UPDATE 10. March 2021: China Urges W.H.O. to Let It Run Global ‘Vaccine Passport’ System
UPDATE 11. February 2021: LOCKDOWNS in China (2021) - SUBSTANTIVE LIBRARY OF LEAKED WITNESS VIDEOS
UPDATE 03. November 2020: The Connection Between World War C & Psychological Processes Is Seriously Concerning
These Are The Geostrategic Factors That Will Determine Whether China Wins World War C
By Andrew Korybko - 14. April 2020
The New Cold War between the US and China abruptly took a new form following the global outbreak of COVID-19, but Beijing still has a solid chance of coming out on top in this struggle for global leadership if it accurately assesses the changed geostrategic situation in the Eastern Hemisphere and accordingly crafts the right policies for responding to it.
Will The World Backtrack On BRI After World War C?
"The US & China Are Intensely Competing To Shape The Outcome Of World War C", as the author noted late last month when analyzing the consequences of the global COVID-19 outbreak on the New Cold War between these two Great Powers, but Beijing still has a solid chance of coming out on top in this struggle for global leadership if it accurately assesses the changed geostrategic situation in the Eastern Hemisphere and accordingly crafts the right policies for responding to it.
The Asian Giant is under immense pressure as its envisaged model of reformed globalization under the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is increasingly seen with skepticism, not so much because of the intense infowar that the US has been waging against it over the past few years, but simply because of the sudden supply chain consequences that were brought about as a result of the world's rolling lockdowns. Foreign investors and national leaders alike are no longer ignorant of the strategic vulnerabilities inherent to the globalized world system as a whole, and many are now seriously reconsidering its merits and correspondingly contemplating re-offshoring production back to their own countries or at least their immediate regions.
China's Grand Strategy
This represents the most profound challenge that China has been forced to confront in the decades since it first decided to reform its economy by opening up to foreign investment. It was hitherto taken for granted that the globalization trend would generally continue unabated, notwithstanding some high-profile expressions of economic nationalism such as the ones most commonly associated with Trump's "America First" policy, and that only gradual reforms would be necessary to improve this model and thus indefinitely perpetuate it. China, comfortable with its position as "the world's factory" and flush with excess cash to invest in connectivity infrastructure projects all across the world for the purpose of more closely tying its partners' economies to its own in pursuit of what it describes as a Community of Common Destiny, took the lead in taking globalization into its next natural phase through BRI. The grand strategic intent was to peacefully replace America's previously predominant global economic role and therefore enter into a position of privileged soft power whereby China could then shape the world order to its liking through trade and institutions.
A Concise Analysis Of Afro-Eurasia
Those carefully crafted calculations have suddenly been thrown into uncertainty as a result of World War C, which is why it's imperative for China to assess the changed geostrategic situation as accurately as possible in order to craft the right policies for saving its global leadership model. What follows is a concise summary of the importance that each region of Afro-Eurasia holds for Chinese strategists at the present moment, which also briefly describes their challenges and opportunities. The Western Hemisphere is omitted from this analysis because China's relations with Latin America aren't anywhere as significant for its global strategy as those that the country has the Eastern Hemisphere as whole, and the complex contours of Chinese-American relations will be greatly determined by the outcome of their so-called "trade war". As such, the author believes that it's much more relevant to discuss East & Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, the Mideast, Africa, Russia, and the EU instead, ergo the focus of the present article. Having said that, here are the geostrategic factors that will determine whether China wins World War C:
* East & Southeast Asia:
This region of the world previously planned to enter into the world's largest trade bloc, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), irrespective of India's US-influenced refusal late last year to move forward with this game-changing development. This eastern periphery of Eurasia functions as a future integrated market for Chinese goods and services, conveniently located right next to the People's Republic. The problem, however -- and one that was already emerging prior to World War C -- is that these countries' production facilities inside China are considering re-offshoring back home or to other parts of the region as a result of the trade war, with this trend taking on a renewed importance given the global supply chain disruption in recent months. The same holds true for non-regional companies such as those from the West which are eyeing ASEAN (and especially Vietnam) as a favorable replacement to China, sometimes for political reasons. China will therefore need to ensure that RCEP eventually enters into effect in order to mitigate some of the immediate economic consequences through its envisaged regional marketplace, as well as remain competitive with lower-cost labor from its neighbors in order to slow down the speed of this seemingly inevitable re-offshoring process.
