Building New Global Governance Architecture
In addition to accumulating more and more influence within existing international institutions, Beijing has also been creating a dizzying array of its own outfits to plug into the new “multi-polar” world order it says it is seeking. Though the new China-created institutions are now portrayed as rivals to their older Western counterparts, Chinese leaders view the globalist architecture they are constructing as complementary to the Western-built architecture.
Most recently, despite ostensible U.S. opposition, even traditional U.S. allies rushed to join the new Shanghai-based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which will essentially serve as a new addition to the existing architecture of global economic governance. The massive institution, set to have an initial capital stock of $100 billion, is aimed at “scaling up financing for sustainable development,” as defined by the UN, and fostering more “global economic governance.”
The scramble by U.S. allies to join the “rival” AIIB — Taiwan, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Australia, among others, all applied to become “founding members” — gave the United States what the establishment press painted as a “black eye.” But it is by no means an obstacle to the emerging New World Order. In fact, the AIIB is set to play a major role in “global governance,” according to Beijing and the UN. Some analysts even claimed its emergence signified a new era of “Pax Sinica” that is replacing the supposed U.S.-led world order of past generations. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying, however, said that the founding of the bank is a “constructive move that will complement the current international economic order and enable China to shoulder more global responsibility.”
In tandem with the AIIB, Beijing is also rolling out what it refers to as its “New Silk Road” and the “Maritime Silk Road” projects. The plans, which involve massive infrastructure expansion and new trade routes over land and sea, aim to connect Communist China directly with the rest of Eurasia and Africa so Beijing can more successfully peddle its goods and services, manufactured by its vast armies of practically slave laborers in regime-controlled “companies.” According to an article by Xinhua, the plans will produce “more capital convergence and currency integration.”
Before that, the communist- and socialist-minded regimes ruling the BRICS unveiled plans for a new international “development” bank. Now known as the “New Development Bank,” the entity also plans to provide $100 billion in upfront capital for various projects. Like the AIIB, this bank is also painted as a rival to existing global governance mechanisms. But in reality, the new bank represents merely another tentacle of the emerging world order, as Beijing and other BRICS regimes have made clear.
Last year, in its China Monitor publication, the Mercator Institute for China Studies (MERICS) highlighted Beijing’s “shadow” network of globalist outfits. The report noted that (contrary to the claims of analysts who portray the scheming as a “challenge” to existing globalist institutions) the communist regime “is not seeking to demolish or exit from current international organizations.” Instead, it “is constructing supplementary — in part complementary, in part competitive — channels for shaping the international order beyond Western claims to leadership.” It cited the BRICS, the AIIB, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and numerous other examples to make its case.
In a column about China’s “New World Order,” meanwhile, Director Lee Jong-Wha at Korea University’s Asiatic Research Institute observed that Beijing was “using its growing clout to reshape global economic governance.” Despite apparent obliviousness to the danger of having the dictatorship help design a system of “global governance,” Lee, who also led the Office of Regional Economic Integration at the Asian Development Bank, noted that “China’s approach to influencing global governance is only beginning to emerge.” The dictatorship has openly stated as much.
Beijing has also been rapidly expanding its cooperation with — and in some cases domination of — regional governments, ranging from the European Union and the African Union to the Union of South American States, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and Putin’s Eurasian Union. China has even financed the construction of the entire $200 million headquarters of the African Union. And it is working with its own regional schemes including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a political, economic, and military cooperation body that includes the Kremlin and other governments in the region.
Still, despite its own additions to machinery of global governance, Beijing and its allies have made clear that the UN must remain at the center. In their final “New World Order to Live Well” declaration, signed by more than 130 rulers from around the world involved in the G77 plus Communist China bloc, the regimes called for what amounts to global tyranny, central planning, and massive wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to oppressive Third World governments. From a stronger UN better able to implement its “mandates” to empowering the UN General Assembly as an “emblem of global sovereignty,” the document demands a dramatic planetary transformation to be run and led by the UN itself.
“We fully respect the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations and international law,” the regimes said in the final agreement, calling for the “strengthening” of the UN for a wide variety of purposes. “We recognize that the United Nations needs to improve its capabilities and capacities to fully implement its mandates.” (Emphasis added.) The agreement, dubbed the “Declaration of Santa Cruz: For a New World Order for Living Well,” also called for empowering the despot-dominated UN General Assembly to be a sort of veto-proof planetary legislature. In other words, claims by analysts that China’s global governance projects are a “challenge” to the existing architecture of global governance are simply not credible.
