We Are All Under Occupation By The Single Global Empire

TapNewsWire.com | Pete Fairhurst

“How can it hold? How can an international order founded on the subjugation of the majority of humankind manage to endure in the face of everything resisting it? What is it that really stops us from liberating ourselves?” [1]

This is the important question asked, and largely answered, by Mathieu Rigouste in La guerre globale contre les peuples (‘The global war against the peoples’).

It is worth noting that this 2025 book, issued from “left-wing” circles, is based on the assumption that a single global empire does actually exist, that one entity lies behind all the near-identical squads of violent robo-cops, CCTV surveillance systems, ID schemes, drones and barbed wire.

If Rigouste does not go so far as to identify this as ZIM, the zio-satanic imperialist mafia, his analysis is not in fundamental contradiction with my own conclusions as to the nature of the Empire and, indeed, I would say that it provides valuable detail to bolster them.

While I find it odd that the author often restricts himself to referring to the imperial entity as “the transatlantic bloc”, [2] his own findings confirm that we are not looking here at a “West” now being challenged by rising non-imperial “multi-polar” power, but at what he calls “the global architecture of domination”. [3]

For instance, he reports that China has profited from the imperialist wars, having been awarded industrial and urban reconstruction rights in both Iraq and Syria. [4]

It has been playing an ever-more central role in industrial imperialism in Africa, Asia and Latin America and it is also, as Rigouste points out, “at the heart of global surveillance”. [5]

“A member of the WTO, the IMF and a permanent member of the UN security council, it plays a full part in the production of the international order.

“Its firms are deeply integrated into the international financial networks and the banking conglomerations involved in the security industry.

“At the same time, financial globalisation has tied the Western arms trade to the Chinese state banks and to the corporations involved in the reinforcement of the Chinese military apparatus.

“This is the case, for example, with the global financial giant BlackRock, which holds major investments in Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin and also in the Bank of China, the China Construction Bank, PetroChina, China Construction Corp and China Rail Engineering”. [6]

Rigouste repeatedly uses the term “neoliberalism”, which I find slightly problematic as it could be understood to indicate a phenomenon distinct from previous manifestations of the imperialism in question, rather than merely a phase in its evolution.

But, to be fair, he does throughout the work also place great emphasis on the historical continuity of this insidious assault on humanity in terms of both its methods and its aims.

He finds its origins in the mid 17th century, the same period that I have identified as a key historical turning point, when Leviathan’s Law was the philosophical midwife for the birth of industrial imperialism. [7]

Rigouste detects in the brutal repression of the Nu-Pieds (barefoot) uprising in Normandy in 1639 the visible presence of “a regime of modern power breaking with the medieval model”. [8]

By the early 18th century, he says, theoreticians were spelling out this new and ruthless approach – “their writing circulated across the whole of Europe with the emergence of an international field of strategies for war against the peoples”. [9]

“In these texts, as on the ground, we see a combination of classic warfare with punitive measures: hostage-taking, pillage, destruction of goods, despoilment, coercion and executions. The recourse to sexual violence is never evoked, although we constantly observe it”. [10]

Divide and rule techniques have also long played a central role, communities within occupied countries being deliberately turned against each other. [11]

There is also a consistent history of the dehumanisation of populations.

“The designation of native peoples as ‘savages’ notably allowed Western powers to override the rules of war as conceived for populations described as civilised”. [12]

The parallels with the attitude of the contemporary Zionist state with regard to the Palestinian people are almost too obvious to point out.

Simultaneously, war was being waged on domestic European populations through the institution known as “the police”.

Rigouste traces this phenomenon back to Louis XIV’s absolutist regime in France, which created a police force in Paris in 1667.

“It appointed superintendents for each part of the city and unified various medieval bodies, such as the gens d’armes, professional mercenaries at the service of the overlords.

“It recruited informants in the streets and in the first modern prisons, to spy on the Parisian lower classes”. [13]

Home and abroad, these mechanisms all served one single system, as pointed out by American sociologist Alex S. Vitale.

