Name Change! - Connecting The Agenda

Up until this point I was posting all of my articles and videos  under "The Goodman Chronicle" website and banner but for several reasons I will be switching over to the name "Connecting the Agenda".  My past work will not be lost as now going to the webpage www.ConnectingTheAgenda.com will link back to all of my older articles, as well as the latest material I put out.  Thank you to everyone who has been watching and following along, and hopefully you will continue to do so as I have some very interesting reports that I am currently working on and plan to release in the near future.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 7: Smart Meters/Smart Grid

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) 

The ultimate goal of the policy makers that propagate the sustainable development philosophy is to have every human action, including humans themselves, tracked in real time, in order to manipulate society towards the direction of the controllers pleasing.  Even behind the walls of their homes, human action needs to be tracked in order to ensure "sustainability".  The amount of water or electricity you are using, at what times, and for what purposes, need to be known, to ensure you are engaging in sustainable practices.  This is where smart meters come in.

A smart meter is an electronic device that records electricity or water consumption in intervals of an hour or less and sends that information back to the utility company.  Smart meters allow for two way communication between the meter and the central system.  This allows the utility company to see how much you are using, what you are using, and at what times.  These smart meters are part of a smart grid system, which refers to an array of technologies that allow for two-way communications and computerized automation of the electrical grid system.

In 2012, the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research put out a very interesting report which discusses smart meters and smart grid technology, including the various surveillance aspects and potential issues of smart technology.  From the report:

"Historically, electric utilities only had access to total consumption data for their individual customers. In contrast, with smart meters, utilities can: 

1. estimate how many people live in a house by watching the number of cycles of the hot water heater, 

2. know when the residents are home by the energy cycle of the TV, and

3. know when the residents wake up by the energy signature of the coffee maker or toaster."

As you can see, this technology has the potential to be very intrusive.  The report admits that this data can be used by those with malicious intentions:  "...criminals could use the data communicated by smart meters to (1) identify the best times for a burglary; (2) determine if residents are present; (3) identify assets that might be present; or (4) commit fraud, identity theft, or corporate espionage."

Many people have also expressed the potential health concerns about the increased level of radio frequencies being emitted from smart meters but the report claims "there has been extensive research on this subject, with most studies finding little if any risk."

While I find these potential dangers of smart meters to be valid, I see a much larger danger with the full implementation of these smart monitoring systems.  We know through the Connecticut climate change papers, as well as through related documents, that policy makers pushing the sustainable development program continuously mention their desire to reduce carbon emissions by reducing energy consumption.  They believe increased energy use would be a threat to our environment therefore look to do anything possible to reduce use.  A likely problem arises when you combine their insatiable desires to control our lives with this smart technology.  Let us examine some of the possible actions to be taken to reduce your energy use.

In a 2013 state document titled "Comprehensive Energy Strategy" it is discussed how the state should "support behavioral change that helps to shave the peak load through advanced technologies like smart meters and appliances."  One possible way to change our behavior, as discussed in the document, is to charge more money for using electricity during periods of "peak demand", this is called dynamic pricing.  Smart meters make this possible as your electricity usage is tracked in real time.

Another possible solution to consumers using too much electricity during peak demand is to have the electric company turn down your power from a central location.   The document states "[a]n array of new technologies makes it possible to manage power demand from end uses such as residential air conditioners and water heaters by automatically reducing these electric "draws" for brief periods of time. "  Along the same lines, is a suggested strategy called "Conservation Voltage Reduction" which "lowers the voltage at which electrical power is delivered."  I am no expert in this area therefore cannot speak with any expertise on the details of these programs, but it would seem to me that this technology allows for your electricity to be manipulated from an outside operator.

It is important to note this is not the work of greedy capitalists operating in a free market.  The spread of smart meters is dependent on government grants and regulations.  The two electricity providers that operate in the state, Eversource and United Illuminating, are highly regulated monopolies.  The level of government involvement into the electricity market is incredible.  For example, quoting from that same state document:

"Legislation enacted in 1998 mandated sweeping changes to the structure of the electricity sector. CL&P and UI were ordered to sell off their generation assets and begin operating solely as electric distribution companies. "

The state did this under the guise of lowering electricity rates, but as with much government intervention, it did not achieve it's stated goal:

"While proponents of restructuring anticipated that the switch to competitive supply would lead to lower electricity rates, electricity rates climbed precipitously after deregulation, reaching an all-time high in 2009."

