China y el 'gran reinicio'

Cómo el Partido Comunista Chino y los globalistas tecnológicos occidentales vendieron un bloqueo al mundo

 

 
 
 
 
 

Desde el 20 al 24 de enero de 2020, el 50º Foro Económico Mundial se reunió en los S Wiss ciudad de Davos. Al mismo tiempo, el 23 de enero, China impuso el primer bloqueo en la historia de la humanidad y comenzó la avalancha global de cobertura de corona. Apenas unos días después, el director de la OMS, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, ya estaba elogiando el método de China como "sentar un precedente". Casi todos los países del mundo copiaron a China en los meses siguientes. Mientras tanto, Klaus Schwab, presidente ejecutivo del WEF, esperaba con ansias la oportunidad única en la vida de un “gran reinicio” que conjuró de su sombrero frente al público global en Davos. Cada día adicional de bloqueo brinda ganancias increíbles a las grandes empresas tecnológicas, farmacéuticas y monetarias. Sobre accidentes y convergencias de intereses en el siglo XXI.

6 de marzo de 2020, Wuhan. "¡Falso, falso, todo es falso!" Suena estridente desde los rascacielos de Wuhan cuando la vicepresidenta china, Sun Chunlan, y su delegación de Pekin tienen una idea por sí mismos de la situación en la peligrosa zona infectada. El paisaje es inquietante: una atmósfera distópica del fin de los tiempos, calles vacías de gente en medio de bloques de viviendas grises; sólo el círculo alrededor del cuadro interno de Xi Jinping avanza a grandes zancadas. Las llamadas intrusas de los ciudadanos encerrados de Wuhan rompen el silencio: "¡Falso!" ellos llaman, "protestamos" y "formalismo!" - ¡más o menos análogo a la "política simbólica"! (1).

Wuhan was the first metropolis in the world to be locked down; 19 million people were locked up in their apartments for five weeks in its wake. A partial lockdown was imposed on over 57 million people in the Hubei region (2). The people in Wuhan were not excited; promised government help for neighborhoods frequently did not arrive. Pictures of people calling desperately from their high-rise windows were even broadcast on Chinese State media, likely to maintain discursive sovereignty over the event (3). The Guardian also covered it (4).

 On YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, however, other videos from Wuhan went viral — notably on American platforms that are forbidden in China (5). The world marveled no small amount at the allegedly leaked video of a “Falling Man”, a civil servant abruptly collapsing on an open street. Apparently in consequence of an acute case of Corona pneumonia (6).
 

Certainly, evil tongues found fault with the fact that he caught himself surprisingly well with his hands. In another video, a man gets out of a car and removes his mask. A special forces unit falls on him immediately, throws a butterfly net over his head from behind and leads him away in handcuffs (7). A troupe in protective suits hurries assiduously to the scene and disinfects the place where he stood. Videos from Chinese state media like CCTV, in which fully armored cleaning crews and disinfection vehicles water-blast the inner city, also go viral (8).

 

Who arranged it so that such perfectly orchestrated images from the infected area of Wuhan were seen and shared millions of times on Western social media platforms? Who benefitted from the onset of global panic in the face of the Corona killer-virus and from the narrative of a successful Chinese fight against the pandemic, brought about by a hard lockdown unprecedented in the history of medicine — although foreign journalists had been expelled from the country since February?(9)

At the end of march, as nearly all countries on earth, domino-like, imposed lockdowns, the American lawyer and investigative journalist Michael P. Senger of Atlanta pricked up his ears. He asked himself why bitterly poor countries who had next to no cases of Covid and who were barely affected because of their low average age would almost formulaically implement the Chinese lockdown model — despite the fact that collapsing supply chains and curfews would inevitably bring hundreds of millions of people worldwide to the edge of starvation.

