The Echo of Antony Sutton
This is Antony Sutton:
In the not-too-distant past, Sutton was counted among the more respected historians in higher education, holding the title of research fellow at the esteemed Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Before being jettisoned from this coveted position by the Trilateral-affiliated dean, Sutton was (and remains) one of the most thorough academic researchers on the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment to date. His work was so well-documented that, despite being antagonistic towards Sutton’s worldview, even Rhodesian globalist Zbignew Brzezinski cited the accuracy of his research in his book, Between Two Ages.
Needless to say, Sutton had to go.
His removal from the hallowed and controlled halls of Academia didn’t stop him, though, as he continued to publish research on Deep Politics related to the Trilateral Commission and Skull and Bones, among other things. Unfortunately, as seems to be a tendency among great researchers speaking truth to power, Sutton passed too early back in 2002, and since, his investigation into the international Anglophile cabal has remained largely unadvanced. Until recently, there was no “Great Eastern Superpower” to warrant such research, as the bulk of occulted geopolitical study was focused instead on the “War on Terror” paradigm; in a post-2008 world in which the media, both alternative and otherwise, have readily forecast rise of the BRICS “anti-hegemon,” (as they’re called by some) this has all changed.
James Corbett of The Corbett Report has recently taken up the mantle of Antony Sutton, challenging the open source research community to investigate potential ties between the Anglo-American Establishment and the growth of China as a world power in the 21st Century. In an attempt to rise to the occasion, this article seeks to help with the heavy lifting, and as the title indicates, will investigate this narrative through the lens of Agenda 21 in China.
What I’ve managed to find thus far is fascinating, if not somewhat expected.
“It is not generally recognized by outsiders that almost all the information gathered by any espionage net is nonsecret material fully available to anyone as public information.”
-Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pg. 920
Trilaterals Over Tianjin
Tianjin is no normal Chinese city. Billed as a joint partnership between China and Singapore, Tianjin is one of the United Nations’ flagship “Eco-Cities.” In fact, it’s no normal “Eco-City,” either; the UN has a particular affinity for Tianjin, going so far as to hold its annual Climate Change Convention there in 2010. It’s a textbook “green engineered” Smart City as called for in the 1992 Rio Conference on Sustainable Development, colloquially known as Agenda 21, and despite China erecting these “Smart Cities” en-masse in recent years, Tianjin remains one the country’s only successful “sustainable” ventures.
To what does Tianjin owe this seemingly unnatural success? Look no further than one of Agenda 21’s hallmarks, the public private partnership, for the answer; as one would expect, Tianjin has quite the sordid (and fiscally endowed) cast of private financiers behind its advancement. Investment in Tianjin’s “green infrastructure” alone is slated at over $6.5 billion USD as of 2015. Taking a glance at their “Partners” page, three entities stand out as particularly noteworthy (circled in red):
What do these three corporations have in common and how are the tentacles of Globalism operating through them to erect Tianjin as China’s leading Smart City?
One helped build the Nazi Empire. Two are members of the globalist Trilateral Commission. Another is among the infamous zaibatsu, established in the wake of the Meiji Restoration as the West’s mercantile dog in Asia. All have historical ties to the “apex of [Western] industry,” otherwise known as the “power elite.”
We first turn our glance, as Antony Sutton once did, towards General Motors.
From Sustainable Wars to Sustainable Development
GM, as outlined in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, is no stranger to promoting internationalism at the expense not only of American interests, but human life in general. Particularly egregious was the support for the Nazi war machine by General Motors, spanning from as early as 1928 into the waning days of World War II in 1945. “Support,” perhaps, does not belie the true extent of GM’s value to the Third Reich, as they were an integral component within the American cabal secretly supporting Germany.
Opel, Germany’s largest tank supplier, was a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors and a seminal example of the early Military Industrial Complex. 1936 marked a profitable turning point for the enterprising Nazis at GM, as the Reich granted them tax-exempt status in order to expand factories for the upcoming war effort. Not exactly the “Arsenal of Democracy” you heard about on the History Channel, is it?
