1 The China Story

2 BRI-A techtonic shift in the global balance of power

3 Wall Street eyes China’s financial sector

4 China vs. America

5 Emergence of 2 trade Blocs

6 The Beijing military parade

7 The SCO summit

8 Leadership qualities

British-Backed Strategic Thrusts against China

In the early 1990s, London is determined to bring about the break-up of China. Merely typical are utterances by Gerald Segal of the London International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).  Britain’s Leon Brittan delivered a threat to the same effect, on May 7, 1994, while a guest of the People’s Republic of China, at a Beijing conference sponsored by China’s government. Brittan threatened his hosts with strategic destabilizations of China’s environment, if China did not abort its government’s present form of commitment to building up trans-Eurasia “land-bridge” links to Western Europe and the Middle East. Since Britain was in a weak position, this job was passed over to the Americans. Since 1995, the US has been looking for ways to gain leverage over China. Beijing wisely played along, while building up its economy and military strengths; very quietly until New York realized by 2010 their mistake. Since then, the Us has been trying very hard to make sure China does not over take the US in becoming the largest and most advanced economy the world, whilst, at the same time, trying-desperately- to stop China’s BRI project from moving forward. In both of these objectives, the Rockefeller Empire has failed.   

The China Story

The single most stunning economic story of the last few decades has been the rise of China. From 1980 to 2020, China’s economy grew more than 75-fold. It was the largest and most rapid improvement in material conditions in modern history…. China had been one of the poorest countries on earth but now it is an economic powerhouse. Since the 1980s, free market policies have swept the globe. Many countries have undergone far-ranging transformations. Liberalizing prices, privatizing entire industries, and opening up to free trade. But many of the economies that were subjected to the market overnight have since stagnated or decayed. None of them have had a growth record like the one seen in China. African countries experienced brutal economic shrinkage. Latin American countries experienced 25 years of stagnation. If we compare China to Russia, the other giant of Communism in the 20th Century, the contrast is even more staggering. Under state socialism, Russia was an industrial superpower while China was still largely an agricultural economy. Yet during the same period that Chinese reforms led to incredible economic growth, Russia’s reform led to a brutal collapse. Both China and Russia had been economies that were largely ordered through state commands. Russia followed the recommendations of the “Harvard Boys” at the time, a policy of so-called “shock therapy” As a basic principle; the idea was that the old planned economy had to be destroyed, to make space for the market to emerge. Russia was expected to emerge as a full-fledged economy overnight. When Boris Yeltsin took power he eliminated all price controls, privatized state-owned companies and assets, and immediately opened up Russia to global trade. The result was a catastrophe. The Russian economy was already in disarray, but shock therapy was a fatal blow. Consumer prices spiraled out of control, Hyperinflation took hold, and GDP fell by 40%. The shock therapy slump in Russia was deeper and longer than the Great and depression by a large margin. It was a disaster for ordinary Russians – alcoholism, childhood malnutrition and crime went through the roof. Life expectancy for Russian men fell by 7 years, more than any industrial country has ever experienced in peacetime. Russia did not get a free market overnight. Instead, it went from a stagnating economy to a hollowed-out wreck run by oligarchs. If just getting rid of price-controls and government employment didn’t create prosperity but did destroy the economy and kill huge numbers of people, then clearly, the rapid transition to “free markets” was not the solution. Throughout the 1980s, China considered implementing the same type of sudden reforms that Russia pursued. The idea of starting from a clean slate was attractive, and shock therapy was widely promoted by (respected) economists. But in the end, China decided to not implement shock therapy. Instead of knocking over the entire (economy) at once, China reformed itself in a gradual and experimental way. Market activities were tolerated or actively-promoted in non-essential parts of the economy. China implemented a policy of dual track pricing. China was learning from the world’s most developed nations, countries like the US, UK, Japan and South Korea. Each of these managed and planned the development of their own economies, and markets, protecting early-stage industries and controlling investment. New York was dismayed. But China’s leaders did not listen, and while Russia collapsed after following the “shock therapy” program, China saw remarkable success. The state kept control over the backbone of the industrial economy, as well as the ownership over the land.  As China grew into the new dynamics of its economy, state institutions were not degraded to fossils from the past, but were often the drivers at the frontier of new industries, protecting and guaranteeing their own growth. China today is not a free market economy in any sense of the word. It is a state-led market economy. The government effectively owns all land, and China leverages state ownership through market competition to steer the economy. The shock therapy approach advocated around the world was a failure. While Russia collapsed after its sudden transition, China’s gradual reforms allowed it to survive. And that made all the difference.

