If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

The drive towards a World Totalitarian Government

  • 30-07-2022 1:50pm
    Registered Users Posts: 410 ✭✭brianhere

    Not that long ago this writer traveled the length and breadth of the North Midlands of Ireland, during the second Lisbon referendum, trying to warn people about the loss of sovereignty if we didn’t oppose the nascent EU superstate. What stands out in my mind about that campaign was that many many Irish citizens reacted with fury at the remotest suggestion that they would throw away Irish Independence like that. Any talk of an EU superstate was conspiracy theory rubbish, the EU had no such designs, I was told, especially by FF and FG voters whose ancestors had fought for Irish Independence. After all a superstate would require an army and where was this mythical EU army? Time and time and time again anti-EU campaigners were laughed at for suggesting that there were plans for such an army, and that the EU had all the hallmarks of building a superstate in every other respect. Now in 2022, Leo Varadkar, the FG leader, has announced his intention to win a referendum to join an ‘EU army’, the same mythical beast that he and his ilk assured us all never existed or would ever exist.(1) Meanwhile the Taoiseach admits that he cannot even reduce taxes on fuel without the permission of the EU,(2) a terrible indication of just how sorry a state the once proudly independent Ireland has been reduced to.

    Anyway the point is, I appeal to you the reader, not to be dismissive of the indications now that the powers that be are working towards a world government, in much the same way that the EU built their European government then. Don’t dismiss all this as a ‘conspiracy theory’, you need to see the planning that has gone into this internationally. In particular, what is happening is that the Globalists, those that are building this horrific totalitarian worldwide state, are creating or manipulating specific global issues in a way that will lead, they hope, to such a totalitarian world state. A world state where the individual is stripped of all his liberties, because, be under no illusion, these people are very dangerous and very corrupt, and drunk on power they have every intention of building a hell on earth and calling it a world government. This essay is then an attempt to look at some at these international issues, to see the way they are being manipulated to create the different departments of a world government, and to destroy personal liberties.


    Obviously the Covid scare created great state control over the individual on the one hand, with the West maybe not accidentally copying the Chinese Communist practice of state control, and on the other hand it has spurred the World Health Organisation to seek to get international control over the response to future pandemics, taking it away from nation state control. The WHO has since 2020-22 become well established as the international Department of Health in a nascent world government, and I think this is obvious to nearly everybody so no need to dwell further on it.

    Financial Crash

    The creation of monetary union in the EU was one the big steps in the creation of that superstate, so financial matters are a key issue one should focus on now.

    Since the crash of 2008 the world central banks have responded by lowering interest rates to incredibly low levels, approximately zero for a decade or so. This in turn has led to an explosion of lending such that if, or rather when, it collapses again, it will crash much deeper and further. A simple example: Ireland’s national debt is listed now, June 2022, as 241.8 billion euro,(3) in 2007 it was 37.6 billion euro.(4) Obviously with that kind of overhang of debt we are likely to see much greater social and political consequences when that bubble bursts, as soon it inevitably will.

    Also you can see that nation states are going to be in the front line in the ensuring collapse, they are going to find it very difficult to keep rolling over these huge levels of national debt. So I think on that front you are going to see a collapse of currencies, ending with the dollar, and also possibly a transfer of real or tangible assets to each country’s creditors i.e. the government might be forced to transfer parks, or state utilities like water or electricity companies, directly to international financiers.

    But also it will I think have major implications for ordinary citizens, savers and borrowers.

    a) A saver: will find that their money in the bank is now vulnerable to a ‘bail in’ of the banks as opposed to a ‘bail out’. In other words if the bank teeters on the brink of solvency, to secure its future they will raid the bank’s assets, your savings. Rumour has it that is to happen over some weekend, where you cannot get your savings out, but I have no idea when.(5)

    b) A borrower: will face a general calling in of securities set against borrowings. So houses, land, cars, etc, will now be forfeited back to the lender, and these borrowers will now presumably own nothing, a state that has already been flagged by the World Economic Forum for example.

    Anyway whatever about the mechanics of all this, you can be sure the Globalists are busy planning how they will advance their cause through such a crisis. The stealing of bank savings will throw people further onto the financial resources of the state, so deepening the totalitarian communist atmosphere already much in evidence, and the ensuing international currency crisis will no doubt in time be ‘solved’ by an international digital currency. The latter will obviously cement international control over the individual, who won’t be able to purchase anything without the Globalist’s consent.

