Tag Archives: China

My Appearance on the Smaulgld Subscriber Sound-Off Series

Hey, all! Another brief update for you. I’m a subscriber to a top-notch YouTube channel called Smaulgld. It’s hosted by Louis Cammarosano, a contrarian alternative media producer whose analysis of the precious metals market is unparalleled. Louis has recently launched a series called “Subscribers Sound Off,” designed to give followers of his YouTube channel a platform to discuss important issues, and he was kind enough to have me on:

…or if you prefer the decentralized video platform BitChute:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/M0gNwEpmEYr6/

Louis and I discuss my longstanding thesis that the BRICS/AIIB/SCO/China-led complex is joined at the hip with Anglo-American entities typically defined as “Globalists” by alt-media. We also discuss the cognitive dissonance, confirmation biases, and generally unfriendly stance of alt-media commentators when broaching topics that go against the proverbial grain of traditional off-mainstream narratives. Wrapping up, we talk cryptocurrencies and the potential that those who shun their use are painting themselves into a corner by eschewing their influence in a new monetary paradigm.

Dr. BRICSLove or: How Alt-Media Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the NWO

Since its inception, a common theme running throughout the entries here at Stateless Homesteading has been the notion that the “East vs. West” dialectic presented in both mainstream and off-mainstream media is not an organically-manifested conflict, nor does it represent the end of Globalization, but is instead a managerial shift from from a “unipolar” World Order to a “multipolar” New World Order.

Yet despite my best efforts in demonstrating, with primary sources and documented evidence, the “ties that bind” East and West in globalized efforts as varied as Agenda 21 or the gradual emergence of the SDR’s multi-currency basket as the preferred “One World Currency” of both China and the Anglo-American Establishment, the onslaught of propaganda proclaiming that the BRICS/AIIB construct is to spell “death to the Western banking empire” continues to grow.

Seemingly immune to the inaccuracy of the unsourced “predictions” being churned out by the “BRICS World Order” rumor mill, fantastic fairy-tales of White Hats and White Dragons fly unabated, despite the breakdown of the BRICS Saviour meme at its core. While these pundits prognosticate about the end of Agenda 21 in the East, official statements from both Jin Liqun (former Vice President of the Asian Development Bank, now AIIB President) and Xi Jinping completely contradict this narrative. So, too, do the notions espoused surrounding the Yuan/RMB attaining world reserve currency status stand in stark contrast to the macroeconomic reality we now face: A China whose currency has been accepted into the SDR basket (as predicted by myself and others). A PBOC that has begun issuing Chinese reserves denominated in SDRs. Anglo-American think tanks proposing not a gold-backed RMB as so many have foreseen, but a “pseudo” gold-backed SDR, and a Chinese Central Bank head all too willing to comply.

The real tragedy of this disconnect between fiction and reality, however, is not merely the perturbing dismissal of primary sources, but that in the abandonment of uncomfortable Truths for reassuring fiction, those alt-media aficionados who believe the Chinese-led Eastern coalition to be in opposition to Globalism find themselves in unwitting support of the next phase of the New World Order, euphemistically marketed as “multipolarism.”

While the above may seem a contradictory statement to those still mired in the “BRICS World Order” PR pumpage, the afterbirth of the Rhodes Roundtable known as Chatham House has done us all a great favor in the publication of its November 2015 policy paper, “International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

International Economic Governance: Last Chance for the G20?

Not that the “Royal” Institute for International Affairs has undergone some profound outpouring of empathy for human freedom and autonomy – though I doubt you were expecting that, Reader. They have, however, demonstrated succinctly that the rhetoric surrounding the rise of the East in Globalist circles is virtually identical to the “Asian exceptionalism” being propagated throughout alternative media today.

