economy

Strive For Simplicity, Economise on Energy (5)

Infrakshun / pixabay.com

‘In order to make gold, you need to have gold.’

— Medieval alchemist


Reading time: 20 mins

Energy Matrix

Eastern philosophy and medicine has been well in advance of the West when it comes to recognising the energy of the body and mind. For thousands of years Chinese, Tibetan, Japanese and Indian practitioners had knowledge of the channels or meridians which carried two kinds of force, yin and yang, which flow along a network of energy pathways which map the entire body.

It is now accepted that our bodies are electromagnetic in nature with these energy pathways acting as electricity conductors, a fact of which acupuncturists take full advantage in order to regulate and “unblock” certain imbalances in the energy field. Knowledge of the energy network of meridians forms the diagnostic methodology behind Shiatsu/Acupressure, Qigong, Tai Chi and Yoga. Indeed, science seems to be catching up with what the ancients have already known for thousands of years.

As no anatomical foundation was perceived to exist for the meridian network in our current Darwinian-saturated science establishment the concept had been discarded and ignored as the Newtonian/Cartesian mindset held sway. However, a flurry of new experiments emerged in 2013 which produced a new anatomical foundation called the ‘Primo Vascular System’. Researchers at the Seoul National University in South Korea describe the PVS as “… a previously unknown system that integrates the features of the cardiovascular, nervous, immune, and hormonal systems. It also provides a physical substrate for the acupuncture points and meridians.” They propose “…a new vision of the anatomical basis for the PVS and the vital energy—called “Qi”—as an electromagnetic wave that is involved very closely with the DNA in the PVS.”

What is most fascinating is the duplication of the PVS by the vascular and the nervous systems during the very early stage of body development. Consequently: “… the PVS combines the features of the vascular, nervous, immune, and hormonal systems. The PVS in all its aspects is understood as a system that covers the entire body, and regulates and coordinates all biological life processes.” [1]

This was followed in 2016 with discoveries on the microstructure of the PVS via the use of a patented microscopy system by Professor Vitaly Vodyanoy of Auburn University in Alabama. He revealed for the first time “the microstructure of the miniscule, translucent system of vessels, subvessels and stem cell-filled nodes—together making up the primo-vascular system…” which appears in and on blood vessels, organ tissue and the lymphatic system. As for less complex biological of rats, it too features in the human system. [2]

Instead of a simplistic version of meridians lying on the surface of the skin, classical Chinese texts have always indicated the three-dimensional nature of energy pathways which carry liquid Chi to the internal organs. This liquid is made of stem-cells packed with DNA. And we know the enormous healing and regeneration properties of stem-cells and the mysterious nature of DNA as one factor in the interface of consciousness with knowledge and reality.

Now, keep in mind the importance of liquid in our bodies and its role in carrying protective and nourishing information.

(more…)

Advertisements

Strive For Simplicity, Economise on Energy (4)

© Creator76 | Dreamstime.com

“A man builds a fine house; and now he has a master, and a task for life: he is to furnish, watch, show it, and keep it in repair, the rest of his days.”

— Ralph Waldo Emerson


Reading time: 15-18 mins

Energy Conservation

To conserve our energy in the way we think, feel and act we need to know how they might all relate in simple terms. So, let’s simplify it.

Think of energy efficiency (upgrades) and energy conservation (energy use) leading to the correct economy for your life. The home can be thought of as a metaphor or symbol of your mind and body. (If you like, this is an extension of Jordan Peterson’s thinking of tidying up your room).

Energy conservation involves using less energy by changing your behaviours and habits. Energy efficiency, on the other hand, involves using techniques, traditional systems of knowledge and new technologies that requires less energy to perform the same function.

Energy efficiency = all those qualities and techniques you can find to maximize your potential and minimize chaos. Accumulate energy for creativity and minimize loss from internal and external entropy.

Energy Conservation = simplifying your life through judicious, careful attention and limiting unnecessary drains on energy. employing measures which ensure you are not only efficient but have a constant supply on tap. Conservation sometimes means getting very creative. The more you conserve, the more likely that can be!

In other words, to be energy efficient means looking at ways your personality system can be upgraded so that less energy is needed to perform certain functions and which provides qualitatively better results. This can be “costly” in the short-term but requires much less effort in the long-term. This includes insulation, replacements, careful monitoring and upgrades.

Energy conservation involves actively seeking new ways to on your internal efficiency. You change your relationship to energy within your home. You seek ways to receive energy for minimum loss and a minimum amount of effort. It is strategic, long-term and eminently practical. It requires a re-calibration of existing appliances (organs of perception; centres) in order to extract a maximum amount of energy. The energy that you have is used wisely.

In other words, it means a change in overall behaviour through commitment and a creative application of knowledge.

How might we use our energy more efficiently?

Insulate, upgrade and monitor.

Insulate your mind and body from that which would drain but remain porous enough to let constructive influences through. And if you have good quality insulation then you have more energy to produce warmth and proper flow of electricity and therefore creative potential. (It might be stretching this metaphor to its limit but it’s no coincidence that key brain areas found to have more nerve fibre insulation or “myelination” equates to advantageous personality traits!)

(more…)

Dark Green XV: Goldman Sachs & Carbon Tax

By M.K. Styllinski

“Goldman Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to become a bank holding company under its ’emergency situation,’ has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18 billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion, went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings and often their homes.”

– Chris Hedges, journalist and author; extract from his statement during Goldman Sacs protest


Despite the lack of empirical data this hasn’t prevented a massive campaign in favour of reducing our carbon footprint by fusing it with Sustainable Development visions and the promise of a Global Carbon Tax. The latter bonanza has had all the usual suspects rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of yet another opportunity to fleece the global population of what little cash they have left from the last crisis. And here’s where it becomes easy to see something else is very wrong with the anthropocentric (human-influenced) global warming picture.

Lloyd_Blankfein_CEO_Goldman_Sachs

Lloyd Blankfein CEO Goldman Sachs

Why is it that major electric power utility corporations (the largest consumers of fossil fuels) and some of the biggest names in agribusiness and chemicals have suddenly jumped aboard the climate change train? A change of heart? Well there’s a green light flashing but it isn’t for an ecological conscience.

There is much in the global warming agenda that supports their cause, which is making vast amounts of money through normalised exploitation. This may be why power companies, investment banks and various hedge funds are all salivating at the prospect of Emissions Trading commonly known as “Cap and Trade”, which is central to reducing levels of carbon dioxide. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the new speculative profits to be made in carbon futures, is producing another means to exploit a system where any costs incurred for multi-nationals and utility companies are sure to be passed on to the consumer, as they always are.

If things go according to plan, coal fired power stations, gas distributor utilities and others industries will be subject to limits on the amount of CO2 emissions they can produce annually. When some companies arrive at their carbon-polluting limit then “allocations” or credits can be bought from other companies which have got gold stars for producing less emissions. The neat little twist in this eco-SMART dream is that it  exists only if the government imposes a cap which creates an artificial scarcity on the right to produce energy. Brokers or an electronic trading platform will provide sales for offsets under such a system which is exactly what has been happening in Europe, since 2005 through the Climate Exchange (ECX). What if the allowed credits exceed the corresponding tonnage of emissions, which is the case in almost every country in Europe?

Then we have yet another system that not only mandates cheating, but celebrates it.

Carbon offsets provide even more opportunities. Recycling aluminium cans? Claim your credits. Planting trees? Roll on up. Despite both these activities giving no net emission reductions, the latter being long-term at best, no regulations are in place to ensure compliance because it is a eco-ponzi scheme created to make money not to protect the environment. Many people on both sides of the political and environmental divide agree. What is really driving this new market are the billions of dollars on offer for the same protagonists of financial warfare that stimulated the economic meltdown of October 2008 and beyond. These same criminals are supporting a Global Carbon Tax and Emissions Trading as another source to exploit. Estimates of $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned over the next several years, perhaps even three times that amount. [1]

Just as surely as every other bubble in the last eighty years, this new eco-commodities market can only follow the same framework of exploitation as demand rises and carbon auctions become the new source of Elite cash. As the “cap” is lowered by the government, carbon credits will become scarcer and thus more valuable as every year passes. Further, it is a fail-safe framework mandated by the Sate that will be worth almost a $trillion, all under the mantle of saving the planet – what a coup!