    Climate Change

    Clearly the whole Climate Change agenda, which is very obviously a global issue not under the control of any one country, is driving huge international conferences which look a lot like leading to world governance on this issue. This has been noted – with enthusiasm? – by the important climate activist David de Rothschild:

    “We know historically that the global governance, sort of agenda, to these issues is very hard to try and, with all the best intentions, is very hard to actually activate. We are seeing that right now, we are seeing a lot of fragmentation going on in Copenhagen [at the climate conference], a lot of different agendas, pulling in different directions, and I think what we really need to see is people on the ground starting to actually act upon the lower hanging fruit and starting to try and move on the solutions that we have at hand.” (6)

    Consider, if carbon credits are being traded internationally, and if that bears down onto the individual, where he/she gets an individual carbon credit to use, then it means you are seeking permission from the state to actually breathe, which completes our overall thesis here, global governance but also gigantic control over the individual.

    Bear in mind that while there is some increase in CO2 levels, very helpful for growth of world food, that simply doesn’t lead to ‘global warming’. What they are saying here is just untrue but very similar to the attitude seen in early 19th century Europe and UK in particular. At that time the respected ‘scientific’ consensus was that the world population will outstrip the earth’s ability to generate food, and this ‘scientific’ lie partly underlined events like the Irish Famine. Many sophisticated and well educated people concluded that the Irish who were dying then, were a ‘redundant’ population which was bound to die off because of this inevitable global shortage of food anyway as the population increases. You can get a whiff of that attitude in this contemporary book for example:

    “On this consideration it is of the utmost importance to dwell because the recent condition of Ireland and of the Highlands (as is well stated in the memorial lately presented to Government by the Committee for their relief) ought not to be regarded merely as a visitation of Providence, calling for temporary aid from the rest of the nation, but as an indication of a previously unsound condition of the population, – of a redundancy which demands permanent remedies, as it threatens permanent misery to a part, and permanent injury to the whole, of this nation.

    It is generally allowed, and has indeed been stated by Malthus himself, that there are no better tests of redundancy of population than Pestilence and Famine, – by which we mean, not that a redundant population must necessarily, and at all times, be afflicted with these evils, but that when these evils, resulting as they generally do from a combination of causes, attack a country, they will always select that portion of the population which is redundant, and there commit the greatest ravages.” (7)

    The point is that the whole Climate Change hype seems inevitably to veer into this over population argument, soon claiming I think, that at its root, there is simply too many humans around generating too much carbon. This view in turn, like in the 1840s, might generate an inhuman, callous, environment towards human populations.

    Food Security

    One of the great issues that drove the creation of the European Union was said to be food security. The argument was that Europe had partially starved after the Second Word War and so needed to have European wide controlled agriculture and fisheries, to make sure that couldn’t happen again. In many ways it was the glue that bound the EEC together as the Globalists were tightening their grip over those nation states.

    Of course the truth is the complete opposite, the EU has been systematically destroying European fisheries, and their communities, and agriculture, throughout its existence, leading to a state described here by John Lewis-Stempel, the author of a recent book on farming in England:

    “Personally, I do not know a farmer working less than a lightweight 60 hours a week, and most are racking up 80. For this you get a pittance. Half of British farmers earn 10,000 pound or less per annum. Twelve per cent of UK farms make a straight forward loss.


    A curious thing, farm financing. Food has become cheap, but the cost of the kit required by farmers has become eye watering. New tractor? 100,000 pounds. Ten year-old combine? 60,000 pounds. And then you pray that the transmission or electronics don’t fail. Farmers do not count sheep on the middle of the night, they count the repayments to the bank. It’s life on tick.


    He [the author’s grandfather, a farmer for 50 years] had it easy. He did not have to cope with the red tape, the rules and regs, of modern farming. (Did I mention that farmers have to triple up as office workers?)


