THE END OF FRANCE: Dystopian Paris CANCELS New Year’s Eve Concert in the Champs Elysées Over Fears of Migrant Violence

New Year’s Eve was stolen by Globalist suicidal policies.

While failing President Emmanuel Macron goes gallivanting about, running interference in the Russia-Ukraine Peace Plan and pretending to tell people in other countries how to go about their businesses, France is slowly dying.

When Donald J. Trump’s administration talks about ‘civilizational erasure’, that’s what they’re talking about: Paris has had to cancel its traditional and world-famous New Year’s Eve Fête and Concert in the Champs Elysées.

Why? Because of fears of widespread migrant violence.

Congratulations, Macron – you finally screwed France beyond repair.

The New York Post reported:

“The massive midnight concert that drew a jubilant crowd of a million people last year — with the festivities having drawn throngs to the ‘most beautiful avenue in the world’ for six decades — has been scrapped and replaced by a pre-recorded video to be viewed in the safety and comfort of French living rooms.

The fireworks will still illuminate the Arc de Triomphe when the clock strikes 12, but with officials urging revelers to watch on television rather than in person, the soirée will be a far cry from the famed French joie de vivre of years past.”

Keep reading

The Key To Understanding The Cult Of Globalism’s War On The West

The culture war in the western world is currently hitting a crescendo. At first the media said it was all “conspiracy theory” being amplified by a “fringe minority” of radical right wingers. Then, they admitted the conflict was real but claimed that conservatives were monsters trying to “dismantle democracy”. Today, the culture war has become the dominant issue of our age with the debate echoing through the halls of the White House.

Leftists hoped they could make it all go away by dismissing it. They hoped they could continue with their ideological takeover at their leisure. They failed.  The rebellion in the US is a product of decades of effort by liberty advocates and it is finally bearing fruit.

However, I think many Americans and some Europeans are discovering that movements like progressive wokism (essentially Cultural Marxism) are much more than a mere reaction to the return of conservatives to the cultural space. The fight that’s happening in front of the curtain is only a dim reflection of the fight that’s going on behind the curtain.

Almost every facet of leftist political and social activism is bankrolled by some of the wealthiest organizations and individuals on the planet. In fact, I would argue that without the billions of dollars in global funding provided by NGOs, government entities and corporations, the political left as we know it would not exist and the world would be much quieter.

A prime example is anti-ICE organizations: These groups have access to extensive cash reserves to finance call networks, they pay for hundreds or even thousand of protesters and agitators, they pay for legal representation and bail to get their activist agents out of jail, and they often obtain inside information on ICE operations before those operations occur.

These groups function less like homegrown civil rights efforts and more like clandestine government agencies. And, if you check the tax backgrounds of all of them you will find, without fail, that they’re propped up by NGOs like the Open Society Foundation, Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, global corporations like Vangaurd and Blackrock, and government bureaucracies like USAID (before it was shut down).

Nothing about these movements is natural, they are purely astroturf. It might look like chaos, but every time you see leftist mobs on the news trying to interfere with ICE arrests and deportations, what you are watching is a highly organized machine flush with globalist cash working to undermine US sovereignty.

Keep reading

EU Court Rules Catholic Poland Must Recognize Foreign Same-Sex Marriages Despite National Law

The globalist empire just fired another shot at Christian Europe: Luxembourg’s activist court, the European Court of Justice (ICJ), has ordered majority-Catholic Poland to recognize same-sex “marriages” performed abroad, even though the Polish Constitution explicitly defines marriage as one man and one woman.

Two Polish men—one also holding German citizenship—went to Berlin in 2018, got a German marriage certificate, and then demanded Warsaw register it as a marriage for residency and benefits.

When Poland said no, the EU’s chief cultural globalism-enforcement court screamed “discrimination.”

The ECJ claims refusing to recognize the Berlin paperwork violates “freedom of movement” and “family life”—the same tired excuses Brussels always uses to nullify national sovereignty.

Apparently, no EU country is allowed to protect traditional marriage once a single member state adopts it.