While the Western nations are being targeted first, Asia has some of the worst pollution in the world which is why Australasia has come under the Carbon Tax boot with a vengeance. The background is instructive since the Australian experience follows the same formula occurring in the West and indicates that it was  being used as a testing ground for a future global roll out. Some key players are pushing the Australian carbon tax and who were/are employed by the very banks that will profit from the system. How interesting then, that Dr Megan Clark, the Chief Executive and Board member of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Australia’s national science agency, was also a former Director of NM Rothschild and Sons Australia  (Australian arm of the Rothschild Investment Bank) from 2001-03. She is also a member of the Australia Advisory Board of the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch. [2] The fact that this director is now heading the science body that is lobbying for a global carbon credit scheme that will make her and her colleagues billions has nothing to do with it – it’s all just a coincidence.

Mr Simon McKeon is Chairman of the CSIRO Board is also currently the Executive Chairman of Macquarie Group’s Melbourne Office (Macquarie Bank). The Federal Government had no problem appointing a corporate banker as the CSIRO’s new chairman: “… Despite admitting he has ‘no scientific pedigree’, Mr McKeon says he wants to see the issue of climate change elevated to the top of the political and public agenda.” [3]

Sure – his investments and that of his backers depend on it.

Then there is Liberal Party MP Mr. Malcolm Turnbull who as well as being extremely passionate about climate change issues and equally vocal on carbon credits, he is the former Chairman and Managing Director of Goldman Sachs Australia, 1997-2001 and a former partner of Goldman Sachs and Co. from 1998-2001. (Goldman Sac’s role in the carbon credits scam will be explored in greater detail presently).[4]  His colleague and former Liberal party leader Dr. John Hewson is another advocate for carbon credit legislation. A founding member and founding Executive Director of Macquarie Bank 1985-87 and former economist with the IMF 1973-75 he is currently a Non-Executive Director of Change Investment Management a financial investment company that invests in ‘Eco’ projects. Hewson has been a busy banker having been a former Director and Chairman of ABN AMRO Australia 1995-98 an investment bank with its own carbon trading division and still finding time to run his own investment banking business. [5]

Ross Garnaut, a key player in governments in the Asia-Pacific, is a professor in economics with no scientific qualifications which nevertheless qualified him to lead the Garnaut Climate Change Report and several other reviews. He was the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Primary Industry Bank of Australia 1989 to 1994 and the former Chairman of the Board of Directors, Bank of Western Australia Ltd from 1988 to 1995. [6] Then we mustn’t forget former Prime Minister of Australia Paul Keating, Chairman of the Corporate Advisory International at investment banking firm Lazard and his board membership of China Development Bank: International Advisory Council. [7]

Broadly backed by environmentalists but deeply unpopular with the majority of the Australian public, The Clean Energy Legislative Package was passed by the Australian Senate in November 2011 becoming law in July 2012. With around 13 percent of the public in favour of the tax, no referendum was offered so that people could choose, no debate in Parliament and no disclosure as to who are the biggest 500 “polluters”. Reassurance came in the form of compensation to householders borrowed from the IMF already stretched to the limit with European bailouts. [8]

dreamstime_m_18893257© Avenger01 | Dreamstime.com – Carbon Tax Photo

Although the Carbon Tax in Australia was repealed in July 2014 climate change legislation overall remains in place. According to the Australian government: “The Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill 2014, were introduced into parliament as part of the broader Carbon Tax Repeal Legislative Package and each of which will proceed separately. Policy responsibility for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation remains with the Treasury.” So, no change there. It is likely Carbon Tax will be renewed since the framework is still in place. Furthermore: “The Clean Energy Regulator will ensure that carbon tax liabilities are met in full.” along with the Direct Action Plan of June 2014 which is a bill to implement the Emissions Reduction Fund particularly focused on what’s left of the farming community. [9]

The cost of living for Australians was certainly pushed through the roof with the tax while making very little impact on environmental concerns. In the unlikely event that the science behind CO2 could have been correct, Australia’s total contribution of global emissions will only be reduced by a paltry 0.05 percent taking more than 10 years for the saving to be realised. [10] Australia’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard was a keen supporter of world government so it was natural that she oversaw a move in this direction under the cover of environmental policy.

By 2013, the liberal coalition of Tony Abbot curtailed such a plan for now. No doubt they will try again.

Over in the USA, the first mandatory Cap and Trade system was enforced in the state of New Jersey in 2010 followed by many other North-Eastern states that have sold over 729 million in CO2 credits since 2008. [11] Under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Inc. (RGGI) two other mandatory regional systems started in 2012, bringing cap-and-trade to 23 states in all and four Canadian provinces. [12] Though a nationwide system has yet to materialise it is only a matter of time. When insider trading and secrecy defines the political-corporate system then Congress can easily be bypassed as it has been throughout its existence. According to the RGGI corporation’s mission statement its “…exclusive purpose is to provide administrative and technical services to support the development and implementation of each RGGI State’s CO2 Budget Trading Program”.

RGGI, Inc.’s activities include:

    • Development and maintenance of a system to report data from emissions sources subject to RGGI, and to track CO2 allowances.
    • Implementation of a platform to auction CO2 allowances.
    • Monitoring the market related to the auction and trading of CO2 allowances.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states in reviewing applications for emissions offset projects.
    • Providing technical assistance to the participating states to evaluate proposed changes to the States’ RGGI programs.

A CO2 template ready to extract the needed dosh from the populace once Agenda 21, SD and SMART are fully operational.

Funnily enough, who should happen to be bidding their socks off on this issue? None than most of Wall St., including: Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase, Barclays Bank and others.  Speculating on the price of permits or “allowances” ensures that these financial giants pocket big money from misplaced environmental concerns and corner the carbon market in the process. Wait awhile and the effects of these speculations will be felt on customers’ electricity bills in the same way we all bailed out banksters so they could continue living in the manner to which they had long become accustomed. Utilities which need CO2 allowances at RGGI auctions must compete against powerful private interests whose primary goal is generating money. Therefore, we are looking at another reinvention of the 2008 Ponzi scheme where US and European citizens will be duped all over again.

What’s more, bureaucrats are denying the public right to know via New Jersey Watchdog’s Open Public Record Requests for auction details. RGGI claimed it was not a “public body” and thus it could keep trade secrets, contrasting sharply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducting similar auctions.  Allowances have been sold by the EPA for acid rain otherwise known as sulphur dioxide (SO2). It seems now that derivatives have been way too toxic CO2 represents a plentiful bounty that requires insider back-scratching. For that to go ahead, the secondary markets of the Chicago Climate Futures Exchange and the Green Exchange do the job.

And guess who owns these markets?

The Green Exchange is owned by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Goldman Sachs Group Inc., MF Global Holdings Ltd. Credit Suisse Group, AG, Morgan Stanley and Newedge Group, most of whom were involved in massive fraud, insider trading, price fixing and serious financial irregularities and fined billions – not that this made any difference at all. [13] [14]

Oh, and don’t forget JPMorgan Chase & Co is also cutting a slice of the pie. (This is the corporate predator that also has a string of “murder-suicides” of its employees, the company that’s going head to head with the Dept. Of Justice over its  FX trading practices).  It is in the interest of these companies to not only take advantage of the gaping holes in the financial system but from any new social directive that lies within it, whether ecological or philanthropic. It demands that they actually create the crises that put the majority of people into dire straits economically so that they can benefit directly from the social services implemented to allow the most needy to survive.

