Monthly Archives: August 2015

This December, Agenda 21 is Getting an “Update”

From November 30th to December 11th of 2015, a consortium of world “leaders” from 190 countries will gather in Paris, France as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The occasion? The much maligned Neomalthusian “environmental” program, known as “Agenda 21” by its original visionaries as well as its opponents, will be of drinking age, its “sustainable” protocols having been officially adopted in 1994.

So, too, is this UN Convention in Paris a celebration of the Kyoto Protocol’s numerological accomplishments, as COP21/CPM11 marks the 11th year of the emission regulation’s force as “International Law” (as of 2004).

The purpose of these festivities, however, is hardly mere ceremony; as Agenda 21 comes of age, the burdens it places upon those living beneath its yoke are also maturing. Unlike every UN Climate Convention since Rio 1992, which were mere “global visioning” seminars, COP21, according to the Anglo-American Cambridge University, has far more grandiose and binding aspirations:

“The United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 will be held in Paris, France in 2015. The international climate conference will be held from 30 November to 11 December 2015. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.
Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research on the Environment

In other words, Agenda 21 v2.0 will soon be upon us.

Information on what exactly this “upgrade” entails for Free Humanity is sparse, as the UN remains resolutely vague (perhaps deliberately, given recent notoriety surrounding “sustainable development”) on the specifics of the Convention’s “binding and universal agreement.” Yet in spite of Globalism’s sincere attempt to obfuscate Neofeudal Technocracy’s latest iteration, open-source intelligence can give us a glimpse behind the proverbial curtain at the magic tricks in store at COP21 this December.

All the World’s a (Sustainable) Stage

As the curtain begins to rise on Act 2 of Agenda 21, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the nodes of forensic history which lead to COP21. Perhaps the most integral of these nodes is the research produced by whistleblower and activist, George Washington Hunt, in his party-crashing exploits at the pre-Rio planning committees of the early-90s, attended by such Globalist “luminaries” as Maurice Strong and Edmond de Rothschild; all of whom were caught on tape by Hunt’s daring infiltration:

Even more undercirculated than Hunt’s video presentation are the documents this Conference produced. It is within these Anglophilic pages that the World Order created by Agenda 21 is spelled out with stunning clarity – particularly as it pertains to the “developing” world, China and India chief among them:

China and India's "conditions" for signing on to the Rio '92 agenda as documented by the UN Environment and Development Conference

China and India’s “conditions” for signing on to the Rio ’92 agenda, as documented by the UN Conference on Environment and Development

China and India, recognizing the influence their signatures (or lack thereof) would have on adopting Agenda 21 globally, told the UN succinctly: “We haven’t come here for ‘aid’ (IMF loans). Instead, we want in on the Western game of ‘Global Trade’ (Neomercantilism). Give us a slice of the wealth pie (compensatory financial flows) or we’re not signing up.”

History informs us, however, that China and India did sign up for Rio’s binding protocols. The past twenty-odd years also spell out quite clearly that the Anglo-American Establishment has fulfilled its side of the wager to her former colonies. This “Faustian Bargain” has made India and China rich, but at what cost?
UNCED3Was the price paid by India and China their economic autonomy? While it’s certain that the Indian caste system and the “State Capitalist” collectivism of modern China are hardly beacons of “liberal free market” activity, their development includes elements of this therein; in fact, Eastern banking systems grow more “Anglo-Saxon” in ideal and structure by the day, despite the facade of independence being maintained.

This blend of Western structure with Eastern identity in banking strikes one as the potential compromise reached between the “First” and “Second” worlds at UNCED – a final bid to maintain the “Anglo-Saxon system of banking”:

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (or AIIB) is an excellent example of this burgeoning “East-Anglo” banking model. While widely reported by some as signifying the end of the decaying Western banking model, the AIIB’s steadfast devotion to Agenda 21 makes one wonder whether or not the AIIB is a truly autonomous entity, or merely China’s fulfillment of an Asian Development Bank or Development Bank of Latin America-style puppet as called for by Rio ’92:

Jin Liqun, secretary general of the bank's multilateral interim secretariat, tells Xinhua on the topic of the AIIB. From China Daily and Reuters.