    So, no one in farming is surprised to read of agriculture’s disproportionate suicide rate (a farmer a week). Or that agriculture has the worst rate of fatal injuries in UK industry. A lonely, stressed and tired farmer is a farmer who makes mistakes, behind the wheel of the ATV, penning a bull.” (8)

    The situation in Ireland on beef farms, the majority type of Irish farm, can be seen from these published accounts from last year by a farmer on about 250 acres in the North West. This farm is unusual in that:

    “the only loans currently on the farm is about 20k and that interest includes principal repayments and has two years left to run and the farm will be debt-free. No ground is rented.” (9)

    In contrast many Irish farms are now drowning in debt, also this farm is large by Irish standards, and clearly farmed with modern methods and machinery. Yet his profit last year was only €10,000. When you bear in mind that his diesel bill that year was €5,200 and fertiliser €11,100, both costs in 2022 now about double, you can easily imagine what his current year ‘profit’ will look like. Even last year’s profit is really minuscule when you compare it to the Irish cost of living, in many respects – such as running vehicles, a necessity in rural Ireland – twice what it is in the UK.

    So the EU has not been about protecting the family farm as the food security fable had it, its about destroying them, and they have done this with a mixture of huge state (meaning EU) regulations on the one hand, and quietly supporting giant multinational monopolies, on the other.

    In any case they are likely to ramp up this issue as it looks like food shortages will kick in in at least some countries in the near future. It could obviously be a great way to control nations and even the people within them, just don’t believe the Globalists when they say they are anxious to fix the problem or head off any crises here, going by the above described past experience, they are far more likely to be creating them.

    Nuclear Proliferation

    One of the big areas of international law, where the Globalists have established the ‘right’, if you like, of international institutions to interfere in the workings of nation states, is on the issue of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction generally. Clearly it has been used in the past to justify the destruction of nation states, Iraq being the obvious example, but I wonder if for many people it has now become a somewhat blasé issue of no great immediacy or importance?

    Now consider if a nuclear bomb was actually to go off somewhere soon, that would massively energise this issue worldwide. After that event would the populations of the West become anxious to destroy the sovereignty of North Korea or Iran etc if the Western media claimed they had weapons of mass destruction that they intended to use? The UN already has elaborate international law on the issue of nuclear non proliferation – which even compels countries with nuclear weapons to work towards their abolition – so again you could get the populations support for international governance here ‘with teeth’, the path we are pointing out in this article. Many areas of the world are quite tense that way right now, obviously Ukraine but even Israel/Iran could light that spark.

    However, if you are to talk about the use of nuclear weapons you will find most people are quite confident they will never be used, because of the MAD doctrine, Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning that any use of nuclear weapons is bound to escalate to a point where everybody loses. But it seems more modern military thinking is blunting the MAD concept somewhat:

    Firstly you have smaller nuclear weapons, i.e. tactical and intermediate nuclear weapons, that are too small to endanger the world, as it were, but nonetheless would be very useful for military planners. Bear in mind that President Trump not long ago withdrew the US from the treaty that banned intermediate nuclear weapons, and then commissioned much smaller nuclear weapons which are now deployed on some US submarines. These weapons are far more likely to get used than the larger ones which really could destroy a large party of the world, as has been noted:

    “[Hans] Kristensen, [of the Federation of American Scientists] said: “Certainly the low-yield collateral effect that would come from this weapon would be very beneficial to a military officer who was going to advise to the president whether we should cross the nuclear threshold.”” (10)

    Also in Russia they seem to be drifting the same way, seeing the use of smaller tactical nuclear weapons as a way around MAD, according to Dr Sidharth Kaushal and Sam Cranny-Evans of the Royal United Services Institute in the UK:

    “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s nonstrategic nuclear arsenal has come to play an increasingly important role in its defensive plans. [Nuclear weapons are classified into three broad categories, strategic, i.e. the very big ones, tactical, small ones, and intermediate, between those two.] The definition of nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Russian parlance covers weapons with a range of less than 5,500 km. Tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) are a sub-category of nonstrategic nuclear weapons that are limited in range, typically to 500 km.


    What is genuinely new about Russian doctrine is that it includes options for limited and flexible nuclear use. While the Soviet Union expected to begin an existential conflict with the large-scale use of TNW and to escalate to full-scale strategic use should its homeland be attacked, its leaders broadly dismissed the notion of limited nuclear war.


    The second factor is the increased accuracy of Russian missiles. For example, the Iskander has an accuracy error radius of 10 m. Historically, due to missile inaccuracy, destroying hardened targets required the use of high-yield warheads at altitudes that caused significant fallout. This meant that one could not selectively target military facilities because the fallout would likely kill many civilians and trigger full-scale exchanges. More accurate missiles can generate sufficient pressure per square inch to destroy military targets such as hardened command posts or hardened air shelters with low-yield warheads even if detonated at relatively high altitudes. This in turn lowers the fallout from a nuclear strike to negligible levels and raises the possibility of ‘clean’ nuclear use against military rather than civilian assets. In this context, limited nuclear use as a means of coercion may appear less outlandish.


