THE SCHMEXPERTS SAY, 'STOP CHINA NOW!'

   An old colleague of mine used to have a nickname for a certain class of pompous blowhards which he termed schmexperts. In small towns and rural areas, schmexperts can be found on most barstools, which is a second home for many of them. In cities and college towns, schmexperts are like gadflies in coffee houses, hookah-lounges, and generally anywhere an audience can be ginned up. A schmexpert is an 'expert' on anything---just ask one and he'll tell you so himself. 

   In recent years, many of this type manages to get a college degree or two (which in this day and age isn't especially difficult), and hire themselves out to interested parties who promote them because they have one necessary skill: the ability to sound as though they know what they are talking about. If they can add titles before, or initials after, their names and belong to some pretentious-sounding think-tank so much the better. Their track-record for accuracy is usually quite pathetic; but these days, that doesn't matter, since owning the narrative is the important thing. In a culture where the ability to think critically is a lost art, men who once would have been nothing but obnoxious bar-flies in less exceptional times can now make a handsome living running their mouths in the Corporate Media. 

   And some say the American Dream is dead...

      In Postmodern American Culture, the pundit serves a broad sociopolitical purpose much the same way that Artificial Intelligence is employed for more mundane tasks: it is a substitute for the necessity of thinking. Often, pundits can be quite dangerous because they lend the air of authority to absurd schemes which frequently end in disaster. 

    Unfortunately, Conservatives are not immune to heeding schmexperts; in fact, they seem to be multiplying on our side like toadstools. One of the most appalling examples came out today in article titled Xi's Leadership is in Crisis: Now is the Time to Act, which basically is chiding the Democrats for being weenies and not engaging China militarily. Aside from the fact that our Pentagon couldn't fight its way out of a paper sack if it had to, the article reads like it was written by two insular academics who don't realize that Chairman Mao died in 1976 and that China has changed since then. This shouldn't be surprising, since the co-authors are both connected to the shady Center for Security Policy---an organization founded by arch-Neocon Frank Gaffney and whose membership reads about like the roll-call of a Bush Machine fundraiser. Current and past members include Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearle, John Bolton, and John Kyl; and a host of their lesser-known flunkies. Their current head of Military Policy is Gen. Paul Vallely, one of the architects of the Pentagon's Psyop Program along with Satanic Cult leader, Col. Michael Aquino.

   The authors state that "there is a growing body of evidence that indicates the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is in freefall. {Query: what evidence?} If true, this makes Xi Jinping more dangerous as it increases the likelihood of an attack against Taiwan. It also means Xi’s regime, the CCP, is extremely vulnerable to pressure from America, and the rest of the free world, to evict them from power."

   In the first paragraph, they demonstrate their complete ignorance of Chinese politics. Yes, Xi has some opposition within the Party, but the Communist Party Constitution reads: "Party Members have a right to make a statement of reservation and present their views to a Party organization at a higher level, up to and including the Central Committee, in case of disagreement with a Party resolution or policy, on the condition that they resolutely implement the resolution or policy in question while it is in force." This means in substance---and this is a point made throughout their governing document---that the cohesion of the Party is above any personal interest. The authors make the ignorant assumption that the Communists operate like the DNC or RNC does in the US; where personal vendettas and intrigues are not only tolerated but encouraged. Pressure from America is actually strengthening the Party, as anybody who bothers to read a Chinese News source can see for themselves. 

   Polls in China currently are favorable to engaging Taiwan and it's actually been the Party which is showing restraint. Their reasoning is that Taiwan is a valuable economic entity, and China would rather have it join voluntarily and intact than have the Peoples' Liberation Army move in and destroy half the island. Xi didn't deploy the PLA during the recent Soros-backed attempted Color Revolution in Hong Kong for the same reason. 

   The authors' whole premise in playing the Taiwan Card is disingenuous anyway. If Xi is as unstable as they imagine; if the Chinese economy really is near collapse; and the Chinese people really were looking for an opportunity to revolt---why would he engage in a major military operation which would precipitate all of these calamities? 

   "Xi and the CCP face a deeper problem than the lasting economic downturn in China and myriad of social problems the Chinese regime confronts—problems that cannot be papered over by Xi’s prominence at the BRICS meeting or at any other international fora." This is a complete lie; because the Chinese economic 'downturn' is not even close to an economic collapse. Their economy 'slowed down' to a growth rate that is still 2-3 times higher than ours, even with the fudged numbers of Bidenomics 'experts,' and production in many sectors has recovered. What 'myriad of social problems' the authors are referring to is anybody's guess. 

   For the next six paragraphs, the authors state that China's problem is that it has a Communist Government, and it's really tedious reading. It sounds like a cut-and-paste text from a 1950s documentary about the Iron Curtain countries, but nothing even remotely relevant to China then---or now. 

   As further proof that these two 'experts' have never even read the Communist Party of China's Constitution, they spout that  "Xi is destined to fail so long as China is ruled by an imported Western ideology—communism. The Chinese people have recognized that to accept communism in China requires the rejection of China’s political principles of unity, dynastic government, avoidance of chaos, and respect for the people as a foundation for China’s polity. A Chinese polity requires the acceptance of the traditional political system and the rejection of imported ideologies." The Chinese Constitution relates in many places that their intention is to pursue a form of Marxism suited to Chinese culture and circumstances. For example, China recognizes the authority of the family, and their Social Services have less power to intervene in a family than any American State's agencies do. They have socialized medicine which also covers Traditional Chinese Medicine (Obamacare does not). 

