Why A U.S.-China War is Unlikely.

When most people envision a U.S.-China war, they inevitably arrive at images of a zero-sum nuclear exchange characterized by plumes of smoke bellowing atop the streets of New York and Beijing. This view is of course understandable, and people might be forgiven for subscribing to this perception. Movies and popular culture, particularly Hollywood, have done a splendid job depicting the next great war as an apocalyptic, mad max-style event with veritable carnage, bloodshed and bodies strewn across entire streets.

Given its utility as a propaganda machine for the "elite", Hollywood's tendency to portray war as being a necessarily chaotic and bedlam-ridden affair is perhaps designed as a misdirection tool to keep the average man oblivious to the war and wave of momentous change unfolding right under their noses. If it's any consolation to the Hollywood coterie, this trend is not limited to Hollywood. Many an exposé has been conducted detailing Hollywood's extensive links to agencies such as the CIA and the U.S. military, which leverage Hollywood to sanitize their agendas to make them more palatable to the masses; the so-called “Military-Entertainment Complex“.

The reignition of tensions and sabre rattling surrounding the South China Sea has also seen think tanks conduct a mind-boggling number of war games in anticipation of a U.S.-China war in the Taiwan Strait. These are predicated on the notion that China will soon make good on its promise to reunify with Taiwan, even if forcefully so. Rumors of a possible invasion of Taiwan by China are not exactly fresh news, but the advent of the Russo-Ukrainian war in early 2022 propelled this narrative to new heights. The prevailing hypothesis was that Russia's military campaign and subsequent exploits in Ukraine would embolden and inspire China to launch its very own invasion aimed at fulfilling its long-standing desire to seize and consolidate Taiwan, territory which China has continued to claim as its own since the region's breakaway in 1949.

For all that has been said about souring U.S.-China relations and the heightened possibility of war, it's what remains unsaid that warrants closer scrutiny. While kinetic warfare between the U.S. and China cannot be precluded outright, there are some factors, besides logistical considerations (given Taiwan’s precarious location), that render a hot war between the U.S. and China less likely than some people might imagine.

1. The China Experiment

To say globalists are enthralled by the China experiment is an understatement. Despite their grandstanding about human rights and democracy from their metaphorical ivory towers, they have consistently pontificated China as the lodestar for their ideal utopian world. This in spite of China's atrocious track record as an authoritarian regime that rules with an iron fist and employs force to stifle dissent and suppress any liberties that pose even the remotest threat to the Communist Party’s rule.

Why? Because China is effectively ground zero for the envisaged totalitarian super state. From its elaborate surveillance grid, to its social credit system, it is the consummate totalitarian regime, one that puts even Oceania to shame. Due to its large population size as a percentage of world population, China is the perfect lab rat as it supplies a microcosm from which generalizations about the global population can be made.

In other words, it's a great case study on human psychology - how societies can be herded, how they respond to certain stimuli, and how areas of potential rebellion can be quashed before taking root. If the idea of China being a social experiment sounds too outlandish and arcane to be true, take it from David Rockefeller:

The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history. How extensively China opens up and how the world interprets and reacts to the social innovations and life styles she has developed is certain to have a profound impact on the future of many nations.* - David Rockefeller, From A China Traveler, NY Times Op-Ed, 1973

Rockefeller's jovial NYT op-ed followed Henry Kissinger's famed "secret voyage" to China which made possible the ensuing flood of Western capital into China, to prop up the Chinese regime and oversaw its eventual rise as a superpower. China’s rise is anything but organic. Decades before its economic reforms and precipitous rise as a challenger to global leadership, the groundwork was being laid to facilitate its ascent, and the commensurate descent of the American empire. China was to serve as a counterweight and challenger to the American-led world order, thereby catalyzing the creation of a New World Order through the Hegelian Dialectical process:

Hegelian Dialectic: an interpretive method in which the contradiction between a proposition/thesis (America/West) and its antithesis (China/BRICS) is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis - New World Order).

I think this would be time because you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, a financial world order. I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns the current order. - George Soros

By now, it is [or should be] common knowledge that the COVID-19 frenzy which besieged the world circa 2020 was an overblown artifice meant to drive irrevocable changes to the world as we've come to know it. A "great reset" is what the now-forgotten World Economic Forum called the initiative.

Much has been said and exposed about the sham that was COVID, but a less-explored question is: why did the coronavirus have to originate in China, specifically? As ever, globalist institutions and front organizations privy to the inner workings of the globalist machine were far ahead of the curve in "predicting" the advent of a coronavirus with origins in China.