    Finally, longer-range nonstrategic nuclear weapons have utility against airbases and command posts across Europe which, as mentioned, can now be contemplated without the escalatory effect of large-scale civilian casualties.” (11)

    Secondly we have to talk about fallout. Nuclear fallout, the idea that small particulars of radioactive material could go into the air from a nuclear bomb and then disperse over a large area with terrible poisoning effects for humans and nature etc, is obviously the big reason why everybody is scared of these weapons, and hence few would use them under the MAD concept. Otherwise its just a big bomb, and armies are already using quite large bombs now anyway. The point here is that maybe newer types of nuclear weapons do not have that destructive fallout, and therefore it might be more likely they will be used.

    If the nuclear bomb is of a pure fusion type – supposedly a non existent weapon, but maybe just classified? – you may not get much or any fallout from the bomb materials itself, and if it is detonated far enough above the ground then it cannot create fallout in the form of newly created radioactive materials in the vicinity of the bomb explosion, either via rays, like X-rays sent out by the explosion, or a fusing, through extreme heat, of ground materials with the remains of radioactive bomb debris. Hence if militaries have developed advanced weapons like this, and intend using them in that way that minimises fallout, then they are far more likely to use them? You can see some knowledgeable people talking about this advanced weaponry, like for example Dr Peter Vincent Pry, the Chief of Staff of the US Congress’ EMP Commission:

    “Most of their [Russian] tactical nuclear weapons are new generation nuclear weapons, designed to produce no radioactive fallout, designed for very low yields or selectable yields, so you could do anything from blowing up a bridge to blasting a whole division of tanks with that same weapon. For special effects like EMP effects on the battlefield, EMP effects for anti-aircraft purposes, X-rays for anti-missile purposes, we don’t have anything like that in our inventory.” (12)

    The suspicion then is that modern military planners seem to be aiming towards actually using these devices despite the MAD doctrine, because they might just use smaller ones or those that don’t create long term fallout problems.

    Of course if nuclear bombs were to go off anywhere, say in the US, it would cause great panic in the population, the same type of panic that caused people to support the dreadful Covid pandemic style government control. Also bear in mind what is mentioned below, that the World Government is to come about with the cooperation of the permanent members of the UN Security Council, who also happen to be the great nuclear powers of this world. If nuclear bombs do start going off somewhere, it will create an urgency for non nuclear countries to go underneath one or other of these countries nuclear ‘umbrella’, hence deepening their control over the world prior to their creation of the World Government?

    I appreciate that all this is quite alarming, and I will be delighted if I am wrong, but a close reading of modern news bulletins shows new, disturbing, thinking on the nuclear issue, and its drifting in a way that suits the Globalists. Here for example is a recent article on Korea:

    “ Seoul moved to change its policy toward the North to include pre-emptive strikes.


    It came as Yoon Suk-yeol, South Korea’s new president, reintroduced what is known as the “Kill Chain” strategy, which includes mounting precautionary strikes to prevent North Korea deploying nuclear weapons.


    ...bolster its capacity to neutralise Pyongyang’s nuclear threats, including through pre-emptive strikes.” (13)

    You can see from that how the nuclear issue will be used as an excuse to ‘pre-emptively’ invade countries, as they did with Iraq, a very useful tool in the Globalist armoury. Another interesting recent story is a lead story on the front page of the London Times, where they announced that:

    “The West risks stumbling into a nuclear conflict with China or Russia...” (14)

    Notice how this is spun as an excuse to strengthen international power, globalism:

    “There’s real alarm about how fast these weapons are spreading around – new international systems need to be put into place to get a grip on this.


