Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cool Breeze]

Members of the American government WERE responsible (Fauci) for the release of the virus, at least indirectly. But the American government did not plan on this happening, only certain corrupt members advanced somebody else's goal. My view is that global elites put it in motion taking advantage of China's general desire to assist in creating chaos, causing a double win. A guy like Fauci gets his orders from people in much different areas or shadows than the Chinese, who at this point are a real problem for everyone, but still overseen by larger global powers.

Too many people think there is some kind of vast conspiracy to take over the world.

Conspiracies are incredibly difficult to pull off (if not impossible). Someone always talks. The more people involved, the sooner this happens.

So if there had been some kind of conspiracy to take put us all under the control of some "new world order", we would have heard about it by now from an insider with actual evidence.

Instead of conspiracy, the overall common attribute of world leadership is INCOMPETENCE.

I don't believe Fauci is "getting orders" from anyone. I think that he is (and has been doing) what he personally thinks is right.

It's been pointed out that he was involved in providing funds for the Chinese to conduct bioresearch (which is so far beyond naïve it should be inconceivable for a senior administrator). Then tried to cover it up and/or lied about this (as it pointed to incompetence).

The shutting down of the country (US or others) was and is a giant mistake. Note Sweden (of all places) as the contrast. Same or less effects, but without mind-blowing economic damage.

Too many have for too long thought that the best way to deal with the Chinese was to increase trade and interaction with them. All this has done is enabled them to become a powerful enemy. You do not change dictators (which is what the CCP are) by giving them money! You do not "improve relations" by giving them access to your technology and secrets! Doing research with Chinese is unbelievably naïve, and a manifestation of incompetence.

There is a large degree of incompetence and "here's what we are doing" (which is the point of government sadly in the modern day, it is not about preserving virtue or freedom) but focusing on this ignores HUGE and OBVIOUS conspiracies that aren't theories, they are plain facts. Fauci and Gates are heavily invested in pharma, mask production, etc. Keeping the lies going enriches them. If Gates isn't conspiring to reduce the world's population, why has he stated that outright in presentations, proposed methods to blot out the sun, and do all manner of things to influence policy when he is neither a doctor nor an engineer.

Incompetence isn't at all a common attribute of what is going on in the world right now. Sorry.

[Navigator]

** 08-Aug-2021 World View: Still skeptical

> I am still skeptical. I have asked some well connected sources to
> look into it.

> Reasons for my skepticism:

> 1 - This appears to have a SOLE source, J.R. Nyquist. I can't
> find any sources other than those ultimately quoting him in the
> Epoch Times.

> 2 - Epoch Times was founded/is run by Falun Gong refugees. They of
> course hate the CCP (with good reason) and want to bring it down.
> They overstep frequently, publishing stuff they have not properly
> vetted, but which fits their ideology and narrative (the fact that
> the liberal left does this all the time too does not make it
> right).

> It could take me a week or so to hear back, if they take the time
> to look into it seriously.

Yesterday you suggested in another thread that China has developed EMP
weapons but the US has not. What is your source for that claim? Do
you even have a source? Do I need to contact some "well-connected"
sources of my own to see if you're telling the truth? In fact, you
NEVER quote any sources that I can recall right now.

So in this case, I spent several days researching these issues, I
collected a number of sources, and I summarized them in my post. But
none of that research means anything to you. It's as if I never did
it. You must think that I'm a credulous idiot. You just come in,
announce that you're skeptical, and say that you'll track down some
REAL sources, some "well-connected" sources.

Your main reason is that it was originally published in 2005 by the
Epoch Times. So what exactly are you saying? That the reporter at
the Epoch Times hated the CCP, so he made the whole thing up, and that
everyone is complete fooled? Is that what you're suggesting? If
that's what you think, please say so, because I'd like to see you make
that argument.

It's not true that Nyquist was the only source. Christoph Becker was
also a source. If you read Nyquist's blog, he references a number of
sources of his own. We're not just credulous idiots who believe
anything we read. We cross-check everything with other sources, and
when the sources match up, we reasonably conclude that the claims are
likely to be correct.

Here's another source for you to check out:

-- Chi Haotian / Is Nazi China emerging?
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/spot ... merging/0/
(Indian Defense Review, 25-Sep-2011)

This article was written ten years ago, and the author debated whether
Chi Haotian's letter was authentic, and came to the same conclusion as
I did: that if it hadn't been authentic, then someone would have said
so. It was for the same reason -- that no Chinese officials have
denied the validity of the story.

