It is satisfying that an increasing number of academics have joined and expanded on my earlier and current work on the Trilateral Commission, Technocracy, and Transhumanism. Jacob Nordangård, PhD in Sweden, has written the definitive Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, which anchors modern globalization (Technocracy) to the Trilateral Commission, founded by Rockefeller and Brzezinski in 1973.
One review states, “The Rockefeller family’s utopian dream of a perfect world will have serious consequences for the survival of the human species and life as we know it.” Indeed, this utopian dream is Technocracy, and it is a clear and present danger to humanity. ⁃ Patrick Wood, Editor.
I think the first time I came across Jacob Nordangård was when Ivor Cummins promoted his work, but my mind was too full of other things at the time, and I didn’t pay attention.
Then I read Elizabeth Nickson’s excellent review of Jacob’s wonderful book, Rockefeller: Controlling the Game, and went on to read the book. I highly recommend it.
As long-time readers know, I’ve been very interested in Climate Change™ for some time. You can find many of the stacks I’ve written on the subject here, and I even produced my own eBook on the subject.
Among all the untruths that are The Reality™, I have particular disdain for this one because it depresses the young, making them anxious and pessimistic. That’s part of its function.
I’ve heard far too many people say that they don’t want to have kids, because “what’s the point?” There’s a special place in hell for the developers of this lie.
It’s a manufactured construct patiently built by the force of immense wealth of a primary developer.
Nordangård points the finger at that primary developer, the Rockefellers, and brings the receipts.
1. Jacob, can you please tell us about your academic background and what led you to become interested in researching the influence of powerful foundations and NGOs on global affairs?
I have a PhD in Technology and Social Change from Linköping University, a M.A. in Geography and a M.A. in Culture and Media Production. I have been a Senior Lecturer at the universities of Linköping, Jönköping and Stockholm in Sweden.
I began researching the Peak Oil Theory in 2004, which at first alarmed me and made me aware of our heavy reliance on oil to power our modern globalised civilisation. That led me into researching alternative energy options and the politics of biofuels in the European Union. Upon investigating the networks and actors involved in EU policy making I found, to my astonishment, that foundations built on fortunes from the oil and automobile industry had a big influence on setting the agenda by funding green NGOs. Tat felt strange and made me curious about their intentions.
2. You’ve written extensively about the Rockefeller Foundation. What initially drew your attention to this particular organization?
I found out that a lot of policy recommendations originated out of meetings held at Rockefeller Foundation’s Bellagio center in Italy. I also found out that a couple of climate meetings that led up to the founding of IPCC in 1988 had been funded by Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund. This prompted me to investigate deeper.
3. In your research, you’ve traced the origins of climate change narratives back to the 1950s. Can you elaborate on how this concept emerged without significant scientific backing at the time?
The narrative originated during the preparations for the International Geophysical Year (held 1958-59). The oceanographer Roger Revelle from Scripps Institution of Oceanography had been invited to the founding of John D. Rockefeller IIIs Population Council in 1952 and would, with Rockefeller backing, become a vocal advocate for the global warming theory. The global warming narrative has, since the very beginning, been closely related to eugenics and population control—areas that were and still are major concerns for the Rockefeller philanthropies. Revelle co-authored an article, Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades, with Hans Suess in 1956 which built on earlier theories by the pioneers Guy Callendar and Gilbert Plass from the Ford Motor Company. Both Plass and Revelle’s research received funding from the military Office of Naval Research.
Swedish meteorologists Carl-Gustaf Rossby and Bert Bolin at Stockholms University, closely connected to and supported by the Rockefeller network, backed up the theory by publishing Revelle’s and Plass’ articles in the scientific journal Tellus in 1957. This set the stage.
Revelle was a close friend of the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Detlev Bronk, a key organiser of the Population Council founding conference. Bronk, who was a board member of Rockefeller Foundation and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, as well as president of the Rockefeller Institute of Medical Research, participated in the RBF’s Special Studies Project, which in 1958 (under the directorship of Henry Kissinger) selected climate change as a problem that would suit their internationalist ambitions, as it spans across borders and would require global management. A few years later, Swedish and American researchers from Scripps and Stockholm participated in the first international conference on the climate impact from burning fossil fuels, arranged by the Rockefeller-founded Conservation Foundation. This got the ball rolling.
4. How would you explain the concept of “philanthropy as a strategy” to someone unfamiliar with your work?
The philanthropists shape policy and social change by funding universities, schools, media, activists, NGOs, and think tanks. This gives them goodwill while allowing them to decide what to spend their money on. Coincidentally, it also creates investment and business opportunities for themselves. Like the activities from the Gates Foundation during C-19, the money they “give” also generates profit and gives a head start by knowing in advance which areas to invest in.
5. You’ve mentioned the creation of the Club of Rome. What role did this organization play in shaping environmental narratives?
The Club of Rome has since the early 1970s released reports about the problems of the world and offered solutions. They used computer models to project future development, which showed that the world was heading for disaster if not curbed with regulations and a new cybernetic global governance regime. Their dire projections were widely spread and influenced public opinion.
