alternative news

CHINA AND AFRICA

June 1, 2011 By Joseph P. Farrell

Lest you think, in the past few days' blogs, that I have forgotten about Africa and its role in this emerging geopolitical realignment, I haven't. This article from The Economist is worth considering:

Rumble in the jungle

Let's face it, The Economist is a mouthpiece for "the London crowd," and that's what makes this piece all the more interesting. The things Chinese businesses are accused of doing in Africa sound all too reminiscent of the plundering of that continent under European imperialism. But why, now, would such a mouthpiece urge upon Beijing a tighter oversight of Chinese companies and business practices in Africa? Why would it urge Beijing not to repeat Britain's own mistakes?

I think behind the article's rhetoric about reining in corruption, there is another agenda, and that is the now monotonous and wearing cry for "democratization." Let's go back in history. In the middle of the nineteenth century the banksters of Europe were faced with a looming problem: the USA, an economy that would, given America's landmass and population growth, would eventually far outstrip that of any European power, and worse, America had shown determination to rid itself of the influence of banksters over the national currency and economy. One need only think of Andrew Jackson in that regard.

As most readers of this blog are probably aware, the issue of slavery was, in part, driven by their hand, in a move toward "democratization" aimed at splitting America into more manageable economies and over which they could potentially regain their influence via a monopoly corporate concession from the American government(s) to issue monetized debt as money. President Lincoln, of course, by-passed the banksters completely by issuing debt-free Lincoln greenbacks to finance the Northern war effort. We know what happened to Lincoln, and we know that by the time of Woodrow Wilson, first in a long line of bankster-sponsored sock-puppet presidents, that they were successful in regaining control of America's "currency".

China thus presents a similar, though much larger, problem. Essentially its government is not Communist, but - and here I use the term deliberately - National Socialist, and like a certain state in Europe before that followed a similar economic and fiscal policy, its currency is state-issued and debt free. And China's one billion plus population is quickly transforming that nation into a huge global economy, soon and eventually to overtake the USA as the premier world economy. And its currency is not under the control of the banksters, and they would desperately wish it to be.

Their hope, as in America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, lies with a "democratized" (and hopefully, semi-literate) people and corrupt government officials, the latter to "do the deal" with them and the former to acquiesce in the usual explanations that it is a much "better" arrangement than the one they're under now. My bet is on the Chinese people - who know how their country was raped and plunged into horrible decay, internal strife and wars, by the policies of the European banksters, their drug trade, and colonial policies toward that nation. My bet is also on the Chinese government which, as it moves toward "democratization" will also seek to educate its people concerning the standard financial policies of the banksters, and of the soundness of its own philosophy of money. But whether it moves in that direction or not, China should be followed closely; the pronouncements of its financial mandarins, not to mention the types of articles and books that appear in that country on monetary policy, should concern us all.