Jeff Nyquist comments on the speech believed to have been given by Mr. Chi Haotian,Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Transcript of a speech follows below.Jeff Nyquist comments::This commentary should be included as part of a chapter in a future book. We shouldcall this chapter, “Authenticating China’s Strategy”You suggest (1) that the speech is a hoax. This is entirely possible, although close analysis tends in another direction. Strategy is my subject and my life-long study. Believe it or not, it is possible in strategy to know certain things indirectly, by inference and analysis. After careful consideration, with regard to the speeches attributed to General Chi, I think it is unwise to say “we don’t know”and “it doesn’t matter.” In fact, it’s not impossible to analyze a document to determine its authenticity. Here is a task entirely within the reach of a strategicanalyst. Furthermore, if the document is authentic then it matters a great deal; for the enemy’s intentions are laid bare, with countless implications (and potential war-winning insights).When we first encounter an unfamiliar text, we don’t know how to judge it. We are completely lost, and this is normal. Those who claim to understand something on first contact are deceiving themselves. Nothing worth knowing is understood immediately. When I first read the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian my reaction was to dismiss them as you did. When I read the first paragraph of the second speech, I rolled my eyes and laughed at what seemed to be an obvious fraud. At first reading they were not credible. (This is the same reaction I had to Golitsyn in 1984).Two years elapsed and, as chance would have it, I was doing some research on Mao Zedong’s strategic ideas. In this midst of this research I was stunned by Mao’s determination to build a fleet and invade North America. I was also struck by the brutality and cynicism of his statements. I went back and started re-reading Sun Tzu and the commentaries on Sun Tzu. My mind suddenly drifted back to the two speeches attributed to General Chi Haotian. On my second reading I realized these speeches are only incredible from a Western point of view. From a Chinese strategist’s point of view, these speeches are consistent with 2,500 years of Chinese history and thought. There is nothing inauthentic in these two speeches. Ifthey are a hoax, then a genius produced them. More than that, this aforesaid geniuspossesses authentic tidbits of military intelligence that are not known by the general public — but were revealed to me by a high-ranking Russian military defector with more than three years experience in China.Mao once said that the first Chin emperor was nothing compared with himself. The first Chin emperor only killed a thousand Confucian scholars. Mao had killed hundreds of thousands of Confucian scholars. This was Mao’s boast. Such boasting isunknown to Western history, except to figures who are dismissed as madmen. One is reminded of the Chinese warlord whose father was taken prisoner and held hostage bya rival. In this instance, the rival threatened to boil the old man alive. The war lord sent his reply: “Save me some of the soup.” One has to dig through the Dark Ages of Western history to find anything like it. Or else it is something from the history of Caligula or Nero or Eliagabulus, who were considered evil madmen — dreadful failures and misfits. In China such behavior has long been normalized. TheWestern ethic, which followed from the hero-worship of the ancient Greeks and Romans, places nobility as the true standard of greatness. Chinese civilization places a high premium on realistic thinking, brutality and success. This is greatness in the Chinese context.

 