In short, the Chinese state-led model is rapidly overtaking the US in virtually every area of industry and commerce, and its success is largely attributable to the fact that the government is free to align its reinvestment strategy with its vision of the future. That allows the state to ignore the short-term profitability of its various projects provided they lay the groundwork for a stronger and more expansive economy in the years ahead. The fact that China’s SOEs are shielded from foreign competition and receive government subsidies has angered the Rockefeller Empire who think China has an unfair advantage and is not playing by the rules. The larger issue, however, is not that China subsidizes its SOEs or even that China is set to become the biggest economy in the world within the next decade. That’s not the problem. The real problem is that China has not assimilated into the Washington-led “rules-based order” as was originally anticipated. China’s increasing control over Eurasia clearly represents a fundamental change in that continent’s geopolitics. Convinced that Beijing would play the global game by U.S. rules, Washington’s foreign policy establishment made a major strategic miscalculation in 2001 by admitting it to the World Trade Organization (WTO). In little more than a decade after it joined the WTO, Beijing’s annual exports to the U.S. grew nearly five-fold and its foreign currency reserves soared from just $200 billion to an unprecedented $4 trillion by 2013. 

Clearly, US foreign policy mandarins made a catastrophic error-in-judgment regarding China, but now there’s no way to undo the damage. China has not only emerged as the world’s largest economy, it will also control its own destiny- unlike western nations that have been subsumed into the oligarch-led system  that decides everything from climate policy to mandatory vaccination, and from transgender bathrooms to war in Ukraine. These policies are all set by oligarchs who control the politicians, the media, and the sprawling deep state. Again, the issue with China is not size or money; it’s about control. China presently controls its own future independent of the “rules-based order” which makes it a threat to that same system. We can understand why Washington rushed into its proxy-war with Russia. After all, if China was able to spread its high-speed rail network across all of China in just 12 years, what will the next 12 years bring? That’s what worries Washington. China’s emergence as regional hegemon on the Asian continent is a near-certainty at this point. Who can stop it? Not Washington. The US and NATO are presently bogged down in Ukraine even though Ukraine was supposed to be a launching pad breaking up Russia, and  spreading US military bases across Central Asia and (eventually) encircling, isolating and containing China. That was the plan, but the plan looks less likely every day. And remember the importance that national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski placed on Eurasia in his classic The Grand Chessboard nearly 3 decades ago. He said: “Eurasia is the globe’s largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world’s three most advanced and economically productive regions. ….About 75 per cent of the world’s people live in Eurasia, and most of the world’s physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world’s GNP and about three-fourths of the world’s known energy resources.” (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, p.31). The consensus opinion among foreign policy mucky-mucks is that the United States must become the dominant player in Central Asia if it hopes to maintain its current lofty position in the global order. The pundits all agree on one thing and one thing alone; that the US must prevail in its plan to control Central Asia.

In August 1971, the US went off the gold standard. To push up the value of a falling dollar, it engineered the 1973 October War between Israel and Egypt/Syria, a plan that was designed to bring about the petro-dollar. This helped prop up the US economy and financial system. Then, in 1980, a “controlled disintegration” of western economies followed. There would be no more investments in the physical economies of nations in the West. The Global South must be kept at a minimum level of development.

