Only an alliance between Moscow and Beijing can break the deep state’s new misanthropic concepts aimed at radically reformatting the world.
The coronavirus epic “predicted” a few years ago is likely man-made in nature. Both the dynamics of the events and certain coincidences bear witness to this. In the summer of 2020 the “Great Reset” project (Klaus Schwab) emerged, which ties in with the epidemic as a factor that enables the transformation of the world order in the interests of corporations. After Biden’s move into the White House, Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, presents a new “global concert” similar to that from the beginning of the 19th century. Lasiet šeit.
Club of Rome, globalization and globalism
The project of shaping a world of corporations has been around for a long time. The Club of Rome worked it out in detail in a series of program reports that proposed a roadmap for managed globalization. After the collapse of the USSR, its main ideas – the limitation of development, population and energy consumption by mystical “limits to growth”, and the division of the world into zones with narrow economic specializations, the interdenominational unification of the world on the basis of a ” only world religion ”, etc. – summarized in the“ Agenda-XXI ”.
Eight “Development Goals of the Millennium” are extracted from this (2000-2015), which are then reformulated into seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030). At the same time, a system of global governance institutions is emerging. The general idea is as follows: Humanity is divided into higher and lower castes. Thanks to pioneering biotechnologies, the superior (“elite”) achieve, if not immortality, an unimaginably long physical life. The underdogs are the serving staff who, with the help of social and medical technologies, sink into chaos and archaicism in order to avoid self-organization of protest.
The greatly reduced number of the inferior will be further regulated and kept by external control at a level of up to 500 million people for the entire planet; Industry and agriculture are destroyed. There is a “golden age” on the planet – endless hierarchical immutability, compounded by the destruction of identity and the obliteration of historical memory.
The conceptual justification for the plans of human segregation was the extension of the theory of natural selection (Charles Darwin) and the theory of population (Thomas Malthus) to the social sphere, at the crossroads of which eugenics appeared (Francis Galton), which tried to be religious and moral Remove restrictions on the path to the selective “improvement” of human nature.
In addition, there were the most important developments in British and American geopolitics at sea and on land. The implementation of the above-mentioned theoretical views in practice formed the civilizing task of the West in the form of a gradual expansion from the periphery to the center of Eurasia.
This was outlined in the most concentrated form in the National Socialist general plan “East”, as well as in similar western projects of the dismemberment of “Greater Russia” and the colonization of its ruins. The transformation of the world of states into a world of corporations should be achieved through globalization, through the destruction of states and the fragmentation of identities, followed by the atomization of individuals and global economic integration.
World War II was unleashed to return to the vision of a world government whose establishment on the basis of the League of Nations had been interrupted by the Great October Revolution. However, the decisive defeat of Nazi Germany by the Red Army and the full participation of the USSR in shaping the post-war world order again prevented the UN from being granted the status of a “Supreme Authority”, making this organization an arena of confrontation between the superpowers Made the cold war.
If you look today at the global game that was “played” after the collapse of the USSR, the ruling circles of the West failed to maintain control over the development of the world because they underestimated the potential of Russia and China represent a solidary challenge for US hegemony in Eurasia.
When analyzing the possible options for the further development of current trends, one should keep an eye on and take into account the experiences described above in the formation of the global world order after the world wars. The first option, currently mainly implemented, is related to the internal systemic challenge facing the West by Russia and China. That is, our countries as a whole accept the established rules of the global game and fight to take control of their implementation, including the corresponding system of global institutions.
In this case, an extreme confrontation is inevitable, right up to a military confrontation and a large-scale conflict, because defeat in such a competition is tantamount to capitulating and pushing the loser to the edge of both the capitalist world system and the world historical process a total of.
The second variant, of which some elements are also present in the current conditions, even if they do not dominate, is the repetition of the experience of the Great October Revolution, combined with the formation of a systemic alternative, ie another world system with its own rules of the game. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and a number of related financial institutions – the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank, as well as post-Soviet integration projects and the Chinese New Silk Road Initiative – are precisely the prototype of such a systemic alternative.
The metamorphosis of “sustainable development”
Under certain conditions, you can force people to behave in a desired manner using force or pressure. Alternatively, they can be “brainwashed” by implanting a certain set of necessary attitudes into them and convincing them that those attitudes represent their beliefs. The beliefs, in turn, are fixed in religious systems for believers and in ideological systems for atheists. Like vessels connected to one another, religion and ideology in their project genesis have the property of replacing and complementing one another.
