THE CHINESE “BAT” OPERATION, A SIMULATED “PANDEMIC” CONQUERS (KILLS?) THE WESTERN WORLD
Bats bigger than pigeons were arriving: their dentition was similar to that of humans, and they attacked the faces of Macedonians: one bite into their noses and another into their ears (Leon of Naples, Historia de preliis Alexandri Magni).
Comrades, there is indescribable chaos everywhere on this earth – the situation is perfect. (Chairman of CCP Mao Tse -Tung )
In April and May 2020, a scientific counter-conensus has emerged in the world on coronovirus “pandemic” and “coronavirus disease”. (covid); a plethora of eminent researchers, virologists, epidemiologists, immunologists, doctors of various specialities (see “Germany is debating coronavirus” in the German Review section on this page) concluded that – regardless of some differences between them concerning detailed interpretations of medical-epidemiological phenomena – coronavirus is not a “killer virus”, it is not dangerous for people with an average healthy immune system, i.e. for almost the entire population. In this group, the infection does not cause any symptoms, possibly quite harmless flu or cold symptoms. Like all other pathogens, chronically ill and elderly people can be at risk. The mortality rate – even starting from significantly inflated official statistics – is at the level of 0.2%, i.e. several times lower than forecasts given by public health institutions (forecasts e.g. by Dr. Neil Ferguson, for the UK half a million deceased, for the USA – 2 million, most likely due to his use of outdated and faulty computer software). The draconian measures taken by the governments to combat the “pandemic” were, according to the representatives of the counter-consensus, completely disproportionate to the threat and destructive in all respects. The main theses and hypotheses constituting the scientific counter-conensus on “coronavirus disease” were presented by the long-term director of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene in Mainz, Prof. Dr. Sucharid Bhakdi, in his latest (written together with Dr. Karina Reiß) bestselling book Corona Fehlalarm? Zahlen, Daten und Hintergründe ( Coronavirus – false alarm? Numbers, data, causes, Berlin 2020).
If the counter-consensus representatives are right, then the political origins of “coronavirus disease” and the winding road that the local epidemic in Wuhan has taken to the status of a global “pandemic” should be considered. What happened in China was first interpreted from a political point of view by Nikolai Vavilov, a Russian expert on China’s domestic and foreign policy, editor-in-chief of the internet portal “Южный Китай”. (South China), expert of the center Экономика Китая: кризис и возможности (China’s Economy. Crisis and Opportunities), who spent 10 years in China. He is the author of the book Некоронованные короли красного Китая. Кланы и политические группировки КНР (Uncrowned Kings of Red China. Clans and political factions in the KSČ). In mid-April, I came across an interview with him published in “South China Insight” (http://www.south-insight.com/en/node/218407?language=en) in “South China Insight” on February 7 and later March 7, entitled The epidemic in China as a hidden coup (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nDIc7_8dVk).
Wawiłow put forward a hypothesis that the background of the events in China is the struggle between the Xi Yinping faction and the “komsomolts” faction (tuanpai) – activists who did not belong to the families of the “red aristocracy” and started their party and state careers in the Communist Youth League (hereinafter KLM); they went to power in the party “from below” through the youth organization. The League was the power base for Genesis and President Hu Jintao, who was the First Secretary of its Central Committee from 1984 to 1985. According to Wawilov, lung disease is normal in Wuhan, epidemics such as the “coronovirus epidemic” are common in China, occurring every year in the form of a winter wave of influenza. The series of draconian measures taken was therefore completely disproportionate to the scale of the threat, unnecessary from the point of view of public health, and the behaviour of the regional authorities was incomprehensible. According to Wawiłów, this was in fact an action uncoordinated with Beijing, i.e. with the Xi Jinging Genesis faction, and was aimed at stopping the personal changes he planned and hitting the ‘komsomolts’, or at least postponing them over time.
Wawiłów’s analysis aroused in me – at first only intuitive – doubts, although the political and not medical origins of the “pandemic” were quite obvious to me almost from the beginning (for the political origins of another “pandemic” see the chapter “Political history of AIDS” in: http://www.tomaszgabis.pl/2009/03/04/raport-o-aids/). Therefore, as far as the essence of the matter is concerned, Vavilyov was right, but his concrete interpretation of the events was unconvincing. As other observers of the Chinese political scene stress, the fundamental division into two hostile factions in the KSČ is highly simplified and blurs the picture of the internal political situation. An American journalist, expert on Chinese affairs Chris Buckley in an article four years ago ( China Reins In Communist Youth League, and Its Alumni’s Prospects (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/04/world/asia/china-communist-youth-league.html) commented on the KLM reorganization announced by Xi Jinping, so that party activists marginalized under his rule could not use the League for their purposes. Gensek “wrote an epitaph” on the shrinking influence of his predecessor Hu Jintao and former rivals. Reorganisation of KLM – reduction of the number of staff on the central and regional level, reduction of the budget by 50%. – and subjecting it to tighter party control – signalled that its glory days as a school raising the Chinese political elite were over.
Although some analysts of Chinese affairs claimed that the ‘komsomolts’ are loyal to each other and have common political views and goals, the former editor of the ‘China Youth Daily’ League’s press body Li Datong, quoted by Buckley, is tasked with the fact that the party activists who passed through the League never formed a cohesive group, and the circumstances which made it an incubator of political talents lost their importance before Xi even took over the party. The recent  changes show that this environment has little influence. At a time when Hu Jintao was Secretary General of the KSČ, one could argue from poverty that there was something like a ‘ligus’ faction. Nowadays it is only a “political zombie”.
