Greater Israel vs. Greater China

Rumble link Bitchute link False Flag Weekly News link (where you can read the transcript of Chas Freeman’s talk)

Australian Peter Myers feels uneasy about the prospect of China eclipsing the Zionist-occupied US as the great power with the most sway over his country. I think his fears are overblown. Who’s right? Watch our sometimes-fiery debate and sound off in the comments! (The debate on China starts in earnest at the 25:50 mark.)

Most smart red-pilled people agree on many things. We’re all on the same page regarding the Kennedy assassinations, 9/11, and Zionism. We all support ending privately-created fiat funny-money and replacing it with public banking. We all want the US to stop fighting and provoking stupid wars waged under false pretenses. We all agree that Western mainstream media peddle lies and half-truths and deserve to be relentlessly attacked and ridiculed. And we are all sick of ever-escalating censorship.

But there is one momentously important topic that we don’t all agree on: the rise of China, and what, if anything, could or should be done about it. Many critics of the US empire’s unbelievably evil and stupid policies frame their critique as follows:

“The idiots running the US empire offshored manufacturing in the 1980s, thereby enabling China’s rise. They colluded with Israel’s 9/11 attack on New York and Washington and were deceived into wasting over $7 trillion destroying the Middle East on behalf of Zionism—a strategic disaster for the US. Instead of triangulating Russia, Iran, and China to contain the only serious challenger, China, they mindlessly attacked Iran and Russia, thereby driving them into China’s arms. Now China has eclipsed the US in PPP-adjusted GDP, and is threatening to leave the US in the dust in terms of technology and the military power it enables. We ought to radically revise our approach before it’s too late, by throwing all of our chips in the ‘contain China’ basket! If we don’t, China will eclipse the US empire and…gasp…rule the world! What a disaster that would be!”

Those of us on the other side of the debate agree with that analysis, except for the last three sentences. We argue that a desperate, belated US attempt to prevent China from becoming a regional hegemon would be at least as foolish as the policies that preceded it.

The first and most obvious reason to accept China’s rise philosophically is its near-inevitability. China’s large, smart, cohesive, highly-educated population makes it a natural regional hegemon. Its population of 1.4 billion boasts a civilization whose identity stretches back for millennia. For most of that period China represented almost a third of global GDP. That 30% share collapsed to single-digits during the 19th century, hitting a low of less than 5% around 1950 before rebounding to its current 20%+. Though the official figures tell us that the US is still ahead, boasting 25% of global GDP compared to China’s 20%, when adjusted for purchasing power parity the US share plunges to 15%, giving China a rapidly-increasing lead. Given the underlying factors and the momentum they generate, only drastic, catastrophic events could radically alter China’s trajectory vis-a-vis the US. Since global catastrophe is not an inviting prospect, US decision-makers ought to accept China as the Asian regional hegemon and global geostrategic equal of the US. The bottom line is simple: If US leaders follow the example of King Cnut by building themselves a throne on the beach and ordering the Chinese tide not to come in, they will fail. And if they unleash nuclear or biological weapons on the ocean in a vain attempt to stop the tide, they’ll merely drown themselves, and perhaps the planet, in unnecessarily toxic seas.

The second reason to gracefully acquiesce in China’s rise is almost equally simple and obvious: It probably won’t be as bad as all that. During our debate, I repeatedly asked Peter Myers what was the worst-case scenario he feared emerging from China’s equaling or eclipsing the US as a regional and global power. His answers didn’t convince me.

Peter charged China with “genocide” over its treatment of the Uighur people of Xinjiang and Chinese Muslims in general. Though I might join him in deploring specific Chinese policies and actions, Westerners charging China with genocide ought to compare pictures of Xinjiang and Gaza, and remember the Biblical line about specks in the other guy’s eye and beams in your own. (Another Australian, Gideon Polya, puts the 9/11-triggered Muslim holocaust death toll in the double-digit millions.)

What’s more, I’m not convinced that the Chinese policies in Xinjiang have been all that unreasonable given the CIA-sponsored separatist threat. Nor am I convinced that China has been oppressing Muslims in general outside of Xinjiang. My Malaysian Muslim friends, no fans of China, don’t seem to think so. They say Chinese Muslims are for the most part doing fine, and actually gave me a beautiful coffee table book about Islam in China, featuring incredible photos of some of the thousands of mosques functioning happily in China with the full approval of the authorities.

Peter is also concerned about the Han Chinese expanding at the expense of surrounding civilizations in Tibet, Southeast Asia, Mongolia, and perhaps even Korea and Japan. (Maybe even…Australia?!) Some of that concern is no doubt legitimate. But both historically and in more recent times, Chinese expansionism seems to have been less militant than most of its competitors.

The Western European expansion into the Americas, Africa, and Australasia was extreme and destructive. It genocidally replaced local populations of humans as well as flora and fauna, as detailed in Alfred Crosby’s magisterial Ecological Imperialism, and slaughtered indigenous people with shocking cruelty, as documented in Sven Lindqvist’s Exterminate All the Brutes. The 19th century Western destruction of China via the rising Judeocracy’s Opium Wars was not very pretty either.

