20
'What scared both Flynn and me [Patrick Byrne] was this possibility. It sounds far-fetched to most people, but we considered it an obvious possibility: what America has experienced for the last year has been a [China] psyop.' Hellish conclusion to Byrne's election steal series. (www.deepcapture.com) 🖕FUCK CHINA🖕
posted ago by SurfingUSA ago by SurfingUSA +22 / -2
30 comments
30 comments share save hide report block hide child comments
Comments (30)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
▲ 0 ▼
– Boudicca2 0 points ago +2 / -2

Honestly, I really don't even think China WANTS a real war with the United States. They make a big chunk of their money off of us. If we are destroyed, who buys all their cheap ass products and keeps their factories humming? I think they're always willing to do us dirty, steal from us, and release lab created viruses to wreck our economy and affect our elections, but a hot war? With them leading it? I think not.

permalink save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– SurfingUSA [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's exactly the point of the Byrne article. China is winning a non-kinetic war with the U.S., one that will sap our population and allow them to take de facto control of our farmland, with no shots fired.

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 0 ▼
– Boudicca2 0 points ago +2 / -2

that's not going to happen without a massive hot war and China doesn't want that. And just how exactly is China going to "sap" our population and what exactly does that mean?

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– SurfingUSA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Read Unrestricted Warfare by generals Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.

https://www.oodaloop.com/documents/unrestricted.pdf

permalink parent save report block reply
▲ 2 ▼
– SurfingUSA [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

From Unrestricted Warfare:

At the time of the emergence of the early nation states, the births of most of them were assisted by blood-and-iron warfare. In the same way, during the transition of nation states to globalization, there is no way to avoid collisions between enormous interest blocs. What is different is that the means that we have today to untie the "Gordian Knot" [3] are not merely swords, and because of this we no longer have to be like our ancestors who invariably saw resolution by armed force as the last court of appeals.

Any of the political, economic, or diplomatic means now has sufficient strength to supplant military means. However, mankind has no reason at all to be gratified by this, because what we have done is nothing more than substitute bloodless warfare for bloody warfare as much as possible. [4] As a result, while constricting the battlespace in the narrow sense, at the same time we have turned the entire world into a battlefield in the broad sense. On this battlefield, people still fight, plunder, and kill each other as before, but the weapons are more advanced and the means more sophisticated, so while it is somewhat less bloody, it is still just as brutal. Given this reality, mankind's dream of peace is still as elusive as ever.

Even speaking optimistically, war will not be wiped out rapidly within the foreseeable future, whether it is bloody or not. Since things which should happen will ultimately come to pass, what we can and must focus on at present is how to achieve victory.

Faced with warfare in the broad sense that will unfold on a borderless battlefield, it is no longer possible to rely on military forces and weapons alone to achieve national security in the larger strategic sense, nor is it possible to protect these stratified national interests.

Obviously, warfare is in the process of transcending the domains of soldiers, military units, and military affairs, and is increasingly becoming a matter for politicians, scientists, and even bankers.

permalink parent save report block reply