Who Are The Globalists?

In Parts One and Two of this series, noglobalism.com looked into the historical evolution of Globalists in Western society, mainly in the USA. Part Three continued this forensic investigation, into the CIA through to the emergence of the Military Industrial Complex, while noting the significant “contributions” of top Globalist, Mr. Henry Kissinger en route. Part Four continues to trace the development of key Globalist-oriented establishments established in the 1960’s and 1970’s, all of which remain highly important today.

This part illustrates how many times throughout the history of establishing globalist foundations, persons and ideas of truly altruistic nature were exploited and/or high-jacked by selfish interests for nefarious purposes. The elites were a mixed bag, some family members of good character, others not, some used and taken advantage of also. Many elites have also done many good things for society, along the path of what turned out to be mostly self-directed interests. At the same time, some were horrifically power hungry, caring not for whatever, or even whoever, stood in their path. We need to recall this point objectively as we trace back through time.

The Club of Rome

Alexander King met Aurelio Peccei in 1965 during an international conference on environmental and development issues held in Geneva. At the time, King, a prominent British scientist and futurist, was deeply involved in global policy discussions regarding ecology and human development. Peccei, an emerging Italian entrepreneur with a strong interest in the intersection of business and ecology, was attending the conference to explore ways to integrate early environmental concerns into corporate strategies. Their shared vision for combining science, business, and ecological conservation led to a lasting collaboration. They exchanged ideas and quickly became allies, working together to promote global ecological awareness.

In April, 1968, Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King, convened a small international group of people from the fields of academia, civil society, diplomacy, and industry and met at Villa Farnesina in Rome. This first meeting in Rome from which the group gets its name, was a flop. The core attendees decided to have another meeting in October, 1968. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) held the symposium at the American-elite funded Bellagio Center, located in Bellagio, Italy at which the Club of Rome formerly got going.

The meeting focused on the dangers of unrelenting industrial growth and the impact it would have on the planet. The outcome was the “Bellagio Declaration on Planning” that expressed a need to have a coordinated approach to the eminent dangers of unrestricted growth. This was the birth of integrative planning and resource management.

Early supporters of the original mandate of the Club of Rome, included David Rockefeller (USA) – An American businessman and philanthropist. Rockefeller was a known supporter of the Club’s early activities. His financial contributions were crucial to its early operations, especially through his connection to various global networks of power and influence. Maxima de Lemos (Portugal) – A Portuguese diplomat, de Lemos played a role in the early stages of the Club’s formation.

This is a long way away in all manners from today. In its recent history, the Club of Rome has followed the new Transhumanist path pushed by the World Economic Forum and the two organizations are trusty bedfellows. This Brave New World Agenda is not reflective of the original ideas of the Founders of the Club of Rome.

The Founders, Peccei and King were early ecologists and technologists and set forth to see how best these spheres could unite to maintain Humanity and the Planet. Although the Founders and supporters of these International and even Global governance oriented movements were focusing on how to make their own nations – their colleagues – and themselves more powerful, they were not thinking of the technological dehumanization that is the agenda today.

Population control was pushed and looked upon as a step towards holistic ecological management actually and not the horror that is today’s AI World Society Post Humanist Agenda. We must remember not to mix all this into one big caldron.

The Club of Rome, would go on to publish The Limits to Growth in 1972 that they used to demonstrate that if current trends in population growth, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached within the next century. To prove their point, they worked with academics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in order to develop computer simulations. At the time, the American elite group was known to heavily support MIT with funding for the social sciences, humanities, and technology.

One conclusion was that without a more sustainable approach the population of the world would plummet within 100 years. However, a major critique to the book was that those simulations were based on inadequate and biased inputs that overestimated some key features and assumed no change in others such as technological advance. The researchers then likely merely concocted the answers they assumed the elites wanted.

The conclusion of The Limits to Growth was nothing new but they were in a shiny new package with which to bedazzle readers. In his essay in 1798 “An Essay on The Principle of Population” Reverend Thomas Malthus had come to a similar conclusion.

Malthus would influence future works including those of RIIA member Bertrand Russell with his book The Scientific Outlook (1931) and The Next Million Years (1953) from British establishment figure Charles Galton Darwin. Yet, in that time between Malthus and the Club of Rome, man’s achievements allowed humankind to flourish. Not once would the followers of Malthus nor the Club of Rome acknowledge most obvious and critical error.

Peccei was one such adherent to Malthus, as evidence from his attributed quotation “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

The Limits to Growth would herald in the age of environmentalism and lead to the climate change catastrophizing that is ubiquitous in business and politics today. And then like now, nobody could get the models right, but we must believe them because the future of the planet is at stake! Or maybe, the fate of humanity is at stake as Malthusian oligarchs size the means of production.

The Club of Rome looked to mimic prior work that had proven misplaced since 1798. The Limits to Growth was developed around models provided by MIT, which was funded by the same group of elites –Americans, and Europeans, all highly privileged and powerful, some of whom were sincere altruists and others ruthless megalomaniacs. The initial collaboration that came about was through a member of the RIIA / Chatham House. The links to the network of elite globalists are many, yet The Limits to Growth is still a work that is somehow lauded by environmentalists, even though its theories have proven very weak.

In 1974, the Club of Rome would publish a follow up book, Mankind at the Turning Point highlighting the multiple issues facing the world according to them – “the population crisis, the environmental crisis, the world food crisis, the energy crisis, the raw materials crisis, amongst others”.

According to the book “the solution of these crises can be developed only in a global context with full and explicit recognition of the emerging world system and on a long-term basis.” And yet, here we are, continuing to thrive 50 years later.

The Club of Rome and the environmental movement that followed has been at best a flawed exercise, and at worst an unforgivable hoax engineered by the power elite as a way to control Humankind and bring about a one world government.

Not All One Size

After studying Globalism to the tune of thousands of hours and having worked as a professional in the Globalist arena for decades, I have come to the absolute conclusion that “Globalists” cannot be lumped together into one homogeneous lot. Just as I personally was a devoted altruist wanting to help the poor and the global condition since I was ten years old, with my own father, a proper statesman himself, modeling all that was noble. And yet today I fight them, as I still work for Freedom and for Humanity for conservation and for sustainability of the biosphere. I have always been a Humanitarian, and an ecologist, but I was inadvertently on, what always was secretly, or what has become, the other team.

Only a few days ago, I saw that the university I attended, was on the “list” of the globalist elite universities. In hind sight, it was no wonder that a professor there selected Globalist engineer Maurice Strong to head a conference I was working on as a young UN protégé. If there was a Kool Aid to drink back then, I was first in line.

But what I witnessed actually working with the United Nations from the mid 1980’s to 2015 was not a bunch of greedy globalists but rather a bunch of super dedicated persons. Working 90 to 100 hours a week is not uncommon for management level and other professionals work double time too, well salaried but not paid for overtime. For a top position, 700 plus applicants, will apply.

Although UN jobs are still highly sought after, the caliber of people all changed when the job security went to almost nothing, and the salaries way up. Prior to the 90’s UN career professionals were mostly dedicated to the cause. Today, no, they are mostly dedicated to their salaries, which is the reason they are allowing all these horrible agendas to be rolled out on their watch and with their help. It is a dog eat dog / Lord of the Flies scenario in UN office politics today.

This is sad and truly a waste of all the good staffs’ legacies, of which there are tens of thousands and we salute them for their pure intention at the time. Today, many local UN employees and lower level staff are not to be blamed as they are unaware of the on goings. But the top leaders know, and they obviously don’t care, or even worse, are Transhumanists themselves.

Here comes Transhumanist trouble: The World Economic Forum

There will be an entire newsletter about Klaus Martin Schwab. To assume Professor Schwab is merely a puppet or paid Global Government Project Director is to make a grave error.

Of this ancestry myself, only an inherent Swiss Germanic influence on steroids, in addition to an extremely OCD-ridden personality, would sculpt a man of his genre, to be so extreme, to not only design, but also implement, his super sick idea of technological total control. If you perceive me to be hyperbolic, please first read Klaus’ book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, and then we can discuss things in an informed manner. Klaus is undertaking, inch by inch, complete inventoried control of all things on Planet Earth through the use of AI. This is his dream. His backers may wish things, from higher profit margins, to controlled monopolies, to even global genocide, but this AI control of all things, is primarily, his dream.

In 1971 Klaus Schwab, a business professor at the University of Geneva established the European Management Forum that would go on to become the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1987. While studying for a Maters in Public Administration at Harvard University in the 1960’s, Klaus would meet his mentor Henry Kissinger, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member, affiliate to the Rothschilds and future National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, under Nixon.

