“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.”
From The First Global Revolution, 1990 by The Club of Rome
In 2015 representatives of every country in the UN accepted the ideals of a plan for changing the world called: Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development aka Agenda 2030. That was in reality simply the latest iteration of many previous global plans by business and political elites at conferences going back to 1948 with the creation of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). That was the first international organization promoting environmentalism, conservation and what is now called Sustainable Development. Created and run by members of the upper-class business and political elites of the western world.
That has evolved into what we see today with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda, and the many similar conferences of the UN and related elite organizations. Their stated agenda is to remake the world for the better due to climate change, poverty, racism, environmental damage, etc. Another similar organization for the same purposes by the upper class was created in 1968 called the Club of Rome. Their membership was interchangeable with many of the same business and political elites attending their conferences as with other elite conferences like The Bilderberg group, the 1001 Club, the Trilateral Commission, and the WEF at Davos.
The Club of Rome published the first iteration of the now commonly seen save-the-world ideals of most elite conferences and Agenda 2030. Published in 1972, it was called The Limits to Growth. In 1990 the Club of Rome published a book, The First Global Revolution, which lays out what is now repeated regularly by people like Klaus Schwab: That the world and human society is in dire need of repair, and that governments are not up to the task for a variety of reasons. Therefore the upper-class elites and their organizations need to take the lead in saving by remaking the world, for the betterment of the environment and the oppressed. But, because of various issues, they say they need to trick everyone into submission:
There is need to bring many partners into the process — business and industry, research institutions, scientists, NGOs and private organisations — so that the widest available experience and skill is available.
And, of course, an enlightened public support, aware of the new needs and of the possible consequences would be essential. A dynamic world needs an effective nervous system at the grassroots level, not only to ensure the widest range of inputs, but to make possible the identification of all citizens with the common process of governance.
In the present, vacuous situation, lack of identification of people with the processes of society is expressed as indifference, skepticism or outright rejection of governments and political parties, seen as having little control over the problems of our times. These attitudes are indicated by a decreasing rate of participation in elections.
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.
That was written just as the communist bloc fell apart. In that book they said that since communism was ending, spending so much money on the military industrial complex (MIC) could now also end — that the rational response would be to use that money for them. Their stated idea is to over-hype man-made environmental problems in order to create anxiety or fear in people, to make them anxious enough to inspire governments, especially America, to financially support their agenda. They don’t say the environmental problems were totally fake, just that they needed to be over-hyped because people (mainly the American government) had not been inspired enough to give them control over government spending.
To create an agenda based on the expectation that the MIC would accept their loss of profiteering due to the fall of the communist bloc, doesn’t seem realistic today. The MIC and their political supporters in Congress of course would find or create new reasons for maintaining the status quo of money flowing their way — what was to come in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Africa, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, etc. So one thing we should understand is that the people heavily invested in the MIC were not the same people behind the Club of Rome — because the Club of Rome was trying to convince the government to shift the money that had been going to the MIC to finance their agenda.
Who was behind the MIC? The Club of Rome membership was basically the same types of people as the Bilderberg group, the Trilateral commission, and the WEF — politically centrist elites and Intergovernmental organizations private and public, e.g., The U.N. and the Rockefellers and their foundations. Looking at current and past membership we can see that they are all connected to businesses related to sustainable development, green energy, related professions, and industries who are making money in the name of environmentalism and saving the world. Harvard, Princeton, and Georgetown University Prof Carroll Quigley in his history of the politics of the 20th century, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, explained that the biggest investors in the MIC were mainly Barry Goldwater supporters, the big money behind the conservative right wing of the Republican party.
They were mostly nouveau riche entrepreneurs whose foreign policy was focused more on the Pacific Rim nations. They were politically at odds with the “old money” more culturally liberal and more European oriented “Eastern Establishment” wing of the GOP (Rockefeller Republicans). The richest right wing conservatives made their money from oil in Texas and Oklahoma, and also from military supply corporations mostly in the Southwest and West, i.e., they were the MIC. They were politically aligned with Texas oil billionaires like H.L. Hunt and Clint Murchison. Howard Hughes was one of them. He had a feud with the Rockefellers and the Eastern elites whom he blamed for taking his airline, TWA.
