Is this a Remake of the 1941 Hitler Stalin Great War?
If
we step back from the details of daily headlines around the world and try to
make sense of larger patterns, the dominant dynamic defining world geopolitics
in the past three years or more is the appearance of a genuine irregular
conflict between the two most formidable powers on the planet—The Peoples’
Republic of China and the United States of America. Increasingly it’s
beginning to look as if some very dark global networks are orchestrating what
looks to be an updated rerun of their 1939-1945 World War. The powers that be periodically
use war to gain major policy shifts.
On behalf of the Powers That Be (PTB), World War II was orchestrated by
the circles of the City of London and of Wall Street to maneuver two great
obstacles—Russia and Germany—to wage a war to the death against each other, in
order that those Anglo-Saxon PTB could reorganize the world geopolitical chess
board to their advantage. It largely succeeded, but for the small detail that
after 1945, Wall Street and the Rockefeller brothers were determined that
England play the junior partner to Washington. London and Washington then
entered the period of their global domination known as the Cold War.
That Anglo-American global condominium ended, by design, in 1989 with
the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union by
1991.
Around this time, with the
onset of the Bill Clinton presidency in 1992, the next phase– financial and
industrial globalization– was inaugurated. With that, began the hollowing out
of the industrial base of not only the United States, but also of Germany and
the EU. The cheap labor outsourcing enabled by the new WTO drove wages down and
destroyed one industry after the next in the industrial West after the 1990s.
It was a necessary step on the path to what G.H.W. Bush in 1990 called the New
World Order. The next step would be destruction of national sovereignty
everywhere. Here the USA was the major obstacle.
“A little help from our
friends…”
For the PTB, who owe no
allegiance to nations, only to their power which is across borders, the birth
of the World Trade Organization and their bringing China in as a full member in
2001 was intended as the key next step. At that point the PTB facilitated in China the greatest
industrial growth by any nation in history, possibly excepting Germany from
1871-1914 and USA after 1866. WTO membership allowed Western
multinationals from Apple to Nike to KFC to Ford and VW to pour billions into
China to make their products at dirt-cheap wage levels for re-export to the
West.
One of the great mysteries of
that China growth is the fact that China was allowed to become the
“workshop of the world” after 2001, first in lower-skill industries such as
textiles or toys, later in pharmaceuticals and most recently in electronics
assembly and production. The mystery clears up
when we look at the idea that the PTB and their financial houses, using China,
want to weaken strong industrial powers, especially the United States, to push
their global agenda. Brzezinski often wrote that the nation state was to be
eliminated, as did his patron, David Rockefeller. By allowing China to become a rival to Washington in
economy and increasingly in technology, they created the means to destroy the
superpower hegemony of the US.
By the onset of the Presidency
of Xi Jinping in 2012, China was an economic colossus second in weight only to
the United States. Clearly this could never have happened–not under the eye of
the same Anglo-American old families who launched the Opium Wars after 1840 to
bring China to heel and open their economy to Western financial looting–unless
the Anglo-Americans had wanted it.
The same British-owned bank
involved in the China opium trade, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (HSBC), founded
by a Scotsman, Thomas Sutherland in 1865 in the then-British colony of Hong
Kong, today is the largest non-Chinese bank in Hong Kong. HSBC has become so
well-connected to China in recent years that it has since 2011 had as Board
member and Deputy HSBC Chairman, Laura Cha. Cha was formerly Vice Chairman of
the China Securities Regulatory Commission, being the first person outside
mainland China to join the Beijing Central Government of the People’s Republic
of China at vice-ministerial rank. In
other words the largest bank in the UK has a board member who was a member of
the Chinese Communist Party and a China government official. China needed
access to Western money and HSBC and other select banks such as JP MorganChase,
Barclays, Goldman Sachs were clearly more than happy to assist.
“Socialism with Xi Jinping
Characteristics…”
All told until 2012 when Xi
took charge of the CCP in Beijing, China seemed to be willing to be a globalist
“team player,” though with “Chinese characteristics.” However,
in 2015 after little more than two years in office, Xi Jinping endorsed a
comprehensive national industrial strategy, Made in China: 2025. China
2025 replaced an earlier Western globalist document that had been formulated
with the World Bank and the USA, the China 2030 report under Robert Zoellick.
That shift to a China strategy for global tech domination might well have
triggered a decision by the globalist PTB that China could no longer be relied
on to play by the rules of the globalists, but rather that the CCP under Xi
were determined to make China the global leader in advanced industrial, AI and
bio-technologies. A resurgent
China nationalist global hegemony was not the idea of the New World Order gang.
