The growing dominance of the CCP is already having profound effects upon what remains of the West. In the space of time of the Covid plandemic, Western elites have been willing to dismantle the few remaining freedoms of liberal democratic societies, and engage in previously unheard of oppression, such as locking down an entire society for months. Putting millions of people into home prison is the next level beyond the gulags, because it is imprisonment on the cheap; the state does not even pay for your imprisonment. We are becoming the CCP, and the original CCP is just getting started! Read on.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/10/why_i_fear_chinese_dominance.html
“From 1945 to the present day, the United States has been the world's dominant power, militarily, economically, and culturally. But a lot of people realize that this is changing, and soon, China will probably be the dominant power.
Perhaps you saw the news a few days ago about how Boston Celtics games have been removed from Chinese media after Celtics forward Enes Kantor made a video about the oppression of Tibet? As China is the NBA's biggest emerging market, it would be naïve to think that Kantor isn't in for an unpleasant word from the Celtics' owner and/or manager.
Or perhaps you remember back in May how the actor and WWE wrestler John Cena was cajoled into telling his Chinese fans that he was "very sorry" for calling Taiwan a country? "I made a mistake," he said, "It's so, so, so, so, so, so important — I love and respect Chinese people ..."
When China is the world's dominant commercial power and also cares deeply about the ideological purity of those it does business with, it is only natural that the tendrils of the Chinese Communist Party will reach across the ocean and strangle freedom of speech in distant lands.
Despite the minor embarrassment of COVID-19, Chinese power and prestige are rising steeply. And let's be honest here: even COVID isn't as wholly Chinese a problem as some naïve Americans like to think.
Were the Chinese scientists in the lab from which the virus probably escaped doing things that would have been illegal in the United States? You bet. But you've also got to remember that the experiments were funded by American government money, while American virologists like Anthony Fauci were talking up the need for "gain of function" research and downplaying its hazards.
Basically, what we are looking at is a joint Sino-American snafu. It is definitely not a case of the innocent USA being bitten without reason by the Chinese Communist Party.
But such is the changing of empires. The bumbling incompetence of the declining empire paves the way for a new empire to arise. The Chinese have always known this.
Also, when you look at its history and culture, you'll see that domination is China's destiny — in the past, regional domination, and in an increasingly likely future, global domination.
In name, the People's Republic of China is a socialist/communist country. But the slogan "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" makes more sense if you read it the other way around: traditional Chinese statecraft with a thin veneer of socialism.
Communist rule in the Soviet Union and its satellites collapsed when their economies failed, and the mismatch between the utopian promises of communism and its dreary reality led their governing elites to lose faith in the communist worldview.
But this is a poor model for China's future because China has been headed away from that situation since the 1980s when Deng Xiaoping's reforms restored China's traditional form of political economy: a semi-controlled market economy led by authoritarian nationalist scholar-bureaucrats.
The fact that, for nearly two millennia, this system made China the wealthiest and most technologically advanced civilization in the world (with Europe's recent period of dominance being brief in comparison) should clue us in to its durability.
I put little stock in Western dreams that China's populace will someday rebel in pursuit of American-style personal freedoms. While China's history includes a long tradition of insurrections against governments that have failed to govern well (or that have lost the Mandate of Heaven, as the Chinese say), China's concept of what a government should be doing in the first place is different from the Western version.
The typical Chinese man wants his family to be well fed. He wants to have a fair chance at prospering in his trade. He wants his country to be free of bandits and marauding barbarians. He wants to avoid being robbed by nakedly corrupt officials. Deprive him of those things for long enough, and insurrections will boil up. This is what happened over and over again during the period from 1839 to 1949, which Maoists call the Century of Humiliations.
Starvation was common. Peasants were frequently robbed of everything they owned by landlords and other corrupt authorities. Barbarians were trashing the country.
The underclass responded in a variety of desperate ways. Some left everything behind to become "coolies" and work at low-wage jobs in places like Singapore and California. Others climbed out of poverty by making their daughters become prostitutes, or turning their sons into court eunuchs (and since they often couldn't afford a professional castration, they would do the job at home, with household tools.)
And from time to time, the peasants grew angry enough to launch rebellions — also an act of desperation, especially when you realize that, apart from World War II, the two bloodiest wars in recorded history were the successful uprising against the Ming dynasty in 1644 and the failed Taiping Rebellion of 1850–1864.
