MOSCOW, 21 Dec 2021, RUSSTRAT Institute.
In late October and early November, two major international summits were held one after the other – the G20 forum in Rome and the 26th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was postponed from last year, in Glasgow.
The Scottish summit was a continuation of the Rome summit in two ways. Firstly, one of the two central themes of the G20, along with the so-called COVID “pandemic”, was the same climate agenda. Secondly, the heads of leading states from Rome moved directly to Glasgow in order to pre-empt the climate conference with a two-day summit and “encourage” their own participation in making the decisions they “need”.
In other words, it was planned to show the world a grandiose show, the result of which was to be a friendly alignment of everyone in the queue for deindustrialisation. The leaders played their part: they performed in both capitals, calling for support for the “green” scams, and went home. The climate “cart”, however, did not budge. However, not because there was serious opposition to the stated agenda; just, as usual, the money was not divided up.
As was stated by the Chinese “China Daily”, while reducing industrial emissions will be expensive, no progress can be expected . But the noise and “dancing with a tambourine”, we add, against this background is in special excess. But first of all, about the prehistory of the current summits, because climate issues are far from the most well-known and understandable for our public.
Prehistory of the issue
In 1969, as a result of a series of organisational measures, the Club of Rome was established; in 1972, the first of its commissioned reports was published – “The Limits to Growth”, prepared by the group of Dennis Meadows at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The founder of the club, Aurelio Peccei, is known for his close ties in international business circles, he is a vice-president of the Olivetti concern, and was also a member of the management of the automobile giant Fiat. In 1965, speaking in Buenos Aires, Peccei put forward a “global plan”, in which he pointed out the need to create the European Union (EU) and involve the USSR and Eastern Europe in close cooperation with it .
In general, Peccei worked for the Swiss residency of the US Office of Strategic Services (OSS), headed by Alan Dulles, the future director of the CIA, the brother of future Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Cousins of the Dulles brothers were the five Rockefeller brothers. It is assumed that these connections saved Peccei’s life after he was sentenced to death under the Mussolini regime for participating in the resistance movement.
Peccei is the author of two books that have the reputation of “memories about the future” – “Before the Abyss” (1969) and “Human Qualities” (1977). Brzezinski’s scandalous book, never published in our country, “Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era” (1966) was also woven into the spectrum of preparatory measures for the creation of the Club of Rome. In it, he predicted digital globalisation and the general chipping of the population in order to introduce the practice of managing people’s behaviour.
Peccei’s circle of contacts included the future academic Dzhermen Gvishiani, the son-in-law of Aleksey Kosygin, who convinced the Soviet premier of the need for rapprochement with the West, bypassing the official Cold War confrontation. With Kosygin’s support, trips to the USSR were organised by a number of influential Western politicians, including McGeorge Bundy, an adviser to three US presidents.
The materials of the Club of Rome were published in the USSR in millions of copies. This coincided with the process of defusing international tensions and the signing of the “Big” Treaty between the USSR and Germany in 1970, the first Soviet-American treaties on strategic arms limitations and missile defence in 1972, and the Final Act of the CSCE in Helsinki in 1975. All the Western banks and companies that came to the USSR on this wave were associated with the Club of Rome.
Deutsche Bank was the operator of the first pipeline projects to Europe; Fiat was engaged in the construction of AvtoVAZ; Pepsico built a plant and established the production of Pepsi-Cola in Novorossiysk, etc. In 1972, the International Institute for Applied Systems Research in Vienna (IISA), where scientists from the USA and the USSR, NATO and Warsaw Pact countries were united, appeared in the Club of Rome system. The organisers did not hide the fact that the task of the Institute was to erode the “iron curtain” and involve our country in the global issues formed by the Club of Rome.
It is assumed that the fundamental decision to switch to a combination of a policy of deterrence in relation to the USSR with drawing it into its own agenda in the United States was made after David Rockefeller visited our country in 1962. After meeting with members of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, he concluded that the post-Stalinist party leadership was degrading and that it was possible, using its ambitions, to achieve the erosion of the Soviet state and political system in our country.
Many prominent Soviet scientists, including Gavriil Popov and, according to some sources, Evgeny Primakov, were trained at IISA. The institute’s events were attended by figures of the future perestroika, as well as members of the future government of “reformers”, including Egor Gaidar, who later joined the State Commission for Economic Reform created under Yury Andropov.
