WW: Hey.
And welcome to Unlimited Hangout, I'm your host. Whitney
Webb, today, throughout much of the world, a certain set of
overarching policy goals first revealed themselves during the
COVID era continue to march forward with political parties
on the left and the right calling for those policies
implementation, albeit with different justifications,
digital IDs and their use to access online services,
biometric control over national borders, unprecedented
surveillance and so called predictive policing, the
creation of a new carbon pricing scheme, an unprecedented effort
to merge man with machine. The increased militarization of
domestic policing and much more are being rolled out in relative
lockstep globally.
However many who were against these measures just a few years
ago now seem to view them somewhat differently, as certain
political figures have postured themselves as against these
policies, but in reality, only really offer different sales
pitches to the public for many of those same policies. This can
also be seen on the international stage, where the
apparent hostilities between West and East disappear when it
comes to these same policy goals. The reason for this
likely lies in the adoption by both the western and eastern
power blocks of United Nations policy agendas such as agenda
2030, and the so called Sustainable Development Goals,
while those goals themselves are worded to sound pleasant and as
ensuring basic rights and needs, which is, of course, aided by
the Un framing itself, rather disingenuously, as a place where
national governments all have an equal seat at the table, the
reality is really quite different, as we will discuss
today. To understand where these policy goals come from and who
the UN really serves, it is best to start by examining the
genesis of that organization and its development over the past
several decades, joining me today to dissect the history of
the UN in the current push into techno dystopia is Dr Jacob
nordengard. Dr nordengard is a Swedish researcher and author
who has now written seven books, with the seventh coming out
later this year in December, on how the incoming digital control
system developed and unfolded, with a focus on the true nature
of the United Nations and some of the most prominent oligarchs
and that organization's development. You can find his
books in other written works at Jacob nordengard.se, thanks for
joining me today, Jacob. And welcome to unlimited hangout.
JN: Thanks for having me.
WW: Well, it's absolutely my pleasure. So to start off for
most people around the world, I would assume the United Nations
is generally seen as a coming together of the national
governments of the world, where global issues are addressed
collectively and every country has an equal seat at the table.
Why, in your view, is this perception inaccurate?
JN: You just have to go back to the roots of United Nations, who
were the founders, who was with organizations set up.
It's always those who are behind things that have a say in what
organization, organization really is going to do. So it's
a, it's a, it's like they have sold an idea of of this perfect
world order where everyone will have have a say, but, but it's
not like that. And if you go into to the background and how
United Nations came about. It's a different story.
WW: All right. So with that being said, one of the earlier
families, groups, oligarch, clans, perhaps you could say
that had an outsized influence on the early development un is
the Rockefellers, which I know is a family you've written
extensively about. So how did the Rockefeller family and their
affiliates influence the early United Nations, and what
influence do they continue to hold over it?
JN: Well, you can go back already to the League of
Nations, the setup of League of Nations, and the Rockefeller
family was involved in this. And the Under Secretary of the
League of Nations was working with yonder, Rockefeller Jr,
already and but as we know, the League of Nations was never
United. United States was never a member. But they worked
Rockefeller Foundation worked very close with the League of
Nations Health Department. It was like they set up everything.
They had, this International Health Division, the Rockefeller
Foundation, and they more or less run, ran the operations
League of Nations for a. The health agenda. And the same goes
with the setup of United Nations as we know. The League of League
of Nations was a failure, and during the 30s, Germany and
Italy, they quit the membership, and the organization had had no
abilities to stop the war, but at the same time, they started
to think about the possibilities set up new organizations, and
this was done through the lot of work of the Council on Foreign
Relations in New York. And the Council on Foreign Relations, of
course, was set up by JP Morgan, and also the Rockefellers. And
the Rockefellers were huge and very, very influential in these
organizations from the 30s and onwards, and especially after
the second world war, they were dominating this organization,
but But before the war, CFR, they had This War and Peace
study their way. Discussed the possibility or how a new system
would arise after this more the war that was about to start. So
it was the financial powers at that time. We knew that the time
was more or less up for the British Empire, and this was a
preparation for what was come would come afterwards. And so in
this study, they mentioned the new financial institutions, like
what would become the World Bank and IMF and so on, and and also,
this started a process with a lot of meetings during the
during the war, about a New World Organization, and it was
also the fact that the allied forces, they call themselves the
United Nations, so They took that name later and and during
the 1945 they had this big conference in San Francisco, and
that was the kind of setup of of everything, and we have a big
influence from The Rockefellers. At that time, Nelson Rockefeller
would be vice president, was a part of this, and after they had
made the decisions to start this, they Nelson Rockefeller
and the Rockefeller brothers, they became with a proposal that
the new headquarters would be placed at their estate at Bucha
hills, outside of New York. But, but it was some of other member
countries that would be a part of this and other people that
was part of a new organizations that said it's too far away from
from the from city. We we have to have it in. Yeah, it be it.
They said, We have to have it in inside New York. And so the
Rockefellers, they bought the land for the headquarters
yonder. Rockefeller then donated this property to the United
Nations, and the Rockefellers all also put up the
architectural team that was responsible for the design of
the headquarters, and their own chief architect was heading this
and he was the chief architect was also a member of both the
Rockefeller Brothers, founder and Rockefeller Foundation, the
member of Board of Trustees, so it was very, very close to to
home for them. And it's also with with Rockefellers at just
after the Second World War I. Mean they were so all the
competitors had more or less been crushed by the war, but
they were in United States and had so much again, so much power
and and wealth during the war. So they were very, very well
prepared to take over the what you could say as the great work
on building these new global governance structures and the
United Nations, more or less, became an organization that
they, if you go into the Rockefeller Capital Management,
they They are handling the financial affairs of the
Rockefeller family. They have all these organizations that the
Rockefeller has influenced and fund founded, and among them,
they have united nations in the middle. It's like, okay, this is
our organization. And so from the beginnings, from 1945 they
have had a very, very, very big influence on organization. And
also, like in 1948 we have set up of who also very, very
closely connected to the Rockefeller Foundation and their
work, they basically to go with operations from the from the
League of Nations, so very much into to steering the agenda at
that time, and they also after the after the Second World War
in the 50s, and they had the organizations, they started to
think about how they could make United Nations more more
powerful. And during the or or after the Second World War, it
was a kind of a movement going on that talked about making the
United Nations into a world government. It was the world
Federalist movement called it was called, it still operates
today, but, but it was a failure. Couldn't convince the
member states of United Nations at that time that would give up
or very sovereign sovereignty. And so they had to think about
other ways to achieve this. And of course, we had cold war
coming, and that was actually the end of the idea of creating
a world government at the time. But the Cold War was also making
it clear for the nations that the atomic bomb could destroy
the whole world and and therefore we we have to have a
kind of a global governance regime taking care of this and
prevent this from happening. And a lot of these ideas stemmed
from the University of Chicago, a university that was founded
and funded by John D Rockefeller, first, John D
Rockefeller senior, and later,
also when, when John D Rockefeller died, John de Jr was
involved and and David Rockefeller, and the Rockefeller
money was very, very much in in the University Chicago, and at
that university, they, they started something called the
doomsday clock. You know, over your doomsday clock, familiar,
WW: yeah. So basically, the alarmist group that says we're,
you know, one minute or two minutes from midnight, more or
less been a very small amount of minutes from midnight, ever
since it was created, sort of creating this alarmism that's
used to manufacture consent. I guess you could say for
solutions that people would otherwise not accept, that often
leads to a surrendering of sovereignty per perceived gain
against whatever the threat is said to be. Is that fair?
Exactly. Okay. I.
JN: So, so it was set up in in 1947 they, they started this
doomstick clock. And they also from this university, we have
the very important people, Robert Huns was, was the the
president of universe at that time, he was involved in the
setup of the Aspen Institute in in Colorado, and the Aspen
Institute worked very close with United Nations agenda all and
they were searching for problems, global problems, at
first, the atomic bomb, but but very close by, we started to
Talk about the population problem. It's a big thing
WW: before you go any further. Then, since we're getting into,
I guess, what is arguably the Rockefeller effort to rebrand
their long interest in eugenics, unless something else entirely.
