The UN, the Rockefellers & Digital Control with Jacob Nordangard

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.

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,

Talk about the population problem. It's a big thing

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,

regions and United States as well. So they are, it's like they are building up the Intel their own intelligence service.

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?

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.

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,

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

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

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

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,

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,

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,

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.

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,

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.

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

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

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,

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,

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

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,

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?

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?

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,

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

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?

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,

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?

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.

shared hive mind. Yeah,

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

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