International Rules-Based Order vs UN Charter: What You Need to Understand Now


Matthew Ehret Insights – TRANSCEND Media Service

5 Sep 2023 – It has become increasingly commonplace amongst alternative media analysts to see efforts to reframe the conflict between multipolar vs unipolar systems as little more than a chimera completely devoid of meaning for those who are “wise” to the Great Game.

This narrative which admittedly has a few variations across the black pilled intellectual landscape, posits that not only are all nations of the world in on the grand strategy to corral humanity into a new feudal world order, but tend to go even further in assuming that that each pawn played in the Great Game has been controlled since at least the birth of the nation state system itself[1].

Due to the fact that an abundant array of evidence has to be ignored to maintain this thesis, I would like to address a few principled points of fallacy in the course of several offerings.

In the course of this exercise, we will examine the thesis that the multipolar alliance of nation states led by China, India, Russia and Iran are in fact completely on board with the Davos Agenda and broader global government agenda due to their support for 1) The United Nations Charter, 2) the UN Sustainable Development Goals, 3) digital currencies, 4) international order, and 5) their use of national power to do things.

Yes, Similar Words are used

Those who declare Xi and Putin to be supportive of the UN and its charter are absolutely correct.

Just refer to their February 4, 2022 joint declaration which features no less than 12 positive mentions of the United Nations and its Charter! Within that text we find it clearly stated:

“The sides emphasize that the principles of the non-use of force, respect for national sovereignty and fundamental human rights and freedoms, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, as enshrined in the UN Charter.”

In that same text, we can find such remarks as:

“The sides call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, to build dialogue and mutual trust, strengthen mutual understanding, champion such universal human values as peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries and the sovereignty and the security and development interests of States, to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.”

So are these the remarks of crypto-globalist shills out to enslave the planet or is there something else being missed from this narrative framing exercise?

The UN is NOT the League of Nations

It has become a widely held belief that the United Nations was merely a re-branded League of Nations which itself was created in the wake of World War 1 by leading grand strategists of the British Empire in order to usher in one world government.

This is a lie.

Not only does the United Nations Charter enshrine the sovereignty of nation states as a sacred pillar, but also enshrines the principle of self-determination of all peoples and forbids any military intervention of any nation into another sovereign nation. If you have 25 minutes, I recommend investing in a short primer on international law that gave rise to this charter in 1945.

In fact had the League of Nations Covenant not been blocked by patriots from around the world during the interwar period, then there would have never been a need to create a NATO in 1949, as Article 10 of the Covenant stipulated the same mandatory participation into any war with its collective security pact as we later saw with NATO’s article 5[2]. Anyone who finds themselves confused over the divergence of “international law” vs a “rules based international order” would do well to evaluate this set of historical ironies.

The failure of the League of Nations

Fortunately, a return to sanity under the short-lived Presidency of Warren Harding (1921-23) brought the USA into a hostile relationship with the League and its Round Table affiliates within the CFR and Wall Street. Harding ensured a healthy belligerence to the League’s anti-national mandate and worked hard to initiate bilateral agreements with Austria, Germany, Hungary, Russia and China outside of the League’s authority. The newly-formed British Roundtable Movement in America (set up as the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921) were not pleased.

A typical anti League of Nations cartoon in the USA

During the 1920s, nationalists within the USA held a deep mistrust of the new supranational organization and saw it clearly as the cover for a new British Empire. With this awareness, the League was never permitted to take on the teeth which one world government fanatics so deeply desired. From 1921-1932, the increasingly impotent body fell into disarray and saw its last serious battle against nationalism die in June 1933 when American President Franklin Roosevelt torpedoed the League’s London Conference on finance and trade.

This little known conference brought together 62 nations and was co-controlled by the Bank of England, the Bank of International Settlements (aka: the Central Bank of Central banks) and aimed at imposing a central bankers dictatorship onto the world. This was a process not that dissimilar from the COP27 Summit, and Great Reset Agenda in motion today.[3]

What was the original design for the UN?

While the League of Nations was merely a cover for a global governance agenda with a neo-Darwinian eugenics cult at the highest echelons of the command structure, the United Nations established in 1945 was animated by a very different intention.

Of course, all general principles can be interpreted by honest and dishonest players alike in order to achieve wildly different outcomes, and we know that oligarchical sociopaths love nothing more than to wrap evil outcomes in a tasty candy coating of flowery words such as “greater good” or “cooperation” which are found throughout the UN Charter.

