The Great Reset: Do You Really Want To Go There?
Money Circus | February 9, 2021
Time to make an educated, perspicacious estimation of where this is heading. The following applies to most countries:
The pretext (problem):
- Scientific data is being manipulated to drive public fear, out of all proportion to medical and health norms or recent hospital, infection or mortality rates.
- Mask and social distancing rules have a clearly negative impact on social health.
- Corporate interests are ‘informing’ government policy: from jabs to ‘immunity’ passports; facial recognition and software that tracks location and distance from other people; to paying hospitals for ‘finding’ Covid and intubating patients.
- Corporate interests linked to the above censor social media for the ‘public good’.
- Military and ad hoc bureaucratic committees censor information to encourage ‘consent’. The press is used to deliver wartime blanket propaganda.
- Lockdowns are extended on numerous pretexts.
The process (reaction):
- Rules are tweaked constantly, maximizing disruption and uncertainty perhaps with the intention of disguising the objective of preventing resistance.
- Masks, distancing, gathering limits and even attempts to ban singing or speaking loudly, directly curb fundamental liberties.
- Economic life is sharply curtailed, killing small and mid-size businesses and rendering the population dependent on government and corporations for support.
- Military have been put on standby to assist police in maintaining order, to vaccinate the population forcibly (why else would the military be needed), and to isolate politicians from the public.
- Concentration camps for vaccine resisters have been publicly discussed in countries like Germany, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The silence of other countries like Britain speaks volumes (on the other hand Britain is rather small and previously used Australia as its holding pen for deplorables).
- The Executive operates by diktat, rules, ‘mandates’ and the misuse of earlier laws. Only sometimes through legislation, often submitted to lawmakers retrospectively or at short notice.
The outcome (solution):
Several front organizations, mainly bankers and tech companies drive this part but the ideology is technocracy, as promoted by Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission (see second part of this article, Origins of Technocracy):
- Food and farming is already disrupted, particularly meat but also soy and other forms of protein. Inevitable impact on diet. Some positive outcome likely, such as reduction in obesity, but may also impact brain health and intelligence.
- Energy: Considerable shortfall if politicians implement plans to end use of hydrocarbons. Bio-fuel, solar and wind will make up a fraction of the difference, while plans for smart cities and 5G, electric cars and electric heating will massively increase demand.
- Energy-based accounting could make many products uneconomic or expensive. Hard to estimate as governments may subsidize some items.
- Innovation to suffer from move to a recycling-based economy where repurposing replaces manufacturing.
- Service based economy will replace consumption. Personal ownership of cars may cease. Air travel may become a rarity.
- Rationing and waiting lists are likely, as in the Soviet Union where people waited years to acquire a car (this time you may even wait to borrow a car). No private deals, all transactions to be public, not only tracked and surveilled but regulated. Those raised with electronic gadgets and battery-driven everything may experience material privation.
- Regulation will see the biggest lifestyle changes. Residence permits will decide where you live. You will need a reason to travel. Social credit scores will determine your access to services.
- Economic dependence, from income to spending. Jobs may be allocated, with limited choice of location, as in the former USSR.
- Public services may be interrupted as government transition from tax-based system to energy credits and carbon offsets. Massive decline in wealth. Stuff not made is never regained.
- Monetary system: Plan to replace money with energy-based credits.
- Pensions, savings and assets may be lost, seized by government or compulsorily purchased and exchanged at a rate favourable to the authorities.
It seems clear to me where this is intended to lead. Those who willfully ignore reality will not be persuaded by words and we need to stop focusing on the small data. Yes it is a fraud but perhaps it is intended to distract us. After all, it is only a pretext.
Do you want to go to this outcome? If not, now is the time to turn away.
One must always identify and name one’s enemy. In this case he has hidden for years. Authors like Carroll Quigley were censored, the books pulped, the printing plates smashed. Those like Antony Sutton lost their jobs, too. Thanks, however, to those who knew them, such as Patrick M Wood who collaborated with Sutton, we know where their efforts were directed and some inkling of their intention. In recent years, the mask of secrecy has slipped somewhat. The State Corporatist Media has conceded that the Trilateral Commission is not a conspiracy theory; that front organizations like the Bilderberg Group do in fact exist.
The press still refuses to interrogate the work of these groups, instead mentioning them only in hushed, reverential tones. This does not mean the press ignores them, it simply refuses to acknowledge that it acts on their behalf. It has for years conveyed the message and prepared public opinion clandestinely. We had to wait for David Rockefeller himself to draw aside the curtain in 1991.
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years… It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.” ― David Rockefeller
So what’s the plan?
The following is a summary and potted history courtesy of Patrick Wood and his interlocutor Richard Grove of Tragedy & Hope.
