To JD. Letter from a Chinese Peasant
At the coming 250th Year of US founding, and seeing the smoke rise at 金山 on the other ocean shore, Chinese peasants wonder what they can do to help. Should they?
*
Letter from a people who made the world's greatest culture and civilization still thriving…
*
Consequence of America’s hillbilly morality…
*
Dear Mr JD Vance,
I trust this letter finds you well. And your family, too, and your America.
For a number of reasons, it’s completely un-Chinese that one should write out of the blue to strangers, especially a person of your standing and stature. I plea for your forbearance.
This reticence grows out of our Chinese upbringing and from Chinese customs and etiquette, namely to have respect, to exhibit manners and courtesy, out of which avoidance of intrusion and trespass is one of them. We will never, for example, claim an inch of another person’s land or property, not even intangible things as beliefs and the thing we commonly call, life. Hence, in our Motherland, individual deceit and outright theft and plunder are considered crimes considered equal to murder.
So adamant are we to these values which, to add, are also the font of Chinese diplomacy and foreign policy, boiling down to the thing you have almost certainly heard of, non-interference.
It isn’t that we Chinese don’t hold our leaders, including our elders, to account for their faults and errors (we do), in particular when actions and speeches are mendacious. But there are established ways in bringing people to heel, ways molded over millennia that have worked better than, say, confrontation and dissension.
I see that Lawrence Jones has an interview with you, April 3, with which Chay Bowes (whatever he is, below) took the interview’s 3,700-word transcript and boil it down to a 14-word line. This, of course, is typical of western thought, too mentally lazy and too stupid to look beyond their institutional and individual desires to sensationalize:
After the sensationalism came much derision, to which are some samples below (also see them in this link):
Like when you equate peasantry to hillbilly, they accuse you of causing a slur but ignores the same fact of their commission. This is so American, No?
We took no offense to the term “peasants”, not one Chinese I dare say. On the contrary we thank you for recognizing not only the life and death contributions to our beloved Motherland but to yours as well. Setting aside, hence, the stupidities of your national media life, I refer you instead to the context with which you had talked about me and our people. Which is, a country-by-country tariff imposition. Under it China was singled out as the primary and perhaps the only intended US target:
“I think it's useful for all of us to step back and ask ourselves, what has the globalist economy gotten the United States of America? Fundamentally, it's based on two principles. Incurring a huge amount of debt to buy things that other countries make for us.
To make it a little more crystal clear, we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture.
That is not a recipe for economic prosperity, it's not a recipe for low prices, and it's not a recipe for good jobs in the United States of America... President Trump is taking this economy in a different direction.”
*
The Bramwell Goats Raised in America
This letter’s purpose, if I may reiterate, is not about whether or not your remarks against Chinese peasants are a slur. Those who say it aren’t just mischievous and malicious. They are actually much like you, racist bigots.
Bigoted because, why would, for example, Buzzfeed reporter Michaela Bramwell, who is after all not Chinese, think the term “peasant” as demeaning or an affront to Chinese? From where had she gotten the idea that the Chinese consider a one-line remark to be offensive — although you probably intended it that way once you compare Chinese peasants to American hillbilly. Picking on one anonymous comment by “Pedro” that was accompanied by a Chinese name, Bramwell therefore concluded the person represented dissension among all 1.4 billion Chinese. The Chinese name, BTW, says the person is a foreigner, almost certainly White, teaching in China.
More likely therefore, Bramwell, like Pedro, was projecting her own personal values onto all Chinese in China, of whom some 600 million still work and live a peasant’s life. And if true, then Bramwell, even though Black, is acting out like a White, always at hand to pass judgment on how people should conduct themselves, think and say.
People like Bramwell are a dime a dozen in the US and the West. By their own confession, and remarks, they demonstrate that a peasant’s life, like a hillbilly, is crass, useless and certainly worth less than their own. Hence, that shitty response (above) from one Dennis: “holy shit”.
