china Conspiracy Foreign Policy Government History James Corbett Latest Military Politics Propaganda Psychological Operations Social Engineering Top News US foreign policy World

Collaboration between Civilizations 2.0

1 star "title =" 1 star "onmouseover =" current_rating (40726, 1, 1 star); "onmouseout =" rating_off (0, 0, 0); "onclick =" rate_post (); "onkeypress =" rate_post (); "style =" cursor: pointer; limit: 0px; "/>

<img id="rating_42262_3" src="" alt=" 3 Stars" title = "3 Stars" onmouseover = "current_rating (42262, 3, three stars);" onmouseout = "rating_off (0, zero, 0);" onclick = " rate_post (); "onkeypress =" rate_post (); "style =" cursor: pointer; restrict: 0px; "/>  four Stars
Loading .. .

Readers point out that final week's version of this column ended with an mental riddle. To: If the Tiananmen Square massacre, routinely used to demonize the Chinese authorities on the world stage, is clearly improper (although US diplomats and BBC journalists), then why does the Chinese authorities say nothing? 19659002] As I said in “The Truth About Tiananmen”:

“This type of silence within the face of an assault is meaningless to the Western mind. When someone spreads rumors and simply exploitable lies about you, you're speaking. You possibly can set the report instantly. You battle back. You do one thing. . . Don't you? “

Properly, perhaps one key to unlocking this mystery is: Western mind. We all perceive that silence is consent and that anybody who does not act in the face of accusations thus admits silently their guilt, right? However who’s "we"? Does the understanding of the significance of silence come from a specific cultural heritage? And in that case, what is the understanding of the significance of Chinese language silence?

Because it turned out, Asian cultures (and particularly Chinese culture) have a really totally different perception of the importance of silence. You’ll be able to go back to Lao Tzu and Tao Te Ching to be sure that the Chinese language thoughts shouldn’t be a sign of guilt or weak spot, but on the contrary: "Silence is great power." 19659002] This is not a trivial statement. The truth is, it ends up with one of the problems faced by future warriors of the brand new US-China trade conflict. In contrast to other competitions (financial, geopolitical or other) that we will consider earlier – for example, the competition between the British Empire and the Germans as a part of WWI's revolution, we aren’t confronted with two races of spiritual, ethnic, linguistic or cultural roots, but Two powers which are utterly separate from all elements.

In other phrases, what we face in the New Cold Warfare ™ between america and China isn’t just a clash of forces. It’s a collaboration between civilizations! ™ ® © (pending patent). (For additional fun, shoot a tough liquor and one other TV information theme music every time you hear someone say "collision of civilizations".)

"Collaboration of Civilizations", word that this isn’t my formulation.

The Raytheon-sponsored "Future Security Forum" held in Washington last month, says Kiron Skinner, Pompeo's Political Planning Director,

”Once we consider the Soviet Union on this competitors [the Cold War] was kind of a battle within the Western family. [. . .] This [US/China struggle] is a wrestle with a very totally different civilization and a special ideology, and america has not acquired it before. [. . .] In China, we now have an financial competitor, we now have an ideological competitor who is actually on the lookout for a worldwide dimension that many people didn't anticipate a couple of many years in the past. And I feel additionally it is superb that we’ve the first time we now have an enormous competitor who is just not a Caucasian

Not a Caucasian? Actually? I don’t just like the breath of a social warrior crowd to protest towards individuals who literally represent a geopolitical conquest of ethnic groups. Or people who tell reporters that sure ethnic teams are "genetically guided into the community, to penetrate, [and] benefit." Or people who demand the development of improvement potential bioballs. Or individuals who actually develop race-related bioplay

And once we anticipate SJWs and NPCs to look slightly livid concerning the historical consequences of the world (Bohemian Grove, anyone?), Take into consideration how far past the requirements of diplomatic rhetoric has been deceived in his statements. Definitely, this is not a typical round and euphemistic citizens that we’re used to listening to from the State Department's heat. It must be famous that it is even worse.

First, Skinner's comments blur the hand. He means that as a result of China is a competitor, it is an enemy that needs to be fought. As Daniel Larison wrote in his article:

“Most of the criticism of this strategy is understandably focused on the" conflict of civilizations "used by Skinner, but an even greater mistake is assumed, all this means that the United States must have a fight with China. No matter how “different” China could be, it does not comply with that america should participate in the Cold Struggle competition with the Chinese authorities. This "strategy" strives to create cultural and race variations as a basis for tensions with one other nice energy. Skinner has been stated to say, "You cannot have a policy that has no argument below it," and in this case, each the claim and the coverage are terrible. "

. This "clash of civilizations" is only a convenient post-hoc justification for a predetermined aggression coverage. However it’s hardly shocking. Should you look back at the historical past of the phrase, you will see that all that it had ever been.

Though the sentence is most intently related to Samuel P. Huntington and his 1996 e-book on civilization and remaking of world civilizations, it truly goes further. Huntington first introduced what his e-book was based mostly on in an article by the Overseas Ministry's Overseas Ministry's propaganda repertoire for the summer time of 1993 (shock, surprise). However before this armed time period, Bernard Lewis was first utilized by the Government Intelligence Assessment to recall the British Oriental Spook.