* South Asia:
The opportunities and challenges that South Asia poses for China are more geopolitical in nature than economic. The US' successful co-opting of India into a proxy for "containing" China reduces the likelihood of a meaningful economic rapprochement between these two Asian Giants, and instead positions what's soon predicted to become the world's most populous country as a possible rival to the People's Republic in the long term, with the short- and medium-term consequences being that it might become an even more appealing re-offshoring destination for foreign Chinese-based companies than even ASEAN. The global pivot state of Pakistan, however, represents nothing but opportunities for China because of CPEC, BRI's flagship project. This ambitious initiative serves not only as a geostrategic shortcut to the energy market of the Mideast and the growing labor-consumer one of Africa that conveniently bypasses the increasingly militarized South China Sea and Strait of Malacca, but is also the basis upon which all other major BRI projects will be managed, relying upon the invaluable experiences learned during its years-long implementation. In order to succeed in South Asia in the post-coronavirus environment, China must manage to retain pragmatic relations with India in parallel with undercutting its attractiveness as a re-offshoring center while maximizing every mutual strategic opportunity that it can reap from CPEC.
* Central Asia:
The Eurasian Heartland is primarily functions as a reliable source of Chinese energy imports. It has obvious connectivity potential for linking China to the Mideast and Europe through the "Middle Corridor" that's being pursued in partnership with Turkey, but in and of itself, it doesn't have much economic significance for the People's Republic due to its comparatively small labor and consumer markets relative to East-Southeast-South Asia and Africa. It does, however, function as a crucial test case for the resiliency of the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership insofar as it provides these two Great Powers with the opportunity to reach pragmatic "compromises" in pursuit of their grander strategic goal of multipolarity, but there's no sidestepping the fact that some in Moscow seem to be increasingly uncomfortable with being replaced by Beijing in the region that they've long regarded as their "backyard". Furthermore, rising Sinophobia in some of these countries as a result of the massive influx of Chinese goods and the replacement of some local laborers with imported Chinese ones creates a possible fault line for the future, albeit one that doesn't necessarily have to have any security implications since the region's traditional Russian hegemon has no interest whatsoever in allowing Central Asia to be used as a base for launching terrorist attacks against it in Xinjiang.
Just like Central Asia, the Mideast is mostly important to China for energy reasons even though it too has obvious connectivity potential in linking East Asia with Western Europe. Unlike Central Asia, however, some of the most geostrategically positioned countries like Iraq and Syria have been destroyed by Hybrid War, while populous Iran is under sanctions pressure like never before and could very well be the next to follow in the worst-case scenario. This makes the Mideast risky from a strategic connectivity standpoint, though that nevertheless hasn't stopped some Chinese firms from making inroads in this region. The GCC countries, and especially Saudi Arabia, are attempting to restructure their economies in order to reduce their dependence on energy exports, which in turn necessitates Chinese investment in their planned production facilities. China's growing economic and military influence (in terms of exports) in the Mideast also presents it with the diplomatic opportunity to participate in resolving some of the region's crises following the model that it's spearheading in Myanmar, which could prove very valuable for managing other conflicts that might one day arise elsewhere along its New Silk Road.
Africa's importance might arguably even overshadow that of East & Southeast Asia when it comes to China's grand strategy since the People's Republic is depending on having reliable access to the continent's raw material, labor-consumer markets, and increasingly, its energy resources in order to maintain domestic growth throughout the present century. Unlike in East & Southeast Asia, however, there are few competitors to China's plans in Africa, with the only ones that deserve mention being the US' ongoing infowar campaign to discredit BRI and the nascent joint Indo-Japanese "Asia-Africa Growth Corridor" being supported by the US, France, and the GCC as a possible long-term (key word) competitor to China's investment model there (focusing instead on "soft infrastructure" like schools, job training, and healthcare services in contrast to the attention that China pays to its "hard" counterpart like physical connectivity infrastructure). Being much more under China's influence than any other part of the world due to the mutual benefits derived from the premier position that the People's Republic holds in Africa's trade and investment spheres, it's unlikely that many of its countries will be swayed into turning against Beijing's reformed globalization model of BRI by the Trump-promoted appeal of economic nationalism. This doesn't mean that China should grow complacent, however, but should instead strive to present Africa as a shining example to the rest of the world of everything that can be achieved as a result of bilateral cooperation through BRI.
