Today’s war is a class war of the super elites, and this can be fought and won by the great masses of people against their own oligarchs.
The American deep state is playing upon the public’s distaste of China towards its own ends, and just as with the present global mystery illness, they will blame China for a social credit system which in reality was made in the USA. We can deconstruct the anatomy of this scam through the handling of Covid and biological warfare in general.
This same deep state is trying to springboard or otherwise utilize the incessantly bad behaviour of its own rapacious oligarchy, who it must serve, an oligarchy trapped in a system of capital accumulation at all and any costs, even collective suicide, into some sort of controlled paradigm collapse. The incentive to destroy society is just too great compared to the costs of keeping it together. The super elites themselves, like some super virus, can always just vacate the premises and find some other host to infect. This is a pandemic of speculation, usury, and greed.
An interesting twist which Senator Rand Paul exposed in public hearings on the senate floor, was that the novel Corona virus was produced at Dr. Anthony Fauci’s discretion. This was a project of the U.S. corporate state, of a corrupted U.S. intelligence agency, we conclude from Senator Paul’s findings.
This much is also so well known by now, that it’s reached the level of common knowledge. But we say it again now not to preach about it, but to connect it to a broader problem with social credit and China.
Digging further, we see it was all based upon long-standing plans to upwards distribute wealth and strip away constitutional rights from citizens, further concentrate socio-economic power, and destroy medium and small businesses. By any definition of the term, this is open class warfare being waged by the ruling class against all other classes.
And so this same ruling class has used the politics of normalized class war to divide and conquer the citizenry along race and gender lines, using new-left tropes, to shift focus away from real economic issues over to abstract identity issues. A portion of the intelligentsia and student/youth are weaponised into a faux ‘progressive’ militancy against ‘Trumpism’, Antifa and BLM and the non-profit industrial complex all connected to Democracy Action and Sorosian wonderworks.
The non-event which was January 6th is used as some sort of newfangled Oklahoma City bombing which only emboldens the parasitic proclivities of the prosecution and investigation power fetishists, which American authoritarianism has allowed to fester in its crevices. Well, a non-event except for the unjustified killing of Ashli Babbitt by Capitol Police. Four officers who died, actually died ‘by suicide’ within a week of the event. What did they know? Why were they ‘suicided’?
Meanwhile the real opponents of Trump are those behind the entire Great Reset and class war of ‘some against all’ underway right now in the U.S.
And that this is already a burgeoning civil war and inter-elite conflict is also openly known.
On December 20th, CNN ran video under the heading, “How close is the U.S. to Civil War? Closer than you think, study says”.
The accuracy or motivations of the study itself are neither here nor there, we can develop a superior metric and method probably at random, because the situation is obvious. The real point of interest is that America’s flagship fake news outlet is openly pushing the story. What could the reason for it be?
What was said is of particular interest:
Host: “The rigid refusal of lawmakers of compromise underscore the disturbing findings of one study on democracy in the U.S. According to a Washington Post editorial, data from the Center for Systemic Peace finds that the U.S. no longer qualifies as a democracy. After the Trump administration years, it’s somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state.
Barbara Walter is a professor of International Relation at the School of Global Policy and Strategy at the University of California at San Diego, she joins me now, I’m delighted. When we look at the research it’s frankly frightening, and you conclude that the U.S. is closer to civil war than any of us would like to Believe. How close?”
Barbara Walter: “Well I’ve been studying civil wars for the last thirty years across the globe, and in fact the last four years I’ve been on a task force run by the CIA that tries to predict where outside the U.S. a civil war, political violence, and instability is likely to break out. And we actually know now that the two best predictors of whether violence is likely to happen are whether a country is an Anocracy, and that’s a fancy term for partial democracy, and whether ethnic entrepreneurs have emerged in a country that are using racial, religious, or ethnic divisions to try to gain political power. And the amazing thing about the United States is that both of these factors currently exist, and they have emerged at a surprisingly fast rate.”
Naturally CNN twists words and reason, and makes implications at odds with the real dynamic now working. The ‘Trump administration years’ is thrown in to make us think the erosion of constitutional rights was his doing. It was the opposite: it was those opposed to Trump that eroded the republic.
It was the collusion of the Great Reset technocracy, the collusion of the IMF, the WEF and domestic players in the Transition Integrity Project (which we have written so much about), big media, big tech, big pharma, the too big to fail, that subverted a populist movement and their rightful electoral outcome.
They openly bragged about it and showed the receipts. It is not a conspiracy theory, but something already openly confessed.
In truth, a better study from Princeton concluded in 2014 that the U.S. was no longer a Democracy.
“A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracy—namely, that it no longer exists.
Asking “[w]ho really rules?” researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page argues that over the past few decades America’s political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.
Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.”
Of course Barbara Walter is either a liar or an idiot, probably a bit of both, because there is no correlation between a democracy index and stability. Well, there is a connection: once the U.S. targets a country or region for destabilization, they begin to point out features of its society that are less than the progressive idealist dream of a utopian democracy. An easy task and a useful trick, given that we are in reality and not a dream. Then they go on to lay a trade embargo and other punitive measures, thereby exacerbating the tensions within that society, tensions which all societies in reality actually have.