China:2025 combined with Xi’s strong advocacy of the Belt Road
Initiative for global infrastructure linking China by land and sea to all
Eurasia and beyond, likely suggested to the globalists that the only solution
to the prospect of their losing their power to a China global hegemon would
ultimately be war, a war that would destroy both nationalist powers, USA AND
China. This is my conclusion and there is much to suggest this is now taking
place.
Tit for Tat
If so, it will most likely be far different from the military contest
of World War II. The USA and most of the Western industrial economies have
“conveniently” imposed the worst economic depression since the 1930’s as a
bizarre response to an alleged virus originating in Wuhan and spreading to the
world. Despite the fact that the death toll, even with vastly inflated
statistics, is at the level of a severe annual influenza, the insistence of
politicians and the corrupt WHO to impose draconian lockdown and economic
disruption has crippled the remaining industrial base in the US and most of the
EU.
The eruption of well-organized
riots and vandalism under the banner of racial protests across the USA has
brought America’s cities to a state in many cases of war zones resembling the
cities of the 2013 Matt Damon and Jodie Foster film, Elysium. In this context,
anti-Washington rhetoric from Beijing has taken on a sharp tone in their use of
so-called “Wolf Diplomacy.”
Now after Washington closed the China Consulate in Houston and China the
US Consulate in Chengdu, both sides have stepped up rhetoric. High
tech companies are being banned in the US, military displays of force from the
US in the South China Sea and waters near Taiwan are increasing tensions and
rhetoric on both sides. The White House accuses the WHO of being an agent of
Beijing, while China accuses the US of deliberately creating a deadly virus and
bringing it to Wuhan. Chinese state media supports the explosion of violent
protests across America under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Step-wise
events are escalating dramatically. Many of the US self-styled Marxists leading
the protests across US cities have ties to Beijing such as the Maoist-origin
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA of Bob Avakian.
“Unrestricted Warfare”
Under these conditions, what
kind of escalation is likely? In 1999 two colonels in the China PLA, Qiao Liang
and Wang Xiangsui, published a book with the PLA Press titled Unrestricted
Warfare. Qiao Liang was promoted to Major General in the PLA Air Force and
became deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security Policy
Studies. The two updated
their work in 2016. It gives a window on high-level China military
strategy.
Reviewing published US military
doctrine in the aftermath of the 1991 US Operation Desert Storm war against
Iraq, the Chinese authors point out what they see as US over-dependence on
brute military force and conventional military doctrine. They claim, “Observing,
considering, and resolving problems from the point of view of technology is
typical American thinking. Its advantages and disadvantages are both very
apparent, just like the characters of Americans.” They add, “military threats
are already often no longer the major factors affecting national security…these
traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing
resources, contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and
other economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to
these factors. They comprise a new pattern which threatens the political,
economic and military security of a nation or nations… The two authors define
the new form of warfare as, “encompassing the political, economic, diplomatic,
cultural, and psychological spheres, in addition to the land, sea, air, space,
and electronics spheres.”
They suggest China could use
hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the
media, and conducting urban warfare among the methods proposed. Recent
revelations that Chinese entities pay millions in ad revenues to the New
York Times and other mainstream USA media to voice China-positive views is
one example. Similarly, maneuvering a Chinese national to head the US’ largest
public pension fund, CalPERS, which poured billions into risky China stocks, or
persuading the New York Stock Exchange to list dozens of China companies
without requiring adherence to US accounting transparency increase US financial
vulnerability are others.
This all suggests the form that
a war between China and the US could take. It
can be termed asymmetrical warfare or unrestricted war, where nothing that
disrupts the enemy is off limits. Qiao has that, “the first rule of
unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” There
are no Geneva Conventions.
The two Beijing authors add
this irregular warfare could include assaults on the political security,
economic security, cultural security, and information security of the nation.
The dependence of the US economy on China supply chains for everything from
basic antibiotics to militarily-vital rare earth minerals is but one domain of
vulnerability.
On its side, China is
vulnerable to trade sanctions, financial disruption, bioterror attacks and oil
embargoes to name a few. Some have suggested the recent locust plague and
African Swine Fever devastation to China’s core food supplies, was not merely
an act of nature. If not, then we are likely deep into an undeclared form of
US-China unrestricted warfare. Could it be that the recent extreme floods along
the China Yangtze River that threaten the giant Three Gorges Dam and have
flooded Wuhan and other major China cities and devastated millions of acres of
key cropland was not entirely seasonal?
A full unrestricted war of China and the USA would be more than a
tragedy. It could be the end of civilization as we know it. Is this what
characters such as Bill Gates and his superiors are trying to bring about? Do
they plan to introduce their draconian dystopian “Reset” on the ashes of such a
conflict?
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or (at website below.) Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
F.
William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and
lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University
and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for
the online magazine “New Eastern
Outlook” where this article was
originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on
Globalization.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/remake-1941-hitler-stalin-great-war/5720769