Special to WorldTribune.com, March 14, 2021
Commentary by Joe Schaeffer
It is a fascinating character trait of our would-be Elites that they can’t help telling the common people exactly what awful things they have in mind for them.
Whether this is motivated by hubris or a need to obey specified rules of spiritual warfare in some kind of supernatural judicial courtroom, it is uncanny how often this defining feature shows itself.
Bill Gates’ Event 201 dress rehearsal for the coronavirus tyranny and the infamous article in Time magazine openly boasting of the coordinated effort to hijack the 2020 presidential election are just two recent blatant examples.
In 2018-19 a globalist think tank sponsored a preview of the 2030 New World Order starring a Google employee and a key staffer from a George Soros-dominated organization. “The Global Governance Futures program (GGF) brings together young professionals to look ahead 10 years and think of ways to better address global challenges,” the production declared.
Global Governance Futures is a program of the Robert Bosch Foundation, a globalist foundation based in Germany that operates in a similar manner to Soros’s notorious Open Society Foundations.
GGF 2030, then, is an overtly pro-globalization project by a pro-globalization organization.
Hypotheticals portray future scenarios in which globalism is either triumphant or weakened by 2030. Not every predicted development in the positive scenarios is portrayed as a good. However, it is easy to see what these people would like to have happen and what they want to eliminate. And it is jarring. A seamless fusion of big government, big tech, big media and heavyweight corporate and private foundation money is to usher in the new global order. It just needs to be done right.
Of course, the line between “hypothetical” and “pre-determined” can be blurred when one is dealing with regime people – devotees of establishment forces that are quite capable of shaping events well before they happen. These GGF musings were released in 2019, yet at one point it is stated that there will be major rioting in 2020 in an important American city against police brutality (see below). That’s right. They nailed the time, setting and reason a year before the Summer of George Floyd. Gee, how’d they know that?
We’re going to examine two of the GGF 2030 items in particular. Much of this material has already begun being implemented with a vengeance.
Treatise Number One: “Forced” migration must be supported. One of the main authors here is a Google employee. This document reveals how globalists plan to control information in the coming years.
It includes a “Policy Project” outline labeled “Media Literacy Initiative” (bold added throughout this column):
This project aims to clarify misinformation around forced migration, with the ultimate outcome being better protection for forced migrants throughout the migration journey. It will provide an easier option for forced migrants and the public to fact-check suspicious information, accompanied by offline trainings, guidelines and toolkits.
Among the tools to be employed will be:
… a tech platform connected to social media that will offer a more convenient tool for fact-checking. This platform will carry out fact-checking through a combination of machine-learning and human network of on-the-ground journalists with sufficient expertise, NGOs, lawyers, and forced migration experts. The network will operate on the principle of transparency and every fact-checking organisation will have to be accredited and will be named on the network.
Oh, yes, a network will be built:
The project will be a civil society-tech platform partnership (involving [the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] or the [UN International Organization for Migration] and private foundations like Google). It will have multiple sources of funding, such as: governments, private foundations like the Ford Foundation, Omidyar, other private sponsorship, and international governmental organizations.
The paper calls for the creation of a “compulsory app” to enforce Right Think on migration:
The intervention will be carried out through these activities:
Through a ‘compulsory’ app in collaboration with popular social media platforms connected with a backend network of fact-checkers. When suspicious information appears on WhatsApp or Facebook, a user will either (i) receive a pop-up message “Pause – do you know if this information is real or fake?” and has the option of being connected to this fact-checking platform, or (ii) he/she can report this information to the platform.
A recommendation “for the public” calls for:
Training sessions for schools and the public on how to be more critical about viral information they receive and spot red flags.
While a recommendation “For journalists” seeks:
Training sessions and guidelines for journalists on the importance of cautious verification when it comes to information about forced migrants, sensitivity to forced migration discourses and terminologies, and on how to report forced migration stories and make unheard voices heard.
Sayid Abdullaev, an “Associate Product Marketing Manager at Google,” is listed as a GGF “Fellow” for this project:
Sayid Abdullaev is an associate product marketing manager at Google, where he works on marketing and communication strategy for the Google Analytics products. Motivated by his personal experience as a refugee, Sayid is harnessing the power of technology and big data to develop a Digital Refugee Empowerment Center that will serve as a resource hub for programs and policy related to capacity building and advocacy for refugees…. He has been recognized by multiple organizations and foundations, including former US presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, for excellence in global activism.