Save for one key distinction, of course: The Chatham House version of events in no way implies some cartoonish overnight disappearance of the structures of national and global governance, but instead, an assimilation of regional powerbrokers into a Globalized financial order. Not only does this article series seek to demonstrate that a “World Federalism” of distributed power blocs like the BRICS and AIIB is the “transformation” of Globalism being sought in the 21st Century, but to show, within the context of history, that this has been a linchpin in the gambit for global governance for at least half a century.

Goodbye Pax Americana, Hello New Multipolar World Order

A central element of the “BRICS Saviour” meme, in addition to the geopolitical and financial rise of Asia, is a corresponding end to American (and thus Dollar) hegemony. The funeral pyre of “The West” will inevitably serve as fertilizer for the Phoenix of Eastern multipolar institutions like the BRICS and AIIB, and here, many an alternative media blogger and Chatham House are in complete agreement:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-33-22

In keeping with the G20-centric title of the paper, Chatham House decries not only the unipolar U.S.-led global coalition, but its chief “old World Order” working group, the G7; as an organization set up in 1973 and designed expressly to support the mechanics of floating currencies inherent with the petrodollar, the G7, like the unipolar American Empire it represents, must make way for the “new working group on the block.” And what better working group to lead the charge in a “multipolar world of more dispersed economic power” than the “inclusive” G20, of which China takes the reigns later this year?

G20 Logo

The logo for the 2016 G20 meeting in Hangzhou, China – complete with all-seeing eye symbolism. Cue Alan Parsons Project.

Doubtlessly, Chatham House has high hopes for President Xi’s coming G20 stewardship, with such grandiose aspirations as “improving global governance” and “implementing the UN’s 2030 development agenda” already pledged by the would-be Chairman:

From Chatham House publication "Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016," published in March of this year

From Chatham House publication “Towards a More Effective G20 in 2016,” released in March of this year

Yet despite Chatham House’s full acknowledgement and support of the new multipolar world now emerging, a critical element in furthering this agenda has yet to come into play: The IMF’s Christine Lagarde refers to it as the “Great Reset.” Many alt-media soothsayers use the same terminology, appending any number of personal delusions (from the end of Globalism to the playing out of Biblical Prophecy) to this pending event. It is known to the RIIA simply as a “Bretton Woods moment:”

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-36-36

Like the public relations onslaught from various “BRICS Saviour” authors, Chatham House expresses a certain amount of frustration in the lack of a fundamental restructuring of the global economy post-2008 – the lack of this “Great Reset”. The commonalities in narrative regarding the presence of such a monetary event on the horizon, however, aren’t damning in and of themselves – after all, the “deep changes in the world economy” referenced above are becoming increasingly known to even the layman. What is disconcerting is the synchronous manner in which Chatham House and various segments of alt-media view the world – and in part, how they view the New World:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-37-34

This is where things get particularly interesting; Chatham House overtly decries the “US-dominated world economic order” represented by the IMF, World Bank, and various “Anglo-Saxon” economic institutions as “unfavorable” and an “imposition.” This unipolar old order, being inherently opposed to the new multipolar one being promoted therein, must be restrained in order for the agenda at large to progress – in both the eyes of Chatham House as well as the “Eastern exceptionalists” in our midst:

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-39-36

Much to the chagrin of many a BRICS PR agent, Chatham House appends the much-lauded buzz-word of the “New World (Economic) Order” not to the Pax Americana discussed previously, but to emerging markets, specifically China. This New Order, Chatham House proclaims, must no longer allow the United States to project its power through Globalist institutions. “King Dollar,” too, Chatham House deems to be an unnecessary unipolar burden, having outlived its usefulness.

The above passage has profound implications. From the mouth of the Anglo-American Establishment itself, it is emphatically declared that the American Empire is not now and never was the “New World Order,” but a mere stepping stone towards regional federationism, the “true” face of global governance! What’s worse, vast swaths of the “resistance” have somehow come to the fallacious conclusion that the death of American hegemony is the end of Globalism.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-40-16

Chatham House goes out of its way to establish that the sacrifice of the United States and its influence over international organizations pales in comparison to the survival of “the system” itself. The transformation to a multipolar system, they say, is an inevitability. After over half a century of being used by the Globalists as a blunt instrument of imperialism, usury, and terror, the proverbial pitbull of the old Order must be put down in favor of the multilateral puppy mill headquartered in the East.