The Chinese will rebel when things like what happened during those awful years are allowed to go on for too long, and they have the Confucian classics to teach them that they are right to do so. But in ordinary times, they are conformists, and they care little for democratic government, freedom of speech, racial equality, or the right of minorities to practice eccentric religions.
Right now, by all historical standards, China is prospering. Life for most Chinese is good and getting better. Wages are up, social mobility is up, China is dominating the barbarians, and so forth. Most Westerners believe the Chinese are wrong to be content with this, but most Chinese do not care.
Now, one of the tragedies of China is that the Han Chinese majority aren't the only people who have to live in a country shaped by Chinese values. The Chinese system of government, at its high points, is strong, efficient, and ruthless. And when the Chinese are able to, they expand their civilization as far out into their surroundings as they can.
The Miao, Tibetans, Mongols, and Uighurs are just a few of the ethnic minorities who have had the misfortune of being caught under the treads of the expanding Chinese civilization. And unlike the Han, these people have little recourse to insurrection, so long as the ordinary Chinese, who vastly outnumber them, are content. Because while the Mandate of Heaven may be lost, it can never be split.
Hence China's intensely negative attitude toward Uighur and Tibetan separatists and its willingness to go to great lengths to make sure that other countries do not treat Taiwan as a full sovereign. This attitude toward "breakaway provinces" can be seen all over Chinese history, when the establishment of multiple kingdoms after a dynasty fell was never followed by lasting peace among them, but by near-constant warfare, which could continue for more than a century if that's what it took to reunite the realm.
What does this have to say about the future?
Well, since China's power is rising, and the United States is rapidly losing the ability to keep the Chinese at bay, we can expect them to go on a conquering spree.
Taiwan will be an early target, and for a variety of reasons, I'm not optimistic about its chances of survival. Then will come a century or so of Chinese hegemony. I do not think China is interested in directly conquering most of the world, any more than the United States was during the "American Century." But the global dominance of American culture will end.
Washington's habit of fomenting regime change in distant countries will likely be taken over by Beijing (leading to different kinds of regimes being changed), and China will also be free to instigate wars over oil and other natural resources. The continued expansion of the "One Belt One Road" program will lead to more and more infrastructure throughout the world being owned by China — and thus to more and more profits flowing back to the motherland.
This is the future that the collective West is heading toward unless we work up the courage to oppose Chinese hegemony.”
The problem is that Western elites already welcome this regime replacing the American one, since they share the same ideology of globalism and one world communism. This agenda has been spelt out clearly in a comprehensive article at American Thinker.com, showing how the UN’s Agenda 2030 is well on the way to creating a One World government, where the West disintegrates, but communist China still maintains its existence.
"The U.N.'s Agenda 2030 is still in place, and the clock is ticking toward its empowerment — only eight years and two-plus months to go. This Agenda is for a new world government, which will implement the policies of the Agenda.
This new government on our horizon explains many of the failures in policies in these first months of the Biden administration. The failures are based not so much on mistakes as on deliberate sabotage to weaken our country, dilute the power that undergirds our sovereignty, and prepare us to accept one-world government.
The seed ideas for Agenda 2030 began with Pres. Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations in his Fourteen Points at the end of WWI. A community of nations could bring pressure for peace in the world that the treaty or alliance system could not do, as shown by the First World War. While this idea took hold in Europe and other countries, it was unable to gain sufficient traction in the U.S. as it met with Republican resistance in the U.S. Senate on the grounds that it would lead to a dilution of U.S. sovereignty.
With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, all right-thinking persons can see that Woodrow Wilson's first giant step toward globalism was rightly rejected. The League was a complete failure in terms of bringing peace to the world. To the German Nazi government, the League was a joke. The Japanese left the League after their invasion of China was repudiated. Yet Republican sway over U.S. governance became diminished by the four-time election of Franklin D. Roosevelt as president of the U.S. and the hegemony of the Democrat party for twenty years from 1933 to 1953.
After WWII, the U.N. was conceived of as having duties and functions that the League did not have. The U.N. would sustain the world in real ways with the establishment of the International Monetary Fund to strengthen currencies worldwide and the World Bank to finance and endorse vast construction projects. These institutions would together foster peace and "community" in our fragmented world (whispers of the "it takes a village" cliché that would take hold decades later). After all, is it not true that poverty is ultimately the cause of conflict in our world?