But in the last 20 years there has been a consolidation of corporate ownership by investment funds/banks. The biggest current shareholders of the MIC are mostly the big three index funds: Vanguard, State Street, and BlackRock. Studies show that combined they own 25% of all public corporations. There are also an assortment of other funds as top shareholders. But do they take part in managing the corporations they invest in? The index funds when they vote as shareholders, vote with management almost all the time according to studies. Why they do that is because the fund managers want the corporations and their corporate retirement accounts invested with them. How well the corporations are doing doesn’t affect how the index fund executives make their money, having them invest in their funds does.
So, the question of who controls the MIC matters less than who politically supports them. The biggest MIC corporations traditionally have been big financial supporters of Republicans. They now also give money to New Democrats because those politicians have been reliable supporters of the MIC.
Reading through the Agenda 2030 website, one is struck in awe at what they say are “the goals.” They enumerate every single problem you can think of, be it social, political, environmental, financial, medical, etc., that you can possibly find anywhere in the world, with the supposed goal of fixing it all. Or at least putting into high gear the systems to fix them by 2030. If that seems like a pie in the sky fantasy…maybe that is the point.
If what they really want to accomplish is just a few things that they can profit from, rather than all the things they say they want to fix in the world — if those things can be politically supported and financed by rich governments and large NGOs like the UN — then it would be smart to include what they really want alongside every problematic issue in the world that needs solving — instead of just promoting obvious profit-making goals. The supposed great threat of the degradation of the environment due to the forecasted climate change, has led to the acceptance by the public of public financing by governments for the creation of new infrastructure and new industries that can generate huge profits — but only for a select group of owners.
The new “green” industries are not owned by “activists” out on the street demanding the end of fossil fuels, but rather by the richest and most powerful people on the planet. Who maybe realized that the oil and gas industry also gives huge profits and lots of political power to their political and economic rivals. They also see many poor nations sitting on massive stores of oil and gas, either not yet found, or not yet in use. If you believe that there is a finite amount of oil and gas left in the world, and you also only care about your own profits, it makes sense to come up with a way to stop poor countries from looking for and or developing their oil and gas resources. At least until you and yours gain control over them.
Why is it that for many years the richest and most powerful people and organizations in the world have been very vocal and active in promoting themselves as super-dedicated environmentalists and all around do-gooders — yet the actual reality on the ground for the non-rich people of the western world, has been steadily getting worse and worse?
Why the obvious disconnect between their words, and the reality? If they are so very rich and politically influential (as they are) then why hasn’t the world and everyone in it seen an increase instead of a decrease in wealth, health, and security? Could it be, that those very rich and powerful people and organizations, are not as devoted to the betterment of the world as they say they are?
We have to go back a little in time to get a wider view of what has been going on.
Since the start of the corporate economic system over 100 years ago in America, the corporate owners had 3 basic agendas:
- To keep government regulations to a minimum — only promoting or accepting those which are necessary to help them dominate their business sectors.
- To keep wages down and to keep workers from influencing government to regulate business in their favor.
After the Wall St. crash in 1929 which started the Great Depression they developed another basic agenda:
3. Shaping the global economic order to benefit them, i.e., controlling access to raw materials and markets around the world which they saw as the only solution to the worldwide economic depression that started in 1929. Many people believe that President Roosevelt ended the depression with his New Deal policies, or that WWII ended the depression. The truth is that the depression lessened for a few years but then ramped up and was in full force at the start of WWII. The corporate elites believed that the war economy would only temporarily bring relief from the depression. So they devised a plan to fix it.