In place of building up the physical economies of nations, Western economies became financialised. A looting spree that enriched a handful of families and reduced the rest of the world in debt, poverty n war. A robust and expanding physical economy brings about stability which = prosperity, which = peace. The converse is a financialised economy brings about despair and hopelessness = war, crime and societal breakdowns. Just to give you an idea, in the period 2020-21, China produced 4.9 billion tons of cement. This is more than all the cement the US produced in the entire 100 years of the 20^th century. By the beginning of 1990, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ideological war ended and an economic war began.  Wall Street needed more loot and additional income streams to stay solvent and relevant. A New World Order began, with Wall Street dictating the terms.

China

China began to break away from this model and decided to rebuild its dormant (for 5 centuries) famed Silk Road, connecting the East to the West. A decade later, this led to EU military interventions, color revolutions, etc. in the heart of Eurasia. The ensuing 3 decades bankrupted the West, and forced it to take more drastic measures to hang onto its fast-declining global power. We have now reached the point that the East has overtaken the West. Wall Street and its dominant power-the Rockefeller faction and its allied networks of power – are going all out to blow up both Eurasia and the Middle East in its quest to remain relevant. But, it’s too late, as we shall now read. Two countries are embroiled in a ferocious rivalry. One country’s meteoric growth has put it on a path to become the world’s biggest economic superpower while the other country appears to be slipping into irreversible decline. Which country will lead the world into the future?

Country A builds factories and plants, it employs zillions of people who manufacture things, it launches massive infrastructure programs, paves millions of miles of highways and roads, opens new sea lanes, vastly expands its high-speed rail network, and pumps profits back into productive operations that turbo-charge its economy and bolster its stature among the nations of the world.

Country B has the finest military in the world, it has more than 800 bases scattered across the planet, and spends more on weapons systems and war-making than all the other nations combined. Country B has gutted its industrial core, hollowed out its factory base, allowed its vital infrastructure to crumble, outsourced millions of jobs, off-shored thousands of businesses, plunged the center of the country into permanent recession, delivered control of its economy to Wall Street, and recycled 96 percent of its corporate and financial profits into a stock buyback scam that sucks critical capital out of the economy and into the pockets of corrupt Wall Street plutocrats whose voracious greed is pushing the world towards another catastrophic meltdown. Which of these two countries is going to lead the world into the future? Which of these two countries offers a path to security and prosperity that doesn’t involve black sites, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial assassinations, color-coded revolutions, waterboarding, strategic disinformation, false-flag provocations, regime change and perennial war?

2 China’s BRI: A Tectonic Shift in the Geopolitical Balance of Power

The BRI Roadmap – see picture below.

The BRI is China’s blueprint for a New World Order. It is the face of 21st century capitalism and it is bound to shift the locus of global power eastward to Beijing which is set to become the de facto center of world.

The BRI is now supported by no less than 126 states and territories, plus a host of international organizations and will involve “six major connectivity corridors spanning Eurasia.” The massive development project is one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, including 65% of the world’s population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2025. The improvements to road, rail and sea routes will vastly increase connectivity, lower shipping costs, boost productivity, and enhance widespread prosperity. The BRI is China’s attempt to replace the crumbling post-WW2 “liberal” order with a system that respects the rights of sovereign nations, rejects unilateralism, and relies on market-based principles to effect a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The Chinese plan will funnel trillions of dollars into state of the art transportation projects that draw the continents closer together in a webbing of high-speed rail and energy pipelines. Far-flung locations in Central Asia will be modernized while standards of living will steadily rise. By creating an integrated economic space, in which low tariffs and the free flow of capital help to promote investment, the BRI initiative will produce the world’s biggest free trade zone, a common market in which business is transacted in Chinese or EU currency. There will be no need to trade in USD’s despite the dollar’s historic role as the world’s reserve currency. The shift in currencies will inevitably increase the flow of dollars back to the United States increasing the already-ginormous National Debt while precipitating an excruciating period of adjustment. Chinese and Russian leaders are taking steps to “harmonize” their two economic initiatives, the Belt and Road and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Washington is terrified that the Russo-Chinese economic integration plan will replace the US-dominated  world order, that cutting edge infrastructure will create an Asia-Europe super-continent that no longer trades in dollars or recirculates profits into US debt instruments. They are afraid that an expansive free trade zone that extends from Lisbon to Vladivostok will inevitably lead to new institutions for lending, oversight and governance. They are afraid that revamped 21st century capitalism will result in more ferocious competition for their clunker corporations, less opportunity for unilateralism and meddling, and a rules-based system where the playing field is painstakingly kept level. That’s what scares Washington. The Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union represent the changing of the guard. The US-backed model of globalization is being rejected everywhere.

