The report does not seek to examine all the various challenges likely to require multilateralist efforts, but rather highlights several important governance gaps. We therefore do not go into depth on proliferation or cybersecurity—which we believe are receiving greater attention. Instead, we focus on such issues as intrastate conflict, resource management, migration, and biotechnology. — Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture
BLUF: Between 2008 and 2010, an international set of think tanks collaberated on future challenges. The report concluded there was a ‘need’ for massive international cooperation by the year 2025, to face a changing world.
Introduction:
The Atlantic Council, a prominent nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., has played a pivotal role in shaping transatlantic relations and global policy discussions since its establishment in 1961 during the Cold War era. Alongside institutions like the United States National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union Institute of Security Studies (EUISS), the Atlantic Council contributes to strategic analysis and policy recommendations, fostering international cooperation amidst escalating global challenges.
In 2010, the collaborative report "Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture" was published, stating the ‘imperative for enhanced global governance mechanisms in the face of a multipolar world order and interconnected global challenges'.’ The report urged the US, EU, and other key actors to lead reform initiatives, to address these challenges and transform global governance into an effective and legitimate system.
Atlantic Council:
The Atlantic Council is a prominent nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C., renowned for its contributions to transatlantic relations and global policy discourse. Established in 1961 during the Cold War era, the Council emerged from a collaboration between American and European leaders and intellectuals. Notable figures involved in its founding included former U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Ambassador Christian Herter, and other influential policymakers, diplomats, and intellectuals.
Initially, the Atlantic Council's primary mission centered on fostering cooperation and solidarity between North America and Europe, particularly within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). At its inception, the Council aimed to strengthen the Atlantic community's resolve against the Soviet threat, promote democratic values, and facilitate economic and security cooperation across the Atlantic Ocean.
Over the decades, the Council's focus has evolved to encompass a broader array of global challenges and opportunities. While maintaining its commitment to transatlantic relations, the Atlantic Council has expanded its scope to address pressing issues such as cybersecurity, energy security, climate change, global health, economic development, and emerging technologies. In doing so, it has established itself as a leading voice in shaping international policy debates and fostering innovative solutions to contemporary global challenges.
Today, the Atlantic Council serves as a hub for policymakers, experts, business leaders, and civil society representatives from around the world to engage in dialogue, collaboration, and problem-solving. Through its various programs, initiatives, and events, the Council facilitates informed analysis, policy recommendations, and strategic partnerships to advance peace, prosperity, and security in an increasingly complex and interconnected world. Its commitment to fostering transatlantic cooperation remains steadfast, but its influence and reach extend far beyond the Atlantic region, reflecting the Council's evolution into a globally recognized and respected institution at the forefront of international affairs.
[Analyst note: Dean Acheson worked for Council of Foreign Relations, as well as directly for the House of Rockefeller, with ties to famous globalist Henry Kissinger. Evidence suggests that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) boasts a membership roster filled with influential figures spanning politics, business, academia, and media. This fact has led some observers to speculate about the existence of a secretive network of elites collaborating behind the scenes to influence global events. These individuals often cite the CFR's connections as compelling evidence of covert influence campaigns, clandestine meetings, and hidden agendas. Secretary Herter was an active Freemason and a member of the Grand Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.1234567]
US National Intelligence Council:
The United States National Intelligence Council (NIC) was established in 1979 as a center for strategic analysis and intelligence assessments within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI). It was founded in response to the need for comprehensive and forward-looking intelligence assessments to inform U.S. policymakers and national security decision-makers.
The NIC was founded by the U.S. government as a means to centralize and coordinate intelligence analysis from various agencies, including the CIA, NSA, FBI, and others. Its mission from the outset was to produce strategic intelligence assessments on global trends, emerging threats, and long-term challenges to U.S. national security.
Initially, the NIC primarily focused on traditional security threats such as terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and geopolitical rivalries. However, over time, its mission has evolved to address a broader range of issues, including economic trends, technological advancements, environmental challenges, and social dynamics shaping the global landscape.