Yes, the U.S. and the other illogical leftists throughout the West and the other parts of the world bought into the Marxist idea that wars are caused by fierce competition for scarce resources. Even the great Harvard economist Walt Rostow in the 1950s and 1960s had a vision of global financial institutions through the sponsorship of the U.N. as bringing the poorest countries to a "take-off stage." There was only one problem with Prof. Rostow's well-researched and theoretically sound vision: take-off never happened. All that great Harvard research was not worth the paper it was written on. The wealth disparities among the developed world, the less developed countries (LDCs), and the less developed developing countries (LDDCs) persisted.
As a result of the perceived stratification of the world community, there was a paradigm shift in understanding the relations among the different wealth levels of societies. Many on the left believed that if the whole world were one, then the destitution and resulting despair of the poorer countries could not be dismissed as a failure of local nation-state governments to enact good policies or to be less corrupt. If, so to speak, all nations were under the same roof or same umbrella, the thought "that's their problem" could not easily obtain.
"Their problem" automatically would become "our problem," as we all are together under one government. This is an updating of the idea first put forward in 18th-century France by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that the best government is not the liberty-centered, individualistic, and rights-oriented government such as projected by John Locke; rather, the best government bypasses all exploitation by expressing the General Will — it is a vision that goes beyond mere teamwork, a vision of all for all. Any type of individualism or personal achievement is bourgeois and undermines true progress.
That brings us to Agenda 2030. This Agenda puts forward a plan for a new soft world government by the year 2030. It was a plan adopted unanimously by the U.N. on September 25, 2015, and has 91 sections. The Agenda covers every aspect of human experience and thus is a government without using the word government. Instead of stressing the word "rights" throughout, as did the original U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the word "rights" appears only once in the Agenda, in Section 19. Instead of "rights," the two buzzwords that appear throughout the Agenda are "needs" and "sustainability." "Needs" resonates with the Marxist dictum "from each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Just as the more wealthy and advanced countries engage in various socialist and social welfare programs to meet the needs of their poorer citizens, the wealthier countries will feel more obligated and be expected to contribute much more to the needs of their fellow citizens in their new global state. Trans-national identities of persons will replace national identities. The needs of people will be uppermost in peoples' minds, not their location in the world, ethnicity, religion, customs, mores, diets, appearances, and gender identities. All distinctions become subsumed under needs in this new vision of one world.
"Sustainability" also brings us into the sphere of commonality rather than differences. We all occupy one environment. Problems with the oceans near one place may have effects on air quality at another — distant — place. We all have to breathe the air on Planet Earth. We influence each other all over the world through carbon emissions and through our habits of waste disposal. Natural resources may be available to some countries more than others, but insofar as we are all residents of one planet, those resources ultimately belong to all. Sustainability according to this vision is a global issue, and it must be addressed as a global issue through a world government.
With this evolution of the U.N. before us, are we not better able to understand why the left is so comfortable with the collapse of our borders? With the capture and availability of so much U.S. military equipment in Afghanistan? With the overthrow of law and order in our cities so we look more and more like an unruly third-world country with each passing year? With our budgets so inflated that currency inflation and collapse are almost a certainty?
Yes, this writer is proposing that these recent "mistakes" are connected with the goal of a one-world government, which has already been enunciated and was signed onto by the USA. The disintegration we are facing in various sectors is, I believe, part of a move toward the collapse of our sovereignty in favor of a world government as outlined in Agenda 2030.”
This drive for world government has been accelerated by the Covid plandemic, which has been a training exercise for the population, as well as a social experiment in seeing just how much populations can take. As with Victoria the results are, with enough media propaganda, you can do virtually anything.
Communist China is the model of the dystopic future, if there is no counter.
“Since it first hit Netflix last month South Korean horror series Squid Game has captivated audiences in over 90 countries, quickly becoming the most watched international show in the streaming platform's history.
Viewers were enthralled by the blood-soaked dystopian thriller that pits players against each other in contests fought to the death for a chance to win cash.
And while the Asian drama is obviously fictitious and a pointed critique of modern life, one of the show's side plots where human beings have their organs harvested and sold is very real.
China's Communist Party removes hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas from 100,000 dissidents and political prisoners every year, with a government-run 'kill to order' organ-trafficking network operating on a grand scale, human rights groups claim.
But the international community remains powerless to stop the slaughter because the World Health Organisation is compelled to accept the totalitarian nation's 'inadequate and misleading' hospital data without question.
Just a week before the Netflix hit was released, Beijing furiously denied the existence of a state-sponsored organ harvesting program after the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner said China was 'targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities held in detention' and raking in a billion dollars a year.
