Thursday, January 28, 2021

Vladimir Putin - Today’s World Faces Similar Challenges and Threats as the 1930’s


 

Vladimir Putin’s Address to the World Economic Forum

Session of Davos Agenda 2021 online forum

Vladimir Putin spoke at the session of the Davos Agenda 2021 online forum organized by the World Economic Forum (WEF).

The Official TEXT of Vladimir Putin’s Speech can be found here:
Vladimir Putin Speech to WEF - 20210127

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: 

Mr. Schwab, dear Klaus,

Colleagues,

I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organized by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus Schwab just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. I would like to thank you for this opportunity today to convey my point of view to the expert community that gathers at this world-renowned platform thanks to the efforts of Mr. Schwab.

First of all, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to greet all the World Economic Forum participants.

It is gratifying that this year, despite the pandemic, despite all the restrictions, the forum is still continuing its work. Although it is limited to online participation, the forum is taking place anyway, providing an opportunity for participants to exchange their assessments and forecasts during an open and free discussion, partially compensating for the increasing lack of in-person meetings between leaders of states, representatives of international business and the public in recent months. All this is very important now, when we have so many difficult questions to answer.

The current forum is the first one in the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century and, naturally, the majority of its topics are devoted to the profound changes that are taking place in the world.

Indeed, it is difficult to overlook the fundamental changes in the global economy, politics, social life and technology. The coronavirus pandemic, which Klaus just mentioned, which became a serious challenge for humankind, only spurred and accelerated the structural changes, the conditions for which had been created long ago. The pandemic has exacerbated the problems and imbalances that built up in the world before. There is every reason to believe that differences are likely to grow stronger. These trends may appear practically in all areas.

Needless to say, there are no direct parallels in history. However, some experts – and I respect their opinion – compare the current situation to the 1930s. One can agree or disagree, but certain analogies are still suggested by many parameters, including the comprehensive, systemic nature of the challenges and potential threats.

We are seeing a crisis of the previous models and instruments of economic development. Social stratification is growing stronger both globally and in individual countries. We have spoken about this before as well. But this, in turn, is causing today a sharp polarization of public views, provoking the growth of populism, right- and left-wing radicalism and other extremes, and the exacerbation of domestic political processes including in the leading countries.

All this is inevitably affecting the nature of international relations and is not making them more stable or predictable. International institutions are becoming weaker, regional conflicts are emerging one after another, and the system of global security is deteriorating.

Klaus has mentioned the conversation I had yesterday with the US President on extending the New START. This is, without a doubt, a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, the differences are leading to a downward spiral. As you are aware, the inability and unwillingness to find substantive solutions to problems like this in the 20th century led to the WWII catastrophe.

Of course, such a heated global conflict is impossible in principle, I hope. This is what I am pinning my hopes on, because this would be the end of humanity. However, as I have said, the situation could take an unexpected and uncontrollable turn – unless we do something to prevent this. There is a chance that we will face a formidable break-down in global development, which will be fraught with a war of all against all and attempts to deal with contradictions through the appointment of internal and external enemies and the destruction of not only traditional values such as the family, which we hold dear in Russia, but fundamental freedoms such as the right of choice and privacy.

I would like to point out the negative demographic consequences of the ongoing social crisis and the crisis of values, which could result in humanity losing entire civilizational and cultural continents.

We have a shared responsibility to prevent this scenario, which looks like a grim dystopia, and to ensure instead that our development takes a different trajectory – positive, harmonious and creative.

In this context, I would like to speak in more detail about the main challenges which, I believe, the international community is facing.

The first one is socioeconomic.

Indeed, judging by the statistics, even despite the deep crises in 2008 and 2020, the last 40 years can be referred to as successful or even super successful for the global economy. Starting from 1980, global per capita GDP has doubled in terms of real purchasing power parity. This is definitely a positive indicator.

Globalization and domestic growth have led to strong growth in developing countries and lifted over a billion people out of poverty. So, if we take an income level of $5.50 per person per day (in terms of PPP) then, according to the World Bank, in China, for example, the number of people with lower incomes went from 1.1 billion in 1990 down to less than 300 million in recent years. This is definitely China's success. In Russia, this number went from 64 million people in 1999 to about 5 million now. We believe this is also progress in our country, and in the most important area, by the way.

Still, the main question, the answer to which can, in many respects, provide a clue to today’s problems, is what was the nature of this global growth and who benefitted from it most.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier, developing countries benefitted a lot from the growing demand for their traditional and even new products. However, this integration into the global economy has resulted in more than just new jobs or greater export earnings. It also had its social costs, including a significant gap in individual incomes.

What about the developed economies where average incomes are much higher? It may sound ironic, but stratification in the developed countries is even deeper. According to the World Bank, 3.6 million people subsisted on incomes of under $5.50 per day in the United States in 2000, but in 2016 this number grew to 5.6 million people.

Meanwhile, globalization led to a significant increase in the revenue of large multinational, primarily US and European, companies.

By the way, in terms of individual income, the developed economies in Europe show the same trend as the United States.

But then again, in terms of corporate profits, who got hold of the revenue? The answer is clear: one percent of the population.

And what has happened in the lives of other people? In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times.

In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education.

There is no call for a huge mass of people and their number keeps growing. Thus, according to the International Labour Organization (ILO), in 2019, 21 percent or 267 million young people in the world did not study or work anywhere. Even among those who had jobs (these are interesting figures) 30 percent had an income below $3.2 per day in terms of purchasing power parity.

These imbalances in global socioeconomic development are a direct result of the policy pursued in the 1980s, which was often vulgar or dogmatic. This policy rested on the so-called Washington Consensus with its unwritten rules, when the priority was given to the economic growth based on a private debt in conditions of deregulation and low taxes on the wealthy and the corporations.

As I have already mentioned, the coronavirus pandemic has only exacerbated these problems. In the last year, the global economy sustained its biggest decline since WWII. By July, the labour market had lost almost 500 million jobs. Yes, half of them were restored by the end of the year but still almost 250 million jobs were lost. This is a big and very alarming figure. In the first nine months of the past year alone, the losses of earnings amounted to $3.5 trillion. This figure is going up and, hence, social tension is on the rise.

At the same time, post-crisis recovery is not simple at all. If some 20 or 30 years ago, we would have solved the problem through stimulating macroeconomic policies (incidentally, this is still being done), today such mechanisms have reached their limits and are no longer effective. This resource has outlived its usefulness. This is not an unsubstantiated personal conclusion.

According to the IMF, the aggregate sovereign and private debt level has approached 200 percent of global GDP, and has even exceeded 300 percent of national GDP in some countries. At the same time, interest rates in developed market economies are kept at almost zero and are at a historic low in emerging market economies.

Taken together, this makes economic stimulation with traditional methods, through an increase in private loans virtually impossible. The so-called quantitative easing is only increasing the bubble of the value of financial assets and deepening the social divide. The widening gap between the real and virtual economies (incidentally, representatives of the real economy sector from many countries have told me about this on numerous occasions, and I believe that the business representatives attending this meeting will agree with me) presents a very real threat and is fraught with serious and unpredictable shocks.

Hopes that it will be possible to reboot the old growth model are connected with rapid technological development. Indeed, during the past 20 years we have created a foundation for the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution based on the wide use of AI and automation and robotics. The coronavirus pandemic has greatly accelerated such projects and their implementation.

However, this process is leading to new structural changes, I am thinking in particular of the labour market. This means that very many people could lose their jobs unless the state takes effective measures to prevent this. Most of these people are from the so-called middle class, which is the basis of any modern society.

In this context, I would like to mention the second fundamental challenge of the forthcoming decadethe socio-political one. The rise of economic problems and inequality is splitting society, triggering social, racial and ethnic intolerance. Indicatively, these tensions are bursting out even in the countries with seemingly civil and democratic institutions that are designed to alleviate and stop such phenomena and excesses.

The systemic socioeconomic problems are evoking such social discontent that they require special attention and real solutions. The dangerous illusion that they may be ignored or pushed into the corner is fraught with serious consequences.

In this case, society will still be divided politically and socially. This is bound to happen because people are dissatisfied not by some abstract issues but by real problems that concern everyone regardless of the political views that people have or think they have. Meanwhile, real problems evoke discontent.

I would like to emphasize one more important point. Modern technological giants, especially digital companies, have started playing an increasing role in the life of society. Much is being said about this now, especially regarding the events that took place during the election campaign in the US. They are not just some economic giants. In some areas, they are de facto competing with states. Their audiences consist of billions of users that pass a considerable part of their lives in these eco systems.

In the opinion of these companies, their monopoly is optimal for organizing technological and business processes. Maybe so but society is wondering whether such monopolism meets public interests. Where is the border between successful global business, in-demand services and big data consolidation and the attempts to manage society at one’s own discretion and in a tough manner, replace legal democratic institutions and essentially usurp or restrict the natural right of people to decide for themselves how to live, what to choose and what position to express freely? We have just seen all of these phenomena in the US and everyone understands what I am talking about now. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of people share this position, including the participants in the current event.

And finally, the third challenge, or rather, a clear threat that we may well run into in the coming decade is the further exacerbation of many international problems. After all, unresolved and mounting internal socioeconomic problems may push people to look for someone to blame for all their troubles and to redirect their irritation and discontent. We can already see this. We feel that the degree of foreign policy propaganda rhetoric is growing.

