[This analysis will be available in print for those wishing to obtain a tangible copy of it in Book Format]
Chapter III The Perception of Empire vs. the Reality of Empire
ALL ROADS LEAD TO ROME WAS BY DESIGN
Rome did not become the archetype of empire by chance—it was a deliberate choice. At some point in history, someone or some group directed the collective gaze of scholars, leaders, and institutions toward Rome’s grandeur and away from civilizations that endured far longer, such as China. But why Rome, and why not China? After all, while Rome’s empire eventually collapsed under the weight of its ambitions, China has persisted for millennia—invaded, fragmented, transformed, yet never indeed fallen. Its unparalleled ability to adapt and endure offers a far richer and arguably more pragmatic blueprint for civilizational survival.
The answer lies not merely in preference but in intent. Those who elevated Rome to the pinnacle of historical study may not have been advocates of humanity but architects of control. Rome represents an empire enthralled by conquest, governance, and dominance—not endurance or balance. Its focus on centralized rule and the mechanics of empire-building glorifies power over purpose, making it a convenient model for those who seek to reinforce hierarchical systems. Rome serves as an example of how to expand, control, and dominate through subjugation—a narrative that prioritizes the survival of a species over the cultivation of humanity itself.
Greece is a cornerstone of Western civilization, celebrated for its philosophical advancements and cultural contributions. Yet, the longest-standing Western empire ultimately fell because of its internal liberalism—an excessive prioritization of freedoms and indulgence that undermined its unity. Athens, the cradle of democracy, exemplifies this decline. While its emphasis on individual liberty and open debate fostered incredible intellectual progress, it also sowed the seeds of discord. Political infighting, complacency, and an inability to unite against external threats like Sparta during the Peloponnesian War led to its downfall. As Greek city-states grew more fragmented, their susceptibility to external conquest increased, culminating in their absorption into the Greek Macedonian Empire under Alexander the Great and later into the Roman Empire.
The Rise of the Polis Modern Comparison
The Greek city-states of the Archaic Period (circa 800–500 BCE)—independent entities like Athens, Sparta, Corinth, and Thebes—were ambitious experiments (like the USA is an experiment? Who’s running it?) in governance and society. Each prioritized local autonomy, boasting its political system, economy, and military. Yet, these fiercely independent polities shared a common language, religion, and cultural traditions. Sound familiar? Drawing parallels to the origin and evolution of the United States, from fragmented colonial settlements to the federal republic we see today.
Like the Greek city-states, the early American colonies operated as isolated states under British rule, each fiercely protective of its rights, economies, and governance. Massachusetts had its Puritanical rigidity; Virginia had its plantation aristocracy. The Articles of Confederation further underscored this fragmented autonomy, functioning as a loose alliance akin to the Hellenic League—a coalition far from cohesive governance.
Fast-forward to today, and the United States—despite its Union—retains echoes of this tension between autonomy and unity. Federalism reflects a modern parallel to the Greek city-state model, where states maintain distinct legislative, judicial, and cultural identities. Texas, for instance, exercises autonomy with laws and rhetoric that emphasize state identity in a manner reminiscent of Sparta’s military pride and independence. Meanwhile, states like California act as progressive outliers, championing environmental policies and economic experimentation in a way Athens might have with intellectual or cultural advancements.
This parallel raises a crucial question: can a nation reconcile local pride with collective progress? Though culturally interconnected, the Greek city-states ultimately fractured under the strain of their rivalries, with wars like the Peloponnesian War decimating their potential for sustained cooperation. The U.S. Civil War was a similar inflection point, forcing a reckoning over whether a house divided could stand.
Today, as political polarization ripples through the United States, federal mandates often clash with states asserting sovereignty. Are we witnessing another fragile balance, perpetually tested by the push and pull of independence against centralized governance? Or does the U.S. model—like Ancient Greece—prove that diversity of thought and approach, when harnessed correctly, can drive innovation, progress, and resilience? It’s the latter.