For those disparate souls still ensnared by the belief that the “BRICS World Order” will somehow spell the end of Bretton Woods institutions like the IMF and World Bank entirely, this author is here to inform you that this is simply not the trajectory the world is on. As opposed to the machinations of Globalism and its governing structures vanishing with the flick of Eastasia’s magic wand, an altogether different sleight of hand is set to debut on the world stage: The handover of these Globalist institutions to the East.

Screenshot from 2016-05-16 12-42-18The message from Chatham House to America is unabashed: “You are no longer the driver of economic Globalism. Step out of the vehicle (the IMF) and allow Eastasia to finish the cruise towards Technocratic Neofeudalism.” Growing increasingly impatient with even the ghost of “representation” known as Congress, the implementation of increased voting rights at the IMF for the BRICS/AIIB nations and thus, an end to American veto power, can’t happen soon enough in the eyes of the RIIA. In the meantime, though, Europe and America must not wait to act – the World Bank and IMF head must represent this newfound multilateralism, declaring that Lagarde’s potential replacement could (and it is implied should) be Chinese. The installation of Globalist puppets like Zhou Xiaochuan or Jin Liqun to such a position would certainly herald the beginning of this handover in earnest. Chatham House also suggests that America should “show support for the AIIB and other emerging-market initiatives (read: BRICS),” though I suspect the “Good Witch of the East vs. the Wicked Witch of the West” dialectic is far too useful a propaganda initiative in selling the changeover to the global populous to be abandoned just yet.

All of this, of course, is a radically different outcome from the almost Utopian bill of goods sold by alt-media authors publicizing the “Great Reset” as a quick (albeit painful) end to Free Humanity’s woes. Some have already begun to subtly modify their stories to integrate these inconvenient facts, proclaiming that globalism itself is not the genesis of our problems, but that we merely have a “bad King.” Still embroiled in the paradigm of competing nation-states, too many have forgotten Globalism’s true nature as a multinational Superclass with little to no national identity to speak of.

The end of Pax Americana, the regionalization of the globe, a federalized global government under which all these seemingly disparate regions will be bound – these aren’t ideas cobbled together since 2008 in some floundering attempt to retain the current model of Western imperialism, nor are they a tacit acceptance of the “unforeseen” rise of the Second World. This plot has existed, in various forms, since at least the establishment of the post-War institutions the East is set to inherit.

The Multilateral World Order: An Old Plan Comes to Fruition

For the student of forensic history, ruminations about the “multilateral” and “multipolar” era we’re now on the cusp of are not difficult to find – even among some of the most frequently cited works in alt-media. Take, for example, the oft-mentioned 1997 book by Zbignew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard. While best known for the establishment of the “Brzezinski Doctrine,” (the encirclement of the Eurasian Heartland as opposed to its direct invasion) The Grand Chessboard includes many references to a multilateral world structured in regionally-administered blocs – specifically citing the economic rise of Asia:

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

The Grand Chessboard by Zbignew Brzezinski, pg. 153

In the chapter entitled, “The Far Eastern Anchor,” Brzezinski makes note of Asia as the new engine for world economic activity; and how does he suggest the Anglo-American Establishment best direct this synthetic “Eastern miracle”? Through the establishment of “multilateral structures” prevalent in the West that, as of 20 years ago, did not formally exist in the East. The Asian “working groups” (and the Asian Development Bank that supports them) as they existed at the time were not satisfactory in the eyes of Brzezinski.