After taking up the post of Secretary General Xi Jinping started, under the guise of fighting corruption, to effectively eliminate the opponents, both allies and protégés of Hu Jintao and all others who could challenge his authority. New first party secretaries were appointed in 21 of the 31 provinces, all but four provinces got new governors; in 40 major cities 29 party secretaries and 26 mayors were replaced, and personnel changes also took place as deputy governors or their equivalents in all 31 Chinese administrative districts (see Willy Wo-Lap Lam, The Xi Jinping Faction Dominates Regional Appointments After the 19th Party Congress, https://jamestown.org/program/xi-jinping-faction-dominates-regional-appointments-19th-party-congress); Rapid turnover in regional leadership shows Xi’s influence, http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=514476635&Country=China&topic=Economy&oid=414434625&flid=965670080;
In parallel to breaking up the “ligus” faction, Xi built his own faction, the core of which is the “Zhejiang clique” (similarly, Jiang Zemin once built a “Shanghai clique”), composed of people serving under him when he was the first secretary of the party in Zhejiang province (from 2002 to 2007). Further groups of factions are the “Shaanxi clique”, i.e. people from the native province of Xi, the “red princes’ cottery”. (taizidang) , i.e. descendants of the great families of the founding fathers of the PRC, and finally his “friends from school” or university. He introduced his protégés, political friends, templates, biases and colleagues Xi to the highest positions in the party and state apparatus. Earlier, he warned strongly not to form “factions and coteries” in the party (tuantuanhuohuo), but apparently he wanted others not to create them.
The collapse or disintegration of the former, loose – as some analysts emphasize – ‘komsomolts’ faction (see Willy Wo-Lap Lam The Eclipse of the Communist Youth League and the Rise of the Zhejiang Clique, https://jamestown.org/program/the-eclipse-of-the-communist-youth-league-and-the-rise-of-the-zhejiang-clique/) began when their protector Hu Jintao retired in 2012, retired and Xi deprived him of the opportunity to influence the affairs of the party – he could only watch his protégés, political friends and allies fall. He practically disappeared from the public sphere overnight (see Samuel K. Berkowitz It’s Official: The Man Who Ruled China Has All But Vanished; https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/01/05/its-official-the-man-who-ruled-china-has-all-but-vanished/). Hu’s right-hand man, a former Jihua League activist, was removed from the post of head of the KC General Bureau, arrested in 2014, accused of various crimes and sentenced to life imprisonment. The party activists who belong to the ‘komsomolts’ faction are marginalised, e.g. the first secretary of the Qin Yizhi League, a man closely related to Hu Jintao , was not elected a delegate to the party reunion in 2017 – it was an unprecedented event for an officer who was at the head of the League not to take part in the reunion. Some time later, Qin was dismissed and demoted (see Katsuji Nakazawa, Xi silences once-powerful youth league and former president’s protege; https://asia.nikkei.com/Features/China-up-close/Xi-silences-once-powerful-youth-league-and-former-president-s-protege?mc_cid=1f9bc1ec42&mc_eid=1f9d28130a).
Hu Jintao wished that the successor of Xi Jinpinga would be his protégé “ligus” Hu Chunhua. He was to first become a member of China’s most important political body, the seven-member Standing Committee of the CCP’s Permanent Political Bureau, to begin 5 years’ preparation for the post of Secretary General at the party’s convention in 2022. However, Xi blocked his appointment to the KS BP, giving him the opportunity to shed tears with the Deputy Prime Minister. He became one of the four deputy prime ministers, with Xi Jinping’s man, Deputy Prime Minister Han Zheng, being, as a member of the KS BP, ranked higher in the party hierarchy than he, a member of the Politburo.
Currently, the highest ranked members of the “league” faction are two members of KS BP, Wang Yang and Li Keqiang. Wang Yang was elected a member of KS BP at the party reunion in 2017 and owes his advancement to his loyalty to Xi Jinping and support of his lineage. Li Keqiang, who worked closely with former genius Hu Jintao and belonged to the national authorities of the LMK, is Prime Minister, but Xi has taken some of his powers away from him, so he has less power than his predecessors in this position.
Vavilov claims that all the main actors in the “fight against the virus” are high-ranking, former leaders of regional LMK organizations, including Mayor of Wuhan (from May 2018) Zhou Xianwang. However, Ma Guoqiang I Secretary of the Wuhan party and Deputy I Secretary of the Hubei Province party, deputy member of the KC since 2018, and therefore politically superior to Zhou Xianwang, had no connection with the ‘liguses’. He belongs to the group of Xi’s promoted managers and technocrats. As far as the highest authorities of Hubei province are concerned, the governor of Wang Xiaodong province was appointed in September 2016, when Xi was already the general secretary, and the 1st party secretary in Hubei province Jiang Chaoliang, appointed in October 2016, is the man of Wang Qishan – Xi’s right hand. In other words, the province is controlled by the Genseka fraction.
To sum up: Wawiłów’s assumption that the marginalized “Komsomol” faction would be able to take real, far-reaching consequences in domestic and foreign policy, actions against the dominant Xi faction, in fact suicidal and devoid of any chance of success, seems unjustified. Nevertheless, the fundamental thought of the Russian Sino-specialist that there was a staging of an epidemic in Vuhan and the Hubei province by the draconian authorities of spectacular measures aimed at convincing observers that something extremely dangerous had happened is nevertheless correct.
Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg also referred with suspicion to the events in Wuhan and Hubei, and in one of the interviews he said that a “theatre” had been made there. In turn the German economist Dr Antony Müller, who is currently teaching at a Brazilian university, is a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institut (Germany) and the Mises Institue (USA) and of the America Institute of Economic Research, in an article entitled Operation gelungen, Patient tot, published on 18th March. Wie die Politik einem Phantom nachjagt und dabei die Wirtschaft zerstört (The operation was successful, the patient died. How politicians chase the phenomenon while destroying the economy; (https://medium.com/@antonymueller/operation-gelungen-patient-tot-b5b4c7ad1547) wrote: “The Chinese have put on a show about coronavirus.” However, neither Wodarg nor Müller developed this idea further, as Jon Rappoport did in mid-April in a COVID text: The Chinese regime, Sun Tzu and the Art of War (https://blog.nomorefakenews.com/page/7/) . According to him, the drastic measures taken by the Chinese authorities were a simulation of an extremely dangerous epidemic. And the source from which the cunning Chinese drew inspiration to assemble such a sophisticated intrigue was, quite simply, the advice contained in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, saying how to psychologically smash the enemy, e.g. “The strategy of war consists in cunning and creating illusions”. (Sun Tzu, Art of War, K.A.M., Warsaw 1994, p.17). Therefore Rappoport proposes to call the coronavirus “Sun Tzu virus”.
This finally confirmed my suspicion that it was not – as Vavilyov would like to see – the decomposed “komsomolts” faction, but the centers of central and provincial power dominated by the Xi faction that simulated the epidemic – let’s call it Operation Bat – both for the purposes of internal and foreign policy.
One of the obvious aims of the simulated epidemic was the pacification of Hong Kong, where mass street protests were taking place in 2019, and finally the elimination of its autonomy. The simulated epidemic allows to ban demonstrations and other mass gatherings without “breaking human rights”. Simulated viral “pandemics” or epidemics can be manipulated – if a viral infection qualifies for an illness, a city or region can always be closed down depending on the socio-political situation, an “epidemic state of emergency” can be declared in Tibet or Xinjiang. The simulated epidemic of “coronavirus disease” was used to further develop control over individuals and groups – the creation of gigantic databases in which location information, behavioral profiles and facial recognition systems are linked. The idea (utopia) of an absolutely “transparent citizen” really comes true in China.
Simulated epidemics, “epidemiological states of emergency”, measures of increased population control may become (from the point of view of power) necessary as social discontent may increase, strikes and protests may intensify. Already in 2019, it was predicted that the first quarter of 2020 would bring a recession; i.e. economic growth was expected to slow down. The Beijing authorities can no longer pursue such an expansive monetary policy as the economy’s debt level and the resulting risks to the financial sector have taken on dangerous dimensions. According to some researchers, China’s growth model is slowly running out of steam, which could lead to increased economic tensions.
It is not a coincidence that Operation Bat started at the time of the end of African swine fever, which has been ongoing since 2018. In August 2019, experts estimated that 40% of pigs died in China and at the end of the year pork production may even fall by half, which means the loss of between 300 and 350 million pigs (China, with half of all pigs in the world, is the largest pork market in the world – pork dishes are the main item on the Chinese menu. Obviously, pigmeat prices have risen sharply – by 110% in November 2019 compared to November last year ( https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/10/china-pork-prices-surged-110percent-in-november-due-to-african-swine-fever.html). This could have been a risk of social discontent. Fortunately, an “epidemic” has arrived.
Let us also recall that in June-July 2019, Wuhana had street protests against plans to build another large waste incinerator, which would raise the already extremely high level of air pollution in a crowded city, sinking in the winter in the smog that makes it difficult to see. Local authorities were surprised by the scale of the protests. The police arrested many demonstrators.
Wuhan is a large industrial zone where respiratory diseases such as pneumonia, a traditional disease of the Chinese people, are endemic; it is estimated that every year 300,000 people die from pneumonia in China. In various parts of the country, air pollution levels exceed those of the first, early industrialised era as well as those of the modern era. The Chinese social media write about “airpocalypse”. (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/09/airpocalypse-now-china-pollution-reaching-record-levels). Respiratory protection masks are an ordinary sight on the streets of some Chinese cities. There is no topic that would occupy Chinese citizens as much as the effects of air pollution. The “Coronaviral Disease Pandemic” allows to cover the powerlessness of the authorities in the face of an extremely serious problem, divert the attention of the population from the huge number of respiratory diseases (between 500,000 and 1,250,000 deaths in 2017) and shift the responsibility to the “new virus”.
It should be remembered that a serious health problem in China is also tuberculosis; even researchers believe that in some countries it is tuberculosis that wrongly – or perhaps intentionally – is identified as a “coronavirus disease”.
On 31st December 2019, the Chinese health authorities reported to the World Health Organisation (WHO) about a group of cases of viral pneumonia in Wuhan (Hubei Province) – thus the Operation Bat was transferred to the international level. On 30th January the WHO declared a “Public health emergency of international importance”. (Public Health Emergency of International Concern), on March 11th, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, with one signature, turned “Emergency” into a pandemic, i.e. a threat to the whole world from a mysterious new virus causing a new disease for which there is no cure.
In the weekly magazine “Myśl Polska” (26 April – 3 May) I read that the journalist Witold Gadowski reported that on 18 September 2019 in Vuhan the Chinese army conducted exercises covering the functioning of troops during the coronavirus epidemic. If this were true – I was not able to confirm it – it would mean that already in September there were trials before the beginning of Operation “Bat”.