The integration of the religious factor, combined with the formation of “one world religion”, was triggered by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), the main decision of which was to put Christianity in the wake of Judaism by increasing the “seniority” of the the latter and the “blood” of the Savior was recognized vis-à-vis the Jewish people (that is, the ideal was replaced by the material: the Christian spirit by the ethnic factor).
This trend was coupled with the ecumenical process. In 1995, on the basis of the International Gorbachev Foundation and with the support of George Bush, Margret Thatcher, Zbigniew Brzezinski and other world leaders and ideologues of globalism, the “State of the World” (World Forum) was founded, the main aim of which is the organization of interreligious dialogue. In 2001 the Ecumenical Charter, which united Catholics and Protestants, was signed.
The “Ecumenical Patriarchate” of Constantinople is currently trying to draw the Orthodox churches into this bundle, and the Protestant expansion in the Asia-Pacific countries, especially South Korea and China, is being promoted.
In the ideological field, the process of global integration was also initiated in the 1960s with the establishment of the Club of Rome, associated with the Holy See, the ecumenical movement and the oligarchic clans that patronize it. The joint “game” was handled by the Vatican Bank (Istituto per le Opere di Religione) and its links to the banking sector. The method of integrating “Catholic” banks into banking networks and alliances controlled by the oligarchy through Catholic orders (Maltese, Opus Dei, etc.) and smuggling appropriate agents of oligarchic influence into state institutions was also used.
The Club of Rome chose ecology and the “green” themes because there were no other common themes between West and East under the Cold War conditions.
Environmental security issues were initially removed from the general area of national security. Then the “broad” interpretation of ecology, which included the spheres of economic, social and political development, was absolutized and raised above security as such. The “broad” environmental imperative was used to overcome the “iron curtain” between East and West.
This is how the convergent ideological key concept of globalism, “sustainable development”, came about. It should be a development that does not destroy nature and does not disturb the balance between the biosphere and the technosphere; In fact, the authors place the ideological dominant of non-development in “sustainable development”, which is supposed to prevent the erosion of western dominance.
Globalism entered its active phase in the 1970s, which is reflected in the following chain of events:
1971 – Replacement of the Bretton Woods system of the gold standard by the detached Jamaica system;
1972 – Founding of the “convergent” International Institute for Applied Systems Research (IISA) in Vienna with the participation of the USA and the USSR as well as other NATO and Warsaw Pact countries;
1972 – Publication of the first report to the Club of Rome “The Limits to Growth” developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). In this document, two fundamental tasks were formulated and defined, under the sign of all current events: the reduction of the population and the limitation of industrial development (now coded as “combating anthropogenic emissions”);
1972/1973 – The founding of the Trilateral Commission (Rockefeller and Brzezinski), which united the elites of North America, Western Europe and Japan into a world architecture with three blocs; In 1975, under the direction of Huntington, Croisier and Watanuki, it prepared the report “The Crisis of Democracy”, widely circulated in the West, in which they combined the preservation of capitalism with traditionalism through a “new fascism”;
1973/1974. – In the USA, the previous presidents and vice-presidents Nixon and Agnew were gradually replaced by the unelected placeholders of the oligarchy, Gerald Ford and Nelson Rockefeller;
1975 – Final Act of the CSCE in Helsinki, in which the USSR agreed to be involved in “global issues” in exchange for “guarantees” of post-war borders;
1975 – Founding of the Vanguard Group, the system-building asset management company; under the conditions of the total monopoly that has arisen, this type of “global investor” controls the world economy through almost all transnational banks and corporations; they also play a key role in the newly created Council for Inclusive Capitalism in the Vatican.
We would like to remind you that in a study by the Eldgenossische Technische Hochschule Zürich around 2010, the structure of share ownership and cross-partnerships of 43,000 banks and companies was analyzed, whereby the result was a “broad” core of 1,318 subjects. Within this core, a “narrow” core of 147 important financial and industrial groups was identified. The wealth management companies, estimated to be ten to fifteen in total, form the “ultra-narrow” core of the global capitalist economy.