After ample research, Senger came to the conclusion that we’re dealing with a large-scale “Information Operation,” a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) info-war. Senger’s solid findings about the machinations of the CCP form the basis for this article and present, in my view, the missing puzzle piece without which the current situation of the world community cannot be understood. Senger’s main thesis in his article “China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda,” which is very much worth reading, is that lockdowns are not evidence-based, but rather Chinese state propaganda in the interest of a flu d’état — of a government coup on the basis of a virus, with a little help from the export of damaging, pseudo-scientific measures (10). The weight of the evidence that he brings is overwhelming. He documents hundreds of serious publications on his Twitter account (@michaelpsenger) that plausibly suggest a geo-strategically motivated fake by the CCP. In a thread entitled “Open Letter to Xi Jinping,” Senger demonstrates 70 “fakes” China used in order to promote its worldwide pandemic management, amongst which are “fake pandemic response, fake infection data, fake hospitals, fake WHO representatives, fake humanism, fake whistleblowers,” to name just a few points from the striking list (11). In Senger’s account, “fake social media accounts,” commonly called “bots,” play a central role.

Bots are fake accounts on Social Media. Often, they are generated by algorithms, but also increasingly by people in poor or totalitarian countries who get paid for propaganda comments in the interests of their client. At the beginning of May, Twitter was made aware of greatly increased activity from Chinese bot networks by the US State Department and asked to delete 250,000 fake accounts that were serving as an echo chamber for CCP propaganda and disinformation. Twitter declined to close the effected accounts and quickly claimed that they could identify no indicators of propaganda activity, but that they would keep an eye on the network’s activities. Twitter is caught in a dilemma: when the company initiated an investigation into bot activities in 2018, the stock price fell. There may also be other good reasons for purposely turning a blind eye: Twitter is one of the digital companies that profits financially from each further day of lockdown. Only after the theme made big waves in the media did Twitter step in and delete around 200,000 fake accounts — the tip of the iceberg (12).

According to studies, the Chinese Communist Party maintains the largest army of internet trolls in the world; as early as 2013, estimates assumed from 500,000 to two million real people charged with targeted manipulation of social media platforms at home and abroad (13). Their nickname is the 50-Cent Army, since the comment-writers allegedly earn 50 cents (5 Yuan) per contribution (14).

 

Before Corona, the focus of this gigantic digital army of mercenaries lay predominantly on domestic activities; since Corona, they’ve become active on foreign platforms at an unprecedented scale (15). The CCP commands a hybrid structure of digital and human bots. The current advantage of human bots — real people who write online comments — lies in their undetectability by algorithms. While computer-generated bots can be detected by the system’s own artificial intelligence (AI), manually managed bots are only discoverable through targeted network analyses by Social Media analysts. If one thing isn’t missing in China, it’s manpower, people. With orders of magnitude in the hundreds of millions of posts, processes that shape public opinion can be effectively and predictably controlled in all countries of the world (16).

When Italy, as the first European Country, had its outbreak — we remember the images from Bergamo — China stood promptly at its side with help and advice — and flooded the country not only with respirators, masks, and disinfectants, but also with hundreds of thousands of social media posts with heartwarming hashtags like #forzaCinaeItalia (#goChinagoItaly) and #grazieCina (#thanksChina). According to Italian digital media analysts, up to 46,3% of all twitter posts with these hashtags, campaign-like slogans, in mid-March came from bots (17).

The collective awareness that Social Media in 2020 is swarming with bots from the most diverse interest groups is still at a relatively low level in Europe as well as in the USA. Many have possibly heard that Russian bots and the company Cambridge Analytica managed to significantly influence the 2016 US election campaign, but almost no one can imagine the actual number of bots in our social media. Even politicians and the media are insufficiently informed and thus easily fall prey to secret service operations. Chinese bot-armies act according to the principle of Pavlovian conditioning: reward and punish (18).

In numerous comments from accounts which seemingly appeared from nowhere in the early part of 2020, Western politicians like Boris Johnson or the governments of the USA, Sweden, and all others who supported herd immunity were put under moral pressure by Chinese state media and its virtual echo chamber; “the economy” was more important to them than protecting their own population (19).

China’s successful path in the pandemic, on the other hand, was singled out for praise. In August, as nearly the entire world found itself in a state of shock brought on by forced lockdown, videos of boisterous pool-parties in Wuhan suddenly astonished people around the world. The search for “Wuhan Pool Party” gives thousands of results on YouTube. Images that achieved an almost unbelievable range and struck western disciples of social distancing as just short of scandalous (20). But these images, too, on closer inspection, fit seamlessly into a finely-woven narrative of cultural superiority:

Look at us, we’re partying again!

