Authenticating China’s Strategy: Letter to a friend

From time to time, Global Geopolitics will post an article in its entirety. This serves to be a case in point. From geopolitical expert, JR Nyquist’s August/September, 2012 column on his website, validating China’s true intention is the topic at hand. It’s highly recommended that visitors also pursue his weekly columns for in-depth knowledge and additional insight on all things geopolitical.

The following commentary should be appended to a discussion of the alleged speech of General Chi Haotian about destroying and invading the United States: In this regard you suggest (1) that the speech is a hoax. This is entirely possible, although close analysis tends in another direction. Strategy is my subject and my life-longstudy. Believe it or not, it is possible in strategy to know certain things indirectly, by inference and analysis. After careful consideration, with regard to the speeches attributed to General Chi, I think it is unwise to say “we don’t know” and “it doesn’t matter.” In fact, it’s not impossible to analyze a documentto determine its authenticity. Here is a task entirely within the reach of a strategic analyst. Furthermore, if the document is authentic then it matters agreat deal; for the enemy’s intentions are laid bare, with countless implications (and potential war-winning insights). When we first encounter an unfamiliar text, we don’t know how to judge it. We are completely lost, and this is normal. Those who claim to understand something on first contact are deceiving themselves. Nothing worth knowing is understood immediately. When I first read the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian my reaction was to dismiss them as you did. When I read the first paragraph of the second speech, I rolled my eyes and laughed at what seemed to be an obvious fraud. At first reading they were not credible. (This is the same reaction I had to Golitsyn in 1984). Two years elapsed and, as chance would have it, I was doing some research on Mao Zedong’s strategic ideas. In the midst of this research I was stunned by Mao’s determination to build a fleet and invade North America. I was also struck by the brutality and cynicism of his statements. I went back and started re-reading SunTzu and the commentaries on Sun Tzu. My mind suddenly drifted back to the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian.

On my second reading I realized these speeches are only incredible from a Western point of view. From a Chinese strategist’s point of view, these speeches are consistent with 2,500 years of Chinese history and thought. There is nothing inauthentic in these two speeches. If they are a hoax, then a genius produced them. More than that, this aforesaid genius possesses authentic tidbits of military intelligence that are not known by the general public — but were revealed to me by a high-ranking Russian military defector with more than three years experience in China. Mao once said that the first Chin emperor was nothing compared with himself. The first Chin emperor only killed a thousand Confucian scholars. Mao had killed hundreds of thousands of Confucian scholars. This was Mao’s boast. Such boasting is unknown to Western history, except to figures who are dismissed as madmen. One is reminded of the Chinese warlord whose father was taken prisoner and held hostage by a rival. In this instance, the rival threatened to boil the old man alive. The war lord sent his reply: “Save me some of the soup.” One has to dig through the Dark Ages of Western history to find anything like it. Or else it is something from the history of Caligula or Nero or Eliagabulus, who were considered dreadful failures and misfits. In China such behavior on the part of leaders has long been normalized. The Western ethic, which followed from the hero-worship of the ancient Greeks and Romans, places nobility as the true standard of greatness.

Chinese civilization places a high premium on realistic thinking, brutality and success. This is greatness in the Chinese context. How does this point argue the authenticity of the alleged speeches of General Chi? A person who disagrees with the strategic culture of China, favoring freedom and humane government, doesn’t possess the mentality needed to reproduce such abrilliant piece of mimicry. One would have to be a student of Sun Tzu and the Chin emperor and Mao Zedong, not a student of Thomas Jefferson or Lincoln. Such astudent would not value freedom, having absorbed a philosophy entirely at odds with Western culture. More than that, it is a culture that believes in the West’s weakness and inevitable fall. If you were going to advance a fraudulent speech by a Chinese communist leader, would you dare put into his mouth the statement that Nazi Germany was “too soft”? Would you dare open your first paragraph with the assertion that you are pleased that 80 percent of Chinese polled would approve killing women and children in a war? Anyone with the sophistication to produce this document would have avoided going so far, fearing that the reader would laugh out loud at such an obvious propaganda fraud. Only a simple person would start Chi’s second speech with that kind of paragraph, and a simple person did not compose this speech!

To make a credible fraud, you have to downplay the wickedness of the Communists. You must be subtle in your presentation so that the fraud has a chance to sound credible. But the Chi speech is not subtle as a fraudulent presentation would have to be. Instead, it is deep and profound and brilliant in its totalitarian perspective. The compassion for the American victims comes late in the second speech, long after the skeptics would’ve stopped reading it. I do not know if the speech is genuine. But if I had to lay a bet, then I’d wager on its authenticity. That is to say, I suspect it is authentic. And the way to test its authenticity is to see if Chinese actions are consistent with its program. There is something more, as well. I know from my discussions with a Russian defector that Russia and China agreed to split North America between them as follows: Russia would get Alaska and parts of Canada, while China would get the lower 48 states (which contains the best land). The agreement on this was affirmed by the Russian General Staff in early 1992. This joint agreement on a future wa ragainst America is the basis for the Sino-Russian alliance. And if you read General Chi’s speech carefully, you will see that he brilliantly lays out the logic of the Chinese offensive and their means of advancing. He does not mention Russia’s role because Party cadres don’t need to know about Russia’s military contribution. They only need the most general strategic outline and why the war is necessary. You must read this speech several times in order to understand its profound science. If this speech is counterfeit, the counterfeiter spent many years devising it. In fact, a hoax of this type could only be produced, as I noted before, by a genuis. If General Chi was not the author, then the author should be a general — and ought to have General Chi’s job.

In point (2) you mention 9/11. Chi’s speech explains why a false flag terror attack is necessary in advance of a biological warfare offensive against the United States. As would be proper, General Chi gives nothing away. He merely implies that the Americans will not know who is really attacking them. This is intrinsic to his speech, even though he doesn’t spare words explaining why. In point (3) you ask if this is good propaganda material against communism. Since our goal is to understand the enemy, the propaganda value is of secondary importance. importance. If these speeches are authentic, our activism must counter the Chinese.

Full article: Authenticating China’s Strategy: Letter to a friend (JR Nyquist)

Comments are closed.