ECOSOC and the Security Council
The heart of the matter.
The essay on ‘The United Nations and World Citizenship‘ began by suggesting ECOSOC is central to it all. Yet it never answered the crucial questions — why and how.
That’s the topic of this essay.
Let’s begin by summarising why the reports discussed yesterday are such a big deal. It’s really rather simple: because they systematically cover more or less exactly the global governance system exposed in length on this substack (some topics are covered across several essay):
Education for world citizenship vs. national citizenship
Systematic identity reformation targeting children to develop primary allegiance to global institutions rather than national communities.Expert governance replacing democratic representation
UN delegates selected for specialized knowledge rather than political representation, with expertise overriding sovereignty as basis for authority.Moral authority replacing legal authority in governance
UN resolutions carry ‘moral force’ rather than legal compulsion, creating compliance through reputational pressure and ethical obligation.Transnational cooperation through expert networks
Technical specialists operating across borders as ‘non-state actors within supranational frameworks’ beyond traditional diplomatic channels.National sovereignty as outdated concept requiring elimination
Systematic reconceptualisation where state interests become illegitimate obstacles to international institutional efficiency.Security Council veto powers as obstacles to overcome
Persistent recommendations to eliminate or circumvent vetoes as final safeguards for state autonomy.Functional world government through expert specialisation
Sectors like agriculture (FAO) given authority to bind national governments, removing governance from democratic foreign policy.ECOSOC as administrative nexus for NGO accreditation
Central coordination point where ‘civil society’ activism operates under UN bureaucratic oversight rather than independent grassroots activity.NGOs as collaborative partners rather than external critics
Article 71 integration making NGOs instruments for ideological transmission and compliance monitoring within the system.Statistical reporting requirements replacing political accountability
Annual reports on ‘economic, social and educational conditions’ with political conditions deliberately excluded from reporting framework.Systematic educational programming across all levels
Elementary through university curricula integration, with special targeting of Arab world through imported personnel and frameworks.Adults as primary obstacles with ‘fears, prejudices, old habits’
Democratic nationalism categorised as psychological defects requiring corrective adult education intervention.Faith-based rather than analytical approach to cooperation
Teachers must develop ‘faith in man's ability to co-operate’ with emphasis on belief cultivation over critical thinking.
In addition, a great many topics runs parallel, such as:
Teacher reprogramming as vector for ideological transmission
Re-educates teachers to become ‘epistemological missionary class’ ensuring classroom content promotes world citizenship over national allegiance.League educational programming as institutional template
1923 resolution mandating youth awareness of League aims, with UNESCO inheriting proven methodologies for attitude transformation.Biennial progress reports on UN instruction to Secretary-General
Real-time compliance monitoring of national educational programming, transferring educational sovereignty internationally.Educational programming as consensus manufacturing
Classrooms functioning as facilities producing generations predisposed toward supranational authority while unconscious of ideological formatting.International cooperation requiring ‘popularisation’
Manufactured consent through marketing-style promotion because natural demand doesn't exist.
In this context, what’s of further note is the approach taken by the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference material1 — which similarly suggests educating the primary+secondary school children, out-of-work youth, adults — even the teachers themselves, and to use the MSM much to the same end.
In other words - this is a repeating pattern.
Oh but surely that’s just a coincidence? Well, here’s another — the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development2. And that, coincidentally, ran between… 2005-2014, thus immediately before SDG launch and it focused on:
Rethinking and revising education from nursery school through university to include a clear focus on the development of knowledge, skills, perspectives and values related to sustainability is important to current and future societies.
… as well as:
Mobilizing the media: the media represents a powerful means of awareness-raising and dissemination about the principles and values of sustainable development, as well as about promising experiences. Making the media an ally for transmitting quality information to citizens is a pledge of success for the Decade
Look, you can argue until the cows come home, but this is a settled matter in my book. They use UNESCO to brainwash the teachers, children, even the adults, and they even engage the MSM to this end.
The script was employed in 1949 (the United Nations), and again in 1968 (environmentalism), and then again in 2005 (sustainable development).
It’s the same template on repeat play.
