Keir Starmer has joined the raft of western politicians visiting Beijing recently. What has prompted this sudden shift towards the east?

20 years ago British politicians would tell us we had entered a “golden era” of trade with China. In truth that phrase spoke more about British decline than Chinese friendship. By the late 1990s and 2000s, Britain was almost fully de-industrialised, hollowed out, and increasingly dependent on finance and foreign capital. China, meanwhile, was industrialising at speed and accumulating surpluses. The relationship that followed was pragmatic: Britain opened it's doors for Chinese investment. It was never meant as an equal partnership, but old colonial powers believing they could still dominate over the Chinese economic juggernaut.

Historically, when Britain was an Empire, the relationship was far uglier. The Opium Wars still sit in the background as a reminder that when trade stopped filling British coffers, violence and coercion replaced trade. That era ended long ago, but the instinct to dominate rather than coexist could never change in British capitalism. What had changed was Britain’s ability to enforce it.

The modern “golden era” peaked in the early 2010s. Chinese firms invested in British energy, transport, property, and finance. London became a major offshore hub for renminbi trading. China rose to become one of the UK’s largest trading partners. This was written as a strong strategic partnership, but it rested on a fragile condition: that China would not challenge the US (the new empire) technological or geopolitical dominance.

That illusion collapsed quickly and one such marker of this collapse was Huawei. The leading Chinese information and communication technology.
By the mid-2010s, Huawei equipment was already embedded across UK telecom infrastructure and formally approved by regulators. In January 2020, the UK government confirmed Huawei’s limited role in the roll out of 5G. Six months later, the decision was reversed, existing equipment ordered to be removed at enormous cost.
No new evidence emerged of spyware or anything truly malicious as chinese technology was accused of. What did emerge was sustained pressure from the United States, including threats around intelligence sharing. Britain obviously capitulated to great satan, and in doing so exposed the reality of its “independent” foreign policy.
A very swift change from David Cameron sharing a pub lunch with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, to Boris Johnson spouting Washington's line of security concerns.

Now it seems Britain, and other western leaders are pivoting again. The same leaders who spent years talking about “decoupling” are quietly walking it back like everything said before never happened.

China is the largest trading partner for most of the world, central to global manufacturing, supply chains, and the materials needed for energy transition. The United States can still project military power, but it can no longer stabilise the global economy on its own, nor absorb every crisis capitalism produces. The only shore fire way of steadying the ship is to create another war so it can pillage more sovereign countries and they don't even have the same power to do that.

This isn’t a return to the old relationship. China no longer needs Western approval and no longer offers access without conditions. Engagement now is selective and transactional, shaped by reliability. China no longer has to fear reprisal from the west and can easily function without the west.

Essentially this shift isn’t about cooperation or values. It’s about decaying capitalism in the imperial core. Imperialism is not a policy choice but capitalism in its end stage, driven to coercion as profits fall and dominance slips. As US power fades, allies adjust. The system is cracking, and no amount of rhetoric can disguise the material forces pulling it apart.

❗️Scottish court moves to challenge UK ban on Palestine Action

Scottish judges have approved plans for a judicial review of the UK government’s proscription of the direct action group Palestine Action. The Court of Session granted permission for the case to proceed, with hearings scheduled for 17 and 18 March, following a procedural session on 23 February.

The challenge was brought by former British diplomat Craig Murray, who is asking Scotland’s supreme civil court to declare the ban ultra vires, arguing it falls beyond the legal authority of the home secretary. UK government lawyers raised objections over Murray’s standing and claimed the Scottish case should not advance while a separate judicial review is ongoing in England and Wales, but the judge ruled the Scottish proceedings could move forward regardless.

The campaign group Defend Our Juries said the review could overturn the ban in Scotland, creating a constitutional clash if the proscription remains in force elsewhere in the UK. The case comes amid mounting scrutiny of the decision, including reports that Scotland’s counter-terrorism board concluded Palestine Action’s activities did not meet the statutory definition of terrorism, while critics accuse the government of using terrorism legislation to shield the Israeli weapons trade.

The latest episode of 'Decline & Fall' is out now!

https://open.substack.com/pub/dandf/p/the-chad-parenti-versus-the-virgin?r=5a2y5n&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

If you ever feel sorry for yourself after screwing something up, spare a thought for those who took to the streets of Hong Kong in 2019, torched their hometown and then fled to the promised land of the UK under the shiny BNO visa scheme. The tens of thousands who uprooted their lives, sold homes, quit jobs, and arrived with savings that seemed plenty at the time. Fast-forward to now: many are scraping by in low-skilled gigs—driving deliveries, stacking shelves, or whatever's beneath their degrees. They have burned through their savings and many are now destitute and survive thanks to handouts. But sure, the UK economy was supposed to gain billions from their "highly skilled" arrival. Turns out integrating them properly was optional. And the cherry on top? Just as these exiles are still grinding through a miserable existence, cursing the depressing weather, enduring racial slurs in some regional variety of English they don't fully understand, Keir Starmer jets off to Beijing for his big "reset" with Xi Jinping. They ink deals on visa-free travel for Brits to China, muse about asset management schemes, and a "long-term, stable comprehensive strategic partnership." Hong Kong? Mentioned in passing as a "bridge" whose "prosperity and stability" supposedly benefits everyone. Hong Kong protesters? Not even a footnote. Yesterday's heroes, the BBC's darlings now share the fate of used tissue, crumpled and tossed aside the moment it suited realpolitik to do so. Unfortunately, in other parts of the world there are still plenty of useful idiots willing to take part in colour revolutions. @LauraRuHK

