Globalism Must Die

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | JUNE 22, 2012

It is as simple as that. Globalism, first known as Collectivism, then as Socialism, later as ‘Sustainability’, and now as the reform of the monetary system, are all the same. As per this quick explanation, Globalism is not new at all, it simply was hidden behind curtains of different colors. The multitudinous diversity curtain, the Red curtain, the ‘Green’ curtain and now the curtain with the big $ sign on it. They’ve all have, and they’ll all lead us to the same place: centralized management, also known as the old world order.

The thought that one person or a few of them are better at managing the rest of the people is an idea as ancient as humanity’s origins. ‘Let’s do this for the sake of all’. Having failed to completely lure the crowds to accept this way of life, the globalists moved on to a more forceful, yet more effective mode of conquest: balkanization of the unwilling crowd. Socialists and Fascists managed to divide people into groups of followers to whom reality was explained differently under the same educational model. After failing once again to fully absorb everyone, the globalists went ‘green’. Now it wasn’t only about ‘us’, it was also about ‘it’. The minds of the people were filled with ‘ifs’ and fear, and fear conquered them. Also through the fear came more control; monetary control.

“Give me control of a nation’s money and I care not who makes it’s laws”, said once a savvy banker and monopoly man. And the prophecy became true. The few that understood the system condoned it and adopted it. No opposition was met. Up until today, the globalists continue to steer the present and as we’ve learned in more detail, the future. Their build up to the future has been almost perfect, except that the men, the real men who didn’t know, but that learned about the system did mount opposition and now the ride will not be so comfortable. That is why the globalists are accelerating their move to the future.

Monetarily, the crisis is not a crisis for the globalists or Globalism, but for the rest of us. Crisis, business cycles, devaluation, inflation, deflation and taxes are just artifacts; means by which the result will be achieved. That is why Globalism must die. This sickening ideology, which intends to merge it all, hoard it all and control it all is the root [of the problem], not the endgame. How’s a globalist supposed to have the monopoly of money with so many currencies out there? Currencies are not money, but they are the means by which money is created, issued and controlled. Therefore, it must be easier to attain that control if there is only a handful of currencies, and eventually only one. The more fictitious the better so it can be more easily hidden, denied and managed.

How has the reserve currency model worked for you? Awesome, because you were able to accumulate a great deal of material property, even though that means you are a slave? Great, because by defrauding a lot of people you managed to keep that riches away from your own rules of control although that means you can’t really enjoy it? Fine, because it provided you status, fine dining and public recognition, despite the fact you can’t stand it having to appear sophisticated enough in front of others? OK, because you have made a decent leaving, even when that means you are in debt up to your eye balls and have to work just to get by?

Well, all that is about to end, if the globalists have their way. The reform of the monetary system is almost here. The plans have been on the drawboard for a while, they’ve been fine-tuned, dressed up and made up for its flashy appearance. Monetary reform has had many faces throughout history, but it’s never looked like this: a handful of reserve currencies including SDR with supervised issuance and cross-border capital flows by the shadowy elite-controlled International Monetary Fund. Who said that control over the issuance of money had to be a national endeavor? “The IMF would then have the ability to conduct open market operations as the world’s central bank,” explains Xu Hongcai in his China Daily article.

Parallelly, and in the ‘green’ side of things, a globalist-controlled environmental agency with the power to issue directives about development, use of resources, growth, birth rates, food production and distribution and so on. The charter for the creation and legitimization of such entity, just as in the case of the all mighty money issuing one, has also been in the works for long. It has barely given its first steps, but its members are already sure of the need for diplomatic immunity. The Green Climate Fund, the first draft of the powerful environmental agency is fully funded and operational with all its 24 members actively seeking more power at the Rio+20 Summit in Brazil.

To round-up the trifecta, a political arm that will define and impose all things related to rights and privileges, political correctness, social engineering, surveillance, privacy — or the lack of it– is also being formed and supported by the most capable military apparatus ever dreamed about with almost unlimited reach. This globalist authority, with all its nuances has been trickling its way into the world throughout centuries in the best example of how incrementalism can successfully achieve what brute force cannot: taming the spirit of humanity. Globalism doesn’t use imperial domination — although it’s served it well — but large-scale ‘cooperation’ and ‘compromise’. There are no more talks about countries and nations, but regions, areas, blocs. “In every member state, there are people who believe their country can survive alone in the globalised world. It is more than an illusion – it is a lie,” said European Union leader, Herman Van Rompuy. “Today’s nationalism is often not a positive feeling of pride in one’s own identity, but a negative feeling of apprehension of the others,” he added. How would he know?

The devilish beauty of Globalism is that it was created by building upon and at the same time eroding the existing structure of the Nation-States, although it stemmed from international ‘instruments’ (i.e. UN, IMF, GCF). Such construction amounts to the fact that ITS creation, does not produce any legal obligations for the statesmen who adhered their people to IT, while IT doesn’t owe any loyalty to those existing national structures. Globalism is, simply put, the sum of all fears, for which no equal opposition exists. It is a creature that only exists in the shadows, but from the shadows it controls everything that happens in the open society.