The involvement of the USSR in global issues was done with the direct assistance of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers Kosygin. The Soviet Union was one of the founders of the Vienna Institute for Systems Research. Its branch and a number of related institutes were established in the Soviet Union. In 1983, on secret orders from Andropov, the Politburo Commission of the Central Committee of the CPSU for Economic Reform was founded, headed by Prime Minister Tikhonov and his deputy Ryzhkov; the actual management was held by Shatalin and Gwischiani. The commission included a group of future “reformers” including Gaidar, Chubais, Aven and others. (Note d. Translated: The last three became powerful figures in privatization after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s under Yeltsin, which in turn produced the Russian oligarchs, to whom at least Aven, if not all three, could be counted )
In general, there is still a significant semantic difference between the categories “sustainable development” and “sustainable development”, the essence of which can be found in the speeches of the leaders of Russia and China at the climate summit, which took place on April 22nd and 23rd at the initiative of Joe Biden Year, reflects.
The West sees the climate process as a way of gaining access to the resources of developing countries, as a tool to force them to de-industrialize and buy Western “green” products and “green” technology (with the help of the carbon tax ) and as a means of building a global system of “ecological” values imposed by the West. The trends of the future are also being imposed, especially technological leadership in the context of “green” digitization and artificial intelligence, which are assigned a decisive role in shaping the “new world order”.
That is the real point of the Great Reset project. For Russia and China, participation in the climate process is an instrument for strengthening sovereignty, but also for technological development and for solving “postponed” environmental problems. Therefore, Putin put the question of linking industrial emissions to their absorption by the natural environment back on the agenda, pointing to the almost 30-fold excess of the methane greenhouse effect over CO2.
It follows that climate change must be combated by recycling methane and not by trading in CO2 certificates. According to Putin’s speech, the most important resource for low-carbon development is nuclear power, not the infamous renewable energies that demonstrated their failure in Europe last winter. In addition, Xi Jinping held out the prospect that emissions in China would increase to a maximum of 2030 and that “CO2 neutrality” would not be achieved until 2060, that is, in the foreseeable future.
In contrast to their Western opponents, our countries do not associate ecology with foreign policy or global governance, but with internal development.
“Sustainable Development” and “Peacebuilding”
The system of institutions of “sustainable development” that has emerged comprises two main directions or tracks. The first integrates the environment with the economy and the social sphere in a “broad” interpretation and is represented by the institution of the UN Conferences on Environment and Development. These take place every ten years, and at the first conference after the collapse of the USSR, the Rio 92 conference, the basic Rio Declaration on Environment and Development as well as Agenda 21 and a number of other international documents mentioned above were adopted.
The second line extends the issue of sustainable development into the political sphere, and the transition is made through a different type of institution, the World Summits on Development Goals, the first of which, known as the Millennium Summit, took place in 2000 and the subsequent all five Years to be convened.
The 2000 summit presented the Millennium Development Goals; the 2015 summit updated them with the sustainable development goals. The content of the development goals is essentially based on the Millennium Development Goals, but details them by doubling the total number of “goals”. The last “goal” in both cases is the “global partnership”.
It bridges the gap with the concept of “preventive diplomacy”, which is a mechanism for “post-conflict” resolution of internal and non-interstate conflicts. To this end, internal conflicts are first ignited and then internationalized in order to enable foreign intervention and bring the country under Western control. This is known as “peacebuilding”, which is led by a special body within the UN structure, the Peacebuilding Commission.
The basic concepts of “sustainable development” and “peacebuilding” are supported by the relevant UN documents. “Sustainable development”, as it was outlined in the report “Our Global Neighborhood” of the UN Commission on Global Governance and Cooperation from 1995, aims to form a “global community” in which security is not with the states, but with “Planet and people” lies.
This is a mechanism of total intervention everywhere; Currently it is carried out under the slogan of human rights, in the future the reason will be that countries do not comply with “international standards” of environmental protection. The resources themselves are converted into “global commons” for whose use countries pay “global taxes” to the UN. ( Editor’s note: Anyone can see that this is not a fantasy, because ecocide is currently being introduced as an international criminal offense in addition to genocide, which will then make interventions by the West possible that are no longer justified with human rights but with environmental protection can be .)
The goals of “peacebuilding” are shown in the report of the high-level panel of the United Nations “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility” (2004). Both documents have one thing in common. These are plans to reform the UN, which are intended to adapt the Security Council to the shift in globalization to the regional principle.
Russian and Chinese opposition to globalism
Schwab’s Great Reset plan is directly linked to the aforementioned sustainable development goals, i.e. it targets the year 2030. From a methodological point of view, the Great Reset concept combines sustainable development and digitization. And here we should look for an answer to the question of why the Club of Rome at the time linked global problems with “environmental protection” in order to then link them with the economic and social factor, from where they can be found in “big politics” “Arrived.