Jin Liqun, secretary general of the bank’s multilateral interim secretariat, tells Xinhua on the topic of the AIIB. From China Daily and Reuters.

It seems the AIIB plans not only on investing in “green” infrastructure projects, but will do so in partnership with the Globalist World Bank and ADB, both of which were set up by the West following the devastation of World War II. Christine Lagarde and the IMF, too, state that they would be “Delighted” to work with the AIIB.  Is this new system of banking and financing what Edmond de Rothschild meant when he referenced a “Second World Marshall Plan” in relation to Agenda 21, as described in Hunt’s recording? Is this why “developing  nations should look to Germany and Japan,” countries rebuilt by World Bank funding, for their banking models, as described in the UNCED document?

One must bear in mind that the United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) quoted in the document above is the same group which authored the paper, “A BRICS Development Bank – A Dream Coming True?” in March of 2014, which heralds the rise of the BRICS New Development Bank as a global force for “sustainable development” and an ardent partner in Agenda 21:

The BRICS to put "development on center stage," as called for in the UNCED documentation

The BRICS to put “development on center stage,” as called for in the UNCED documentation

And thus, a pattern emerges – the “New Kids on the Trading Bloc” and their corresponding banks are, universally, in lock-step with Agenda 21 and the multipolar Technocratic Order it represents. From sustainable banking to metals exchanges, the infrastructure required by a reinvention of the Global Order seems to be in place in advance of COP21, with the exception of at least one key element: A global carbon credit scheme.

Carbon Credits Cometh

Much ado has been made recently within the alternative media about the IMF’s decision to delay inclusion of the Yuan into the SDR basket until September of 2016, with various theories floated as to why this has occurred. Viewing this announcement within the context of COP21’s heavy emphasis on the future of carbon trading markets, a piece of the Yuan-SDR puzzle falls into place; if what anti-Technocracy researchers like Patrick Wood have unveiled is true, Global Technocracy’s Neomalthusian environmental implements must also develop in tandem with a new currency system underpinned by energy credits. The pre-release documents from COP21’s “Scientific and Technological Advice” PDF, as well as COP21’s sponsors, hint at this being an integral part of the discussions taking place in December:
COP21Tech2CTXPartner21CarbonTrackerPartner21One key country expected to be signatory to COP21’s treaty has revealed that they are not yet ready for the “new market-based mechanism” the UN will require: China. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission announced that their national carbon trading markets will not be ready until late 2016 at the earliest:

So it seems the IMF has delayed the Yuan’s SDR inclusion for almost exactly as long as it will take for China to launch its national carbon trading scheme – is this mere coincidence? The timing of these moves strikes this author as potentially significant.

The launch of this national program will be built on the foundation of the regional carbon markets China has been fostering over the past few years, one of which should be familiar to us:
CDCarbon3The site of the Trilateral-assisted “Eco-City,” Tianjin, is also the site of China’s pilot carbon trading market; the same Tianjin whose “not-so-smart” counterpart was recently set ablaze by a mysterious explosion, ostensibly caused by “chemicals.”

If the “problem” of unsustainable manufacture and development wasn’t clear to China’s human resources before last week, it is now.

Hegel 21

“…back then, we were talking about projections of a problem (Climate Change) with literally no solutions that we could talk about. And that is, for people, just not going to work. People need to know that there’s hopefulness before they’re gonna even admit there’s a problem. If you give them a problem and there’s no solution, they pretend it doesn’t happen.

We’ve been doing that for 25 or 30 years.