Finally, there are a few topics which should perhaps receive more coverage on this substack (or elsewhere), though none should be considered revolutionary but rather evolutionary developments given past topics:
UN Secretariat as permanent unelected administrative apparatus
Global bureaucracy serving ‘mankind’ in abstract terms with no democratic appointment process or electoral accountability.UN ideology as quasi-religious imperative
Direct comparison to religion where political disagreement becomes spiritual failure requiring conversion rather than debate.Decolonization through technical compliance vs. political independence
‘Development of self-government’ requiring statistical reporting to UN Secretary-General rather than complete sovereignty transfer.
The final point, perhaps, merits closer scrutiny. Yet, it’s not actually far off what took place during Covid, where public health surveillance ‘indicators’ — such as case counts per 100,000 — dictated policy in many nations.
Consequently, let’s instead focus on to why these reports matter a great deal — especially in contemporary context.
From the outset, the system was conceived as a managerial replacement of democracy. And it uses a model which can be traced back to the London bank clearinghouses in 18th century Britain, later developed by Julius Wolf, Eduard Bernstein, Leonard S. Woolf and Alfred Zimmern, whose early 20th-century blueprints laid the philosophical and institutional groundwork for global governance by experts working for international organisations.
The entire ‘expert’-led structure closely mirrors both the ‘World Congress for Freedom and Democracy’ supported by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and the CIA’s Robert Amory Jr. Schlesinger’s proposed CIA restructure, considered alongside the ‘Freedom Academy’, would almost certainly have brought U.S. intelligence into much closer alignment with its Soviet counterpart.
The Intellectual Architecture of One World
The institutional framework was accompanied by a coordinated campaign that provided the ideological foundation for post-democratic global governance. This campaign reached its apex with Wendell Willkie’s 1943 bestseller One World3, which called for abandoning isolationism in favour of international cooperation under ‘expert’ guidance — an appeal that aligned closely with Schlesinger and Amory’s vision for said ‘World Congress for Freedom and Democracy’.
Willkie's vision resonated with Ralph Barton Perry's subsequent work, One World in the Making4, which Perry dedicated to Willkie. Perry — a Harvard philosopher — provided the moral philosophical framework that justified replacing national sovereignty with global, technocratic coordination by arguing that ‘global interdependence’ made traditional democratic governance obsolete.
This intellectual network expanded further through Will Durant's Declaration of Interdependence5, promoted at the Hollywood Roosevelt in an event featuring prominent figures such as Thomas Mann6 — who, incidentally, left the United States a few years later under suspicion of communist sympathies during the McCarthy investigations7, being suspected of communist activity8. Durant's declaration explicitly called for recognition that individual nations could no longer solve global problems independently, and instead must submit to ‘interdependent’ international expert authority.
The significance of this parallel track cannot be overstated: whilst Woolf and Zimmern provided the institutional blueprints, figures like Willkie, Perry, Durant, and Mann provided the mass-market intellectual justification. Together, they created a pincer movement — institutional architecture from above, ideological preparation from below. And the drive was sold through ‘interdependence’ (collectivism), and the now garden-variety ‘moral call’ (our morals, not yours).
The Generational Continuity: From World Federalism to Environmental Crisis
This intellectual network demonstrated remarkable generational continuity. Thomas Mann's daughter, Elizabeth Mann Borgese9, became a lead author of the 1947 world federalist document10, connecting the 'One World' vision directly to the formal world federalist movement led by figures like Grenville Clark and and Louis B. Sohn11.
The world federalist project then evolved through Saul Mendlovitz and Richard A. Falk, who in 1966 produced a four-volume work, ‘The Strategy of World Order‘12 analysing global governance models before moving into the 'World Order Models Project'13 — a title suspiciously echoing the 1941 conference, ‘Science and World Order’ which was — per attendees — in effect a promotion event for Scientific Socialism.
Falk's 1971 book 'This Endangered Planet'14 explicitly questioned whether the environmental crisis narrative would prove strong enough to justify global governance — effectively testing four different crisis frameworks for their political utility. It was released, not coincidentally, immediately after Brzezinski published ‘Between two Ages’15, suggesting an East-West partnership centered on ecology. Brzezinski would go on to co-founded the Trilateral Commission shortly thereafter. What followed was the treasonous US-USSR Environmental Cooperation agreement, signed in Moscow in May 23, 1972, with the United Nations Environment Programme16 following in June, 1972, and the founding of the IIASA17 in October the same year.
Thus, in short succession we had the betrayal (May 23), the vector of implementation (UNEP environmentalism), and the tool of implementation (IIASA global modelling).