Nine UN Special Rapporteurs from the Human Rights Council spent over a year unearthing witness testimony and examining China's highly suspicious organ donor rates to shed new light on the terrifying 'kill to order' market.
'UN human rights experts said today they were extremely alarmed by reports of alleged "organ harvesting" targeting minorities, including Falun Gong practitioners, Uyghurs, Tibetans, Muslims and Christians, in detention in China,' the statement said.
'They have received credible information that detainees... may be forcibly subjected to blood tests and organ examinations such as ultrasound and x-rays, without their informed consent; while other prisoners are not required to undergo such examinations.
'The results of the examinations are reportedly registered in a database of living organ sources that facilitates organ allocation.
'According to the allegations received, the most common organs removed from the prisoners are reportedly hearts, kidneys, livers, corneas and, less commonly, parts of livers.'
The grim statement also points out that this form of alleged trafficking relies heavily on skilled health care workers sworn to protect their patients including 'surgeons, anaesthetists and other medical specialists' as well as participation from various public sector professionals.
'Some prisoners receive death threats and threats of organ harvesting from the police, if they do not renounce their beliefs or refuse to cooperate with the police,' the statement said.
One of the 'red flags' with China's organ transplant system is that recipients can book surgeries at specific times and locations.
In other medical systems this does not happen because surgeons cannot predict when a person who has elected to be an organ donor will die.
Under an 'ethical' process approved by the WHO, the deceased's organs will be matched to the most urgent patient on a transplant list who is within travelling distance of the hospital.
For many desperate people it can take years to receive transplant surgery as recipients must be the same blood-type as the deceased and have the same sized organ.
But undercover phone calls made to Chinese hospitals as part of the independent China Tribunal hearings in 2019 show how fast patients can get surgery under the 'kill to order' system.
In one excerpt, Dr Feng Zhendong from a Shandong Province military hospital tells the investigator over the phone about the 'abundance of organs' which arrive 'every month'.
Although China's disturbing state-sponsored organ-trafficking has been well-documented for decades, there is very little the international community can do to stop the horrific trade.
Beijing is able to coverup their human rights abuses by under-reporting transplant data to the World Health Organisation which is compelled to accept the official statistics of member states.
Susie Hughes, the Executive Director of The International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China said China's claims they are performing 10,000 to 20,000 do not stack up.
'A recent statistical analysis of China's current organ transplant system showed the numbers China has been putting out have been falsified,' she told Daily Mail Australia.
'When you examine hospital revenues, bed utilisation rates and the number of surgical teams from the official Chinese data... the figure is more likely to be between 60,000 to 100,000 transplants per year.'
The China Tribunal found the Uyghur Muslim minority along with followers of the banned spiritual practice Falun Gong, are essentially being used 'as an organ bank' for domestic and foreign buyers.
Falun Gong practitioner Jinato Liu, who was incarcerated for over two years gave terrifying testimony to the expert panel.
'I was locked in a cell with about eight drug addicts, who were commonly induced to abuse Falun Gong practitioners.
'These drug addicts were rostered on shifts to persecute me by the guards' order.
'The cell had a surveillance camera installed, so the guards knew everything that happened inside.
'One day a drug addict inmate was beating my back and waist and another inmate came in from outside and yelled at him: "Don't injure his organs"!'
Uyghur prisoner Zumuret Dawut said she was taken to hospital on the first day of her three months in detention to have her organs scanned.
'Only after they removed the black hood from over my head did I realise I was in a hospital,' she said in her testimony.
'I saw police in uniform everywhere, also people wearing white coats walking about, so I guessed that I was in a hospital.
'They drew blood samples first, then X-rayed my internal organs.'
Another Falun Gong member, Yu Xinhui, who spend six years behind bars said a prison system medical practitioner had tried to warn him of the horror.
'One prison doctor who was sympathetic to us Falun Gong practitioners secretly told me,' Mr Yu said in his evidence.
'Don't go against the Communist Party. Don't resist them. If you do, when the time comes, you won't even know how you have died.
'When it happens, where your heart, liver, spleen and lungs will be taken, you won't even know.'
Despite the findings, Beijing has repeatedly denied forced human organ harvesting is practiced in China, calling the UN's statement 'fabricated' and 'defamatory'.
The Chinese government has also described the heart-breaking witness testimonies as coming from 'actors'.”