The dark reality of how lawmakers are quietly using AI to legislate for them



At this year’s World Economic Forum gathering in Davos, artificial intelligence dominated the conversation. And according to Justin Haskins, the global elite aren’t just discussing innovation — they’re focused on shaping AI with what he calls a “Davos core” before it becomes too powerful to control.

“I think the most important thing that came out of Davos is the importance of artificial intelligence. In panel after panel after panel, what are the elites talking about? What are they most concerned about? It’s clearly artificial intelligence,” Haskins tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“What they want to do is make sure that AI is designed with their values, so that as the world continues to adopt artificial intelligence over a long period of time and AI becomes more influential and powerful in our world, it’s with a Davos core, a Davos infrastructure,” he explains.


And while the artificial intelligence that we have now is concerning, the next stage of artificial intelligence is what Haskins finds even more concerning.

“Artificial general intelligence is the next stage of development, where AI becomes basically as smart as a human being,” Haskins says.

“And then once you hit that level, very shortly after that, most AI experts believe, you get artificial superintelligence — ASI — where now it is far more powerful than people. And at that point, it’s so powerful we can’t really control it or even fully know what it’s doing,” he continues.

Haskins explains there was also an entire panel at Davos dedicated to artificial intelligence and how to make sure AI is “sustainable and that it’s essentially woke” when it becomes more intelligent than humans.

And too many people are willing to use AI to write simple things like emails, and lawmakers are using it to help them make decisions — which Haskins finds the most terrifying about what AI means for the future.

“Lawmakers tell me — it’s very whispered and quiet. They don’t want people to know. But they use AI to help them make decisions all the time. Not just writing, but actually to help them, sort of tell them what to do because they’re not sure about an important thing,” Haskins explains.

“I hate that,” Stuckey interjects, shocked. “That’s even worse than giving them your brain. That’s giving them your conscience.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

What will replace the old world order?



The pivotal question of what will follow the crack-up of the liberal international order dominated the highest levels of European politics at the recent 2026 Munich Security Conference.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave his own forceful answer, following Vice President JD Vance’s provocative speech last year. Rubio delivered an equally spirited address that issued an ultimatum: Rationalizing collapse and weakness is no longer the policy of the United States — and it should no longer be Europe’s policy either. America has no “interest in being polite and orderly caretakers of the West’s managed decline,” he said.

Alliances should be made, renewed, or even disbanded depending on whether they help secure America’s interests in the present.

Instead, Rubio urged a reformation of the “global institutions of the old order” to defend and strengthen the key pillars of Western civilization.

The problem in Rubio’s mind was that the 20th-century web of international alliances, designed to counter the Soviets in the wake of two devastating world wars, took on a life of its own. Its keepers began putting the preservation of their supranational relations “above the vital interests of our people and our nations.”

Institutions such as the United Nations have utterly failed to protect national interests, and they simply have no answers to the most pressing problems in international affairs today. Instead, they actively encourage deindustrialization, mass migration, and shortsighted climate policies, causing a loss of confidence in the very sources that have supplied the West’s vitality for centuries.

To counter this, Rubio proposed that the U.S. partner with Europe to lead a “reinvigorated alliance … that boldly races into the future.” It will focus on “advancing our mutual interests and new frontiers, unshackling our ingenuity, our creativity, and the dynamic spirit to build a new Western century.” If the West wants to safeguard and promote its historic ways of life, then an international realignment is inescapably necessary.

The themes Rubio articulated were also the subject of this year’s “Budapest Global Dialogue,” an annual conference put on by the Hungarian Institute of International Affairs and the Observer Research Foundation. This year’s gathering focused on what HIIA President Gladden Pappin presented as the choices currently before the world: endless conflict that’s likely to spin out of control or the emergence of a foundation for long-term security, peace, and prosperity.

Keynote speakers and panelists agreed that continuing to prop up a decaying international order was not a viable option. Though necessary for its time, it is clearly inadequate in a world that looks far different from the one that featured creeping death in the form of the USSR. As Rubio recently told a gaggle of reporters before his address in Munich, “The old world is gone.” He noted that nations must re-examine their roles in our “new era in geopolitics.”

RELATED: What’s Greenland to us?

Photo by Alessandro Rampazzo/AFP via Getty Images

The urgency of this project has been amplified by the European Union’s various machinations against popular government. Its censorship machine is attempting to export the EU’s liberty-denying laws to America and other Western nations. Unsurprisingly, the problem of censorship, which has been a chief focus of Vice President Vance, took up much of the conversation of the opening-night panel.

Headlined by Sarah B. Rogers, the U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs, and Balázs Orbán, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s political director, panelists discussed the countless issues stemming from the EU’s Digital Services Act. It uses “trusted flaggers” like HateAid — an organization funded by the German government — to censor online speech, including that of Americans.