Globalist Western Establishment Support
The unabashed support that Beijing enjoys from the highest echelons of the globalist Western establishment is nothing new. In fact, though full diplomatic relations between the United States and China were not established until 1978, U.S. policy decisions during and after World War II paved the way for the communist takeover of mainland China in 1949. “American diplomats surrendered the territorial integrity and the political independence of China … and wrote the blueprint for the Communist conquest of China in secret agreement at Yalta,” observed General Patrick Hurley, the U.S. Ambassador to China at the end of World War II. Numerous other senior U.S. officials have echoed those concerns. From equipping the Chinese Communists in the mid-1940s via the Soviet regime (under the guise of fighting Japan) to deliberately betraying nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, the U.S. government and the Western establishment were crucial to the betrayal of China to communism.
The globalists were evidently pleased with their handiwork. In a 1973 op-ed in the New York Times, for example, senior globalist architect David Rockefeller actually celebrated the mass-murdering regime after a trip to China. “Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose,” he claimed, seemingly oblivious to the ghoulishness of his words. “The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.” The Western banking magnate neglected to mention that it also resulted in the murder of an estimated 77 million innocent people, according to University of Hawaii democide scholar R.J. Rummel.
And in the 1990s, President Bill Clinton made sure that Beijing had access to America’s most sensitive military secrets and technology as part of what came to be known as “ChinaGate,” sparking outrage among senior U.S. military officials. “President Clinton promised to restrain those who ordered the Tiananmen Square massacre, but he has now allowed these men whose hands are stained with the blood of martyrs of freedom into the highest reaches of our military defenses, and made available to them significant portions of our advanced military technology,” wrote former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Thomas Moorer.
Without Western assistance, the Chinese Communist regime would not have been able to subjugate the mainland much less possess its present clout. Yet globalists believe it should be even more influential on the world stage. “The West has failed to accord China — not to mention the other major emerging economies — the degree of influence in today’s global governance structures that it merits,” complained globalist Javier Solana, the former secretary-general of NATO and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy. “This may be about to change.”
Throughout the piece, Solana also chastises the West for not giving the regime in Beijing even more control over “global governance.” He also calls repeatedly on “advanced countries” to “overcome their strategic mistrust of China.” “The West must still do more not only to welcome China to the table of global governance, but also to accept and cooperate with the institutions that the Chinese are now creating,” the former NATO boss continued. “China’s move into multilateral processes is good news for the world.”
Plenty of evidence suggests that the Western world’s decline and Communist China’s rise have been deliberately aided and even engineered by the globalist establishment in the United States and Europe. Again, as mentioned at the beginning of the article, billionaire George Soros, one of Obama’s most important backers, even put it explicitly, saying Communist China should “own” the “New World Order” in the same way the United States owns the fast-declining current world order. And that is exactly what is happening.
Earlier this year, the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, which played a key role in China’s rise and in the emergence of the “global governance” system being imposed on humanity, came out with a new report calling for revising the U.S. government’s “Grand Strategy” toward China. “Because the American effort to ‘integrate’ China into the liberal international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy in Asia — and could result in a consequential challenge to American power globally — Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than continuing to assist its ascendancy,” wrote CFR Senior Fellow Robert D. Blackwill and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate Ashley J. Tellis.
The admission that Washington, D.C., continues to “assist” China’s “ascendancy” — even if accompanied by a recommendation against continuing to assist — was a rare moment of honesty from the CFR. The rest of the report, though, is less so. Instead of revising strategy, for example, the report mostly advocates more Big Government, more globalism, and more of the same generally. In fact, its “solutions” for “balancing” the globalist-backed rise of Communist China read like a wish list of extremist globalist scheming — and would almost be comedic if the implications were not so serious, and likely to accelerate the decline of the United States as China rises.
For example, the CFR report calls on Congress to “substantially increase the U.S. defense budget.” Having the federal government that is $18 trillion in debt borrow even more money from Beijing to rein in Beijing makes about as much sense as George W. Bush’s 2008 claim that he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Also on the agenda are more pseudo-free trade regimes. “U.S. grand strategy toward China will be seriously weakened without delivering on the TPP [Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement],” the report claims. “A major push by the White House for ratification should therefore begin immediately in the new Congress, including seeking trade promotion authority.” Ironically, top Communist Chinese officials are also celebrating the TPP, expressing interest in joining while pointing out that it would serve as a steppingstone toward a broader Beijing/Moscow-led Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific (FTAAP). Other proposals include “revitalizing the U.S. economy” (though not with free markets or honest money), passing the draconian Cyber Information Security Protection Act (CISPA), and engaging in “high-level diplomacy with Beijing.”