Under the formal leadership of Prime Minister Nikolay Tikhonov and his deputy Nikolay Ryzhkov, its work was actually led by the future academician Stanislav Shatalin; his scientific activities took place in three institutes of the USSR Academy of Sciences – CEMI, VNIISI (the Soviet branch of the club), INP. In 1986, at a seminar in the Zmeinaya Gorka boarding house near Leningrad, Gaidar’s group, which worked under Shatalin’s leadership, merged with the Leningrad economic circle, which included Anatoly Chubais.
CEMI – Central Economic and Mathematical Institute; VNIISI – All-Union Research Institute for System Research; INP – Institute of National Economic Forecasting
Officially, the so-called “holistic approach” was placed at the centre of the Club of Rome’s activities, interpreted as considering world problems in a complex way, without ideological and geographical differences. In fact, so-called “ecologism” was used for this purpose – the ideology of “sustainable development”, which preaches the balance of the biosphere and technosphere and changes in the entire spectrum of values and the way of life of humanity for this purpose.
Representing a methodological abstraction, “ecologism” separates ecology as a principle from the totality of environmental measures and puts it at the centre of global security, standing above all the main types of security – economic, social, political, state, information, military, etc.
Thus, ecology becomes an instrument of external interference in internal affairs; the entire climate agenda is built on the principle of such interference in the form of imposed “international reporting”. The theoretical basis of “ecologism” was developed in the first reports to the Club of Rome (1972-1990), which jointly formed the “road map” of global change. Questions were consistently raised:
– stopping industrial development and limiting the birth rate,
– dividing the world into ten regions, led by the West, and consolidating a system of international specialisation of labour and globalised integration of development resources that benefits it;
– transfer of state sovereignties under global (“collective”) control;
– humanitarian and religious integration of humanity based on the principle of “world solidarity”;
– formation of a “low-carbon”, “energy-efficient” civilisation;
– simplification and unification of education systems, etc.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the theoretical framework developed by the Club of Rome was used to reorganise the entire system of global institutions for practical purposes. In 1992, the modern format of the UN Institute of Conferences on Environment and Development was established, and the second conference was held in Rio de Janeiro, which adopted the Rio Declaration and Agenda XXI.
The first conference was held in Stockholm back in 1972, but it failed to practically advance the “green” agenda even in the absence of the USSR delegation.
For work in specific areas in the ten-year intervals between them, the institute of UN Framework Conventions appeared. There are only a few of them: on climate (UNFCCC), on biodiversity, on the ozone layer, etc. UNFCCC Conferences of the Parties (COP) are annual multi-day meetings of representatives of participating countries to discuss and adopt specific issues on the climate agenda.
In 1997, the 3rd COP adopted the Kyoto Protocol; in 2015, the 15th COP adopted the Paris Agreement; these documents created the current mechanism for deindustrialisation, which consists in countries taking and fulfilling commitments to reduce industrial emissions. The adoption of the protocol and the agreement was caused by the refusal of the OECD countries at the 1st COP in Berlin (1995) from their obligations under the UNFCCC and substituting them with taking credit for their own emission reductions through dumping purchase quotas of developing countries, because, as mentioned at the beginning, real reduction is an extremely long and expensive process.
In parallel to the institute of environmental conferences, a second key institution, the Global Development Goals Summits, would be established in 2000. The Millennium Declaration adopted by the first summit approved a short excerpt from Agenda 21 in the form of eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); the fourth summit in 2015 re-formed the MDGs into the current seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which are designed for the next fifteen years, up to 2030. The SDGs maintain continuity with the MDGs, but are more detailed.
The “goals” retain a predominantly social and humanitarian focus, but both the MDGs and SDGs contain the last item “Global Partnership”, which forms the principles of external intervention in the affairs of “experimental” developing countries through the mechanism of “peacebuilding” – international participation in the resolution of internal conflicts. The Second World Summit in 2005 established the peacebuilding institutions – the office, the commission and the fund.
Peacebuilding missions are mainly concerned with African States, but the Commission has a governing body – the Organising Committee; the inclusion of a number of post-Soviet republics – Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan – has repeatedly coincided with attempts to start internal conflicts, both successful and failed.