One brief example lies in US food subsidization for the poor, the expenditure of which sits at $72 billion a year provided by food stamps, a.k.a The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS). Nearly half of all SNAP participants are children. Where there is regular outflow of federal cash you will find corporate parasites leeching off their share. Washington, D.C. is home to a range of political and corporate lobbyists who exert enormous pressure on Congress and other instruments of US government to keep the food that can be bought through food assistance programs of the lowest quality and price possible while banks like JP Morgan cream off billions from their payment processing agreements from electronic transactions.

They profit from every sale and from every individual desperate enough to have to rely on food stamps. Companies like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Kraft gain a tidy some selling products for subsidization and profiting from poverty. One journalist posed the question: “… how much were states spending to print food stamps in comparison to how much they pay JP Morgan to process transactions electronically? I’d wager it is cheaper to print the stamps.” [15]

***

Taking a bird’s eye view of the history of banksters and corporate predation on the public funds is absolutely necessary if we are to see the true nature of the carbon credit scheme and the global warming industry as a whole. JP Morgan-Chase has been manipulating government and the public for as long as Goldman Sachs, the latter having particular influence inside the Obama administration. As Matt Taibbi writes in the opening paragraph of his seminal Rolling Stone piece: “The Great American Bubble”: “the first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it is everywhere. The world’s most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.” [16]

It is in this article that Taibbi lifts the lid on the nature of Goldman Sachs and others who have mastered the art of economic manipulation and to such a high degree that we live in a world of their design, where vast numbers of people live in abject poverty as a direct consequence of their financial terrorism.

vampiresq

World “Vampire Squid”

Cutting its teeth in the Great Depression Goldman positioned itself in thick of speculative investments with Goldman Sachs Trading Corporation, issuing a million shares priced at $100 and buying all those shares with its own money, driving the price up by its own relentless bidding and selling a percentage to the public. The sponsorship of Shenandoah Corporation and the Blue Ridge Corporation followed, where millions more shares in these funds accelerated a pyramidal investment scheme that soared into the financial stratosphere. As stated: “Goldman hiding behind Goldman hiding behind Goldman. Of the 7,250,000 initial shares of Elue Ridge, 6,250,000 were actually owned by Shenandoah – which, of course, was in large part owned by Goldman Trading.” [17]

The foundation of the present casino-economy that we now found ourselves forced to play, is directly sourced from financial cartels like Goldman. The basic nature of this time-honoured scam labelled the “global economy”operates in the following way: “You take a dollar and borrow nine against it; then you take that $10 fund and borrow $90; then you take your $100 fund and, so long as the public is still lending, borrow and invest $900. If the last fund in the line starts to lose value, you no longer have the money to pay back your investors, and everyone gets massacred.”

The economist John Kenneth Galbraith had little time for the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Great Crash of 1929 and the following aftermath of the Great Depression saw Goldman Sachs doing what they did best: creating the opportunities to make money through massive suffering. Galbraith saw:“… the Blue Ridge and Shenandoah trusts as classic examples of the insanity of leverage-based investment,” and which were a: “… major cause of the market’s historic crash; in today’s dollars, the losses the bank suffered totalled $475 billion.” As Galbraith wrote in somewhat deflated fashion: “If there must be madness, something may be said for having it on a heroic scale.’ ” [18]

About sixty-five years later and Goldman Sachs had become a fully-fledged corporate psychopath. This tenacity and primitive survival instinct that left many of its competitors sunk during the depression, just made Goldman even stronger. It became the chief underwriter for most of Wall St. and eventually unleashing its true power through deregulation under the direction of CEO Robert Rubin (and CFR member) who had hung onto the coat-tails of best buddy and President Bill Clinton to become director of the National Economic Council and eventually Treasury secretary.

In the 1990s Rubin could do no wrong and the media smoothed his path to supremacy. When the classic Establishment rag Time had Rubin and his Treasury deputy Larry Summers and Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan on their front cover in 1999, the economic outlook was set for speculation, exploitation and economic plunder on a scale undreamt of. The financial markets were “over-regulated” and Rubin sought to change all that. Far from being “The Committee to Save the World” as the title ran, their job was to plunge the world into economic debt that could never be repaid but profits would abound for those in the know, namely, Goldman Sachs and friends.

The second bubble created and burst by Goldman was the internet dot com bonanza. Ill-thought out and barely legal companies were sold like rock-star geeks in the media and floated on the stock market for mega millions. What the average investor didn’t know was that the banks had been hustling and changing the rules so that deals looked better than they really were. How did they do this? Taibbi explains: “… by setting up what was, in reality, a two-tiered investment system – one for the insiders who knew the real numbers and another for the lay investor who was invited to chase soaring prices the banks themselves knew were irrational. While Goldman’s later pattern would be to capitalize on changes in the regulatory environment, its key innovation in the internet years was to abandon its own industry’s standards of quality control.” [19]

It was then that financial warfare became a reality and an even bigger tool for the 4C’s net. With no regulation there were no limits to what could be achieved through financial restructuring in its widest possible sense. Goldman was able to vacuum up money in such an effective and extortionate fashion by manipulating the share price otherwise known as “laddering.”

Taibbi describes the process for us in simple terms:

Say you’re Goldman Sachs, and Bullshit.com comes to you and asks you to take their company public. You agree on the usual tennis: You’ll price the stock, determine how many shares should be released and take the Bullshit.com CEO on a “road show~ to schmooze investors, all in exchange for a substantial fee (typically six to seven percent of the amount raised). You then promise your best clients the right to buy big chunks of the IPO at the low offering price -let’s say Bullshit.com’s starting share price is $15 – in exchange for a promise that they will buy more shares later on the open market. That seemingly simple demand gives you inside knowledge of the IPO’s future, knowledge that wasn’t disclosed to the day-trader schmucks who only had the prospectus to go by: You know that certain of your clients who bought X amount of shares at $15 are also going to buy Y more shares at $20 or $25, virtually guaranteeing that the price is going to go to $25 and beyond. In this way, Goldman could artificially jack up the new company’s price, which of course was to the bank’s benefit – a six percent fee of a $500 million IPO is serious money.

Goldman was seen as one of the primary instigators of the crash as a result. Yet when their laddering operations were discovered they paid their fines and continued as if nothing had happened.

Parallel to laddering was the simple use of bribery or “spinning” where shares were offered to executives at extra-low prices in exchange for underwriting business. Banks did their part by undervaluing the initial offering price so that shares rose more rapidly thus providing greater dividends for the insider few and in the shortest possible time. The you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours formula worked in this way: “… instead of Bullsrul.com opening at $20, the bank would approach the Bullshit.com CEO and offer him a million shares of his own company at $18 in exchange for future business effectively robbing all of Bullshit’s new shareholders by diverting cash that should have gone to the company’s bottom line into the private bank account of the company’s CEO.” [20]

When the bubble burst it took thousands of businesses with it, wiping out more than $5 trillion of wealth on the NASDAQ market alone. Once the investment banksters had been rewarded for criminality with huge bonuses (which continues today) and had obtained a taste for how easy it was to inflate and deflate their bubble – the corruption could only get worse. Moreover, it had an ideological basis to it, where skimming off the maximum amount from a capitalist system in decline was not only profitable but necessary if a new global financial architecture was to ever come of age. Bubbles were essential to global governance to break the public spirit and to provide pots of money for new globalist visions.

800px-GoldmanSachsHeadquarters

Goldman Sachs Headquarters, at 200 West Street, in Manhattan | photo: Quantumquark (wikipedia)

In 2000, true to the formula of sneaking unpopular or downright dangerous acts in at the last minute; when congressman are tired and want to go home to their mistresses, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act found its way into law. It had been inserted into an 11,000 page spending bill with no debate to speak of and very little interest in the implications. Banks were now given free rein to trade default swaps as they pleased. And they did so with impunity in the sub-prime housing crisis leading up to the 2008 crash.

