Tag: globalism

Colorado Governor Jared Polis Says He is Open to Replacing Joe Biden to Protect ‘Global World Order’

Colorado Governor Jared Polis has said he is open to a replacement for Joe Biden on the Democrat presidential ticket.

Reporters asked The governor about the matter during Friday’s National Governors Association meeting.

“It’s been a little over a week since you attended a meeting with other Democratic governors across the nation about what Democrats need to do to win in November. So following that conversation, do you believe that Democrats can win in November if President Biden remains at the top of the ticket?” Polis was asked by reporter Gabrielle Franklin, according to a report from Mediaite.

Polis replied, “Well, of course, Democrats can win in November. It’s a very close election. I think it’s also fair and objective to say, yes, that, President Biden is behind, not by a lot, but he is behind the elections today, we would likely lose.”

“Well, I think this means that we need to change something as a strategy to protect freedom, protect our democracy,” the governor continued. “We need to look at what that strategy is. Does it mean changing the campaign strategy, campaign message, the candidate? All of these things are being discussed.”

The governor said he wants to protect the “global world order.”

Keep reading

Klaus Schwab Says Humanity Must Be “Forced Into Collaboration” With Globalist Elites

Speaking at the WEF’s ‘Annual Meeting of the New Champions’, often dubbed the “Summer Davos,” in China, Schwab stated that in order to drive the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” forward, elites must aggressively drive their agenda home.

“To drive future economic growth we must embrace innovation and force the collaboration across sectors, regions, nations, and cultures to create a more peaceful, inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future,” Schwab proclaimed.

He added, “At this critical juncture the active participation of all stakeholders is essential to ensure a sustainable development path.”

In another clip, Schwab touted AI and other technologies becoming ubiquitous as a reason why humanity must “work together” with the global elite.

Keep reading

Big Tech Coalition Partners With WEF, Pushes “Global Digital Safety” Standards

Big Tech coalition Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP), the UK’s regulator OFCOM, and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have come together to produce a report.

The three entities, each in their own way, are known for advocating for or carrying out speech restrictions and policies that can result in undermining privacy and security.

DTSP says it is there to “address harmful content” and makes sure online age verification (“age assurance”) is enforced, while OFCOM states its mission to be establishing “online safety.”

Now they have co-authored a WEF (WEF Global Coalition for Digital Safety) report – a white paper – that puts forward the idea of closer cooperation with law enforcement in order to more effectively “measure” what they consider to be online digital safety and reduce what they identify to be risks.

The importance of this is explained by the need to properly allocate funds and ensure compliance with regulations. Yet again, “balancing” this with privacy and transparency concerns is mentioned several times in the report almost as a throwaway platitude.

The report also proposes co-opting (even more) research institutions for the sake of monitoring data – as the document puts it, a “wide range of data sources.”

More proposals made in the paper would grant other entities access to this data, and there is a drive to develop and implement “targeted interventions.”

Keep reading

The Hunger Games: A simulation exercise that reveals their strategy for the war on food

In 2015 a two day simulation game was held dubbed by some as the “hunger games” 65 people played out a food crisis simulation set in the years 2020 to 2030.

Do you recall a pandemic simulation held in 2019 called Event 201 that served as a dress rehearsal for the response to the covid “pandemic” in 2020?

Well, it seems such simulations have been used for the war on food as well.  As pointed out by Tracey Thurman, the food crisis simulation, officially called the Food Reaction Game, reveals their strategy for the war on food.

What is the Food Chain Reaction Game?

On 9 and 10 November 2015, Thomson Reuters and other media organisations joined event organisers Cargill, CNA, Mars, World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”) and the Centre for American Progress for a simulation of a real-world food-crisis scenario called the ‘Food Chain Reaction Game: A Global Food Security Game’.

The simulation exercise was held at WWF’s headquarters in Washington DC where 65 international policymakers, academics, business and thought leaders gathered to game out how the world would respond to a future food crisis.

Over two days, the players – divided into teams for Africa, Brazil, China, the EU, India, the US, international business and investors and multilateral institutions – crafted their policy responses as delegations engaged in intensive negotiations.

The game was set between 2020 and 2030 and was based on a scenario of a global food crisis caused by population growth, rapid urbanisation, extreme weather events and political crises.

Each team was tasked with responding to the global food crisis by making decisions on food production, trade and policy. The game was played over several rounds, with each round representing a year from 2020 to 2030.

