Full History of the WEF, UN, the Climate Change Hoax, Covid-19 and the People Who Wish to Rule Us


New Documentary Exposes WHO’s ‘Diabolical’ Plan to Use Vaccines to Reduce Global Population

“Infertility: A Diabolical Agenda” details the World Health Organization’s intentions to produce an anti-fertility vaccine in response to perceived overpopulation, and how such vaccines have been used — without people’s knowledge or consent — since the mid-'90s.


Kim Iversen: So-Called CONSPIRACY ‘New World Order’ Now Touted By China, Russia, Biden, Klaus Schwab

Mar 31, 2022

YouTube Video


YouTube Video


YouTube Video


YouTube Video

YouTube Video


YouTube Video

Dr. Day reveals how people are "vaccinated" by the COVID-19 "test" that is designed more to deposit material than collect material. Think about it. Don't allow anyone to "test" you for COVID-19. Listen, learn and share. Peace



Amir Tsarfati: Middle East Update, May 18, 2020
•May 19, 2020

Behold Israel

Join Amir for a live Middle East Update as he discusses the New World Order. 
Follow us on social media: 
Visit our website: 

Public Reading of Scripture: Order Amir’s new book "The Day Approaching": Purchase Amir’s Book, “The Last Hour”: 
DVD’s & Digital Downloads: Latest Middle East News: 
Teaching Around the World: 



Bank of America on the New World Order
Bigger governments, tech wars, less privacy, and ‘health the new wealth’

Published: May 15, 2020 at 8:36 a.m. ET

People wear masks as they wait for a bus in Los Angeles on May 14, 2020. 
Leaving home in Los Angeles now requires bringing a face covering. Associated Press

Traders can’t seem to make up their mind this week. The Dow industrials DJIA, +3.85% fell 516 points on Wednesday and rose 377 points on Thursday. Say what you will about Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s testimony or the latest jobless claims data, neither can honestly be characterized as a surprise, so what the market is really doing is trying to grapple with the uncertainty of the coronavirus pandemic and when economies will rebound.

Didier Saint-Georges, member of the strategic investment committee at French asset manager Carmignac, says his firm expects what he calls the Japanese path — “low growth, low interest rates forever, ample liquidity supply, in which case equity indices may trade sideways, but high quality growth stocks keep outperforming.” The risk is that of a prolonged recession that even aggressive central banks will struggle to fight, he adds.

For those looking beyond the next few days, Bank of America has released its view of what the world will look like after the COVID-19 upheaval. “We expect this pandemic to accelerate many macro trends that would have taken five or more years to play out before, from peak globalization, to renewed tech wars and a reappraisal of health-care systems and government influence,” it says.

It sees the rising tensions between east and west, with a third of its analysts now expecting the companies they cover to push for supply chain reshoring. A second theme is the race for tech supremacy, with half of its analysts expecting higher IT spending, and a wave of moonshot investment.

Big Government will be back in a big way. “COVID-19 has handed governments a new social mandate to protect their citizens. Governments will exert greater influence on businesses with shareholder supremacy potentially eroding in favor of stakeholders,” it says.

Stimulus enacted by governments during the crisis.

A fourth theme is that public health will be viewed as national wealth. “COVID-19 will amplify the importance of health care and its social role and accelerate other pressing global public health issues such as drug pricing, antibiotics resistance, future pandemics prevention, [and] universal vaccines for all,” the bank says.

The Generation Z cohort will be “uniquely prepared” for the new era of social distancing, online and sustainability. By contrast, millennials — hit by the “double downgrade” of graduating into the financial crisis and then being hit by COVID-19 — are “most exposed to earning cuts.”

Another possibility — after the crisis is over, is a baby boom: “as seen after many famines, earthquakes, and disease outbreaks.”

The buzz
The U.S. is blocking shipments of microchips to Chinese telecom equipment maker Huawei, according to a Reuters report that sent stock futures lower. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing TSM, +4.15% said it would spend $12 billion to build a chip factory in Arizona, as U.S. concerns grow about dependence on Asia for the critical technology.

U.S. retail sales tumbled a record 16.4% in April, the government reported, as the New York Fed’s Empire State manufacturing index improved to -48.5 for May.