“Significant Natural Areas”: Wellington City Council’s Plan to Expropriate and Rewild Home Gardens
Barbara McKenzie started this petition to Wellington City Council
Wellington City Council has designated some 160 “Significant Natural Areas” in the District Plan. This policy will give protected status to part or all of 1693 private properties, mostly the back gardens of suburban homes. As a consequence of this high-handed action, homeowners:
- Lose the right to use and enjoy their property as they wish;
- Suffer a loss – often dramatic – in the value of their property.
- Are experiencing extreme distress as a consequence.
The Council’s SNA policy is:
- Counter productive: Council’s weaponising of native bush provides a huge disincentive to encourage native regrowth.
- Undemocratic: there has been no public debate; this was not a declared policy by any candidate at the last local election. Efforts to inform affected owners or the public at large have been inadequate.
- Dishonest: native plants regenerating on former farmland, toxic weeds, camellias and agapanthus do NOT constitute significant indigenous biodiversity of national importance under the RMA.
- Unlawful: The Council claims authority from the Resource Management Act, Section 6 (c). There is nothing in the RMA that justifies the forced rewilding of environmentally insignificant land in private ownership.
- Unconstitutional: Legislation Guidelines adopted by Cabinet in 2021 recognise respect for property as a fundamental constitutional principle: “People are entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their property”.
- Totally contrary to New Zealand values, and the values of a modern democratic society.
The purpose of the policy is to forcibly rewild private property, riding rough-shod over the rights, wishes and interests of Wellingtonians, and to normalise land expropriation.
Furthermore, by overlaying existing reserves with an SNA designation, there are implications for the use, management and development of public parks and open spaces.
Wellington City Councils SNA policy is unworkable on multiple levels. The Council must:
- Remove all reference to SNAs in the district plan;
- Apologise to landowners for unjustifiably causing angst and expense.
Davos Billionaires Want to Save the Planet… Why Don’t Developing Countries Trust Them?
By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 17, 2021
A miracle appears to be happening, as the multibillionaires of the World Economic Forum (WEF) appear to have grown consciences.
As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!
According to the COP26 website, “95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive,’ agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030.”
Prince Charles has boasted that he has coordinated 300 companies representing over $60 trillion to get on board with a global green transition, and after meeting with the Prince on November 2, Jeff Bezos announced his new $2 billion Earth Fund to protect nature’s ecosystems with a focus on Africa. Even Prime Minister Mario Draghi has joined Mark Carney on this new green path, as both men have moved beyond their old Goldman Sachs money worshipping days and embraced a better destiny. At the Nov 1 G20 Summit, Draghi embraced Prince Charles’ Green Markets Initiative and threw Italy’s full support behind the de-carbonization initiative.
The Prince himself (who also happens to be the nominal creator of the Great Reset Agenda launched in 2020), spoke as an enlightened statesman saying to the world’s leaders “as the enormity of the climate challenge dominates peoples’ conversations, from news rooms to living rooms, and as the future of humanity and Nature herself are at stake, it is surely time to set aside our differences and grasp this unique opportunity to launch a substantial green recovery by putting the global economy on a confident, sustainable trajectory and, thus, save our planet.”
Among the new array of financial mechanisms which we see being brought online in this war against humanity involve Bezos’ new Earth Fund, and Sir Robert Watson’s Living Planet Index (unveiled in 2018 at the World Economic Forum) and the new Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) which seeks to turn global ecosystems worth an estimated $4 quadrillion into financial equity controllable by new private corporations (dubbed “natural asset companies”).
On its website, the IEG stated: “In partnership with the New York Stock Exchange, IEG is providing a word-class platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible… In 2021, we began seeking regulatory approval to bring the first natural asset transactions to the capital markets. Our vision is to bring to market hundreds of Natural Asset Companies representing several trillion dollars’ worth of natural assets.”
These new companies will become the stewards of new protected zones across the globe which the UN demands encapsulate 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 and much more by 2050.
Is this time to rejoice, or is something darker at play?
To answer this question it is worth asking: Does this new virtue-driven order have anything to do with lifting people out of poverty or ending economic injustice?
Sadly, it is designed to do very much the opposite.
As we are coming to see, and as statesmen around the world are beginning to point out, this new order has more in common with oligarchical obsessions with controlling human cattle, and less to do with actually preserving the environment. The thousands of tons of CO2 emitted by private jets at Davos and COP26 represents on small aspect of this disingenuity.
Obrador Calls out the Game
On October 30, Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $6.7 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico. The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has been made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.
In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:
“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate… The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”
Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.
For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.