With the like of Dennis, Pedro and Bramwell, you can therefore see that America, as a White culture, generates not just stupid Americans, thugs, fraudsters, salesmen and politicians like Trump, it exports them abroad.
In China’s streets, we’ve seen how Black Americans behave towards local Chinese, leaving among us an impression that, like in the US, they demand entitlements and that in a foreign land to boot! By their conduct they would show no respect for themselves as visitor, much less as guest. Instead they act like a chosen skin-color specie (“Black is Beautiful”), hence morally, ethnically and materially superior to Chinese, the values picked up no doubt from White KKK culture. Watch for example the conduct in this piece of House Nigger motherfucker running loose down the market street like a wild African barking dog yapping at everybody, creating offense, like he is the most important existence in the universe. As reflection of White culture breeding, he is unable to keep his stupid tongue tucked in his fucking mouth but brags about it instead. That Nigger would show no manners that is customary etiquette for Chinese when in turning up public spaces.
*
America’s Debt to the Peasants
Having gotten that out of the way, answering American goat herders, I shall return to matters of far greater importance, namely your mention of the current US administration’s move away from globalism. By a “globalist economy,” I gather from your remarks you intend it to mean an economy
that incurs debt to finance international trade affecting, as a consequence,
the domestic economy which, in the US case, has been adverse, a “recipe” for “not low prices and not good jobs.”
From where did you pick up your economics? How are WalMart and Dollar Store prices “not low”? If “not low” then why does WalMart still import them goods and not make their own. (All this is very convoluted. The fact that this elementary mom-and-pop household economics even get past Lawrence Jones reaffirms my early point: America generates morons, both White and Niggers. But let’s forget it.)
In plain sight, it is true Chinese peasants made the goods one finds at New York Trump Tower souvenir shop or at WalMart. Shenzhen, population of under 30,000 some 40 years ago, today 10 million, was virtually built from scratch but not using Dollars and not for making goods for America. Virtually every dime that went into its development the first 20 years came from the 40-odd million overseas Chinese in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia) in that order. Every Chinese, poor and rich, chipped in. When White people, Americans above all, found there was money to be made, they came in since circa 2000. All the labor, without exception, came from the rural peasant villages. (Disclosure: this author is personally acquainted with hundreds of them.)
It is also true that the Dollar income from those goods also belong, theoretically, to the same peasants who labored in places as Shenzhen at great personal sacrifices to the welfare of their families and home. At almost US$1.3 trillion the cumulative sum of that income up until 2021 were converted into and went to buying Treasury securities. Those securities are America’s debt to Chinese peasants, theoretically. True, therefore, the money belong to neither China’s central bank nor its government, any of which is merely the appointed trustees of the Chinese State and its people.
So, if the Chinese did not steal the money but had, from toil and effort, amassed the Treasuries then please explain how your president came to the conclusion those peasants had ripped off Donald Trump’s mama? Or your mama, too?
Either you are right or Trump is. Or, is it that both of you are right, which wouldn’t surprise me the least if you said so.
That you should instead insist globalism had adversely affected America but profited China is a queer line of thought. Why do you even think that way, a one-way street, as if Dollars returning to the US with which America merely have to print to pay for Chinese goods is a bad thing? Is that why your government is now punishing us? Because we’re Chinese peasants who successful escaped the clutches of a US fiat Ponzi scheme designed by the goat herders of America? (See Yang Jiachi clip near bottom of post.)
Just those questions (there are many more) are enough to cast serious doubts into your claims. So I won’t need to go farther.
What I propose to say to you, instead, are not the economic ramifications which, if you were to reconsider your thesis argument, is false. Rather it is to see who and what gave rise to globalism and why it is even here today, still with us. This is the theory of globalism I like to go to next because it seems to affect you deeply. You show that when, in the same breathe, you speak of globalism in terms of economic “recipes” and material “prosperity” and poverty which is the inverse.