 

The core message of CCP Propaganda is always the same: China is the only country in the world to have perfectly managed the pandemic. The Chinese system is superior. Whoever doesn’t do it like China is inhumane.

With a short but hard lockdown, quarantine, disinfection of inner cities, social distancing, PCR-test saturation, rigorous contact tracing and total surveillance of all citizens, face recognition, rapid tests, and temperature measurements at the entrance to all public building, “Containment” and “Zerocovid,” total containment of the Corona Virus was reached. Governments and politicians who instead opted to let the pandemic run its course or for herd immunity are amoral, two steps from eugenics, and responsible for thousands of avoidable deaths (21).

The logic of a psychological war on this scale is as simple as it is irresistible: if other countries can be brought to run their economies into the ground with long lockdowns, products, businesses, branches and whole infrastructures can be bought up; grow oneself and let others shrink — and all that without any direct bloodshed. At the same time, one portrays oneself as morally superior and exports one’s own cultural values to the world.

As of mid-November 2020, most countries on earth are deep in recession after month-long lockdowns, while China is enjoying a growth rate of 4.9% (22).

Questions that impose themselves in light of all this: are our secret services asleep? Have the participants from the pandemic simulation “Event 201” on September 18, 2019, in New York, the Gates Foundation, the WEF, the American and Chinese centers for disease control, the Chinese government, Big Money, Big Pharma, Big Data all melted into a mysterious community of shared fate and shared interests (23)? Why did even Western investment moguls promote the idea of a lockdown at the beginning of March (24)?

How far does the arm of the Chinese Communist Party now reach into institutions like the WHO and the WEF — and the other way around?

Xi’s global China Club: Friends of China, great and small

From Davos to Silicon Valley, managers, CEOs and transhumanists are praising the efficiency and precision of the Chinese system. The Chinese Communist Party has been building up its institutional influence in the Western world for decades. They now have the right friends and supporters on the right switchboards.

The WHO is acting as a kind of shadow world government and instrument for the lockdown-reset apologists by implementing agreed-upon measures through the health departments of individual countries. The dictator-approved WHO director Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus owes his post as WHO director to China’s voting power (25). One hand washes the other: On January 30th, 2020, only six days after a lockdown was imposed in Wuhan, he praised China’s crisis-management in the highest tones — at a time when it was impossible to empirically determine if it were effective:

“We would have seen many more cases outside China by now — and probably deaths — if it were not for the government’s efforts, and the progress they have made to protect their own people and the people of the world. The speed with which China detected the outbreak, isolated the virus, sequenced the genome and shared it with WHO and the world are very impressive. So is China’s commitment to transparency and to supporting other countries. In many ways, China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response. It’s not an exaggeration.” (26)

Ghebreyesus made this statement as the leading functionary of the WHO; it reads, however, like free propaganda for Xi — and other old friends.

Klaus Schwab and the Fourth Industrial Revolution

One of the most powerful friends of China in the west is Klaus Schwab, for the past five decades founder and Executive Chairman of the yearly elite tea-party, the “World Economic Forum” (WEF), in Davos, which has fostered the closest relationships with the communist central government in Beijing as well as with Chinese universities for more than thirty years. Schwab is an avowed transhumanist and China fanboy.

Chinese functionaries have been visiting the forum since 2009: then Premier Wen Jiabao in 2009, Li Keqiang as Vice Premier in 2010, then in 2015 as Premier. Hundreds of Chinese entrepreneurs bustle about the forum, including heavyweight Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, and Ren Zhengfei, the founder of Huawei. Xi Jinping attended the WEF-Summit for the first time in 2017. Klaus Schwab introduced him to a globalist elite shaken by Trump and Brexit as the savior of free world trade: “In a world marked by great uncertainty and volatility, the international community is looking to China.”