    The reality however is that current structures [of international arms control agreements, like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty] alone will not deliver what we need a modern arms control system to achieve.” (15)

    World War

    There are great advantages for the Globalists in a world war as a way to rearrange the world nation-state chessboard to their advantage. To clarify, in my opinion anyway, this World Government, known even by the insiders to it as the New World Order, will come about as a result of an international agreement between, and is being prepared for now in cooperation by, the ‘deep state’ of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UK, France, USA, China and Russia). They are driving things now and when they come together formally it will form the bedrock of the new structure. So why would they want a war? A few guesses:

    1) Yes I know that ‘cooperation’ mentioned, is not how it looks currently, but my point is that that may be no accident. A global war, at least in part between these parties, might serve very well to disguise their actual cooperation. Then at the end of it, in an atmosphere of relief at ‘world peace’, we get the formal NWO announcement. Also if they intend going with the ‘alien invasion’ scenario discussed below, it will help in getting across the hoax that the ‘invasion’ will be seen simultaneously in the US, China and Russia, and people will not believe that the latter countries could be in league with the USA in the matter.

    2) Sparking global migration flows are very important to the Globalists, and easy to do in a war scenario. Notice how when Russia attacked Ukraine they went in suddenly and shockingly into the major cities, leaving though the main exit routes, like railway lines, intact and yet with dire warnings for weeks, even highlighted by the Western media, that a major column was about to descend and destroy those cities etc etc. This of course sparked a gigantic emigration outflow from Ukraine into Europe, and in retrospect maybe that was the real intention behind this military tactic. Recent events in Afghanistan might also be suspicious that way.

    The globalists love these migration flows, as the Communists did in the former USSR, because they use to it to destroy racial and national identity in the countries that take in large numbers of migrants. By identity I mean that a big proportion of the population have no allegiance or real tie to the host country, which if then attacked will have a corresponding difficulty in rousing its citizenry to national defence. Who wants to kill or be killed for a state which is really just a welfare office to you? So ultimately it won’t be able to unite in opposition to this global tyranny, even militarily if it came to that.

    3) It can allow these five global players, to quietly deepen their control over other countries. Hence you can see in the current conflict how Belarus seems to come more under the control of Russia than was the case, Poland has just announced the creation of a permanent US base on their territory which presumably means coming more under the control of the US, and of course Finland and Sweden have given up their neutral status to come under the control of NATO, an obvious globalist institution. For many years we heard how Eastern Europe was straining at the leash of the EU – which is obviously a transitionary institution leading to the NWO – but now it is coming deeper within its orbit, as it looks for allies to stave off Russia. Meanwhile Ukraine itself, traditionally a non-aligned country which tried to be independent of both the US/EU and Russia, is now partly under the direct control of Russia, particularly the Donbass to the East, and the rest is coming under the control of the US, which is reportedly even paying its civil servant’s wages.

    You can see how war can be used to destroy the independence of those countries not previously under the control of the above five members, and hence can prepare the ground for the NWO by eliminating potential opponents to it.

    4) Finally wars can fulfil very well our other point about these global issues, it can be used to strengthen the deep state’s stranglehold over it’s citizens. The current government in Ukraine, a regime held up all across the West right now as some kind of paragon of virtue, has wholesale banned opposition parties, opposition media, jailed social media commentators, even assassinated politicians accused of undermining the state, including, it is said, a member of a recent delegation representing Ukraine at peace talks.(16) It looks likely that the powers that be will use war as an excuse to destroy civil liberties all across the world, just as they recently used the virus in that role.

    So there is a big agenda out there of controlling populations via war, which is music to the ear of these Globalists. In general they might feel they need the army on the streets before they reach for some of their other steps, like the economic collapse, in case things do not go their way!

    Global Economic Inequalities

    Clearly over the last few decades some people have got obscenely rich at the same time that many, even in the West, have got very poor. For example homelessness is out of control in many parts of the US, and a wave of it you can feel even in Ireland and the UK, while simultaneously the elites seem to have holiday homes all over the world. This leads to natural, just and logical disquiet among many people but I would caution it is in fact yet another issue that these globalists are manipulating.

    In the UK there is now a Minister for ‘Levelling Up’ and globally there is much talk of bringing ‘economic justice’ to bear on world issues. I think we should understand that as meaning a global effort at ‘levelling down’, i.e. destroying the middle classes and bringing them to the level of welfare dependents etc. Why? Because in that economically desperate state they are not going to be as able to oppose the state, you need cars and diesel to even go to protests etc, the very very poor cannot really protest, and maybe that’s the fate they have outlined for us.

    Fake alien invasion

    Many of the group I call Globalists, the people aiming to create this totalitarian world government, are billionaires. It even appears that some people who get that wealthy are asked to join some mysterious Masonic groups who seem to have these aims. Sean Quinn, who became a billionaire in Ireland, rumour has it, was apparently asked to join such a group, refused, and then ended up with tremendous business problems.