Trilateral Commission co-founder, Zbigniew Brzezinski described the birth of Globalism very well himself:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual  appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an  elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert  almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date  complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen.  These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

But he also described his death equally well:

“For the first time in human history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive… The resulting global political activism is generating a surge in the quest for personal dignity, cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world painfully scarred by memories of centuries-long alien colonial or imperial domination… [The] major world powers, new and old, also face a novel reality: while the lethality of their military might be greater than ever, their capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at a historic low.

If Globalism has always been in the shadows — because of its makers’ choice — and operated from the shadows; that is where it shall remain. That is where it shall die; it must die, and it will die.

Ecuador Tries to Blackmail the World to “save” its Forests

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | MAY 3, 2012

If you are tired of hearing so-called environmentalists parading their idea for a New World Order, be patient, because they’ve got another great idea. In preparation for the United Nations Environmental — I use the term loosely — Summit in Rio, politicians supported by green ONGs are already calling for the implementation of a Green Climate Fund (GCF) to help “save” the world’s forests. In a previous article, we informed how the UN Climate Fund is seeking diplomatic immunity, an unprecedented request if one takes into account that all what this organ is supposed to do, is to redistribute wealth. About two weeks ago, we asked where does the need for immunity stem from, and part of the answer is that although the GCF is a child of the UN, it is not covered by the immunity that protects other UN organizations, such as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

Why would the Green Climate Fund need immunity, though? I would like to hear your suggestions.

As explained before, the Green Climate Fund’s only purpose is, as UN members have confessed, a plan to redistribute the wealth of the planet, except that wealth does not seem to be going to the neediest people in the poorest countries. Additionally, politicians and unelected participants in previous UN meetings plan to obtain the funding for their Green Climate Fund from taxpayer money taken from middle and lower classes in developed countries, to give it to rich folks in underdeveloped nations. How will that contribute to saving the planet from the nonexistent condition they fear so much?

The GCF was created during the last Durban climate talks, in which 194 member states voted for the formation of an interim body that sought to establish the best way to spend around $6.7 million up until June 2013. Well, now there seems to be a great opportunity to get the GCF started. The South American country of Ecuador has officially embraced the Green Climate Fund as the only way to “save” its valuable Yasuní National Park. Ecuadorean ambassador to the United Nations Ivonne A-Baki, has requested that cash given to the GCF be used to pay for its plan to trade oil for forests. The plans says that Ecuador will maintain its forests intact, as long as the GCF pays the country for not using its natural resources, many of which are below protected areas and national parks such as the one cited Yasuní

The model to be established by the GCF is similar to the failed carbon credit scheme — for as little as it lasted –, where countries and corporations could pay fees that enabled them to pollute. This time, however, countries like Ecuador seek a financial incentive not to develop their natural riches, and instead choose to keep its population poor and underdeveloped. Don’t take me wrong, there is nothing negative about wanting to preserve nature in its original state. The problem comes when a country like Ecuador requests financial incentives as a condition to protect their forests. No country in the world needs financial aid in order to protect its environment if it actually intends to conserve. The planet does not need a global welfare system and no country requires money from middle class or poor folks in other nations to conserve.

Ecuador is one of several countries in Latin America with plenty of natural resources, many of which have been already opened for industrial use. The problem with Ecuador is the same that other nations in Latin America face: Government corruption. Although most of its population lives in deplorable conditions, and anyone may say that international financial aid may be a solution to the country’s poverty, it is important to say that Ecuador is a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the cartel that feels at liberty of manipulating oil prices to their liking. The nation of Ecuador is one of the largest exporters of oil  in Latin America’s, with a net amount of about 285,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) as of 2010. According to the United States Energy Information Administration, in 2011, Ecuador’s oil sector accounted for about 50 percent of Ecuador’s export earnings. Why can’t the Ecuadorians enjoy the benefits of their natural riches, then? Government collusion with corporations has forced the country to import refined petroleum products due to the lack of sufficient domestic refining capacity — not by chance — to meet local demand. Most of Ecuador’s oil is sent to China, in exchange for loans from the China Development Bank.

Why is Ecuador’s Ambassador to the UN using a threatening tone to request funds in order to preserve the Yasuní National Park? Well, the call came out of the office of the president Rafael Correa, who sad that he would not drill there as long as the international community subsidized the country’s welfare state — $3.6 billion — which is about half of the value of the oil reserves. In other words, politicians agree to hand over the country’s natural resources to the United Nations in exchange for only half of the value. Now that is a steal, isn’t it?