The intelligence agencies foster ‘gangs’, counter-gangs, and political violence in the targeted states, to create failed states. They do this across Africa. They did it in Yugoslavia, in Ukraine, etc.
The idea that democracy and stability are directly related works against the truth exposed in the fact of the general tendency of elites in struggling countries to tilt towards dictatorship, in order to bring stability to the instabilities which democratic institutions are subject to, once broader economic issues come to bear. The optimal situation of course are strong democratic institutions which are both justified by, and in turn support, economic prosperity.
Likewise, the U.S. tilts towards dictatorship not as the result of ‘ethnic entrepreneurs’, whatever that means, nor should their appearance (just now?) give us any pause. Rather, the developing system of internal passports, digital ID’s, Covid pass, forced vaccination and imprisonment under the pretext of ‘pandemic’, these are what ought to, and do, give us cause for great concern.
Which brings us back to China.
The pretext of the virus was certainly used in China towards its own ‘national security’ ends in the digital age. Russia has done the same. Neither country, however, has promoted vaccines which are experimental, opting instead to use this U.S. manufactured crisis towards its own security advantage. All while not using it to experiment upon the population with untested gene therapies.
But China will do China, and a country so far away and so far out of reach of the will and moral authority of American citizens to be concerned about, is hardly the proper focus of American citizen concerns.
The biggest problem that Americans face is certainly its own deep state and super elite, who seem to have a penchant for bizarre rituals, child abuse, elective warfare, and the fetishization of power dynamics observed under late capitalism.
The focus on China’s social credit system has a positive effect on western movements against the system insofar as westerners view the developments in Chinese society as negative.
But the blame placed on Chinese society has worked against understanding social credit. While the Chinese social credit system may utilize some of the same technologies as in the U.S., it is different in context, history, and meaning. Most understandable is that China’s social credit system preferences traditional and socially conservative values, whereas the emergent one in the U.S. imposes bourgeois-libertine values.
While Americans transform their justified fears over social credit, alongside the decline of meaningful work and living standards, into anti-China rhetoric, the focus on China serves as a distraction from what is entirely a domestic and technology-driven phenomenon.
If the lesson drawn is that ‘we must not become like Chinese society’, it is missing the mark. China sits in a markedly different position, where its automated industrial production techniques surpass those of the U.S. in many cases, while its large rural population lives in pre-industrial conditions.
China’s social credit system was initially aimed at big firms: imagine something like a ‘better business bureau’ and consumer reporting that actually had teeth. China’s system did not place profitability as the only determining factor for credit worthiness, and given its scale and anonymity, required a numerated system. Imagine if Pfizer, for example, had reduced access to capital because of its criminal activity. That’s exactly the sort of thing that has come about in the Chinese system, one of the few countries that is prone to execute a billionaire oligarch on occasion.
When China’s system was moved forward, its aim was to develop a non-monetary credit system for rural inhabitants who are still living in pre-industrial conditions. It’s also a massive country, really a civilizational sphere in its own right, with many regions and varying, even conflicting, credit and legal policies.
It is very difficult to implement the modern system of monetary credit when people live on barter, and their psychological motivations relate to not just pre-industrial but pre-modern and onymous social standing.
Bear in mind that China moved through three industrial revolutions within the span of about eighty years, whereas the 1st Industrial Revolution in the U.S. began around 1750.
Big tech mirrors aspects of China’s social credit system, and there is no doubt that social credit is ‘growing’ in the U.S. if we compare it to the Chinese system. But that’s precisely where we will get it wrong.
In our work on Oriental Despotism and Hydraulic societies, we demonstrated the present push by western elites is to prepare for a transition away from a money-regulated (i.e. labor driven) society. This leads to their need for a social credit system that matches the post-labor age of the 4th Industrial Revolution.
There are certainly Chinese people unhappy with the Chinese social credit system. The broader point is that that is their issue to solve. It’s a pattern for other countries’ elites to blame its internal woes on the U.S. Whatever truth value those claims have are muddied with the convenience it gives, relieving those political elites of their own responsibilities to govern fairly and justly.
Likewise, the focus on the ‘China virus’ disguises the fact that it was probably created on Dr. Fauci’s watch, coordinating with Bill Gates and other oligarchs invested in the vaccine mandate scheme.
Social credit works the same. It’s far too convenient to misplace both blame and understanding of social credit onto China. Chinese elites, the CCP, the PLA, all have absolutely nothing to do with the growth of social credit on American soil.
Social credit in the U.S. has distinctly American characteristics, based in new-left tropes, backed by American companies and none of the Chinese.
In the U.S., social instability has come about through the logic and process of its own machinations, the socio-economic disparity. The growth of authoritarianism in the U.S. and the implementation of social credit is, if anything, a mitigating force meant to manage the other crises of its own making.
What elites do love to do, however, is blame other countries for their own-goals. When empires collapse, they often like to engage in ‘great resets’, often total wars. Today’s war is a class war of the super elites, and this can be fought and won by the great masses of people against their own oligarchs. Introducing China as a responsible party for either the mystery virus or social credit, however, will only serve to embolden our own oligarchy in a great distraction from their own crimes and programs.