Tag: new world order

Connecting The Dots… Reveals A Dire Picture

“Reflect on what happens when a terrible winter blizzard strikes. You hear the weather warning but probably fail to act on it. The sky darkens. Then the storm hits with full fury, and the air is a howling whiteness. One by one, your links to the machine age break down. Electricity flickers out, cutting off the TV. Batteries fade, cutting off the radio. Phones go dead. Roads become impossible, and cars get stuck. Food supplies dwindle.

Day to day vestiges of modern civilization – bank machines, mutual funds, mass retailers, computers, satellites, airplanes, governments – all recede into irrelevance. Picture yourself and your loved ones in the midst of a howling blizzard that lasts several years. Think about what you would need, who could help you, and why your fate might matter to anybody other than yourself. That is how to plan for a saecular winter. Don’t think you can escape the Fourth Turning. History warns that a Crisis will reshape the basic social and economic environment that you now take for granted.” – Strauss & Howe – The Fourth Turning

Knowing who to trust and who to distrust at this point in history is the most important quality for anyone who expects to maneuver their lives and those of their loved ones through the final years of this Fourth Turning. I trust people who base their opinions on facts, not some government approved narrative regurgitated by legacy media bubble headed bimbos and “expert” talking heads. Michael Burry, Ed Dowd and Edward Snowden are men whose opinion I value.

They have all put their careers on the line telling the truth, when virtually everyone else was toeing the Deep State/Wall Street/Big Pharma line regarding the surveillance apparatus monitoring everything we say on our phones or type on our computers; the Federal Reserve/Wall Street manufactured housing bubble to replace the Dot.com bubble; the Covid plandemic created as an excuse to manufacture trillions of new debt because our empire of debt began seizing up in September 2019; and the current Everything Bubble (commercial real estate, residential housing, stocks, bonds, bitcoin, AI).

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

Why the next world order will be armed with nukes

A multipolar world is, by its nature, a nuclear one. Its conflicts are increasingly shaped by the presence of nuclear weapons. Some of these wars, such as the conflict in Ukraine, are fought indirectly. Others, as in South Asia, unfold in more direct forms. In the Middle East, one nuclear power has attempted to preempt another state’s potential development of nuclear weapons, backed by an even more powerful nuclear-armed ally. Meanwhile, rising tensions in East Asia and the Western Pacific bring the risk of a direct clash between nuclear states ever closer.

Having avoided a nuclear catastrophe during the Cold War, some European countries have since lost the sense of caution once associated with possessing such weapons. There are several reasons for this. During the ‘mature’ Cold War years, especially after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, nuclear weapons played their intended role: they deterred and intimidated. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact operated on the assumption that any large-scale confrontation would escalate into a nuclear conflict. Recognizing this danger, the political leaderships in Washington and Moscow worked to avoid the unthinkable.

Notably, while the Americans entertained the idea of a limited nuclear war confined to Europe, Soviet strategists remained deeply skeptical. During decades of Soviet-American confrontation, all military conflicts occurred far from Europe and outside the core security interests of the two powers.

Keep reading

Peter Thiel Warns: One-World Government A Greater Threat Than AI Or Climate Change

In a wide-ranging interview on the future and global existential risks, billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel raised alarms not only about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger: the rise of a one-world totalitarian state. Speaking to the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Thiel argued that the default political response to global crises—centralized, supranational governance—could plunge humanity into authoritarianism.

Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci-fi stories. “There’s a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons, and certain types of risks with AI,” Thiel explained to Douthat, suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution to these threats could culminate in a “bad singularity” – a one-world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.

Thiel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for centralized control in times of peril.

“The default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance,” Thiel observed, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to regulate AI development, including measures to “log every single keystroke” to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security.

Keep reading

China’s Answer to WEF Davos: Summer Meeting of the New Champions Advances Beijing’s New World Order Vision

As you read this article, 1,700 participants from over 90 countries are gathered in China, discussing how Beijing can displace the United States as the world’s richest and most powerful nation.

Every June, while Western elites gather at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos to push globalist agendas, China hosts its own rival summit: the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, or Summer Davos. Marketed as a forum for innovation and entrepreneurship, the event serves a deeper purpose, advancing Beijing’s long-term plan to dismantle the U.S.-led international order.

Behind the veneer of business networking and technological cooperation, China uses Summer Davos to promote a multipolar world where Western influence declines, Chinese leadership rises, and China ultimately replaces the U.S. as the global hegemon.

Summer Davos began in 2007 as a collaboration between the World Economic Forum and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its effectiveness lies in its veneer of legitimacy: operating under the WEF brand makes it easier for international participants to attend without appearing to endorse Chinese political positions. This allows Western corporate elites to engage with China’s strategic agenda while maintaining plausible deniability.