The JD Law of Prosperity
When you begin to see, to understand and to explain a “globalist economy” on terms of nationality or on national grounds, you are assaulting the prevailing thesis orthodoxy. You realize that, do you?
Orthodoxy says that globalism is the eradication of nations as a single source of goods. This is achieved by fragmenting goods production and thence to redistribute parts of said production into several national locations. Car making is a classic example. The Ford used to be produced in just the US. Not anymore. Furthermore, you have only to ask Elon Musk (or Tim Cook in the case of mobile phones) to see what I mean and how this production fragmentation became necessary, why, and to whose benefit ultimately. While globalism fragments production, supply chain seeks to put back together those parts of the good, Mexico and Canada being places of the assembly.
Saying that “we borrow money from Chinese peasants to buy the things those Chinese peasants manufacture” suggests you are rejecting globalism, rejecting national production. You actually went further, that is, to include race (Chinese) and class (peasants). That is, you
(a) ascribe peasantry to the Chinese race and Chinese nation, including even the Chinese State as well,
(b) that this peasantry is, you think, like Michaela Bramwell, unsophisticated, inferior at many levels to Americans, White middle and working class in particular, intellectually, materially and financially above all, and
(c) that peasantry isn’t just a socio-economic class but especially a racial class, Chinese only in your view, to which you are aghast that an unsophisticated, crass racial group should, God forbid, even lend money to the world’s richest nation. And that’s on top of provisioning goods to it.
Put together all the above arrives at your own theory of globalism, which bundles nationhood, statehood, racial superiority (or inferiority) in goods production and investments. This, in other words, is your Law of Prosperity that must return production whole, not fragmented, located at its consumption end while investments is best provided for at home.
All this is very confused because you are taunting a remedy that became the source of a problem before a “globalist economy” and which globalists then proceeded to overcome by dismantling national production and exporting the same. That is, before globalism, was a national or autarkic economy. Which, however, wasn’t making enough in profit for your friends at Wall Street such as Musk and Cook. Hence they went global.
Do you see the problem with your remedy? Do you get it?
If Chinese (that is, external) production impoverishes America, then logic flipped around says domestic production enriches America. This is the thrust of your presentation in Fox.
Suppose everyone (in Trump’s Cabinet?) agree to this program of “re-shoring”, that is, production returned to its starting point in America, then your next consideration is finance of that production. In your Fox interview you said nothing about that but referred only to finance for consumption. This is again weird….
Who is doing the consumption: the US Treasury which gets Dollars from Chinese peasants selling bonds, or is goods consumption coming from the public at large, such as in iPhones and Tesla cars. If it is the public that consumes, then what does the Treasury want the Dollars for? Again, suppose you have uses for the Dollar, which the Treasury doesn’t use to consume, why borrow from peasants? You have only to go next door to the Fed and demand, on the pain of jail time, to print, say, US$750 billion currently held in Treasuries by us.
For the purpose of this letter, we once more ignore the convolution above. Those arguments lead nowhere.
More important to our task now is to ask who will finance the production in the US? The self-evident answer is, the like of Apple and Tesla. And if they refuse? You nationalize all their assets, financial and production, both in the US and abroad, after which your office can organize the factory construction and production in the name of national interest, national security, or whatever fancies you.
This roadmap solves everything, No? No more Chinese goods into the US, no more deficits, no more export income to peasants, without which there is no more money to lend to the US. QED.
All said and done, production is the lifeblood of a nation: you either take charge of it or surrender its functions to Apple, Tesla, etc., in which case don’t complain if they refuse to co-operate. Challenge them all you want: Why are you so unpatriotic and so un-MAGA? You know well the answer, an answer already provided in the globalist economy you whine about.
Your problem, JD, isn’t with peasants therefore; we are a poor people 10,000 miles away, for crying out loud, and we can only afford huts and eat gruel and bamboo barks daily and so can’t help you indefinitely whether it is to buy your debt and provision you goods.