The obvious background of Operation Bird is the growing confrontation between China and the United States in a strategic competition. In response to the rise of China’s power in violation of the global status quo, the U.S. responded by starting a de facto new cold war in 2018 – as, for example, Bartłomiej Radziejewski believes – which has three main dimensions – strategic, technological and commercial: “The U.S. is on the offensive: it is inflicting blows, shifting forces, arousing media interest. They have succeeded in weakening the Chinese technological giants at the forefront of ZTE and Huawei, reducing the trade deficit, halting the expansion of the Middle Kingdom in the South China Sea, disrupting Chinese manufacturing chains by restricting access to semiconductors (…). The same goes for the military-strategic field. Successive demonstrations by American forces in the Indo-Pacific, further fortification of Taiwan, revival of cooperation with the Philippines, Japan and India – have hampered Chinese expansion in the region” (Bartłomiej Radziejewski, USA on its way to defeat in competition with China, https://nowakonfederacja.pl/usa-na-drodze-do-porazki-w-rywalizacji-z-chinami/; see also “Clash of powers” – Jacek Bartosiak and Bartłomiej Radziejewski on the tension between the USA and China (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOh-LmKIzQA and On the threshold of war. Interview with Bartłomiej Radziejewski. Freedom in Remont #27, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d18IktesHjY).
A similar opinion is represented by the Brazilian journalist Pepe Escobar, who believes that the strategic goal of the USA is to stop China in all possible sections, and the tactics used to achieve this goal are to assemble an anti-Chinese coalition, wage economic wars, impose embargoes and sanctuaries, block regional markets for Chinese corporations, try to stop the New Silk Road by cutting off its branches (Pepe Escobar, China Updates Its “Art of (Hybrid) War” https://asiatimes.com/2020/05/china-updates-its-art-of-hybrid-war).
Nialla Ferguson’s article reads: “In 2007, economist Moritz Schularick and I coined the term “Chimeric” to describe the symbiotic economic relations between China and the United States. Today, this cooperation has faded. The Second Cold War has begun”. This “new cold war will be even colder” (Ferguson, Second Cold War? Yes, with China. Already on, “Gazeta Wyborcza”, December 31, 2019).
According to Nikolai Vavilov (see https://newprospect.ru/nikolay-vavilov-koronavirus-ne-prichina-povod), after he came to power, Xi Jinping initiated a gradual geopolitical reorientation of China; he challenged the course of building the PRC-U.S. ‘alliance’ and – in order to reduce China’s dependence on America – directed it towards the countries of Eurasia, also in terms of trade, which is growing with these countries, while it is decreasing with the USA. According to Wawiłów, the Xi Jinpings fraction are “isolationists”. The increasingly intense “national-patriotic” propaganda is in line with this course (see Kai Strittmatter, China 5.0 for patriotic films. Agnieszka Gadzała, Warsaw 2020 , p.76)
At Graham Allison Destined for War. Can America and China Escape Thucydides Trap? (Polish edition. Sentenced to War? Are America and China heading for a clash, Kraków 2019). Emperor William II’s Germany and Germany ruled by the NSDAP are the equivalent of modern China, Great Britain in 1914 and 1939 is the equivalent of modern United States, and the modern equivalent of dictator Adolf Hitler, like him, who was striving for a superpowerful position and thus questioning the status quo, which served the interests of the Anglo-Saxons and gave them “power over the world”, is Xi Jinping, who is directing China towards “national socialism” or, from a different perspective, “national capitalism”.
As then and today, a superpower that does not recognize the status quo guarded by and for the benefit of the Anglo-Saxons, which violates their “legitimate vital national interests”, is actively, in its various forms and on various fronts, held back and repelled. Washington has adopted a strategy of containment, with the aim of turning it into a strategy of rejecting the enemy in its previous positions (roll back). What, from Washington’s point of view, is a threat to the “legitimate, vital national interests” of the U.S., from Beijing’s point of view, is merely the pursuit of its own “legitimate, vital national interests,” what, from Washington’s point of view, is the “containment” of an aggressive U.S. offensive aimed at “circling” China.
Operation Bat is a Chinese (counter)strike, an extremely ingenious manoeuvre in a “hybrid war” with the US, unforeseen by theoreticians.
At the beginning of June, Clifford D. May, founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and columnist of “The Washington Times”, posed a very important question: “Did Chinese Communist Party intend for COVID-19 to destabilize a disunited America?”. May wrote: “Many of the sci-fi films of the 1950s showed the attack of alien life forms (alien lifeforms) – the Earthlings understood that what unites them is more important than what divides them. In recent months, we humans have been attacked by alien life forms, yet we are more divided than ever. In January the Chinese communist mandarins allowed the people of Wuhan to fly to the whole world”. When they closed the city at the end of the month, outbreaks of the epidemic had already appeared in more than 30 cities in 26 countries, its seeds were spread around the world by travellers from Wuhan – “Did the Chinese communists designate alien organisms to destabilize the increasingly divided United States? There is no conclusive evidence of this, but it is certain that they do not shed crocodile tears about how things are” (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/2/did-chinese-communist-party-intend-for-covid-19-to ).
No conclusive evidence needs Tucker Carlson: “Before the city of Wuhan was quarantined, about 5 million people fled the city and scattered around the world. The authorities allowed it. In many cases they spread the disease, turning the outbreak into a global pandemic. According to an American publicist and TV commentator, the Chinese government sees this as part of the “battle for control of the world”. The Chinese want, Carlson warns, to manage international financial systems, trade agreements, military alliances and maritime routes. (https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-propaganda-war-china-coronavirus).
