China Cry

[babe]

Browsing the recently showcased items from the magazine of the CFR, Foreign Affairs, I found an article by a former Chinese CCP propaganda official who has broken with Xi and is detailing Xi's sins against the cause, and going even further, apparently has broken ranks even with his former beliefs in official Chinese messaging.

Only one thing can really dislodge such institutional committments: a breakdown in the pyshic capacity to bear cognitive dissonance. Being somehow still dedicated to some principle when the institution is weaving away from the pretension somehow.

I believe that Communist China has always been a puppet state knowtowing to foreign interests. The US at the close of WWII did not support the Nationalist forces, and Western interests decided to put China on the back of the shelf and let it moulder for some decades. The Ford Foundation found some way to get in there and help with population controls, donating money and materials to help reduce the population bomb. This is all consistent with the highest level of thinking/interests in the West.

However, Xi has gone "radical". That means he is being targeted as a problem. Maybe he really is a problem.

But China is not going to be a wallflower at the big dance. I see some intelligent strategy that means the West will actually no longer be manipulating China for any purpose, not "balancing the world powers", not "managing the population", not "globalist socialism/fascism", and no great idyllic managerial scheme.

Xi is "jumping the shark", going for all the marbles. The West will be the poor backward bashful weakling, China will be the 2000-lb behemoth in global dominance.

One thing convinces me that he just might really do it. The Chinese are planning scores of new nuclear power plants. They don't have much coal, they don't want to be dependent. There is not enough copper to do the "Green" solar or green anything. China has the uranium it needs. A nuclear electric China will be competitive with the rest of the world. China is now breaking ranks with the depopulation scheme, and deliberately working on building its population base. Russia did that too. Problem is, after you indoctrinate your people along pure materialistic lines, it's hard to work the love back into the people that would motivate them to want children.

Materialism is intrinsically uncaring, and unprincipled, and inhumane. Material values are "worthless". Because stuff just doesn't bring out a reason to care, a reason to love, or a reason to believe in anything. +

And that is why materialism fails. Under Xi, however, the ideology is not fundamentally "materialism". It glorifies racism and nationalism and loves "Chinese". Russia is also doing this. Love of country is a kind of love of people. Xi pushes Confucian beliefs, Putin pushes Russian Orthodox Christianity. If these trends persist, they'll be actually non-communist and non-Marxist. And anti-globalist.

And they will no longer be the nadir of civilizations, like where we are headed if we persist with our demented agenda wonkery.

Not saying here there is fundamental validity in belief systems except that we need them to be functional in any way.

However, they do not now, nor have any intention of putting human rights up front as their way of life. Xi and Putin are tyrants. No Magna Carta or Constitutional values. If the West wants to stand, we have to go back and put our values back up on the issues of human rights and human liberty. If we do that, we will be stronger, and our system will prevail.

And we need to go nuclear. Electric generation via nuclear energy.

 

[The Thriller]

China imports most of its uranium and LOL @ the claim that the United States didn’t support nationalist forces.

It was a common joke among America’s top military brass that you’d give Chiang weapons and within a few weeks his troops would abandon them and Mao would be using those same weapons against Chiang’s forces. It literally makes no sense for America to have abandoned Chiang (and Japan) to Mao’s Communism unless Chiang really did suck so bad (which he did). Clearly, Mao had the support and the backing of the USSR. Would you have preferred more american intervention? While also rebuilding Europe and Japan at the same time?

Giving the Chinese mainland up was inevitable and it helped preserve the west’s real goal at the time (rebuilding and protecting Central Europe). In fact, playing this long game led to a great victory for the west. I mean, after all, it’s worked out pretty damn good for most of us.

Otherwise, we could have seen a Third World War. One with nuclear weapons most likely being used to exterminate millions of lives on the Chinese mainland and Central Europe. Would that have really been preferable?

You need to crack open some basic history books. This is a good one

Amazon product ASIN 0192801783
Lastly, China isn’t the juggernaut you Trumpers think it is. Much of its land is spoiled due to rapid industrialization, it’s rising middle class is moving towards consumerism, and it’s demographic change is going to cap its economic potential.

America will be fine if it can rebuild alliances with its allies, avoid dumb trade wars, and encourage immigration (to mitigate its own demographic change Problems). (Domestic) Right wing authoritarianism is a far greater threat to American progress and safety than China.

 

[The Thriller]

The best way to “beat” China?

1. Innovate and develop new technology
2. Support allies and build a coalition; no more of this America First ****
3. Focus on important distinctions between them and “The West” i. e. Human Rights (pssss no more kids in cages or cops sitting on black people for 9 mins)
4. Keep the economic machine going here in America by tackling inequality and encouraging immigration.
5. Put American foreign policy out there. No more of this America First ****. We can’t just “focus on ourselves” and **** everyone else.

 

[Dr. Jones]

I didn’t know Brandon posts here.

 

[jazzVA]

The best way to “beat” China?

