Green Phoenix Rising
The phoenix is rising and the worship of Gaia is intended to rise as an environmental big brother, Gaia and the all-seeing-eye projected as a singular entity. The sacrifice of individuality, the burnt offerings we shall offer to the hive mind. The weaponisation of our love, compassion, empathy and indeed our profound connection to nature is very difficult for people to comprehend. It is difficult for people to see through the illusion, for although our current control structure provides the antithesis, it is also the straw man.
The cultivated path of virtue also speaks to our better nature, and so in times of chaos we want to (we increasingly need to) believe those voices of change. I get it, I understand it and I can relate to it, you are not stupid, you are not sheep, you have been manipulated because you care, but (its my belief) that your empathy has been weaponised. This is the hardest part for me, looking around and seeing so many compassionate, intelligent and learned people being misdirected, just imagine what we could achieve if we freed ourselves from the chains of the corporatocracy? Alas like the chameleon it is, the control structure has simply changed colour and that colour is green!
A True Green Future
Again, I want to state that these posts are not intended as a debate on the validity or indeed invalidity of global warming. Whichever side of the fence you sit, this is going to affect us all. By inviting centralised technocracies and bureaucracies to solve our problems we’re making a deal with the devil, from their perspective literally! I have both written and will continue to write about how centralisation of power and indeed energy is in effect destroying the very environment they purport to save. I have taken the time to put my money where my mouth is and point out the fallacies and inconsistencies within corporate and government subsidised green policies and initiatives, and I have much more research (and practical solutions) to share in these subjects.
I will speak about the failure of a food production model that throws away more produce than ever reaches our plates, 2 billion tonnes per year! I will speak about a supermarket industry that would prefer to throw away and incinerate its misshaped, slightly damaged or marginally out of date produce, as opposed to feeding the homeless. Why don’t you offer approaching best before date food at a knockdown price (instead of relative pennies off) when all you will do when it doesn’t sell is throw it away? I will speak about the environmentally destructive business model that the industry (through planned obsolescence) has deliberately created. I will speak to the psychological manipulations that have created the consumer culture.
Encasing our food in plastic is a business model (one that if you really look into it is making us ill) a deliberate decision, so why are the people taught to wear that guilt upon their shoulders whilst its perpetrators are never mentioned? I will speak about EMF’s, I will speak about an innumerable array of inconvenient truths that are conveniently forgotten, well some of us never forget.
I very much believe that with the correct planning and vision we could create a system that rewards individual ingenuity and creativity. I very much believe that we could create a system that retains our freedom and self determinism, but equally enables us to live in a state of balance and mutual symbiosis with the earth. If we were about to remove these intellectual and perceptual leeches and empowered and enabled the populace, I believe we would find that the strongest foundations are built from the grass roots upwards, power to the people! Yet, as I will highlight in part C what we have is fake grassroots movements that (unknowingly to the vast majority of participants) filter control back to the same centralised system that has raped the earth and then attached the guilt upon all our shoulders.
I very much believe that our creativity and ingenuity is being suffocated by an ever tightening noose of red tape and regulation. I very much believe that by breaking free of dogmatic centralised bureaucracy’s (and the sycophants that enable them) the future is something where could find true freedom, individual expression and a clean and healthy environment. I have no love for the consumer culture and our warped definitions of success, how we have been taught to equate happiness through credit card purchases. I have no love for the commoditisation of animals, our increasingly narcissistic throwaway culture, and a vapid mainstream media that enables it all.
I also understand that these are the premeditated states of being that we were born into and taught not to question (until it was expedient to do so). I understand that these changes need to come from within and not (to suit a deeper agenda) be nefariously and insidiously manufactured from without. I’m not a fan of all my aforementioned points, equally I’m not a fan of propaganda, psychological manipulation and perceptual indoctrination, neither am I a fan of a contrived and false veneer of unity. I acknowledge that things very much need to change and I have no fear of change, unfortunately their change will be akin to jumping out of frying pan and into the pit of hades!
A cursory glance at the individuals driving this era of change will reveal that the same mindset that created the system we need to move from, are now creating the system we’re intended to move into. Do you think they will cast aside their wealth and become one with the people? If not, why do you accept one rule for them and another for us? I shall say it again, they have deliberately used the foundations of faux capitalism i.e crapitalism to build the control and power structure that is now forming around us. It was intended as a long term plan that ultimately benefits the few, whilst scapegoating and eventually technologically imprisoning the many.