We can expect the nature of practical actions to also become more aggressive, including pressure on the countries that do not agree with a role of obedient controlled satellites, use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions and restrictions in the financial, technological and cyber spheres.

Such a game with no rules critically increases the risk of unilateral use of military force. The use of force under a far-fetched pretext is what this danger is all about. This multiplies the likelihood of new hot spots flaring up on our planet. This concerns us.

Colleagues, despite this tangle of differences and challenges, we certainly should keep a positive outlook on the future and remain committed to a constructive agenda. It would be naive to come up with universal miraculous recipes for resolving the above problems. But we certainly need to try to work out common approaches, bring our positions as close as possible and identify sources that generate global tensions.

Once again, I want to emphasize my thesis that accumulated socioeconomic problems are the fundamental reason for unstable global growth.

So, the key question today is how to build a program of actions in order to not only quickly restore the global and national economies affected by the pandemic, but to ensure that this recovery is sustainable in the long run, relies on a high-quality structure and helps overcome the burden of social imbalances. Clearly, with the above restrictions and macroeconomic policy in mind, economic growth will largely rely on fiscal incentives with state budgets and central banks playing the key role.

Actually, we can see these kinds of trends in the developed countries and also in some developing economies as well. An increasing role of the state in the socioeconomic sphere at the national level obviously implies greater responsibility and close interstate interaction when it comes to issues on the global agenda.

Calls for inclusive growth and for creating decent standards of living for everyone are regularly made at various international forums. This is how it should be, and this is an absolutely correct view of our joint efforts.

It is clear that the world cannot continue creating an economy that will only benefit a million people, or even the golden billion. This is a destructive precept. This model is unbalanced by default. The recent developments, including migration crises, have reaffirmed this once again.

We must now proceed from stating facts to action, investing our efforts and resources into reducing social inequality in individual countries and into gradually balancing the economic development standards of different countries and regions in the world. This would put an end to migration crises.

The essence and focus of this policy aimed at ensuring sustainable and harmonious development are clear. They imply the creation of new opportunities for everyone, conditions under which everyone will be able to develop and realize their potential regardless of where they were born and are living

I would like to point out four key priorities, as I see them. This might be old news, but since Klaus has allowed me to present Russia’s position, my position, I will certainly do so.

First, everyone must have comfortable living conditions, including housing and affordable transport, energy and public utility infrastructure. Plus, environmental welfare, something that must not be overlooked.

Second, everyone must be sure that they will have a job that can ensure sustainable growth of income and, hence, decent standards of living. Everyone must have access to an effective system of lifelong education, which is absolutely indispensable now and which will allow people to develop, make a career and receive a decent pension and social benefits upon retirement.

Third, people must be confident that they will receive high-quality and effective medical care whenever necessary, and that the national healthcare system will guarantee access to modern medical services.

Fourth, regardless of the family income, children must be able to receive a decent education and realize their potential. Every child has potential.

This is the only way to guarantee the cost-effective development of the modern economy, in which people are perceived as the end, rather than the means. Only those countries capable of attaining progress in at least these four areas will facilitate their own sustainable and all-inclusive development. These areas are not exhaustive, and I have just mentioned the main aspects.

A strategy, also being implemented by my country, hinges on precisely these approaches. Our priorities revolve around people, their families, and they aim to ensure demographic development, to protect the people, to improve their well-being and to protect their health. We are now working to create favourable conditions for worthy and cost-effective work and successful entrepreneurship and to ensure digital transformation as the foundation of a high-tech future for the entire country, rather than that of a narrow group of companies.

We intend to focus the efforts of the state, the business community and civil society on these tasks and to implement a budgetary policy with the relevant incentives in the years ahead.

We are open to the broadest international cooperation, while achieving our national goals, and we are confident that cooperation on matters of the global socioeconomic agenda would have a positive influence on the overall atmosphere in global affairs, and that interdependence in addressing acute current problems would also increase mutual trust which is particularly important and particularly topical today.

Obviously, the era linked with attempts to build a centralized and unipolar world order has ended. To be honest, this era did not even begin. A mere attempt was made in this direction, but this, too, is now history. The essence of this monopoly ran counter to our civilization’s cultural and historical diversity.

The reality is such that really different development centers with their distinctive models, political systems and public institutions have taken shape in the world. Today, it is very important to create mechanisms for harmonizing their interests to prevent the diversity and natural competition of the development poles from triggering anarchy and a series of protracted conflicts.

To achieve this we must, in part, consolidate and develop universal institutions that bear special responsibility for ensuring stability and security in the world and for formulating and defining the rules of conduct both in the global economy and trade.

I have mentioned more than once that many of these institutions are not going through the best of times. We have been bringing this up at various summits. Of course, these institutions were established in a different era. This is clear. Probably, they even find it difficult to parry modern challenges for objective reasons. However, I would like to emphasize that this is not an excuse to give up on them without offering anything in exchange, all the more so since these structures have unique experience of work and a huge but largely untapped potential. And it certainly needs to be carefully adapted to modern realities. It is too early to dump it in the dustbin of history. It is essential to work with it and to use it.

Naturally, in addition to this, it is important to use new, additional formats of cooperation. I am referring to such phenomenon as multiversity. Of course, it is also possible to interpret it differently, in one’s own way. It may be viewed as an attempt to push one’s own interests or feign the legitimacy of one’s own actions when all others can merely nod in approval. Or it may be a concerted effort of sovereign states to resolve specific problems for common benefit. In this case, this may refer to the efforts to settle regional conflicts, establish technological alliances and resolve many other issues, including the formation of cross-border transport and energy corridors and so on and so forth.

Friends,

Ladies and gentlemen,

This opens wide possibilities for collaboration. Multi-faceted approaches do work. We know from practice that they work. As you may be aware, within the framework of, for example, the Astana format, Russia, Iran and Turkey are doing much to stabilize the situation in Syria and are now helping establish a political dialogue in that country, of course, alongside other countries. We are doing this together. And, importantly, not without success.

For example, Russia has undertaken energetic mediation efforts to stop the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, in which peoples and states that are close to us – Azerbaijan and Armenia – are involved. We strived to follow the key agreements reached by the OSCE Minsk Group, in particular between its co-chairs – Russia, the United States and France. This is also a very good example of cooperation.

As you may be aware, a trilateral Statement by Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia was signed in November. Importantly, by and large, it is being steadily implemented. The bloodshed was stopped. This is the most important thing. We managed to stop the bloodshed, achieve a complete ceasefire and start the stabilization process.

Now the international community and, undoubtedly, the countries involved in crisis resolution are faced with the task of helping the affected areas overcome humanitarian challenges related to returning refugees, rebuilding destroyed infrastructure, protecting and restoring historical, religious and cultural landmarks.

Or, another example. I will note the role of Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and a number of other countries in stabilizing the global energy market. This format has become a productive example of interaction between the states with different, sometimes even diametrically opposite assessments of global processes, and with their own outlooks on the world.

At the same time there are certainly problems that concern every state without exception. One example is cooperation in studying and countering the coronavirus infection. As you know, several strains of this dangerous virus have emerged. The international community must create conditions for cooperation between scientists and other specialists to understand how and why coronavirus mutations occur, as well as the difference between the various strains.

Of course, we need to coordinate the efforts of the entire world, as the UN Secretary-General suggests and as we urged recently at the G20 summit. It is essential to join and coordinate the efforts of the world in countering the spread of the virus and making the much-needed vaccines more accessible. We need to help the countries that need support, including the African nations. I am referring to expanding the scale of testing and vaccinations.

We see that mass vaccination is accessible today, primarily to people in the developed countries. Meanwhile, millions of people in the world are deprived even of the hope for this protection. In practice, such inequality could create a common threat because this is well known and has been said many times that it will drag out the epidemic and uncontrolled hotbeds will continue. The epidemic has no borders.

There are no borders for infections or pandemics. Therefore, we must learn the lessons from the current situation and suggest measures aimed at improving the monitoring of the emergence of such diseases and the development of such cases in the world.

Another important area that requires coordination, in fact, the coordination of the efforts of the entire international community, is to preserve the climate and nature of our planet. I will not say anything new in this respect.

Only together can we achieve progress in resolving such critical problems as global warming, the reduction of forestlands, the loss of biodiversity, the increase in waste, the pollution of the ocean with plastic and so on, and find an optimal balance between economic development and the preservation of the environment for the current and future generations.

My friends,

We all know that competition and rivalry between countries in world history never stopped, do not stop and will never stop. Differences and a clash of interests are also natural for such a complicated body as human civilization. However, in critical times this did not prevent it from pooling its efforts – on the contrary, it united in the most important destinies of humankind. I believe this is the period we are going through today.

It is very important to honestly assess the situation, to concentrate on real rather than artificial global problems, on removing the imbalances that are critical for the entire international community. I am sure that in this way we will be able to achieve success and befittingly parry the challenges of the third decade of the 21st century.

I would like to finish my speech at this point and thank all of you for your patience and attention.

Thank you very much.
--------------------------------------
Questions / Answers

Klaus Schwab: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Many of the issues raised, certainly, are part of our discussions here during the Davos Week. We complement the speeches also by task forces which address some of the issues you mentioned, like not leaving the developing world behind, taking care of, let’s say, creating the skills for tomorrow, and so on. Mr. President, we prepare for the discussion afterwards, but I have one very short question. It is a question which we discussed when I visited you in St Petersburg 14 months ago. How do you see the future of European-Russian relations? Just a short answer.

