As the alternative media as a whole seems poised to eternally sing the praises of the Russian Federation in stymieing the Anglo-American Establishment’s imperialistic aims in Syria, entrenched in analysis of the 2D Chessboard of geopolitics, this author’s contrarian nature has seen fit to call attention to the 3D Chessboard unifying these seemingly disparate nation-states.
Today’s game? Agenda 21. Its playing piece of choice? The seemingly autonomous nation of Russia.
To those still invested in the “BRICS Saviour” paradigm, Russia’s compliance with United Nations Agenda 21 and the collective tyranny accompanying it may come as a shock; to the student of Deep Politics, it’s merely forensic history.
From Agenda 1920 to Agenda 21
Long before the advent of the modern digital dictatorship prescribed by Agenda 21, the dream of Smart Cities was alive and well in the consciousness of burgeoning Technocrats – perhaps most notably, in the early Twentieth Century, in the USSR. Taking cues from American developments like Technocracy, Inc. and the ruthless efficiency of the assembly line, the Cybernetic central planners of Bolshevism attempted what, to them, seemed a natural synthesis: A seamless integration between the social engineering of the State and the mechanical/electrical engineering of the Industrial Era.
“Communism is Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country.”
Lenin’s call for the electrification of the Proletariat, when made in 1920, seemed benevolent enough; the elimination of ignorance and poverty and the liberation of peasants from a subsistence agricultural life certainly don’t strike one as overtly laying the seeds for totalitarianism. Yet whatever Lenin’s original intent for the USSR’s electrification and the “New Soviet Man” it was poised to create, his death in 1924 saw the end of his management of this vision.
The gambit for the creation of this “New Soviet Man,” like the Nietzschean “Superman” before it and the transhuman of today, was instead implemented by Josef Stalin. Utilizing a curious coalition of Bolshevik elites, anti-Bolshevik Tsarist “bourgeois engineers,” and American industrialists, the now infamous “public-private partnership,” so indivorcible from Agenda 21, was born.
“The electrification plan was unlike any before in history. It wasn’t just about building power stations. Its aim was to construct a new type of human being.”
-Vitalii Semyonovich Lelchuk, USSR Academy of Sciences
One of the more widely known examples of these Soviet “Smart Cities,” Magnitogorsk, was in fact a direct copy of Gary, Indiana. Structured around a centrally managed steel mill, the city’s master plan was even drafted by the same American Technocrats who originally built Gary. Many American engineers, inspired by Gary’s Cybernetic faculties, went so far as to emigrate to the USSR to offer their expertise to the project:
Eerily foreshadowing the predicament faced by Free Humanity in the midst of Agenda 21, little of Magnitogorsk’s post-1937 history is known to us, as it became a closed city – the very type of strictly managed urban use envisioned by the ruling caste of today.
Lesser known than the American emulation that was Magnitogorsk, the documented collaboration between the supposedly “anti-Capitalist” Bolsheviks and the Ford Motor Company in the city of Nizhni-Novgorod (also known as Gorki) is laden with Deep Political implications. Originally uncovered by Hoover Institute researcher Professor Antony C. Sutton in his 1986 publication, The Best Enemy Money Can Buy, the Gorki-Ford joint venture yielded not only prolific automobile production, but Soviet military equipment as well.
“In May 1929 the Soviets signed an agreement with the Ford Motor Company of Detroit. The Soviets agreed to purchase $13 million worth of automobiles and parts and Ford agreed to give technical assistance until 1938 to construct an integrated automobile-manufacturing plant at Nizhni-Novgorod. Construction was completed in 1933 by the Austin Company for production of the Ford Model-A passenger car and light truck. Today this plant is known as Gorki. With its original equipment supplemented by imports and domestic copies of imported equipment, Gorki produces the GAZ range of automobiles, trucks, and military vehicles. All Soviet vehicles with the model prefix GAZ (Gorki Avtomobilnyi Zavod) are from Gorki, and models with prefixes UAX, OdAZ, and PAZ are made from Gorki components.”
