|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
by Jesse Smith
As detailed in Part 2 of “Technocracy Ascending,” David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and the Trilateral Commission achieved a great deal in moving the world toward a new international economic order and global governance (i.e., a new world order). Brzezinski understood the decline of nation states was a necessity for advancing a global order where the private banking cabal and transnational corporations assumed political dominance. In his book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, Brzezinski stated that:
The nation state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Technocracy Inc. was one of the early movements campaigning for centralized control at the expense of democracy. Though their initial aim was to transform the North American continent into a scientific dictatorship, the Rockefeller clan pushed these ideas globally. Working through their vast, interwoven network of corporate, academic, political, and philanthropic institutions, they advanced the globalist mindset with the United Nations (UN), often energizing the ideas and formulating the strategies. More on the UN’s role will be discussed later.
Source: Green Briar Picture Shows
While their agenda grew popular with elites of all stripes, they needed a way to sell the scheme to the masses and accelerate the groundswell for sweeping worldwide changes. Like the original technocrats, they sought a bloodless revolution and used fear and chicanery to usurp power.
Technocracy Inc. used the stock market crash of 1929 and resulting Great Depression to recruit those fearing total economic collapse into their camp.
Technocracy… is being hailed as a solution to an economic condition which now threatens to disrupt our economic civilization… figures indicate that unless a vast change is made in the political and economic system of this country, we may soon face a collapse of our present social structure, the downfall of currency, and utter chaos.”
– The Technocrats’ Magazine, 1933
Decades later, the Rockefeller cabal turned to environmentalism and the threat of planetary destruction to enlist zealots fearing complete societal collapse. In the 1969 Rockefeller Foundation report, they boldly announced their claim, stating that:
Man is now degrading his environment at a terrifying rate. The cumulative effects of advancing technology, massive industrialization, urban concentration, and population growth have all combined …not only to create imminent danger to the quality of human Iife, but even to pose threats to life itself.” p.5
Coopting a Grassroots Movement
Source: Adobe Stock
The Rockefeller coterie conspired to reshape the world and gain greater control of its wealth, resources, and people under the guise of saving the planet. Their challenge involved getting the populace to support the destruction of free market capitalism, nationalism, and democratic principles without noticing the end goal: the establishment of a global dictatorship ruled by public-private partnerships (PPP). The method of choice to undo the global order was none other than environmentalism.
Their brand of environmentalism differed greatly from the grassroots movement spawned by indigenous and disenfranchised peoples that campaigned against the poisoning of air, water, and land. With good intentions, these activists stood against nuclear fallout, harmful pesticides, pollution, and destruction of natural habitats perpetrated by megacorporations in the energy, transportation, defense, and manufacturing industries.
To crush the grassroots effort directed against industry titans (which accelerated after the 1970 Earth Day event in the U.S.), Rockefeller-influenced environmentalists stealthily shifted the blame for catastrophic ecological damage onto each individual. They first sounded the alarm that an ice age was soon to overtake the earth. Later, they claimed that modern conveniences like vehicle ownership and cheap energy powered by so-called fossil fuels contributed to dangerous increases in the earth’s temperature. Over the past fifty years, they have cleverly induced both individual and collective guilt, leading to attempts to dial back gains achieved through industrialization and technological advancement.
Source: Boston Globe, April 16, 1970
Rockefeller-captured institutions and governments agreed on a plan to march the world toward technocracy by undoing the “man-made” evils triggering global warming through a novel concept called Sustainable Development. The sustainability initiative was born in conspiracy and continues through an endless series of research, conferences, books, speeches, reports, propaganda, agreements, treaties, legislation, and collusion within the public-private sphere.
While it is true that the literal term of “Sustainable Development” was not coined by the original Technocrats, most would be jealous that someone else beat them to it. The fact of the matter is that Sustainable Development is conceptually identical to Technocracy’s “balanced load.”
In short, the heartbeat of Technocracy is Sustainable Development. It calls for an engineered society where the needs of mankind are in perfect balance with the resources of nature.”
– Wood, Patrick. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, Convergent Publishing. Kindle Edition, (pp. 80-82).
M. King Hubbert was an original member of Technocracy Inc. and a major contributor for the Technocracy Study Course discussed in part 2. Hubbert believed in peak oil theory that earth’s resources and energy were finite and if exhausted or destroyed, man would cease to exist.