Vladimir Putin: You know there are things of an absolutely fundamental nature such as our common culture. Major European political figures have talked in the recent past about the need to expand relations between Europe and Russia, saying that Russia is part of Europe. Geographically and, most importantly, culturally, we are one civilization. French leaders have spoken of the need to create a single space from Lisbon to the Urals. I believe, and I mentioned this, why the Urals? To Vladivostok.

I personally heard the outstanding European politician, former Chancellor Helmut Kohl, say that if we want European culture to survive and remain a center of world civilization in the future, keeping in mind the challenges and trends underlying the world civilization, then of course, Western Europe and Russia must be together. It is hard to disagree with that. We hold exactly the same point of view.

Clearly, today’s situation is not normal. We need to return to a positive agenda. This is in the interests of Russia and, I am confident, the European countries. Clearly, the pandemic has also played a negative role. Our trade with the European Union is down, although the EU is one of our key trade and economic partners. Our agenda includes returning to positive trends and building up trade and economic cooperation.

Europe and Russia are absolutely natural partners from the point of view of the economy, research, technology and spatial development for European culture, since Russia, being a country of European culture, is a little larger than the entire EU in terms of territory. Russia’s resources and human potential are enormous. I will not go over everything that is positive in Europe, which can also benefit the Russian Federation.

Only one thing matters: we need to approach the dialogue with each other honestly. We need to discard the phobias of the past, stop using the problems that we inherited from past centuries in internal political processes and look to the future. If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.

We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.

Klaus Schwab: Thank you very much, Mr. President.

Full Translated Video




Stakeholder Capitalism?

 


Commentary By: Stewart Brennan

TIME’s Editor-in-Chief, Edward Felsenthal, launched a session and discussion of Stakeholder Capitalism [01]” on Jan 25th, 2021, based on the new book (10,000 years in the making) by Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, of the World Economic Forum.

Talking points for 2021, being a pivotal year for the future enslavement of mankind, went from tackling a problem released into the world called COVID-19 to a mysterious catch all phrase called climate change that somehow involves “attaboy” stock shares in the stock market, with “awe sh*t” penalties should the initiative fail and thus have to start all over again.

“Time”, would like to know (Interesting concept that time would like to know), time magazine would like to know what role can “Stakeholder Capitalism”, better known around the world as the “Purveyors of Theft”, what role can the purveyors of theft play in the stealth robbery of the global economy?

The answer to that is simple, there’s nothing left…except maybe small business in our communities.

What is Stakeholder Capitalism?

In today’s reality, Capitalism is a system owned and run by over-bloated banks and corporations owned by a wealthy few that deem themselves too big to fail. What do you call a system that has a rule book which is subject to change on a moments’ notice, while policed by specially employed referees who side with the criminal employers? I don’t know either, but because they are locking everyone down and telling us it’s the new normal, I’d have to say totalitarianism.

So here are a few questions posed to Klaus Schwab by Time’s Edward Felsenthal regarding their COVID coup on freedom and how they’ll address the failures of small and medium businesses.

Edward Felsenthal - “Big Business did well in the crisis and small business did not; how has this affected companies across the spectrum to execute Stakeholder Capitalism?” (note the word Execute)

Klaus Schwab initially doesn’t know what to say. His answer, “No, what we are seeing now is the companies engage to our 100 issues such as climate issues, creating jobs and so on. What we are seeing is the national big companies engage much more compared to a year ago. I think they have listened to the people who have great expectations, (he means they listened to the share holders – emphasis mine) which means they have to exercise stakeholder responsibility.”

He was pressed again about the failure of small and medium sized businesses and he continued his rhetoric and side stepping saying, “No its my big concern because small and medium sized companies have been much more hit by the crisis compared to most large companies. So, I’m very pleased and I think it’s a task of society to take care because they are an essential part of our economic tissue so we have to make sure that its not their fault, that they can survive the crisis because we need, at the end of the crisis, we need still a prospering middle class in the um…as far as companies are concerned.”

Ok so, that means it’s about companies, not people and so his remarks are taken at face value…he’s telling us directly that “Stakeholder Capitalism” in the Great Reset is corporate ownership behind the scenes (Share holders) and that the smaller companies that interact with their mega corporations and who cannot sustain themselves by economic means should be bailed out by government to ensure the big corporations continue uninterrupted.

Of course, the government bailout money is borrowed from those “Stakeholders” private banks which is tacked onto an already massive national debt that the country has to pay back with compounding interest.

Eventually, the debt leads to the loss of government controlled social programs as I mentioned in my post yesterday titled, The Corporate Takeover of Healthcare” [02]. In fact, Klaus Schwab alludes to that very thing in answer to a question on Stakeholder Capitalism posed near the beginning of the video (3:30) by the presenter where he understands that Klaus Schwab had an AC, BC moment meaning that “The After COVID world” and “The Before COVID world” would be nothing alike.

A major change happened in Feb 2020 when the US branch of the economic cartel made an official announcement that they would Embrace the Stakeholder Concept.

Klaus Schwab - “What the CORONA crisis has shown them (USA) is that people expect more from government and business, not just material satisfaction but security for example in terms of health services ah, but, what we also have learned is, all those services related to cleaning up the environment and providing the necessary diversity inside companies and society, this cannot only be undertaken by governments or by business alone or citizens safely alone, we really need public / private cooperation. So, the crisis has shown us we need a mind set change, and we need also to move from a society where business and governments have very separate tasks, to a society where the two together with civil society work hand in hand.”

So, in other words, everything on a national level will be a government / corporate initiative…that’s not capitalism, that’s fascism.

It would seem that US President Joe Biden’s globalist government has that well in hand as Capital Hill is fenced in with razer wire and tens of thousands of troops to protect them when the bow breaks and the economic cradle falls during the Economic Reset in the Spring of 2021.

In the USA, health services are a major burden on the population which are managed through corporations. In contrast, many nations in the west such as France, the UK, Canada etc., have government-controlled healthcare. In those countries, healthcare will be given up to for profit only corporations, these measures are already underway and are mandatory in their coming Economic Reset.

So, in other words, health services cannot be held by government alone, according to Klaus, there needs to be corporate inclusion to fulfill their growth which is a result and fallout of this BS COVID Crisis they created…

Corporate Economic Growth or Human Societal Evolution

In reality, many corporations can no longer grow by normal means, they had to invent a new way to continue corporate growth for the stake holders. That means we the people and our communities are the direct target for their growth as I mentioned in my August 2020 post The COVID 2nd Wave Will Tear Our Communities Apart” [03].

When people like Klaus Schwab talk about climate change and economic growth in the same sentence, they are trying to pull a fast one over you to make you believe that they are motivated to save the world by their climate change initiatives…however, in reality corporate growth is exponential and the real problem causing environmental degradation. Their efforts are solely based on the control of economics while they pretend to embrace an environmental topic. There is of course a much better solution than the “Reset” they are offering, but they wont dare suggest it because it would mean losing control of their massively failed economic system. So, I’ll say what needs to be said.

“Remove economics from the picture, build to last, zero waste target, foster real education, empower people within communities, embrace equality for everyone, change the real estate concepts so that housing is a guarantee, manage food, water and health as a necessity, foster education on birth control, work on real partnerships…etc.

These topics should be the real discussion we strive for as “The Greater Reset” to include everyone from every country around the world while changing course from the disastrous path of environment degradation, war, famine and greed that these Klaus Davos Dinosaurs have led us down since mankind emerged from the great catastrophe 12,500 years ago.”

What role can “stakeholder capitalism” play in the pursuit of a more sustainable, resilient and inclusive global economy? I’ll tell you, let it all go, make everyone a shareholder then work with people around the world to make the world a better place.

Thank you for reading.
-----------------------------
LINKS:

[01] Stakeholder Capitalism
[02] The Corporate Takeover of Healthcare
[03] The COVID 2nd Wave Will Tear Our Communities Apart


RELATED:

[A] China’s President Xi Jinping Reads the Multilateral Riot Act on the Virtual Davos Agenda


Tuesday, January 26, 2021

The Corporate Takeover of Global Healthcare


By: Stewart Brennan 

(Last Edit: 2021 Feb 07)

One of the major casualties on the horizon in this on-going Global economic collapse through the fake COVID pandemic, will be “Healthcare” in nations with single payer systems.

The engineered collapse of our economies leaves our natural resources and social programs open to corporate pillaging by western oligarchs and private interests with deep pockets. The same thing happened to Russia when its economic system was torn apart by criminal greed during their economic collapse in the 1990’s. The pillaging of the nation only stopped when Vladimir Putin came to power and declared war on the oligarchs and rebuilt Russia from the ashes. Sadly, the nations of the west have no courageous leaders with enough nerve to protect their people from the thieves and monsters of the wealthy class.

My Russian friends tell me, what they remember most about that time, is that while political corruption and thieving oligarchs were looting the country, the economy collapsed, scarcity ensued, inflation soared, violence increased exponentially and people suffered greatly. Vladimir Putin put an end to all of that, and restored Russia’s economy and economic independence. Economic independence is frowned upon by the western economic cartel which is why the US & UK establishment do not like Vladimir Putin.