The emergence of a novel, highly transmissible, and virulent human respiratory illness for which there are no adequate countermeasures could initiate a global pandemic. If a pandemic disease emerges by 2025, internal and cross-border tension and conflict will become more likely as nations struggle—with degraded capabilities—to control the movement of populations seeking to avoid infection or maintain access to resources. The emergence of a pandemic disease depends upon the natural genetic mutation or reassortment of currently circulating disease strains or the emergence of a new pathogen into the human population. If a pandemic disease emerges, it probably will first occur in an area marked by high population density and close association between humans and animals, such as many areas of China and Southeast Asia, where human populations live in close proximity to livestock. - U.S. Director for National Intelligence, Global Trends, A Transformed 2008

And what was this anticipated virus to accomplish? As the Rockefeller foundation presciently penned all the way back in 2010:

China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power. At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens...

And how did China's intrusive government respond? Exactly as envisaged by the powers-that-be in their decade-old prognostications.

Under the guise of ensuring safety and curtailing fraud, China has spent years erecting its byzantine surveillance system, a system which for all intents and purposes, will be replicated in most of the world's major metropolis to usher in the digital age. This objective works hand-in-glove with the United Nation's Sustainable Development 2030 Goal Number 11:

Goal 11: Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Goal 11 is about making cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. Cities represent the future of global living. - U.N.

Like most globalist pronouncements, the language used in defining the goal is deliberately opaque and offers little to no insight on how this goal will be achieved. Suffice to say, surveillance technology will play an integral role and China is leading the pack.

An all-out conflagration or nuclear war would see this meticulously-constructed grid pulverized within seconds, and all those years of propping up the model super state would have been for nothing. Obviously, from a financial standpoint, the cost of rebuilding incinerated infrastructure is a pittance which globalists can afford without batting an eye. But, more than money, an even more critical factor is time. With the world hurtling towards finish line of the 2030 agenda, and things coming to a head on all fronts, would globalists be willing to sacrifice the years-long China experiment for a war of uncertain outcomes? It is possible, but unlikely, in my opinion. If kinetic war does erupt, it would likely be geographically limited and without full-scale mobilization, at least in the case of China.

2. Phantom Warfare and the Rise of China

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

The best kind of war for despots is one that's least perceptible to the masses - it allows for the artificial walls of security to crash without notice, leaving people unprepared and therefore more vulnerable to government "intervention" and skullduggery in all its manifestations.

In my attempt to pour cold water on the drumbeat of a China-U.S. war, another factor to consider is that a war is already in fact underway - an economic war. In a previous article analyzing the dynamics of the Russo-Ukrainian war, I posited that the American economy is in a state of permanent comatose, thanks to a confluence of forces, both spontaneous and deliberate. Specifically, I suggested that the dollar's days as the sole reserve currency are numbered, as have many other analysts.

A waning proclivity for dollar trade may incline state actors, both hostile and friendly, to offload more of their dollar reserves. This decoupling would spark a crisis of confidence resulting in an even greater deluge of dollars being dumped as nations anticipate a downward valuation of the dollar.

Not that China's economy is doing any better. It is itself beset by many ailments, having recently adopted its first loose monetary stance in 14 years - a clear sign of broken fundamentals across the board. While there exists a deliberate process of power transfer from West to East, in the end, both the West and East are scheduled to fail, leaving the world without an outright leader, China included. The resulting global power vacuum will render the world ripe for the taking of one world government. In the case of war between the world's foremost superpowers (U.S. / China), it stands to reason that the victor would emerge as the de facto leader of the world. This is incompatible with the global endgame of a "multipolar world". More importantly, the angle of a single leader state stands in stark contrast to Biblical prophecy, which speaks of a beast (government) not of one head (leader), but seven.

And I stood upon the sand of the sea. And I saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. - Revelation 13:1

The incendiary situation in the South China Sea is often cited as the biggest flashpoint vis a vis U.S.-China relations. Were Taiwan to reunify with China, it would most likely result from the post-American scramble as opposed to military conquest.

America’s decline would obviously increase Taiwan’s vulnerability. Decision makers in Taipei could then neither ignore direct Chinese pressure nor the sheer attraction of an economically successful China. That, at the very least, would speed up the timetable for cross-straits reunification, but on unequal terms favoring the mainland. Strategic Visio, Zbigniew Brzezinski

With Trump's foolhardy economic ideations, his role as scapegoat, his fresh threat against the BRICS, and a foisted series of geopolitical landmines brewing in the Middle East, the death the American empire is not a matter of if, but when. Biden and others before him loaded the gun, and Trump might be the one to pull the trigger.