Cardinal de Hère
2018-03-12 10:59:04 UTC
Pourquoi les élites américaines et britanniques ont-elles imposé à
l'Occident de transférer de manière massive vers la Chine du capital, du
savoir-faire, des technologies, des emplois, des usines jusqu'à faire de
ce pays la première puissance économique mondiale ? Pour profiter de la
fantastique manne financière que la différence du coût du travail entre
l'Occident et la Chine allait leur apporter ? Mais ce gain à court terme
n'allait-il pas ruiner progressivement l'Occident, détruisant ainsi à
long terme le capital industriel et financier du monde capitaliste ?
Face à cette éventualité prévisible devenue aujourd'hui réalité les
commentateurs se partagent en deux groupes. L'immense majorité soutient
que les capitalistes sont tellement aveuglés par le profit immédiat
qu'ils sont incapables de voir à long terme. Et de citer cette phrase
attribuée à Marx, Lénine ou l'un de leurs épigones : "les capitalistes
nous vendront la corde qui servira à les pendre". Le deuxième groupe
bien plus restreint soutient que les capitalistes de haut vol sont bien
entendu capables de voir très loin et de dresser des stratégies pour
atteindre des objectifs lointains. C'est donc consciemment et de manière
délibérée qu'ils n'ont eu de cesse de soutenir le communisme, d'abord en
Russie par le financement de la révolution bolchévique puis de l'URSS
comme le montra brillamment Antony Sutton dans cet ouvrage :
https://jbl1960blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/pdfsutton1.pdf
Plus complet ici mais en anglais :
<https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf>
Ensuite par le financement et le soutien au décollage de la Chine qui
fut négocié dans les années 90 entre Wall Street et la City par le
fonctionnaire juif américain Mickey Kantor et le Commissaire européen
Leon Brittan, politicard juif britannique et pédophile notoire. Bien
entendu Kantor et le sinistre Brittan ne sont que des comparses utiles
par leur religion qui les désigne comme des boucs émissaires
professionnels des grands de ce monde. Les véritables auteurs du
décollage de la Chine communiste sont les mêmes chevaliers de
l'industrie qui financèrent la révolution bolchévique puis l'URSS. Et
parmi eux les Rockefeller. Voici ce qu'écrivait le 10 août 1973 David
Rockefeller, de retour d'un voyage de 10 jours en Chine, dans les
colonnes du New York Times :
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html
From a China Traveler
By DAVID ROCKEFELLER AUG. 10, 1973
August 10, 1973, Page 31
The New York Times Archives
Given China's vastness, it was only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness
of our hosts that the six members of our Chase group were able to see
and experience so much during just ten days in Peking, Sian, Shanghai
and Canton. In terms of simple geographic expanse, a week and a half
visit to China is something equivalent to trying to see New York City in
less than one and a half minutes.
One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the
loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is very real and
pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the
price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in
producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in
fostering high morale and community of purpose.
General economic and social progress is no less impressive. Only 25
years ago, starvation and abject poverty are said to have been more the
rule than the exception in China. Today, almost everyone seems to enjoy
adequate, if Spartan, food, clothing and housing. Streets and homes are
spotlessly clean, and medical care greatly improved. Crime, drug
addiction, prostitution and venereal disease have been virtually
eliminated. Doors are routinely left unlocked. Rapid strides are being
made in agriculture, reforestation, industry and education. Eighty per
cent of school‐age children now attend primary school, compared with 20
per cent just twenty years ago.
Each step of the trip was choreographed precisely by our hosts and,
though virtually all our requests were granted, we clearly saw what they
wanted us to. Still, there was little sense of the constant security
found in some other Communist countries. Issues such as Taiwan and
Cambodia evoke strong positions, but conversation does not founder on
ideological shoals. The Chinese seem so totally convinced of the
correctness of their own world view that they do not feel they have to
push it aggressively.
Despite the constant impressions of progress, however, some gray areas
and basic contradictions also emerged. Three major questions remain in
my own mind.
First, can individuality and creativity continue to be contained to the
degree they are now in a nation with such a rich cultural heritage?
The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the
singleness of ideology and purpose. But a stiff price has been paid in
terms of cultural and intellectual constraint. There are only eight
different theatrical productions in the entire country. The universities
are rigorously politicized, with little room for inquiry unrelated to
Chairman Mao's thought. Freedom to travel or change jobs is restricted.
When asked about personal creativity, one ceramics craftsman answered
only that there was not time for individual art if the masses were to be
served.
Second, will the highly decentralized Chinese economy be able to adapt
successfully to expanded foreign trade and technological improvements?