Carlson is obviously right in the sense that “the battle for control of the world is on, i.e., the U.S., which until now has exercised “control of the world” and led “international financial systems, trade agreements, military alliances, maritime routes”, does not dare to share “responsibility for the world” with others.
Admittedly, according to the sinologist Jakub Jakóbowski from the Centre for Eastern Studies, “at present China has neither superpowerful aspirations nor tools to build a global order” – (quoted after: Robert Stefanicki Will China Take Over the World, “Gazeta Wyborcza”, 10 April 2020), but the expansion of the sphere of influence in Southeast Asia, the Western Pacific and Eurasia, the “Belt and Route” initiative – is a challenge posed to the American Empire, which responds appropriately to the threat to its global interests.
The Chinese have neither used “alien organisms to destabilize the increasingly divided United States” (May), nor caused a “pandemic” by sending their infected citizens as “viral bombs” to take away the US “control of the world” (Carlson); no, they did a covert operation as part of a psychological and economic war – they sent an illusion of a biological threat to the U.S., they cunningly tossed the Americans the “terrible story of a deadly mysterious virus” into the mass-scene of the quarantine of millions of people and the blockade in Wuhan and Hubei province – this simulation was enough, to cause global panic, “destabilize the increasingly divided United States” (not without a chamois, the year of presidential elections, which further polarized the U.S. political scene, was chosen to carry out the operation) and somewhat violate its “control over the world”. It is simple, Operation Bat will cost China a lot, but war always costs money. Moreover, the inevitable costs can be propagandially exploited: “We Chinese are also victims, our economy has also suffered, we have been affected by the epidemic, we also deserve sympathy”.
China’s multiple economic and financial ties with the world – especially the US – economy make every economic blow to Beijing on a boomerang basis hit the US, and vice versa, every economic blow to Washington – like deceiving and scaring the local establishment with a virus image and causing the economy to shut down – hit China like a boomerang. The cost of the elite’s struggle for “control over the world” is felt primarily, or in fact exclusively, by “ordinary Americans” and “ordinary Chinese”. When one considers the real economic situation of both countries, the fact that their economic growth based on cheap credit is illusory – since the financial crisis in 2008, China has pumped 20 trillion dollars, i.e. four times Japan’s GDP, into its banking system – gives us a picture of the fierce struggle of two “giants on clay legs” (see: “The Chinese are not the only ones who have been in the world”). Ronald-Peter Stöferle, Mark J. Valek, China is in Trouble, https://mises.org/wire/china-trouble and Doug Casey, What Happens Next for China-Collapse or War with the US?; https://internationalman.com/articles/what-happens-next-for-china-collapse-or-war-with-the-us/)
The Congress is made up of about one-third rascals, about two-thirds fools and about three-thirds cowards (Henry Louis Mencken)
Why did the “Chinese conspiracy” go off? The basic condition for the success of Operation “Bat” was that behind the simulated epidemic stood the authority of the rulers of China, i.e. the second world superpower, who – in order to convince the world (USA) of the terrible danger threatening it – sent a false message by introducing extraordinary, draconian measures such as mass quarantine, closing down the whole city and the whole province, and so on. Never before has a quarantine of this magnitude been introduced. Images of how police and sanitary services measure people’s temperature, take them out of their cars and take them to a quarantine or hospital under duress. Frightened viewers watched with their own eyes on the screens as people were falling down and dying on the streets (it is possible that they were ordinary extras).
The Chinese ran by simulating an epidemic, or to be more precise, announcing an ordinary, constantly occurring epidemic there as a new superhazardous phenomenon caused by an unknown mysterious deadly virus, made fiction a reality, i.e. the fight against the “pandemic” became something real. Governments of other countries found themselves under pressure to imitate China, because – as it was believed – not without reason the Chinese took such radical actions. They were the “proof” that we are dealing with a “killer virus”.
The coronavirus therefore received political support first from the government of the powerful China, and then from the World Health Organization, which, as you know, is not a medical organization, but a political one. It was the WHO that turned the local epidemic into a “Public Health Emergency of International Importance” and then a global pandemic, with mortality rates set at 3.4%, more than ten times higher than those for post-pandemic complications, and spread the word around the world that we are dealing with a unique virus with unique properties. In addition to the WHO, the story of the coronavirus has been supported by the American Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, followed by almost the entire world’s virological establishment, the entire medical-pharmaceutical complex. The management and therapeutic state has gained a great opportunity to show off. It was, let’s add, this time a successful recycling of the “swine flu pandemic” of 2009-2010: the same alarming headlines in the press, the same apocalyptic scenarios and forecasts with hundreds of thousands, yeah, millions of infected and dead, the same media panic.
Jon Rappoport wrote that trained hounds from the WHO, the CDC (and, let’s add, from all the virological institutes of the world, where virologists are plunged into endless searches of cellular debris and unspecific protein material) the Chinese regime said exactly what they wanted to hear: there was a new coronavirus that had never infected people before, before it suddenly went mad at the turn of 2019/2020. Virus hunters swallowed the bait and, drooling with joy, pressed the buttons on their control panels. The whole global pandemic sandbox came into action with impetus.