The future of Russian-Chinese relations is quickly becoming an interesting field of study because of the progress that Moscow is making on reaching a "New Detente" with Washington, the latter of which has been extensively covered by the author in a series of four articles here, here, here, and here. To summarize, Russia's pursuit of a series of "pragmatic compromises" with the US on a host of relevant issues ranging from NATO expansion to North Korea could lead to a fast-moving rapprochement between the two with serious strategic implications for China, especially if the People's Republic comes to rely more on the Eurasian Great Power for ensuring reliable access to the markets of Western Europe through the complementary Eurasian Land Bridge and Northern Sea Route. That's not to say that Russia will ever "cut off" China and/or the EU's access to the other since the country itself is depending on reaping the economic benefits of facilitating their overland and maritime connectivity with one another, but just that this relationship could be leveraged in more "creative" ways to advance certain political-strategic objectives vis-a-vis China (such as in Central Asia for example, be it in coordination with the US or carried out independently) the same way as it's alleged to have employed its energy relationship with the EU in the first decade of the present century. In addition, Russia's envisaged irreplaceable role in facilitating Chinese-EU trade used to be taken for granted but is now highly uncertain since it'll depend on whether globalization survives World War C and if China even retains an interest in having Russia fulfill this role in the first place to the extent that Moscow previously anticipated.
The last region of the Eastern Hemisphere relevant to Chinese grand strategy is the EU, and it's definitely one of the most important. This region of Western Eurasia has a large and highly developed consumer market that the Chinese economy depends on for growth, especially considering that most of its members use the euro, one of the world's strongest and most stable currencies. It's extremely important that China does everything that it can to ensure that the EU as a whole remains committed to expanding bilateral economic relations, especially through BRI, hence Beijing's unprecedented soft power outreaches in recent weeks through the provision of medical equipment and healthcare specialists to some of its members like Italy and aspiring ones such as Serbia. Accordingly, it naturally follows that China would prefer for the EU to emerge from this crisis stronger and more integrated than ever in order to facilitate this goal, though that's also why its weakening, disintegration, and/or pivot towards the US would be so detrimental to Beijing's grand strategy. If China's economic reach becomes limited in the EU as a result of the bloc gradually "de-globalizing" (including through re-offshoring Chinese-based production facilities to ASEAN, India, and/or back home [perhaps to the organization's poorer members along its periphery]) or possibly even embracing a degree of Trump-inspired economic nationalism, then it would greatly reduce China's influence to its immediate region (East and Southeast Asia) and the Global South (mostly South Asia [except India] and Africa in this respect) and thus make it more easily "containable" through Hybrid War means.
The Three Steps To Success
Taking all of the above insight into consideration, the following three steps are absolutely necessary if China wants to win World War C:
1. Ensure The Continued Attractiveness Of Globalization:
If Trump-inspired economic nationalism becomes a new global trend throughout the course of World War C, then BRI will be in danger of becoming nothing more than a bare-bones project that turns into a skeleton of its formerly so-ambitious self. This would require China to undertake a range of far-reaching reforms at home in order to restructure its economy from its hitherto export-dependent nature and into something more autarkic, though the latter has very real limits given how much the country relies on foreign trade surpluses reaped from globalization processes to drive domestic development and purchase essential resources like energy, raw materials, and even food. Without ensuring the continued attractiveness of globalization, China could very well enter into its worst-ever crisis since the 1949 Communist Revolution that could have unimaginable economic and even political consequences, which is why it's of the highest priority that the People's Republic does everything in its power to protect this trade model at all costs.
2. Focus On The Afro-Eurasian Triangle:
Provided that globalization survives in some relevant form after World War C (which remains to be seen but would be attributable in that case to China pulling out all the stops in pursuit of this goal), then China will have to focus on the Afro-Eurasian Triangle of RCEP, Africa (increasingly via S-CPEC+), and the EU in order to guarantee its place as the US' global systemic rival. These three regions of the Eastern Hemisphere all complement one another in terms of China's grand strategy as was extensively explained in each case earlier above, though this also means that they're all possible targets upon which the US can put Hybrid War pressure. China cannot depend on any one of these regions alone if it aspires to remain a global leader, though it could still in theory manage to attain this goal provided that it only "loses" one of them. The "loss" of Africa is highly unlikely, so in the scenario that it "loses" the EU, then China would become a power relevant only to most non-Western countries (which is the still the lion's share of the world), whereas the "loss" of RCEP would make China more dependent on Russian-controlled trans-continental trade routes to the EU (the "Middle Corridor" through Central Asia and Northern Sea Route) that could be indirectly influenced by the US through the "New Detente".