Conspiracy theories surrounding the NIC often center on suspicions of government surveillance, covert operations, and manipulation of information. Some critics allege that the NIC, along with other intelligence agencies, engages in clandestine activities to exert control over domestic and international affairs. These theories sometimes suggest that the NIC's assessments are biased or manipulated to serve the interests of a shadowy elite or to justify government policies that infringe on civil liberties.
EU Institute of Security Studies:
The European Union Institute of Security Studies (EUISS) was established in 2002 as an EU agency dedicated to providing analyses and recommendations on foreign and security policy issues to the EU institutions and member states. It was founded by the European Union as part of its efforts to strengthen its role in global security affairs and to enhance its capacity for strategic thinking and policy planning.
The EUISS was founded by the EU Council to serve as an independent think tank and research center specializing in security studies. Its mission from the outset was to conduct in-depth analysis of security challenges facing the EU and its neighborhood, as well as to offer strategic advice and policy recommendations to EU policymakers.
Initially, the EUISS focused primarily on traditional security threats such as terrorism, conflict prevention, and crisis management. However, over time, its mission has expanded to address a broader range of security issues, including cybersecurity, hybrid threats, energy security, and the security implications of climate change and technological advancements.
Conspiracy theories surrounding the EUISS are relatively rare compared to other organizations, but some critics may question its independence and objectivity. They might suggest that the EUISS's analyses and recommendations are influenced by political agendas or that it serves as a tool for promoting the EU's interests on the global stage.
Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture
In 2010 a report titled “Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture” was written that presented a comprehensive analysis of the challenges and prospects for global governance in the upcoming years. In many respects it acts as a blueprint and a vision for our unfolding ‘future.’
The United States’ National Intelligence Council (NIC) and the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS) have joined forces to produce this assessment of the longterm prospecs for global governance frameworks. This exercise builds on the experience of the two institutions in identifying the key trends shaping the future international system. Since the mid-1990s, the NIC has produced four editions of its landmark Global Trends report. The most recent one, Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World, published in late 2008, noted that momentous change was ahead, with the gap between increasing disorder and weakening governance structures widening. The EUISS produced the first EU-level report on the factors affecting the evolution of the international system, The New Global Puzzle. What World for the EU in 2025?, in 2006. The report stressed that a multipolar system is emerging and that matching the new distribution of power with new rules and institutions will be critical to preserving international peace and stability.
Key conclusions drawn from the report include the following:
The complexity of global challenges is escalating, with an expanding array of issues on the international agenda such as ethnic conflicts, infectious diseases, terrorism, climate change, and energy insecurity. These challenges are increasingly taking precedence, surpassing the capabilities of both international organizations and national governments to effectively address them.
The transition to a multipolar world order poses a challenge to the prospects of effective global governance. The report states that with the proliferation of power centers, consensus-building becomes more intricate, complicating efforts to find common ground on global issues.
During the preparatory stages of the report, significant convergence was observed between European and American perspectives regarding the primary priorities for global governance in the forthcoming years. This alignment suggests potential avenues for collaboration and cooperation between these key actors.
The prospects for global governance present both opportunities and limitations. While there is a recognition of the need for enhanced global governance mechanisms, there are also concerns about the potential encroachment on national sovereignty and the effectiveness of existing institutions.
The report identifies three effects of rapid globalization that are driving demands for more effective global governance: economic interdependence, interconnected challenges on the international agenda, and the intertwining of domestic and foreign challenges. These effects underscore the interconnectedness of global issues and the imperative for collaborative solutions at the international level.
Key Players and Consultations: The report was enriched by consultations with government officials, business leaders, academics, NGOs, think tanks, and media representatives in various countries, including Brazil, China, India, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Russia, and the Gulf region (UAE). The preparatory stages revealed significant convergence between European and American perspectives on global governance priorities.
[Analyst note: revisit the above list of countries to see who is tied to a new globalist set of priorities, and pushing these agendas. If one were to compare this list of countries and examine their recent handling of the Covid-19 ‘pandemic,’ a more blatant trend of government overreach manifests (although Brazil was an outlier, until Lula was ‘elected.’ and Globalist policies resumed).]
