[Cronos]

Interesting, but it doesn't answer my question of who's making a profit from China?? About your article -- it's also interesting that so many of our media spout the same rot that for 2000 years prior to 1800, China dominated East Asia. That isn't true. Theere were Korean Empires and the Huns, Mongols conquered China and most of the far East of Asia. Mongols aren't Chinese, neither are the Uighurs who are Caucasian, Turkic groups. THe Tibetans are not Chinese and have never been.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

If those are communist Chinese economic numbers why would we believe they are accurate ?

BTW there's a lot more to read at the "SORRY STATE (Communist, Nationalist, and Dangerous)" LINK ***"Nationalism" does not really capture the whole of the phenomenon under consideration here. There is a large component of racial pride. I used to belong to a scholarly e-mail group for Chinese scientists and researchers in the U.S. When I ventured some mild remarks about the status of Tibet and Turkestan, I was met with a volley of frankly racial abuse. One respondent addressed me as "England big nose," and another offered sarcastically to kiss my "hairy hand." These are not illiterate rednecks, mind you, but the cream of Chinese intelligentsia, bearers of advanced degrees from prestigious universities. Another staple of the xenophobic literature now popular in China is the claim that U.S. scientists are working on racially selective biological weapons; and the very respectable British Sinologist Jasper Becker, in his 2000 book The Chinese, claims that the government sponsors research to prove that the Chinese belong to a separate species. One wonders what direction China's won biological-weapons research is taking.***