globalist japan u.s. china jews

I would argue China only went to war with Japan due to international sabatogue
It's true that Japan, China, and Russia had various territory disputes in the past, but WW2 was particularly bad
In the 20th century globalist shill Franklin Roosevelt demanded that Chiang Kai Shek allow Communists in government or lose all US economic and military aid. Chiang had an emergency meeting with his generals who said to commit an all out attack on Mao's forces and sent them on their 1000 mile march into Soviet territory, thinking if they were no longer in China that would negate his demand but it just made FDR even more angry.
The 671th Congressional Investigation discovered that the Institute of Pacific Relations was a hotbed for globalist infiltration sending globalists like Solomon Adler to back up Harry Dexter, with their plan to crush Chiang's economy by illegally fixing the price of gold and silver which they later had to legalize. Solomon Adler used US Embassies to pass out propaganda to the Chinese calling Chiang a "Dictator for not allowing ALL Chinese representation in government" (Denying Communists) and the only way to fix it is to side with Mao against Chiang and secure US Economic/Military aid again.
The media also didn't report it when Mao's bandits attacked Japanese controlled Manchuria (which was a big deal because without their mainland assets Japan would have to go back to being third world again unable to industrialize), so they had an emergency military meeting and decided that Chiang was not capable of dealing with the Communist extremists threatening Japanese resource lines in Manchuria. Chiang and most Chinese understandably had hostility to Japan and refused Japanese help in containing communist bandits, since he saw that as the first step to China becoming a vassal of Japan. Japan understandably decided they would deal with the Communists themselves and re secure their resource lines
Much like how Japan attacked US in WW2 after Roosevelt oil embargo sanctions, which crippled Japan's infrastructure
So these globalist networks essentially sparked the Sino-Japanese battle in WW2 IMO
Western media portrayed all Japanese actions as Japanese Imperialism/Expansionism when the reality was Japan was desperate, resource starved (by economic sanctions done in a Holomdor style) also totally neglected to mention the Soviet troop/ tank presence in China supporting Mao.
The book "Allied wartime diplomacy: a pattern in Poland" gives a good overview on British/Anglo disinformation and how it was historically used to cover up and justify Anglo and Bolshevik and communist atrocities, as it cites many letters between British intelligence officials:

"Experience has shown that the best distraction is atrocity propaganda directed against the enemy. Unfortunately the public is no longer so susceptible as in the days of the "corpse factory", the "mutilated belgian babies", and the "crucified canadians"."
"Your cooperation is therefore earnestly sought to distract public attention from the doings of the Red Army by your wholehearted support of various charges against the Germans and Japanese which have been and will be put into circulation by the ministry.
Your experession of belief in such may convince others
I am, sir, your obedient servant,
H. Hewet, assistant secretary"

At least SOME japanese atrocities happened (like nanking) but there is at least some disinformation atrocity propaganda as well
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucified_Soldier) as examples of how the AngloZio press lied historically;

During World War II the story was used by the Nazis as an example of British propaganda.

There are several other cases of made up fake news propaganda the Nazis cited from WW1 like German troops "mutilating Belgian babies" and other bullshit
Anyways these "globalists" later lost control over communism/socialist groups by the 1950's, which is why many new "neoliberal" styled progressives (or "demsocs") started creating a liberal counter in subverting the communist/socialist groups in Eurasia
Gloria Steinem is one such CIA neoliberal asset who subverted communist groups in Europe in the 1950's
Many NGO's were involved in faking the Tiananmen Square "massacre" just like many of these internationalist groups including George Soros were involved in economically collapsing the USSR
The Tiananmen Square "massacre" is a lie used to incite anti-chinese sentiment by portraying their government/culture as barbaric, so we have a pretext for sanctions and possible war