I'm quite familiar with the story behind the Falun Gong and the Epoch
Times, but perhaps you don't understand how the world works. The NY
Times can lie all it wants. Russia Today can lie all it wants. China
Daily can lie all it wants. If they're caught lying, they can always
depend on many others to come to their defense.

But that's not true of the Epoch Times. When it posts something like
the Chi Haotian story, then if there's an error it will be subject to
enormous ridicule, and disavowal.

But that didn't happen with this story. In fact, there's been almost
silence ever since the story was published. In 16 years, there has
been no word from Chinese officials including Chi. Why is that?
Because they don't want to call attention to the article. They'd
rather stick with silence, and just count on people like you to reject
it because you're "skeptical." They know that the speech is valid, so
they're better off leaving people like you "skeptical." The Chinese
are good at manipulating Westerners, and even know how to manipulate
Westerners with silence.

So who are your "well-connected" sources? Are they Chinese officials
or "well-connected" to Chinese officials? If they gave you an answer
either confirming or repudiating Chi's speech, that would actually be
major international news.

So when you hear back from your "well-connected" friends, please be
certain to post what they tell you. I'm very interested in hearing.
I predict that your "well-connected" friends will either not answer at
all or will give a non-committal answer, because if they said anything
else, the Chinese Communists would throw them into a pit. They would
rather say nothing, because they know you won't bother to do any
actual research, and you'll just remain "skeptical."

Well, lets go through this point by point.

1. The US does have an EMP weapon. Minutes after I made my original post concerning this, I edited it to provide an update that we do indeed have such weapons (supposedly around 20 - called CHAMP). So sometimes I do make mistakes, but I will correct them and admit it.

2. I cannot name sources who are my friends and are still in the military community. If I use them as sources, I say so. Other times I post links to articles, just as others do. I prefer to summarize than post a link, as far fewer people click on the links as just read the post. BTW, I posted a link to a common source regarding the existence/inventory of EMP weapons when I provided the update.

3. I do not think you are an idiot. I am just skeptical of something this inflammatory (as I believe you were originally). It may very well be true. I looked at your sources regarding the speech. They also appear to be referencing either the Epoch Times original piece, or they allow anonymous posting (which to me means that someone could take the Epoch Times article, copy it, and then post it to that site). I wish that we could get verification from someone that was there, or other kind of corroboration. I know that this may not be possible.

4. I have issues with the Epoch Times. Here is a direct quote from an article on the Epoch Times. " “It’s like we were supposed to be fighting so-called liberal propaganda by making our own,” said Steve Klett, who covered the Trump campaign for The Epoch Times as his first job in journalism. " This article is the source:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ ... h-n1044121
So, yes, I do think Epoch Times is OK with making stuff up if it fits their narrative. While this article is from MSM, it does include sources and quotes.

5. Again, the story (and the speech) may very well be true. My skepticism originates in the extremism of the speech. This could be like the skepticism that originally greeted reports that the Nazis were actually killing Jews in Concentration Camps. At the time, nobody thought that this could possibly be true. Unfortunately, it was.

6. Epoch Times does get in trouble, and get ridiculed. Reference the above article. I don't take lack of a statement of refutation as proof of truth. It could be that the CCP has already said "anything coming from Epoch Times is blatantly false". In fact, I would expect that such a blanket statement already exists.

7. My intelligence friends have yet to comment (and at this point, I doubt they will). Others have just pointed me to the above article on Epoch Times.

[Navigator]

There is a large degree of incompetence and "here's what we are doing" (which is the point of government sadly in the modern day, it is not about preserving virtue or freedom) but focusing on this ignores HUGE and OBVIOUS conspiracies that aren't theories, they are plain facts. Fauci and Gates are heavily invested in pharma, mask production, etc. Keeping the lies going enriches them. If Gates isn't conspiring to reduce the world's population, why has he stated that outright in presentations, proposed methods to blot out the sun, and do all manner of things to influence policy when he is neither a doctor nor an engineer.

Incompetence isn't at all a common attribute of what is going on in the world right now. Sorry.

I do not believe at all that Gates/Fauci are trying to get rich off of mask production or other pharma products as a result of the pandemic.

I do believe that Gates, and in fact the entire Global Warming effort, has as its core objective the reduction of the World's population. Both Gates, and the Global Warming effort state this publicly (as you mentioned in Gate's case). Others also want to drastically reduce the world's population, and have stated so. This has been the case since the early 20th century.