Simply presume that Cook, Musk et al will refuse to re-shore production. After which write them a letter, pass a law then nationalize everything because you (and Trump) have the power in the Dollar printer. Only remember the Congress people. That they support the MAGA Patriotic Nationalization of Production Bill, remember to buy all their outstanding stocks, plus a 10 times mark-up. Then install them on a pedestal, proclaiming them as heroes in sacrifices — for nation, state, and race. All this will be for a moral good, for a MAGA good and nobody would notice you scratched their backs.
As you Americans like to say, the ball is in your court. And so, we must move on with this letter on a matter, I believe, that’s far dearer to your heart than this Philistine business of globalist economics.
It concerns bigger things — culture, to which you and I first lets agree that, by culture, we mean ethics, epistemology, jurisprudence, thought and values in general, custom, history and anthropology.
Let’s begin with morality, your morality, since in association with economics you had raised such topics as “prosperity” and a life in low prices and good jobs. These, prosperity, good jobs, enough food on the table are the cornerstones of a good life. Into this, lets include the hillbilly life that, in China, you refer to as peasants, True? By the morality of a good life, we mean therefore, attaching goodness in certain important or life and death decisions. For example,
would you care if globalism’s goods and debt came from Europeans and Canadians (that is, White people) who lend you money to buy their cars and their washing machines? Are White goods and White money preferably to Chinese goods and Chinese money? Your interview in Fox suggests that it is so, a point reinforced by your government’s single, focused attack on the Chinese. This is also to say that, since the White life is, at root, White culture then it behooves on your morality to follow White morality. Nothing wrong with that: to each his own. Next,
who has been doing the globalizing and what has been globalized if not America? Globalism mirrors the same way US State and politics organize American lives, organizes production and finance, exports its values and ideologies abroad, its economic system, its deindustrialization, its finance, its Dollar and on and on and on. If this is true, which it is empirically and historically, then going by your logic against globalism, it is the American system, down to its brass tacks, and the roots in its epistemology, teleology and theology must be plucked and thrown out! You see a problem with that? (See for example, 给美国关税战洗地，劝我们投降，公知就是美国的狗！ - 红色文化网 2025 Apr 14.
*
The Chinese Peasant in the Hillbilly
The dismantling of America in the world has to start in China because our nation possesses one of the biggest groups of globalist White imitating Chinese from the prime minister Li Qiang down. This is a clique who all 1.4 billion Chinese despise. They are not peasants. It is only we, the peasants, who is the origin and the source and inspiration of Chinese civilization; no other group does that. And it is on the lives of peasants that the entire national edifice of China rests on and descended from.
We Chinese peasants are today the last bulwark against globalism, and the last refuge of the Chinese State. So, you can see how the status of the peasant in the US versus China has been turned upside down. While we peasants are exalted in our Motherland, the hillbilly is derided, put down and stamped out in America (more on this later).
What could be the cause of this state of affairs in your country? Here is a quick answer: it is the globalism by the like of Musk and Cook.
Put another way: while Americans have willingly surrendered to globalism, we Chinese hadn’t and would never. That we won’t means the peasants continue to be vital to and indispensable not just to China’s soul but the world as well, including yours. You are well advised to heed this alert that our peasants remain united and strong in case we should inspire you to turn your America around one day, hopefully.
But, where are your hillbilly values? This is asked because those values, as a set of moral codes, disappear the moment you embrace American globalism. It vanishes the moment you give up your hillbilly life to join Elon Musk, Tim Cook, Stephen Miran et al, the purveyors of the globalism you despise. And you don’t even know it, for which there are reasons I will next come to in the next segment.