That plan was called The War and Peace Studies. It began to be devised 11 days after the start of WWII, Sept 12, 1939. It was researched and written by the Council on Foreign Relations with funding by The Rockefeller Foundation:
Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of Foreign Affairs (The official magazine of The Council on Foreign Relations), and Walter H. Mallory, executive director of the CFR, made a trip to the State Department, where they volunteered council resources for a “continuous study of the course of the war and its effects on the United States politically, economically, geographically, and in matters of security and armament.” The conflict, they advised, would involve the United States, and prior preparation was vital, not only militarily, but also in terms of broader foreign policy objectives. The war presented a “grand opportunity” in fact for the United States to emerge as “the premier power in the world.” Assistant Secretary of State George Messersmith, himself a council member, was predictably enthusiastic and gained approval for the plan the same day.
From: American Empire: Roosevelt’s Geographer and the Prelude to Globalization by Neil Smith, pg 325, citing the personal archives of George Messersmith, Assistant Secretary of State: George S. Messersmith Papers, Memorandum of Conversation, September 12, 1939
Previous to WWII various American business elites had invested heavily in German industrialization after the devastation of the German economy after WWI. They also invested heavily in the USSR after the Russian empire was taken over by the communists. From the end of WWI American business elites were fundamental to the phenomenal industrial growth of Germany and the USSR, selling industrial technology, finance, expertise, etc. And after the start of WWII England also became dependent on American elites due to the devastation of their economy from fighting the Germans and the Axis powers.
Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley wrote in his classic Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time about his access to the private archives of the Council on Foreign Relations:
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records.
There have been many books written on the history of American business elites working with the Soviets to build their industry from the very beginning. And many books on the American business elites industrial buildup of Germany after the devastation to Germany from WWI. Most notably by award-winning, New York Times investigative author Edwin Black.
“If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.”
-President Harry Truman a few years before his presidency, 1941
After they had damaged each other to such a great extent during the war it made it easy for American business elites to create and control the entirely new economic system of the non-communist world. That was worked out at the famous meetings at Bretton Woods — which saw the creation of the IMF, World Bank, and the dollar reserve system under the direction of American business elites.
Because of the unique history of America, the upper class business elites were able to gain dominance over the government early on due to no competing power centers. Europe has a different history which led to competing power centers:
- Landed aristocracy/nobility.
- Large religious organizations with a long history of owning lots of property and wielding political power, e.g., Roman Catholic Church, Church of England etc.
- Upper class business elites.
- Strong workers unions.
- Military elites.
In America the business elites never had any competition from a landed nobility or a big church, and the military as a power center didn’t exist until after WWII — and they have no independence unlike countries where military coups have occurred, because in America they are under the total control of government and corporate elites. Therefore, unlike Europe, the upper-class American elites only had one obstacle to easy domination over the government — workers unions. Unions pool the resources of many people to pay for political influence. The upper-class business elites fought against unions from the start of unionization. They eventually mostly crushed the unions by various means legal and illegal e.g., the history of the film industry in America is a history of their paying off the syndicate aka mafia, who controlled the unions for them.
Because union jobs have been outsourced to low wage nations at ever increasing levels, unions in America have much less influence over the government than they used to because membership is far less than in the past, and corruption.
So, upper-class business elites have almost total control of the government in America since their only financially powerful competition for influence was downsized tremendously since the 1970s.
American politicians were pushed into making laws by the upper-class business elites who wanted “Free Trade” to remove international tariffs — which enabled them to move their operations to lower wage nations. That in turn hollowed out the American industrial base which had created a somewhat stable middle class in America since the end of WWII. That began in the 1960s with jobs shipped to Mexico, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia mostly for low cost assembling of electronics that were made in America and elsewhere. That picked up in the 1980s when the CEO of General Electric, Jack Welch, made it the foundation of their business strategy after his takeover of GE. It has continued ever since but sped up near the start of the new millennium with the creation of the World Trade Organization.
That moving of industry to low wage nations didn’t happen as much in Europe because of the strong unions which gives European workers much more influence over their governments than in America.
The above chart shows “Collective-bargaining coverage” percentage in the EU in 2019. America would be 3rd from the bottom with 12% of American workers, private + public, able to use collective bargaining to negotiate. But union membership has fallen sharply in Europe recently. Why? Non-union illegal immigrants willing to accept low wages with no bargaining power?
