Tag: China

Asymmetric Economic Warfare

Despite being more vulnerable to trade war pain due to its export surplus, China has adroitly managed to gain the upper hand in the economic conflict by taking advantage of the fact that semiconductors require input factors that are almost entirely under Chinese control.

Despite the show of progress and professed optimism for a potential de-escalation in the Madrid trade talks, the US wasted no time to launch a series of trade and tech sanctions against China immediately afterwards, just like it launched the sneak attack on Iran shortly after its 5th round nuclear talks with Tehran.

  • The US Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) tightened its chip ban on China, expanding the embargo to cover all semiconductor related software and equipment sales to China, in an effort to completely choke off China’s ability for chip production
  • Washington expanded its entity list (i.e. black list) to deny high end sales to businesses outside of China that have 50% or more Chinese ownership
  • It announced a plan to charge million-dollar port fees for any Chinese-operated shipping companies, Chinese-made ships, or non-Chinese shippers with Chinese-made ships in their fleet or on their order books, in an effort to undermine China’s shipping building industry
  • Washington also put a 721% tariff on Chinese clean energy products such as solar panels
  • It imposed 50% tariff on semi-finished copper products and copper-intensive goods (e.g., wiring, batteries) under Section 232, targeting China’s dominance in EV/tech supply chains
  • It ended de minimis exemption for low-value packages, hitting e-commerce from Chinese platforms such as Temu and Shein

Faced with the bad faith from the Trump regime, China retaliated swiftly with a suite of counter actions:

  • Beijing published its latest restrictions on rare earth products to deny any sales of China-sourced rare earth magnets, processing technology, and equipment to foreign military and semi-conductor industry
  • It revoked import license for US lumber and soybeans. China was the biggest buyer of US soybeans in the past and accounted for over 50% its export. But it has ordered no purchase in 2025
  • Beijing announced it would charge reciprocal port fees for any US-operated or US-owned shipping companies. China runs 7 out of the world’s top ten container ports and has by far the highest port calls. Though the US builds few ships and few large shipping companies are US operated, US pension funds and asset managers own large shares in some of the world’s top shipping companies like Maersk which are now subject to the port fees. This move directly targets US financial interests
  • China also tightened up export of lithium ion and graphite anode, critical for green transformation
  • It expanded the unreliable list (China’s answer to the entity list) to cover more US defense contractors, tech firms, and critical mineral companies. It also launched anti-trust investigation against Qualcomm, a large US chip manufacturer

The latest tit for tats strongly indicates China is ready to move up the escalation ladder in its confrontation with the US on trade and technology issues.

In particular, Beijing’s enhanced rare earth restrictions are expected to deal a massive blow to high tech and military production in the US and its vassals.

In its embargo of chip technology against China, the US utilized the Foreign Direct Product Rule (FDPR) to block chip export to China if non-US made chips use any American technology, software, or equipment somewhere along the supply chain.

In essence, the FDPR allows US to claim jurisdiction to any products US technology touches even if it is made overseas such as the case with TSMC and ASML. The rule gives the US extraterritorial reach.

With the new rare earth restrictions, China flips the logic back to the US. Beijing has announced any non-Chinese companies operating anywhere must obtain Beijing’s approval to export rare earth magnets or semiconductors if those products contain Chinese original rare earth, or if they are produced using Chinese rare earth technology, process or equipment.

Beijing is denying all rare earth products, technology, equipment, and technical support to foreign end users it doesn’t approve.

The Chinese economic strategists understand that in an economic war, pain flows downstream. The US thought it was in the driver’s seat – and indeed, I assumed much the same due to the fact that the US economy would benefit greatly from refraining from importing goods from China and onshoring its now-absent industrial manufacturing capabilities.

But the stranglehold China has upon the materials required for modern warmaking materials, particularly drones and semiconductors, means that the USA will have to choose between its ability to make war and its ability to maintain the global Clown World economy. And for the first time, it is not possible for Uncle Sam to choose guns and butter.

DISCUSS ON SG

China Warns the USA

China is no longer content to permit the USA to throw its economic weight around without consequences.

Beijing has made it clear that it won’t yield to Washington’s latest tariff threats, urging the United States to seek a negotiated settlement instead of escalating tensions.

The warning came as part of an official statement released by China’s Ministry of Commerce on Sunday. The response followed US President Donald Trump’s plan to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese imports, citing Beijing’s new restrictions on rare earth exports – vital materials used in products from smartphones to fighter jets.