Pappin and other participants also noted the myriad problems stemming from unchecked globalization. Nations happily traded away the most basic elements of sovereignty for a mess of pottage in the form of lower prices on select goods. This was justified using free-market language, in which attaining the highest GDP possible seemingly became the summum bonum of political life. Former Trump administration official Andrew Peek termed this problem “economics without politics.”

In the United States in particular, key supply chains were mostly shipped out of the country, the folly of which was fully exposed during the COVID debacle. The U.S. essentially followed a systematic deindustrialization plan as we helped build up other countries, especially China.

China’s rise didn’t happen solely due to its sheer geographic size or population. It occurred because the Clinton administration and Western leaders decided the best way to fend it off was by inviting the Chinese into the heart of the world’s economic system. This was a catastrophic choice that helped hasten the collapse of the old order.

Now, China is by far the world leader in many positive economic indicators. The country is also looking to become the world’s first electrostate, adding another gigawatt of capacity to its grid every year.

Meanwhile, the United States is facing mounting problems with our electric grid, which will be further exacerbated by the construction of data centers and older plants going offline. No nuclear power plants were built in the U.S. between 1996 and 2016. Additionally, as noted in a Department of Energy report last year, utopian green energy mandates have helped bring the U.S. closer to the brink of a full-blown energy crisis.

RELATED: America won’t beat China without Alaska

Photo by Simon Bruty/Anychance/Getty Images

Though the conference featured discussions on other pivotal topics — especially the promise and peril of artificial general intelligence — there wasn’t a dedicated panel on immigration. But that didn’t stop speakers from addressing the topic. Alexandre del Valle, a professor at France’s IPAG, called mass Islamic immigration to Europe a long-term bomb. And in a keynote address that served as a campaign speech of sorts, Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó celebrated the fact that illegal migration to Hungary is nonexistent.

Szijjártó also devoted time to underscoring the stakes of the upcoming Hungarian parliamentary elections. The April 12 contest will feature a rather personal battle between current Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Péter Magyar, who resigned from Fidesz in 2024 and then joined TISZA, the Respect and Freedom Party. The campaign billboards and posters I saw plastered around Budapest, which were nearly all pro-Orbán, showed Magyar gladly acquiescing to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s insistence to send Hungarian armaments to Ukraine.

Fidesz is asking voters if they want to keep Orbán’s government in power or elect those who would sacrifice the country’s blood and treasure in war. President Trump clearly wants the former. During Rubio’s trip to Budapest after his Munich speech, he said that the American president is “deeply committed” to Orbán’s victory in April.

As the Trump administration sees it, the path forward is clear: maintaining alliances when political goals and traditions are shared, as is the case between Hungary and the United States. And as Rubio was careful to point out in Munich, when alliances become strained, renewal through strategic thinking that connects means and ends is essential. One such example is Elbridge Colby’s recent discussion of the creation of NATO 3.0, in which U.S. allies bear more of the financial burden.

What won’t work, however, is elevating prudential considerations to the level of principle, as world leaders and bureaucrats have done far too often in recent decades. They have frozen in amber the specific circumstances of the second half of the 20th century, thinking that those paradigms must forever dictate how nations should act. But as Dhruva Jaishankar, the executive director of the Observer Research Foundation America, pointed out, the ballroom in which the 2026 Budapest Global Dialogue was held was built in 1896. Five international orders have come and gone in that time.

Contrary to the Anne Applebaums of our foreign policy elite class, who have helped drive the West into a ditch, the Nazis aren’t marching just over the horizon, and Vladimir Putin isn’t the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler. Alliances should be made, renewed, or even disbanded depending on whether they help secure America’s interests in the present. As Daniel J. Mahoney is fond of saying, it isn’t always Munich 1938. Serious leaders acknowledge current realities and marry their rhetoric to actions that will lead to peace, prosperity, and the good of the West — and the good of America above all.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

Trump not worried about Canada's China-centric 'new world order'



Try explaining this one: President Donald Trump’s relaxed — almost insouciant — response to news that Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged allegiance to a China-centered “new world order."

Why did Trump appear to shrug off Carney’s insistence that Canada’s future lies more with China than with the United States?

Carney’s favorable assessment of China’s role in climate and green finance is not an isolated remark.

Perhaps it has something to do with Greenland and Canada being viewed as components of Trump’s broader Western Hemisphere security plan.

Cue the black helicopters

Not long ago, “new world order” belonged firmly in the vocabulary of conspiracy theorists. But in Beijing last week, Carney elevated the phrase into an official Liberal talking point.

So what did Carney say? Plenty.

Mine is the first visit of a Canadian prime minister to China in nearly a decade. The world has changed much since that last visit, and I believe the progress that we have made in the partnership sets us up well for the new world order.