But Elizabeth Borgese's trajectory is particularly revealing: from world federalism in 1947 to co-founding the Club of Rome18 in 1968 — an organisation focused on systems analysis of the globe, thereby justifying the institutional architecture erected in 1972, which in fact began with McNamara’s PPBS in 1961.
This represents the intellectual evolution from post-war 'One World' idealism through world federalism, into environmental crisis management using black box modelled systems theory prediction as the preferred mechanism for transcending national sovereignty. This logic was later institutionalised through the IIASA, complete with the dotted line signature required to ‘solve’ the modelled ‘crisis’. Meanwhile, the Club of Rome — founded in April, 1968 — was soon followed by the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, which called for the global educational template to be rolled out in context of environmentalism.
Does something smell not quite right here?
The Club of Rome's 'Limits to Growth'19 report then demonstrated how an alleged environmental crisis could provide the same function that 'the common struggle against fascism' had served in the 1940s: a moral imperative justifying expert-led global coordination while bypassing democratic consent.
Leonard Woolf and the Empire of Experts
In his 1916 work International Government20, Leonard S. Woolf argued that peace could not be secured through diplomacy or sovereignty, but only through the construction of permanent, functional international authorities. These authorities would be staffed not by politicians, but by experts — postal experts, health experts, economic experts — whose specialised knowledge would gradually transcend national interest and emotional politics out of economic necessity. Crucially, the strategy depended on what we in contemporary terms might describe as neoliberalism (free trade and open border migration, and the progressive erosion of soverignty).
Woolf held up the Universal Postal Union (1874) as the archetype of this new governance model: a technical, apolitical, and operationally efficient international body. It did not legislate — it managed flows. Woolf's vision was simple: extend this model across all sectors — health, labour, education, finance — and embed the rule of expertise in place of state sovereignty.
This idea — that systems of international cooperation should be managed by expert panels operating in continuity, regardless of popular politics — was a further develoment of the Bank of England’s clearinghouse model of governance. Instead of relying on the decisions of parliaments or presidents, the flow of expertise and coordination would centralise in administrative bodies that resemble financial clearinghouses: hubs of information processing, arbitration, and control. This same principle was later rebranded under the term, ‘subsidiarity’ — described as a strategy to ‘decentralise to the lowest appropriate extent’, which in practise centralises anything deemed ‘global’.
Zimmern's Third Empire: Rule by Coordination
Alfred Zimmern's lectures turned into a 1926 book, The Third British Empire21, advancing this vision. He argued that the new empire should not rest on law or force, but on economic and social organisation. No more governors or generals — now the empire would rule through doctors, engineers, economists, and other ‘experts’.
Zimmern foresaw a post-territorial, institutional empire, coordinated through global administrative bodies and legitimised by education. What mattered was not flags or borders, but flows of knowledge, policy, and people. This was the real Third Empire: an empire of services, statistics, and systems — built for the experts to manage.
Zimmern — like Lionel Curtis — was openly critical of traditional colonialism, not in order to end imperial power, but to transform it into a commonwealth: a moral and institutional project22. Their critique, ironically, was later echoed by the League of Nations: the problem was mismanagement as opposed to domination. The proposed solution was to replace territorial rule with technocratic stewardship.
Zimmern’s vision of international social justice was to be achieved through the rational coordination of global resources and educational systems — power exercised through economics, disguised as morality.
From the League to ECOSOC: The Functionalist Continuity
The phrase that 'the League of Nations achieved much in the social and economic fields' conceals the real story: the League pioneered the architecture of functionalist, technocratic global governance.
The League's innovations included:
Created expert committees on health (LoN Health Organisation23), labour (ILO24), drug control (Advisory Committee on the Traffic in Opium and Other Dangerous Drugs25), and statistics (Statistical Committee under the Economic and Financial Organisation2627)
Standardised data flows and bureaucratic norms across nations
Introduced the concept of governance through supposedly apolitical 'technical' bodies
Launched the Mandate System as a moralised substitute for colonial rule
Virtually every aspect of the League in these domains was preserved and scaled by ECOSOC and the UN system:
League of Nations (1919–1946) United Nations (Post-1945)
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------
Health Organisation WHO
Economic and Financial Organisation ECOSOC
Opium Advisory Committee UNODC
Committee on Intellectual Cooperation UNESCO
ILO Integrated into UN systemThe League's 'critique' of colonialism mirrored Zimmern's: not to abolish empire, but to rehabilitate it through functional administration. This is how the humanitarian empire was born — a post-political structure of surveillance, education, and control, justified by crisis and moral authority. First, the crisis was that of fascism, followed by nuclear war, and then followed progressive environmentalism.