But I don't believe there is some global secret conspiracy "pulling the strings" on the WuHu flu response. Nor do I think it is some secret effort to reduce the world's population. Abortion, for example, has been much more effective.

I have worked for decades in government. I know the people in charge of many large scale endeavors. They usually got there by cronyism. They are not the "best and brightest". They are focused almost entirely on "how can I keep what I am getting now", and "how can I get more from my current or future position".

[Cool Breeze]

There is a large degree of incompetence and "here's what we are doing" (which is the point of government sadly in the modern day, it is not about preserving virtue or freedom) but focusing on this ignores HUGE and OBVIOUS conspiracies that aren't theories, they are plain facts. Fauci and Gates are heavily invested in pharma, mask production, etc. Keeping the lies going enriches them. If Gates isn't conspiring to reduce the world's population, why has he stated that outright in presentations, proposed methods to blot out the sun, and do all manner of things to influence policy when he is neither a doctor nor an engineer.

Incompetence isn't at all a common attribute of what is going on in the world right now. Sorry.

I do not believe at all that Gates/Fauci are trying to get rich off of mask production or other pharma products as a result of the pandemic.

I do believe that Gates, and in fact the entire Global Warming effort, has as its core objective the reduction of the World's population. Both Gates, and the Global Warming effort state this publicly (as you mentioned in Gate's case). Others also want to drastically reduce the world's population, and have stated so. This has been the case since the early 20th century.

But I don't believe there is some global secret conspiracy "pulling the strings" on the WuHu flu response. Nor do I think it is some secret effort to reduce the world's population. Abortion, for example, has been much more effective.

I have worked for decades in government. I know the people in charge of many large scale endeavors. They usually got there by cronyism. They are not the "best and brightest". They are focused almost entirely on "how can I keep what I am getting now", and "how can I get more from my current or future position".

Consolidation of power and efforts of personal gain or self aggrandizement is clearly the case here. I think you are ignoring fairly obvious things, but I do agree with your last paragraph there. Note that the point you make has nothing to do and doesn't explain the vaccine passports, continued push for boosters, etc. Just saying, your view is incomplete and I've shown it. That's all.

[John]

** 09-Aug-2021 World View: Epoch Times

> 6. Epoch Times does get in trouble, and get ridiculed. Reference
> the above article. I don't take lack of a statement of refutation
> as proof of truth. It could be that the CCP has already said
> "anything coming from Epoch Times is blatantly false". In fact, I
> would expect that such a blanket statement already exists.

The problem is that all your multiple points about the Epoch Times
are completely irrelevant, unless you're claiming that the Epoch Times
manufactured the letter, which is why I asked you about that.

Otherwise, it's completely illogical to reference the Epoch Times,
since the Chi Haotian letter has to be judged on its own, irrespective
of where it was first published. The fact that the Epoch Times got
the scoop by being the first to publish the letter (or by being the
only media source to dare to publish the letter and risk the wrath
of the Chinese Communists) is completely irrelevant.

> 3. I do not think you are an idiot. I am just skeptical of
> something this inflammatory (as I believe you were originally). It
> may very well be true. I looked at your sources regarding the
> speech. They also appear to be referencing either the Epoch Times
> original piece, or they allow anonymous posting (which to me means
> that someone could take the Epoch Times article, copy it, and then
> post it to that site). I wish that we could get verification from
> someone that was there, or other kind of corroboration. I know
> that this may not be possible.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I was originally
inflammatory. I just went back and read my original posts about the
Haotian speech, including the web log article, and I don't see anything
that was inflammatory. In fact, I was trying very hard not to be
inflammatory, since I knew "skeptical" people would call me on it.

Also the Chi Haotian letter itself is not inflammatory -- not in the
context of Communist Chinese culture. As I've said several times,
I've done an enormous amount of research. In the past, I've posted
thousands of articles on China, and I've written an entire book on
China. As I've said, I've immersed myself in research on this letter
the last few days.

Chi's speech is just the next step. That is, Mao Zedong laid
down his theory, Deng Xiaoping advanced that theory, and Chi Haotian's
speech advances Communist Party theory even further. The big advance
in Communist Party theory came about after the Tiananmen Square
massacre and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Chi's speech
describes the evolution of theory from Mao to Deng and then in the
90s, and projects that theory into the future by specifying what
action must be taken.