We have to lift the ban on Russia — FIFA boss Infantino

'Never ban any country from playing football'

'Because this ban has not achieved anything, it has just created more frustration and hatred'
@MTodayNews

Here is an excellent article on how these professional politicians are created. This is why they are so wedded to every bureaucratic structure and Labour movement protest style.
They are all moulded that way.

https://labourheartlands.com/the-manufactured-politician/

The repeated revelations of paedophilia in high places, along with the details of Jeffrey Epstein’s role as an agent for Anglo-American and zionist intelligence agencies have convinced me of this:

- That there is no weird coincidence at play. It is not so much that high office breeds depravity as a predilection for depravity is a precondition for promotion.

- That access to illicit behaviours like drug-fuelled orgies and sex with minors is presented as a perk of high office.

- That those who are not interested in these perks are unlikely to be allowed to achieve the highest level in any public field, whether Hollywood, Fleet Street, Parliament or Church.

- That the existence of a file of compromising material on all those in the public eye is considered as necessary insurance by the ruling class, whose power is more precarious than it looks.

- Essentially, those who go along with this game can ‘enjoy’ the privileges of feeling themselves to be above the law, members of the club etc, and will remain untouchable while engaging in the most disgusting behaviours SO LONG AS THEY NEVER STEP OUT OF LINE.

- But Fleet Street and the police will be mobilised to denigrate and incarcerate any whistleblower the second it looks like they might be going to spill the beans about the true nature of the ruling class, its wars, its lies and its dictatorship.

We should note well in all of this the absolute discipline of the highest media editors in preserving silence for decades regarding well-known degenerates and their heinous crimes. If they are not members of this club themselves, they certainly understand the way the game is played and are willing to play their parts.

Moreover, they accept the premise that society’s most vulnerable members (ie, poor working-class children in care homes, young girls trafficked from eastern Europe) can be considered disposable fodder for the twisted urges and political manoeuvrings of the ruling elites.


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/11/the-four-mentors-of-king-charles/

The lies told by the state and elbit system should be dealt with, but we know nothing will happen.
The only way to force change is to continue to push back hard against the imperialists. The only language they understand is aggression and the only thing they care about is profit.

https://youtu.be/g0vlgGJehn0?si=PDZJWzRS88Es1d_U

Early British capitalism and its fear of organised workers.

The Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800 made it illegal for workers to “combine” (early roots of workers unions) to raise wages, reduce hours, or improve their working conditions. Essentially, the capitalist class criminalised trade unions before they properly existed. Left to be trialed by local magistrates, who mostly were industry owners or landlords, could convict and jail workers for collective bargaining. The mere whiff of workers organisation alone was enough for local magistrates to reach for the gavel.

These acts were introduced during the wars with revolutionary France, at a time when the British ruling class feared unrest at home. The French Revolution had made “Jacobinism” shorthand for subversion. At the same time, early industrial capitalism was expanding and this new class of proletariat were beginning to organise strikes and mutual trade societies. For the state, industrial combination and political radicalism were treated as the same threat.

The Acts were significant because they helped stabilise British capitalism in its formative industrial phase. The factory system depended on a disciplined, wage-dependent workforce, the proletariat. Profits came from the subjugation of the workers, on keeping wages down and production uninterrupted. By criminalising collective bargaining and streamlining prosecutions through employer-aligned magistrates, the state ensured that labour remained fragmented while capital could organise freely. With the English revolution giving this other new class, the bourgeoisie, the ability to create laws that secured the conditions necessary for capital accumulation.

A Repeal came in 1824 after sustained pressure, but a strike wave followed and the capitalists reimposed restrictions in 1825, limiting picketing and collective pressure while offering the concession of the ability to unionise to the workers, it was tightly managed. The objective was not freedom of association; it was containment and control. Allowing the workers the belief they had a say, then imprisonment when they did.

From a class perspective, the Combination Acts expose the class character of the state in early British capitalism. The state did not stand above society as a neutral arbiter. It intervened directly to defend property relations and suppress the growing class consciousness within the proletariat.

The issue was not abstract “public order” but control of labour in a system built on exploitation.

The Class Consciousness Project

“Liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism. It is negative and objectively has the effect of helping the enemy; that is why the enemy welcomes its preservation in our midst. Such being its nature, there should be no place for it in the ranks of the revolution.
We must use Marxism, which is positive in spirit, to overcome liberalism, which is negative. A communist should have largeness of mind and he should be staunch and active, looking upon the interests of the revolution as his very life and subordinating his personal interests to those of the revolution; always and everywhere he should adhere to principle and wage a tireless struggle against all incorrect ideas and actions, so as to consolidate the collective life of the Party and strengthen the ties between the Party and the masses; he should be more concerned about the Party and the masses than about any private person, and more concerned about others than about himself. Only thus can he be considered a communist.”

Mao Zedong, Combat Liberalism

Here’s a clip of Liverpool legend John Barnes. A brilliant footballer in his day and always thoughtful when he speaks.

If you’re into football it’s an enjoyable listen. If not, it’s still worth hearing his take on the British working class and racism in the game.

https://youtu.be/y5i0RAonTVs?si=Sl9Plg9mmswPCnwM