Full or partial copying of materials must be approved by the site's editorial staff

2021 All rights reserved

In defence of the world goverment. Part 5: Politics

In defence of the world goverment. Part 5: Politics

Gary Nisharg Gary Nisharg
Yulia Pozharischenskaya Yulia Pozharischenskaya

The meeting of the world government is continuing. The Stranger learns a lot of new things about politics from the Chairman, while one of the Councilors proposes a great solution to the imminent supercrisis.

Author's message

The question is not whether there is or is not a secret world government, but whether or not our society and each one of us has enough willpower, common sense and awareness to survive the supercrisis and build a new, better world.


The Chairman takes a bottle of mineral water and pours some into the two glasses standing next to him. He offers one to the Stranger.

Chairman: I can see you’re getting the hang of it. And you’re already being hard on the Councilors. (smiling) It’s a good thing you’re not afraid of authority.

Stranger: I didn’t want to be rude, it just somehow came out on its own.

Chairman: That’s most likely your bias talking. Bias is rooted very deep in the subconscious. But you have to try and disregard it. Stereotypes often obscure the truth.

Stranger: Can you please tell me, Mr. Chairman, are you really in complete control of mankind?

Chairman: Both yes and no. What do you mean by complete control? Do we decide what color dress your girlfriend will wear tomorrow? No, we don’t... although if it somehow benefitted us to have her wear green, we’d try very hard to make that happen. (laughs)

Stranger: They say that you seek to control every person, every step, every thought.


Chairman: They also say that we conduct ritual sacrifices of babies, haven’t you heard? (laughs) We have several models of control over humanity. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, so we use different ones. We do not aspire to control every person, there is no need for that; besides, it contradicts our beliefs about personal freedom. But we need to control the whole of humanity.

Stranger: And how do you do that?

Chairman: Hmm... in theory,it’s not that hard to control humanity. People are social beings, and they usually live within various public associations and groups. So, we just need to control these groups. Historically, the human society has been divided into states and countries. The original idea was therefore to exercise control over all states.

Stranger: I take it this was implemented through controlling these countries’ leaders?



Chairman: We had a number of control tools – political, economic, control of state elites and much more. But there were so many states. Their interests were often contradictory, and very soon we realized that we won’t be able to exercise control for too long. When it came to sharing resources, nobody wanted to hear about any exalted goals or future generations. That’s when we decided that we had to somehow get rid of a multitude of states and create one big superstate that would integrate all people on the planet. This would increase the efficiency of our control over humanity by an order of magnitude. This idea is anything but new. Many sci-fi writers and futurologists have suggested in their works that humanity won’t be divided into separate states in the future, rather, it will live as one happy family.

Stranger: How do you manage to get most of the sci-fi fans and film directors to use this idea?

Chairman: (smiling) Their common sense made them use it. They did and are doing it voluntarily, because it makes sense.


Stranger: But it’s a utopia.

Chairman: Flying to the moon was once a utopia, too. It’s not a utopia, it’s our goal. We’ve made numerous attempts at this. And one of the most promising attempts to create this superstate was the establishment of the UN in 1945.

Stranger: (provocatively) That’s why you had to ignite the most terrible world war, which claimed the lives of tens of millions of people?

Chairman: (quite calmly) I understand your resentment, but people choose to either kill each other or not. Actually, let’s get back to this subject later. It’s way too emotional, and it’s too early for you and I to discuss issues of this sort. Let’s get back to the UN. According to our plan, the UN was supposed to unite all countries and nations in order to avoid subsequent wars and become a platform for resolving any and all international issues through peaceful negotiations and compromises. The UN is the prototype of the world government of the future.



Stranger: (looking closely at the Chairman)

Chairman: It seemed to us that after such a terrible war, people would finally come to their senses and realize that unification is the only sensible solution for humanity to avoid such misfortunes in the future. We understood that in the future, when the resources on the planet grow very scarce, there will be disasters that would make WWII seem like child’s play. And we did warn everyone about that in 1945. But human greed and the state leaders’ thirst for power prevented the integration. The UN could not become a world government because national leaders did not want to lose their power. The Communists could not find a compromise with the capitalists. No one wanted to give in.

Stranger: Communism is your toy too, isn’t it?