“China’s position on the trade war is consistent: we do not want it, but we are not afraid of it,” the ministry stated.

The Chinese people are even less inclined to submit to US posturing on trade and interference with Chinese affairs.

We are simply sick and tired of the nonstop demonization of anything related to China by the US. This export ban of rare earth minerals is just the start. If the US does not correct its course, and stop interfering our legitimate rights for development, then we will engineer global economic collapse. Do you really think you can take China down, without us taking you down too? After that, we will let our weapons do the talking.

I was on Chinese state television during President Trump’s first term. Back then, neither the economists nor the journalist believed that Trump would start a trade war with China, which I suspect is why the initial Chinese response to all of the US provocations were so mild and passive. But now, with the panoply of sanctions, direct and indirect, that are being imposed upon China, such as the attempt to ban flights over Russian territory from landing in the USA because it provides Chinese airlines with an advantage of European and US airlines that can’t fly over Russian territory, the Chinese have decided to start playing hardball.

And Larry Johnson explains why China is, contra the expectations of economists like me who were primarily looking at the overall trade picture, actually in a very strong position vis-a-vis the USA in a trade war.

Drones
China dominates the US commercial drone market, with Chinese firms supplying the vast majority of units.

  • Import Share: Approximately 80-90% of US commercial drones are Chinese-made, led by DJI (50-70% market share) and Autel Robotics (15%). US imports of Chinese unmanned aircraft dropped 58.9% from Jan-Nov 2023 to Jan-Nov 2024 due to tariffs and restrictions, but China still holds over 70% of the residual market.
  • Broader Reliance: In 2025, US tariffs reached 170%, tripling prices and slashing imports by up to 75%, yet no viable domestic alternatives have scaled to replace this volume. Military and consumer sectors remain vulnerable, with ongoing Section 232 investigations into national security risks.
  • Implications: Disruptions could halt 80%+ of commercial operations (e.g., agriculture, surveying), per CSIS analysis.

Drone Components
US drone manufacturing heavily relies on Chinese-sourced parts, complicating diversification efforts.

  • Supply Chain Dependence: China provides 70-90% of key components like motors, flight controllers, imaging equipment, and batteries. In 2024, China restricted exports of these to the US, causing price surges of 200-300% and supply shortages.
  • Recent Trends: By April 2025, combined US tariffs hit 170% on components, disrupting global chains; 15 Chinese firms were added to the US Entity List in October 2025 for supplying parts used in conflicts. Indirect reliance persists via third countries (e.g., Vietnam assembly).
  • Implications: The US military drone supply chain is “deeply dependent” on Chinese inputs, per Forbes, with domestic production lagging; restrictions weakened Ukraine’s drone capabilities as a proxy example.

Processed Rare Earth Minerals
Processed rare earths (e.g., oxides, compounds) are essential for electronics, EVs, and defense; China controls ~90% of global processing.

  • Import Share: China supplied 70% of US rare earth compounds and metals imports from 2020-2023, with 2024 estimates holding at ~70-77% (10.4 million kg total imports). Net import reliance dropped to 80% in 2024 from >95% prior years, thanks to minor diversification (e.g., Malaysia 13%).
  • Value and Volume: 2024 imports valued at $170 million (down 11% from 2023); apparent consumption ~6,600 tons.
  • Recent Trends: In 2025, China tightened export controls on seven elements, impacting US defense; US mined 45 kilotons but exports 95% for Asian processing.
  • Implications: 70-80% exposure leaves sectors like renewables and missiles vulnerable; USGS warns of supply risks.

So while the USA is in a stronger overall position and will benefit greatly from onshoring manufacturing and industrial capacity during a trade war, China is in a much stronger military position if the trade war becomes an actual war, either direct or by proxy.

DISCUSS ON SG

Draining the Western Brains

High-level thinkers don’t communicate with the masses because we quite literally can’t. The problem with Western civilization is not that its high-level thinkers are unable to communicate with the masses, because high-level thinkers have never been able to effectively communicate with the masses. It’s a little ironic that one of the better popularizers fails to understand the importance of the popularizer’s role in translating and transmitting the original thinker’s ideas to a public that is more than two standard deviations below him.

I deal with it by showing high-level thinkers how to communicate with the masses.

Like Wilber and Spiral Dynamics… they CREATED the models that I apply in my work, but they didn’t communicate them in a way that made the average person care. I did. I was like “ARENT BITCHES CRAZY? HERE’S WHY” and showed them.

High-level thinkers have to use their abilities to appeal to the masses more than everyone else. NO ONE IS COMING TO HELP.