Trump did not respond immediately. Instead, he waited until the end of the news day last Friday before offering his reaction.

“That’s what he should be doing, and it’s a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that,” Trump said.

Not the response many expected from a president who has urged countries in the Western Hemisphere to distance themselves from Beijing.

World order word salad

Pressed on what he meant by a “new world order,” Carney responded with his characteristic blend of abstraction and deflection.

So the question is, what gets built in that place? How much of a patchwork is it? How much is it just on a bilateral basis? Or where do like-minded countries in certain areas? So like-minded countries, just to be clear, doesn't mean you agree on everything. So aspects, for example, on digital trade or agricultural trade, climate finance as another area to move into areas of geo-strategy, geo-security, you will have different coalitions that are formed. So what this partnership does is in areas, for example, of clean energy, conventional energy, agriculture, as we were just talking about, and financial services, which we have talked less about, but the evolution of the global financial system.

Trump’s nonchalance was not shared by conservative commentators, who sharply criticized Carney’s remarks.

Alex Jones, for one, described Carney as “a Klaus Schwab acolyte” and warned: “You are about to see the globalist prime minister of Canada pledge allegiance to the communist dictator in China, Xi Jinping."

RELATED: What does Trump see in Canada's pro-China prime minister?

Chip Somodevilla/Dave Chan/Getty Images

China guy

So far, Carney’s new world order with China has produced a trade agreement allowing up to 49,000 electric vehicles to be imported into Canada annually at a reduced tariff of 6.1%. In return, China is expected to lower tariffs on Canadian agricultural exports — most notably canola oil, a key cash crop for Canadian farmers — to roughly 15%.

But there is nothing new about Carney’s deference to China.

After leaving the Bank of England in 2020, Carney became vice chairman of the board of Bloomberg L.P., the privately held financial data and media company founded by Michael Bloomberg. During the same period, he also served as co-chair of the U.N.-backed Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, working alongside Bloomberg in his separate capacity as the United Nations’ Special Envoy on Climate Ambition and Solutions.

In that capacity, Carney consistently praised the alleged environmental stewardship of China, somehow locating a deep commitment to fighting climate change in a country that continues to power its economy with coal-fired plants.

Take Carney’s March 2024 visit to China, during which he told a reporter for the Chinese business outlet 21st Century Business Herald (English translation via Google Translate):

China has made a huge contribution to the fight against climate change, not only in terms of its massive investment in clean technologies and exporting them to other countries, but also in actively developing the financial system needed for the green transition.

Yuan to grow on

Carney’s favorable assessment of China’s role in climate and green finance is not an isolated remark. It aligns with a broader argument he has advanced in recent years: that global economic leadership should become more multipolar, with China playing a larger role alongside — rather than beneath — U.S. dominance.

That worldview extends to currency and finance. At the 2019 Jackson Hole Economic Symposium, Carney argued that the world should reduce its dependence on the U.S. dollar by exploring a new “synthetic hegemonic currency,” a framework designed to dilute the dominance of any single national currency.

Carney did not explicitly call for the Chinese yuan to replace the U.S. dollar outright. But his proposal would, by design, weaken the centrality of the dollar and expand the influence of non-U.S. currencies and financial systems.

Trump, for his part, has twice endorsed Carney during Canadian federal elections. Their relationship — particularly during Oval Office meetings — has been described as friendly, though it may be better understood as Trump indulging a leader he views as temporary.

Why does Trump consistently give Carney a pass?

Perhaps because Trump sees Carney less as a lasting architect of global order than as a passing phenomenon — unlikely to impede the president’s broader aim of reinforcing American economic primacy, regardless of how warmly Carney speaks of China’s place in the world.

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269
play icon

Great Reset Elites are Planning a Post-Human Future | Whitney Webb | The Glenn Beck Podcast | Ep 269

Who really runs the world? Meet the puppet masters behind the puppet masters



Bilderberg recently announced plans to be more open and friendly to the press — but what about Le Cercle?

If Bilderberg is the shadowy conference everyone whispers about, Le Cercle is the one that doesn’t even make it into the conversation. For many readers, this may be the first time you’ve encountered the name.

To the elites steering Le Cercle, South Africa’s value as a geopolitical foothold outweighed the regime’s moral failings.

Founded in 1952, this corrupt cabal operates with a level of secrecy that makes the Bilderberg Group seem almost transparent by comparison. Smaller, spookier, and infinitely more secretive, Le Cercle has built its reputation as the dark corner of global power.

The hidden hand of global politics

An exclusive transatlantic network, conceived and cultivated by conservative European leaders, Le Cercle has operated quietly for well over 70 years.