Not to be caught undiversified and solely in the business of making tanks, GM maintained close ties with Standard Oil of New Jersey in a joint effort to fuel the Nazi military. From providing the components for synthetic oils and rubbers to supplying ethyl lead for engine maintenance, Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and GM, via the I.G. Farben cartel, delivered the means and methods of keeping the resource-strapped, war-torn Germany on steady footing much longer than could have otherwise been sustained.
America makes bombs, Germany makes bombs, GM makes a killing. Sutton says of this incestuous “apex” of American industry:
“In brief, American companies associated with the Morgan-Rockefeller international investment bankers — not, it should be noted, the vast bulk of independent American industrialists — were intimately related to the growth of Nazi industry. It is important to note as we develop our story that General Motors, Ford, General Electric, DuPont and the handful of U.S. companies intimately involved with the development of Nazi Germany were — except for the Ford Motor Company — controlled by the Wall Street elite — the J.P. Morgan firm, the Rockefeller Chase [National Bank] and to a lesser extent the Warburg Manhattan bank.
This book is not an indictment of all American industry and finance. It is an indictment of the “apex” — those firms controlled through the handful of financial houses, the Federal Reserve Bank system, the Bank for International Settlements, and their continuing international cooperative arrangements and cartels which attempt to control the course of world politics and economics.”
-Antony Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler
It should come as no shock to the attentive student of history that GM’s documented affiliation with the Third Reich is more than indicative of their participation in the establishment of the digital, technocratic, global Fourth Reich represented by “Smart Cities” like Tianjin. Equally as indicative are the forces behind General Motors, which, perhaps not coincidentally, are much the same today as they were 80 years ago.
During the time period investigated in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, GM’s largest shareholder was none other than JP Morgan, itself a front for Rothschild interests in America. In the wake of the 2008 “Great Recession,” GM was effectively nationalized. One of its subsidiaries explicitly mentioned by Sutton as maintaining ownership of Opel, the General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is now controlled by Cerberus Capital Management, owning a 51% stake.
The international chairman of Cerberus is none other than Dan Quayle, former Vice President under George H.W. Bush, son of Nazi financier Prescott Bush. The same Prescott Bush, it’s worth noting, who not only counted himself as a member of Skull and Bones, but also escaped prosecution at Nuremberg despite being identified as the owner of Fritz Thyssen’s American shell company, Union Banking Corporation. Perhaps just for old time’s sake, Cerberus appointed JP Morgan as its investment fund administrator back in 2011.
…but they promise they don’t fund fascist empires anymore. Just sustainable cities and networked smart cars:
Doubtlessly, the tank manufacturing assistance provided by the GM of 80 years ago seems far less innocuous than their “Smart Growth” projects of today, like the all-electric, self-driving Chevy EN-V 2.0. Superficially, the shift from military assistance to “green growth” could even be seen in a positive light. But is it? Does a driverless car, whose inherent aim is to limit human control of the machine, make anyone more free or autonomous themselves? Are cars constantly connected to the Internet, laden with microphones, sensors, and geolocation data a liberating technological development in a world where digital snitches in our pockets (smartphones) already run rampant?
After all, the “public-private partnership” between organizations like Google, Microsoft, Apple, and the NSA have already proven these incestuous relationships to be a civil libertarian’s worst nightmare. Will a similar relationship between the Chinese government and automotive manufacturers bring about the same results?
From China Daily:
The title of China Daily’s article requires a slight addendum, as upon further reading of the passage, “Government” deserves pluralization. Evidently, the Chinese Ministry of Environmental Protection requires the sage advice of the American EPA before proceeding in public-private ecstacy:
Keeping one’s head straight is a constant challenge in the 21st Century. Should I be terrified of China, as many mainstream and alternative news sources beggar of me, as the world is swept by a “New Cold War”? Should I scratch my head in confusion as American corporations, the Chinese government, the United Nations, and the EPA seem so tightly coordinated on pushing forth “sustainable development” despite being supposed “enemies”? Should I outsource my critical thinking and succumb to cognitive dissonance?
