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, 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:
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:
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:
One 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:
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:
The 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.
“…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:
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:
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:
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:
Tianjin 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 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