It is always fascinating how these things always come back to the City of London. I get more and more convinced that the 'secret' undergirding their power is simply mastery of, and ownership of, the English language. They are always able to turn a phrase just so, or communicate a concept with just the right nuance, to sway the audience. Have worked with a lot of them, and lived in China, and I think the English 'spell' is nearly universal.
" the techno-fascism that has infected those two nations and which is being exported out to the entire world through the American control of ideology and finance and the Chinese control of manufacturing and distribution."
I think the above statement gets to the heart of the problem in the short term. In the longer view I see depletion of energy and raw materials essential to industry and much of the global economy forcing a global return to low input, lower technology, more locally self-sufficient communities. Astute globalists see this too, which is why they are trying for totalitarian solutions that control the remaining resources mostly for their use.
Good analysis, except you need to research the origins of Marxism. Marxism was developed by the same powers behind the 'never-ending growth monopolism' model and used to destroy many nations. Classic Hagelian dialectic that people keep walking into for some reason.
I have written about this issue elsewhere. It is tragic that the Marxism tries to solve the problems of extraction, production and consumption as a necessity for human society (a false assumption lacking in any scientific basis) by merely adjusting redistribution. That sad marriage of real understanding of the conspiracy of capital, class and ideology with the modernization myth has created untold suffering. Nevertheless, Marxism remained at least a challenge to the mainstream lies.
In many ways China is becoming more like Germany, deeply rooted in the old blue model system—a stable national economy in which manufacturing and a ruthless mercantilist trade policy undergirds a system of lifetime employment and obedience to the rules of the system.
Understanding the degree of British and American influence within China’s system can be evaluated through examining the history and anatomy of large multinationals such as Huawei, and other State-owned enterprises that are under government and military control vs. private control and who mostly benefits from the global impact of these companies.
Economic development and competition for resources should be perceived less in the context of State vs. State and more in the context of Corp vs. Corp or Stakeholders vs. Stakeholders, where corporate elites and the return on their capital investment supersedes the authority of governments, but differs to some degree depending on the surplus or deficit of its trade balance. A State with a trade surplus demonstrates a stronger national policy with preferred investment in domestic infrastructure.
Mark, A very thoughtful comment, especially useful if we consider Germany's position in 1913 and the alternative model to a global financial and trade system that it offered which struck at the foundations of the British system. It was that sin, more than anything else, that brought the whole world order down. But as Lenin suggested, Germany's alternative was not anti-imperialism. It was just a modified "imperialism with a human face."
LOL. No, the central gov has not folded, and no, Ayn Rand has not been vindicated.
Austrians and libertarians are idiots and dupes.
The "protests" in China were concocted by the West, the CIA. "Protestors" were few and mostly were recruited and paid for the "protesting". All a bunch of bullshit. Attempted regime change... FAILED. But supported by libertoons and other idiots.
It is always fascinating how these things always come back to the City of London. I get more and more convinced that the 'secret' undergirding their power is simply mastery of, and ownership of, the English language. They are always able to turn a phrase just so, or communicate a concept with just the right nuance, to sway the audience. Have worked with a lot of them, and lived in China, and I think the English 'spell' is nearly universal.
" the techno-fascism that has infected those two nations and which is being exported out to the entire world through the American control of ideology and finance and the Chinese control of manufacturing and distribution."
I think the above statement gets to the heart of the problem in the short term. In the longer view I see depletion of energy and raw materials essential to industry and much of the global economy forcing a global return to low input, lower technology, more locally self-sufficient communities. Astute globalists see this too, which is why they are trying for totalitarian solutions that control the remaining resources mostly for their use.
Good analysis, except you need to research the origins of Marxism. Marxism was developed by the same powers behind the 'never-ending growth monopolism' model and used to destroy many nations. Classic Hagelian dialectic that people keep walking into for some reason.
I have written about this issue elsewhere. It is tragic that the Marxism tries to solve the problems of extraction, production and consumption as a necessity for human society (a false assumption lacking in any scientific basis) by merely adjusting redistribution. That sad marriage of real understanding of the conspiracy of capital, class and ideology with the modernization myth has created untold suffering. Nevertheless, Marxism remained at least a challenge to the mainstream lies.
In many ways China is becoming more like Germany, deeply rooted in the old blue model system—a stable national economy in which manufacturing and a ruthless mercantilist trade policy undergirds a system of lifetime employment and obedience to the rules of the system.
Understanding the degree of British and American influence within China’s system can be evaluated through examining the history and anatomy of large multinationals such as Huawei, and other State-owned enterprises that are under government and military control vs. private control and who mostly benefits from the global impact of these companies.
Economic development and competition for resources should be perceived less in the context of State vs. State and more in the context of Corp vs. Corp or Stakeholders vs. Stakeholders, where corporate elites and the return on their capital investment supersedes the authority of governments, but differs to some degree depending on the surplus or deficit of its trade balance. A State with a trade surplus demonstrates a stronger national policy with preferred investment in domestic infrastructure.
Mark, A very thoughtful comment, especially useful if we consider Germany's position in 1913 and the alternative model to a global financial and trade system that it offered which struck at the foundations of the British system. It was that sin, more than anything else, that brought the whole world order down. But as Lenin suggested, Germany's alternative was not anti-imperialism. It was just a modified "imperialism with a human face."
Great post. I am writing to you directly concerning this one.
As most probably know by now, that all changed a week ago:
https://austrianchina.substack.com/p/victory
LOL. No, the central gov has not folded, and no, Ayn Rand has not been vindicated.
Austrians and libertarians are idiots and dupes.
The "protests" in China were concocted by the West, the CIA. "Protestors" were few and mostly were recruited and paid for the "protesting". All a bunch of bullshit. Attempted regime change... FAILED. But supported by libertoons and other idiots.
You might find these articles on China under the Covid regime useful:
https://austrianchina.substack.com/p/covid19-regime (Dec 2021)
And: https://austrianchina.substack.com/p/zero-covid-reality-in-oct22 (Oct 2022)