Polish Christians are furious, and rightly so. Law and Justice MP Marcin Romanowski called it “a blatant violation of conferred competences” and a “perverse interference” in Poland’s sovereign right to define family.

Former Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro went even harder, branding the ECJ “the most politicized quasi-court in Europe” that now tramples all over Poland’s Constitution and the clear will of its Catholic majority.

The court, in a press release detailing the judgment, wrote: “Member States are therefore required to recognize, for the purpose of the exercise of the rights conferred by EU law, the marital status lawfully acquired in another Member State.”

Member states “enjoy a margin of discretion to choose the procedures for recognizing such a marriage,” the court added.

The ruling does not obligate countries to introduce same-sex marriage under their national laws, the court said.

Despite that, the ruling is designed specifically to blow the doors wide open: foreign same-sex certificates will now be used to collect spousal benefits, residency rights, and eventually adoption of kids bought on Western surrogacy markets.

Keep reading

Is Global Technocracy Inevitable Or Dangerously Delusional?

The bewildering truth behind human technological enslavement is that it is impossible without the voluntary participation of the intended slaves. People must welcome technocracy into their lives in order for it to succeed. The populace has to believe, blindly, that they cannot live without it, or that authoritarianism by algorithmic consensus is “inevitable.”

For example, the average person living in a first world economy voluntarily carries a cell phone everywhere they go at all times without fail. To be without it, in their minds, is to be naked, at risk, unprepared and disconnected from civilization. I grew up in the 1980s and we did just fine without having a phone on our hip every moment of the day. Even now, I refuse to carry one.

Why? First, as most people should be aware of by now (the Edward Snowden revelations left no doubt), a cell phone is a perfect technocratic device. It has multilayered tracking, using GPS, WiFi routers, and cell tower triangulation to track your every step. Not only that, but it can be used to record your daily patterns, your habits, who your friends are, where you were on any given day many months or years ago.

Then there’s the backdoor functions hidden in app software that allows governments and corporations to to access your cell’s microphone and camera, even when you think the device is shut off. The private details of your life could be recorded and collated. In a world where privacy is being declared “dead” by boasting technocrats, why help them out by carrying something that listens to everything you say and chronicles everything you do?

Keep reading

“Global Governance”: Communists, Globalists All In on World Government

Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) are all in on “global governance.” So too are the Marxists of the Socialist International and globalist elites of the World Economic Forum, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Council of Councils (the CFR’s 27 affiliated foreign Councils; see list), Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs, or RIIA), the Trilateral Commission, the Club of Rome, the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, etc.

Fully aware that widespread resistance to their plans for world government has rendered an open march in that direction futile, the dedicated one-worlders have for decades settled for gradual encroachments on national sovereignty in the name of “international law,” “rules-based norms,” and “sustainable development goals.” All of this has been packaged under the coded catchphrase of “global governance,” a term that is coming more and more to the fore — and is being fleshed out in alarming detail.

China’s Global Governance Initiative

“I look forward to working with all countries for a more just and equitable global governance system and advancing toward a community with a shared future for humanity,” Chinese President Xi Jinping said upon putting forward a proposal during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Plus Meeting in September. “The Global Governance Initiative (GGI) proposed by Chinese President Xi Jinping provides important guidance for the future development of the United Nations,” said Fu Cong, China’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in October. UN Secretary-General António Guterres “underscored the importance of safeguarding the international system with the United Nations system at its core, an international order underpinned by international law, and he welcomed [Xi Jinping’s] Global Governance Initiative,” Guterres’ spokesman said in a press briefing.

Xi’s GGI imagines a totalitarian, communist-style regime for the entire planet. That it is being applauded by internationalists of all stripes is hardly surprising, given that they have been pushing this theme for decades. As we noted back in 1996 (“Target: World Government”), the report of the UN-appointed Commission on Global Governance (CGG), Our Global Neighborhood, had just gone to considerable lengths in a ridiculous attempt to claim that they were not, not, NOT proposing “world government” — which is precisely what they were advocating.