Abdullaev was featured in 2020’s “Forbes Under 30” Profile of the young stars of marketing and advertising who are “Rewriting the rules of brand engagement.” In short, this young man is being promoted and cultivated by our reigning establishment for bigger things.
Treatise Number Two can best be described as: Cities Will Be Enormous Trojan Horses to Destroy Nation States From Within.
Note well how this arch-globalist statement on cities (via its “hypothetical” fig leaf) explicitly endorses capitalism — that hated word of the progressive left. What fine dupes they make!
Scenario 1: Cities Defend Globalization
It is the year 2030 and new types of physical and virtual territories have emerged. Due to rising anti-globalization movements, nation states have become increasingly isolationist. In parallel, the growth of technology and private enterprise contributed to the creation of new forms of cities with “functional sovereignty,” which have become the last bastions of globalization.
Functional sovereignty has allowed some cities and city states to have full control over their citizenship, territory, and engagement with the global system. They have a key role in the following areas: controlling city borders and immigration; taxation; the flow of goods and provision of services including transportation, healthcare, education, and security; and determining and executing locally-applicable laws including entitlement laws, land permits, business permits, and citizenship laws.
The biggest global challenges are the various attributes of anti-globalization, or the “isms” – nationalism, radicalism, and isolationism. Cities have taken on the challenge of defending the positive attributes of globalization, defined as diversity, tolerance, free trade, openness, and capitalism.
A useful chart illustrates how the network to destroy nations will operate. Four interlinking factors have enabled cities to act as defenders of globalization. “Technology” and “Private Enterprise” will rise in power as nations decline and will in turn feed the growth of the new sovereign City States.
In the projected future scenario, the authors describe the very things that are so often mocked as feverish anti-globalist conspiracy theory:
In 2025, facing anti-globalization and anti-city forces from without, several autonomous (public and private) cities led by Jeff Bezos and the mayors of London and San Francisco formed the City Union, a supra-city political structure with a clear mandate to make decisions (as opposed to only facilitating them, as was the case in previous city networks) and the aim to share technology infrastructure, data, service provision, and new sets of legislation facilitating cooperation between cities. These cities rely heavily on technology and the private sector for data sharing, provision of services, and citizen engagement, among other things. Furthermore, because of their functional sovereignty, these cities are able to create a new set of ‘universal laws’ applying to all the signatories via new methods of compliance monitoring and self-policing.
The unchecked growth of Big Corporations will continue to the point where they become a law unto themselves:
The increased power and influence of private enterprise and technology has enabled a small number of wealthy cities to ‘break away’ from the nation states to which they had previously been subject. In 2018, Apple’s cash balances exceeded those of the United States and the United Kingdom. In 2025, Amazon and Apple reached market value of $2 trillion, while other companies like Google have had a higher GDP than some nation states since 2018. These private companies have a large and/or exclusive role in providing city services and, in some cases, even total control over city operations.
A second possible scenario, clearly portrayed as negative, ponders how cities will decline. A paragraph curiously labeled as populism includes the suspiciously accurate George Floyd prediction. A failure to address racial injustice is seen as an ominous roadblock to the globalist future:
Populist rhetoric and a corrosion of the freedom of information fueled skepticism and suspicion against local action. Left-leaning political movements saw cities as creators of a patchwork of regulations that benefited certain communities and strengthened the racial divide. In 2020, downtown Chicago was devastated by a riot triggered by increasing inequality and police brutality.
The European Council on Foreign Relations owes its very existence to George Soros, who bankrolled its founding. The organization is apparently especially close to Soros’s heart. It is mentioned in his OSF bio.
Other donors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Robert Bosch Foundation.
The 2006 Soros Foundations Network Report lists the Robert Bosch Foundation, which funds GGF, as a “Donor Partner.” (See page 138 of the Soros pdf.)