At the center of all theoretical constructions associated with the “Great Reset” is the alliance of the three forces that are “responsible” for promoting global change: the state factor, the economy and civil society. In this combination, however, a peculiarity of interpretation and meaning is embedded. At the UN level, the economy is united by the Global Compact, the purpose of which is to impose conditions on banks and corporations in developing countries that have been defined by the industrialized countries as sustainable development.
As far as “global civil society” is concerned, it is also understood specifically – as the entirety of its organized top, represented by NGOs. All official documents relating to “sustainable development”, both inside and outside the UN, appeal to them, despite their obvious dependence not on civil society as such, but on external forces interested in a particular focus of their activities . At the same time, the relationship between companies and NGOs and governments, as seen by globalists, is characterized by a telling quote from the UN report “Our Global Neighborhood”:
“Governance and collaboration is the sum total of the many ways in which individuals and organizations, both government and private, conduct their business together. It is an ongoing process of balancing opposing interests and differences in order to act together. Such a process encompasses the entire system of government and formal institutions designed to ensure the adaptation, agreement and existing informal arrangements between individuals and organizations that are in their interests ”
This means that the role of states is not to guarantee security, but to safeguard the private interests of certain groups. In the meantime, the “unofficial agreements” that meet “the interests” of “individuals and organizations” are referred to as mafia business. The inclusion of “official institutions” in them is seen as corruption. But this is about “big politics” – a process that “embraces the entire system of government” (the author of the report, which was commissioned by the UN, is former Prime Minister of Sweden and Vice-President of the Socialist International Karlson).
How is this case to be explained? “Individuals and Organizations” is nothing more than a euphemism for the global oligarchy. In other words, the states are included in the “alliance” between business and the NGOs, not as equal partners and certainly not as carriers of the globalization tendencies, but as an object which, within the framework of this partnership, gives these new subjects – the economy and the NGOs – should give up. So to those who stand behind them and direct their activities.
This is the logic behind the creation of the Inclusive Capital Council, which was unveiled to the public in November 2020. It was in this logic that the Vatican Council for Inclusive Capitalism was founded, which declared itself the “headquarters of the global movement”. This leads us to treat the Council as a global party, or rather its Central Committee. The corresponding hierarchy has four levels. At the head is the Jesuit Pope Francis.
The second “floor” from the top belongs to the oligarchs, embodied by the exemplary figure of Lynn de Rothschild. The “guardians” in the list, called “guardians” but more appropriately translated as “guardians”, have the leading role of big business people and representatives of NGOs (“informal sector”), but there is none at all Representation of state interests.
Overall, it is a kind of Politburo. Below that, in the third (“srewards”) and fourth (“allies”) levels, there are smaller representatives. It is very clear that there is not a single representative of Russia and China among the 69 “guardians”, “keepers” and “allies”. An alliance without Russians and Chinese is an alliance against Russians and Chinese, that is an iron law of world politics.
There is one more very important nuance that the creators of the project do not want to pay attention to. Among the member organizations of the “inclusive” council is a certain JLens who says the following about herself (Lasīt šeit):
“JLens”, founded in 2012, is a network of investors that researches the Jewish perspective on impact investing and serves as a bridge between the Jewish community and the areas of Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Impact investing is a new term for an old concept: values, ethics and mission extend to investment decisions. In recent years, however, the field has evolved into a global values-based movement, creating an exciting new forum for the application of Jewish wisdom.
JLens oversees the incorporation of Jewish values for the advocacy of the Jewish community into both propaganda efforts and portfolio strategy at approximately three hundred of the most influential companies in the United States.
… JLens is also hosting a Jewish Impact Investing Summit at the Vatican that brings together capital managers from the Jewish community to learn and collectively promote Jewish leadership in impact investing. JLens has already represented the Jewish community three times in the Vatican, most recently at the Summit on Religions and Sustainable Development in 2019. “
So the alliance between Catholicism and Judaism, formalized in the first half of the 1960s by the Second Vatican Council, is being promoted by the Jesuits towards the control of Jewish capital over major American corporations, and it seems that it is not just about American Company goes. How likely is it that this is the point and the ultimate goal of the entire papal council and thus of the entire project of the “Great Reset”? And to what extent is this question rhetorical when the answer is obvious?
In this scheme, digitization is not a goal, let alone a path to technological perfection, but an instrument of the technocratic monopoly of control over humanity in order to make it all-encompassing and totalitarian with the help of artificial intelligence.
