This week’s news headlines and commentary, for Paid Subscribers only.
*The audio embed and download have been moved to the bottom of the post. Paid Subscribers can also listen/watch on the Spotify Substack Feed:
GLOBALISM
The “age of impunity and end of international law” is most certainly here. The empire’s mask is off and it’s going for the gold, come hell or high water. A few excerpts from Mondoweiss:
A new world is being birthed (or perhaps, reborn, reminiscent as it is of the horrors of the first half of the 20th Century).
The U.S. empire has been on a decades-long warpath culminating with the extermination of the Palestinian people and this week’s assault on Venezuela.
This impunity combines the worst traits of its 20th-century progenitors: racism, imperialism, colonialism, fascism, Zionism, aggression, and genocide with the terrible 21st-century technologies of surveillance, silencing, and murder.
The principal drivers of U.S. aggression against countries of the global South are the possession of mineral wealth coveted by U.S. corporations, a refusal to submit to U.S. hegemony, and opposition to the crimes of the Israeli regime. Venezuela has been guilty of all three.
The unmistakable, unequivocal message that the U.S. imperial regime, its Israeli attack dog, and its legions of subservient Western vassals are sending to the world, to the nation states in its gunsights, and to all peoples resisting foreign occupation, colonial domination, and racist regimes is this: Diplomacy will not save you. International law will not save you. The United Nations will not save you. And we are coming for you.
It is the “age of coercive America”.
Trump is not simply eroding the international order. He is attempting to construct an alternative in its place.
This shift is visible across domains.
The pattern is unmistakable. Trump no longer seeks to lead the international system; he seeks to dominate it, transaction by transaction, deal by deal.
If weaponised trade represents the economic pillar of Trump’s new order, the creation of the ‘Board of Peace’ is its institutional centrepiece. Launched at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the Board is presented as a bold alternative to what Trump calls the United Nations’ (UN) “permanent failure” to resolve modern conflicts.
The contrast could not be sharper. The UN, for all its flaws, derives legitimacy from process: universal membership, formal rules and a (sometimes paralysing) commitment to sovereignty and law. The Board of Peace rejects this model entirely. Membership is selective, reportedly contingent on substantial financial contributions. Decision-making authority is centralised. Trump himself holds absolute veto power over its agenda, decisions and membership—and even the designation of his successor. In other words, the Board is effectively a one-man show.
What is being set up is privatised global governance. Conflict resolution becomes a pay-to-play enterprise, overseen by personal authority. Trump has said the Board will “work with” the UN. Yet he has also openly suggested that it could replace it. In practice, the Board is already a mechanism to bypass international law rather than enforce it.
We are at the crossroads of global governance.
The question is: will the UN (World Government 2.0) be wholly discarded as we move to World Government 3.0 or will it be upgraded as UN 2.0 (World Government 3.0)?
We see new world government institutions being conjured out of thin air like the Board of Peace. Heck, they even have an X account now.
My current assessment is that the UN will remain, given its vast architecture and infrastructure. These new institutions like Board of Peace are either meant to fill in the gaps of world empire or to supersede some of the UN’s core functions. Furthermore, they will accelerate the process of global integration and centralization.
Some agree the UN will remain, but that we’ll see more “experimental alternatives” join alongside its ranks:
Recent trends suggest not a sudden displacement of the United Nations, but a period of pluralization in peace and security governance. Institutional retrenchment, hybrid operational models, and experimental alternatives coexist with, rather than fully replace, the established multilateral system. The central analytical challenge is therefore not to assess the success or failure of any single institution, but to understand how these parallel structures may reshape the meaning, practice, and legitimacy of peace in an increasingly fragmented international order
Poland's FM Radosław Sikorski argues there is yet no alternative, and the UN’s footprint is too large for it to be dismantled.
The UN itself is indeed crying about imminent financial collapse. Yet, I can see it going either way. They could dismantle it as quickly as they set up the Board of Peace, which is their current modus operandi of destroying legacy systems and rebuilding them as technocracy (e.g. Ukraine, Gaza). Or they could keep it around and build layers upon it.