In China, we forfeit our ethics when we surrender our peasant life, exchanging it for globalism’s profit in debt and exports to America. The peasant is the font of not just Chinese ethics but in all intellectual inspirations and in every bit of advances, from making wheels for heavy transport and in superimposing geometric planes on complex shapes in order to divvy up a piece of land equally and fairly. In the farms, we observed how a slim, sharp nose kingfisher never makes a splash when diving into a water then using that idea to solve the accumulation of air retarding speed when a flat vertical nose-front of a train passes a tunnel. Solution: sharpen the train’s nose into a conical beak shape. Yet…
You have no idea how we, the peasants of China, are under daily assault by your American-style globalists spearheaded by US collaborators in the like of Li Ka-shing & Sons, by Henry Wang and Ronnie Chan et al, many hiding in the America’s Asia Society. They want our lives by demanding for our land. After which to fragment it into a thousand pieces for re-zoning and thereafter resell as waterfront real estate for profit, like your president’s proposal to Gaza. We deign to kill these motherfuckers; it will be the last thing we do before our beloved China ever goes down!
Willing to sell the nation, they betray the essence of Chinese peasant-hood and hence the statehood that only the peasants had helped preserve the last 5,000 years! This essence of peasant-hood is to keep, at all cost, China Chinese just as you wish to keep America American (or MAGA or whatever).
We peasants will never, ever permit China to imitate or copy Anglo-America globalism, in any way, shape or form. We know the devastation being wrought on America. From our shores, we can see across the ocean the fires lit up in the night on the opposite side.
Yet — and this is the confusion in your Fox interview — you infer that the object of MAGA is primarily to get rich. Can you see the contradiction because what has making American great anything to do with getting rich especially since America is already the world’s richest nation. What has greatness to do with money which America already has, or it can print at will? Where’s all that money anyway? Do you want to ask Jamie Dimon or Larry Fink that? If you flip your logic about Chinese making goods and then using the proceeds to lend to America you will get this: Will America lend Renminbi yuan to China so it may buy American-made goods? Does this even make sense? It doesn’t but please, pray tell us anyway!
So, we ask, what’s with all your government’s fucked up priorities, JD?
*
Ethics of the Chinese State and JD Morality
From this short clip, which is no more than 30 seconds, I have cut out a frame to make a copy and paste screenshot above. Please refer to it.
There is no reason to doubt the clip’s authenticity. Many peasants who run individual plots of farm land live in circumstances depicted, selling their surpluses in the nearest town, typically on a busy street. The sums generated in this way is to an American farmer pocket change, about US$2 to US$3 on a normal day, around US$50 a month if they manage to keep at it almost daily. To the peasant, however, it may mean a little more meat on the dining table. Shoppers like buying from peasants because they are sure the crops are genuine fresh off the farm, and cheap.
So it was with Ji’an. In that way three or four times a week, since about age ten, she followed her grandma to the city market square. Since they are not licensed to operate inside the square, they sell their goods on the approach road to the entrance. If they are early they can find a good spot.
In the misty fall morning, pass the mountain forest of fir and cyprus, the trek to the city is an hour and a half. In rattan baskets they cram corn, peppers, spring onion, cauliflower, Pandanus leaves, as much as they can afford to carry. They pray they sell everything or else it’s would be same load back. If sale was good that day, grandma took Ji’an to their usual noodle stand before the trek home. It would be late afternoon.
This weekly frequency is necessary because the corn and pears (seen in the clip’s image above) don’t ripen the same time. Even if it so happens, happened, the cost of motorized transport would clean up every dime of an entire consignment — and peasants, unlike Elon Musk, count the day’s takings in dimes. What advantage peasants have over quantity and margins is, time. Almost for certain the man above, a peasant, accompanied by another, perhaps a child, had made the same sort of a trek as Ji’an and grandma did, distance unknown.
The uniformed man and woman are not cops that stupid foreign comments of the clip say. They are municipality law enforcement people, usually a part-time job.
Because laws are vague, often deliberately made that way, enforcement gives enforcers a lot of leeway. If however you treat laws and measure its efficacy in dots and t’s, then for sure the man would get a citation. If not a citation, he’d appear in courtroom the next day.
