The Owners of the World
Each of them has a well documented history, which shows their remote origins, the transformation they have gone through in time and the present state of their implementation.
The agents that personify these projects are respectively:
1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of those two countries.
2. The Western finance elite, as represented especially in the Bilderberg Club, the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.
3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of several Islamic countries and the some Muslim countries governments.
Only the first one of these three agents can be conceived of in strict geopolitical terms, as its plans and actions correspond to well defined national and regional interests. The second one, which is more advanced in the implementation of its plans for world government, places itself explicitly above any national interests, including those of the countries where it originated and which serve as its basis for operations. In the third one, conflicts of interests between national governments and the overarching goal of a Universal Caliphate end up always being resolved in favor of the latter, which is today the most important factor for the ideological unification of the Islamic world.
The conceptions of global power that these three agents strive to implement are very different among themselves because they stem from heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible inspirations.
Although in principle the relations among them are of competition and dispute, sometimes even of military nature, there are vast zones of fusion and collaboration, as flexible and changing as they may be. This phenomenon disorients the observers, producing all sorts of dislocated and fabulous interpretations, some under the form of “conspiracy theories,” others as self proclaimed “realistic” and “scientific” refutations of those theories.
A good deal of the nebulosity in the world scene is produced by a more or less constant factor: each one of the three agents tends to interpret in its own terms the plans and actions of the other two, in part for deliberate propaganda purposes, in part due to a genuine misunderstanding of the situation.
The strategic analyses from all involved reflect, each of them, the ideological bias that is proper to it. Even though they strive to take into account the totality of available factors, the Russian-Chinese scheme stresses the geopolitical and military viewpoint, the Western scheme the economic, and the Islamic scheme the fight among religions.
This difference reflects, on its turn, the sociological composition of the ruling classes in the respective geographical areas:
1) Stemming from the communist Nomenklatura, the Russian-Chinese ruling class is essentially made up of bureaucrats, intelligence service agents and military officers.
2) The dominance of financiers and international bankers in the Western establishment is too well known and it is not necessary to insist on it.
3) In the various countries of the Islamic complex, the authority of the ruler depends substantially on the approval of the umma—the multitudinous community of authoritative interpreters of the traditional religion. Even though these countries display great variety in their domestic situations, it is not an exaggeration to describe the structure of their ruling power as “theocratic”.
Thus, for the first time in the history of the world, the three essential modalities of power—politico-military, economic and religious—find themselves personified in different supranational blocks, each of them with its own plans for world dominance and its peculiar mode of action. This doesn’t mean that they don’t act in all fronts, but only that their respective historical views and strategies are ultimately delimited by the modality of power they represent. It’s not far-fetched to say that the world today is the object of a dispute among the military, bankers and preachers.
Practically all analyses of international politics available today in the media reflect the subservience of “opinion makers” to one of the three disputing currents, and therefore the systematic ignorance of their areas of complicity and mutual help. These individuals judge facts and “take positions” based on the abstract values that they cherish, without even asking if their words, in the overall sum of the factors at play in the world, will not end up contributing to the glory of everything that they hate. The strategists of the three major global projects are well aware of this and they include political commentators—journalists and academics alike—among the most precious useful idiots at their service.
Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!