[WilliamDoor]

A good read about the man Xi Jinping:

[url=https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/911198186122903552][/url]

First bit below, bold lines are mine:

Quote:

Summary -------

1. © According to a well connected Embassy contact, Politburo Standing Committee Member and Vice President Xi Jinping is "exceptionally ambitious," confident and focused, and has had his "eye on the prize" from early adulthood. Unlike many youth who "made up for lost time by having fun" after the Cultural Revolution, Xi "chose to survive by becoming redder than the red." He joined the Party and began mapping out a career plan that would take him to the top of the system. In our contact's view, Xi is supremely pragmatic and a realist, driven not by ideology but by a combination of ambition and "self-protection." Xi is a true "elitist" at heart, according to our contact, believing that rule by a dedicated and committed Communist Party leadership is the key to enduring social stability and national strength. The most permanent influences shaping Xi's worldview were his "princeling" pedigree and formative years growing up with families of first-generation CCP revolutionaries in Beijing's exclusive residential compounds. Our contact is convinced that Xi has a genuine sense of "entitlement," believing that members of his generation are the "legitimate heirs" to the revolutionary achievements of their parents and therefore "deserve to rule China."

2. © Xi is not corrupt and does not care about money, but could be "corrupted by power," in our contact's view. Xi at one point early in his career was quite taken with Buddhist mysticism, displaying a fascination with (and knowledge of) Buddhist martial arts and mystical powers said to aid health. The contact stated that Xi is very familiar with the West, including the United States, and has a favorable outlook toward the United States. He also understands Taiwan and the Taiwan people from his long tenure as an official in Fujian Province. End Summary.

[Lunostrelki]

This is old news, but it's important. Xi doesn't see himself as first among equals in the Communist Party. He would like the Party to revolve around him personally. In terms of major changes, if Deng Xiaoping removed the primacy of Marxist ideology on the economy, Xi Jinping could be the one to remove the primacy of Marxism in politics. He keeps making a point of mentioning that China has a "superior" (优秀) culture and doesn't even care to stay in line with the atheism that is officially required in the Party. At a meeting of which footage was revealed earlier this year he used some obviously religious terms ("there are gods above our heads" 三尺头上有神明 and "we must keep hearts of reverence" 一顆敬畏的心). This would be in with his Buddhist leanings. In an article published by state media last year focusing on what books Xi Jinping recommends, Xi said he was moved by the interaction between Jean Valjean and the priest in Les Miserables. Also, all of his top picks were classical Chinese and western literature, with the obligatory Communist staples at the bottom and no modern books included at all.

My impression of Xi is that he is trying to harness the economic output of the last thirty or so years in a more directed manner (the "One Belt, One Road" project being the most prominent example of this). He hates the cultural shift towards materialism and individualism that have occurred in the last generation. He probably understands on some level that atheism is a net negative for China, but is at the same time worried about the spread of Christianity as it would mess up the ability of the government to control the nation using culture.

This assessment would be in line with Xi's political maneuvering as well. In the Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao eras of leadership, China was becoming more open and socially liberated. It was more economically liberal as well as very corrupt, sort of like the US in the time of the robber barons. Social and cultural degeneracy followed economic graft, especially since most of China's rich have made their money overnight and have no sense of civic duty. By starting (and not ending) the anti-corruption campaign from the time he took power, Xi is breaking up the old political-business consensus and moving Chinese government in a more imperial direction.

[Luvianka]

Well, the Donald and Xi Jinping are already something big behind doors. Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s erstwhile domestic political adviser, and Wang Qishan make for one of the oddest political couples in Sino-US relations. But the recent secret meeting between the godfather of the US “alt right” movement and the Chinese Communist party’s ruthless anti-graft tsar was consistent with Beijing’s rapidly growing interest in US economic nationalism. 
Since the meeting was not held with a political member of the polit buro, but the financial tsar of China, it must be some kind of financial deal to have both parties satified.

[Samseau]

Bannon spoke about China and Bush at length today. He said Bush was the worst President of all time, the most destructive by a landslide because of how much American industry he sold to China.

Meanwhile, China, he says, will become the most frightening super-power the world has ever known. By 2025 they will be in control of most of the world, he claims. China has disproven the notion that economic liberalism would bring about political liberalism, and Xi Jinping's recent ascension to power at the Party Congress was equivalent to Hitler's Nuremberg speeches. During this speech he held the entire country hostage for 3 and a half hours as a testament to his power.