Article 5228 of the UN Charter formalises this vision further by calling for regional arrangements — delegating operational control to transnational governance blocs in alignment with functional administration.
And significantly, the ideological linchpin was a redefinition of peace itself: no longer the absence of war, but 'the common struggle against fascism'. Peace became a permanent moral imperative — one that necessitated education, coordination, and preemptive control.
ECOSOC: The Steering Core of Technocracy
Established in 1945 under the UN Charter, ECOSOC became the institutional realisation of Woolf and Zimmern's vision. It was not just another UN body — it was the central node for managing the shift from sovereign politics to global administration.
Key institutional powers:
Article 7129 of the UN Charter grants ECOSOC the power to accredit NGOs
Today, over 6,600 NGOs hold ECOSOC consultative status30, with 132 holding General Consultative status, which grants access to all parts of the United Nations system.
These NGOs allegedly serve as the interface between the UN system and 'civil society', but in truth, they are the legitimisers, implementers, and ideological enforcers of a technocratic world order.
Many operate as part of the so-called Third System31 — the civil society arm of the UN tri-sectoral model (public sector, private sector, and NGOs). Their participation ranges from policy advisory to enforcement to mobilising youth activists — many of whom were trained from childhood by UN programmes that presented children with 'the facts' needed to form ‘proper attitudes’ toward international cooperation.
The Educational Infrastructure
UN documents from the mid-20th century describe in granular detail how education should be internationalised. Elementary schools were to teach children about foreign peers; secondary schools were to incorporate United Nations agencies, international biographies, and even atomic energy; and higher education was to frame the UN as the moral guarantor of peace — almost a quasi-religious substitute.
This international curriculum was to be distributed globally, with special efforts to include the Arab world and the Global South, often backed by international financial aid. Private institutions and public bodies alike were to be involved, under the watchful eye of UNESCO and ECOSOC.
The Specialised Agencies
ECOSOC also coordinates the so-called specialised agencies: semi-autonomous intergovernmental bodies that carry out policy in specific domains such as:
WHO – global health
UNESCO – education, science, culture
ILO – labour standards
FAO – food and agriculture
IMF/WB – finance and development
The WHO, for instance, was invoked early on in reports detailing a cholera health crisis in Egypt — demonstrating how international agencies intervene not merely with aid, but with metrics, models, and institutional authority. Of course, the devil is in the details: the vaccine requested by Egypt in 1947 was discontinued in 1971 due to its lack of effectiveness32 — making the entire episode appear less like humanitarian relief and more like a credibility-establishing exercise.
Importantly, ECOSOC acts as the administrative head of a growing bureaucracy of international civil servants33 — a role amplified by institutions such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union34 (IPU) and the International Institute of Administrative Sciences35 (IIAS). The IIAS, which partnered with UNESCO in 1948, marked a key fusion point between global education and public administration reform. These civil servants are not accountable to national electorates but to transnational consensus, trained and conditioned to execute — and normalise — the global policy agenda.
These agencies do the actual operational work. But ECOSOC is the administrative brain, and the Security Council — where the emergency triggers are pulled — is the executive fist.
Executive – Administrative – Operative: The Real UN Constitution
The UN system is not a neutral platform for cooperation. It functions as a cybernetic control architecture modelled closely on the postwar U.S. planning state, including the Schlesinger-Amory-CIA apparatus:
Role Body Function
-------------- -------------------- ------------------------------
Executive Security Council Crisis/emergency powers
Administrative ECOSOC Coordination/NGO accreditation
Operative Specialised Agencies Implementation of policyThis tripartite model mirrors Schlesinger’s proposed reforms for the CIA (1961)36, modelled on the British Intelligence model:
The CFR/NSC (strategy and planning)
The Forty Committee37/State Department (administrative authority)
The CIA itself (operational execution)
The overlap is not coincidental. The global system of control was developed using the same logic as wartime emergency governance — but repackaged in the language of development, sustainability, and human rights.