Lewis was a Zionist, Imperial Dwarf and Armenian genocide denier, whose work led by Darth Cheney in 2006 to the psuedo intellectual framework of the Washington Terrorist Conflict. Lewis, Cheney, assured us that he was a "moral and gentle man" who was distinguished from "his great humanity, his brilliant sense of humor and his friendly spirit", which translated from Kenya signifies that he was a psychopathic imperialist whose educational work was priceless solely to him Lewis additionally launched his good pal (and shameful scammer) to Ahmed Chalab's neo-cable in the days after September 11, which helped him steer America's rage from Afghanistan and Al-CIA-da to Iraq and Saddam

"The roots of the Muslim rage", revealed in the September 1990 Atlantic situation, Lewis argued that immediately's disputes between Western and Center Japanese terrorists are nothing new, however somewhat an inevitable climax of centuries of conflict towards Christianity (And Christianity) In reality, in accordance with Lewis: "This is no less than a clash of civilizations – perhaps an ancient but surely historical reaction of an ancient rival to the Jewish-Christian heritage, a worldly presence and the global expansion of both." [19659002] To be trustworthy to Lewis , his article accommodates nuances and ends with the principle of grievance, understanding, tolerance and coexistence:

”To this end, we should attempt to raised obtain different spiritual and political cultures via analysis on their historical past, literature and achievements. On the similar time, we will hope that they may attempt to achieve a better understanding of ours, and particularly that they perceive and respect, even if they do not need to embrace, our Western understanding of faith and politics. ”

However Lewis wasn't a rubble; he knew exactly what his "confrontation of civilizations" used to guide the Center East debate. And predictably, only three years later, Brzezinski's Mini-Me, Samuel Huntington, took the expression "clash of civilizations" to trigger a new period of imperial warming:

"The good variations between mankind and the prevailing battle space are cultural. The nations remain the strongest actors within the universe, however crucial contradictions of world politics are between peoples and teams of various civilizations. The cohesion of civilizations is dominated by international politics. The strokes between civilizations are the battle strains of the longer term. ”

Huntington believes the world is split into eight major civilizations: Sinic (Chinese language, Vietnamese, Korean), Japanese, Hindu, Islamic, Orthodox (Russian), Western, Latin American, and (" possibly ") Africa. Although these civilizations have been in some type or for different centuries, if not millennia, trendy technological advances have brought these previously distant and separate civilizations into contact. The result’s inevitably a wrestle for a dominant position and an anonymous collision between civilizations, which he predicted, would lead to a "big, western" struggle between the Nice and the West and (apparently) "a nuclear war between America and China"

I might say, "You see where this is going ", but perhaps I ought to say," You see where this thinking has already taken us. " Terrorism, September 11th lie (self-formulated by an professional in "creating and managing public myths"), this "confrontation of civilizations" has been used to justify 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan. It has thrown Iraq into turmoil. It has led to humanitarian love bombs across Libya. It has contributed to the warfare between terrorists in Syria and has created the I-CIA-SIS, and it appears that evidently current events are driving us shortly in the direction of the Iranian conflict.

And now, just as Huntington predicted, we’re being requested to simply accept the "nuclear war" between America and China.

Speak about armed language.

I do know that this battle between the US and China is managed behind the scenes. The top of the worldwide ladder has built China cautiously for the 21st century, as they built the Soviet Union as my 20th century bogeyma. In order for the public to get this contradiction, they should present to the public a report that represents this new, fast, existential menace. And just as the specter of Islamic terrorism has fulfilled this position during the last 20 years, ChiComs' menace (read: TechnocracyComs) is here to satisfy this position within the coming many years just as Samuel Huntington wrote 26 years in the past. 19659002] Within the meantime, the Chinese have an obligation to take part on this geopolitical puppet theater. Lately, the US Trade Policy Delegation to Beijing was referred to a member of China's Political Policy, who "described the US-China relationship as a" clash of civilizations "and praised the fact that China's government-controlled system was much better than" Mediterranean culture ", its internal division and aggressive foreign policy." gave an identical reply to this new story:

"Who is trying to patronize and tempt the Chinese from any name or preaching" The clash of civilizations "to resist the development of times will never succeed," the embassy stated. "They only have access to the history of the ashes."

So right here we’re, as the strains of the 21st century are identical to the CFR's globalists insiders "predicted" virtually three many years in the past. But now that you understand that civilization is working together! ™ ® © (patent software) hype is a false narrative created by heat builders to encourage the general public to battle Cold Warfare 2.0, you already know snigger depressing each time a political doll tries to promote you from the thought. And for those who determine to play Conflict of Civilizations, you will shoot each time you hear a press release within the coming years.

I'm sorry in your poor liver.


Assist us to be the change we need to see on the planet

(perform (d, s, id) var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) [0]; d.getElementById (id)), js = d.createElement (t), = id; js.src = & # 39; https: //connect.facebook.internet/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&appId=249643311490&model = v2.three & # 39 ;; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs); (document, script & # 39; facebook-jssdk & # 39;));