In retrospect, however, it’s clear that Brzezinski’s aforementioned “web of multiltaeral and regional cooperative ties,” as confirmed by Chatham House, the United Nations, and the AIIB itself, have begun to emerge in the form of the dual Chinese-led development banks:

From the Chatham House policy paper, "International Economic Governance."

From the Chatham House policy paper, “International Economic Governance.”

Just this past week, a prominent alt-media commentator declared, “That [the rise of the AIIB] is a quantifiable way to show that China is taking a different direction than the Zbignew Brzezinski Grand Chessboard model.” This statement stands in such stark contrast to the actual text of the book in question that I’m forced to question whether people have truly digested and internalized these primary sources or are merely parroting one another’s unrealities.

Brzezinski is hardly alone among the cadre of Globalist “luminaries” promoting this multilateralism, nor is he the first – another protege of the Rockefeller family, the infamous Henry Kissinger, is not to be excluded in tracing this meme’s origins. From 1956 to 1960, Nelson Rockefeller hand-selected a then-youthful Kissinger to head up what was known as the “Special Studies Project.” The Commission was staffed with the task, as stated on pg. 35 of the Project’s literary adaptation, of “helping to shape a New World Order.” Its complete findings, published in 1961 as Prospects for America: The Rockefeller Panel Reports, are nothing short of a guidebook towards the multilateral future we now face.

I recommend this excellent blog post for a more thorough background on Prospects for America, but a select few passages deserve mention here; chiefly those regarding (you guessed it) the development of regional multipolarism in the East:

regional189

In discussing the topic of “multinationalism,” a regional bloc structure organized globally is a foregone conclusion to Rockefeller’s Special Studies Project. And how does the Kissinger-led, Rockefeller-commissioned panel suggest these “regional arrangements” should be made?

regional190

Not only should regionally federated blocs be organized worldwide, the latter “suggestions” given by the panel are almost universally at play in the East. Joint efforts in “economic development, common markets, and free trade areas” are exactly the purpose served by the BRICS and AIIB in our modern era, especially as these “regional agreements” are being rapidly integrated into the Globalist borg:

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank - from China Daily

AIIB Secretariat Jin Liqun signs a cooperation pact with the World Bank – from China Daily

The “join accord on monetary and exchange agreements” are also quickly progressing within these new Eastern blocs; Zhou Xiaochuan, a longstanding member of the Bank for International Settlements and head of the People’s Bank of China, has been in support of such a joint accord in the form of the SDR for nearly a decade now. With the acceptance of the RMB into the SDR basket as of last December, we continue to see (as with the AIIB) the integration of regional blocs into globalized structures, exactly as the Project foresaw half a Century ago:

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year - via Xinhua

Zhou Xiachuan pictured w/French Finance Minister Michel Sapin, vowing to broaden SDR use earlier this year – via Xinhua

These supranational institutions are readily constructing the mechanisms by which the East will be fully integrated with the Anglo-American Establishment’s longstanding goal of global governance. Beginning in earnest with Nelson Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and Richard Nixon’s Neomercantile “opening of China” briefly after Prospects for America‘s initial publication, the timing is hardly coincidental. The trade imbalances globalism has wrought upon the people of Western society, too, are now a matter of the historical record – all as dictated back in 1961:

china75b

Conclusions

Despite this author’s dour take on the state of alternative media analysis regarding the BRICS/AIIB construct, not all alternative commentators don rose-colored glasses when gazing Eastward. There are any number of alt-media websites that examine the “East rising” meme within the full context of history.

Among these ranks is Catherine Austin Fitts. A former insider at both Dillon, Reed & Co. and the H.W. Bush Administration, Ms. Fitts is a whistleblower whose credibility is matched by few in our field. Perhaps due to the insider information yielded by her connections in a previous life, Catherine offers the most succinct breakdown of the “multipolar World Order” I’ve yet to come across when she says:

“What’s been happening is when Snowden came out with his revelations and they got publicized, you had a reaction in the BRICS nations to say, ‘These systems have no integrity. We need to build our own systems. Whether they’re internet and digital communications systems, payment systems, or clearance systems – and we need to be able to transact without going through the dollar. We need to build currency swaps and interaction.’