The active phase of the Club of Rome ended in 1990 with the report “The First Global Revolution” (authors: the new president and CEO of the club – Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider). As the club lost its initiative, the institute of international commissions formed by the UN on the platform of the Socialist International (the Brandt, Palme, Bruntland, Carlsson, and Gorbachev commissions) was involved in the formation of the global agenda. The report of the World Commission on Environment and Development “Our Common Future” (Gro Bruntland) in 1987 introduced the concept of “sustainable development”, replacing the “global equilibrium” used by the Club of Rome.
A new “road map” of global transformation for the post-Soviet period was proposed in 1995 by the report of the Commission on Global Governance and Cooperation “Our Global Neighbourhood” (Ingvar Carlsson). The proposals of these documents were eventually compiled into a report published in 2004 by the High-level Group “A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility”, created by the UN Secretary-General’s order.
Thus, the history of modern global processes is divided into four main stages, each of which is associated with the emergence of certain documents and institutions. At the first stage, a set of preparatory measures was carried out and with the help of the Gvishiani-Kosygin link, agents of influence were recruited in the USSR; the country began to be transferred to the “pipe economy”.
At the second stage, reflected in the reports to the Club of Rome, a plan for global change was formed; it was quickly realised that the condition for their implementation was the destruction of the Soviet Union, which hindered the extensive construction of the necessary system of global institutions.
At the third stage, related to the UN, such a system was created on the basis of combining “environmentalism” with “sustainable development”. With the Fifth World Summit on Development Goals in 2020, a new period begun, linked ideologically to the monographs of WEF Director Klaus Schwab, “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” and “The Great Reset”, and organisationally to the proclamation of the Vatican Council on Inclusive Capitalism.
Combining “sustainable development” with global digitalisation, the Council’s alliance of the ruling Jesuit Order in the Holy See with big business, as well as certain aristocratic circles, aims to transform the world of states into an extraterritorial world of corporations.
On a single base, it is proposed to segregate humanity into “higher” and “lower” castes or races by destroying and eliminating traditional religions, states, the middle class and the institution of private property, as well as maximising the “higher” life expectancy. For the “lower” in this system, a “digital concentration camp” is envisaged, functioning on the basis of a “basic income”, conditioned by loyalty, confirmed by total electronic control.
The so-called COVID “pandemic” has all the signs of artificial origin, designed to serve as a trigger for the erosion and destruction of the existing order, which is not hidden by Schwab, Gates and other adherents of the “great reset”.
“Today, biological risks are caused by events primarily related to human activity. These are dangerous experiments with viruses and pathogens at potentially dangerous biological sites and the development of genetic engineering, including synthetic biology, which allows playing with the genome for criminal purposes.” This was stated by Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Russian Security Council, at the annual meeting of the CIS Security Council secretaries .
Meanwhile, back in 1991, David Rockefeller, speaking at a closed-door meeting of the UN Secretariat, warned that “we are on the threshold of global transformation; we need a well-managed major crisis, and nations will accept the new world order.” The almost zero outcome of the Rome and Glasgow summits suggests that an unstable balance has been reached in the confrontation between the globalism of the “deep state” and nation-state sovereignties, which in the conditions of increasing turbulence can change quickly and in any direction.
Why did the globalists “fail” at the Glasgow conference?
Never until this year have G20 summits directly flowed into the UNFCCC COP. These were always different forums with different agendas, separated from each other by time. And only twice before – in 2009 and 2015 – did world leaders gather at the UNFCCC COP. This year is the third exception to this rule, and this suggests that a special bet was made on it. In 2009, climate action participants gathered in Copenhagen to take part in the Global Climate Change Summit.… The Copenhagen Accord.
Three months earlier, in September, in New York, “green” scammers convened the “World Summit on Climate Change”, and in May of the same year, 2009, in Rome, they held a meeting of the heads of the Energy Ministry of the “Big Seven” (back then the “eight”). Between them, a certain “Danish text” was slyly agreed away from the other participants of the UNFCCC COP.
The main thing in it that outraged developing countries was the proposal to transfer control over financial assistance to them from the UN to the World Bank and provide it only under the condition of providing “emission reduction” plans, that is, deindustrialisation.
A scandal broke out, and the much-touted Copenhagen Accord failed to materialise: China, at the head of a group of developing countries, rolled out a counter “Chinese text”, in which the G7 members (without Russia) were required to preemptively reduce emissions by 40%. For in the West, the industrial age is already two centuries old, and therefore it must compensate for this with increased obligations. Of course, the West refused, but the “Danish text” also has no prospects left. Everyone went back to their respective corners of the climate “ring”.