None of that will do anything to contain Communist China or even slow the globalist buildup of its might. It will, however, further damage the United States while paving more road leading toward a more Beijing-centric World Order.
As Communist China’s brutal autocrats begin to wield more and more control over “global governance,” what might the “New World Order” they admit they are building look like — a world where the veto-proof, dictator-dominated UN General Assembly acts as the “emblem of global sovereignty”? The way China’s leaders “govern” the People’s Republic of China should provide a strong clue among many.
Already, with Beijing’s and Washington’s strong backing, the UN is on the verge of becoming a dictator-dominated global government, and the IMF is openly being groomed to serve as the planetary central bank. If liberty and Western Civilization are to survive, the brakes must be slammed on the plot — and soon. Whistleblowers from within the UN system who have spoken to The New American about the issue argue that a U.S. withdrawal from the UN and the broader emerging “global governance” regime is not even enough. Instead, the UN and its tentacles must be entirely abolished.
Still, even simply cutting off U.S. taxpayer funding and U.S. government support for the UN, the IMF, and various other organizations would go a long way toward reducing the threat. Ending the U.S. government’s suicidal policies toward Beijing — borrowing trillions of dollars from it just to stay afloat, for example, or turning a blind eye to the communist regime’s massive espionage apparatus aimed at the United States — will be important as well. Americans concerned about the danger must get educated, organized, and activated. If they do not, a Communist Chinese-style “New World Order” may well become a reality, while liberty and sovereignty disappear. (Source)
Unlike the massive invasion of the United States by illegal aliens across our southern border, a deliberate policy perpetrated by the Biden regime, China has conducted what one could describe as a slow-motion invasion over decades, which began with the “Opening” of China under the Nixon Administration and accelerated thereafter.
Again, unlike the present invasion of poor, non-English-speaking, occasionally criminal illegal aliens, China has sent highly educated, English-speaking professionals to colonize the highest levels of American business and academic institutions.
The Chinese Communist Party has exploited America’s traditional and legal real estate industry to facilitate that migration, no doubt as part of an effort to shift U.S. political opinion, foreign policy and trade practices to those more favorable to Beijing in ways not so dissimilar to China’s cultivation of Hunter Biden.
Key elements of that exploitation include 100% Chinese-owned and operated real estate agencies, appearing and disappearing Chinese-controlled small corporate entities and apparent facilitators within Chinese communities in major American cities.
The following is based on actual individuals and companies, whose names have been changed, but are representative of the activities described above.
Yu Wang is Chief Executive Officer of a 100% Chinese-owned and operated real estate agency with four offices in a major U.S. metropolitan area. In his second more concealed occupation, Yu Wang acts as an immigration facilitator within a U.S. subsidiary of a large Shanghai-based Chinese conglomerate operating in the international real estate market.
Yu Wang advertises in Chinese language websites offering immigration counseling, relocation assistance and property purchasing services for Chinese who wish to emigrate to the United States, in particular, young English-trained university students. American universities play a major role in “sanitizing” young English-trained Chinese, who, upon graduation, are immediately hired by Chinese-owned companies or left-wing U.S. corporations, which places them on a path to U.S. citizenship and eventual professional positions that can be useful for the Chinese Communist Party.
One such example involves Li Tang, who graduated from a Chinese university and received a Master’s degree in Business Administration from a major U.S. university. After a few entry-level intermediate positions, Li Tang was hired as an Analyst by the U.S. subsidiary of the Beijing-based Yangtze River International Investment Company, which provides start-up funding for cutting-edge technological entrepreneurs.
Although not part of Yangtze River’s portfolio, young Li Tang nevertheless appears as a Director of a real estate company that has a 50% interest in a strip mall building in Honolulu, Hawaii. The strip mall itself does not have a real estate office, but its address is used by another real estate company connected to purchases by Chinese nationals of properties nearby U.S. military installations in the Hawaiian Islands.
Also recruited into the Chinese Hawaii-California real estate network is Gao “George” Yang, a Chinese national and former real estate agent in Canada, who oddly interrupted his career to move to California, becoming an employee of a 100% Chinese-owned and operated real estate agency.