Context and Challenges: Global governance faces critical challenges due to the growing number of issues on the international agenda and their increasing complexity. Threats such as ethnic conflicts, infectious diseases, terrorism, climate change, energy insecurity, food scarcity, water scarcity, international migration, and new technologies are taking center stage. The shift to a multipolar world order further complicates effective global governance.
Three Effects of Rapid Globalization: The increasing prominence of economic interdependence is underscored by the ascent of China, India, Brazil, and other rapidly advancing economies, which has deepened global economic interconnectedness. The international agenda is characterized by a web of interconnected challenges, including climate change, resource scarcity, economic instability, and state fragility, each influencing and exacerbating the others. Furthermore, the complex interplay between domestic and foreign challenges presents a formidable obstacle to international cooperation, as domestic politics frequently impede concerted global action.
Conclusions: The prospects for global governance offer both opportunities and limits. Global governance is not set to approach "world government." Divergent interests and concerns about sovereignty and institutional effectiveness persist. The report emphasizes that global challenges require global solutions, achievable only through proactive multilateralist approaches.
[Analyst note: despite careful verbiage in the report, the trend is obvious - global solutions to global problems, problems we now know were/are stimluated and created by the very same entities seeking to tighten their grip of control.]
Fictional Scenarios from the Report:
In the main text, fictionalized scenarios have been interspersed to depict potential outcomes if the various governance frameworks struggle to keep pace with the escalating number of transnational and global challenges. These scenarios highlight different possibilities that could unfold over the next 15 years (2010-2025), offering insights into the principal trajectories the international system may take in confronting new challenges. The risks associated with an unreformed global governance system are anticipated to accumulate over time, with crises potentially serving as catalysts for innovation and change, though prolonged inaction heightens the risk of a complete breakdown.
Scenario I: termed "Barely keeping afloat," envisages a scenario where no single crisis overwhelms the international system, yet collective management advances at a sluggish pace. Ad hoc measures and temporary frameworks are employed to address crises, but formal institutions remain largely unreformed, leading to Western states bearing a disproportionate burden of global governance responsibilities.
Scenario II: titled "Fragmentation," portrays a world where powerful states and regions prioritize self-preservation, leading to the erection of barriers against external threats. Asia focuses on building a self-sufficient regional order, while Europe grapples with internal challenges amidst declining living standards. The United States, while potentially in a better position due to its workforce, may still face fiscal constraints if unresolved budgetary and debt issues persist.
Scenario III: labeled "Concert of Europe Redux," envisions a scenario where severe threats prompt greater global cooperation and significant reform of the international system becomes feasible. While less likely in the short term, this scenario offers the prospect of building a resilient international system characterized by enhanced cooperation among major powers and regions.
[Analyst note: reread - a scenario where severe threats prompt greater global cooperation, and view this through the lens of a desired outcome by Globalist, namely “global cooperation.” This implies the ‘need’ for global threats, to justify ‘collaberation.’]
Scenario IV: termed "Gaming reality: Conflict trumps cooperation," presents a less probable but plausible scenario where domestic disruptions, particularly in emerging powers like China, escalate tensions and hinder global cooperation. Nationalistic pressures rise, leading to potential conflicts, nuclear arms races, and the undermining of global institutions and regional efforts.
These scenarios offer valuable insights into the potential trajectories of the international system and underscore the imperative for proactive and concerted efforts to address emerging challenges and reform global governance structures.
Scenarios versus Global Landscape Today:
Present-day circumstances can be complex and multifaceted, making it challenging to directly align them with any single scenario outlined above. However, some elements of each scenario may resonate with aspects of the contemporary global landscape:
1. Barely keeping afloat: This scenario may reflect the current situation in some respects, as the world grapples with multiple crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, economic challenges, ‘climate change,’ and geopolitical tensions. Ad hoc measures and temporary frameworks are often employed to address immediate threats, while long-term reforms face obstacles.
2. Fragmentation: Elements of this scenario, such as rising nationalism, regionalism, and inward-focused policies, can be observed in various parts of the world today. Economic self-sufficiency and protectionist measures have gained traction in some regions, contributing to global fragmentation and challenges to international cooperation.
