as a visiting scholar. Profoundly curious about America, Wang took full advantage, wandering about the country like a sort of latter-day Chinese Alexis de Tocqueville, visiting more than 30 cities and nearly 20 universities.

What he found deeply disturbed him, permanently shifting his view of the West and the consequences of its ideas.

Wang recorded his observations in a memoir that would become his most famous work: the 1991 book America Against America. In it, he marvels at homeless encampments in the streets of Washington DC, out-of-control drug crime in poor black neighborhoods in New York and San Francisco, and corporations that seemed to have fused themselves to and taken over responsibilities of government. Eventually, he concludes that America faces an “unstoppable undercurrent of crisis” produced by its societal contradictions, including between rich and poor, white and black, democratic and oligarchic power, egalitarianism and class privilege, individual rights and collective responsibilities, cultural traditions and the solvent of liquid modernity.

But while Americans can, he says, perceive that they are faced with “intricate social and cultural problems,” they “tend to think of them as scientific and technological problems” to be solved separately. This gets them nowhere, he argues, because their problems are in fact all inextricably interlinked and have the same root cause: a radical, nihilistic individualism at the heart of modern American liberalism.

“The real cell of society in the United States is the individual,” he finds. This is so because the cell most foundational (per Aristotle) to society, “the family, has disintegrated.” Meanwhile, in the American system, “everything has a dual nature, and the glamour of high commodification abounds. Human flesh, sex, knowledge, politics, power, and law can all become the target of commodification.” This “commodification, in many ways, corrupts society and leads to a number of serious social problems.” In the end, “the American economic system has created human loneliness” as its foremost product, along with spectacular inequality. As a result, “nihilism has become the American way, which is a fatal shock to cultural development and the American spirit.”

Moreover, he says that the “American spirit is facing serious challenges” from new ideational competitors. Reflecting on the universities he visited and quoting approvingly from Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind, he notes a growing tension between Enlightenment liberal rationalism and a “younger generation [that] is ignorant of traditional Western values” and actively rejects its cultural inheritance. “If the value system collapses,” he wonders, “how can the social system be sustained?”

Ultimately, he argues, when faced with critical social issues like drug addiction, America’s atomized, deracinated, and dispirited society has found itself with “an insurmountable problem” because it no longer has any coherent conceptual grounds from which to mount any resistance.

Once idealistic about America, at the start of 1989 the young Wang returned to China and, promoted to Dean of Fudan’s International Politics Department, became a leading opponent of liberalization.

He began to argue that China had to resist global liberal influence and become a culturally unified and self-confident nation governed by a strong, centralized party-state. He would develop these ideas into what has become known as China’s “Neo-Authoritarian” movement—though Wang never used the term, identifying himself with China’s “Neo-Conservatives.” This reflected his desire to blend Marxist socialism with traditional Chinese Confucian values and Legalist political thought, maximalist Western ideas of state sovereignty and power, and nationalism in order to synthesize a new basis for long-term stability and growth immune to Western liberalism.

Of course, what works for China will not work for the West. Among other things, a Western nation cannot turn to Confucian values it never had. As Lee Kuan Yew reminds us in his memoirs, different peoples must construct their own forms of government that are suited to their customs and culture. But even though Wang’s precise prescription is not an option for us, that does not mean that his diagnosis of the West’s problem being the neo-liberal world order and its rejection of traditional Christian values should be ignored.

Nor does that mean that a Western form of Neo-Authoritarianism designed to restore Western values and Western nationalisms should not be pursued with the same vigor that China has constructed its post-Maoist system, and with a similar confidence of success. The more important question for Americans is: precisely what should American Neo-Authoritarianism look like?


Globohomo Fears the Tradwife

Satan’s little servitors are worried about the declining appeal of one of their greatest weapons, feminism:


Mention the word “tradwife” and you might imagine the 1950s archetype: A “traditional wife” in a dress and an apron, smiling at her husband and three kids while presenting a gleaming beef roast at the dinner table, pleased as ever in her domestic domain.

How TikTok and a Gen Z aesthetic are selling a lifestyle used to justify misogyny and white supremacy in America

For a swath of right-wing American men, that image is part of a fantasy of how things “used to be,” in the good ol’ days before antifa and Black Lives Matter and feminist YouTubers ruined everything. The tradwife symbolizes stability — at least for those who imagine social change as an attack on their identity and being. It is the “submissive and breedable” meme, made unironic by chauvinism. It is, ultimately, a hatred of women going their own way.

Which made it all the more surprising when Mariel Cooksey began noticing the Gen Z women and girls actively repping the tradwife aesthetic and lifestyle online. Cooksey, a researcher at the Institute for Research on Male Supremacy, decided to study why and how this rhetoric spreads, and found that teen girls are being attracted to the movement thanks to an evolution in how tradwife ideas are marketed and presented.

They ruin. We build. They cohabit in sterility. We marry and multiply. They die off in the present. We show up for the future.

They lose. We win.

Reject feminism and show up for the future.


Kneecapping the Tech Giants

The Prometheans are furious with Xi and the CCP for refusing to permit the financialization of the Chinese economy. Because, um, they’re afraid of losing power to Alibaba, Huawei, and TenCent or something:

Xi Jinping, general secretary of the Communist Party of China, is currently kneecapping his country’s most successful private companies.

Until very recently, the CPC permitted the growth of domestic tech giants, including Alibaba , a Chinese analog of Amazon ; Tencent , a massive tech conglomerate; Xiaomi, an artificial intelligence company tied to the military but better known for its smartphones; Huawei, a controversial global leader in 5G networks; and Baidu, one of the world’s largest AI companies. Leaders watched these firms create massive numbers of jobs and improve consumers’ lives, and challenge their American and European competitors.