But does anybody have any idea how either outcome will devastate the peasant — completely and totally?
This is the first set of fundamental differences standing between Chinese and American (western) society and statehood: laws are made for people, not people for laws.
Chinese laws since millennia ago have been deliberately constructed for the two uniformed enforcers to express their humanity to the full.
This humanity is found in a peculiar practice that shocks even Chinese: law enforcement can claim expenses incurred, in limited sums of course, such as the takeout meals the two officers gave the peasant (see clip). In the US, and in copycat White societies like is Hong Kong, legal tyranny is a street byword.
Mozi 墨子 and Mencius 孟子 were some of the earliest philosophers (c.500 BCE) who were most concerned about a seemingly antagonist relationship between the State and the individual. This shouldn’t be, they argue in standard Daoist rationale, because one cannot exist without the other, like empty and full, dark and light, long and short beget, create and define each other. Take one out, the other ceases to exist.
Thus arose and refined over millennia a body of Chinese jurisprudence advising rulers and emperors on how to rule. Have punishments, yes, but this is still coercion of behavior. Infinitely far more effective in rule is when people willfully follow laws not from the fear thereof but because they are fair, just and practical. At the point when human conduct comes naturally, then laws, instructions, edicts, rules become redundant.
That is what makes China stands out today, setting Chinese apart from, in particular, the White race and western societies (not East Asian which shares similar ideas and values). The White Man knows and understands nothing in the phenomenology described above but can only generate daily fart, for example, arguing over how many centimeters from the curb, before the road, a vendor can place his goods.
In JD’s America and on a White Man’s street that peasant is done in. In JD’s courtroom the judge will slap him a penalty fine accompanied by platitudes about meting out punishments as a lesson to all. That lesson, in biblical language, is the fear of God. That is rule by terror which now runs amok in American and western societies.
But it’s the Law! The Law, they say.
Small wonder, in his book The Trial (1925) and in the short story Before the Law (1915), the Czech writer Franz Kafka would express his disgust for the law. A century later, the White Man (think Dimitri Lascaris, a Canadian lawyer) still don’t get it!
Instead, the White Man (and their Hongkie underlings) continue to talk about the wonders of Anglo-Saxon rule of law which they bundled with the usual clarity and transparency fucking yada, yada.
The Dollar to Ethics and Backwards
Mozi and Mencius thought that a terrible weakness in their treatises was the process of conversion from law to conduct and and vice-versa. One is just a construct whereas conduct is a daily human endeavor and required practise. What comes between law and conduct? What transmits conduct to law and the other way around. This conundrum was pointless because Confucius had already the answer beforehand: Ethics.
As ethics bridges human conduct and a constructed legal society called the State, so fiat currency bridges human exchanges inside a construct called markets. At the center in both instances is the human.
Ethics rests on and arises from social, familial, kinship, collegial, classroom exchanges, most importantly between stranger and stranger. Currency rests, depend on and the trust in the transactional exchange of goods, also between stranger and stranger at the first instance.
In trade, investment and money flows between China and the US, we now have two mediums, ethics and currency, running in parallel. Can you see it, JD? Can you see where is the problem between us, Chinese peasants and smart American hillbillies like you?
You, JD, see law, your law to boot, and especially currency, Dollars to boot, as the penultimate objects of our two-nation relations. Seeing life that way, you therefore don’t see the street vendor, the peasant, Ji’an and her grandma. You don’t even see your own hillbilly tribe!
What on earth do you, JD Vance, see instead? You don’t think there’s any fucking thing wrong with that worldview?
Here’s the problem: our way takes patience, generations and centuries of building, not citizenship or citizenry that are legal concepts, but humaneness or humanity. This is what Chinese mean when we speak of education as a form of human cultivation. It is as opposed to skills training that even monkeys can be trained to do.
This idea of cultivation is fundamental and a keystone difference between, for example, the peasant in my China and the hillybilly in yours. You must see through in the hillbilly the human, not monkeys to be house trained in law and in conduct.