Meanwhile, AIG asked if default swaps could fall under the category of regulatory insurance which meant that Goldman and others could pitch their wares to A-grade investors and the hobo in the street underwriting mortgage-backed securities much of which was subprime. It was the most blatant securities fraud touted as legitimate investing. Ultimately it led to the demise of many companies involved, including AIG. Goldman had the cash to pay lawsuits and fines and was free to walk away yet again with over $1.3 billion of taxpayer’s money from the bailout to AIG which meant that the bank directly profited from the housing bubble not once but twice, or as Taibbi eloquently states: “… it fucked the investors who bought their horseshit CDOs by betting against its own crappy product. Then it turned around and fucked the taxpayer by making him pay off those same bets.” [21]

After the fleecing of the housing market and the myth of housing prices being impervious to change the predators were on the lookout for the next bubble to inflate and burst. The physical-commodities market: foodstuffs, consumables, energy and oil fit the bill. The latter market reacted to this flight from the carnage of the housing crash and the plummeting value of the dollar with the price of a barrel oil shot up from around $55 in mid-2007 to $149 by the summer of 2008. This was due to Goldman and friends manipulating the markets into yet another casino run by lobbying investors and pension fund holders to invest in oil futures on condition that they buy oil at a fixed price and on a specific date of their choosing. Mike Norman, the Chief Economist at the Wall Street firm John Thomas Financial wrote in October 2011: “Total NYMEX open interest in crude is 1.4 m contracts or about 1.4 billion barrels of crude. Daily volume of crude traded on NYMEX is over 1 billion barrels per day. Total daily global demand is only 83 million barrels per day. The amount traded on one single exchange is more than 10 times total daily consumption. It’s a giant casino with prices being driven up by speculators and consumers having to pay more and more.” [22]

Author F. William Engdahl concluded that: “roughly 60-70 percent of the price of oil then was pure speculation, manipulated by the GSCI, the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index” … irrespective of supply and demand”. He observed that the “crucial ingredient” in the success of this manipulation is …“not the NYMEX for the global oil price benchmark, but the ICE Futures in London.”

Why?

He offers this narrative on ICE:

Because the ICE Futures is a daughter company of the International Commodity Exchange of Atlanta in Georgia, owned by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase etc. – the big oil banks that benefit enormously from the inside. There is absolutely no serious regulation of the ICE Futures. The British keep their hands off it, and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the CFTC, since 2006 under the ‘Commodity Modernization Act of 2000’ allows ICE Futures to trade energy futures without disclosure to CFTC in the U.S. market through London. So, in fact, it has deregulated and taken away from any government supervisory role the entire trade in energy futures, especially oil. This is a rigged game. [23]

>As Goldman and other banks drove investors into the commodities markets speculators placed increasingly reckless bets leading directly to the oil bubble in 2008. This all took place with the same illegal secrecy that we saw in New Jersey and the Cap and Trade, the same benefits which allowed Goldman to become “the chief designer of a giant commodities betting parlor.” Once again a huge loss of wealth occurred when oil-commodities crashed. It led to worldwide chaos sending millions of people below the poverty line and creating food riots and serious unemployment.

1024px-Reflection_in_a_soap_bubble_edit

Carbon Tax supporter Goldman Sacs and others are responsible for creating and perpetuating financial bubbles. Brocken Inaglory | Alvesgaspar (wikipedia)

Finally, the crash in September 2008 after the bailout of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the sacrifice of Lehman Bros., ( a Goldman competitor) Treasury-Secretary and ex CEO of Goldman Sachs Hank Paulson gave the go-ahead to $85 billion bailout of AIG who owed Goldman $13 billion and therefore allowed the company to pay it back. Meanwhile, industry workers’ jobs and small businesses were dying by the dozen ever hopeful for any assistance – which never came.

What did arrive however, was the notorious Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) amounting to $700 billion dollar’s worth of bailout money for the financial industry – namely the banks.

Filled to the brim with ex-Goldman employees surrounding the bailout honeypot like killer bees, Goldman Sachs wanted a piece of it. Thus they managed to do just that by converting themselves from an investment bank to a bank holding company. This permitted access to $10 billion in TARP funds along with an almost infinite Federal Reserve funding, publicly backed but well under the radar. What this means in real terms, is an almost unimaginable level of money was lent or guaranteed by the Federal Reserve by the end March 2009 totalling over $8.7 trillion. The influx of new bailouts and loopholes in the law allowed the Fed to block almost all attempts at congressional auditing so that fiscal details on who received what, when and how remained secret.

More recently, as Europe suffers a depression most intense in Spain, Portugal and Greece we find Goldman’s sticky fingers all over it, most significantly in the country where democracy was born. The company willingly helped Greece conceal its budget deficit by arranging a currency swap so that it could manage $15 billion of bond sales and rack up substantial profits before Greece plunged into chaos. Bill Blain, co-head of fixed income at Matrix Corporate Capital LLP, a London-based broker and fund manager stated: “The price of bonds should reflect the reality of Greece’s finances,” therefore: “If a bank was selling them to investors on the basis of publicly available information, and they were aware that information was incorrect, then investors have been fooled.” [24]

Fooling everyone is the name of game.

In summary, Goldman Sachs is one of many powerful criminal cartels indulging its predatory whims to create the inflation and crash-deflation of four major financial bubbles over several decades. All of these disasters leave a greenback dollar-trail to Goldman and its Rothschild brothers in arms who caused untold misery to millions of people, (mostly pensioners and children) by infiltrating government and bribing spineless members of Congress to fracture society to the point that is almost irreversible. Despite all this, they remain on top while international banking law allows them to secrete their profits away in offshore accounts and claim deductions on the same untaxed income. They are free to start the lucrative financial warfare process again should the next opportunity present itself – and indeed it has.

Goldman Sachs was the leading campaign donor for Barack Obama contributing $981,000. Do we think this is because they liked his smile? Or that he would be the first “black” president? Rather, like so many puppets before him, they knew he’d be compliant having been plucked from obscurity and schooled for the job well in advance. Obama’s White House chief of staff and Zionist Rahm Emanuel whose legacy of funnelling cash contributions from Goldman to the Clinton campaign are well known. First proposed by former a Goldman CEO, Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, he accepted the lead role in overseeing and guiding the ‘$700 billion’ bailout through the White House. Along with Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldman Sachs employees – he was in good company. [25]

By 2010, the Obama Administration was infested with Goldmanites just as it was in Clinton’s day.

logo

Which brings us to the Hamilton Project, a mini version of the Council on Foreign Relations with an emphasis on economics. Funded by Goldman Sachs and Robert Rubin and embedded in the Establishment’s own Brookings Institution, the think-tank is named after Alexander Hamilton who famously described people as “a great beast” and supported the imposition of a State bank and centralised government.

