Globalist constructivism, the path to global tyranny

By: Hugo Marcelo Balderrama - 05/05/2025

Guest columnist.
Share:     

In The Fatal Conceit, which would be his last published book before his death, Hayek warned that several 20th-century thinkers, including Keynes and Einstein, had succumbed to the temptation of trying to construct a new morality, a new language, a new economic system, and a perfect world by using reason and dispensing with the old, especially moral traditions, which they considered imperfect and antiquated. This abuse of Constructivist Rationalism was not even an application of the scientific method, but a new totalitarian ideology.

A few years later, specifically in the early 1990s, at the United Nations conferences, the great international bureaucracies announced to the world their plans to build a new world that was "more just," "more equitable," and "less unequal." Basically, they were warning us of their large-scale social reengineering project directed and managed by a world government. This New Order was the implementation of the Constructivist Rationalism that Hayek had so warned about.

While UN and agency documents are often written in a convoluted language, in addition to hundreds of semantic twists and turns, globalist plans are usually summarized in three pillars: 1) Poverty Reduction, 2) Sustainable Development, and 3) Population Control. Let's look at each of them.

When large international bureaucracies talk about reducing poverty, they don't mean by increasing investment, cutting taxes, and enabling capitalism, but rather by encouraging governments to create more social programs, raise taxes on the rich, and increase dependence on state handouts. Now do you understand what the phrase "you'll have nothing and you'll be happy" means?

On the other hand, we must emphasize that Sustainable Development is not a healthy concern for nature and animals, but rather an attempt to change the Judeo-Christian ethic, which places humankind as stewards of creation, into one that reduces humankind to a dangerous parasite for Mother Earth. Do you think I'm exaggerating?

On February 27, 2010, Francisco Lotero (56 years old), Miriam Coletti (23), and their son, Francisco (1 year and 10 months old), were found dead in their home. At the scene of the horrific incident, a letter written by the father was found that read: "We cannot be part of the tragedy that is heating up the world. Humans are a virus for the planet." A seven-month-old girl, who spent three days abandoned with a gunshot wound to the chest, was the only survivor of the family's suicide pact.

Note the tragedy of this: each new life is not seen as a blessing, but as an enemy of nature. This brings us to the next point: population control.

In 1992, the Earth Summit, ECO 92, was held in Rio de Janeiro. It was convened by the United Nations to seek more suitable and creative ways to reconcile the imperatives of economic progress with the needs of the environment. However, one of its main outcomes was the reaffirmation, by international bureaucracies, of a massive birth control program.

The final documents of the Rio Summit, known as Agenda 21, urge governments to develop poverty reduction programs and demographic goals. Note how all the points come together to better protect nature and efficiently distribute wealth—because fewer people are better than nothing.

At this point, it's necessary to emphasize something: the perversion of language. For example, changing the concept of family to "alternative families" was intended to uproot paternity from relationships. The same thing happens with terms like "equal marriage," "fertility regulation," and "abortion of pregnancy"—all semantic deceptions intended to disguise the mass, legal extermination of babies in the womb and to attack the family.

It is clear that our countries face major challenges in the coming decades. In addition to the problems with the 21st-century socialist mafia, we must confront the attempts at global domination by the UN and its satellites.

«The opinions published herein are the sole responsibility of its author».