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:
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.
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
From November 30th to December 11th of 2015, a consortium of world “leaders” from 190 countries will gather in Paris, France as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The occasion? The much maligned Neomalthusian “environmental” program, known as “Agenda 21” by its original visionaries as well as its opponents, will be of drinking age, its “sustainable” protocols having been officially adopted in 1994.
So, too, is this UN Convention in Paris a celebration of the Kyoto Protocol’s numerological accomplishments, as COP21/CPM11 marks the 11th year of the emission regulation’s force as “International Law” (as of 2004).
The purpose of these festivities, however, is hardly mere ceremony; as Agenda 21 comes of age, the burdens it places upon those living beneath its yoke are also maturing. Unlike every UN Climate Convention since Rio 1992, which were mere “global visioning” seminars, COP21, according to the Anglo-American Cambridge University, has far more grandiose and binding aspirations:
“The United Nations Climate Change Conference, COP21 or CMP11 will be held in Paris, France in 2015. The international climate conference will be held from 30 November to 11 December 2015. The conference objective is to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, from all the nations of the world.”
–Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research on the Environment
In other words, Agenda 21 v2.0 will soon be upon us.
Information on what exactly this “upgrade” entails for Free Humanity is sparse, as the UN remains resolutely vague (perhaps deliberately, given recent notoriety surrounding “sustainable development”) on the specifics of the Convention’s “binding and universal agreement.” Yet in spite of Globalism’s sincere attempt to obfuscate Neofeudal Technocracy’s latest iteration, open-source intelligence can give us a glimpse behind the proverbial curtain at the magic tricks in store at COP21 this December.
All the World’s a (Sustainable) Stage
As the curtain begins to rise on Act 2 of Agenda 21, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the nodes of forensic history which lead to COP21. Perhaps the most integral of these nodes is the research produced by whistleblower and activist, George Washington Hunt, in his party-crashing exploits at the pre-Rio planning committees of the early-90s, attended by such Globalist “luminaries” as Maurice Strong and Edmond de Rothschild; all of whom were caught on tape by Hunt’s daring infiltration:
Even more undercirculated than Hunt’s video presentation are the documents this Conference produced. It is within these Anglophilic pages that the World Order created by Agenda 21 is spelled out with stunning clarity – particularly as it pertains to the “developing” world, China and India chief among them:
China and India’s “conditions” for signing on to the Rio ’92 agenda, as documented by the UN 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?
Was the price paid by India and China their economic autonomy? While it’s certain that the Indian caste system and the “State Capitalist” collectivism of modern China are hardly beacons of “liberal free market” activity, their development includes elements of this therein; in fact, Eastern banking systems grow more “Anglo-Saxon” in ideal and structure by the day, despite the facade of independence being maintained.
This blend of Western structure with Eastern identity in banking strikes one as the potential compromise reached between the “First” and “Second” worlds at UNCED – a final bid to maintain the “Anglo-Saxon system of banking”:
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (or AIIB) is an excellent example of this burgeoning “East-Anglo” banking model. While widely reported by some as signifying the end of the decaying Western banking model, the AIIB’s steadfast devotion to Agenda 21 makes one wonder whether or not the AIIB is a truly autonomous entity, or merely China’s fulfillment of an Asian Development Bank or Development Bank of Latin America-style puppet as called for by Rio ’92:
Jin Liqun, secretary general of the bank’s multilateral interim secretariat, tells Xinhua on the topic of the AIIB. From China Daily and Reuters.
It seems the AIIB plans not only on investing in “green” infrastructure projects, but will do so in partnership with the Globalist World Bank and ADB, both of which were set up by the West following the devastation of World War II. Christine Lagarde and the IMF, too, state that they would be “Delighted” to work with the AIIB. Is this new system of banking and financing what Edmond de Rothschild meant when he referenced a “Second World Marshall Plan” in relation to Agenda 21, as described in Hunt’s recording? Is this why “developing nations should look to Germany and Japan,” countries rebuilt by World Bank funding, for their banking models, as described in the UNCED document?
One must bear in mind that the United Nations Council on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) quoted in the document above is the same group which authored the paper, “A BRICS Development Bank – A Dream Coming True?” in March of 2014, which heralds the rise of the BRICS New Development Bank as a global force for “sustainable development” and an ardent partner in Agenda 21:
The BRICS to put “development on center stage,” as called for in the UNCED documentation
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.
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.
If the “problem” of unsustainable manufacture and development wasn’t clear to China’s human resources before last week, it is now.
“…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 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:
In 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:
The 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:
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 Growth. Nothing short of global colonization by the Anglo-American Establishment, as admitted at UNCED ’92:
To 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
On the inaugural episode of the Stateless Homesteading Podcast, I’m joined by Jake Counts of We Are Not Cattle Radio to discuss the local tentacles of Agenda 21; specifically, how Agenda 21 has made its presence known in our local areas (Michigan and Georgia).
How do “sustainable development” projects worm their way into local government policy, anyways? Where does one look for evidence that Agenda 21 is in their hometown? What can we do to resist the Technocratic Neofeudalism of sustainable development? Is resistance still possible or futile?
All this and more on the Stateless Homesteading Podcast.