reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Jack Ma was once very famous in the U.S., but then he disappeared. According to Speaker 1, Jack Ma is in a "cooling down period" because he was too outspoken against the Chinese regime and communist system. He was told to "cool it down a little bit." His whereabouts are known; he is settling between Japan and China. He is appearing in public a little bit, but he is not as high profile as before.

Big tech's handling of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is concerning. They have been deferential to the CCP, which was invested in promoting lockdowns similar to those in Wuhan. Facebook and other companies elevated lockdown hysteria and suppressed those questioning it. This is troubling because lockdowns were not the norm in public health guidance before COVID, and it was a new concept influenced by China's experience. The relationship between big tech and the CCP is problematic, especially in fields like entertainment and the American economy.

Jack Ma, who founded Alibaba in 1998 after being rejected by KFC, saw his company achieve the largest IPO in history. Ant Group, spun off from Alibaba, was set to break that record in March 2021. However, the Chinese government halted Ant Group's IPO the night before it was to occur, reportedly due to Jack Ma criticizing the government's economic policies. His companies faced investigations and fines. Ma has only made two public appearances since the IPO cancellation. The details of the government's actions remain unknown, but it is believed Ma will not return to his previous outspoken persona.

Elon Musk is heavily influenced by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly through Tesla's Shanghai joint venture, which is fully controlled by the CCP. This connection explains why he avoids criticizing the CCP, even during significant events like the COVID lockdown protests. While he has made some positive contributions, his business ties suggest he is compromised and unable to take a strong stance against the CCP. Overall, he is viewed as insincere and beholden to the interests of the Chinese government.

Since October, tech tycoon Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba, has not been seen publicly after he criticized Chinese regulators in a speech. Ma accused financial regulators of stifling innovation and likened banks to pawnshops. The speech triggered an antitrust investigation into Alibaba. A week later, Ma and his team were summoned to Beijing. He has not been seen publicly since, even missing a scheduled appearance on a reality talent show. His company cited a scheduling conflict. Ma, known for his rags-to-riches story, once said China's climate is changing. Experts believe the Chinese government wants to send a message that no one is more powerful than the state. Sources close to Ma told ABC News that he is okay but is lying low.

Mark Zuckerberg pledged to be a free speech champion, but Meta worked with the Chinese Communist Party to build censorship tools. Facebook deleted the account of a Chinese dissident living in America at Beijing's request and then lied to Congress about it. Meta executives also decided to provide the Chinese Communist Party with access to Meta user data, including that of Americans.

Many Western corporations are unaware of the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its leader, Xi Jinping. Throughout history, no organization has survived when dealing with the CCP. Xi Jinping has transformed the party into his own, and it is no longer representative of communism. It is crucial for corporations to realize this for their long-term benefit. The New Federal State of China is a group that possesses internal intelligence about the CCP. They can provide valuable information and protection, not just for profit.

Western financial institutions have invested heavily in China's real estate market, relying on fake data. The CCP's influence in Australia's economy through corrupt businesses poses a threat. The CCP controls the world financially, manipulating countries and individuals to serve its interests. China's economic collapse could lead to the downfall of the CCP and expose its wrongdoings.

Chinese billionaire and political activist, Miles Guo, is a major threat to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Guo's mission is to expose the CCP's secrets and turn people against them. He claims that the CCP has infiltrated the US Department of Justice and plans to weaken the US military. Guo has been targeted by the CCP, with his friends and family members being arrested and tortured. Despite being arrested in New York for alleged fraud, Guo's investors do not consider themselves victims. The SEC and FBI seized over $630 million of Guo's assets, but have not returned the money to investors. Guo's penthouse mysteriously caught fire while FBI agents were searching it. Guo's claims about the CCP's plans have been proven true, including the dispatching of Chinese police officers to the US and the strategic vaccination of US military personnel. The CCP is desperate to silence Guo and bring him back to China.