These Ford/Gorki cars and trucks populated not only the streets of Warsaw Pact nations, but also its battlefields; the aforementioned model numbers identified by Sutton, produced from 1930 through to the present, are often modified for military use as armored trucks and mobile missile platforms. Much to the confusion of American soldiers in Vietnam and Korea, taken aback that Communist armored trucks bore a striking resemblance to their own, these infantrymen were unknowingly treated to a rare glimpse behind the curtain of the Anglo-American Empire’s proverbial sausage factory: The Military-Industrial Complex and its terrifying global scope, knowing no ideological bounds but the aspiration of Power.
The GAZ-66, a Gorki-produced, Ford-engineered armored transport vehicle, still in service today
Ford, like General Motors, propagates Smart Car development in China – via WSJ
…not only in China, but Russia as well. Leveraging Russia’s longstanding ingenuity in space and rocketry technology, Ford has partnered with St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University to create a truly global, self-driving “snitch car” network – by linking every automobile the world over via satellite.
A graphic representation of digital serfdom – “Neofeudalism for Babies”
Of this particular “public-private partnership,” Safe Car News reports:
While much has changed on the 2D chessboard of geopolitics since the era of Stalinist “Five Year Plans,” the increasingly interconnected 3D supranational game has remained a static field for nearly a Century – clearly exemplified by the longstanding desire of both international companies like Ford and regional powers such as Russia for the Technocratic subjugation of human populations the world over.
No “Good Guys,” no “Bad Guys,” just Globalists and those who refuse to be collectivized.
As in China, Russia’s UN-compliant Smart Cities are, in part, financed by corporations heavily affiliated with the Trilateral Commission. Kazan Smart City, Russia’s analogue to China’s Tianjin Eco-City, is the same Technocratic dystopia represented by Agenda 21 projects the world over.
The boundless and global tentacles of Agenda 21 have slipped over the “impenetrable” BRICS wall into each and every “anti-Hegemon” nation, with Smart City startup capital from the Trilateral Commission in tow. Kazan joins the deleterious coalition of Kashiwa no-ha in Japan, Songdo in South Korea, the aforementioned Tianjin Eco-City, and numerous others subsumed by the Trilateralist vision of Zbignew Brzezinski’s “technetronic era.”
Even the mighty Bear of the East is not immune.
Kazan’s Trilateral connection comes by way of its “public-private partnership” with German multinational giant Allianz, whose American subsidiary, PIMCO, is infamous for hiring former Fed chairmen as Senior Economic advisers – most recently, Ben Bernanke.
Allianz as it appears in Kazan Smart City’s “Partners” brochure
As the Trilateral Commission’s official rosters dating back to at least 2011 demonstrate, Allianz has consistently placed Trilaterals in key positions within its corporate hierarchy:
Some of whom have some rather interesting affiliations themselves:
Unfortunately, Kazan isn’t even the most egregious example of “sustainable development” within Russia’s borders; that honor goes to Skolkovo Innovation Center, a planned Smart City to be erected outside of Moscow.
Artist rendering of Skolkovo
Dubbed as “Russia’s Silicon Valley” by its proponents, Skolkovo’s envisioned Technofeudal design will be all too familiar to Agenda 21 researchers – a “sustainable” city run by a coalition of “experts” and machines, with individuals subordinate to the Cybernetic collective:
What makes Skolkovo particularly noteworthy, however, is not its cookie-cutter UN-mandated design, nor its wholehearted approval by the Kremlin, but the unique public-private partnerships underlying its development. The project is a venerable smorgasbord of Military-Industrial Complex firms, cybersecurity companies, and multinational corporations – most of whom are heavily associated with (you guessed it) the Trilateral Commission.
The list of “Key Partners” on Skolkovo’s website (archived here for posterity) are too many to note: Boeing, Cisco, DOW, Airbus, General Electric, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Samsung, Siemens – the list goes on. The insidiousness and scope of the aforementioned companies’ involvement in unsavory affairs as varied as Smart Cities, war profiteering, precrime AI, eugenics, and economic Globalization, too, are far beyond the scope of this article.