In 2015, in Paris, it would seem that everything “came together”, and six years later the agreement, only already Parisian, took place. However, not everything is so smooth. A lot of questions hung in the air, and the Western organisers opted for a new forgery, which, unlike Copenhagen, “rolled”.
Bypassing the indignation of the majority, dissatisfied with the emission restrictions for countries that can’t afford “green” energy, two documents were adopted, and they decided to vote for them in a “package”. One document is the Paris Agreement itself, from which, in order to adopt it, everything controversial was removed, transferring it to another document – the “Draft Decision of the Paris Conference”.
What exactly was removed? The most illustrative example. A major part of the debate, both in Paris and now, revolved around how much to reduce emissions. In the text of the agreement, they advocate that the global temperature – until the middle or end of the 21st century, the “green scammers did not agree on this – should increase not by 2 degrees, but only by 1.5. In general, this issue of temperature is the starting point of the climate process, which is why horns are being locked over it.
The price of an extra half degree of reduction is mentioned in the “Draft decision”. It turns out that for this purpose, annual emissions should be reduced from 55 to 40 Gigatonnes, that is, more than a quarter of the industry should be destroyed. In other words, the purpose of the cuts was spelled out in the agreement, and the scale of losses due to its implementation was hidden in a secondary, unofficial document. And shamefacedly looking around, they voted for it as a “trailer” to the agreement.
Subsequently, the “Draft decision” that was published along with the Agreement was removed and hidden from the public (https://unfccc.int/files/meetings/paris_nov_2015/application/pdf/paris_agreement_russian_.pdf). However, it was preserved in earlier versions (https://undocs.org/ru/FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1The Paris Agreement itself is an “annex” to the “Draft Decision”, that is, its status is subordinate. The point we are interested in limiting global temperature growth to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 degrees is contained in Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the Paris Agreement text, and the provision on reducing global emissions from 55 to 40 Gigatonnes is contained in Article 17 of the “Draft Decision”.
A small digression. Why are we talking about the destruction of industry? After all, we are told about a pure “brave new world” built entirely on innovation… It’s very simple. There is a hard constant: in the current technological order – not only in Russia, but also around the world – the volume of industrial emissions is proportional to development. No emissions – no development either.
“Green” scammers push this topic in the interests of those who advocate stopping development and who dictated to the Club of Rome the idea of limiting industrial growth and fertility. These two parameters are inter-related: no production – there also shouldn’t be anyone to consume its products. It is precisely because there is an understanding of this conflict in scientific circles that there the artificiality of “green” ideologemes, which have nothing to do with reality, but meet the misanthropic demands of the owners of environmental extremists, who hide behind “green” demagogy and populism, is emphasised.
It turns out that having achieved the maximum number of signatures under here and now with the help of a simple combination with splitting the final document, the authors planted a mine under the Paris Agreement that has not yet been neutralised. It was decided to entrust this bomb disposal mission to the UNFCCC COP in Glasgow; that’s why it was combined with the Rome summit of the “twenty”, and that’s why the leaders gathered for it.
It was assumed that after Glasgow, especially taking into account the informational “artillery preparation” conducted in Rome, there would be no doubt about the alleged “guilt” of man for climate change, and all the scandalous points hidden from the agreement in the “Draft Decision” would return to it. They thought the “pandemic” would also play in favour of this, therefore in Rome at the G20, the issues of the virus and climate were linked, in fact, by a single agenda.
Yeah, right! The results of Glasgow turned out to be a “cold shower” for the organisers. No one has made any detailed commitments, and this is the main failure. No progress has been made on the 1.5 degree increase in global temperature mentioned above. At the suggestion of India, which, despite the differences between the coal-producing countries, was unanimously supported by the United States, Russia, China and Australia, instead of phasing out coal energy, the document included a clause on reducing the scale of its use.
At the same time, none of the RIC troika countries – Russia, India, and China – has promised to achieve “carbon neutrality” before 2060. And Washington, although it promised, but under the noise of dramatically increasing its own coal production, is ahead of our country in this indicator. Once again, the issue of filling the UN Green Climate Fund (GCF) for an annual $100 billion in payments to developing countries to adapt to the climate agenda has stalled. It has now been moved to next year’s UNFCCC COP.
Why? It has already been mentioned that the actual reduction of emissions is expensive, about €100 for each tonne of CO2 equivalent. Rich countries don’t want to spend money on it, and poor countries can’t. This is why there has long been a charlatan mechanism of poor ones being credited with the reduction while selling their quotas to OECD countries on the cheap (the price has fluctuated between 1 and 30 euros per tonne of CO2 equivalent).
