The History of our One World Government + investment implications
If you’re unsentimental: BIS (1930) and Bretton Woods (1944) are the line where coordination stops being episodic and becomes institutional doctrine.
I’ve already written about how we have lived under a One World Government our whole lives.
States appear adversarial on the surface, but their structural incentives converge far more often than people realize.
That’s why even “enemies” like the US, Russia, and China act in concert when it comes to systemic rules.
More context:
Across domains — public health, identity, money, risk, energy, trade, space, sanctions, and information control — formal rivals repeatedly synchronize standards, infrastructure, and legal frameworks. The pattern preserves interoperability, centralized visibility, and policy levers, even when public narratives emphasize conflict.
The next logical question is: “At what point in history did the One World Government get established?“
That’s what we’re going to cover in this article.
The early tell: 1815–1914 — Concert-of-Europe finance and the birth of global plumbing
1815: Concert of Europe. After Napoleon, the great powers formalize a balance-of-power coordination club to suppress regime-threatening shocks. Not democracy — order maintenance. You see synchronized interventions against revolutions across borders.
Mid-1800s: gold standard + Rothschild/Barings/Brown networked finance. Whatever you think about individual families, the fact is: a transnational sovereign-debt syndication system emerges. States coordinate through the same London/Paris houses; defaults are handled with gunboats and restructurings — cross-border creditor solidarity over domestic politics.
1860s–1900s: telegraph + cable cartelization. Empires fight, but they share communications standards because liquidity and trade need it. Interoperability > ideology — an early template.
Call: From the mid-19th century, you can already see the meta-preference: keep capital mobile and settlements predictable even while flags posture.
Industrial consolidation of control: 1913–1945
1913: Federal Reserve (with Bank of England already dominant). Central banking becomes the coordination lever.
1930: Bank for International Settlements (BIS). Quietly becomes the clubhouse for central banks. Even during WWII, BIS keeps certain channels warm — continuity beats purity.
Bretton Woods, 1944. Dollar-anchored system + IMF/World Bank. The rule-set for postwar coordination gets cast.
Call: By BIS + Bretton Woods, the “we coordinate first, argue later” architecture is explicit.
Cold War — but supply chains and money say “cooperate”: 1945–1979
Eurodollar market (1950s–60s). Offshore dollar banking in London becomes a pressure valve that lets both blocs access USD funding out of sight of domestic rules. USSR and Western banks both use it.
Treaties that look “idealist” but function as stability compacts: Antarctic Treaty (1959), Outer Space (1967), Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (1968). Read them as risk-management of escalation and resource governance, not kumbaya.
1971: Nixon shock. Convertibility ends; coordination survives via swap lines and oil pricing.
1974: Petrodollar deal. Oil priced in USD; surpluses recycled through US/UK banks. Adversarial flags, unified pipes.
Call: The Cold War’s financial substrate is cooperative. Theatrical rivalry on top, synchronized monetary liquidity and trade settlement below.
Globalization hardens the defaults: 1980–2001
Basel I (1988) → Basel II (2004): unified bank-capital math. You can’t arbitrage the core without moving into shadows — so most capital aligns.
SWIFT (1973→1990s scale): one clearing lingua franca for the planet. If you threaten it, you get cut off from money.
WTO (1995), ICSID/ISDS expansion. Corporate treaty law that overrides many domestic shifts — continuity of investor claims across governments.
Big Tech standards (late ’90s): TCP/IP, DNS under US-centric custodianship (ICANN et al.) — coordination by chokepoints.
Call: By the late ’90s, plumbing beats policy. Whoever runs the pipes runs the world, regardless of parliament speeches.
After 9/11: the compliance state goes global (AML/CFT as operating system): 2001–2008
PATRIOT Act + FATF muscle. “Counter-terror finance” becomes the universal pretext to harmonize KYC/AML. Banks become deputized policy enforcers.
Sanctions as software updates. You can now roll out policy via correspondent banking and OFAC lists — no tanks needed.
Call: The perimeter (banks, payments, telcos) becomes the enforcement arm. Cheaper than force, faster than treaties.
2008 GFC: the mask fully slips — central banks = one desk
Coordinated swap lines, QE/QE-like programs, synchronized capital rules. “Independent” central banks act as a single liquidity provider.
Too-big-to-fail standardized globally. Politics differs; resolution scripts converge.
Call: From 2008 onward, crisis = simultaneous playbook. Competition is real, but continuity is a shared goal.
2016–2023: platform control + crisis ratchets
GDPR/CCPA → global privacy/security harmonization (not to protect you; to standardize data handling).
COVID (2020): Astonishingly synchronous Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions (NPIs), QR passes, emergency powers, travel/health data exchanges. Whether you call it coordination or convergence, the revealed preference is clear: lock in control defaults, then argue details.
Sanctions weaponization (Russia 2022): Freezing reserves is “adversarial”, but the plumbing held because even non-allies benefit from systemic continuity (commodities keep clearing; energy flows re-routed; SWIFT alternatives stay marginal). The coordination playbook is becoming more and more obvious, so you can expect more of this type of theater.
AI governance drafts and content provenance compacts (C2PA): simultaneous gestation across blocs.
CBDC & tokenized deposits pilots: BIS Innovation Hub + major central banks — templates align, regardless of rhetoric.
Call: Post-2020, the speed of harmonization (identity, health, payments, AI, content) is the giveaway. Stability > truth is operationalized.
So when did it become obvious?
If you’re unsentimental: BIS (1930) and Bretton Woods (1944) are the line where coordination stops being episodic and becomes institutional doctrine. If you want the earliest concrete footprint: the Concert of Europe (1815) shows the mindset; the 19th-century sovereign-debt syndicates show the mechanism.
By 2008, the game is undeniable: central banks as a single balance sheet; by 2020, perimeter governance (banks/app stores/clouds) is the enforcement layer across blocs.
Where the alpha sits
Say the quiet part early. The market can’t write “we’re buying the control substrate” (PLTR > MSFT) in a Limited Partner (LP) deck. You can. That alone buys you time and multiple.
Front-run standards, not headlines. When drafts mention attest, revoke, trace, rollback, add to lineage/identity platforms.
Exploit the forced-seller windows. Value at Risk (VaR)/optics events push institutions to dump the most liquid winners to fund redemptions — exactly when the control stack’s cash flows are least impaired.
Assume ratchets. Pilots rarely sunset. Price in permanent spend after “temporary” emergencies.
Hedge with assets outside the system. You can never go wrong with some Bitcoin and Gold in self-custody. They are your golden ticket if the regime starts breaking. If you need more motivation to buy and hold assets outside the system, read my “Great Taking” (systematic, global seizure of assets) analysis.
TL;DR
The “Controllers cooperate” thesis became obvious by revealed preference structurally by BIS/Bretton Woods, functionally incontestable by 2008, and behaviorally unavoidable by 2020. Since then, the coordination cadence is faster than the public narrative admits. That’s not a theory; it’s how the pipes route.
If you still aren’t convinced, check out this article for more context and examples:
None of this should be considered investment advice.