The same type of theft is happening now across Europe and North America as governments allow corporations and oligarchs to loot all of our economically depressed countries during a fake pandemic. The politicians who are pushing lockdowns are criminally responsible for their part in the destruction of our nations, and also for the untold disasters which have yet to unfold as a direct consequence…and those consequences are coming. There is no excuse for what they have done, they are 100% guilty of crimes against our communities.

The wealthy class in each country, with China a major player, have gone into collusion to usurp all economic veins of our communities. It is being done by totalitarian lockdowns through a fake pandemic in which China is a major player.

Proof of Collusion:

In a recent letter [01] by Randy Hillier, sent to Canadian Prime Minister, “Justin Trudeau”, and the subsequent provincial / territorial leaders and their opposition, Randy Hillier, laid out 11 crucial points showing the significant involvement and influence that the Chinese Government has within Canadian medical, scientific, business, and academic communities. He included a 40-page report [02] with a detailed analysis compiled by top professionals across Canada and the United states, many within the intelligence community that clearly lays out major criminal concerns.

Eleven Points:

1.Lockdowns Originated on the order of “Xi Jinping”, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, and were propagated into Global Policy by the World Health Organization with little analysis or logic.

2. The Most Influential Institution for Covid-19 Models, self-described as “China’s Best Academic Partner in the West,” has been by far the most alarmist and inaccurate Covid-19 Modeler.

3. Deadly recommendations for early Mechanical Ventilation came from China

4. The World’s predominant, wildly-inaccurate PCR Testing Protocols are based on incomplete, theoretical Genome Sequences supplied by China

5. Predominant, excessive PCR Testing Protocols came from China

6. Studies showing Significant Asymptomatic Transmission, the only Scientific basis for lockdowns of Healthy Individuals, came from China

7. The CCP engaged in an early, broad, systematic, and global propaganda campaign to promote its Lockdown Response

8. Many prominent Pro-Lockdown Scientists show conspicuous Pro-China Bias

9. Many other influential lockdown supporters are both woefully unqualified to be advising World leaders on Pandemic Policy and often show conspicuous Pro-China Bias

10. Several top National Health Officials among the Nations are woefully unqualified and show conspicuous Pro-China Bias

11. Prominent lockdown supporters have proven unusually indifferent to the devastating consequences of their policies.

Moving Forward:

As I read and write about China’s history [03], what it has become and how it became what it is today, I can tell you with certainty that our governments will reject Randy Hillier’s letter and evidence because western politicians are all embedded with a global privileged class that are in the process of wiping out national economies around the world through this plandemic with China as their new economic engine.

Dominic Barton [04] who was appointed as Canada’s Ambassador to China on Sept 05th, 2019 by Justin Trudeau, is a member of this privileged wealthy political class I am talking about. Dominic Barton, known as Bao Damin in China, is a Ugandan-born Canadian management consultant and business executive, whom after graduating, worked briefly as a currency analyst for N M Rothschild & Sons in London; Rothschild's financial advisory division serves British nobility, including the British Royal Family. Barton was also the Managing Director of McKinsey & Company [04a] an American International management consulting firm that caters to the wealthy by training and placing its people in high-level corporate and political positions around the world. More importantly, Barton previously sat on the advisory board of the state-run China Development Bank [05]. Working and advising the Chinese government is not normal especially for a Canadian? Until you understand what F.I.P.A. is.

Foreign Investment Protection and Promotion Agreement: (FIPA)

On September 9th, 2012, Canada signed a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement” [06] (FIPA) with China.
This treaty with China undermines Canadian democracy because it will give Chinese firms in Canada 31 years of “protection” from environmental, human rights or resource conservation measures they don’t like while companies and private investors gain the right to sue Canada in unaccountable private tribunals outside the court system. Canada is Under Siege. [07]

Trudeau’s Address to the World Economic Forum 2016 praising Dominic Barton



So, what we are going to see in the near-term future as a result of the deliberate crashing of our economies by this false pandemic is more economic control of our country by corporations, including Chinese corporations (ie: the Chinese Government) that cannot be challenged in the courts.

Heads in a Noose

The card that the economic cartel holds over our head in Canada is debt, which the wealthy and private banks control. The kind of control that leads to the destruction of the Canadian social system, especially the Provincial healthcare systems which will most likely be consumed by the economic cartels corporate branch of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. The result of which will make healthcare unaffordable to an ever-increasing impoverished citizenry. I suppose that doesn’t mean much to US citizens who never really had a single payer healthcare system. However, I’m sure Canadians and Europeans see very clearly how Insurance companies and Pharmaceutical companies prey off of the US citizens where healthcare is not affordable and how pharmaceutical corporations are maneuvering governments to force lockdowns, and mask laws while pushing mRNA poisons as solutions on their populations. By the way, They are NOT vaccines! [08]


In this new unfolding dystopian world, governments rule like tyrants, everything is being destroyed; sports programs, schools, colleges, Universities, hospitals, clinics, small businesses, entertainment venues, and millions of jobs, while human interaction has been banned, spiritual gatherings broken up, curfews have locked us up under threat of massive fines and jail. Most of the population lives in fear, many are depressed or suicidal, and all of it because these rich sociopathic greedy puckers want to rule the world through their fraudulent corporate private banks!

What becomes clear in the western nations is the rise of “Totalitarianism” through total economic control and enslavement of the population by a wealthy class determined to enforce their dystopian world view through their corporate, banking and political ownership.

The Loss of Our Healthcare:

Today, hospitals and clinics throughout Canada, the US and Europe are reported to be at their breaking point by mainstream media yet amateur video footage from around the world shows a different story (See here [09a] and here[09b]). I can also confirm that hospitals are NOT overburdened from my own experience [09c]. Virtual Doctor appointments and prescriptions are the rule of the day and they will continue long after the economy has been destroyed.

Activity within the hospitals will either be cancelled or strategically planned (as they are now) with less activity and thus less need for employing Doctors, nurses, and hospital staff thus reducing costs which the government in most countries pay for through government budget money “borrowed” from private banks owned by the wealthy class.

Here’s How they Will Destroy our Healthcare System

As the costs of the COVID shutdown continue to be paid by borrowed money (240+ Billion in Canada), the IMF and financial institutions like the ECB (depending where you live and what banking families control your currency) will tell your government(s) that in order to escape higher interest rates on their borrowed money, they will have to sell off government-controlled health care programs to "Private" interests. ie: Pharmaceutical corporations and insurance corporations so they can reduce government cost while stating they will better manage the program. Doing so it will be said, lowers the governments economic burden and allows governments to continue borrowing money at a low interest rate for their national budgets which will need to be paid back with compounding interest [10].

Once the healthcare system is handed over, they will do what all corporations do, cut services to reduce costs and begin charging to make a profit. Costs will then be associated with all services which will go through an online evaluation. These costs will go up incrementally but will begin marginalizing large portions of the population who will not be able to afford healthcare simply because they are either no longer employed or are working for lower wages and can’t afford it…which is where the insurance companies come in and condition your healthcare coverage on the amount you are able to spend if you have any money at all.

If you don’t think they’ll touch your healthcare, think again. Right after the recession in the 1990’s [11], the IMF told Canada to reduce its hospital capacity by 30% and the government complied.

At the 2021 World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland, Russian President, Vladimir Putin spoke [11a] of declining incomes in developed nations with rising education and healthcare costs.

“In the past 30 years, in a number of developed countries, the real incomes of over half of the citizens have been stagnating, not growing. Meanwhile, the cost of education and healthcare services has gone up. Do you know by how much? Three times.

“In other words, millions of people even in wealthy countries have stopped hoping for an increase of their incomes. In the meantime, they are faced with the problem of how to keep themselves and their parents healthy and how to provide their children with a decent education.”

While this fake pandemic continues, the unemployment rate will continue to skyrocket, massive amounts of capital will be wiped out, populations will be under lockdowns and curfews while the wealthy class go about their lives uninterrupted.

Incidentally, those that control the banking institutions and mega corporations never worry during an economic crash because they simply own the institutions that create the money and the political means to make laws in their favor and thus the courts by virtue of upholding those laws. In the end, ie: at margin call, their banks and corporations get it all.

Those that will feel the mortal stabs of economic hardship are you, me and everyone that works to make our communities run.

Conclusion:

The continued refusal by government officials to look into the facts presented by Doctors, specialists and professionals regarding lockdowns, masks, PCR testing facts, Influenza and the proper solutions, shows without a doubt our governments collusion with not only the Chinese Government but also with the Western Economic Cartel of Banks and Corporations.

This accusation is not only for the eyes and ears of Canadians but for the people of all western nations that are under the same assault.

Corporate Control

The structure of a Corporation is top-down rule, it does not care about the environment, community or the people that work for them. All they care about is the bottom line and profit margin for their shareholders. It is totalitarian in the governance of its workers and as it gets larger becomes economically political.

Corporations that exist in capitalist societies, eventually grow to the point that their owners or majority stock holders can control societies, especially when collusion is made by those who have the majority of shares in thousands of companies. The governance of the country is then run by the economic and political power these entities harbor, including the institutions they endorse with funds such as “The World Health Organization” under the arm of the United Nations, who can, with one false pandemic statement, decide the fate of global economics.