3. Manage The US-Indian Strategic Partnership & The "New Detente":
Both the ever-intensifying US-Indian Strategic Partnership and the gradual progress that America is making on reaching a "New Detente" with Russia represent latent challenges of the greatest geopolitical magnitude if they aren't nipped in the bud before they blossom or properly managed in advance. There's little that China can do to influence either of them, though the first-mentioned might fizzle out if India implodes as a consequence of World War C or due to the Hybrid War being waged by the Hindu nationalist government on its own citizens in an attempt to turn the country into a "Hindu Rashtra" (Hindu fundamentalist state), while the second might abruptly be derailed by the American "deep state" at any time and would almost certainly fail if Trump loses re-election. In the "worst-case" scenario of each US-backed "containment" vector entering into force and possibly even combining into an unofficial semi-united American-Russian-Indian front against it, China would do best trying to emulate its global rival's Kissingerian policy by "triangulating" both between its Great Power neighbors and itself and between those two and the US in an effort to relieve the growing multilateral pressure upon it.
China's global leadership ambitions are being challenged like never before as a result of World War C and the subsequent suspicion that many countries now have of globalization processes, especially in respect to the strategic vulnerability inherent to being dependent on foreign supply chains halfway across the world for essential products such as medical equipment. The rolling lockdowns that unfolded across the world over the past two months, beginning in China and eventually spreading to the West, exposed the fragility of the previous world system and will inevitably necessitate some serious reforms to its structure at the very least, with the possible mass movement away from globalization towards Trump-inspired economic nationalism being the absolute worst-case scenario for China since it would completely cripple its grand strategy. It's for this reason that the People's Republic must do everything in its power to ensure the survival of as much of the pre-crisis globalization system as possible in order to stand a credible chance of remaining the US' only global rival, after which it must then focus on the Afro-Eurasian Triangle of RCEP, Africa, and the EU concurrent with managing the dual latent challenges posed by the US-Indian Strategic Partnership and the "New Detente" in the center of the Eastern Hemisphere. Should China succeed with these daunting tasks, then the world's multipolar future will be assured, though its failure would mean that unipolarity will probably return with a vengeance.
Andrew Korybko - American political analyst
Chinese Communist Party “experts” urged the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) on Tuesday to let China build and run a global database for “vaccine passports” documenting if every person on earth has received a Chinese coronavirus vaccine.
The Communist Party launched its domestic “vaccine passport” system Wednesday, despite W.H.O. officials urging countries not to implement such a system due to unequal access to vaccines and the variety in the quality of the available offerings around the world. The “vaccine passport” — A digital certification that confirms a person has received a coronavirus vaccination — joins China’s larger “social credit system,” which judges every citizen and awards them numerical “scores” based on how much the Party approves of their behavior. The behavior judged can vary from littering and volunteering, which result in respectively lower or higher social credit scores, to the display of public opinions either in favor or against the Communist Party.
China’s social credit system has prevented millions of citizens from traveling through banning them from purchasing airplane, train, or public transportation tickets. China is similarly limiting citizens who do not receive a vaccine against the Chinese coronavirus from widespread travel.
China’s Global Times, a state-run propaganda newspaper, proposed Tuesday that the Communist Party could build an international “vaccine passport” surveillance system in a week through its large technology companies. The proposal appeared to be a response to the W.H.O. explicitly discouraging countries from creating such a system.
“Chinese experts noted on Tuesday that China can help by sharing its experience with and provide technical support to the WHO to organize the issue,” the Times reported, “as China is the most experienced country in using a health code system in the world while the WHO is the most proper organizer for the matter to ensure independence, fairness and data security.”
The regime-approved “experts” cited in the article argued that, since China has been conducting mass surveillance of its citizens, violating their human rights, for years, expanding that system to the rest of the world would not present a major technological challenge.
“In terms of technology, I believe that Chinese companies can build an international platform in just one week,” one of those experts, the head of a Chinese organization identified as the “Information Consumption Alliance,” claimed. “The WHO can draft the rules, procedures and data format. China is very willing to provide support in sharing experience and techniques in setting up such a platform as the country has rich experience in this.”
China’s participation in a global health surveillance program would “guarantee public trust,” the newspaper insisted.