Cargill, of course, has a vested interest in understanding the future of food – where it will be grown, how it will be grown, and how it can be traded efficiently and sustainably. It’s their business.  “Cargill, the world’s largest agribusiness, has been a strong supporter both of this initiative and of WWF’s mission. As one of the organisers of Food Chain Reaction, Cargill provided a critical private-sector voice to the dialogue,” World Wildlife Fund noted.

“The most eye-catching result [ ] was a deal between the US, the EU, India and China, standing in for the top 20 greenhouse gas emitters, to institute a global carbon tax and cap CO2 emissions in 2030,” Cargill noted.

Keep reading

GANG OF LOSERS: G7 Meeting Displays the Decadence of the Globalist World Order

The Group of Seven was created as an intergovernmental political and economic forum formed by the great western powers post WW2.

It consists of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States. Lately, the European Union, as a “non-enumerated member”, has also become part of it – with not one, but two unelected members: the President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council.

But as the advent of a multipolar world unfolds, the 2024 G7 meeting in Italy has displayed for the world to see the sheer decadence of the Globalist world order as represented by the failing leaders present.

The EU dispute, to begin with, is very symbolic of the shift to the right taking place all over the world.

EU Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen (VDL) has her job on the line. She was first installed by the European Council – a body uniting the heads of the EU member states, but this time around, European Council’s President Charles Michel is von der Leyen’s rival, and is reportedly plotting revenge against her because of her authoritarian ways.

In order to win another term, VDL needs 361 votes of the members of the European Parliament, out of a total of 720. But her European People’s Party (EPP) is about to get only 170 votes.

Keep reading

All Eyes on Geneva

The 77th World Health Assembly (WHA) started on 27th May until 1st June in Geneva (Switzerland) at the headquarters of the World Health Organization (WHO). All eyes are watching what will be happening this week regarding the future of the two pandemic draft texts, the draft amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), and the draft Pandemic Agreement. Related reports will be considered on Tuesday afternoon (Items 13.4 and 13.3).

The negotiations of these texts are probably the most closely watched ever intergovernmental processes. They also mark a clear division of the points of view of the “elite” on one side and the people on the other side. Health bureaucrats, politicians in power, and the mainstream media keep repeating messages on how the world urgently needs to be better prepared for future harmful and more devastating pandemics.

The people notably expressed themselves through this open letter endorsed by more than 15,000 signatures, demanding accountability and rejecting authoritarian, large-scale, one-size-fits-all responses known during the catastrophic Covid response. They just emerged from that deeply hurt, impoverished, and unfairly disadvantaged; while the majority of Covid decision-makers continue to be in charge.

On the first day of the 77th WHA, it was announced that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) did not reach a consensus. Therefore, the final draft will likely not be voted on. The decision to launch the negotiation for a pandemic agreement was reached by consensus and announced by the WHO that it would be conducted under Article 19 of WHO’s Constitution: 

Article 19 (WHO’s Constitution)

The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.

A two-thirds majority of the WHO’s 194 Member States present and voting (one Member one vote, abstaining votes not counted – Rule 69) is required to pass such a text, according to the Rules of procedure of the WHA (Rule 70).

Keep reading

Globalists gather in Geneva to plan new pandemic treaty

We just landed in Geneva, Switzerland, and are reporting to you from outside the United Nations’ office here. We’ve come here because this is where an international body is attempting to rewrite Canadian law — let me explain.

The World Health Organization is a part of the United Nations. It’s director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, effectively ordered the world to lockdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Theresa Tam, Canada’s public health officer, was part of the WHO’s committees that helped throw the world into that lockdown chaos.

Well, Theresa Tam is back. She’s here with people from around the world — none of them elected — to pass a pandemic treaty. It’s like the COVID-19 pandemic was a test drive; some things they got wrong, some things they got right. They want to codify this in a treaty so that when the next one comes — and they say there will be a next one — they can snap in a global response.

And that response is drafted here at the United Nations, not back home in Ottawa or London or Canberra or Washington.

Keep reading

The Unifying Principle: Here’s Why the Political Divisions in the US Today Cannot Be Mended

Recently I was watching a short documentary about the history of political discourse and division in the US and it got me thinking about how the internal conflicts of the past might relate to the rampant social battles Americans are dealing with today. From early disagreements between various Founding Fathers on hot button issues like the Sedition Act, central banking and standing armies, to epic and disastrous conflagrations like the Civil War, America has never been “of one mind” on everything.