Although Gao “George” Yang has no sales responsibilities in the Hawaiian Islands, he is a Director of at least four different real estate companies connected to a Chinese real estate operation in Hawaii involved in the purchases by Chinese nationals of residencies nearby U.S. military installations. Two of the companies of which Gao “George” Yang is a Director are registered in the Seychelle Islands, a location long considered a haven for money laundering operations.
If all of the above seems complicated, convoluted and difficult to understand, it is probably designed to be that way in order to obscure Chinese Communist Party activities in the U.S. real estate industry.
Secret Societies in China
Thanks to the latest Hollywood martial arts blockbuster along with a steady stream of Hong Kong action films, audiences around the world have been entertained by wild and colourful portrayals of Chinese secret societies. These extravagant fictional tales often obscure the plain truth that for at least two thousand years secret societies did play a vital part in the dynamics of China’s political, social and religious life. Right up to the birth of the People’s Republic in 1949, secret societies were a special characteristic of old China.
“The officials draw their power from the law; the people, from the secret societies.”
This Chinese saying sums up the centuries-old conflict between rulers and ruled, privileged and oppressed in imperial China. Secret societies were directly involved in all the peasant rebellions in Chinese history. As early as the second century, the armed uprising that eventually overthrew the Han dynasty was instigated by a Taoist sect called the Yellow Turbans, whose leader was renowned for his gift of spiritual healing and supernatural powers. The Yellow Turbans in their mixture of religion and political dissatisfaction may be regarded as the forerunners of the secret societies that sprang up all across China.
By organizing opposition to excessive taxation and the despotism of corrupt bureaucrats, secret societies gained widespread support. In the words of Chinese historian Teng Ssu-Yu, they were the “nerve centers” of opposition to the imperial government, “which profit from favorable circumstances to start insurrections and rebellions.”
The secret society formed a hidden parallel empire, a state within a state, and this was a major source of its strength. Nocturnal initiation ceremonies, arcane teachings, secret signs, symbols and passwords, all helped bind a member’s loyalty to the fraternity. As China expert Jean Chesneaux explains:
The secret societies claimed a rival order to that of emperor and mandarins. Vis-à-vis established society they constituted an ‘anti-society’ in the sense in which modern physicists talk of an anti-matter or an anti-universe…
Their rites, secrets, oaths of initiation, conventional ideograms – features of which the Triad has provided very typical examples but which are found also in all similar associations – made a powerful contribution towards the consolidation of this autonomous order.
The discipline was extremely strict, and any violation, betrayal, or collusion with the authorities was punished by death.1
One of the most influential of China’s secret societies went by the name White Lotus. It often had to change its name in order to conceal its identity, and was associated with other groups, principally the Society of Heaven and Earth (also called the Hung society or Triad). The White Lotus functioned primarily as a spiritual body, but in times of political dissatisfaction and social upheaval it quickly took on the outer characteristics of a radical political movement.
As a Chinese imperial decree written in 1813 points out:
In normal times the society was engaged in daily worship… and preached that by reciting scriptures and verses, one can escape the dangers of swords and arms, water and fire…. But in times of famine and disorder they might plot for the Greater Enterprises (the founding of a new dynasty).
The White Lotus society led one of the largest rebellions in the second quarter of the fourteenth century against the foreign rule of the Mongols. Known as the Red Turban Rebels (due to their distinctive red headbands) White Lotus members were behind the formation of the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) headed by former Buddhist monk Chu Yuan-chang, who assumed full imperial powers under the title Hung Wu. According to Professor Chesneaux:
Chu Yuan-chang [Hung Wu], the leader of a peasant rebellion against the Mongol Yuan dynasty in the fourteenth century, belonged to the White Lotus sect, of Manichaean origin, and the name of the new dynasty which he founded, the Ming (which means ‘light’ in Chinese), originated in the esoteric vocabulary of the Manichaeans.2
That the Ming emperor Hung Wu was both a former Buddhist monk and a Manichaean initiate is significant because the White Lotus teachings blended Buddhism and native Taoism with Gnostic elements which had entered China from Central Asia with Manichaean missionaries.
Later secret societies venerated Hung Wu above all other historical figures and pledged their allegiance to the Ming dynasty that he established hundreds of years after its collapse. In 1644 the foreign Manchus, who had menaced the Chinese Empire for centuries, claimed the Dragon Throne and established the Ch’ing dynasty. The secret society networks were united in a common purpose: “Overthrow the Ch’ing and restore the Ming.”