He says China plans to build an alliance running through Iran and Syria as part of their "one road" policy, and economically break the back of anyone who opposes them. He says the West will sink into poverty and despair under the Mercantilist Chinese model unless strong action is taken now.

You can read Xi Jinping's full speech here: http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2017/1...nd-171023/

[Luvianka]

(11-07-2017 01:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bannon spoke about China and Bush at length today. He said Bush was...

What a shocker! Bannon is a sory ass Zionist who puts Israel first before the USA. The whole Breibart project is Israeli made.

[TravelerKai]

(11-07-2017 01:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bannon spoke about China and Bush at length today. He said Bush was the worst President of all time, the most destructive by a landslide because of how much American industry he sold to China.

Meanwhile, China, he says, will become the most frightening super-power the world has ever known. By 2025 they will be in control of most of the world, he claims. China has disproven the notion that economic liberalism would bring about political liberalism, and Xi Jinping's recent ascension to power at the Party Congress was equivalent to Hitler's Nuremberg speeches. During this speech he held the entire country hostage for 3 and a half hours as a testament to his power.

He says China plans to build an alliance running through Iran and Syria as part of their "one road" policy, and economically break the back of anyone who opposes them. He says the West will sink into poverty and despair under the Mercantilist Chinese model unless strong action is taken now.

You can read Xi Jinping's full speech here: http://chinarising.puntopress.com/2017/1...nd-171023/

Quote:

He says China plans to build an alliance running through Iran and Syria as part of their "one road" policy, and economically break the back of anyone who opposes them. He says the West will sink into poverty and despair under the Mercantilist Chinese model unless strong action is taken now.

He lost me on the bolded part. Had he said Asia and Africa, I would agree with that assessment.

I honestly do not see China giving two shits about those two countries. Not in the next 5-10 years at least. They have bigger plans with countries that are exponentially more stable thanks to America and Europe no longer destabilizing most of the world constantly.

[Transsimian]

(11-07-2017 01:55 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:34 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Bannon spoke about China and Bush at length today. He said Bush was...

What a shocker! Bannon is a sory ass Zionist who puts Israel first before the USA. The whole Breibart project is Israeli made.

And? How does that negate Bannon's views on China?

[Luvianka]

(11-07-2017 02:43 PM)Transsimian Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 01:55 PM)Luvianka Wrote:  

le Breibart project is Israeli made.

And? How does that negate Bannon's views on China?

Bannon talks as if America's unipolarity was still viable. China is not willing to take America's shit any more.
China doesn't want war, but a mutually financial deal with the US. President Trump should be already negotiating with both, China and Russia, a New World Order.

[The Beast1]

China doesn't want anything but pure power and hegemony.

There will be a WW3 and it will be between China, America and her allies. It will be a war where China will get a few early wins and then be utterly smashed when the west's armies get reminded of what a few bloody noses feel like.

China's only regional ally is Pakistan as a way to check India and to a lesser extent North Korea. Everyone else doesn't respect Chinese aggression in the region. If push comes to shove they would happily join in a fight if it meant enjoying the spoils of a defeated China.

Russia is a blip on the economic spectrum and as such are irrelevant in the grander scheme of things in the region. Their unity with China is questionable and I doubt the strength of it under pressure.

I also find Chinese IQ claims as questionable as their laughable 7% gdp growth they claim. It's a country built on appearances (face) and lies. I'm looking forward to seeing it actually tested.

Now, this all goes to the wind if the communist party dies and China becomes truly democratic. Then a truly powerful China could emerge.

[Arado]

(11-07-2017 02:31 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Quote:

He says China plans to build an alliance running through Iran and Syria as part of their "one road" policy, and economically break the back of anyone who opposes them. He says the West will sink into poverty and despair under the Mercantilist Chinese model unless strong action is taken now.

He lost me on the bolded part. Had he said Asia and Africa, I would agree with that assessment.

I honestly do not see China giving two shits about those two countries. Not in the next 5-10 years at least. They have bigger plans with countries that are exponentially more stable thanks to America and Europe no longer destabilizing most of the world constantly.

Iran and Syria are just tiny pieces of their One Belt One Road plan that aims to build infrastructure and trade routes from China to the far reaches of Europe and Africa. It is an order of magnitude greater than the Marshall plan and has the potential to tighten China's grip over these economies once they own all the infrastructure, the politicians, and have military bases all over the place to guard their investments.