The 2025 meeting in Tianjin made this purpose unmistakably clear, as more than 1,700 participants from over 90 countries convened, the underlying message centered on “navigating a future less intertwined with Washington.”

Summer Davos began in 2007 as a collaboration between the World Economic Forum and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). What makes Summer Davos particularly effective is its veneer of legitimacy. Operating under the WEF brand, makes it easier for international participants to attend without appearing to endorse Chinese political positions. Therefore, Western corporate elites can engage with China’s strategic agenda while maintaining plausible deniability. The 2025 Tianjin meeting made China’s strategic intent clear: “navigating a future less intertwined with Washington.”

The attendee list reads like a who’s who of globalist corporate power. Major consulting firms that shape Western economic policy, including Deloitte as a Strategic Partner and Bain & Company as regular participants, send senior executives to these annual gatherings. McKinsey & Company’s Chairman for Greater China regularly appears on panels, while technology giants like Intel have leveraged the forum to announce massive investments, including a $2.5 billion semiconductor facility in Dalian. European aerospace giant Airbus used Summer Davos as the platform to establish its first final assembly line outside Europe, extending the partnership through 2025. Even more concerning, major Western financial institutions and consulting giants use these gatherings to legitimize China’s economic model while helping Beijing develop alternatives to American-led global systems.

Perhaps most telling is the regular presence of Klaus Schwab himself, the WEF founder and architect of the “Great Reset”, who personally attends Summer Davos closing ceremonies. His participation represents the ultimate validation of China’s challenge to Western-led globalism, as the very figure undermining national sovereignty lends his support to Beijing’s alternative world order.

Keep reading

Chronocide: How technocracy is erasing the past, present and future

The past is another country, according to LP Hartley’s opening line of The Go-Between. Nowadays, we may say the same of the present, as the pace of technological and demographic change quickens.

As for the future, what confidence and certainties can we have for our children and grandchildren?

Countries might not exist in any recognisable form as a new world order is cemented. But it is not only borders that are being undrawn. When Francis Fukuyama declared the ‘end of history’ on the fall of communism, perhaps he was inadvertently priming for the globalists’ most dramatic impact on humanity: the erasure of time. As warned by David Fleming, whose philosophy of continuism offers a unifying rationale for preserving humanity against the technocratic onslaught, ‘chronocide’ is a strategy.

As social animals, human beings create society. Over generations, each community establishes and maintains its customs, beliefs, roles and relationships. While ideologically progressive humanists emphasise that we have more in common than our differences in race, religion or region, a person from one culture cannot simply move to a place of different culture and expect life to go on as normal.

The crucial component of society is time, measured in lifetimes of immersion. Indeed, human beings + time = culture. In this equation, important factors may be understood as nature or nurture in the human-temporal complex, such as terrain, resources, climate, commerce, conflict and technology. Each society writes and curates its history.

In the classic dystopian novels of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brave New World, the past was deleted by design. Winston’s job is to revise records of events to comply with the current narrative, as it evolves. In Aldous Huxley’s futurism, babies are born by machine, and the idea of a woman giving birth is disturbing.

As the Marxists of the Frankfurt School realised in the 1920s, and as every management consultant knows, nothing really changes unless the culture changes. Social bonds and traditions are bulwarks against radical plans imposed from above. Piecemeal, incremental policies are prone to regression to norms, but major restructuring or other shocks to the system break social connections and shatter stability. The more dramatic and sudden the change, the more readily resistance is overcome.

Keep reading

Klaus Schwab’s Departure Could Herald New (Spontaneous) Global Order

Klaus Schwab’s retirement and subsequent fall from grace symbolize the tectonic shifts occurring in the current global order. Schwab’s life’s work was to build a globalist world order governed by international elites and the United Nations. He founded and ran the World Economic Forum (WEF) for decades to promote this vision of global governance for the good of the people of the world.

Schwab and his compatriots had grand ambitions to reshape the global order with a “Great Reset.” WEF’s annual conference in Davos was arguably the most prestigious gathering of global elites in the 2010s. Policy decisions, global priorities, international cooperation, and many initiatives flowed out of this gathering. The Davos gathering pushed Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria around the world as part of Schwab’s vision to promote “stakeholder capitalism.” 

During the pandemic, the world saw the controlling totalitarian impulse behind Schwab’s globalist agenda for what it was. The public backlash post-COVID was severe. In 2022, the Davos conference started losing steam. In 2023 and 2024, cracks began to show. And by 2025, the Davos conference had largely become a joke. People around the world rejected their top-down global elitism. 