Of course they call their regulation failure "deregulation" as a way to make the people think that not having enough government involvement was the problem.

Some would even question if this increase in electricity rates was a result of the incompetence of our officials or secretly the policy makers goal was to increase the cost of electricity.  In the previous section in this analysis titled "They Want Us Poor" I discuss how some policy makers in the state have such a desire to reduce our carbon emissions that they praise high energy prices as a way to get us to consume less.  On top of that, these climate change policies already have a direct effect in increasing the cost of electricity in the state as seen by the creation of the Connecticut Green Bank which is funded by a surcharge on our electrical bills.

Connecting this idea to the topic at hand, smart meters are marketed as a way for people to save money on their electrical bills but there have been many reports throughout the country of increased rates after smart meter installation.

It is always good to show the Rockefeller connection to all of this as it seems there is always one there.  Quoting from the document "In 2009, approximately 3,000 Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) customers (1,500 commercial and industrial customers and 1,500 residential customers) from Hartford and Stamford participated in the pilot Plan-it Wise Energy Program, which included smart meters and pricing plans with different rates for peak and non-peak periods (dynamic pricing)."  This Plan-it Wise Energy Program was a collaboration between Connecticut Light and Power and a company named Accenture.  Accenture has received multiple $100,000 and up grants from the Rockefeller Foundation.  For more information on this curious Rockefeller connection, read my other analyses on the subject.

After evaluating the full cost and plan, the state of Connecticut "decided not to approve a comprehensive deployment of smart meters", instead recommending "that CL&P (now known as Eversource Energy) begin installing smart meters at a more moderate pace."

The other electricity provider in the state, United Illuminating, has become part of Avangrid, a “green” international utility company. Its website states that it plans to install two million natural gas and electric Smart Meters across its service territories, including Connecticut, between 2014 and 2023.

It seems like the spread of smart meters is going to happen one way or the other.

Lastly, I would like to leave the reader with an example of how revealing this smart technology is and how it can be used against you.  In the process of investigating a murder in Arkansas, investigators used the suspect's water and electric smart meter to determine what the suspect was doing at specific times to build a case against him.  While in this case the smart meters may have been used to solve a murder, putting this technology in the hands of the control-freak technocrats that are designing this sustainable development system and are hell-bent on reducing our energy consumption can lead to a nightmare scenario with every move you make, even in your own house, being monitored and documented.

Related Reports:

• The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor - December 29, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

The Problems With Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 6: They Want Us Poor

After reading as many state climate change documents as I have there's one conclusion that can definitely be drawn:  these people want us poor.  I realize that this sounds dramatic but you kind of understand their position.  I don't agree with it, but it makes sense, if you think like them.  If you truly believe that pretty much all of human technological progress (cars, airplanes, air conditioners, farming equipment, etc.) is causing irreversible damage to the planet, then it would make sense that policies should be pursued and enforced that ensure humans are using less of these innovations.  Policies that discourage the use of technological innovations, though, have a direct effect in lowering our standard of living.

The fact that these climate change policies have a negative effect on our overall standard of living is not lost on the social engineers designing this system. The document titled "Connecticut Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-2000" published in 2003 details how the United States did not agree to an international plan to reduce Greenhouse Gas emissions, known as the Kyoto Protocol, "citing concerns about the economic impact of reducing GHG emissions on the time scale required under the agreement."  This is a clear indication that there's an understanding among government officials that these Greenhouse Gas Emission reducing policies can have negative effects on the economy, and yet many of these policies are still pursued.