Jack Ma, a Communist Party member, was effectively removed from Alibaba and silenced for a time. He remained in good standing with the party, avoiding any criticism of Xi. Jack Ma's reappearance in February at a symposium for private entrepreneurs indicates a potential policy correction. The crackdown on private entrepreneurs may have been excessive during economic restructuring. The party now needs private business people to revitalize the economy. Consequently, they are now embracing them, signaling renewed support and cooperation.

"Aladdin now controls $21,000,000,000,000 of our global economy." "Aladdin is the brainchild of Larry Fink, the founder of BlackRock." "The genie is out of the bottle, and Aladdin has already reached a tipping point where one robot controls more wealth than any person or country." "On Aladdin's 20 birthday, Larry launched a top secret project at BlackRock, codenamed Monarch, led to the firing of its fund managers and replacing their funds with Aladdin's funds." "Joe Biden has appointed BlackRock executive Brian Deese as head of the National Economic Council, which basically means the oversight of Latin and BlackRock is now the responsibility of BlackRock."

First speaker notes that China is a reascending power, not a rising one, pointing out that from 1500 to now China had the world’s largest GDP 70% of those years. He suggests that Confucian thinking underpins China’s view of reasserting long-standing dominance, and explains the blending of public-private partnerships and the role of organizations that backstop private companies in China. He describes China’s capital allocation as both rigid and flexible. The process starts with Xi Jinping and his close circle drafting priorities, including involvement in the five-year plan. The plan moves from a small central group to the Politburo, then to the provinces and finally to the prefectures. He explains it as a cascading set of venture capitalists operating against national priorities, with provinces and local actors rewarded for aligning capital and labor with those priorities. The result is an ecosystem where hundreds of venture capitalists coordinate human capital across regions to advance targeted goals, producing major companies such as BYD and Xiaomi. Second speaker adds that China maintains a five-year plans for every industry, detailing forecasts not just for catching up but for what is possible. This framework drives innovation across sectors, including nuclear power, and supports the notion that China is charting new avenues of development. He reiterates that the country is returning to a position it has long held rather than pursuing a status as the world’s largest economy, emphasizing a national-pride motivation amid different governance structures. Third speaker emphasizes the historical perspective, noting how remarkable it is that China held the world’s largest GDP 70% of the years since 1500. He reflects on how technological innovations, such as ship technology, have driven great empires, with China repeatedly on the heels of such shifts. He suggests that this may be China’s moment of resurgence across the board. The discussion also cites Lee Kuan Yew’s foresight, as highlighted by a work by Graham Allison and related quotes: China is not just another big player, but the biggest player in the history of the world, and China’s displacement of the world balance requires the world to find a new equilibrium. The dialogue ties this historic perspective to the idea that China’s current reemergence is both a continuation of a long pattern and a contemporary strategic effort guided by centralized planning and broad industry-wide five-year frameworks.