Skolkovo’s Trilateralist connections, though, simply cannot be overlooked:
GENERAL ELECTRIC (GE):
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES (IBM):
Anglo-American vision, Trilateral Commission cash, and Russian collectivist engineering – what could possibly go wrong? Surely, Reader, you’re already planning your trip; just remember, those with combustion engine-based transportation need not apply!
“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”
It may be difficult for one to separate the ongoing conflict between the Anglo-American Establishment and Moscow in the realm of geopolitics, particularly as a fierce proxy war between the two over the Leviathan gas field’s planned transit line to Europe rages on in Syria; but the contrast between this 2D chessboard and the multilateral, multipolar 3D chess match cannot be more stark.
The Kremlin, echoing the People’s Bank of China, have called for an end to the Dollar as world reserve currency to be replaced not by the Yuan, Ruble, or gold, but the IMF’s Special Drawing Right:
Russia, like China and every other UN member state to date, has taken the “sustainable” bait – knowingly or unknowingly, she has set herself on the path of resurrecting the dream of the USSR’s “planned cities” of olde, ignoring the nightmare they actually came to represent. Like the Soviet power elite of the 20th Century, Russia’s modern power elite have turned to Anglo-American financiers and Globalist Machiavellian schemers in fulfilling this mandate, even as bullets fly in Syria and Ukraine.
From Magnitogorsk to Kazan, from Gorki to Skolkovo, the vision of Technocracy lives on. So, too, do the Globalist entities positioned to pick up the pieces after an engineered conflict between East and West.
My advice to you, Reader? Don’t surrender your autonomy by picking sides, relegating your fate to that of a mere playing piece.
With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason; with alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.
These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis. Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’s planned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”
The convergence of both engineered economic crisis and an engineered “sustainable development” crisis in late-2015 are hardly coincidental, nor are they insignificant. While the alternative finance community seems destined to eternally squabble about the mechanics of a coming global depression, few have set themselves to the task of projecting what the character of such a post-depression society will look like – and the “New World Economic Order” it has the potential to initiate.
It is this author’s contention that the character of this coming era can only be understood when financial calamity is viewed in tandem with Agenda 21’s faux-ecological insidiousness; and you, Reader, deserve the knowledge and documentation of this sagacious plot. It’s pervasive, it’s global, and has existed (in its modern form) since at least the 1970s.
Seeking to contextualize this historical continuity, we must first examine the writings of erudite anti-Technocracy researcher, Patrick Wood, and his pioneering work on the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order” of the 1970s.
Technocracy and the “New International Economic Order”
As an integral decade in this ongoing “Age of Transitions,” the 1970s brought with it previously unimagined sociopolitical and economic shifts. Inflation was prevalent. The decade also saw the rise of the Petrodollar and the end of the gold-backed Bretton Woods era, as well as the seeding of eugenic “environmental catastrophe” memes propagated by works like the Club of Rome’s 1972 publication, Limits to Growth, or John P. Holdren’s equally Neomalthusian and lauded Ecoscience. It also saw the birth of the Trilateral Commission, co-founded by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski in 1973, who, among other things, pushed forth the concept of a “New International Economic Order” to quell the world’s ailing economic and environmental “doom and gloom” forecasts.
While the nature of this “New International Economic Order” at the time evaded Mr. Wood and his research partner, Dr. Antony Sutton, the perspective granted by the passage of time has lead Patrick Wood to declare Technocracy to be the true aim of this New Order. He writes:
It is plainly evident today, with 40 years of historical examination behind it, that the “New International Economic Order” was really “new” and envisioned historic Technocracy as replacing Capitalism altogether. Technocracy was based on energy rather than money and its system of supply and demand that regulates pricing. Some distinctives of Technocracy include:
• Elimination of private property and wealth accumulation
• Replacing traditional education with workforce training
• Micromanaging all energy distribution and consumption
• Driving people to live in a limited number of cities and off of rural land
• Enforcing a balance between nature’s resources and man’s consumption of them.
Are you thinking that this list is vaguely familiar? You should, because it represents the modern manifestation of programs like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Cap And Trade, Climate Change, Common Core, massive surveillance operations and a whole lot more. All of this has been brought to us by the machinations of the Trilateral Commission and its members since 1973, and it is all part of its master plan to completely replace capitalism with Technocracy. This is their “New International Economic Order“!
