"Hu Jintao Explains 'Why China Loves Globalization'” — this was the title of a summary, in the Washington magazine Globalist, of Hu Jintao’s speech at the Fortune Global Forum on May 16, 2005.
Well, the word “globalization” has been commonly used in connection with China since 2000. What is the “globalization” that “China loves”?
Many Americans who never lived in a slave state do not understand it. Jack Guralsky, an American who later became a friend of mine in Russia, had emigrated to Stalin’s Russia from the United States. He was intelligent, well-read in classical German philosophy (he spoke and read German), and he taught himself to play his favorite masterpieces like a professional pianist. But all his perceptions, in the United States, of Stalin’s Russia proved to be wrong.
An English correspondent in Moscow bought a postcard with a photograph of the chief of the KGB, published on the chief’s birthday, and as a joke he sent it to his London newspaper, which printed it as part of English humor.
The correspondent was ordered to leave Russia within 24 hours, while Jack, who once met the correspondent, spent many years in a “Soviet corrective labor camp.” He was released after Stalin’s death (in 1953).
“What were you accused of?” I asked him.
“Of having failed to inform the KGB of the English correspondent’s forthcoming joke.”
“Did you know of it in advance?”
“No! And I would not inform them, even if I wanted to, of what I didn’t know.”
“George Orwell described such escapades of the secret thought-police in his '1984,'” I said.
Orwell was a man of genius, and his book was a great success in the West as it was published in 1949.
But not in 2000 to 2009, when Orwell is too much above the U.S. “top academic level.”
The Globalist piece I mentioned, and all such articles about the globalization since 2000, ignore the fact that the United States is a democracy, while the post-1949 China is a slave state as Orwell described. You see, Hu Jintao, the chief of the slave state of China, made a speech about why China loves the globalization, and hence the United States must love it too.
In 2003, The Atlantic Council of the United States published a paper entitled “Globalization of Defense Industries: China” (this text you can readily find in Yahoo!). This article was originally commissioned by the Atlantic Council in December 2001 to “consider the process of globalization of the defense industries of China and other major powers.”
In the 1920s, Russia was not as industrially advanced as the United States and Western Europe. Therefore, Stalin proclaimed the “industrialization,” which cost many human lives and industrial resources. Inversely, if the best Western companies take up the development and production of weapons for China in “The Chinese Defense Industrial Complex (CDIC),” this will make it possible for the Chinese scientists and technologists to concentrate on secret post-nuclear weapons like molecular nanoweapons.
The “globalization of the defense industries of China” by the free West is the suicide of the free West for the sake of enrichment of those of its companies which are or will be involved in the “globalization” of China.
Nevertheless, for the entry “China globalization,” Yahoo! has received over 30 million responses, but less than a fraction of 1 percent of them are not pure raptures. One such response (by Chuck Kelly of OpEdNews) is entitled “China: An object lesson of where globalization is leading us.”
The statement that “millions of Chinese” are quite prosperous would be impressive had it not been known that the population of China is 1.3 billion, and at least 800 million of them live in poverty that a Westerner cannot even imagine. Thus Chuck Kelly cites as an example a provincial town Shajing. The town’s minimum wage is $56 a month; that is, less that $2 a day. However, manager David Liu of the Ching Hai Electric Works Co. cut his labor force in half, to 1,500 workers, and established a starting salary of $32 a month — or about $1 a day. Many workers put in 18-hour days due to constant pressure to boost output.
Due to globalization, Western companies use Chinese workers who cost them no more than slaves in classical slavery when compared to the United States.
You see, the dictatorship of China is no longer officially believed to be a current or potential military threat or danger to the free West and is no dictatorship either! Even the Chinese spies sent to the free West are allies of the free West — globalists. They represent the globe — not the dictatorship of China!
There will also be a greater possibility for Chinese to have scientific and technological “defense” studies and work in the United States and other developed foreign countries and a greater possibility to invite to China foreign specialists of genius who have been developing the latest military weapons.
All this will make it possible for China to step up its military growth. Hu Jintao is correct, explaining that “China” (that is, he himself, first and foremost) “loves globalization.”
Yes, owing to “globalization,” the Western companies are making tremendous profits. Except that when the democracies have been defeated, those companies will be expropriated, under the chief slave-owners of the globe, of everything they pocketed due to globalization, and perhaps they will lose their lives as well.
If the owners of China could in 1989 exterminate by modern weapons the unarmed participants in peaceful meetings on the Tiananmen Square, who asked for democracy, why cannot the chief world slave-owner of the globe exterminate all Americans who lived in a democracy?
If the Chinese dictators have been, or recently were, putting to death Chinese for Buddhist exercises called Falun Gong, why should not the chief slave-owner of the globe put to death all former inhabitants of the defeated democracies?
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.