Ex Goldman CEO Rubin is the driving force of Hamilton and stringent economic policies that would ultimately benefit Goldman Sachs and CFR principles. According to journalist Eamon Javers: “Behind the scenes, Rubin still wields enormous influence in Barack Obama’s Washington, chatting regularly with a legion of former employees who dominate the ranks of the young administration’s policy team. He speaks regularly to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who once worked for Rubin at Treasury.” [26]

The Hamilton Project is a revolving door for Goldman employees and the US government, with the first four directors of the Hamilton Project serving in the Obama Administration. With a heavy mix of Zionist and Anglo-American Establishment groupies, the think-tank includes co-chair Robert Rubin himself; Carlyle Group CEO David Rubenstein; Sheryl Sandberg Chief Operating Officer, Facebook; ex-Goldmanite and Treasury Secretary Lawrence H. Summers; Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman of Global Banking, Citigroup, Inc.; Suzanne Nora Johnson, Former Vice Chairman, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. Neo-Conservative-transhumanist Peter Thiel and topped off with a heavy sprinkling of Brookings Institute staff and George Town University economics professors. Barack Obama has also given keynote speeches at the Hamilton Project giving his tacit support for both its ideology and policies. [27]

fh4eca65e4Key U.S. Government Positions held by Goldman Sachs alumni. courtesy of prof 77 at ‘Dregs of the Future’ and the post: A List of Goldman Sachs Ties to the Obama Government–including Elena Kagan

Which means the concrete has set for the foundations of Goldman’s next big casino run: cap-and-trade and carbon credits sold to the public as an on-going environmental strategy complimenting sustainable development and re-wilding. If it takes off, Goldman won’t have to do any rigging – it’s all built into the plan mandated by UN Agenda 21 and Western government push for SMART societies worldwide. Goldman has been lobbying hard for Cap and Trade for years and has poured a lot of money into climate change issues, having already invested $500 million in the Green Growth fund.

Carbon credits represent another trillion dollar bubble for Goldmanites and other corporate predators and they mean to have as big a slice of the pie as they can. As Matt Taibbi observed: “This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.” [28]

And that’s what the eco-economic game is all about.


See also: Goldman Sachs to pay $5 billion for misleading mortgage bond investors

Cool itdocumentary by Bjorn Lomborg

 


Notes

[1] http://www.carboncreditsfaq.com/
[2] http://www.aussieinnovation.com/wiki/Megan_Clark
[3] http://www.csiro.au Simon MKeon bio | ‘Macquarie boss gets CSIRO top job’ ABC News, Jun 21, 2010.
[4] Malcolm Turnbull’s Official Australian Parliament House Biography.
[5] His biography on Equity Capital Limited’s website and his fact page at the Museum of Australian Democracy (PDF), Money Management and Australian National University.
[6] Ross Garnaut: Executive Profile & Biography – Businessweek.
[7] Lazard’s website and China Development Bank’s website.
[8] ‘Carbon tax hecklers stop Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her tracks’ by Mark Kenny, Adelaide Now July 14, 2011.

[9] (http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/repealing-carbon-tax)
[10] ‘Australia introduces controversial carbon tax’ BBC News, 1 July 2012.
[11] http://www.newjersey.watchdog.org/files/2010/09/RGGI-auction-results-thru-9-10.pdf |WesternClimate Initiative -Currently being designed, anticipated to begin January 2012 (as of 1/2011) http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org
[12] Ibid.
[13] ‘Goldman Sachs, MF Global Among Six New Clearing Members of Green Exchange’ By Mathew Carr, Oct 11, 2010 bloomberg.com
[14] ‘JPMorgan’s record fine’ Bloomberg, June 4, 2010. | ‘JPMorgan fined for wash trades in oil, gasoline’ By David Sheppard, Reuters, Jun 1, 2012. |
[15] ‘J.P. Morgan makes billions in profits from food stamps every year’ by Lou Colagiovanni, The Examiner June 21, 2012.
[16] ‘The Great American Bubble’ By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone Magazine July 9-23 2009.
[17] Ibid. (p.54)
[18] Ibid (Taibbi quotes Galbraith from “In Goldman we Trust” (p.54)
[19] Ibid (p.56)
[20] Ibid (p.58)
[21] Ibid. (p.60)
[22] ‘A History of Rigged & Fraudulent Oil Prices (and What It Can Teach Us About Gold & Silver)’ by Lars Schall interview with F. William Engdahl 2011.
[23] Ibid.
[24] ‘Goldman Sachs, Greece Didn’t Disclose Swap Contract’ By Elisa Martinuzzi, Bloomberg, February 17, 2010.
[25] ‘Goldman Sachs Will Be Sitting Pretty With Emanuel in the Obama White House’ Washington Examiner November 20, 2008.
[26] ‘Robert Rubin returns’ By Eamon Javers, Politico, August 4, 2010.
[27] ‘Obama’s “Smoking Gun”: His Hamilton Project Speech shows his links to Goldman, Entitlement Cuts’(Part 1+2) by F. Flambeau . http://www.firedoglake.com/
[28] op. cit.Taibbi (p.101)

Dark Green IX: UN Agenda 21 and US Land Grab

By M.K. Styllinski

“One of the big lies about UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is that it ‘builds strong communities’. It does. But not in the way you would expect. It is managed democracy and manufactured consensus.”

– Rosa Koire, Executive Director, Post-Sustainability Institute


If we are to live our lives supporting and deriving benefit from Nature’s bounty, sustainable development must be an essential part of human destiny. However, in the hands of our leaders the concept of sustainability in its present incarnation may be very far from what many environmental activists believe it to be.

One of the many initiatives to come out of the Rio conference in 1992 was a 300 page document called Agenda 21 which the UN defines as: “… a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and major groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.” Out of the summit came a National Strategy for a Sustainable America which led to the announcement in July 1993 by US President Bill Clinton of the President’s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) to implement a “national Strategy” for sustainable development. By 2010, this had advanced to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s mission of advancing the principles and goals of sustainable development through partnerships, collaboration, and outreach. [1]

The 1992 Earth summit’s Rio Declaration on Environment and Development set out 27 principles intended to guide future sustainable development around the world. The PCSD also had a set of “We Believe Statements” outlining 16 principles which paraphrase the Rio Declaration. Both these sets of principles are incorporated into Agenda 21 (“21” refers to the 21st Century).

The Agenda 21 document comprises of 40 chapters grouped into 4 sections:

  • Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions
  • Combating poverty in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
  • Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
  • Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
  • Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
  • The roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
  • Section IV: Means of Implementation Science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms. [2]

In the above, we find the complement to the Earth Charter, where the opposite poles of political beliefs come together to create maximum noise ratios and thus obscure any rational discourse on the issue. A “divide and rule” friction is set up between so called “lefties” and “right-wing whackos” for which Agenda 21 is the devil incarnate or a practical framework for a sustainable future. Is Agenda 21 an innocent “soft law” platform for change? Or are the “radical right, conspiracy theorists” correct and this is an an attempt to impose a vast template for technocratic global governance?

treeeee © infrakshun

The UN Commission on Global Governance established in 1992 with full support from then Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali published a report in 1995 called “Our Global Neighbourhood.” Sustainable development (SD) and environmental protection are seen as integral step to the long-term security of that vision. As the report confirms: “The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable, indeed a sacred principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” And further: “Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself.” [3]

The problem that many have with this process as it is being developed in both EU and the United States, is that it removes the public from the decision-making process, by default. If elected officials are by-passed by non-elected officials who have been tasked with an agenda, however well-intentioned, it means that democracy and civil liberty is side-lined in favour of a consensus that may have no relation at all to the values, culture and self-determination of the country involved. Regionalism and the communitarianism are fine ideas – even welcome theories for socio-economic development. However, the devil is in the details. The overriding importance for members of the UN and Establishment circles is the dismantling of national sovereignty and the absolute control of the domestic population with the means to see that come about. When you get these people whole-heartedly supporting such potentially massive changes you can be absolutely sure it has nothing whatsoever to do with the greater good but the interests of the “lesser evil.”

Areas which are prompting most concern involve policy making procedures defined by collaborative consensus building a conflict resolution label appropriated by SD and SMART redevelopment and is inaugurating drastic changes in the way public policy is created in the United States. This consensus process as defined in Agenda 21 and the “We Believe” Statements of the PCSD serves to circumnavigate elected officials and place power in the hands of unelected officials who then determine Agenda 21 policy. This gives a free reign to a multitude of SMART redevelopment programs, where government and the corporate sector merge in ethically compromised, ideologically questionable ways.