Data from China was mixed, with industrial production rising 3.9% in the 12 months ending April but retail sales sliding 7.5%. Germany entered recession after reporting gross domestic product contracted by 2.2% in the first quarter.

The market
U.S. stock futures ES00, -0.28% YM00, -0.18% turned lower on the concerns over U.S.-China tensions, with the Dow industrials retreating by around 250 points.

Oil futures CL.1, 1.82% extended Thursday’s gains.

The chart
The good news, say strategists at Barclays, is that the gradual reopenings in Europe so far haven't resulted in a second wave of COVID-19 infections. “Dataflow remains dire, there are still many uncertainties about the evolution of the COVID-19 crisis and the old U.S.-China tensions have resurfaced. 

Yet, we remain of the view that consolidation phases should be used as opportunities to increase equity exposure selectively, as we are likely past the worst. Policy backstop and bearish positioning limit the odds of another meltdown, in our view, while the economy seems to be bottoming out,” they said.

The new world order with new values

APR 28, 2020 12:05 AM GMT+3

The Saint Lazare train station clock (L) and the sculpture named "L'Heure de Tous" ("Everyone's Time") by French artist Arman is photographed in Paris, France, April 24, 2020. (AP Photo)

Many articles have been written about the new world order in which experts have been looking into the issue of what happens next after the threat of COVID-19 has abated. These experts take up a range of viewpoints: The humanitarians place their blame on the actions of humans, the realists elaborate on the issue from power-oriented views, and the liberals examine it within the framework of a collaborative response.

In essence, there could be two directions a post-coronavirus world would take: There could be more cooperation between nations and an increase in globalization, or nations could isolate themselves from the world and look inward.

In regard to the international order, the current status quo consists of four poles with the United States being the "supreme power," followed by China whose power is increasing, and Russia who still has influence and is keen on resurrecting its lost power. And finally, there is the European Union with its remarkable influence.

Scenarios at hand
Let us examine two possible scenarios of what could happen after the COVID-19 crisis passes. One scenario is that nations go into recession and collapse. In the meantime, the U.S. does everything to protect its dominancy over the others while China is still moving toward being a superpower. Russia too would move into a post-pandemic world while the EU is still present with fewer members and a broken reputation.

The second scenario assumes that the U.S. collapses and China takes over as the only supreme power. The competition between China and Russia will accelerate but China will not become a transparent or open society like the U.S. Being a supreme power – the only supreme power – brings many advantages. A potential Chinese global hegemony could see similar incidents such as what we have seen in the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and so on. It was only recently reported in the Benar News that the Hai Yang Di Zhi 8, a Chinese survey vessel, was operating within Malaysia and Brunei’s exclusive economic zone without permission.

It can be said that it is not about being an American or Chinese power, but it is the advantages provided by being positioned at the helm of the world.

The balance between interests
Once the spread of COVID-19 has been controlled, we will have to decide the future of the world. There is the possibility that nations will isolate themselves and focus on their own internal production with little to no outside collaboration; in this event, we may find the new world in a more precarious situation than if the virus was still spreading. This is due to the fact that, for now at least, the virus has pushed for a sense of solidarity between nations. If there should be a focus on selfish-state behavior later on, this would create a new world that is divided. As a result, countries would see each other as enemies and geopolitical competition would accelerate.

There have also been claims that Americans lost their confidence in globalization and international trade. This is a false assumption since it is the U.S. and the EU states that pioneered this. The decisions of President Donald Trump are not the be-all and end-all, and other countries will not be prone to accept his instructions. It is still early to say that the Americans and Europeans have lost their belief in these two core paradigms. However, at the same time, there is a palpable taste of defeat coming from every continent.

The reality of the situation we face now is that the West has created a giant and a rival in China. By their own hands, the West allowed its largest companies to relocate and begin manufacturing in China. This, in turn, paved the way for the Chinese to learn or steal technology developed by the West.

Countries and their governments are aware that some sectors must be able to supply the domestic market. In today’s world, biological and psychological crises are not fiction anymore. Countries capable of manufacturing in vital sectors have already prohibited domestic companies from exporting to other countries. However, some countries including Turkey, Albania and Cambodia have been donating medical equipment and staff to third countries. The threat of this virus goes beyond national borders – it is a regional and global threat. So it should be dealt with on a regional and global scale. With the desperate search for a vaccine, any country that discovers the vaccine would be placing itself in both scenarios.