3. Concert of Europe Redux: While significant global cooperation is evident in addressing certain challenges like ‘climate change’ and ‘public health,’ achieving consensus on broader reforms of the international system, presently remains elusive. Efforts to enhance global governance and cooperation face obstacles due to geopolitical rivalries, power struggles, and divergent national interests. Enter the Russia-Ukraine-NATO conflict, coupled with mass migration, inflation, and falling living standards.
4. Gaming reality: Conflict trumps cooperation: While open conflict on a global scale is generally avoided, tensions and rivalries persist among major powers, and conflicts flare up in various regions. Nationalistic sentiments, resource competition, and technological advancements raise concerns about the potential for escalation and conflict, underscoring the fragility of global stability.
It's important to note that the present-day global landscape is dynamic and subject to rapid changes influenced by various factors, including political decisions, economic developments, technological advancements, and social dynamics. As such, ongoing analysis and assessment are necessary to understand the evolving nature of global governance and its implications for the future. It is alo important to view recent events (wars, a ‘pandemic,’ ‘climate emergencies,’ resource scarcity, inflationary pressures, and ‘terroist’ attacks) through the lens of a desired outcome by those who create these policies, reports, and whisper in the ears of global leaders.
Report’s Predicted Challenges:
The interconnected nature of global challenges is vividly illustrated by the multiple links among climate change, the economic crisis, and state fragility—considered as 'hubs' of risks for the future. These problems can trigger each other, creating a cascading effect and adding to the complexity of managing them.
For instance, the potential impact of energy prices on economic recovery highlights how the expanding agenda stretches institutional capacities. Growing energy demand contributes to higher food prices, while climate change threatens agricultural output in vulnerable countries with expanding populations, exacerbating their fragility.
[Analyst note: In other words less energy, higher costs - less food which leads to mass food inflation. Control the food, control the populace.]
Domestic politics often impose tight constraints on international cooperation, limiting the scope for compromise, as seen in instances like the Copenhagen summit on climate change. Projected sluggish economic growth in advanced countries and rising nationalism and xenophobia in various regions further complicate matters, potentially triggering a vicious circle of ineffective global governance and diverging perceptions, fueled by nationalistic sentiments and angered public debates.
[Analyst note: translation - more international controls and ‘cooperation’ are ‘needed’ to ensure the globalists remain in power, pulling the world’s strings.]
Report’s Conclusion:
The recent financial crisis showcased the ability of a diverse range of countries and global and regional institutions to collaborate effectively, preventing what could have been another Great Depression. Many experts from emerging powers recognize the shortcomings and challenges of the global governance system. However, their discussions underscored the importance of ‘legitimacy’ in reform efforts, aligning multilateral institutions with current power dynamics alongside addressing future risks comprehensively.
According to their report, global governance is not on track to evolve into a "world government" due to concerns over sovereignty, divergent interests, and doubts about institutional effectiveness. Nevertheless, enhanced cooperation among various actors, including international, regional, national, and non-state entities, is both feasible and necessary to tackle the growing interconnectedness of future challenges.
[Analyst note: notice the conflict in words, no global government, just enhanced global cooperation.]
Other 2025 Agendas/Reports:
Below is a partial list of some other 2025 agenda items. This is by no means an exhaustive list, rather, a list that can be readily found and in the genre of transformative governance.
Project 2025: officially titled the Presidential Transition Project, was established in 2022 with the primary aim of reshaping the executive branch of the U.S. federal government on an unprecedented scale. This initiative emerged in anticipation of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. The project's overarching objective is to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to Washington, D.C., with the explicit goal of replacing existing federal civil service workers, whom Republicans often characterize as part of the "deep state," in order to advance the objectives of the next Republican president.
Central to Project 2025 is the swift restructuring of the executive branch under a maximalist interpretation of the unitary executive theory, which posits that the U.S. president possesses absolute authority over the executive branch. Additionally, the project involves collaboration with various organizations, including Turning Point USA, the Conservative Partnership Institute, and America First Legal.