One easy way to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions is to charge people more money for things like gas and electricity, so that they use less.  In a 2007 state progress report on Climate Change the topic of gasoline consuming motor vehicles causing greenhouse gas emission is discussed and it's stated that "elevated consumer gasoline prices of mid-2006 indicate that increased fuel prices may act to restrain consumption".  They also attribute a 3.7% increase in bus ridership to this increase in gas prices.  See high gas prices are good for their agenda because high gas prices will reduce the amount of gas used,even causing some people to give up their car and use the bus.  Actually, increasing the cost of driving in general is good for their agenda.  As documented in part three of this series The War On Cars, they want us out of our cars and onto public transportation.

Even our ability to keep our house cool is under attack by the social engineers of this system.  A 2006 report bemoans the fact that "[t]oday, most homes are air-conditioned", saying "[t]he increased use of residential air conditioning adds considerable demand during daytime peak periods" and that "[t]hese peak periods coincide with unhealthy air quality days in the summer."  Suggested solutions to this problem include having your air conditioner connected to a "smart grid" that allows an outside grid operator to control your output.  The topic of the smart grid and smart meters deserves, and will receive, its own analysis in the near future.

The way that we heat our home is also being manipulated, creating an extra financial burden.  In a 2013 document put out by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) it discusses the topic of people who use oil or propane to heat their home, and laments the fact that oil and propane home delivery services are not regulated by the state.  The DEEP recommends that policymakers consider a "dedicated fund supported by fuel oil and propane customers to provide robust efficiency programs" and that "oil and propane heating customers will need to be assessed higher co-pays for use of the State‘s electric efficiency programs."   In other words, tax you more money under the guise of "efficiency".

Being poor is also good for reducing solid waste generation.  In a 2010 report titled "The Impacts of Climate Change on Connecticut Agriculture, Infrastructure, Natural Resources and Public Health"  it is stated that "Connecticut currently is at or has surpassed the capacity to manage its own solid waste ".  It follows with the statement that "while the economic downturn has been positive for solid waste generation because people produce less solid waste per capita when the economy is poor, the eventual economic improvements will continue to strain capacity in future years."  Therefore, when people don't have money, they don't produce as much trash, and this is good for the environment, but if the economy improves, and people have more money, they will produce more trash, and this is bad.

Knowing that poor people are good for the climate change agenda, it makes sense that in 2014 when the state celebrated meeting their initial green house gas reduction goal, they credited "the economic downturn" as one of the instrumental factors in reaching that goal.

If we follow the path that these policy makers are creating to its logical conclusion, the majority of the world will be living in destitute conditions, with little to no technological innovations, similar to what we are told is the living conditions of the average citizen of North Korea.  Surely not everyone involved with propagating these climate change policies understands the disastrous consequences of such policies however that doesn't make the disastrous consequences any less likely to occur.  As we know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations - December 7, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Trumps New EPA Pick Angers All The Right People In Connecticut

 

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.) (Click here for .mp3 download of this analysis.)

President-Elect Donald Trump has apparently picked Oklahoma State Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency.  In a previous video I discussed how Trump had Myron Ebell, a well known "climate change skeptic", lead the EPA transition team, and speculated how this might reverse some of the disastrous climate change policies that have been propagated by the federal government.  Trump's pick of Pruitt is another good sign that there might actually be some change in the EPA's overreaching policies.  Pruitt hasn't fallen for the global warming scam saying that the climate debate is "far from settled", and even joined a coalition of state attorneys general that sued the EPA over their restrictive policies.    

Another good sign of this Pruitt pick is the group of people in Connecticut that this upsets.  All of the people and groups that for one reason or the other have been pushing this concept of smart growth, sustainable development, the anti-car agenda, etc., are all outraged over the new head of the EPA.

Governor Malloy put out a press release calling the Pruit pick "deeply unsettling", saying the pick raises many questions about whether the EPA will continue to support the climate change policies that Malloy has been instrumental in implementing in the state.

Even the Rockefeller-funded Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that push the anti-car agenda in the state like the Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) are worried, putting Pruitt in the "losers" section of their blog saying that he is "someone who has spent his career fighting environmental regulations for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry".

Another Rockefeller connected NGO pushing similar policies, the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, called for the Senate to firmly reject Pruitt's nomination saying "[t]his isn’t just letting the fox into the henhouse, it’s handing the fox the architectural blueprints and a stick of dynamite."

