Tag Archives: Bank for International Settlements

Global Banks Carve Up the World Ahead of COP21

As individuals and Nations alike wait in anticipation for COP21 a month from now, described as the United Nations’ “legally binding and universal” update to the ever-deleterious Agenda 21, banksters at the supranational level have shown little hesitation in offering their seemingly sage opinions on how their usurious reserves will be put to use in enacting this “Global Sustainable New Deal.”

From veterans of monetary Technocracy like the IMF and World Bank to the “New Kids on the Trading Bloc” represented by the BRICS and AIIB, monetary institutions around the world are poised to receive their slice of the sustainable pie – at the expense of what little freedom and financial security the individual still retains.

Leading the charge on the Western front is none other than the Bank for International Settlements, the “central bank of central banks” as identified by Georgetown Professor Carroll Quigley in his magnum opus Tragedy and Hope. Echoing the credo of “sustainable developers” at the UN and World Bank, the BIS has seen fit to reinforce the meme that the problem of climate change cannot be tackled without complete digital serfdom in the form of an electronic, biometric global I.D.

Euphemistically entitled the “Identification for Development” (or ID4D) program by the World Bank, it represents their “unique” interpretation of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals; a reading that’s as draconian as it is creative. The UN, World Bank, and BIS are calling for nothing short of a completely pervasive global surveillance grid to be implemented by no later than 2030, all under the auspices of “saving the planet.” ict_id4dconference

Of course, the BIS is also resolute in declaring the World Bank’s “important role” in fighting the phantom foe of climate change – not only in implementing the Technocratic ID4D program, but assembling the cast of private financiers to accompany the torrent of supranational capital:

Some of these “larger private sources of capital” have also positioned themselves in advance of COP21, one example being the marriage of Eastern and Western financial juggernauts in the solar energy market. This was witnessed recently in the merger between China’s solar giant Shunfeng with American-based Suniva – owned in part by the Warburgs (Warburg-Pincus) and Goldman Sachs. These private banking elites and families of antiquity, investing in the petrol-free, carbon-capped future described as a “historic opportunity” by the International Monetary Fund, will doubtlessly be underwriting much of the “green infrastructure” loans called for by COP21.

Screenshot from 2015-08-14 14:02:47

But it’s not just Chinese solar tycoons assembling the capital and infrastructure for humanity’s (Soylent) green future; the recently birthed multilateral giants of the East, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRICS NDB (New Development Bank), are also all aboard the sustainable train to globalized Nirvana. In accordance with the United Nations’ assertion that the BRICS NDB is a “dream coming true” for the financing of UN-mandated sustainable development projects in developing economies, the BRICS saw fit to reinforce this notion at the first official meeting of the BRICS Environment Ministers earlier this year.

Don’t take my word for it, or the UN’s, for that matter – the BRICS are crystal clear in their position on Agenda 21:

We  reaffirm our commitment to implement the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation (JPOI), and the outcomes of the Rio+20 Conference in our respective countries, and through our cooperation within the framework of BRICS in accordance with the Rio principles, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.

We acknowledge the progress made on the Millennium Development Goals in the preceding two decades and reaffirm our commitment towards accelerated implementation of the unfinished task. In this context, we look forward to the adoption of ambitious, transformative and equitable Post-2015 development agenda with Sustainable Development Goals at its core.”

BRICS Statement from the First Official Meeting of BRICS Environment Ministers in Moscow, April 22nd, 2015

These disconcerting official remarks by the BRICS on Agenda 21 stand in stark contrast with recent prognostications by Vladimir Putin to the contrary; this seeming conflict between actual policy and mere rhetoric, designed to seed cognitive dissonance within the minds of the public, is a clear example of a unique brand of propaganda developed in Russia by one Vladislav Surkov.

The alternative media, not immune to the effects of this “non-linear media warfare,” spread the story of Putin’s seeming “climate skepticism” to the Ends of the Earth without so much as a whisper about the Kremlin’s documented support of Agenda 21 as exemplified by the BRICS Summit in Moscow this April.

