Anti-Communism: Focus on the Chinese Communist Party

[Smaland]

Beginning at 1:55 in this video, Shelley Zhang of China Uncensored (sitting on the left) interviews Perth Tolle, the founder of the Freedom 100 Emerging Markets Index (sitting on the right).

Many investors invest in emerging markets such as China. Based upon comments made in the interview, the advisory firms that investors rely upon use what are called emerging market indices. These indices are weighted toward China to the extent of 35-40%.

Investment recommendations made by these firms are based upon these indices. The first quote below (which extends from 3:22 - 4:15 in the video) explains why personnel at these firms have a job security incentive to follow a particular index published by a company named MSCI.

Perth: ... indexes provide the benchmarks for the investment community to follow. (Since MSCI is) the biggest indexer in the world, probably around 90% of the world's institutions and biggest investors (are required) to benchmark to MSCI by (company) policy. If MSCI's emerging markets index has 40% China, then (investment advisors) have to follow that weight ... they're going to have to follow that benchmark, if they don't want to have what's called tracking error … (if you) bet against the benchmark and you have high tracking error, which means (the investment outcome) differs (appreciably) from the benchmark ... then you could, potentially, be held responsible for under performance. So you don't want to underperform the benchmark in any way for job security and other reasons in the investment world.

Considering that most investors aren’t familiar with the internal procedures of advisory firms, it might be said that they’re unwittingly investing money in China.

*******

Based upon remarks made in video section 7:57 - 9:09, investor funds are still being directed into Chinese securities, despite the ongoing economic turmoil. Not only that, the investment company BlackRock has even publicly advised people to invest in China. The actual comments made in the interview are recorded below.

Shelley: if you're investing your money, that's going into ... one of these ETFs or funds, you're going to be invested in China, no matter what ...

Perth: Correct.

Shelley: That is stunning. Given exactly what's been happening with China in the last few months.

Perth: Absolutely.

Shelley: With Chinese companies ... failing like Luckin Coffee. With Chinese companies, like Evergrande, possibly bringing the entire real estate market to the brink of collapse in China. MSCI, FTSE ... are still saying, 'Our hands are tied.'

Perth: Yes. So MSCI CEO has come out and said, 'We don't tell people how to invest.' And iShares, which is BlackRock, which tracks MSCI indices, they have come out and spoken very favorably toward China and also have now told investors to triple their China exposure. So they're saying, at this time, after all of this has happened in China, recently in their market, after destruction of capital has happened on the biggest scale we've seen in recent years, you should now triple your China exposure.

[Hexachordia]

When talking about china, people from either domestic and oversea backgrounds have an instinct reation that china is always the comparatively innocent and prospective country in whatever respcts, as if everything negative about china is a paranoid overstretch, something not pragmatical, not for the understanding of social delicacies. This is total garbage. When you can truly give up this feelings, you will be quicker to know about the truth. (Not everyone is interested in truth though).

When will people realize this is how the greatest scam works, the impeccable false image of moral superiority. Maybe western guilt within people is a part of the reason, but it has nothing to do with chinese people: since you feel the guilt and the necessity to confess to the chinkoms not Christ, you are a commie, out of the question. Dozens of millions of chinese people are being extorted by the deceptive chinese financial system already, if the western investors will be continuing to invest in china, that just shows how inddifferent the world is not just the hypocrisy of people.

[Hexachordia]

Stop using chinkoms as a guilt porn to your leftist guilt complex.

Nothing is more deceptive than the cheap moral appeals: love, common prosperity, down with imperialism, feminism, we are not better than commies...All these easy banners, or convenient banners of the most abused public mask of morality is already full of filth accumulated during the process of rallying usages. Hypocrisy however is a condition of life, it is still a form of filth, just like your own daily excrements, which should be a certain benchmark of good health. The reliance on cheap morality is the sign of hypocrisy, just showing you are incapable of conscience, just like all the communists.

If you have the guilt complex, go to the church, pick up a prayer book, or do some meditations. Stop using chinese people and chinkoms as your excuses, none of our business, and you are with the people like chinkoms pretending to be. We know you are not better, we always know and probably worse too.

I criticized imperialism but never advocated how to destroy it, but I consider a way to coexist with them. I just advocate for a firm determination of communism as faulty, as an ideology. Maybe my English is not good enough to express all the delicacies involved in this type of discussion, but I do try convey a delicate sentiment among the posts on purpose.

[Hexachordia]

--delete, double-clicking.

[Hexachordia]

By standing up to China, Australia may end up standing alone
By
James Laurenceson

October 14, 2021 8:30 AM GMT+8

James Laurenceson writes that Canberra sees suffering economic repercussions for “standing up to China” as a badge of honor—and that such a decision would likely lead to Australia standing alone, pundit plaudits aside. Brendon Thorne—Bloomberg/Getty Images

Earlier this month, with great fanfare, Washington, London, and Canberra announced the AUKUS pact: a security arrangement meant to confront China. The deal was hailed as a “historic opportunity” by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison “to protect shared values and promote security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific region.”