The Soviet Blueprint: Globalised, Moralised, Privatised
The structural resemblance between the UN governance architecture and the Soviet model is undeniable. It is a cybernetic system of top-down planning and ideological enforcement, just without the explicit Party apparatus.
Function UN System Soviet System
---------- ------------------- --------------------------------------
Executive UN Security Council Politburo / Central Committee
Admin ECOSOC Council of Ministers / State Planning
Operational Spec. Agencies/NGOs Ministries, Committees
Framing UNESCO+Programming Agitprop / Central Party DoctrineWhat we look at is technically a hybrid:
Technocratic socialism in structure
Liberal finance in infrastructure
Spiritualised ethics in ideology
Yet appearances deceive. The result is a global Soviet: the Party is gone, but the apparatus remains — cloaked in sustainability, cooperation, and humanitarianism, with a web of NGOs functioning as the modern fronts for its operational machinery.
The Soviet-Western Bridge Function
What's particularly noteworthy is how the UN system created an early institutional bridge between the Soviet Union and Western states. The key was the redefinition of peace as 'the common struggle against fascism' — a framework that could accommodate both Soviet authoritarianism and Western liberalism whilst excluding only fascist authoritarianism.
This wasn't accidental but represented the fulfilment of the 'One World' intellectual vision. The UN provided a governance model that could absorb both communist and liberal states by positioning itself as the alternative to fascism — whilst actually being structurally similar to Soviet central planning as opposed to democratic governance.
The institutional architecture transcended the supposed ideological divide because it was never really about democracy versus authoritarianism — it was about technocratic versus populist governance models. Both Soviet and Western elites could operate within a system based on expert authority rather than popular sovereignty.
The 'enemy of peace' framework provided moral legitimacy for this collaboration, allowing two otherwise incompatible systems to share the same institutional space under the banner of anti-fascism, despite the Soviets being equally authoritarian.
Crisis as Governance: From Peace to Ecocide
Originally, the Security Council was confined to military conflicts. But over the past decades, the definition of 'peace and security' has quietly expanded to include:
Climate change
Pandemics
Food insecurity
Digital misinformation
Environmental degradation ('ecocide'38)
The goal is to transform emergency into permanence.
Once the Security Council declares a crisis, ECOSOC and its agencies activate into full-spectrum response mode, deploying NGOs, academic experts, and policy toolkits around the world.
The veto — currently the only remaining brake on this machinery — is being ideologically delegitimised39. Under the guise of 'equity', 'justice', and 'global responsibility', the long-term plan is to sideline or neutralise the veto, enabling a streamlined emergency executive function. Once that’s done, the permanent ‘meta-crises’ can be called — and democracy will be sidelined, forever.
Article 52 and the Regionalisation of Control
UN Charter Article 5240 explicitly encourages the formation of regional arrangements and agencies to handle peace and security 'as appropriate for regional action'. Far from decentralising power, this clause has enabled the creation of regional technocratic blocs aligned with the UN's administrative and executive system:
EU, AU, ASEAN, OAS act as subunits for policy coordination
Regional Commissions and Development Communities pilot global models (carbon credits, education reforms, health surveillance)
Article 52 thus integrates federated governance under a global executive-administrative-operational architecture
This model mirrors the original Round Table and League vision of world order: regional federations converging into a planetary government through functional interdependence. But what the model also mirrors is Elizabeth Mann Borghese’s World Federalist Movement.
The Clearinghouse Protocol: Moral Authority Without Accountability
The final pillar of the system is the clearinghouse logic, replicated across finance, health, information, and education. ECOSOC acts as the moral and institutional clearinghouse:
It does not enforce
It filters, accredits, and validates
It channels 'best practices' and metrics
NGOs act as moral relays — disseminating norms and enforcing compliance via perception management, funding, and public-private implementation.
Like a bank clearinghouse, the system appears neutral — but it determines who gets to speak, act, and be heard.
From Teacher to Technician: Programming the Programmers
UNESCO and ECOSOC made clear from the outset that education was the true frontier. As early as 1949's The United Nations and World Citizenship, the call was for teachers to be re-educated in UN values — so they could programme the next generation.
This document went further, issuing a moral call that young people be given 'the facts' so they may shape their thinking and action in line with the goals and objectives of the United Nations. But this was not a neutral invitation to knowledge — it was an early form of pedagogical engineering, designed to make world citizenship the baseline of moral legitimacy.