With guidance from Kissinger, and with the benefit of his acquaintances, Schwab set up the European Management Forum with funding from Swiss and European industrialists as well as elite funded foundations.

The first meeting sought to bring together the top managers in Europe, members of the EU commissions, as well as key economists to discuss new economic strategies for European business. The first meeting was held at Davos, Switzerland in January 1971.

At the meeting, Aurelio Peccei, of the Club of Rome gave a speech outlining the group’s book issues the year before The Limits of Growth. Following the speech, the participants at the conference drafted a code of ethics based upon Schwab’s concept of Stakeholder Capitalism that called for public / private cooperation and coordination to consider long term objectives rather than short term shareholder gain. Schwab’s plan considered sustainable management of resources coupled with social reform throughout the world to eliminate inequality. This move to oligarchical collectivism, the establishment in control via a one world government ruling over a managed social class, was just another vision that had been first dreamed of by Cecil Rhodes 80 years before when he first set up his secret society.

As we know now, Klaus Schwab’s group has expanded in its scope and influence greatly over the past 50 years, but the key concepts remain, as they have since 1891, world government and establishment control.

Schwab, and his Sci-Fi induced dreams for the planet, is indeed also a front for the globalist oligarchical elite. The backing of the elite’s foundations of the 20th Century has expanded to include new foundations such as The Gates Foundation, Soros’ Open Society Foundation, and the major global corporations. Those global corporations each have as major influences BlackRock and Vanguard that have seemingly sprung from nowhere to dominate the shareholding of the largest companies in the world. These two companies, as will be seen later, have chilling ties to the global elite.

Schwab’s WEF also has key alliances with NATO and most notably, as of June 2019, a total partnership, sharing money and goals, with the United Nations. Schwab with Swiss precision is unerringly pushing us toward a one world government with his WEF as part of the technocratic directorate.

The Trilateral Commission

In 1973, an (American/European/Pacific elite funded and controlled) nongovernmental organization called the Trilateral Commission was founded. It sought to bring together American, European, and East Asian political and economic interests to forge greater cooperation and was founded by American David Rockefeller. This was essentially the Bilderberg group but with a Japanese focus.

The Trilateral Commission is headed by three regional chairs (for Europe, North America, and the Asia-Pacific region), who are assisted by several deputies, and an executive committee. The entire membership meets annually (the location rotating among the three regions) to consider reports and debate strategy. Regional and national meetings are held throughout the year. Regional headquarters are in Paris, Washington, D.C., and Tokyo.

The Trilateral Commission’s principles of representation are economic weight and political influence and are reflected in the varying membership quotas assigned to each country. The Commission reflects powerful commercial and political interests committed to private enterprise and stronger collective management of global problems. Its members (more than 400 in the early 21st century) are influential politicians; banking and business executives; media, civic, and intellectual leaders; and a few trade union chiefs. Membership is by invitation only.

One of the key members at the outset was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a Polish aristocrat who like Kissinger had found a new home in America and who had been identified by Kissinger during his time at Harvard as a key person for international relations. Brzezinski, also a member of Bilderberg and CFR, would head up the organization at its inception in 1973.

With a move to the take in Japan, Korea and other Asia Pacific Countries, the global oligarchical cabal was now truly a world movement. Together with Kissinger’s referral, Brzezinski had announced himself to the globalist elite with his book “Between Two Ages; America’s Role in The Technetronic Era” in 1970.

A key passage from this book is “”Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything, and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.” The elite’s view of democracy has always been to tolerate it until authoritarian global governance can be achieved. As we are seeing today, democracy is deeply under threat from authoritarians who support a socialist future with the oligarchs, through a technocracy, controlling a world government.

Brzezinski would also go on to be a National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration. His son, Mark would work in the Clinton White House, and Biden’s Administration too. Brzezinski, while perhaps not as well-known as Kissinger, was also one of the key oligarch strategists of the second half of the 20th century.

One of Brzezinski’s roles as a member of the NSA, alongside the CIA, would be the arming of Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets in the early 1980. Arguably, Brzezinski and his global elites were responsible for some of the worst terrorism ever seen as well as the War on Terror.

TO BE CONTINUED…