The Global Times did not express significant confidence in the possibility of the W.H.O. agreeing to such a deal, though the U.N. health body has stood accused repeatedly throughout the pandemic of allowing China to dictate how it responds to the virus, including spreading disinformation claiming the highly contagious virus was not transmissible from person to person. Instead, the newspaper cited other Chinese government observers who suggested that, rather than wait for the W.H.O., China should pressure other countries into bilateral vaccine passport agreements. The agreements would hypothetically lift travel restrictions between China and the agreeing country for individuals who can show documentation proving they have received a coronavirus vaccination.
Chinese officials are reportedly attempting to convince the administration of President Joe Biden to recognize China’s homemade vaccines as effective to implement such a plan, in exchange for China recognizing American-made vaccines.
China has approved two vaccines against the Chinese coronavirus. The first, by the firm Sinovac Biotech, was found in studies to be 50.38 percent effective in halting infections. The second, by the Sinopharm company, tested at 72.51 percent efficacy. The United States has approved three vaccines. The first, by Pfizer, tested at 95 percent effectiveness and the second, by the Moderna company, tested at around 94 percent effective. The most recently approved vaccine, developed by Johnson & Johnson, is believed to be 66 percent effective against any infections, including mild ones.
The Communist Party hopes to convince countries that, unlike the United States, have approved the use of Chinese-made vaccines to lift travel restrictions on vaccinated Chinese citizens, the Global Times noted Tuesday.
“Chinese experts said it is very possible and practical for China to start mutual recognition with countries that had approved Chinese vaccines, such as Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia;” the publication reported, “or some neighboring countries that have practical needs for resuming exchanges, such as South Korea and Japan; or regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations; or any other country that is willing to cooperate.”
The growing global push out of Beijing for “vaccine passport” programs met with stern rejection from the World Health Organization on Monday. Dr. Michael Ryan, director of the W.H.O. Health Emergencies Program, warned that “real practical and ethical considerations” abound regarding the programs and urged countries not to consider them at the moment.
“Vaccination is just not available enough around the world and is not available certainly on an equitable basis,” Ryan contended, which would lead to “inequity and unfairness … further branded into the system.”
China’s “vaccine passport” program launched this week operates through WeChat, a Chinese government-controlled social medium that the regime heavily censors and uses to monitor its citizens. Individuals vaccinated will have QR codes available on WeChat that allow other nations to confirm their vaccination status. At press time, no other nation has agreed to access the certification, though Chinese officials will likely use the program to limit domestic travel.
Dictator Xi Jinping has attempted to sell the QR code system publicly since at least November. That month, Xi attended the virtual annual gathering of G20 nations, urging fellow countries to buy into China’s app program.
“We hope more countries will join this mechanism. We need to further standardize policies and establish fast tracks to facilitate the orderly flow of people,” Xi told fellow world leaders.
China already heavily restricts travel through the “social credit” system. The state brands individuals with low social credit “untrustworthy” and bans them from buying tickets to travel, even within the country, if their score is too low. As of March 2019, Chinese state media boasted that over 13 million people no longer had the right to travel within China thanks to that system.
“As of March, 13.49 million individuals have been classified as untrustworthy and rejected access to 20.47 million plane tickets and 5.71 million high-speed train tickets for being dishonest,” the Global Times reported in May of that year, without elaborating on the offending “dishonesty.”
Human rights activists around the world have warned that China uses the social credit system to limit the rights of political dissidents, religious groups, and others considered a threat to communism, rather than just individuals with records of crime.
The Connection Between World War C & Psychological Processes Is Seriously Concerning
By By Andrew Korybko - 03. November 2020
COVID-19 is real and it's very deadly for at-risk members of the population, but the historically unprecedented full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes catalyzed by the world's uncoordinated attempt to contain it have been greatly influenced by psychological processes that continue to be taken advantage of in order to politically exploit the pandemic, the observation of which should be seriously concerning for everyone.
The Connection That Few Dare To Discuss
There's been enormous speculation swirling across the world since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic earlier this year, with many people wondering whether the disease is even real, or if so, whether it was man-made or naturally occurring like the World Health Organization (WHO) claims. What they should instead be paying attention to, however, is the course of World War C, which is the author's term for the historically unprecedented full-spectrum paradigm-changing processes catalyzed by the world' uncoordinated attempt to contain this virus. To be absolutely clear, COVID-19 is real and it's very deadly for at-risk members of the population, but the aforementioned processes that were unleashed have been greatly influenced by psychological processes that continue to be taken advantage of in order to politically exploit the pandemic. The purpose of this piece is to explain as clearly as possible that the connection between World War C and psychological processes should be seriously concerning for everyone.