“The development of global governance is part of the evolution of human efforts to organize life on the planet,” CGG co-chairmen Ingvar Carlson and Shridath Ramphal wrote. “As this report makes clear, global governance is not global government. No misunderstanding should arise from the similarity of terms. We are not proposing movement towards world government.” Oh, no, no, no, of course not.

We further noted:

One need only recur to a standard dictionary to glimpse the semantic sleight of hand at work here. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary gives but a one-word definition for “governance,” and that is “government.” And world government is precisely what the Commission on Global Governance is proposing. That is plainly evident on the face of their proposals, all of which invariably advocate increasing strictures on national sovereignty and the transferring of legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the United Nations or its subsidiary multilateral institutions — always in the name of peacekeeping, nationbuilding, saving the environment, helping the poor, disarmament, fighting organized crime, etc.

Keep reading

Global Transformation of Food Systems – The Killing Off of Food Sovereignty

A significant event took place last month at the Stockholm Food Forum, based on a recently published ‘global health’ document by ‘EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0’ calling for a top down “global transformation of food systems”.

It was presided over by none other than Tedros Ghebreyesus, Director General of The World Health Organisation, with the close support of foundations – including Bill Gates, Bloomberg and Rockerfeller, as well as corporate giants Nestle, Cargill and Unilever – with The World Economic Forum also featuring high on the list of backers.

Tedros Ghebreyesus stated that the central theme of the gathering was the need for “a top down, inclusive and equitable transformation of food systems” and the need for countries ‘to regulate food production and consumption’.

I think we know what he meant by this – the late Dr Henry Kissinger declared a few decades earlier,

“He who controls the food controls the people.”

But the official public relations message spins this global control heist as a push for the ‘better health’ of the world, postulating what sounds like a fashionable list of general dietary improvements as recommended by ‘The One Health Initiative’: less red meat, fish, eggs, dairy products and a reduction of highly processed foods – as well as outright bans and health warnings printed on packaging, like with cigarettes. 

The end goal is stated to be ‘the integration of food policy with trade, agricultural and climate policies’.

Well, trade, agricultural and climate policies are already an inpenetrable disaster, so food is to be locked into the same prison camp.

Yes, Mr Tedros, admirable proclamations for the unwary, but we have woken-up to your spin on what constitutes ‘world health’ and we know that what you actually want to tell us – because it’s completely in line with the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Agenda 2030, Green New Deal and the Net Zero fantasy, all of which you already directly or indirectly preside over.

This, as you know, includes the end of farming as we know it (Methane/CO2 releases) and the removal from the land of the last truly independent human beings – farmers – who just might resist being told what to do by a bunch of deluded technocrats and psychotic power obsessed criminals.

The Lancet report, upon which this conference was based, highlights the coming role of digital tools in monitoring citizens’ diets and lifestyles, stating that soon it will be possible to introduce CO2 emission tracking systems linked to food consumption and ways of identifying compliance with nutritional recommendations. 

Well, well, that certainly has a familiar ring about it.

Could the authors possibly be referring to the need for ‘Smart Cities’ to act as ‘reservations’ for those swept up in the moral crusade to rid the planet of all who fail to comply with the cult’s preplanned hunger games?

No – Gates, Tedros, Cargill, Nestle and the WEF only have humanitarian motivations behind their wish to be in control of the transformation of food systems. I must apologise for allowing any such thought to come to my mind.

Keep reading

Rise and Fall of the Neuralink Society

At the beginning of September, I settled for a couple of weeks in the Himalayas in northern India. I was there to give a few contributions at a conference on local economies. “Where exactly in the desert sand of this life is the line drawn that separates fiction from non-fiction?” — that thought occupies me as the Airbus 320 prepares to land at the airport of Leh. I’m not quite sure why I begin this text with that thought. What I actually want to write about is the human urge for order — and its connection to totalitarianism.

The plane weaves its way between mountain peaks that disappear into the clouds on either side. The ochre-grey rock of the Himalayan giants sometimes seems to come alarmingly close to the dipping and swaying tips of the wings. It feels more like stunt flying than commercial aviation. Just before the plane drops onto one of the highest public airstrips in the world, we’re informed that, should we feel the need to vomit from lack of oxygen right after landing, we can make use of the plastic bag in the seat pocket in front of us.