As the U.S.-China strategic rivalry intensifies, no other capital in the Asia-Pacific region has exceeded Canberra’s gumption in backing Washington, as well as trying to rally others to the cause. Security arrangements like the AUKUS deal might imply that these efforts are paying off, as America strongly supports Canberra’s efforts as relations with China worsen.

But the realm of trade tells a more complicated story. Canberra’s handling of superpower relations has provided a cost-free lesson for those elsewhere. Australia is the starkest example of a dilemma all countries in the region face: relying on China for economic growth, yet on the United States for security. Canberra’s choices reveal the mistakes behind a mindset that regards suffering economic repercussions for “standing up to China” as a badge of honor—and how a country that takes such an approach would likely stand alone, pundit plaudits aside.

Australia’s tilt against China began in the second half of 2016. But for the most part, Beijing limited its displeasure to the diplomatic realm. The last time a leader’s visit took place was in March 2017, and ministerial-level visits were few and far between.

This changed in April 2020 when Australian political leaders conveyed a distinct impression of coordinating with the Trump administration to attack China over the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beijing unleashed a campaign of trade disruption that now affects around a dozen Australian exports—everything from coal to wine.

Despite local boosters of Canberra’s “crazy-brave” approach emphasizing that officials in Tokyo and New Delhi have issued joint statements with Canberra “opposing coercive economic practices,” neither Tokyo nor New Delhi were prepared to even confront China by name.

Indonesia, the indisputable center of economic and strategic gravity in Southeast Asia, declined altogether to sign up to any reference to economic coercion.

The fact is that plenty of capitals have serious concerns about China’s behavior under President Xi Jinping and have far more serious direct disputes with Beijing than does Canberra. But few appear convinced that the Australian government’s approach is preferable to a strategy of cautious hedging.

And why would they be?

Australia is now an outlier in having no senior political dialogue with China and in the breadth of trade disruption it is experiencing.

In June, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong delivered pointed remarks while standing alongside Prime Minister Morrison at a joint press conference: “There will be rough spots [with China]…and you have to deal with that…But deal with them as issues in a partnership which you want to keep going and not issues which add up to an adversary which you are trying to suppress.”

The region also hasn’t missed that while U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, insisted in May that the United States “will not leave Australia alone on the field,” Washington has yet to show any interest in bearing a cost to make good on that promise.

In March, the acting U.S. ambassador in Canberra, Mike Goldman, cheered Australia on: “I’d just say keep on doing what you’re doing but with confidence that the United States and other like-minded democracies see an interest in having Australia succeed.” Yet when presented with the latest trade data showing American companies were exporting more commodities to China, filling the gap left by barred Australian imports, the U.S. embassy declined to comment.

Six months after White House coordinator for the Indo-Pacific Kurt Campbell insisted that the U.S. was “not prepared to improve relations” with China so long as Australia was being hit with trade attacks, U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is now talking up increased trade with China: “It’s just an economic fact. I actually think robust commercial engagement will help to mitigate any potential tensions.”

After an eight-month review of the U.S.-China trade relationship, this week the U.S. Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, announced that the Biden administration was striving for a “recoupling” rather than decoupling. She said her intention was to advance this agenda and tackle ongoing U.S. concerns through direct dialogue and negotiations with the Chinese side.

Meanwhile, Australia’s trade minister, Dan Tehan, has not been able to secure even a phone call with his counterpart in Beijing since he took on the portfolio in December last year.

Ambassador Tai also emphasized that enforcement of the Phase One deal the Trump administration struck with Beijing in January 2020 was a priority. This deal contained numerous Chinese commitments to purchase American goods, putting producers in Australia at an unfair disadvantage.

To be clear: None of this excuses or deflects attention away from Beijing’s bad behavior toward Australia. And, for its part, Washington’s support for American producers and households is exactly what one should expect.

As Michèle Flournoy, a former senior Clinton and Obama administration official, stated last month: “I’m not sure that the White House can control Napa Valley exports of wines to China.”

This complicated balance is well understood in Australia’s region. The one exception, perhaps, is Canberra.

Professor James Laurenceson is director of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology Sydney.

================================================== =======================================

I just saw the chinese report about this article this morn, finding it quite a typical repercussion of the chinkom rhetorics like you gotta be pragmatical to cooperate with us, because the century belongs to us; you are too naive, china is too mysterious, U do not know who you are messing with. But after all, these rhetorics do not direct to any other than chinese people ourselves, including this internationally published article in the USA penned by foreign scholars like Prof James Laurenceson. The trick here is that nobody really believe in this type of intimidation if not for the belief system maintained by the order of money, since there exists an international capital highway between china and other major countries, as the international financial market tugs on the social confidence in economy, a belief system becomes realized. Nobody except for the chinese people is morally obliged to this system of belief, but when we have two components of the international financial system one on the moral part and the rest on the interested part, it forms a system of moral pragmatism based on the the power of international capitals. Standing alone? when do we people have trustworthy allies? Nothing is better in one own life to stand alone for oneself once a while, at any cost.