Joe Mokira’s Nobel Prize-winning work provides a stark framework for why centralized planning struggles to sustain genuine innovation, and that framework helps explain why Beijing quietly scrubbed Made in China 2025 from official discourse. Mokira isn’t just an economist; he’s an economic historian who asks why the Industrial Revolution happened in Europe and not in China. His core answer, in A Culture of Growth, is that Europe succeeded not because of geography or resources but because it built a culture of progress. That culture rests on three pillars: 1) Belief in knowledge as power—the conviction that discovery could improve human life and that individuals have both the freedom and the duty to pursue it; 2) Competition of ideas—Europe’s messiness with hundreds of rival states, universities, and thinkers allowed ideas to compete, be funded, and evolve; 3) Institutional Tolerance—over time Europe let thinkers leave and challenge authority (the Republic of Letters), rewarding descent and discovery. This cultural software underpinned Europe’s technological hardware. The framework, applied to Xi Jinping’s China, highlights a contrast. First, the absence of a culture of descent: in Xi’s world, disagreement is a threat to stability; scientists memorize slogans, and entrepreneurs recite pledges rather than pitch ideas. Jack Ma’s experience—being sidelined after questioning regulators—illustrates this. Second, centralized orthodoxy versus decentralized competition: Europe’s fragmentation fostered self-sustaining competition of ideas; China resembles the world’s largest monopoly—one party, one ideology, one narrative. Beijing can build chips but not a Galileo, because Galileo would not survive CCP ideological review. Third, intellectual fear versus intellectual freedom: progress requires optimism and the belief that knowledge can improve lives, while China’s system passes ideas through political filters, leading to censorship disguised as patriotism and innovation replaced by imitation. The result is a generation of scientists who code with caution. The transcript also warns of the return of the bureaucratic scholar: human capital without heterodoxy—competence without curiosity. China may fund innovation and build labs, but you cannot command curiosity or create a culture of growth. A country full of brilliant people may wait for permission to think. As a result, Beijing’s attempt to replicate the hardware of the West ignores the software—the Republic of Silence versus Europe’s Republic of Letters. Mokira’s conclusion: technological revolutions don’t come from five-year plans; they come from permission—to argue, to fail, to offend authority. Europe, the US, Japan, and Taiwan exemplify this. Therefore, Made in China 2025 died not primarily from sanctions or chip wars but from the Chinese system itself, which is allergic to free thought. Talent leaves when intellectual oxygen is scarce, and progress stalls when fear replaces exploration. The “ghost slogan” of Made in China 2025 embodies the collapse of a promised leap that depended on a culture of growth rather than on centralized control.

The discussion argues that the media has been focused on “the wrong billionaires” regarding a potential TikTok buyer, pointing to a Tuesday moment when Donald Trump was asked if he would consider letting Elon Musk buy TikTok. Trump responded that he would “really consider Larry Ellison.” The transcript proposes an “entirely different strategy.” It claims Zuckerberg “was never up for consideration” for TikTok, arguing that if Meta acquired TikTok it would have “way too many antitrust issues,” and that Trump “doesn’t trust him” or his loyalty. It characterizes Elon Musk as “the agent of chaos,” distracting attention with “drama and pageantry.” It describes Trump as “our queen,” “the salesman” orchestrating deals by allowing distraction from “shiny objects,” while pitching Larry Ellison as the next buyer. It states that Ellison has a strong position because Oracle already stores “a lot of TikTok’s data,” and because Oracle “basically controls the cloud,” described as infrastructure “that holds all of our data.” The transcript further notes that Larry Ellison bought his son David Ellison’s Paramount Pictures in the prior year, portraying it as Paramount stepping up with “the majority of the money,” with David running day-to-day operations, and the merger of Skydance. A key claim is that Ellison is “particularly dangerous” compared with Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk because Ellison “doesn’t crave attention,” but “understands how powerful attention is.” It says TikTok is “the most powerful social media engine to shape public opinion and narrative,” so owning TikTok would mean owning substantial influence over public narrative. The transcript argues that Hollywood PR professionals are struggling to control narratives in real time, and asks the audience to imagine Ellison owning TikTok while already owning data and major media assets, including “Paramount Pictures and all their IP,” with examples given such as “CNN, et cetera.” It frames this as the source of “monopoly,” not only in technology but in how tech interacts with government, wields influence, and creates “a new kind of monopolistic power.” It concludes that the central question is not whether Ellison is a better buyer than Zuckerberg or Musk, but why any of these individuals are allowed to wield so much power, calling the situation an “absolutely deplorable” representation of government.

Jack Ma reappeared in a video after a nearly three-month absence, addressing rural teachers and stating they would meet after the epidemic. This caused Alibaba shares to rise, increasing the company's valuation by $58 billion. Ma's disappearance followed his criticism of China's regulatory system and state-run banks at the Bund Summit in October 2020. Subsequently, the Ant Group's IPO was suspended, and Alibaba faced an antitrust investigation, losing $140 billion in value. Ma's absence from scheduled appearances fueled speculation that he faced repercussions similar to Meng Hong Wei or Fan Bingbing. The rise of the Ant Group reportedly put Alibaba at odds with China's financial system, and Jack Ma's popularity threatened Xi Jinping's leadership. An anti-Jack Ma campaign portrayed him negatively. Analysts suggest the Chinese government may take over Alibaba, with possibilities including nationalization, business splitting, more restrictions, or fines. Ma's recent video suggests a shift in tone, with Ma stating he is now determined to devote himself to education and public welfare.

