Globalised Centralisation
The Menace
The allure of wealth translates into significant power, fuelling the ambitions of the Chinese communists and Leninists who, emboldened by their control over the vast expanse of mainland China, are more resolute than ever in their quest for global dominance. They adeptly replicate their strategies worldwide, often cloaked in the guise of proxies and joint ventures that masquerade as “common ownership”: in this context, serves as a mere façade concealing the true motives of Chinese communists, their powerful princelings, and an array of proxies. This strategy aims to create a vast network of influence that transcends national borders, ultimately undermining both market integrity and the foundational principles of democracy. Over the decades, this financial cultural revolution has manifested itself in various forms, revealing the extent to which these interests are willing to erode established norms in pursuit of control and dominance.
The complexity of this interconnected financial structure requires advanced technology to unravel its complexities, revealing connections that often elude human perception. At its core, this framework includes key financial constructs such as BlackRock, Blackstone, Bain Capital, State Street, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, and Vanguard, just to name a few, in addition to their many well-known subsidiaries, these entities also have a range of smaller, lesser-known subsidiaries that play crucial roles in supporting the overall operations, ensuring that the main organisation remains control in a dynamic market landscape. Notably, BlackRock stands out as a dominant force, wielding control over a vast portfolio of brands and companies spanning various industries globally. This intricate web of corporate ownership and influence not only underscores the magnitude of these financial constructs but also highlights their significant impact on the global economy, reinforcing the need for advanced analytical tools to interpret their interconnections and effects accurately. Furthermore, their operations extend beyond mere financial metrics, affecting market dynamics, regulatory frameworks, and even societal trends with profound implications for the power they have on the global economy and governance. Understanding the motives and frameworks of these financial behemoths is essential for effectively engaging with the complexities of this financial cultural revolution and its significant societal impacts.
The Silent Takeover
The Mineral Resources
The Australian mining industry is predominantly foreign-owned, with statistics indicating that 86% of the sector is under foreign control. Major players like BHP and Rio Tinto have significant foreign ownership, at 76% and 83% respectively, with primary shareholders including major investment firms such as BlackRock and Vanguard. Despite these companies being registered in the United States, the complex web of takeovers and acquisitions over many decades has obscured the true ownership dynamics, leading to a situation where a substantial portion of these mining and resource companies is now effectively under the influence of Chinese Communist interests, marking a notable shift in control and reflecting a successful financial cultural revolution that has unfolded over many decades in the mining and resources industry worldwide.
Rinehart’s name may be the public face of Hancock Prospecting operations, but it is the anonymous handlers behind the scenes who truly dictate the strategy and direction of Hancock Prospecting ventures. These individuals play a crucial role in shaping the decisions that drive its business empire. Their influence extends beyond mere management; they are the architects behind Hancock Prospecting, orchestrating moves while Gina Rinehart remains in the spotlight. The dynamic between her public persona and the shadowy figures guiding her actions raises questions about the nature of leadership and control in high-stakes industries. This dynamic mirrors the structure of the royal family, art and entertainment industry, all guided by the entourage; the Australia version of BlackRock.
The end-of-life services
In Australia, the unsettling discovery that InvoCare, the company monopolising the funerary industry, is another multinational corporation is alarming. InvoCare has three national brands, over 40 funeral brands, and 15 cemeteries and crematoria across Australia. Although it is registered in Australia, its ties to Singapore hint at a more complex and possibly exploitative ownership structure that indicates nefarious intentions. The monopolisation of the funeral industry by such corporations is concerning. The implementation of the China Model in Australia is occurring quietly, with the Chinese communists and its proxies controlling critical mineral resource sectors, healthcare and now funerary services. This situation evokes disturbing parallels to the Chinese communists’ notorious practices, such as organ harvesting, and raises concerns about the potential for abuse, including the unsettling possibility of organ trafficking arising from unfortunate events like car accidents. The recent revelations regarding unethical practices by retirement village operators, who have been siphoning wealth from older Australians, necessitate a thorough investigation. Unlike the funeral industry, the situation has not yet reached the monopoly level. However, they are adept at playing the long game, indicating that strategies are already in motion to fulfill their objectives. This silent cultural revolution aims to gradually assert control over the Five Eyes countries, raising significant concerns about the future of elder care and the integrity of financial practices within the sector, we must remain vigilant against these threats that lurk beneath the surface of our society.