If you want to do some actual research, rather than just rejecting all
the research I've done, then read the following, which I referenced
earlier:

-- China’s Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes --
Eric Croddy
https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-con ... 91crod.pdf
(NonProliferation.org, March 2002)

This is an American analysis that corresponds closely to the Chi
Haotian analysis. In particular, it covers the plan for nuclear and
biological weapons, so those parts of Chi's speech are not extremist.

So really the only "extremist" part of Chi's speech, and the part that
I found most startling, was the strategy to defeat America "in one big
blow," and then use biochemical weapons to "clean up America" so that
the Chinese can colonize. But once again, Chi shows that this was the
logical next step from things that Mao and Deng said, especially
havling suffered through the One Child Policy for thirty years.

Here's something to keep in mind: The Chi Haotion speech, if valid, is
not just an ordinary leak. It's a leak of the entire Chinese
Communist military strategy, from top to bottom. It's no wonder that
they're responding to it with silence.

Still, I'd be very interested in hearing what your well-connected
military and intelligence friends have to say, if they're willing. As
I said, I predict silence.

[Navigator]

** 09-Aug-2021 World View: Epoch Times

> 6. Epoch Times does get in trouble, and get ridiculed. Reference
> the above article. I don't take lack of a statement of refutation
> as proof of truth. It could be that the CCP has already said
> "anything coming from Epoch Times is blatantly false". In fact, I
> would expect that such a blanket statement already exists.

The problem is that all your multiple points about the Epoch Times
are completely irrelevant, unless you're claiming that the Epoch Times
manufactured the letter, which is why I asked you about that.

Otherwise, it's completely illogical to reference the Epoch Times,
since the Chi Haotian letter has to be judged on its own, irrespective
of where it was first published. The fact that the Epoch Times got
the scoop by being the first to publish the letter (or by being the
only media source to dare to publish the letter and risk the wrath
of the Chinese Communists) is completely irrelevant.

> 3. I do not think you are an idiot. I am just skeptical of
> something this inflammatory (as I believe you were originally). It
> may very well be true. I looked at your sources regarding the
> speech. They also appear to be referencing either the Epoch Times
> original piece, or they allow anonymous posting (which to me means
> that someone could take the Epoch Times article, copy it, and then
> post it to that site). I wish that we could get verification from
> someone that was there, or other kind of corroboration. I know
> that this may not be possible.

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I was originally
inflammatory. I just went back and read my original posts about the
Haotian speech, including the web log article, and I don't see anything
that was inflammatory. In fact, I was trying very hard not to be
inflammatory, since I knew "skeptical" people would call me on it.

Also the Chi Haotian letter itself is not inflammatory -- not in the
context of Communist Chinese culture. As I've said several times,
I've done an enormous amount of research. In the past, I've posted
thousands of articles on China, and I've written an entire book on
China. As I've said, I've immersed myself in research on this letter
the last few days.

Chi's speech is just the next step. That is, Mao Zedong laid
down his theory, Deng Xiaoping advanced that theory, and Chi Haotian's
speech advances Communist Party theory even further. The big advance
in Communist Party theory came about after the Tiananmen Square
massacre and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Chi's speech
describes the evolution of theory from Mao to Deng and then in the
90s, and projects that theory into the future by specifying what
action must be taken.

If you want to do some actual research, rather than just rejecting all
the research I've done, then read the following, which I referenced
earlier:

-- China’s Role in the Chemical and Biological Disarmament Regimes --
Eric Croddy
https://www.nonproliferation.org/wp-con ... 91crod.pdf
(NonProliferation.org, March 2002)

This is an American analysis that corresponds closely to the Chi
Haotian analysis. In particular, it covers the plan for nuclear and
biological weapons, so those parts of Chi's speech are not extremist.

So really the only "extremist" part of Chi's speech, and the part that
I found most startling, was the strategy to defeat America "in one big
blow," and then use biochemical weapons to "clean up America" so that
the Chinese can colonize. But once again, Chi shows that this was the
logical next step from things that Mao and Deng said, especially
havling suffered through the One Child Policy for thirty years.

Here's something to keep in mind: The Chi Haotion speech, if valid, is
not just an ordinary leak. It's a leak of the entire Chinese
Communist military strategy, from top to bottom. It's no wonder that
they're responding to it with silence.

Still, I'd be very interested in hearing what your well-connected
military and intelligence friends have to say, if they're willing. As
I said, I predict silence.

It could be that either Epoch Times or JR Nyquist manufactured the speech. That is my guess. At this point I am hoping for wider/better corroboration, but that may not be possible.