The response from the West then was to demonize the Chinese government and to impose economic and military sanctions which in many cases exist to the present day. A recent release of a diplomatic telegram from then-US Ambassador to China, James E. Lilley, to Washington sheds new light on what really happened that June 4. According to the mainstream Western version of events, thousands of Chinese university students began their sit-in protest demanding democracy and transparency from the Communist government in April and into May 1989 in the huge Tiananmen Square, directly across from the historic Forbidden City edifice in central Beijing. They defiantly faced off against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army. On May 20, 1989, the CCP imposed martial law and ordered truckloads of soldiers to Beijing to take back the square from protesters. The Western account has it that then, on June 3 into June 4, PLA soldiers opened fire and killed “up to 1000 student protesters.”
WikiLeaks, the website that received hundreds of thousands of pages of intercepted diplomatic correspondence from the US State Department, has released a classified diplomatic cable from then-Beijing Ambassador James Lilley to Washington dated July 12, 1989 more than four weeks after the events. In his report, Lilley writes the following shocking version of events...

china raped by the west

Britain at one point (after 1650) was the ZOG capital of the world and had dominance over world trade
Something I never thought about was the fact that British dominance of the seas gave them a monopoly on trade, a monopoly that was threatened by Eurasian trans-continental railroads
The book I quote is "the ugly truth about the ADL". It sometimes goes overboard with freemason obsession, but for the most part the book is grounded in reality:

Britain feared the development of a Eurasian alliance among France, Germany, Russia, Japan, and China, based on economic cooperation and facilitated by the building of a transcontinental system of railroads linking the East to the West Such a transcontinental railroad system would render Britain's domination over the seas relatively unimportant.
...In feet, one of the most compelling reasons for British hatred of Russia was the role played by Czar Alexander II in coming to the aid of Abraham Lincoln during the darkest days of the U.S. Civil War. In 1863, Czar Alexander dispatched the powerful Russian Navy to the U.S. potts of New York and San Francisco and threatened to go to war against Britain if the Crown joined the war on the side of the Confederacy.

After the WW2 era ZOG relocated to take over America
They continued international oppression via war and terror
As well as a newly expanded trade empire started with the "Marshall plan" (forced western europe to eliminate trade barriers) and various other huge trade deals
Nowadays with the European side of things in a state of disarray, the time is fit for a country like China to take initiative in that role of merchant leadership
And they do appear to be trying to take that leadership despite attempted setbacks

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiated by 12 nations, could account for one third of all global trade. But so far, China is not included even though the country is a top trade partner for most of the participants and the world’s leading economy when accounting for purchasing power parity. TPP would eliminate tariffs and reduce non-tariff barriers...
GENEVA: The fact that the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, does not include China raises questions: Is the TPP meant to be an “anyone but China” club to contain the central kingdom? Will China react with competing trading blocks to escalate economic hostility against the US? What does this mean for the future of the global trade order?

And this view is increasingly radical in attacking "Chinese oppression of poor merchant monopolies" because Trump knows what's up and is pulling back
Then you see books like this: "Bully of Asia: Why China's Dream is the New Threat to World Order Hardcover" – November 27, 2017
This anti-China attitude in mechants isn't new however, it started many centuries ago with the Jewish Silk Road merchants
Coincidentally the Jewish opium wars were coordinated in part by the Jewish East India Company

“In the 17th and 18th centuries, the demand for Chinese goods (particularly silk, porcelain, and tea) in the European market created a trade imbalance because the market for Western goods in China was virtually non-existent; China was largely self-sufficient and Europeans were not allowed access to China’s interior….
The British East India Company had a matching monopoly of British trade. [It] began to auction opium grown on its plantations in India to independent foreign traders in exchange for silver.
The opium was then transported to the China coast and sold to Chinese middlemen who retailed the drug inside China. This reverse flow of silver and the increasing numbers of opium addicts alarmed Chinese officials.”

Another part of the Jewish opium wars was the Opium trade itself, coordinated by the Sassoons based in the Near East
I don't know how much of this Jewish drug war is conducted against Asians today but I do know that:
Afghanistan is a very suspiciously under-discussed producer of drugs with its opium fields which even MSM acknowledges

Afghanistan looks set for another year of record opium production in 2017, maintaining its role as the world's biggest producer.