Now I think that ultimately what’s happening is that you started a process in 1995 where the United States tried to build out a global empire leading towards global governance, and the U.S. has stalled in many different fields and for a variety of reasons. They’re pregnant halfway, stuck in the mud, everybody mad at them, and it just wasn’t getting done. And if you look at what Snowden and Putin and the BRICS are up to, I think that’s Mr. Global deciding that the U.S. needs a little competition – that we have a better chance getting to a global currency and global governance through the Hegelian Dialectic of competition between Plan A and Plan B.

Catherine Austin Fitts

And therein lies why the “East vs. West” pseudo-conflict as currently portrayed is so disheartening to watch: One of the oldest tricks in the Globalist playbook, the Hegelian Dialectic, is being actively fomented in order to advance the cause of a “multipolar New World Order”… and a significant portion of alt-media has taken the bait.

It’s easy to see why so many people have relegated themselves to the belief that the post-“Great Reset” world led by the BRICS nations will end all transnational woes – the idea that “everything will be fine due time” is quite alluring bait, indeed. But in accepting the external, supranational synthetic “saviours” offered to us, our attention is drawn away from the internal, localized organic solutions that can thwart the machinations of Globalism at their core, be they Eastern or Western.

My intention in destroying the “Noble Lie” of this dialectic is not to instill hopelessness; far from it, Reader! It’s an attempt to empower – to acknowledge the true potential in the coming “Bretton Woods moment.” Despite the best efforts of the Machiavellian schemers mentioned throughout this article, the “Great Reset” will by no means be a completely orderly transition. While it may be true that we’re already well along the path outlined by the Brzezinskis, Kissingers, and Pickfords of the world, its success still depends upon our compliance.

As is the modus operandi of the ruling class, significant economic hardship is almost certain to be a key factor in coercing humanity’s consent for the multipolar World Order. In true Ordo ab Chao style, any number of top-down solutions will be offered (with weighty concessions) to “make the pain stop.” But what if, in ripping off the Band-Aid of our engineered “world economy,” people found the wound far less debilitating than the media talking-heads proclaimed? What if local trade, agriculture, and energy production were resilient enough on a wide scale to compete with multinational trade deals? What if individuals chose their own currencies and were in a position to reject the SDR-denominated system to be foist upon them?

Doubtlessly, we are still far from this vehemently decentralized vision of the future – and perhaps we always will be. Perhaps Free Humanity is simply not prepared for the hard work of genuine autonomy this time ’round.

But I do know this: We’ll never attain these lofty goals by pretending some external force will do it on our behalf.

The Future of America and Gold Standards, a Reader’s Perspective and My Response

In my recent post asking for audience feedback (in which I received a lot of valuable commentary – thank you), I received a series of comments from a fellow Truth-seeker named Peter. He shares a unique perspective from his experiences in Europe during the collapse of the USSR, which I’d recommend reading:

Comment #1
Comment #2

My response to Peter is a long one and includes a few perspectives I’ve yet to share in the form of proper articles, so I re-present them here in the hopes you might find them valuable. I’m also in the process of working on an entry about a recent Chatham House policy paper on the unfolding of multipolar World Order in 2016, so stay tuned for that as well.

My Response

I appreciate your unique perspective on this issue, especially as it pertains to alt-media programming of Americans vs. Europeans. I wonder how much of this is, as you suggest, a managed perception or merely a difference in culture, as the “prepping/survivalist” mentality of Americans has existed (in its modern form) since at least the age of the Cold War; in America, for example, there were/are no massive public works programs like bomb shelters or food stores as there were in the Soviet Union – Americans were urged to do this of their own accord. “Prepping” as opposed to “being prepared for.” That’s not to say I discount the possibility of some sort of “second American (color) Revolution,” as the breaking down of large nation-states to be (re)federalized under a new system would certainly weaken their ability to participate in this new “World Federalism.” The rest of the world has experienced hard times in a manner that America hasn’t in nearly 100 years, so we’re certainly overdue. As you say, only time will tell.