Rothchild, Rockefeller & The United Nations
Before we continue let’s take a brief (you could write an entire post on this alone) detour to observe the Rockefeller/Rothchild connections to the UN. Indeed, it is my belief that the one world agenda is born of elite bloodlines and is being officially expressed through the United Nations. Much of the UN charter was written by Aiger Hiss and Joseph E Johnson. The charter was also patterned on the communist manifesto and the constitution of Russia, hence the constitution of the USSR was almost identical to that of the UN. Indeed, Hiss would later be convicted of perjury after denying involvement in Soviet espionage, and Johnson would later become secretary of the Bilderberg group. The communist manifesto similarities are interesting when you consider that Karl Marx was a third cousin to the Rothchild family. Equally, the 'Bund der Gerechten' (League of the Just) that was latterly known as the 'Bund der Kommunisten' (League of the Communists), paid Marx to write the Communist Manifesto and was financed by the Rothschilds.
The Rockefeller family are key architects behind the UN precursor the League of nations. This point was referenced in an official UN press release from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:
“This world is now, at least for the most part, at the disposal of Marx on the one hand, and of Rothschild on the other. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between socialism and a leading bank? The point is that authoritarian socialism, Marxist communism, demands a strong centralisation of the state. And where there is centralization of the state, there must necessarily be a central bank, and where such a bank exists, speculating with the Labour of the people, will be found. “
As evidenced in this academic paper, the Rockefeller foundation were also instrumental in the transition from the league of nations to the United Nations. As highlighted in part 3, the purchase of the land to build the UN headquarters was instructed by Nelson Rockefeller and financed by his father John D. Rockefeller Jr. In light of this information, perhaps it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise that Nelson Rockefeller was a member of the U.S delegation at the United Nations founding conference. To this day the Rockefeller foundation provides an innumerable array of donations and have several partnerships with the United Nations. They also fund the UN foundation, but this link literally went dead as I was writing this post.
The Rockefeller family has lived up to this conviction, providing immense support for the League of Nations and the United Nations over the years. The original donation to this library was particularly significant. Even today, the interest provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to this wonderful library. That makes it possible to care for its many priceless historical treasures, including a signed copy of the Treaty of Versailles and the Covenant of the League of Nations.Source
“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”
David Rockefeller autobiography titled memoirs found on page 405
Interesting how he uses the term "extremist" to collectivise anyone that opposes his ideology, where have we heard that before?
Rio Earth Summit 1992
From a public perspective, we can see the wheels of the modern green/global warming movement begin to gain traction at the 1992 Rio earth summit. It was at this meeting where many of our current green policies began to form. Of course, the earth summit was simply a consolidation of concepts/agreements that had been slowly bubbling to the surface. Certainly, further consolidation (and the first use of the term "sustainable development") can be found within the pages of the Bruntland report which you can find here. The Bruntland report was named so in recognition of its author, the former Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Bruntland who was also the chair of the UN world commission of environment and development (WCED). The report was commissioned by the UN affiliated Club Of Rome (of which Bruntland was a member), other members include:
• Tony Blair
Running parallel to the reports environmental concerns were discussions relating to a restructured international economic system (my thoughts on the impending new financial order can be found here) and the need for multilateralism. The UN action plan that arose from the summit and subsequent report were initially both unpopular and unbinding (UN migrant pact anyone?), but through the Kyoto principles the plan has now become enshrined into law. Equally, the Rio earth summit galvanised the aforementioned Maurice Strong into becoming the key architect of the now infamous UN agenda 21 sustainable development plan. I would just like to add that yes it is very true that agenda 21 (connected to agenda 2030 & UN habitat human settlements programme) is not a legally binding document; then again it doesn’t have to be binding to be implemented through the NGO driven manufacturing of consent I shall discuss over the next couple of posts. The below quote is taken from the book that arose from the report, and it can be purchased here.
• Al Gore
• Maurice Strong
• Mikhail Gorbachev
• Anne Ehrlich (wife of Paul Ehrlich)
• David Rockefeller
• Kofi Annan
• Robert Muller
• Ted Turner
• George Soros
• Bill Clinton
• Bill Gates
• Stephen Schneider
• Henry Kissinger
• Queen Beatrix
Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save Our Planet (Earthpress, 1993)
Although often confused with the philosophically aligned Agenda 21, the below map is actually from 1991 and is of the envisioned Wildlands Project brought forth by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity Plan to Restore Biodiversity in the United States.
Again, due to its nature as an all encompassing agenda here we can see the Catholic Church embracing agenda 2030 and the united nations inspired sustainable development goals. The agenda seeks total control of the human domain and rights of travel and self determinism. The gradual removal of people from the countryside and into smart city high density housing. The end of private ownership and (I believe) the insidious erosion of the family unit.
“Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…. It calls for specific changes in the activities of all people….“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level”.
And below in a recent statement we find Pope Francis expressing his desire for a global order.
