Climate Change, Development, Agenda 2030

Posted on September 21, 2015 by marcia

Agenda 2030 and the “New Economic World Order” – Coming This Year?

With Q3 of the 2015 fiscal year just around the corner, one cannot help but notice unprecedented unease in both financial and social spheres, and perhaps with good reason; with alternative media forecasters, national banks, and supranational institutions alike heralding the coming of “global depression” by the end of 2016, this consensus of seemingly strange bedfellows almost universally agree that something wicked this way comes.

These dire economic prognostications exist simultaneously in a world in which energy and development prospects, both nationally and transnationally, are being reworked – with equally profound implications as the aforementioned financial trend analysis. Be it the Obama Administration’s “Clean Power Plan” or the EU and China’s planned Neomalthusian 2030 carbon emission cutbacks, national entities the world over are positioning themselves for profound shifts in energy, development, trade, and even currency ahead of COP21 in Paris this December, or as some have deemed it, “Agenda 2030.”

The convergence of both engineered economic crisis and an engineered “sustainable development” crisis in late-2015 are hardly coincidental, nor are they insignificant. While the alternative finance community seems destined to eternally squabble about the mechanics of a coming global depression, few have set themselves to the task of projecting what the character of such a post-depression society will look like – and the “New World Economic Order” it has the potential to initiate.

It is this author’s contention that the character of this coming era can only be understood when financial calamity is viewed in tandem with Agenda 21’s faux-ecological insidiousness; and you, Reader, deserve the knowledge and documentation of this sagacious plot. It’s pervasive, it’s global, and has existed (in its modern form) since at least the 1970s.

Seeking to contextualize this historical continuity, we must first examine the writings of erudite anti-Technocracy researcher, Patrick Wood, and his pioneering work on the Trilateral Commission’s “New International Economic Order” of the 1970s.

Technocracy and the “New International Economic Order”

As an integral decade in this ongoing “Age of Transitions,” the 1970s brought with it previously unimagined sociopolitical and economic shifts. Deflation was prevalent. The decade also saw the rise of the Petrodollar and the end of the gold-backed Bretton Woods era, as well as the seeding of eugenic “environmental catastrophe” memes propagated by works like the Club of Rome’s 1972 publication, Limits to Growth, or John P. Holdren’s equally Neomalthusian and lauded Ecoscience. It also saw the birth of the Trilateral Commission, co-founded by David Rockefeller and Zbignew Brzezinski in 1973, who, among other things, pushed forth the concept of a “New International Economic Order” to quell the world’s ailing economic and environmental “doom and gloom” forecasts.

While the nature of this “New International Economic Order” at the time evaded Mr. Wood and his research partner, Dr. Antony Sutton, the perspective granted by the passage of time has lead Patrick Wood to declare Technocracy to be the true aim of this New Order. He writes:

It is plainly evident today, with 40 years of historical examination behind it, that the “New International Economic Order” was really “new” and envisioned historic Technocracy as replacing Capitalism altogether. Technocracy was based on energy rather than money and its system of supply and demand that regulates pricing. Some distinctives of Technocracy include:

• Elimination of private property and wealth accumulation
• Replacing traditional education with workforce training
• Micromanaging all energy distribution and consumption
• Driving people to live in a limited number of cities and off of rural land
• Enforcing a balance between nature’s resources and man’s consumption of them.

Are you thinking that this list is vaguely familiar? You should, because it represents the modern manifestation of programs like Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, Smart Grid, Cap And Trade, Climate Change, Common Core, massive surveillance operations and a whole lot more. All of this has been brought to us by the machinations of the Trilateral Commission and its members since 1973, and it is all part of its master plan to completely replace capitalism with Technocracy. This is their “New International Economic Order“!

Patrick Wood, Endgame of Technocracy

The Trilateral Commission, however, was not alone in the propagation of the “New International Economic Order” ideal. As with all things global and “sustainable,” the United Nations is sure to be lurking nearby. The UN’s “Council on Trade and Development” (or UNCTAD) was the chief multinational institution (in cooperation with the Trilateral Commission) in proudly promoting such a New Order throughout the decade:

UNCTAD’s history promoting the “New International Economic Order” from their official website.