Of course, I wasn’t around to experience the dissolution of the USSR, but from what you’re saying there was a sense of relative affluence before the detonation of the country. There is no such affluence in America anymore. There is virtually no manufacturing, no jobs for the youth outside of the service sector, and those higher-paying jobs typically require a healthy dose of University brainwashing, which of course means indebtedness. In short, there’s little left to rob. In my brief time on this planet, I’ve watched this country go from a form of opulence to severe wealth dislocation; there are pockets of the country where reinvestment in infrastructure is strong, but many more that look like parts of the Third World. For example, if you were to ask a citizen of Detroit or Cleveland when the “economic collapse” is coming, they’d say it already came and went, and in the context of those cities they’d be right. And this is of course without mentioning the severe deterioration of physical and mental health, as most Americans have been poisoned (GMOs) without their realizing it over the past 20 years.

As I see it, there are three primary differences between the breakdown of Soviet satellite states and some hypothetical breakdown of the “United” States (though these are by no means the only differences).

  1. Americans are heavily armed and it’s hard to imagine a managed uprising in this country that doesn’t include significant bloodshed or resistance; much easier to control and direct a mob with Molotov cocktails and clubs than one with guns, which (in my opinion) is one of the main reasons Americans are being “slow-killed” by poisoning of water and food and “slow-robbed” via economic booms and busts as opposed to some overnight sea-change.
  2. Unlike the USSR, which had infrastructure to plunder by the West, American companies are no longer “American.” They’re sufficiently globalized and their wealth diffused enough to leave this country behind without thinking twice, as they already have in the post-GATT/Uruguay Round world. The TPP will only accelerate this. It’s a similar process to the looting of the USSR, but it’s being done in slow-motion and has only accelerated since 2008.
  3. We’re entering an era unlike any other we’ve seen in history with the rise of low-level algorithmic AI, robotics, and automation, and thus, I think it very difficult to extrapolate from history any clear picture of the future from where we stand today. For once, the phrase “this time it’s different” may ring true. For example, what is the future of Imperialism if you no longer need human soldiers to occupy a country (or at least significantly less humans) and use robots in their place? What is the future of “sweat shop Capitalism” if all manufacturing is completely automated? In this regard I have far more questions than answers.

As for the notion that there is some secret Chinese elite working on behalf of Free Humanity as in your linked article, I find this to be ridiculous wishful thinking if not overt disinformation. American corporations and capital built modern China. Anglo-American wealth managers, through the LBMA, have fixed metals prices and managed the wealth transfer from West to East since Day One. The BRICS concept was the brainchild of Goldman Sachs, and the PBOC itself are readily integrating themselves into the IMF’s SDR system. As such, I think the “Global Monetary Reset” your linked article mentions will include elements of a commodity/currency basket, but I’d be hard-pressed to call this a positive development.

 

Zimbabwe is indeed a resource-rich nation, though I would caution the idea that the IMF’s interests in Zimbabwe are fundamentally any different than China’s. Take, for example, Mongolia, which has been pumped dry of all her material wealth by the Chinese for decades now. The average Mongolian should have pockets overflowing with gold, but instead that wealth has ended up in the coffers of the PBOC. I see no reason why, in the long run, African nations will not be treated the same way.

There’s much more to say on this topic, but I would also caution your notion that a “Gold Standard” is in any way “better” than fiat standards in terms of control of populations. In fact, I’d say in many ways it’s worse. I’ve considered dedicating an entire article to this concept and may do so in the future, but I’d recommend a reading of Eustace Mullins’ original work on the Federal Reserve.