The speech is what I consider inflammatory, not you. You have consistently provided information/resources the MSM have missed, and that are crucial to understanding what is going on.

I have no doubt that most of what is in the speech is true, in that the CCP is moving along such lines, but question if everything in there is a bona-fide part of CCP plans. I have no doubt that CCP has plans for world domination and that they believe they (Chinese) are ethnically superior to everyone else on earth.

I also have no doubt that the Chinese are working furiously to close the gap in strategic thermonuclear weapons and delivery systems, as they are still rather far behind both the USA and Russia.

I also have no doubt that they are planning a sneak attack on the US, and are preparing for it in the short term.

What I don't think is that the WuHu flu was part of this plan/plot. As stated before, I think they were messing with things they shouldn't have been messing with, and then had an accidental (incompetence based) release.

I also don't think that there is some kind of conspiracy/collusion with the Chinese to use the virus as a way to subvert the world. I think instead what we have is worldwide governmental incompetence in dealing with it.

[John]

** 09-Aug-2021 World View: Being inflammatory

> The speech is what I consider inflammatory, not you.

Actually, you did call me inflammatory in your last response. But
let's put that aside.

Please tell me what part of Chi Haotian's speech you find
inflammatory. Please extract an actual quote. I'll do some
additional research, and see if I can find some independent
corroboration or explanation.

Note that you cannot claim that the Wuhan Virus Event was an
inflammatory part of Chi's speech, since it was not part of his
speech. The question is whether the speech itself is inflammatory. I
claim that it isn't. It's actually an extremely clear, well-reasoned,
logical explanation of Chinese Communist Party military strategy.

[Navigator]

** 09-Aug-2021 World View: Being inflammatory

> The speech is what I consider inflammatory, not you.

Actually, you did call me inflammatory in your last response. But
let's put that aside.

Please tell me what part of Chi Haotian's speech you find
inflammatory. Please extract an actual quote. I'll do some
additional research, and see if I can find some independent
corroboration or explanation.

Note that you cannot claim that the Wuhan Virus Event was an
inflammatory part of Chi's speech, since it was not part of his
speech. The question is whether the speech itself is inflammatory. I
claim that it isn't. It's actually an extremely clear, well-reasoned,
logical explanation of Chinese Communist Party military strategy.

I have never had any intention to call you "inflammatory". This was only meant in relation to the speech. If it came across that way, my apologies. Your work is not "inflammatory".

I will work on getting some exact quotes later but I consider the following ideas "inflammatory" or utterly outrageous:

1. We are glad to find out that most of our people have no qualms about killing women, children and POWs.

2. We should kill all the people in USA/Canada and take the land for our own "lebensraum".

3. We should start a war with a massive nuclear strike and be prepared to lose everything east of Xian (probably a good 3/4 of Chinese population).

If this guy said these things, he is a complete nut job. Not that I don't think the CCP is full of such people. But to say these things in any kind of large forum shows a complete lack of discretion.

Maybe instead of "inflammatory" I should have used the words "completely outrageous" or "completely over the top" or "beyond reason and sanity", "blood curdling sabre rattling" or something else along these lines.

There are, unfortunately, military people in every age who say things like this. Which basically boils down to "kill everyone that I don't like or doesn't kowtow to me". Fortunately, usually they are just seen as over the top blowhards. Unfortunately, there are exceptions.

[John]

** 09-Aug-2021 World View: What is inflammatory?

> I have never had any intention to call you "inflammatory". This
> was only meant in relation to the speech. If it came across that
> way, my apologies. Your work is not "inflammatory".

> I will work on getting some exact quotes later but I consider the
> following ideas "inflammatory" or utterly outrageous:

> 1. We are glad to find out that most of our people have no qualms
> about killing women, children and POWs.

> 2. We should kill all the people in USA/Canada and take the land
> for our own "lebensraum".

> 3. We should start a war with a massive nuclear strike and be
> prepared to lose everything east of Xian (probably a good 3/4 of
> Chinese population).

> If this guy said these things, he is a complete nut job. Not that
> I don't think the CCP is full of such people. But to say these
> things in any kind of large forum shows a complete lack of
> discretion.

> Maybe instead of "inflammatory" I should have used the words
> "completely outrageous" or "completely over the top" or "beyond
> reason and sanity", "blood curdling sabre rattling" or something
> else along these lines.