The story of the Greek Empire offers both a warning and a challenge. Independence and interdependence remain uneasy bedfellows, yet their coexistence is essential for greatness. The Greek city-states fell because they prioritized autonomy above unity, leaving themselves vulnerable to external conquest. For the United States, the lesson lies in embracing unity not as conformity or centralized overreach but as a shared commitment to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
This is not the unity of a hive mind but the unity of a common purpose: defending individual freedoms, ensuring justice, and maintaining a government that derives power from the people. It is a unity that respects diversity and autonomy while remaining steadfast in upholding the Constitution as the bedrock of a collective identity. The question remains—will we learn from history, or are we destined to repeat it on a grander, more consequential stage?
What an extraordinary moment in history we are living through. As you embark on this journey with me through this series, I encourage you to keep the ideas you’ve just read at the forefront of your mind, alongside this assertion: “The leaders in place—whether in Congress, the Senate, at both federal and local levels, including governors and even former presidents—are Chinaphiles out of survival.”
The Great Experiment of the United States now stands at a defining crossroads: one path leads to centralization, the other to decentralization. Both demand a careful balance in this era of digital governance. One road is shaped by the influence of the most resilient empire in human history—a power that has never truly fallen. The other road leads to America 250, a renewal of the founding principles and vision that gave birth to this nation.
Before we can fully examine this choice and its far-reaching implications, we must first trace the roads that brought us here. And so, let’s turn back to history.
THE EAST AIDED IN THE GREEK EMPIRE FALL
As the Greek city-states, or polis (Πόλεις), grew increasingly fragmented, their internal divisions and external rivalries weakened their collective ability to resist external threats. This fragmentation stemmed from political and cultural factors deeply rooted in Greek history and culminated in their eventual subjugation by more immense, centralized powers such as Greek Macedon and Rome.
The East played a significant, albeit indirect, role in the mass migrations and pandemics that contributed to the decline of the Western world, including the fall of Greece and later the Byzantine Empire under Constantine XI. The interconnectedness of Eurasia, facilitated by trade routes like the Silk Road, became a double-edged sword for Western civilizations, serving as conduits not only for goods and ideas but also for devastating diseases and invaders that would alter the course of history.
The Eastern Origins of Mass Migration and Pandemics
The East, with its vast empires and thriving trade networks, was often the source or transit hub for pathogens that devastated the West. The bubonic plague, for example, thought to have originated in Central Asia, traveled along the Silk Road and reached Constantinople in 541 CE, becoming the infamous Plague of Justinian. This pandemic decimated the Byzantine Empire, reducing its population by as much as 25% and crippling its economic and military capabilities. The weakened state of the empire made it vulnerable to external threats and internal fragmentation, setting the stage for its eventual fall.
Anyone getting some Deja Vu?
Similarly, mass migrations from the East—often driven by pressures such as overpopulation, resource scarcity, or climatic changes—forced nomadic groups like the Huns to push westward. Their movement displaced other tribes, including the Goths, Vandals, and other “barbarians,” who then invaded and settled in the Western Roman Empire. This cascade of migrations destabilized Western Europe, eroding the structures that had maintained order and leading to the eventual collapse of Rome in 476 CE.
Deja Vu right?
The Fall of Greece and Constantine XI Echoes Today
The story of Greece and the Byzantine Empire offers a stark example of how these forces from the East contributed to Western decline. By the time of Constantine XI, the last Byzantine emperor, the empire was a shadow of its former self. Its decline was hastened by a combination of external pressures and internal decay—much of which was exacerbated by Eastern influences.
The rise of the Ottoman Empire, rooted in the East, posed an existential threat to the Byzantine Empire. The Ottomans, equipped with advanced weaponry and strategic acumen, steadily encroached on Byzantine territory, culminating in the Siege of Constantinople in 1453. This event marked the end of the Byzantine Empire and the fall of a once-mighty Greek civilization that had stood as a beacon of Western culture for over a millennium.
