The economic warfare pillar of the Minimisation Plan presents a sophisticated model for leveraging the mechanisms of Western capitalism against itself. This strategy operates on two interconnected fronts: the creation of a systemic financial vulnerability through the manipulation of a single, high-profile asset (the 'Tesla Vector'), and a direct assault on the foundational stability of the U.S. dollar (the 'Debt Weapon').
The central premise of the 'Tesla Vector' theory is that the company's market capitalization, which has exceeded A$1.3 trillion, is a financial simulacrum—a valuation fundamentally disconnected from its operational realities. Conventional financial analysis consistently finds the company to be overvalued. For example, in mid-2023, Tesla's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio hovered around 70, whereas the average for the automotive industry was approximately 6. This indicates that investors were valuing Tesla at a level more than ten times that of its established competitors relative to its actual profits, a discrepancy sustained more by narrative than by financial fundamentals [1, 2]. The strategic intent behind allegedly fostering such a bubble is to create a concentrated point of systemic risk; a sudden, controlled collapse of a trillion-dollar company could trigger a cascading crisis across the Western financial system, a cost far exceeding the initial investment in the manipulation itself. A significant portion of this valuation is held by major Western institutional investors and pension funds, meaning a collapse would directly impact the retirement savings of millions of citizens, creating a secondary vector of social and political chaos [3].
While the theory posits Tesla as a "cultivated asset" since its 2003 founding, its fundamental nature was altered with the deep integration of the PRC's state-industrial complex via the Gigafactory Shanghai. Construction began in January 2019 after Tesla secured significant concessions, including being the first foreign automaker to wholly own its Chinese plant and receiving favorable loans from a consortium of Chinese state-owned banks, including China Construction Bank and the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China [4, 5]. It was only after this integration created a profound operational dependency on China—for manufacturing, for critical battery supply chains from partners like CATL, and for market access—that Tesla's stock price experienced its meteoric, near-vertical ascent to a trillion-dollar valuation between late 2019 and 2021, aligning perfectly with the timeline required for the "Surgical Capitalism" mechanism to become viable [5]. The systemic impact of this dependency became clear in April 2024, when a visit by Musk to Beijing, which included a meeting with Premier Li Qiang, resulted in Chinese authorities tentatively approving Tesla's "Full Self-Driving" software and removing restrictions on its cars at government-sensitive sites, a move that immediately boosted the company's stock price by over 15% and demonstrated Beijing's direct ability to influence the company's financial fortunes [6].
The final phase of the 'Tesla Vector' moves to the narrative domain, targeting the cultural archetype embodied by its CEO, Elon Musk, in a "Reputation Flip". The catalyst is the "Driverless Deception"—the repeated failure to deliver on the promise of true, Level 5 "Full Self-Driving" (FSD) capability, a promise first made for 2018 and repeatedly pushed back, leading to regulatory investigations by bodies like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and accusations of false advertising. This public failure shatters the myth of his technological infallibility [7]. The strategic endgame of this "Reputation Flip" is not merely to discredit a Western innovator, but potentially to create a leadership vacuum in critical future industries like space exploration and artificial intelligence, a vacuum that Minimiser-aligned actors could then seek to fill.
A critical line of inquiry for explaining the overvaluation anomaly is the possibility of a large, covert, Minimiser-owned debt instrument. This hypothesis posits that the "Surgical Capitalism" is not funded by direct market interventions alone, but is underpinned by a massive, off-balance-sheet loan, potentially collateralized by China's own holdings of U.S. Treasury bonds. Such a mechanism would be extremely difficult to detect through standard financial analysis, as it would not appear on Tesla's public balance sheets. The strategic intent would be to create a hidden and deniable vector of control and leverage over both the company and its CEO, a form of financial kompromat. While there is no direct public evidence of such a loan, its mechanics are plausible. A sovereign state could use its treasury holdings as collateral with other state-owned financial institutions to issue a loan to an offshore special purpose vehicle (SPV). This SPV could then, in turn, provide financing to the target entity or individual through complex derivatives or other private arrangements, leaving no clear public trail back to the original state actor [20]. This method would represent a far more sophisticated form of influence than direct equity ownership, as debt can come with covenants and conditions that provide the lender with significant control over a borrower's actions, particularly if they are in financial distress [21].
An investigation into analogous events reveals a parallel but inverted case: the Western campaign against Chinese tech giant Huawei. This provides a clear example of how a state can be accused of using a corporate entity as a vector for influence and serves as a useful point of comparison.