Jack Ma reappeared in a video after a three-month absence, addressing rural teachers and stating they would meet after the epidemic. This caused Alibaba shares to rise, increasing the company's valuation by $58 billion. Ma's disappearance followed his criticism of China's regulatory system and state-run banks. Subsequently, the Ant Group's IPO was suspended, and Alibaba faced an antitrust investigation, losing $140 billion in value. Ma's absence from scheduled appearances fueled speculation that he faced repercussions similar to Meng Hong Wei or Fan Bingbing. The rise of the Ant Group reportedly put Alibaba at odds with China's financial system and Jack Ma at odds with Xi Jinping. Jack Ma's popularity was seen as a threat to Xi Jinping's party state. Reports suggest an anti-Jack Ma campaign is underway in China. Analysts believe the Chinese government may take over Alibaba, with possibilities including nationalization, splitting the business, increased restrictions, or fines. Ma's recent statements suggest a shift in tone since his Shanghai speech, with him now expressing commitment to education and public welfare.

The transcript argues that the CCP’s most damaging strategies are not just cunning but enabled by Western eagerness to do business with Beijing. It begins with China’s entry into the WTO in 2001. On November 15, 1999, seven unresolved issues remained in negotiations. Chinese negotiator Long Yun Tu recounts that Premier Zhu Rongji told his team to sign the agreement that day, saying, “I will talk to them,” and acting on orders from Jiang Zemin to make major concessions. After signing, Zhu gave a state-council speech stating, “We agree to these conditions just to enter the WTO after we get in, whether we follow them or not. That’s up to us. Every rule has loopholes that we can exploit.” The speaker asserts that this shows China never intended to play fair, then or ever. Following WTO entry in 2001, the CCP, described as hostile to democracy and free markets, gained unprecedented access to Western trade, investment, and institutions. The West’s openness allegedly allowed China to build a global network of influence while the Chinese economy operated as a “war economy,” with the CCP controlling land, resources, factories, supply chains, wages, unions, markets, export prices, currency, and capital flow to serve political goals. Three unlimited resources—natural, human, and fiscal—are used to wage economic war: cheap production and dumping abroad through tax breaks, export rebates, low-interest loans, and subsidies to undercut foreign competitors. This comes at a cost to Chinese citizens, who face low wages, extreme work pressure, unaffordable housing and healthcare, a heavy education burden, and severe environmental degradation. The West’s manufacturing sectors—steel, aluminum, rare earths, electronics, machinery, solar panels, energy storage, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices—shifted to China, gutted U.S. manufacturing, and risked national security. The transcript cites a claim by Yuan Hongbing, via Epoch Times, that Deng Xiaoping-era to Hu Jintao-era CCP elites transferred about RMB 20 trillion overseas (roughly $3 trillion) as “red capital” used to infiltrate Western financial systems. This red capital network allegedly grew as a direct consequence of China’s WTO entry, enabling deep penetration into economic, political, and media systems with Western money and institutions as weapons. Unrestricted warfare is central: “everything is a weapon” and the CCP does not follow rules or compromise. The narrative casts the third kind of war as one with no rules. It links the American fentanyl crisis to CCP strategy, noting that attempts to impose tariffs faced denial of CCP responsibility; if the U.S. bans fentanyl chemicals, Chinese sellers adapt with new formulas, creating a “chemical shell game.” Kash Patel told Joe Rogan that the CCP sees America as its number one enemy and flooding the U.S. with fentanyl is part of a long-term plan to destabilize the country, with tens of thousands of American deaths each year. Negotiations with the CCP, the speaker claims, have never solved problems; the post–Cold War belief that communism collapsed and China embraced capitalism is labeled a miscalculation. The CCP is described as a machine built for total war, designed to achieve victory over its enemies, willing to cross any line and sacrifice anyone, urging the world to hurry in understanding this reality.

