Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the International Dictatorship of the Future

In the beginning of April, the CEO of RBF, Stephen Heintz, gave a speech during the session Informal Interactive Dialogue on the Implementation of the Pact for the Future at the United Nations Trusteeship Council. He added fuel to the fire and said,

We are living in an age of unprecedented turbulence. 184 violent conflicts are destroying lives and livelihoods across the globe. More than any other time the last three decades… Escalating Great Power competition threatens to trigger Great Power confrontation… The accelerating climate crisis is causing real time loss of life, physical and economic devastation and turbocharging forced displacement and migration.

Heintz had been invited by the President of the UN General Assembly, Philémon Yang, and was the first speaker to talk after introductions by Yang and UN Secretary General António Guterres. Heintz was prominently positioned alongside the UN leadership, next to Deputy Secretary General Amina Mohammed, demonstrating the close bonds between Rockefeller philanthropy and the United Nations that have existed since the founding of the organisation. As former UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon said in 2012:

I personally want to thank the Rockefeller family for my own office — and the entire United Nations campus on the East Side of Manhattan.

The office of United Nations Information Board and Office, “a clearing house for information” on the activities of the allied countries during World War II, was actually located at the Rockefeller Center from November 1942 until the founding of the international organisation United Nations in 1945.1

Heintz continued with stark wording of impending doom if nothing is done,

Humanity is facing three simultaneous crisis, climate crisis, a new nuclear arms race, and the advent of potentially hyper disruptive technologies that hold much promise for humanity but also the possibility of great peril.

And explained the root cause.

The systems that have guided global problem solving since 1945 are clearly inadequate for addressing the challenges of this century. They are inefficient, ineffective, non-adaptive, and in some cases simple obsolete… And, as the management theorist Peter Drucker observed in 1980, the greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence itself, rather it is acting with yesterday’s logic.

But the dangerous development can, according to Heintz, be countered if a new logic with new tools of world control are installed.

A logic for the future has to acknowledge the twin realities of global interdependence and multipolar pluralism. It must abandon anthropocentrism for a fuller appreciation of the community of life on our planet. A new logic will acknowledge the benefits of a more equatable distribution of power, and models of collaborative sovereignty. It will favor positive sum solutions and advance economics of human and planetary wellbeing.

The Logic of the Future is also the name on a essay written by Heintz and first published in June last year by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. The essay gives an clear account on how the future world order will be constructed if they get their way. It is essentially the same recipe for population control that has been used since Nelson Rockefeller, during his time as chairman, launched the RBF Special Studies Project in the 1950s (with Henry Kissinger as director) with the aim to “shape a new world order”. Read the whole story in my book Rockefeller: Controlling the Game.

Stephen Heintz has been a faithful servant of the Rockefeller family since he was chosen to the position as CEO in 2001, with Nelson’s son Steven Rockefeller as chair, and is a member of the mighty Council on Foreign Relations.2 Under their joint leadership, RBF made “solutions to global warming” its top priority.3 The current chairman of the RBF, Nelson’s grandson Joseph Pierson, continues to steward this legacy.

Acting like a representative for the real power brokers behind the scenes (CFR, the Trilateral Commission, and international philanthropy), Heintz praised the UN leadership for their support for The Pact for the Future and the launching of Our Common Agenda. The Pact is “largely consistent” with The Logic for the Future but everything hasn’t progressed as much as Heintz and his overlords have wished for. The Pact falls short in some important areas and is lacking “detailed enforcement and accountability mechanisms to ensure timely and effective implementation” (this is what the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors grandiose project Global Commons Alliance is set to achieve).

Heintz ended his talk with a reference to the guiding light of the North Star (Polaris).

As we look to the challenges and opportunities of this century and beyond we must keep our focus on the North Star, the future with less violent conflict, more shared prosperity and a sustainable planet. Let us reject the false choice between preserving the past and surrendering to the chaos of the present. We must take advantage of the progress achieved in adopting the pact and work with unflagged energy to build the multilateral system we need to prevent the age of turbulence from becoming the age of catastrophe.

Heintz essay The Logic of the Future gives a closer look into the Rockefeller family’s vision for a “sustainable future”.

Heintz points out that “the COVID-19 pandemic and the climate crisis have highlighted the inadequacies of nation-states regarding governance at both the local and planetary levels.” They are “incapable of effectively addressing the urgent transnational and planetary challenges of our age.”

Instead he advocates “collaborative/shared sovereignty”, which is a clever marketing trick to make centralised excercise of power sound nice and cozy. Especially as he lists regional organisations like the European Union as a good example.

He views the European Union as the greatest political achievement in the second half of the 20th century, and describes it as “the most fully developed, most democratic, and most effective framework for the collective governance of key transnational domains” when in fact EU has effectively stripped away the voice from the people they administrate, and rules by dictates, in conjunction with the corporatocracy.