The Health Care
In recent decades, the aggressive pursuit of systematic acquisitions by multinational corporations has escalated, particularly in the lucrative domain of primary care medical and pathology services, both in Australia and on a global scale. This strategic manoeuvring is often marked by complex ownership structures that utilise proxies and subsidiaries, many of which are registered in diverse countries, effectively obscuring the true nature of these strategies. Sonic Healthcare serves as a primary illustration of the ongoing trend of corporate consolidation in Australia’s healthcare industry, exemplifying how large investment firms, notably BlackRock, which commands a considerable share of Sonic Healthcare and numerous other companies in the industry. Additionally, many other companies that own shares in Sonic Healthcare also have majority of their shares owned by BlackRock. The implications of such concentrated ownership within the sector reflect a shift towards a more centralised and potentially less diverse healthcare system. As these financial constructs continue to merge and acquire, the influence of major investors like BlackRock becomes increasingly pronounced, shaping the future of healthcare delivery and access.
The consolidation of power among large financial constructs present serious challenges to the fundamental tenets of medical ethics, underscoring the pressing need for effective regulatory frameworks that prioritise public health. As these entities expand their reach through strategic investments and partnerships, the variety of treatment options for patients is increasingly at risk, undermining the essential values of healthcare, it is vital for society to stay alert to the subtle yet profound shifts in power dynamics that accompany this quiet but aggressive takeover. Our leaders must take immediate action to ensure that healthcare remains accessible and equitable for all, free from the sway of foreign interests that could threaten our collective well-being. The urgency to act is paramount, as failure to do so may result in irreversible consequences.
Global Centralisation
In addition to the silent takeover phenomenon observed in Australia, a similar troubling trend is evident in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. This reality reveals a landscape where both thriving and struggling businesses fall increasingly under the control of powerful interests, often backed by corrupt political figures driven by self-interest. Historical economic crises, such as the Global Financial Crisis and the COVID pandemic, seem to be strategically manipulated events that have enabled the systematic dismantling of numerous medium-sized firms and the obliteration of local small businesses. These crises have created opportunities for larger corporations to exploit the misfortunes of others, acquiring valuable assets at drastically reduced prices, thereby solidifying their monopolistic grip on various industries. Major conglomerates have skillfully navigated these turbulent times, not only absorbing distressed businesses but also fundamentally altering market dynamics to their advantage, raising significant concerns about the long-term implications for competition and consumer choice. The consolidation of power among a select few entities threatens to erode the very foundation of local economies, leaving communities vulnerable and defenceless. As local businesses struggle to compete, residents find themselves increasingly reliant on these large entities for essential services and products, which diminishes the community’s capacity for self-sustainability and creates a cycle of vulnerability that is challenging to break. With corporations prioritising profit over community welfare, a widening gap emerges between the needs of the people and the services provided, leaving many to navigate an uncertain future filled with challenges and diminished prospects for economic independence.
The Ultimate Pyramid Scheme
Invocare, currently under the ownership of TPG Capital, serves as a prime example of globalised centralisation, with significant shareholders such as BlackRock, Vanguard, and iShares: which is a branch of BlackRock itself. Similarly, Sonic Healthcare, owned by Healius Limited, has major stakeholders including Perpetual Investment and Vanguard, where Perpetual Investment is linked to KKR, whose largest shareholders are Vanguard, BlackRock, and Goldman Sachs. The ownership structure of HSBC further illustrates this intricate network, as it includes Ping An Asset Management, a state-owned entity of the Chinese Communist Party, alongside Vanguard and BlackRock. The acquisition of HSBC by Cathay Bank in February 2022, established by Chinese Americans, raises concerns about HSBC’s status as a de facto subsidiary of the Chinese Communist Party, highlighting the alarming convergence of global finance with political agendas. This situation is compounded by the substantial influence that investment firms like BlackRock and Vanguard wield over corporate governance in Western institutions, reflecting a broader trend of increasing Chinese communists’ engagement in global finance, exemplified by entities like the Foremost Group led by Angela Chao. These developments provoke critical inquiries regarding the ramifications for political dynamics to dictate corporate governance practices in the West.
The Aggressive Takeover
In the landscape of corporate strategy, aggressive takeovers represent a decisive and often combative tactic employed by companies aiming for market supremacy. This approach can manifest through various means, including hostile acquisitions, leveraged buyouts, or strategic partnerships that outpace competitors. Such takeovers are driven by the pursuit of market dominance, cost efficiencies, or the acquisition of valuable assets and intellectual property.