Afghanistan had a brief period of NO opium production, before Jewish-American intervention

Afghanistan is producing a lot more opium than before the US invasion. The US just can't stop it

I'm also aware the CIA is deeply involved in Pacific drug trafficking, and that fuels a ton of anti-Duerte sentiment

A Tangled Web: A History of CIA Complicity in Drug International Trafficking
...A Christian Science Monitor correspondent reports that the CIA is cognizant of, if not party to, the extensive movement of opium out of Laos,' quoting one charter pilot who claims thatopium shipments get special CIA clearance and monitoring on their flights southward out of the country.' At the time, some 30,000 U.S. service men in Vietnam are addicted to heroin.

And recently the Chinese government (justifiably) liquidated a lot of CIA assets

Killing C.I.A. Informants, China Crippled U.S. Spying Operations

Hopefully Trump succeeds in bringing down this whole globalist clusterfuck mess and the civilized people of the world can create a new multipolar world
Give Trump all the shit you want but he is singlehandedly, more than any other human being alive, destroying these oppressive networks more than anyone has done before

debt to gdp ratio

China’s debt-to-GDP ratio is the sum of corporate debt, household debt, and government debt all together as a portion of GDP. This ratio is currently around 250 to 260 percent of GDP. If you take the world’s hundred largest economies in the world and you line them up, you can see that, in terms of debt-to-GDP ratios, China is in the middle of the pack – higher than most developing but lower than most developed. Now think about at China’s relative stage of development. It is right in the middle. Common sense then says that China’s debt ratio is where it should be.
The more interesting question concerns less the level of Chinese debt and more the speed at which it grew. Over the last 10 years, the debt ratio in China increased by 100 percentage points. Every country that has grown at that rate has had a financial crisis. Market watchers then argue that China will certainly crash. So why is it that China survived this period of rapid debt growth without a crash?
The answer is the role of private property. China did not have a private property market until the early 2000s. The Chinese people previously had housing provided by the state, but then housing was privatized. From 2004 onwards, land prices soared, driving up property values by 600 percent over the last 10 years. This rate is unheard of in the West. If property values in the West increased by 50 to 100 percent, we would talk about property bubbles. What about 600 percent? The reason that this rise has been relatively sustainable for China is because the property values started at zero. When prices surged, houses were sold and resold, and households took out mortgages, what happened to the debt-to-GDP ratio?   Debt levels surged, but GDP did not increase, because land transfers do not count in GDP, only the labor associated with construction counts.  This process explains the bulk of the debt surge in China in the last 10 years

Chinese myth bubble real estate economist debunking

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XepCi0I_g6I

U.S. bullying Japan economic domination operating system TRON

In 1984, the TRON project was officially launched. In 1985, NEC announced the first ITRON implementation based on the ITRON/86 specification. In 1986, the TRON Kyogikai (unincorporated TRON Association) was established, Hitachi announced its ITRON implementation based on the ITRON/68K specification, and the first TRON project symposium is held. In 1987,Fujitsu announced an ITRON implementation based on the ITRON/MMU specification, Mitsubishi Electric announced an ITRON implementation based on the ITRON/32 specification, and Hitachi introduced the Gmicro/200 32bit microprocessor^[10] based on the TRON VLSI CPU specification. In 2004, the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara mentioned "TRON was once killed by the former Minister of International Trade and Industry, Hashimoto, because he was at that time under the pressure of United States."^[11] This story is supported by an article on a website dedicated to the TRON Project,^[12] citing Microsoft's lobbying against it. The result was the threat of a Super-301 (complete stop of import based on section 301 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988) against everything related to TRON. This led to many companies dropping TRON in fear to lose the possibility to export to the United States.^[13]