Founded during the height of the Cold War, Le Cercle was established to unite Western elites and synchronize political and intelligence strategies across borders. Its creation was driven by the era’s pervasive fear of communist expansion and a determination to secure Western economic and military dominance.

Key figures such as Franz Josef Strauss, a vocal anti-communist from West Germany, and Antoine Pinay, a conservative former French prime minister, believed traditional diplomacy was inadequate to meet the threat. They saw covert coordination and strategic manipulation as essential tools in preserving Western hegemony.

In other words, to fight fire, they needed to start fires. To defeat the arsonists, they had to become pyromaniacs.

Over time, this network evolved into a powerful forum for shaping policy. Its members include influential politicians, diplomats, and intelligence operatives. Known for its strong connections to Western intelligence, including the CIA, Le Cercle’s biannual meetings operate under strict confidentiality.

These gatherings have drawn senior U.K. officials, including business secretaries and justice ministers, some of whom received financial support to attend. The group’s deliberately opaque funding only deepens the mystery, raising serious questions about who’s really pulling the strings — and why. But you don’t need a seat at the table to figure out the group's motives are far from pure.

Supporting apartheid

One of the most troubling allegations against Le Cercle is its reported support for apartheid-era South Africa, a regime notorious for its brutal system of racial segregation.

This backing likely wasn’t rooted in racist ideology but in Cold War strategy. For Western powers, South Africa was a crucial ally in the fight against communism in Africa, and its apartheid policies were conveniently overlooked in favor of maintaining strategic dominance.

To the elites steering Le Cercle, South Africa’s value as a geopolitical foothold outweighed the regime’s moral failings. Apartheid wasn’t just a system of segregation — it was a machine of dehumanization. Black South Africans were stripped of their citizenship, forced into squalid homelands, and subjected to relentless state violence. Families were torn apart, dissent crushed, and entire generations were denied basic human dignity.

For Le Cercle to have propped up such a regime speaks volumes about the dark compromises made in the name of power.

Shaping the Cold War world

The group’s legacy is tightly bound to Cold War geopolitics, often serving as an extension of U.S. strategic interests. Its actions embodied the era’s prevailing belief that secrecy and subversion were necessary to maintain global dominance.

While NATO and the CIA handled operations more openly, Le Cercle remained behind the curtain, wielding tools like financial manipulation, disinformation, and clandestine military support. Leaked documents suggest it played a role in regime changes and election interference, not just in Western Europe but far beyond. Its shadowy operations were (and still are) aimed at destabilizing governments deemed too hostile to Western interests.

One of the most notable examples is its reported involvement in the downfall of Australia’s Gough Whitlam administration in 1975. Whitlam, a progressive reformer, had clashed with both the U.S. and U.K. over his push for greater national sovereignty, particularly in areas like foreign policy, intelligence, and economic independence. He had questioned the activities of the CIA and sought to close U.S. military bases on Australian soil, including the highly strategic Pine Gap facility.

Whitlam, a blend of Bernie Sanders’ progressive vision and Ron Paul’s anti-establishment defiance, quickly became a thorn in the side of Western powers. His refusal to toe the line and his open defiance of Cold War orthodoxy made him a threat — one that, in the eyes of his adversaries, needed to be removed. And removed he was. In 1975, his government was dismissed in an unprecedented move by the governor-general, an act widely believed to have been influenced by the CIA.

Latin Mass and Latin America

In the 1970s and 1980s, Le Cercle reportedly supported far-right regimes in Latin America, aligning itself with U.S. efforts to suppress leftist uprisings. It’s worth noting that the far right in Latin America during this period looked vastly different from the modern-day American far right; these regimes were defined by brutal military juntas, systemic torture, and widespread political assassinations — hardly something most people today would condone.

Le Cercle’s alleged role in Operation Condor — a covert campaign by South American dictatorships to eliminate political dissidents — stands out as particularly egregious. This brutal network of state terror, responsible for the abduction, torture, and murder of thousands, relied heavily on intelligence sharing and financial backing. Le Cercle’s suspected involvement in facilitating these operations highlights its readiness to act as a shadowy enabler of Cold War repression, even crossing ethical and legal lines to achieve its goals.

The group’s connections weren’t limited to Latin America. Le Cercle also maintained deep ties to the Vatican, a formidable player in Cold War geopolitics. The group exploited the Vatican’s global networks to push its anti-communist agenda, with some members linked to synarchist and ultraconservative factions within the Church. The group's efforts blended religion with realpolitik, dressing up blatant political manipulation as righteous moral crusades.

Were these people doing God’s work? Well, if God’s work involves propping up juntas, funding death squads, and fostering fear in the name of stability, then perhaps. I’ll let you decide if this particular circle can ever be squared.