China was molded by those within the western economic cartel who provided China with the initial funding, corporate migration, resources if needed and markets for their economic rise as the most technologically advanced, economically stable, most populous and most totalitarian nation in the world today. China is not a communist country as many seem to believe, it is a totalitarian nationalist socialist country with an iron fist that emerged out of the internal struggle of the Communist party [03] with western imperial help.

China is an economic monster that our western wealthy class together with western politicians have created. The wealthy political class in the east and west have merged and are about to launch a new dystopian global economy.

The "Economic Reset" [12] that is coming in 2021 will merge all nations into a new global corporate totalitarian paradigm that will control every aspect of our lives, and impoverish our nations unless we do something to put a stop to it.

If you are just as concerned as I am, here’s one way to fight back, join Randy Hillier’s fight at the following link (Randy Hillier Letter & Report [13]) For those in other countries, download the report and copy / edit the letter for your own representatives in your country.

I encourage all Canadians to contact your provincial or territorial representative

However, we can also play the devil’s advocate and say that China could at any moment, decide they no longer want to be in business with the western economic cartel…then where does that leave everyone? Who would be able to stop them once our countries have been economically destroyed?

-------------------------------------

LINKS:

[01] Randy Hillier’s Letter
[02] Research Report
[03] China’s Rise (Part 1) Internal Struggle
[04] Dominic Barton Canada’s Ambassador to China
[04a] McKinsey & Company

Saturday, January 23, 2021

China’s Rise - (Part 1) Internal Struggle

 


By: Stewart Brennan

“It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles. If you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one. If you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.” ~ Sun Tzu [01]

Understanding a Difficult Period in China’s History 

Behind the wall of western hubris and propaganda on China, there remains 5,000 years of experience in war, politics and economics. These disciplines, embedded within Chinese culture, have never disappeared from thought in those that have led China for thousands of years, regardless of politic that led the country in the past or present; be it a Republican Democracy, Communist State, National Socialist State or Royal Imperial State.

It is my view that the many years of Chinese political and cultural history did not suddenly disappear overnight when China’s governing structure changed to communism. The last Royal Chinese Imperial Dynasty [02] (Qing) had only just ended (1912) with the Xinhai Revolution [03] and so thousands of years of Chinese evolution doesn’t just suddenly disappear in a generation.

In reality, routines become a way of life after long periods of time and then become culture that the people of the society identify with as a normal way of doing things. Over time, everything becomes refined, pleasantries, planning, transactions, understanding, economics, politics, war; and so, Mao Zedong’s [04] China must be viewed and perceived with the retention of a large part of their culture intact with set ways of doing things where a supreme ruler would wield his political power much the same way as a past Chinese emperor, while the political courts and people surrounding him would also be conditioned in the disciplines and ways of doing things from the past.

What many people in the west are not aware of during China’s communist rule is that there were actually many factions within the Chinese governing structure with differing thoughts and plans for China’s economic future who were fighting with each other for power. The two main rivals that survived were the hardline Soviet style communists and a Nationalist Socialist group that leaned towards a more capitalist approach in their political economic vision of the country.

It’s difficult to understand what took place during that time in China (1949 to 1979) if we do not read history and only view it from a minimalist western perspective. It can be better understood if we equate the two surviving Chinese factions within the Communist party to the two super powers that emerged at the end of World War II in complete opposition to one another. (Capitalist USA and Soviet Russia) However, it is more realistic to understand this period of history if we compare it hypothetically, to a more traditional Chinese period by likening Chairman Mao to an emperor of their past who had competing heirs to the throne that engaged in a fierce political battle with one another to prove their ideas, worth and devotion to the father; a father who must ultimately choose which son’s plan would make his Imperial rule a favorable and lasting one for the country.

The Fall of Imperial China: What Went Before 1894 to 1949 

Before Chinese communist rule took hold as the governing entity in 1949, China went from a 5,000-year old Imperial Monarchy, which had its own periods of domestic wars and internal violence, to a country that was broken by wars of foreign intervention beginning with the First Sino Japanese war in 1894-1895 [05], which led to the Boxer Rebellion 1899-1901 [06] and ultimately to the Xinhai Revolution in 1911. The result of those two foreign wars shattered the country and turned it into a Western style Republican Democracy [07] by 1912.

The fall of China began with their loss to Japan in the first Sino-Japanese war from July 25th, 1894 to April 17th, 1895. The Chinese ruling Qing dynasty under Empress Dowager Cixi [08] was ill prepared against the more advanced Imperial Japanese military. The loss showed weakness and signaled the end of the Qing empires domination of Asia, while the humiliation of losing Korea as a tributary state to Japan as a consequence, sparked an unprecedented public outcry that became a catalyst for a series of political upheavals led by Sun Yat-sen [09] and Kang Youwei, [10] culminating in the 1911 Xinhai Revolution.

The growth of foreign spheres of influence in China after the Sino-Japanese War of 1895 led directly to the "Boxer Rebellion" (1899 to 1901) between the Qing Empire of China and an Eight-Nation Alliance that included Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United States which also included Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands. China's defeat was another humiliating blow [11] to the Qing Dynasty and to the people of China.

In China’s past, if weakness was shown by the ruling family, it created internal division and a challenge by wealthy groups against those who ruled the Chinese empire; and so, those two major losses broke China and caused division in the decision on how to strengthen the country and move forward. During this period of time, China was ruled by the iron fist of Empress dowager Cixi from 1861 until her death in 1908.



Empress Dowager Cixi (1903) 

Empress Dowager Cixi (1835 – 1908)

Selected as a concubine of the Xianfeng Emperor in her adolescence, she gave birth to a son, Zaichun, in 1856. After the Xianfeng Emperor's death in 1861, the five-year old boy who was the only surviving son of the Emperor, became the Tongzhi Emperor, while his mother became the Empress Dowager. Cixi immediately ousted a group of regents appointed by the late emperor and assumed the regency, which she shared with Empress Dowager Ci'an who was the consort wife of the late Emperor.

However, with the sudden death of her heirless 19 year old son from small pox in 1875, Cixi consolidated control over the dynasty by installing her three year old nephew as the Guangxu Emperor, contrary to the Qing dynasty rules that had been in place since 1644. In essence, Cixi ruled China and did what ever she needed to retain power which had been declining due to foreign economic interference.

Cixi supervised a series of moderate reforms that helped the regime survive until 1911. Although Cixi refused to adopt Western models of government, she supported technological and military reforms with a Self-Strengthening Movement as a means of limiting Westernization to preserve her own power and the dynasty.

China made substantial progress toward modernizing its heavy industry and military through the 1880’s and 1890’s but the majority of the ruling elite still subscribed to a conservative Confucian worldview, and the "self-strengtheners" were by and large uninterested in social reform beyond the scope of economic and military modernization. The Self-Strengthening Movement (1861 to 1895) under Cixi succeeded in securing the revival of the dynasty from the brink of eradication, sustaining it for a half-century, however the considerable successes of the movement came to an abrupt end with China's defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895.

The purge of China’s cultural history began by the loss of “Korea” as a tributary state in the First Sino Japanese war and the outrageous indemnities China had to pay the eight victorious foreign nations from the “Boxer Rebellion” war. China’s history and independence began falling faster to foreign economic influence.

The “Xinhai revolution” which followed, consisted of many revolts and uprisings, however, the turning point was the Wuchang Uprising [12] on 10 October 1911, when people rose up in opposition against the Qing governments decree to nationalize local railway development and transfer control to foreign banks. The movement, expressed mass discontent with Qing rule and galvanized the revolution against them. The revolution ended with the abdication of the last Chinese emperor, the six-year-old Puyi [13], on February 12th, 1912, and marked the end of 5,000 years of imperial rule and the beginning of China's early republican era.

Republic of China (1912 - 1949) 

The Republic of China was declared on January 1st, 1912. Shortly after, the country descended into a melee of power grabs and coup attempts.

Sun Yat-sen, the founder and president of the new Republic served briefly before handing over his position to Yuan Shikai,[14] the leader of the Beiyang Army [15]. Sun Tar-sen's party, the Kuomintang [16] (KMT), then led by Song Jiaoren, won the parliamentary election held in December 1912. However, Yuan Shikai, the Beiyang Army leader seized control of the government, and assassinated Song Jiaoren. In 1915, Yuan Shikai proclaimed himself Emperor of China but abdicated shortly afterwards due to popular unrest.

After Yuan's death in 1916, the authority of the Beiyang government was further weakened by a brief restoration of the Qing dynasty. Cliques in the Beiyang Army claimed individual autonomy and clashed with each other during the ensuing Warlord Era [17] (1916 to 1928).



By 1921, the KMT established the national government in Guangzhou, supported by the fledgling Communist Party of China (CPC). The economy of Northern China, which was overtaxed to support warlord adventurism, collapsed between 1927 and 1928. General Chiang Kai-shek [18], who became the Chairman of the Kuomintang after Sun Yat-sen's death in 1925, started a Northern Expedition in 1926 to overthrow the Beiyang government, which was accomplished two years later in 1928. However, in April 1927, Chiang Kai-shek established a nationalist government in Nanjing and massacred Communists in Shanghai. The latter event forced the Communist Party of China into armed rebellion, marking the beginning of the Chinese Civil War [19].