Another, more sophisticated version of the “scam” is the implementation of “green” projects by the developed world in developing countries. In fact, the same virtual volumes move back and forth, but a reduction of emissions is credited. Sleight of hand – no swindling.
It should be noted that the world media bypassed the comment of the Bolivian representative at the COP in Glasgow, who pointed out that “the high cost of a low-carbon economy means that only developed countries can afford to live in them” . He suggested that the West should not engage in chatter. And without delaying real cuts until the middle of the century, start them right now. It is clear that this call is hanging in the air.
Finally, neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping came to Rome or Glasgow. Moreover, if they honoured the “twenty” with their virtual presence by performing online, then in Glasgow the video format was not provided, so only recordings of their appeals were shown to participants. Joe Biden, who clearly expected to lead a “crusade” for global deindustrialisation, took this as a slap on the nose and attacked the leaders of Russia and China with criticism, although he put a good face on a bad game, saying that the Russian-Chinese absence “helped” the United States and Europe coordinate positions.
What did we really agree on? Only on one thing – stopping deforestation and some issues of accounting for the absorption capacity of forests. Can the organisers be satisfied with this? Of course not. The notorious “decarbonisation” is barely felt, on the contrary, in the three largest coal-producing countries in Asia – China, India and Indonesia – alone 76 coal-fired thermal power plants are currently being built.
Climate globalists also completely lost in the information field: in the background of preparations for Rome and Glasgow, China and Europe were hit by an energy crisis, which became the main world news; the result is known: a sharp increase in the scale of coal-fired power generation. This is a “gift” for both summits.
By the way, taking advantage of the current difficulties with energy supply, Beijing abandoned the goal of limiting the mentioned temperature increase to 1.5 degrees, confirming that it remains committed to the previous target of 2 degrees. This was stated in Glasgow by Chinese Special Representative Xie Zhenhua . His Russian counterpart Ruslan Edelgeriyev was not that brief about the achievements of the COP, but focused on domestic interests, and not global ones: “We have successfully held negotiations on the forest sector and on the peaceful atom” .
Meanwhile, this was a very important and fundamental thing that Moscow has clearly focused on this year, starting with the April climate summit convened by Biden. We are talking about a balance between the amount of emissions and their absorption by natural environments, in particular forests, as well as the recognition of “clean” power generation at nuclear power plants.
Let’s explain. The issue of accounting for the absorption resource has always been a stumbling block in the struggle between statesmen and the “green” comprador lobby. Speculating that both the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement recognise only the hypocritical methodology of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) in this matter, which contradicts the basic Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992, which in turn allows countries to have their own methodology, government compradors have determined the absorption resource of Russia at 600 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. This figure was recorded in the official document of the Ministry of Natural Resources from March 11, 2016.
Independent assessments made using our own methods, which have been repeatedly carried out in our country by recognised world-class specialists, give strikingly different indicators, which differ not several-fold, but by orders of magnitude. They range from 5 to 12 billion of tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Why is this important?
In the first case, taking into account the officially recognised volume of industrial emissions of 2.3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, it turned out that Russia emits more than it absorbs. In the second case, it is the opposite, and we are, therefore, the largest environmental donor of the planet. It is important that the same Rio Declaration makes an exception for donor countries, exempting them from the mandatory need for cuts.
The internal dispute in Russia dragged on for a long time, until Vladimir Putin put an end to it in April. In his speech at the virtual climate summit, he named the following figures: emissions – 1.6 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent, absorption – 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent.  The positive balance is 900 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent. What does this mean? The fact that Russia may not officially reduce its emissions, but it meets the international community halfway and takes on certain obligations.
However, at the same time, it puts forward the recognition of electricity generation at its nuclear power plants as “clean” as an actual condition, and if this happens, then, first of all, it is a dig at the EU, which is moving towards abandoning nuclear energy and at the same time scares our country with a “carbon fee” for environmentally “dirty” products. Figures were also mentioned: taking into account nuclear power plants, 86% of Russian power generation has a “clean” status, while excluding nuclear generation – only 45% . Therefore:
– if the “purity” of our nuclear power plants is recognised, then the EU carbon tax base in Russia is practically reset to zero;
– and if “purity” is not recognised, then we have every right to “turn on” the Rio Declaration and refuse further reductions, having added up the relevant international obligations.