Additionally, the trade networks that had long enriched Constantinople now became conduits for Eastern dominance. (More Deja Vu right? ) The Ottomans’ control of trade routes through the East effectively choked off the Byzantine economy, leaving the empire impoverished and unable to defend itself adequately. Disease, migration, and economic manipulation—fueled in part by Eastern dynamics—converged to seal the fate of Constantine XI and the Byzantine Empire.
Historical Parallels: The Ottoman Empire and Trade Dominance
The historical narrative of the Ottoman Empire’s control over trade routes, which choked off the Byzantine economy and led to its eventual collapse, offers a clear parallel to Turkey’s modern role as a central player in global trade and energy. Strategically located at the crossroads of Europe and Asia, Turkey has long held a pivotal position in world affairs. Its geographic location, straddling continents and major waterways, ensures its relevance in the dynamics of power, trade, and energy—a reality as true today as it was during the height of Ottoman dominance.
In the 15th century, the Ottoman Empire established its supremacy by capturing Constantinople in 1453, effectively sealing off critical trade routes that connected Europe with Asia. The Bosporus and Dardanelles straits, which link the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, became gateways controlled by the Ottomans. This chokehold on trade not only impoverished the Byzantine Empire but also gave the Ottomans the means to manipulate European economies. The lucrative Silk Road, which carried goods from China and the East, passed through Ottoman-controlled territories, making the empire an indispensable player in global trade. By imposing tariffs, diverting trade routes, and controlling key ports, the Ottomans consolidated their power and wealth, while simultaneously destabilizing rival European powers.
MODERN DAY TURKEY
Fast-forward to the modern era, and Turkey continues to leverage this geographic advantage. The Bosporus and Dardanelles remain critical chokepoints for global shipping. These straits facilitate the movement of goods, energy, and military vessels between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. For example, grain exports from Ukraine and energy shipments from Russia rely heavily on these waterways. Turkey’s control of these routes is governed by the Montreux Convention of 1936, which grants it authority over naval and commercial traffic. This allows Turkey to regulate access, particularly during times of conflict, making it a powerful gatekeeper for both NATO , Chinese and Russian interests.
Beyond its control of maritime chokepoints, Turkey plays a vital role in the global energy trade. It serves as a transit hub for several major pipelines that transport oil and natural gas from resource-rich regions to energy-hungry markets in Europe. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, for instance, carries oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean, bypassing Russia and Iran. Similarly, the Trans-Anatolian Natural Gas Pipeline (TANAP) forms a critical part of the Southern Gas Corridor, transporting natural gas from Azerbaijan to Europe. These pipelines not only diversify Europe’s energy supply but also reduce reliance on Russian energy—a key geopolitical goal for Western powers. At the same time, Turkey hosts Russian energy projects like TurkStream, which delivers gas from Russia to Europe. This dual role gives Turkey significant leverage in energy negotiations with both Moscow and the European Union.
WEST – EAST and AFRICA
Turkey’s geographic position places it at the heart of global power dynamics, serving as a vital gateway for China and Russia to access the Middle East and Africa. This role stems from its location at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and the Mediterranean, as well as its control over critical trade and energy routes. Both historically and in the present day, Turkey’s strategic importance has shaped its relationships with global powers, particularly those seeking influence in resource-rich and geopolitically significant regions like the Middle East and Africa. All eyes on Turkey as of today Dember 22, 2024 AD
Turkey’s energy infrastructure underscores its significance. For China, Turkey forms a crucial part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Middle Corridor, which passes through Turkey, links China to Europe and the Mediterranean while providing a direct route to African markets. Turkey’s railways, highways, and ports act as arteries through which goods flow from Asia to Africa and beyond, bypassing traditional chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz. Similarly, Russia depends on Turkey to sustain its energy exports. The TurkStream pipeline, which carries Russian natural gas to Turkey and then to Europe, exemplifies this dependency. Beyond supplying Europe, this pipeline enhances Russia’s ability to influence energy markets in the Mediterranean and North Africa, with Turkey playing the role of a vital intermediary.
The importance of Turkey’s maritime chokepoints cannot be overstated. The Bosporus and Dardanelles straits connect the Black Sea to the Mediterranean, making them critical for Russia’s naval operations and energy exports. Without Turkey’s cooperation, Russia’s access to the Middle East and Africa via the Mediterranean would be severely restricted. These straits also serve China’s maritime trade routes, linking its goods to African ports and markets through the Mediterranean. Turkey’s control of these waterways gives it leverage over the ambitions of both nations.
In addition to energy and trade, Turkey serves as a direct corridor to the Middle East, a region central to the geopolitical strategies of China and Russia. For China, Turkey facilitates economic and logistical access to Middle Eastern nations, allowing Beijing to deepen its influence in the region through investments and energy deals with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran. Turkey’s infrastructure provides an alternative path for goods and energy, reducing reliance on volatile chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz. Russia, on the other hand, uses Turkey to sustain its military and economic presence in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, where Turkish cooperation has been critical to Russian objectives. Turkey’s role as a mediator and partner in this volatile region bolsters its importance to Moscow.
Africa adds another dimension to Turkey’s strategic value. As a growing hub for natural resources and emerging markets, Africa is a key focus for China and Russia. Turkey’s proximity and infrastructure make it an essential link in the chain of influence. For China, Turkey serves as a land and maritime bridge, connecting its Belt and Road investments in Africa with broader global markets. Turkish companies, actively engaged in African trade and development, complement China’s efforts to expand its footprint on the continent. Similarly, Russia benefits from Turkey’s networks to strengthen its relationships with African nations. Moscow’s pursuit of military and energy partnerships in Africa is facilitated in part by Turkey’s geographic and logistical role, particularly in North Africa and the Mediterranean region.
Turkey’s ability to balance its relationships with China, Russia, and Western powers amplifies its strategic importance. While it collaborates with China on infrastructure projects and supports Russia’s energy exports, Turkey also maintains its NATO membership and engages in Western security initiatives. This balancing act allows Ankara to extract economic and political benefits from multiple spheres of influence, ensuring its centrality in global affairs.
In essence, Turkey’s role as a gateway to the Middle East and Africa makes it indispensable for China and Russia. It provides the infrastructure, access, and influence that these nations require to expand their reach in regions rich with resources and geopolitical importance. Whether through trade, energy, or military cooperation, Turkey acts as a linchpin connecting the ambitions of global powers to the realities of these strategic regions. This unique position ensures that Turkey remains a focal point of international competition and collaboration.
Relaunch at the right TIME?
China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 was a perfectly timed relaunch of its global strategy. It capitalized on economic strength, geopolitical shifts, and technological advancements, allowing China to assert its role as a global leader.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative in 2013 was a perfectly timed relaunch. Deja Vu?
There is a time for everything and every moment has it’s place. ~Tore Maras
China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launch in 2013 was a carefully calculated relaunch of its global influence, grounded in strategic timing that took advantage of shifting geopolitical, economic, and technological conditions. The initiative, often called the “modern Silk Road,” symbolized China’s rise as a global power and its intent to reshape international trade and diplomacy in the 21st century. It also underscored China’s solidified presence within the United Nations (UN), where it had become an increasingly influential player by 2013, leveraging its status to amplify its global cooperation and development vision. This is key. Please revisit the article I have published on all platforms link below:
The United Nations: A Network for China’s Silent Conquest
By 2013, China’s economic power was at its zenith. Decades of rapid industrialization and export-driven growth had positioned it as the second-largest economy in the world. The economic reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in the late 1970s had matured, transforming China into a global manufacturing hub and economic powerhouse. However, this period also marked a shift in China’s strategy: the country sought to move beyond its role as the “world’s factory” and expand its influence through outward investment and innovation. The BRI provided a mechanism for China to channel its surplus capital into international markets while addressing domestic overcapacity in key industries such as steel and construction.
The lingering effects of the 2008 global financial crisis created fertile ground for this initiative. Western nations, still recovering economically, were less able to invest in global infrastructure and development, leaving a vacuum that China was eager to fill. Many countries in the developing world faced urgent infrastructure needs, and China presented itself as a reliable partner with both the financial resources and expertise to address those gaps. By offering financing and investment through the BRI, China positioned itself as an alternative to Western-dominated institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.
RELATED ARTICLES
IC FP SERIES| Red Strings Attached: The CCP’s Financial Web of Influence (PROLOGUE)
IC FP SERIES| Red Strings of Control: Debt, Aid, and Domination [PART I]
Geopolitically, China capitalized on the relative decline of U.S. influence. By 2013, the United States was deeply embroiled in the aftermath of costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as navigating political divisions at home. This allowed China to assert its leadership in regions where American power had receded, particularly in Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and Africa. In Eurasia, where Central Asia was experiencing a power vacuum, China moved decisively. The BRI provided a framework to secure trade routes, energy pipelines, and diplomatic ties in this strategically vital region. Meanwhile, in the Mediterranean and Africa, China’s investments in ports and infrastructure solidified its foothold in areas historically dominated by Western powers.
The rise of Xi Jinping as General Secretary of the Communist Party in 2012 was another crucial factor. Xi’s vision of a resurgent China, encapsulated in the “China Dream,” emphasized the country’s role as a global leader. The BRI became the cornerstone of this vision, representing a bold departure from China’s traditionally cautious foreign policy. It symbolized China’s shift from a passive participant in globalization to an active architect of a new, multipolar global order known as the “New World Order”.
China’s increasing influence within the United Nations by 2013 played a significant role in legitimizing the BRI and amplifying its reach. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China had used its position to advocate for principles like sovereignty and non-interference while building alliances with developing nations. Through agencies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), China aligned its BRI goals with global development agendas, presenting the initiative as a means to achieve shared prosperity. By leveraging its strong presence in the UN, China framed the BRI as a collaborative effort rather than a unilateral projection of power, garnering support from countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.
The BRI was also well-timed technologically. By 2013, digital connectivity and telecommunications advancements had created opportunities for a new kind of “Silk Road.” The initiative incorporated a “Digital Silk Road” component, focusing on investments in fiber-optic cables, 5G networks, and e-commerce infrastructure. Companies like Huawei played a central role in this effort, exporting Chinese technology to participating countries and embedding China’s influence in their digital infrastructure.
RELATED: IC Series| Wired Secrets, Shattered Skies: Why MH370 Disappeared
Through the BRI, China reasserted itself as the center of global trade and diplomacy, invoking the legacy of the ancient Silk Road. This narrative resonated with nations seeking infrastructure development and economic growth, while also aligning with China’s broader goals of enhancing its global leadership. By 2013, China’s economic strength, geopolitical foresight, and established presence in the UN had converged to create the perfect moment for this ambitious initiative. The BRI was not merely a trade project; it was a comprehensive strategy to position China as a global superpower, reshaping the world’s economic and political landscape in its image.
China’s success with the BRI exemplifies the importance of timing. By launching the initiative at a moment when global financial systems were in flux, Western powers were distracted, and developing nations were eager for partnership, China ensured its vision could take root. With its solidified influence in the UN and the narrative of a modern Silk Road, China positioned itself as the indispensable bridge between continents, advancing its ambitions on the global stage with strategic precision.
Perceived Empire vs Real Empire
The dichotomy between the perception of empire and the reality of empire becomes particularly pronounced in the case of China, whose historical continuity sharply contrasts with the transience of other so-called empires. Unlike Greece, Rome, the Ottomans, or the British Empire—each of which thrived for a period before succumbing to fragmentation or irrelevance—China has exemplified what it means to be an enduring empire. From the unification under the Qin Dynasty in 221 BCE to the modern People’s Republic, China has persistently upheld centralized authority, cultural cohesion, and territorial stability over millennia, thereby constructing a paradigmatic model of imperial resilience.
While empires like Greece, Rome or Britain dominated regions through projection of power and influence, their definition as empires often hinges more on perception than sustained institutional integrity. Each collapsed under the weight of internal fractures or external pressures, leaving a legacy but not an enduring structure. China, by contrast, faced invasions, revolutions, and disunity yet managed to revert repeatedly to its imperial ethos, embodied in the Tianxia—”All Under Heaven.” This philosophical and administrative framework allowed the reconstitution of authority and the integration of diverse ethnicities and regions under a cohesive identity. More on that in Chapter V.
What distinguishes China is its capacity for adaptability coupled with historical persistence. Its resilience has rendered it not merely an empire of perception—dependent on transient power dynamics—but an empire of unyielding reality. By continuously reconstructing its imperial institution, China has withstood the vicissitudes of history, ensuring its preeminence as a civilizational and political entity—a feat unmatched by the ephemeral dominance of Rome, the Ottomans, or Britain.
In essence, many empires that dominate global perceptions—such as Rome, the British Empire, or even the Ottoman Empire—have operated in more fragmented and episodic manners. These empires relied heavily on military conquest and colonial expansion, which made their power dependent on external domination rather than internal cohesion. This is WHY I state assertively :
“The leaders in place—whether in Congress, the Senate, at both federal and local levels, including governors and even former presidents—are Chinaphiles out of survival.”
China’s model of empire, however, has always been rooted in consolidating control over a defined territory and integrating diverse regions into a unified administrative and cultural framework. Even during times of division, such as the Warring States period or foreign domination under the Mongols and Manchus, China eventually reasserted its imperial identity. This resilience and adaptability underscore why China has always been an empire in reality, while others are often seen as fleeting perceptions of empire.
China deliberately redirected the world’s focus onto Western empires while quietly cultivating trade and alliances with Arab nations to undermine them, it would represent a masterful strategy of diversion and geopolitical manipulation. This hypothetical scenario aligns with the concept of “spotlight and chum”—shifting attention and creating distractions to mask deeper, long-term strategies. By casting the Western empires into the global spotlight and amplifying their imperial ambitions and conflicts, China could subtly deflect scrutiny from its own goals, all while strengthening its influence through trade and diplomacy with key partners like the Arab nations. This is mentioned in Ancient Greek writings such as Thucydides. Alexander the Great was an avid student and took heed to what he said hence his expansion into Asia but dying at the border of China and Pakistan.
China has demonstrated throughout eons, an aptitude for leveraging trade and diplomacy to achieve strategic objectives without direct confrontation. During the height of the Silk Road, China maintained lucrative trade relationships with the Islamic Caliphates, which facilitated cultural and economic exchanges but also allowed China to subtly influence power dynamics in regions where Western powers sought to expand. By forming strong economic and political ties with Arab nations, China encouraged a shared resistance to Western dominance, potentially weakening European imperial ambitions through economic interdependence and soft power. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?
Thucydides Trap something coined by western political scientist Graham Allison but when reading the text myself said much much more. Studying Thucydides helped me understand strategy, after all in my former career that is what I was best at, pattern recognition and finding solutions. I will delve into this TRAP the Western World fell into through nativity and arrogance- all by design of course and this why Nothing Can Stop What is Coming.
Chapter IV will delve into Alexander the Great and the concept of the Thucydides Trap, exploring their relevance to Modern China. Together, these four chapters will provide you with a solid foundation to grasp the methods I will be unveiling and the solutions. Remember, every trap—no matter how intricate—has an exit.
If you like my work, you can tip or support me via TIP ME or subscribe to me on Subscribestar! You can also follow and subscribe to me on Rumble and Locals or subscribe to my Substack or on X. I am 100% people-funded. www.toresays.com