What we see now is that we actually have solutions, and we’re actually being hit with the problem now.”
Gina McCarthy, EPA Administrator

This is how the head of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, chose to frame the Obama Administration’s implementation of the Malthusian “Clean Power Plan” during her tell-a-vision appearance with Bilderberger and CFR member Charlie Rose. Sound familiar? The Hegelian Dialectic strikes again, only this time, on a global stage. The mass of the public, properly conditioned to accept “Climate Change” as the Harbinger of Doom, is now prepared for the solutions phase of Eco-Fascism: The final round of de-industrialization and centralization of the American power grid.

This latest Hegelian trick’s synthesis, birthed from the antithesis represented by the EPA’s slashing of American carbon emissions, must inevitably include the rapid development of American “renewable” power:

Regardless of the “winner” of the 2016 Presidential (s)election, the mechanics for such a program are already well underway at the Corporatist level, as China, the largest solar panel producing country on Earth, is well underway in supplying American solar infrastructure:
Screenshot from 2015-08-14 14:02:47In the case of Suniva’s purchase by Shunfeng Clean Energy, China’s solar juggernaut worth over $20 billion, the merger will be underwritten by two powerful forces of Anglo-American wealth as well:
goldmanwarburgchinasolarThe Warburg banking family and the ever-present Goldman Sachs are steadfast in their support of this “sustainable” trend. A safe bet, surely, as the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Act” virtually requires a tremendous uptick in solar panel manufacture for the West. COP21 is set to require even more. Will the “cheap money for cheap goods” and “cheap precious metal for cheap bonds” relationship between China and the West soon be joined by a “carbon credits for cheap solar panels” arrangement? As “experts” on the East-West Dialectic and originators of the term BRICs as early as 2003, Goldman seems to be betting that this is the case:
Screenshot from 2015-07-28 23:24:10Screenshot from 2015-07-28 23:24:27

One may recall a recent post, “China 21: Anglo-American Sustainability in Asia,” in which this author noted the Hegelian Dialectic’s use to usher survivors of Fukushima into Agenda 21 “Smart Cities.” We see these same “Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis” tactics at work in the rubble of Tianjin. Whoever or whatever caused the Tianjin blast, whether or not this is a case of a synthetic event or simply a matter of “never letting a good crisis go to waste,” the reality of the situation is unchanged: The old Tianjin is in ruin, whereas Tianjin Eco-City, located outside of the blast radius, remains in tact with its scheduled completion in 2020 unhindered:

In tandem with “old” Tianjin’s destruction, degradation of air quality is also being reported surrounding the blast site; air quality issues that, presumably, would not exist had Tianjin Eco-City been at full capacity and the environmental standards of COP21 been fully developed:
COP21Tech1Tianjin Eco-City, unlike its counterpart, already includes a “greenhouse gas data interface,” a trait shared by every Smart City on planet Earth. Nor would Tianjin Eco-City’s “Eco-Industrial Park” have allowed such volatile and “unsustainable” manufacturing to take place in the first place. This is the thesis as constructed in the Hegelian programming surrounding the Tianjin catastrophe.

All that’s left now is for transnational Technocrats to wait in anticipation for the ultimate synthesis to be unveiled this December at COP21, and given the grand overtures being prepared by all nations in advance of the Paris conference, the “legally binding and universal agreement” it will produce is set to be no less bombastic.

The specifics of the threat posed by COP21 to Free Humanity can only be divined upon the gathering’s close, but its overall aspirations are known to us. They are the same in 2015 at COP21 as they were at Rio in 1992; the same today as in 1972 with the Club of Rome’s publication of The Limits to GrowthNothing short of global colonization by the Anglo-American Establishment, as admitted at UNCED ’92:
UNCED4To the “billions of Lilliputians of lesser race” out there, myself included, we have been warned. The Hour is Late. Whether the Fabian degradation of freedom and prosperity continue their steady grind or the world is “compelled” by economic catastrophe into implementing “Global Sustainability” as foretold by Maurice Strong, the remainder of 2015 and 2016 are set to be a turbulent period in this ongoing Age of Transitions.