A clear example of this can be seen in China’s ascent as a dominant player in the automotive sector is a prime illustration of this strategy in action. Since 2009, the nation has employed a range of tactics, including joint ventures and acquisitions, to secure its position. The staggering production figure of over 27 million vehicles in 2022, accounting for more than 32% of the global output, starkly contrasts with the combined production of the European Union, the United States, and Japan. This data not only underscores China’s manufacturing prowess but also highlights the significant disparity in production capabilities, with the U.S. trailing significantly at 10.1 million vehicles. Moreover, the Chinese government has invested heavily, providing over $3.7 billion in subsidies to BYD, aiming to stifle competition and create a monopoly in the electric vehicle sector. This financial support allows BYD to price its products aggressively, jeopardising the survival of other automotive manufacturers. Concurrently, TEMU has inundated the market with competitively priced goods, a strategy rooted in slave labor, a tactic intended to weaken global rivals and secure a commanding presence across various sectors. Through these aggressive pricing strategies, both BYD and TEMU illustrate how state-backed enterprises can effectively disrupt established market dynamics and challenge traditional competition on a worldwide stage.
In Summary
Australia’s automobile manufacturing industry began in the early 1900s with the establishment of local assembly plants. The first Australian-built car, the 1901 H.V. McKay’s “Sunshine,” and the establishment of companies like Holden in 1917 marked the beginning of a burgeoning industry. By the 1920s, companies like Ford and General Motors had set up operations, leading to a significant increase in domestic production, with local brands like Holden becoming iconic. With government policies in the 1970s aimed at promoting local production, there were innovations and an increase in domestic car models with brands such as Toyota, Nissan, and Mitsubishi. However, by the 21st century, the industry began grappling with the effects of globalisation, resulting in a gradual decline in production capacity and the closure of major manufacturing plants by 2017. Today, Australia remains a hub for automotive innovation and design rather than mass production, reflecting a shift in focus as manufacturing jobs have largely migrated to countries like mainland China.
Globalised centralisation signifies a major shift in governance, marked by the consolidation of power among a few influential entities that operate beyond national borders. The growing dominance of multinational accounting firms enhances their control over financial institutions and governance, raising concerns about the integrity of these systems. These firms function independently of political leadership, highlighting the urgent need to diversify to protect national sovereignty. Their unchecked power risks undermining governance structures that should prioritise public welfare, instead serving the interests of anonymous stakeholders. To preserve national independence, it is crucial to foster an environment where smaller businesses can flourish, leading to a governance system that is both transparent and representative. Additionally, this centralising trend poses broader challenges to equity and representation, potentially eroding the resilience necessary for nations to navigate the complexities of a global economy, ultimately threatening long-term viability and competitiveness in an interconnected world.
The “financial cultural revolution” represents a paradigm shift in resource management, fundamentally reshaping the country of commercial exploitation. At the heart of this movement lies the strategic acquisition and control of vital resources, including the widespread deforestation for paper production and the extraction of essential minerals such as lithium, which is crucial for battery manufacturing. These resources are frequently sourced from various countries, with the processed products being shipped back to a multitude of markets. This cyclical approach mirrors the tactics employed by Chinese communists, who strategically harness foreign investments and intellectual property. These strategies enable Chinese corporations and their affiliates to reap substantial profits while minimising their financial and material contributions. This method reflects a calculated, and at times, ruthless approach to international trade, prioritising profit maximisation over ethical considerations and sustainable practices. Consequently, the long-term implications for global equity and environmental sustainability are significant, as we navigate the rapid evolution of the information superhighway, it is becoming increasingly clear that we must prioritise the protection of our borders, both tangible and intangible. The digital realm is advancing at a remarkable speed, yet our security protocols appear to be trailing behind, rendering us susceptible to multiple threats that are breaching our systems and jeopardising our safety. This negligence has exposed us to significant vulnerabilities, underscoring the urgent need for a comprehensive evaluation of our security strategies. It is imperative that we adopt robust measures that not only tackle the intricate nature of modern threats but also strengthen our physical and invisible borders, ensuring a holistic defence that can withstand the challenges into the future.
Let’s set aside the blame and focus on uniting against the malevolent forces that have already made significant progress in their plans. It is crucial that we come together to protect our future and that of our children by working collaboratively to overcome these challenges.
3rd October 2024