The Trilateral Commission, however, was not alone in the propagation of the “New International Economic Order” ideal. As with all things global and “sustainable,” the United Nations is sure to be lurking nearby. The UN’s “Council on Trade and Development” (or UNCTAD) was the chief multinational institution (in cooperation with the Trilateral Commission) in proudly promoting such a New Order throughout the decade:
As noted in my previous article about COP21 and the coming Agenda 21 “update,” documentation on what this “binding and legal agreement” entails directly from UN sources related to the Conference is sparse; that is, until one abandons searching for literature on the “green” facade and goes straight to the source of the “New International Economic Order” itself – that is, global trade governance, as documented by UNCTAD:
It is within UNCTAD’s 2015 policy briefs that we begin to find some semblance of clarity as to what a post-global depression geopolitical and economic environment has in store for us; and as all burgeoning Hegelians know, global problems invite (engineered) global solutions.
UNCTAD and the “Sustainable Multilateral” Vision of Humanity
Over the past 40 years, the “New International Economic Order” has changed its name and structure, but never its primary objectives. Its old name cast away in favor of representing our increasingly captive and globalized world, “Multilateral Global Trade Governance” is its new moniker. The threats of population bombs, peak oil, and Global Cooling prevalent in the 70s, too, have given way to the phantom foes of carbon emissions and “unsustainability” so overtly propagandized to us in the 21st Century.
In true Technocratic fashion, UNCTAD declares the new face of “transformative” and “multilateral” global governance to be underpinned by none other than sustainable development in their 2015 Policy Brief No. 31:
This shift towards “multilateralism” is more than rhetorical, representing a structural change in the nature of globalism. It’s also not limited to UNCTAD, as the IMF, BIS, World Bank, and yes, even the BRICS have been calling for a “New Multipolar World Order” for quite some time. This new form of globalism is slated to be seemingly inclusive, allowing nations like China, Russia, India, and Brazil some measure of regional control, while ultimately being subservient to the “binding and legal agreement” of COP21. Continuing with Policy Brief No. 31:
We see that these new “inclusive multilateral mechanisms” are anything but voluntary, as UNCTAD goes on to conclude that such mechanisms would “preclude competitive liberalization;” in other words, multilateralism is designed to prevent Second and Third World nationsfrom seeking a development structure outside the UN’s “sustainable” vision.
If any are still in doubt as to whether the BRICS alliance and its New Development Bank represent this globalist multilateral trap, UNCTAD steadfastly declare the BRICS to be an integral regional component in this plot:
This latest forecast echoes UNCTAD’s 2014 publication, A BRICS Development Bank: A Dream Coming True?which also holds the BRICS NDB as a key partner in Agenda 21 and its global Technocratic serfdom, written about at length by this author previously.
This bank-against-bank dialectic is the Globalist version of Coke vs. Pepsi. Republicans vs. Democrats. East vs. West. BRICS Bank vs. World Bank. Multilateral vs. Monopolar. All result in the synthesis of “global trade governance” aspired to by the Anglo-American Establishment and Agenda 21.
In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief on Climate Change No. 4, the structure of this new system of governance was enumerated upon by none other than Chinese (Editorial Correction: S. Korean) UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. If his description does not represent “multilateral globalism,” I don’t know what does:
Supposedly sovereign nations will be subservient to regional entities (BRICS, NAFTA, EU, etc). Regional entities will abide by a commonly agreed upon set of global development and economic standards (COP21). The city, town, and community, long subsumed by ICLEI’s “sustainable development” principles as set forth by Rio ’92, are already in lock-step with this “multilateral globalism.”
“And what of the individual,” one may ponder? Such an “outmoded” concept has no place in the eternal Cybernetic feedback loop of “green” global trade governance as outlined by UNCTAD:
The aforementioned “knowledge sharing,” “peer reviewing,” and “accountability” standards will be handled not wholly by governing bodies, but governing algorithms, as such banal tasks are likely to be managed by our increasingly “smart” cities, metering devices, homes, and cars; a shift destined to portend the increased control such devices will bring to everyday life within this “New Multilateral Economic Order.”