Growth, growth, growth — that’s all we’ve known… World automobile production is doubling every 10 years; human population growth is like nothing that has happened in all of geologic history. The world will only tolerate so many doublings of anything — whether it’s power plants or grasshoppers.”
— M. King Hubbert, 1975
Marion King Hubbert, Source: Postcarbon, Fair use
His theories would later lead to demands to transition the world to a new “green” economy based on sustainability principles.
Engineering a New Green Economy
Whether acknowledged or not, the counterfeit green movement adopted Hubbert’s ideas and called for a restructuring of the global economy, altering the function of industries and individual corporations to fit this new economic paradigm. Seemingly out of nowhere, as Brzezinski noted, the Rockefeller-financed shift to a “green economy” was sold to environmental organizations like Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and society as a whole under the guise of saving the planet, preserving wildlife, and creating a more just world. However, when the altruistic façade is removed, it amounts to a technocratic takeover facilitated through a gargantuan civil society network operating within local, state, and national governments to upend democratic pillars.
The green scheme was designed to strip away individual freedom, wealth, property, and resources. In short, the purpose of climate agenda policies was to shift the world to “a more controlled and directed society” as Brzezinski noted in Between Two Ages. In Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, Patrick Wood later explained that the sustainable development agenda “is not about the environment but rather about economic development.”
Wood’s point can be seen in Principle 8 of the 1992 Rio Declaration at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), where it indicated:
To achieve sustainable development and a higher quality of life for all people, States should reduce and eliminate unsustainable patterns of production and consumption and promote appropriate demographic policies.”
Source: “Towards a Green Economy,” UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011
By 2009, calls for a green economy rooted in technocratic concepts began to permeate the universal political landscape. In 2011, the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) pushed the concept further, stating:
In its simplest expression, a green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive. In a green economy, growth in income and employment are driven by public and private investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution, enhance energy and resource efficiency, and prevent the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services.”
– “Towards a Green Economy,” UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), 2011, p. 16
Technocrats relish efficiency often at the expense of human freedom, dignity, and prosperity. Despite the fluffy UN jargon, the green economy is designed to punish wealthy nations by deliberately lowering living standards. Theoretically, the shift would help poorer nations advance economically. However, those in impoverished nations rarely benefit as wealth has continued to shift upward, benefitting the top one percent. As of 2024, Investopedia noted that “there are 2,781 billionaires in the world with a cumulative wealth valued at $14.2 trillion.”
The green economy has nothing to do with the environment, it is simply a wealth redistribution scheme where the poor and middle classes in all nations are fleeced by multinational corporations and private banks. This fact has even been acknowledged by a former working group co-chair of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), who stated:
First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy…. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole” (emphasis added).
– Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair, UN IPCC, 2010
Financing and Controlling the Global Technocratic Shift
The Rockefeller foray into environmentalism was a multi-pronged attack aimed at subverting the goals of environmentalists wanting to protect the planet from being dumping grounds for disease-causing toxic waste. Largely unbeknownst by the public, they poured millions of dollars into research, opinion and policy shaping, and education. From this flurry of activity, a new ideology was born proclaiming that mankind itself, through mere existence, was responsible for planetary degradation—not greedy, irresponsible, and corrupt corporations.
In addition to previously noted organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Bilderberg Group, Rockefeller family members created and/or funded The World Bank, United Nations, Aspen Institute, International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), UN IPCC, and the Club of Rome.
Each of these deeply interrelated organizations plays a key role in pushing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), the theory that human activity in industry and agriculture causes the earth’s temperature to rise due to increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane.
This ideology was further cemented into the minds of men in The First Global Revolution: A Report by the Council of the Club of Rome published in 1991. Under the heading “The Common Enemy of Humanity is Man,” it states:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself” (p. 115, emphasis added).
Through their philanthropic and venture capital arms including the Rockefeller Foundation (1913), Rockefeller Brothers Fund (1940), Rockefeller Family Fund (1968), and Rockefeller Philanthropic Advisors Inc. (1991) they contributed (at least) hundreds of millions to dozens of environmental organizations. Some of the most prominent included the Tides Foundation, World Resources Institute, Worldwatch Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, National Resources Defense Council, Alliance for Climate Protection, Environmental Defense Fund, National Resource Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists.
