This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. and published at Birch Gold Group

At the end of June government leaders and think-tank power brokers from around the world met at the Summit for a New Global Financing Pact in Paris. Participants include United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva, and World Bank President Ajay Banga.

The supposed purpose of the summit was to find financial solutions to the goals of tackling poverty while simultaneously curbing “planet-heating emissions.” As with all climate change-related events the discussion in Paris inevitably turned to international centralization of power and the formation of a global consortium to fix the problems that they claim sovereign nations cannot or will not fix.

However, what I’m seeing more and more in the past couple of years is a convergence of narratives – Central banks and international banks are now suddenly more concerned with carbon taxation and global warming than they seem to be concerned with stagflation and economic collapse. Likely because this was the goal all along and economic collapse is part of the plan.

Globalists are now combining the climate change issue with international finance and monetary authority. In other words, they aren’t hiding the fact that the climate change agenda is part of the “Great Reset” agenda anymore. They are even suggesting that the threat of climate change be used as a springboard for giving global banks more power to dictate the circulation of wealth and for deconstructing the existing system so it can be replaced with something else.

French President Emmanuel Macron told delegates at the Paris Summit that “the world needs a public finance shock” to fight global warming while also creating “equity” for less wealthy nations. He also argued that the current system was not well suited to address the world’s challenges.

Presenters at the event noted that the international economic framework had been battered by a number of crises, including the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, but focused on “the spiraling cost of weather disasters intensified by global warming” as a reason for the ongoing destabilization of financial systems.

This is obviously nonsense, but it fits with the narrative programming that globalists are trying to engineer by linking economic decline to climate change. In reality, there is ZERO evidence that global weather events are any worse today than they were over a hundred years ago before carbon-producing industries were widespread. There is no proven connection between carbon emissions and any specific weather phenomenon. The claim is a fraud. There is no man-made climate crisis, as I have outlined and evidenced in previous articles.

But how many people will be fooled into thinking that there is a climate crisis, and what can that hysterical fear be exploited for?

Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley (like many globalists) advocated for reimagining the role of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in an era of climate dangers. She argues: “What is required of us now is absolute transformation and not reform of our institutions…”

UN leader Antonio Guterres said the global financial system, which was conceived at the end of World War II under the Bretton Woods Agreement, was failing to rise to modern challenges and now “perpetuates and even worsens inequalities.” In other words, he is angling for a new woke Bretton Woods.

“We can take steps right now and take a giant leap towards global justice,” he said, adding that he has proposed a stimulus of $500 billion a year for investments in sustainable development and climate action. There was also a plan presented to use the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights basket as a mechanism to boost global liquidity.

Keep in mind that the fiat stimulus measures of central banks and the interest rate policies of global bankers are what caused the current economic crisis to begin with. It wasn’t covid, it wasn’t the war in Ukraine and it certainly wasn’t climate change. It was the banks and their use of monetary manipulation that triggered 40-year high inflation, and this has led to central banks hiking interest rates into economic weakness.  This strategy has consistently caused debt implosion and stock market disasters in the past. The bankers and the globalists are the source of the problem, they should not be put in charge of fixing it.

Yet, here they are, trying to take control and institute a sweeping Reset plan for the calamity they created. But where is all of this leading?

Last year the UN suggested that developed and emerging economies like the US and China would have to pay a kind of wealth/emissions tax of at least $2.4 trillion a year into a fund for climate change developments, and this wealth would be redistributed to poorer nations.  Redistributed by who?  Well, the globalists, of course.

Other ideas on the table include taxation on fossil fuel profits and financial transactions to raise climate funds. Meaning, they plan to tax oil and gas until prices become so high that the general public will not be able to afford them.

Macron in particular backed the idea of an international tax on carbon emissions from shipping, ostensibly to make overseas freight more expensive in order to reduce manufacturing demand.  This expands on the strict carbon rules already being implemented on European agriculture.

These all seem like disjointed plans to simply inflate prices through different forms of taxation and force the public to consume fewer goods, but there is a much bigger scheme at play here. It’s important to understand that climate change is nothing more than a vehicle to deliver a fully centralized global economic system, likely under the control of the IMF, BIS, World Bank, and the UN.

The annual payments by wealthier nations into global institutional coffers is an act of tribute, a show of fealty. It’s also a way for groups like the IMF to create a system of greater interdependency. If vast sums of money are flowing through globalist institutions and they become the arbiters of how that wealth is redistributed, they can also build a system of rewards and punishments. They can punish countries that don’t follow their dictates and they can give advantages to countries that toe the line.

In terms of a new Bretton Woods, I suspect that this is all culminating in a currency crisis that the globalists will use as an opportunity to finally introduce their CBDC (Central Bank Digital Currency) model. And once CBDCs are implemented their ability to dominate the populace will be complete. A cashless system with no privacy in transactions and the ability to shut down the buying power of individuals and groups at will? It’s a totalitarian’s dream scenario.

It’s no mistake that the public is being constantly bombarded with global warming propaganda these days – The powers that be need an existential crisis as a fear generator. When people are afraid they don’t think rationally and will often turn to the worst possible leaders for relief. And a global threat requires a global response, right?

Climate change disaster narratives (if the public embraces the propaganda) will allow for a wide array of systemic changes that have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with financial dominance.

National wealth taxation and redistribution. The imposition of the IMF and World Bank as a mediator for global funds. The use of the IMF’s SDR basket as a defacto global currency umbrella. The injection of CBDCs and a cashless society. None of these things would have any bearing on climate change even if it was a legitimate threat.

But what about the scorched earth model?  If the ultimate intent is to destroy the economy to the point that most industry dies, trade retracts and the population plummets because survival becomes untenable, then one might argue that the globalists are “saving the planet” by getting rid of people.  I suppose if you think keeping the population in perpetual third-world status will save us from global warming, then you might support such an agenda.

Whether the goal is simply economic micro-management or the forced liquidation of production, the outcome would be more power for internationalists and less freedom and prosperity for everyone else.

They can spin it however they want, but when the elites call for a “financial shock” they are really calling for a dramatic throttling of the system so that it can no longer maintain the existing populace. When they call for global taxation and tribute in the name of “equality” they are not trying to make everyone equally rich, they want everyone equally poor. And when they call for the centralized oversight of nations for the sake of saving the planet, what they really want is global governance.