With the evidence growing every day that the U.S. is about to start a second military operation against China over Taiwan, in addition to the one that is already swallowing $billions of U.S. resources in Ukraine, and with U.S. politicians publicly stating that sending America’s sons and daughters to die in battle for Taiwan to fight against China is an option they are considering, I think it is time to step back and critically look at the current state of affairs between China and the U.S.
But to take a critical view and make an honest evaluation of China’s perceived threat to the U.S., we have to first admit that the western media, and especially the corporate media in the U.S., is primarily a propaganda machine that is totally untrustworthy in determining truth, and look at other perspectives as well, before we spend $billions more on another war, and potentially lose American lives over a conflict with Taiwan.
I have no intention here of writing an article that supports China, which I know ahead of time is exactly what some people are going to accuse me of, but in evaluating the current world situation here in 2023, I think we as Americans have to honestly ask ourselves: which country today is more tyrannical and spies more on their own citizens: The U.S. or China?
The Myth of a Central Chinese Social Credit Score System
The problem with so many lies that are accepted as truth is that if they are spread far enough by the majority of the population, they can eventually become accepted as “fact” because so many people believe in the lie, and therefore few even challenge the premises of these “truths.”
I have to admit that even I have at times fallen for some of this propaganda, and one of those is the alleged “truth” that the Chinese government already has in place a centralized “social credit score” system that severely limits the population from participating in society, and that the Globalists in the U.S. are planning something similar, patterned after China’s system.
I was challenged on this “fact” this past weekend by a post from Alex Krainer which was republished on ZeroHedge news. Here are some excerpts regarding the “social credit score” system.
The coming war on China: the real target are the American people
Alongside military preparations, the (U.S.) imperial guard is also working hard to create consent for war with relentless anti-China propaganda. The unsubtle messaging is that the CCP is coming for our freedoms and has evil designs to dominate the world. Much of the commentariat blames the Chinese for all the dark globalist agendas to enslave humanity.
The relentless fearmongering often resorts to propagating outright fabrications which are then replicated ad nauseum as hard facts. Repetition turns these fabrications into culturally accepted truths. The most dismaying example of this is the western invention of the “Chinese Social Credit System.”
Here’s how Arnaud Bertrand, a Frenchman living in China, commented on this in a Tweet:
“The Chinese social credit system is easily one of the most egregious disinformation narratives peddled on China by western media. Even myself I couldn’t believe the extent to which they totally invented a system that had no basis in reality.”
Geopolitical blogger Brian Berletic (whose commentary is invariably excellent and well researched) provided a more in-depth contrast between the Chinese realities and western fearmongering in this 26-minute video report: China’s “Social Credit Score System” – Fact or Fiction? (Spoiler alert: it’s fiction).
Unfortunately however, the demonization has had its effect and many in the west have by now embraced this fear of China to the point that they are inclined to believe almost any story that demonizes China and disbelieve anything to the contrary.
The glaring fact that the government, the think tanks and the media have lied to us about pretty much everything doesn’t seem to detract them. This time they’re telling the truth.
The video from Brian Berletic above is very good, and while Berletic doesn’t live in China like Arnaud Bertrand does, he lives in a bordering country, Thailand, with very heavy Chinese influence.
Observations and commentaries like this are very valuable, when you can find them in the English media.
Which Country has the Ability to Spy on their own Citizens More?
I don’t think there is any dispute as to the desire of both China and the U.S. to have a centrally based “social credit score” system that tracks and controls every one of their citizens.
But a system like that is not currently in place yet, so which country is currently in the best situation to develop such a system, and to be able to spy on virtually every citizen?
Well, first of all, the technology has to be in place, the technology to gather and collect the data from every citizen, and then the technology to be able to search and categorize that data.
The first part of this kind of system is the data collection technology, which needs all of the citizens to be connected to the Internet to be able to collect their data.
The second part of this kind of system is the software to quickly analyze and categorize all of that data, and that is what AI (artificial intelligence) software is all about.
When we look at the number of people in each country that currently have cell phones, the #1 way most people connect to the Internet today, we see that China has more people owning cell phones than any other nation in the world, with over 953 million smart phone users, as compared to just over 273 million users of cell phones in the U.S. (Source.)