Why is this not explicitly stated by our side? Because it does not like the diplomatic process of “open text”; work is carried out through appropriate channels, through which this dilemma is undoubtedly brought to the negotiating partners. It is not said yet because we work very closely with China, which is not an environmental donor, and if Moscow pulls the blanket over itself, Beijing will be alone against a united West.
Strategic partnerships require more nuanced approaches and solutions. And why is this conflict not covered by the Russian media? Because the climate issue is complex and this is known by only a few people, most of whom belong to the “green” comprador lobby and are not interested in disclosing this information.
Those who planned the succession of summits in Rome and Glasgow undoubtedly expected a different outcome; they did not think about the possibility of a Russian and Chinese demarche with the absence of leaders. Mario Draghi, the host of the G20 summit in Rome, the Italian prime Minister and the world’s most influential banker, a member of the super-banking Group of Thirty, personally called Xi Jinping a few weeks ago, urging him not to miss the summit and not to refuse a face-to-face meeting on its sidelines with Biden. But, as we can see, Russia and China have taken a position that corresponds to their national interests. And it looks very much like a consistent one.
Coronavirus: global emergency or a sudden attack of cunningness by globalists?
Just the facts. Number one. In May 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation’s program report “Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development” was published . It contains four scenarios, which, upon closer examination, are arranged in a sequence of stages of a certain “master plan”.
At the first stage (“Lock Step”), under the influence of certain extreme events (which ones – it’s not specified), states begin to “tighten the screws”, and the response to this is a growing social protest.
The second stage (“Clever Together”) is associated with global events that resolve these conflicts by promoting globalisation, coordinating public policy. At the third stage, the world is facing a hacker collapse of the life support infrastructure, which dramatically weakens the state (“Hack Attack”).
The final, fourth stage (“Smart Scramble”) splits and atomises the world, turning it into a “patchwork”. Once again, in the report, each scenario appears as an independent alternative to the others; in fact, these are the stages of the destruction of states and the degradation of global society in order to establish total control over it.
Fact number two. In 2012, a secret report of the Bundestag of Germany “On the protection of the population with risk analysis” (“Bericht zur Risikoanalyse im Bevölkerungsschutz 2012”) appeared . Public attention was drawn to it only in 2020, when a blogger unearthed the document in declassified form and published it. Two risk scenarios are considered – a catastrophic flood and … a pandemic of a new virus “SARS-Coronavirus”. In 2012! So:
– “The pandemic will start in Southeast Asia and from there will quickly spread to Europe and the United States. The list of measures that governments will take will vary from country to country, but the main ones are quarantine and self-isolation.”;
– “Maximum damage will be caused to the branches of the national economy that provide the daily needs of ordinary people in goods and services (i.e., medium and small businesses). And since ordinary people will have a very bad time, and they will protest fiercely, serious changes in politics are predicted.”;
– “Large corporations will suffer less. Infrastructure sectors such as energy and communications will survive. One can forget about tourism, restaurants, theatres and concerts for many years. Passenger airlines will disappear as a class, only cargo air transportation will remain”;
– “The duration of a worldwide viral pandemic (estimated at 7.5 million victims) is estimated to be three years” .
Now we will combine both reports and project this synthesis on the last two years of our modern everyday life. What do we get? Firstly, Rockefeller Stage 1 (“Lock Step”) is in full swing, and it was launched in October 2019 by the notorious “Event 201” – a pandemic exercise held on the eve of the first wave of the pandemic, which, as written in the Bundestag scenario, spread from Asia to Europe and the United States.
Secondly, the organisation of the WHO Kazan exercises in October of this year, which, as ubiquitous journalists unearthed, were held under the auspices of the global organisation “United Cities”, which a month later was headed by the current mayor of Kazan Ilsur Metshin. “Smart globalisation” on top of states is stage #2 of Rockefeller’s “Clever Together” master plan. Or it’s not the case?
And is it by chance that Tatarstan first turned out to be a “dissident” opposing the federal bill on regional policy, and then was the first to introduce QR-lawlessness in urban transport? Analysts, of course, have contrasted these events with each other, talking about the ostentatious demonstration of loyalty by the regional authorities after the demarche just carried out, but in reality, the symptoms of “sovereignisation” with a claim to their own “game” are both.