I see no evidence that a rising China is likely to treat either its neighbors, or people on the other side of the world, with anything remotely approaching that level of callousness. On the contrary, China’s current leadership seems to favor a win-win approach in its dealings with both neighbors and rivals. Admittedly, it’s always possible that future Chinese elites could pivot to a nastier policy and start inflicting “surplus repression” the way the West habitually does (and the way Japan did circa 1937-1945). But anyone who takes such an outcome for granted is engaging in unfounded speculation. John Mearsheimer, for example, seems to think that all governments are about equally nasty, that their nastiness rises with their power to inflict it, and that the corollary is that a more powerful China must necessarily be a nastier China. Though there may be some truth to his pessimistic-realist perspective, it is far too abstract, ignoring as it does historical specifics. Given the facts of China’s civilizational history, and the possibility that today’s extreme abundance vis-a-vis ancient times could allow for more peaceful, win-win outcomes, it seems likely that Mearsheimer is wrong and that today’s China could become more powerful without growing abusively brutal.

And then there is the issue of China’s alleged totalitarianism, which anti-China voices contrast with Western individualism and Enlightenment-based freedoms. This is probably the single biggest issue that alarms the red-pilled China bashers. They argue that the internet censorship-and-surveillance regime we’ve all experienced since roughly 2015 was developed in China and then imposed on the West. Therefore, it must be China’s fault!

Those making this argument typically try to blame China for COVID-19. According to them, the “Chinese virus” was part of some sort of nebulous conspiracy to lock down the West in a Chinese-style digital gulag.

Such arguments are incoherent. Why would China’s government want its Zio-American rival to censor the Western internet, intensifying the Western leaders’ ability to propagandize their populations?

The “blame China for COVID” argument was actually invented by those Zio-American geniuses who developed and unleashed COVID in a biological attack on China. Indeed, the American biowar complex probably funded and built the Wuhan lab so it could be used as a patsy in the long-planned COVID bio-attack. In January 2020, before anyone understood COVID, US MIC propagandists were already injecting the “blame China for the coming horrible pandemic” talking point into the mix via their controlled-opposition assets. Elements of the US MIC, namely the DIA, already knew the pandemic was coming in early November 2019, proving that they themselves were the guilty party.

China’s relatively collectivist society reacted to COVID more effectively than the more individualist West did. The US-MIC’s mRNA vaccines, which the bio-attack perps wanted to test in hopes they would provide a “magic bullet” antidote giving the US biowar complex strategic dominance over its rivals, failed miserably, almost certainly doing more damage than good. Oh well, back to the drawing board!

So blaming China for COVID dystopia gets it exactly backwards. The Zio-American leadership recognized that China’s collectivism, complete with a moderately censored internet, represented a strategic advantage vis-a-vis the West’s individualism. When the Zio-Americans attacked China with COVID, it gave the Western authorities an excuse to censor their internet and lock down their societies, which Western leaders think will close the “collectivism gap” and narrow China’s strategic advantage. It is the Western leaders, not the Chinese ones, who behaved with shocking recklessness in service to an agenda (war with China) that requires rolling back Western freedoms and propagandizing Western populations.

Bottom line: A West dedicated to peace and coexistence with China may or may not be able to preserve some of its traditional individual freedoms. Only time, and technology, will tell. But West that plunges into World War III with China will inevitably collapse into dystopia. War on that scale might or might not be the health of the state, but it would inevitably be a mortal illness for individual liberty.

The sane way to deal with China’s re-emergence as a great power would be through strengthening international law and the institutions that sustain it, starting with the United Nations, and engaging diplomatically under a global legal system in which no nation would be above the law. Trump’s band of lunatics is moving in precisely the opposite direction: destroying international law in service to Zionist genocide perpetrators, while abandoning Ukraine (good) in order to make Taiwan the next Ukraine (not so good).

Why is US policy so insanely (self-)destructive? The single biggest reason is that criminal Jewish-Zionist oligarchs have captured the commanding heights of the West by using centuries of private fiat currency creation to build up their power base. The guiding dream of the Zionist oligarchy is global domination. It’s based on Jewish messianic millenarianism, which envisages a “messiah” (Jewish military conquerer) exterminating and enslaving all non-Jews, and ruling the ensuing paradise from a “rebuilt” blood sacrifice temple in Jerusalem.

The Chinese public banking model represents a direct challenge to the Zionist usurers. And just as public banking is inherently both more economically productive and less corrupt than private fiat currency creation, the Chinese way of dealing with other nations is less ruthlessly exploitive than the Zionist-occupied West’s.

So if the world, or at least the Asia-Pacific region, comes under the sway of a Greater China that has reunited with its lost-and-found province of Taiwan, such a state of affairs will represent a considerable improvement over the current international order, dominated as it is by Jewish-Zionist bankers loyal only to their genocidally expansionist dream of a world ruled (or exterminated) by Greater Israel.

Stripe is Substack’s only processor and they debanked me, so you can no longer pay me through Substack. Now I am posting everything on Substack free and asking people to sign up for recurring donations at my Paypal donation page…or better yet, the free speech platform SPdonate. Alternately you can Paypal or Zelle to truthjihad[at]gmail(dot)com. Note that Zelle, unlike other methods, doesn’t charge any fees.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit kevinbarrett.substack.com