Quote:

China doesn't want anything but pure power and hegemony.

There will be a WW3 and it will be between China, America and her allies. It will be a war where China will get a few early wins and then be utterly smashed when the west's armies get reminded of what a few bloody noses feel like.

China's only regional ally is Pakistan as a way to check India and to a lesser extent North Korea. Everyone else doesn't respect Chinese aggression in the region. If push comes to shove they would happily join in a fight if it meant enjoying the spoils of a defeated China.

Russia is a blip on the economic spectrum and as such are irrelevant in the grander scheme of things in the region. Their unity with China is questionable and I doubt the strength of it under pressure.

I also find Chinese IQ claims as questionable as their laughable 7% gdp growth they claim. It's a country built on appearances (face) and lies. I'm looking forward to seeing it actually tested.

Now, this all goes to the wind if the communist party dies and China becomes truly democratic. Then a truly powerful China could emerge.

Beware of underestimating them. Obviously right now they have no interest in starting a war, but the balance of power will dramatically shift over the next 10-15 years unless we do something about it. They have already pretty much taken over the south China sea and we've done squat about it.

Bannon rightfully sees that this is a fundamental challenge to our economic and security dominance in the world.

Our strategic error is that our withdrawal from TPP and our stated "America First" narrow focus on the short term trade balance and saving coal jobs is giving China an opening to start dominating global economic institutions and industries of the future, while strengthening ties with other countries around them.

[The Beast1]

^^Agreed, America desperately needs another product like the "internet". Something wholly developed, owned, and operated that no one else has and can doll out access to.

I think we'll see some sort of Chinese military posturing much sooner, within the next five years or so. A sort of Franz Ferdinand moment.

[Luvianka]

We got a deal, guys. China and the US have an agreement of the highest transcendence. China took steps toward its first investment in U.S. liquefied natural gas as one of its energy giants agreed to advance a $43 billion project that’s been years in discussion and already sidelined by American majors. China Petrochemical Corp., known as Sinopec Group, signed a joint development agreement with Alaska Gasline Development Corp. on the plan to pipe gas from the state’s northern shore to a proposed liquefaction terminal in the south, where it would be shipped abroad. The state of Alaska, China Investment Corp. and the Bank of China Ltd. also signed the agreement.
This is the most significant event of the recent trip President Trump made to China, the rest are small potatoes.

[GlobalMan]

(06-14-2015 05:34 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

China needs the USD to survive. If I ran shit I'd block their ships from bringing all their junk here which would spark our economy.

Yes we'd have to make our own plastic spiders, Iphones etc.

Then I would take down Canada, Mexico, Cuba and Central America. Regain control of the canal, send their junk back from those countries as well unless 100% tariff at least. Call Putin on facetime and tell him to suck my balls as well.

Also all of the Caribbean.

0% interest gov loans to build industry back.

Edit: And Iraq would become a US state.

Mech come back

[TigerMandingo]

(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

China doesn't want anything but pure power and hegemony.

So does the US. Your point being?

[Suits]

(01-30-2018 10:31 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

China doesn't want anything but pure power and hegemony.

So does the US. Your point being?

That's actually not close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-30-2018 10:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  

That's actually close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

The people over at the State Department disagree with you. The US govt. has and continues to operate under the context of "Full Spectrum Dominance".

Why do you think the US has being lashing out over the last decade or so? It's power is waning, although it is still top dog by far.

[C-Note]

(01-30-2018 10:43 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  

That's actually close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

The people over at the State Department disagree with you. The US govt. has and continues to operate under the context of "Full Spectrum Dominance".

Why do you think the US has being lashing out over the last decade or so? It's power is waning, although it is still top dog by far.

When has the State Dept ever referred to having a goal of "full spectrum dominance?" That phrase is a Department of Defense term from the 90s and 2000 referring to controlling every aspect of the battlefield against adversaries, not the world in general. Some lefties have tried to extrapolate that it includes so-called American Imperialism, but there aren't very many of them who use that argument, namely because the American military is the only government entity that has ever used the term.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-30-2018 11:19 AM)C-Note Wrote:  

When has the State Dept ever referred to having a goal of "full spectrum dominance?" That phrase is a Department of Defense term from the 90s and 2000 referring to controlling every aspect of the battlefield against adversaries, not the world in general. Some lefties have tried to extrapolate that it includes so-called American Imperialism, but there aren't very many of them who use that argument, namely because the American military is the only government entity that has ever used the term.