The founder of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment is Fred Krupp.  Krupp is a very interesting character that deserves his own analysis, as he was actually on President Bill Clinton's Council on Sustainable Development which was conceived in order to formulate recommendations for the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 in the United States.  Krupp is still very much active in the environmental movement as the President of the highly influential Environmental Defense Fund, and called Trump's pick of Pruitt to head the EPA "deeply troubling".

As I said in the previous video on this topic, while all of this seems promising, we have to wait and see.  The Trump presidency could just be getting rid of the whole climate change , green energy scam, and replacing it with a new scam.  I'll be keeping my eyes and ears open, and documenting as much as I can.  Thanks for watching, subscribe to the channel, and watch the related videos for more information.

The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 5 - Connection to the United Nations

(This is a video presentation of the following analysis.)

(download .mp3 here)

An important point that needs to be made when discussing Connecticut climate change policy is that it was not some grass roots movement that began pushing for climate change legislation in Connecticut but instead the push comes from the international level at the United Nations.  This fact can be easily documented by reading through the various Connecticut climate change papers and viewing the numerous citations to the United Nations and related organizations.

One early example of th e United Nations direction into Connecticut climate change policy can be seen in the agreement made in 2001 between the Governors of New England and the Premiers of Eastern Canada known as the "2001 Regional Climate Change Action Plan".  In the action plan it is stated that "The ultimate goal [of greenhouse gas emission] mirrors that of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC], to which both the United States and Canada are signatories."  The UNFCCC would then go on to be cited multiple times in the Connecticut climate change papers .

Signatories of the 1992 UNFCCC have agreed to adopt policies that help fight "climate change", encourage the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere", and "promote sustainable development." (To get a better understanding of the UNFCCC read A Brief Analysis of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).) 

It should also be noted that at the 1992 United Nations conference in Rio where the UNFCCC was presented , another important UN document, Agenda 21, was also presented and accepted by President George Bush on behalf of the United States.  Even though, to my knowledge, Agenda 21 is not directly referenced in Connecticut Climate change documents, it is important to note because being a much larger and more detailed plan than the UNFCCC, it lays out a more specific agenda on how "sustainab le development" is to be carried out.  It is highly recommended to any interested reader on this subject to read A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action.

 The 2001 New England Governors agreement would go on to form the foundation of Connecticut climate change policy, and as just explained, its goal mirrored that of the United Nations.

The following year, 2002, the Connecticut Governor's Steering Committee met to further discuss the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions as agreed to in the 2001 New England Governors meeting.  Important to note about this 2002 meeting is that it was held at the The Pocantico Center, in Tarrytown, New York.  This land at Pocantico was originally purchased by John D. Rockefeller, and is now managed by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.  The Rockefellers have multiple connections to the United Nations, including donating the money for the land on which the U.N. stands today.  (For a more comprehensive analysis of the United Nations - Rockefeller connection check out the 4th part in this series titled The Rockefeller Connection, as well as the presentation titled The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection.)

In the paper which derived from that 2002 meeting, and several times after that, the organization ICLEI, or the International Council for Local Enviornmental Initiatives, is cited as a group working in Connecticut to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Indeed, several cities across the state have become members of ICLEI at one time or another.  ICLEI, today known as Local Governments for Sustainability, is a major non-governmental organization (NGO) that has been highly influential in spreading the concept of "sustainable development", and other United Nations programs, across the world.  ICLEI was founded at the United Nations and is cited in the United Nations program of action, Agenda 21, as one of three non-governmental organizations active in the field of propagating sustainable development policy.

Finally, we get to the "scientific" body known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  State officials rely heavily on information put out by the IPCC to justify their "climate change" programs, citing their reports throughout the Connecticut Climate Change papers.  And of course, the IPCC was established by the United Nations.

Further connections could be presented, but the point is made.  Connecticut Climate Change policy is being influenced and ultimately directed by international organizations, specifically the United Nations.

Related Reports:

• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection - January 25, 2016 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 3: The War on Cars - November 9, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 2: Inaccurate Data - September 28, 2015 (link)
• The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 1: Is Man-Made Global Warming Real? - September 21, 2015 (link)

Will President-Elect Donald Trump Put An End to Agenda 21?