How to fix the “problem” of unions for the upper-class investors who want to wring as much profit out of their investments as possible? One method is obvious and has probably been the cause of the new less unionization and lower wages — the demand by EU leaders for EU states to accept mass illegal immigration from low-wage nations. This looks like a plan to lower wages all around by pressure from desperate illegal migrant workers who will work for far less than non-migrants.
But that is still problematic for the investor elites for a few reasons:
1) Those new workers will tolerate low wages for only so long, they will want higher wages due to the high cost of living in Europe, and you can’t keep importing new desperate migrants forever.
2) Crime will always increase in proportion to increasing poverty + increasing lack of social mobility in a liberal society due to lowering wages. A higher percentage of people resorting to crime to advance their economic and social situation is the result of increasing the poor population instead of decreasing.
3) One way they came up with to combat the expected ever-increasing crime problem is with mandatory digital ID + mandatory digital money, where all legal transactions are monitored and controlled by artificial intelligence. Both of which are already occurring in the EU to some degree, e.g., in France you are limited in the amount of paper money you are allowed to spend in a legal transaction to €1,000 for French residents. Also, The EU and The UN have drawn up plans for a future mass acceptance of a digital ID, while claiming it will only be for eligible people and also comes with all sorts of benefits, as part of — the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda! That may be an open and honest agenda, but it also looks like it may be a psychological ploy to prime bureaucrats and politicians for a willing acceptance of digital ID as eventually mandatory, e.g., to use the internet, to use public transportation, to get medical aid, to get financial aid, to rent property and hotel rooms, etc. Why would that be promoted by a supposedly freedom loving liberal “open society” that the investor class claims they want to implement for the benefit of us all — but especially for the systemically oppressed?
Commonly it is claimed that digital money and digital ID will help to combat money laundering and fraud. But, it’s really about combatting all crime — which is expected to rise sharply in the coming years and is feared as a constant threat by many in the upper class. Obviously, the more wealth you appear to have the more likelihood of being targeted by criminals. Not only by vicious street gangs and desperate people stealing, robbing, raping, killing, and kidnapping, but also by much more sophisticated gang activity like cyber crime and fraud of all types on a large scale, e.g., financial crimes can cost corporations and rich people billions of dollars a year. Which can then be used for extortion and a variety of other types of highly profitable crimes, by organized crime groups from around the world, who have recently increased operations in Europe. Crime has become an increasingly bigger problem in Europe, Latin America, North America, Africa, and Asia. As wages go down and poor migrants continue to move into the EU in droves, they expect increasingly more people getting involved with crimes and gangs. All of which they say can be effectively fought with mandatory digital ID and digital money.
“Organized crime is a top concern,” said INTERPOL President Ahmed Naser al-Raisi in the conference’s opening ceremony. “These transnational crimes not only threaten the safety and security of the region, but also have a spillover effect on the rest of the world. Over the last five years, [drug] trafficking and consumption have increased by an order of magnitude, with Europe one of the main transit and destination markets,” said INTERPOL Secretary General Jürgen Stock. We continue to see record seizures at European borders and ports, and a corresponding rise in violent crime, corruption and money laundering of unprecedented scale,” added Secretary General Stock. The global scale of many organized crime networks, often spanning multiple continents, has underlined that international cooperation through INTERPOL is often the only means for police in Europe and other regions to bring fugitives to justice or gather crucial intelligence.
From INTERPOL’s 50th European Regional Conference, May 2023
Mandatory digital ID and digital money is also not wanted by many in the elite class for a variety of reasons. Elon Musk has said he sees a danger of too much cooperation between governments, implying it was dangerous to put the world under the control of a single power structure — because what if that power structure is taken over and controlled by exploitative or agenda driven people? There would be nowhere you can move so as not to be under the control of bad or stupid people. Zbigniew Brzezinski, co-founder of the Trilateral Commission and an advisor to Obama, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter, also believed world government was a bad idea after his earlier support. If you have a worldwide enforcement system, making everything in the world dependent on a single point of political control, that makes it possible to take over the entire world and use that control for nefarious purposes.