However, the population of China today is about 1.439 billion people, which means there are over 486 million people in China who don’t own cell phones, which is 30% more than the entire population of the U.S. of 331 million. (Source.)
Percentage wise, that would be 66% of the population of China who currently own cell phones, while 82% of the population in the U.S. own cell phones, and of the 18% who do not own cell phones in the U.S., I am sure the majority of those are infants, toddlers, and young children, as it is quite rare to find an older child or adult in the U.S. who does NOT own a cell phone, even among the poorest citizens in the U.S.
In an article we published last November, which was an interview with Aman Jabbi, a Silicon Valley whistleblower, Jabbi remarked that there are more security cameras per capita in the U.S. than there are in China. See:
Based on the evidence, I don’t think there is any doubt that the U.S. has a greater opportunity to spy on its citizens than China currently has, where one third of the people in China don’t even own a cell phone yet.
Do we have evidence that the U.S. actually spies on their citizens?
I know, silly question, but I had to ask it to make a point, as I doubt that there is a single reader of Health Impact News who would answer “no” to that question.
Here is an article that was in my news feed just this morning:
Elon Musk Says US Government Had Access To Private Twitter DMs
During an upcoming appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show, Elon Musk reveals that the US government had full access to people’s private Twitter DMs.
Musk told Carlson during a segment which is set to air tonight that he was shocked as to the level of penetration the feds had with Twitter.
“The degree to which government agencies effectively had full access to everything that was going on on Twitter blew my mind, I was not aware of that,” said Musk.
“Would that include people’s DMs?” asked Carlson.
“Yes,” responded Musk.
It has long been suspected that individual Twitter employees had full access to private messages, but for branches of the federal government to have enjoyed that same privilege is stunning. (Source.)
And I am quite sure that in addition to the U.S. government intelligence agencies having full access to Twitter, you can add: Facebook, Google and Microsoft searches, shopping data from Amazon.com, etc.
And just so you don’t erroneously think that I am portraying Elon Musk as one of the “good guys,” we can add satellite data from Musk’s satellite network, much of which is used by the U.S. military.
Musk is currently in the process of converting Twitter into the same kind of Chinese app “We Chat” is, which will collect even more data on U.S. citizens.
A Non-Western View of the History of China
Overlay map of China on the U.S. to show land volume. Image source unknown.
The last time I visited China was in 2007, when I spent time in both Shanghai and Beijing. Even back then, my main first impression of China, starting out with arriving at the Shanghai airport, was simply wall to wall masses of people.
It is hard to truly understand the density of the population of China in their major cities, unless you have actually visited there.
Most Americans who have never visited China could never fully understand the difficulties of maintaining law and order in such densely populated areas.
I am certainly not using this as an excuse, or supporting the Chinese government.
If you look at the photo I chose for the article I published last week on French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to China and meeting with China President Xi Jinping in Beijing, you will see that I chose the particular photo I used in that article, published in an English language publication out of Turkey, because it clearly showed the handshake between Macron and Xi. Go back and look at it:
It seems to be clearly a secret society Freemason handshake, and it would not surprise me at all if both Macron and Xi are very high ranking fellow members of Freemasonry.
When you look at the history of China from a non-Western perspective, however, you may learn that China pretty much dominated the world’s economy from about the 12th Century through the 19th Century, and that they did it primarily through trade and commerce, and not through warfare.
It was the British Empire, starting in the 19th Century, that began their conquest of worldwide domination, mainly through warfare, and by attempting to destroy China through the “opium wars.”
I am going to end this article with some excerpts from a two-part series on China that Behind the News Network published back in 2019 that gives the non-Western perspective on the history of China during those years.
So if a war between China and the U.S. starts today, I wonder which side is more likely to be the aggressor to start such a war?
China – The Emerging Global Giant Part 1 (of a 2 Part Series)
The study of world power has been blighted by Eurocentric historians who have distorted and ignored the dominant role China played in the world economy between 1100 and 1800.
It is especially important to emphasize how China, the world technological power between 1100 and 1800, made the West’s emergence possible. It was only by borrowing and assimilating Chinese innovations that the West was able to make the transition to modern capitalist and imperialist economies.