Schwab saw his dream of global stakeholder capitalism almost realized. Then he watched it collapse. 

But with Schwab out of the picture, and the global order he championed in ruins, what’s next? Trump’s success, which is emblematic of many right-wing populist movements around the world, was driven in part by renewed concerns for security and innovation.

The global elites were largely asleep at the wheel, or worse, complicit, in the stagnation of Europe and the aggressive expansion by China. In fact, the ESG movement, and the western environmental movement more broadly, tangled western countries in costly red tape while largely giving China a pass. “Nation-first” policy prioritizes domestic economic development and rapid innovation. Both improve a country’s strategic position internationally while also improving citizens’ standards of living.

Many populist nationalists don’t want any international “order” at all. But can nation-first really work without reference to the rest of the world? Populists sometimes demean the “rules-based international order” of the 1990s as a front for Davos-style elites to manipulate everyone else. This characterization, though largely unfair, has led to calls for “decoupling” from other countries in favor of nation-first agendas.

Keep reading

Stars & Stripes Globalism: Donald Trump’s Plan For A New World Order

In just a few short days, Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and their most obsequious supporters attempted to shift from America First to Empire First in a shocking rebranding of globalism that would make transnational institutions like the World Economic Forum, Council on Foreign Relations, and Bilderberg Group proud. President-elect Trump’s recent statements on conquering Canada, taking over Greenland, acquiring the Panama Canal, and renaming the Gulf of Mexico represent a major betrayal of his supporters who were expecting an America First foreign policy program that curtailed the military industrial complex and ended foreign adventurism. This is nothing less than a globalist agenda wrapped in the stars and stripes that might dupe Trump supporters into supporting imperialism.

In response to Trump’s globalist messaging, one viral post on X pondered “how about we bring together the five great Anglosphere democracies in a diplomatic, military and economic union, including unhindered free trade, free movement of labour and an institutionalised military alliance,” to which Elon Musk replied “good idea” – both the initial message and the reply were collectively viewed over 20 million times. Canadian billionaire Kevin O’Leary revealed he met with the president-elect at Mar-a-Lago and urged him to “form a North American Union for greater strength. Period. Most Canadians would love to look at that opportunity without giving up their sovereignty.” Meanwhile, so-called conservative podcasters claimed that on a trip to Greenland they “were met by hundreds of people in MAGA hats…that love America and want to be part of America.”

Keep reading

The Conspiracy: A One World Government using technocracy to rule over all

The term, “conspiracy theory” became part of common parlance during the “Covid era,” but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the “conspiracy theorists” in question, namely those people who saw through the “pandemic” scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the “conspiracy” is probably less clear. When I ask people what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So, what is it? 

In his book, ‘HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy’ (2003) – followed in 2006 by ‘Weather Warfare’ – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the “High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),” and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the “Conspiracy.” Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the “Conspiracy” is concerned. His answer to the question about its “what?” is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):  

Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and “global villagers” to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic “conspiracy” of the evil few or a broad “consensus” of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives …

To grasp why Smith employs the term “deadly” with regard to the Conspiracy, one has to read the book, but here it is sufficient to point out that, if nations were to surrender their own sovereign right to deal with overpopulation, environmental problems and so on, as they see fit – even if this were to be done in cooperation with international agencies – a “one solution for all” system would mean that policies would be imposed on them which are not suitable, or acceptable, for their own needs.

Keep reading

UN ‘Pact For The Future’ Draws Concerns Over CCP Backing

The United Nations and its member governments, with strong support from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), adopted a landmark agreement last week to bestow the U.N. with more power and influence in global affairs.

The controversial agreement, known as the Pact for the Future, outlines 56 actions for governments and international institutions to take over the coming years.

Among the key provisions is “transforming global governance” and further empowering international institutions across a range of issues, including “sustainable development and financing for development,” as well as “science, technology and innovation, and digital cooperation.”

The pact includes a Global Digital Compact to restrict “misinformation” and “disinformation” and a Declaration on Future Generations that encompasses the 2030 Agenda climate goals that include the phase-out of fossil fuels.

It is also part of transforming the U.N. into what the organization is touting in promotional materials as “U.N. 2.0.”

U.N. leaders and top officials from the CCP celebrated the pact as a historic effort to create a better future for humanity and increase global cooperation on international problems.

“We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said.

Despite opposition from various quarters, the 193-member body adopted the pact by consensus on Sept. 22 at the Summit of the Future during the U.N. General Assembly after about nine months of negotiations.

In the days before the pact was adopted, a coalition of U.S. lawmakers and grassroots leaders held a press conference on Capitol Hill criticizing the agreement as an effort to undermine national sovereignty and freedom.

Keep reading