And the wind of the web bent their neurons on the virtual ends of the instrumental world. (…) Instead of developing as history goes on, events begin to follow each other in emptiness. The excess of discourses and images against which we are defenseless, just as powerless and stunned as in the face of inevitable war. (…) Disinformation is caused by an excess of information itself, its incantation, constant repetition, creating a field of empty perception, a space of disintegration as if after the impact of a neutron bomb or one that absorbs all the oxygen from the environment. Everything here is neutralized in advance by the precession of images and comments, including war. (…) Whether these events were artificially created or not, they were triggered by an epidemic of information networks spreading in secret. Fake events. (Jean Baudrillard, Clearance pact. About the Intelligence of Evil, pass. O inteligencji Zła [On Evil Intelligence], translated by Sławomir Królak, Warsaw 2005).
A great deal of funding for coronavirus propaganda was provided by the world technooligarch William “Bill” Gates, called by some “secret head of the WHO” (see Jakob Simmank, Der heimliche WHO-Chef heißt Bill Gates; https://www.zeit.de/wissen/gesundheit/2017-03/who-unabhaengigkeit-bill-gates-film), an ardent supporter of the theory of a worldwide virus conspiracy that can only be defeated by “implanting” all of humanity from infants to the old. For years, Gates has been trumpeting about the terrible dangers of sinister viruses and the vaccines that will save us from them. He has a regular “freak” on this point. He believes deeply, fanatically enough, that when the whole humanity is “implanted”, there will be a new era in the history of the world, people will live longer, healthier and happier.
On 18 October 2019 at Johns Hopkins University, the so-called Event 201, a simulation game of the new coronavirus pandemic, took place with the participation of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; its creators assumed that the virus would kill 33 million people around the world. Two months later, the Chinese conducted this simulation in real conditions. Present at the “Event” was the General Director of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention since 2017, Prof. George Fu Gao, who specializes in bat viruses; after his return to Beijing, he certainly discussed the last details of the “Bat” operation with the highest factors. The WHO, CDC, Gates et consortes, the medical-viral establishment and the medical-industrial complex had a role to play in this “real” simulation: saboteurs unaware of the real goals of the strategic geopolitical game in which they participate.
The fool’s osmosis into the elite of world power is accelerating. Unfortunately, not all of them end up as badly as I wish them to (Stanisław Lem)
In the political elite there is always a division, roughly speaking, into two categories of people, analogous to that which could be observed before and during the alcohol prohibition in the U.S., when among the ardent supporters of its introduction there were both “cunning moonshine smugglers” and “virtuous but naive ladies” from anti-alcohol societies. In the first stage of the “pandemic”, when fear and panic are not only overwhelming the masses but also the elite, politicians, journalists, doctors, clergy, celebrities, scientists who are the equivalent of these “virtuous but naive ladies” dominate. – They have good intentions, but they completely do not understand the mechanisms of social and political life, they cannot recognize the real cause and effect relationships. In other words, honest fools. When the first wave of the “pandemic”, or more precisely the wave of fear of it, i.e. of the invisible, dangerous virus-demon, slowly begins to fall in the elite, the second phase begins when “cunning moonshine smugglers”, i.e. people for whom it is only the political and financial gains they can make from the “pandemic” that count (out of fear of it) and from maintaining the measures that were taken to “fight it”.
As Jon Rappoport pointed out, a “pandemic” is a good business, it earns money: the pharmaceutical business, the medical business, the business of evoking fear, the business of distracting attention from important matters, the business of supervision and control, and so on. “Cute moonshine smugglers” do not believe in a real threat, so they can coldly manipulate a “pandemic” to achieve their goals, e.g. to strengthen the legitimacy of the authorities – since all other ways of legitimacy are exhausted, only one last one remains: “to protect citizens from illness and death.” However, such manipulation of a “pandemic” and the means used to stop it is not only a question of the will of those concerned. It must be considered in a systemic and comparative perspective. In an authoritarian system such as that prevailing in China, the epidemic of “coronavirus disease” began and ended when “Emperor” Xi Jinping and the CCP’s Political Bureau Standing Committee decided on it. In China the sovereign introduces and cancels an “epidemic state of emergency”, while in countries of mass party democracy, where sovereignty is blurred, it is impossible to determine who actually introduces and especially who cancels this “state of emergency”.
The American Chief Virus Hunter Anthony Faucci, for example, stated that when an “epidemic state of emergency” is called off, the “virus” will decide. “So the virus stands above the president of the United States, above Congress, above the Supreme Court, and announces the decisions through his “priests.” that is Fucci and his colleagues. However, the “priests of the Virus”, despite Fucci’s aspiration to establish “viral” sovereignty, can only strengthen themselves as one of the main factions of the biomedical establishment fighting for a larger piece of cake – more money, power and prestige.
In a modern mass Western-type democracy there is no supreme sovereignty, there is a multitude of power centres, political, administrative and judicial bodies and bodies, various organized interest groups and lobbyists, big business groups and big financiers, a multitude of fighting parties, political and ideological camps, “deep states and countries”, media centres organizing the so-called public opinion. Numerous non-governmental organizations, non-state actors, indirect and hidden authorities, “mafias, services and lodges”, unions, associations and movements of the so-called civil society are crowded and bump into each other. They all pursue their own goals, all have their – often conflicting – interests, all want to (co-)govern, participate in or influence decisions. In a crisis situation, full of emotional tensions and sharp clashes, it causes chaos and inability to take unambiguous, radical decisions that will allow to rebuild the social and economic order.