Officially, the date 2030 for the “Great Reset” project with the timetable for sustainable development is declared, but informally it is admitted that it is about the rapid growth of China, whose development will secure it a victory in strategic competition with the West by 2030. The combination of the strategic projects of China (Silk Road) and Russia (Eurasian Economic Union) leads our country to a certain extent out of the dependence on the program guidelines of globalism.
Significantly, the independence of Russia and China was demonstrated by the climate summit in April, a continuation of the position both countries declared in the speeches of President Putin and President Xi on the “virtual Davos” in February. At the time, these speeches sounded dissonant in relation to the rest; However, their meaning overlapped so much that it was clear: the two texts were coordinated diplomatically in order to explain the commonality of Moscow and Beijing’s views on world affairs.
Two hypostases of modern globalism
The fact that the new concept of the “global concert”, which appeared in spring, together with the “Great Reset” refers to the experiences of the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) and the world order created after the Napoleonic wars is revealing, as “sustainable development” is not mentioned. With a view to the weakening of the West, supported by the offensive of the “non-democracies”, which clearly means Moscow and Beijing, Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, states that the liberal world order of “democracies” is not was able to ensure global stability. Neither material nor intellectual resources are sufficiently available.
A standardization without formalized membership is proposed, a kind of “round table” to balance interests in order to avoid excessive tension. Haas sees the “concert” as an advisory body; the agreements made, embodied in “recommendations”, are implemented by official institutions. At the same time, the “Great Reset” is neither canceled nor rejected; it is simply pushed aside, as if one realizes that it cannot be implemented now.
The association should not have a formal membership, but rather be a kind of “round table” to balance interests in order to avoid excessive tension. Haas sees the “concert” as an advisory body; the agreements made, embodied in “recommendations”, are implemented by official institutions. At the same time, the “Great Reset” is not canceled or rejected; it is simply pushed aside because one understands that it cannot be implemented now.
The impression arises that the “concert” is not an alternative, but rather a preparation time, which means that the main scenario (and the annoyance) disappears from the foreground behind a disguise. And as soon as the “concert” has fulfilled its distraction tasks, everything in globalism, including “sustainable development”, will return to normal. Why?
First, Haas’ criticism of the UN clearly points to the undermining of the proposed “concert sextet” by the existing system under the leadership of the Security Council. If you add Biden’s promise to put together a “forum of democracies” without Russia and China, it turns out that our two countries are being offered a “demo forum” agenda at the “Sextet”, which is seen as a priority over the UN agenda.
The rejection includes a system of “collective isolation of revisionists,” as Haas specifically writes. And most importantly, the central role of the UN, which Moscow and Beijing support, will end there. The devaluation of the UN as part of the “concert” is necessary to promote the “Great Reset”. At the same time, the authors of the initiative are trying to achieve an additional goal: to replace the six-party meeting initiated by Putin with a meeting of the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council.
Second: If the center of world events noticeably shifts to the “sextet”, the balance of power in the world is cardinally changed. In the UN Security Council it is three to two in favor of the West, but with a right of veto, which abolishes the majority structure; in the group of six it will be four to two and without veto, ie the majority determines the decisions.
In addition, there is the multiple “voice” of the EU, which has two permanent members in the Security Council – the USA and France – and in addition to them another one – Great Britain and Germany. In this case, the West will hide behind the ambitions of Germany, Japan and India, who are desperate to become members of the Security Council, and it will begin to incite them. Not to mention the fact that the West, under the Six, will cultivate opposition to China and India that will undermine the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS, thereby damaging Russia’s interests as well.
Third, the priorities of the “concert” proclaim support for existing borders and the violent suppression of self-determination, as well as the search for collective responses to global challenges. However, adoption of these provisions will override the UN Charter to which they conflict. In addition, one should be aware that the USSR has already collapsed, while this trend is only just beginning to emerge in the West (Scotland, Catalonia, etc.).
Under these conditions, the enforced status quo establishes the irreversibility of the collapse of Russia, while the West avoids it. The “concert” is necessary so that NATO can continue to expand under the guise of negotiations at the expense of the former Soviet republics. And also, we should add that to cover up US interference in Chinese sovereignty, up to and including the “legitimate” unleashing of a war over Taiwan.
Fourth: Even in the 19th century, the infamous “concert” did not spare our country from separate alliances of the West. These processes culminated in the Crimean War and the Opium Wars in China. This happened because the consensus of the “concert” was limited to the West and directed against the East. The same is proposed now. Haas hypes the “otherness” of the East and at the same time denies it.