The most important change following the COVID-19 pandemic would be related to the global supply chain.

The countries that have been more collaborative will have more selfless and intellectual publics, and thus these countries will be able to maintain their social order with few losses. The nations and societies that did not respond to the necessities and demands of the public will see suffering with many eventual losses of lives.

The most important part in fighting against COVID-19 is the domestic capability of nations and their resources to protect internal stability. The countries that do not have such capabilities could be on the edge of insecurity domestically.

It is hard to imagine that the most powerful state on earth could not control the spread of COVID-19; in fact, that is what is currently happening. The American health system could very well collapse under the weight of the pandemic. The Americans have invited doctors globally to take part in its fight against COVID-19. What the recent events in the U.S. have shown is that being a political, economic and military power does not mean that the country can fight this threat on its own. In addition, the weakness of the American social state has been exposed.

What I am trying to show is that there should be a system that includes all paradigms equally, from education to health and research, rather than spending resources and time on one sector only.

There has to be a system that enables a balance in distribution. The impact of this pandemic will be more than the period following the 2008 economic crisis and remain as a lesson for all decades to come.

The losers will be both the U.S. and China. The U.S. has been accused of being selfish and late in responding to the pandemic while China has been accused of hiding information and the initial spread of the virus. However, this does not excuse the tremendous xenophobic attacks on the Chinese people.

Implications for Turkey
The middle and smaller nations prefer a collaborative approach. Even countries such as Vietnam have been able to send thousands of medical equipment items to a near-superpower, England, while Turkey has tried not to reject any calls from others.

Turkey is doing well in terms of the precautions taken by the related authorities. The importance of domestic capacity is well understood by the ruling party leaders and the bureaucrats.

Turkey should be able to keep pace with the demands of the 21st century. We understand that technological and biological development is necessary for the future. Besides that, it is also significant to keep all necessary paradigms in line. Over the last 15 years, thankfully, Turkey’s health sector has transformed while education has taken a step back due to many changes in the system.

Turkey has been providing huge incentives and opportunities for growth in many sectors but these great packages should have a result-oriented monitoring system. Turkey’s only problem with keeping pace in global technology, biology and other futuristic sectors is the lack of knowledge and a lack of components in the international market such as branding and marketing.

Values in the future
The other phenomenon that could affect the world in the aftermath of COVID-19 may come from a religious perspective.

We used to hear, read and see an increase in people who say they do not believe in any God over the last few decades.

Will this virus turn people toward religions? Will people have stronger faith in their religious beliefs? Will we see more moral, conscious, respectful and tolerant people toward nature and each other? Will these values change the course of international politics?

* Ph.D. candidate in international relations at the University of Malaya, Malaysia


Coronavirus: who will be winners and losers in new world order?

Sat 11 Apr 2020 07.00 BST
Andrà tutto bene, the Italians have taught us to think, but in truth, will everything be better the day after? It may seem premature, in the midst of what Emmanuel Macron has described as “a war against an invisible enemy”, to consider the political and economic consequences of a distant peace. Few attempt a definitive review of a play after the first three scenes.

Yet world leaders, diplomats and geopolitical analysts know they are living through epoch-making times and have one eye on the daily combat, the other on what this crisis will bequeath the world. Competing ideologies, power blocs, leaders and systems of social cohesion are being stress-tested in the court of world opinion.

Already everyone in the global village is starting to draw lessons. In France, Macron has predicted “this period will have taught us a lot. Many certainties and convictions will be swept away. Many things that we thought were impossible are happening. The day after when we have won, it will not be a return to the day before, we will be stronger morally. We will draw the consequences, all the consequences.” He has promised to start with major health investment. A Macronist group of MPs has already started a Jour d’Après website.

In Germany, the former Social Democratic party foreign minister Sigmar Gabriel has lamented that “we talked the state down for 30 years”, and predicts the next generation will be less naive about globalisation. In Italy, the former prime minister Matteo Renzi has called for a commission into the future. In Hong Kong, graffiti reads: “There can be no return to normal because normal was the problem in the first place.” Henry Kissinger, the US secretary of state under Richard Nixon, says rulers must prepare now to transition to a post-coronavirus world order.