With the United States having already had much of its constitution eviscerated by both the Bush-Cheney and Obama-Biden Administrations, the legitimate concern here for this one-time Republic and for the nations of Europe is that governments are exercising entirely undemocratic powers through seemingly benign programs. They do this because such passion can be usefully diverted to agendas which piggy-back the initial intent from public and officials, which is sincere. The Agenda 21 platform certainly has collectivist principles to its policy changes which immediately causes the political right to raise its hackles at the merest hint of such a thing. Since the US has an appalling record on global resource use and environmental safeguards in general, the kinds of changes which are being demanded under Agenda 21 will mean that there will be a forced redistribution of wealth and the confiscation of private property under the guise of “protecting the environment.” Therefore, the “social equity” in such a context, is a collectivist dream.

The concept of sustainable development does require a system of governance that is even more centralised under an integrated package of social equity, environmental protection and economic activity. (And we haven’t even looked at carbon tax yet). The PCSD brought the concept of Sustainable Development (SD) into the policy process of every agency in the US federal government. In partnership with the same environmental organisations who drafted Agenda 21, federal government agency grants are allowing SD programs to be seeded into the infrastructure of American life. So, while the UN cannot impel communities to adopt Agenda 21 policies its influence and beliefs are outsourced to hundreds of environmental groups and NGOs – the latter often paid quangos for government meddling – who carry out its operations so that Agenda 21 dove-tails seamlessly into future SMART growth infrastructure.

As a prelude to the Agenda 21 framework and The Convention on Bio-Diversity which has yet to be ratified, the Ecosystem Management Policy spear-headed by the UNEP is up and running in many US states. This means that where federal management of ecosystems exists it would inevitably expand federal control of the use of privately owned land and increased restrictions on the use of public lands for economic purposes. Since ecosystems do not have a defining boundary, private lands would be included in an expanded regulatory framework with the imposition of restrictions and guidelines mandated by law. The scope for the abuse of power would be limitless.

In Agenda 21’s vision for America, the protection of the ecosystem and sustainable development would take precedence over economic activity and private property rights. If the authority for implementing ecosystem management eventually meshed with Agenda 21 and continues to lie with the federal government, the vested interests of stakeholder input and authoritarian environmental activists, a massive transfer of power from the individual to the state is the only possible outcome.

The political and social equality pushed in Agenda 21 does not necessarily equate with a free society.

The repeated statement that a “transformation of society” is required includes an irreversible change in the process through which decisions affecting citizens are made. Extensive land use planning delivering SD to local communities dispenses with these democratic processes, or as commentator Henry Lamb correctly observes: “The fundamental principle that government is empowered by the consent of the governed is completely by-passed in the process … the natural next step is for government to dictate the behavior of the people who own the land that the government controls.” [4]

The lure of partnership-privatisation, be it water or forestry management and the wider issues involved, are often eclipsed by the approach of financial dividends. Everyone is always keen to make a buck and nothing is more seductive when one’s conscience is perceived to be clean while doing it. Bailing out bankers is a euphemism for maintaining an exploitative system. Such bailouts can operate under corporate lawyers and foundation executives offering financial assistance while making sure that they can gain much more for their money in return. Local officials and rural communities are seldom aware of what they are being “sold” and wouldn’t know a biodiversity clause or an Agenda 21 stipulation if it was deftly flashed in front of them on an i-pad screen. But it would sure look benevolently green.

One of the most surprising and little known facts related to SD and the present land grabs which are now taking place in the USA are the Executive Orders No.11490 and No.11647 enacted by President Richard Nixon on February, 10, 1972. The United States was divided into 10 Regional Councils, each federally controlled by bureaucrats for the improvement of coordination of activities between different levels of government. These 10 federal regions were to be given powers over everything pertaining to regionalism. Within those regional divisions, this included conservation, land use, water and all other natural resources within the United States. Fairly momentous and dramatic contributions to the US yet very few people know about it thanks to a compliant media and a corrupt Congress.

fedregional Standard Federal Regions

A bureaucratic binding has now arrived in the form of four federally chartered regional commissions: the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), signed into effect by President Kennedy in 1963 and amended numerous times up until the present; The Delta Regional Authority (DRA) signed into effect by President Ronald Reagan (1988) and the Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) signed into effect in 1994 and the Denali Commission (DC) signed into effect in 1998 – both by President Clinton, the latter being the only commission targeting a single state (Alaska).

Each commission is responsible for a variety of legislative operations and procedures implementing a long term economic plan:

  • ARC: On top of a mandate to improve “regional infrastructure, reducing regional isolation; water and wastewater management resources; natural resources development; and human resources development, including housing, education, job skills, and health care” the Truman Administration expanded this to “… promot[e] economic development in the region; and establishing a framework for joint federal and state efforts in developing basic facilities essential to promoting coordinated regional responses to the region’s problems.”
  • DRA: “The Rural Development, Agriculture, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY1989.9 Title II of that act, known as the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Act, authorized the creation of the Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commission (LMDDC […] the Commission’s legislative mandate was to identify the economic needs and priorities of the Lower Mississippi Delta region, and to develop a 10-year economic development plan for the region.
  • NGPRA: “… directed it to study and make recommendations for improving the economic development prospects of residents of rural Northern Great Plains communities. The Commission was charged with developing a 10-year rural economic development plan for Northern Great Plains (NGP) with the assistance of interested citizens, public officials, groups, agencies, businesses, and other entities. […] “The act charged the NGPRDC with developing a 10-year plan that would address economic development, technology, transportation, telecommunications, employment, education, health care, housing, and other needs and priorities of the five-state region. The act encouraged the NGPRDC to develop the plan in collaboration with Native American tribes, federal agencies, non-profit and specific issue areas: value-added agriculture, international trade, business development, telecommunications, transportation infrastructure, health care, and civic and social capacity.”
  • DC: “… the Commission’s mission included providing job training and other economic development assistance to distressed rural areas in the state. The act also charged the Commission with providing for rural power generation and transmission facilities, modern communication systems, water and sewer systems, and other infrastructure needs of remote areas in the state.” [5]

All these Commissions are in turn, focused on a highly complicated jumble of state and local county development programs many of which are integrated or in the process of being integrated into the Agenda 21 blueprint. What Nixon and the Clinton-Gore administration did was to create a new government eco-bureaucracy or “regional” government placing the states into the aforementioned Ten Regions and their requisite federal funding. However, as regional government was the assigned vehicle for federal fund distribution it meant that local government officials were unaware that they were effectively reducing their power by being answerable to administrators of regions. Local authorities would be bypassed in favour of regionalism which isn’t just a system of grant distribution but an extension of State power.

The justification for all these eco-imperatives comes from the United Nations which – in much the same way as the Eurocrats in Brussels – overrides democratically elected decision-makers in favour of SD and SMART associated stake-holder legislations. Fusing management and administration systems based on new technology, redevelopment and eco-imperatives are making regionalism very far from democracy and constitutional accountability. We are faced with a situation where decisions are rubber-stamped by international regional government administrators and their connected councils serving a desperately hierarchical world management system which has nothing whatsoever to do with serving Mother Earth or its people.

The concept of Sustainable Development as it was sold to the public was never a grassroots ignition. It is a top-down product of a world management system dressed up in green language which will allow yet another vast channel of technocratic control to merge with fake land ethics, laws, and regulations. Environmental protection of fauna and flora will certainly take place but society will be in no position or have the legal right to enjoy it! Nature’s new found liberalisation, sagely bestowed by global stewards will always know best it seems.