The Chinese Civil War 


1945 Jan 01 - Chiang Kai-shek of the KMT allied with Communist Mao Zedong of the CPC 

The Chinese Civil War was fought between the Kuomintang (KMT)-led government of the Republic of China (ROC) and the Communist Party of China [20] (CPC) lasting intermittently between 1927 and 1949. The war is generally divided into two phases with an interlude: from August 1927 to 1937, the KMT-CPC Alliance collapsed during the Northern Expedition, while the Nationalists controlled most of China. However, from 1937 to 1945, hostilities were put on hold, and the Second United Front between the two groups joined forces and fought the Japanese invasion of China with eventual help from the Allied forces of World War II. The civil war resumed after the Japanese defeat, where the CPC gained the upper hand in the final phase of the war from 1945 to 1949, generally referred to as the Chinese Communist Revolution.



Civil War 1947 

The Communists gained control of mainland China and established the People's Republic of China [21] (PRC) in 1949, forcing the leadership of the Republic of China to retreat to the island of Taiwan. A lasting political and military standoff between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait ensued, with the ROC in Taiwan and the PRC in mainland China both officially claiming to be the legitimate government of all China. No armistice or peace treaty has ever been signed, which has raised the question of whether this war itself has legally ended, or temporarily halted.

During this very turbulent time, (1894 to 1949) the people of China found themselves caught in the middle of an economic war between the upper classes of China, Japan, Europe and the United States.

For years the common people of China were brutalized by European and Japanese occupation but also by groups within China some of whom collaborated with the foreigners. Anger, resistance and determination against the occupation forces culminated into a popular revolution to cast off the shackles of foreign Imperialism and push forward to regain their national, cultural and economic independence.

China had emerged at the end of the second world war in 1945 economically weak and on the verge of all-out civil war. Large swathes of the prime farming areas had been ravaged and there was starvation. Many towns and cities were destroyed, while millions were rendered homeless by floods. The problems of rebuilding China after a long-protracted war were staggering, which left the Nationalists severely weakened.

Meanwhile, the war strengthened the Communists both in popularity and as a viable fighting force. In the communist controlled areas, Mao Zedong the leader of the communist forces was able to adapt Marxism–Leninism to Chinese conditions.

Mao also began to execute his plan to establish a new China by rapidly moving his forces from across the country to Manchuria. The Soviet occupation of Manchuria, although short, was long enough to allow the Communist forces to move in and take all the military hardware surrendered by the Imperial Japanese Army, which allowed them to quickly establish control in the countryside and move into position to encircle the Nationalist government armies in the major cities of northeast China. Following that, the Chinese Civil War broke out between the Nationalists and Communists, which concluded with the Communist victory in mainland China and the retreat of the Nationalists to Taiwan in 1949.


1949 - Mao Zedong PRC Founding

The years leading up to China’s re-established independence through a communist victory in 1949 put an end to foreign domination and domestic infighting that had torn the country apart for 55 years.

Puyi the last official Emperor of China 


Emperor PuYi - (1930's -1940's) 

With the fall of Japan in 1945, and thus Manchukuo where the Japanese installed Puyi as their puppet Emperor of China, Puyi fled the capital and was eventually captured by the USSR. The War Crimes Trials of the Far East in 1946 [22] saw Puyi imprisoned for ten years as a war criminal. He was extradited to the People's Republic of China in 1949 after Communist Rule had been established. However, in China, he was not executed, as Mao Zedong reasoned that Puyi was more valuable as a reformed commoner than a murdered emperor. After his reform, Puyi became a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference [23] and the National People's Congress [24] a political body which advised the hierarchy of the Communist government. Puyi died in 1967 during the Cultural Revolution, and was ultimately buried near the Western Qing tombs in a commercial cemetery.

Infighting and Emerging Power 1958 to 1979 


1956 – 8th National Party Congress 

As mentioned at the beginning of this post, to understand China, one must understand it’s historical past. There has always been differing political and economic opinions on how to move the country forward. These opinions are expressed from a power base, and that power base has a dedicated and loyal following even if all rivals are focused within one party as in China’s past Imperial empires or the newly emerged Communist Party.

So, looking at this period of history (1958 to 1979) we must compare it with the Imperial China of the past where fierce political battles were waged between would be heirs to the throne for the right to lead the nation unopposed, where the Imperial court is dragged into a vicious political battle by all sides.

The battle of China’s rival sons within the Communist party came to a head during the, Cultural Revolution” [25] (1966 to 1976), where the ideas of Mao and the first son (hardline communism) were put into action, which was to reimpose order from the chaos and aftermath of the Mao Nationalist Socialist project called the Great Leap Forward” [26] (1958 to 1962).

The Cultural Revolution marked China’s return to a more rigid position of power after a five-year period of economic failure from the “The Great Leap Forward”. The official reasons of the program’s failure were attributed to 30% natural disasters and 70% manmade errors.

It is important to point out during the five-year Great Leap Forward plan, that there was also a three-year political purge across China from 1959 to 1961 by hardline communist elements through their Anti-Rightist Campaign” [27] that saw the end of all political / economic opposition while turning the country into a hardline one-party system. The disruptive nature of the “Anti-Rightist Campaign” greatly impeded the economic flow within China and was one of the major factors in contributing to the failure of “The Great Leap Forward” and one of the worst famines in recorded human history [28] where between 30 to 55 million people died of starvation. Exact numbers are not known.


1956 to 1963 - Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping, Mao Zedong

Also, interesting to note, is that after the 1959 Lushan Conference” [29], Chairman Mao stepped down as the State Chairman of the PRC (Peoples Republic of China) due to the ongoing failures of “The Great Leap Forward” but remained Chairman of the CCP and appointed Liu Shaoqi” [30] (the new PRC Chairman) and reformist Deng Xiaoping [31] (CCP General Secretary) both National Socialists in charge to change policy and bring economic recovery. Also, of note is the purge of Defence Minister, Marshal Peng Dehuai” [32], whose criticism of some aspects of the Great Leap Forward was seen as an attack on the political line of Chairman Mao. He was replaced by military hardliner, "Lin Biao" [33] who led the three-year political purge across China.


The Cultural Revolution 


 1966 Lin Biao & Mao Zedong

After the disaster of the Great Leap Forward, Mao felt China needed solutions to counter the turmoil, chaos and division raging across a country that could potentially rise up against the government and Mao himself. China was moving in a very dangerous direction, and so Chairman Mao made the decision to try a more hardline approach and returned to lead the country through, “The Cultural Revolution” in 1966.

In essence, Mao called on the nation's youth to clean up the "impure" elements of Chinese society and revive the revolutionary spirit that had led to victory in China’s civil war two decades earlier that led to the formation of the People's Republic of China. The hardliners embraced it and called it” Mao Zedong Thought” or Maoism”,[34] and pushed it as the dominant ideology in the “Communist Party of China” (CPC).

Historical Inflection

What is missing in history books here is the consultation Mao had with the different groups within the party including his fourth wife Jiang Qing, so I’ll use the historical parallel of China’s previous dynasties as an example to clarify the decision process.

The decisions of an emperor are always made with great planning and thought when finally presented to the people. It comes to the public as an emperor’s decision, but in reality, the plan is usually partly owned by the emperor and the rest by those who are close to him or influence him towards his decision.

Before coming to a conclusion, there is harsh political dialog behind the scenes by competing rivals (heirs to the throne) which often included the influence of the different mothers of those heirs. (“Mothers” meaning, the different wives of the emperor.) In these fierce, sometimes violent drawn-out contests, there were plots and sabotages made on each other to undermine the rival’s political appearance to the emperor, while promoting the points of their political positions, ideologies and economic interests and why their plan was good for the country. The side that does not prove its point to the emperor, must humble themselves in complete submission and face its demise or humiliation. Sometimes, if allowed to live, they slowly find their way back from obscurity and calculate a different angle to make their plan work.

If a group fails in its tasks of carrying out their Emperors plan, which was made public as the Emperors plan, they are severely reprimanded, imprisoned or executed, while their subordinates in general are either purged or demoted; most of whom would quietly continue to pledge their honor and loyalty to those they served. The victorious group is given permission by the Emperor to carry out a new detailed plan in the emperor’s name including a public announcement.

Since the failure of the “Great leap Forward” (1958-1962) was a disaster under the national socialist tenure, Mao severely disciplined the group and made them responsible for his failure, including President Liu Shaoqi and General Secretary Deng Xiaoping.

So, Mao moved forward with the hardline communists for the chance to restore his honor by endorsing the “Proletarian Cultural Revolution” to go ahead under his leadership which included Lin Biao, and Mao’s fourth wife, Jiang Qing [35] both of whom had great influence in putting it together. (In hind sight, one could draw parallels of Jiang Qing to the dowager empress Cixi of the Qing Dynasty, but perhaps a little more sinister.)


1966 - Lin Biao & Jiang Qing

Mao launched “The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” in August 1966, at a Central Committee Plenary Meeting. He closed public schools, calling for the mobilization of young people to take party leadership and to face the bondage of bourgeois values and those with a lack of revolutionary zeal.

In the following months, the movement increased rapidly as students formed a paramilitary group called the Red Guards [36a] and attacked and harassed Chinese intellectual groups.

The Cultural Revolution, was overtly pro-Maoist, and gave Mao and the hardliners the power and influence to purge the Party of his political enemies at the highest levels of government. Along with closing China's schools and universities, it encouraged Chinese youth to destroy old buildings, temples, and art, while attacking their "revisionist" teachers, school administrators, party leaders, and parents. (See Here [36b])


Chairman Mao & the Gang of Four, the Cultural Revolution

Many of the most senior members of the CCP who had shared Zhou's hesitation in following Mao's direction, including President Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, were removed from their posts almost immediately. They, along with their families, were subjected to mass criticism and humiliation.