Thirdly, stage 3 – “Hack Attack” – is already being planned. In July of this year, another exercise was held in Germany – Cyber Polygon, which, along with the WEF of Klaus Schwab, the author of the concept of the “great reset” against the background of “COVID”, is organised by Herman Gref’s Russian Sberbank. Do you realise, reader, how the “ring of the anaconda” is being drawn around our country, which American Admiral Alfred Mahan wrote about in relation to geopolitics more than a century ago? And which internally relies on the Tatarstan-Sberbank “axis”?
According to the exercise plan, some “hackers” strike at the world’s infrastructure, turn off the Internet, which leads to a catastrophic chain of accidents at life-support facilities managed through the network around the world. We have adopted a law on mandatory evacuation for this very case? And why was it passed? If the “oprichnik” of Schwab-Gates-Gref “reach out” to us? Or have all the decisions already been made, and it’s only a matter of time before they “reach out”? Or an assigned date that will be notified to us in real time?
Further. The Russian public is very outraged by the prospects for the widespread introduction of QR codes. Because of this, as the “court” political scientists admit “in their hearts”, the bills were slowed down and sent to the regions for consideration . (By the way, it was these very “experts” who recently called us the sanitary dictatorship , about which the leader of the Communist Party warns ). What if someone wants to put the question like this: if you don’t want QR codes, you will get total vaccination “in places of not so distant” evacuation?
Isn’t everything or much in the world going according to this very plan developed by the Rockefeller Foundation? Meanwhile, this NGO, together with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, are the founders of the WHO itself, which establishes a sanitary dictatorship in the world through its structural divisions.
The final stage – “Smart Scramble” – is just around the corner? And it is with an “eye” on it that the QR provocation with the transport collapse in Tatarstan is being carried out, which was supported in a peculiar way by Russian Railways, promising to cancel dozens of trains, thereby undermining ties between the regions. Let us explain that the transformation of the world into a “patchwork” against the background of the weakening and then also destruction of sovereignties is a direct path to the globalist, more precisely, globalising transformation of the world of states into the world of corporations, the “pilot project” of which the United States has conceived and performed from the very beginning. This country was created as a prototype of the United States in terms of world regions, and then the planet as a whole.
In other words, nothing new is happening. A long-written script disguised as an emergency is being implemented. Moreover, the mentioned report of the Bundestag contains information that the “Modi-SARS-Coronavirus” virus infected almost ten years ago five people in different countries (or were they infected for experimental purposes?).
Two of them died, from which, presumably, conclusions were drawn about a 40% mortality rate and a projected 7.5 million deaths. The state of emergency that the persons involved in this oligarchic feud arrange for us is imposed on a planned basis, including by domestic efforts, according to publications that are well known in the world, but are not advertised in our country .
Fact number three. The seemingly inexplicable and aggressive impudence with which the sanitary authorities push through their dictatorship. Recognising that the information campaign on vaccination is completely lost, they do not seek to correct its shortcomings, but, perfectly understanding the sources of the population’s distrust of the authorities, they try to break them over their knees, forcing them to submit using the inhumane, illegal and frankly humiliating method of forced QR segregation.
Many authors have repeatedly stressed that this is done contrary to the generally accepted norms of discussion around controversial issues. Methods of the total prohibition of other people’s opinions are used, which reach appeals and official orders for denouncing and ignoring medical ethics and universal norms of “bans on professions” for those who do not openly share the inquisitorial frenzy into which the notorious “vaccinators” were led by their own delusions and mistakes.
Sergey Kurginyan, who warned, by the way, that in certain circles of the Western elite, the plan of a man-made “pandemic” has been hatched since 2017 and includes two stages – “soft”, apparently now being implemented, and “hard” – the launch of a combat virus, showed very well how the situation really is with the consequences of vaccination .
Referring to the official Israeli statistics, confirmed, we emphasise, by the head of the public health service of this country, the political scientist also showed that about 50% (half!) Of those newly infected with COVID were vaccinated completely. Vaccinated people make up the majority of cases in the age group of 60-69 (the same one that in our country they convince, and now compel to inject literally by force).
Moreover, those who received the vaccine in this group account for 58% of severe cases in this age category. And in the next age group of 70-79, the proportion of severe cases of the disease among vaccinated people is 77%. Kurginyan’s conclusion also seems logical. According to him, vaccination contributes to the spread of the disease.