Through a 1974 Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) grant leading to the creation of the Worldwatch Institute (whose mission was to accelerate the transition to a sustainable world), the Rockefellers extended their goals “beyond traditional stewardship and conservation to predicting and ameliorating environmental crises.” This was largely accomplished through the publication of Worldwatch’s State of the World doomsday reports issued from 1984 to 2017, where they attempted to identify the world’s most pressing environmental challenges.
Through their Quality of the Environment program also launched in 1974, the Rockefellers helped pioneer climate research at U.S. universities such as the University of Michigan, University of California at Davis, Pennsylvania State University, and Utah State University. They also played a key role in convening early climate conferences. Through foundation Fellowships in Environmental Affairs, they supported researchers who were instrumental in forging the alleged scientific consensus on man-made global warming. Those who opposed the theory often had their careers and lives destroyed by deliberate sidelining, censorship, and cancellation of grants and other funding.
The technocratic climate agenda steadily advanced through these NGOs operating in clandestine unison, but it took another Rockefeller minion to propel the faux climate crisis to the forefront as the most pertinent issue facing the world. His name was Maurice Strong.
Maurice Strong, The Green Apostle
I knew that what was said to be driven from the bottom up, from the grassroots, was actually being driven from the top down. I had come to this conclusion by following the interconnections among the NGOs active on the Agenda. Many of the NGOs shaping this environment debate were connected, like pearls on a thread. A central figure in all of these organizations was Maurice Strong, the secretary general of the Rio Summit.’”
– Dewar, Elaine, Cloak of Green, James Lorimer & Company, 1995, p. 251
High school dropout Maurice Strong was born into a poor family in Manitoba, Canada in 1929. At age 18, he met UN treasurer Noah Monod and stayed with him for a brief time in New York City. Monod helped Strong get a job at the UN as a junior officer in the Security Section. During his time in New York, Monod also introduced him to David Rockefeller and Strong soon became a protégé. By his late 20s, he became a multi-millionaire from employment in the oil industry and went on to have one of the most extraordinary business and political careers of all time.
Maurice Strong at the High Level Dialogue on Global Sustainability. Source: Sergio Greif, Stockholm Environmental Institute, Flickr
Strong was a Rockefeller (and Rothschild) made man through and through. In addition to his connection to David, Strong also forged close relationships with his brother Laurance and Steven Rockefeller, grandson of former U.S. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller.
Laurance, the third son of John D. Rockefeller Jr., is most remembered as a devout conservationist. He served as a longtime trustee, president, and chairman of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF). He was also a member of the CFR, Trilaterals, and Bilderbergs, which Strong was also connected to. Laurance was a founding member and trustee of The Conservation Foundation established in 1947. In 1985 the organization became affiliated with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) started by transhumanist and eugenicist Julian Huxley, and fully merged with it in 1990. Strong, a lifetime affiliate, served as the WWF’s Vice President in 1977, serving under Prince Philip, who once said that if he were reincarnated, he wished “to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
The Rio meeting was organized by the UN, with Maurice Strong as his Secretary General. It was attended by 172 countries, including 108 Heads of State and Government, as well as 400 representatives of non-governmental organizations. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Strong came to know Steven Rockefeller as a member of the Earth Charter initiative, which Strong created as part of the Earth Council during his stint as Secretary General of the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Highlighting Strong’s work in advancing the global environmental agenda, Steven wrote:
In the mid-1980s, he became a member of the World Commission on Environment and Development. The Commission’s report, Our Common Future, put the concept of sustainable development on the international agenda, and it included a recommendation that a new universal declaration or charter be drafted with the ethical imperatives and basic principles to guide a worldwide transition to a sustainable future…” (emphasis added).
Former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev, a staunch globalist and founder of The Gorbachev Foundation and Green Cross International, was an instrumental partner in drafting the charter. It was launched in 2000 with the support of hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals. The document served as the building blocks for constructing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) adopted in 2015 as part of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
Furthering his partnerships with shadowy banking elites, Strong collaborated with Edmund de Rothschild in creating the World Conservation Bank, which later became the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Since its inception in 1991, the GEF has “provided more than $26 billion in financing and mobilized $149 billion for country-driven priority projects relating to climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution.”