Amidst the potential tumult that Act 2 of Agenda 21 and other geopolitical events may yield, just remember, Reader:

You either learn your way towards writing your own script in life, or you unwittingly become an actor in someone else’s script.
-John Taylor Gatto

Video Games, Predictive Programming, and the 21st Century Skinner Box

Perhaps the most encouraging development in fostering freedom in our modern era is the rise of effective “counter-propaganda” to the machinations of Globalism, the likes of which have (arguably) not been circulated so widely since the pamphleteers of the 18th and 19th Centuries. The digital era has brought rise to propaganda and psychological warfare’s perfect foil: The alternative media’s adoption of open source intelligence analysis.

Open source investigations abound on virtually every subject of Deep Political significance today, and as a result, propaganda can be deconstructed by anyone with an Internet connection. Didn’t know that Ben Affleck was a CIA agent whose handler is Chase Brandon? That information is available to you. Interested in the weaponization of novels, or CDC and Defense Department “assistance” given to big-budget Hollywood disaster flicks? Just point and click.

However, if one were pondering why the first-person shooter they just purchased for their Xbox was laden with pro-war propaganda while simultaneously training the player in reflexive shooting, one might have a more difficult task ahead of them; despite the vast influence of the gaming industry on 21st Century culture, virtually no investigative mettle has been assigned to the task of rooting out Deep State actors within the field.

That is, until today.

Foundations, Think Tanks, and Academia: The Usual Suspects and the Revolving Door

Collusion between video game developers and the Military Industrial Complex has come a long way since Atari’s 1980 tank combat game Battlezone was used by the US Army as a Bradley tank training simulator. It’s come an equally long way since the 1996 creation of “Marine DOOM.” The vector graphics of Yesteryear have given way to ever-increasing polygon counts, the shoot-em-ups of the 2D-gaming era dissipating in a sea of first-person shooters (or FPS games). The US Army, too, has evolved in kind; no longer are such training simulators masquerading as video games aimed merely at enlistees, but the populous at large. In this respect, the Army’s pet project, America’s Army, is the Bradley Tank Simulator’s modern analogue.

Originally published in 2002 (with over 40 iterations released since as of 2015), America’s Army is the brainchild of one Colonel Casey Wardynski. Running on the widely used Unreal Engine, the game is distributed at no cost on multiple platforms; in line with Wardynski’s original vision, the series’ intention is to “[use] computer game technology to provide the public a virtual Soldier experience that was engaging, informative and entertaining.” In other words, a “soldier simulation FPS,” more realistic than its big-budget, Hollywood-esque counterparts.

Some might even characterize it as military training software, somewhat ham-fistedly and morbidly marketed the towards the very teenagers and young men the Army intends to recruit.

Colonel Wardynski, the architect of this marketing and conditioning strategy, is a renaissance man as Globalists are concerned. An economist, Professor, Colonel, game designer, Ivy Leaguer, and, most recently, Huntsville, AL Superintendent, Wardynski’s biography reads like that of a polymath:
Most interesting is his post-graduate degree, attained from the highly selective RAND Graduate School, an offshoot of the avowedly Globalist RAND Corporation, graduating a mere ~100 students per year. Simultaneously a Think Tank, policy analyst, and propagandist, the RAND Corporation, like Colonel Wardynski, wears many hats. Widely known as an integral component of the Military Industrial Complex’s well-oiled psychological warfare machine, that the RAND Corporation would produce a man like Wardynski is less than shocking. RAND’s constant ability to evolve its propagandistic ambitions, from Radio Free Europe of the 20th Century to the video games of today, however, is a noteworthy feat.
Screenshot from 2015-08-03 19:32:57Taking into account the sizable Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundation grants issued to RAND throughout the decades, its pervasive influence is more easily explained. As a disciple of RAND, Wardynski’s acknowledgement of game theory in the form of America’s Army displays his creative appreciation for history, if nothing else.

The RAND Corporation is hardly alone within the Military Industrial Complex in its pursuit of games-based propaganda. The infamous DARPA and CIA subcontractor, SRI International, is also hard at work developing video games, though its project takes a radically different approach: Operant conditioning of children in the classroom.

