The historical forces that today dispute the power in the world are articulated in three projects of global domination: the "Russian-Chinese" (or "Eurasian"), the "Western" (sometimes mistakenly called "Anglo-American") and the "Islamic".

Each has a well-documented history, showing its remote origins, the changes it has undergone over time and the current state of its implementation.

The agents who personify them are respectively:


1. The ruling elite of Russia and China, especially the secret services of these two countries.

2. The Western financial elite, as represented especially in the Bilderberg Club, the Council of Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission.

3. The Muslim Brotherhood, the religious leaders of various Islamic countries and some governments of Muslim countries.

Of these three agents, only the first can be conceived in strictly geopolitical terms, since their plans and actions correspond to well-defined national and regional interests. The second, which is more advanced in achieving its world government plans, explicitly places itself above any national interests, including those of the countries where it originated and which serve as its base of operations. In the third, eventual conflicts of interest between national governments and the ultimate goal of the Universal Caliphate are always resolved in favor of the latter, which today is the great factor of ideological unification in the Islamic world.

The conceptions of global power that these three agents strive to achieve are very different from each other because they spring from heterogeneous and sometimes incompatible inspirations.

Although in principle the relations between them are of competition and dispute, sometimes even military, there are immense areas of fusion and collaboration, although mobile and changing. This phenomenon disorients observers, producing all sorts of misplaced and fanciful interpretations, some in the form of "conspiracy theories", others as "realistic" and "scientific" soi disant challenges to these theories.

Much of the cloudiness of the world picture is produced by a more or less constant factor: each of the three agents tends to interpret the plans and actions of the other two in their own terms, partly for propaganda purposes, partly out of genuine incomprehension.

The strategic analyzes from each side reflect, each one, the ideological bias that is proper to it. Although trying to take into account the totality of available factors, the Russian-Chinese scheme favors the geopolitical and military point of view, the western one the economic point of view, the Islamic the dispute of religions.

This difference reflects, in turn, the sociological composition of the dominant classes in the respective geographical areas:

1. Coming from the Communist Nomenklatura, the Russian-Chinese ruling class is essentially made up of bureaucrats, intelligence agents and military officers.

2. The predominance of international financiers and bankers in the Western establishment is too well known for it to be necessary to insist on this.

3. In the various countries of the Islamic complex, the authority of the ruler depends substantially on the approval of umma - the multitudinous community of categorized interpreters of traditional religion. Although there are a wide variety of internal situations there, it is not an exaggeration to describe the dominant power structure as "theocratic".

Thus, for the first time in the history of the world, the three essential modalities of power - political-military, economic and religious - are embodied in distinct supranational blocks, each with its own plans for world domination and its peculiar modes of action. This does not mean that each one does not act on all fronts, but only that their respective historical and strategic visions are ultimately delimited by the type of power they represent. It is no exaggeration to say that the world today is the subject of a dispute between the military, bankers and preachers.

Virtually all the analyzes of international politics available today in the media in America or in any other country reflect the subservience of "opinion makers" to one of the three currents in dispute, and therefore the systematic ignorance of their areas of complicity and mutual aid. These individuals judge facts and "take positions" based on the abstract values that are dear to them, without even asking if their words, in the general sum of factors at play in the world, will not end up contributing to the glory of everything they hate. The strategists of the three major world projects are well aware of this, and include political commentators - journalistic or academic - among the most precious useful idiots to their service.