Posted on 09/16/2025 5:28:29 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
It is tempting to believe that world events unfold organically — that wars, economic shifts, and social upheavals are the chaotic result of human nature, poor leadership, or bad luck. But patterns emerge. Leaders across Western nations increasingly act against the interest of their own people, pushing policies that seem disconnected from cultural roots, economic realities, or popular will. At the same time, these same leaders speak the language of morality, of global responsibility, and of saving humanity — whether through climate policy, economic equality, or pandemic management. The message is always the same: we must act together, globally, urgently. The result is a steady erosion of sovereignty, tradition, and freedom. This cannot be explained by coincidence or incompetence alone. There is a deeper architecture at work — not a cartoonish conspiracy of villains, but a long-term plan quietly executed by men who believe they are saving the world.
This Plan, if it exists, is not new. Its roots may reach back more than a century, to the intellectual aftermath of failed socialist experiments. The true believers of early communism did not abandon their ideals when Stalinism collapsed or Maoism faltered. They did what committed ideologues often do — they changed tactics. Rather than impose socialism by revolution, they would infiltrate institutions, reshape language, and reprogram the culture. Instead of class warfare, they would teach equity. Instead of global communism, they would promote global cooperation. The Plan evolved from violent revolution to soft power — a strategy to guide the world toward centralized control, not under the banner of Marx, but under the guise of humanitarianism. Most of those advancing this vision do not even know they are doing so. They are educated, appointed, and elevated in systems that reward compliance with global ideals. They speak of sustainability, fairness, and science. But underneath, their momentum serves the aims of a small elite who understand the final destination — a managed world, ruled not by nations, but by those who have placed themselves above them.
The success of the Plan does not rely on brute force or overt manipulation. Instead, it depends on a quiet, generational process of shaping minds and selecting leaders. Across elite universities, international fellowships, think tanks, and NGOs, a consistent ideological filter is applied. The young are not told what to think; they are taught what to value. The ideals of globalism, climate urgency, social equity, and technocratic governance are presented not as political positions, but as moral truths. Those who internalize these values — and display loyalty to them — are rewarded. They are invited to conferences, appointed to advisory roles, connected with powerful patrons. By the time they reach positions of national leadership, they are already fluent in the language of the Plan, having long ago absorbed its assumptions as their own. They are not puppets, nor are they villains. They are sincere, often brilliant individuals who believe deeply in what they are doing — and that is what makes them so effective.
The most sophisticated element of the Plan is that even its most loyal agents often do not know it exists. There is no need for secret oaths or hidden meetings in underground chambers. The real mechanism is institutional: foundations that fund research, media that frames narratives, and education systems that standardize ideology. When someone speaks of “stakeholder capitalism,” “sustainable development,” or “global governance,” they believe they are advocating progress. They do not see that the language itself is a tool — a way of shaping acceptable thought and narrowing the range of debate. Over time, a consensus emerges not through debate, but through design. Those who question it are marginalized or labeled extremists. Those who accept it are promoted. In this way, the Plan maintains momentum across decades and borders, without ever revealing its full shape. It doesn’t need to dominate every institution — only the key ones. The rest will follow.
The historical roots of the Plan trace back to the early 20th century, a time when socialism and communism were gaining traction as alternatives to the perceived chaos and inequality of capitalism. The failures of revolutionary socialism — from the Russian Bolshevik regime to later authoritarian communist states — did not dissuade all adherents. Instead, they forced a strategic reevaluation. Intellectuals and activists began to explore more subtle means of social transformation. Fabian socialism in Britain championed gradual change through education and policy rather than violent upheaval. Technocrats argued that society should be managed by experts, not politicians or the masses. These ideas gained ground in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, as elites sought new ways to secure peace and prosperity through centralized control.
Institutions began to form or gain prominence with missions that, on the surface, appeared benign or even benevolent. Organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States, Chatham House in the UK, and later the United Nations became hubs for coordinating international policy and spreading ideas about global governance. Their language was carefully crafted to emphasize cooperation, peace, and sustainable development. Yet beneath this veneer was a shift toward managing societies through international norms, regulations, and standards. The Plan advanced by embedding itself in these institutions, slowly shaping the worldview of future leaders who would carry its principles forward without ever fully realizing the agenda they served.
In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the Plan found powerful new engines in global institutions and networks that operate across borders with ever-expanding influence. The United Nations, initially founded to prevent war, evolved into a platform promoting global agendas under the banners of development, human rights, and climate action. The World Economic Forum, with its annual meetings in Davos, became the premier gathering place for political, corporate, and intellectual elites to coordinate strategies and reinforce shared values. Multinational corporations and financial institutions increasingly aligned themselves with these global goals, often under the rubric of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria, which steer capital toward “responsible” investments.