Like a statesman and clearly under the sign of mutual rapprochement, Xi began his speech with the Dickens quotation: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” in reference to the world after the first Industrial Revolution: the best and the worst of all times. According to Xi, we still live in a world of oppositions today — the once globalist USA has retreated into protectionism, whereas China “will keep its doors wide open” (27).

Klaus Schwab is also closely personally linked to China. His son Olivier Schwab is married to a Chinese woman and has led the WEF office in Beijing since 2011. Schwab Junior waxed poetic to the Handelszeitung that the West could learn as much from China as China from the West today (28).

Schwab Senior told the Chinese news magazine “Xinhua News” that China was technologically on a very good path, but the decisive step would be comprehensive acceptance and “absorption” of these new technologies, like drone technology, in the West (29).

 

Schwab also advocates a departure from neoliberalism towards a kind of communist super-nanny state, greenwashed as bait for upstanding citizens (30). Every citizen would of course be unfree and wholly transparent, but well-fed with digital distractions by the state in exchange for data, the oil of the future.

Klaus Schwab’s dream is the establishment of a biometric-technocratic surveillance state on the Chinese model. He is the author of multiple books and co-author of “COVID-19: The Great Reset” (31).

In it, he describes the Corona Crisis as an unprecedented chance for a complete restructuring of the world economy and all aspects of social cooperation. For the transhumanist Schwab, artificial intelligence represents the next stage in the evolution of consciousness. He sees ordinary human beings, with all their passions and weaknesses, as a kind of discontinued model of evolution. In the transhumanist bible, “I, Cyborg,” the transhumanist visionary Kevin Warwick depicts it thus:

“Just as we humans split ourselves off from our chimpanzee cousins, Cyborgs will split from humans. Those who remain humans will likely become a kind of subspecies. They will be the chimpanzees of the future” (32).

Interestingly enough, Schwab knows very well that Corona is one of the mildest pandemics of the last 2000 years (33) — only made possible through a change in the WHO definition of a pandemic in 2009. Nonetheless, he sees it as a welcome catalyst towards a complete digital transformation of society in his image, which is for him long overdue. What was missing up to that point was a global shock, loosely adapted from Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine” (34). Schwab can barely contain his enthusiasm for this once-in-a-lifetime chance:

“It’s our defining moment.” “Many things will change forever.” “The societal break caused by COVID-19 will last for years, maybe even generations.” “Many of us are wondering when things will be normal again. The short answer is: never” (35).

Citations from: Klaus Schwab Thierry Malleret: COVID-19: The Great Reset.

Schwab explains:

“In one form or another, social- and physical-distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. […] Indeed, automation technologies are particularly well suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions. Our lingering and possibly lasting fear of being infected with a virus (COVID-19 or another) will thus speed the relentless march of automation, particularly in the fields most susceptible to automation” (36).

Klaus Schwab, a true Dr. Mabuse of the postmodern era who likes to pose in Darth Vader costumes, fantasizes about the coming era of artificial intelligence: the melding of man and machine, designer babies, designer organisms, geoengineering, digital homeschooling, smart homes and cities in which every object will be connected to an all-knowing artificial intelligence — a completely secure world thanks to total surveillance. For Schwab, who says things like: “A world full of drones is a world full of possibilities,” (37) people are a faceless mass to be managed.

He talks about the “system management of human existence”, made possible through built-in smartphones or smart tattoos that share sensory data from the human body with the internet of things or that could create artificial sensations (38). Or what about smart dust, equipped with microsensors and able to nest into human skin, as Schwab can relate gleefully:

“Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body” (39).

What sounds like the megalomaniacal fever dreams of a psychopath is the vision actually sought by one of the most powerful players in the global economy, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (4IR). Amongst the partners of this project are large banks, Big Pharma, the Vaccine Alliance GAVI, insurance and oil companies, consulting firms like McKinsey, digital companies like Microsoft, Facebook, and Netflix — and, last but not least, the Chinese technology giant Huawei (40).

Klaus Schwab, born in 1938, dreams of a “new normal” on the Chinese model — a totalitarian “system management of human existence.” Unfortunately, he’s not dreaming this dream alone.

Xi’s China-Club in Germany: Old Friends

Germany is one of the most important strategic partners for the Chinese Communist Party in the Eurozone. At 120 people, no other country in the world sends as many diplomats to Germany as China, and hundreds of other bilateral points of contact exist at the federal level. China finances 19 Confucius Institutes in Germany, which officially promote the Chinese language and Chinese culture, but unofficially aim to influence discourse at post-secondary schools.

Beyond that, the Chinese Communist Party has been fostering a close-knit lobbyist network in Germany for decades. Rudolf Scharping, the former SPD Foreign Minister, enjoys great popularity — he’s called “lao pengyou,” old friend. During a mask shortage in Saarland in the Corona Crisis, Sharping was able to orchestrate a deal for 600,000 masks with his Chinese friends in the blink of an eye. In October of 2019, he invited the SPD Minister of State Niels Annan from the Foreign Office, Finance Secretary Jörg Kukies, former Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, and a delegation of high-ranking Chinese officials to a secret meeting at the Marriot Hotel in Frankfurt (41). Scharping hosts his own little Wannabe-Davos, the “Sino-German Economic Conference” (42).

As a since-deleted, noteworthy article from Capital Magazine commented: “Scharpings work as a lobbyist is just a small part of China’s great effort to build up political influence in Germany. Since the conflict with the USA has intensified, Germany is seen as the key country to get Europeans on China’s side.” “The Chinese leadership is mobilizing their entire network in Germany at a level that we’ve never seen before,” can be heard anxiously from Berlin’s security circles (43).

China lobbyists in the COVID-19 taskforce: Otto Kölbl, Maximilian Mayer and the BMI “Panic Paper”

Since March 22, 2020, an internal strategy paper from the Federal Ministry of the Interior (BMI) has been circulating, entitled: “How we get COVID-19 under control” (44). The document was presented to Chancellor Merkel, Health Minister Jens Spahn, Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, numerous members of parliament, all of the big media companies like the Tagesschau, the WDR [Westdeutsche Rundfunk — tr.], the Spiegel, the Süddeutschen and the Taz, who all reported on it extremely selectively and with strikingly weak criticism of sources (45).

After the BMI declined to publish the paper for the public in accordance with the Law for the Freedom of the Press or of Information, it was leaked by FragDenStaat [AskTheState, tr.] on 01.04.2020 (46). Arne Semsrott from FragDenStaat commented on other media companies’ procedure as follows:

“While tagesschau.de placed policy recommendations for increased testing at center stage, the Spiegel described the worst-case scenario out of the paper, according to which it would come to a million deaths. The Taz additionally mentioned suggestions for altering the communication strategy” (47).

The 17-page document is the result of an eight-member “COVID-19 Taskforce,” which was contracted on March 18th by Horst Seehofer and cobbled together on the fast-track under completely non-transparent conditions by his Secretary of State, Markus Kerber, on March 19th (48). The authors of course received a “call” from the Federal Ministry of the Interior. Both Mr. Seehofer and Mr. Kerber, neither exactly young, had previously survived severe (different) viral illnesses, including myocardial inflammation and hospital stays. As Kerber told ZeitOnline, they both took the subject of viruses seriously as a result (49).

It is impossible to recognize clearly which epidemiological skills the authors of the paper selected by Kerber brought with them for this gigantic public health task on the basis of their academic backgrounds. To judge based on the combination of experts, the economy needed to be rescued, not our health: there were no epidemiologists or government virologists, but five economists, a sociologist, a political scientist, and a linguist: the last two are familiar with China (50).

The document, immediately dubbed the “Panic Paper,” made big waves: it admits that the relatively low number of deaths from COVID-19 would not suffice to get the public to commit to long-lasting, drastic measures — to achieve the “desired shock effect,” it would require a strategic activation of the fear of death, especially the fear of death by asphyxiation:

“1) Many of the seriously ill will be taken to the hospital by their loved ones, but turned away, and will die in agony at home, struggling for breath. Asphyxiation or not getting enough air is a primal fear for every human being. The same for the situation in which nothing can be done to help loved ones hovering in mortal danger. The images from Italy are disturbing.

2) Children will not suffer from the epidemic: False. Children will easily get infected, even with restrictions for going out, for example by neighbor kids. When they then infect their parents and one of them dies in agony at home and they feel like it was their fault, because, for example, they forgot to wash their hands after playing, it’s the most horrifying thing that a child could ever experience” (51).

The author of these lines has his own Twitter account and publicly admitted to writing them there.

 

His name is Otto Kölbl, depending on phonetics also Kolbl, an inconspicuous Germanist from Lausanne who has not yet published anything worth naming. According to his own statements, he’s been researching the “socio-economic development of China compared to other developing countries and their representation in Western media.”

From 2005 to 2006, he was a language teacher at the Northwestern Polytechnical University in Xi`an, China (53). He now lives back in Switzerland and runs a blog named “rainbowbuilders.org,” in which he labels Hong Kong “parasitic” (54) and praises China’s exemplary exploitation of Tibet (55). Kölbl can be called a China-Propagandist; maybe he isn’t financially compensated for it, but he obviously champions China’s perspective on the world, which is completely blind to domestic questions of human rights. In addition, he espouses a problematic stance towards evidence-based medicine and science. In a YouTube interview, he denies the competence of scientists in the Corona crisis:

“With regard to this COVID-19 crisis, in order to make the right decision, you have start by not listening to science. The Western scientists got it wrong, totally wrong” (56).

Speakers’ Corner — 20th May 2020

Edit description

www.mixcloud.com

Better to learn from China and Asia in general, according to the narrative Kölbl has had on Twitter for months.

Next to Otto Kölbl, Dr. Maximilian Mayer is a further China Expert and co-author of the Panic Paper. His expertise on China is unquestionable, his list of publications long. He taught at the University of Nottingham in China and returned since Corona as Junior Professor for International Relations and Global Technology Policy at the Hochschule Bonn (57). Still questionable, however, is what suddenly makes a political scientist with a concentration in China into an expert for an “epidemiological situation of national scope.”

In a phoenix interview on March 17th, 2020, two days before he began working on the Panic Paper, he said:

“The lockdown and closing the boarders, that isn’t enough to contain the epidemic. […] You could already say that a kind of new, global pandemic order is emerging, and China is clearly leading this order. […] In Germany, we should turn away from this spread of infection approach and move to containment. […] In my view, the most important thing that we could do now would be to massively increase testing. But that isn’t enough. We need a compact system, that’s what we can learn from Asia, that combines testing with contact searching and the isolation of all infected people. The quarantine that we’ll then have to introduce, it’ll save lives. It’s a kind of civic duty” (58).

 

Did the appearance on Phoenix get him the job in the taskforce, or his earlier consulting work for the BMI?

Otto Kölbl and Maximilian Mayer, the two China experts, already knew one another before the taskforce. They published a paper together on March 4th, just before the lockdown in Germany, with the title: “Learning from Wuhan — there is no Alternative to the Containment of COVID-19” (59). In it, they sketched horror scenarios should no rigorous contact tracing and isolation of the “infected” be implemented. “Failing is not an option,” otherwise there would be “millions dead.” Who or what actually brings a linguist and a political scientist to venture such bold prognoses outside of their fields?

A question that poses itself in light of such personnel choices by the BMI is: do China lobbyists somehow have special capacities in the fight against “Chinese” pandemics? In the midst of an “epidemiological situation of national scope,” Secretary of State Markus Kerber intentionally placed experts on the Chinese health system in the BMI, where they were allowed to help shape our domestic policy without epidemiological expertise or any form of democratic mandate. It stands to be feared that they were appointed in order “to learn from Asia,” as Mayer recommends in his Phoenix interview (60).

A named best-case scenario in the panic paper, called the “Hammer and Dance” — a short lockdown followed by surveillance — provides a clue to its theoretical basis. The authors of the strategy papers do not name any sources for this concept — as Michael Senger has shown, however, the only article that comes into question is that of the same name by hobby statistician Tomas Pueyo, which went viral in the English-speaking world on 19.3.2020, precisely as the BMI paper was being developed (19th-22nd March)(61). Time was of the essence — a fresh publication from the English-speaking world for modelling such “scenarios” certainly arrived at an opportune moment.

The problem with that is: Pueyo is no virologist, let alone a scientist. Senger could prove with Google trend analysis that the colocation “Hammer and Dance” has no pre-history in fighting pandemics and was created by Peuyo “out of thin air” (62). In addition to that, Pueyo contends in his article that a lockdown of a few weeks is the only thing that could effectively help prevent millions of deaths. As Süddeutsche Zeitung journalist Christian Endt criticized, this was based on a false reproduction of the Imperial College of London’s Ferguson Study, which assumed “several months of heavy restrictions” for a lockdown to be effective (63). The overall effectiveness of lockdowns claimed by the Ferguson Study has since been disproven by John Ioannidis, the most-cited scientist, epidemiologist, and statistician in the world (64). The Imperial College of London described itself as “China’s best academic partner in the West” (65) — and can for that reason be considered as a foreign office of the CCP.

The CCP-inspired claims of the panic paper — including symptomless transmission, lockdown, social distancing, and “children as drivers of the pandemic” — are not based on evidence and still represent mainstream opinion. The paper closes with the words:

“We can not only survive this crisis without too much damage with social cohesion and with mutual distancing from one another, but we can point towards a new future relationship between state and society.”

Aha. In another place, this thesis is found without evidence:

“In order to make testing faster and more efficient, the long-term implementation of Big Data and Location Tracking are indispensable” (66).

The concepts are printed in bold — trying to get a gold star from employer and surveillance fan Horst Seehofer?

What stands out in the entanglement of interests from all the players around COVID-19 is an interest in the concept of “Biosecurity.”

Since 2003, a new paradigm called “Biosecurity,” the fusion of medicine, artificial intelligence, and the military, has been promoted around the world, allegedly to defend against the increased threat from bio-weapons and pandemics (67). The Chinese word for “Biosecurity” is fangkong (chin. = cleanliness, security) — an ideology that Xi Jinping uses to justify China-internal totalitarian surveillance, the suppression of Hong Kong’s movement for democracy, as well as the “purifying” of the Uighurs from “contamination by terrorist ideas” in re-education camps (68).

A militarization and fascisization of the health sector could already be observed here long before Corona: during the false alarm of the H1N1 swine flu, Bundeswehr General Hans-Ulrich Holtherm was called into the Federal Ministry of Health (Bundesgesundheitsministerium, BMG).

 

What a coincidence: Just before Corona, on 17.2.2020, the very same general was selected again by Minister of Health Jens Spahn to lead the BMG “Health Protection” department (69). Since Corona and General Holtherm, the implementation of biosecurity in Germany is proceeding at full steam. The deployment of Bundeswehr soldiers in health departments (70), the planned administration of Corona vaccines at 60 militarily secured, as-yet-undisclosed “sites” (71), the Corona-Tracking App, forced tests and quarantines or mask scanners at the entrance to clinics (72). The threat of a new “segregation” of children out of their families into quarantine centers at the discretion of health departments represents a sad new high point in this alarming development (73).

Many people are asking themselves in the corona crisis why the countries of the earth are acting so synchronously, as if they were already under the leadership of an invisible “Corona World Government”. During the relentless ascent of China and descent of the USA, new transnational circles of power have long since arisen out of the dying empire: Big Data, Big Pharma, and Big Money. Remarkably enough, they find themselves in a historic and unique convergence of interests with China; “Stay Home!”, social distancing, the destruction of the middle class, the “reset” of the crumbling global economic system and the associated, historically unprecedented movement of capital from the bottom to the top benefits them all. The imperial ambitions of China and Western corporate globalists are not currently opposed to each other as long as everyone gets his piece of the pie. China propagates lockdowns worldwide to economically weaken its opponents and to export its own cultural model.

The transhumanists and globalists around the WEF are planning the complete restructuring of the global economy from a neoliberal, resource-intensive turbo-capitalism towards a digital surveillance state with a planned economy for their own benefit, framed as the “Great Reset.” The WHO serves as their unremarkable instrument of transition to that end, with the China lobbyist Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who sells China’s lockdown propaganda as a scientifically assured finding. This never-before-seen convergence of interests leads to the absurd stability of a “New Normal,” which already carries undeniable fasco-totalitarian traits in its early form. During this process, all countries seem to be becoming increasingly similar to China.

