Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘china’

How Trump Just Won His Budget Battle

Wednesday, January 10th, 2018

While the world slumbered, Donald Trump just won his budget battle. Only weeks after his tax plan passed, the reason for that tax plan reared its ugly head: China controls our economy because we depend on them to buy our debt.

Witness the carnage of having your economy be controlled by a foreign power:

China added to bond investors’ jitters on Wednesday as traders braced for what they feared could be the end of a three-decade bull market.

…China holds the world’s largest foreign-exchange reserves, at $3.1 trillion, and regularly assesses its strategy for investing them.

…A top Treasury official signaled confidence in the U.S. government debt market, which at $14.5 trillion is the world’s largest.

…The U.S. is scheduled to reopen $20 billion of 10-year debt Wednesday, followed by $12 billion of 30-year bonds Thursday. Germany sold 4.03 billion euros of 0.5 percent 10-year bonds Wednesday with syndications in Italy and Portugal to follow.

In other words, the entire Western world is selling its government debt — financing for entitlements programs, for the most part — on the open market, and since the Chinese have been buying it for several decades, they are now the customer upon whom we depend. They could not have more control over us if they ran their own candidates for the Senate.

What happened was instructive. On the heels of the Trump tax plan, the American economy rebounded, only to fall on the news that the Chinese might not buy as much of our debt paper.

This shows us the reason for Trump’s tax cuts: until we get our spending in line, we will be controlled by foreign powers, and if we go for the tax-and-spend agenda of the Obama-Clinton gang, we will sabotage our economy and benefit those who hold our debt.

Unlike the ideological presidents, Trump is treating America like a business, so he engaged in the classic budget strategy: first figure out how much money we can spend without running into trouble, and next, trim down our expenditures to match.

As with most businesses, the programs that are closest to the axe are those without which the country can continue to run. If welfare, socialized medicine, government benefits, disability, and other entitlements vanish tomorrow, America will keep on trucking. If anything else — like the military — goes away, we will be in trouble.

The Trump plan is to get rid of those entitlements, which are basically bribes for Leftist voters that also attract mass immigration from the third world, and instead create a government which, by paying off its debt, is independent from China, with whom it has a “frenemy” relationship as primary trade partner and adversary.

Whether it was “4D chess” or not, Trump has been ahead of everyone else, and now it shines through as China uses the power it has left to manipulate us, while Trump tries to move us out of that zone of manipulation. The Left insists that we need our Great Society/Fair Deal programs, but in fact they have made us slaves to those who would destroy us.

Americans Figure Out That Their Defense Contractors Are Compromised By Chinese Labor

Monday, November 13th, 2017

Liberal democracy is like anaesthesia. When applied to the victim, it makes them oblivious to obvious facts of their surroundings and therefore easy to manipulate. For years, America has sleep-walked through life, ignoring the fact that China is communist and wants to conquer us, and we keep hiring Chinese labor in our defense firms only to see them spy on us.

This should surprise no one because loyalty to blood is always greater than loyalty to ideological nation-state like the USA. However, our ideology of liberal democracy requires us to think that everyone is equal and motivated only by a desire to provide protection for that equality to their fellow citizens, so we are oblivious to the desire of other nations to conquer us.

Even worse, we have hamstrung ourselves with laws that demand we hire minority candidates in preference to white ones, which means that Chinese get to the head of the line in hiring for our most sensitive projects. Since they can sue for discrimination, they also have a powerful weapon against anything that even looks like suspicion of them for spying.

However, it seems like the defense industry is starting to catch on with new security restrictions that will make it easier to keep out those who are likely to leak secrets to their home countries:

The B-21 program is not just secret but “special access,” setting a much higher bar on who can get a clearance and how data are stored, among much else. An executive conference room at the plant is actually a high security windowless vault, where a massive conference table is surrounded by three dozen leather chairs and the walls are adorned with large photographs of the company’s long line of weapons. No cellphones are allowed in the room.

This allows the contractor and government to deny access to those who, despite having been hired and vetted with access to secret information, might be suspicious for any reason. This has zero impact on their job prospects but enables the employer to keep actual secrets safe instead of opening them up to a general pool.