Chairman: You’re partly right. It was actually one of the ideas that aimed to unite the whole world under integrated leadership. And everything was going great at first until one very famous person ruined everything.

Stranger: Are you talking about Stalin?


Chairman: Yes, you are very perceptive.I wasn’t wrong about you. But let’s go back to the UN. The Councilor on Politics is about to speak, and I’d like you to be prepared to understand him.

Stranger: The UN could not unite all of humanity, so you started looking for other solutions?

Chairman: Yes.

Stranger: And which ones were those?

Chairman: Due to the specifics of our work, we always have 3 or 4 alternatives that are developing simultaneously, and we select one depending on the situation. We’ve launched other scenarios that were prepared in advance. One of them was to create a hegemony of one state on the planet and to unite all others under its authority. This required a powerful state with a vast territory, resources and population. Russia was chosen as the carrier of communist ideology, but as I said, that project failed even prior to WWII. That’s why the USA was selected as the seat of this hegemony.


Chairman: Another one of our projects involved the economy and finance. By the way, we have always used finance as an instrument of influence and management. Since it was impossible to establish an UN-based political world government, we decided to create an economic world government. For that purpose, we needed to create a consumer society, which led to the emergence of global transnational corporations. Today they wield political power that’s comparable, or even often superior to that of government leaders and governments.

Stranger: I understand that you are using both projects these days?

Chairman: That’s right. We have created a hybrid version of these two projects. They complement each other to provide a maximum effect. This hybrid project is called the New World Order.

Stranger: A familiar name. Judging by the current political situation in the world, things aren’t going as smoothly as you’d like.

Chairman: Well, it’s about time we found out. It’s time to recommence this meeting.

The Chairman looks around. Almost everyone is already at the table, and Councilor B is linking his tablet up to the projector.


Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, let’s get on with it. Councilor B, please, go on.

Councilor B: Gentlemen, as you know, the political crisis has been ongoing for almost 10 years because of certain leaders’ unwillingness to build a unipolar world. The situation has only gotten worse this year. The once loyal individuals are playing a game against us today. The very idea of US hegemony with the subsequent establishment of a world government on its basis is under threat. The world is becoming multipolar with every passing day. Regional leaders, who are unable or unwilling to accept the goals that we pursue, are emerging. They want to base their policies on their own and their countries’ interests. Other leaders look up to them and start playing their own games, too, encouraged by their audacity and courage.  In view of the latest information on the impending food crisis that will lead to a super crisis, we should reconsider some of our decisions.

Stranger: (indignantly) Councilor, what is wrong with these leaders thinking about their people?


Councilor B: (looking at the stranger closely) First of all, most of them don’t give a damn about their people. They are far more interested in power. And secondly, all of them are thinking on a 10 to 20-year scale, that’s approximately how long they can remain in power without a problem. That’s why there are many things they don’t see or understand. You can’t really get them to believe in the fairy tales of the well-being of future generations. They’re all extremely pragmatic. And for them, power today is far more important than the welfare of people tomorrow.

Chairman: Councilor B, to be honest, many of us are not satisfied with the results of your work over the last decade.  A very large and significant state with huge reserves of natural resources has almost completely spun out of our control. We have spent so much effort to get Russia back, and now we have lost it again. And just recently you lost control over the US as well, which led to a man who is unsuitable for us becoming president.


Councilor B: Gentlemen, we have nothing to worry about with the United States. The president is hamstrung, he has very little freedom to act independently. I assure you, in four years you will forget his name. And as far as Russia is concerned... hmm... the situation there is certainly more complicated, but not hopeless, either. Russia is very vulnerable economically, so we are effectively using economic leverage. And believe me, it has an impact, only the results will be seen a little later. Besides, the low standard of living in allows us to pursue an anti-government domestic policy, which will also bring positive results in the next 10-15 years.

Chairman: You are underestimating their leader. This man has already wrapped you around his finger once. And he’s not going to give up his power in the next 10 years. In addition, he has an extremely negative impact on other countries’ leaders. They see him as the leader of a multipolar world movement. And he really likes that, so he’ll keep playing his game. He desperately wants his name to go down in history.


Councilor B: Mr. Chairman, don’t forget that he is no longer young. Time is playing into our hands. Besides, he doesn’t have a successor yet. That means that sooner or later Russia will be headed by someone else. And I assure you that it will be one of ours.