The UN secretary general, António Guterres, has said: “The relationship between the biggest powers has never been as dysfunctional. Covid-19 is showing dramatically, either we join [together] ... or we can be defeated.”

The discussion in global thinktanks rages, not about cooperation, but whether the Chinese or the US will emerge as leaders of the post-coronavirus world.

In the UK, the debate has been relatively insular. The outgoing Labour leadership briefly searched for vindication in the evident rehabilitation of the state and its workforce. The definition of public service has been extended to include the delivery driver and the humble corner shop owner. Indeed, to be “a nation of shopkeepers”, the great Napoleonic insult, no longer looks so bad.

The delivery driver has become an icon of public service in Britain during the coronavirus outbreak. 
The obvious and widely drawn parallel has been, as so often in Britain, the second world war. In The Road to 1945, Paul Addison’s definitive account of how the second world war helped turn Britain to the left, he quotes the diary of the journalist JL Hodson in September 1944: “No excuses any more for unemployment and slums and underfeeding. We have shown in this war we British don’t muddle through. Using even half the vision and energy and invention and pulling together we’ve done in this war and what is there we cannot do? We’ve virtually exploded the argument of old fogies and Better Notters who said we cannot afford this and Photograph: Murdo MacLeod/The Guardian               mustn’t do that. Our heavy taxation and rationing of food has willy nilly achieved 
                                                                     some levelling up of the nation.”

In the same vein, Boris Johnson has been forced to unleash the state, but the impact in Britain seems more noticeable on civil society than politics. The famously standoffish British are no longer bowling alone. The sense of communal effort, the volunteer health workers, the unBritish clapping on doorsteps, all add to the sense that lost social capital is being reformed. But there is not yet much discussion of a new politics. Perhaps the nation, exhausted by Brexit, cannot cope with more introspection and upheaval.

In Europe, the US and Asia the discussion has broadened out. Public life may be at a standstill, but public debate has accelerated. Everything is up for debate – the trade-offs between a trashed economy and public health, the relative virtues of centralised or regionalised health systems, the exposed fragilities of globalisation, the future of the EU, populism, the inherent advantage of authoritarianism.

It is as if the pandemic has turned into a competition for global leadership, and it will be the countries that most effectively respond to the crisis that will gain traction. Diplomats, operating out of emptied embassies, are busy defending their governments’ handling of the crisis, and often take deep offence to criticism. National pride, and health, are at stake. Each country looks at their neighbour to see how quickly they are “flattening the curve”.

The Crisis Group thinktank, in assessing how the virus will permanently change international politics, suggests: “For now we can discern two competing narratives gaining currency – one in which the lesson is that countries ought to come together to better defeat Covid-19, and one in which the lesson is that countries need to stand apart in order to better protect themselves from it.

“The crisis also represents a stark test of the competing claims of liberal and illiberal states to better manage extreme social distress. As the pandemic unfolds it will test not only the operational capacities of organisations like the WHO and the UN but also the basic assumptions about the values and political bargains that underpin them.”

A Russian plane delivers medical equipment to Spain. 

Photograph: José Jordan/AFP via Getty Images

Many are already claiming that the east has won this war of competing narratives. The South Korean philosopher Byung-Chul Han, in an influential essay in El País, has argued the victors are the “Asian states like Japan, Korea, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan or Singapore that have an authoritarian mentality which comes from their cultural tradition [of] Confucianism. People are less rebellious and more obedient than in Europe. They trust the state more. Daily life is much more organised. Above all, to confront the virus Asians are strongly committed to digital surveillance. The epidemics in Asia are fought not only by virologists and epidemiologists, but also computer scientists and big data specialists.”

He predicts: “China will now be able to sell its digital police state as a model of success against the pandemic. China will display the superiority of its system even more proudly.” He claims western voters, attracted to safety and community, might be willing to sacrifice those liberties. There is little liberty in being forced to spend spring shut in your own flat.

Indeed, China is already on a victory lap of sorts, believing it has deftly repositioned itself from the culprit to the world’s saviour. A new generation of young assertive Chinese diplomats have taken to social media to assert their country’s superiority. Michel Duclos, the former French ambassador now at the Institut Montaigne, has accused China of “shamelessly trying to capitalise on the country’s ‘victory against the virus’ to promote its political system. The kind of undeclared cold war that had been brewing for some time shows its true face under the harsh light of Covid-19.”