Like RAND, the Stanford Research Institute, or SRI, has a long, diverse, and to the discerning eye, somewhat disreputable history.  From the seemingly strange to the ruthlessly pragmatic, SRI has offered its “unique” skillset to many a government agency. In the 1970s, they were a witting CIA subcontractor in the pursuit of “psychic supersoldiers,” which, according to the CIA, yielded “actionable intelligence.” More recently, SRI created Apple’s artificial intelligence, SIRI, yet many remain unaware of the fact that SIRI is merely the “civilian” iteration of a military AI, developed by SRI for DARPA.

Did I mention that SRI created nearly all of modern computing back in 1968? From the computer mouse to hypertext, from word processing to videoconferencing, SRI, in cooperation with ARPA (using the ARPANET), NASA, and the Air Force, is the progenitor of our 21st Century “Technotronic Era”:

SRI is now leveraging its vast experience in the technological realm with its foray into “Digital Games for Learning,” ostensibly creating conditioning software “focused on the cognitive effects of simulations in K-12 STEM education.” STEM (or Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) is the latest educational initiative in a long line of Prussian-style “reforms” and a focus of the oft-criticized “Common Core” agenda. Where Common Core lurks, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is never far behind, making their partnership with SRI Education in this venture somewhat predictable:
Screenshot from 2015-08-03 16:08:59SRI1You’re welcome to read GlassLab’s wordy executive report on “Digital Games for STEM Learning,” but in brief, SRI and the Gates Foundation have determined what marketers at Sony, Nintendo, and Gates’ own Microsoft have known for decades: Video games are an excellent way to operantly and classically condition children.  Gone are the days of focus on literature, the Arts, and the Trivium Method of learning necessary to create independent and holistic minds. SRI, the Gates Foundation, and popular game creator and publisher Electronic Arts (progenitor of the propaganda-laden Battlefield series) will now pump out automatons using a digital Skinner Box:
SRI2Simply set your kids (lab rats) in front of your fancy new iPad (operant conditioning chamber) and enjoy your new and improved human resource. No parenting necessary. The Simulacra is Gates, SRI, and Common Core approved!
300px-Skinner_box_scheme_01Hopefully the Foundation’s well-documented history as eugenicists doesn’t play on your unpsychopathic conscience. There’s a pill for that, I think.

This endemic relationship between the military, academia, Foundations, and the gaming industry recently manifested on the global stage by way of Syriza’s Yanis Varoufakis. Before playing the role of “Hero of the People” as Syriza’s Finance Minister, Varoufakis was a Cambridge fellow, member of the Globalist Brookings Institution, and former Economic Advisor to Papandreou, the man responsible for brokering Greece’s austerity deal with the EU in the first place.

His career also includes a foray into the gaming industry as a private consultant for the VALVE Corporation, founded by former Microsoft employees Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington and creators of famous titles like the dystopian FPS Half-Life and first-person puzzle game Portal. VALVE also operates the popular game distribution platform, STEAM, which distributes the aforementioned America’s Army.

As advancements in artificial intelligence, bioinformatics, and technological convergence coalesce into the emergence of the post-human era, the capable eyes of open source intelligence analysts should turn their glance towards the gaming industry as a tool of propaganda, as has readily been done with literature, Hollywood, and television. The few documented connections outlined herein are merely a foundation upon which others will (hopefully) build far more complete works.

Psychological Warfare’s “Call of Duty”

In addition to military training and conditioning software, the psychological warfare tactic known as predictive programming is also alive and well in modern video games. Infinity Ward’s FPS series, Call of Duty, which is known for its bombastic, Michael Bay-esque Hollywood style, fittingly “envisioned” the 2013 Syria Crisis in its 2007 title, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare.
Screenshot from 2015-08-04 18:55:20The game focuses upon two branching military campaigns: One by the Marine Corps in an unnamed Middle Eastern country (situated on the in-game map directly atop modern Syria) run by a cartoonish dictator generically referred to as none other than “Al-Asad,” the other by a British SAS team combating “ultranationalist Russians” who are supporting this thinly veiled tin-pot Arabic dictator. After a patriotic romp through Central Asia, “Al-Asad” predictably (predictively?) uses “Weapons of Mass Destruction” on his own people, leading to a climactic final battle at a Russian nuclear site in a bid to avoid World War III.