Or was Antony Sutton onto something after all?
The Sustainable Trilaterals
Founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski to serve as a coalition of elites within finance and politics from Japan, Europe, and North America, the Trilateral Commission’s ostensible purpose is to “foster closer cooperation among these core industrialized areas of the world with shared leadership responsibilities in the wider international system.”
In reality, the Trilateral Commission is yet another Neomercantile consolidation of political and economic power. Born with the destruction of the Bretton Woods System, Trilateralism attempted to fill the void left in the international monetary system by the lack of a gold trade standard with privately agreed upon trading blocks; in the age before NAFTA, the EU, and TPP, such coalitions between corporations and government were made largely via “Deep Political” actors like the Trilateral Commission (Bilderberg, the Council on Foreign Relations, and Chatham House are three other such Deep Political actors).
Over the course of the late-70s and early-80s, Antony Sutton co-authored a series of papers entitled, Trilaterals Over Washington, but in lieu of recounting them here in their entirety, allow this establishment propaganda on the Trilateral Commission from the 1980s sitcom, Barney Miller, to enumerate the Commission’s true intentions (masked as comedy, of course):
Trilateralism, since its inception, has had a specific affinity with Asia; originally tasked with merely assimilating Japan, the Commission has since added a number of Asian countries to its repertoire, most notably South Korea. Chinese Trilaterals are still vastly underrepresented, but the organization has taken great care in hand-selecting former diplomats, academics, and businessmen with Chinese experience, as their 2014 roster clearly demonstrates. Despite Chinese participation in Trilateralism being lax, the presence of Trilateral activity in China erecting Technocratic “Eco-Cities” is to be expected, especially given Trilateral member and Rockefeller “partner” Henry Kissinger’s infamous experience in China:
With or without Kissinger’s numerous Chinese ventures, the Trilateral Commission has wasted no time installing its agents in “sustainably developing” Tianjin Eco-City. In fact, one of the Trilateral Commission’s premier Asian members, Mitsui Fudosan Group of Japan, is a leading development partner in Tianjin’s “green” efforts:
And as late as 2014, over 40 years since the Commission’s founding, Mitsui still held prominent representation within Trilateralism by way of Takeshi Kunibe from Mitsui Banking and Shoei Utsuda, the Chairman of Mitsui’s Board of Directors:
In typical Japanese corporatist fashion, the Eco-Technocracy of Tianjin was a domestic product before being exported to foreign markets. Japan, like much of the Western world, is awash with “sustainable development” projects, but one of its more notable Japanese efforts is Kashiwa-no-ha Smart City. As of June 2015, Kashiwa-no-ha is featured on the homepage of Mitsui Fudosan Group’s English page. Upon examination of Kashiwa-no-ha’s homepage, Mitsui seems to be, in large part, spearheading this project.
Mitsui is developing Kashiwa-no-ha in line with a true Technocratic vision: A model city in which pervasive, wirelessly-integrated sensors document, trace, track, and surveil every aspect of human life. This data, managed via an Orwellian Smart Center (read: Central Control) will “oversee energy operations, management, and control for the entire town.” Constantly conglomerated and organized by central servers and algorithms, Smart Center’s data on every aspect of the city is then served up on a silver platter for Academia, another element of Agenda 21’s public-private partnerships. Kashiwa-no-ha’s residents will be, quite literally, lab rats for the University research labs of Japan.
Will Mitsui bring to Tianjin the same tightly-controlled, technofeudal model it is developing in Kashiwa-no-ha? Given that Smart Cities the world over, from Masdar to Songdo, have adopted nearly identical models regardless of the “public” or “private” consortium of partners involved, future Chinese Eco-City residents shouldn’t hold their breath.