Strong also has deep connections to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF), serving a long tenure as its co-chairman. Schwab, himself a protégé of both David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger, also credited Strong as a major influence, writing:
He was my mentor since the creation of the Forum: a great friend; an indispensable advisor; and, for many years, a member of our Foundation Board. Without him, the Forum would not have achieved its present significance.”
As founder and current co-chairman of the WEF, Schwab is recognized as the architect of globalist ideas like Stakeholder Capitalism, the Great Reset, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In 2019, the WEF launched a strategic partnership with the UN to accelerate adoption and funding for Agenda 2030 which spawned from Strong’s leadership as a member of the Brundtland Commission, head of the 1992 Rio climate conference, and role in creating Agenda 21, its precursor.
UN and WEF Sign MOU on Strategic Partnership Framework for 2030 Agenda. Source: UN Photo/Manuel Elías
Strong was the key figure spearheading the international environmental movement from the early 1970s until his passing in 2015. As the preeminent mouthpiece of global green technocrats, he advocated for the collapse of nation states, lowering the living standards of rich countries, and Malthusian-influenced population reduction to “save the planet.”
In the 1992 essay “Stockholm to Rio: A Journey Down a Generation,” published by the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), Strong suggested that nations would have to surrender sovereignty to global dictates, saying:
The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security” (emphasis added).
Two years earlier, Strong gave an interview where he described a “fiction book” he desired to write, asking:
Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Interview in West Magazine, 1990
He reiterated the need for international degrowth in a September 1, 1997 edition of National Review magazine, proclaiming:
If we don’t change, our species will not survive… Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”
While serving as Secretary General of the Earth Summit, he commented that:
…current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and workplace air-conditioning, and suburban housing, are not sustainable.”
Regarding population control, Strong is credited with saying:
Either we reduce the world’s population voluntarily or nature will do this for us, but brutally.”
He was able to spread his green gospel while holding key positions in a laundry list of organizations including the Aspen Institute, Rockefeller Foundation, Rothschild Foundation, International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), UNEP, IUCN, World Future Society, Lindisfarne Association, Temple of Understanding (Lucis Trust), and many more.
By now it should be obvious that Strong was a part of a powerful machine advancing an agenda that has deeply affected billions of people. His relations with globalist organizations like UN, WWF, and Club of Rome solidify his place atop the throne of those pushing the global environmental scheme.
The Club of Rome and the “World Problematique”
“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
– The Club of Rome, 1974
Strong was also an influential figure within the Club of Rome, the organization owing its existence to co-founders Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King in 1968, along with funding from the Rockefellers. The Club brought together an assembly of bureaucrats, scientists, and business leaders with Rockefeller, Rothschild, and Soros connections.
Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King, Source: Wikimedia Commons
In the early days, members discussed their plans at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. Peccei, King, and Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau would later co-establish the Canadian Association for the Club of Rome (CACOR) in the early 1970’s followed by associations in many countries worldwide including the U.S.
The Club of Rome posited that societal collapse was imminent due to “a cluster of intertwined global problems, be they economic, environmental, political or social,” defining them as the “World Problematique.” Their proposed solutions to man’s role in destroying the environment was dubbed the “World Resolutique.” Many of their recommendations derived from MIT computer models (prone to human error and bias) as discussed in The Limits to Growth report of 1972 and 1977’s Goals for Mankind.
Interdependence, population reduction, and a new global economic system were common themes in Club reports and publications. They would reappear in myriad publications, speeches, papers, articles, books, and meeting agendas. Consider the following excerpts from both the first and second reports to the Club as common examples (emphasis added throughout):
If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
Without such a goal and a commitment to it, short-term concerns will generate the exponential growth that drives the world system toward the limits of the earth and ultimate collapse. With that goal and that commitment, mankind would be ready now to begin a controlled, orderly transition from growth to global equilibrium.”
– The Limits to Growth, The First Report to the Club of Rome, Universe Books, 1972, pp. 23, 184.
The transition from the present undifferentiated and unbalanced world growth to organic growth will lead to the creation of a new mankind.
Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system. Ten or 20 years from today it will probably be too late…
A world consciousness must be developed through which every individual realizes his role as a member of the world community… It must become part of the consciousness of every individual that “the basic unit of human cooperation and hence survival is moving from the national to the global level.”