But this isn’t really the issue anyhow. The issue is that the current rulers of Western Civilization hate it and every element of it, and would like nothing better than to destroy it if they could only figure out how to kill the golden goose and yet keep its golden eggs.

Most high-level thinkers are banished and deprived of platforms and popularizers due to their inability to accept the satanic, anti-Western, anti-Christian, anti-American Narrative that has been required of any public intellectual for the last fifty years.

As one reader here has noted, China responded to Wang Hunin by promoting him to the Chief Ideologue of the Chinese Communist Party despite the fact that he didn’t even belong to the Party, whereas the USA responded to me by deplatforming me and systematically depriving me of opportunities and resources.

This isn’t a complaint. It’s merely an observation. One of the benefits of being a high-level thinker is far less interest in the prizes and fancy pants with which the status-obsessed midwits are obsessed. But imagine the amount of scientific resources now being wasted across the West on finding useless results “consistent with the theory of evolution by natural selection” that could be more profitably spent on actual science if I had even a fraction of the respect and institutional support that Mr. Hunin enjoys in China. And that’s just one topic…

One of the reasons that China has already far surpassed the West, and that Russia inevitably will as well, is that both societies genuinely value their intellectual elites. The West, despite its pretensions to being “an open society” is in an increasingly fragile state of intellectual sclerosis, where even the most obvious truths must go unspoken, and better yet, unobserved. This is why I anticipate that the most promising young Western intellectuals will be officially incentivized to move to China and to Russia over the next three decades, a policy that will eventually be followed by entrepreneurial and technological booms there.

DISCUSS ON SG

Focus on the Homeland

A long overdue shift from maintaining the failing Pax Americana to defending the US homeland would be a very welcome change.

Pentagon officials are proposing the department prioritize protecting the homeland and Western Hemisphere, a striking reversal from the military’s yearslong mandate to focus on the threat from China. A draft of the newest National Defense Strategy, which landed on Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s desk last week, places domestic and regional missions above countering adversaries such as Beijing and Moscow, according to three people briefed on early versions of the report.

The move would mark a major shift from recent Democrat and Republican administrations, including President Donald Trump’s first term in office, when he referred to Beijing as America’s greatest rival. And it would likely inflame China hawks in both parties who view the country’s leadership as a danger to U.S. security.

“This is going to be a major shift for the U.S. and its allies on multiple continents,” said one of the people briefed on the draft document. “The old, trusted U.S. promises are being questioned.”

Why the American people should give one quantum of a damn about “old, trusted US promises” given to foreigners when none of the promises given to them have been kept is an obvious question. But Simplicius and others doubt that this “major shift” is real anyhow.

Recall the US even under Trump has dragged its feet for years on initiatives to pull troops from Iraq, Europe, etc. An excuse is always somehow resurrected at the last moment which buys the MIC time and keeps US occupation forces perpetually in places where their presence stirs conflict, exacerbates tensions, and unnecessarily provokes so-called “adversaries” like Russia, China, or Iran. US troops in Syria, for instance—which Trump has likewise failed to pull—have done nothing but facilitate conflict, act as JTACs for Israeli strike corridors, etc.; the claim of being some sort of ‘peacekeepers’ is a sham.

If the troops are brought back from Europe and the Middle East, the borders are manned, and the mass repatriations begin, then perhaps we can take some of these pronouncements seriously. But until then, it’s all just irrelevant noise.

DISCUSS ON SG

Switzerland Isn’t Neutral

The Swiss media is quite rightly beginning to worry about the inevitable implications of the Swiss government’s decision to abandon neutrality now that the rest of the world has taken note of the way in which the Swiss government is waging economic and proxy war on Russia at the behest of the European Union.

Is Switzerland still neutral? People ask Google this question, or a similar one, some 14,000 times a month – outside Switzerland and in English.

In a trial search, an English-language article from Turkish state media shows up quite high on the list. “Why Switzerland is breaking away from 500-year-old neutrality,” says the headline. Although the text itself is more nuanced, the headline sets the wrong tone and skews the readers’ interpretation. And as journalists know, far more people read the headline than the actual article.

There are various reasons why people abroad may be asking Google about Swiss neutrality. One is that foreign players – in particular Russian propaganda channels – are spreading misinformation on the issue.

It is important that people who take the trouble to research Swiss neutrality have access to reliable and accurate information. Anyone who claims that Switzerland is no longer neutral is assuming that Switzerland has picked a side. And anyone who has taken sides can be viewed with hostility.