Speaking of Songdo (a Korean smart city), across the Sea of Japan lies another Trilateral-affiliated corporation listed as a partner in Tianjin Eco-City, Samsung. The South Korean company’s experience in mobile phones and wireless technologies will doubtlessly come in handy when networking the slaves of Smart Cities the world over to Mother Brain, assets for which Samsung’s President & COO, Lee Jae-yong, was likely selected for Trilateral membership:
The Songdo International Business District’s connect, scan, and surveil model, despite being located in Samsung’s home country, was actually developed in partnership with Cisco, who also implemented Masdar City’s wireless networking infrastructure. As noted earlier, however, the model from city to city remains nearly identical. Of Songdo, Smart Data Collective says:
“Songdo will become a completely connected city, where almost any device, building or road will be equipped with wireless sensors or microchips. This will result in smart innovations such as streetlights that automatically adjust to the number of people out on the street. All houses in Songdo will be equipped with sensors, also known as domotica, which can be managed via a large TV in the living room of each residency. Next to the homes, these TelePresence screens will be available in all offices, hospitals, schools and shopping centres. The City of Songdo is a futuristic city, completely ready in 2015.”
With Songdo’s “Internet of Things” niche already filled by Cisco, one might assume that participation by Samsung in Songdo would be redundant. Fortunately for Samsung, it turns out to be a far more versatile company than the average smartphone-toting, LCD-watching American is privy to, as in 2011, Samsung’s pharmaceutical division, Samsung Biologics, broke ground on its newest manufacturing facility in Songdo:
A savvy investment for Samsung, surely, as the free medical data mined from Songdo’s unwitting populous will be quite handy in manufacturing new alopathic drugs, likely to be sold directly back to the captive and heavily surveiled market that is Songdo.
Sustainability or Bust
Tianjin in China, Songdo in Korea, Kashiwa-no-ha in Japan; Asia is certainly “all in” on sustainability, and given that the development of modern Asian urban centers (pervasive wireless connectivity, electric-powered transit, high density construction, pedestrian-centric urban planning, etc.) are already in line with many “sustainable development” principles, the East is an ideal target for marketing Agenda 21’s Smart Cities. Japan in particular is facing a widely publicized demographic crisis, a symptom of which has been the creeping diminishment of rural (mainly farming) villages and towns, another stated aim of the guidelines put forth by the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
The Hegelian crisis of “climate change,” the Globalist’s deus ex machina intended to unify mankind against an eternal Straussian enemy, has also been stressed to Eastern populations. Collectivize under the auspices of Eco-Technocracy or face another Fukushima is the implication put forth not only to Japan, but all countries affected by the numerous fault lines in the vicinity of the Sea of Japan. SmartEcoCity, a sustainable development project based out of China, intimates as much in an article published in March of 2014:
This orchestrated propaganda campaign aimed at herding rural Korean and Japanese people into Smart Cities goes beyond isolated blog posts by sustainable development firms in China. Korean media is also in full swing propagating the meme that Smart Cities are the perfect escape for victims ravaged by “climate change.” In the wake of Fukushima, Yonhap News of Korea published a human interest piece about Japanese citizens displaced in the crisis relocating to none other than Songdo, South Korea.
Problem? “Climate change” is destroying human life and infrastructure throughout the world. Reaction? Devastation, as for the survivors of Fukushima who now find themselves homeless and unemployed. Solution? Be willingly stacked-and-packed in your local Smart City, of course, before such a fate befalls you as well! Truly a Hegelian masterpiece.
No less masterful is mainland China’s orchestrated campaign to advertise “Smart Growth,” though by a somewhat different tactic: Heavy-handed bureaucracy and overt threats of fines, closure of business, or imprisonment if emission guidelines are not adhered to.
China’s “public” expression of the “public-private partnership” paradigm enshrined by Agenda 21 is perfectly in line with its development as a mixed totalitarian/capitalistic state, expressed most recently by new mandates ranking “civic compliance” through social media usage. Civic compliance ratings that will, as planned by Smart Cities, eventually include individual’s “eco-friendliness.” Between the strict control of China’s dictatorial ruling class, American automotive engineering know-how, and the globalized neofeudal model of the Trilateral Commission working in perfect harmony, Chinese Smart Cities like Tianjin have a bright future. Just make sure that light’s an LED powered solely by wind, or you may have to be recycled, Comrade.