The plot is so reminiscent of the mainstream media coverage amidst the 2013 chemical False Flag blamed on actual Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, that it’s surprising to see that no one (to my knowledge) has yet drawn the comparison. Readers are encouraged to decide for themselves.

The Call of Duty series’ latest entry adds a twist of Transhumanist futurism to the mix; Call of Duty: Black Ops III’s trailer recounts humanity’s potential future, looking back from the 2060s on the development of Cybernetics, Technocracy, and “super soldiers.” It’s even complete with an Edward Snowden lookalike:

While this retrospective ignores Google employee and futurist Ray Kurzweil’s predicted “Singularity” of 2045, it does imply the fulfillment of another Kurzweil vision, World Government. And though dystopic Sci-Fi has become increasingly pervasive in modern entertainment and is not necessarily indicative of Deep Political intent or investment, the series’ previous installment contains at least one noteworthy Deep Political actor among its staff:

International drug dealer, gun runner, and USMC Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North's credit for Call of Duty: Black Ops II

International drug dealer, gun runner, and USMC Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s credit for Call of Duty: Black Ops II

It is at this point in our investigation (much to this author’s chagrin) at which open-source intelligence begins to fall short; unlike the intelligence networks in Hollywood mapped out by researchers like Tom Secker of SpyCulture, the gaming industry has no similar analogue with which to explore these loose hypotheses further. In a personal attempt to begin creating a document trail, I decided to pluck at (or in this case, FOIA for) the low-hanging fruit: The widely attributed Military Industrial Complex assistance to FPS games like Call of Duty, enshrined in most military game credits:

The credited military assistance to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

The credited military assistance to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

Filing a request with each listed branch in kind, I inquired for the following documents:

Requesting any and all documentation related to the USMC’s assistance and/or funding of the 2007 entertainment software title Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare by Infinity Ward. Specific documentation on the involvement of (but not limited to) the USMC 1st Tank Battalion, Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 775, and USMC 5th Battalion 14th Marines on the production of this game should be included.

In addition, I filed a number of more general requests for information on military assistance to the games industry in general, all of which were flatly rejected. The Marine Corps has yet to respond to my Call of Duty 4 request in full, but one division has – Marine Aircraft Group 39 – who sent me the following:
Screenshot from 2015-08-04 22:00:34You can read the denial in full here, but unfortunately, it seems the meticulous and disciplined record-keepers at the USMC have either lost these documents upon HMLA-775’s decommissioning or never had them in the first place.

However, a third possibility exists: They’re simply not looking hard enough. It is at this point that I implore readers, researchers, and curious minds alike to file FOIA requests of your own on government assistance to the gaming industry. While FOIA is far from a perfect tool, this should hardly dissuade individuals from utilizing it while it still exists. Targeting information on an industry whose Military Industrial Complex funding is virtually undocumented, yet has still come to rival the distribution and revenue of Hollywood seems a worthwhile task that, with enough effort, may very well yield important revelations.

File a Federal FOIA Request (By Agency)

Central Intelligence Agency:
Federal Bureau of Investigation:
Department of Homeland Security:
Department of Defense:
United States Marine Corps:
US Air Force:
US Navy:
US Army:

(Note: This author’s experience has been that the various branches of the armed forces, especially the Army and USMC, are far less reticent in answering FOIA requests than their intelligence counterparts. Uncomfortable filing FOIA requests? No problem! Your assistance is still needed in cross-referencing the staff of America’s Army with other FPS titles like Battlefield, Call of Duty, and Microsoft’s Halo.)