But Heintz goes further. He proposes that EU move away from unanimous decision making as it “slows them down on key issues”. The Council of the EU currently “has to vote unanimously on a number of matters which the member states consider to be sensitive” such as foreign and security policy and EU finances.4

.
He asks the question if the G20 (with the EU and the newly joined African Union as members) could focus on collective management (climate change, pandemic response, debt, and development finance) and have a formal relationship with the UN Security Council. The idea is apparently to build a structure with regional organisations covering the whole world, with all nation-states in their pockets. According to Heintz, the region next in line to follow EUs example is the African Union. How long before a North American Union is brought back into the equation?

Heintz wants to strengthen the regional organisations, to “help them” become more effective, take on more responsibilities, and to “do it in coordination with the United Nations”.

But the United Nations is in itself in need of “major renovations” to be effective. The organisation has limitations, despite the achievements and course set out with the Pact for the Future.

To “avoid climate catastrophe”, Heintz advocates that the now-defunct Trusteeship Council be replaced by a “Climate Council” to “serve as a forum for the implementation of agreed climate policies and actions” or “be replaced by a body representing subnational levels of government.”

This is essentially a restatement of the recommendations from the Trilateral Commission report Beyond Interdependence from 1991 (with a foreword by RBFs and TriCom cofounder David Rockefeller). It is also what the Secretary General’s report Our Common Agenda and the Rockefeller-supported Climate Governance Commission proposed (headed by former TriComb member Mary Robinson).

A repurposed Trusteeship Council was, however, rejected by some of the member states during the consultations before the Summit of the Future (as it reminded them of a colonial past). This is something that Heintz seeks to correct.

He proposes that “the requirement for unanimous decision making should be replaced with qualified majority voting so that individual states or small blocs can no longer block progress”.

In this way it would be possible to establish “enforcement mechanisms” to “hold countries accountable for meeting their emissions reduction pledges”.

As a complement to this, Heintz think it is “necessary to build an effective ecosystem of institutions, networks, and polylateral alliances” where “states, sub-national levels of government, private sector actors, and civil society join forces” to solve global problems. This has clear similarities to the multi-actor network that was a part of the proposal for an Emergency Platform (which was rejected at the last minute from the Pact for the Future due to criticism from member states who opposed transferring their power to supranational structures). We can be assured that it soon will be put back on the negotiation table, with the assistance from RBF and their obedient minions.

The last chapters in Heintz’s essay discusses a transformed leadership for the United States. He writes that US military and economic power is waning, and the influence of their “soft power” (values, culture, scientific and technological innovation, and leadership) has declined. US is viewed by large parts of the world as defenders of the “rules-based order” as long as they “get to make the rules and enforce the order”. But the geopolitical landscape is changing at breakneck speed.

One of the more controversial ideas is to establish a U.S.–China Joint Secretariat in a neutral place like Singapore or Geneva, where “senior civil servants from key ministries in both countries” will “work side-by-side on a daily basis” to devise “creative solutions” to be shared with Beijing and Washington.

Heintz advises the leadership of United States to,

use its great-power status to lead the community of nations in an urgent process of developing a new global system that relies on the coordination and collaboration of multiple centers of power and authority.

This resembles what Trilateral Commission cofounder Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in The Grand Chessboard in 1997.

The U.S. Policy goal must be… to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of socio-political change while evolving into the geopolitical core of shared responsibility for global peaceful management.5

In order to convince the world to accept an upgraded United Nations to assume the mantle of global management, the US has to step back from its prominent position in the international community. As Heintz puts it: “By trying to maintain global primacy we actually cause more problems.”

To succeed, the rest of the world has to view United Nations as an organisation they control together rather than a tool for American imperial dominance. This seems to be achieved with Trump’s policy of America First and the current “age of turbulence” with a devastating trade war and the US pulling out of UN programs and agreements. This essentially makes UN impotent to handle a new major crisis. As Paul Raskin wrote in Journey to Earthland,

This was a tragic period by any measure, yet could have been even worse had the world not mobilized in response.

This leaves the world community with two choices, either the UN is reshaped to effectively deal with the new realities (with an Emergency Platform) or the age of catastrophe will prevail. For this purpose, new blocs based on “shared sovereignty” is planned to be installed (modeled after the EU) and offered key positions in the new multipolar system. As a fact, The Eurasian Union (consisting of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia) is already in place.

A weakened US will likely be integrated into a future North American Union (or an English speaking union together with Great Britain). But in the end, we can be assured that the same controllers will still be running the show, as governors of the new International Dictatorship of the Future. A world empire aiming for the stars. That is, if their game of chess succeeds. I doubt it, but history will tell.

The second edition of my book Temple of Solomon can now be preordered from Pharos webshop. Order here.