Sutton’s research in the Wall Street series revolved centrally around technological and financial transfers from West to East during World War II and throughout the Cold War to America’s supposed enemies. In examining three examples of Anglo-American Establishment corporations implementing Agenda 21 in China, we find these same two elements that Sutton identified in Wall Street at work in the “public-private partnership” that comprises Tianjin Eco-City: Significant Anglo-American corporations providing technological and financial assistance towards Chinese “Smart Growth” projects. While the wholesale export of American military ingenuity Eastward described by Sutton is beyond the purview of this article, the links that have been enumerated upon here are no less insidious.
As informed individuals are privy to, Agenda 21 and the “Eco Tech” movement surrounding it are, Agenda 21 researcher Rosa Korie states, merely a green mask. Behind the mask lies the vision of Brzeiznski, of Huxley, Orwell, and of comptrollers throughout the ages: Nothing short of a society under complete and constant surveillance by governments, academics, and corporations to be managed by a class of “technotronic elites”:
“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”
-Zbignew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages
The Gestapo attempted to construct the very panopticon described by Brzezinski above; a society greeted by the constant creedo of, “Papers, please,” as German citizens shuffled through the streets unaware whether the man next to him should be treated with camaraderie or suspicion. The failure of this goal throughout the 30s and 40s was not for lack of trying, but a simple matter of timing. The technological, automated surveillance of the 21st Century that could make such a society feasible simply did not exist yet. It cannot be said, however, that the Third Reich’s efforts were not forward-thinking in this respect, as none other than IBM was contracted to manage the records of citizens slated for “extermination” by the German government. While IBM Analytics didn’t exist 80 years ago, their algorithms now in existence, designed to mirror the Pre-Crime of dystopian science fiction of films like like Minority Report, certainly would have come in handy for Nazi futurists of the era:
Smart Growth in line with Agenda 21’s Anglo-American vision is not limited to China or any other geographic region, for that matter; its global spread knows no ethnic or political bounds. Regardless of seeming Western antagonism towards, for example, the BRICS nations, sustainable development principles have been adopted by BRICS at an unprecedented pace. The United Nation’s Conference on Trade and Development held late last year published a document entitled, “A BRICS Development Bank: A Dream Coming True?” describing succinctly the UN’s desire for the BRICS “New Development Bank” to fund sustainable development projects like Smart Cities. As cited in the publication itself (as well as the examples in the article herein), the BRICS NDB has wasted no time getting in lock-step with their UN, IMF, World Bank, and BIS partners’ vision for a “sustainable” world. These same BRICS countries, many alt-media prognosticators proclaim, are tirelessly working towards supplanting the Anglo-American Establishment in geopolitics and finance. If this is truly the case, the BRICS “anti-hegemon” are either so tactically incompetent as to allow the Trilateral Commission and the computers, algorithms, and sensors of their Globalist affiliates to build their infrastructure, or the BRICS are not nearly as opposed to Global Serfdom as most would have you believe. The evidence suggests the latter to be infinitely more likely than the former.
The development of China’s Smart Cities is not overtly warfaric, but their veneer should not dissuade one from realizing the chilling nature of their Anglo-American funded presence. Agenda 21’s sustainable development goals are nothing short of an Act of War; not of tanks, bombs, or maimed limbs. Not between clashing superstates, as in wars of the past, but between populations and their own governments.
This challenge is not new or unique to our generation, but its current form and implementation are. Secret police replaced by sensors. Judge and jury supplanted by algorithm. Phone taps replaced with Orwellian “Smart TVs” (Telescreens) and Internet surveillance. Smart Meters to regulate every aspect of human dwellings. Smartphones to track your every movement. Self-driving cars to limit or restrict human mobility. Biotech and pharmaceuticals to regulate the spontaneity inherent in human thoughts and emotions.
The challenge lies in recognizing this glittering Technocratic vision for what it is: Global dictatorship.