We will probably never find out why they opted for these additional security precautions, officially, but given the large number of busts of Chinese-descended people working in the defense and internet industries over the last decade, supposing that they are the target of this action has grounding. Perhaps Americans are finally awakening from the stupor of liberal democracy.

Which Way, South Africa?

Friday, November 3rd, 2017

South Africa finds itself at a crossroads. With the rise of relative isolationism through the Trump Doctrine, and the failure of liberal democracy as the West collapses inward, South Africa needs to decide which model of government it will follow.

Local scenario planners such as Clem Sunter, Frans Cronje and Jakkie Cilliers pitch South Africa’s future as a neo-liberal state, ignoring the monarchies owning roughly 20% of the country. Perhaps this basic model can work, but since neoliberalism is in decline and not working for South Africa, other paths beckon.

This decision comes at a time of great flux worldwide. At the international level, quantitative easing ruled the Western world since 2008. Where a proper depression would have resulted in a negative economic curve and depression, the failed quantitative easing policy resulted in a positive economic curve that meant rapid growth while lower classes remained relatively poor.

South Africa’s government went one further, and instead of joining the ranks of the slow speed first world, they pitched in with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) operating at a higher speed, attracting more investments. However, the “S” part did not attract those investments.

It is not all doom and gloom however, since China provides an interesting alternative.  In 1820 China was the biggest economy in the world, but then lagged behind the West. Today they are the second biggest. The bulk of that improvement happened since 1978 over the course of four decades.

The international part of the question is easy: South Africa should stick with BRICS. The local part is tricky due to local infighting in government. This infighting endangers the politics of infrastructure.

An important – but often underappreciated – role of government is to choose the type of infrastructure that is destined to shape the country’s future development path.

The article describes how railroads were advantageous to the South Africa economy as a means to transport goods and raw materials such as minerals intended for export.

The lessons for today? Politics shape the type of infrastructure that’s built. And infrastructure shapes the direction of economic development.

If political infighting continues, the lack of a choice regarding an infrastructure plan will determine the direction of South Africa’s development. No political decisions by any party will change the outcome.

TBefore any infrastructure decision can be made, politics need to re-invent itself without the help of foreigners. One could almost point to a second “Peace-table” session.

Local history provides even further insight. The 1930 depression was by all accounts a terrible period, but having survived it, South Africa can surely find inspiration from how the poor were uplifted, as opposed to the rich being enriched.

The infrastructure referred to in this case is water and specifically the Boegoeberg dam project, in the Northern Cape Province, as was written in the book Boegoebergdam se Mense: ‘n Flukse draai van die Wiel. This book is available from the Water Department close to the town of Groblershoop.

The basic story is that the government at the time decided to improve conditions for that part of the country by using water from a fairly big river. The general idea was to build a dam while adding water canals to it for agricultural access.

Building a dam obviously requires manpower, but the bulk of the manpower was required by the canals. The only prerequisite to be accepted as a worker was that you had to “have nothing.” In other words, you were destitute with only the clothes on your back.

There were quite a number of people, enough to establish a little town, with church and school, which, in the beginning moved with the canal as it was built over time. The initial canal was a pure dirt canal and the people stayed in burlap tents, eventually replaced with military style tents as the project established itself.

Those workers were destitute, without proper clothes and without toilet paper, but they were promised eight hectares after project completion, which they then had to develop on their own, in three years.  One can almost say that Boegoeberg became a human fountain, by attracting poor people from across South Africa, where they developed agriculture in their own life times, but allowed their educated children to return substantial value to the wider country.

I am the grandchild of one of them. Perhaps South Africa should establish more human fountains as China is doing, instead of enriching foreigners. When it chooses its future path, it is best to remember that local productivity is more important than keeping pace with the trend-addled international political scene.

Harvey Weinstein: Sacrifice

Wednesday, October 11th, 2017

Online communities show us The Human Problem in full force: there are a few who create, and many who merely participate in the “me too” style world of posting their reactions — emotional, anecdotal — to what others create. Over time, the participants become critical of the rough edges of the creators, and force them to be hobbled by lots of rules, at which point the forum dies.

The same is true of Hollywood, USA. At first it was a land of wildcatters and innovators, but then the Joe and Susie American middle class bourgeois mentality hammered it down into pap, at which point anyone with brains fled and the current crop of fools took over. This is what always happens when you give the herd the veto vote.