But just because fire can burn down your house instead of cooking food, only a reactionary fool would try to solve the problem of the abuse of fire by banning fire. In the same way, it would be irresponsibly reactionary to assert “because evil has often been done in the name of the greater good, that the greater good itself is to blame”.

When the concept for the United Nations was developing between 1940-1945, the concept was inextricably tied to two objectives- one negative and one positive: 1) the dismantling of the systems of imperialism in its French, British, Dutch and Belgium forms, and 2) the creation of an entity that could enhance diplomacy, and economic dialogue to carry out the objectives of the Four Freedoms outlined by FDR’s Vice President Henry Wallace in the following 1942 speech:

If either goal (dismantling of systems of empire or establishing systems of win-win cooperation) would have any hope of success, then new institutions had to be created in tandem with the UN. It was here that the battle between the forces of the British Empire clashed with nationalist forces with the leading anti-imperialist economist Harry Dexter White going toe-to-toe with John Maynard Keynes over the structure of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

The Battle of Bretton Woods

The character of this effort to prevent Keynes’ program for a central bankers’ run world order under a new colonial reconquest was found in the concept of internationalizing the New Deal”.

Harry Dexter White (today slandered as a Soviet agent by CFR- affiliated historians) fought tooth and nail to ensure that Britain would not be in the driver’s seat of the new emerging economic system or the important mechanisms of the IMF that he would go onto lead. White ensured the colonial economic “preference” system Britain used to maintain free trade looting across its empire was destroyed, and that the pound sterling did not play a primary role in global trade. Instead, a fixed exchange rate system was set up under the GATT to guarantee that speculation could not run rampant over national growth strategies and the dollar (then backed by a powerful PHYSICAL economic platform) was a backbone for world trade.

Fixing exchange rates within the context of a pro-industrial growth policy that animated anything good between 1945-1971 ensured that a climate of long term stability conducive to large scale capital/infrastructure creation was facilitated and in that stable climate, markets were made subservient to the broader physical economic development needs of the real economy. This of course was entirely destroyed in the wake of the 1971 floating of the US dollar onto speculative markets and the 1973 creation of the petro-dollar.

At Bretton Woods, Dexter White reached agreements to provide vast technology transfers to help South America industrialize. At the same time, large-scale programs modelled on the New Deal were presented by delegations from India, Eastern Europe, and China. It is noteworthy that the Chinese delegation introduced infrastructure plans first laid out by Sun Yat-sen in his 1920 International Development of China which both Mao, and Zhou Enlai endorsed alongside the Kuomintang’s Chiang Kai-Shek! Had these plans not been sabotaged, it is amazing to consider what sort of progress might have opened up for the Chinese 70 years before anyone heard of the term “Belt and Road Initiative”.

At this early stage, Russia was still happy to be a founding member of the IMF and World Bank which were designed to act as cheap lending mechanisms for long-term, low-interest, high-tech global development.

Commenting on support for FDR’s post-war system of mutual interest, Stalin stated“Can we count on the activities of this international organization being sufficiently effective? They will be effective if the Great Powers who have borne the brunt of the burden of the war against Hitler’s Germany continue to act in a spirit of unanimity and harmony. They will not be effective if this essential condition is violated”.

Just as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC) was used like a national bank to fund thousands of great infrastructure, transport, energy, and water projects during the New Deal and just as Glass-Steagall broke the monopoly of private speculative finance over the productive economy, these New Dealers wished to use the World Bank and IMF to issue long term, low interest productive credit for long term mega infrastructure projects around the world. The thought of only reconstructing Europe, or establishing a global Pax Americana was never the plan in the minds of Dexter White or FDR.

Some of the battles carried out by the international New Dealers in opposition to the Roundtable-Rhodes Scholar managed Deep States was outlined in volume 2 of The Clash of the Two Americas, and also this lecture delivered by the author in Vancouver:

Leading figures among this group of patriots included Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, FDR’s confidant Harry Hopkins, and leader of the republican party Wendell Willkie who worked closely with his democratic rival by becoming an international ‘New Deal ambassador’.

In 1942, after being deployed by FDR on a world tour to organize international New Deal projects in a race to end colonialism, Willkie wrote:

“In Africa, in the Middle East, throughout the Arab world, as well as in China, and the whole Far East, freedom means the orderly but scheduled abolition of the colonial system… When I say that in order to have peace this world must be free, I am only reporting that a great process has started which no man–certainly not Hitler–can stop… After centuries of ignorant and dull compliance, hundreds of million of peoples in Eastern Europe and Asia have opened the books. Old fears no longer frighten them… They are resolved, as they must be, that there is no more place for imperialism within their own society than in the society of nations.”