Deng Xioping and his family were targeted by Red Guards, who imprisoned Deng's eldest son, Deng Pufang who was tortured and was thrown out of a four-story building window in 1968, becoming a paraplegic. In October 1969 Deng Xiaoping was sent to the Xinjian County Tractor Factory in rural Jiangxi province to work as a regular worker. He was purged nationally, but to a lesser scale than President Liu Shaoqi.

Liu Shaoqi disappeared from public life in 1968 and was labelled by the hardliners as the "commander of China's bourgeoisie headquarters", China's foremost "capitalist-roader", and a traitor to the revolution. He died under harsh treatment while in prison in 1969.

Although Zhou escaped being directly persecuted, he was not able to save many of those closest to him from having their lives destroyed by the Cultural Revolution. Sun Weishi, Zhou's adopted daughter, died in 1968 after seven months of torture, imprisonment and rape by Maoist Red Guards. In 1968, Jiang Qing also had Zhou‘s adopted son (Sun Yang) tortured and murdered by Red Guards.

With different factions of the Red Guard movement fighting against perceived threats, many cities in China reached the brink of unrest in September 1967, when Lin Biao sent the army to restore order. Amid the turmoil, the Chinese economy plummeted, with a loss of industrial production in 1968 by 12 percent below the 1966 level. The army immediately forced many members of the urban Red Guard into rural areas to learn farming, where the movement then declined.

In 1969, Lin Biao managed to take power officially as Mao's successor. He immediately used an excuse of clashes with Soviet troops at the border to form a state of martial law. Disturbed by the destructive force of Lin Biao, Mao turned to his trusted friend Zhou Enlai [37], the Premier of the Peoples Republic of China, for solutions.

China not only needed to pull itself out of economic disaster and internal conflict, Mao now had to find a way to dismantle the challenge to his position by the hardliners who had continued to divide the country through their fist of violence, imprisonment, torture and executions. Everything the revolution had achieved was in jeopardy, so Mao turned to his closest friends with Nationalist Socialist leanings and put them into action. Internal economic success would require an outside ally, and so a reply to US inquiries to seek a meeting with the Chinese government were answered by Zhou Enlai in December 1970 and relayed back through foreign diplomatic channels in Pakistan to the USA that China was indeed interested in the US request for diplomatic communication. The Chinese communication stated that “the US initiative had the support of Chairman Mao and Vice Chairman Lin Biao”.

On July 08th, 1971, after several secretive diplomatic communications, Henri Kissinger visits China in Secret. (see here[38a] and here [38b])


1971 Henri Kissinger & Zhou Enlai

In his meeting with Zhou Enlai at the “Great Hall of the People” on July 10th, many topics were discussed including commitments on Taiwan by Henri Kissinger [39] including the withdrawal of two-third of the US forces present on the Island, a huge point of contention for Chairman Mao which would serve as a positive reason while eliminating suspicion from the hardliners for the sudden meeting with the leader of the Capitalist world.

Important to note is that Zhou Enlai let Kissinger know, in answer to questions previously submitted by the US for discussion, that China was looking to indeed develop their economy, although it would take a while, but they would try to go all out, aim high, and develop their “socialist construction” in a better, faster, and in a more economical way. Zhou continued, saying the second part of their answer was that once their economy was developed, they would still not consider themselves a superpower and would not join the ranks of the superpowers.

The meeting between Vice Chairman Zhou Enlai and Henri Kissinger came at a very critical time in China’s internal struggle which then set off a series of events that would strengthen the Socialists position within China. It was a stroke of political mastery by Chairman Mao and Zhou Enlai over the hardliners who had sowed chaos throughout the country and the subsequent loss of support by the people.

Strange and significant events in the USA and China seemed almost coordinated at times, yet cautious in a Yin Yang trust building partnership leading up to the historic meeting of US President Richard Nixon and Chairman Mao Zedong of China in February 1972.

Important Events in the US & China after Kissinger’s meeting with Zhou Enlai

On August 15th, 1971, after meeting with “Federal Reserve Chairman” Paul Volker, in a major economic shift from world war II, Nixon cancelled Bretton Woods by announcing actions to suspend, with certain exceptions, the convertibility of the US dollar into gold or other reserve assets, and ordered the gold window to be closed such that foreign governments could no longer exchange their dollars for gold.

On Sept 13th, 1971, Lin Biao leader of the hardline communist faction in China, died in a mysterious plane crash in Mongolia, apparently while trying to flee to the Soviet Union. But before the crash, Mao Zedong had taken measures to distance himself from Lin Biao in August 1971 after personally inspecting troops in central and southern China while stating publicly his differences with Lin Biao.

After the plane crash, members of Lin Biao’s military high command were then cleansed. The four military cadres in the Politburo, Huang Yongsheng, Wu Faxian, Li Zuopeng, and Qiu Huizuo were arrested and not released until the late 1980’s.

Zhou Enlai then took control of the government.

Around the time of the death of Lin Biao in 1971, the Cultural Revolution began to lose momentum. The new commanders of the People's Liberation Army demanded that order be restored in light of the dangerous situation along the border with the Soviet Union.

On Oct 25th, 1971, China became one of the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council [40] with full veto powers, replacing Taiwan.


Oct 25th, 1971, China became one of the five Permanent members of the UN Security Council


1972 Feb 17 – Nixon Goes to China [41]


Nixon Goes to China - Feb 17, 1972

As Mao's health began to decline in 1971 and 1972 and following the death of disgraced Lin Biao, Zhou Enlai was elected to the vacant position of First Vice Chairman of the Communist Party by the 10th Central Committee in August, 1973 and thereby designated as Mao's successor (the third person to be so designated after Liu Shaoqi and Lin Biao) Premier Zhou Enlai, who had accepted the Cultural Revolution, but never fully supported it, regained his authority, and used it to bring National Socialist Deng Xiaoping [42] back into the Party leadership at the 10th Party Congress. Deng Xiaoping, who had been purged early on in the Cultural Revolution, took effective control of the government as Zhou became more ill.


Deng Xiaoping and Zhou Enlai

Deng focused on reconstructing the country's economy and stressed unity as the first step by raising production. He remained careful, however, to avoid contradicting hardline ideology on paper, but his internal struggle with the hardliners, led by The Gang of Four” [43], continued over the leadership of China.

“The Gang of Four” were Jiang Qing (Mao Zedong's last wife), Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, and Wang Hongwen.

Important to note that at the end of 1973, Mao Zedong began to rely on Deng Xiaoping to handle US-China relations, he also turned to Deng Xiaoping to help him strengthen his control of the army.

1973 (July) was also the year that the Trilateral Commission [44] was Created by the Western Economic cartel (Bankers from the USA, the Western Europe nations and Japan). The Trilateral Commission was formed to bring about substantive political and economic partnerships across the world while focusing on the developing nations with a greater improvement of East-West relations. ie: China. Many of these same nations had participated in the destruction of Imperial China with sights on its economics 70 years earlier. Later that year in October 1973, Henri Kissinger met Chinese officials in Beijing [45].

Deng Xiaoping (who had been political commissar of the 2nd Field Army during the civil war) became the most influential of the remaining army leaders. When Premier Zhou Enlai fell ill with cancer, Deng became Zhou's choice as successor, meaning that he could have, in theory, also have succeeded Mao.

During the next several years, a protracted factional struggle took place between the hardline Gang of Four and the National Socialists led by Zhou and Deng.

Zhou Enlai’s last major public appearance was at the first meeting of the 4th National People's Congress on 13 January 1975, where he presented the government work report.

The hardline Communist Gang of Four saw Nationalist Socialist Deng Xiaoping as their greatest challenge to power. In order to keep internal peace, Chairman Mao asked Deng to draw up a series of self-criticisms. Although Deng admitted to having taken an "inappropriate ideological perspective" while dealing with state and party affairs, he was reluctant to admit that his policies were wrong in essence. His antagonism with the Gang of Four became increasingly clear, and Mao seemed to sway in the Gang's favour. Mao refused to accept Deng's self-criticisms and asked the party's Central Committee to "discuss Deng's mistakes thoroughly".

Zhou Enlai had fallen out of the public eye after the National Peoples Congress meeting in January 1975 for medical treatment and died of bladder cancer a year later in January 1976.


Zhou Enlai - March 5th, 1898 - January 8th 1976

Zhou was a very important figure in Deng Xiaoping's political life, and so his death left Deng alone within the Party's Central Committee. After Deng delivered Zhou Enlai's official eulogy at the state funeral, the Gang of Four, with Mao's permission, began to criticize Deng.

The massive public outpouring of grief which Zhou Enlai’s death provoked in Beijing turned to anger at the Gang of Four, leading to the 1976 Tiananmen Incident.[46]


Tiananmen Incident 1976

The Tiananmen Incident was a mass gathering and protest on 5 April 1976 Tiananmen Square in Beijing held on the traditional holiday and day of mourning called the Qingming Festival. [47] The Gang of Four branded the event as counter-revolutionary and threatening to their power and blamed Deng Xiaoping as the mastermind behind the incident.