If we hope to save the planet we must accept that we are one people and unite to create "a space for dialogue and meeting for all countries in a spirit of mutual respect," and must stop what "hinders the attainment of the sustainable development goals approved unanimously by the United Nations." Pope Francis
The video below was recorded at the summit by an individual named George Hunt and further papers/private emails/research can be found here. Excert Below:
In 1987 Hunt (due to running an environmental business) was invited to attend the Colorado wilderness conference. It was at the conference that Hunt become aware of the deeper more insidious narrative that sat behind the green agenda and the environmental fraud that was/is intended to be perpetrated against an unsuspecting public. Within the video below you will hear the self appointed elites including the aforementioned Maurice Strong, Edmund De Rothchild (in their own words) discuss the direction of humanity. Of key interest is the statement made by David Lang:
Our only hope for planetary peace and progress is to make room for “international organizations” to develop into governing bodies, supplanting the “state interests” with the will of the United Nations. Pope Francis
“DAVID LANG: I suggest therefore that this be sold not through a democratic process. That would take too long and devour far too much of the funds to educate the cannon fodder, unfortunately, that populates the earth. We have to take almost an elitist program, [so] that we can see beyond our swollen bellies, and look to the future in time frames and in results which are not easily understood, or which can be, with intellectual honesty, be reduced down to some kind of simplistic definition”.
If you listen to the recording you will hear Rothchild discuss a “global Marshall plan” which is interesting in light of Al Gore’s later comments. The below comment was originally held here but surprise surprise it has since been removed, although the title still remains:
“The model of the Marshall Plan can be of great help. For example, a Global Marshall Plan must focus on strategic goals and emphasize actions and programs that are likely to remove the bottlenecks presently inhibiting the healthy functioning of the global economy. The new global economy must be an inclusive system that does not leave entire regions behind. The new plan will require the wealthy nations to allocate money for transferring environmentally helpful technologies to the Third World and to help impoverished nations achieve a stable population and a new pattern of sustainable economic progress. To work, however, any such effort will also require wealthy nations to make a transition themselves that will be in some ways more wrenching than that of the Third World.”
Johannesberg Earth Summit
The video that I have included below the next couple of paragraphs was recorded by Russian Major General Konstantine Petrov, whose life/and potentially suspicious death details can be found here. In the video (alongside some observations on ancient Kemet that directly connect us to part one) Petrov states that by the 2002 Johannesberg summit, the plan had stalled. The words below are lifted directly from the video in which Petrov states that they were printed in the (non-public) elite journal “Expert” number 37 2nd Sept 2002. The heads of international and multinational corporations attending the meeting made an ultimatum in which they stated:
”We shall solve all problems of rich and poor, if you submit to us in undivided possession all of the infrastructure that ensures the livelihood of people. First of all this is the world energy resources, all water and raw materials – minerals, and the remaining infrastructure for people’s livelihoods.”
Now if you’d heard that statement in 2002, the insidious/grandiose nature of its premise would have perhaps been difficult to comprehend/believe. Equally, in this era of increased privatisation and technocratic colonialism, we can see its seeds of intent begin to bear fruit. Indeed, if you take a step back and look at it objectively you can see it playing out around us. Whilst I don’t have access to Petrov’s aforementioned publication, I do have eyes and my eyes can see that much of this is being enabled through the UN’s (diplomatically immune) world bank. As observed on their website, the world bank has a keen interest in resource privatisation. Through their stepping up campaign we can find the world bank using climate change to further the narrative of privatisation.
Since 2016, the Africa Climate Business Plan (ACBP) has delivered $17 billion to meet the investment needs for climate adaptation and resilience on the continent and is maximizing finance for development to catalyze more private sector investments. Source
So let’s take a basic look at how they take over the infrastructure of (so called) third world and developing countries. Foreign aid and monetary loans usually benefits the interconnected politically infiltrated corporatocracy of the supplier, to a far greater degree that the recipient. Aid usually comes in the form of infrastructure projects, medicine and vaccine schedules which of course are handed over to our favourite, friendly neighbourhood multinationals. Even aside from aid/loans we have multinationals such as Nestle draining the great lakes for a dollar a day, the same company that throughout the California drought/wildfires (and despite Californians being ordered to restrict water use) continued to draw and bottle 36 million gallons of water from the Californian national forest. But that’s a subject for another day!
In developing countries, many seemingly philanthropic infrastructure projects and certainly the vast majority of loans often come with similar privatisation proviso’s including mineral and water rights, corporate colonialism masquerading as altruism/philanthropy. So let’s use water as an example. In 1997 the UN world-bank loaned twenty million dollars to the Bolivian government. Two concessions included the privatisation and commercialisation of Bolivian water resources. In the Bolivain city of Cochabamba the privatisation process was handed to a subsidiary of the US Bechtel multinational. In the city of La Paz El Alto it was handed to a subsidiary of the French multinational Suez, notice how (much like their insidious takeover of food brands) these multinational behemoths hide behind a labyrinth of names and in essence offer the illusion of choice.