Unlike most of the researchers who followed in Mullins’ footsteps, he starts the history of monetary debauchery in America not with the creation of the Fed, but 50 years before, recounting the managed monetary crises of 1873, 1893, and 1907. Needless to say, the devastation they wrought couldn’t have been brought about without a Gold Standard. The monetary pendulum swings throughout history from “sound money” to “fiat money,” but the power behind the proverbial curtain never actually changes.

“He who owns the Gold makes the Rules.”

I’d also note that I’m not an atheist, merely an “anti-religionist.” I believe in “God” and have experienced significant evidence for this concept, but not in the manner of a “Bearded Man in the Sky” that’s outside of (and apart from) myself. But that’s a topic for another day!

I truly do value your personal experiences on these issues, Peter, and thank you for taking the time to respond.

Agenda 2030: Bankrupting the Third World, One Country at a Time

The destiny of Africa has, for centuries, been usurped by conquerors; whether it be the East India Company’s mercantile slave trade, the imperialistic campaigns of Cecil John Rhodes, or the IMF’s economic hitmen of today, the eugenic aims of the Anglo-American Establishment towards the people of Africa (and the vast natural resources they sit upon) has continued unabated for hundreds of years.

Agenda 2030 is set to take the subjugation of Africa to previously unimagined heights, with the rest of the Third World to follow shortly thereafter.

“I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit the better it is for the human race…If there be a God, I think that what he would like me to do is paint as much of the map of Africa British Red as possible.

-Cecil J. Rhodes

While the true scope and depravity held in store for Africa at COP21 won’t be known to us until later this year, at least one nation, Ghana, has submitted its draft budget to the United Nations in advance of the Conference. The projected cost figure, if accurate, would be the next in a long chain of abuses against Ghana by Globalist entities like the IMF and multinational corporations alike.

Ghana finds itself precariously situated between the geopolitical aims of two power factions on the “2D Chessboard” in the form of the Anglo-American Establishment and China. American colonization of Ghana by corporate entities and NGOs, draping themselves in the facade of benevolence, have a consistent track-record of introducing eugenic experiments in the region, often masked as philanthropy; “feeding the hungry” and “healing the sick” are the constant clarion calls of these wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Monsanto is one such example. Long known by alternative media readers as the developers of deadly GMO frankenfoods like Golden Rice, Africa is a favorite dumping ground for “beta testing” these biotechnologies. Perhaps because of the Power Elite’s intense hatred for the world’s “non-white peoples,” perhaps as a gambit to blanket the continent in patented seeds, thereby owning the land itself, Monsanto’s insidious activity in Africa has not left Ghana unscathed.

The UN's agricultural plans for Africa, as noted in UNCTAD's policy brief on Climate Change

The UN’s agricultural plans for Africa, as noted in UNCTAD’s policy brief on Climate Change

Earlier this year, Ghana was the target of a new set of draconian G7 regulations set to outlaw seed sharing. Known colloquially as the “Monsanto Law,” the bill is endemic of Agenda 21’s planned control of land use and agriculture.

In addition to GMOs, the Anglo-American Establishment has foist upon Ghana another lab-created eugenic tool: Vaccines “coded for race.” This issue, recently brought to the House floor by Rep. Bill Posey of Florida, was once was constrained to the realm of science fiction; this is no longer the case, as the use of vaccines as race-specific bioweapons has now been enumerated upon by Congressmen and CDC whistleblowers alike.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, virtually synonymous with vaccines in the Third World, have also been hard at work “thinning the herd” in Ghana; the same Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that is now under criminal investigation for experimenting with vaccines on children in tribal populations without their consent.

“The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.

-Bill Gates on depopulating the Third World

As previously mentioned, the Anglo-American Establishment is not the only group with imperialistic aims in Ghana, as China’s underground network of mines blanketing the nation, most notably those satiating her voracious appetite for gold, have brought hellish working conditions for Ghana’s native populace:

It is upon this backdrop – one of Ghana being tossed about like a rag doll in the world of international power politics – that the Neomalthusian “sustainable development” requirements of Agenda 2030 come to the small African nation. Care to guess how much this Tehnocratic revamp of Ghana will cost?

A whopping $22.6 BILLION, a grotesquely overvalued figure which the United Nations knows perfectly well Ghana will never be able to afford, as even the globalist World Bank admits the funds required would drain a significant percentage of Ghana’s entire GDP:Screenshot from 2015-10-19 23:22:55

via the World Bank

via the World Bank

58.5% of Ghana’s GDP, to be precise. As other Third World nations begin to update their proposals ahead of COP21, expect similar quotes on the debt burden these already impoverished nations will be required to shoulder.

It remains to be seen what the character of the public-private partnership mentioned above will be in Ghana, but the resource-rich, salary-deprived nation has a plethora of options. American biotech firms? Chinese infrastructure companies? A hefty loan from the IMF, or the BRICS New Development Bank, perchance?

“All of the above” is perhaps the greatest threat to Ghana – and, unfortunately, the most likely outcome if proponents of global governance have their way:

Something or other

The imperialistic vibrato of the Anglo-American Establishment, as seen in this UNCED publication from 1992

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

This December, Agenda 21 is Getting an “Update”

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

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

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

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

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

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

All the World’s a (Sustainable) Stage

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


Even more undercirculated than Hunt’s video presentation are the documents this Conference produced. It is within these Anglophilic pages that the World Order created by Agenda 21 is spelled out with stunning clarity – particularly as it pertains to the “developing” world, China and India chief among them:
UNCED1

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

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

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

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

This blend of Western structure with Eastern identity in banking strikes one as the potential compromise reached between the “First” and “Second” worlds at UNCED – a final bid to maintain the “Anglo-Saxon system of banking”:
UNCED5

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (or AIIB) is an excellent example of this burgeoning “East-Anglo” banking model. While widely reported by some as signifying the end of the decaying Western banking model, the AIIB’s steadfast devotion to Agenda 21 makes one wonder whether or not the AIIB is a truly autonomous entity, or merely China’s fulfillment of an Asian Development Bank or Development Bank of Latin America-style puppet as called for by Rio ’92:
AIIB1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carbon Credits Cometh

Much ado has been made recently within the alternative media about the IMF’s decision to delay inclusion of the Yuan into the SDR basket until September of 2016, with various theories floated as to why this has occurred. Viewing this announcement within the context of COP21’s heavy emphasis on the future of carbon trading markets, a piece of the Yuan-SDR puzzle falls into place; if what anti-Technocracy researchers like Patrick Wood have unveiled is true, Global Technocracy’s Neomalthusian environmental implements must also develop in tandem with a new currency system underpinned by energy credits. The pre-release documents from COP21’s “Scientific and Technological Advice” PDF, as well as COP21’s sponsors, hint at this being an integral part of the discussions taking place in December:
COP21Tech2CTXPartner21CarbonTrackerPartner21One key country expected to be signatory to COP21’s treaty has revealed that they are not yet ready for the “new market-based mechanism” the UN will require: China. The Chinese National Development and Reform Commission announced that their national carbon trading markets will not be ready until late 2016 at the earliest:
CDCarbon1

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

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

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

Hegel 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

One may recall a recent post, “China 21: Anglo-American Sustainability in Asia,” in which this author noted the Hegelian Dialectic’s use to usher survivors of Fukushima into Agenda 21 “Smart Cities.” We see these same “Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis” tactics at work in the rubble of Tianjin. Whoever or whatever caused the Tianjin blast, whether or not this is a case of a synthetic event or simply a matter of “never letting a good crisis go to waste,” the reality of the situation is unchanged: The old Tianjin is in ruin, whereas Tianjin Eco-City, located outside of the blast radius, remains in tact with its scheduled completion in 2020 unhindered:
TianjinBlast1

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

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

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

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

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