It is unlikely that such sweeping alterations to global as well as social interaction will take place unless “motivated” by periods of crisis. In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief No. 36, the importance of our last global crisis of 2008 in creating the prerequisites for “Green” Globalism is noted:
It therefore stands to reason that the activation of these bilateral, regional, and megaregional trade agreements created in the wake of the 2008 Depression will likewise require economic calamity to activate; calamity that alternative media and the Bank for International Settlements alike are predicting as inevitable. If such a “transformative” global structure is to be initiated in advance of or around COP21 this December, the remainder of 2015 is likely to be wrought with continued economic uncertainty.
The brief goes on to note a number of transnational corporations complying with this new Green Globalism, some of whom should be familiar to the astute Deep Political reader and researcher:
In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.
So it would seem this same set of “CFR-nested Fortune 500” companies responsible for building up China’s industrial and technological capacity are now pushing forth sustainable development with the UN as well as within the BRICS nations themselves. Have these Western entities bolstered China’s modern economic stature out of sheer goodwill? Merely self-interested profiteering? Or is the fulfillment of this greater collectivist agenda the “quid pro quo” demanded by the West in exchange for such niceties as increased regional power in the Asia-Pacific?
This year’s demise of the BRICS economies (most notably China) as well as key Western markets, if not overtly coordinated, certainly provide a unique opportunity to bring about these proposed “global (green) solutions” to “global crises.”
As this blog has set out to demonstrate since its inception, globalism is indeed what its title claims – global. It knows no borders, nations, or ideologies, save complete and utter transnational subjugation of autonomous human beings – globally. Technocracy – rule by a class of entrenched elites and “snitch society” technologies – will be the character of this coming global era. Sustainable development (Agenda 21) is its vehicle.
It doesn’t reach the “End of the Road” without a transition from the “Old Economic World Order” to the New, a divergence impossible without a global economic crisis the likes of which has not been seen in nearly a Century.
Agenda 21 and the prospect of economic calamity have been inseparable concepts since the ravings of former UN Under-Secretary General and co-Agenda 21 architect, Maurice Strong, became a matter of public record back in 1992. In talking with late activist George Washington Hunt at a UN Environment Conference in Colorado, Strong, under the auspices of a fictional book he hoped to pen, mused casually about how such a “New World Order” could take shape:
What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?
This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close.
Strong abruptly ended his tale by concluding that he “probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.” Not that he had to continue, as from where we stand in 2015, we can see how this tale ends: With Strong’s world on the horizon. The next engineered economic crisis, ready to be sprung with a proverbial “flip of the switch,” will certainly be a global one. Yet Strong’s fantasies of Davos hostage takings of over twenty years ago may prove entirely unnecessary at COP21 in our modern era, as nearly all opposition to Agenda 21 on the global stage has been subsumed by its promise of complete technological control and a seat at the “multilateral table.”
You, though, Reader, have no seat at this table. An ostensibly insignificant cog in an international machine; but armed with the knowledge of what is to come, perhaps a cog that may someday soon decide to grind to a halt. This machine, after all, is each and every one of us.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider a small donation! -Rusticus Bitcoin: 1MecdGKVEP6oVpQW11sKgTFBtNKUnu1Dse
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.
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.
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):
General Motors, Mitsui Fudosan Residential, and Samsung
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
Yes, this actually happened.
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?
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.
Cerberus: The three-headed beast, “powerful and without pity,” that guards the gates of Hell in Greek mythology. Fitting.
…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?
Michael Walsh, EPA adviser, speaks before the China Vehicle Emission Control Policy Symposium in Beijing
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?
The Trilateral Commission’s logo – definitely NOT reminiscent of a Swastika
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):
Among the seeming prerequisites for admission to the Church of Globalism, in addition to alignment with the agenda satirically described above, is support of Agenda 21’s sustainable development principles, and in this respect, the Trilateral Commission does not disappoint:
Nor is such a declaration of “Green Revolution” an isolatedincident. The Trilateral Commission maintains a well-sourced adherence to the global vision prescribed in Agenda 21.