How does this point argue the authenticity of the alleged speeches of General Chi? A person who disagrees with the strategic culture of China, favoring freedom and humane government, doesn’t possess the mentality needed to reproduce such a brilliant piece of mimicry. One would have to be a student of Sun Tzu and the Chin emperor and Mao Zedong, not a student of Thomas Jefferson or Lincoln. Such a student would not value freedom, having absorbed a philosophy entirely at odds withWestern culture. More than that, it is a culture that believes in the West’s weakness and inevitable fall.If you were going to advance a fraudulent speech by a Chinese communist leader, would you dare put into his mouth the statement that Nazi Germany was “too soft”? Would you dare open your first paragraph with the assertion that you are pleased that 80 percent of Chinese polled would kill women and children in a war? Anyone with the sophistication to produce this document would have avoided going so far, fearing that the reader would laugh out loud at such an obvious propaganda fraud. Only a simple person would start Chi’s second speech with that kind of paragraph, and a simple person did not compose this speech! To make a credible fraud, you haveto downplay the wickedness of the Communists. You must be subtle in your presentation so that the fraud has a chance to sound credible. But the Chi speech is not subtle as a fraudulent presentation would have to be. Instead, it is deep and profound and brilliant in its totalitarian perspective. The compassion for the American victims comes late in the second speech, long after the skeptics would’ve stopped reading it.I do not know if the speech is genuine. But if I had to lay a bet, then I’d wager on its authenticity. That is to say, I suspect it is authentic. And the way to testits authenticity is to see if Chinese actions are consistent with its program.There is something more, as well. I know from my discussions with a Russian defector, that Russia and China agreed to split North America between them as follows: Russia would get Alaska and parts of Canada, while China would get the lower 48 states (which contains the best land). The agreement on this was affirmed by the Russian General Staff in early 1992. This joint agreement on a future war against America is the basis for the Sino-Russian alliance. And if you read GeneralChi’s speech carefully, you will see that he brilliantly lays out the logic of the Chinese offensive and their means of advancing. He does not mention Russia’s role because Party cadres don’t need to know about Russia’s military contribution. They only need the most general strategic outline and why the war is necessary.You must read this speech several times in order to understand its profound science. If this speech is counterfeit, the counterfeiter spent many years devisingit. In fact, a hoax of this type could only be produced, as I noted before by a genuis. If General Chi was not the author, then the author should be a general — and ought to have General Chi’s job.In point (2) you mention 9/11. Chi’s speech explains why a false flag terror attackis necessary in advance of a biological offensive against the United States. As would be proper, General Chi gives nothing away. He merely implies that the Americans will not know who is really attacking them. This is intrinsic to his speech, even though he doesn’t say a word.In point (3) you ask if this is good propaganda material against communism. Since our goal is to understand the enemy, the propaganda value is of secondary importance. If these speeches are authentic, our activism must counter the Chinese strategy. Furthermore, authentic information has the tendency of winning minds in the long run.And yes, we are at war. At this stage in the war, however, weapons of mass

 

destruction are not being used because the attackers are waiting for the right moment. The fact of the shopping mall regime indicates what we are given to work with.*************************************************War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese CenturyLeading CCP official argues for exterminating U.S. populationBy Chi HaotianAug 08, 2005The following is a transcript of a speech believed to have been given by Mr. Chi Haotian, Minster of Defense and vice-chairman of China’s Central Military Commission. Independently verifying the authorship of the speech is not possible. It is worth reading because it is believed to set out the CCP’s strategy for the development of China. The speech argues for the necessity of China using biological warfare to depopulatethe United States and prepare it for a future massive Chinese colonization. “The War Is Not Far from Us and Is the Midwife of the Chinese Century” was published on February 15, 2005 on www.peacehall.com and was published on www.boxun.com on April 23, 2005. This speech and a related speech, “The War Is Approaching Us” are analyzed in The Epoch Times original article “The CCP’s Last-ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War.”************************************************Text of the speech:Comrades,I’m very excited today, because the large-scale online survey sina.com that was done for us showed that our next generation is quite promising and our Party’s cause will be carried on. In answering the question, “Will you shoot at women, children and prisoners of war,” more than 80 percent of the respondents answered inthe affirmative, exceeding by far our expectations [1].Today I’d like to focus on why we asked sina.com to conduct this online survey among our people. My speech today is a sequel to my speech last time [2], during which I started with a discussion of the issue of the three islands [3], mentioned that 20 years of the idyllic theme of “peace and development” had come to an end, and concluded that modernization under the saber is the only option for China’s next phase. I also mentioned we have a vital stake overseas. Today, I’ll speak morespecifically on these two issues.The central issue of this survey appears to be whether one should shoot at women, children and prisoners of war, but its real significance goes far beyond that. Ostensibly, our intention is mainly to figure out what the Chinese people’s attitude towards war is: If these future soldiers do not hesitate to kill even non-combatants, they’ll naturally be doubly ready and ruthless in killing combatants. Therefore, the responses to the survey questions may reflect the general attitude people have towards war.