As noted in my previous article about COP21 and the coming Agenda 21 “update,” documentation on what this “binding and legal agreement” entails directly from UN sources related to the Conference is sparse; that is, until one abandons searching for literature on the “green” facade and goes straight to the source of the “New International Economic Order” itself – that is, global trade governance, as documented by UNCTAD:

From UNCTAD’s Policy Brief No. 36 of 2015

It is within UNCTAD’s 2015 policy briefs that we begin to find some semblance of clarity as to what a post-global depression geopolitical and economic environment has in store for us; and as all burgeoning Hegelians know, global problems invite (engineered) global solutions.

UNCTAD and the “Sustainable Multilateral” Vision of Humanity

Over the past 40 years, the “New International Economic Order” has changed its name and structure, but never its primary objectives. Its old name cast away in favor of representing our increasingly captive and globalized world, “Multilateral Global Trade Governance” is its new moniker. The threats of population bombs, peak oil, and Global Cooling prevalent in the ’70s, too, have given way to the phantom foes of carbon emissions and “unsustainability” so overtly propagandized to us in the 21st Century.

In true Technocratic fashion, UNCTAD declares the new face of “transformative” and “multilateral” global governance to be underpinned by none other than sustainable development in their 2015 Policy Brief No. 31:

This shift towards “multilateralism” is more than rhetorical, representing a structural change in the nature of globalism. It’s also not limited to UNCTAD, as the IMF, BIS, World Bank, and yes, even the BRICS have been calling for a “New Multipolar World Order” for quite some time. This new form of globalism is slated to be seemingly inclusive, allowing nations like China, Russia, India, and Brazil some measure of regional control, while ultimately being subservient to the “binding and legal agreement” of COP21. Continuing with Policy Brief No. 31:

We see that these new “inclusive multilateral mechanisms” are anything but voluntary, as UNCTAD goes on to conclude that such mechanisms would “preclude competitive liberalization;” in other words, multilateralism is designed to prevent Second and Third World nations from seeking a development structure outside the UN’s “sustainable” vision.

If any are still in doubt as to whether the BRICS alliance and its New Development Bank represent this globalist multilateral trap, UNCTAD steadfastly declare the BRICS to be an integral regional component in this plot:

This latest forecast echoes UNCTAD’s 2014 publication, A BRICS Development Bank: A Dream Coming True? which also holds the BRICS NDB as a key partner in Agenda 21 and its global Technocratic serfdom, written about at length by this author previously.

This bank-against-bank dialectic is the Globalist version of Coke vs. Pepsi. Republicans vs. Democrats. East vs. West. BRICS Bank vs. World Bank. Multilateral vs. Monopolar. All result in the synthesis of “global trade governance” aspired to by the Anglo-American Establishment and Agenda 21.

In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief on Climate Change No. 4, the structure of this new system of governance was enumerated upon by none other than Chinese UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon. If his description does not represent “multilateral globalism,” I don’t know what does:

Supposedly sovereign nations will be subservient to regional entities (BRICS, NAFTA, EU, etc). Regional entities will abide by a commonly agreed upon set of global development and economic standards (COP21). The city, town, and community, long subsumed by ICLEI’s “sustainable development” principles as set forth by Rio ’92, are already in lock-step with this “multilateral globalism.”

“And what of the individual,” one may ponder? Such an “outmoded” concept has no place in the eternal Cybernetic feedback loop of “green” global trade governance as outlined by UNCTAD:

The aforementioned “knowledge sharing,” “peer reviewing,” and “accountability” standards will be handled not wholly by governing bodies, but governing algorithms, as such banal tasks are likely to be managed by our increasingly “smart” cities, metering devices, homes, and cars; a shift destined to portend the increased control such devices will bring to everyday life within this “New Multilateral Economic Order.”

It is unlikely that such sweeping alterations to global as well as social interaction will take place unless “motivated” by periods of crisis. In UNCTAD’s Policy Brief No. 36, the importance of our last global crisis of 2008 in creating the prerequisites for “Green” Globalism is noted:

It therefore stands to reason that the activation of these bilateral, regional, and megaregional trade agreements created in the wake of the 2008 Depression will likewise require economic calamity to activate; calamity that alternative media and the Bank for International Settlements alike are predicting as inevitable. If such a “transformative” global structure is to be initiated in advance of or around COP21 this December, the remainder of 2015 is likely to be wrought with continued economic uncertainty.