The UN works through the emerging civil society which is actually made up of thousands of NGOs with largely the same beliefs as UN personnel. They are not necessarily representative of society as a whole. Via summits, national and international conferences, seminars and local outreach groups policy documents are formulated drawn from the gospel of Agenda 21, they are all overseen by Maurice Strong’s UNEP. Under the ever-present influence of NGOs and environmental pressure groups, local governments become un-elected members of “stakeholder councils” managing “empowerment zones”, or “enterprise committees” and “visioning councils” determined to adhere to the concepts of SMART growth. *

Despite many recommendations still to be implemented, the UN has spent – and continues to spend – millions of dollars whilst holding various international meetings which are attended by hundreds of political leaders, corporate CEOs and thousands of other non-governmental organizations who expend equal amounts of time drafting massive policy documents. Clearly, this is much more than a whimsical green distraction. They mean business. Although Agenda 21 is entirely “voluntary” and “non-binding” that is not how it’s playing out on the ground. Using an array of Delphi-based psychological techniques a veritable army of “facilitators” are descending on American cities and part of the neighbourhood councils and planning associations. Often, eco-SMART NGOs are nothing more than pincer movements into communities in order to extract support for redveelopment proposals under Agenda 21/SMART auspices.  Most importantly, they represent a fusion of corporate and government sponsorship which stands to make a lot of money for both parties at great expense to specific communities, most notably in suburbia.  As these new vested interests are drawn from Rockefeller-type Foundations and corporate CEOs it does not bode well for the future that will be defined by the disempowerment of civil society and the dilution, if not disappearance of truly representative local government and community.

The ubiquity of SD activists and advocates becomes especially problematic when so many of these people are tuning in to what is after all, a genuine wish to protect the environment and improve the quality of societies for future generations. Yet there is a refusal and a lack of knowledge as to how an ideology and system can be co-opted and used for something quite different. The young’s natural passion to protect the Earth is strong, so too are the dangers of the dogma and fascism that are intimately connected to the history of the environmental movement. With the present global economic system in terminal decline and media propaganda as potent as it has ever been, we are reminded of Peter Staudenmaier’s observation in the context of rising fascism: “The attraction such perspectives exercised on idealistic youth is clear: the enormity of the crisis seemed to enjoin a total rejection of its apparent causes. It is in the specific form of this rejection that the danger lies.” [6]

So Agenda 21 network continues to infiltrate by stealth every aspect of society and local development plans from biosphere reserves, wetlands, greenways, railways, carbon footprints, partnerships, conservation /environmental protection, land use, heritage areas and planning, to name but a few. While securing more legislation and government control it reduces the rights of the individual and usurps power from local, democratically elected councils. Perhaps most importantly, after our exploration of eco-fascism and depopulation we should be extremely concerned when a vast blueprint for ecological management and sustainable development is sourced from those who cheerily support perpetual war, state-sponsored terror, cartel capitalism, eugenics, forced sterilisation; a global tax, (usually on those who will be least able to pay) and massive reduction of the human population by any and all means to reach that objective.

So, the perceived belligerent fears from the right-wing resistance to Agenda 21 stems from a much more complex dynamics playing out in plain sight. Therefore, there needs to be much more bipartisan support for rooting out what really gives on this issues both politically and within the public. The refusal to address legitimate fears from liberal and left-wing groups displays the same tunnel vision.

UN-Logo© infrakshun

Building on the advances made from the 1992 Rio summit, the Rio+20 Summit on Environmental Sustainability took place in late June of 2012. Though no real breakthroughs or commitments were forthcoming, the “larger achievement [may have been] making global sustainable development goals a priority on the international agenda” according to a recent Council on Foreign Relations report. The summit produced Rio+20’s outcome document, The Future We Want the greatest contribution of which “… catalyses a global call to make sustainable development priorities central to global thinking and action.” [7]

Whether this is a turn for the better for humanity is entirely dependent on whom we choose to preside over this transformation. Some of the perceived enemies of environmental activism such as large polluting corporations and bureaucratic government departments also play a part as effective double agents on the panoramic stage of social engineering. Presenting and even encouraging the rifts between the two serves to prop up the illusion that the overall conflict is real when it is all part of the programming. That is not to say that is ALL a conscious ruse. Clearly not. But we can hopefully begin to see how these ambitious macro-social projects connect like a vast net across the globe. And a big part of this eco-Intelpro involves the confiscation of land.

The rush to grab land and resources across the world has defined a new form of colonialism in the 21st century. China, America, Britain and other European countries are leading the way in carving up African land under the pretext of offering environmental or humanitarian assistance. [8]But how many of us know about the vast tracts of land which are being bought up by federal government programs in partnership with Establishment families, and hundreds of conservation trusts and environmental groups a bit closer to home?  In the US these “buffer zones” and “rural corridors”; heritage sites and designated conservation areas of “re-wilding” which are falling under the protection of SD and biological diversity legislation sometimes run into anything from 100,000 to 25 million acres where human presence is seen as “interference.” [9]

The re-introduction of species which have died out in specific regions, the management of forests and lakes, reservoirs and various types of land reclamation rides on the powerful and deep-seated wish for people to care for their environment. Difficult as it may be to accept – especially for ecologists and environmentalists who are traditionally some of the most passionate in their beliefs – the US is experiencing a gradual but inexorable large-scale theft of US land by those with money and power in order to turn almost 50 percent of America into protected habitats and reserves for the good of biological diversity. It is a theft because the vast majority of the public has neither access to, nor the necessary information to make an informed decision as to where they stand on the issue. Thanks to the usual lack of proper investigative reporting by the US media and the constant noise and distraction of Republican and Democrat knockabouts, the required public awareness on this agenda is non-existent and thus proceeds with ease, with locals and their councils oblivious to the larger implications, all too often embroiled in the impenetrable bureaucracy that SD has spawned.

The Wildlands Network (formerly the Wildlands Project) is more radical than the vision of SD though it is sitting alongside its ideological platform quite comfortably. The United Nations gave its seal of approval in its “Global Biodiversity Assessment” when it mentioned The Wildlands Project as a possible approach to preserving biological diversity. [10]  It is vast in scope, extending from one end of the continent to the other. Equally impressive is the enormous list of Wildlands Network affiliated organisations and groups, councils and foundations which in turn have sub-categories of affiliates which are thousands in number. And what do you know? The Rockefeller Foundation is there among the donators as is The Turner Foundation, from media mogul and depopulation advocate Ted Turner, the largest sponsor of environmental causes in the country. The Environmental Grantmakers Association makes sure a steady stream of cash keeps this long-term project afloat and on course.

The network was created from the concept of “re-wilding” a term first coined by conservationist and activist Dave Forman, one of the founders of the group Earth First! The term described the creation of “reserve networks” across the United States which would provide vast areas of wildlife habitat, the goal being to maximize biological diversity across the land. Humans, however, do not feature in this grand plan. Having laid the blueprint for the Wildlands Network in the 1980’s with colleagues Howie Wolke, and Bart Koehler, conservation biologists Michael Soulé and Reed Noss continued to build on the ideas, most notably in an influential paper published in 1998. [11]While Forman’s involvement has faded somewhat, Reed Noss, has become the leading spokesman for the Plan, expanding the possibilities with federal government support.

The philosophy which suffuses the Wildlands Network is Deep Ecology. In the words of Forman, from his popular 1991 book Confessions of an Eco-Warrior: “The only hope of the Earth is to withdraw huge areas as inviolate natural sanctuaries from the depredations of modern industry and technology. Move out the people and cars. Reclaim the roads and the plowed lands.” Deep Ecology is essentially a mix of the rich tradition of Pantheistic nature worship with streams of Taoism, Buddhism and American and German eco-revivalism thrown in. It is in fact, a beautiful philosophy. However, in radical hands it becomes something quite different.

Norway’s premier Philosopher Arne Naess and recognised pioneer of the Deep Ecology movement drew up eight basic principles that describe the philosophy:

  • The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
  • Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
  • Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
  • The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life demands such a decrease.
  • Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
  • Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
  • The ideological change is mainly in appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.
  • Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary change. [Emphasis mine]

Eminently sensible. Except that this same philosophy is also embraced by eco-fascists who define our “obligations”, in slightly more authoritarian ways thereby hoping to change political policies to a situation “deeply different from the present.” We might hazard a guess what they might be prepared to do to get that ideal differential.