Leh airport stands at 3,500 meters, in what can best be compared to a majestic lunar landscape — a cold desert above the tree line. The building itself is nothing but a series of barracks, where tourists gasp for air in the thin atmosphere and hope they won’t fall prey to altitude sickness. A rickety conveyor belt bravely rattles its loads of suitcases inside. I drag off my large green suitcase, skip the long queue in front of the three sparse toilet doors, step out onto the asphalt square at the main exit, and after some searching, find a taxi to take me to the Slow Garden Guesthouse.

The first images of the Himalayas pass like a film across a taxi’s window smeared with grease marks and dust, accompanied by a soundtrack of incessant honking. The view shudders to the rhythm of a road full of potholes, flanked on either side by unfinished sidewalks, heaps of stones, and leftover construction debris.Behind them rises a strip of houses and shops built from grey-brown cement blocks. Their fronts are often completely open, with segmented gates that are pulled down at night. Why all this honking from the taxi driver? I observe his weathered face beside me. There is no sign of irritation or frustration.


We approach the center of the city. A mass of pedestrians moves through the streets like a sluggish bloodstream — along the sidewalks and right through the middle of the road. Cows, donkeys, and dogs trudge resignedly along in this procession of everyday life. The crowd moves organically, parting for the honking taxi like a murky Red Sea before an ordinary Moses.

What do the animals eat in this desert of cement and asphalt? Cardboard and plastic, I am told time and again. A single blade of grass is a feast. After a few days in Leh, I begin to recognize certain animals as I wander the streets — the leather-colored dog with the black muzzle, the cow with a white patch on her chest that lies down each noon beside a car at a construction site, the five donkeys that seek out a terrace where they can huddle together for the night. I greet them and sometimes try to touch them with my fingertips. Together we wander, lost in thought, along this path of life — unknowing, moving toward a destination we dream of but cannot conceive.

They tell me that the cows are fed a little in winter, because they give milk. The bulls, dogs, and donkeys must fend for themselves. They often die in the winter ice, somewhere beneath a canopy or against a garden wall, while the mountain peaks that rise above the city stand as silent and unyielding witnesses to the end of their inglorious existence.

During the past four days, it has rained as much as it usually does in several years. The mud bricks used for building here cannot withstand it. Left and right, walls have partially collapsed; roads are impassable because of fallen bridges. Here and there I see gaping holes in walls, some roughly covered with tarpaulin. I look inside living rooms with tottering furniture — grayish burrows from which eyes peer out above incomplete rows of teeth.

“Are you happy here?” I ask the taxi driver. “Of course, Sir!” he replies. I glance at him hesitantly. His face radiates. Their shuffling gait and their chatter as they stand before their stalls or lay bricks with mud — the Ladakhis have nothing compared to me. But they have far more time — time to do nothing. Time to Be. “Through everything you possess, you are possessed,” Nietzsche once said.

Helena Norberg-Hodge, the economist who invited me to her conference in the Himalayas, tells me a few hours later about the time when she first arrived here, fifty years ago. There were no paved roads, no electricity, no running water. In the meantime, the people of Leh have been rescued from their pitiable condition. Now there are basic utilities, and owning a mobile phone is more the rule than the exception. The number of suicides has risen, over that half-century of modernization, from one every twenty-five years to one per month.

Keep reading

National populists surge around the world — spelling doom for the global elite

Democrats are flummoxed that President Donald Trump can keep winning when they find his views so despicable.

Recent elections from around the world, though, provide the answer: People want conservative populism.

Argentine President Javier Milei’s recent unexpected win in his country’s congressional midterms is just one example.

His Liberty Advances alliance swept to victory in most of Argentina’s 26 states, crushing the Peronist opposition by 9 percentage points.

Milei’s allies did this the Trumpian way, by winning the blue-collar former Peronist strongholds around Buenos Aires and in rural “flyover country”.

And they did it despite relatively poor economic news: While Milei’s radical reforms did bring inflation down dramatically and usher in an economic recovery, progress had stalled.