Considering the problems to be overcome, economic growth in China over
the last 25 years has been quite remarkable, with an annual average rise
in gross national product of 4 to 5 per cent. For the 1971–75 period,
this growth should range between 5.5 and 7.5 per cent a year. These
results have depended largely on a wise emphasis on agriculture and a
nationwide policy of decentralized, balanced industrial development. The
industrial spread reflects strategic factors, the labor abundant nature
of the country and inadequate transportation. There are, for instance,
now only a handful of commercial jet airplanes in China, and flights are
entirely dependent on weather conditions owing to limited guidance
facilities common in most parts of the world.
Third, are we and the Chinese prepared to accept our very real
differences and still proceed toward the closer mutual understanding
that must be the basis of substantive future contact?
I fear that too often the true significance and potential of our new
relationship with China has been obscured by the novelty of it all.
Pandas and Ping‐Pong, gymnastics and elaborate dinners have captivated
our imaginations, and I suspect the Chinese are equally intrigued by
some of our more novel captitalistic ways.
In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental
phenomenon. The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a
primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter century
under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the
realization that we have largely ignored a country with one‐fourth of
the world's population. When one considers the profound differences in
our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is
certain to be a long task with much accommodation necessary on both sides.
The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao's leadership is one
of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively
China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social
innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a
profound impact on the future of many nations.
fin de citation
On notera le gros mensonge sur la victoire du régime communiste contre
les famines puisque quelques années à peine avant la visite de
Rockefeller les Chinois connaissaient encore disettes et famines.
Comment peut-on expliquer cette fascination de certains parmi les plus
grands capitalistes occidentaux pour le communisme ? A cet égard
Rockefeller ne constitue pas un cas isolé. Gates, Buffet et quelques
autres parmi les plus influents capitalistes de la terre ont également
dévoilé leur sensibilité socialiste. Le communisme ne constitue pas
qu'une doctrine économique et sociale ou même un engagement et un idéal
politiques. C'est avant tout une religion ou plutôt un mythe appartenant
à de nombreuses doctrines religieuses depuis l'orphisme et le
pythagorisme jusqu'à la gnose maçonnique en passant par le platonisme,
l'hermétisme antique, le gnosticisme, le néo-platonisme, l'hermétisme
moderne, la kabbale chrétienne... Le mythe de l'âge d'or !
https://www.alterinfo.net/Hey-now_a136824.html
l'Occident de transférer de manière massive vers la Chine du capital, du
savoir-faire, des technologies, des emplois, des usines jusqu'à faire de
ce pays la première puissance économique mondiale ? Pour profiter de la
fantastique manne financière que la différence du coût du travail entre
l'Occident et la Chine allait leur apporter ? Mais ce gain à court terme
n'allait-il pas ruiner progressivement l'Occident, détruisant ainsi à
long terme le capital industriel et financier du monde capitaliste ?
Face à cette éventualité prévisible devenue aujourd'hui réalité les
commentateurs se partagent en deux groupes. L'immense majorité soutient
que les capitalistes sont tellement aveuglés par le profit immédiat
qu'ils sont incapables de voir à long terme. Et de citer cette phrase
attribuée à Marx, Lénine ou l'un de leurs épigones : "les capitalistes
nous vendront la corde qui servira à les pendre". Le deuxième groupe
bien plus restreint soutient que les capitalistes de haut vol sont bien
entendu capables de voir très loin et de dresser des stratégies pour
atteindre des objectifs lointains. C'est donc consciemment et de manière
délibérée qu'ils n'ont eu de cesse de soutenir le communisme, d'abord en
Russie par le financement de la révolution bolchévique puis de l'URSS
comme le montra brillamment Antony Sutton dans cet ouvrage :
https://jbl1960blog.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/pdfsutton1.pdf
Plus complet ici mais en anglais :
<https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf>
Ensuite par le financement et le soutien au décollage de la Chine qui
fut négocié dans les années 90 entre Wall Street et la City par le
fonctionnaire juif américain Mickey Kantor et le Commissaire européen
Leon Brittan, politicard juif britannique et pédophile notoire. Bien
entendu Kantor et le sinistre Brittan ne sont que des comparses utiles
par leur religion qui les désigne comme des boucs émissaires
professionnels des grands de ce monde. Les véritables auteurs du
décollage de la Chine communiste sont les mêmes chevaliers de
l'industrie qui financèrent la révolution bolchévique puis l'URSS. Et
parmi eux les Rockefeller. Voici ce qu'écrivait le 10 août 1973 David
Rockefeller, de retour d'un voyage de 10 jours en Chine, dans les
colonnes du New York Times :
https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/10/archives/from-a-china-traveler.html
From a China Traveler
By DAVID ROCKEFELLER AUG. 10, 1973
August 10, 1973, Page 31
The New York Times Archives
Given China's vastness, it was only due to the remarkable thoughtfulness
of our hosts that the six members of our Chase group were able to see
and experience so much during just ten days in Peking, Sian, Shanghai
and Canton. In terms of simple geographic expanse, a week and a half
visit to China is something equivalent to trying to see New York City in
less than one and a half minutes.