And finally, fifth: two addresses are proposed for the headquarters of the “concert”, each with very concrete historical parallels and contemporary meanings. These are Geneva and Singapore, which are closely linked to the Rothschild oligarch clan. And here the connection between the “global concert” and the “Great Reset” is visually perceived on a symbolic level, so to speak “according to Freud”.
From this a mathematical formula can be derived for the forced division of the one globalist project into two phases. The “concert” is equal to “reset” minus “sustainable development”. With this help, the authors of the project hope to “calm down” China and Russia so that they do not go together on the path declared at the World Economic Forum and the climate summit.
First. The emergence of the “Great Reset” and “Global Concert” projects suggests attempts to intensify processes of globalization aimed at the end of history and halting development. The splitting of Homo sapiens into two different subspecies is in progress. The upper, elitist stratum, limited to a few hundred aristocratic and oligarchic families and representatives of science, achieved a significant expansion of physical existence. The number of people of the “lower” class is radically reduced by a series of crises, epidemics, wars, and so on.
Globalization is seen as a tool of the erosion and collapse of states and the atomization of identities, followed by a “reassembly” of these debris on a corporate basis into a new community through universal economic integration. The model of these processes is the division of the world across borders into a “global city” – a system of megalopolitan agglomerations that are connected to one another by modern means of communication – and a “global village” – the area in between, which is chaotic and archaic sinks. With the spread of segregation, the contradictions between “city” and “village” deepen, which leads to the emergence and escalation of conflicts.
Secondly. The concept of “sustainable development” is the ideology and method of controlled global changes in the direction mentioned above and forms the trend to stop development by limiting industrial progress, disguised as the fight against environmental pollution and climate change. Add to this the obfuscation of breakthrough technologies and the concentration of control over natural resources and birth rates.
In practice, the Sustainable Development Goals (2015-2030), which are the second version of the Millennium Development Goals (2000-2015), are at the center of the “sustainable development” model. “The goals are an outline of the“ agendas ”for the 21st century and up to 2030.” (Agenda-XXI, Agenda-2030).
Specialized programs, agencies and funds of the United Nations are actively used to oversee these processes. Control by the UN Secretariat is duplicated by special “sustainable development” institutions – UN conferences on environment and development and UN world summits on development goals. Both are linked to “sustainable development” through the absolutization of environmental protection as a basis.
Third. The greatest challenge for the established system of global governance is currently the rapid rapprochement between Russia and China. This helps to shape the overall potential in Eurasia and to balance the military, political and economic power of the collective West; Moscow’s and Beijing’s alternative views of “sustainable development” and global governance as a whole provide the ideological basis for this.
In order to promote it, our countries use a literal interpretation of the documents and the goals of “sustainable development” which they set out in the interests of the majority of humanity, especially developing countries, the strengthening of state sovereignty, and universal, honest and equal participation in the Exercise global governance.
Fourth. The position of Russia and China is radically displeasing to the “masters” of the “sustainable development” project, who, in order to overcome the Russian-Chinese “revisionism” of their plans, have started to form global institutions of a higher order. The first of these institutions to emerge as part of the practical implementation of the “Reset” project was the Council for Inclusive Capitalism in the Vatican.
The Vatican Council on Inclusive Capitalism unites the interests of the oligarchy and the NGOs fed by their elites to undermine states and sovereigns in favor of global “collective sovereignty”. Placing the Roman Pope at the center of the hierarchical organizational structure formed by the Council suggests that the Council is endowed with an ecumenical meaning for action, which results from the alliance of the Roman Catholic Church with the major centers of world Jewry concluded in the 1960s results.
The Western elites lack the potential to directly overcome the resistance between Russia and China against the “Great Reset” project, the executive body of which is the Council for Inclusive Capitalism. This leads to euphemistic solutions, such as the aforementioned “global concert” project, which disguises its affiliation with globalism by pretending to ignore “sustainable development”. The tactical side of this zigzag is related to the attempt to involve Moscow and Beijing while at the same time weakening the central role of the UN; strategically, the concert is clearly the initial phase of the “reset”.
Fifth. The most important and only alternative condition for effectively countering the globalist plans remains the comprehensive strengthening of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership with the possibility of turning it into a full-fledged political and even military alliance if necessary. The reasons for this lie in the increasing combination of Russia’s military potential and China’s economic strength, which is greatly enhanced by a common technological base.
The value system of Russia and China, which deviates from the West, plays a decisive role here. The projection of these advantages onto the modern stage of human development leads us to expect that globalism will cease and be defeated in the competition with the system of national sovereignty, which is the most important content of this world historical moment.