Writing God out of the Bible: The United Nations' occult origins and bid for religious power



This is the second part of a three-part investigation into the United Nations' origins and plans for the future of the world. You can read part one here.

The United Nations is a spiritual cult that draws its inspiration from a diverse set of influences, including Alice Bailey’s theosophy. Her teachings provided the foundations of the spiritual beliefs of the United Nations. Another strong influence was the “deeply spiritual” Robert Muller, who “from his vantage point of a top level global states-person [saw] a strong connection between spirituality and the political/cultural scene.” While Robert Muller’s and Alice Bailey’s beliefs may both generally be called theosophical, it is important to understand Robert Muller's material and spiritual impact on the United Nations: His contributions were and are a crucial guide for the United Nations in practice.

Robert Muller, born in Belgium in 1923 and raised in the Alsace-Lorraine region of France, grew up to experience “the horrors of World War II, of being a refugee, of Nazi occupation, and imprisonment.” He was a part of the French Resistance and later earned a doctorate of law from the University of Strasbourg. Clearly, his upbringing in the wake of these conflicts between countries shaped his worldview and politics.

Then, interestingly, “In 1948 he entered and won an essay contest on how to govern the world, the prize of which was an internship at the newly created United Nations.” Evidently, Muller was a life-long believer and advocate of alternate modes of governance, which he clearly believed the United Nations represented. He climbed the ranks of the United Nations all the way to the status of assistant secretary-general of the United Nations, a position he held for over 30 years. He dedicated himself to his writings, earning himself the moniker of the “philosopher” and even the “Prophet of Hope” of the United Nations. He also had several more concrete achievements, such as his work in education.

World core curriculum: creating global citizens

Bettmann/Getty Images

One of the fruits of Robert Muller’s long career was the University for Peace in Costa Rica, which he called “this magnificent dream being implemented in Costa Rica, a totally disarmed heaven of peace in a region still troubled by conflict.” He went on to explain that schools like the University for Peace would make students realize their “cosmic function” of becoming “instruments for peace”: “I hope that the University for Peace will establish a global peace strategy which would reach from outer-space to the atom, encompassing all aspects of our planetary home, the atmosphere, the seas and oceans, the polar caps, the continents, nations, regions, cities and villages; and from the whole human family to the individual, encompassing races, peoples, cultures, religions, generations, professions, institutions, firms, the family and all groups and associations created by the human race to attain a greater level of happiness and fulfilment.” After his retirement at the U.N., he served as Chancellor Emeritus at the University for Peace until his death in 2010.

Robert Muller invented the World Core Curriculum, for which he won the UNESCO Peace Education Prize in 1989. He believed that the world, moving into the 21st century, could not go on without a new education. One of his inspirations for designing the WCC was his “spiritual master,” U Thant, the third secretary-general of the U.N.: "Robert, there will be no peace on Earth, if there is not a new education." It will become clear that the adoption of the World Core Curriculum and the expansion of the United Nations’ power is mutually reinforcing.

What would this new education entail? Muller was convinced that we are now in the “global age” of human evolution, which meant that any conception of education that was not holistic in scope and global in its reach is necessarily insufficient. He also criticized the “[n]ationalistic mis-educations of France, Germany, and the United States.” Therefore, the scope of the United Nations is expansive and universal: “Our next great evolutionary task will be to ascertain what this cosmic or divine pattern means and to prepare for it the right institutions, people, values, guidelines, laws, philosophy, politics, and ethics. This immense, unprecedented task is dawning upon us everywhere, piercing the core of our earlier beliefs, values, and institutions.”

This may raise some eyebrows, but then he went on to explain the practical purpose of the new education, which is essentially to create more U.N. bureaucrats and global citizens: “This gives the teachers of this world a marvelous opportunity to teach children and people a sense of participation and responsibility in the building and management of the Earth, of becoming artisans of the will of God and of our further human ascent. A new world morality and world ethics will thus evolve, and teachers will be able to prepare responsible citizens, workers, scientists, geneticists, physicists, and scores of other professionals, including a new one which is badly needed–good world managers and caretakers.”

He then put a sharper point on the role of the United Nations in this new education: “The United Nations and its specialized agencies offer the first examples at global management in all these fields and must therefore occupy a cardinal place in the world’s curricula. The earlier we do this, the better it will be for our survival, fulfillment, and happiness.” The U.N. has been building credibility for itself by posing as the authority in all aspects of life in the post-war era. It does not claim to run the world now, but it would be “better for our survival” if it was in charge. Therefore, the adoption of a new, global education system would implicitly cede a huge amount of authority to the U.N., which is one avenue for it to achieve its goal of evolving the human race.