When politicians and large international organizations talk about preserving forests and natural resources, they usually employ spiritual and collectivist talking points, and in Ecuador’s case, it is not an exception. The country’s Ambassador to the UN appeals to people’s religiousness when she says that Yasuní is a sacred land and that is protected by God, as she shows a bracelet that reads “Together for the Yasuní”, her charm bracelet. “You stay there just one day, and you are rejuvenated like being in a spa for the month. It’s so pure, so clean.” Something like a spa is what many national parks or conservation areas end up turning into, once they are yielded to the United Nations. It is the UN through its supposed conservation policies, and in association with known globalist organizations such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, the United Nations Environment Programme, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, among others, the one attempting to end with private property around the world; all in the name of conservation. In modern times it all stems from the UN Biodiversity Assessment, a document driven by the so-called “sustainable development” and the writings of Agenda 21.

Countries like Ecuador have stopped begging and have started demanding that industrialized nations and international unelected organizations do something in order to “help” them maintain natural reserves and national parks as a condition not to drill for oil and other resources. There is a sense of self-entitlement in some developing nations whose socialist and communist forms of government have alienated free market capitalism — not corporatism — and therefore have seen their dreams to become a first world nation disappear as fast as they have kicked out foreign enterprises, or eliminated local private entrepreneurship by using the power of the State to keep people under control and ever more dependent. Now, given their isolationist policies, they find it kosher to request bribes in exchange for driving the globalist agenda of fake environmentalism and conservation. The most commonly used term is “climate justice” which is associated to industrialized countries’ “obligation” to pay poor countries to remain underdeveloped and to finance the cost of what they call ecological damage that those developed nations have caused to the planet.

Those pushing the agenda of make-believe sustainable development will have a great opportunity to express their concerns during the June 2012 Rio+20 Summit, where nations like Ecuador will once again demand that middle-class and poor people in the developed nations sustain — through taxation — the bribery system that has existed at the highest levels of government all over the developing world. But the gravy train seems to be running out of fuel even as more bureaucrats and well-intentioned environmentalists climb on to carry out the real agenda that is little known by most of them. “At its root, some of what this Yasuní initiative is about is ‘Who owes who?’ and this idea of the North paying the South to keep oil in the ground, said Kevin Koenig of Amazon Watch. So, the whole conservation agenda is not even about conservation. On one hand, it is about a resentful group of third world wannabe leaders, who are happy to keep their people hungry and poor as long as someone pays them to do so. On the other hand, it is about a corporate global deindustrialization program aimed to make the rich even richer and the poor even poorer.

Just a month before the Rio+20 summit, it’s easier to see they’ve figured out a way to carry out their plan and both sides expect the same result: Swindle the people of the world into believing that humans are bad, that the world will end if property is not given to the United Nations as the largest land-owner on the planet. In turn, the UN will keep the third world poor and underdeveloped in the name of saving us all. In order to make it look cool and trendy, they’ll use celebrities, movie stars and famous politicians who will push the false agenda of conservation. However, such conservation will not be for future generations as they publicly claim, but for the global oligarchs that finance and control almost every single environmental agency and NGO that pushes for sustainable development. Do you like it the idea? Feel free to jump on.

Fraudulent Climate Accord Passed in Cancun

Even third world nation Bolivia objected the agreement and labeled it a blank check for developed nationsdue to back room deals not published in the approved document.

Xinhua

The U.N. climate change conference finally came up with a way forward in the fight against global warming early Saturday after an all-night session, overruling objections from Bolivia.

The agreement covers establishment of a new Green Climate Fund to help poor nations, measures to protect tropical forests and a mechanism for clean energy technology transfer to poorer nations. It also reaffirmed a commitment reached at last year’s Copenhagen conference to provide 100 billion U.S. dollars a year to help developing countries fight global warming.

Xie Zhenhua, head of the Chinese delegation, said the conference was a success and the Kyoto Protocol had been reaffirmed.

Xie said the parties advanced with the guidance of the “Bali Road Map” and reached success at Cancun.

“The achievements of the conference are the result of the parties’ efforts and the advantages of the multilateral mechanism, which can promote the negotiation progress. We have full confidence in the multilateral mechanism after the conference,” he said.

The next climate conference will be held in Durban, South Africa, in 2011. According to Xie, the parties are confident about the South Africa conference. “We can step forward in South Africa, if we can continue to consolidate and carry on the spirit of unity and coordination formed at the Cancun conference,” he said.

Although the results were positive, it could not be described as “perfect.” Some details were left to solve in South Africa, Xie said.

Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa, chair of the conference, said, “The texts on the table represent the work of many delegations that carry the hope of delivering what our societies expect.”

“I take note of your opinion, but if there are no other objections, this text is approved,” Espinosa told Pablo Solon, the Bolivian representative.

Bolivia rejected the two documents of the deal, saying they amounted to a blank check for developed nations because the commitments set were in documents which had not yet been published.

Solon also challenged the validity of the agreement, saying the rules stipulated it could not be passed when one state strongly objected. “We will get every international body necessary to make sure that the consensus is respected,” he said.

“Consensus does not mean that one nation can choose to apply a veto on a process that other nations have been working on for years. I cannot ignore the opinion of another 193 states that are parties,” Espinosa replied. Her response received a huge applause from the floor.

Another Bolivian official also complained that his nation had been denied basic rights by the conference.

Read more…