I don't see why you're getting your panties in a twist. There is nothing inherently wrong with the US govt. trying to dominate and control the world. It's just the way things are. China is trying to do the same. I was merely responding to the Beast1 who made it sound as if its something new in global politics.

[911]

(01-30-2018 11:30 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 11:19 AM)C-Note Wrote:  

When has the State Dept ever referred to having a goal of "full spectrum dominance?" That phrase is a Department of Defense term from the 90s and 2000 referring to controlling every aspect of the battlefield against adversaries, not the world in general. Some lefties have tried to extrapolate that it includes so-called American Imperialism, but there aren't very many of them who use that argument, namely because the American military is the only government entity that has ever used the term.

I don't see why you're getting your panties in a twist. There is nothing inherently wrong with the US govt. trying to dominate and control the world. It's just the way things are. China is trying to do the same. I was merely responding to the Beast1 who made it sound as if its something new in global politics.

There are actually several things that are inherently wrong with the US policy of world domination, mainly the fact that it's being done for the benefit of globalists, zionists and the military industrial complex*, and directly against the economic and political interests of most Americans. The middle east wars and occupations since 2001 have cost US taxpayers $6 trillion, and were conducted mainly for the benefit of Israel, which is the main driver of US foreign policy.

Of course those countries on the receiving end of the $1 trillion/yr US military budget are benefiting even less (see Pakistan below).

China on the other hand establishes economic beachheads, typically through the completion of infrastructure projects in exchange for natural resources, domestic markets or logistical support.

Compare for instance US and Chinese policy in Pakistan, a good case study, and a stark example or how China is expanding its global influence:

Quote:

Pakistan has been a U.S. ally for decades, a nuclear-armed nation of 208 million people offering a strategic foothold touching the Arabian Sea, Iran, China and Afghanistan. Most recently, it has served as a counterterrorism partner and a U.S. supply route for more than 15 years of war in Afghanistan.

But China has invested heavily in a relationship that is redefining the balance of power in Asia, anchored by a $55 billion-plus infrastructure program that has overshadowed the $5 billion in U.S. economic aid under President Barack Obama, which produced no major infrastructure.

Since 2013, China augmented its long term strategic partnership with Pakistan with an economic investment program, known as the China Pakistan Economic Corridor, with roads, power plants and a port.

The plan is to allow goods from southwest China to be trucked through Pakistan, for export from a port, Gwadar, that Pakistan has given to China to run. Islamabad and Beijing deny persistent speculation that China will be given a naval base at Gwadar.

Pakistan is the flagship for Beijing’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, an ambitious plan to build international logistics infrastructure.

Chinese investments are crucial to the ruling Pakistan Muslim League-N party’s pledge to the electorate to end crippling electricity shortages. Elections are due by September this year, with electricity a major issue.

Among Chinese projects to be completed in 2018 are a $2 billion mass transit light railway in Lahore, and a coal-fired power plant in Karachi, also costing $2 billion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/with-u-s-ai...1515580200

*note that those interests are not always aligned, for example globalist Brzezinski was at odds with overly aggressive recent neocon/zionist policies

[911]

(01-30-2018 10:39 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(01-30-2018 10:31 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(11-07-2017 05:03 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

China doesn't want anything but pure power and hegemony.

So does the US. Your point being?

That's actually not close to being true. The US has consistently demonstrated an interest in the balance of power, ever since WWII, not pure power and hegemony.

900+ US military bases abroad in 130-150 countries.

China has one military base abroad in Djibouti, recently opened.

So the country with ONE foreign base is all about pure power and global hegemony, while the country with NINE HUNDRED bases abroad is more about "the balance of power"...

I'm not naive about China's global ambitions, but the argument above is in a league of its own in terms of naivety.

China has been projecting its global reach primarily through win-win economic development projects, vs the US through raw military power or globalist loan sharking through the IMF, World Bank, USAID and NGOs which put their target countries in debt and mostly enrich local rulers that the globalists have put in place, either by gaming local elections or through brute force.

China does project brute military force, but only in its own backyard (South China Sea etc).

[GlobalMan]

911, you are making a great point, but the point is actually the opposite of what you intend.

As you said, the U.S. has 900+ military bases abroad.

How do you think things would be in the world if, instead of the USA, it was Russia that had 900+ bases abroad? How about China? You would be looking at the end of the world.

