Luc Brunet – 28 December 2022
As regular readers have noticed, I did not publish many articles in 2022. It is clear that most attention was paid this year to the events in Ukraine, and I wrote some remarks on it, the last time in May. However my articles are in general trying to propose an analysis of a given situation, trying to avoid the influence of emotions. Unfortunately, with many people being killed everyday, emotions cannot be set aside, and I decided to comment those events on my Telegram channel only, a place where emotions have more place than here. A link to that channel is available on the Home page.
Older articles on Ukraine could however be of interest if you do not know them yet, and you can find them easily using the key-word “Ukraine” in the search by category on the right of the screen.
What I want to write about today is definitely linked to the conflict in Ukraine, but at a much higher level. This is the fight for world-wide hegemony of the western elite including the creation of a world-wide government.
No way to accuse me of complotism, as the goals and guide-lines of that project are discussed and published openly, for example within the World Economic Forum (WEF) lead by Klaus Schwab.
Everything started with the end of the Soviet Union and the apparent end of communist China and its transformation into a giant workshop providing western companies with all types of products, from toys to mobile phones.
Fukuyama and his “End of History” book is the nicest illustration of that period starting in the 90’s. The western world believed at that time in the emergence of a new world that would be completely under the control of the west, and to be more precise, under the control of the UK/US economical system. Soros is another example of that trend, and of the effort by the western system to take full control of the world economy.
Schwab’s WEF, founded 20 years before the end of the Soviet Union, became more active and publicly known at the end of the 80’s, when the collapse of the Soviet Union could already be anticipated.
Since that time, the influence of the Forum became more and more visible and Schwab with his team developed the concept of a world governance that would step by step replace the countries’ local elected governments, even if such taste of democracy is more cosmetic than real.
The WEF world leadership model is always nicely packaged to make it attractive to the populations. Although some proposals like the plan to reduce the world population to 500 million people is a fake, the declarations and publications of the WEF and its supporters always keep a level of ambiguity about what they really think and plan.
Many influential globalists like French citizen (living in Brussels) Laurent Alexandre also support a world-wide leadership, lead by the people “who know what is good” for the world.
The emergence of a world-wide government is however blocked, mainly by two large countries that propose an alternative, as a multi-polar system: China and Russia.
Some may stop me here, telling that China and Russia are undemocratic countries and that they resist a democratic system promoted by the west. I have answers to that, but let’s avoid such discussion, as my argument against a world-wide governance is against all types of governance, be it anglo-saxon liberal, Russian traditionalist, Asian authoritarian or what ever you love or hate.
Let’s simply try to imagine what is the meaning of a “world-wide” leadership”! What does it mean?
First it means that the system is the same everywhere. Second, it means that the system has no competitor and no alternative. It is a pure monopoly of power, and if we read Schwab, it is a system controlled by the people “in charge”, the people who “know what to do”.
A world-wide governance also means that opponents are totally dependent on the establishment. They have no external support, and no place to go. Let’s imagine what it concretely means with a few examples:
- even at the top of the communist period in the last century, people in the USSR still had the hope to flee and move to the west, or the hope that the system would evolve under the pressure of the west. Even if they could not do it in real life, such a hope was there and helped them to survive. In a world-wide communist regime, even that little hope would be impossible.
- in the most intolerant Islamic countries, homosexuals are persecuted and often killed. Many can leave and live a free life in other countries. In a world-wide Islamic regime, only despair would be left.
- Chinese people watching the Football World Cup were shocked by the liberal approach to COVID used in other regions of the world. Large demonstrations started and the Chinese policy radically changed after that. In a world-wide Chinese type regime, masks and forced isolation would flourish without any alternative.
- more and more people in the west do not agree with the “LGBT” wave, or do not want to live in a country invaded by migrants from a very different culture and religion. Some of those people move to Russia or to other countries with a more traditional view on life. In a world-wide gender obsessed society, resistance would be useless
Examples can be listed in large amount. In all cases, the existence of an “alternative” system or place is key for people to survive in any situation. Even if they do not make the change, the possibility of a change is key for their mental balance and survival.
A world-wide system and government would close that last door to freedom. It would be a 1984 style prison. A prison without walls, as it is everywhere on earth.
Believing that a world-wide, thus unique and exclusive government would avoid all the dictatorial and totalitarian tendencies that we always saw in human history is at best over-optimistic, and most probably really insane. Good intentions often finish in bloodshed, and a world-wide governance would for sure end-up into a world-wide gulag.
The promise of the western leadership, is the promise of an earth-wide trap, an inferno for all, except a few elite members. Any country or group of countries proposing such a world-wide system would be equally dangerous, because the devil is not in the type of system proposed, but in the fact that it shall become a unique monopolistic system, making changes impossible. The human nature never allows an unshared and uncontrolled power to remain sane and fair for very long, as greed and love of power is stronger than good intentions.
Think about it when the discussion goes around “world governance” versus “multi-polar system”. A multi-polar system may not be paradise, but a world-wide ruling shall for sure be hell.