It is therefore in Switzerland’s interest to ensure that its neutrality, which has been the guiding principle of its foreign policy since 1815, is correctly communicated to the international public. If a person hears over and over again that Switzerland is no longer neutral, they can easily come to perceive this as the dominant view. This is the case even if the statement is made multiple times by the same source but reaches them through different channels. Frequently repeated untruths have a proven effect.

And frequently repeated truths have an even greater effect, because the most powerful rhetoric points toward the truth.

Switzerland obviously isn’t neutral. It has engaged in many hostile actions toward Russia over the last three years. In fact, it has engaged in so many of them that it has been formally declared an “unfriendly nation” by Russia as a result of those actions.

The Russian Federation has decided to add Switzerland to its list of “unfriendly nations”, after the country imposed sanctions on Russia following its invasion of Ukraine. The move follows a letter from the Russian Foreign Minister, who asked the Swiss government, “Which side are you on?”

In the press conference announcing the sanctions, Swiss President Ignazio Cassis dismissed Russian accusations of a violation of neutrality by saying, “Playing into the hands of an aggressor is not neutral.” Speaking to Blick about the allegation made by Vladimir Putin that western sanctions amounted to a declaration of war on Russia, the president said, “Switzerland is not at war with Russia.”

“Switzerland remains a neutral country,” said law professor Oliver Diggelmann, from the University of Zurich. He noted that a commitment to neutrality did not mean a commitment to inaction and that “the Swiss government recognised that not fully sanctioning such a blatant violation economically would make (Switzerland) an indirect accomplice of the aggressor.”

These word games don’t fool anyone. Cassis’s response is both irrelevant and disingenuous, and is the sort of sophistic rhetoric that doesn’t even merit being taken seriously, let alone at face value.

Doing nothing is not “playing into the hands of an aggressor”. It is, quite literally, NOT doing that. It is, quite literally, doing nothing. If we combine both statements by Cassis and Diggelman, it’s easy to see how inverted the “economic sanctions are neutral” logic is.

  • Neutrality does not mean doing nothing.
  • Doing nothing would make Switzerland an indirect accomplice of Russia
  • Enacting economic sanctions is necessary to avoid becoming an indirect accomplice of Russia
  • Enacting economic sanctions makes Switzerland a direct accomplice of Ukraine, the EU, and the USA
  • Therefore, neutrality requires Switzerland to become a direct accomplice of Ukraine, the EU, and the USA
  • In other words, neutrality requires Switzerland to take sides against Russia.

This isn’t merely incorrect logic, it is inverted sophistry that relies upon an implicit redefinition of the term “neutrality” from “not taking sides” to “not taking the side of the aggressor”. Which means that the “interventionist neutrality” approach literally requires the abandonment of genuine neutrality and the replacement of the word with something that means its exact opposite.

The claim that Switzerland has taken a side is observably true. The claim that Switzerland is still neutral is observably false.

We’ve seen this sort of inversion before. We’ve seen it many, many times. As with the EU’s “democracy” that fights the will of the people and the UK’s “liberalism” that imprisons people for having opinions, this new Swiss “neutrality” is the exact opposite of what everyone historically understood the word to mean. The worldwide observations of the recent Swiss abandonment of neutrality aren’t false, they are 100 percent correct.

The more important point is to recognize that no one from Beijing to Washington cares even a little bit about how Swiss policy or Swiss law formally defines neutrality. All the legalistic word games are irrelevant. Unlike the tango, it doesn’t take two to war. If Russia says you’re at war with them, then guess what? You’re at war with Russia. And as has been made very clear by the SCO summit, if you’re at war with Russia, then you’re at war with China too. Good luck with that.

The small nations of Europe are still stuck in the post-WWII mindset of an invincible USA, but the post-WWII era is over. The USA can’t defeat either Russia nor China anymore, and it would now lose both a land war in Europe and a sea war in the Pacific. At this point, the US military might not even be able to prevent a joint invasion if the Sino-Russian alliance elected to launch a 10-year all-out war of invasion and occupation, although fortunately neither China nor Russia has any interest in doing that.

So while taking sides is foolish, taking the side that is guaranteed to lose, taking the side that has the military-industrial deck stacked even more heavily against it than the one that was stacked against the Axis powers in WWII, is downright insane.

It’s not too late for the Swiss. No one in China or Russia is under any illusion about the Swiss people wanting to go to war with them. They know perfectly well who is responsible for the economic war on them. But that means it’s time to start fixing the diplomatic damage of the last three years, not to double down and make it worse while trying to deny it. It needs to be fixed before it’s too late and no one cares anymore what is said or done.