After the infrastructure had been installed these organisations began to raise their rates, sometimes by as much as 200%. The poor could not afford to pay for their own water and so attempted to return to their old methods of water collection, the newly privatised industry fought back and commenced an attempt to license or outright ban people from collecting water from their roofs and charge them for the use of their wells. The populace became justifiably angry and the anger spilled out onto the streets as an uprising, this era would come to be known as the Bolivian water wars. Although people power eventually managed to defeat these draconian water measures, even away from developing countries (whilst companies like Nestle drain the lakes) there are several (although for different reasons) water collection restrictions in many states of the U.S.
Moved Too Quickly?
In this instance the companies were too hasty and overplayed their hands, but similar stealthier measures are now occurring across the globe. Within western societies such infrastructure projects are reported as success stories, connecting deprived and disconnected communities to sanitation. Unfortunately with big business involvement there is always a pay off, which once filtered through the black and white machinations of our mainstream media are seldom reported. This isn’t philanthropy its (with a nod to general Petrov) the privatisation and corporatisation of the worlds resources. Through a maze of Malthusian manipulation (if you do your homework) it can all be connected to the same globalist control network, an agenda that (under the guise of resource management) is more welcomed than questioned.
In relation to the esoteric nature of the first part of this chapter, within esoteric law we must (through our albeit manipulated freewill) consent to the seismic changes that are intended to take place. Through an innumerable profusion of exponentially evolving NGO’s, COG.s and thank tanks, we see the unveiling of the new (although very old) unstructured control model. A system intent on superseding the decaying vestiges of an albeit pseudo democracy. A form of governance that (to varying degrees) is both officially and or philosophically entangled within the one world narrative, but that equally transcends a singular entity of control. At the ground level this is manifested in the mantra’s of sustainable development and regeneration, but these are the merely the palatable foundations of a totalitarian system of governance that is intended to rise through the evolution of environmental and associated social control mechanisms.
Of course, the mantras of sustainable development and regeneration sound like a great idea! Who doesn’t think development shouldn’t be sustainable (I know I do), or that the environment doesn’t need protecting (it really does!). It’s not until you dig deeper that you realise that this movement is in essence a greenwashed corporate takeover of environmentalism, equating environmentalism with vast corporate (part publicly funded) green energy projects. Indeed, as I have written about here, the increased centralisation of power/energy (yes that includes green energy) is actually destroying the very environment they purport to save. A true green energy revolution will only come through enabling individuals to pursue a course of decentralisation, in a literal sense “power to the people!” Alas, what we have is a predetermined narrative masquerading as freedom of choice, the illusion of choice is being used to manufacture the consent of the populace.
In the below report the author (Simon Linnett/Executive Vice Chairman of N M Rothschild) envisions greenhouse emissions as a form of "social market"
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.” Mikhail Gorbachev 1996
"That such a market has to be established on a world basis coordinated by an international institution with a constitution to match. That, perhaps, it might be regarded as having wider benefits than merely `saving the planet' - perhaps it might be the basis of a new world order, one that is not based on trade and/or conflict resolution.
Perhaps one can see a way to achieve this goal through leadership, vision and some marginal and manageable renunciation of national sovereignty, how the world might just get there.
The repercussions of addressing climate change may extend well beyond that single but critical issue....
Implicit in all the above is that nations have to be prepared to subordinate, to a certain extent, some element of their sovereignty to this world initiative."Source
The Narrative Controllers
Casting my mind back to the dark occult, many of us associate such practices with visceral images of Satanism and sacrifice. Unfortunately, it’s most prevalent and insidious aspect is also one that is (dare I say deliberately) overlooked and that is the manipulation of free will and yes the manufacturing of consent. From this perspective, dark occultic doctrines are more prevalent now than at any other time in human history; they are found in advertising campaigns and the propaganda that is littered throughout our media platforms and it is deeply entrenched within this agenda. The agenda seeks to manufacture consent for the seismic societal changes that are intended to be implemented against an unsuspecting public, they use fear, the spectre of emergency, division and propaganda to achieve it.
Within planning and sustainable development there are numerous ways to control the narrative whilst hiding behind the veneer of choice, the Delphi technique is a popular one. Incidentally the Delphi technique is born out of the Rand corporation and many UN affiliated NGO’s appear to be using it to their advantage. In essence, it hides a premeditated/predetermined agenda behind an illusion of choice, limiting options and the ability to voice a collective opinion that defies the narrative. Let’s take a look at it in action: