The Two Chinas

Who Controls the Far East?

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

This piece is the third entry in the ongoing Badlands Media China series, which started with ‘Taiwan Tipping’ and continued with ‘Tigers and Flies,’ and is best read following those features.

If you’re reading this, chances are you consider yourself part of a growing collective of self-informed minds who engage with open source information in an active manner, and pass all Media Industrial Complex narratives through a cognitive filter that has and continues to be developed under the harsh, obfuscating conditions of what many of us colloquially refer to as, ‘the Information War.’

While this term and others such as ‘Shadow War,’ ‘Strange War,’ and any number of other names assigned to the times we’re living through can seem dramatic, or born out of the realm of fiction, those who have spent significant time researching the ongoing conflict between the various factions and systems of Globalism against the rising leaders and collections of Sovereignty—ourselves included—know that such terms only just begin to scratch the surface of truth that makes up Fifth-Generation Warfare.

There is a war for your mind, and for the Collective Mind of western society. Thus, when we engage with narratives, we must always seek out and expose contradictions, while also considering the intent of the source and the veracity of the claims and arguments being advanced. I would expect you to do the same with my writings.

With that out of the way, today’s entry in the ongoing China series here at Badlands Media seeks to answer a deceptively complex question at the heart of virtually all narratives to spin out of the Chinese theater in the Shadow War—that being, ‘Who controls that most enigmatic of nations?’

Reactionary takes on either side of the proverbial aisle might come away with a firm and surprisingly-consistent answer: both left and right-wing Americans who get their news in an unironic manner from the very Media industrial Complex independent, citizen journalists such as myself are attempting to expose no doubt consider Xi Jinping, the Chinese President to be the de facto and philosophical leader of the hated—to the West—Chinese Communist Party. They parrot this storyline without delving into the implications of the claim, the intent of those advancing it and the literal meaning it implies.

Most importantly, they fail to consider the inherent contradictions involved in advancing this claim in the first place.

While Xi Jinping is undoubtedly the leader of the CCP, the question, when dug a little deeper, begins to reveal some interesting turnings as to what that means, in the ever-changing contexts we attempt to parse around these parts.

Thus, as we delve into Xi Jinping’s recent history and attempt to reconcile it with claims of communism, dictatorial intent and projected dreams of world domination and subjugation, perhaps the better question is not, ‘Who controls China?’ but rather, ‘Which China does Xi Jinping control?’

While I do not pretend to have firm conclusions thus far into my China research—I am a bit more confident in my ongoing and long-running musings on the Russian Theater in the Shadow War, as covered extensively in the Righteous Russia series—I am confident in this, if nothing else: what you have been told of Xi Jinping and China is not so much a lie as a carefully-obscured truth that hides the underlying sea change China has been undergoing since he first came to power in 2013—a rise that not only mirrors those of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which we will cover in detail in a future entry in this series—but that also hints as to the future layout of the game board in this global ideological, tactical and political maelstrom.

Returning to the premise of this piece, then, we come back to the central question to spin out of its original intent—that being, which China does Xi Jinping control, and is it the one that Globalists from Brussels to Washington, DC want him to?

To understand just how important the breaks from tradition I will highlight regarding Xi Jinping next week are, it behooves one to consider the overarching Chinese paradigm within the western mind as it has been crafted over the last few decades, and to parse paradigms, we must engage with those who spin them up and cast them over the population like spells.

While the Liberal, Globalist Elite were championing China trade deals, the offshoring of American production and increasing economic ties between the two nations—with American Oligarchic Organizations from Amazon to Apple housing much of their nation-destroying infrastructure within the Chinese Kingdom—for years prior to and immediately following Trump’s ascension to the highest seat of power in the west, that tune has changed of late following the Trump-engineered exposure of this ongoing merging of Oligarchic Systems as being one of the core, underlying rots at the foundation of American Sovereignty.

But what if I told you that Xi Jinping appeared to be on the same page as Trump? What if I argued that, in spite of Trump’s trade war visiting short-term damage onto the Chinese stock market and most particularly the profit margins and viability of the offshore production apparatus of the American Oligarchs that would wield our political institutions in a manner eerily reminiscent of Mao’s China or the Soviet Union’s Marxist terrors, Xi had broken from the dark traditions of his immediate and long-running forebears in order to both detach the collective west from Chinese dependency, while also freeing his own people from wage slavery as they toil away under foreign companies to produce the treasures Americans carry around in their pockets as they go about their days, none the wiser?

We cannot know for certain what Xi Jinping intends with his crystalizing and unifying vision of China in the wake of the 20th National Chinese Congress we covered in our last entry, but we can be assured that the Globalist rags of the west are unified on one common front: for [them,] whatever vision it is that Xi is advancing flies in the face of the American Oligarchy, and thus, flies in the face of all that the Media and Political would-be elite in the west hold dear.

With the following narrative data points regarding Xi’s rise to power and ensuing war on the mirror image Chinese Oligarchy in mind, I believe you may come to see exactly why that is.

But don’t take my word for it. After all, The Hill, one of the most ‘prestigious’ of MSM backwaters recently ran the tantalizing and stage-setting header:

And check out exactly what they were so ashamed to have got wrong about Xi before running that through the same cognitive filter you’ve developed with regards to the desired paradigm of the Globalist powers that would be over the last several years:

“To be fair, little was known about Xi the man before his accession to the leadership. The ‘Old China Hands’ were careful to point that out, and regularly expressed modesty in their predictions. However, it is disconcerting that, in hindsight, virtually all the assessments of the incoming Xi administration yielded, essentially, the same wrong conclusions:”

Before we move on to what said ‘conclusions’ were regarding the MSM and Establishment Politicos’ predictions of the Xi era, let the very fact that [they] were deceived so effectively and completely regarding Xi’s intentions and vision for his nation—and by extension, his nation’s place in the new, Sovereign and Multi-Polar World Order that I believe Trump and Putin are erecting alongside the BRICS coalition—clue you in to which China Xi truly owes his loyalty to, for surely if it was the same China Bill Clinton and the Bushes elevated to such extreme economic heights and trade imbalance, we would not be seeing such abject panic out of the same rags that cheered it all on during the preceding Hu Administration.

As for said ‘conclusions’ that ultimately proved to be wrong—and disappointingly so, according to these Politicos’—the following list is what The Hill proposes as administrative and political philosophies and guiding principles that came oh so close to coming to fruition, or even expanding in the wake of Xi’s rise:

• “Xi was more likely to be a liberal than a conservative.

• More pro-market economic reforms were coming.

• Foreign businesses would increasingly be allowed to participate in the China market.

• Liberal political reform may be unlikely, but retrenchment was equally unlikely.”

Now, if you removed everything you’ve been programmed to think about Xi Jinping, would that dream list not look like something this same Media Apparatus might claim was or would also be dashed and trampled under the boots of ANY of the America First candidates we saw (and continue to see) in action in this week’s massive Midterm Elections flashpoint in the United States? Or even what the same Complex might mark Putin himself as the antithesis of, as the Russian leader continually looks inward during times of mounting tension and international distress, only looking outward for cooperation with strategic allies when doing so bolsters the position of his nation, and by extension, his people? How about the embattled and under siege Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, whom we highlighted in detail last week? Would the Media Industrial Complex define his administration as being liberal, pro Globalist market, pro foreign business and pro Marxist reformation?

And The Hill was not alone in ringing the Globalist alarm bells as every ‘legacy’ Media institution from the BBC to AP News covered Xi’s unprecedented third term with the same breathless, dramatic flare.

As I have often said, if you want to know whom the enemy fears—in this case, the Globalist-aligned Media Industrial Complex—look to the whip and lash of their words, their headlines and their glowing chyrons.

Even our favorite Sultan Slug himself, George Soros got in on the Xi-bashing in recent months, and he did it before the 20th National Congress and its ensuing fallout solidified his position as leader not just of the China of today, but that of tomorrow. Almost as if he knew something was coming. Something almost as problematic to him as the nationalistic and Globalist-eschewing and even openly-combating rises of Putin and Trump, the only other two world leaders the Globalist mega financier has deemed a ‘threat to Democracy’ in recent years.

Interesting company to be in, no doubt.

Of course, what exactly the MSM—and the Collective, Globalist West—got ‘wrong’ about Xi was the fact that they assumed he would continue both the expansionist and economy-subverting, Oligarchy-friendly and labor-crushing policies of his immediate predecessor, Hu Jintao, the very man who was led away from the chamber of the aforementioned 20th National Congress in very public—and very humiliating—fashion.

Hu was a friend an ally to such American stalwarts as Barack Obama, George Bush, Jr. and Bill Clinton, representing an era of ‘opening up’ to the western world in a manner that, somewhat shockingly (please triple whatever sarcasm you get out of that,) didn’t seem to bring anyone but the top 0.1% of our countries together. While I was tempted to read the 2013 rise of Xi as a continuation of the Hu era, the western media decidedly does not, though they did ‘get it wrong,’ at the time, which implies that Xi’s efforts of media and political obfuscation have been as successful—if not more so—than those of Trump and Putin as they attempt to reign in, supplant and ultimately eradicate their respective Deep States.

In short, the China Xi would usher in on the back of decades—generations—of communist oppression and economic subservience to the West appears to be coming to an end, and when one looks through the prism of the situation and considers the possibility that Trump’s trade war is not just a means of reducing our dependency and reliance on China, but on their reliance on us, the picture starts to become much clearer.

Taking these narrative data points along with the Devolution context that most of you are well-versed in, it is difficult to come away with a reading of the solidification of Xi’s hold on power and the continued separation of our two mega economies without the sneaking suspicion that there could be much more coordination—in a positive manner, for a change—between the sovereign, nationalist and populist leaders of our nations than you might have thought.

But then, what is it about Xi Jinping that [they] fear so much? And is there any direct evidence—actions, not media projections—we might look to in order to confirm that said fear is well-placed, and that might give us more actionable, confidence-inspiring data points that suggest or calcify some of the more provocative theories of grand clandestine alliances that underly this Truth Community?

If this piece has been an appetite-whetting exploration of the Potential and Narrative side of Xi from the perspective of the Globalist Deep State, then might a deeper dive into the Actuals of his first two terms—and stated intentions of his unprecedented third—bring us closer to a firm picture of the man, and of the two disparate images of China he may be attempting to meld into one?

Join me next week in the Badlands, and we’ll see if we can start to make sense of why the powers that would be in the West fear him so.

Until next time, stay Positive, stay Based and most importantly … stay Bright.

Continue on to ‘Empire’s Enigma,’ the follow-up to this piece on the Chinese theater in the Shadow War.

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of my work for free at Burning Bright, where I focus on Narrative Deployments and Macro Concepts in Fifth-Generation Warfare.