In a mass party democracy, rulers cannot ignore the changing moods of the masses, they are dominated by the dynamics of group thinking and the psychology of the crowd – with journalists and politicians also belonging to the crowd. “Pandemic becomes a weapon in political struggle, a convenient tool used e.g. by the opposition to accuse those in power of “responsibility for the death of thousands of people”. Or by the politicians of the Vegetarian Alternative to close down meat factories, the virus’s favourite headquarters. There is no one to make the final decisions: leave the “pandemic” or stay in it, prolong the “pandemic”, shorten it or just limit it. Or maybe to stop the “pandemic” for a while and then announce it again? Maybe a “pandemic” be announced and called off in particular regions, towns, districts, streets, businesses, schools or blocks of flats? Open or not open? Freeze or unfreeze? Completely or only partially? Remove masks or continue masking yourself? Wait for a vaccine, or not wait? Swim on the first wave or wait for the second or third? Determine and announce that the wave will be lower, but never fall? Once launched, the processes of “pandemic politics” gain their own internal dynamics, which are very difficult to stop, let alone stop completely. Therefore, the “pandemic of coronavirus disease” can – in its various forms and scopes – last forever.
In addition, rulers must defend their incredible actions until the last drop of blood (Denis G. Rancourt: “the global lockdown of over a billion people is an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history”), which have produced and continue to produce disastrous economic and social consequences, so that the idea that maybe all this was unnecessary, that the victims they had to make as a result of the mass quarantine and the closure of the economy did not make any sense. Governments have no choice but to keep their faces on the line, they have to “go into denial” and maintain a “state of emergency” as long as possible.
The new dominant frame of capitalism is created by global panic (Franco “Bifo” Berardi)
Ewa Kern-Jędrychowska, a journalist living in New York, wrote on 18 March: “We have an incredible mess, hospitals are unprepared, and there are already over 2,300 cases of illness in the state of New York and a few hundred more every day. In a few days we will be the next Italians”, and the next day: “The United States woke up far too late. As early as the beginning of March, President Trump claimed that the coronavirus was a political mystification against him” (quoted after: Marta Jakubiak, The fight against SRAS-CoV-2 is getting more and more difficult, “Gazeta Lekarska” 2020 No. 4). President Trump intuitively but aptly sensed that the “pandemic” was a mystification directed against him, but he had to bow to the massive propaganda fire of the opposition, the media and the viral establishment. Interestingly, according to Jon Rappoport, the Chinese attack was directed against President Trump, whom the leadership of the PRC considers the most dangerous opponent. Operation Bat was also successful in the case of Boris Johnson, who, although he represented a “common sense” on the issue of “pandemic”, eventually succumbed to terrible covidist pressure.
Operation “Bat” was to deliberately cause a wave of fear by simulating a “pandemic” (“Chinese conspiracy”); in the next phase the self-contained mechanisms of globalization begin to operate: global media (TV and Internet), global communication, global iconosphere, global panic, global hysteria. Among the broad masses constantly exposed to the shower of terrifying “information”, fear is awakened in the face of the killer virus – an alien form of life, invisible, merciless, from everywhere and from nowhere. “The panic virus. (Prof. Karin Mölling) has spread in the so-called western world like a prairie fire, causing fears that paralyze rational thinking. The psychological background for these reactions was created by the “politics of everyday fear” which has lasted for decades. (Brian Massumi) and “pandemic films” with a deadly virus in the lead role. The viewers are frightened by viruses turning humans into zombies, mutants, psychopathic killers and vampires, genetically modified viruses, viruses as a biological weapon, viruses as a blood infectious virus, rabies viruses, coronaviruses, avian flu viruses, viruses, new and unknown, etc.
We have a whole series of postapocalyptic films, in which the virus kills almost the entire humanity. Others are less ambitious in this respect, e.g. in Smallpox 2002: Silent Weapon (2002) the smallpox pandemic takes the lives of only 60 million people. In the television film Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America (2006), an American businessman returns from China infected with a mutated avian influenza virus, the virus spreads throughout the country and then all over the world, the authorities predict that 350 million people will die, armed gangs fight for vaccines (Gatesa?), quarantine covers entire villages, the pandemic is finally contained, but in the final scene we see the inhabitants of a village in Angola who died as a result of being infected with a new virus mutation. The second wave of the pandemic begins. In Quarantine (2000) the genetically mutated virus unnoticeably spreads around the world thanks to the passenger airplane. In Doomsday (2008), people fall like flies because of a killer virus called the “reaper”. The London government is quarantining Scotland by building a wall to isolate it from the rest of the UK. In the “Plague” section (2003) of the series Dead Zone (scenes by Stephen King, Jeffrey Boam) a coronavirus arrives from China to the USA and starts its bloody work. In Contagion (2011, the Polish title Epidemic of Fear) we can see an illustrative lesson about the transmission of the virus: a bulldozer knocks over palm trees in the Chinese forest, bats living nearby escape, one of them protects himself on a pig farm, drops an infected piece of banana (! ), which eats the pig, the slaughtered pig is prepared for the table by the chef in the casino in Macao, the chef shakes hands with the American binzeswomen, this one returns to the US as a patient-zero and the danse macabre begins: 2.5 million people die in the US, 26 million in the world, not much of it, scientists predict that 10-12% (or 600 million) of the entire world’s infected population will be infected, while the mortality rate will be 25-30%, or nearly 200 million people will die. Finally, let’s mention the latest “pandemic thriller” Before the Fire (2020), which premiered on 7 March, just before the WHO’s announcement of the “coronavirus pandemic”. In other words, the “flu pandemic” raging in the film smoothly turned into a real, i.e. simulated, “pandemic”.
The philosopher Giorgio Agamben, always an attentive observer of the policies that seek to control our bodies, wrote in the newspaper “II Manifesto” that we see a growing tendency to use the “state of emergency” as a paradigm of normal government. The express decree invoking ‘public health and safety’ considerations leads to the militarisation of municipalities and areas where ‘at least one person with a positive test result appears, for whom the route of transmission of the virus is unknown or the route does not lead to a person coming from an area already affected by the virus’.