Preaching a global religion

Mike Rosiana/Getty Images

Robert Muller’s ideas cannot be understood without first understanding that he believed that the human race has been evolving, and that this evolution expands to the spiritual level in the global age. Hence the inclusion of a spiritual aspect in his curriculum: “Spiritual exercises of interiority, meditation, prayer and communion with the universe and eternity or God.” Note the nonchalance of his attitude toward pantheism versus monotheism since the "highest principle" can either be “the universe or God” for Muller. Spirituality and human (spiritual) evolution pervade much of his other writings as well, which is where we will turn now.

Robert Muller wrote a book called "New Genesis: Shaping a Global Spirituality." A cursory glance at the table of contents will dispel any lingering doubts that Robert Muller shared many beliefs with the Lucis Trust and theosophy.

Two of his most important claims in the book are that all the religions of the world need to learn from each other and blend their beliefs in order to achieve a higher truth and that the United Nations is “the place of convergence of all human problems, dreams, aspirations and exertions,” that is, it is in a position to develop this collaboration: “The answers, of course, have varied greatly during human history: thousands of religions, (with or without God or gods, e.g., Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism), philosophies and spiritual practices have offered humans their manifold insights and beliefs. Most of them thought that they had the ultimate, total truth or universal principle, and they were all too often prone to fight each other to assert their belief.”

As an aside, compare this to the explanation of the “Second Object” of the Theosophical Society: “Different world cultures have different approaches to intellectual and spiritual activities, and all such cultural differences are worth paying attention to, because reality is richer and more complex than any one culture can fully comprehend.” This is called syncretism. Much more could be said about syncretism, but this is not the place for it. For now, see the horrific seal of the Theosophical Society to get an idea of what it stands for. (Hint: If you are open to anything and everything, you stand for nothing).

Muller was clearly interested in making spirituality a greater focus for the United Nations. In fact, he seemed to think that spirituality is central in many ways to the work of the U.N.: “When it comes to the United Nations proper, one can obviously not say that it is a spiritual organization. How could it be otherwise? ... Nevertheless, prayer and spirituality play an important role in the United Nations.” It is interesting that he made these two statements in the same breath, as it were. One way of reading what Muller said is that the United Nations has concerns other than spiritual ones, but those concerns are guided by a spiritual awareness and purpose.

He highlighted this in a strange footnote in the book in which he says, “It is symbolic that the new Secretary-General, Mr. Javier Perez de Cuellar, on the first day of his term in January, 1982, visited the U.N. Meditation Room before proceeding to his office.” Symbolic of what, exactly? Recall that the U.N. Meditation Room is utterly devoid of religious symbols yet represents the spirituality that the U.N. pursues and encourages. Mr. Cuellar’s homage to the Meditation Room, then, suggests two things: First, the new secretary-general understands the importance of the spiritual component of the United Nations; second, the spirituality that led to the creation of the Meditation Room continued at the highest levels of the U.N. for the first 30 years of its existence, at least. His visit merely reaffirms the broader commitment of the U.N. It seems that his visit to the U.N. Meditation Room is “symbolic” of the way in which he intends to conduct the U.N. under his leadership.

Lucifer rears his head once again

Image courtesy of the United Nations

Robert Muller was a self-proclaimed Catholic, so one might assume that he privileged Catholicism in his religious thought. This is clearly a false assumption based on his writings, however. It is difficult to choose which example to use since there are so many instances where he blasphemes his own purported religious beliefs. I will let this quote speak for itself: “There is a famous painting and poster which shows Christ knocking at the tall United Nations building, wanting to enter it. I often visualize in my mind another even more accurate painting: that of a United Nations which would be the body of Christ.”

How could Muller say these things about Christ if he called himself a faithful Catholic? The Lucis Trust offers a compelling answer that resolves this contradiction. He was talking about a different figure, The Christ: “The Christ has no religious barriers in His consciousness. It matters not to Him of what faith a man may call himself.” For theosophists, The Christ is known as Lord Maitreya, but he takes on the different forms from all of the world religions. Jesus of Nazareth is, according to them, one instance of The Christ in world history. People need to be aware of this double-speak because Muller and many other figures in the cult of spiritual evolution appropriate different world religions to advance their religious beliefs in the guise of familiarity.

The best example of this comes at the end of "New Genesis." Muller boldly (i.e. blasphemously) rewrote the Genesis story with the United Nations as the new focus and with God nodding his approval: “And God saw that all the nations of the earth, black and white, poor and rich, from North and South, from East and West, and of all creeds were sending their emissaries to a tall glass house on the shores of the River of the Rising Sun, on the island of Manhattan, to study together, to think together, and to care together for the world and all its people. And God said: ‘That is good.’ And it was the first day of the New Age of the earth.” Remember what Muller wanted as the new body of Christ? He was talking about the same United Nations headquarters building in Manhattan, New York.