In a 2019 Robert Bosch Foundation interview discussing the issues surrounding this paper titled “Cities Are the Last Line of Defense of Globalization,” Ramic leaves little doubt that she favors the Rise of the Sovereign City scenario. Yet the terrifying vision she lays out for the most part could not be bettered by the most severe critic of globalism:
What is the potential of city networks such as C40 and the Global Covenant of Mayors to address global issues?
Today, even though cities – and especially the large global cities – hold a disproportionate amount of the world’s economic power, they still lack the autonomy to act on issues independently. That is why city networks exist and why they are proliferating. So the potential of these networks is great, but the question is: how will they actually gain the necessary autonomy – and when?
The answer may lie in “franchised cities.” This is a term we came up with in our GGF forecasting scenario to describe the proliferation private cities around the globe and the networks they are part of. It is entirely possible that in the next 10 years we will see the rise of Facebook or Google city, for example – indeed, this is already in progress in California. And then imagine Google “opens” another city outside of Johannesburg, and a third outside of Perth. And imagine Amazon functionally taking over one half of all services in Seattle and several other cities around the globe, offering its city-citizens all mobility and health-related services, etc.
Those cities would have connections around the globe and an inherent interest in lobbying on the world stage, combined with huge economic power. That is the potential – the combination and intensified partnerships between private enterprise and city government, and in some instances the two could be one and the same.
With the backlash against globalization that we are seeing, cities could end up being the last defenders of the merits of globalization. What I mean by that is that cities, and especially large global cities, by their very nature exude merits such as diversity, liberalism, tolerance, and economic power.
It is important to understand that Ramic is giving the deliberate impression that increased globalization on steroids is inevitable. See how she answers the following question. The “for now” hangs like a giant meatball:
Do you see cities taking a more prominent role in shaping political agendas?
This is already happening now – take for example sanctuary cities in the US. These local jurisdictions enact policies that are designed to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement actions: they choose to not fully cooperate with federal efforts to find and deport unauthorized immigrants. The list includes many of the country’s largest cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, New York City, and others.
Such developments are sure to cause a period of friction between cities and national governments – and have indeed already done so – but cities are where solutions are implemented, where things actually get done. However, cities have the weaker hand for now: power still devolves to nation-states, or to states or regions.
Another question frames a megacity such as New York as a new Catalonia or Quebec of the NWO separatist movement away from nation states:
The broad trend is that countries are getting smaller. Why shouldn’t that continue right down to the city-level, creating city-states that are functionally independent from the nation states of which they are part? As we see debates over self-determination in regions like Catalonia and Quebec, it is possible to think that people will move to “self-determine” into an even more local area such as a city.
Globalism as a force of nature that can’t be stopped even if we wanted to (and they don’t) is a bedrock argument of internationalists dating back decades.
Global Governance Futures partners with several notable globalist institutions. Among those in the United States are the Brookings Institution and The Princeton School of Public and International Affairs.
In 2017 then-Brookings President Strobe Talbott championed the inevitability of globalism and the mass migrations of peoples at a “Brookings-Robert Bosch Foundation Transatlantic Initiative”:
Globalization in and of itself is not a boon or a curse – it is a reality borne of technological and communications revolutions. It needs better governance on the part of nation states, acting both unilaterally and cooperatively, and multilateral institutions. Migration is related to globalization: it’s a fact of life – and very often (far more often than not) it’s a way of enriching national populations and meeting the demands of labor markets.
Talbott served as Deputy Secretary of State for Bill Clinton from 1994-2001. He has also been “a director of the Council on Foreign Relations [and a member of] the North American Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission,” according to his Brookings bio.
Way back in 1992, Talbott played this “predict the future we really want to happen” game in an opinion piece for Time Magazine. Declaring himself an “optimist,” Talbott came to a conclusion: Nations will disappear.
Here is one optimist’s reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I’ll bet that within the next hundred years (I’m giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century — “citizen of the world” — will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.
Three decades later, Talbott must be patting himself on the back over his predictive skills. Then again, when you are part of a globally powerful ruling establishment that has deployed all of its many weapons to ruthlessly hack out the very “scenarios” you label as “possible,” that crystal ball sure has a way of becoming a lot less murky.
Joe Schaeffer is the former Managing Editor of The Washington Times National Weekly Edition. His columns appear at WorldTribune.com and FreePressInternational.org.