One is impressed immediately by the sense of national harmony. From the
loud patriotic music at the border onward, there is very real and
pervasive dedication to Chairman Mao and Maoist principles. Whatever the
price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in
producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in
fostering high morale and community of purpose.
General economic and social progress is no less impressive. Only 25
years ago, starvation and abject poverty are said to have been more the
rule than the exception in China. Today, almost everyone seems to enjoy
adequate, if Spartan, food, clothing and housing. Streets and homes are
spotlessly clean, and medical care greatly improved. Crime, drug
addiction, prostitution and venereal disease have been virtually
eliminated. Doors are routinely left unlocked. Rapid strides are being
made in agriculture, reforestation, industry and education. Eighty per
cent of school‐age children now attend primary school, compared with 20
per cent just twenty years ago.
Each step of the trip was choreographed precisely by our hosts and,
though virtually all our requests were granted, we clearly saw what they
wanted us to. Still, there was little sense of the constant security
found in some other Communist countries. Issues such as Taiwan and
Cambodia evoke strong positions, but conversation does not founder on
ideological shoals. The Chinese seem so totally convinced of the
correctness of their own world view that they do not feel they have to
push it aggressively.
Despite the constant impressions of progress, however, some gray areas
and basic contradictions also emerged. Three major questions remain in
my own mind.
First, can individuality and creativity continue to be contained to the
degree they are now in a nation with such a rich cultural heritage?
The enormous social advances of China have benefited greatly from the
singleness of ideology and purpose. But a stiff price has been paid in
terms of cultural and intellectual constraint. There are only eight
different theatrical productions in the entire country. The universities
are rigorously politicized, with little room for inquiry unrelated to
Chairman Mao's thought. Freedom to travel or change jobs is restricted.
When asked about personal creativity, one ceramics craftsman answered
only that there was not time for individual art if the masses were to be
served.
Second, will the highly decentralized Chinese economy be able to adapt
successfully to expanded foreign trade and technological improvements?
Considering the problems to be overcome, economic growth in China over
the last 25 years has been quite remarkable, with an annual average rise
in gross national product of 4 to 5 per cent. For the 1971–75 period,
this growth should range between 5.5 and 7.5 per cent a year. These
results have depended largely on a wise emphasis on agriculture and a
nationwide policy of decentralized, balanced industrial development. The
industrial spread reflects strategic factors, the labor abundant nature
of the country and inadequate transportation. There are, for instance,
now only a handful of commercial jet airplanes in China, and flights are
entirely dependent on weather conditions owing to limited guidance
facilities common in most parts of the world.
Third, are we and the Chinese prepared to accept our very real
differences and still proceed toward the closer mutual understanding
that must be the basis of substantive future contact?
I fear that too often the true significance and potential of our new
relationship with China has been obscured by the novelty of it all.
Pandas and Ping‐Pong, gymnastics and elaborate dinners have captivated
our imaginations, and I suspect the Chinese are equally intrigued by
some of our more novel captitalistic ways.
In fact, of course, we are experiencing a much more fundamental
phenomenon. The Chinese, for their part, are faced with altering a
primarily inward focus that they have pursued for a quarter century
under their current leadership. We, for our part, are faced with the
realization that we have largely ignored a country with one‐fourth of
the world's population. When one considers the profound differences in
our cultural heritages and our social and economic systems, this is
certain to be a long task with much accommodation necessary on both sides.
The social experiment in China under. Chairman Mao's leadership is one
of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively
China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social
innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a
profound impact on the future of many nations.
fin de citation
On notera le gros mensonge sur la victoire du régime communiste contre
les famines puisque quelques années à peine avant la visite de
Rockefeller les Chinois connaissaient encore disettes et famines.
Comment peut-on expliquer cette fascination de certains parmi les plus
grands capitalistes occidentaux pour le communisme ? A cet égard
Rockefeller ne constitue pas un cas isolé. Gates, Buffet et quelques
autres parmi les plus influents capitalistes de la terre ont également
dévoilé leur sensibilité socialiste. Le communisme ne constitue pas
qu'une doctrine économique et sociale ou même un engagement et un idéal
politiques. C'est avant tout une religion ou plutôt un mythe appartenant
à de nombreuses doctrines religieuses depuis l'orphisme et le
pythagorisme jusqu'à la gnose maçonnique en passant par le platonisme,
l'hermétisme antique, le gnosticisme, le néo-platonisme, l'hermétisme
moderne, la kabbale chrétienne... Le mythe de l'âge d'or !
https://www.alterinfo.net/Hey-now_a136824.html