Put simply, the BRICS cannot simultaneously be against Agenda 21 and adherents to it.

Not to be overshadowed by the NDB, the “lean, clean, and green” (their words, not mine) AIIB are also happy to play their part in financing the latest iteration of Rio ’92. In addition to their publicly stated desire to work with the World Bank and Anglo-American controlled Asian Development Bank, some think-tanks believe the AIIB will be key in financing Pan-Asian energy infrastructure, chiefly natural gas:

In a recent paper by Grenatec, aptly titled “COP21/AIIB and the New World Order,” it is emphatically stated in no uncertain terms that the answer to  the woes posed in Al Gore’s 2006 “scare-you-shitless docu-drama” for the Far East is none other than elite bankers lining the pockets of multinational gas companies. How convenient. Those in the West needn’t worry about being left out of this Eastern development “Renaissance,” though, as the People’s Bank of China is intent on financing city-to-city Agenda 21-compliant high speed rail projects throughout the (People’s) Republic of California.

While it may be a relatively new phenomenon for Americans to be on the receiving end of the digital Panopticon and usurious infrastructure projects, the high-tech beneficiaries of Western capital in the East have long been acclimated to the world envisioned by COP21. Those living under the riches (and dictatorial autocracy) of nations like China and Singapore have had 3G phones in their pockets since the turn of the Millennium. Tracking (and taxing) of automobile usage via GPS by the State has been around just as long, as have electronic ID.

If this was the Singapore of nearly 15 years ago, it’s doubtless that the implements of COP21 like the ID4D program will be welcomed with open arms:

Looking at the success of projects like the joint Chinese-Singapore Tianjin Eco-City, the East is already making a smooth transition to Eco-Serfdom; this cashless, microchipped, carbon-credited “Wonderland” is, after all, virtually indistinguishable from the society in the video above… from 2002.

Using the centuries old threat of ecological disaster, the central planners of COP21 are resolved in holding the globe hostage; their insistence being that one cannot have the freedoms, conveniences, and benefits provided by technology without binding them by an eco-friendly Surveillance State. The infrastructure for such bewildering “green” snitch technologies, to be financed by the supranational banks of the multipolar World Order, will be solidified at COP21 this December. The Paris conference represents the most realistic opportunity for achieving the foundation of this Technocratic World Order since the failure of Copenhagen in 2009, a setback the elite would rather not see repeated.

Unfortunately, there is little we can do to stop the ink from drying on this Neomalthusian treaty, and increasingly less international impetus to do so.

Now more than ever, Free Humanity must work towards perhaps the only tactic capable of subverting the lamentations of COP21: The development of a counter-economy as vigilant and decentralized as the “Globalized Economy” is rigid and exclusive.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider a small donation! -Rusticus
Bitcoin: 1MecdGKVEP6oVpQW11sKgTFBtNKUnu1Dse
DASH: XvBWCtU9wnBVYjNusP33jUf7y1uF9EqJsJ 

 

Agenda 2030 and the “New Economic World Order” – Coming This Year?

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“!

-Patrick Wood, Endgame of Technocracy

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:

UNCTAD's history promoting the "New International Economic Order" from their official website.

UNCTAD’s history promoting the “New International Economic Order” from their official website.

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

Brief 36 (1)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:
Brief 31 (1)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:
Brief 31 (2)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 nations from 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:
Brief 31 (3)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:
Brief 4 (1)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:
Brief 4 (2)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:
Brief 36 (2) Brief 36 (6)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:
Brief 36 (8)

All have been intimately involved in the Neomercantile “opening of China” and the rampant technological buildup of the East by Western capital since the 90s, with IBM’s insidious participation in programs as varied as the Holocaust, police precrime algorithms, and the invention of the “smart city” concept being well documented. Of Lucent Technologies and IBM specifically, James Corbett of The Corbett Report writes:

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.

-James Corbett, The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall

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.”

In Closing

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.

-Maurice Strong

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
DASH: XvBWCtU9wnBVYjNusP33jUf7y1uF9EqJsJ