What exactly has the Rockefeller family? I mean, they have a long
standing history of what they've wanted to impose on the world.
And obviously, from what you've said thus far, have sort of
utilized entities like the United Nations to manufacture
consent globally for a lot of those things. So in addition to
sort of this, some of the things you're touching on here, Could
you perhaps give an overview of essentially what their goals
have been since it at the very least the early 20th century, if
not a little bit earlier than that, and how, sort of a quick
overview, perhaps, of how they've attempted to use the
United Nations, or, you know, the NGO complex, To sort of
rebrand some of these long standing ambitions as something
more palatable to the public. Yes,
JN: if you go into to the Rockefeller history, it's all
about oil in the beginning. And so Johnny Rockefeller starts
Standard Oil, the Standard Oil Corporation, the more or less
biggest in the world, takes over the oil industry almost
completely in the United States and and also becomes very, very
influential globally. And that's important. They are operating
globally and starting up business more or less all over
the world, and also interesting in securing the oil in other
regions and United States as well. So they are, it's like
they are building up the Intel their own intelligence service.
WW: They did have their own intelligence service, actually,
during World War Two that was like a competitor to the
precursor to the CIA, yes,
JN: yes. Interesting operating from the Rockefeller Center. So,
so they start up very, very early. Interesting in because
they are, they are into global trade. That's what we're doing,
global business and and one thing that they thought were
impractical, it was that we have to to in order to our business,
to make contract, we have to to operate with governments all
over the world. It's and it also in the United States, you have,
you have the you have the you could. Couldn't do it only on
the federal level. You have to be on the state level to and
they thought it was they wanted to bet the structure. We wanted
to. It's like, when you're lobbying, it's better to like we
have the is in European Union now, first we have the
countries. Now have Brussels, and every lobbyist in is in
Brussels and and we can the big corporations, they can more or
less make policy with the help of the lobbyists and the
politicians, and then these will be implemented in the member
countries. And it's that kind of thinking that they they want
them. More efficient system for global business, and that's why
we want to have this and have this on a global scale, global
governance. And it's like we have used the United Nations for
and wants it to function as this in the future?
WW: Well, I think it absolutely has become that actually, in
some of my past work with Ian Davis for unlimited hangout and
talking about the United Nations, we've referred to a
what we consider a rather infamous quote from former UN
Secretary General Kofi Annan that he gave, of course, when he
was UN Secretary General at the end of the 1990s saying the UN
has undergone a quiet revolution. And I'm paraphrasing
here, but it's something to the effect of, you know, it's not
really about the public sector of the world anymore. It's, it's
really about business. And the business of the world's
businesses is now the business of the UN, and you know,
essentially signaling that, you know, we serve the private
sector in the public private partnership model, those kind of
things. And it makes a lot of sense when you consider that you
know, at the same time, the Rockefellers are sort of
posturing as you know, you know, through the UN as wanting, you
know, a better, more just world and all of this stuff. Some of
the early things they were promoting at the UN, you know,
basically came down to increased un interest in what is often
referred to, at least today, as the global south. And so in the
case of, you know, Latin America, for example, you have
the rock of David Rockefeller, for example, sponsoring the coup
in 1973 in Chile, installing Pinochet, and then having their
economy be under the control of the university. You just
mentioned the University of Chicago, with the implementation
of what are known as the Chicago boy policies. And then a lot of
efforts, and a lot of that was facilitated by this network of
businesses that the Rockefellers controlled in Latin America, and
one of their closest affiliates in Chile, a man named Augustine
Edwards, who was a head of this Chilean banking dynasty,
basically. And the, you know, David Rockefeller, at the time,
was head of Chase Manhattan Bank, which had very predatory
policy towards Latin America helps spawn the Latin America
debt crisis, which has led to a lot of the issues that we're
still seeing today. Really like, you know, Argentina's political
instability, for example, has its antecedents in that era. And
then there's this particular group that's, I think, very
interesting to look at as well. They were known by this acronym
called Adela. And Adela is actually, I know about it, yes.
Well, would you like to talk about it? Then it did help spawn
the Club of Rome, which I know is a comes up quite a bit in
your work. So in the Rockefellers were involved in
that as well. So I'd be interested to hear your take on
on Adela.
JN: Yes, Adela, they worked for for more or less Latina American
integration and cooperation between countries. But also it
was like a lot of bank stores in Poland, yeah. And we also have,
also from my home country, Sweden, Marcus, wallenberry, the
Swedish Rockefellers. It's wallenbergs. I don't know how
much you have looked into to them, but, but they were, they
had this meeting Adela in in, I don't remember what country was
for now, but they had a meeting with and they had this speech by
a man called aureli pecha. He was the second guy at Fiat and
at Olivetti, and also he had started one of the founders of
Al Italia, and they at this speech, he talked about the
future, the future development, and how it was Important to more
or less control the future, because if, if this powerful
people wouldn't do anything, it could spiral out of control.
And, for example, it was about population explosion, very, very
topical at the time. And and also some other kind of
environmental issues and this and it talked about how there
was a need for more, like high tech revolution, and this. This.
If you read the kind of history of the Club of Rome, they
mentioned this. We don't know if it's exactly like this, it
happened, but they state this and this speech to these
banksters. We had one of those, what was listening to this was
Dean Rusk of the Rockefeller Foundation. He was, I think he
was later Secretary of State. Maybe he was, he was at this at
the time, but he had been at Rockefeller foundation so very
close to the Rockefeller circle and, of course, and being part
of something called the special studies project in the 50s. And
this led up to ideas on set up kind of a think tank, think tank
for the future and future development. And they had a
first meeting in Rome,
WW: I believe, at a Rockefeller residence right in bolagia. No,
the
JN: first was actually in Rome in okay, I don't remember the
exact play I was at this place last year. I was invited to go
to Rome, and so I had to go to this place. But it's a very,
very, it's the oldest Academy, more or less in the world, and
has also has a connection to my own home country, Sweden, with
our queen Christina, that went and lived in that place, in the
old building of this academy. She, she, she had a resident.
And in that place the first seed, it was decided to to form
this little group, the Club of Rome, and then they went to
Bellagio a couple of months later. And that was very, really
took off with a little core group. And this was a planning
event. It was global planners and system theorists that were
gathered there to discuss more or less future development and
how we can create a better system to govern the world and
after that they we have have a lot of Rockefeller people
involved in this. First it was, of course, the Bellagio Center,
run by Rockefeller Foundation and but we also have one, one of
the people in the Board of Trustees of a Club of Rome in
the circle was Carol Louis Willison. He was a close friend
of Nelson Rockefeller and also David Rockefeller, and had been
involved in their special studies project in the 50s. But
I think it's a very, very important thing with the special
status project, but the Club of Rome. Carol Louis Wilson was
also he was at the MIT, and he was responsible for setting up a
study about resources, that resources and population growth,
and how the population growth would affect resources. It was
very much based on malthusianism ideas and computer modeling,
that was thing. So they built this computer model at the MIT,
run by Jay Forrester, and this was the basis for the book
limits to growth in 1972 so
WW: before we go farther into limits to growth. I just want to
add a few things. So first of all, my understanding of Adela,
which helped, as you noted, helped produce the Club of Rome,
and all of this was essentially to invest it was basically like
Western oligarchs going to Latin America and King making who
would become. Of the local oligarchs of those Latin
American countries, sort of deciding, deciding who would
become the big corporate magnets of that region. Which is
interesting because there's actually another group that has
followed that same model called endeavor, and they've actually
they're mostly funded by the bronfmans, involve Reid Hoffman,
and also Pierre Omidyar, the founder of eBay and and longtime
owner of PayPal, though he is not current, doesn't currently
own PayPal anymore, but they are essentially following that same
model, but to basically King make the startups and companies
that will be running all the Fourth Industrial Revolution
technology in Latin America, which is interesting, but it
really comes down, as you pointed out, to resource
exploitation, how these people can control resources in
countries that they really have no business doing that in, if
you're coming at it from A sovereignty matters perspective,
and then also trying to essentially frame population
growth in these same areas like Latin America or the global
south more broadly, as threats to national security. So what
you were, what you just referenced, is really at the
Club of Rome was also, you know, essentially in the same time
frame, paralleled by another affiliate of the Rockefeller
family, Henry Kissinger, in a national security memorandum
that he put out that during the Nixon administration, basically
made it US government policy that unrestrained birth rates in
Latin America and in other areas of the global south were
considered a threat to US national security, which is
important to keep in mind in the context of all of this. So
ultimately, you know, there's the long standing Rockefeller
interest in eugenics, but also, you know, kind of the view that,
you know, unrestrained population growth in these areas
will essentially make it harder for, you know, these oligarch
clans abroad to control the resources there at the end of
the day. But somehow they've managed to rebrand this very
disturbing and predatory ideology as some sort of a you
know, as sustainability and sustainable development and and
all of that, and a lot of environmentalism
JN: and, yeah, and made made very popular among people. They
have implanted the idea among I mean, especially in Sweden, we
believe this. Everyone believes, is this dogma. So, so it's like
the elite view we have. We have really taking, we have
indoctrinated the minds of everyone to to accept their own
view. And this has been a strategy from the beginning, but
I just wanted to do you know about the special studies
project that I mentioned,
WW: I believe I'm familiar with it is that not where the rock of
David Rockefeller became acquainted with Henry Kissinger
because of Kissinger's involvement in that program,
yes, or it might have been a separate thing.