The brief goes on to note a number of transnational corporations complying with this new Green Globalism, some of whom should be familiar to the astute Deep Political reader and researcher:

All have been intimately involved in the Neomercantile “opening of China” and the rampant technological buildup of the East by Western capital since the 90s, with IBM’s insidious participation in programs as varied as the Holocaust, police precrime algorithms, and the invention of the “smart city” concept being well documented. Of Lucent Technologies and IBM specifically, James Corbett of The Corbett Report writes:

In the same time period, China rose from the 30th-largest target of US R&D investment to the 11th on the back of a doubling of US affiliates in the country. The list of companies that started major R&D activities or facilities in China in the 1990s reads like a who’s who of the CFR-nested Fortune 500 set: DuPont, Ford, General Electric, General Motors, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, and Rohm and Haas all had a significant stake in China by the beginning of the 21st century.

James Corbett, The Great Decoupling: How the West is Engineering its Own Downfall

So it would seem this same set of “CFR-nested Fortune 500” companies responsible for building up China’s industrial and technological capacity are now pushing forth sustainable development with the UN as well as within the BRICS nations themselves. Have these Western entities bolstered China’s modern economic stature out of sheer goodwill? Merely self-interested profiteering? Or is the fulfillment of this greater collectivist agenda the “quid pro quo” demanded by the West in exchange for such niceties as increased regional power in the Asia-Pacific?

This year’s demise of the BRICS economies (most notably China) as well as key Western markets, if not overtly coordinated, certainly provide a unique opportunity to bring about these proposed “global (green) solutions” to “global crises.”

In Closing

As this blog has set out to demonstrate since its inception, globalism is indeed what its title claims – global. It knows no borders, nations, or ideologies, save complete and utter transnational subjugation of autonomous human beings – globally. Technocracy – rule by a class of entrenched elites and “snitch society” technologies – will be the character of this coming global era. Sustainable development (Agenda 21) is its vehicle.

It doesn’t reach the “End of the Road” without a transition from the “Old Economic World Order” to the New, a divergence impossible without a global economic crisis the likes of which has not been seen in nearly a Century.

Agenda 21 and the prospect of economic calamity have been inseparable concepts since the ravings of former UN Under-Secretary General and co-Agenda 21 architect, Maurice Strong, became a matter of public record back in 1992. In talking with late activist George Washington Hunt at a UN Environment Conference in Colorado, Strong, under the auspices of a fictional book he hoped to pen, mused casually about how such a “New World Order” could take shape:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

This group of world leaders forms a secret society to bring about an economic collapse. It’s February. They’re all at Davos. These aren’t terrorists. They’re world leaders. They have positioned themselves in the world’s commodities and stock markets. They’ve engineered, using their access to stock markets and computers and gold supplies, a panic. Then, they prevent the world’s stock markets from closing. They jam the gears. They hire mercenaries who hold the leaders at Davos as hostage. The markets can’t close.

Maurice Strong

Strong abruptly ended his tale by concluding that he “probably shouldn’t be saying things like this.” Not that he had to continue, as from where we stand in 2015, we can see how this tale ends: With Strong’s world on the horizon. The next engineered economic crisis, ready to be sprung with a proverbial “flip of the switch,” will certainly be a global one. Yet Strong’s fantasies of Davos hostage takings of over twenty years ago may prove entirely unnecessary at COP21 in our modern era, as nearly all opposition to Agenda 21 on the global stage has been subsumed by its promise of complete technological control and a seat at the “multilateral table.”

You, though, Reader, have no seat at this table. An ostensibly insignificant cog in an international machine; but armed with the knowledge of what is to come, perhaps a cog that may someday soon decide to grind to a halt. This machine, after all, is each and every one of us.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider a small donation! – Rusticus
Bitcoin: 1MecdGKVEP6oVpQW11sKgTFBtNKUnu1Dse
DASH: XvBWCtU9wnBVYjNusP33jUf7y1uF9EqJsJ

Image Credit

Blogging under the pseudonym of Rusticus, the author and freedom activist operates a website tracing the machinations of the Anglo-American Establishment throughout history while simultaneously documenting the process of creating a truly off-grid homestead (www.statelesshomesteading.com)

from: http://www.riseearth.com/2015/09/agenda-2030-and-new-economic-world.html

On the BRICS Alliance

Posted on January 31, 2015 by marcia

Meet the BRICS “New Development Bank”

1st February 2015

By James Corbett

Guest Writer for Wake Up World

Last week we attempted to dispel some of the confusion surrounding the World Bank and the IMF, how the two are differentiated, and what the World Bank actually does. (see: So What Does The World Bank Do Exactly?)