The Era of Bullying is Over

What that means in practical terms, is that Washington is going to be forced to cave in. And it’s going to be forced to cave in sooner than many Americans realize. 

What we are seeing now is a slow-motion train wreck that was entirely avoidable, and which will severely damage the US economy. . The dearth of imports will affect everything from unemployed dockworkers and truckers, to wholesalers and retailers, to Mom and Pop stores across the country. The knock-on effect will result in higher prices, mass layoffs, slower growth and volatile, chaotic markets. For the first time in living memory, Americans will experience real shortages, panic buying and empty shelves, reminders of the self-inflicted wound brought on by poor leadership.

At the same time, China is unlikely to feel much pain at all. Keep in mind, China not only has a current account surplus of $422 billion , nominal GDP of $18.1 trillion, with gross domestic savings at $8 trillion in 2023, and household savings at $19-20 trillion 2024 . The Chinese government also has $3.1 trillion foreign exchange reserves. ($784.3 billion of which are US Treasuries)

In contrast, the United States is $38trillion in debt, with credit card debt soaring to $1.2 trillion, U.S. student loan debt currently topping $1.75 trillion, and a majority of American families that claim to be unable to cover even a $500 emergency; without procuring a loan. China’s manufacturing output is so substantial that it nearly equals the combined output of the next seven largest manufacturing countries. China accounted for 31 percent of global manufacturing output in 2022.That puts the country almost 15 percentage points ahead of second-placed United States, which used to have the world’s largest manufacturing sector until China overtook it in 2010. The economic trajectory of the US will not change. With or without the “reciprocal” tariffs, the US will not reindustrialize and bring manufacturing jobs back in any meaningful manner, anytime soon. This is because the tariff policy will not address the real root cause of US’s economic problems today. Deindustrialization is a result of decades of financialization, profit-driven outsourcing, poor domestic infrastructure and education, overregulation, and shareholder-first short-term focused neoliberal economic practices. Technological transformations like AI and automation further erode any prospect of bringing manufacturing jobs back. Today’s US is a high cost economy. Its infrastructure from roads, bridges, ports, to railways is crumbling and not capable to support large scale industrial production. Its labor force is poorly skilled and not trained to carry out high end high tech manufacturing. Starbucks coffee baristas and McDonald’s burger flippers don’t automatically make battery mechanics. And there won’t be “millions and millions” of American workers putting tiny screws on iPhones. Its managerial class is driven by quarterly earnings and repelled by long term investment and risk taking. Its ruling elite are financiers and lawyers, not engineers – they don’t know how to build factories, develop supply chain, design and produce stuff, and manage a workforce. After all, it’s so much easier to make money from the stock market or as talking heads on TV or as online influencer. It is easier to study marketing or law than physics and engineering. The hard work of making things is no longer in the US DNA. The costs of reindustrialization is simply too high in the many trillions. Traditional safe havens such as US treasury and currency will crumble – de-dollarization will accelerate despite loudly threatening any country from de-dollarizing on his campaign trail (“I’ll put 100% tariff on anyone who doesn’t want to use the US dollar”), Trump has delivered the biggest gift to the proponents of de-dollarization. As a fiat currency, the entire value of the US dollar resides in the credibility of the issuer – the US government. Trump, the chaos agent with his mood swings, incoherent ramblings, irrational decision making, and total lack of basic economic common sense, has managed to do the impossible – driving US equity, bond, and currency down at the same time!

US rivalry with China will be further militarized and a hot war is more likely than ever. After falling flat on its face with the trade war and tech war with China, the US will further gear up for a military showdown. It’s a bygone conclusion – the No. 1 US regime priority is to weaken and destroy China by any means available. The only reason a hot war has not broken out is because the odds are against the US military, and the US regime still harbors the delusion to defeat China economically and technologically. However, as China’s rise becomes unstoppable, and all its cards are dealt and failed, the US will resort to force. As with the trade war and tech war, China has long prepared for an eventual showdown in western pacific. Whether a hot war breaks out in Taiwan or South China Sea, whether it’s a proxy war or a direct one, China will fight to the end and win. The race is on – will the US implode and go bankrupt first or will a hot war break out between US and China first?  China’s strategy to defeat the US is to force it into bankruptcy before a hot war breaks out, much like the US strategy that defeated the USSR. Trump’s tariff war and Pentagon budget have accelerated the pace – the US is facing higher borrowing cost (therefore interest payments) and higher military spending at the same time – the two single biggest expenditures for the US government. Reducing revenue and increasing cost is a surefire way to go bankrupt.

3 Wall Street Eyes Access to China’s Financial Sector

In short, China is flush with cash while the US is drowning in an ocean of red ink. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent would like you to believe that America’s lack of funds put it at an advantage in its competition with China. But that is not the case.  China’s massive savings enable the government to heavily invest in projects that keep the economy expanding during financial crises, trade wars or recessions. So, while Trump continues to lay-off more government employees and slash federal expenditures, (which slows growth) China is diverting its surplus into fiscal stimulus that will keep workers employed and the economy growing. China’s stepped-up fiscal policies are emerging as a pillar in its efforts to stabilize the economy, offering much-needed support to sectors under financial strain and helping the world’s second-largest economy weather persistent global uncertainty. Data points to an accelerated roll-out of bond issuance. In the first quarter alone, the total issuance of government treasury bonds surpassed 3.3 trillion Yuan, while local government bond issuance exceeded 2.8 trillion Yuan, an over 80 percent increase from the same period last year.  Results suggest that the policy shift has gained traction…. Infrastructure investment jumped 5.8 percent year on year. Chinese GDP grew at 4.5% in the 2^nd quarter.

The real driver is Wall Street -as we will explain in a minute. But first, a word about Trump’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Wall Street’s man in the White House. In the early 90s, Bessent worked for globalist billionaire George Soros- a creature of the late Jacob Rothschild. Later, he managed a hedge fund in Wall Street. Bessent is Wall Street’s man in the White House. His job is to do everything in his power to remove the obstacles that block the Rockefeller Empire from access to China’s massive savings and financial markets. Thus, the goal of the Trump tariffs is not reindustrialization. It’s ‘open markets’. Bessent has advocated pushing for concessions from U.S. trading partners to restrict their economic relationships with China in order to isolate China and gain leverage over it in potential trade talks.

Bessent’s push for China to open its markets includes liberalizing its financial and capital markets, which directly involves Wall Street banks. Bessent’s Demand: China should remove restrictions on foreign financial institutions, allowing U.S. banks to operate freely in its $18.6 trillion economy, particularly in banking, asset management, and securities. Bessent argues this would integrate China into global finance, reducing trade imbalances by fostering a “fair deal”. Wall Street seeks greater market share in China’s $55 trillion financial sector ( including banking and securities). Currently, foreign banks hold only 1.3% of China’s banking assets ($59 trillion) and face caps on ownership (e.g., 51% in securities until 2020 reforms)….(Note—“Hand over the $55 trillion and nobody gets hurt.” Where have we heard that before?) Benefit: Opening markets would allow Wall Street to compete with Chinese banks, tapping into China’s $19-20 trillion household savings. (Note—“Wall Street wants access to your personal savings, too.”)