He says the new police forces that eventually appeared everywhere were linked to three social arrangements fundamental to 18th century inequality: slavery, colonialism and the control of a new industrial working class. [14]

Adds Rigouste: “The British empire adapted its police units at the same time as it was mounting slave-trade patrols in the Caribbean, a royal police force in Ireland, a special police unit in Malabar, the Ugandan police force and the royal police of Hong Kong, through a process of ‘cross-fertilisation’ transferring colonial techniques conceived in India or Canada to Ireland, South Africa and the big British cities.

“The repressive methods used in urban Britain ended up resembling those of the colonial police”. [15]

This is because we are all under Occupation by the single global empire.

One of the most shocking moments in this longstanding enslavement came in Paris in 1871 when the people tried to gain back control over their lives and communities by forming a self-governing Commune.

Rigouste recounts: “The government of Adolphe Thiers decided to send in the army. He launched an ‘internal campaign’ influenced by the methods of the colonial generals, treating urban insurgents in the same way as those they called Bedouins in Algeria…

“Nearly 25,000 working-class Parisian men and women were massacred”. [16]

Rigouste explains that General Gaston de Galliffet, the “massacrer of the Commune”, had helped to impose imperial control in Algeria and Mexico and used the term “bandits” to describe rebels both in Algeria and Paris.

He said of the Parisian upstarts: “I declare a war with neither truce nor pity against these murderers”. [17]

Galliffet subsequently returned to colonial duties in occupied Algeria, before being appointed governor of Paris and then minister of war in a “left-wing” French government. [18]

I wrote about the Commune bloodbath in Enemies of the People: The Rothschilds and their corrupt global empire, my 2022 booklet about the leading zimperialist dynasty.

I remarked that the crushing of the Paris Commune was a good illustration of “the Rothschilds’ historical complicity with any extreme state violence that furthers their own ends”. [19]

Alphonse de Rothschild warned in internal correspondence that France risked becoming “a hotbed of anarchy” [20] and did not hide his hatred of the “dangerous classes”.

The state had to “get rid of all those vermin, veritable gallows fodder who constantly threaten society”, he fumed. “Purge France and the world of all those rogues”. [21]

I was interested to learn that during the military-style repression of the 2018-2019 Gilets Jaunes uprising in France [22] under Rothschild protégé Emmanuel Macron, Paris police chief Didier Lallement (pictured) proudly compared himself to the 1871 massacrer Galliffet. [23]

Rigouste says that the shock of the Paris Commune led the imperial power to develop “new technologies of counter-revolution and surveillance, notably through an acceleration of the policy of passports and the control of European borders”. [24]

At the same time it was developing ever-more efficient methods for killing resistant populations on an industrial scale.

In 1898 British imperial forces used machine guns and explosive bullets to crush the Dervish uprising in Sudan, exterminating more than 10,000 of the locals at the battle of Omdurman while losing only 40 or so of their own men.

Future prime minister Winston Churchill, who took part in the massacre, described this as “the most signal triumph ever gained by the arms of science over barbarians”. [25]

There we have the horror of the Empire in all its ungodly glory – boasting of the victory of its mass-murdering “science” over the human beings it terms “barbarians”.

As I mention in Enemies of the People, Churchill (like his father) was close to the Rothschilds. [26]

“Following the Science” led directly to the callous and inhuman doctrines of the Nazi regime in Germany, installed by, and on behalf of, ZIM and the precursor of the genocidal Apartheid state of Israel. [27]

Rigouste describes the 1935 book The Total War by General Erich Ludendorff in which he “proposes to import and bring into widespread use in Europe the colonial principle by which no distinction is made between civilians and soldiers, combatants and non-combatants, times of peace and times of war”. [28]

If this outlook may of itself remind us of the abnormal “rules” followed by Israel, Rigouste then provides further evidence of the close historical ties between imperialism, fascism and the Zionist project in the Middle East.

He describes how the fight against the “Arab Revolt” in Palestine from 1936 to 1939 was led by Charles Tegart, who had previously headed British intelligence operations in occupied Ireland and British police in occupied Calcutta, where “he has remained famous for his use of torture against the Indian independence movement”. [29]

In Palestine he erected fortified police stations, torture centres known as “Arab Investigation Centres” and a border fence using “barbed wire imported from Mussolini’s Italy, which supported the Zionist colonisation of Palestine”. [30]

Across the world and across the decades, the Empire used similar techniques to impose its rule via its various proxies – the nation-states that are essentially subcontracted to do its dirty work, at their own people’s cost.