After it was announced in September 2003 that Microsoft Corporation would be joining the T-Engine Forum, I wrote an opinion piece in which I outlined what was expected of Microsoft, and I even suggested that the company should try to create "good will," not a Microsoft forte by any stretch of the imagination, by developing software for BTRON. Of course, I didn't really expect Microsoft to develop software for BTRON any more than I would expect the company to develop a version of Microsoft Office for Linux. Microsoft is all about money and control, and neither of those is to be had in the world of BTRON. I did, however, expect the company's spokesmen to go to great lengths to avoid talking about the USTR's attempt to destroy the TRON Project for the benefit of Microsoft and other U.S. technology firms. To my great surprise, Microsoft Vice President Susumu Furukawa couldn't resist talking about the affair, and he even tried his hand at historical revisionism by blaming the debacle on an over zealous USTR.
In a joint interview with Prof. Ken Sakamura that appeared in the October 13, 2003, issue of Nikkei Electronics [1], Mr. Furukawa boldly declared that Microsoft had an aversion to using political power to influence markets, and he said that had anyone back in Redmond been thinking about doing something like that in 1989, he would have firmly opposed it. One of the news articles that is seared into my memory is an article that appeared in the November 28, 1988, issue of Business Week [2]. The authors of the article make it abundantly clear that it was Microsoft that was the first firm to run to the U.S. government to demand that the TRON Project be attacked and derailed, and Microsoft's director of Far East Operations at the time, Mr. Ron Hosogi, is quoted in that article as saying that if anyone tries to mandate the use of TRON, Microsoft is going to make a political issue out of it. The historical record is very clear; Microsoft tried to use the U.S. government to kill off TRON because it wanted a monopoly in operating systems.
Sadly, Mr. Furukawa did not limit his historical revisionism to the Nikkei Byte interview, which would have been the wise thing to do. He chose to utter similar nonsense at TRON SHOW 2004, where ironically he had been given the great honor of addressing a large audience of long-term TRON Project supporters at the opening session, many of whom know exactly what happened in 1988. At the end of his presentation, he tacked on the following, which is a direct translation of what appeared in the Japanese media, as a sort of a footnote.

Formerly, it was said that Microsoft has been in opposition to TRON, but as a living witness to history, there aren't any instances in which Microsoft has tripped up BTRON. We have put up [a policy of] co-action [interoperability] and co-existence. Although our standpoints are mutually different, I'm glad that we could actually [technically] cooperate with TRON, and that we could confirm that we were not necessarily on bad terms.

Apparently, Mr. Furukawa believes that if he utters revised historical facts enough times, then they will become actual historical facts. That may have been the case prior to the advent of the Internet, but it is no longer the case. It's easy to check facts and reference historical materials. Using my network of personal contacts, I was able to dig up the 1988 Business Week article below in a matter of hours. Imagine what Japanese reporters could dig up if they decided to look into some of Mr. Furukawa's statements in past interviews.
A lot of people are wondering why Prof. Sakamura is going along with this historical revisionism instead of challenging it. He has Microsoft over a barrel, so why doesn't he press the advantage? The answer is simple: he's not that kind of guy. He doesn't point his finger in anyone's face and tell them he's going to get them, and he doesn't conduct the project's affairs using a sociopathic business philosophy, such as "only the paranoid survive." It's because Microsoft has threatened competitors and subscribed to this short-term business philosophy that the GNU/Linux movement has grown so strong in the U.S. In Japan, the TRON Project, which has different goals from GNU/Linux, started receiving more support from Japanese business leaders, in part because working with Microsoft on Microsoft's terms was unbearable for them. The position Microsoft finds itself in today's is a classic example of your karma returning to you. However, the thing to do about it is not to try to change history, but rather the change the way the company does business.
____________________
[1] The following interview excerpt appeared on pages 208 and 209 in the October 13, 2003, issue of Nikkei Electronics. It has been translated and loaded onto this page for non-commercial purposes under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law.

