Really? Care to explain that.
I am not sure what you want me to explain. Allow me to clarify my opinion just in case the problem is a misunderstanding.
I'm not claiming that China isn't integrated into the global economy. I'm claiming that it is not an integral part of the system of control.
The Chinese might very well buy US treasuries, but they do so of their own free will. It's not like Germany being forced to buy PIIGS bonds or being forced to commit troops to Afghanistan. The Chinese do show up for climate-change summits and similar globalist boondoggles but their participation is limited to reaping their own benefits.
Nobody forces them to do anything.
Their strategy is called "conquest through service". The provide cheap goods and capital, but quietly reap benefits such as technology transfers and capital accumulation. The consensus is they've won the Central Asian resource grab, without firing a shot.
Im forgetting who it was, but one of the well connected families actually openly said in an interview that africa was picked for the role china now plays, but that it didnt work so well (I forget what happened but it ended up messy) so it was seen that china was the answer. actually it might of been the same one rockefeller said they were a model country, now that I think of it, but not sure
You're talking about David Rockefeller. Immediately after WW2, his family was fairly open about globalization, offshoring, and the New World Order. That's because they'd just waged a major traumatic war, that killed millions of people, and so average people were already primed to accept radical change.
It was both Africa and Latin America that were the intended offshore destinations.
Circa 1946 Mr. Rockefeller appeared in a series of articles in the New York Times, and in one of them, he is pictured surrounded by representatives of Latin American countries, and the article positively states that an economic crisis would occur if the USA did not immediately dismantle its factories and reassemble them in Latin America.
The reasons that it did not work out involve a very interesting dilemma.
The scheme was to loan countries in Africa and Latin America money to build industrial infrastructure. Typically it was hydroelectic dams (remember the Aswan High Dam?), bridges, railroads, airports, seaports, and other infrastructure related to moving resources, products, and people, and powering factories.
The loans paid typically for US and European engineering companies to come down, use "cheap" (but often, poorly-skilled) local labor and resources to build the infrastructure. The companies that got the contracts typically had cozy relationships with the banks.
Typically, the loans often had some sort of guarantee as part of a national or international development program, some of them under UN auspices. Taxpayers in various first-world countries of North America and Europe were on the line if the loans did not get paid back. But the idea was to pay them back with profits from selling finished goods back into North America and Europe.
Which never happened. A lot of things went wrong. The dilemma is that countries that accumulate capital don't need any "help" getting developed (this by the way is where the euphemism "developing nation" came from); they're self-starters, and therefor, harder to control. On the other hand countries that tend to spend capital on current consumption never "develop".
Eventually the bankers would lose their patience and demand "austerity programs". The populations would quickly balk at losing their cushy government jobs, and vote socialists into power, who would nationalize everything in sight, and then you'd have a round of assassinations and bribes.
It never went anywhere.
Meanwhile, circa the mid 1950s, there was a huge government lawsuit under the Sherman Antitrust laws against virtually every American consumer electronics company in the country. Remember "we" made televisions back then?
This was related to the previous scheme: the government was trying to enforce offshoring.
Several executives ended up in prison, and one committed suicide.
The companies did offshore...but in Japan, not Africa, and not Latin America. The company executives could see what the oligarchs could not as regards what would actually work.
That's how Asia eventually ended up being the beneficiary of offshoring, rather than Latin America and Africa as originally envisioned.