The Harvard international relations theorist Stephen Walt thinks China may succeed. Offering a first take to Foreign Policy magazine, he suggests: “Coronavirus will accelerate the shift of power and influence from west to east. South Korea and Singapore have shown the best response and China has managed well in the aftermath of its initial mistakes. The governments’ response in Europe and the US has been very sceptical and likely to weaken the power of the western brand.”

Many on the European left, such as the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, also fear an authoritarian contagion, predicting in the west “a new barbarism with a human face – ruthless survivalist measures enforced with regret and even sympathy, but legitimised by expert opinions”.

By contrast, Shivshankar Menon, a visiting professor at Ashoka University in India, says: “Experience so far shows that authoritarians or populists are no better at handling the pandemic. Indeed, the countries that responded early and successfully, such as Korea and Taiwan, have been democracies – not those run by populist or authoritarian leaders.”

Francis Fukuyama concurs: “The major dividing line in effective crisis response will not place autocracies on one side and democracies on the other. The crucial determinant in performance will not be the type of regime, but the state’s capacity and, above all, trust in government.” He has praised Germany and South Korea.

South Korea is in fact selling itself as the democratic power, in contrast to China, that has best handled the crisis. Its national press is full of articles on how Germany is following the South Korean model of mass testing.

But South Korea, an export-oriented economy, also faces long-term difficulties if the pandemic forces the west, as Prof Joseph Stiglitz predicts, into a total reassessment of the global supply chain. He argues the pandemic has revealed the drawbacks of concentrating production of medical supplies. As a result, just-in-time imports will go down and production of domestically sourced goods will go up. South Korea may gain kudos, but lose markets.

The loser at the moment, apart from those like Steve Bannon who argued for “the deconstruction of the administrative state”, risks being the EU.

Some of Europe’s most scathing critics have been the pro-Europeans. Nicole Gnesotto, the vice-president of the Jacques Delors Institute thinktank, says: “The EU’s lack of preparations, its powerlessness, its timidity are staggering. Of course, health is not part of its competency, but it is not without means or responsibility.” The first instinct was to close borders, hoard equipment and assemble national responses. In times of scarcity it emerged every person was for themself, and Italy felt most left to itself.

But the dispute has widened into an ugly battle between north and south Europe over the isssuance of common debt, or the conditions that could be set for any credit issued by the eurozone bailout fund. The Dutch and Germans suspect Italy is using the crisis in Lombardy to rebrand the rejected concept of eurobonds in which the north finances the debts of the feckless south. The Italian prime minister, Giuseppe Conte, is pushing the issue, telling the bloc “it has an appointment with history”. If the EU fails, it could fall apart, he has warned.

The Portuguese prime minister, António Costa, spoke of “disgusting” and “petty” comments by the Dutch minister Wopke Hoekstra, while the Spanish foreign minister, Arancha González, wondered whether the Dutch understood that “a first-class cabin would not protect you when the whole ship sinks”.

The former Italian prime minister Enrico Letta has been scathing about Dutch resistance to helping Italy, telling the Dutch press that the Italian view of the Netherlands has been seriously damaged: “It did not help that a day after German customs officials stopped a huge amount of masks at the border, Russian trucks carrying relief supplies drove through the streets of Rome and millions of masks were sent from China. Matteo Salvini is waiting for this type of action from the Netherlands and Germany so that he can say: you see, we have no use for the European Union.”

The EU’s position is not irretrievable. Salvini’s closure agenda has not yet found its footing, since Conte’s popularity does not make the prime minister an easy target. Conte has become the single most popular leader in the history of the Italian republic. Individual German politicians, such as Marian Wendt, have also undone some of the damage by organising for a group of Italians to be flown from Bergamo to Cologne for treatment.
Italy has often felt alone within the EU in its battle against coronavirus. 

But with the death toll mounting across Europe, and the crisis just starting to penetrate Africa, the EU discourse so far has been dominated by an unedifying and highly technical row about how to fund the EU’s economic rescue.