– Mankind at the Turning Point, The Second Report to the Club of Rome, Signet Books, 1974. pp. 9, 69, 154.
In 1995, the UNEP echoed these ideas in its Global Biodiversity Assessment, writing:
The problems associated with population growth and distribution and loss of biodiversity are reaching critical proportions in many parts of the world… population increases are likely to lead to higher deforestation, degradation of land and loss of biodiversity… A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2-3 billion would be possible” (p. 773, emphasis added).
The Club of Rome has continued to produce doomsday literature promoting global governance and a new economic structure throughout their history. A small sampling of their many publications includes:
- Beyond The Limits to Growth (1989)
- Globalization and Culture (2000)
- Humanity At the Crossroads (2001)
- World Economic and Environmental Order (2001)
- Globalization, Governance and Sustainable Development (2002)
- A New World Order Without Ideologies (2003)
- Sustainable Development and Governance (2004)
- Globalization And Civil Society (2005)
- Rethinking Civilization (2006)
- Towards A Global Ethic (2006)
In 2017, Dennis Meadows, co-author of the Limits to Growth report, argued that most of the world’s population must be wiped out if the rest were to maintain a high standard of living, saying:
If we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart … and [people have] a low standard of living… But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven, so we have to get back down.”
The Club’s methodical work over the decades has led to many of the policies and technologies now being thrust upon society presumably “for the common good.”
Agenda 21 + Agenda 2030 = Global Technocracy
The applied doctrines of Agenda 21, Sustainable Development and the energy Smart Grid that have resulted from Trilateral interactions testify to their ideological grounding in historic Technocracy.”
– Wood, Patrick. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation, 2014. Convergent Publishing. Kindle Edition, (p. 44).
Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level” (emphasis added, Source).
The plan put in place by men like Maurice Strong and organizations like the UN and Club of Rome to completely restructure the world is unprecedented in scope. Similar plans originating with Technocracy Inc. in the 1930s were often criticized and rejected. However, the Rockefeller-influenced ideologies of man-made climate change, global governance, and a new international economic structure won over many who might have resisted these ideas in the past. If all their plans are successfully implemented, individual rights and national sovereignty will be annihilated.
Since its inception, many have tried to describe Agenda 21, but the best definition comes from the late Rosa Koire, author of Behind the Green Mask. Koire’s book is a must read for a detailed understanding of how Agenda 21 is implemented in local communities. While peering behind the green mask, she defined the agenda as follows:
UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is the action plan implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world. INVENTORY AND CONTROL.”
In less than fifty words, Koire perfectly penned the nightmare that is Agenda 21. Despite the noble pretense, it’s simply an all-encompassing plan to control every aspect of human life and nature from cradle to the grave. It is the global extension of the “scientific control of all social functions” as described by early technocrats. To many, what’s transpiring on the world stage resembles fascism – to others communism – and to some, socialism. But the ring that rules them all is technocracy.
Agenda 2030 is the overarching plan to implement what began in Agenda 21. Its goal is to have all mechanisms of societal transformation and control in place by the year 2030. It is the ultimate bait and switch designed to dupe humans into voluntarily giving up their rights to save the planet from climate-related disasters, though predictions of doom never materialize. Sustainable Development ideologues have created a de-facto religion surmising that the earth is dying, natural resources will soon become extinct, and there are way too many people living. These factors have increased CO2 in the atmosphere from all the breathing, farting, and farming causing the earth’s climate to be out of whack, spelling doom for us all. See how this all works now?
Now that the green mask has been completely removed, the “worldwide inventory and control” plan Koire mentioned should be evident. It is you and I that need to be reined in to save the planet. We are the CO2 emitters that need to be controlled and, if possible, eliminated! As I’ve stated previously:
Today’s climate crusade is not a grassroots, bottom-up movement. It’s a top-down initiative seeking to redistribute wealth upwards and privatize all biodiversity and natural resources. Its real goal is captured in the infamous phrase, ‘You will own nothing and be happy.’
The good news is that many are now seeing through the mask of the environmental movement and are aggressively resisting. However, today’s technocrats have stepped up their efforts to seize control and are actively embedding themselves in every facet of society, including government.
Part 4 will explore this developing phenomenon where populism and technocracy have seemingly merged with the current Trump administration.