FDR’s battle with Churchill on this matter was well documented in his son/assistant Elliot Roosevelt’s book As He Saw It (1946):

“I’ve tried to make it clear … that while we’re [Britain’s] allies and in it to victory by their side, they must never get the idea that we’re in it just to help them hang on to their archaic, medieval empire ideas … I hope they realize they’re not senior partner; that we are not going to sit by and watch their system stultify the growth of every country in Asia and half the countries in Europe to boot.”

This vision was expressed continually by FDR in his hundreds of speeches, as well as by his Vice-President Henry Wallace, in the creation of the Atlantic Charter, and Four Freedoms. It was embedded in the defense of national sovereignty in the UN Constitution. It was meant to be the governing spirit animating the world as mankind entered a matured age of creative reason.

The Great Dream Dies

As long as FDR was in office, this British-run hive was kept at bay, but as soon as he died, the infestation took over America and immediately began undermining everything good FDR and his allies had created.

Outlining his own awareness for the growth of this foreign directed deep state within his own administration, President Roosevelt shared his concerns with his son Elliot saying:

“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

Upon the president’s death, Harry Dexter White was ousted from his position as director of the IMF and labelled a communist agent.

Henry Wallace was ousted for similar reasons (his warnings of the rise of an Anglo-Fascist world government made him no allies in Truman’s Washington[4]) but he didn’t give up the fight. Wallace worked closely with Dexter White on a 1948 presidential bid as third-party presidential candidate, during which time White died of a heart attack after a grueling testimony to the House of Un-American Activities which had decided that he would be among the top patriots to be destroyed under the new “red scare”.

Wendell Willkie (who had discussed creating a new party with FDR) died in October 1944, and FDR’s right hand man Harry Hopkins who did the most to initiate a US-Russia alliance, died in 1946. FDR’s closest confidante and former chief of Staff Marguerite LeHand died in March 1944, and Roosevelt’s loyal top advisor General Edwin ‘Pa’ Watson fell ill after the Tehran Conference and after meeting Churchill a second time during the Yalta Conference in 1945 dying within days.

Elliot Roosevelt interviewed Stalin a few years later, and recorded that Stalin always believed that Elliot’s father was poisone “by Churchill’s gang”. While it is popularly claimed that Roosevelt died of natural causes, the fact remains that all protocols were broken as no autopsy on a sitting president was ever permitted, and the only time this had occurred prior to FDR’s death was in the case of Lincoln republican Warren Harding whose 1923 death “by oysters” dealt a major blow to the anti-League of Nations patriot movement in the USA which he had led.

It is also noteworthy that the inaugural meeting of the United Nations occurred only two weeks later (April 25, 1945) and was intended to be overseen by the president whose death drastically changed the character of the event.

On September 20, 1945 the OSS was disbanded under Truman setting the groundwork for a purge of all authentic patriots from American intelligence who understood the Wall Street-London cabal behind the rise of fascism.

By 1946, Churchill ushered in the Cold War setting former allies at each other’s’ throats for the remaining 70 years while dropping nuclear bombs on a defeated Japan.

Stalin bemoaned Roosevelt’s death saying “the great dream has died”.

On September 18, 1947 The CIA was established, managed by the worst Harriman-Dulles fifth columnists from the CFR and OSS. At the same time, the National Security Council (which had been created by Allen Dulles to manage the CIA published NSC-75: “A Report to the NSC by the Executive Secretary on British Military Commitments”. Historian Cynthia Chung writes of this report’s rationale for integrating the Anglo-American special relationship: “The report concluded that if the British Empire collapsed, and Britain could no longer carry out these deployments, in defending the ‘free world’ against the Soviets, the U.S. would not be able to carry out its current foreign policy, including NSC-68. It was thus concluded in the report that it would be more cost-effective to aid Britain in saving its Empire! If you were ever wondering why the CIA was constantly found paired with British Intelligence, starting from its very inception, in a series of coups in countries they had no reason to be in, now you know why.”

In her Empire on Which the Black Sun Never set, Chung writes: “With Roosevelt’s death the British were able to convince the rather naïve President Truman to transfer post-war responsibility for all of Southeast Asia to the British South East Asia Command, under Mountbatten. The British (and to a lesser extent the French and the Dutch) at reconquest of their former colonies, made promises of good intentions to eventually decolonize, however, once they had established their power militarily, they reneged on their promises. The justification being that these colonies were too weak to defend themselves against the spread of Soviet dictated communism.”