Overall, though, the longstanding assumption is that even when we slip and fall into disarray Americans will find common ground and move on towards the future together.  It’s a nice sentiment, but what if this ideal no longer applies?

There are some people that argue there was never a golden era for the US; that we’ve always been destructive, or exploitative or “imperialist.” Of course, it’s very easy to examine any given time period through the lens of modern sensibilities and pass judgment. How we would do things today is not necessarily how we would do things yesterday. We can’t easily condemn the men and women of the past without at least recognizing that we will probably never see the issues of their day from their perspective.

The political left is the most egregious violator of this principle. They have a bad habit of trying to rewrite history according to their current ideological cultism and applying their taboos to time periods when civilization had very different views on how to function. The progressive philosophy is partially rooted in “futurism”; the idea that all old ideas and ways of doing things must be abandoned to make way for new methods. In other words, they think everything “new” is better and must be embraced.

Frankly, this theory has never proven correct. Not every old idea should be left behind and not every new method is better. In fact, most ideas that leftists think are new are actually very old. There’s nothing ground breaking about DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion), it’s just another form of Marxism based on personal identity rather than the traditional class politics.

Do you want to know what DEI really is? It’s a vehicle for forced association.

Forced association is used to leverage populations into a homogeneous soup, a hive mind with no individual thought or right to discriminate against destructive groups and ideologies.  But if America is experiencing an agenda of forced association today then we have to ask – What is there to be gained?  Why pressure people who fundamentally disagree with each other on every level to coexist within a society? Why do the people in power want this so badly?

Well, for the central planners (usually socialists/globalists), tribalism is a big no-no. People going their own way is unacceptable. If the populace thinks they can divide and separate and live differently from each other, then how can the establishment continue to exist? For a one-world government to be achieved ALL divisions must be erased and everyone has to either love or fear the purveyors of “unity.”

Keep reading

A World State Through the Back Door?

What is going on with the World Health Organisation? In December 2021 it began to talk about a global pandemic treaty. And now an International Treaty on Pandemic Preparedness, Prevention and Response will be presented to the 77th World Health Assembly between May 27th and June 1st: that is, next week. In the Daily Sceptic David Bell has done good work in going through the articles of the draft treaty, and also noting that we should read the amendments to the International Health Regulations too. But I want to ask a broader question. Is this a world state through the back door?

No one spoke about a world state much — except dismissively — until the early 20th century. H.G. Wells was fond of the idea. It was a modish subject at around the time of the formation of the League of Nations and again around the time of the formation of the United Nations, though, interestingly, it was usually dismissed. In the last 30 years the question of a world state has returned, though the answer is usually still negative.

However, one of the fundamental laws of politics is, and has been ever since Thucydides — or Augustus — that a thing can be one thing and yet can be called another thing. Politics is, as everyone has known since before Socrates, a rhetorical art: and the art of rhetoric involves all manner of minimisations, exaggerations, substitutions, reversals, redescriptions.

So what has happened in the last 30 years is not that we have become enthusiasts for something called a world state, but that we have become enthusiasts for something that we by and large do not want to call a world state while hoping — consciously, unconsciously — that it will be a world state.

Consciously: here I refer to the hypocrites, who want a world state but know they should not say so.

Keep reading

Mexican President Calls for EU-style North American Union

The United States, Mexico, and Canada should be united under a European Union-style transnational government, declared far-left Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador last month in barely noticed comments. The controversial remarks come as regional governments modeled on the EU proliferate and absorb once-sovereign nations around the world.  

Speaking during an event marking the 110th anniversary of the U.S. military’s occupation of the coastal city of Veracruz, “AMLO,” as the Mexican president is known, called for the creation of a North American “community” with its northern neighbors. “Blessed Mexico, so close to God and not so far from the United States,” began López Obrador.

“The important thing here is how to strengthen that integration and commitment that is helpful for the two nations, benefiting the United States and Mexico to strengthen North America and subsequently strengthen the entire American continent, just as in the beginning the European community was created that later became the European Union,” continued the controversial Mexican leader.

Understanding Mexico’s body politic and the population’s historical concerns about possible American domination, AMLO offered obligatory lip service to preserving Mexican sovereignty and independence. However, his remarks and his touting of the EU as a role model made clear to those in the know that his vision would severely infringe on sovereignty, independence, and self-government across the continent.

Keep reading