Nordangård believes Iran will be next on the technocratic chopping block, and I think he’s right…Cyrus Accords, Pahlavi 2.0, warts, and all. Trump will be lauded as a historic peacemaker. Yet, there are biblical implications here, and it’s quite possible that soon after, war could ensue.
There are also Noahide implications. Jana Bennun points to a recent manifesto.
Martin Erdmann argues that the name of the game is mercantilism, the economic playbook for world domination:
We live in a world of mercantilism. “Mercantilism—what’s that?” some may ask. Very few people know the meaning of this term. It is not well known because efforts are deliberately made to keep people in the dark about it.
“Mercantilism” refers to economic nationalism. Although hardly anyone associates this term with anything negative, we would be well advised to take a closer look at the topic. Once we understand this economic system, we realize its influences are everywhere, penetrating every nook and cranny of our lives. When we engage in trade, we encounter the rule of money—the central concern of mercantilism—at every turn. Our interactions with business colleagues and customers are largely determined by a single question: “How can this or that person be useful to me so that I can make a bigger profit and become richer?”
Unlike in a free market economy, the goal is no longer to satisfy customers’ wishes and needs in the best possible way to encourage spending on goods or services. The primary goal is now to amass immense wealth by any means necessary, in accordance with the mercantilist principle. Eliminating economic competition plays a decisive role in this because the fastest way to amass a fortune is to establish a monopoly. Anyone who wants to prevent this must be ruthlessly eliminated. This applies to relationships between individuals as well as to the dealings of leading politicians with other nations. Superpowers always look to enter into conflicts with other superpowers, from which the stronger will ultimately emerge victorious. Ultimately, it’s about world domination.
On the multipolar front, Trump has succeeded, to a degree, in prying New Delhi away from Moscow.
In a huge Monday development, President Trump has announced the US will trim its punitive 25% tariff on Indian imports to 18% after striking what he hailed as a new “trade deal” with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Crucially it hinges on New Delhi having reportedly ended its purchases of Russian crude and swapping them for massive US energy and goods buys.
In a Truth Social post, Trump portrayed the agreement as a major geopolitical win, saying that India “agreed to stop buying Russian oil, and to buy much more from the United States and, potentially, Venezuela,” and crucially framing the move as helping “END THE WAR in Ukraine.”
Trump cast the concessions as evidence of deep bilateral “friendship and respect,” insisting the deal marks a new chapter in US-India trade and energy ties. This will of course also be a blow to Moscow’s oil lifeline.
Yet his megalomania knows no bounds, a head of biblical proportions.
Last week, I was discussing David Skripac’s article on how the new world order will be MULTI-PILLAR and centered around Pax Americana, with the support columns being the UK, EU, and BRICS, and what do you know, this week Fortune agrees!
Past podcast guest Inderjeet Parmar points out how yes, it was the Liberal International Order (LIO) that brought China into the fold.
We break new ground and show that Ford was key in profoundly shaping Sino–American relations, especially by developing transnational knowledge networks. These transnational elite networks simultaneously integrated China into the LIO and had unintended consequences, particularly in encouraging Chinese counter-hegemonic dynamics that challenge the LIO from within.
BBC reports on how China is fast blowing to the top of the mountain.
Beijing also just purchased a Canadian gold miner which owns mines in three African countries, I believe.
And Xi argues the yuan’s day in the sun as global reserve is arriving!
Over at the New European Soviet, they are calling for full supranational globalist federation, which has always been the plan.
“Europe risks becoming subordinated, divided, and deindustrialised”, if it does not turn itself into a “genuine federation”, former Italian Prime Minister and President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi said in a speech at the Belgian KU Leuven University on Monday.
According to Draghi, “power requires Europe to move from confederation to federation” because the global order is “now defunct”.
Occult Freemasons like George Washington heralded its coming as early as two centuries ago.
“Someday, following the example of the United States of America, there will be a United States of Europe”. George Washington
Britt Gillette believes world empire is fast upon us, and will be achieved through new technology (e.g. molecular manufacturing, AI), which gels with conclusions of past podcast guests.
Faced with the prospect of total annihilation, the nation (or group of nations) which develops molecular manufacturing first will choose what it views as the only sensible course of action – global empire.
They will conquer the world to prevent a competing power from emerging. A global empire will be the only way to avoid the danger of humanity-destroying arms race.
