Tag: new world order

Mark Carney Seeks “New World Order” That Excludes The US

It’s rare to hear the phrase “new world order” spoken publicly in the post-pandemic world where globalists ultimately failed to implement their spectacular covid coup.  In 2020, they were everywhere in the media bragging about the takeover; reveling in the vast geopolitical and economic changes that would come with their “4th Industrial Revolution”.  Today, there’s barely a whisper of these concepts beyond closed doors. 

High-level globalist and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, however, didn’t get the memo.  His policy initiatives in the great white north are perhaps even more authoritarian than Justin Trudeau’s and more insidious.  Canada is on the fast track to becoming a woke Orwellian nightmare state, and this is putting the country in the direct path of conflict with the US. 

Carney has continued his efforts to pivot away from the United States and align with Europe.  In statements made over the past two weeks, Carney argued that middle-power countries shouldn’t compete for favor with America.

Carney asserts that Canada and the European Union have a combined population that is more than twice that of the United States, a similarly sized economy and a collective defense budget that is twice that of China’s.  He also said smaller nations can multiply their strength by partnering with “like-minded allies” (i.e. far-left globalist governments).  

The Prime Minister claims that Canada and Europe as a “force for good” that upholds values like human rights, dignity, and pluralism.  As opposed to the US?  Carney has been explicit in his antagonism for US meritocracy, nationalism and conservative ideals.  It’s the primary reason why the Trump Administration has targeted Canada with tariffs.  Canada’s woke authoritarianism is becoming a serious problem for greater North America.  

Why give economic advantage to a foreign government that wants to destroy everything you stand for?  

In response, Carney is seeking to join forces with the European Union with a vision for a “new world order” that excludes the US entirely.  

“The new world order will be built starting with Europe…Canada is the most European of non-European countries. We are transforming our cooperation with Europe.”

This rhetoric helps to explain why Canadian representatives have been oddly absent from recent trade negotiations and why Canada is no the only nation in the G7 that is experiencing a recession.  Some Canadians are beginning to wonder if Carney is deliberately trying to sabotage any potential agreement that would end trade disputes with the US?  The answer seems to be “yes”, he is undermining negotiations by simply not showing up.

Keep reading

New world Order Takeover Blurring the Boundaries

Not so long ago, to coincide with a presentation, Pope Leo XIV published a declaration, his first encyclical, consisting of some 42,000 plus words “Magnifica Humanatas.” 

What made this presentation unique was the fact that it’s the first in papal history dedicated to AI (Artificial intelligence).

In this declaration, in front of leading religious figures and Christopher Olah, representing left-wing biased OpenAI researchers, Anthropic, Pope Leo XIV addresses serious issues/concerns: 

“The fight against new forms of slavery is a decisive test for the ethical discernment of AI and digital transformation.”

He went on to say that: “If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity…”

For more on this, have a look at the Vatican’s website on “Safeguarding the human person in the time of human intelligence.”

In other words, like Pope Leo XIV, many of us are gravely concerned that governments have not put in enough regulation, allowing profit-driven private corporations unchecked advances in AI 

Consequences include: Ongoing threats to many humans losing their jobs to AI takeover, fake AI-generated content, online cyber-attacks, indiscriminate warfare…  

(Note: Funny how the Pope never mentioned the fact that the global cult have both the tech companies and the government in their pockets!)

-The Pope pledged allegiance to finding a suitable pathway for humanity in this AI age…

AI Enslavement

This AI agenda is a human enslavement program orchestrated by the global cult. The cult uses its AI frontmen to give it an apparent “soft-sell.”

As with other controlling agendas for their New World Order (NWO) advancement, the global cult use the tactic of blurring the boundaries. 

They have deliberately distorted, blurred the boundaries between that which separates AI from human: 

Blurring the boundaries that separate inhumanity from the humanity, robot from human, fake from real representations, AI from human intelligence as humans are being dumbed-down, freedom from enslavement…

There are other ways whereby the global cult agenda uses the tactic of blurring the boundaries for advancing their NWO takeover: 

*Immigration swamping Western world countries with immigrants

In short, the global cult are blurring the geopolitical boundaries to advance their agendas for global takeover. 

Keep reading

China and Russia Issue New World Order Declaration: All Talk, No Action

Russia and China just released two documents outlining how they want to remake the world order and displace the United States as the leader of the global system. The documents are heavy on aspirations but absent any means of achieving those goals.

One of the key themes in the documents is increased defense cooperation. However, there is still no mutual defense agreement between the two countries. Essentially, the documents confirm what China and Russia want and what they have already been doing, while the United States remains the world’s leading economic, military, and diplomatic power.

On May 20, 2026, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin met the press at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing following two days of talks. The visit marked Putin’s 25th trip to China. The summit produced two distinct joint statements, issued simultaneously as a package, along with more than 40 bilateral agreements. The first was a Joint Statement on Further Strengthening Comprehensive Partnership and Strategic Cooperation, which focused on the practical bilateral relationship.

The second was a Joint Declaration on Advocating a Multipolar World and New Types of International Relations, ideological in nature and targeted at the existing U.S.-led international order. The two sides also agreed to extend the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the China-Russia strategic partnership.

The bilateral statement deepens cooperation between the Eurasian Economic Union and China in transport, logistics, digitalization, e-commerce, and agricultural trade, and links the Eurasian Economic Union development plans to the Belt and Road Initiative. Russia reaffirmed the one-China principle, recognizing Taiwan as an integral part of China and supporting Beijing’s actions to protect its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The statement also commits both sides to expanding joint military exercises, increasing air and maritime coordination, and strengthening cooperation within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The only genuinely new and concrete outcome was a separate agreement to build a second railway line through the Zabaikalsk-Manzhouli crossing, an actual infrastructure project backed by a signed deal.

The military language falls well short of a defense alliance. There is no Article 5-style collective defense clause, no obligation for either country to come to the other’s aid, no defined trigger for military intervention, no integrated command structure, no basing rights, no pre-positioned forces, and no shared nuclear doctrine. Joint exercises and military-to-military contacts already existed.

Keep reading

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