More revealing still, the document asserted that only those educated in this way could truly understand the value of cooperation and the 'common interests of all peoples'. In other words, unless one is shaped by the UN’s framework of ethics and knowledge, one is presumed morally — or even cognitively — unqualified to grasp the concept of global justice. A self-serving proposition that should be familiar to anyone who has studied how the IPCC treats dissenting views.
Zimmern's Educational Vision Realised
This reflects Zimmern’s model of international social justice: a class of educated planners, experts, and teachers — trained through UNESCO programmes to interpret power through the lens of economic coordination and moral universalism41 — who are then recruited as future UN civil servants tasked with shaping public perception. In this model, education becomes the gateway to moral eligibility.
This is particularly evident in UN approaches to the Arab world and other formerly colonised regions, where educational reform is treated not merely as a domestic issue but as a matter requiring international financial assistance and expert-led intervention. These include calls for seminars and studies on the problem of international cooperation and the institutional mechanisms needed to sustain it — explicitly recommending the participation of representatives from both public and private educational institutions, and the integration of international education across all schools and colleges.
This is not simply an exchange of information — it is the construction of a global epistemology, intended to replace national narratives and moral frameworks with a standardised worldview aligned with UN values. Entire regions are thus framed as subjects to be reconditioned through governance infrastructure conceived and directed from abroad. The underlying presumption is clear: local educational traditions are inadequate, and must be reconstructed around globalised values — financed, structured, and administered under multilateral oversight.
Within this logic, educational improvements are no longer treated as national priorities, but as global imperatives — to be funded and managed through international financial aid mechanisms. The underlying premise is that without an adequately educated — and ideologically conditioned — population, global governance goals cannot be realised. This directly links the education agenda to international finance, effectively turning moral programming into a condition for aid.
The result is not democracy, but soft indoctrination via expert mediation, financed and distributed at planetary scale.
The Granular Curriculum
The 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference issued 20 recommendations42 — four of which were about environmental education, urging the immediate re-training of teachers before any scientific consensus had emerged. And long before that, the 1949 UN document The United Nations and World Citizenship laid out a granular education programme by age group:
Elementary schools were to teach children about their counterparts in other countries.
Secondary schools were to cover cultural differences, biographies of international figures, the UN and its specialised agencies (WHO, FAO, UNESCO), the 'problem' of atomic energy, and current world affairs—using materials provided directly by the UN.
Schools were also encouraged to stock libraries with internationalist materials and incorporate these themes into extracurricular activities.
Higher education, in turn, was tasked with promoting the role of the United Nations as the guarantor of peace and the welfare of mankind, encouraging student exchanges, and producing research that advances international cooperation.
Perhaps most revealingly, the UN is equated with a spiritual or moral authority akin to religion — framing loyalty to global governance as not just rational or ethical, but existentially necessary. The goal is not merely to create informed global citizens, but to instil a quasi-religious reverence for the UN system itself.
This is not simply about education—it was about worldview engineering. The UN did not just want to inform students; it wanted to shape their moral and political identity from childhood onward.
The Pattern: Education First, Science Second
UNESCO and ECOSOC made clear from the outset that education was the true frontier. As early as 1949's The United Nations and World Citizenship, the call was for teachers to be re-educated in UN values — so they could programme the next generation.
This document went further, issuing a moral call that young people be given 'the facts' so they may shape their thinking and action in line with the goals of the United Nations. But this was not a neutral invitation to knowledge — it was an early form of pedagogical engineering, designed to make global citizenship43 the baseline of moral legitimacy — rootless ‘cosmopolitanism’, if you prefer.
Coupled with the biosphere conference material, the pattern thus continues:
Education first
Science second
Public consent manufactured through expert framing
This is the educational-epistemological control loop: define the crisis, shape the curriculum, generate legitimacy, enforce the outcome. It is not about informed consent — it is about programming behaviour through manipulated perception.
The Empire of Systems
We no longer live in an age of empires, but in an empire of systems. And its architecture is now clearly visible, especially during a crisis:
The Security Council acts as the executive authority
Acts as the top-level enforcement body, leveraging emergency framing44 to bypass national sovereignty via binding resolutions45.The ECOSOC serves as the administrative coordination and NGO accreditation
Serves as the bureaucratic nexus for accrediting NGOs and managing supranational programme delivery across issue domains.Specialised Agencies + NGOs serve as operative implementation layer
Implements policy through technical bodies like WHO, FAO, and ILO, often in collaboration with compliant NGO networks.
