One world government as an obvious reality

The Great Reset and the End of Classical Geopolitics:

How Many Power Centers are There Worldwide?

Youry Roshka, journalist, publisher, chairman of People's University, Moldova

Dear friends,

Many of us have noticed that with the outbreak of the so-called Covid-19 pandemic, a new state of affairs in international relations has come to light that may have escaped many of us until then. Namely, beyond any divergence between several countries and groups of countries, they all submit without any deviation to a single world power centre. Personally, I have called this new state of affairs "the end of classical geopolitics". 

Throughout history, we have become accustomed to watching rivalries, conflicts and wars between numerous empires and superpowers or coalitions of states. Their logic was clear to us, regardless of which ideology or which school in the international field was the basis of the interpretation of these major divergences between civilizations, power centers, tribes or peoples.

The Geographical Pivot of History by Sir Halford John Mackinder, with his theory of the Heartland, the World Island and the crucial importance of Eastern Europe for world domination; Carl Schmitt, with his theory of the conflict between Sea Power and Land Power; Zbigniew Brzeziński with The Grand Chessboard; or Alexander Dugin with his theory of Tellurocracy versus Thalassocracy, and so many others, retain their validity as complex views of history and geopolitics. But in my opinion, these theories, if they have not completely lost their relevance, need to be developed in the light of the new realities that have emerged worldwide in recent decades.

We could also describe this new picture of the world in the following way. Western modernity has triumphed everywhere, the primacy of economics and the reign of quantity have contaminated all the peoples of the world, the Sea Power of has flooded the entire surface of the Land Power with mercantile civilisation.

The post-Second World War bipolarism that dominated the world for almost half a century, balancing the two superpowers, the US and the USSR, collapsed with the disappearance of one of the poles, Soviet communism. This is where the divergence of opinion between Western strategists and those in Russia, China or BRICS as a whole comes in. While Washington insists on maintaining its status as world hegemon, these countries say they are on the way to emancipating themselves from the tutelage of the collective West and creating a “multipolar world”.

Both narratives have become dominant in their respective countries, with “the West” and its satellites riding on the universalism of the liberal-democratic model and “the Rest” claiming emancipation from Western imperial tutelage. In fact, however, as I noted in my remarks just now, the imposition of the global emergency on the pretext of health was like a cold shower for any lucid mind. People began to wonder why virtually all countries were totally subordinate to the dictates imposed through the WHO.  Moreover, the “Great Reset” announced as an inexorable historical fate by Klaus Schwab actually meant a Great Awakening for humanity.

The liberticidal measures and the nightmarish "new normal", forced vaccination and the suppression of all political, economic and social freedoms represented a major shock that has led scholars, academics, authors and investigative journalists to look deeply into the origins and ultimate goals of the major transformations that have taken place.

Thus, from the starting-point of Covid–19 as a historical accelerator for the establishment of a world regime of technocratic tyranny, researchers who have not allowed themselves to be corrupted by the dominant discourse have re-examined the recent history that made it possible to rule all the states of the world from a single center of power.

Among the various causes that have led to a hyper-centralization of power on a global scale, the following are rightly invoked.

The entire history of capitalism shows that “the economic factor” has taken over from “the political factor”. Or, in other words, usurers and merchants subordinated the decision-making act at the state level to their own economic interests, turning states into docile tools for obtaining super-profits. 

The Club of Rome, as a think tank of globalists founded by the Rockefeller family in 1968, had among its major tasks the theoretical substantiation of the process of de-sovereignization of states in favor of a global governance exercised through the UN and its affiliated agencies. Several other organizations can also be cited in this regard, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg Club, equally concerned with the exercise of power worldwide and the weakening of national states subject to a single command center.

The whole strategy of deregulation, implemented since the 1980s, has sought to establish a new world economic order in which the principle of free trade and the sacralization of the interest of large corporations have become mandatory legal norms and everyday practices throughout the world. And the WTO is an expression of these corporate interests that place states as subordinate to major private entities.

The key moment in establishing global governance, exercised under the pretext of a climate emergency, was the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, which established the UN Agenda for the 21st Century. So, precisely in 1992 at Rio, the alleged problem—climate change or anthropogenic global warming—and the false solution, with claims of a universal recipe known as Sustainable Development—officially became international documentary standards within the UN system to which all the states of the world adhered.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015, and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent the direct continuation of the Rio Summit of 1992. It should be noted that this strategy is becoming binding on all states in the world.

That is to say, the New World Order is being imposed worldwide, based on false scientific arguments, and it aims to reshape the global economy, the role of states, the rights of producers and of all citizens. These are all intended to be chained up, in the race for zero carbon footprint and to accomplish other elements of “controlled demolition”, as well as to achieve the total surveillance society.

After Klaus Schwab and his accomplice from the WEF, Thierry Malleret, published their programmatic book The Great Reset in the summer of 2020, many of us reassessed the previous book written by the head of the WEF in 2016, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. When we did so, we once again discovered that beyond any differences between states, everyone follows the line drawn by the globalist elites within the Davos Forum and other private organizations that bring together the world's billionaires. For those of us from the ex-communist space, the comparison is self-imposed. The UN, WEF, WHO, WTO, etc.—they all appear to our gaze as a kind of Central Committee of the Communist Party that imposes its directives without encountering the slightest disagreement.

When we talk about the total war of globalists against all states and peoples, about total surveillance, about 15-minute cities, about the Internet of Things (IoT), about the Internet of Bodies (IoB), about AI, about central bank digital currencies (CBDC) and all the other elements of world technocratic tyranny, any responsible researcher who is not affiliated to any interest group cannot ignore the observation that the whole world is subject to a single agenda. This single agenda is being pursued by all states, and surpasses all geographical boundaries: any political, ideological, economic, diplomatic or even military conflicts.

In conclusion, we must not be fooled by the consideration that, for example, the US is in decline while China is on the rise. Nor is it all-decisive that Russia is in a major conflict with the collective West due to the war in Ukraine. And not even the current claims that the BRICS would be an alternative to technocratic globalism are the be-all and end-all. As long as all countries of the world recognize the UN as a supreme authority and unabatedly fulfill all the freedom-killing and even genocidal policies of this organization, any claim of defending national interests or resisting the world hyperclass is unfounded and ridiculous—no matter which state or political regime it comes from.