For that reason, it is not entirely surprising that it produces creates such as Harvey Weinstein, who is this week’s sacrificial lamb. He was willing to master a neurotic industry by pandering to the desires — guilt, perversity, self-destruction — that Joe and Susie secretlynurture, and in the process, revealed his own broken-ness.

No one doubts that he is a pretty twisted guy. What they are concealing here is that he is fairly typical for entertainment and media in general; they are all neurotic, or at least will be once they get saturated in the industry, and so they are all perverse at some level. Weinstein took advantage of stupid white girls who would “do anything to get started in Hollywood.”

This is not exactly abnormal. The “casting couch” is a staple joke for a reason: for the last century, fat and weird Hollywood producers have made up-and-coming starlets the same offer. Get to know me, and let me see what I can do for you. They do it because the market bears it; any starlet who says no is simply replaced by another, and there is not much distinguishing them.

As usual, the wildcatters were right. They looked for talent, realizing that this meant that some years they would have nothing. But Hollywood, it is a machine, and it found a way to take girls of relatively low or no talent and put them in movies that require low or no talent so that they can be superstars.

The same is true of our society at large. We take fools, put them through “education,” and those who memorize the most and have the right opinions win and everyone else gets shuffled off into the void. Our leaders are inept and neurotic as a consequence of this system, because they were selected for obedience, not a desire toward truth.

When you choose your group of elites based on their ability to conform to a system, everything else gets pushed aside. They also become distorted personalities, since their entire existence revolves around making a paradoxical situation seem normal. As a result, mental health problems proliferate, which explains the behavior of so many of our people in power.

Weinstein got chucked under the bus so that Hollywood could say, “See? The problem is now over.” In reality, he is the tip of the iceberg. Working in modern Hollywood — making movies for the lowest common denominator — will drive out everyone but those who are willing to go insane, just like working for Weinstein will drive out anyone except white girls willing to spread their legs for cash.

Like scapegoats, sacrifices are designed to make us all feel better about a problem that is widespread and deep-seated. Since to face that would require criticizing the system we all share, and thus implicitly by extension, to criticize all of us, it is easier to find an egregious example and publicly destroy them so that the rest of the industry can go home with its secrets intact.

Luckily none of this will matter much, since Hollywood is already in decline. They ran out of ideas almost two decades ago and have been mostly re-hashing the same tired themes, or permutations of them, while consumers flee from the overly erotic, politicized, and neurotic fodder that the industry cranks out. They were willing participants in rationalization of social breakdown.

China has already effectively replaced the people who once ran Hollywood. The upper echelon are all ready to sell out and retire. The younger generation keep churning out political propaganda films and then wondering why they tank at the box office. The Chinese are more literal: they will repeat the same formulas month after month for lower margins but greater consistency of income.

The old days of Jewish-run Hollywood may be coming to an end:

It may surprise you (although probably not) to hear that I have no quarrel with the airing of the trope that Jews are prominent, even dominant, in the movie industry. The reason for this is that it’s true, and saying it aloud no more makes John Travolta a Jew-hater than asserting that there are a lot of, say, African-American hip-hop artists makes one a racist. It’s not anti-Semitic to make a statement of fact; it’s anti-Semitic to imply that there’s something wrong with it.

Despite the above, the “Jews run Hollywood” trope has been in decline for decades. First the homosexual mafia rose to challenge them, then the Armenians began to ascend, and so for some time, Hollywood has been pluralistic like the society around it. Instead of making it stronger, this divided its power and sense of self, and it has had trouble making clear decisions since.

In other words, whether or not Jews ran Hollywood or run Hollywood, it makes sense to have one group in charge. Otherwise, fragmentation occurs.

Jews ran Hollywood for a simple reason: they made the best movies for a wide audience. Most people do not want Apocalypse Now or Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy; they want Notting Hill and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and these play into the uniquely Jewish model of the variety show — some tragedy, comedy, drama and adventure in the same film — that audiences in the past have loved.