The ideologies of peace, sustainability, and rights have been merged with the infrastructure of surveillance, algorithmic governance, and moral programming. The old flags have been lowered — but the new system flies under a different banner: expertise, ethics, and emergency.
The Moral Architecture of Interdependence
What ultimately legitimises this system is not law, nor consent, but morality — a manufactured moral consensus engineered through education, expert authority, and crisis framing.
Documents like The United Nations and World Citizenship reveal this clearly: only those educated in the principles of the UN can understand the 'common interests of all people'. The implication is severe — if you are not indoctrinated, you are not qualified to participate. Education becomes a gatekeeper of legitimacy.
From elementary curricula to higher education exchanges, every stage of learning is infused with moral messaging. The goal is not to teach critical thinking, but to cultivate belief in interdependence, global stewardship, and the indispensability of expert-guided cooperation.
What began as a vision of peace through shared facts ends as a framework of post-democratic compliance. The real function of global education is not knowledge, freedom or citizenship, but alignment, certification, and integration into a system whose true architecture is neither visible nor optional.
This is the heart of the new world order: peace redefined as the permanent struggle against fascism, and governance justified by an educational priesthood that claims to hold the key to moral truth. Interdependence is not a fact — it is a demand. And morality is not universal — it is administered.
The intellectual campaign from Willkie's One World through Perry's philosophical framework to Durant and Mann's public advocacy created the ideological substrate that made this institutional architecture appear not just necessary, but morally imperative. The clearinghouse model that began with the Bank of England found its ultimate expression not in postal services, but in the management of human consciousness itself.
And it all began not with postal experts, but with the clearinghouse model — the postal experts were merely the first successful demonstration that this financial control mechanism could be extended beyond banking to seize power from sovereign nations across all domains of human activity.
The Path to EcoCide
Consider this not-so-hypothetical future potential:
EcoCide is declared an international crime.
The UN Security Council is tasked with enforcing it.
Efforts to remove the veto power from the five permanent members succeed.
A Western nation is accused of EcoCide based on black-box climate models.
The Security Council declares an international crisis.
This places the Council in supreme global authority.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) issues orders to stop the EcoCide.
ECOSOC coordinates enforcement via UNEP and other UN agencies.
It is at this stage — during a future, manufactured crisis, one of many in the coming ‘meta-crises’46 — that you may come to realise Gorbachev was telling the truth when, on 4 November 1987, he declared:
‘We must awaken humanity to take action on the Environmental Planetary Crisis‘
And just to be clear, he continued:
… two especially dangerous manifestations of capitalism's objective laws: militarization and non-equivalent exchange with the developing world… are possible only if they are backed by an appropriate governmental policy. But that policy will continue to enjoy support so long as fear of the "Soviet threat" remains and so long as people continue to believe that there are "priority national interests and secondary ones, that there are "subjects" of world politics economy and there are and the "objects"', that is, the sphere of neocolonialism.
What Gorbachev is saying — without euphemism — is this:
The perceived threat of Soviet power must vanish — so that the world can awaken to the higher moral priority of the global environmental crisis.
Ergo, national interests must yield to planetary ones:
… in the historical perspective, it is socialism… that will make the decisive contribution to overcoming the critical elements that have arisen in civilization's development.
Global socialism.
But in case we misunderstood, he added:
… there is an alternative to capitalism. And this alternative is socialism.
No, we certainly didn’t misunderstand.
But how, exactly, should this Soviet threat — in Gorbachev’s own words — be made to appear as though it has vanished?
Our perestroika, with all its international consequences, is eliminating the fear of the ‘Soviet threat’, and militarism is losing its political justification…
Through Perestroika — exactly as Golitsyn had warned.
I have stated for quite some time that what we are experiencing is a slow ‘great’ transition47 to scientific socialism — not technocracy, not fascism, not Nazism, communitarianism, feudalism, or any of the other various flavours of authoritarianism.
