No products in the cart.


China: Staking Claim In The New World Order


For those in the Liberty Movement who can’t help but think that somehow Russia and China, along with the BRICS, are slated to be the saviors of the world, somehow, the truth is, that Russia, China and the BRICS all support the New World Order. It is the old con game of controlling both sides of an argument that is not being noticed by those same Liberty Movement individuals. Brandon Smith of, (and Associate Editor of this website), has pointed out, on numerous occasions, the absurdity of thinking that world leaders who openly speak of the New World Order, are here to save us. – Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

This article comes from the

by Alex Newman

Learning to speak Chinese may be a really good investment — at least if the globalists get their way.

In 2009, billionaire establishment power broker George Soros, a close ally and financier of Obama, called for the communist regime ruling mainland China to “own” what he referred to as the “New World Order.” Speaking to the Financial Times about what Obama should discuss while in Beijing, the self-styled philanthropist declared that the United States and the U.S. dollar were on their way down, and that the Communist Party regime must step up to the plate.

“I think you really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order, financial world order,” Soros told the Financial Times. “I think you need a new world order, that China has to be part of the proc­ess of creating it and they have to buy in, they have to own it in the same way as the United States owns … the current order.”

It was hardly a slip up. The next year, while receiving the Globalist of the Year award from the Canadian International Council, Soros again called for China’s participation in the emerging global-governance regime. “They have now got to accept responsibility for world order and the interests of other people as well,” declared Soros. “Today, China has not only a more vigorous economy, but actually a better functioning government than the United States.”

Soros, of course, is hardly the only senior globalist who has been openly celebrating the rise of Communist China’s rulers as key players in the emerging “New World Order.” From Beijing to Moscow and Washington, D.C., to London, globalists are all openly pushing for this new order, which is essentially just a euphemism for world government.

In a joint statement put out by Obama and then-Chinese dictator Hu Jintao, Obama made clear that he was fully on board with the agenda. “The United States reiterated that it welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful China that plays a greater role in world affairs,” the declaration reads.

The internationalists’ intent to make China an integral part of the New World Order — to even “own” it, according to Soros — should tell us a great deal about the type of New World Order Soros and his ilk envision. After all, not only does the People’s Republic of China hold the distinction of murdering more people than any other regime in history, but China today still brutalizes and oppresses its citizens, from forcing women to undergo abortions in compliance with its one-child policy to persecuting believers for practicing their faith (see the related article “Chinese Tyranny 2.0“). If such a regime is “actually a better functioning government than the United States,” as Soros claims, how would Soros have the new world function? How about his fellow globalists?

Anyone who doubts that a communist regime as despotic as China’s could realistically become a leading player in the New World Order need only to survey the record to learn otherwise. This record, summarized below, includes China’s ascendency in the existing “global governance” institutions — the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, and more. It also includes the new global governance architecture that China is building that will complement the already-existing structure, according to the architects themselves. Finally, the record shows that China is by no means single-handedly increasing its dominance — that Western globalists’ fingerprints are all over China’s rise.

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. George Soros, a close ally and financier of Obama is a TRAITOR to the USA, the American people, and the US Constitution. But then so is Obama, and Imust admit he is one OPENLY; along with Panetta, Dempsey, Holder, Pelosi (supposedly she is the one who did the “paperwork” for Obama to be a **”presidential candidate”), Rice, Napolitano (not the judge), Boehner, Feinstein, Boxer, etc, etc, etc (very long list) with many of those named and a lot not named but represented by “etc” OPENLY committed/decalred their treason against the American people.

    He lives here and benefits from America, he lawfully owes allegiance to the US Constitution. Obviously we need a Grand Jury investigation into his activities to see if he has actually committed any actions that support, and/or works to destroy the USA, the American people, and the US Constitution from within.

    Understand that he can be held, charged, prosecuted for Treason if enough evidence that convinces the Grand Jury panal that he should be. These are a eople’s tool, and it is the people, and no, we do not need to take a vote on it, but a group of people assigned to investigate his, and his underlings actions. Hopefully some few who has some skills in doing so.

    Anyone know any constitutional PI’s?

    *”… citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.””

    For those of you that do not speak “western” or “horses”, “unbridled” (today and when created) means “free from restraints”.

    The day we arrest, charge, etc them will become a major holiday for good reason.

    The internationalists’ intent to make China an integral part of the New World Order is fine, as long as they understand that America is not a part of it. So instead of calling it the “New World Order” let’s start referring to it as the “New World Order Except For the USA and Any Other Country That Wants Nothing To Do With Them” “NWOEFTUSAAAOCTWNTDWT”.

    Very difficult to create an acronym for that, anyone else have a better name? Guess we can call it the “Nothing To do With It” for short … or … “No Way!

    The only New World Order I want is Americans stepping up and taking responsibility, enforcing the US Constituton, state Constitution, our borders, arresting/charging/holding for prosecution the domestic enemies/Traitors of the USA and the American people, etc as WE ALL are REQUIRED to do.

    *“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It is a constitutional fixture in its own right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”.

    “Thus, citizens have the unbridled right to empanel their own grand juries and present “True Bills” of indictment to a court, which is then required to commence a criminal proceeding. Our Founding Fathers presciently thereby created a “buffer” the people may rely upon for justice, when public officials, including judges, criminally violate the law.” (Misbehavior, “Good Behaviour” requirement)

    “The grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside, we think it clear that, as a general matter at least, no such “supervisory” judicial authority exists. The “common law” of the Fifth Amendment demands a traditional functioning grand jury.”

    “Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the judicial branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. The grand jury’s functional independence from the judicial branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing, and in the manner in which that power is exercised.”

    “The grand jury ‘can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’ It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. It swears in its own witnesses and deliberates in total secrecy.”

    “Recognizing this tradition of independence, we have said the 5th Amendment’s constitutional guarantee presupposes an investigative body ‘acting independently of either prosecuting attorney or judge”

    “Given the grand jury’s operational separateness from its constituting court, it should come as no surprise that we have been reluctant to invoke the judicial supervisory power as a basis for prescribing modes of grand jury procedure. Over the years, we have received many requests to exercise supervision over the grand jury’s evidence-taking process, but we have refused them all. “it would run counter to the whole history of the grand jury institution” to permit an indictment to be challenged “on the ground that there was incompetent or inadequate evidence before the grand jury.” (Plus it would be unlawful on the part of those serving within the judicial branch as the Grand Jury is NOT under any branch of our governments jurisdiction – state or federal.) Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority said In the Supreme Court case of United States v. Williams, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 504 U.S. 36, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992)

Comments are closed.