Another reason many elites don’t want a more intrusive monetary and ID system is — because they are also engaged in various crimes. Offshore banking is fairly common among the upper class to avoid taxes and scrutiny, and of course a wide variety of financial crime is always ongoing, sometimes caught, most times not. More surveillance would be very problematic for the entire financial sector and elites as well. Security services from around the world are also known to have worked with organized crime for a variety of reasons, e.g., illegal or off-the-books operations. For example, when American mobsters and leaders of The Syndicate like Sam Giancana, Santo Trafficante, Meyer Lansky, and Johnny Roselli were involved with Cuba operations at the request of American security services. Not just in America, security services from around the world have worked with organized crime to raise funds for operations that would not get legislative or command approval. Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr. made a movie about one of those operations, Air America.
Therefore, what is the best solution to the question of: How to rake in as much profit as possible for upper-class investors — without making the EU a worse place to live by mass surveillance and a massive increase of crime?
Answer: Remove the need for importing masses of low-wage workers by moving high-wage industry from Europe to lower-wage nations. Including to America, where unionization in the private sector is anemic, and there has been an increasing percentage of workers (illegal migrants) willing to accept lower wages. This looks to have been planned by not just allowing but also incentivizing illegal migration in the last few years. Fact: Many American political and NGO leaders are trying to follow the plan seen in the UK and the EU where illegal migrants are treated far better than the local homeless and unemployed, and also treated better than legal migrants. Free hotel rooms, free food, money, free tech, free job sourcing, free schooling and skill training, etc., to varying degrees, is being offered to migrants who entered the EU and America illegally. This is not offered to legal migrants probably because they are not seen as desperate enough to accept low wage jobs in perpetuity.
Political leaders are giving illegal migrants all of those gifts in what looks like a message to the world: illegal migration is wanted and if you come you will be taken care of. In America this is accepted by almost all Democrats, among Republicans it’s secretly supported by most politicians and bureaucrats. The UK and EU see a similar split, with some countries like Poland and Hungary refusing to allow illegal migrants, and Italy and Greece trying to stop it. Most of the European politicians and bureaucrats though appear to be onboard with the plan, just like most American politicians and bureaucrats.
The upper-class investor elites are confronted by a more politically influential working class in Europe, than in America, where mass offshoring and outsourcing started years ago. So, their problem is: How to get away with moving high-wage jobs in Europe to low-wage countries to avoid all the crime problems caused by illegal mass migration, when confronted by opposition from European unions and the working class to offshoring?
One theory is:
Make people believe that there is an energy crisis which leaves them no choice but to move their factories to lower wage nations.
How do you create an energy crisis that is so bad that they are able to get away with that?
1. Create the idea in people’s minds that the climate crisis is so dire that the end of the world is nigh — unless we stop using fossil fuels immediately.
2. Create the idea in people’s heads that nuclear power is also very unsafe.
3. Convince the people that “green energy” can easily take the place of fossil fuels and nuclear power.
4. Create in people’s minds the idea that it is very politically-incorrect to keep importing your only source of cheap fossil fuels — that coincidentally is needed for European industry to be economically competitive on the world market.
5. European industry then has no choice but to leave Europe because they can no longer be profitable because green energy is not ready to replace fossil fuels — and reverting to fossil fuels of course is non-negotiable because they are going to destroy the world any day now. Look at all the kids gluing themselves to roads, paintings, etc., with the museums and police letting them. Fear of climate change is being pushed by power at the highest levels.
6. Which just so happens to align with the business elites in America who have outsourced and moved industry to low wage nations like mad.
And look at this — The chart below is from 2022. AUM means Assets Under Management. The biggest investor in Europe is an American firm, which is also the biggest political player in the EU, it holds $1.44 trillion worth of European corporations, banks, and real estate. Another American firm is the 3rd biggest investor in Europe managing $1.04 trillion at the current Euro to US Dollar exchange rate: