Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Like every individual in the Biden Administration, the bumbling menace Antony Blinken stumbles from weird event to ensuing weird event.
His latest strange and confounding behavior is asserting the claim that the false country of Taiwan should join the UN.
What the Biden Administration is doing is the equivalent of poking China with a stick.
RT:
After the US secretary of state claimed Taipei’s accession to the UN would be pragmatic, Beijing hit back, reiterating that Taiwan should not be granted permission to join the body because the island was part of China.
Speaking on Wednesday, Ma Xiaoguang, spokesman for the Taiwan Affairs Office in Beijing told reporters the UN was an international governmental organization made up of sovereign states – and Taiwan wasn’t one.
“Taiwan is a part of China,” Ma stated, adding, “Taiwan has no right to join the United Nations.”
The spokesman’s comments came after US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement on Tuesday marking 50 years since the UN General Assembly voted to replace Taipei’s seat with Beijing’s that he regretted Taiwan’s absence.
Blinken said the reason the island’s participation in the UN would be welcomed was not political but pragmatic. “As the international community faces an unprecedented number of complex and global issues, it is critical for all stakeholders to help address these problems. This includes the 24 million people who live in Taiwan.”
The statement is not political or pragmatic – it’s a provocation.
This is what the plan is, apparently: the Biden plan to “contain China” is a bullying harassment campaign.
Instead of just declaring war, they do things to attempt to publicly humiliate China.
It’s worth noting that decades ago, the West was trying to understand China and became fixated on the concept of “face.” They talked so much about it that we actually have the loan idiom from the Chinese language – “saving face.”
The Chinese – and general Asian – concept of “face” is similar to honor, but more complicated. It is also related to what we would call “prestige.”
It includes honor, just like our idea of honor: being a good member of the community and nation, who is respected and viewed as being morally righteous, and willing to sacrifice for others and the good of the community or nation. But ” building face” also includes wearing certain clothing styles (now associated with brands), driving certain cars, living in certain areas, going on vacations, and other things we associate with prestige. Another aspect, which I guess we would just call “power” or “authority,” is the ability of an individual to exercise his will in society, and to make things happen. (Just for example, if you ask someone to get you tickets to a sold out event and they deliver, that person would be “building face” as someone capable of making things happen.) All of this is combined to create a person’s “face,” which is his persona as seen by the world.
(For the record, the concept of “face” is also the basis of the social credit system, which is why virtually all Chinese people support the social credit system – it’s built on a foundational element of their society.)
Anyway, this is what the boomers who analyzed Chinese culture in the 1970s determined was the driving force behind Chinese psychology. I think that is more or less true.
As I explained in my very long piece about China a couple weeks ago, the current regime in America is clearly acting on plans laid by more competent men who are mostly dead. So, when I see something like Blinken coming out and saying “hey, wouldn’t it be cool if Taiwan joined the UN?”, I am able to see that this is part of a very shoddy attempt to cause the Chinese authorities to “lose face.”
It’s very vulgar behavior, and it is intended to appear vulgar. What Blinken is attempting to do – more likely, what his advisors are attempting to do – is insult the Chinese authorities and make them look inept and incapable.
What isn’t clear is what exactly the goal of this is. It would make sense in the context of attempting to:
- Humiliate the Chinese leadership to the point that the regime collapses (this isn’t possible, and the US authorities really should understand that by now), or
- Try to bait the Chinese into doing something stupid to “save face” (Xi is not ever going to do anything he doesn’t mean to do, so this also doesn’t make sense)
Really, all I’m able to do personally is just observe.
I do not understand the goals of the US State Department and Department of Defense with regards to China, beyond the fact that they are fixated on regime change. I’m not an expert on military strategy, and I’m highly skeptical of anyone who claims to understand how a war would unfold in this third decade of this third millennium after Christ. However, given what I understand about the current social situation inside China, I am quite certain that there is no possibility of doing a Ukraine-style color revolution. It’s just not happening. The Chinese people love Xi like they loved Mao, and just do a little bit of research on what the Chinese people tolerated from Mao.
I am completely unclear on how well the Washington establishment understands China, but having seen their actions, I would say not very well. That’s why it looks to me as if Blinken’s team simply read some book talking about “face” and decided to attempt to humiliate them.
We should also note that Mike Pompeo took a very similar approach, and that he is still planning State Department strategy at the Hudson Institute, where he is billed as an expert on foreign policy and China.
The State Department is one organization in the US government that is very obviously “deep state” in that it never changes from administration to administration. Whether officials are appointed by Republicans or Democrats, they move in and out of these same think tanks, which active government officials consult with so habitually that they are effectively extensions of the state.
Pompeo’s big play was to incite an Antifa revolution in Hong Kong. I still do not understand what the purpose of that was, exactly. In theory, it would have been to cause Xi Jinping to lose face, to make it look like he was unable to control the city, and maybe to attempt to stir up discontent in the mainland. Again, this shows a total lack of understanding of the situation. The end result of the violence in Hong Kong was that Beijing closed the city down, and started banning all of the State Department’s schools for indoctrinating youth into revolutionary liberal ideology. If I had planned the strategy, I would not have wanted to have sacrificed the ability to influence Hong Kong so recklessly.
By fomenting those strange riots, the State Department gain literally nothing, and in fact they severely damaged their own image, and hardened the Chinese in all territories against the US. Hilariously, the right-wing in Taiwan now cites the Hong Kong riots as a reason not to trust the West. Chinese people are all very aware that these riots were incited by the West, and this is viewed as distasteful in the extreme, and also mystifying. (In general, there is an overwhelming sense of confusion among the Chinese as to the intentions of the United States, but there is a certain amount of natural good will based on a positive perception of Hollywood and certain American companies, such as Apple. Instead of using that good will for definite ends, the State Department has pissed it away recklessly, and continues to do so.)
Obviously, the average American has literally no idea what is going on. Even Americans who are semi-engaged with politics think that Taiwan is somehow a real country, that it is independent from China, and that China is planning to invade it. In fact, Taiwan is not a country. It is a part of China. Because it is an island, a separate revolutionary entity opposed to the CCP fled there during the 1940s. The Kuomintang had failed as China’s government and been overthrown by Mao’s forces, but the West protected them as they fled to the island. To this day, the “Republic of China” still claims to be the real government of China, despite the fact that it is nearly a century since they lost control of China in the 1930s.
At the end of World War II, just as the US quickly turned against their war ally the USSR, and established West Berlin, they also turned against their former ally the CCP, and established Taiwan. Modern Taiwan is as much of a relic of the post-war era as East Germany, it is simply that Taiwan still exists, because unlike the USSR, China was well-managed and did not collapse.
The logical conclusion of any thinking person would be that the conflict between the East and West is over, and we should all just move on with our lives. The US should negotiate a peaceful Chinese reunification, get a lot out of the deal in terms of reasonable Chinese concessions, and be done with it. But that obvious thing cannot happen, because the regime that controls the United States – which, for a lack of a better term, can be referred to as “ZOG” (Zionist Occupation Government), is hellbent on creating a global government, and it is impossible to do that while China remains standing as an independent, traditionalist, nationalistic state.
So at this point, the purpose of Taiwan is to use it as a battering ram against the government of mainland China. But there is no clear chink in the Chinese armor wherein to jam that battering ram. Thus, the State Department is instead opting for irate harassment and bullying.
This is obviously not a long-term strategy, and given that the CIA has completely failed to create any significant fifth column inside of China, their only real option is to start a full on war with the Chinese and I guess just hope it works out. If you understand all of this, it is really crazy to watch. Apparently, they want to manipulate China into drawing first blood.
But then what happens? What is step two? The United States is going to have a nuclear war with China?
It’s unlikely that the US could win that war. Frankly, the mere suggestion that people like Mark Milley and Lloyd Austin are going to successfully manage a war against China is both laughable and viscerally offensive. It could be massively destructive, resulting in hundreds of millions of dead. But a decisive victory by the US just doesn’t seem possible.
What’s more, there is no possibility of negotiation, given that the Chinese are so nationalistic, and have more or less zero interest in being part of the “international community” beyond selling people high quality products at reasonable prices. What’s more, they are basically holding all the cards. If you game out any potential outcome of this conflict, China wins. Maybe the US could land a few nukes and wipe out some people, but if there’s one thing China has a lot of, it’s people. And unlike the US, the Chinese would be able to deal with being nuked. The destruction of one or more major US cities would completely obliterate the psyche of the American population.
You also have the fact that funding the war machine would be virtually impossible. The dollar as global reserve currency could not survive very much war, and it would come down to sheer raw productivity. All previous wars have been won based on who had the bigger production output capacity, and the Chinese beat the US on that front, probably by an order of magnitude in real terms.
If the people in Washington were smart, they would back off, and try to regroup. The problem is, they don’t have anything to regroup. They’ve already gone all in on “diversity and inclusion,” putting what should be their most capable human capital on fentanyl or labeling them domestic terrorists.
If I was running this show, I would have skipped this moronic virus hoax and allowed Trump to remain in office on the condition that he start a war with the Chinese. It still would have been a long shot, but it would have been within the realm of possibility. You could have stirred up the competent segments of American society with patriotic war energy, and used that to reestablish a production base in the United States.
But they didn’t do that. They did something totally insane. They stole the election for Joe Biden, who is probably the single least popular leader the country has ever had, with a plan to replace him with the much less popular Kamala Harris. Then they effectively declared war on the native population of the country, labeling them domestic terrorists. They are now attempting to force vaccinate the entire population, and they are willing to cripple the country’s productivity in order to force through this inexplicable gene therapy agenda.
If I had to guess, I would say that you have very little communication and possibly even very little awareness between whoever is running this plan for a war against China and whoever is running this domestic war against the domestic population. The whole thing just looks totally chaotic and demented.
The bottom line is this: I do not think there is any possible way that the World Economic Forum’s “Agenda 2030” is going to come to fruition in 2030, or ever. If the US were to back off of this push for conflict with Russia and China, they would simply end up totally crushed economically by China as they put their own population into extreme austerity using bizarre technological tyranny.
What is likely going to happen is that the US (and to various extents the rest of the West) is going to get increasingly brutal and weird, while China continues to advance economically, technologically and militarily. You’re going to have a situation where the United States is just an utter mess, where no one really even understands what the goals or agendas are, and eventually the dollar is going to collapse, and that will be the end of the American Empire. The end of the American Empire will be the beginning of the end of our tribulations.
For the American people, I do not think there is any solution to what is happening now, political or otherwise. The only logical thing for an individual to do is try to stay out of the way while this lumbering beast staggers and eventually collapses. After it collapses, we can reassess, and figure out how to build something new from the ashes. The exciting part is that those of us who make it through this time of such trouble alive will probably live to see the other side. I’m as optimistic about the mid-to-late 2030s as I am pessimistic about the next decade.