  One of the authors, Bradley Thayer, in fact, is a staff-writer at the Epoch Times, a publication run by the Falun Gong cult. Cultish propaganda is evident in statements like: "What Xi’s problems should mean for the Biden administration is that this is the right time to put pressure on the CCP and allow the people of China to evict them from power. Working with the Chinese people and diaspora, the U.S., its allies, and people of goodwill throughout the world should call attention to Xi’s abuses and misrule... That is the best way to save the Chinese people from tyranny and avoid the path to a major crisis or war on which Xi has placed the world. It would save countless lives of civilians in the region and of American Sailors, Soldiers, Airman, and Marines." US intervention in China is something that both of these cults have promoted for decades. The cultish language again appears at the conclusion of their tome: "It is likely that the Biden administration will not do this as it would be a heresy to their religion of engagement with the PRC and their acceptance of the legitimacy of the CCP."  

   It should be noted that the Falun Gong are very similar to the Moonie Cult in that they worship their leader as a false messiah, and teach that Communism is represented under the satanic motifs referenced in the Book of Revelation. They were banned in China in 1999, and since have been received as great heroes by the US Deep State. Much of their vast wealth comes from the taxpayer-subsidized WEF/CIA cutout, the National Endowment for Democracy. The Corporate Media (also heavily funded by NED) takes great pains to smear anyone who exposes the cult. Falun Gong today is headquartered in a highly secretive compound just north of the City of New York. They've been granted tax exemptions by the State and seem to enjoy many other hands-off privileges by governments at all levels.

    The co-author, James Fanell, is a retired Naval Intelligence Officer who works at the Center for Security Policy's branch in Geneva, Switzerland. Two other members of that organization, Johanna Ralston-Lamb, and Nayef Al-Rodhan are World Economic Forum members---the latter of whom was "in 2017,was named amongst the Top 100 geostrategists in the World, and in 2022, was named as one of the Top 50 influential researchers whose work could shape 21st-century politics and policy." Some of the Center's top corporate funding sources include defense contractors Raytheon, General Dynamics, Northrup-Grumman, General Electric, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing, the latter two of which are contributing partners to the WEF. The current Chairman of the Center for Security Policy is Miles Prentice, a multimillionaire attorney, "a partner at the law firm Eaton & Van Winkle LLP where his specialty is international and domestic commercial and financial law. His Eaton profile says he has extensive experience in the 'acquisition of companies, formation of joint enterprises, transfers of technology, financings (through the public markets and privately, including asset and project-based financings) and general operations.'"

    It's certainly interesting how these same shady characters and the same questionable organizations always seem to turn up in the same places with identical narratives, does it not? 

    These two authors seem to be laboring under the further delusion that the Chinese people can't wait to overthrow their Government and be 'liberated' like the former Iron Curtain and Russia was during the 1990s---as if the Chinese people hadn't seen governments subordinated to the US Deep State; the massive corporate looting and cultural degeneracy that was imported into Russia under Yeltsin; the anti-American protests occurring on a regular basis in Eastern Europe---sure, the Chinese desperately would love to see that repeated in their own country. 

    As we saw at the recent BRICS and ASEAN Summits, people not only in China but all across the globe are looking at China as a defender of their countries against the cultural, economic, and military exploitation of the Wall Street freebooters currently running our own nation and culture into the ground. Their schemes for a 'Great Reset' where a significant portion of China's 1 1/2 billion people is slated for genocide depopulation while the rest work in sweatshops to maintain the grandeur of Western financial Oligarchs probably doesn't appeal to the Chinese either. 

    On top of their ignorance of China, the authors demonstrate a profound ignorance of History. "A feature of Communism," they proclaim, "is that no ruler is secure." Apparently they've forgotten that Stalin, the Kim Jong Dynasty, Fidel Castro, Marshal Tito, Enver Hoxha, and Chairman Mao himself who ruled Communist countries for decades until their deaths from natural causes. 

    These two 'intel experts' know about as much about China as the average customer at Panda Express knows. If any American Administration acted on their advice, what it would accomplish is backing China into a corner---we see how well this strategy worked with Russia. Not that the Oligarchs care; the Military-Industrial Complex, Big Ag, and the Energy Cartels have made substantial profits bankrupting Europe and sacrificing men and material into Ukraine. No doubt they hope the same profits from inciting a war in East Asia; and given the Center for Security Policy's deep ties to defense contractors, it's likely the case. 

   In reality, though, most articles of these types will accomplish nothing except to stir up political tensions, not only between the US and China, but further divide Americans over more imaginary 'crises.' If by chance a Republican becomes President in 2024, watch for the Official Narrative to shift suddenly to: "Thanks to the Democrats, we missed our 'window of opportunity' to stop China! Now they're too strong! So you mustn't mind happily spending more tax dollars on the Military-Industrial Complex, right? You do? Why, you Commie Pinko---you're either with us or against us!" 

    It really wouldn't hurt most Americans---Liberal or Conservative---if they stopped for a few minutes and starting asking themselves if what they're hearing is the truth. Unfortunately, though, most Americans want drama instead of solutions, and the two parties, the Corporate Media and Academic Mafia have learned that the sale of fear is a valuable commodity, indeed.