JN: Well, it was the, I think a special start is one of the key
things in my Rockefeller book, because that's when they set up
a lot of agenda that's playing out during 60s and 70s and to
this day. And this was, it was Nelson Rockefeller that wanted
to he had been the in the true man administration. He had been,
also, think he was in, involved in the, also Eisenhower and but
he stepped out of politics for a while and wanted to become the
chairman the president of a Rockefeller Brothers Fund,
because he had, at that time, an idea. He wanted to bring the
best minds in America together to discuss future problems and
possibilities. And they had allocated funds for this. It was
called the special project from the early 50s. And they started
this in the mid 50s, 56 I think, and they recruited Henry
Kissinger for as a coordinator and to take care of this. And we
have a lot of people involved that is very, very high up in
the. Banks and what they are doing with this. It's a it's a
thick report. It was, it was released in the end as a book in
1961 called Rockefeller panel reports. And in this they talk
about how to more or less create this new world and and a global
governance system for the future. They actually say in
this report that their mission was to to shape a new world
order in all lights, all its dimensions, economic, political,
culture and so on. And how to do this. They they said that
science is a method. Because science it's it's something we
have scientific cooperation between nations over the
borders, and we have to seek out scientific problems that are
global in scope. So in this special studies project, we say
that, okay, we have some areas that are more interesting to
develop than others, and some of these are meteorology and
oceanography, because climate spans over borders, it's a
transnational problems. And we also say that if we somehow
could change the climate, it would be a problem that would
needed. It couldn't be sold by a nation alone and and the next
thing is global health. And of course, the third one is the
atomic bomb, but it's so they say they have to fund these
scientific areas, and they have already been doing that, of
course, with health for a long time, but Now in the 50s, it
becomes a priority with climate climate change and the carbon
dioxide theory that they that was not a big issue at this
time, but It became, and they were very, very heavily involved
in setting up this from the 50s and onwards, and then through
the Club of Rome, that was one of the main vehicles. And as I
said before, Carol Louis Wilson was a part of this special
studies project, and he was the one that commissioned two big
conferences in the early 1970s that talked about critical
environmental problems and man's impact on the climate, and he
was a close friend of Nelson and David, and more or less when, if
you read what's written about him by the climate scientists of
that time, they say that he was one that made us interesting
about these topics and how man was responsible for influencing
climate so it came very obviously, and it's kind of a
shock for me when I found out this, I was, I was at the
Climate Center for Climate Science and Policy Research in
in my home, home city here North shopping. And it was strange to
see that, okay, these people, wait a minute, these, these are
the old oil men that were behind this
WW: so well, it kind of does make sense when you consider
that, you know, the modern environmental movement is almost
exclusively focused on carbon emissions, yeah, and not on the
toxic load caused by industries like Big Oil, for example, that
the Rockefellers made a lot of their wealth from. Yeah. Um, or,
for example, I mean, there's an infinite number of major
environmental issues the world faces from, you know, just
contamination from mining, for example, contamination from
things like hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as it's
done in the US, which totally destroys the water table and,
like, just pumps a ton, a ton of really toxic stuff that they
don't companies don't even have to disclose, into the water and
into, you know, the earth and all of this stuff. And it's
essentially made it the big issue. And of course, when you
have that extreme focus on carbon emissions, the solutions
that have been given to us are essentially technocratic efforts
to manage people's footprints through, you know, organizations
downstream of the Club of Rome, like the Global Footprint
Network, and then all these efforts to create carbon pricing
schemes, which are essentially ways to create new markets. And
basically through the the narrative about, you know,
through this the fear generated around climate change, use that
as a way to impose this new market onto nations,
essentially. And it's interesting, because the figure
that was very important in getting those solutions to be
the predominant, un backed solutions for climate change and
things like that was Marie strong. And the man that Marie
strong chose to hire to develop carbon emissions trading, and he
that he worked on, on developing the Kyoto Protocol with, is a
guy named Richard Sandor, who had previously been an executive
vice president at Drexel Burnham Lambert, which had gone, which
was at in the center of a huge financial scandal, just like two
years prior, basically, for the junk bond scam. And, you know,
several people at Drexel went to prison, some became convicted
felons. And Sandor made a lot of money off of that. And he's also
the father of financial futures and derivatives, and a lot of
other, you know, financial instruments that have caused
economic calamity. But he's, yeah, he's the father of of
carbon trading. And he thinks also that we should privatize,
you know, the world's access to clean water and clean air, that
there should be a market for that as well. And you know, this
is why it's very frustrating to me for people who I think are
environmentalists and are well motivated. You know, if the
alarm is such, as described by all of these figures and
organizations that you're citing, why are the solutions,
all of these scammy carbon pricing schemes that don't
actually, even if you believe the official climate change
narrative, don't actually address that narrative at all.