This is progress. This is spiritual evolution. This is what Robert Muller hoped and believed would happen in humanity’s future. This is what the United Nations aims to achieve.

Reflecting on his life achievements and contributions, Robert Muller depicted himself in a conversation with God himself. God asked him what he thought was his most important idea that he ever had, and Muller responded: “THE UNITED NATIONS MUST BE VASTLY STRENGTHENED TO RESOLVE THE MAJOR GLOBAL PROBLEMS HENCEFORTH INCREASINGLY CONFRONTING HUMANITY AND THE EARTH. IT MUST BE EMPOWERED TO ADOPT AND ENFORCE WORLD LAWS AND REGULATIONS.” Of all of his 7000 Ideas for a better future, Muller ranked this as his most crucial insight. Robert Muller truly dedicated his entire life to creating a New World Order under the United Nations’ rule.

One thing stands in the way of this New Age of human evolution coming into being: The United States and the rest of the free world. Muller, however, was assured that the U.S. will be unable to stand against the force of progress for long. Writing in May 2000, Muller said: “And now, as I look to the future and further progress, I am told that proper Earth government is impossible! I make this prediction: within twenty years we will have a proper government and administration of planet Earth and of humanity… It is inevitable. The salvation of this planet and survival of the human species depend on it. No one can for long go against evolution. Nation-states must adapt or they will disintegrate, even the biggest one, the United States. Unknown forces will force them to.”

We must remember these words next time we are told that there is a global crisis in the world that needs managing. If we don’t, we will almost certainly find ourselves living in Robert Muller’s world.

The global NGO destroying Africa — and flooding Europe with refugees



We're often told why immigrants stream into America and Europe by the millions, straining local resources and making a mockery of the law: They're searching for a better life.

But have you ever wondered how the life they're fleeing got so bad in the first place?

By presenting itself as both independent and transparent, the Club and its corrupt collaborators skillfully mask a deeper agenda — specifically, one that centralizes authority and imposes a vision that could punish dissent and enforce compliance.

Meet the powerful non-governmental organization pushing just the kind of draconian "sustainability" policies that help keep third-world countries in dire poverty.

"You'll own nothing and be happy." Thanks to this creepy mantra, most of us are already familiar with the World Economic Forum — if only because of founder Klaus Schwab's Bond movie villain accent and sense of style.

Yet many are not aware of its close partner, an even more powerful player in the shadowy corridors of global governance: the Club of Rome.

Founded in 1968 by a faction of scientists, economists, and business leaders to advance sustainability and systemic change, the Club of Rome presents itself as a benign force for good. But beneath this think tank's flimsy facade of altruism lurks a sinister agenda that makes the WEF look like WWE in comparison

If in doubt, let me point you in the direction of its most recent report, which is full of flawed logic and sadistic suggestions.

Legislated famine

In this document, the authors outline a ridiculous road map for achieving the "Sustainable Development Goals" in Africa. One of the more outlandish and reckless recommendations involves reducing the use of fertilizers. If enacted, this policy would be a death sentence for millions, perhaps tens of millions.

As Africa's population surges, reducing agricultural productivity risks widespread famine and suffering. This is a continent synonymous with starvation. Instead of empowering African nations to harness their natural resources, feed their people, and achieve economic growth, the Club promotes policies that prioritize environmental ideals over human welfare. This social engineering masquerading as progress could have catastrophic consequences.

Maybe that's part of the plan.

The Club of Rome's ideology is not confined to Africa; it resonates throughout Europe and beyond. In a time when many European nations grapple with the influx of immigrants and refugees, these misguided initiatives only serve to exacerbate existing challenges. Since 1990, the number of African immigrants living outside their home countries has more than doubled, with Europe experiencing the most pronounced growth.

An overwhelmed Europe

Over 11 million African-born individuals now call Europe home, many having journeyed through perilous sea routes. They arrive traumatized, often unable to communicate in the language of their new country, thrust into cultures and environments that feel utterly foreign, because they are. This influx brings a way of life that starkly contrasts with local customs, resulting in a clash of civilizations. This is not xenophobic speculation. Countries like France, Italy, and Germany are overwhelmed with African immigrants, and some of the stories of their behavior are nothing short of shocking.

North African immigrants, particularly from Morocco and Tunisia, are increasingly linked to a surge in violent crime in Germany. Disturbingly, these individuals are responsible for an average of one murder every six days, a statistic that underscores a troubling trend. The rise in serious offenses — assaults, stabbings, and rapes — coincides with the left-liberal German government's hesitance to deport offenders, raising serious concerns about public safety.

Since 2019, the number of murder cases involving Tunisians has skyrocketed by 110% while cases involving Moroccans have risen by 67%. According to data from the Federal Criminal Police Office, a murder was committed by either a Tunisian or a Moroccan every six days last year. These countries are known for their strong Islamic traditions, which often run counter to Western values.