As you’ll recall, Bretton Woods architect John Maynard Keynes admitted that the confusion over these two bodies was embedded in their names; the World Bank should rightly be referred to as a fund (for development projects) and the International Monetary Fund as a bank (to help countries cover balance of payment deficits and ensure financial stability). The World Bank itself is a body that ostensibly provides long-term low interest or no interest loans secured on the global bond market to fund sectoral reforms and infrastructure development projects in some of the poorest countries in the world.

As we saw last week, however, the Bank is used as a weapon by the economic hitmen identified by John Perkins and others, directing infrastructure development funds to crony corporations and forcing countries into debt obligations that they will be unable to meet. These impossible debt obligations are then used to give the Bank leverage over the developing world economically and geopolitically.

What’s more, both the IMF and the World Bank have historically been controlled by the US and Europe, and clamors for reform in governance from the developing countries have fallen on deaf ears.

It is in the context of this IMF/World Bank stranglehold over the global financial architecture that we have to understand the stunning development that took place at the 6th BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) Summit in Fortaleza, Brazil last month: the creation of a New Development Bank (NDB) to compete with the World Bank in providing funds for infrastructure development to developing nations and the creation of a Contingency Reserve Arrangement (CRA) to compete with the IMF in providing liquidity protection to countries with balance of payment difficulties.

The development was by no means surprising: the idea for a BRICS development bank has been bandied about for years now and was written about in the pages of this newsletter extensively last year. Nor does it represent (at least at this point) a fundamental challenge to the World Bank or IMF’s dominance; neither the NDB’s $50 billion USD in subscribed capital nor the CRA’s $100 billion liquidity pool come close to the World Bank’s $232.8 billion in subscribed capital or the IMF’s $755 billion in liquidity ($1.4 trillion if you include emergency funds). Neither do they have the infrastructure yet in place to coordinate and deploy these funds, nor a track record of working with the world’s poorest countries to ensure that funds reach their intended targets and not the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt politicians and middlemen.

Still, there is something of a revolutionary feel to the obligatory pictures of the smiling BRICS leaders coming out of this year’s summit. This year the smiles do not seem quite as forced. Perhaps they even seem a little self-assured. It may be a baby step, but after all it is a step toward a world where the poorest countries do not have to turn cap in hand to the IMF or World Bank for financial aid.

But what are the implications of this for the developing countries themselves and the prospect of genuine development? What does this development say about the BRICS and their growing ambition on the world geopolitical stage? And where does this fit into the age-old banker quest for global government? To answer these questions, we must first examine the institutions in question.

The Basics

Under the terms of the Agreement signed by the BRICS leaders at Fortaleza, the New Development Bank’s mandate is to “mobilize resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in BRICS and other emerging economies and developing countries.” To accomplish this goal they will “support public or private projects through loans, guarantees, equity participation and other financial instruments.” The initial subscribed capital of $50 billion will come from initial payments of $10 billion from each of the five BRICS members. Total authorized capital of the Bank will be $100 billion. Membership of the bank will be open to all members of the United Nations and each members’ voting power will be equal to its subscribed shares in the Bank’s capital stock. The Bank will be headquartered in Shanghai and its governance will consist of a Board of Governors, a Board of Directors and a President.

The Contingent Reserve Arrangement, meanwhile, “is a framework for the provision of support through liquidity and precautionary instruments in response to actual or potential short-term balance of payments pressures.” Its initial $100 billion in committed resources will come in tranches: 41% from China, 18% each from Russia, India and Brazil, and 5% from South Africa. Governance of the CRA will consist of a Governing Council including one Governor and one Alternate Governor appointed by each of the five parties and a Standing Committee consisting of one Director and one Alternate Director appointed by each party. The Arrangement’s two main instruments will be a liquidity instrument for providing funds in response to balance of payment problems and a precautionary instrument for permitting access to funds ahead of anticipated balance of payment problems.

A Global Power Struggle?

So what does this all mean? Is this the first salvo in the long-expected economic war between the developed world and the developing world? Does the creation of the NDB and the CRA mark the rise of the BRICS as a force on the world stage? Does it threaten the existing IMF/World Bank empire?