-- The various newspapers have written up the cooperation announcement on this occasion as an "historical reconciliation." Mr. Susumu Furukawa: In computer history, it is a fact that it's the day of a great turning point, but calling it "reconciliation" is a "misunderstanding." Mr. Ken Sakamura: Calling it reconciliation means that concerned parties that were fighting get back together again, but it is not a fact that we were particularly viewing each other antagonistically. We're being asked if there was a grudge fight called "TRON versus Windows," but that's a great misunderstanding. Therefore, this is not a [press] conference in which we are declaring that we are making up with each other, but rather it's a presentation in which we will show that new technological possibilities for the future have appeared. I once had a bad experience in which the spread of the TRON Project was obstructed by the U.S. government, but I believe that the party that created the cause for that was not Microsoft. -- In 1989, although it was temporary, TRON products became items subject to the Super 301 section [of the U.S. Trade Omnibus Bill of 1988], and it seemed like they would be excluded from the U.S. market. Mr. Furukawa: In regard to the Super 301 section, there was an occasion on which my opinion was also sought; at that time, I went to extent of requesting that I want "TRON" removed from the targets. There are also industries that were expecting protection from the U.S. government in order to secure American national interests, such as supercomputers. But Microsoft had an aversion to that kind of approach. Even if one wins a market not with technological or business prowess but rather on the basis of political power, that will be nothing more than a temporary thing. At that time, if the U.S. head office had been thinking about trying to step into the Japanese market with its shoes on by ignoring Japanese rules, I would have firmly opposed it. Mr. Sakamura: The T-Engine Forum that promotes TRON is a non-profit organization, and Microsoft is an enterprise. If the form of the organization is different, then its goals also are different. There should be no head-on collision between two organizations with these different natures. Moreover, as to TRON OS and Windows, they are things of a completely different nature, both as to their technical nature and the areas of application that they target. TRON attaches importance to real-time performance and has adopted an event driven scheduling system for embedded devices. It is a so-called control-type operating system. In contrast to this, Windows is an information-type operating system. It makes people, not things, its opposite. In other words, it employs a round robin type of scheduling system. There is unreasonableness in comparing these two completely different things in the same ring. Certainly, at one time, I advocated that it is possible to apply the TRON control-type operating system to a personal computer for educational use, and I have also said that BTRON is superior to Windows. That utterance has become the beginning of misunderstanding, hasn't it. . . . [REMAINDER OMITTED] Copyright © 2003 Nikkei Business Publications, Inc.

[2] The following article appeared on page 132 of the November 28, 1988, issue of Business Week (Vol. Number 3801). It has been loaded onto this page for non-commercial purposes under the "fair use" provisions of copyright law.
Information Processing
An Open System that Makes the U.S. Feel Shut Out --- Japan's TRON standard is raising hackles at Commerce

Amy Borrus in Tokyo with Geoff Lewis in New York
Talk about being many things to many people. To Japan's Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI), TRON is a solution to the chaos caused by incompatible computer designs. It's also a way to reduce Japan's reliance on Western microchip designs and operating systems--the basic elements of computer ''architecture.'' To many U. S. computer experts, TRON is a nonevent, too late to be a technological threat. And to the Commerce Dept., it's a clever ruse by Japan to keep foreigners out of its computer market.
TRON, which stands for The Real-time Operating System Nucleus, is a massive, five-year-old Japanese project to devise a computing standard for everything from personal computers to robots to mainframes. Now, just as the first TRON products are emerging, it may become the latest bone of contention in the U. S.-Japan trade flap.
At a meeting with top MITI officials in September, former Deputy U. S. Trade Representative Michael B. Smith condemned TRON as a tool to hamper U. S. suppliers in Japan. ''We don't want the Japanese to create a specification that would preclude competition,'' he says. ''That's crazy,'' says one MITI bureaucrat. ''We have no intention of discriminating against any company.'' Nevertheless, the TRON issue is still hot. When U. S. and Japanese officials meet in mid-November to review antidumping sanctions against Japanese semiconductor companies, U. S. sources say TRON may be added to the agenda.
Open House
On the surface, TRON seems innocuous enough. It's the brainchild of Ken Sakamura, an unorthodox, 37-year-old associate professor of information science at Tokyo University. His goal for TRON is to create a universal computer architecture. It would, among other things, set a standard for handling the more than 10,000 characters in the Japanese language and vastly simplify interaction between different computers--even among computers in different nations. Moreover, it is conceived as an ''open'' architecture, meaning that any manufacturer willing to pay $4,000 a year can have the specifications needed to build a TRON computer. More than 100 companies, 13 of them foreign-owned (including IBM Japan), have joined the TRON Assn. Sakamura praises it as an example of ''volunteerism.''
But Smith and other U. S. trade officials claim there's something more sinister afoot. TRON, says one U. S. official, is a ''typical Japanese use of the standards process.'' Although the standard seems to place all competitors on an equal footing, its actual effect, they say, would be to exclude existing American products. The concern, says Intel Corp. Marketing Vice-President Ronald J. Whittier, is that the TRON specifications will make it possible for Japanese customers to buy products ''not on the merit of the case but according to the country of origin.''
What is bringing the issue to a boil now are reports that the Japanese Education Ministry plans to require TRON computers in all of the country's schools. U. S. officials estimate that the Ministry will subsidize purchases of about 2 million computers starting in 1992. Although the Ministry has not formally endorsed TRON, it is widely believed that such computers will get the nod.
'Against a Wall'
That has dragged Apple Computer Inc. into the fray. Apple, which has the largest share of the U. S. school-computer market, doesn't want to be shut out of Japan's educational system. After five years of slow sales in Japan--partly because of its own mis-steps--the company now wants to build a $500 million business there in the next five years. Delbert W. Yocam, president of Apple Pacific, says that so far he has had little luck getting Apple into Japanese schools. ''We're up against a wall,'' he complains. Microsoft Corp., which was the first U. S. supplier to lobby Washington about TRON, has backed off, at least temporarily. The company feared that TRON would end the domination of NEC Corp. personal computers in Japan. Those machines, which use Microsoft's MS-DOS operating system, have an estimated 50% share of the market. However, NEC has designed a machine that runs MS-DOS and TRON for the Education Ministry bid, and Microsoft is lying low. ''Our earlier concern was that there were government people backing a nationalistic approach,'' says Ron Hosogi, Microsoft's director of Far East Operations. He adds that ''it still could be a political issue if we find out that a government body or a quasi-government body mandates TRON.''
TRON is already a political issue of sorts. Specifications for the educational-computer procurement, for example, are being drawn up by the Center for Educational Computing, a joint venture sponsored by MITI, the Education Ministry, and Japanese companies. And although the computer divisions within the big Japanese electronics conglomerates often have reservations about the specification, they support the project because their chipmaking sister divisions hope to sell TRON components. U. S. computer makers operating in Japan have also believed it wise to join the association--both as a courtesy and as a way to keep tabs on the project. IBM Japan, which has a small share of the local PC market, has submitted a prototype machine for the education bid. And despite his criticism of the project, Apple's Yocam says his company is likely to join the association.
Some U. S. trade officials worry that a mandate for TRON in education would lead to a de facto TRON standard in business and other markets as well. Indeed, Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. (NTT), the telephone giant, is supporting TRON as the basic programming for phone switches and other communications gear. ''It is a waste of time and effort to rewrite software for different operating systems,'' says NTT executive engineer Tetsuo Wasano. But NTT doesn't foresee a TRON-only policy, says Wasano. Meanwhile, Japanese chipmakers, denied licenses to manufacture the most advanced Intel and Motorola Inc. microprocessor chips, have embraced TRON as a way to compete in the 32-bit computer business. Fujitsu, Hitachi, and Toshiba are all building TRON chips.
Instant Obsolescence?
Still, the TRON technology itself does not pose much of a threat, critics say. TRON chips are three years behind other 32-bit microchips. Machines using them ''will have little software and performance that is at best equal to that of their competitors,'' says analyst Steven Myers of Jardine Fleming Securities Ltd. in Tokyo. And some Japanese computer executives privately admit their reluctance to back the new standard.
''What company really wants to make TRON the standard, thereby making its entire installed base obsolete?'' says one Tokyo computer company official. Toshiba Corp. is building TRON hardware, but ''we'll continue to support all existing architectures,'' says Hiroshi Fujita, a senior manager. Nor are software companies rushing to write programs for TRON. ''If there aren't a large number of installed machines, it doesn't make sense,'' says Saburo Kikuchi, president of Lotus Development Japan Ltd.
The only thing that can overcome the technical and marketing obstacles that confront TRON, say American observers, is pressure from the Japanese government and quasi-governmental institutions. That's why TRON is likely to remain on the diplomatic agenda for some time to come.
The Two Faces of TRON Software
An operating system, the basic software to run computers, will come in four varieties: BTRON for business and education ITRON for controlling factory machines CTRON for mainframes MTRON for communications HARDWARE TRON is also a 32-bit microchip that could compete with Intel's 80386 or Motorola's 68030 TRON will set graphics standards in hardware TRON keyboards will standardize how Japanese characters are entered in a computer DATA: BW
Copyright © 1988 McGraw-Hill, Inc.