Deep Ecology has many positive connections to past traditions which involve co-creating with Nature rather than exploiting it, thus exhibiting a much needed humility. Nonetheless, since it appeals to those harbouring eco-fascistic views and authoritarian designs it is easily absorbed into the Agenda 21 framework.  Despite the central premise of Deep Ecology as philosophical (which often means impractical) and a guide to a deeper awareness of nature and our relationship to it, in the context of Pathocracy it becomes another nail in the coffin of true awareness; the case of the horse bolting before the cart. When Deep Ecology becomes grafted on to the State – much like anything other truth – it cannot become anything else but subverted.  The radicalism of the Wildlands Network in combination with Agenda 21 and Deep ecology advocates has the potential to become something quite different to the romance of us all returning to a more harmonious connection to the Earth. Such radicalism invites it as John Davis, editor of Wild Earth magazine exemplifies: “Does all the foregoing mean that Wild Earth and The Wildlands Project advocate the end of industrialized civilization? Most assuredly. Everything civilized must go …”

So, to what does the Wildlands Network comprise? Reed Noss defines it in the following terms: “A wilderness recovery network is an inter-connected system of strictly protected areas (core reserves), surrounded by lands used for human activities compatible with conservation that put biodiversity first (buffer zones), and linked together in some way that provides for functional connectivity of populations across the landscape.” [12]

 agenda21wildlandssustainabilitydiagramThe 4C’s meets the 3E’s 

The characteristics of these core areas include the expansion of parks and “wilderness areas to include adjacent old growth, roadless areas, and ecological areas,” where size means “bigger is better.” (So much for E.F. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful) Existing roads would be closed and “Human access greatly reduced or eliminated altogether.” Noss interjects that: “Many ecologists (myself included) would just as soon see huge areas of land kept off limits to human activities of any kind.” [13] “Buffer zones” allow for some human activity, while “corridors” permit wildlife to travel freely from one core area to another, extend reserve habitats; allow seasonal migration genetic interchange between core reserves; “provide for long distance migration in response to climate change” with the average width of corridor one mile wide where little or no human use is encouraged. All of which seems to confirm the idea of that humans are to be controlled and managed in order to preserve Nature. The Integration and marriage of the natural world of which we are a part seems an unworkable hypothesis, but such segregation would certainly appeal to a super-rich Elite who have made it their long-term purpose to live in these reserve habitats while the rest of us get used to living in Mega-cities.

SD principles and the parallel visions of conservation biology share a special place in collectivist minds. The three pillars of SD which can be found in almost every article or paper related to Agenda 21, ecology and environmental ethics are: “Equity”, “Economy” and “Environment” or “The three E’s of Sustainability.” (See above). Each sector requires a total transformation towards global government. The “transformation of society” under the auspices of the UN and its agencies, the Club of Rome and many other think tanks and non-elected institutions and NGOs is not about a paradigm shift to more freedom and ecological emancipation but to accept a carefully engineered set of beliefs in order to welcome its exact opposite. Equity, Economy and Environment are embedded in the collectivist-corporatist ethos of the 4Cs of: commercialisation, consolidation, centralisation and control. Equity is about social justice that will put nature before humans and thus create the conditions by which private ownership is diluted and eventually seen as “eco-unfriendly” and against the “greater good”. Integrated into a SMART infrastructure a police state will be relatively “soft” due to the pervasive sanitising of consciousness drawn from socio-eco-engineering principles. In this way, Fabian economics has always been behind much of the new ecological visions currently capturing the minds of the Western young bureaucrats and technocrats. It is the core force behind the 4Cs, the 3Es and the 3EM.

Ecologists, environmental activists, politicians and bureaucrats are so bound up in green visions or the cash incentives for green technology that they cannot seem to entertain the possibility that such huge projects may serve a totalitarian game-plan. As discussed the shadow of right-wing paranoia and conspiracy theory lunacy, rather than a cold-bloodied appraisal of some obvious sign-posts holds sway.  One wonders if the Rockefeller, Oppenheimer, Windsor, and Rothschild dynasties and the protégés of One World, eco-fascists are going to be inhabiting the carefully regulated, SD-designed SMART cities of the future where everything conforms to a bland monotony of ecological and technocratic “efficiency”. I doubt it. The poor of course will remain where they always have – in centralised systems, on the margins of society scratching a living without access to nature (or nurture) while the middle class will be suffocated under more and more eco-SMART technocracy with very little ability to free themselves from  biometric “convenience.” The Elite will be residing in “secure zones” with grand ranches, mansions and resorts set deep in the wilderness away from the human species that does not respect her; like demi-Gods on earth whose stewardship and spiritual status demand their presence as custodians of the New World Religion. The World State writ large. Meantime, the rest of humanity will be corralled into cities known as “safe zones” and far away from “sacred” wild lands. These mega-cities will house what’s left of the human populations, after wars, disease and manufactured crises have done their work…

Dystopian fantasy? Hysterical hyperbole?  Or perhaps we really believe that all of this is really for us, and everyone will be happily paragliding, hiking and rafting the rapids at their leisure from core wilderness centres to the grand corridors of their choosing?

In the next post we will look deeper into the Sustainable Development, UN Agenda 21 and how it is currently affecting cities in America.

 


* In the unlikely event that you still unclear as to what SMART growth actually means, wikipedia provides as good a summary as I can come up with describing it as:

“… an urban planning and transportation theory that concentrates growth in compact walkable urban centers to avoid sprawl. It also advocates compact, transit-oriented, walkable, bicycle-friendly land use, including neighborhood schools, complete streets, and mixed-use development with a range of housing choices. The term ‘smart growth’ is particularly used in North America. In Europe and particularly the UK, the terms ‘Compact City’ or ‘urban intensification’ have often been used to describe similar concepts, which have influenced government planning policies in the UK, the Netherlands and several other European countries.”

As we get to the section on Technocracy you’ll see how snugly all this “exciting” and “liberating” SMART technology fits into Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.


See also: What Is Sutainable Development? By James Corbett


Notes

[1] ‘Sustainable development,’ U.S. Department of Agriculture.
[2] http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/
[3] The Commission on Global Governance, Our Global Neighbourhood, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
[4] ‘Is your private property in jeopardy?’ By Henry Lamb, October 31, 2005 | http://www.sovereigntinternational.com
[5] CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web, Federal Regional Authorities and Commissions: Their Function and Design Updated September 21, 2006, By Eugene Boyd, Analyst, Government and Finance Division. http://www.hsdl.org
[6] op. cit. Staudenmaier.
[7] ‘Examining Rio+20’s Outcome’ Authors: Suan Ee Ong, Senior Research Analyst, Multilateralism Studies, S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University Rômulo S. R. Sampaio, Professor of Environmental Law, Getulio Vargas Foundation Andrei Marcu, Senior Advisor and Head of Carbon Market Forum, Centre for European Policy Studies Agathe Maupin and Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Research Fellow and National Director, South African Institute of International Affairs. http://www.cfr.org/ July 5, 2012.
[8] The Land Grabbers: The New Fight Over Who Owns The Earth by Fred Pearce. Published by Eden Project Books. 2012.
[9] The Wildlands Project: Summary: http://www.wildlandsprojectrevealed.org
[10] Section 13.4.2.2.3, page 993, ‘Global Biodiversity Assessment’ Cambridge University Press, 1995.
[11] Michael Soulé and Reed Noss, “Rewilding and Biodiversity: Complementary Goals for Continental Conservation,” Wild Earth 8 (Fall 1998) 19-28.
[12] “The Wildlands Project: Land Conservation Strategy, ”by Ross F. Need, Wild Earth Journal, .January 1992.
[13] Maintaining Ecological Integrity in Representative Reserve Networks by R. Noss, World Wildlife Fund Canada Discussion Paper, 1995. p.12.