The agreements for both the NDB and the CRA take pains to point out that they are meant as a “complement [to] existing international monetary and financial arrangements” rather than as competition to them. And the World Bank has formally welcomed the announcement of the NDB, with World Bank President Jim Young Kim telling reporters at a recent press conference with Indian Prime Minister Modi “The only competition we have is with poverty” and “Any bank or any group of institutions that try to tackle the problem of infrastructure investment to fight poverty, we welcome.”

But behind the polite words and ‘we’re all working toward the same goal’ rhetoric is the cold fact that the developing world has been increasingly vocal about their interest in World Bank reform in recent years and specific complaints from the BRICS nations themselves over the strings that are inevitably attached to World Bank lending. It is also perhaps significant that all of the BRICS nations except China will be paying more into their capitalization of the NDB than they do to the World Bank.

Although much talk has been made about how the BRICS are attempting to subvert the dollar’s hegemony as the world reserve currency, that is not the case with these institutions, at least not at this point. All of the capitalization payments and fund commitments in the agreements for the NDB and CRA are explicitly denominated in ” the official currency of payment of the United States of America.”

The main competition that many are expecting from the NDB as opposed to the World Bank is that there are expected to be far fewer (if any) conditionalities attached to NDB lending. As we saw last week the Structural Adjustment Programs of the IMF and World Bank require a whole series of political and economic reforms dictated by Washington and its cronies before developing countries can qualify for development funds. Now members of globalist institutions like Matt Ferchen of the Carnegie Tsinghua Center for Global Policy are openly fretting about the possibility that NDB funding will undermine this structure: “China has this rhetoric in terms of its foreign policy and especially as it relates to China’s engagement with other developing countries, that China won’t interfere in other countries’ domestic politics, that China respects the domestic, economic and political systems of other countries, in a way that they want to be seen as different from the World Bank, the IMF, or countries like the United States.”

For those who understand that the IMF/World Bank system is and has been used to subjugate debtor nations and impose the will of the Western powers on those countries, this seems like a potentially transformative moment. Could it be that the BRICS nations are creating a global institution that will truly undermine the Washington consensus stranglehold over the global south? Are the BRICS creating a global institution we can get behind? Should we be happy about this potential NDB/CRA revolution?

‘Good’ Globalization vs. ‘Bad’ Globalization

Like with so many other situations, we must be careful not to fall into the trap of believing that the only alternatives that are being presented to us are the only alternatives that are possible. In this case, it seems that we are being presented with the choice between supporting a development paradigm led by the ‘bad’ globalists of the IMF/World Bank crowd that seek to control other countries through financing and the ‘good’ globalists who are selflessly looking to spur development for the good of humanity. This is just such a false choice.

First, the underlying assumption that the BRICS countries are doing what they’re doing out of some selfless love of humanity needs to be confronted head on. The BRICS countries in general, and China in particular (which is the strongest proponent of the anti-interventionist stance), have much to gain by offering no strings development loans. This was made clear by Gaddafi when he made the argument that China would beat out the US for control over Africa because it’s non-interventionist foreign policy was better at winning Africans hearts and minds. China is interested in securing African resources. It cannot challenge the US directly at its leverage-and-threats approach to gaining control of those resources, so it plays the good cop in the good cop / bad cop game. This allows it to create deep (and lucrative) ties with precisely those nations, such as Sudan, that the US is most interested in ‘reforming.’ It may be a mutually beneficial relationship, but let’s not kid ourselves that China is interested in building up Sudanese infrastructure out of sheer goodwill. Did China finance the construction of a $1.3 billion railway from Khartoum to Port Sudan because they care about Africans or because they care about establishing the infrastructure to service their 2 million ton oil terminal in the port?

Secondly, the idea that the BRICS are creating a ‘good’ globalist institution rests on the further assumption that, even if the current batch of BRICS leaders are benevolent and altruistic, that the next batch (or the one after that…) will be as well. The World Bank, too, started out as a humble institution making very limited loans for very specific projects. It wasn’t until Robert McNamara took the reins of the Bank in 1968 that it started to take on the characteristics that we recognize today. Similarly who is to say that the BRICS leaders (or their successors) won’t allow the potential power of being a global financing body go to their heads? Why should we trust that any sprawling globalist institution will act always and forever in the interests of the greater good?