The French imperial proxy in Algeria, like the British one in Kenya and Malaysia, declared a state of emergency with military kangaroo courts, curfews, identity checks, house arrests and police raids. [31]

A real “Apartheid” was imposed on the occupied North African country, says Rigouste. Resistance groups were infiltrated, the territory sectioned off and torture systematically deployed against rebels. [32]

I have heard about that last element from a friend of mine whose grandfather was tortured to death by French occupation forces in Algeria.

The French doctrine of counter-revolutionary war was taught all over the world, from Brazil and Argentina to the Salazar and Franco dictatorships in Portugal and Spain. [33]

The British approach was supposedly less brutal but, observes Rigouste, was still based on “terror and propaganda”, [34] whether in the non-European colonies or in Northern Ireland.

He invokes the career of British general Rupert Anthony Smith (pictured), who was part of the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq, commanded the UN “peacekeeping” forces in Bosnia in 1995, directed British troops in Northern Ireland from 1996 to 1998 and was then responsible for NATO’s bombing campaign in Kosovo.

All this imperialist violence inspired him to write a book called The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (Penguin, 2005), in which he declares that today “the people in the streets and houses and fields – all the people, anywhere – are the battlefield”. [35]

British counter-insurgency doctrine also, of course, had a strong influence on the Zionist entity’s brutal dispossession of the people of Palestine – “this colonial war ended with the forced exile of more than 700,000 Palestinians and the placing of millions of refugees in camps in the West Bank, Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria”. [36]

Rigouste mentions in passing that Israel was “recognised immediately by the USSR”, [37] which will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read The False Red Flag, my essay on what lay behind Soviet “communism”. [38]

Zionist repression of the indigenous population was also inspired by the French example in Algeria: “In January 1960, two Israeli generals, Yitzhak Rabin (future prime minister) and Chaim Herzog (future president) came to observe paratroopers in action in the Kabyle mountains”. [39]

While sometimes the Empire really is fighting off a challenge to its domination, it also finds it useful to use the possibility of such a threat to ramp up its control.

There are always dangerous “terrorists” or “communists” or “bandits” lurking in the shadows to justify a “war on crime”, a “war on drugs” or a “war on terror” which can be applied anywhere it wants.

Rigouste looks at the specialist police units which “use methods and weapons from the colonial handbook which they adapt and recondition for the urban battlefield”.

He adds: “The same mechanism has armed the states of the entire world, deploying police warfare systems against popular uprisings”. [40]

Rigouste also mentions the ridiculously-named “Office of Public Safety” (OPS), founded in the USA in 1957, which operated in at least 52 countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas.

The Wikispooks website explains that it channelled over $200 million to proxy states in the form of weaponry and other equipment.

“Its other functions were to facilitate the planting of CIA operatives within police forces of at-risk regions, and to find suitable candidates within these foreign forces to be recruited by the CIA.

“A total of 1,500 advisers were deployed overseas, reaching over a million police officers… The OPS-operated International Police Academy (IPA) was instituted in 1963, and provided training to 7,500 senior officers from seventy-seven countries in total”. [41]

Rigouste remarks that the IPA presented torture as a “legitimate method of interrogation”, [42] as just another part of the “imperial mechanism”. [43]

An important dimension to highlight is that OPS, dismantled in 1974, was a division of the United States Agency for International Development.

I wrote about USAID in ‘The Single Global Mafia’, my essay exposing The Rockefeller Foundation as an obvious front for the criminocratic Zionist empire.

Foundation president Rajiv Shah was administrator of USAID from 2010 to 2015 and is said to have “elevated the role of development as part of our nation’s foreign policy”. [44]

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of this bland-sounding notion of development to the zimperialist project.

It embraces not only the result of globalist control – the profits and power gained from the exploitation of both nature and humankind – but also the means by which ZIM imposes and advances this control.

Development (sometimes called “progress” or “modernisation”) breaks down our autonomy, cultural identity and social cohesion in order to make us easy prey for the financial-industrial slave-masters.

It is thus a key weapon in the war on the peoples, as is repeatedly confirmed by Rigouste’s research.