(This is a video version of the following analysis.)

Under the guise of fighting man made climate change and reducing carbon emissions, the United Nations Agenda 21 program of sustainable development seeks to lower the standard of living of Americans.  These sustainable development policies have been, and are being, slowly enacted across the United States, including in the state of Connecticut, as documented by previous reports.  While the continuous march of this Agenda 21 program seemed to have no slow down in sight, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States may prove to be the ultimate hurdle for the success of Agenda 21.

Trump has been a big critic of the idea of man-made climate change saying he is not a "big believer", even calling it a "hoax" on multiple occasions.  This is huge as the whole Agenda 21 program revolves around the idea that the planet's climate is being severely affected by everyday human activity like driving cars or eating meat.

To further show that Trump is serious about putting a stop to the climate change hysteria, he reportedly appointed Myron Ebell to run the EPA transition team.  Ebell is a well known skeptic of the theory of man made climate change.  He has spoke in favor of Congress prohibiting any funding for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and once labeled the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change an "organized conspiracy dedicated to tricking the world into believing that global warming is a crisis that requires a drastic response."

Even better than that, Trump has shown signs of shunning the UN altogether.  At a campaign speech at an AIPAC conference in 2016, Trump criticized the UN for its "weakness", "incompetenece", even saying that the UN is "not a friend of freedom".

While all of this seems promising, we can't start counting our chickens just yet.  Trump has a history of flip-flopping.  On the global warming issue, Trump and three of his children put their name to an advertisement in the New York Times in 2009 urging President Obama and Congress to take action on climate change.  Furthermore, contrary to his recent remarks about the United Nations, Trump testified in front of Congress in 2005 and said that he is a "big fan of the United Nations and what it stands for", though he then goes on to rebuke the United Nations for its incompetence.

Some would brush off Trump's past public positions as nothing more than a business man saying and doing what he has to in order to play the game.  While others would say that Trump is an opportunist with no real principles.  We are going to have to wait and see.

Connecting the Rockefellers to the United Nations

(The Rockefeller - United Nations Connection - This is a video presentation of the following analysis)

In this analysis, the direct connection between the Rockefellers and the creation of the United Nations organization will be made.

First, it should be noted that the organization that preceded the United Nations, the League of Nations, received a significant amount of support from Rockefeller related organizations.  In 1927, John D. Rockefeller Jr. provided the League of Nations with $2 million to "enhance its international relations library and promote peace through knowledge and understanding".  This Library of the League of Nations later became known as the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG) when the league transferred its assets to the United Nations.  According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, in a statement praising the Rockefeller family's past and present support of international organizations, the interest from that original $2 million loan still provides approximately $150,000 every biennium to the United Nations.

The Rockefeller Foundation was also heavily involved with transition from the League of Nations to the United Nations as documented in the article "The Rockefeller Foundation and the Transition from the League of Nations to the UN" by Ludovic Tournes of the University of Geneva. Further connections could be drawn between the Rockefellers and the League of Nations but for the sake of brevity, we will move on to the United Nations.

It is no secret that the land that the United Nations is built upon today was purchased with money donated by the Rockefellers.  The official Rockefeller Archive Center has this to say on the matter:

"John D. Rockefeller, Jr.'s deep interest in international relations was reflected by his many contributions directed to international causes. Perhaps most outstanding in this field was his gift of $8,515,000 in December, 1946, for the purchase of the land for the permanent home of the United Nations in New York."

This land where the United Nations Headquarters now sits in New York was originally owned by a prominent real estate developer named William "Bill" Zeckendorf.  As the story goes, Nelson Rockefeller, on behalf of the United Nations, went to Zeckendorf with an offer to buy the property, Zeckendorf agreed, and Nelson's father, John D Rockefeller, Jr., donated the money to the United Nations in order to finance the purchase of the land.  While this story is usually presented as just another selfless act of charity by the Rockefellers, there is some evidence to suggest that there were ulterior benefits associated with this donation.