With barely even a sniff of reach those losers have already demonstrated how desperate they are to dominate.

Yet there is the U.S. with troops all over the world and almost everyone is basically left alone besides a very few shitstain countries- countries which are also being poked by your allegedly benevolent actors as well.

China pursues "win-win" (lol) economic partnerships because they need 8 billion tons of cobalt, palladium, rubber etc everyday to continue propping up their manufacturing, making exploding batteries and plastic spiders and death escalators.

China gives zero fucks about the long term effects on the host country. Any benefit the host country reaps is a distant second to Chinas ability to plunder their resources. So some car-less villagers get a paved road or new bridge that China needed to get to their mines. Ok. How many economic partnerships do you think China would seek if instead of having a suitcase of manipulated currency they had 900 military bases?

Considering the power we have, and what we could do if we wanted, the USA is the definition of restraint and so very clearly does pursue a "balance of power"

[TigerMandingo]

(01-30-2018 05:17 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Considering the power we have, and what we could do if we wanted, the USA is the definition of restraint and so very clearly does pursue a "balance of power"

Forgot where I read it but the US has dropped something like 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone. God knows how many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya over the last 15 years or so. I know that those are "shitholes" to you and many others but what happened to these places was, without a doubt, totally preventable.

Now we can debate whether or not US global domination is a good thing. But the facts are clear on who is the aggressor. In fact, the majority of the world believes the two biggest threats to world peace are US and Israel.

Restraint, my ass Don' bullshit a bullshittah my friend.

[GlobalMan]

TM I don't see how you have refuted my point at all.

(01-30-2018 05:58 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Forgot where I read it but the US has dropped something like 26,000 bombs in 2016 alone. God knows how many dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya over the last 15 years or so.

Ok...?

Already said that:

(01-30-2018 05:17 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Yet there is the U.S. with troops all over the world and almost everyone is basically left alone besides a very few shitstain countries

900+ military bases around the world, and what you get is conflict almost solely in the Middle East that has been going on for centuries with various actors?

Is that not "almost everyone is basically left alone besides a few countries" ?

---

(01-30-2018 05:58 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

In fact, the majority of the world believes the two biggest threats to world peace are US and Israel

Well "the world" is clearly retarded then, not that that claim is remotely true anyway. By "the world" do you happen to mean you, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela etc etc?

Again:

(01-30-2018 05:17 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

How do you think things would be in the world if, instead of the USA, it was Russia that had 900+ bases abroad? How about China?

With barely even a sniff of reach those losers have already demonstrated how desperate they are to dominate.

[TigerMandingo]

(01-30-2018 06:23 PM)GlobalMan Wrote:  

Well "the world" is clearly retarded then, not that that claim is remotely true anyway. By "the world" do you happen to mean you, Russia, China, North Korea, Venezuela etc etc?

Oh right, anyone who isn't American must be a retard

How about a 2015 Gallup international poll of 65 countries. 24% named the US as the biggest threat.

Quote:

Other menaces didn’t even come close: 8 percent named Pakistan, putting that country in second place, while 6 percent named China. A mere 4 percent found Iran threatening — which tied it with Israel.

As we were reading the results, we couldn’t help thinking we had seen it all before. And when we looked, we found a 2006 Pew Research Center poll of 17,000 people from 15 different countries that found something very similar: More people thought the US intervention in Iraq a threat to world peace than Iran.

So then why are people so weary of the US govt if it is, like you say, acting "with incredible restraint"?

[GlobalMan]

You keep making my point for me.

(01-30-2018 06:33 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

Oh right, anyone who isn't American must be a retard

No, they clearly aren't, because as I suspected your claim was garbage, which you just proved yourself.

You said:

(01-30-2018 05:58 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

In fact, the majority of the world believes the two biggest threats to world peace are US and Israel

Now you just said:

(01-30-2018 06:33 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

24% named the US as the biggest threat... 4% Israel

So 76% of the countries surveyed did not think the USA was the biggest threat despite having 900+ military bases around the world. That is a staggering blow to your premise.

Again, you, Traktor, Russia, China, Shithole Number 7 etc - yes those 24% minority believe the "biggest threat to world peace is the US".

The mere fact that 900+ U.S. military bases exist overseas exclusively by mutual consent with the host country should tell you that the majority of the world does not fear the USA the most- in fact they obviously view us as their defense against your 24%.