In contrast, Southern African nations, where Christianity is more prevalent, often reflect different social dynamics. The influx of North African immigrants, with cultural and religious differences rooted in Islam, has sparked a clash that further complicates integration and endangers the people of Europe.

Thanks to the reckless recommendations of unelected globalists with the Club of Rome, the WEF, and the European Union, Europe now grapples with the dire consequences of this “human oil spill.” The surge of immigrants has overwhelmed social services, heightened cultural tensions, and fueled fears of escalating crime, unemployment, and the demise of broader society.

Post-COVID carnage

The backdrop for this upheaval is the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Lockdowns imposed by governments across the globe became a catalyst for radical change. While you and I were imprisoned in our homes, the elites — those behind organizations like the Club of Rome and the WEF — strategized about the future. They saw an opportunity to implement their vision for a post-COVID world, one where individuals would relinquish their rights and property in exchange for a facade of security and stability.

Again, this is not conjecture. The Club of Rome, through its partnerships with the WEF and the EU, seeks to chart a path for “systemic change” that undermines individual freedoms. Its influence extends into policymaking, shaping agendas that prioritize climate ideology over the welfare of citizens. This collusion raises critical questions about the legitimacy of its authority and the future trajectory of humanity.

The launch of the Systems Transformation Hub earlier this year marks a disturbing shift in Europe’s governance. Amid an escalating series of “crises” — conflict, climate change, and “deepening inequality” — this initiative seeks to overhaul societal structures under the banner of sustainability and unity. With Europe facing a number of pivotal elections, the timing of the Hub's emergence was anything but coincidental.

At its core, the Hub aims to craft policies and create a narrative that fit neatly with the European Green Deal. It emphasizes scientific data — often selectively chosen, as the COVID pandemic has shown — over public opinion, subtly undermining democratic processes and paving the way for directives from an exclusive elite. After all, the elites clearly know best.

Unaccountable authority

While the Hub touts its commitment to creating “a prosperous, resilient, green, and just Europe,” the reality may be a consolidation of power in the hands of a select few. Here, I suggest, “green” translates to cash flow rather than genuine environmental concern — think eco-friendly profits rather than eco-friendly policies. By presenting itself as both independent and transparent, the Club and its corrupt collaborators skillfully mask a deeper agenda — specifically, one that centralizes authority and imposes a vision that could punish dissent and enforce compliance.

The most dangerous aspect of organizations like the Club of Rome and the World Economic Forum is their enduring influence in a world where politicians come and go and nations rise and fall. These entities, composed of unelected, largely unknown officials, wield power that transcends electoral cycles, remaining ever-present as they pull the strings behind the scenes.

This unaccountable authority allows them to shape societal norms and policies without the scrutiny that elected leaders face, fundamentally undermining democratic processes. Operating with a level of permanence that defies political turnover, these organizations pose a grave threat to the Western world.

FACT CHECK: Did John Kerry’s Daughter Say Billions Must Die For ‘New World Order’?

The claim originates from a site that is a regular source of misinformation and has been debunked by Check Your Fact several times in the past.

Globalists’ 3-pronged attack plan to END our sovereignty



Under the direction of the World Health Organization, the United Nations, and the European Union, the largest globalist power grab in history is currently underway.

“We have threats on multiple fronts,” Glenn Beck warns, adding, “The stakes couldn’t be any higher. Everything is under attack. Free-speech, private property, faith, liberty, children, our families, everything is at stake.”

And the time has never been more ripe, as over 60 countries are facing elections this year.

“So, what does that mean for the New World Order? Well, they have to win. They have to make their major moves now. The time to seize control or at least to have the building blocks in place is right now,” Glenn says.

Glenn believes that if you reflect on the trends of the past decade, there are “three main events” that the globalists could invoke as a crisis in order to seize the control they want — and need.

“One, a major geopolitical risk. These are things like, oh I don’t know, war with Russia, or an economic disruption. Both of those are very likely to happen,” Glenn says.

“The next one is a health emergency. This one can be several things: a pandemic, the threat of a possible pandemic, guns, the climate, you use your imagination on this, but they already have a plan in place for all of them,” he warns.

“Climate change. This is how a government will seize control of food, energy, and water. They will also force private businesses into partnerships through mechanisms like ESG, and they can pull this trigger for almost anything. Forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, high temperatures in the summer.”

After these crises have been set in motion, that’s when the global institutions step in to declare their power by imposing mandates.

“What we saw with COVID,” Glenn recalls, “the World Health Organization takes the leading role. We all remember how that went.”


Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

FACT CHECK: Does The UN Have A ‘New World Order’ Website?

The website and project is not affiliated with the UN