Bessent’s Demand: China should relax capital controls, allowing freer flows of foreign investment and Yuan convertibility, integrating its $3.1 trillion foreign exchange reserves and $12 trillion bond market into global finance. Bessent sees this as part of “restoring equilibrium” to global markets. (Note—China is being asked to trust its national savings with the crooks that blew up the financial system in 2008 costing the world over $50 trillion.)

Bessent’s Demand: China’s market opening is a condition for de-escalating the trade war… Financial market access is a key U.S. demand in talks. (Note—there it is in black and white; ‘You either do what we say, or we blow your brains out. Can you see what’s going on here??) So, Bessent is ordering China to abandon its state-owned economic model (which is the primary reason for its success) to ensure that the world’s wealth remains in the hands of the world’s richest Capitalists. In other words, Bessent is candidly admitting that he is leading the effort to obliterate the most successful “economic development model” in history simply because it is not under the control of voracious western oligarchs. It’s not only an admission that the tariffs are a smokescreen aimed at concealing Washington’s real motives (access to China’s financial markets). It is also an admission that the western model is no longer competitive because the (Chinese) state recycles profits into more productive outlets while western oligarchs divert profits into stock buybacks, dividends, derivatives-trading and other forms of unproductive activity. One system creates an optimistic future for all of humanity while the other generates crushing poverty, political instability, and war. The plan envisions building high-speed railroads, roads and highways, energy transmission and distributions networks, and fiber optic networks. Cities and ports along the route will be targeted for economic development. The chain of infrastructure projects will create the world’s largest economic corridor, covering a population of 4.4 billion and an economic output of $21 trillion. It also has the potential to create more than 2 billion jobs! This is not a typo.

For the world at large, its decisions about the Road are nothing less than momentous. The massive project holds the potential for a new renaissance in commerce, industry, discovery, thought, invention, and culture that could well rival the original Silk Road. It is also becoming clearer by the day that geopolitical conflicts over the project could lead to a new cold war between East and West for dominance in Eurasia. The outcome is far from certain. The New Silk Road will change the global economy forever. There’s no doubt which system is better. To give just one example of what investments in the physical economy of the country can do, look at just high-speed rail service. Look carefully at the chart below. What do you see?

You see the development of a high-speed rail system that is unrivaled anywhere on earth. You see the actualization of plan to connect all parts of the country with modern-day infrastructure that reduces shipping costs, improves mobility and increases profitability. You see a vision of the 21st century in which state-directed capital links rural populations with urban centers lifting standards of living across the board. Is there a high-speed rail system in the United States that is comparable to what we see in China today? No, there isn’t. So far, less than 80 kms of high-speed rail has been built in the United States. (“Amtrak’s Acela, which reaches 240 kmph over 80 km of track, is the US’s only high-speed rail service.”) As everyone knows, America’s transportation grid is obsolete and in a shambles. But, why? Why is the United States so far behind China in the development of critical infrastructure? It’s because China’s state-led model is vastly superior to America’s “carpetbagger” model. In China, the government is directly involved in the operation of the economy, which means that it subsidizes those industries that enhance growth and spur development. In contrast, American capitalism is a savage free-for-all in which private owners are able to divert great sums of money into unproductive stock buybacks and other scams that do nothing to create jobs or strengthen the economy. Since 2009 US corporations have spent more than $9 trillion for share buybacks, which is an activity that boosts payouts to rich shareholders but fails to produce anything of material value. Had that capital been invested in critical infrastructure, every city in America would be linked to a gigantic webbing of high-speed rail extending from “sea to shining sea”. But that hasn’t happened, because the western model incentivizes the extraction of capital for personal enrichment rather than the development of projects that serve the common good. In China, we see how fast transformative changes can take place when a nation’s wealth is used to eradicate poverty, raise standards of living, construct state-of-the-art infrastructure, and lay the groundwork for a new century.

China now has more companies on the Fortune Global 500 list than does the United States… with nearly 75 percent of these being state-owned enterprises (SOEs). The story continues in Part 2.