The Argentine peso has been in freefall, prompting a $40 billion bailout from Trump shortly before the vote.

Most experts thought voters would signal their impatience with Milei’s reforms by giving the Peronists a win. Instead, they rewarded his boldness.

In recent months conservative populists have won elections in Poland and Czechia, too.

Poland’s June presidential contest was instructive: Historian and political neophyte Karol Nawrocki started the campaign in a poor position, but he won against the odds by unfailingly striking Trumpian themes on nationalism and culture.

In Czechia, October’s parliamentary elections shifted national policy rightward, with a new alliance of conservative populist parties taking the majority in the Chamber of Deputies.

Britain’s Nigel Farage and his Reform Party now leads all national polls, having swept May’s local elections, with the once-dominant Tories languishing at 20% approval.

Even apparent conservative defeats hold good news for populists.

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party — the main conservative force despite its name — lost its majority in the House of Councillors election this summer, mainly because some of its backers turned instead to two openly populist parties that promised to “Make Japan Great Again”.

In response, the LDP dumped its colorless prime minister and replaced him with Sanae Takaichi, the nation’s first female leader, a noted hawk and nationalist who strikes similar themes to the populist Sanseito and Conservative parties.

And while PVV, The Netherlands’ premier populist party led by Geert Wilders, lost ground in last week’s elections, most of its losses went to other nationalist parties.

Keep reading

Global Cybercrime Treaty Draws Criticism from Rights Groups and Tech Companies Over Surveillance Fears

Sixty-five countries, including the United States and Canada, have signed a United Nations treaty on cybercrime that threatens privacy, online research, and free expression.

The agreement, known as the UN Convention against Cybercrime, was signed in Hanoi and will take effect once 40 member states have ratified it.

Each country must complete its own ratification process. In the United States, a two-thirds Senate vote is required for approval.

The UN Secretary-General António Guterres described the treaty as an essential step in combating cybercrime, saying that “cyberspace has become fertile ground for criminals…every day, sophisticated scams defraud families, steal livelihoods, and drain billions of dollars from our economies.”

He called the Convention “a powerful, legally binding instrument to strengthen our collective defenses against cybercrime” and insisted it “cannot be used for any forms of surveillance or others that could be linked to violations of human rights.”

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which directed negotiations, has argued that the treaty includes protections for human rights and legitimate research.

But organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) disagree.

Before the signing, both groups urged governments not to endorse the treaty, warning that its vague definitions could allow governments to monitor citizens, prosecute security researchers, and suppress political speech.

Technology companies have also raised concerns. The Cybersecurity Tech Accord, whose members include Meta and Microsoft, described the treaty as a “surveillance treaty” that could promote government data sharing and criminalize ethical hacking.

Keep reading

FDR’s “Four Policemen”: The Globalist Blueprint for Endless War and American Subjugation

It is time to expose the truth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s so-called Four Policemen plan — a sinister scheme concocted by the globalist cabal surrounding the 32nd president to permanently shackle the United States to a role of international enforcer in a world government order. Far from being a noble vision for peace, FDR’s “Four Policemen” was the original blueprint for what would become the United Nations — an unelected, unaccountable body of internationalists dedicated not to liberty, but to global control.

In the midst of the Second World War, even before the guns fell silent, Roosevelt and his cadre of globalist advisors — including Soviet sympathizers such as Alger Hiss — were laying the foundation for a postwar “New World Order.” The heart of this plan was what FDR euphemistically called the “Four Policemen”: the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China. These four powers, according to Roosevelt, would act as the guardians of peace, responsible for policing the globe and suppressing any acts of aggression through military might.

Let that sink in: Roosevelt — hailed by modern progressives as a champion of democracy — openly proposed that a small clique of global superpowers should wield exclusive authority to intervene in the affairs of nations, impose sanctions, deploy military force, and determine which conflicts were worthy of attention. Sovereignty? An outdated relic. Consent of the governed? Irrelevant. In FDR’s globalist gospel, only the self-anointed “policemen” mattered.

Keep reading