During the Tiananmen Incident, thousands of people protested the militia's removal of wreaths honoring Zhou Enlai in front of the Monument to the People's Heroes. Vehicles were burned, offices ransacked and there were reports of many injuries.

Mao himself wrote that "the nature of things has changed". This prompted Mao to remove Deng from all leadership positions, although he retained his party membership, which indicates that Deng was still under Mao’s protection.

In the aftermath on April 06th, 1976 Premier Hua Guofeng [48] was appointed to Deng's position as Vice Chairman and the vacant position of “First Vice Chairman”, which Zhou Enlai had once held. The appointment of First Vice Chair made “Hua Guofeng”, Chairman Mao's fourth official successor.

The Gang of Four's attempts to suppress public displays of grief resulted in demonstrations against the Gang of Four and Mao himself. However, five months later, chairman Mao, China's leader for 27 years, died on September 09th, 1976. The entire country entered an extended period of mourning.


Mao Zedong - December 26th, 1893 - September 09th, 1976

Mao was revered by the people of China much the same way a great Chinese Emperor’s had been in the past. For all the major problems that China experienced under Mao’s tenure, he was still revered and held blameless. The hardships that the people faced were blamed instead on those that advised him. Mao was 82 when he died.


Mao Zedong - Funeral Service Sept 18th, 1976

Communist Rule Ends in China 

Hua Guofeng who now held the three most powerful positions in the Chinese government, arrested the Gang of Four and denounced them as “counter-revolutionary”. Of special note, Hua Guofeng also served on Zhou Enlai’s committee to investigate, Lin Biao in 1971.

The Gang of Four, together with general Lin Biao who had died in 1971, were labeled the two major "counter-revolutionary forces" of the “Cultural Revolution” and officially blamed by the Chinese government for the worst excesses of the societal chaos that ensued during the ten years of turmoil it brought. Their downfall on October 6, 1976, a mere month after Mao's death, brought about major celebrations on the streets of Beijing and marked the end of a turbulent political era in China. The hardline Communists had been defeated.

Although Hua Guofeng was the First Vice Chairman and designated successor to chairman Mao, it must be noted that Hua Guofeng was one of the survivors of the "Long March" [49] along with Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Lin Shaoqi, and Deng Xioping. All of whom became very close with unending loyalty and support for each other due to their shared experience in battle with life and death, they may not have agreed on everything, but their vision for China’s future was clear.

Disgraced “Lin Biao” was also a survivor of the long March and was for a long time, part of this unending loyalty bond between brothers, however, when Mao Zedong appointed Lin Biao as Defence Minister in 1959, Lin’s sights on power grew and later became evident to Mao during the Cultural Revolution that Lin Biao was very ambitious and a danger to his rule. Lin broke his loyalty to Mao and thus broke a sacred bond to a brother in arms and the revolution.

“Keep a Low Profile and Never Take the Lead.” ~ Deng Xiaoping


Deng Xiaoping 1978

On 22 July 1977, Deng was restored to the posts of Vice-Chairman of the Central Committee, Vice-Chairman of the Military Commission and Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army.

Deng discredited and condemned the Cultural Revolution, and in 1977 launched the "Beijing Spring", which allowed open criticism of the violent excesses and suffering that had occurred during that period. Meanwhile, he was the force behind the abolition of the class background system. Under new direction, the CPC removed employment barriers to those deemed to be associated with the former landlord class. Its removal allowed a faction favoring the restoration of the private market to enter the Communist Party.

By carefully mobilizing his supporters within the party, Deng outmaneuvered Hua Guofeng, who had pardoned him, then ousted Hua from his top leadership positions by 1980. In contrast to previous leadership changes, Deng allowed Hua to retain membership in the Central Committee and quietly retire, helping to set the precedent that losing a high-level leadership struggle would not result in physical harm.

Deng led China through a series of far-reaching “market-economy reforms”, which earned him the reputation as the "Architect of Modern China".

The term, “Market-Economy Reforms”, known in the West as the Opening of China, refers to the program of economic reforms called "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" and "Socialist Market Economy"[50] in the People's Republic of China (PRC). The reforms were started by Deng Xiaoping and reformists within the Communist Party of China on December 18, 1978.

In early 1979, Deng made an official visit to the United States [51], meeting President Jimmy Carter in Washington as well as Zbigniew Brzezinski [52]. The next day, after his meeting with Brzezinski, Deng went on a tour of corporate facilities including the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Coca-Cola and Boeing in Atlanta and Seattle, respectively. The corporate visits made it clear that the new Chinese priorities were moving towards economic and technological development.

Sino-Japanese relations also improved significantly. Deng used Japan as an example of a rapidly progressing power that set a good example for China economically.

Deng quoted an old proverb, "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, if it catches mice it is a good cat." His point was in reference to east / west politics and economics and well understood by those in the west that were about to go into business with China in the near future.

Deng’s economic reforms accelerated the market model in 1979, while the leaders maintained old Communist-style rhetoric. The commune system was gradually dismantled and the peasants began to have more freedom to manage the land they cultivated while selling their excess products on the market. At the same time, China's economy opened up to foreign trade, mostly by high level political connections through Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Trilateral commission. Business between China and the West, was once again, back on line.

Conclusion: (Part 1)

In the years since (1912 to 1979) the fall of the Qing Dynasty and Confucian China [53], infighting by Chinese wealthy families, warlords and political idealists demonstrated a fierce determination to win at any cost while forcing their plans on the Chinese nation. In the case of Communism, Mao was very much like an Emperor of the old world and wielded power much the same way. The National Socialists that prevailed after Mao’s death, can also boast of benefitting from singular rule as demonstrated by Deng Xiaoping and his National Socialist construct. Even though Deng is considered a reformer, his constructs of power are based in a totalitarian mindset.

China moved from totalitarian rule by an Emperor, to the totalitarian rule by a communist leader, to the totalitarian governance by the leader of a national socialist state. “National Socialism” is what emerged in China after Mao’s death. Communism perished with Mao and the Cultural Revolution.

The difference between China post-communist state and those two disgraced regimes of the 20th century that embraced National Socialism is that China, has not invaded anyone…yet.

China’s partnership with western economic interests goes deeper than one might think, but China also has a long memory as the most gifted of their leaders are masters of strategic planning and have great patience when waiting for the right moment to launch their final thrust in achieving their goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be sure to subscribe or follow Alternative Views for the continuation of China’s Rise (Part 2) where I will show how China rose from economic disaster to the most stable economic nation on Earth as well as its partnership with the western economic cartel and what the future holds for the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINKS:

[01] The Art of War – Sun Tzu
[02] Royal Chinese Imperial Dynasties
[03] Xinhai Revolution
[04] Mao Zedong
[05] The First Sino Japanese War
[06] The Boxer Rebellion
[07] The Republic of China (1912 to 1949)
[08] Empress Dowager Cixi
[09] Sun Yat-sen
[10] Kang Youwei
[11] Boxer Protocol
[12] Wuchang Uprising
[13] Last Chinese Emperor - Puyi
[14] Yuan Shikai
[15] Beiyang Army
[16] Kuomintang
[17] Warlord Era
[18] Chiang Kai-shek
[19] Chinese Civil War
[20] Communist Party of China
[21] People's Republic of China
[22] Tokyo Trials
[23] Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference
[24] National People's Congress
[25] The Cultural Revolution
[26] The Great Leap Forward
[27] Anti-Rightist Campaign
[28] The Great Chinese Famine
[29] Lushan Conference
[30] Liu Shaoqi
[31] Deng Xiaoping
[32] Peng Dehuai
[33] Lin Biao
[34] Maoism
[35] Jiang Qing
[36a] Red Guards
[36b] Chairman Mao & the Gang of Four, the Cultural Revolution
[37] Zhou Enlai
[38a] Henri Kissinger visits China in secret
[38b] Henri Kissinger visits China (Video) 
[39] Henri Kissinger
[40] China becomes a permanent member of the UN Security Council
[41] Nixon Goes to China
[42] Deng Xiaoping
[43] The Gang of Four
[44] Trilateral Commission
[45] 1973 Oct - Kissinger Meets Chinese Officials in Beijing
[46] 1976 Tiananmen Incident
[47] Qingming Festival
[48] Hua Guofeng
[49] The Long March
[50] Socialist Market Economy
[51] Deng Xiaoping Visits America 1979
[52] 2016 Zbignieu Brzezinski in Reflection to Deng Xiaoping
[53] Confucianism

RELATED LINKS:

[A] The Opium Wars
[B] 1971 - June 30, Conversation Between President Nixon and the Ambassador to the Republic of China (McConaughy) (UN Security Council Seat) Washington,
[C] Sino-Soviet split

Healthy Athletes suffer Heart Problems After Getting the Jab

Professor Sucharit Bhakdi, MD - Pandemic Over, Inoculations now Dangerous

DR. Chris Milburn head of the ER for Eastern Nova Scotia, speaks out

DR. Roger Hodkinson – Over-reaction and Failures of Govts on COVID

If People Get Jabbed After Watching This, They Are Beyond Hope

Doctors Giving Professional Opinions on Over Reaction by Govts on COVID

Medical Tyranny

Afghanistan News

Syria 2020 - 2021

Important Information 2020 - 2021

Julian Assange

Palestine News 2020 - 2021

Russia’s Perspective 2020 - 2021

English FA Cup 2021 - 2022 (All Results)