He points us, for example, to an 1896 book called Small Wars by British army officer Charles Callwell on how to best to keep “the savages” and “semi-civilised races” under the imperial heel.

“He recommends controlling populations through fear but also dividing and weakening them by imposing so-called modern lifestyles, in other words by eradicating community-based ways of living”. [45]

The same thinking was guiding the British Army’s policy in Iraq more than 100 years later under the slogan “Shape-Secure-Develop”. [46]

A 2010 French military publication entitled Contre-insurrection likewise pushed the global industrial-imperial doctrine, advising the use of brute force, “development of infrastructure” and the “stimulation of the economy”. [47]

And NATO’s 2017 Counterinsurgency: A General Reference Curriculum states: “Any external counterinsurgent forces must support the host nation’s counterinsurgency strategy through a broad range of measures taken to support internal defence and development (IDAD), promote the host nation’s growth, and improve the ability to protect itself from the insurgency.

“IDAD is the full range of measures taken by a nation to promote its growth and to protect itself from subversion, lawlessness, insurgency, terrorism and other threats to its security”. [48]

“Development” is further tied to war by the lucrative “reconstruction” opportunities created in the aftermath, with this process itself amounting to another layer of colonial “modernisation”.

Behind the iron fist of military occupation and its development we find, of course, the long arm of global finance.

They are really just different aspects of the same thing.

As Rigouste writes, industrial capitalism contains within itself “an imperialist propensity, in other words a dynamic of expansion, aiming to capture and submit, dominate and exploit new social groups and new resources”. [49]

“It developed by dispossessing European peasantry of its ability to be self-sufficient by means of the enclosures, laws and measures preventing free access to the Commons (rivers, meadows, forests)”. [50]

The Empire necessarily finds itself in “a permanent state of war” [51] against those in the way of, or actively resisting, the advance of its “imperial modernity”. [52]

With its greed-fuelled expansion into the Americas it inflicted “the near-extermination of the peoples who lived there and went on to capture, deport and enslave millions of Africans”, says Rigouste. [53]

This drive for “the maximum accumulation of profits for industrialists” [54] has been relentless for many centuries now and we always see the same financial interests behind it.

For instance, Robert McNamara, the US defense secretary who waged imperial war on Vietnam, went straight from that post to become president of the World Bank Group, from 1968 to 1981. [55]

Rigouste describes a veritable massacre carried out in Mexico City in 1968 against student demonstrators labelled “terrorists”.

“The day after the massacre, European ministers and representatives of the IMF rewarded the choice of brutal violence by approving a loan to the Mexican state”. [56]

Five years later, the notorious coup d’état in Chile saw the military junta call on the “advice” of the so-called Chicago Boys, followers of “neoliberal” economist Milton Friedman, [57] remembered by The Jerusalem Post for his “deep fondness for Israel”. [58]

In 2010 an uprising broke out in Tunisia against the Ben Ali regime, which had been charged with “imposing the directives of the IMF” [59] on the country.

Its initial success, in the face of massive and bloody repression, was quickly undermined and business as usual was resumed “under the pressure of the IMF and the World Bank”. [60]

In 2013 Abdel Fattah el-Sisi seized power in Egypt through a coup d’état and, relates Rigouste, “relaunched the whole of the neoliberal programme demanded by the IMF, at the same time extending anti-terrorist jurisdiction to all domains of society”. [61]

The Zionist nature of the industrial-military empire has become increasingly obvious.

After 9/11, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced that America would be making more use of the techniques deployed by Israel against the Palestinians, such as targeted assassinations and hi-tech surveillance. [62]

In the aftermath of the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster, joining Blackwater in a government contract to “protect private businesses, banks, hotels, industrial sites and wealthy individuals” in New Orleans was “an Israeli firm called Instinctive Shooting International (ISI), formed by former members of the Israeli special forces”. [63]

And for years now police chiefs from American cities including Orlando in Florida, San Bernardino in California and Haverhill in Massachussetts have been travelling to Israel for “anti-terrorist” training. [64]

When civil unrest broke out in France in 2005, government minister Nicolas Sarkozy (later president) welcomed to Paris the Israeli minister of public security Gideon Ezra and his police chief Moshe Karadi to impart wisdom on how to subdue an occupied country.