But now, the CPC fears them. In late 2020, Beijing’s regulators abruptly scuttled the initial public offering of Ant, an internet payments company that spun out of Alibaba. The stock offering was poised to be the largest IPO in history, giving China the sort of bragging rights you would have expected party bosses to relish.

This wasn’t a one-off. In spring 2021, Chinese regulators issued a $2.8 billion antitrust fine to Alibaba. And regulators have cracked down on the ability of Chinese firms to list their shares in the United States—once a rite of passage for Chinese companies that signaled international legitimacy.

That very legitimacy has become a problem for the CPC, which is cracking down on China’s Big Tech precisely because they present an alternative governance structure in Chinese society—one that knows the people of China better than the CCP itself. The Communist Party of China has always insisted on a paramount rule—the party’s own absolute hegemony—and these Big Tech companies threaten that.

For years, China-watchers in the West clung to the conviction that the CPC needed strong economic growth from the private sector to survive in power. Growth meant increasing prosperity, and prosperity bought domestic peace: It implied proof that the Party provided for the people. Now, the Party fears that that legitimacy will rest with its true source—the technology companies that have become billboards for Chinese pride and the governance structures that made them so.

This is a bizarre and self-serving interpretation of why the CCP is preventing China’s biggest companies from growing in paper terms rather than industrial terms. It’s not the tech companies they fear, but rather, the banks behind them. Michael Hudson, one of the few economists in the world who actually understands the significance of debt, explains the real reason China is preventing its business interests from expanding freely in an interview:

Michael Hudson: Well, George Soros’ dream is that China would do what Yeltsin did to Russia – that it would privatise the economy, really carve it up and let US investors buy control of the most profitable heights. In that way, the foreign investors would be able to sort of get the profits of Chinese industry, Chinese labour, and it would become the darling stock market of the world, just like Russia’s stock market was the leading booming stock market of 1994-96. China would be run to benefit US investment bankers. Soros is furious that China is not following the neoliberal policy that the United States is following. It’s following a socialist policy wanting to keep its economic surplus at home to benefit its own citizens, not American financial investors. For Soros, this is a clash of civilisations. His proposed strategy is to stifle the Chinese economy by putting sanctions against it, to stop investing in it so as to force it to do to itself what Yeltsin did to Russia.

Ross: Let’s hear it in his words. He says: ‘The BlackRock initiative imperils the national security interests of the US and other democracies because the money invested in China will help prop up President Xi’s regime, which is repressive at home and aggressive abroad. Congress should pass legislation empowering the Securities and Exchange Commission to limit the flow of funds to China. The effort ought to enjoy bipartisan support’. He’s not mincing his words, is he?

Michael Hudson: He thinks that China actually needs American dollars to build its factories and invest. He thinks that somehow China’s balance of payments is going to fall apart without the US market, without US investors telling President Xi what to do. The Chinese government won’t have a clue as to what to invest in and how to let the ‘free market’, meaning George Soros and BlackRock and other companies, operate. So he’s living in a dream world where other people need us. It’s like a guy who doesn’t realise his girlfriend doesn’t need him anymore….

The United States is driving Europe, Asia and now Africa as well, into a unified, consolidated unit outside of itself. It’s very self-destructive. It thinks like George Soros, that if we stop investing in Asia and other countries, that will force them to knuckle under to the US. But what it’s doing is it’s driving them altogether into the Belt and Road Initiative.

What China’s doing is creating a precondition for a profitable industrial economy over a large area to benefit from. It’s participants are going to need transportation. You’re going to need ports. You’re going to need roads. You’re going to need pipelines and is focusing on the interconnections, on the infrastructure.

America doesn’t build infrastructure these days unless it’s monopolised. This is the political fight going on in the United States now. President Biden has a infrastructure plan that he’s scaled down from six and a half trillion to three and a half trillion. And essentially the bulk of the Democratic and Republican Party said if we can’t privatise infrastructure and make it a rent-extracting monopoly, we’re not going to do it, and we’re going to block the government from doing it. So in the United States, they’re going to have high priced infrastructure, high-priced health care and high-priced education while China is going to have low-priced transportation, low-cost infrastructure, free education, public health care. And you’re going to have a very high-cost United States unable to compete with the rest of the world. All it can do is make military threats or financial threats. If it tries to impose sanctions as it’s imposed on Russia, China and other countries, these are going to serve as protective tariffs for foreign countries.

When President Trump put sanctions on agricultural exports to Russia, it was a windfall for Russia. They developed their own agriculture and Russia is now the largest grain exporter in the world. Senator McCain characterised Russia as a gas station of atom bombs, but it’s a gas station with the largest farm sector in the world, and is developing an industrial integration with China and the rest of Asia. It’s a Eurasian world island as Mackinder called it a century ago, and it is becoming the economic focus of the world, leaving the United States as the high cost economy with no visible means of support, because we’re not doing our own industry anymore. We’re not competing with China. We’re letting China do all of the industry, and all of a sudden we’re dependent on it. This does not bode good for prosperity in the United States or Europe and other areas that are satellites of the US economy.

There isn’t any conflict between the USA, Russia, and China. The real conflict, the real war that is probably the true cause of the Covid plandemic and the vaccine regimes, is a global one between the One World Prometheans and the nationalists. But whereas the nationalists were successfully suppressed in North America and Europe by 70 years of relentless propaganda and immigration, they have the upper hand in China and Russia. And they have learned from what was done to the American people. Taking economic advice from globalists is about as good an idea as taking candy from a creepy middle-aged man driving a van with no windows in the back.