> There are, unfortunately, military people in every age who say
> things like this. Which basically boils down to "kill everyone
> that I don't like or doesn't kowtow to me". Fortunately, usually
> they are just seen as over the top blowhards. Unfortunately, there
> are exceptions.

You're absolutely right that things like "kill women, children and POWs"
and "colonize the USA land" are inflammatory, but only in the Western
culture. They are NOT inflammatory in the Chinese culture.

Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War around 500 BC. This book is almost
like the Bible in China's culture. It advocates deception and
utter ruthlessness in conducting war. These recommendations are
incorporated into Chi Haotin's strategy speech.

About four centuries after Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War, a Chinese
historian named Sima Qian wrote a biography of Sun Tzu. It included
an anecdote which shows the ruthlessnes of Sun Tzu. This anecdote
may or may not be true, but that makes no difference. The anecdote
is an accepted part of Chinese culture, especially military culture.

Here is the anecdote:

> "Sun Tzu Wu was a native of the Ch`i State. His ART OF
> WAR brought him to the notice of Ho Lu, King of Wu. Ho Lu
> said to him: "I have carefully perused your 13 chapters. May I
> submit your theory of managing soldiers to a slight test?"

> Sun Tzu replied: "You may."

> Ho Lu asked: "May the test be applied to women?"

> The answer was again in the affirmative, so arrangements were made
> to bring 180 ladies out of the Palace. Sun Tzu divided them into
> two companies, and placed one of the King's favorite concubines at
> the head of each. He then bade them all take spears in their
> hands, and addressed them thus: "I presume you know the difference
> between front and back, right hand and left hand?"

> The girls replied: Yes.

> Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight
> ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left
> hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right
> hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right round towards
> your back."

> Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus
> explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to
> begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order
> "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu
> said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders
> are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

> So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order
> "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of
> laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and
> distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is
> to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers
> nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

> So saying, he ordered the leaders of the two companies to be
> beheaded. Now the king of Wu was watching the scene from the top
> of a raised pavilion; and when he saw that his favorite concubines
> were about to be executed, he was greatly alarmed and hurriedly
> sent down the following message: "We are now quite satisfied as to
> our general's ability to handle troops. If We are bereft of these
> two concubines, our meat and drink will lose their savor. It is
> our wish that they shall not be beheaded."

> Sun Tzu replied: "Having once received His Majesty's commission to
> be the general of his forces, there are certain commands of His
> Majesty which, acting in that capacity, I am unable to accept."

> Accordingly, he had the two leaders beheaded, and straightway
> installed the pair next in order as leaders in their place. When
> this had been done, the drum was sounded for the drill once more;
> and the girls went through all the evolutions, turning to the
> right or to the left, marching ahead or wheeling back, kneeling or
> standing, with perfect accuracy and precision, not venturing to
> utter a sound. Then Sun Tzu sent a messenger to the King saying:
> "Your soldiers, Sire, are now properly drilled and disciplined,
> and ready for your majesty's inspection. They can be put to any
> use that their sovereign may desire; bid them go through fire and
> water, and they will not disobey."

> But the King replied: "Let our general cease drilling and return
> to camp. As for us, We have no wish to come down and inspect the
> troops."

> Thereupon Sun Tzu said: "The King is only fond of words, and
> cannot translate them into deeds."

> After that, Ho Lu saw that Sun Tzu was one who knew how to handle
> an army, and finally appointed him general. In the west, he
> defeated the Ch`u State and forced his way into Ying, the capital;
> to the north he put fear into the States of Ch`i and Chin, and
> spread his fame abroad amongst the feudal princes. And Sun Tzu
> shared in the might of the King." [~Gutenberg-SunTzu-ArtOfWar]
>

This is not some simple story, like George Washington cutting down the
cherry tree and saying "I cannot tell a lie." This is deeply embued
into Chinese culture.

So when you say that talking about killing women, children and POWs
is inflammatory, or that colonizing America is inflammatory, you're
saying inflammatory in the context of Western culture. But not
in Chinese culture.

When you study, as I have, the atrocities that the Japanese committed
on the Chinese during the Sino-Japanese war (1937-45), then you
realize very quickly that the culture in the Asian nations is very,
very different than Western culture.

In the context of the Chinese culture, Chi Haotian's speech is
absolutely not inflammatory. As I said previously, it's actually an
extremely clear, well-reasoned, logical exposition of Chinese
Communist Party military strategy,

[Tom Mazanec]

Why did Chi blab this way? Wouldn’t it be better to make these moves secretly?