I am saying the London made USA it's bull dog to fight for it and tax it and now China has been taken over by London to be the new world policemen in the future as it is the new place where all things are made.I've combined three recent threads about China.
China's new submarine (purchased from Germany) is said to be almost as good as a nuclear submarine in terms of range and underwater stealth. But the bottom line is, it's still a conventionally powered sub. I think this suggests the headline in the video "Germany Helps China surpasses US, russia and ..." is misleading: China hasn't surpassed, or even equalled, the US and Russian nuclear subs.
The Roman, Venetian, British and US elites have been predominantly Caucasian Indo-Europeans with a suspicious smattering of red-heads. China has been subject to subversion by Western elites, such as the Opium wars, as well as influence such as Chairman Mao's Yale education. But that doesn't mean that China's government and people have been already completely subjugated to Western control. On the contrary, the entire Anglo-American geopolitical strategy of the past 100 years has been dedicated to surrounding and crippling the Eurasian heartland, which is to say Russia and China.
Corbett's approach to China seems confused to me. On the one hand, he wants to see it as a partner in the New World Order, which means the conflict between East and West is kabuki theater. On the other hand, he sees a war situation analogous to WWI with China in the role of Germany; of course, during two world wars, Germany wound up subjugated and brought firmly into the Anglo-American sphere of influence.
I'm not saying it's impossible that China could emerge victorious in the ongoing competition. But if it does, shouldn't this be seen as a major defeat for the Western elite "New World Order" system? I don't expect to see Nordic or red-haired white folks emerging as the major beneficiaries of any prospective Chinese emergence as a predominant world power.