The Agamben is convinced that ‘such a vague formulation will quickly extend the emergency to all regions’. Another factor, no less worrying in his view, is the state of anxiety, sown into the consciousness of individuals and translated into the need to experience states of collective panic, for which the epidemic provides an ideal excuse. “In a mad vicious circle, the restriction of freedom imposed by governments is accepted in the name of the need for security, brought about by the same governments that are now entering to satisfy it” (Francesco M. Cataluccio, City at the time of the coronavirus, Pass. PB, “Tygodnik Powszechny”, 2020 No. 10).
The growing tendency to use the “state of emergency” as a paradigm of normal government, which has so clearly manifested itself in a “pandemic state of emergency”, is making it a “new normality” (like that of Orwell: “exceptionality” = “normality” “extraordinary” = “ordinary”. Looking at this phenomenon in a global context, it is easy to see that there is a convergence of systems – Chinese and Western. The model for the “West” becomes the Chinese “digital dictatorship”, Chinese “technoritarism”, the Chinese “state of general surveillance” populated by “obedient subjects” (see Strittmatter, China 5.0. How a digital dictatorship is created, and Roger Cohen, After a decade of chaos time for fear, “Gazeta Wyborcza” 31 December 2019). Just one example: the authorities of many Western countries imitate the communist party, in its quest to build “China without cash”. Currently, they are using the “pandemic” to get people to give them cash (after all, a virus-kiler lurks on banknotes and coins), and thus to put themselves under absolute control of politicians, undercover agents and bankers. The above mentioned idea (a utopia) of a fully “transparent citizen”, which is being implemented in China, finds more and more ardent followers in Europe and America.
When we speak of convergence, we do not only mean similar or identical mechanisms of functioning of the “police therapeutic-medical state”, sanctioning permanently elevated sanitary regime, old and new forms of bio-power (cf. Joel Kotkin, Hygienic Fascism: Turning the World Into a ‘Safe Space’ – But at What Cost?; http://joelkotkin.com/hygienic-fascism-turning-the-world-into-a-safe-space-but-at-what-cost/.) The liking of systems can also be seen at the political-ideological level. The Xinhua Information Agency is wrong when it writes (October 17, 2017) that ‘China’s enlightened democracy puts the West in the shadows’. (Strittmatter, op. cit. p. 21), because Western countries have long been evolving towards an “enlightened democracy” of the Chinese type, which, according to Strittmatter, is characterized by a uniform top-down information and propaganda message, harmonization (unification) of thoughts and opinions, control over the language and saturation of public discourses with news. Similar phenomena, already existing in Europe and in the USA, are nowadays revealed in an enhanced form and without unnecessary camouflage. New, more and more sophisticated and ingenious ways of censoring dissenters who think differently and shut their mouths (see Toby Young, We’re facing a tsunami of censorship; https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/were-facing-a-tsunami-of-censorship).
In Hong Kong, by order of the Chinese Communist Party, the authorities are removing “pro-democratic” books from libraries; in Western countries, “anti-democratic” books (films, sculptures, paintings) are removed (see Brendan O’Neill, The Tyranny of cancel culture , https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/07/06/the-tyranny-of-cancel-culture). It is clear that the “Confucian ideal of harmony” promoted in China, i.e. achieving “unity of language, knowledge, thinking and behaviour” is also becoming an ideal of the Western world. This is noticed even by the representatives of the left-wing establishment who, terrified of what their pupils are doing, complain in a letter open to the stifling atmosphere of political and cultural life, to the growing ideological conformism and dogmatism, a climate of intolerance to different views, limiting the free exchange of information and ideas, imposing restrictions on public debate. 150 signatories of the letter (including Martin Amis, Anne Applebaum, Margaret Atwood, Ian Buruma, Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Jonathan Haidt, Eva Hoffman, Michael Ignatieff Parag Khanna, Mark Lilla, Deirdre McCloskey, Yascha Mounk, Steven Pinker, J.K., among others) are the signatories of the letter. Rowling, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, Michael Walzer, Fareed Zakaria) criticizes the dismissal of editors and scientists, the withdrawal of books, prohibiting journalists from writing about certain matters, the prosecution of lecturers for quoting literary works, etc. (see A Letter on Justice and Open Debate; https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/Harper’s Magazine).
We should not call China communist because it is not communist. They’re not even socialist. They have a fascist system, similar to the one we have in the US. In other words, business is private property and consumer goods are widely available – but everything is controlled by the state. This is an authoritarian system. The Chinese have moved towards the American system, while the US is moving towards the Chinese system ( Doug Casey, What Happens Next for China – Collapse or War with the US?;https://internationalman.com/articles/what-happens-next-for-china-collapse-or-war-with-the-us/)
Very characteristic was the statement of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who appealed to citizens to believe only in “official announcements” in matters of “pandemic” – Clearly, her hidden wish was that in all other matters, too, they should trust only “official communications”, i.e. the propaganda of the government and the media cooperating with it. It is worth mentioning at this point the figure of another Great Chancellor Adam Sutler, one of the protagonists of the film W jak wendetta (2005, directed by James McTeigue, scenes by Larry and Andy Wachowski); the action of the film takes place around 2020 in Great Britain, where the murderous Norsefire party, which took power on a wave of fear of a viral pandemic, is ruling. And the year 2020 has just arrived. Not only in the UK.
Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.