“A co-operation agreement was signed. It announced that French riot police were to be trained in Israeli crowd-control techniques”. [65]

In his 2015 book War Against the People: Israel, the Palestinians and Global Pacification (Pluto Press), Israeli historian Jeff Halper says Israel’s aim is not so much to resolve a conflict as to maintain a colonial order [66] and the same reality can be seen everywhere.

Researchers have shown, for instance, how the Zionist occupation of Palestine provided a crucial template for the occupation of Iraq [67] and have written of the “Palestinization of Iraq” and the “Israelization of the US army in Iraq”. [68]

Rigouste stresses: “The methods of police warfare used to maintain Apartheid in Palestine have been exported all across the planet, from the US police sent into the ghettoes to the Brazilian police deployed to the favelas, the military/paramilitary forces in Colombia and Guatemala, the intelligence officers spying on human rights activists in central Asia and the Chinese soldiers charged with building systems of social control for the working class population”. [69]

He cites sociologist Stephen Graham’s finding that Israel also provides the model, across the world, for “security zones” protecting financial districts, embassies, G8 and NATO summits, ports, airports and major events like the World Cup and the Olympic Games. [70]

The Zionist entity is even involved in India’s attempts to suppress the Naxalite guerrillas and the resistance movement in Kashmir.

Rigouste writes: “Like Palestine, Kashmir is one of the most densely militarised zones in the world, where every civilian is treated like an armed combatant.

“These similarities reflect several decades of collaboration between India and Israel, notably in the fields of surveillance, intelligence and weaponry”. [71]

The example that Israel has set for, and taught to, other states, is to deliberately use massive and disproportionate force against civilians while claiming that they are “terrorists” and that the occupying power is the real victim, says Rigouste. [72]

But despite all its industrial-military might, the Empire suffers from a “great fear of a global uprising” [73] that would break its full-spectrum grip on the world.

An entertaining scenario floated by the Pentagon in 2018 imagined a revolt by young people rejecting consumerism and launching a global online campaign against big business, financial institutions and pro-Establishment NGOs.

From this emerges a revolutionary movement known as People’s Armed Liberation which sets out to rid the world of globalism by attacking governments and multinational conglomerates. [74]

“Preventive” measures are therefore always being launched to ensure that no such revolts actually take place.

Writes Rigouste: “This global carnage in fact comes from an imperial mechanism that is neither infallible nor all-powerful, but continually adapts itself in the face of the possibility of its overthrowal”. [75]

As we have seen, it relies on sub-contractors, proxy nation-states, to impose its domination and I would say that this is where its principal weakness lies.

Lieutenant-Colonel Sanath Gopinath of India’s Counter-Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School has admitted that it is vital that soldiers “are not perceived as a force of occupation, which would inevitably lead to a boost in public support for the insurgents”. [76]

It is not just the public as a whole whose support would be affected by such a realisation, but some of the Empire’s own current mercenaries.

It may be that a large number of them across the world could not care less who they are ultimately working for, so long as their wages are paid on time.

But human nature dictates that there will be others who find, as they hear more about the imperial entity, that their conscience is telling them not to follow its orders any longer.

Maybe they will feel uncomfortable about taking part in, or facilitating, abhorrent crimes against humanity, actual genocides.

Maybe they will feel repulsed by the knowledge that their employers are involved in the rape, torture and murder of children on a systematic basis.

Maybe they will react against all the propaganda, lies, gaslighting and intimidation that these psychopaths constantly roll out to protect themselves from scrutiny.

Maybe they will be appalled to realise that their ultimate bosses care nothing for them, their families or their country but are cynically using them for their own nefarious purposes.

Maybe they will conclude that it is fundamentally wrong for the entire population of the world to be ruled by one tiny and ruthlessly violent criminal gang.

Once enough of these mercenaries pack their trunks and say goodbye to the zimperialist circus, its military self-defence mechanism will no longer be able to function and it will quickly fall apart.

Source: https://winteroak.org.uk/2025/12/01/the-military-mechanism-of-zimperial-occupation/

Original Article: https://tapnewswire.com/2025/12/01/we-are-all-under-occupation-by-the-single-global-empire/