China already replaced Germany as top exporter in the world in 2009 (74). In the ranking of the largest economies in the world by GDP per capita, they are only 25% behind the USA (75), and they’re long since ahead in total earnings. Xi Jinping, who admires Mao’s system but found it “too chaotic,” makes no secret of pursuing ambitions of world domination (76). What was missing in China until now was cultural hegemony. A Chinese Hollywood would have been a tough sell — but with the export of their hygiene-and-surveillance regime, they currently have good odds.

People like Klaus Schwab or Xi Jinping want to make us believe that the transition to a technocratic surveillance dystopia à la China is inevitable, the same as a law of nature. This is not the case. Technology is always only as good or bad as the people who develop and use it. Artificial Intelligence contains the potential for a great blessing or an unfathomable curse. However much powerful men want to convince us that their joyless, totalitarian blueprints for the world are without alternatives — at the end of the day, they’re just old men with a pronounced need for grandeur (77) — and a fascist ideology in their luggage. Let’s not give them a chance.

Note

This article first appeared in the 28th edition of the weekly newspaper “Demokratischer Widerstand”, (Democratic Resistance) Germany’s biggest oppositional print magazine: https://demokratischerwiderstand.de/artikel/158/china-und-der-great-reset Translated by the paper’s translation team.

Sources

1 Kuo, Lily : ›Fake, Fake‹: senior Chinese leader heckled by residents on visit to coronavirus city. In: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2020/mar/06/fake-fake-senior-chineseleader-heckled-by-resi- dents-on-visit-to-coronavirus-epicentre (06.03.2020)

2 Baker, Sinead: China extended its Wuhan coronavirus quarantine to 2 more cities, cutting off 19 million people in an unprecedented effort to stop the outbreak. In: Business Insider. (https://www.businessinsider.com/ china-wuhan-coronavirus-quarantine-extended-cities-cut-off- 2020–1?r=- DEIR=T (23.01.2020)

3 Global Times News Tweet: https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1235770706765451264 06.03.2020

4 Kuo, Lily : ›Fake, Fake‹: senior Chinese leader heckled by residents on visit to coronavirus city. In: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2020/mar/06/fake-fake-senior-chineseleader-heckled-by-resi- dents-on-visit-to-coronavirus-epicentre (06.03.2020)

5 A Generation grows ups in China without Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Co. In: The Guardian. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/06/technology/china-generation-blocked-internet.html

6 Tweet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4xn0nk6NXQ

7 Tweet: https://twitter.com/1nfodaily/status/1232719653983617026

8 Tweet: https://twitter.com/manisha_kataki/status/1238007207700180992

9 Graham Harrison Kuo: China to expel WSJ journalists over ›malicious’ coronavirus column. In: The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2020/feb/19/china-bars-wall-street-journalreporters-over-deroga- tory-column (19.02.2020)

10 Senger, Michael P.: Chinas Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign. Inside the CCP’s use of social media bots and other disinformation tactics to promote its own response to the coronavirus pandemic and attack its critics. In: Tablet Mag. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/ china-covid-lockdown-propaganda (15.09.2020)

11 Michael P. Senger, Twitter Thread, 70 Fakes surrounding Chin-
as pandemic response: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1307849676834603009

12 Shinkman, Paul D.: Government feuds with Twitter over claims China is exploitingCoronavirus.In:USNews.https://www.usnews.com/ news/national-news/articles/2020–0511/government-feuds-with-twit- ter-over-claims-china-is-exploiting-coronavirus (11.05.2020)

13 King et al (2017): How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument. In: Harvard Press. https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf?m=1463587807

14 Phillipp, Joshua: Leaked emails show Chinese Regime employs
500.000 Internet Trolls. In: E p o c h T i m e s https://www.theepochtimes.com/leaked-emails-show-chinese-regime-employs- 500000-internet-trolls_11426