No, the ‘good’ globalization / ‘bad’ globalization here seems like a ruse to further globalization. Whether the world comes to accept a greater reliance on and submission of sovereignty to globalist institutions led by the West or institutions led by the BRICS countries does not seem to be a genuine choice.

So what are the alternatives? Surely it is important to build up the infrastructure of the developing countries, isn’t it? Surely this can’t be accomplished without the massive resources of a World Bank or a New Development Bank, can it?

It should first of all be noted that the urge to assume that developing nations cannot possibly find solutions to their own infrastructure and development problems without the aid of the rich global power players is not only paternalistic and patronizing, but contra-indicated by the evidence at hand. What, precisely, has the last 50 years of World Bank/IMF intervention and “aid” to the developing world achieved, exactly? Is Argentina in a better position than it was before IMF intervention, or a worse one? Has sub-Saharan Africa improved its political and economic clout on the world stage as a result of its World Bank financing, or become even more subservient to the countries that have provided it those loans? Are the success stories of economies that have risen out of poverty like South Korea because of or despite IMF/World Bank meddling? The answers to these questions, all easily enough documentable, speak for themselves.

Also, it shows a profound lack of imagination to believe that funding can only come through mega-grants delivered by bodies with hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. In recent decades the concept of microcredit has transformed our understanding of what is possible in terms of funding business and enterprise in the developing world, and it is currently challenging assumptions that infrastructure like affordable housing and sanitation systems can only be provided by the “grant aid lottery” of the World Bank (or NDB). Local communities know best what local needs are and how local manpower, resources and services can be organized to meet those needs. Granting bodies in Washington or Shanghai cannot possibly be expected to have that type of knowledge, or expect that throwing dollars at these problems will achieve the same results as providing small-scale, goal driven aid for specific local projects created and run by local community organizations.

It is not a question of ‘good’ global banks vs. ‘bad’ global banks. It is global banks versus the people, as it always has been, and when we understand the situation from that perspective the sheen comes off of the ballyhoo surrounding the New Development Bank.

Whither the NDB?

Before anyone gets too carried away with speculation about the NDB and the CRA and their likely role on the world stage, it would be good to conduct a brief reality check. There was another announcement of another alternative development bank just a few short years ago that received a similar amount of coverage and hoopla at the time that turned out to be all talk and no action. Remember the Bank of the South? Neither do most of the people who wrote about it at the time, and yet it seemed like a major development when it occurred.

That the BRICS are serious about following through with the NDB and the CRA is not in doubt, but that they can keep these organizations together and working toward a unified vision is very much doubtful at this moment. Internal divisions within the BRICS delayed the creation of the bank for years and even now tensions continue between the members. Brazil and China, for example, remain locked in disputes over China’s economic relation to the South American country; Brazil accuses the rising dragon of plundering their resources and dumping cheap manufactured goods on the country in return. China and India have also butted heads over control of the NDB’s policies and vision, and there is ongoing concern about whether South Africa will be able to live up to its financial obligations in these institutions.

All of this being said, the bank is hoping to make its first loan in 2016. When that happens, there will be no doubt that we will be living in a different world. The question is whether it will be a better one.

About the author:

James Corbett is editor, webmaster, writer, producer, host, and the inspiration behind The Corbett Report, an independent, listener-supported alternative news source. The Corbett Report operates on the principle of open source intelligence and provides podcasts, interviews, articles and videos about breaking news and important issues, from 9/11 Truth and false flag terror to the Big Brother police state, eugenics, geopolitics, the central banking fraud and more.

James has been living and working in Japan since 2004. He started The Corbett Report website in 2007 as an outlet for independent critical analysis of politics, society, history, and economics. Since then he has written, recorded and edited over 1000 hours of audio and video media for the website, including a weekly weekly podcast and several regular online video series. Corbett also produces video reports for GRTV, the video production arm of the Centre for Research on Globalization, and BoilingFrogsPost.com, the website of noted FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds. He is also an editorial writer for The International Forecaster, the weekly e-newsletter created by the late Bob Chapman.

For more information about Corbett and his background, please listen to Episode 163 of The Corbett Report podcast, Meet James Corbett. This article originally appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter. To subscribe to the newsletter and become a member of The Corbett Report website, please sign up for a monthly or annual membership here.

from: http://wakeup-world.com/2015/02/01/meet-the-brics-new-development-bank/

Chromographics Institute

Color + Art = Healing

Tag Archives: BRICS