[Hexachordia]

--Delete

[Hexachordia]

This complicated balance is well understood in Australia’s region. The one exception, perhaps, is Canberra.

================================================== =======

hahhahah, always the good old balance again, balance between china and the west, balance between russian and the west, between communism and capitalism blahblachupacabrah.

Nothing can be more nonsensical than this balance game, this is how the commies in china and the west exploit the world, when you believe you can play certain kind of balance between the tensions, you also will become their pawns. And the most misleading trick here is that you will also believe that there is a permanent geopolitical value to your little cesspool country,,,like Taiwan and Skorea...Non non monsieur. In the face of the flowing capitals, there is no permanent value to whatever the geopolitical advantages also, it is why I believe that the west will eventually give up Taiwan to china. This is why to prepare to be a lone player is a very important part in the anticommunist, antimoneycult struggle. If Aussie has to stand alone as the consequence against the chinkoms, then, nothing better there proves that my theories as far are RIGHT.

People do not need a better friend than Jesus Christ !! Go, galant aussies !!

[Hexachordia]

My General Observation of the west:

I had criticized the west a lot, but generally my opinion about the west so far is plus>minus, the money cult thing is yet to be made aware to more people, let people decide. I just hold onto my own right as the resolute denier of this system. I do not try to represent the whole china or the world. I will have my own followers too, as you will have your own. As to how to implement your own nationalism, do not be too optimistic about this, maybe people can not decide the course of history, but it does not matter at all. People=nation, nation+belief=religion, whatever you do, you are a part of your nation, this will never change.

To change the history, the world, anything like this just beyond the anticommunist mission. One thing I always have to remind of is that anticommunism is not a saintly mission, not even as great as a good buddhist monk or a christian citizen. We are sweepers, dishwashers for bigger contexts, anticommunists are just average loyal community workers at best. Far from forcing and deluding people into the trap, I repeatedly state the truth about anticommunism:

1-Not a naturally morally superior direction.
2-Not for heaven nor hell.
3-Not saintly, just a purely ethical commitment like doing ones own job to be the best.

It does not take either the whole Buddhism or Christianity to fight communism, just some personal resolution, this is a struggle for personality and integrity, at last, a true form of individualism within a context of greater religious, national, cultural, economic upbrings. Rather than inciting social commotions, I am looking forward to the vitality in personal developments. To make my point more clear, the opposite form of individualism against the liberal individualism, an individualism that stands fast within its given contexts, cultural, historical, everything in it counts, not the individualism defined by money and liberalism, cultural and political marxism. Therefore, each one must decide for your own nationalism.

[Hexachordia]

Close Border Rationale:

Let me propose a close border rationale for anticommunist system: since international money can feed to the exploitative capitals, which foster communism amid regional disorders, I propose close border policy, as we can see we can never win an argument with the left, once got into a trade or any relationship invoking of arguments, we are destined to lose. Only a permanent disruption in free trade can ensure this vision. Of course this will sacrifice a lot of richness in social lives, but as we can see the poison brought about by communism, it worths the pain to keep it off. This is not a racist issue, but an anticommunist issue, race is not a question, we sacrifice all material existences to this vision.

Close Border is a permanent policy, is not something intermediate policy but a constituent component in the permanent struggle against the money and the corruption brought about by this cult, beyond this point we organize diplomatical, military, religious warfares with them. Also recommending official trades with select few countries, that is to establish only a select few diplomatical ambassies, while maintaining virtually non-existent official relationship with other countries. Untill we can announance the final victory over communism over the whole world, we should maintain such form of global international order.

I still propose Close Border diplomacy, free trade and free diplomacy have helped more negative aspects of civilization than positve. I do not think we need to maintain further global free trade anymore. This is a continuation of colonialism, like communism, which will never truly civilize anywhere, it only benefits the left who tries to hide every single truth through the ages.

[Smaland]

According to dictionary.com, a puff piece is "a newspaper article, book, public-relations film, etc., whose purpose is to praise or flatter." Huawei is a Chinese telecom company, whose CFO is Meng Wanzhou; after she was released from house arrest in Canada earlier this year, the CCP released two Canadian citizens who had been held prisoner by them. (Please see the post " China has Been Rewarded for Its Use of Hostage Diplomacy ", which was made earlier in this thread.) The photo above was posted along with the article linked to below, and it is credited to Getty Images.

Some of the ... most prominent news organizations have partnership deals with telecom giant Huawei, which the U.S. government considers a national security risk because of (its) links to the Chinese government.

The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Reuters, and Politico have all published news-style pieces commissioned by the Chinese telecom giant to advance its interests, according to a Washington Free Beacon review. Since July, Reuters has published two sponsored articles touting Huawei's investments in the United Kingdom. The Journal has published 14 sponsored articles since last year, while Wired has hosted virtual events sponsored by the tech giant. Politico ran pro-Huawei content last year. The articles disclose that Huawei sponsors the content, though the company's ties to the Chinese government may not be apparent to readers.
...

Full story in the Washington Free Beacon