The Swiss government’s opinion on neutrality is perfect clear. It is absolutely against it.

Bern, 26.6.2024 – The popular initiative ‘Safeguarding Swiss neutrality’ (Neutrality Initiative) seeks to enshrine neutrality and its practical application in Switzerland’s Federal Constitution. At its meeting of 26 June 2024, the Swiss Federal Council decided to recommend that the people and the cantons reject the Neutrality Initiative.

30.5.2025 – The Foreign Affairs Committee of the Council of States soundly rejected the neutrality initiative, reported SRF. The Council of States’ Security Policy Committee also resoundingly rejected the popular initiative in mid-February.

DISCUSS ON SG

Collapse by 2050

A leaked Chinese geopolitical strategy document reveals China’s self-confidence. The document predicts, “The US and Western Europe will collapse due to cultural and demographic conflict by 2050.” China’s leaders increasingly see multiculturalism as “cultural suicide” and believe the west is dying because of it.

—CNN

The Chinese aren’t wrong, although my 2004 estimate for the initial breakup of the USA as a unitary political entity is 2033. The EU has already begun to break apart and the centrifugal forces will continue to grow stronger with the failure of its economic war against Russia. The USA, the UK, and every Western European country are either going to collapse into a violent partition like India circa 1947 or embark upon ethnic cleansing on a larger scale than the Israelis are currently applying to Gaza.

Multiculturalism isn’t just cultural suicide, it is societal suicide, which is arguably worse. The Chinese know this; Xi is not only smart, and not only has the benefit of being advised by Wang Hunin and other brilliant historical philosophers, but is also a student of the greatest political mind of the 20th Century, Lee Kwan Yew. So he knows what we all know, and what Clown World refuses to accept, about multiculturalism.

That’s why Russia is now selling 106 billion cubit tons of natural gas to China every year in lieue of the 160 billion cubic tons it used to sell annually to Western Europe. The Russians, too, know who is going to win in the long run.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Dragon and the Elephant

In its futile attempts to keep control of the West, Clown World has completely botched the two primary geostrategic priorities of the imperial USA.

  • Prevent an effective alliance between Russia and China
  • Keep India on the team

Clown World is clearly cooked at this point, even if it somehow manages to fix its growing number of self-inflicted problems in the USA, the UK, and the EU, which it won’t, because it can’t.

I also note the obvious falsehood of all the clowns shilling the idea that Xi has lost power. That clearly is not the case, as evidenced by the starring role he is playing at what appears to be the most significant global meeting since the Potsdam Conference, the current Tianjin Summit that is the 25th meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization that ends today in China.

The day of the Zombie Lion and the Exhausted Eagle is done.

DISCUSS ON SG

WWIII is Already Underway

If Ron Unz is correct and Vladimir Putin and Xi Xinping have already reduced their international travel due to concerns about assassination by Clown World, I think it’s safe to conclude that peace is not even a remote possibility in the near future:

The Hudson Institute is a leading DC think-tank, quite influential in mainstream political circles, and a report with five co-authors that runs 128 pages must surely carry considerable weight in establishment circles. So when it suggests that the Chinese government is fragile and might soon collapse, those policy makers hostile to China are likely to take such views quite seriously.

Suppose that a leading Chinese think-tank with close ties to the PRC government published a weighty report predicting that America might soon collapse, then went on to argue that Chinese military forces would need to be deployed in our own country to seize our key military and technological assets and also establish a new government organized along Chinese lines. I doubt that most American political leaders or ordinary citizens would view such Chinese proposals with total equanimity, and indeed the blogger quoted a shocked Western pro-China business executive who succinctly summarized some of the striking elements in that Hudson Institute research study:

…which provides detailed operational plans for inducing Chinese regime collapse through systematic information operations, financial warfare, and covert influence campaigns, followed by detailed protocols for U.S. post-collapse management including military occupation, territorial reorganization, and the installation of a political and cultural system vassalized to the U.S.

Rand and Hudson are two of our leading mainstream think-tanks and the New Yorker is one of our most prestigious media outlets. Taken together those major articles and reports could easily convince the ignorant and suggestible ideologues in our government that the Chinese military was weak and the Chinese government fragile and ripe for collapse.

If delusional beliefs regarding the fragility of the Iranian and Russian governments had already led to American assassination attempts against their top leadership, similar reasoning might easily result in targeting those of China as well, especially President Xi Jinping, widely regarded as the strongest Chinese leader in decades. And given all of the recent American assassination projects, the Chinese government might certainly have itself reached such conclusions.

China and Russia are the two leading members of the BRICS movement, which held its 17th summit last month in Brazil. The media noted that neither Russian President Putin nor Chinese President Xi attended in person, with the latter missing his first BRICS summit since he came to power 13 years ago.

Xi’s surprising absence caused some discussion in the media. I initially paid little attention to this issue, but then some commenter suggested an obvious explanation: Both Xi and Putin were concerned about the possible risk of American assassination.

Brazil is located within the Western Hemisphere, a region under full American military domination. Given the extremely reckless and unpredictable behavior of the American government, with President Trump having publicly threatened to assassinate Iran’s top leader just a couple of weeks earlier, both China and Russia may have believed that some risks should best be avoided.

Over the years, Xi and Putin had both met on numerous occasions with Iranian President Raisi, with whom they had developed an excellent working relationship, and surely his 2024 death in a mysterious helicopter crash while returning from a foreign trip would have concentrated their minds.

It’s been very difficult for Americans to understand that the rest of the world doesn’t aspire to become like them. And while Americans also like to think of the USA as the big dog on the world stage, I don’t think many of them grasp that many countries around the world, including some very powerful ones, are beginning to conclude that the big dog is now rabid.

And what is the point of talking to a rabid dog? What can one possibly hope to accomplish?

DISCUSS ON SG

What Strength?

The UK Defense Secretary apparently hasn’t kept up on his reading of Jane’s Fighting Ships:

The United Kingdom could resort to military force against China in the event of an escalation over Taiwan, British Defense Secretary John Healey has said, though he emphasized that London continues to prefer a diplomatic resolution. Speaking to The Telegraph during a visit to Australia, Healey said Britain would “secure peace through strength” if necessary – marking one of the clearest signals yet from a senior UK official regarding the possibility of direct confrontation with Beijing.

Healey made the remarks as the HMS Prince of Wales, a British aircraft carrier equipped with F-35 fighter jets, docked in the northern Australian city of Darwin. It is the first time in nearly 30 years that a British strike group has arrived in the region. The carrier is on a nine-month Pacific deployment, participating in Australia’s Talisman Sabre exercise and visiting ports in Japan and South Korea.

”If we have to fight, as we have done in the past, Australia and the UK are nations that will fight together. We exercise together and by exercising together and being more ready to fight, we deter better together,” Healey said when asked what London would do in case of an escalation around Taiwan.

What strength? The UK hasn’t been a major military power for 70 years! Forget the seas, Britain doesn’t even rule its own borders anymore. I’m not sure the Chinese would even notice if the UK actually went to war against them.

Clown Worlders are observably delusional in the extreme.

DISCUSS ON SG

China’s Demographic Decline

It’s not a great mystery why China recently revised its marriage and divorce laws to make the former easier and significantly disincentivize women from pursuing the latter:

The number of Chinese kindergartens has fallen by a quarter in four years, prompting the closure of tens of thousands of schools in the country as a precipitous drop in births hits the education system.

Enrolments in China’s kindergartens have declined by 12mn children between 2020 and 2024, from a peak of 48mn, according to data from the country’s ministry of education. The number of kindergartens, serving Chinese children aged 3-5, has also fallen by 41,500 from a high of nearly 295,000 in 2021.

Falling enrolments are now “baked into the system and that’s not going to change”, said Stuart Gietel-Basten, director of the Center for Aging Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He added that compared with five or 10 years ago, the decline in births was “huge”.

The contraction of China’s pre-school system is a foretaste of the challenges to come for business and policymakers from China’s demographic decline, which is expected to be one of the most rapid in the world. China has recorded three consecutive years of population decline to 2024 following the decades-long policy, ended in 2016, that limited many couples to one child. While the number of births rose by about 520,000 last year to 9.3mn, following a record low in 2023, they were still outpaced by deaths and have declined by nearly half since the peak of 17.9mn in 2017.

It’s fascinating to observe that the importation of Western feminism has proven to be even worse for Chinese fertility than the notorious one-child policy that was in place from 1978 to 2015. Which suggests that if the birth rates don’t turn around quickly, China is going to start cracking down hard on permitting young women to pursue higher education, given that education has proven to be the most efficient way to render women barren.

It’s far too soon to tell, but I suspect that it is the Enlightenment and its false values that the historians of the future will eventually hold responsible for the decline and fall of the West.

DISCUSS ON SG