What is being rolled out will ultimately consolidate under a single central bank, in control of all credit48. It will be guided by science — more precisely, by global modelling systems that claim to forward-predict the unpredictable. It will, through the Ecosystem Approach, manage the geosphere via integrated landscape governance; through One Health, it will take control of the biosphere; and through Global Ethics or a Universal Moral Grammar, it will govern the noosphere — the domain of human thought, culture, and belief.
All this will unfold while gradually erecting an epic mountain of red tape — throttling transportation, constraining logistics, and enforcing strict censorship protocols across social media and the internet at large49.
Combine these, and we return to Zev Naveh’s Total Human Ecosystem50, which explicitly speaks of terminating the capitalist model and erecting a total surveillance society to manage humanity like any other specie.
And while you might argue that the system has technocratic characteristics — and you’d be right — it’s equally true that many Soviet-era politicians were scientists, and that the USSR exhibited similar technocratic tendencies51.
Ultimately, the Soviet Union was a single-party state. By contrast, most contemporary Western nations maintain the appearance of multi-party democracy. But it doesn’t seem to matter much whom you vote for — because the politicians don’t really decide much of anything52.
Real power now lies with the black box. Global modelling agencies like IIASA produce one technocratic projection after another, usually with no path for democratic objection. If the model declares that climate lockdowns are necessary due to a pandemic potential, then that’s that.
The model has spoken — and the model doesn’t answer to the prole.
Two questions remain: to whom do the models answer — and what is the contemporary version of Zimmern’s international social justice through economics?
The answer to the second may well be the moral economy. But that leads to a more fundamental question: for whom does the moral economy work?
Perhaps we could ask Mark Carney — who, in 2021, published his book Values53, outlining a vision that aligns rather neatly with this emerging order. Or perhaps Andrew Bailey, Governor of the Bank of England — the very institution that, over 150 years ago, capitalised on the clearinghouse model. A model that has since metastasised across central banking (via Julius Wolf), social justice (via Eduard Bernstein), guild socialism (via GDH Cole), and global governance (via Leonard Woolf and Alfred Zimmern).
Or perhaps we should look to the architects54 of ‘Inclusive Capitalism’55 — whichwhich, on its own website, proclaims a related Moral Imperative56?
Incidentally, this so-called moral imperative appears to revolve around ‘shared values’57, while promoting a transition to ‘clean energy in ways that decrease inequality’58. Which naturally raises the next question:
Are these shared values by any chance aligned with Mark Carney’s?
And do at least attempt to contain your surprise59, because… of course they are60.
Of bloody course they are, because all roads lead to the central banks.
In fact, these are explicitly the same values Carney61 has62 been63 promoting for the better part of a decade.
But, sure — we haven’t yet brought in the central bank of central banks. And as of now, there’s no direct link between Mark Carney and Inclusive Capitalism.
So allow me to address both of these shortcomings — with a speech64 from 2014 by Mark Carney on… Inclusive Capitalism, hosted on the website of the Bank for International Settlements.
Incidentally, this was delivered the day after Lynn Forester de Rothschild launched her ‘Council for Inclusive Capitalism’65.
Speech by Mr Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of the Financial Stability Board, at the Conference on Inclusive Capitalism, London, 27 May 2014
What else do you need?
The Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia calling for a New World Order66?
Contemporary regulation around Natural Asset Companies, tracing back to former New York Fed chair William Dudley?
Or perhaps the Fabian Society’s In Tandem report, which proposes shifting influence over fiscal policy to the Bank of England?
Perhaps that’s a fitting place to end this essay. After all, it was the Bank of England that first developed the clearinghouse protocol — the very system recommended by Alfred de Rothschild at the 1892 Brussels International Monetary Conference. That same year, Julius Wolf published a parallel proposal to scale this model globally, using a form of receipt remarkably similar to those later employed by CeDe & Co, as documented by David Rogers Webb in his 2024 book The Great Taking67.
Webb traced these instruments in the context of stock certificates; Wolf, by contrast, proposed a system of international gold certificates. But the underlying architecture was the same — and it eventually served as the template for the Bank for International Settlements, founded in 1930.
With that, the entire hierarchy comes into view: Koestler’s holarchy, channelled through Bertalanffy’s adaptation of Bogdanov’s Tektology as General Systems Theory, ultimately culminating in Boulding’s68 Spaceship Earth69.
And at the summit? Central banks, with the Bank of England, appearing to quietly preside over it all, which then leaves only one question:
Who really controls the Bank of England?