You know, yeah, exactly,
JN: yeah. It's a big scam, and it's, I think it's we, I know a
lot of people working with this, and it's not bad people. A lot
of my old colleagues from from universities, so they all work
with us. They believe it. And I guess we think I've gone crazy
or something, but, but it's like, but I have tried all the
time to just show the evidence, the evidence for this, but it's
very, very, very hard for believers to even if you show
them this, they can, and it's like they have invested so much
in in this climate narrative, but they can't. It's impossible
for them to to do other things or question it, if we question
it by the question the very existence of institutions we
work in. So it's, it's very, very hard to change this,
unfortunately. Well,
WW: I think, I think it's useful to focus on the proposed
solutions from the people that are propagating, or are the
Genesis figures in in this narrative, you know. So for
example, someone like Bill Gates, who's become relatively
notorious, you know, he says the solution to climate change is
not to plant forests all over the world. Don't plant trees. He
says, instead, he thinks it's a much better idea to pay some
company to use, you know, fossil fuel powered large digging
machines to pull up trees in an existing forest, and then, you
know, use untold numbers of fossil fuels to then bury those
trees underground so that the carbon is quote, unquote
sequestered, even though the trees alive would technically
turn that carbon into oxygen, right? Um, and he's like, no,
no, you can't do that. We have to, you know, these startups
that I've been investing in and funding, we have to use. Their
solutions and things like that. And also, I think it's useful to
point out that the UN when you look at a lot of things they're
facilitating and supporting, absolutely go against common
environmental sense, like their facilitation, for example, of
deep sea mining at a time when they're claiming to be extremely
worried and arguably rightly so about the environmental crises
facing the world, world's oceans, right? But a lot of
those issues, like deep sea mining or extreme plastic
pollution, have taken an extreme back seat to concerns about
carbon emissions, and the idea that when you know that, takes
that the climate change narrative seriously thinks that
that those issues could be addressed by a carbon tax or a
carbon market? I think are, you know, really need to look at at
what these, these solutions that are being offered actually do,
and also the fact that people who claim to be against climate
change, like figures relatively close to the Trump
administration, are, along with the Global Footprint Network
that Club of Rome affiliate I mentioned earlier, are trying to
build a giant carbon market on Latin America, with the goal of
regionally integrating it basically into like a Latin
American Union, and building a continental, intercontinental
smart power grid connecting North Central and South America,
all and and then surveilling the all of the forests on the entire
continent as part of this like carbon scheme that they call
green Plus, basically and on the satellite company involved
intimately involves Trump's transition transition team co
chair Howard lutnic, who's now going to be his Commerce
Secretary, as well as his former Treasury Secretary, Steve
Mnuchin, and the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the
military under Trump, Joe Dunford, all on the board of
that, interestingly enough, and their goal is to put it all on a
Bitcoin Side Chain and essentially have these credit
these carbon emissions be be traded. But the local
communities it's supposed to benefit can't actually control
the money they supposedly receive from it, and they only
can implement projects with it that are approved by the Global
Footprint Network and this other, you know, a kind of
overtly globalist entity called CC 35 which is basically trying
to regionalize Latin America under the guise of combating
climate change. And actually, I'm a leading figure in Naib
Bucha ladies party in El Salvador. Mario Duran is a vice
president of that organization. So a lot of these supposed, like
right leaning figures that have been claiming to be right
leaning populace seem to be all in for the carbon trading thing,
which, you know, please explain. Explain that one you know,
against the narrative. It again, it's, it's a market, and it
seems to be big business and about resource control at the
end of the day. And I suppose when you're focusing on
emissions and global footprint, that's a very convenient way to
be able to exercise control over a country or communities
industrial activity and their energy usage. And there's a
direct correlation between energy usage ability and family
size, which takes us sort of back to the whole quote,
unquote, family planning endeavor,
JN: yes, yeah, it's all connected. I mean, and carbon,
it's perfect. Carbon is life, carbon is energy. Carbon is
everything, if you and that's why it has become so important
for that to to make it our new religion. Well, you know, I
WW: also just, I mean, there's just so many examples where it
just doesn't make sense. So, you know, why are a lot of these,
you know, big names coming out and saying, No, we can't do
small scale organic agriculture or family farms. We instead have
to have giant industrial farms that are managed by AI and
drones and involve no people like that's the more climate
change friendly solution is that. So I don't know. I mean, a
lot of these, frankly, just seem like they're being foisted on
people who are, you know, concerned about a particular
narrative, narrative that's been propagated. But there seems to
be a lot of or rather a lack of critical thinking about these
solutions, and do they really address the problem that's been
posed to most people? And it seems like there is a massive
disconnect there. So maybe we should talk a little bit about
the man that helped make this happen. I mentioned him earlier.
His name is Marie strong, and he was responsible for, well,
essentially, for the precursors for what are now the sustainable
development goals that have gone through a few iterations. But I
guess ultimately, go back to agenda 21 which was launched at
this Rio conference in the early 1990s but Maurice Strong has an
interesting history. Definitely has a lot of Rockefeller
connections, and I was wondering if you'd be interested in
talking about him at all. Yes.
JN: Maurice Strong, when I read, started to read about him. He
was first a bit critical about Rockefeller influence, but he
was kind of dragged into the Vernet, and he was a lawyer, but
and he was came into the energy business side of it, and it was
kind of a strange thing. You could say that he was the man
the shows for the Stockholm conference in 1972 the big
United Nations meeting. That was the first that was all for the
environment, first proposed in 1967 by a Swedish diplomat
called sverker Ostrom, but they had worked more or less behind
the scenes with the Americans. And the Americans were the
people from the Aspen Institute, with Joseph Slater and Robert O
Anderson. Roberto Anderson, he was an oil executive from the
Atlantic Richfield Corporation, and they set up kind of an
institute, Institute of Environmental Affairs,
International Institute of Environmental Affairs and more
strong, came into the picture. Was recruited for this. He
hadn't been talking that much about environment before, but he
had been involved with the Canadian was called foreign aid
agency, and so, so that's the because this conference was a
lot about future development, or how can we control development
so more strong? He was invited to to be the Secretary General
for the conference. They had this American team coming to
Stockholm. They've been, it was officially Sweden that was, and
the Swedish government that would run this, but more strong
and the SEC, the secretariat that was, was funded by
Rockefeller Foundation that they also find a lot of Rockefeller
connected people involved in this. And before the stock
conference, they had had also a couple of meetings to secure the
interest or secure. He wanted to convince the third world
countries that this was a good idea with environment and
development, and to have this big international conference.
Because the thing they were kind of skeptical. Were very
skeptical a lot of these countries, because it was okay.
So now it's the old colonial powers that are going to tell us
how we can develop in the future. Maybe not a good idea,
but more strong was sent with Barbara ward to have something
called the phonics meeting that they decided that we have to the
third world countries, they will be allowed to develop. We have,
we have, we have development in the mix. So these countries will
have something as well. But of course, what they thought of
themselves was the resources to control the resources. And in
Stockholm, it was interesting with Maurice, because I actually
read, I have this, this book that the Swedish Foreign Office
published a couple of years ago that it's a Swedish diplomat who
writes about all the what's what's happening behind the
scenes from more or less Stockholm, the Stockholm. France
to the Rio Conference, and a lot of things with more strong and
more strong, he had actually had a close contact with the Swedish
Royals. So, so you had had meetings at the Swedish Royal
Castle a couple of times. And so, very, very and it, it's,
it's just interesting to see these kind of people, because
it's not like when we set up this, this conference. We also
wanted to to make it appear like we have this grassroot movements
that are demanding change. So at the same time they they found
they founded the Friends of the Earth. Yes, the cop think it was
69 and do you know who gave them the money to to friends of your
this environmental organization where is known to be anti
capitalist and and very, very radical. Do you know the name?
No, not familiar. Oh no. Roberto Anderson, the oil executive from
the Atlantic ritual Corporation, gave seed money to his little
organization and and they were more or less created to give
this, because before this, the environmentalists were more in
the upper class, and they were into natural parks development,
and they were concerned about population growth. Of course,
they were into eugenicist thoughts, and these things not
kind of a popular view, but during the end of the 60s, they
changed this, and they set up France worth and also we have
this book, The Population Bomb, that was published in, I think
it was 69 as well. And to give this impression that we have
this, all these grassroots demand, demanding that we less
people on earth, and that we are destroying Earth, and Earth has
to be controlled, we also have a lot of metaphors coming up at
the time, and books called Spaceship Earth and so on. But
Earth is a little, little, small planet, and it has to be, have a
be manned by a crew that can steer it in the right direction,
and it's so fragile and everything so and in the middle
of this comes more strong and he they also have, actually, in
Stockholm, a kind of a place. It's a former Air Base that set
up a camp with youth, and they actually have this, Americans
coming over, like hippie types, and coming up with drugs and
stuff, yes, Yes to to make it this, like youth rebellion
movement and and more strong comes out and talks to these
used and everything and cameras everywhere, yes, to give his
impression. And more strong, he effectively manage this
conference and the conference, at the end, they decide that
Morris will head a new environmental Bureau the United
Nations Environmental Program. So and this was also a goal from
the from the this Aspen Institute and international,
environmental, environmental, I forgot name, Aspen Institute,
verobito Anderson and Joseph Slater and all these people,
very, very well connected to the oil industry, everybody. It's
kind of, it's kind of funny, just and after this, well,
WW: it continues today. I. Mean some of the biggest promoters
currently, of you know, carbon offsets, carbon emissions
trading, and a lot of these proposed solutions are big oil
and big gas and some of the biggest benefactors from the
Biden administration's very controversial inflation
Reduction Act, which was largely climate change, quote, unquote
related legislation were actually oil companies,
including one that backed Trump very heavily, called Occidental
Petroleum, which has a very controversial history because of
it's a very intelligence connected long time head, a guy
named Armand Hammer, and his involvement with people like
Samuel pisar of the Robert Maxwell network. And their goal,
along with, you know, they were affiliated with Kissinger and
largely this Rockefeller group as well, to create basically the
world of the trans ideological Corporation, as how peace are
put it basically like knitting together.
