1
Let's go back to 1966 in China.
It's when Mao's so called Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution began.
It was not only his bid to use the Chinese masses in order to reassert his control over the Communist party,
but also it's now widely interpreted as his (or his faction's) attempt to destroy several aspects of Chinese culture & traditions by urging Chinese people to purify their lifestyle. Hence, it's called cultural revolution.
·
2
However, if you look closer,
said revolution + onwards was also the 19th century robber barons' testing ground for their own version of neo-feudalism.
Those mega powerful people really didn't like where the Western society, especially the U.S. at that time, was heading to.
So, they tested various models & mechanisms to create their version of feudalism on (when considering language and culture) one of the world's most conservative societies toward outside forces.
And obviously they liked what they're seeing it.
"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose."
— David Rockefeller [LINK]
"The [Rockefeller] foundation not just wanted to establish a first-class school of medicine in China. It also introduced the US Johns Hopkins model to the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, and viewed it as a laboratory of their social ideas, which reflects the foundation's ambition to change China."
— Global Times on Ma Qiusha's To Change China: The Rockefeller Foundation's Century-long Journey in China [LINK]
·
3
Once the initial phase has been completed, they moved onto equipping the nation with capitals and technologies.
And they also turned their eyes to other developing countries where they could comfortably set up laboratories for their social ideas.
September, 2006 -- Bill & Melinda Gates, Rockefeller Foundations Form Alliance to Help Spur "Green Revolution" in Africa [LINK]
"For decades, the Rockefeller Foundation has played a crucial role in creating and sustaining highly successful programs that have reduced poverty by improving agricultural research and productivity ...
... the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced that its programmatic work would be organized around three core areas: Global Development, Global Health, and the United States."
And the five months later,
Obama declared he's running for president.[C-SPAN]
·
Tidbits #1
Obama went onto become the POTUS who was: "... in the 67 years since the C.I.A. was founded, few presidents have had as close a bond with their intelligence chiefs as Mr. Obama has forged with Mr. Brennan."
Dec 14, 2014 -- Brennan Draws on Bond With Obama in Backing C.I.A. [LINK]
MAY 13, 2011 -- Slow Dance: Obama's Romance With the CIA [LINK]
Obama's expansion has been so dramatic that it almost amounts to a whole new program. The "operational tempo" for such covert attacks is expected to increase even more in the next two years--as will the CIA's role under its incoming director, Gen. David Petraeus.
·
Tidbits #2
Take a look into who is this white haired Oxford educated GOP politician, and how he played his role of handling pre-Jarrett Obama.
Worth reading:
Oct 31, 2008 -- Dems sketch Obama staff, Cabinet [LINK]
Nov 07, 2008 -- Obama's choice of Emanuel shows switch in tone[LINK]
Nov 12, 2008 -- Richardson Gets Backing For Secretary of State Post [LINK]
Nov 18, 2008 -- Obama's Brain Trust: From Transition And Beyond [LINK]
·
4
Fast forward to today:
They've been testing pain threshold of the mass for the last couple of years, whatever that means.
The third phase has begun: Huge energy shortages all over the globe, unchecked inflation & increase of living costs, small businesses being shattered, and global labour shortages just initiated.
Aside from a part of this operation being clinical trials of their new instruments for longevity;
for a moment there, I honestly thought this whole charade was to determine how far they could push their social ideas onto us.
Now, plenty of data indicates that it's not. It doesn't appear to be a test.
Apparently they got well established roadmaps. And they seem to have already abandoned maintaining the optics, too.
·
Closing
I don't believe this is a war between the so called globalists and the normies. The "war" implies that at least two opposing forces are engaging in the conflicts.
Say whatever you want about the Trump administration but,
within a mere three years span, it dismantled the CCP's siphoning the next-gen IPs and also financially destroyed almost half of their state controlled enterprises which the globalists have heavily x 100 invested in. [CASES]
Search the following keywords, "us department of commerce semiconductor," on news [SEARCH], and read a couple of the articles when you're bored. Could you take a guess why they are doing it?
Hm.
Stay safe and vigilant, fellow normies.
That's the thing about news consumption through internet:
Before 2008-ish, many of us were still relying on legacy media for news. You didn't hear about any "movements" in the US against offshoring, more precisely, many of us didn't hear about any discussions against negative aspects of moving manufacturing factories to China; because those legacy media didn't yap about it and decided to largely ignore the subject. All the while the US academic spheres (ah, innocent days those were) + middle classes protested at length against NAFTA and/or offshoring.
Here, we would need to ask the foremost crucial question: Why did the US ruling classes allow NAFTA and/or offshoring to happen?
Why didn't they try to set up some kind of legislations in order to retain the US manufacturing forces within, to regulate outsourcing jobs overseas, or even to "protect America's national security"? Why some US politicians didn't perform some theatrics in the media in order to form public opinion against offshoring? Was it simply because of money? The answer lies in how PLA air force developed Chengdu J-10 and Chinese J-20.
Here, you're still looking at things from/with a perspective of nation-state. It's equally hilarious that many still believe that the concept of the 21st century nationalism is about protecting their own nation against other nations. It isn't. And as you are probably well aware, to those ruling classes; the nation, the country, or even the race do not matter.
Let me ask you a question:
How did you know "America funded a project in the Wuhan lab"? That's right. You read or heard about it from the media. For some reason, they placed the information, or the headline if you will, in front of you.
I am not saying the relevant US bureaucrats didn't fund the research. And probably you won't deny that Hubei politburo went the extra mile not to contain the situations. But those aren't the point: We would need to try to understand why they are doing this. Otherwise we are going to just keep following the breadcrumbs they laid down and only to end up going extinct.
Yes. But replace the America and China with something else: There are (almost all of) factions within the US ruling classes AND the Chinese counterparts that are making movements + carrying out operations for one objective. To yield their own version of feudalism all over the world.
The 21st century nationalism isn't about being against the already outdated imperialism or against other nations' forces. It is about being against the so called globalism.
I must say:
However I came out on my comments above, I genuinely appreciate your comments and thank you for replying to mine.
Hey!! I just finished creating a post here and saw your reply. But sadly I gotta go to attend duty calls from my better half. :D I'll come back tomorrow for your comment! ttys!
P.S.
Think the Bush clan and the Clintons. I'll be back for a more detailed response. :D :D