China: The Rise and Consolidation of Global Power 1100 – 1800
Here are some striking facts:
As early as 1078, China was the world’s major producer of steel (125,000 tons); whereas Britain in 1788 produced 76,000 tons.
China was the world’s leader in technical innovations in textile manufacturing, seven centuries before Britain’s 18th century “textile revolution”.
China was the leading trading nation, with long distance trade reaching most of Southern Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe. China’s ‘agricultural revolution’ and productivity surpassed the West down to the 18th century.
Its innovations in the production of paper, book printing, firearms and tools led to a manufacturing superpower whose goods were transported throughout the world by the most advanced navigational system.
China possessed the world’s largest commercial ships. In 1588 the largest English ships displaced 400 tons, China’s 3,000 tons. Even as late as the end of the 18th century China’s merchants employed 130,000 private transport ships, several times that of Britain. China retained this pre-eminent position in the world economy up until the early 19th century.
British and Europeans manufacturers followed China’s lead, assimilating and borrowing its more advanced technology and were eager to penetrate China’s advanced and lucrative market.
Banking, a stable paper money economy, manufacturing and high yields in agriculture resulted in China’s per capita income matching that of Great Britain as late as 1750.
China ’s dominant global position was challenged by the rise of British imperialism, which had adopted the advanced technological, navigational and market innovations of China and other Asian countries in order to bypass earlier stages in becoming a world power.
Western Imperialism and the Decline of China
The British and Western imperial conquest of the East, was based on the militaristic nature of the imperial state, its non-reciprocal economic relations with overseas trading countries and the Western imperial ideology which motivated and justified overseas conquest.
Unlike China, Britain’s industrial revolution and overseas expansion was driven by a military policy. China’s global predominance was based on ‘reciprocal benefits’ with its trading partners, while Britain relied on mercenary armies of occupation, savage repression and a ‘divide and conquer’ policy to foment local rivalries.
A point to note here is that in 1850, the two largest economies in the world were India whose share of global GNP was 25%, and China, whose share was 55%. Combined these two giants had a 80% of global GNP!
Within a 100 years, their combined share had dropped to some 10%. That was British imperialism, at its finest.
Unable to take over the Chinese market through greater economic competitiveness, Britain relied on brute military power. It mobilized, armed and led mercenaries, drawn from its colonies in India and elsewhere to force its exports on China and impose unequal treaties to lower tariffs.
As a result China was flooded with British opium produced on its plantations in India – despite Chinese laws forbidding or regulating the importation and sale of the narcotic.
China’s rulers, long accustomed to its trade and manufacturing superiority, were unprepared for the ‘new imperial rules’ for global power. The West’s willingness to use military power to win colonies, pillage resources and recruit huge mercenary armies commanded by European officers spelt the end for China as a world power.
Britain’s empire was built with resources seized from the colonies and through the massive militarization of its economy. It was thus able to secure military supremacy over China.
China’s foreign policy was hampered by its ruling elite’s excessive reliance on trade relations. Chinese officials and merchant elites sought to appease the British and convinced the emperor to grant devastating extra-territorial concessions opening markets to the detriment of Chinese manufacturers while surrendering local sovereignty. As always, the British precipitated internal rivalries and revolts further destabilizing the country.
Western and British penetration and colonization of China’s market created an entire new class: The wealthy Chinese ‘compradors’ imported British goods and facilitated the takeover of local markets and resources. Imperialist pillage forced greater exploitation and taxation of the great mass of Chinese peasants and workers.
China’s rulers were obliged to pay the war debts and finance trade deficits imposed by the Western imperial powers by squeezing its peasantry. This drove the peasants to starvation and revolt.
By the early 20th century (less than a century after the Opium Wars), China had descended from world economic power (having 60% of world GNP) to a broken semi-colonial country with a huge destitute population. The principle ports were controlled by Western imperial officials and the countryside was subject to the rule by corrupt and brutal warlords.
British opium enslaved millions.
By the end of the 1920’s, with the Japanese imperial invasion, China ceased to exist as a unified country. Under the aegis of imperial rule, hundreds of millions of Chinese had starved or were dispossessed or slaughtered, as the Western powers and Japan plundered its economy.
The entire Chinese ‘collaborator’ comprador elite were discredited before the Chinese people.