JN: They said, you said the occidental was it? Occidental
patrol? Yeah, Nelson Rockefeller was a part of it, right, right?
WW: Well, Al Gore, yeah, not surprising, either. But
basically, they've become a huge benefactor of, you know, carbon
sequestration subsidies and things of that nature. And a lot
of you know, the, I think, the biggest lobbying group for
carbon emissions trading the oldest one, it's called i eta.
It's all the big, biggest oil companies in the world are
there. So the idea that big oil and big gas are against these
kind of solutions. I mean, as you've been pointing out,
they've really been behind this shift in environmental
consciousness, you know, for a very long time, and they stand
to arguably benefit the most from what's being described as a
post oil era. But they designed the post oil era. Yeah, they
JN: did. That's the thing. What surprised me, I was once an
environmentalist. I was once a member of the Green Party in
Sweden and everything, and I thought at that time that, okay,
it's the environmental movement. They have actually changed
things. They started to complain about how these big corporations
were polluting the environment and doing all these bad stuff.
But when I really started digging into it. It was, oh no,
they actually started the environmental movement.
WW: Well, I think there were environmental movements, you
know, before this era, and you had people focused on, at least
the United States, a lot of chemical issues, for example, or
like, use of pesticides that were killing off, yes, native
wildlife and things like that. And now that has, as I said
earlier, has completely taken the back seat to this other
stuff. And I think it absolutely is possible to be an
environmentalist without, you know, supporting carbon
emissions trading or a carbon tax or carbon pricing schemes, I
JN: would say, say that the difference is that we have local
environmental problems and we have local groups, and these
have been always and now we have and real environmentalists that
they they're worried about the big wind farms and destroy this
destruction of the environment and the forest in Sweden to
build this. But these are local groups. But what I talk about is
the global, the
WW: the big, the moneyed environmental. Mean,
JN: we have a big it's like they are more like transnational
companies themselves, like what Greenpeace became, and France
VR, they have these offices in Amsterdam, and they always only
talk about the big global problems. They don't talk about
small local problems. But we can do something about but really
affects people in the daily life. It's just this big
problems that you don't can see, you can see how the climate,
that's invisible threats. So it's a difference. So of course,
we always, we have real environmentalists. I would say
that I, myself is a real environmentalist, but I was kind
of scared of seeing that a lot of things that I believed in, it
was no problems, it was no real problems, and that the real
problems was kind of, no, that's not important. And I, and I
witnessed the change in in in the Green Party in Sweden as
well. And they suddenly, at first, they were very much into
to local solutions and and caring about. These small
problems that were close to people, and instead, only
started to talk about climate change and also start to say
that, no, before, we were against the European Union, but
But now, because of the climate, climate we have to be a part of
the European Union. So they abandoned every criticism at
that time. So and also the people involved in the party,
they started to talk about technocratic solutions. It was
like they were totally hijacked. And now I think a lot of these
people that were involved have quit the party and now in the
more alternative movement. Yeah,
WW: well, that would that that kind of makes sense, honestly,
because it is very frustrating to see a lot of things happen
and what are sold as solutions to environmental crises, and
they're flagrantly predatory, and there's really no pushback
on them at all, except for, you know, the the handful of us that
write about green finance and alternative media, like as an
example, one of the, you know, most frequently floated
solutions these days, and that's supported by these predatory
multilateral banking institutions like the World Bank
and the IMF and what have you are things like climate debt for
climate swaps, you know, debt for nature swaps, where,
essentially, you know, these multilateral development banking
institutions that were created, you know, at the same time the
UN essentially was created at the close of the World War by
again, a lot of the same people involved there have been used to
essentially attack less wealthy countries with a form of debt
slavery, and now they're using that debt slavery to get people
to essentially give away their Natural Resources to either
foreign banks or foreign corporations or foreign NGOs
under the guise of conservation. But that's really not what's
happening at all, because it's a it's a retooling of something
that was pitched in the 1980s the debt for land swap, which
was is basically just a way to steal land, and Argentina in
particular, has been a big target of that for some time,
but it's also, you know, really Latin American wide. And
essentially all of those programs have been beta tested
most extensively in Latin America, but of course, also in
Africa as well, which is another major target of it. And
essentially what happens when these agreements happen is that
locals are unable to access the environment. So, for example, a
lot of the coastal ones that manage, like coastal marine
environments as part of these debt for climate swaps prevent
locals from accessing the beach at all, or engaging in local
fishing or anything like that. And they're essentially designed
to, you know, force locals out of the way they've been living
for a very long time, which is arguably sustainable, right,
but, but sort of force them into, you know, other means, and
allow a lot of these big banks that are ultimately behind a lot
of the stuff to sort of price, to sort of sell These ecosystems
as blue carbon credits when they're marine ecosystems, or
green carbon credits when they're forests. And all of this
as part of these sort of, you know, efforts to sort of add
what they call natural assets to, you know, their balance
sheets and what have you since, allow, you know, as I've written
before, you know, there's this idea of, and it comes downstream
of the Rockefeller Foundation as well, this whole idea of, for
example, the natural asset Corporation and taking control
of natural assets that were previously part of the public
commons. You know, the the goal is to essentially financialize
nature, but have it essentially be bought by people who don't
live there. And this has been getting really crazy, to the
point where you now have a company that's run by a former
Black Rock executive that invented exchange traded funds
or ETFs. Is has is turning each hectare of the Amazon rainforest
into a security that you can buy with a guy that used to be a
board member of Trump's truth social parent company, and
essentially what they're doing to locals is that they have
local indigenous groups living in the Amazon sign these
contracts in exchange for what's essentially very little money.
In terms of what they're giving away. I think it's like $10,000
and they lose sovereignty over their land. The company doing
the securitization of the Amazon, which is called one
Amazon, can bring any group they want into the forest without the
local people knowing or having to give their consent. They're
under constant surveillance, surveillance because one Amazon
is also aiming to. Wire up the entire Amazon to some sort of
internet grid that they call the Internet of forests. So like the
internet of things, but for the Internet of trees, basically.
And they say it's about conservation, but they also say
in a separate white paper that it's about harvesting the
biological data from the trees and then monetizing that so they
can make more money. And essentially, these indigenous
people lose their sovereignty and are under constant
surveillance from from foreign powers, really, in exchange for
a one time payment of like, $10,000 while these guys are
going to laugh all the way to the bank by securitizing the
whole rainforest and covering it with sensors and stuff and drone
swarms. Doesn't that sound environmentally friendly? Yeah,
so,
JN: of course,
WW: but this is, unfortunately, what a lot of people are
getting. And I do get frustrated with people who are very
unwilling to question the solutions that are being foisted
upon us, because for people that are concerned about the
environment. How do you not see that? It's absolutely bonkers.
And so I hope someday people on the left will start to figure it
out. I mean, there's plenty of people on the right that have
figured things out to an extent, but again, there's a lot of
prominent right wing figures, at least with the incoming Trump
administration in the US. You know, there are figures that are
set to serve in that administration that are openly
committed to implementing the SDGs, like Howard, let me I
mentioned earlier, his company, Cantor Fitzgerald has a whole
fund dedicated to SDG implementation and, quote,
unquote, sustainability. And you know, Elon Musk, for example, a
big proponent of carbon taxes for a very long time, and, of
course, an electoral electric vehicle magnet. Yeah, he
JN: has earned a fortune on on climate policy, yeah, so we've
changing the cars to to electric one. So it's right,
WW: which comes with a major environmental cost as well. All
of the mining for the cobalt, the nickel in the lithium,
required that that environmental cost is very substantial and
doesn't really get discussed very often, does it? But I
suspect there's going to be an effort, even even though Trump
is has framed himself in the past as a climate skeptic,
pulling out of the Paris Agreement and things like that.
It seems like the I think it's very likely that in the next
administration, you're going to see some form of carbon pricing
or carbon emissions trading, which were originally Republican
ideas. Anyway, it was George H W Bush,
JN: and this time, has Trump talked anything about the Paris
Agreement? This time? No.
WW: And actually, Elon Musk quit the advisory boards he was on in
the previous Trump administration, saying, You
quit, Paris, I quit. You to Trump. But they've teamed up
again. So I guess their differences there must have
been. They have already played that
JN: card. Yes. And
WW: then Howard lutnic, who I mentioned earlier, who's
essentially helped chosen the entire Trump cabinet and is now
going to serve in it. It was one of the earliest pioneers of
carbon emissions trading, and also it's precursor sulfur
emissions trading under the the first Bush administration. But,
you know, they had a they created a whole electronic
carbon trading platform, like as soon as the Kyoto Protocol was
signed in the late 90s, and have, you know, operated that
ever since. So we'll see what happens. Anyway, I there are
some other things in your work that I do want to cover before
we run out of time. So if we could pivot to some other things
that are related to the United Nations, but not necessarily its
role in hijacking, hijacking, modern environmentalism, I would
like to do that, if that's okay with you. Yeah, great. So you've
written a good bit on some of the recent UN packs and
documents that have come out, one of which is the UN our
common agenda document, and that reveals what some of the UN's
policy goals are, if the UN succeeds in obtaining what it
calls multilateralism with teeth, meaning the power to
enforce its policies on member states, whether they want it or
not. And these include a universal digital ID, an apex
body for the global economy, behavioral design, techniques,
space technology to monitor carbon emissions, which we
talked about a minute ago, among others. So in my opinion, in the
US and beyond, we're seeing an effort to sell a lot of these
policies to both left and right, including to those who were
concerned just a few years ago when, you know, during the COVID
era, and there was the formal announcement of the great reset
and so on. So what are your feelings about that? Do you
think that's happening as well, or do you think there is some
sort of force that's publicly not pushing to implement these
policies?
JN: Yes, I can't see that. We have some someone that really is
pushing against this. And. Uh, if you look into to the this
process with our common agenda, it's been going on for a long
time, and we had this packed for the future in just two months
ago, almost to the day, actually. And it was very, very
little resistance to this and and this was a document agreed
upon before it was no vote on the outcome document. There were
some countries that have some concerns about it, but in the
end, they gave in, and maybe some of the things included in
the pact or proposed were not part of the end document. But
it's not like, it's not, but it's, it's a tiny part, but the
pact is huge. It's a lot of things covered in this. So, so a
lot of these, they have already agreed upon. And it's, it's a,
and I say, this is a Fabian method, with all these small
steps all the time. So, gradualism, gradualism, yeah,
exactly. And, and also it's like, when, when you negotiate,
you aim for a lot, you said you and you say, I want. It's like
Donald Trump is doing negotiating. He aims very high.
And both in the other end of a negotiation, they go the middle
way and they feel okay. We didn't get that the most bad
things in the end, but they got, they got a lot, because that's
how you do it. When you negotiate, you come up with all
these solutions that can feel like far out ideas, but and
you're open and feel that they have won something. So I see
that everything that also has been proposed will come back at
a later time. It's like they had this, one of the one of the big
things in in our common agenda and the pack for future is the
emergency platform. I think that's the one of the most
dangerous things they have come up with, which is essentially
giving United Nations Secretary General, the right to declare a
global emergency, and that will make and their predetermined
actors that they have they have decided upon, big corporations
and governments and and institutions and academia and
NGOs, a group, a network that will act upon command When this
emergency is declared, and following protocols to the data
and and not tolerating any opposing view. That's that's
very, very, really scary shit. And they actually wanted to to
have the Club of Rome, and these people something called the
climate governance commission, a lot of Club of Rome people, and
also try out through commission, people involved. They wanted to
to have this declaration a global emergency already two
months ago, at this summit of the future didn't happen, but,
but it's like, but they prepare the world for such an event. Now
they have forced people to talk about they have the United
Nations system is adjusting itself, preparing and all in the
background, we all have all these things happening and and
also, I was just reading through a document from my from the
Swedish government, because they are preparing change and
becomes. Institution that gives the government the right to
declare an emergency without the parliament involved. So and
this, and that's that's also a reason that Sweden were kind of
more soft in their approach during the pandemic. We didn't
have that those tools for the for the government always based
on recommendations, but now they are preparing for so I think
this, but we said we want a global emergency declared now.
Okay, but the nations are not completely ready, because they
have to have legislation in place for so this emergency
platform that wasn't part of the pact. It was just United Nations
will come up with proposals on how to solve a big global
emergency if it comes, and we will decide later it's like, I
think it will spring up at a later date, perhaps. And I have
written about this in in in a couple of articles about this
summit of the future, of a packed food future that the
incoming Trump administration, and also the new European Union
Administration, they will have to deal with a couple of global
crisis, maybe, but they refer to as poly crisis, yeah. So, so it
will be okay. We didn't get what we wanted this time. But, and I
think even if they had had this emergency platform established
now, they would still have global emergency it's and to
test it, but this time, we don't have it. So now we have to have
this global polar crisis to show the world the need for VISTA
modulus platform. So that's one of the big things. So if you
actually look into all the political processes that is
going on around like the United Nations, you can see that they
all have prepared a lot of things already for the next step
in this. And for example, they have, they decided upon a change
in organization United Nations, 2.0 that is, and that's you
talked a lot about this with with surveilling the forest and
so on. And that's comes into this, because it's essentially
about this construction of the world brain, written a lot about
it. And I, actually we, I wrote an article in the same solar
report that you did about the world brain, the digital world
brain, and that's what I see, is the goal that is the end goal,
to have this more or less perfect system that gives these,
these people with billionaire People, with United Nations
bureaucrats and the the technocrats, and the possibility
to to actually look into the future with a collection of
every data and all the data, yes, all the data and and also
this with, there's A lot of preparation now for for
artificial intelligence the next step?
WW: Oh, absolutely, yeah. And I think there's going to be an
unprecedented effort to sell it in certain countries differently
as well. So I think you're absolutely right about the goal
for the UN to be sort of a de facto digital world brain.