The Jewish approach — Western sentimentalism with Asiatic literalism — may have worked for some time, but over the years it broke down. Joe and Susie do not know what they want, but we know what they like: movies that are both sentimental and idealistic, with a strong underlying sense of realistic values. Hollywood could not deliver that, at least much, and much past its golden era.

As Hollywood descends into diversity, shortly before the more literal-minded Chinese come in and sweep away the detritus of the West and replace it with a low-cost profits machine, we can see that Weinstein is the classic example of the dying king. His power waning, his people sacrificed him for their own pretense, hoping to stave off the coming collapse with the metaphorical equivalent of a rain dance.

Diplomatic Approach To North Korea Demonstrates Success For Donald Trump

Thursday, September 28th, 2017

Most people do not understand that the issue with North Korea is an issue with China, and has been since this pivotal event in which it was revealed that while the Soviet Union had sponsored the North Koreans with weapons, it was the Soviet ally in Red China that would defend them against anyone sane enough to stop them:

Within two weeks, the North Korean army was largely destroyed or made ineffective. Of the 70,000 NK who had been attacking UN forces at the Pusan perimeter, only about 30,000 made it back to North Korea, mostly over roads on the east coast which our generals neglected to block. The way to the Yalu, and total destruction of North Korea’s military power, seemed virtually unopposed.

…The war seemed almost over.

But, it was actually only starting.

October 25, Chinese Communist Forces (CCF) struck China’s first blow in support of the KPA.

When the North Koreans were losing, China intervened, sending up to a million men flowing into Korea to challenge the Americans, and it was this that escalated the war from localized conflict to potential world war. The Chinese learned from the experience, having faced fiercer resistance than they expect, and their next war against the Americans was fought with proxies in Vietnam.

The bigger point is this: if the West seems to be on the verge of destroying or conquering North Korea, China will intervene with the mass “human wave” familiar to the West as the defining characteristic of Asian warfare since the Mongol invasions.

Unlike sitzpinkel diversity president Barack Obama, “populist” president Donald Trump was willing to tackle this problem at the root and open diplomatic communications with China on the matter. The result is that China has joined with the UN boycott of North Korea, which means that North Korea’s economic support is fading away, forcing them back to the negotiating table:

China on Thursday ordered North Korean-owned businesses to close, cutting foreign revenue for the isolated North under U.N. sanctions imposed over its nuclear and missile programs.

China is North Korea’s main trading partner, making Beijing’s cooperation essential to the success of sanctions aimed at stopping the North’s pursuit of weapons technology. China, long North Korea’s diplomatic protector, has gone along with the latest penalties out of growing frustration with leader Kim Jong Un’s government.

…Chinese leaders argue against doing anything that might hurt ordinary North Koreans. They agreed to the latest sanctions after the United States toned down a proposal for a total ban on oil exports to the North.

Trump skillfully trolled the North Koreans into thinking military action was imminent, further draining their resources, while slowly working behind the scenes to cut them off from the sources of income that allow them the ability to develop and maintain their nuclear arsenal. North Korea’s missiles will be destroyed, but by rust, not MOABs.

In Classical China, Western Civilization Flourished

Friday, August 25th, 2017

During the era in which Chinese civilization bloomed, four thousand years ago, Caucasian people were active in the region and left their mark through a artifacts only recently uncovered which have been controversial from the outset.

These people were clearly from an ancient European type which no longer exists in that form today, but gives some historical context to the wandering life of Europeans before they settled in Europe, including the settling of lands in Asia:

In the middle of a terrifying desert north of Tibet, Chinese archaeologists have excavated an extraordinary cemetery. Its inhabitants died almost 4,000 years ago, yet their bodies have been well preserved by the dry air.

The cemetery lies in what is now China’s northwest autonomous region of Xinjiang, yet the people have European features, with brown hair and long noses. Their remains, though lying in one of the world’s largest deserts, are buried in upside-down boats. And where tombstones might stand, declaring pious hope for some god’s mercy in the afterlife, their cemetery sports instead a vigorous forest of phallic symbols, signaling an intense interest in the pleasures or utility of procreation.

…All the men who were analyzed had a Y chromosome that is now mostly found in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Siberia, but rarely in China. The mitochondrial DNA, which passes down the female line, consisted of a lineage from Siberia and two that are common in Europe.

