I don’t always watch an Alex Jones video, but when I do I tend to disagree… More than I did a few years ago…
Alex Jones made a few comments regarding China that I thought were historically inaccurate, and he made comments regarding Syria that I thought were misleading.
China was not given the Panama Canal. The Canal remains in the hands of the Republic of Panama, which grants the US certain preferences during wartime actually. Many of the companies involved with the widening of the canal were actually from Taiwan.
China never invaded Japan, not once. The Mongols tried to invade Japan from China, but only after invading China. The Mongols are not Chinese.
The CIA may have favored Mao at once time but did not “install” him. Mao got to be the leader of the PRC because a huge peasant army, which he spent years raising and training, defeated the Japanese in China and also defeated the Nationalists (the latter of which were backed by the US for a long time).
Mao was no saint, but most of the people who died during the Great Leap Forward (or Backward to be more accurate) died of malnutrition and starvation. Granted, the economic plan was Mao’s idea. But Jones gave the subtle impression Mao lined up tens of millions of people against a brick wall and had them shot.
China has moved away from “communism” more than “a little bit.” China’s system is based on economic modernization and political legalism, in which bureaucratic procedure slowly replaces ordinary politics. Of course there is plenty of corruption at the provincial level, as happens when Gilded Age new money is flying around. The national level of politics is cleaner than in any western system.
Above: Chengdu, China, April 13 2017
It remains easier to open a business in China than in the United States, so I’m not sure how people can assume China might someday become as “free market” as the United States. The default setting for Chinese civilization includes a considerably free market, and cities as the basis for that market.
Chinese society is freer than Americans imagine.
If one sharply and repeatedly criticizes the central government’s existence, the most that will happen these days is the deletion of your social media account. This does not sound like much of a “dictatorship.” (And account deletion happens a lot in the US. Even my son got his Instagram account deleted for political reasons.)
Above: Chengdu, China, April 13 2017
China is not fully “backing” North Korea but simply lives with the inherited reality that the North Korean regime, which has been firmly entrenched for decades, has a certain orientation. North Korea has United Nations representation and has used the principle of “sovereign equality” to its diplomatic advantage.
If China partially overlaps with the US on some international issues it is because their interests coincide.
The Chinese are practical, pragmatic and patient, and while it might be useful for both countries to have friendliness between their top leaders, the Chinese will never do anything just because the President of China was served chocolate cake in Florida.
Regarding Syria, what we heard from Alex Jones was a partial justification of the Trump administration’s air strike last week (when, by bombing Syrian targets, the US served as the Air Force for ISIS).
The Syrian government never signed an agreement to be responsible for rebel-imported, rebel-held, and rebel-used chemical weapons.
So, one week Infowars rightly suggests that this is a false-flag attack ion Syria, and the next week Infowars is blaming Syria for not having eliminated chemical weapons. Makes no sense.
Really, does Alex Jones want to blame the Syrian government for the rebel’s false-flag attack? Or for having a rebel chemical depot struck in a wider conflict? This is outrageous.
We already know that the rebels have used chemical weapons in the past, to blame Syria and hope for international intervention. And we know that Washington has been a serial liar on this issue, beginning with the 2003 claims of WMD in Iraq.
London, too, proved to be adept at doctoring and manipulating intelligence reports. It seems that Washington and London remain committed to this deception. Now London’s position is represented by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who not only plays the role of a clown but also looks like one.
Regarding the Syrian issue, at least, we are witnessing a trans-Atlantic Confederacy of Dunces. Behold!
Furthermore, as the Arms Control Association reported, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons declared that Syria had actually rid itself of chemical weapons in 2014. There had been shipment upon shipment of these weapons out of the country.
“June 23, 2014: OPCW Director General Uzumcu announced that the last 8 percent of Syria’s chemical weapons was shipped out of the country from the port of Latakia on the Danish ship Ark Futura. Uzumcu says the chemicals should be destroyed within four months.”
This means that one must be suspect about subsequent claims – which have been made –regarding chemical weapons in Syria. Indeed, some of these subsequent claims even emerged with UN investigative teams working with the OPCW. Upon closer scrutiny, it seems that some of these teams came under intense political pressure from NATO.
I’m left wondering how chemical weapons could be cleared from Syria by the Syrian government, and then re-introduced (by the same government desperately attempting to avoid being blamed for any use thereof). Such weapons can easily be smuggled in from Iraq or Turkey by the rebels.
President Putin was right to insinuate that the latest chemical weapons event was a “false flag” event, and that more are likely to come.
Unfortunately, words are no longer enough in this new international context. Putin cannot fully understand how the American and western public has a political memory of six months. Pointing to the lies of 2003 is a meaningless exercise, a history lesson for students with no attention span.
A more effective Russian or Syrian response would be to do something similar to this:
1) Provide a press conference revealing and disseminating the exact, actual evidence, even if this partially compromises intelligence gathering; and
2) Issue arrest warrants for any western leaders who had foreknowledge of the false-flag events or who deny the evidence while still giving ongoing aid and assistance to anti-Syrian opposition (for promoting international terrorism).
My issue with Alex Jones is that he seems to be politically invested in the new Trump administration and will only take his criticism so far. More fair reporting or positioning would be to consider each domestic and international issue area as separate.
Other commentators with more time and resources can do a better job “unmasking” Infowars for having one foot in the deep state that it pretends to oppose, or “unmasking” Alex Jones for perhaps playing the role of controlled opposition. If that is really the case.