Tag: globalism

“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

The Kenyan High Court has also now suspended Bill Gates immunity from Prosecution

Kenyan High Court Suspends Bill Gates’ Immunity: Globalist Agenda Exposed in Africa?

In a monumental judicial blow sending shockwaves through the global community, the Kenyan High Court has suspended Bill Gates’ legal immunity, paving the way for his potential prosecution. This unprecedented decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Kenyan Senator Mithika Linturi, who accuses the Microsoft founder and his allies of engaging in activities that «consume and destroy the sovereignty of Africa.» The ruling is not just a legal victory; it is a battle cry for sovereign nations awakening to the dangerous overreach of unelected global elites operating under the guise of philanthropy and public health. This case unveils the tip of the iceberg of a dark agenda that conservative voices have denounced for years.

The core of the accusation is one of the most alarming revelations of the modern era: the alleged perversion of vaccination campaigns to carry out covert population control experiments. As detailed in court, the World Health Organization (WHO), an entity heavily funded by Gates, launched a tetanus eradication campaign in Kenya between 2014 and 2015. However, Kenyan doctors and researchers discovered that the vaccine used was radically different. It was reportedly a «fertility-regulating vaccine,» which combined the tetanus toxoid with the hormone Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (hCG), essential for sustaining pregnancy. The insidious consequence, as alleged, is that when injected into a woman, her immune system produces antibodies that attack this hormone, effectively resulting in sterilization.

The devastating repercussions for the Kenyan people are already visible and quantifiable. Local healthcare professionals have reported a chilling and inexplicable rise in infertility cases among young, healthy couples. Furthermore, there is a recurring tragedy of women suffering multiple consecutive miscarriages, unable to carry a pregnancy to term. These are not mere coincidences but a horrifying pattern that aligns with Gates-sponsored campaigns. The brave research and subsequent publication of a scientific paper by Kenyan doctors have corroborated these accusations, providing a factual basis for what many had suspected: that the world’s most vulnerable populations are being used as lab rats for a radical social engineering program.

Keep reading

Global push to reshape agriculture, human diets so every nation’s food supply fits within ‘sustainable’ and ‘planetary boundaries’

The global war on food continues to chug along under the radar of all the other problems going on in the world.

Some years ago there was a YouTuber named Christian Westbrook whose channel, The Ice Age Farmer, kept us informed on trends impacting the global food supply. Christian’s channel mysteriously disappeared in November 2022 and we don’t get nearly enough information on this important topic. He was warning back then that the globalists wanted us to eat their unhealthy, ultra-processed bioengineered food and in order to make that happen they needed to reduce our access to healthy whole foods.

Below is a video interview with Christian from five years ago that has aged extremely well.

It’s no accident that food prices keep rising at rates beyond the overall inflation rate.

Now, we have an interesting article posted October 6 at Modernity.news.

Modernity cites an article in The Lancet, titled “The EAT-Lancet Commission on Healthy, Sustainable, and Just Food Systems,” which presents what the authors call “a great food transformation.”

Modernity points out that this is part of a coordinated global program (as promoted by the United Nations, Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and World Economic Forum) to reshape agriculture, human diets, and financing so that every nation’s food supply fits within quantified “planetary boundaries.”

Keep reading

Globalist Leaders Pushing Economic Restructuring, The Green Agenda, and Great Reset

King Charles is arguably the highest-placed globalist on Earth. While it is debatable who the world’s biggest globalists are, six of the most prominent, King Charles, Bill Gates, Tony Blair, António Guterres, Ursula von der Leyen, and Klaus Schwab, are working together to promote policies that expand global governance through climate-based economic controls and large-scale financial restructuring that would fundamentally transform free-market capitalism.

King Charles has long been a central figure in the World Economic Forum’s global agenda. In June 2020, he and the WEF co-launched The Great Reset, calling it “a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis.” The initiative sought to “rebuild, redesign, reinvigorate, and rebalance our world,” aligning the global economy with climate and sustainability goals.

Through his Sustainable Markets Initiative, Charles called for a complete redesign of economic systems to make them “greener, more inclusive, and sustainable.” His ten “green recovery” actions included creating global carbon markets, directing investment into sustainable infrastructure, and embedding nature-based solutions in corporate strategies.

In 2021, Charles introduced the Terra Carta, a charter placing “nature and the planet at the center of global value creation,” supported by more than 500 CEOs and organizations. He even urged lifestyle restrictions such as going meat- and fish-free two days a week and dairy-free one day a week to reduce carbon footprints.

For these policies to work, they would require heavy government intervention and constant monitoring, backed by fines or punishments to enforce compliance. Since this framework puts “nature and the planet” at the core of “value creation,” free-market capitalism could not survive. A central authority would have to decide what goods could be produced, in what quantities, and at what price, in other words, communism.

Gates has also been outspoken on environmental and food policy, advocating for behavioral and regulatory shifts to reduce emissions. He has argued that “all rich countries should move to 100 percent synthetic beef,” adding that “eventually, that green premium is modest enough that you can sort of change the behavior of people or use regulation to totally shift the demand.”

This represents a fundamental restructuring of food systems, where government regulation would override consumer choice and market forces to impose dietary changes on entire populations in the name of climate goals.

Keep reading

Global Power Grab: 80 Years of Infamy

Eighty years have passed since the United Nations’ founding meeting in San Francisco. It’s time for an assessment. Is the UN’s rosy self-description quoted above accurate? Is the United Nations saving us from the scourge of war, maintaining international peace and security, protecting human rights, etc., etc?

Granted, UN agencies do deliver some humanitarian aid to the world’s needy. Likewise, Al Capone funded soup kitchens; and Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, the murderous Sinaloa drug lord, built schools and hospitals in Mexico. 

Like Capone and Guzman, the UN practices “philanthropy” with other people’s money, extracted by force, threats, and intimidation — and it does so to cover up a multitude of crimes. Capone, Guzman, and others of their criminal ilk have had their media admen who portray them as noble Robin Hoods. However, none of them could hold a candle to the UN in terms of having a pack of media sycophants who perennially hide their heinous crimes and bathe them in the warm glow of sanctity. For decades, UN “peacekeepers” have gotten away with murder, rape, torture, sex trafficking, and other crimes — with no consequences. The UN regularly denounces “impunity” while practicing it with immunity. The rise in impunity worldwide is “politically indefensible and morally intolerable,” declared UN Secretary-General António Guterres on September 24, 2024. “We see this age of impunity everywhere — in the Middle East, in the heart of Europe, in the Horn of Africa,” the Hypocrite-in-Chief of the global dictators club proclaimed, while pointing his finger everywhere except at himself and the blue-helmeted criminals he has been protecting. 

Keep reading