Proposed changes under Project 2025 encompass significant measures such as reducing funding for the U.S. Department of Justice, dismantling agencies like the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, and abolishing departments such as Education and Commerce. Moreover, the project advocates for the immediate invocation of the Insurrection Act of 1807 for domestic law enforcement purposes and directs the Department of Justice to pursue adversaries of former President Trump.
The parent organization overseeing Project 2025 is The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank based in the United States.
The "Future Focus 2025: Pathways for Progress" report: authored by the World Economic Forum's expert-led Global Future Councils, delves into critical transitions spanning various domains with the aim of propelling progress toward a more sustainable and equitable future. Here are the key highlights:
In the realm of the economy, the report scrutinizes economic shifts and delineates pathways for fostering inclusive growth. It takes into account factors such as digitalization, automation, and the burgeoning gig economy. Strategies aimed at nurturing innovation, bolstering support for small businesses, and fortifying economic resilience are thoroughly examined.
Environmental sustainability takes center stage in the report's discussions. It outlines pathways to tackle pressing issues such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and resource scarcity. Emphasis is placed on the adoption of circular economy models, the widespread integration of renewable energy sources, and the implementation of nature-based solutions.
Social transformation emerges as a pivotal aspect of the report's discourse. It delves into pathways for fostering social cohesion, promoting equity, and ‘enhancing’ overall well-being. Topics of discussion encompass reforming education systems, ensuring access to quality healthcare, advancing gender equality, and establishing robust social safety nets.
[Analyst note: unsure of what these buzzwords mean, as they all sound good, until decoded, see the linked note below.]
Technology's profound influence on our future trajectory is thoroughly analyzed in the report. It explores pathways pertaining to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data privacy, and digital infrastructure. The report advocates for the responsible deployment of technology and underscores the importance of ethical considerations in technological advancements.
“Four Scenarios for Geopolitical Order in 2025-2030:" sheds light on potential trajectories for Russia's foreign policy, particularly in the context of its relations with China and the United States. These scenarios offer valuable insights into how Russia's strategic stance might evolve:
In the scenario of "Strategic Alignment with China" within a multipolar world, Russia strengthens its strategic partnership with China across various domains, including economic, military, and technological spheres. Together, they challenge the dominance of the United States and Western institutions, potentially reshaping global norms and institutions as key players in the international arena.
Alternatively, in a "Balancing Act" scenario, Russia opts for a nuanced approach by balancing its relations between China and the United States. Leveraging its geographic position as a bridge between Europe and Asia, Russia maintains ties with China while actively engaging with the West, particularly Europe. This strategy positions Russia to play a pivotal role in shaping dynamics within the Eurasian region.
In the scenario of "Strategic Rapprochement with the United States," Russia reconsiders its relationship with the United States, acknowledging the challenges posed by China's ascent. Russia seeks to realign its alliances by cooperating with the U.S. on shared interests such as counterterrorism, arms control, and climate change. This strategic realignment aims to counterbalance China's growing influence on the global stage.
Conversely, in a scenario of "Isolation and Fragmentation," Russia faces increasing isolation due to its assertive foreign policy maneuvers, including the annexation of Crimea and confrontations with Western powers. Consequently, Russia encounters economic sanctions, technological decoupling, and diminished global influence. As a result, Russia adopts a more unilateral approach, relying on its own resources and forging alliances with non-Western partners to navigate its geopolitical challenges.
[Analyst note: it is safe to say that the second course of action was the one decided upon, as it also leads to a Europe Redux scenario, thereby leading to greater global ‘cooperation.’]
UN Global Goal Zero Emissions by 2050 - 2025 waypoint: The UN's Global Roadmap serves as a strategic blueprint outlining key milestones toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. Let's explore the intricacies of this ambitious endeavor:
One crucial aspect highlighted in the roadmap is the cessation of new coal-fired power plant construction post-2021. This step is deemed pivotal in significantly curbing greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating the transition to cleaner energy sources.
Another focal point is the commitment to invest $35 billion annually in expanding access to electricity by 2025. Ensuring universal access to electricity stands as a foundational objective, with the UN striving to bolster electricity infrastructure, particularly in underserved regions. This investment is anticipated to empower communities, spur economic development, and contribute to emissions reduction efforts.
