From https://archive.fo/Hp8dm#selection-1293.0-1335.1 >>Meanwhile, China has ramped up its trade war with Australia. Yesterday it was revealed that Australia’s biggest live-fish exporter failed to have its export licence renewed in China. Australian Reef Fish Traders — which last year accounted for 70 per cent of all live exports — said the decision to end the 20 year trading relationship was inexplicable. The move threatens the viability of North Queensland’s lucrative coral trout industry. It’s the latest in a number of industries that are suffering under the wrath of Beijing as relations continue to sour. Data shows that tens of thousands of litres of Australian wine were blocked from entering China in January. China has also restricted Australian coal exports, in a move that could cost Australia $15 billion a year. Beijing has also put restrictions on Australian barley and beef exports. With the pentagon wars predicted for the 2020s, and the relevant economic indicators, this move by china says to me something has changed. They (the chinese) were clearly the new preferred candidates for the banking system's globalism. What this says to me is that, this is less of a reaction, than an opening salvo of some sort against a nation that has been widely regarded and understood to be a vassal state of china, or under chinas sphere of influence. They've made several important press releases about "five eyes" and "western bullying/racism", and this says to me, that perhaps five eyes (the 'anglosphere' as it were) have somehow exerted themselves on australia. It is my belief that China has captured the united states politically almost in full, at least at the federal and state levels, and this is not an unreasonable assessment. If I were being conservative I'd put the percentage of states controlled by them in the low 80%. Enough outside their control to derail their plans if they move any quicker. Meanwhile, in response to this provocation, us intelligence and military elements (high and midlevel), and relevant allies, are responding to the attempt, albeit weakly, by pushing back in countries like australia. There may be a case to be made that in practice the east and the west are run by the same banks (as much of chinas success is **disproportionately** dependant on unusually high levels of self-sabotage in the u.s. were we to assume the u.s. were only competing/cooperating, rather than being joined at the hip in some covert fashion). And the best explanation of such a linkage is henry kissinger, and other u.s. diplomats, that rendered help to china during its past civil conflicts. The claim that he was a high level spymaster for a soviet spy ring called ODRA is, in my assessment, credible. This would also explain chinas alignment with russia, despite 'competing for space' on the same continent as it were. It is my belief that the soviets used henry kissinger, backed up by the respective israeli intelligence networks, and private organizations in the u.s, to "undermine russia by making friends with china", and in so doing put the u.s. in a compromising position at a later date supposing china ever turned against us. **Australia** But how does this relate to Australia? Supposing modern nations rarely fight major wars where they could potentially lose, it is clear therefore that wars must have alternative aims. What is also clear is that nations controlled by the same financial elements have a disincentive (perhaps even a mandate or standing order) not to go to real war. This does not preclude 'limited conflicts' or conflicts that neither side ever intends to truly win or finish. It is my proposal that Australia may be the 'sino-saxon axis' (as it were) pressure-relief valve and stage for a manufactured crisis or new 'world war'. Undoubtedly one side or the other would eventually be declared the 'winner' supposing it is true, but we have to ask what goals could this achieve? 1. If the u.s. were declared the loser, china could get away with parking ships on our shore, and "peace keeping" forces in america. They could use control of water and food in exchange for 'information leading to the arrest of "terrorists"', or in exchange for 'illegal' guns and munitions, which they will no doubt ban upon arrival, guns like the ar-15, but most firearms in general, including products like gunpowder, but certainly not limited to those things. The u.s. could throw the fight to achieve this end. The u.s. debt is also dissolved, or china can come in, repudiating u.s. debt, to "ensure stability of the us dollar which the world relies on", and 'in exchange', confiscate and lease off huge swaths of land, property, and resources, including people in 'work camps'. 2. The reverse could happen to china, seeing a devastating collapse of its population, by as much as 500-750 million people. A population decimated by hunger would likely become willing hosts, amplifying unknown or little known diseases into a real killers, as it swept through the population, gaining strength, just as happened during previous major wars across history. With 1.4 billion people, the darling of globalism, and every indicator of the u.s. being on the chopping block, I see of no reason why this second scenario would even be under consideration. 3. China is abiding by global rules, and paying homage to the cooperative effort of "the great reset", and in so doing, wreaking havoc on australia, which at the public level, continues to resist some measures. This plan, "Agenda 2030" as it were, would require cooperation and belief from the public previously unheard of in order to assure success, with devastating consequences financial, militarily, and politically, to the powers intending to enforce it should the great reset fail. And hence, ever stricter means of ruining Australia economically until it buckles politically and clamps down harder on all dissenters. In addition it is highly likely the chinese may be attempting to crash Australia in hopes financial contagion spreads directly to the u.s. which China is currently attempting to cripple. I put the likelihood of any of these three being true at 60-70% Rating: likely and expected. 4.5.2021 Regarding >>If I were being conservative I'd put the percentage of states controlled by them in the low 80%. Enough to derail their plans if they move any quicker. This notion is bolstered by the recent efforts to sabotage and control florida and texas, esp. the texas power outage disaster, and the FBI entrapment scheme against Matt Gaetz. It is clear that the israelis are fighting back from their limited faction, and the israeli side and 'minority elite' or 'independent elite', forming a very loose coalition, are vying less for taking back control and more for a seat at the table. Nothing could have made this distinction more obvious than the GOP and Trump going along with the great reset, warp speed, and the factitious factionalism leading to balkanization in america's political sphere. The GOP only ever grandstands, positionalism as it were, and it is why it is losing, or appearing to lose (the media helps this). It is clear therefore that their argument is not "we will fight for you!" to america. But rather "we are necessary to contain and manage america! We deserve a seat at the table, even if it is only as a permanent minority and adjunct of the DNC/manchurians." I put this assessment of them and their general thrust at 70%. And I confirm that the chinese control of many states is LIKELY (70-80%), with SIGNIFICANT INFLUENCE for every 3 out of 4 to 4 out of 5 states. The GOP on the ground: The GOP lacks unity, and an organizing intelligent *force* outside of figures like Gingrich, composed largely of 'professional politicians' and independent political operators (80%), and where organization exists is largely one or two factions who dominate by a somewhat narrow margin, namely rinos/neoconservatives (israeli lobby), with a smaller libertarian *coalition* or those with leanings or considerations of such, making up, maybe at most, 10-15% of the GOP. In otherwords, theres a lot of primarying that needs carried out supposing elections still mattered, which they don't. They also need new blood for the GOP to preserve itself as a party, which is precisely the reason the old powers and establishment are going after guys like Gaetz. A historic parallel to the u.s. political situation is the mensheviks vs the bolsheviks.