Catalyzing The “Information Cascade”
Whatever the virus' true origin may be (which the author believes are naturally occurring), the first COVID-19 outbreak in China brought this disease to worldwide attention. The People's Republic is the second-largest economy in the world and wouldn't have shut down in January unless the Communist Party of China (CPC) believed that this step was absolutely necessary to contain the pandemic. Critics claim that the CPC wanted to infect the rest of the world since it didn't cancel international flights, but the responsibility for the virus spreading beyond its borders arguably rests with those countries which allowed such flights to land in their territory. They had the sovereign right to take precautionary measures banning those flights like the US did early on if they really wanted to, but some might have feared the economic wrath of China in response if it turned out that COVID-19 really wasn't all that big of a deal. Others absurdly claimed not to trust the CPC 's explanation of the virus' origin yet also said that they trusted its decision to keep international flights open.
China's calculations were driven by its self-interests, just like everyone else's as will soon be explained. The country waited until its scientists were absolutely sure about how serious COVID-19 was before they took the fateful step to shut down their economy. That decision inadvertently triggered what's described in the behavioral and social sciences as an “information cascade”. In simple terms, this concept refers to chain reactions within and between complex systems whereby the initial decision that a key actor makes in what's usually a binary choice ends up significantly influencing what others after it end up doing as well. In the opening stages of World War C when little was known about the virus' lethality, China's decision to shut down its economy unwittingly influenced the rest of the world to follow in its footsteps out of an abundance of caution related to their view that Beijing wouldn't have made such a fateful move unless COVID-19 was an extremely serious threat to mankind.
Order Out Of Chaos
This in turn led to the EU, the US, Russia, and India shutting down their economies as well, which thus stopped globalization in its tracks. Since then, it's been convincingly argued by some scientists and commentators (whose work can be read at Off-Guardian among other places) that COVID-19 actually isn't as deadly as it was initially thought to be except for at-risk members of the population. It might even be that some of the major countries that followed China's lead were even well aware of this shortly after they shut down their economies too but may have wagered that a global pandemic is the best possible pretext to radically restructure the global economy per what many now describe as “The Great Reset” strategy in response to the seemingly inevitable changes that might soon be brought about by the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (4IR). That's not at all to say that “everyone was in on it ahead of time”, but just that the the self-interest which characterizes human nature may have kicked in and inspired some decision makers to exploit the crisis to that end and others.
To explain, many countries might have initially had sincere intentions to save their populations from what they truly believed would be the impending collapse of their healthcare systems had they not shut everything down, but political forces within them soon realized that they could advance their authoritarian ambitions to usher in what the author previously described as the COVID World Order of a techno-fascist dystopia. Still others such as the US saw a prime opportunity to “manage” the stock market crash that would have inevitably followed its record-high gains of the past year, gambling that the resultant chaos that was sweeping the world could create new opportunities to advance American interests at everyone else's expense, especially its key competitors like China. So-called “rogue states” such as Iran might have went along with this not only for epidemiological reasons, but to virtue signal to the rest of the world that they're “responsible” states which abide by “international norms”. Meanwhile, impoverished countries might have done so in pursuit of future debt relief.
Debunking The Ridiculous Speculation About A Secret Global Scheme
Once again, it cannot be emphasized enough just how ridiculous it is to speculate that “everyone was in on it ahead of time”, including hated rivals such as Iran and “Israel”. It might superficially seem so to cynical minds predisposed for whatever their reasons may be into believing that “secret societies” or other shadowy forces really rule the world, but the arguable reality is that these seemingly coordinated moves are actually the result of the independent assertion of various self-interests (e.g. protecting people, advancing authoritarianism, “managing” the stock market collapse, pushing forward “The Great Reset”, earning sympathy from the international community, etc.) triggered by an “information cascade” flowing throughout throughout the world's complex supersystem. The inevitable order that's gradually emerging out of this chaos has resulted in the natural convergence of some key players' uncoordinated pursuit of their self-interests, which in this respect collectively manifests itself in the overarching trend pointing towards “The Great Reset”.