    In any case one such billionaire seems to be Elon Musk who addressed his planned for new employees in Twitter, during which:

    “Musk briefly diverted the conversation into a discussion about aliens and human consciousness.” (17)

    Its curious that a lot of billionaires like him seem obsessed by Space exploration recently, not only Musk but also Richard Branson and Jeff Bezos.

    More specifically though we have some evidence from Milton William Cooper, author of ‘Behold a Pale Horse’ and formerly of US Naval Intelligence, who refers here to what he found out about this after extensive research including among his friends in the US intelligence community (he came into this subject in 1972, because while sorting intelligence then at the HQ of the US Pacific Fleet he was handed documentation on the supposed alien technologies):

    “What I discovered ladies and gentlemen is that there has been a plan in existence since about 1917, and probably before that to create an artificial extra-terrestrial threat to this earth in order to create a one world totalitarian socialist government.

    One of the first documents that I found in my search was this one, the Imperial Japanese Mission 1917, a record of the reception throughout the United States of the special mission headed by Viscount Ishii. And when the Imperial Japanese Mission was in New York City they had a dinner and some pretty famous people spoke at this dinner. One of them was John Dewey. John Dewey is the father of our failing, disastrous, public education system. Here is what he said, listen very carefully...:

    ‘Someone remarked that the best way to unite all the nations on this globe would be an attack from some other planet. In the face of such an alien enemy, people would respond with a sense of their unity of interest and purpose.’

    Now bear in mind folks that’s 1917.


    I believe because of my research, because of the extensive documentation that I have found that is in my book, that this whole scenario has been created to give us an artificial alien threat from outer space. During the Reagan administration he made six speeches, specifically talked about a threat from outer space by some other species from some other planet. Six, ladies and gentlemen, why would the President repeat the same thing six times, tagged onto the ends of speeches by him. The speech writers did not put that in the speech, Ronald Reagan added it himself, [Ronald Reagan speaking to the UN]:

    ‘Perhaps we need some outside universal threat. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.’” (18)

    Another example of a researcher who has tripped across a similar threat would be the important Serge Monast. From French speaking Canada he leaked the ‘Project Blue Beam’ scenario. That project talked about planning for a staged global light show, illuminating the sky with advanced holograms with fake information, presumably about non existent aliens but also, according to Monast’s information, fake information which would lead people to question their own religions and embrace a new one world religion.

    An interesting few comments in the 1960s US government’s Report from Iron Mountain, might be worth dwelling on as well:

    “Credibility, in fact, lies at the heart of the problem of developing a political substitute for war. [They framed their report as supposedly just an attempt to find a permanent peace.] This is where the space-race proposals, in many ways so well suited as economic substitutes for war, fall short. The most ambitious and unrealistic space project cannot of itself generate a believable external menace. It has been hotly argued that such a menace would offer the “last, best hope of peace,” etc., by uniting mankind against the danger of destruction by “creatures” from other planets or from outer space. Experiments have been proposed to test the credibility of an out-of-our-world invasion threat; it is possible that a few of the more difficult-to-explain “flying saucer” incidents of recent years were in fact early experiments of this kind. If so, they could hardly have been judged encouraging. We anticipate no difficulties in making a “need” for a giant super space program credible for economic purposes, even were there not ample precedent; extending it, for political purposes, to include features unfortunately associated with science fiction would obviously be a more dubious undertaking.

    Nevertheless, an effective political substitute for war would require “alternate enemies,” some of which might seem equally farfetched in the context of the current war system. It may be, for instance, that gross pollution of the environment can eventually replace the possibility of mass destruction by nuclear weapons as the principal apparent threat to the survival of the species.” (19)

    To summarise then: there is a lot of evidence that these Globalists intend to initiate a fake alien invasion, in simple terms a bit like the film ‘Independence Day’ and using advanced lasers etc to paint holographic images of aliens onto the sky. On the one hand its part of the same drama, creating a worldwide crisis the solution for which is to be more world government. After all surely earth should get its act together then and select someone to speak for global humanity, to arrange our global defence against aliens potentially, etc etc?