Additionally, the roadmap aims to catalyze the creation of 30 million jobs in the renewable energy sector by 2025. Recognizing renewable energy as a linchpin in the net-zero vision, the initiative seeks to foster the growth of industries such as solar, wind, hydro, and others. These endeavors are projected to generate employment opportunities across various domains including manufacturing, installation, maintenance, and research, thereby driving economic prosperity while simultaneously addressing climate change concerns.
Summary - Overlapping Trends:
1. Strategic Partnerships: Collaboration with various organizations is emphasized in Project 2025, while geopolitical scenarios in the "Four Scenarios for Geopolitical Order" report explore potential alliances between major powers, indicating the significance of partnerships in achieving objectives and navigating global dynamics.
2. Technological Influence: Both Project 2025 and the "Future Focus 2025" report stress the impact of technology, with Project 2025 advocating for executive restructuring and collaboration with tech-focused groups, while the report analyzes pathways related to AI, cybersecurity, and digital infrastructure.
3. Environmental Focus: The UN's Global Roadmap and the "Future Focus 2025" report prioritize environmental sustainability, highlighting the need to transition to cleaner energy sources and combat ‘climate change’ through ‘renewable’ energy and nature-based solutions.
4. Geopolitical Dynamics: The scenarios in the "Four Scenarios for Geopolitical Order" report illustrate potential shifts in global power dynamics and foreign policy strategies, including strategic realignment, balancing acts, and isolationist tendencies, which can impact international relations and governance initiatives.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the analysis of the "Global Governance 2025: At a Critical Juncture" report sheds light on the intricate dynamics shaping the future of international relations. Amidst the escalating challenges of a multipolar world order and interconnected global issues, the forced ‘imperative for enhanced global governance mechanisms’ becomes increasingly apparent. However, lurking beneath the surface lies a narrative of covert influence and clandestine agendas perpetuated by globalist actors and secretive societies.
In navigating the complexities of global governance, the Atlantic Council, United States National Intelligence Council (NIC), and European Union Institute of Security Studies (EUISS) continue to play influential roles in shaping strategic analysis and policy recommendations. However, it's essential to recognize the potential ulterior motives at play, given the track record of these powerful actors in both creating and exacerbating the challenges we face today. While they advocate for reform initiatives and enhanced cooperation to address interconnected global challenges, there's a pervasive sense of suspicion and skepticism surrounding their intentions.
Mission creep has become a prevalent phenomenon evident in these globalist-enabled agencies, where initial mandates aimed at countering military threats, such as NATO's establishment to bolster collective defense against the Soviet Union, have expanded into broader agendas encompassing climate change mitigation, technology regulation, energy security, and economic development. This evolution is notable in organizations like the Atlantic Council, which, originally focused on transatlantic security, now engages in diverse policy areas including energy, technology, and climate change. Similarly, the National Intelligence Council, initially tasked with providing strategic intelligence assessments, now addresses a wide range of global challenges, including cybersecurity and economic trends. Additionally, the EU Institute of Security Studies, established to analyze EU security policies, has broadened its scope to include research on climate security and hybrid threats.
This expansion should raise concerns of how these agencies have become tools for mass surveillance and are being used to implement authoritarian measures of control in the pursuit of global governance.
These same entities have been implicated in policies that strip resources, create scarcity, fuel mass migration challenges, and perpetuate regional conflicts, all while advancing a dystopian vision of a Globalist Agenda. As the US and the EU purportedly lead efforts for reform, it's imperative to question the involvement of elites from emerging powers and non-state actors, considering their potential complicity in furthering agendas that likely do not align with the interests of the broader populace.
Finally, the genesis of the Global Governance 2025 document stemmed from a collaborative effort among various international agencies, under the guise of addressing the pressing need for collective action in an increasingly interconnected world. Emphasizing the necessity of global collaboration, governance, and partnerships to combat the mounting challenges, the document iterated the imperative of coordinated efforts to address global issues. However, lurking beneath this ostensibly benevolent agenda lay a clandestine conspiracy orchestrated by a select group of unelected leaders.