Because ultimately, a lot of the work that I've done, most of it
in collaboration with Ian Davis, has focused on how a lot of the
efforts to, for example, market digital IDs is going to be
framing it as decentralized and vendor agnostic. But ultimately,
the standards of all the digital IDs are going to be the same
globally, and they can export their data. Data in the same
format, and certain entities, generally, the UN or groups like
the World Bank affiliates, are going to be housing the bulk of
that data for all the countries. So maybe so the idea, as it
appears right now, is to sort of give the appearance that it's
not the same system, but the data will be harvested and sent
to the same place and then used, you know, by that whatever
entity is housing it to you know, to be analyzed, to develop
certain AI algorithms and to you know, make, you know, policy,
technocratic policy decisions from that data, and then have
them be sold elsewhere. And I think they're going to try, and
I don't know, market those under different metrics to different
populations. So obviously the way they'd market it in China
versus the United States, I think, is going to be, you know,
quite different and so and but I think you can see sort of what
the marketing pitches are for digital ID. If you look at the
five eyes countries, for example, which you know the
which is basically the English speaking world. So in places
like the United Kingdom or Australia, when you know the
current Australian government is pushing through, you know,
digital ID for verification to access social media under the
guise of protecting kids from online harm. It's very similar
the argument in Britain as well, at least when it's the Labor
Party doing the talking, or they'll say it's hate speech as
well, protecting me from hate speech. But in you know, the
conservatives, the opposition, ostensible opposition, in
Britain, for example, marketed the same policy, essentially,
but as a solution to illegal immigration, right and so
obviously, right leaning bases in the West are concerned about
illegal immigration, which has been allowed by both left and
right to happen, and they argue that that is the only solution
for that. And that is true also in the United States, where
Donald Trump has proposed a biometric Entry Exit tracking
system that he says is very precise for anyone that's coming
into or out of the US, which includes any American citizen
that wants to travel abroad, so not just foreigners. Yes, and
that this would be a way to control illegal immigration, but
ultimately, it's the same policy. You get stuck with the
same crap at the end of the day, but the way it's being sold to
you is different, and I think, meant to appeal to different
demographics, particularly those who might resist that policy
more. Yeah,
JN: exactly. I mean, it's, it's the same in Sweden, we had, we
had a Conservative government, like 10 years ago, and we had
the Prime Minister, he said, we have to open our hearts. We have
to let all of these people in Sweden and be generous. And when
he left the office, and the Social Democrats came to power,
a new prime minister, and then we had this big refugee crisis,
and it was so problematic everywhere. And a couple of
years later, we had lots of criminality, lots of problem,
lots of shootings, bombings and everything, things that happened
in Sweden before, and even in my home city, it's gangs shooting
at each other, and outside my grocery store that I go to
almost every day, a young boy was shot to death, and it was
such horrible things going on and and the social democrat
government, they couldn't handle it. And they said, Okay, we have
to stop immigration, so we have to do something. And it became
problematic with the government, possibly Green Party wouldn't,
didn't like this. They wanted the immigrants to come to Sweden
and so and then a new, the Social Democrats lost power
because of this, and instead, the new, the Conservatives came
to power again. Remember now the prime minister before the
conservative he said, open your hearts, let the people in when
the problem hit. And then comes the New Conservative Party, not
the same Prime Minister as that time, but a new and he says, Now
we're going to take care of. Is the immigrants. We're going to
the criminality and and they decided very, very quickly when
we came to power, together with a populist party in Sweden
called Sweden Democrats that got a huge following of the people
that were tired of what happening with the immigrant
wave, and now we said we're going to now we're going to have
more policing, we're going to have more surveillance and put
cameras everywhere. So now they had this decision earlier this
year, or it was later last year that now it's allowed to have
this security zones and also put up cameras on the streets. But
we didn't have before, and it took two days and before they
put up this new security all over the town. So so it's it's
obvious how they are doing this and and also how it doesn't
matter who's in power, who's in charge, the left or the right.
The left, of course, they will use the digital ID for for the
environmental concerns or or health concerns, and the right
will do it out of concern of the people, the immigrants. So
WW: Well, I think once it's there, they're going to try and
mix them all together. So like the World Bank, for example, is
poised right now, at least, seemingly, to be one of the main
data depositories for digital ID globally, with its ID 40
database, and they're also in the process of developing
blockchain based climate wallets. Isn't that nice? So, so
it seems like the goal is sort of to link them together. And
there's also, you know, I think one thing that gets left at the
equation, because there's plenty of people that talk about the
digitalization of of money, but it really goes hand in hand with
the efforts to, you know, financialize nature and turn
nature into tradable financial products under the guise of
combating climate change, because then there can be
monetary incentives for you to have your climate wallet you can
get, who knows what token that's based on. I mean, the scammy guy
that used to run we work, right, came back with a carbon market
scam and produced the goddess nature token, right? So you can,
you know, hold some of those and feel like you're saving the
environment and whatever, while you get your de facto cbdc and
things like that. And I think it's important to keep in mind
in discussing all of this, that the name of the game, and the UN
has said it itself, is the public private partnership. And
just like they like to ping pong us around by going from left to
right whenever it suits them, or whenever people get tired and
fed up with one of the sides, they do that too with the public
private thing. And so I think you know, concerns, for example,
about a central bank digital currency, which would be a
public sector, right? Digital currency, there's been a lot of
a dramatic lack of focus on private sector digital
currencies that are just as Orwellian and surveillance and
programmable as CBDCs would be. And, you know, stable coins, for
example. And how these are being, you know, pushed around
under similar metrics and could easily be interfaced with some
sort of, you know, carbon emission, carbon limiting, you
know, finance edict that's eventually foisted upon us. But
really, I think, you know, the cornerstone of a lot of these
agendas are digital ID. You know, I think about roughly half
of all of the SDG indicators can't be implemented without a
digital ID, which is why I think it's so important to opt out of
that, and that people should really be focusing on that
instead of, you know, what certain politicians are saying
and doing, because they seem to all agree on the policy agendas
at least once they're in power. And you know, even though they
frame it under different metrics, perhaps, and have
different sales pitches. But if digital ID fails to be widely
adopted, then you know this whole agenda, essentially, will
have a lot of difficulty going forward, and they have to sell
it as voluntary, at least at first. So I think there's a lot
of hope in that endeavor. So before we run out of time, I did
want to touch base about a couple other things that you've
brought up in the context of your work on the global digital
brain and things of that nature. So in some of your work, you've
mapped out the effort of unlinked figures over the
decades that have called for a development of a new global
consciousness, and along with it, an effort to sort of
homogenize thought and culture. Sure. So, how did this techno
spiritual policy develop, and what is the end goal? And do you
see this homogenization, homogenization as already
happening to some degree?
JN: Well, this, this ideas sprang out of the Club of Rome
and guy called Ervin lasslo, that's a system theorist and
heavily involved in United Nations, and was responsible for
the new international economic order project at the United
Nations in the 70s, and they discussed at the Club of Rome
how we could develop a new global consciousness and and he
came up with the idea in and started a organization called
the club of Budapest in 1992 or 19 three, right after the Rio
meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the meeting that was headed by more
strong and the and the agenda 21 that when the agenda 21 doctrine
was born, and Laszlo and the club of Bucha pest, they started
to work with a lot of influential people, and among
them were Michel Gorbachev, the former leader of the Soviet
Union. And they also started, they contacted a lot of people
involved in culture, of course, and also religious leaders, to
to fuse together these ideas, and then started to talk about
how global culture could flourish, and they also were on
board, a lot of these people in something called the Great
Transition Initiative that essentially talked about, how
can we create this new planetary society with this global
consciousness, we released a report in in 2002 called the
Great Transition. Funding came from the Rockefeller Foundation,
United environmental program, and also, as always, as I cover
a lot of in my my Rockefeller book and other books a very
close Swedish connection with a Stockholm Environment Institute.
And they said that in order to to create this new planetary
civilization, we have to have a movement. We have to create a
movement of people that have this new identity, but don't
have the national identities. They have to have a new common
global identity. And they started to fund a lot of NGOs
that were operating to change people and also to connect
people with these ideas. And this was called the widening
circle. And started in, I think it was in 2006 and was
interesting, also, with this global transition, it was that
they said that, in order to change, there will be a lot of
crisis coming, and we know what happened in 2001 just before
this report came out, or vilasla actually wrote and published a
book called macro shift in two the ninth September of 2001 and
at the same day, we had a meeting in in Vermont. There
they had, we celebrated the earth shorter at that meeting,
and they had an artist that had created a new like the Ark of a
covenant, but where they placed this earth shorter, and that's
kind of this global. Consciousness, mindset and these
ideas, and they placed it in this New Covenant. And when the
911 attack happened, they decided to take this covenant in
a procession go taking a walk all the way from Vermont to New
York. And they wanted to place it in United Nations
Headquarters, but for some reason, it was not possible to
put it there at that time. So they so they put it in the guard
box. And the guard box, that's the nickname of the interfaith
house in very close Morningside Heights, Morningside driver, I
think it's called very close to Columbia University, and that's
where the Rockefeller Brothers Fund her office. So we put this
new company up there and and if you go into the Irving lasslo,
and because it's a lot of other things that's happening there,
they also talk about technology and how we're going to to create
this global consciousness. Because one thing has been
through the internet. Internet has been the first part of this,
bringing people together from all over the world and and
through that, you can start to change the mindset. But the next
step also is, is kind of connect everyone through the internet of
everything, and that's when it comes really scary. They
actually was involved in in a project called the nose for
project that discusses the brain computer interfaces and how
people would be connected to this in the future. And we
started some pilot projects. So it's and it's very, very, very
strange things. When I found out this, like in I think it's 2010
I was starting to investigate this about the nose forum and
but since things has happened, and as we know with the Fourth
Industrial Revolution, all these technologies that were more or
less sci fi and far out, they were now on the table and and
now we have Elon Musk with his his hubris projects promoting
these, uh, these things as well. Yeah,
WW: yeah. Well, um, in your work, you sort of link, uh, a
lot of what you discussed about developing this new global
consciousness. A lot of the figures involved in that you've
noted have argued that humanity must merge with technology in
order to survive. And of course, one of the most well known
recent proponents of that view is Elon Musk. So can you expand
on sort of that particular viewpoint in the context of this
and how it might differ from transhumanism, and what it
ultimately leads to, in your view?