As the debate on cultural appropriation ramps up, the presence of Europeans during the birth of Chinese civilization gives rise to the question of how much influence these quasi-nomadic people had on the development of that culture.

Huxley Proven Right: Distraction Serves Control More Than Direct Propaganda Does

Friday, June 23rd, 2017

George Orwell, a Leftist, wrote 1984 to convince us that Leftism was okay just so long as it did not use extreme methods. Over a decade earlier, Aldous Huxley wrote Brave New World to show us that our vapidity of direction would destroy us no matter what methods we use. He was concerned with our motivation and purpose, because void of those would end in a human Hell.

The Chinese government discovered this principle, and has used it to wage a war of distraction upon opponents of the regime:

In the first large scale empirical analysis of this operation, we show how to identify the secretive authors of these posts, the posts written by them, and their content. We estimate that the government fabricates and posts about 448 million social media comments a year. In contrast to prior claims, we show that the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues.

This “strategic distraction” works in approximately the same way American social media does, which is to provide a constant stream of non-issues so that actual issues remain unnoticed. The complete study shows how China immerses its citizens in irrelevance rather than argue with them directly.

If Leftism has a singular technique, it is to insist that methods are more important than goals or purpose. As long as we avoid bad methods like censorship or repression, they argue, everyone is “free” and things will work out. Huxley pointed out that what we do with our freedom is more likely to doom us by creating a society of vapidity designed around human pleasure as a means of distracting from essential questions.

Anecdotally, older users of the internet have mentioned in conversation how the internet was better when it was a repository of research and writing, and not a stream of “what’s happening now.” It turns out that the best way to hide problems is to keep people awash in distraction, and government and industry exploit this to their own ends.

How Many Other News Stories Are Buried?

Monday, May 22nd, 2017

American society has split into its usual cliques, with one group asserting that it represents the truth and that the other group are conspiracy theorists, while the other group maintains that those in power are muting the truth for their own gain. This is typical in a democracy.

And in the meantime, controversies which could easily be dismissed if people had been straightforward now become attention centers, which means that evidence is coming out of the woodwork and we have no idea whether it is presented to get to the truth or simply to make a profit of all of that free media attention.

Andy Warhol got it partially right: every person may have their fifteen minutes of fame, but those minutes are actually free advertising, and so you either find a way to become a permanent celebrity in that time or you fade away into standard modern equality, which means insignificance.

VDARE notes another buried story: the media still denies that Clinton-Bush programs to expand minority home ownership caused the housing bubble meltdown.

In other news, we have an Asiatic Kim Philby rampaging through the CIA. Was it collegiate Communism, as recruited Philby, or ethnic loyalty, that caused this series of leaks?

We will never know. These stories are buried, which means they get reported on in the most uninteresting way possible and then shelved while other stories are hyped, so that whatever was communicated is missed by most people and then falls right into the memory hole. Our media is as controlled as it was under the Soviets, but that story got buried too.

Asia Resists The Western Egalitarian Wave, Heads Toward Libertarianism Following Singapore’s Example

Sunday, May 14th, 2017

Asia contains societies that are the most individualistic on earth. People do not look up, or forward, but focus on their needs and concerns in the present. This is paired with an admirable recognition that larger events will influence them regardless of what the individual desires and an impassive acceptance of this fact, although lack of will to intervene.

The Western tendency for the individual to intervene was helpful while individuals worked toward a purpose and associated principles, but became toxic when with The Enlightenment™ the focus shifted from civilizational purpose to individual purpose, with the individual being considered “the measure of all things.”

Being more practical, and having come later to the surge that took over the West in 1789, Asia has snapped out of the sleepwalking state of believing in equality. Owing to its individualism, however, Asia seems headed toward the compromise position of Libertarianism — economic individualism, in lieu of actual social order — as a first step.

For example, Japan remains committed to being Japanese instead of following the media panic and replacing its citizens with foreigners, but has not yet articulated this as anything but an economic decision:

According to the figures, Japan received a total of 8,193 applications from refugees during 2016, meaning that it rejected 99 per cent of claims.

In 2015, it accepted only 27 refugees.

Officials have defended the low number, saying applicants are mainly from Asian countries wanting access to Japan only for economic reasons.

In other words, they reject poor people arriving to take advantage of a wealthier system, but have not outright articulated a need to keep Japan Japanese on an ethnic level. This both allows them to survive the influx and to avoid triggering the war machine of Western liberal democracy, which views dissent as enmity because competing ideologies will un-do its assumption of universal truthfulness.

This follows the lead of Singapore, which has created a hybrid system of Libertarianism with Bismarckian social benefits, enforced by a government interested in building trade. This works for wealthy societies in the short term, but still has not fully broken from the mental disease of egalitarianism.

China has shown a popular wave of similar sentiment which approves of Trump-style economic nationalism and anti-immigration policies, but stops short of affirming nationalism:

The question has received more than 400 answers from Zhihu users, which include some of the most representative perceptions of the ‘white left’. Although the emphasis varies, baizuo is used generally to describe those who “only care about topics such as immigration, minorities, LGBT and the environment” and “have no sense of real problems in the real world”; they are hypocritical humanitarians who advocate for peace and equality only to “satisfy their own feeling of moral superiority”; they are “obsessed with political correctness” to the extent that they “tolerate backwards Islamic values for the sake of multiculturalism”; they believe in the welfare state that “benefits only the idle and the free riders”; they are the “ignorant and arrogant westerners” who “pity the rest of the world and think they are saviours”.

Like the anti-Leftist cultural backlash in the West, the Chinese criticism focuses mainly on savaging the illusions of the Left, and not in finding a competing philosophy. However, it shows a world waking up to the disaster that the West is sleepwalking into with its pursuit of pyrrhic victory through liberal democracy, equality and political individualism.

Who Won The Vietnam War?

Wednesday, May 10th, 2017

Korea and Vietnam remaining the two most frustrating wars for Americans because they were proxy wars, which means that the actual fight was not the battle itself, but political objectives involving world powers jockeying for position.

In Korea, for example, we battle the recently-risen Chinese Communists, who took over China just the year before, in order to prevent them from expanding China to include the Korean peninsula, but the bigger fight was to discourage China and Russian from expanding further.

On paper, it is not clear who won because North Korea remains a Communist dictatorship to this day. But the real target, China, did not expand further.

In Vietnam, another proxy war was waged against China and the Soviet Union, both of whom supplied materiel and advisors to the Communist North Vietnamese, who then used that to sponsor a rebel group in the South know as the Viet Cong (or “Vietnamese Communists”).

As Peter Brimelow points out, political victory was achieved there as well by checking Communist expansion once again:

An odd feature of Sheehan`s book is that enough facts have survived his emotional selectivity and analytical ineptitude to refute his thesis completely. Thus he admits unhesitatingly that the Vietcong were always a wholly owned subsidiary of North Vietnam, contrary to ardent antiwar assertions at the time. He makes it clear that guerrilla warfare was not some new military magic, as David Halberstam implied in his influential 1965 book The Making of a Quagmire, and that it was quickly replaced by conventional main-force action; that Westmoreland`s approach, whatever its faults, was indeed wearing down the Communists even before the 1968 Tet Offensive; that Tet was a military disaster for them; that after Tet their grip on the countryside was broken; and that Nixon’s 1970 incursion into Cambodia achieved its objective in disrupting North Vietnam’s preparations for another offensive. He even notes that American bombing, which Vann originally criticized as too indiscriminate for the detailed war he wanted to fight, did indeed ultimately have the effect of driving the population into government-controlled areas where the Communist influence could not be sustained.

These battles resemble the way the West fought off the Mongols: we did not outright defeat them because they were numerous and fanatical, but we defeated their objective by putting up enough resistance that they went back to their homelands and shortly thereafter failed there.

In other Asiatic wars, a similar pattern has emerged. When fighting the American Indian (Amerind), the settlers did not achieve total domination for a long time, but broke the spirit of the Indians by making it clear that those Indians could not break the spirit of the settlers. The resistance wound them down and they over-extended their economies in order to fight, then experienced social upheaval as a result.

The Left, which hates anything good and successful with the acid bile of envy, teaches us that we lost those wars because we did not utterly conquer the proxies. A more advanced view is that we saved some from a disaster, and checked the further expansion of cancerous Communism, which was victory in itself.

Recommended Reading