In the wake of FDR’s death, Keynes’ model of governance which permeated the operating system of the post-war age, ensured that the sorts of INTENTION-driven large-scale projects that could finally end colonialism would not see the light of day. While the democratic party was infiltrated by Keynesians (especially over the dead bodies of John F Kennedy and his brother), the institutions established by FDR such as the fixed exchange rate system underlying Bretton Woods, or the bank regulation like Glass-Steagall which prevented the creation of ‘Too Big to Fail’ banks were slowly undermined.

As the population became ever more ignorant to their own history, FDR was re-branded as an imperial Keynesian and this fictitious image of FDR served as a conduit for the promotion of “green New Deals” having no connection beyond the name to the original New Deal.

The Moral of the Story: Think About Historic Causality Before Leaping to Judgement

The League of Nations was formally dissolved just as the UN was coming online.

The timing of these two events has been used to induce credulous people to believe that the UN is simply a continuity of the League. That is a provably false assertion.

Where the League of Nations demanded an abolition of national sovereignty, the United Nations made the defense of national sovereignty and non-interventionism guiding principles of its founding charter.

Unlike the technocratic/management-fixated League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter is guided explicitly by a mandate to enhance large scale economic development, win-win cooperation and the universal needs of all humanity enshrined in FDR’s Four Freedoms.

Today, the UN is largely a toothless body whose 52 attempts to criticize Israel since 1973 have been blocked by the USA. But despite this, the UN security council’s existence has unarguably saved the lives of millions by blocking the countless attempts to destroy Syria and continues to serve as a game changing wedge against the will of unipolar Dr. Strangeloves with delusions of global supremacy.

Modern representatives of the Anglo-American elite that took control of the USA over the dead bodies of Harding, FDR and JFK have clamored for a new post-nation state security doctrine. This doctrine was officially known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and was launched by Soros-affiliated operatives like Lord Mark Malloch Brown, Strobe Talbott and Tony Blair in 1999. Malloch Brown integrated this doctrine into the United Nations while acting as Undersecretary General of the organization and has spent the last years giving speeches calling for the dissolution of the UN Security Council in order to remove “authoritarian nations” like Russia and China from any role in global war-making decisions.

Additionally, it must be recalled that the UN Charter itself is not “pure” document devoid of dishonest agendas due to the fact that those anti-imperialists working with Franklin Roosevelt did not succeed in their struggle to break humanity free of empire in the post-war age.

Those CFR-affiliated networks that took over the reigns of power alongside figures like the Pan European Movement’s Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi worked hard under the puppet presidency of Harry Truman to ensure that trojan horses would be infused into the United Nations such as the toxic Article 52 (on the formation of regional groups). As Count Coudenhove-Kalergi himself discussed in great detail in his 1954 An Idea Conquers the World, it was only due the lucky death of Franklin Roosevelt, that Article 52 was made possible. It was through this Trojan Horse that the worst abuses committed to humanity with the consent of the UN was made possible including the formation of the European Union itself.

In the next segment of this series, I will dissect the UN Sustainable Development Goals in a bit of detail and the British Imperial origins of NATO.


[1] In certain cases, we find the thesis extended even further back into ancient history asserting that literally every single moment of the human experience has been entirely controlled by oligarchical agencies who have manipulated every single moment of humanity’s experience. From the vantage point of this narrative, every meaningful victory towards progress and freedom from the rise of Christianity, to the Golden Renaissance, to the battles of 1776 and everything in between are recast as little more than illusions to keep us complacent and controlled by a masterclass.

[2] If the UN was simply a copycat of the League of Nations as so many detractors maintain, then another organization with exclusively north Atlantic membership would not have needed to be created in the first place.

[3] A question for any black pilled analyst who believes that the oligarchy has controlled all sides over the past centuries now emerges: IF this were so, then why did the banker’s dictatorship “solution” to the devastation of WWI and later great depression fail in 1923 and again in 1933?

[4] Before being fired from his post as Commerce Secretary in 1946 for giving a speech calling for US-Russia friendship, Wallace warned of the emergence of a new “American fascism” which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. “Fascism in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races, creeds and classes.”

In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission, Wallace said “Before the blood of our boys is scarcely dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well as in war.


Matthew Ehret is a member of the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, a  journalist, and co-founder of the Rising Tide Foundation. He is the Editor-in-Chief of Canadian Patriot Review, Senior Fellow at the American University of Moscow and host of The Great Game on Rogue News. He has authored the book series The Untold History of Canada and the recently published book series The Clash of the Two Americas. Email:

Go to Original –

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Share this article:

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Comments are closed.