Trump, China, and the New World Order

[renard_ruse]

Like many, including those who are generally "aware" of what's really going on in world affairs (not the mainstream narrative we are told), I have been puzzled by Trump's position toward China, as well as China's positions toward and position in the New World Order.

In short, China has been giving out conflicting signals for a while about its position toward the New World Order and global elite led world government. While it plays up nationalism with its own people to gain political support for itself and give legitimacy to its unelected rule by the Communist Party, and has been pursuing military buildup, South China Sea colonization, and involvement both economically and politically in many parts of the third world (especially in Africa), its also been happy to host internation forums and sign UN treaties, as well as pimping its own internationalist free trade agenda throught its 16+1 and One Road One Belt international initiatives, etc.

Xi Jinping is the main attraction at the Davos globalist summit and claims he wants China to be the driving force to help implement the western liberal capitalist world government. At the same time, the Chinese government and Xi speak strongly for the sanctity of national sovereignty and for a multipolar world, similar to Russia.

It could be either a case that its leaders don't really know which path to take or part of a deliberate strategy with various possible aims, perhaps buying time to continue a military buildup.

Its also possible it wants to become the dominant world power in the future and could potentially take over control of the New World Order from its western mega-rich elites that started it and control Davos/Bilderberg, etc, in the future.

Finally, it could want a world order but built on its own leadership such as its proposals for the 16+1 and One Belt One Road programs.

Or it could simply be a case of different factions in the leadership being liberal globalists and others being devout nationalists and perhaps others still clinging to some romantic socialist notions of international cooperation.

 

[hashtag46]

Like many, including those who are generally "aware" of what's really going on in world affairs (not the mainstream narrative we are told),
I have been puzzled by China's positions toward and position in the New World Order.


In short, China has been giving out conflicting signals for a while about its position toward the New World Order and global elite led world government.
--- While it plays up nationalism with its own people to gain political support for itself and give legitimacy to its unelected rule by the Communist Party,
and has been pursuing military buildup, South China Sea colonization, and involvement both economically and politically in many parts of the third world (especially in Africa),
-- its also been happy to host internation forums and sign UN treaties, as well as pimping its own internationalist free trade agenda throught its 16+1 and One Road One Belt international initiatives, etc.
Xi Jinping is the main attraction at the Davos globalist summit and claims he wants China to be the driving force to help implement the western liberal capitalist world government.


It could be either a case
-- that its leaders don't really know which path to take or part of a deliberate strategy with various possible aims, perhaps buying time to continue a military buildup.
-- Its also possible it wants to become the dominant world power in the future and could potentially take over control of the New World Order from its western mega-rich elites that started it and control Davos/Bilderberg, etc, in the future.
Finally, it could want a world order but built on its own leadership such as its proposals for the 16+1 and One Belt One Road programs.
-- Or it could simply be a case of different factions in the leadership being liberal globalists and others being devout nationalists and perhaps others still clinging to some romantic socialist notions of international cooperation.

Wow. Excellent thread. It's logic could partly apply to a few happenings the US and Eu too, tho
I just put it in bullet points to make it easier to follow.

Like many, including those who are generally "aware" of what's really going on in world affairs (not the mainstream narrative we are told), I have been puzzled by
Trump's position toward China.

Which is

 

[phrodeau]

Trump's position is that China needs to pay its dues, or it'll get kicked out of the New World Order.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I love it when someone starts a thread stating pretty much, I can see through the conspiracy, too bad most of you cannot.


What China and Russia are doing is simple; they are projecting strength into the power vacuum created by weakness.

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/443903/print

What Trump needs to do is change the policy of weapons sales to Taiwan, i.e., stop selling them relics and start selling them the real means to defend themselves against Communist tyranny and aggression. If we do not get our carriers back to the region, and soon, there is the danger of Japan rapidly militarizing and nuking up.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Like many, including those who are generally "aware" of what's really going on in world affairs (not the mainstream narrative we are told) . . .

Not much point in reading further, is there?

 

[hashtag46]

Do you actually have something to contribute?

You Trmp bad versus Hillary bad crowd always try to derride anything that tries to go further than that

Renard always comes up with interesting things that try to look at more globa. systemic issues.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Do you actually have something to contribute?