Chairman: However, time is already playing against us today. It’s crucial to us who will be leading Russia as the 2030 crisis sets in. Don’t forget, Russia has the second largest nuclear arsenal. And they’re not just going to give up their resources. And judging by the attention they are paying to their army today, they have no illusions in this regard.

Councilor B: We’ll find a use for their army.

Chairman: Alright. (nodding approvingly) What is the political situation in the Middle East and Central Asia?



Councilor B: Generally, it’s business as usual. The policy of destabilization of this region is still being successfully implemented. The current Middle Eastern conflict in Syria will serve its purpose for another couple of years, and by that time we will have set off a new one.

Stranger: Ladies and gentlemen, forgive me, but I am shocked by the level of your cynicism. You incite wars and coups with incredible ease. You kill millions of people and talk about it so lightly. Does your conscience let you sleep at night?

Councilor B: (sarcastically) Conscience? We sold it to the devil along with our souls. (quiet laughter at the table) You just don’t understand, no one is making people fight. They do it voluntarily. It’s entirely their choice. They are the ones who want to fight, we only point them to the location and the enemy... Mankind is still very uncivilized and lives in the past. The level of aggression is still very high, and the desire to think with their heads is still barely there. People are willing to kill each other over stupid vestiges of religion and over money. We, on the other hand, are trying to use their aggression for a good cause. That’s it. (starts actively searching for something on his tablet)


Stranger: But not all people are full of aggression. I’m sure that most people want a quiet and peaceful life.

Councilor B: (looks over at the Stranger and stares at him over his glasses) Not all of them... But the majority is exactly like that. And this quiet, peaceful life translates into additional 80 million people every year. These ‘good’ and ‘nice’ people forgot to switch on their brains, common sense, and recall that the planet isn’t expandable and its resources are not infinite. All they care about is that it’ll be enough for their lifetime, and no one cares what happens next. Had we not pursued a policy of destabilization in Central Asia and the Middle East for the past 60 years, the population of those regions would have exceeded that of China and India today. And we’d get another 2 billion mouths to feed. That’s why this policy fully justifies itself.

The Stranger wants to say something, but the Chairman gets ahead of him.

Chairman: By the way, what’s the story with India and China?


Councilor B: They are working closely with us on reducing the population. They understand the dangers of overpopulation. Recently, however, there have been problems in China, as presented by Councilor I. So now they have slightly weakened their demographic program. China’s economy is becoming the largest in the world, they feel their strength and are more reluctant to make concessions. China is turning into a powerful global leader who would not mind compete with the United States for world leadership. Fortunately, all of this is predictable. Give it some time, and India will follow. However, it will be very difficult to control the actions of these countries during the impending super crisis. They will be interested exclusively in security issues and their own well-being.

Chairman: What solutions do you propose in light of the upcoming supercrisis?



Councilor B: My team and I have analyzed the data again and concluded that the impending crisis is different from every other one that we’ve dealt with. This supercrisis is a bifurcation point for the entire human society. As we know, bifurcation points allow civilizations to make abrupt leaps in their development. (looks closely at the Stranger through his glasses, then over at the audience and continues) We believe that we should take advantage of this fact. By using this point, in another 30-40 years we can leap ahead rapidly by 200 years, and take mankind where we need by the second half of the 21st century.

Chairman: Bifurcation points can accelerate our development, but they can also set us back 1,000 years.

Councilor B: Exactly. Bifurcation points work both ways. But the main problem is that as mankind passes these points, it will find itself in a zone of extreme instability. This instability will prevent us from exercising control. We won’t be able to control the situation, which means that anything can happen on the way out of the supercrisis.


Chairman: And how do you propose to take advantage of all of that?

Councilor B: As usual... (shrugs) There is only one way to control civilization during the impending supercrisis. If we can’t prevent a crisis, we have to lead it. We must not fight the crisis, but become the crisis. Our task is to fully plan the crisis, create an artificial bifurcation point, and use it to make a leap in the direction we find desirable.

Chairman: Alright. Your point is clear.

Councilor B: (raising forefinger) But you, ladies and gentlemen, must understand that this kind of artificial crisis will also be accompanied by great loss of life. Events will approximate their natural course. We will have to conduct a number of local and global armed conflicts. Of course, all of this will be happening under our control. We’ve even prepared several scenarios and are ready to develop a detailed action plan with other working groups in the shortest possible time frame.