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:
Kissinger’s bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission roster of April 2014
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:
Mitsui’s Trilateral history, as told by the Commission itself
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:
Kunibe-kun and Utsuda-kun as they appear in the Trilateral Commission roster for April 2014
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 Fudosan’s home page promotion for its Smart City development
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:
Lee Jea-yong’s bio as it appears on the Trilateral Commission’s 2014 roster
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.”
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.
A recent article from China Daily reporting that “administrative detention” (read: imprisonment) will be exercised for not abiding by sustainable development
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:
For Berlin to develop into a “Smart City” capable of such goals would have required nearly a century of thumb-twiddling to bide the time necessary for the technology capable of enabling it to manifest, but for opportunistic leaders of today, no such time need be wasted. One could simply follow the lead of Smart Cities around the globe and install IBM Analytics’ citizen management software:
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.
If you’re here, you likely know this principle well; used as an implement of Crowd Psychology, it allows for the initiation of crises and management of public reaction to them, ultimately designed to bring about predetermined “solutions” to the very crises originally synthetically manifested.
Guide the unwitting masses, stumbling from preprogrammed event to preprogrammed event, towards the conclusion of a “New Multilateral Economic Order.” Simple enough, once you’re privy to it, eh? At least, one would think.
The “Liberty Movement” and alternative media it’s spawned are interesting creatures. Despite being birthed largely via ideologically-motivated individuals and groups attempting to de-occult the historical nuances of Deep Politics, (the Hegelian Dialectic among them) I never cease to be amazed at the willingness of seemingly “awakened” individuals to fall into the Hegelian machinations of the day. Perhaps it’s due to the centuries of experience Globalists and their ilk have in squelching “populist” movements, or to the historical short-sightedness of alt-media viewers themselves. Perhaps it’s merely the result of humans being the most psychologically-studied organisms on the face of the planet.
In our current stimulus-response, pre-Technofeudal culture, such an outcome is hardly surprising, and ultimately places the “anti-propagandists” of alternative media in something of a Catch-22 scenario: The very technologies that allow for the dissemination of occulted history, by their very nature, are eliminating the attention spans of the ignorant masses which they wish to inform. Whether by design or not, the historical luminaries of recent history (Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley and Stanford University’s Antony Sutton among them) are having their complex, interwoven models of conspiratorial history diluted in favor of pervasive, reactionary “doom porn.”
“In fact, the most successful kind of counterespionage work is achieved, not by preventing access to secrets, but by permitting access to information which is not true.”
-Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, pg. 920
The problem, alt-media prognosticators proclaim, is self-evident. Breakdown of political, economic, social, spiritual, moral, and ecological systems saturates our era, and with this much, one cannot disagree. The initial reaction to learning about our genetically modified, geoengineered, banker-driven Empire is, naturally, to be gripped with fear. In a society possessing true Wisdom, such fear would pass as the “initiate” were guided towards his or her “inner Light,” and thus, inner Solutions, to the problems at hand; however seemingly unconquerable, one would pass from the age of innocence to true adulthood, true autonomy.
Wisdom, however, does not abound in our age. Hegelianism does. Counterespionage does. And both of them always have an “External Savior” pre-arranged as the “Final Solution” to all woes.
For the spiritual, perhaps it’s this guy:
Or for the politically-inclined, maybe the Dynamic Duo suits your tastes:
A collective solution, you say? Look over here:
Maybe the Goose that Shits the Golden BRICS is more your flavor:
Well, kids, it’s time to grow up. Ain’t nobody comin’ to save you but yourselves.
This blog is intended as my personal attempt at “Hacking Hegelianism” and inserting choice between Stimulus and Response; examining the problems I see being engineered around us, formulating an independent reaction to these, and finally, promoting solutions unique to my perspective in hopes that you, the reader, intend to do the same. A synthesis between my own Deep Political research and my attempt to reverse-engineer the labyrinth of legal slavery erected with each passing day. A jailbreak of mind and body from hierarchical, power-driven control structures in the age of serfdom.