Because the United Nations was set to transform the area, which was mostly old buildings and abandoned slaughterhouses, if someone were to own property in the area they would see a massive increase in value.  As luck would have it, David Rockefeller was one of those ownership interests that would benefit financially.  In his own autobiography titled "Memoirs", David Rockefeller describes how after becoming a board member of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace the Endowment bought the land across from where the U.N. building would be erected, and how they profited greatly.

"I turned to Bill Zeckendorf, and he offered us one of the building sites he had acquired on the west side of First Avenue, across from where the new U.N. building would be erected.  Although the area was still filled with abandoned slaughterhouses and decaying commercial buildings, Bill felt the U.N. and other related projects would permanently transform the area.  He recommended that we buy the parcel before land values skyrocketed and then put up our own building.

Several of the more conservative board members thought the plan far too risky and criticized spending the endowment's limited funds on a construction project in an unproven location.  The endowment's longtime treasurer opposed the project and resigned from the board, predicting it would bankrupt us.  However, a strong majority of the board backed the proposal, especially after I was able to persuade Winthrop Aldrich to open a Chase branch on the ground floor.  Once the building was completed, we rented much of the building to not-for-profits and easily handled the mortgage payments. As Bill Zeckendorf predicted, the area around the U.N. quickly became one of New York's prime neighborhoods and continues to be so to this day." (pg 150)

David Rockefeller conveniently leaves out of this passage that it was the same Bill Zeckendorf who sold the land to the United Nations, through the funding of David's father John D. Rockefeller Jr, that was selling the endowment the land near the United Nations off of his "prediction" that the land values would skyrocket.  I am not sure of the extent that insider information was involved in this deal, but, in the least, this proves that a Rockefeller did seemingly benefit financially from the creation of the United Nations in that location.

(Sidenote: Wikipedia also twice refers to the Rockefeller's owning land in another area around the United Nations known as Tudor City.  The sources for the information in those two entries seem to be of questionable origin so I cannot yet present that information as fact.)

Another family connection to the founding of the United Nations is David's brother Nelson Rockefeller being a member of the U.S. delegation at the gathering that marked the founding of the United Nations, the 1945 Conference on International Organization.  Nelson would also go on to fund The United Nations World magazine in an effort to promote the UN.

It should be noted, the designers of the United Nations Headquarters were working out of an office in Rockefeller Center.  The chief architect of the project was Wallace K. Harrison, a man with interesting Rockefeller connections himself.   Charlene Mires, author of the book "Capital of the World: The Race to Host the United Nations", describes Harrison as "one of the designers of Rockefeller Center, a Rockefeller relation by marriage, a confidant of Nelson Rockefeller, and a member of the booster committee that had been working to bring the UN to New York."

This Rockefeller support of the United Nations continued after the creation of the UN and continues to this day.  It would be too much to list all of the ways that Rockefeller-related organizations contribute to the United Nations today but their influence can be seen through examples like the Rockefeller Foundation providing grants to the United Nations, or the Rockefellers Brothers Fund funding the United Nations Foundation.

More important, though, than the motive to make some money off of a land deal was the Rockefeller vision of a one-world government as revealed on pg. 405 of David Rockefeller's autobiography Memoirs.  It is in this passage that David reveals his family's ultimate goal:

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. b

The United Nations fits well into the Rockefeller family goal "to build a more integrated global political and economic structure-one world".  Through United Nations programs such as Agenda 21, local decision making power is being eroded and being replaced by regional governments that continue to become more centralized.  In the analysis titled "The Problems with Connecticut Climate Change Policy - Part 4: The Rockefeller Connection", the connections between Agenda 21, the Rockefellers, and current events taking place in Connecticut are detailed.  Through these connections a pattern emerges of a system being created that is designed to reduce the decision making power of individual towns, cities, and states, transferring that power over to large, centralized, non-elected bureaucracies.


Related Analyses:

• Agenda 21: The Rockefellers Are Building Human Settlement Zones In Connecticut - March 24, 2014 (link)
• A Critical Analysis of Agenda 21 - United Nations Program of Action - November 01, 2013 (link)
• Agenda 21 in Connecticut: The Tri-State Transportation Campaign - August 22, 2013 (link)