1. Innovate and develop new technology
2. Support allies and build a coalition; no more of this America First ****
3. Focus on important distinctions between them and “The West” i. e. Human Rights (pssss no more kids in cages or cops sitting on black people for 9 mins)
4. Keep the economic machine going here in America by tackling inequality and encouraging immigration.
5. Put American foreign policy out there. No more of this America First ****. We can’t just “focus on ourselves” and **** everyone else.

I would add that we (USA) stop buying so much trash from China that we don’t really need. Especially cheap plastic and rubber gizmos, toys, etc. Some things are unavoidable but we could start at home.

 

[LogGrad98]

I would add that we (USA) stop buying so much trash from China that we don’t really need. Especially cheap plastic and rubber gizmos, toys, etc. Some things are unavoidable but we could start at home.

Buying **** we don't need is the American way.

 

[Gameface]

I would add that we (USA) stop buying so much trash from China that we don’t really need. Especially cheap plastic and rubber gizmos, toys, etc. Some things are unavoidable but we could start at home.

Best way to kick this off is end the obligated gift giving tradition part of Christmas. I'm not saying don't celebrate Christmas, I'm saying end the part where you buy littereal trash in a bunch of packaging that is NEVER going to be used or appreciated because you're obligated to purchase a gift for someone.

 

[babe]

China imports most of its uranium and LOL @ the claim that the United States didn’t support nationalist forces.

It was a common joke among America’s top military brass that you’d give Chiang weapons and within a few weeks his troops would abandon them and Mao would be using those same weapons against Chiang’s forces. It literally makes no sense for America to have abandoned Chiang (and Japan) to Mao’s Communism unless Chiang really did suck so bad (which he did). Clearly, Mao had the support and the backing of the USSR. Would you have preferred more american intervention? While also rebuilding Europe and Japan at the same time?

Giving the Chinese mainland up was inevitable and it helped preserve the west’s real goal at the time (rebuilding and protecting Central Europe). In fact, playing this long game led to a great victory for the west. I mean, after all, it’s worked out pretty damn good for most of us.

Otherwise, we could have seen a Third World War. One with nuclear weapons most likely being used to exterminate millions of lives on the Chinese mainland and Central Europe. Would that have really been preferable?

You need to crack open some basic history books. This is a good one

Amazon product ASIN 0192801783
Lastly, China isn’t the juggernaut you Trumpers think it is. Much of its land is spoiled due to rapid industrialization, it’s rising middle class is moving towards consumerism, and it’s demographic change is going to cap its economic potential.

America will be fine if it can rebuild alliances with its allies, avoid dumb trade wars, and encourage immigration (to mitigate its own demographic change Problems). (Domestic) Right wing authoritarianism is a far greater threat to American progress and safety than China.

A lot of people write "History" that never was.

I studied a bit of "Vinegar Joe", General Stillwater. I think he was pro-Mao. Can't really "know" everything. Local animosities might be involved in our actions. Might be that we deliberately put stuff where Mao could steal it, to cover politically the home base and claim we were not supplying Mao right along with the Russians. Most of the Russian stuff came from us through Lend-Lease anyway.

Chiang Kai Shek did wonders just holding on, imo,. Formosa was not really Chinese territory; it has non-Chinese natives: "Formosans" related to the Filipinos.

There were some people who decried the decisions that gave Mao the win in China. It would not have been any kind of nuclear war, just a matter of denying supplies to Mao. Mao was not that popular, except maybe in the North, the Han area.

 

[babe]

I think it's clear that American political strategists since the time of J. William Fulbright's book The Arrogance of Power, there has been a design to bring China up as the new focus for the world's angst against the top dog. China is geopolitically compromised by its location to begin with, and even with the game to catch up with Brit-Am foreign exploitation of the world for resources and cheap labor, our "moneygame" folks think they can checkmate China when they wish.

The thesis of this thread is the observation that it appears China has got game enough to worry us.

Although Xi is trying to put Mao's pants on, and walk in Mao shoes, with his little books of indoctrination and such, it is interesting that he is exploiting Confucian traditions right along with fascist fake commie crap.

I think the program we're seeing here is the intent to finally break American values down for the fascist takeover. At that point, the moneygame folks mistakenly believe they will still own the Chinese industrially/productively.

I think India and Brazil and Indonesia are essential to any claim of mastery today. I think Putin is determined to shake up the globalist system.

 

[babe]

Here is some new fodder for the discussion of Chiang vis-a-vis Mao, from people who definitely have some knowledge of the subject:

Mao Won the Battle, Chiang Kai-shek Won the War

History will prove the defeated Generalissimo had a greater impact on modern China than its most famous father.

foreignpolicy.com

One of the comments I made above is strongly backed. General Stillwell hated Chiang Kai shek. Stillwell was an "Old Asia Hand" but his many years there evidenced his progressive and jpro-communist biases. And our State Department definitely promoted the commie cause, not only in China but in Central Europe.

Russia had zero industrial base and depended totally on US supplies. We could have just asked them to go back home and leave the area, and they would have had literally no choice. It was our elite class of Brit-Am strategists that wanted to develop a balanced world power schema which kept Russia and China well-managed "commie" folks from developing as capitalist powerhouses. As capitalistj powerhouses, they would soon have us in the back seat.