These institutions do not issue orders; instead, they create frameworks that national governments and private sectors adopt voluntarily—or under pressure. Through funding, recognition, and access to influential networks, they reward compliance and punish dissent. Education systems, media conglomerates, and think tanks form an ecosystem that normalizes the Plan’s ideology, making it the default worldview among elites worldwide. Even as populist movements arise in reaction to this encroachment on sovereignty and tradition, the institutional momentum remains formidable. The Plan’s strength lies in its invisibility and its appeal to virtue: to be against it is to be against progress, fairness, and science itself.
To maintain its momentum, the Plan employs a variety of mechanisms to manage dissent and control the narrative. Social media and traditional media are not neutral platforms but active battlegrounds where acceptable ideas are promoted and alternative views are censored or ridiculed. Cancel culture silences critics and enforces conformity by making social and professional costs unbearably high for dissenters. Education systems shape young minds to accept the Plan’s worldview as fact, leaving little room for critical thought or opposing perspectives. The law itself is leveraged to criminalize or delegitimize opposition under the guise of combating hate speech, misinformation, or extremism. These tools, wielded subtly, ensure that resistance is fragmented, marginalized, and ineffective.
At the pinnacle of the Plan’s hierarchy are individuals who knowingly steer its course. These are men and women who understand the stakes and the final destination. They operate in the shadows of global finance, multinational corporations, and international policy forums. Yet, even at this level, their motivations are complex. Some may genuinely believe in the vision they promote — a world without poverty, war, or environmental collapse — convinced that the ends justify the means. Others may be driven by power, legacy, or survival within the system they helped create. What unites them is a belief that the Plan must continue, regardless of costs, because the alternative is chaos, fragmentation, or regression. They are wolves in humanitarian skin, architects of a future that demands sacrifice and control.
Today, the effects of this Plan are visible across Western democracies—from the streets of Europe to the halls of power in the UK, Canada, and Australia. Leaders in these nations, though not necessarily meeting in secret or conspiring openly, act in remarkable unison. They pursue policies that prioritize global cooperation over national sovereignty, emphasize climate agendas even at economic cost, and champion social equity framed by global norms. Protests and unrest erupt regularly, fueled by citizens who feel their voices are ignored or overridden by elites pursuing distant goals. Yet these leaders are not rogue actors or deliberate saboteurs; rather, they are products of the same ideological ecosystem, shaped by shared education, institutions, and networks that promote the Plan’s vision as the only viable future.
This convergence occurs not through explicit coordination but through a powerful cultural and institutional alignment. When individuals are groomed within the same circles—universities, think tanks, international organizations—they internalize common values, assumptions, and goals. This creates a form of unspoken consensus, a tacit agreement on what policies are necessary and what debates are off-limits. Each leader, believing they act in the best interest of their people and planet, contributes to a collective momentum that transcends borders. In this way, the Plan operates like a self-reinforcing ecosystem, where shared beliefs and institutional pressures produce synchronized action without a single mastermind or formal conspiracy.
Understanding this dynamic is crucial. It reveals how systemic change can be orchestrated not through shadowy cabals, but through subtle, persistent shaping of ideas and values that permeate elite institutions worldwide. The unrest seen today may be the natural response to this top-down imposition of a vision not universally accepted, yet the machinery behind it continues to advance quietly. Whether societies can reclaim sovereignty and diverse voices in this environment remains an open question—but recognizing the nature of the Plan and its cultural foundations is the first step toward meaningful dialogue and, potentially, resistance.
Nice piece.
Have you read “The Ruling Class” by Angelo Codevilla? It’s a short book which discusses how insular the top people are. They tend to be born in certain areas, go to certain schools, work in certain industries. They network with people who are just like themselves. They really have no idea how the real world works (and they don’t care) because they live in a completely isolated bubble.
IIRC, Codevilla didn’t try to get into any sort of “shadow” group manipulating society, but he certainly thought that the Ruling Class ran things for themselves and didn’t understand and didn’t care about people outside their social circle.
Excellent...
You are on fire today.
Thank you for essays, your Knowledge, and your long time Free Republic participation.
I am looking forward to your essay on 9/24/25 - your 24th anniversary.
God bless you.
IIRC, Codevilla didn’t try to get into any sort of “shadow” group manipulating society,
I agree with all of it. But I would expand that it predates the communist revolution in Russia. People like Cecil Rhodes in England and others envisioned and worked for global dominance, centered in London. Reducing America into a British vassal was part of that. The Anglophilic US Progressives had the same mentality mostly.
But the problem is deep and I think you describe it very accurately.
Sadly, it appears that the only way to reset things is an all out nuclear war flattening every power center in Europe and America and us crawling out of the rubble in the hinterlands with copies of the US Constitution and a few history books.
That or we somehow over a century, we accomplish taking over DC, the Ivies, the CIA, big tech, the central banks etc.
Also, I would point out that the entire structure you accurately describe, including the US Government and all of the institutions are rabidly atheist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.