There are well-known critical views on the range of issues related to forced vaccination attempts by major medical scientists and practicing virologists. If, for example, we summarise the opinions of such recognised experts as the head of the Department of Microbiology, Virology and Immunology of the Faculty of Medicine and Prevention at Sechenov University and academician Vitaly Zverev, Deputy Head of the Medical Research and Educational Center and Doctor of Medical Sciences (Moscow State University) Simon Matskeplishvili, who works directly with COVID-19 patients, as well as the academic Viktor Maleyev, who represents the Central Research Institute of Epidemiology of Rospotrebnadzor, the following turns out.
It is not necessary to put the vaccine in those who have been ill, because immunity after the disease is much stronger than from vaccination, and RNA viruses, to which the “crown” belongs, give a powerful, almost lifelong immunity . In other words, a drop in the level of antibodies some time after recovery is not an indication for vaccination, and the fact of having had the disease, on the contrary, can be considered a contraindication to it.
And one last thing. A recent sensational article by Vladislav Surkov (about “unpacking stability”)  contains an interesting view on the present and future, although it is debatable, because it has been repeatedly proved that the adequacy of the mechanical transfer of physical and natural processes to society is very low. But that’s not what we’re interested in. In the material claiming to be relevant, the topic of the so-called “pandemic” is not mentioned at all; the author either does not consider it serious, or packs it into a general destabilising context, thereby confirming the artificiality of the origin of this problem, which was imposed on humanity within the framework of a certain project. At a minimum, this is symptomatic.
Instead of a conclusion
Andrey Fursov recently spoke about a conference that was held in 2018 at one of the key American think tanks – the Institute for Complexity Problems in Santa Fe at the initiative of then US Secretary of State and Presidential National Security Adviser Rex Tillerson and Herbert McMaster. In continuation of the Rockefeller Foundation report, further options were discussed.
The “anthropological” scenario aroused the greatest “interest” among the audience. Its authors proposed a split of humanity into two castes – the mentioned “higher” and “lower” ones . The former live for a long time and in environmentally friendly conditions, taking advantage of all modern benefits. The latter eke out a short earthly existence in the “human collars” of large agglomerations.
The “brave new world” is virtually devoid of industry; clean energy sources feed the sterile industries that robots employ. People of the “second class”, deprived of full-time education, work and life prospects, degraded into a lower biological species, get garbage.
Standardisation of this, so to speak, “consumption” is carried out on the basis of “basic income” in a non-cash manner and by electronic cards, which are blocked at the slightest disloyalty, depriving the physical possibility of existence. 
The same applies to real estate; ownership is replaced by distribution “for use” under the same conditions of full loyalty and according to appropriate social norms. So in all spheres – and why, do you think, they so persistently develop car sharing?
As for the spiritual sphere, on which social arrangements directly depend, in the conditions of capitalism malignantly reborn by digitalisation, replacing the human at the machine with a robot, such “progress”, like the “dream of reason”, will reproduce the “monsters” of the Schwab-Gref “great reset” at each new turn. This order of things can only be changed by socialism, which will direct scientific and technological progress in the interests of the majority, and not an elite minority, and create the very society where the free development of everyone will become a condition for the free development of all.
Yes, and what does COVID have to do with it? It has two functions. The first is the “big crisis” mentioned by D. Rockefeller, that is, the trigger that launches a global transformation. And the second one. The construction of the “digital concentration camp” planned by the globalisers, with humanity divided into castes or races implies the disappearance of the middle class.
And this task, together with a radical reduction in the number of carriers of the corresponding social consciousness, is very reliably solved by combining an epidemic pestilence with lockdowns that destroy the traditional economy. And that is why, it seems, and also for the sake of close coordination with the Vatican, the “global banker” Draghi became the Prime Minister of Italy and the host of the G20 summit. Under all this, the discussion of climate issues and the so-called “pandemic” at the summits in Rome and Glasgow was combined.
SOURCES AND LITERATURE:
 Club of Rome. History of creation, selected reports and presentations, official materials / Edited by D. M. Gvishiani, A. I. Kolchin, E. V. Netesova, and A. A. Seitov, Moscow, 1997, p. 72.
 https://www.sechenov.ru/pressroom/news/akademik-zverev-obnaruzhil-semikratnyy-rost-antitel-posle-ukhoda-za-bolnym/; https://botalex.livejournal.com/174716.html; http://www.mgnot.ru/index.php?mod1=art&gde=ID&f=22304&m=1