People are not “created” that is made, molded and forever shaped with clay and with which God breathed in life. This voodoo is empirically and manifestly false. People are cultivated, typically from childhood, so that realistically in both the education and the cultivation never ends till death.
Recall Saul Bellow’s Dangling Man (1944): A man alone in a jail cell ceases to exist in all respects. He is just a number in a cell that your kind of law and government considered as success in governance and in law enforcement. Wrong. That man with a life dangled in a cell is an expression of your failure as ruler because, if a success, he wouldn’t be there.
Said man in cell is where your so-called rule-of-law takes you in the end. And you see no problem with that? How many laws are there in your Federal and State statutes combined? 50,000? 100,000? What are the chances I might break any of them when I land in your country?
You see, JD, it’s humanity that western systems deign to eradicate, whether secular or religious isn’t the point. And, it doesn’t matter too if the system is legal or economic or political.
Western economic systems that is the font of globalist economics (your complaint) follow the same pathway of your legal system. Counting beans is all that White people care about in the main, especially in situations of exchange relations between people: profit-loss, cost-benefit, input-output, asset-liability, short-long sale. Your people care about the “clarity and transparency” measuring how many fucking centimeters into the curb! We don’t.
This too is how your boss Donald think and conduct himself: “O! What a beautiful Gaza waterfront property! We could do so many things with it. What a waste!”
Hearing that makes us Chinese sick in the stomach. For a moment we thought he was just one of those stupid YouTube Whitey and Nigger bloggers
All this is not to say we should worry nothing about balance in a trade account. On the contrary, it is an ideal to which we head towards and strife for. This ideal is something we Chinese treasure: Balance. Sometimes called harmony.
But, ultimately, that is not the destination place for both of us. Do you know what is? The woman striking a balance (in image below) only need the balance to get where she must. At the minimum you won’t die by drowning.
Counting the Last Bean
The globalist theory of production is tautologically false. It is false in fragmenting production to the cheapest location then bringing its parts (through supply chains) to be assembled into a single whole product.
America’s reindustrialization requires, therefore a dismantling of the supply chain your economic system created through your own companies. Can you see them be willing to do it?
The next consideration is ethical, the single lowest denominator in America’s globalism, namely its humanity.
Take out that ethics then it is easy how and why globalism willy nilly replaces people to the the JD Law of Prosperity. One result, as you can see and which everyone now suspects of American democracy: US statehood exists singularly to preserve, to minimize costs and expand profits.
You should, please, put back the ethics into the supply chain. This sounds like trite but it does underlie the fault in the founding of the US: that is treating the State and the American as two distinct separate entities joined only by the compliance of one to the other through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Even there, complying with them, nobody gives a shit.
Americans exist not to serve the law or the State, much less function as an appendage to Musk, Cook et al. The State and the People comes and can only exist as one. If you don’t begin to flip around the priorities, the State is an American’s worse enemy, not Hamas please or Houthis or whatever. Two hundred and fifty years have produced not just White American terror but a fake nation like you have fake money.
When in a fake nation that produces a fake culture, writing daily fake headlines, one reads the following:
US bonds, stocks, Dollar: Sell! Sell! Sell!
Uni students visited by hooded balaclava disappear.
JD Vance’s eyeliner price soar in a war Dollar economy.
Genocide in Gaza, war in Yemen, more war coming.
America’s hillbilly morality for a globalist hillbilly politics.
Rich, poor, Black, White, America is None for All, All for One.
We Chinese don’t envy your station in life. But that I write to you, on behalf of peasants, it’s because you are, for the first time, the only senior US leader to ever utter the word and to refer to us as such. On this fact alone, we believe you have more humanity than all members of Congress stacked up.
Our old Masters never tire to remind us, let the ruler be ruler, the minister be minister, the father be father…. He who is virtuous as ruler is like the North Polar star to which all other stars circles around and aligns to as if looking at it.