Europe’s chief solace is to look across the Atlantic and watch the daily chaos that is Donald Trump’s evening press conference – the daily reminder that rational people can plan for anything, except an irrational president. Nathalie Tocci, an adviser to Josep Borrell, the EU foreign affairs chief, wonders whether, much like the 1956 Suez crisis symbolised the ultimate decay of the UK’s global power, coronavirus could mark the “Suez moment” for the US.

Photograph: Filippo Monteforte/AFP via Getty Images

If you have been affected or have any information, we'd like to hear from you. You can get in touch by filling in the form below, anonymously if you wish or contact us via WhatsApp by clicking here or adding the contact +44(0)7867825056. Only the Guardian can see your contributions and one of our journalists may contact you to discuss further. 
Tell us

Borrell himself insists the EU is finding its feet after a rocky start and the case for cooperation is being won. Writing in Project Syndicate, he claims: “After a first phase of diverging national decisions, we are now entering a phase of convergence in which the EU takes centre stage. The world initially met the crisis in an uncoordinated fashion, with too many countries ignoring the warning signs and going it alone. It is now clear that the only way out of it is together.”

He may be proved right, but at the moment the scales are evenly balanced. There is, as yet, a world still to be won.


Putin seeking to create new world order with ‘rogue states’ amid coronavirus crisis, report claims


On Wednesday, an updated report from the EU’s foreign policy arm, the European External Action Service, claimed countries including Russia and China were spreading disinformation about the coronavirus crisis.
The EU recorded more than 150 cases of pro-Kremlin disinformation on COVID-19 between the end of January and the end of March, the report said. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a meeting with members of the government in Moscow, Russia, on February 5, 2020.
Aleksey Nikolskyi | Sputnik | Kremlin | Reuters

Russian President Vladimir Putin and his administration are using the coronavirus crisis to spread conspiracy theories in a bid to “subvert the West” and create a new world order, a new report has alleged.

In an article published Wednesday by The University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, it’s claimed Russia has been “churning out propaganda that blames the West for creating the virus.” The report’s author, Sergey Sukhankin, said the state was propagating disinformation and conspiracy theories via social media accounts, fake news outlets, state-controlled media, pseudo-scientists and Russians living in the West. The Kremlin has previously denied such claims.

“Putin’s larger goal in spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories is to subvert the West,” Sukhankin said.

“Russia seeks to seriously damage the solidarity among EU members and capitalize on any internal European weaknesses to promote broader conflicts. COVID-19 is seen as an ideal way for Russia to deal a powerful blow not only to the EU, but to inflict damage on the ties between Europe and its North American allies.”

Trump tells CNBC he expects Saudi Arabia and Russia to announce 10 million barrel cut

Moscow also wanted revenge on the West for economic sanctions that were imposed on Russia for various reasons, including its annexation of Crimea, Sukhankin added, warning that the Kremlin saw an opportunity amid the crisis to unravel the current world order.

“Moscow views the virus as a fortuitous harbinger of the end of the post-Cold War liberal world order,” the report said. “The new leaders to emerge from this liberal collapse, according to this view, will be Russia and China. Indeed, Russia is seeking to strengthen its ties with China, as well as with Iran, and the danger is that other rogue states could join this new configuration.”

Speaking to CNBC on Tuesday, Keyu Jin, associate professor of economics at the London School of Economics, also claimed that China saw the coronavirus crisis as the “opportunity of the century” to establish a new role for itself on the international stage.

On Wednesday, an updated report from the EU’s foreign policy arm, the European External Action Service (EEAS), claimed countries including Russia and China were spreading disinformation about the coronavirus crisis. The EU recorded more than 150 cases of pro-Kremlin disinformation on COVID-19 between the end of January and the end of March, the report said. 

An earlier version of the report from the EEAS alleged Russia had launched a disinformation campaign to “aggravate the public health crisis in Western countries ... in line with the Kremlin’s broader strategy of attempting to subvert European societies,” according to Reuters.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov later dismissed the EU’s claims as “groundless accusations.”

Meanwhile, U.S. officials said in February that thousands of social media accounts with links to Russia had launched a coordinated campaign to spread fake news about the coronavirus, the Guardian reported.

A Kremlin spokesperson was not immediately available for comment when contacted by CNBC.

May 19th 2020 Revision - 4