By the nineteenth century the cruel and despotic misrule of the Manchus had resulted in nearly a century of political and religious turmoil, leaving China in chaos and unable to effectively confront Western incursions. In the history of all the popular rebellions the name of the White Lotus appears and disappears. They have been linked with the famous Shaolin Temple of Chan Buddhism, reputedly where Chinese martial arts originated, and the Shaolin monks who took a blood oath to resist the Ch’ing dynasty.
After the failure of the two great insurrections of the late eighteenth century, the White Lotus was the victim of violent persecution. In 1813 White Lotus members called the Eight Diagrams (named after geometrical figures used in Taoist divination) nearly took over the Forbidden City in Beijing. The Society of Heaven and Earth or Triads absorbed much from the White Lotus tradition, and is sometimes regarded as its successor. Persecuted and hunted down by government forces, White Lotus initiates either organized new societies under new names or assimilated with the Triads.
All these secret fraternities while clearly united in one political aim summed up in the slogan, “Overthrow the Ch’ing and restore the Ming,” also had their core mystical elements and ceremonial rites. They believed in, and taught, occult techniques to their members, among them the use of ‘magic amulets’ and numerology. J.S.M. Ward, an early twentieth century British expert on secret societies and bishop of an esoteric Christian community, concluded that,
“the Hung or Triad Society seems justly entitled to claim that it is a lineal descendant of the Ancient Mysteries. Its signs are of primeval antiquity…”
Bishop Ward published an exhaustive study of Triad practices, documenting the striking similarities to those of many other secret organizations. At this point it is worth commenting on a strange connection between the secret societies of the Far East and Western esotericism. In the 1880s a young French aristocrat deserted the Foreign Legion in Indochina to join a network of secret societies, the T’ien-ti hui and the Bac Lieu. These Triads were of Chinese origin and viewed as Taoist societies. Count Albert de Pouvourville (1861–1940) thus described his membership in the Triads as a “Taoist initiation.”
On his return to Paris, de Pouvourville became a successful writer and journalist, publishing under his Taoist initiate’s name Matgioi. In his writings he condemned French colonial policy in Southeast Asia and explored Chinese and Vietnamese history. He also undertook important translations of Taoist texts. At the same time Albert de Pouvourville, the Taoist secret society initiate, joined the Gnostic Church in Paris and was consecrated a bishop with the spiritual name of Tau Simon. Around 1904 he launched the journal La Voie, and published Les Enseignements secrets de la Gnose (The Secret Teachings of Gnosis).
Stanislas Guaita, another French writer and occultist, was strongly influenced by de Pouvourville, as was Rene Guenon who acknowledged him as “one of my Masters” in 1918. Through Count de Pouvourville, Guenon received a Taoist initiation and was led to write his own studies of the metaphysics of the Taoist tradition.
By the start of the twentieth century China’s secret society networks had grown into a considerable force. They had long experience of resistance to the imperial bureaucrats and could rely on the support of the peasants and the poor.
Writing in 1908, a young Chinese radical living in exile in Paris noted how throughout the Chinese Empire there existed, “secret revolutionary associations whose importance in the history of China has been great and whose activity in the contemporary [revolutionary] movement is considerable.”
The hated Ch’ing dynasty continued on until 1911 when it was overthrown by Dr. Sun Yat Sen’s Republican Party, with the considerable aid of the Triads. vA Triad member of long standing, Sun Yat Sen had made use of the secret society networks to recruit supporters, raise funds, and disseminate propaganda on behalf of the Republican cause.
The 1911 Revolution fulfilled one of the Triad’s traditional aims – “Overthrow Ch’ing.” On a visit to the tombs of the Ming emperors, China’s first president declared that the Ch’ing had finally been dethroned. Mao Zedong is known to have been a keen student of Chinese history particularly China’s numerous peasant uprisings. Mao studied the structure and role of secret societies in these tumultuous events, and used this knowledge in building the Chinese Communist Party and waging a successful guerrilla war against both the Japanese invaders and the right-wing forces of Chiang Kai-shek.
In these struggles Chairman Mao appealed directly to the ‘revolutionary spirit’ of the secret societies, urging them to join the ant-Japanese resistance and work for the liberation of China.
Continued on next page…