May you so prosper and I bid you the best and farewell.
*
Ji’an many years later with her peasant’s mandarin oranges….
Peasants at a collective farm…
*
洋人 Goat Herders from the West
This, below, on Mar 18, 2021, was the beginning of today’s break between China and US. 杨洁篪 Yang Jiachi to Antony Blinken, et al (verbatim translation): “We think too highly of you, a bunch of goat herders from the West, who don’t even know basic courtesies. Goat herders are not fit to talk to us Chinese…!”
*
《愛江山更愛美人》Opera education cum entertainment by peasants for peasants…
*
《再見二丁目》Goodbye Er’ding
*
Appendix: White, Black Intruders in China
How different is it that different racial groups, Chinese v Americans react to JD’s peasant remarks: While White people — lead by stupid American editors and inside-China scumbags (Lee Barrett et al), subsequently joined by their Anglophile underlings in CNN, CNBC, CGTN, etc — look for slurs and insults to finger Vance, the Chinese, peasants in the main, look for lessons.
One reason for the different attitude is this: Nobody — not one Chinese — see the word peasant as a slur. Rather it was not only accurate, for that’s what we are Chinee are at root, but we are proud of the label. Below is an example of the differences in attitude outcome between those bigoted White motherfuckers (including everyone of those squatting on Chinese property, without exception) and the Chinese. There’s no talk among Chinese of peasants and slurs. Instead it examines then skewers the fallacy in the ‘rescue-America-will-feed-Chinese’ argument.
No wonder with people like Barrett, lead by the like Elon Musk and Tim Cooks in Democrats and Republicans, White societies and their economies are so thoroughly fucked up. But, of course, they blame Chinese.
In China White people (Karim Bettache, Ben Norton, Marissa-the-Bitch in China and their House Niggers Daniel Dumbrill) don’t change their philosophy of truth and ethics, nor internalize Chinese culture, an impossibility anyway. Musk in apartheid South Africa is the same Musk in China or the US; a fucking Zionist fascist. In China, they instead convert their racism, redirecting their hatred and bigotry back to the countries they had never love (US, UK, Netherlands). Worse, they redistribute their poison into Chinese societies by sounding like they are championing China’s position in the world.
*
国际问题学者高志凯说我们不在乎失去美国市场后，马上有殖人跳出来，“你不在乎，但我们在乎!我们得吃饭，我们得生活”。很搞笑吧，说得好像是我们主动放弃美国市场似的，是他们的美国爸爸要给我们加关税，和我们打关税战的好吧。还有，谁能告诉我，他怎么就吃不上饭、活不下去了?
还有1450一唱一和什么“本来是希望这边学个好，结果是那边学了个坏”。这我就不明白了，合着特朗普的关税战是跟我们学的?人都是喜欢往自己脸上贴金的，像公知那样喜欢往自己脸上抹屎的，还真是活久见。这让我忍不住怀疑：他们到底是中国的人，还是美国的狗? (See, 给美国关税战洗地，劝我们投降，公知就是美国的狗！ - 红色文化网 2025 Apr 14.)
*
*
References: The US Dollar System
The coming retrenchment from the current US Dollar global economy: This happens the day in the Dollar’s complete debasement, i.e. worth zero, now down by 99.363 percent of its original worth from a hundred years ago circa 1930. Gold value (in Dollar terms) in the duration has risen by 15,714 percent. See: Maneco 64, 2025 Apr 13 and charts below. To see Dollar’s worth, invert chart line. Also image above, have the Americans been lying, that they have no gold?
*
A message from Donald Trump Jr (see: Maneco 64, 2025 Apr 13)
*
Mar-a-Lago Accord in gold. See Maneco 64, 2025 Apr 13 (from around 58:80)
Trump Concocted the Tariffs Hoax to Decouple with China, The Unz Review, 2025 Apr 10. Also: Han-Xiongnu USA War of the Century, shuzheng, Apr 12, 2025.
*