    But on the other hand its also clear they intend getting more from this. If they can claim that alien technologies and visitations have always been with us over the centuries on earth, they can attempt to shatter our faith in established religions. So for example they can claim that the universe, as we understand it, was created by aliens – so destroying the usual Proofs of God’s Existence arguments –, they can claim that Marian Apparitions and all supposed supernatural activity were really aliens, etc etc. Talking about new technologies that the aliens have given us, secretly and now with real new information, could destroy any kind of scientific groundedness. It could if you like propel us into a new Age of Aquarius type atmosphere, where we simply don’t believe anything that existed before. I think they hope that in this confused ‘new consciousness’ type atmosphere, combined with the massive disillusionment with established leaders and institutions (because they had led us so badly astray, in economics, in medicine, in war etc etc) they could bounce the masses into even worshipping Satan, which, unquestionably although I know implausibly, is the end goal.

    I wonder if this alien scenario could tie in somehow to the vaccines? Clearly there will come a point, soon enough, where people will realise that these vaccines have damaged their health, maybe even tampered with their DNA and possibly gave them AIDS. Obviously I am only speculating, but could it be claimed that aliens have something to do with this, or have a cure for the vaccine injuries?

    The point is that many of the big names in the vaccine resistance movement, a good cause of course, are nonetheless mysteriously connected to some Occult groups, particularly: ‘The Academy of Divine Knowledge’.(20) Now called UnityD, they sell alien themed tee-shirts in their store and say this in their mission statement:

    “Our goal at UNIFYD is to create a place where we can come together to raise the collective consciousness...We knew we needed a change in our world, and we knew we could only do it on a collective level. When we UNIFY our consciousness and put our energy together, we shift our entire reality in ways that surpass even our wildest dreams!

    ...and support the initiative of building a new system rooted out of compassion and love, and dedicated towards catalyzing humanity’s ascension.” (21)

    The reputed originator of the group, Sacha Stone, through another of his groups Humanitad, is backing the International Tribunal for Natural Justice, which is having hearings on the Covid pandemic.(22)

    Which brings up another point. One way that this atmosphere of divorcing people from their ‘groundedness’ could have a practical impact is that they might then support quasi judicial groups which could recommend the death penalty on those who pushed the vaccine/medical tyranny? That is just speculation obviously, but builds on historical experience like that of the French or Russian Revolutions, where a chaotic environment like this can lead to arbitrary justice in a way that I think should be deplored, and not supported in anyway despite peoples understandable anger about these issues.


    I appreciate there is a lot of speculation in the foregoing but I think much of it is definitely going to happen, the exact sequence or dates are less easy to say however. This does tie in with what Globalists actually say, but you have to read between the lines a little to understand them.

    Here is an example of what I mean from David Rothkopf. He was the acting U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration and was also the Managing Director of Kissinger Associates, founded by Henry Kissinger. Kissinger, even now at 100, is the lynchpin in the creation of this NWO, he talks to the very top power structure on a regular basis, including all US Presidents, Putin and Xi, and is simultaneously a key figure in the Occult world. Anyway here is Rothkopf speaking in Washington DC in 2008 on the publication of his book Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World they are Making:

    “[Because of the inequalities built into the system:]

    Does it suggest that in the global era there will be backlash and there will be developments that are likely to result in a change away from this Westphalian view [i.e. with power held by Nation States], a change towards a new way of looking at governance. I don’t think its going to be hierarchic, I think its going to be all sorts of layers of different kinds of governance mechanisms.

    But is that going to be a defining change of our time and what is the shape that is going to take and what is the price that we are going to pay, in terms of the backlash that is going to be required to produce the step forward that will be involved in actually creating global governance mechanisms where we all welcome the kind of teeth that those mechanisms need in order to be effective?

    And you know I am hopeful, because I think we live in the best time in the history of the world and that progress has worked to our benefit and there is a wind on our backs. I am hopeful and I look at things like Climate Change and I say perhaps that will redefine everything. Because Climate Change is unique as the challenges that we face as a people are. Its kind of like, you may remember Ronald Reagan, once made the remark that if you really wanted to get everybody on the planet on the same page announce that there is a space invasion coming. And we would find a common enemy in the aliens and we would be able to get together.

    Well I think to some extent we may be seeing that with Climate Change. It is one of those issues where you can’t have an alliance of the willing, you need to have an alliance of everybody. And you need to have institutions that work for everybody. And so maybe that will be the catalyst. There maybe other kinds of catalyst but I do know that time is running out, not just to deal with issues like Climate Change but on my remarks!” (23)

    Post edited by Ten of Swords on



This discussion has been closed.