Not to something as silly and dismissable as "Like many, including those who are generally "aware" of what's really going on in world affairs (not the mainstream narrative we are told) . . ."

 

[hashtag46]

"When I have no clue how to bring arguments against to the table or to defend my position, I try to attack the source by focusing on semantics or irrelevant matters ".
Typical GB tactic

 

[KingOrfeo]

"When I have no clue how to bring arguments against to the table or to defend my position, I try to attack the source by focusing on semantics or irrelevant matters ".
Typical GB tactic

It has nothing to do with semantics or irrelevant matters. I understood perfectly well what renard was trying to say. The problem, rather, is that the whole content of renard's world-view is utterly and sadly detached from reality. If you don't know that, you must be new here.

 

[hashtag46]

Double post

 

[hashtag46]

It has nothing to do with semantics or irrelevant matters. I understood perfectly well what renard was trying to say. The problem, rather, is that the whole content of renard's world-view is utterly and sadly detached from reality.

I and several other foreign posters (underguy being the last one) noticed that quite a few people from the US or other Commonwealth countries are indoctrinated and label any idea that doesn't fit their mould as being stupid or conspiratorial. Plus they have a skewed view of how the rest of the world works.

Renard's ideas might be right or wrong (I don't have enough knowledge to be able to judge) but he looks at things from different vantage points. His threads could be the start of excellent discussions.

Those Trump bad versus Obama bad are getting repetitive and silly.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I and several other foreign posters (underguy being the last one) noticed that quite a few people from the US or other Commonwealth countries are indoctrinated and label any idea that doesn't fit their mould as being stupid or conspiratorial. Plus they have a skewed view of how the rest of the world works.

Renard's ideas might be right or wrong (I don't have enough knowledge to be able to judge) but he looks at things from different vantage points. His threads could be the start of excellent discussions.

The foreign policy doctrine in which most Americans have been indoctrinated for the past 15 years is neoconservatism, which is bad enough, being rooted as it is in hubris, Cold War triumphalism, and economic libertarianism. But renard's tradition is paleoconservatism, which is even worse, being rooted in racism, ethnocentrism, narrow-minded bigotry and fundie morality. This should give you a clue: renard publicly here admired Vladimir Putin long before we found out Trump does -- and, apparently, admired him solely for his homophobia. No interesting discussions can come of that.

 

[hashtag46]

"The "New World Order" isn't a conspiracy theory, just because nutcases like Alex Jones and so on latched on to the idea.

Parts of the idea are true.

Why woild there be an "Agenda 21" website otherwise, and why would it be included in the platform of so many organizations like The United Nations or European Union?
Plus NATO

ETA
I'm aware of some of Renard's RW views which I don't share or like either, but that's not the isdue here. Outside of those, he often brings up interesting stuff

 

[KingOrfeo]

"The "New World Order" isn't a conspiracy theory, just because nutcases like Alex Jones and so on latched on to the idea.

Parts of the idea are true.

What is true is that the New World Order -- as George H.W. Bush intended the phrase when he used it -- is simply the international order that emerged after the Cold War ended. All it really means is that we have returned to the old Westphalian order in which independent states pursuing their interests are nothing more or less than independent states pursuing their interests; the ideological conflict between Communism and capitalism is no longer a defining factor in international relations, all of that is as dead as the system of colonial empires. What is not true is that the New World Order is some shadowy cabal aiming at some international order any different from what we have now.

Why woild there be an "Agenda 21" website otherwise, and why would it be included in the platform of so many organizations like The UN or Eu?

Why wouldn't there be? Agenda 21 is nothing but a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the UN regarding sustainable development.

Plis the Du and NAYO are precisely about that.

Don't know what you mean by Du, but that certainly is not what NATO is about.

 

[hashtag46]

Ok, thanks for making time and explaining things; now I understand a bit more those issues.

That was also my point.
It benefits the rest of us a lot more when posters challenge or dismantle ideas that they disagree with in this way, than the typical GB way.

 

[hashtag46]

"Trump to sign executive order to withdraw from TPP".

I wonder why and what will be the ripple effects of that