Members of the club have also been involved in setting policy. They came up with the idea to use global warming as the “common enemy against whom we can unite” and concluded that humanity was the “real” enemy because, according to them, we were the cause.
The think tank is a project run by the ultra-rich for the benefit of the ultra-rich. The previous Special Studies Project member and Rockefeller-stooge Carrol L. Wilson was a Club of Rome board member and had a key role in placing climate change on the international research agenda.
6. Can you discuss the significance of the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm?
The Stockholm Conference introduced the environmental agenda (that had been prepared by the major philanthropies Rockefeller and Ford) as a key concern for the United Nations. One of the outcomes was the creation of the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and a system-wide Earth Watch “to monitor major global disturbances in the human environment and to give early warning of problems requiring international action.” Rockefeller henchman Maurice Strong both served as Secretary-General of the conference and was appointed UNEP’s first executive director.
7. How did the Brundtland Commission’s report “Our Common Future” impact the global environmental agenda?
The Brundtland report was a key stepping stone in the agenda. It created the framework for the technocratic society that was envisioned, and introduced the Sustainable Development concept with its three pillars, environmental, social, and economic sustainability. These were essentially the goals that had been formulated in the RBF’s Special Studies Report in the 1950s.
8. In your research, you’ve noted connections between various global leaders and the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leaders program. Can you elaborate on the significance of this?
World Economic Forum has according to its chairman Klaus Schwab penetrated the governments of the world. The Young Global Leaders have been programmed during a five-year program to be loyal to the goals of WEF and the global business community. This became evident during the C-19 pandemic with world leaders repeating the exact same phrases and introducing tech-solutions and vaccine programs developed by the working groups of WEF. These agents of change are a central part of the ongoing global coup. (A list of all YGL can be downloaded from my blog:
9. How would you describe the relationship between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, especially in light of their 2019 partnership agreement?
The partnership deals with the fulfilment of Agenda 2030 with its seventeen sustainable development goals. WEF has committed themselves to solving the challenges of the world with the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. This constitutes the formation of a Global Public-Private Partnership with WEF in the driving seat. UN and its agencies defines the agenda/problems and WEF deliver the solutions. It is indeed a toxic cocktail.
10. Can you explain the concept of the “Global Digital Compact” and its potential implications for individual privacy and freedom?
The compact is a part of the United Nations Pact for the Future that will be decided in September. The goal is that everyone on earth should be included in a global digital panopticon. All data will be processed and analysed with the use of AI to help achieve the global goals and detect “challenges” and (business) opportunities. This means, in the words of WEF-trustee Al Gore, “no more hiding”.
11. You’ve discussed the idea of a “Digital World Brain.” What does this concept entail, and what are its potential consequences?
This concept comes from H.G. Wells who wrote the book World Brain in 1938, and was further developed by the futurist and theosophist Oliver Reiser. The goal is to build a “world organism” with the help of technology. It will function like a digital crystal ball that can be used to predict and manage future events. It will give extensive power to those who control it. As WEF-chairman Klaus Schwab said:”…who masters those technologies, in some way, will be the master of the world.”
12. Can you explain the concept of the “emergency platform” proposed by the UN, and why it might be concerning?
This is also a part of the Pact for the Future. Emergency protocols will be developed to deal with a number of global crises. In case of emergency, a platform, a multi-stakeholder partnership consisting of major global players and member states, will be set up to deal with the crisis. This could mean that Martial Law is declared and human rights suspended as long as the crisis continues. The authoritarian response during the C-19 pandemic was a dress rehearsal for things to come.
13. You’ve written about the concept of a “new social contract.” What does this entail, and how might it affect individual sovereignty?
This is a global contract that will govern our obligations to future generations. This means that we (individuals, business, nations, science, economy) have a joint responsibility to avoid “dangerous climate change, and the aversion of other threats to humankind as part of the Earth system.” We must serve the whole, and not be a burden to the planet. With this follows a social credit score based on our “carbon footprint”.
14. Based on your research, what do you see as the most significant challenges to individual freedom and national sovereignty in the coming years?
The signing of the Pact for the Future will open up for a new global governance regime. We will likely witness a world plunge into chaos, triggered by a number of converging global crises, resulting in the declaration of Martial Law and the ascension to the “world throne” by the self-proclaimed “Masters of the Universe”. This will result in a highly regulated digital technocratic dictatorship, leaving little room for individual actions deemed to have a negative influence on “future generations” by the new scientific clergy and their digital crystal ball. But it is my opinion that this system will not be successful in the long run. It is doomed to fail.
15. What are you currently focused on in your research, and how can people stay informed about your work and upcoming publications?
I am following the process with Summit of the Future and the Pact for the Future, and the work of the lobby groups that are involved. I am researching the agenda that is prepared to be launched as soon as the Pact is signed. I present my latest findings and news regarding books etc. at my Substack (drjacobnordangard.substack.com) but more information about me and my work can also be found at my homepage jacobnordangard.se.
Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy. He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