There is silence at the table.


Stranger: Wait, but there’s not a 100% chance of a crisis coming, is there? So, there may not be a crisis after all. And if you exercise certain control measures, you can increase this probability even further. Why aren’t you considering this option?

Councilor B wants to respond, but cedes to Councilor I.

Councilor I: Yes, there is a theoretical possibility of that. But the crisis cannot be avoided completely, it may only be mitigated and postponed. However, that is an extremely difficult task. Besides, a scenario like that would lead to a continuing reduction in acceptable levels of consumption. In other words, those who live normally today will have to consistently share with those who aren’t doing that well. And every year we’ll have to share more and more. As a result, everyone will end up not doing so well. And resource and environmental problems are not going anywhere, either. What will you do then? Cut down all the forests and destroy the animals to feed another billion? Then you’ll deplete the world’s oceans and create an environmental disaster? Then give away all the water until there’s none left? And the population will continue to increase and grow poorer.


Councilor I:  Is that what you want? Do you want the entire world to resemble Bangladesh slums? Streets swamped with garbage, and the ocean turned into a dump? Would you want to live in a world like that?

Stranger: (shrugs) I don’t know what to tell you.

Councilor I: (harshly) I may be able to help you. You are afraid to admit to yourself that you don’t want to lower your consumption level, yet you want to live as well as you do now. And that’s okay. That’s how people should live. And the crisis will happen anyway. People themselves, their irresponsibility and limitations are, in fact, responsible for it.

The stranger hangs down his head and starts shaking it.

Councilor I: (looking at everyone at the table) I think that Councilor B’s idea is brilliant, and I call on everyone to support it.

Chairman: Yeah, I guess we don’t have a choice. And the idea really is excellent (sighs)... does anyone else want to comment on Councilor B’s proposal?

Councilor G: Yes, I do have a question. (turns towards Councilor B) Tell me, how are you going to avoid using nuclear weapons?


Councilor B: The use of nuclear weapons probably can’t be completely avoided. However, we could to minimize its use. The US and Russia possess the largest nuclear arsenals. Our main task will be to deter those countries from using it. The United Kingdom, France and Israel also possess nuclear weapons, but we have full control over their actions.  But it’s going to be harder with the rest of the nuclear countries...

Councilor G: (lights a pipe) China, India, Pakistan, North Korea.

Councilor B: They could theoretically use nuclear weapons in an emergency situation. However, the quantity and quality of these nuclear weapons in these countries allows to intercept most of their missiles using advanced missile defense systems. Our plan generally implies the tactical use of nuclear weapons, including by the US and Russia for certain tasks. Most likely, we won’t be able to intercept all combat units launched by China, India and Pakistan, some of them will still reach their targets.

Councilor G: What about the consequences of nuclear weapon use?


Councilor B: I advised Councilor K on this matter. (he points to a young man and he nods approvingly) He claims that they will be able to develop technologies over the next decade that will localize the effects of nuclear weapons and very quickly clean up the areas affected with minimal impact on the environment. We won’t allow across-the-board use of nuclear weapons. There will be only single pinpoint nuclear strikes.

Stranger: Did you estimate the human casualties? How many people will die?

Councilor B: Hmm... About 45% of the world’s population will die during the super crisis. If the supercrisis develops on its own, outside of our control, even more will die: there’s a high probability of wiping out almost 95% of the population.

Chairman: I wonder how you are going to resolve the issue with Russia?



Councilor B: Russia will become our ally before 2030. I have an entire group working on this issue and their forecasts are optimistic. And we will use the multipolar world, which their leader wants to build, to achieve our goals.

Chairman: I would like to know more about how you are going to do it.

Councilor B: I will provide all necessary information in the near future.

Chairman: Alright. Ladies and gentlemen, since an approximate action plan for the upcoming super crisis has emerged, I ask you to comment on it in your speeches from the point of view of your sphere of expertise. If no one else has any questions, then let’s move on to economic issues.


Log in to add a comment

To top





By registering, I confirm that I have read and agree with terms of use.

Log in


Password recovery


An email will be sent to the specified e-mail with a link to reset your password.