Politically Exploiting The Pandemic
Every country of economic significance seems to be scrambling to prepare themselves for what their leaders appear to sincerely believe is the inevitable “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, though they're going about it in different ways. The expectation that the automation and digitalization of many jobs will lead to the large-scale replacement of many workers with AI is predicted to result in greater individual dependence on the government, which is preemptively being forced upon many of them through lockdowns and subsequent economic stimulus packages that might ultimately lead to a policy of so-called “universal basic income”. In order to enforce compliance, the authorities overexaggerate the lethality of COVID-19 so as to keep the population imprisoned in the homes out of fear, while those who dare to venture outside are forced to wear masks even though their effectiveness in preventing infection isn't perfect like they've been officially portrayed. Masks also serve the purpose of psychologically reassuring the population that they can survive the pandemic.
The above-mentioned observations aren't just the author's “reckless speculation” like some critics might reactively claim in an attempt to discredit him, but proven by the fact that some Western countries selectively apply double standards towards the lockdown. The most perfect example of this is the US' Democrat-led states strictly enforcing the lockdown against all members of their population except those who want to wantonly burn, loot, riot, and even murder in the name of Antifa and “Black Lives Matter”. That alone proves that even they, Trump's harshest critics regarding his handling of the pandemic, don't seriously think that COVID-19 is as dangerous as they make it out to be otherwise they wouldn't dare let their supporters (and thus future voters) risk their lives carrying out such irresponsible acts just before the election. If anything, they'd have approved of Trump rallies so that his supporters would end up killing themselves en masse, but of course none of that ever happened which should make any objective observer doubt the official narrative about COVID-19's lethality.
To review the insight that's been shared thus far, readers should accept the existence of “information cascades” in complex systems, both concepts of which might require some googling in order to better understand. The general idea is that the world is a super complex network of interdependent systems as a result of economic and information globalization processes that one unprecedented move such as China shutting down its economy in response to COVID-19 was enough to set into motion a system-wide chain reaction. Everyone else locked down out of fear that the virus was really as deadly as it was initially thought to be, but soon thereafter many key players realized that the resultant economic devastation could be exploited to advance their interests at their competitors' expense as well as promote what some had already previously planned would eventually be “The Great Reset” for facilitating the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”. Eventually, their independently asserted self-interests gradually converged in this direction, which then compelled weaker countries to fall in line.
Reflecting upon the phenomenon of “information cascades” in complex systems reveals that many countries' publicly proclaimed distrust of China isn't sincere. If they really thought that the CPC was as devious as they present it to be, then they wouldn't have shut down their own economies out of an abundance of caution that maybe the party was telling the truth if it would take such a dramatic step as shutting down the world's second-largest economy in response to a viral outbreak. Those that kept flights open from China might have done so either because they feared the country's economic wrath if COVID-19 turned out to not be all that big of a deal and they were accused of “racism” and/or “ganging up” on China, or because they didn't believe the CPC and simply wanted to continue profiting off of their business relations with China for as long as possible. Soon enough, however, all key players had their own separate reasons for going along with the global shutdown, though these reasons are now rapidly converging towards “The Great Reset”, World War C's expected outcome.
Contemplating the connection between World War C and psychological processes leads to seriously concerning conclusions. Firstly, mankind's so-called “collective mind” is easily influenced by systemic shocks and the resultant fear that they produce. Secondly, the global “hives'” “worker bees” (average people) are just as easily manipulated by their “queens” (the elite) into indefinitely complying with economically self-destructive demands which don't do much to contain the contagion like is claimed. Thirdly, these selfsame demands obviously aren't motivated by the “worker bees''” best interests, but for the “queen's” own self-interested ones related to expanding her power over the rest of the “hive”. “The Great Reset” requires the immediate onset of massive unemployment, poverty, and government dependence in order to “succeed”, hence the regular lockdowns to that end. As a closing note, COVID-19 is real and very deadly for some, but that doesn't mean that it's accurately portrayed, nor that the state's response to it is sincere and not driven by ulterior motives.
Andrew Korybko - American political analyst
LOCKDOWNS in China (2021)
By SPR - 11. February 2021
Video footage of recent and current lockdowns in major Chinese cities. The videos show city districts getting closed off, often without advance notice; mandatory mass PCR testing of millions of people;newly built insulation facilities; apartment doors getting sealed and building doors getting welded shut; people in closed off buildings crying for food, or jumping out of the window to their death.