JN: Well, this is Elon Musk. He has talked for a long time about
the threat of artificial intelligence that
WW: he's helping develop. Yes,
JN: exactly so. But in order to survive from the threat of AI,
it's better to fuse with it, become one with AI so we can
stand a chance. I think that's the most stupid things I ever
heard
WW: with you. And also
JN: the thing with Elon Musk as the savior now and the
alternative world of Hooray Elon is is coming here as a
superhero, and
WW: also he was placed in the Iron Man movies. Yeah, the Iron
Man movies had a significant contract with the Pentagon,
actually, as part of producing those movies. And at the time,
Elon Musk was already a pentagon contractor. You find that
overlap interesting.
JN: You wouldn't come that far and be that rich if you weren't
well connected to that system from the beginning. So, yeah,
WW: something like that. Yeah. So anyway. Do you Do you think
it ties in? I know that some of your work on this also has sort
of tied in with the new age movement, and connections to
that of this effort to develop a global consciousness as well.
And where do you see sort of this transhumanist style thing
we have to merge with machine to survive? Does it connect at all
with, you know that sort of related New Age movement that's
also tied to some of these entities? Yeah,
JN: it does. It does a very if you go into, I've written a lot
of this in my my book The Global coup d'etat. That's, that's,
that's another book that was published this autumn by sky
horse and I wrote a lot about the New Age movement and how
they are. It's kind of they give another version of the Klaus
Schwab world the the fourth industrial revolution. They they
have their own kind of Hip, hip technocracy, and and and hip and
space technocracy. So you always end up with this. If you go into
to the proponents of these in New Age ideas, it's always about
fantastic space technologies. That's going to say we asked,
rebranded the Fourth Industrial Revolution and given a more
fluffy way. But we can also find in New Age. I mean, new age
comes from something comes from the occult world. It's a lot of
women about the term New Age. It's Alice Bailey and the
theosophy. And we find connection also to Crowley and a
lot of that's what I write about in my book that comes out in
December, the book called Temple of Solomon, but I explain the
occult background to all of these ideas, and That's
basically the transhuman ideas. It's about perfecting,
perfecting yourself become a better person. And that's, of
course, that can be a good thing. Everybody. Everybody
wants to be a better person, but it's very and I state that in
the book, it's impossible to become perfect, but with the
help of technology this has we can find it in like Freemasonry,
for example, and and other with secret societies to talk about
this and and we have also offers that has connected With with
technology development that goes hand in hand with this ideas,
with philosophies of of of perfection and and how it can be
achieved. So so I have that has been one, one of the things that
I want to do for a long time, because I started, started very
like 15 years ago with environmental movement and how
we were funded by the oil industry. But I soon found out
that there was a lot of things going on connected to the New
Age world and with occult significance and and also that
the techno technological development of the world has
almost also be, almost always been very close to to occult
ideas. And we can take example, Nikola Tesla and so on. Where we
have, they had people that has have almost occult abilities
also? So it's a, it's a very, very I found, I found, when I
was doing research, a very, very interesting story that goes back
a long time.
WW: Great. Well, thanks for sharing that. I definitely think
it's worth looking into, especially in the context of the
whole temple of Solomon thing. Because I think it's I was
really interested to read in your work the I forget exactly
who it was, what a particular figure, in his view, felt that
the rebuilding of the so called Third Temple, Temple of Solomon,
was to have essentially all of humanity, like linked up through
technological means and sort of develop some sort of, like
shared hive mind. Yeah,
JN: yeah. That's, that's Oliver Reiser. But I have been written
a lot about and Oliver Reiser, um. Had some students. One of
them was Ovid Laszlo that I mentioned. Yeah,
WW: I just find that interesting in the context of a lot of
what's going on right now, for example, in Israel and
Palestine, and even a lot of appointees in the incoming Trump
administration rather openly signaling their desire to see
the Third Temple rebuilt, and also figures in the current
Netanyahu led Israeli government saying that as well. And a lot
of what that the significance that would have an eschatology
and sort of this other view propagated here about the idea
that it's really about creating like this internet of bodies,
Fourth Industrial Revolution, kind of it is a hive mind
paradigm. And it's interesting when you consider too that the
first prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, was predicted,
quote, unquote, in the 1960s that the future, a future world
government would emerge in Jerusalem would be its capital,
and sort of he also had interesting views on the quote,
unquote, Third Temple and what that would mean. So definitely a
lot to consider there, especially when you consider
that there's a lot of overt signaling from people like Peter
Thiel and figures that he funds and alternative media about the
age of the Antichrist is here, and things of that nature and
how things are going, I think people are going to be taken for
quite the ride. If that indicates anything. I mean, if
you've someone like Peter Thiel, a you know, steering committee
guy on Bilderberg and, yeah, and a big backer of, you know, the
current incoming Vice President of the United States and things
like that, openly saying, you know, the Antichrist is almost
here. Guys, yes, it's very strange times. So definitely
interesting to consider. Some of these occult things too, and
also, you know, in terms of just the development of of Zionism in
general, it's interesting that Theodore Herzl, who's often
considered the father of Zionism, he was actually in his
early days, anyway, promoting Zionism really sort of handled
by a British diplomat who, I believe his name was William
heckler, who happened to be a Freemason obsessed with
rebuilding Solomon's temple in the Middle East. So there's a
lot of history there. I guess
JN: it's connections to the round table, the movement. Yeah,
WW: right. So I think anyone interested in that should
definitely check out your book in December, and I've written
some some on these issues in the past, and we'll put that in the
in the show notes as well, for anyone interested. So thanks so
much for your time today, Jacob and I was wondering if you could
share with my audience where they can find your books and
your work and how they can support you.
JN: Yes, well, you can find some of our books and the new one at
my own web store. Can find it through jacobnordangard.sc but
you can also find my books at the enemy store. I'm a song or
sky, or directly from Sky horse. And I have two books out that is
released in United States now. That's Rockefeller controlling
the game and the global coup d'etat. And this third one can
only be bought directly from me, because it's a very, very
special book, limited edition and and also contains, actually
a soundtrack by my own band. I try to do. It's a kind of an art
project as well, and I have wanted to kind of express I've
worked with an with an artist, an illustrator, and wanted to
make something that is generally creative, instead with, instead
of this AI stuff that it's coming all the time now and yes
yes, to to promote true humanity. And so, so that's I
wanted to, I've always wanted to connect these things, but
remember my writing things with my artistic side. So, so that's,
it's a special product that's been a very, very
WW: commendable, and I think a model that other people in media
should follow, and instead of embracing the quote, unquote,
convenience of AI generated products as much as possible
JN: and also support people that that's one of the things that I
want to do, I want to support other artistic people and give.
The chance to to come up with, come out with a work and
actually earn something from it. So I think it's important, but
we help each other with this as well. Well,
WW: I definitely agree with that. You. Thank you so much for
your time, and thank you to everyone who tuned into this
episode. If you enjoyed it, please share it around, and
please consider supporting this podcast, we couldn't do it
without you. Thanks so much everybody and catch You all in
The next episode.
Unknown: You