China’s economy, the transcript says, wouldn’t have done as well without private entrepreneurs. It also states that state-owned enterprises “weren’t doing well at all,” but that the speaker “couldn’t allow the capitalists” to dictate what to do to the economy. The transcript describes a political stance attributed to the period after Mao, in which Mao “attack[ed] him” while the message to entrepreneurs was: “Don’t you dare interfere with the political goals of the Chinese Communist Party.” It emphasizes that the political goals are “supreme” and “primary.” Entrepreneurs are described as being expected to enrich wealth to enable China “to be strong and wealthy,” but “you are not to interfere in politics.” The transcript presents this separation between economic activity and political rule as fundamental in Chinese thinking and also linked to “original Chinese traditional position,” contrasting the “Qian” and the “Shi,” and describing “very different” roles for the “Shang” and the “Shi.” It asserts that “they must be separate,” and that the “Shang must never be allowed to take part in the politics of rule.” The separation is described as “very traditional,” and characterized as a “return… to Chinese roots about the nature of governance.” Finally, the transcript states that this governance model requires “an order” and “a hierarchy,” with “the sirs above that,” and that “you can’t mix up” those roles or positions.

Speaker 1 characterizes his relationship with the government as being "in love" but unwilling to "marry" them, emphasizing problem-solving rather than mere approval. He claims to have created 14 million jobs for China and is influencing banks to change. Speaker 1 says the government now realizes that they are helping them. He recounts a conversation with a bank chairman who said that in ten years, there would be a "fantastic memorial" for Alibaba and Jack Ma for their contributions, but that currently, "we have to kill you."

- In collusion with the world's most powerful people, the heads of our governments have enacted a ten year transition to a universal political system called stakeholder capitalism. - It's a funeral of shareholder capitalism and it's a birth of stakeholder capitalism. - The World Economic Forum is now very much engaged into this initiative of shaping a great reset. - Stakeholder capitalism replaces both shareholder and state capitalism with a single global political system that provides authority to a group of people called stakeholders. - To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stake holders play a crucial role. They are governments, civil society such as education bodies, companies, and the international community such as the UN and European Union. - The heads of these organizations are exclusive elite members of the World Economic Forum. - The Chinese social credit system forces compliance by punishing people who break the government's rules.

China is currently experiencing a cultural revolution similar to the one in the past. The chairman's goal is to achieve common prosperity, which has led to the takeover of private industries and companies. Jack Ma, the CEO of Alibaba, was forced to retire and disappeared for a few months after criticizing China's regulators. There is a power struggle between different factions within the government. Chairman Xi changed the constitution to allow for unlimited presidency, and he is known as a hardcore communist. Many celebrities and wealthy individuals have become quiet and low-profile, as they fear disappearing or facing consequences. People still disappear in China, and there are secret prisons known as prisoners conscious.

Jack Ma, the billionaire founder of Alibaba (reportedly the "Amazon of China"), has vanished after criticizing the Chinese government. Ma, one of the richest men in the world, disappeared from public view. He is one of four Chinese billionaires who have mysteriously vanished.

This isn't a recession. This isn't even a crisis in the traditional sense. What we're witnessing is the complete unraveling of the economic model that powered the world's second largest economy for four decades. And the West, we're completely unprepared for what comes next. For forty years, China's growth seemed unstoppable. Double digit GDP increases, gleaming cities rising from farmland, a manufacturing powerhouse that became the world's factory. Western corporations moved their supply chains there. Emerging markets tied their futures to Chinese demand. Everyone believed the twenty first century would belong to Beijing. But beneath the surface, something was fundamentally broken. The property sector that once drove 30% of China's economy has imploded. Evergrande, with its 300,000,000,000 in liabilities, was just the first domino. Country Garden followed, then China, South City. Now even state backed developers are failing.