Operating surreptitiously behind the scenes, these shadowy figures harbor ambitions of ushering in a regime of global governance, effectively usurping the sovereignty of nation-states. Under the guise of managing purported 'problems,' this cabal seeks to tighten their grip on power, imposing restrictions on individual freedoms while consolidating authority under the auspices of a global government. Thus, the Global Governance 2025 document, ostensibly a call for cooperation, conceals a sinister agenda aimed at reshaping the world order to serve the interests of an elite few.
From table-top exercises to wargames and thought exercises, these shadowy groups have long sought to shape world events to their desired outcomes, often hidden from public scrutiny. The 2010 report regarding 2025 appears to suggest that these actors are right on schedule, aligning with their visions for the future.
REFERENCES & FURTHER READING:
https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/system/files/generated/document/en/Global%2520Governance%25202025.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201010/20101026background_gg_v02_en.pdf
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/news/press-releases/the-national-intelligence-council-and-the-eus-institute-for-security-studies-release-report-on-prospects-for-global-governance/
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Global_Governance_2025.pdf
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/in-depth-research-reports/report/global-governance-2025/
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Global%20Trends_2025%20Global%20Governance.pdf
https://www.fiuc.org/bdf_document-75_en.html
https://espas.secure.europarl.europa.eu/orbis/system/files/generated/document/en/Global%2520Governance%25202025.pdf
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/afet/dv/201/201010/20101026background_gg_v02_en.pdf
https://expose-news.com/2023/06/23/who-rules-the-world-part-1/
https://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2013/12/21/the-council-on-foreign-relations-cfr-and-the-new-world-order/
https://archive.org/details/unitednationsexp0000jasp
https://humansbefree.com/2019/09/exposing-the-cabal-illuminati-deep-state-globalists-and-global-elites-that-rule-the-world.html
https://geopolitics.co/2017/01/16/three-factions-of-the-cia-that-control-the-world/
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/03/17/us-intelligence-cartel-all-the-governments-we-hate-interfered-in-our-election/
https://www.un.org/en/page/global-roadmap
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/globalfoundries-commits-achieving-net-zero-123200516.html
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022/an-updated-roadmap-to-net-zero-emissions-by-2050
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/un-global-roadmap-net-zero-2050/
https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-07/UN-Energy%20Policy%20Brief%20-%20Clean%20Cooking%20Netzero%20pathway-%207-12-23%20clean%20with%20cover%20page2_0.pdf
https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/Newsroom/Reports%20and%20Pubs/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
https://www.weforum.org/publications/future-focus-2025-pathways-for-progress-from-the-network-of-global-future-councils-2020-2022/
https://globaltrends.thedialogue.org/publication/global-trends-2025-a-transformed-world/
https://www.csis.org/analysis/four-scenarios-geopolitical-order-2025-2030-what-will-great-power-competition-look
https://archive.org/stream/kissinger-the-secret-side-of-the-secretary-of-state-by-gary-allen/kissinger-the-secret-side-of-the-secretary-of-state-by-gary-allen_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/stream/AllenGaryTheC.F.RConspiracyToRuleTheWorld/Allen_Gary_-_The_C.F.R_Conspiracy_to_rule_the_world_djvu.txt
https://archive.org/details/MyronFagan-TheIlluminatiAndTheCouncilOnForeignRelations
https://archive.org/details/Myron_C._Fagan__The_Illuminati_and_The_Council_on_Foreign_Relations
https://archive.org/details/CouncilOnForeignRelations
https://millercenter.org/president/eisenhower/essays/herter-1959-secretary-of-state
https://archives.kingscollections.org/index.php/mf565-mf608
Interesting…it is clear the global puppet masters are always very hard at work playing ‘god’. I wonder how the ones who remain part of club can sleep at night. My guess is not very well. Their think tanks and ‘solutions’ are impossible to trust because the motives of their hearts are as dark as Hades. Even as their credibility is compromised and totally shot to hell, they think no one notices, and in their supreme arrogance, they keep digging themselves deeper into massive sinkholes and quicksands that are impossible to escape. If only our governments and great leaders were truly great and humble and caring, what a different world this would be.