Even in the west where Biden’s 30×30 executive order has been signed into action, farmers will be offered money to stop grazing on soon-to-be protected lands, while a supposedly grassroots-based WWF-connected American Prairie Reserve (with a $160 million endowment) can be seen pushing a program designed to take 5000 square miles of grazing land in Montana out of use and converted into a pure ecosystem.
As President Obrador has alluded to, today’s billionaire-funded conservation movement simply seeks to take earth’s ecosystems out of bounds of any human economic activity under a new global feudal system of controls.
Even the indigenous populations which such billionaires profess to admire as role models for global “good behavior” are being monetized by these new green indices, with monetary values being placed not only on keeping land and water untouched, but also the very cultural ecosystems of indigenous groups around the world receiving dollar values which wealthy green financiers will somehow be able to invest into. To the degree that such immutably fixed patterns of indigenous lifestyles remain unchanged by the toxic pollution of modern technology or infrastructure, the more these eco-assets will be worth for whomever professes to invest in them. This may not be scientific but it is sick.
The term ‘feudal’ is in no way used for hyperbolic purposes, as we can see a stark parallel to the 12th century Europe, except that today’s aspiring feudal lords manage such companies as Blackrock, Vanguard, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and State Street and seek to punish all serfs from infringing on properties which only the nobility may control. Blackrock alone manages over $9 trillion in assets and $21.6 trillion in technology platforms and along with Vanguard is fast becoming one of the largest real estate owners in the USA with Bill Gates having recently become the largest owner of American farmland.
The Deeper Imperial Roots of Conservationism
With this vast imperial landgrab in mind, one should not be surprised to discover that the modern conservation movement actually finds its origins not in Greenpeace activists fighting poachers as mythmakers have cooked up, but rather in the bowels of the British Empire. It was this empire that innovated “nature conservation” regions in India during the late 19th century specifically to keep the poor of India under control after having destroyed India’s once powerful textile sector. The practice was applied across India during the greatest density of famines struck southern India in 1876 killing tens of millions. It was amidst this darkness that British Imperial overlords took the opportunity to create “The Imperial Forestry Department’ in 1876 putting two fifths of India’s lands under “protection” and off limits to humans. This ensured no starving subject could use the protected zones which they had relied upon for survival for decades for food, or water.
The Nazi embrace of both Anglo-American funded science of eugenics on the one side and the Reich’s embrace of nature conservationism were also not unconnected. Herman Goring, who served as Minister for German Forests believed in a poisonous worldview that held that: 1) nature is pure and thus good due to its pure unchanging natural order while 2) humanity is impure and thus un-natural due to our aspirations for progress. This dangerous equation resulted in seemingly innocent programs launched by the Fuhrer and Goring to cleanse the German ecosystems of all foreign and thus un-natural fauna and flora in order to return the forests of Germany to their supposedly pure pre-industrial states. The worship of nature was an integral part of the new master race and the weeding out of impurities extended itself to human genetics following racial theories advanced by British eugenicists and anthropologists.
Julian Huxley’s New Eugenics Revolution
Upon Hitler’s defeat, the repackaging of eugenics took the form of British Eugenics Society Vice President Julian Huxley’s outline in the founding Manifesto for UNESCO where he said:
“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Putting this new eugenics into practical action took on many heads of a hydra in the post WWII years. The particular hydra head most relevant to the thrust of this article took the form of another project Julian created in 1948 called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) followed soon thereafter by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 which he co-founded alongside two misanthropic princes named Philip Mountbatten and Bernhardt of the Netherlands.
Between 1959 and 1962 Julian had risen to become president of the British Eugenics Society and had put the finishing gloss on a new field of scientific misanthropic theology which he dubbed ‘Transhumanism’ alongside a Jesuit collaborator named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
If you haven’t guessed, Transhumanism was merely another form of re-packaged eugenics serving the spiritual needs of a new priesthood of elitist social engineers that would be expected to manage the gears of a new technocratic feudal machine. This neo-paganism is not intrinsically different from the cultish beliefs of the Nazi Thule society of the past which gave spiritual direction to the members of Hitler’s government.
The neo-Malthusian revival that these eugenicists would spearhead through the end of the 1960s took the form of a new array of international organizations which incorporated systems analysis, and cybernetics, which aimed to control nation states and ecosystems alike. This took the form of the World Economic Forum’s early embrace of the Club of Rome’s computer models outlined by Aurelio Peccei (and incorporated into Schwab’s second official Davos meeting in 1973). These new models aimed to impose fixed immutable limits to humanity’s growth potential beyond which no technology or scientific discovery could ever penetrate. The fact that these same multibillionaires managing the overhaul of the world economy as it transitioned into a neo-liberal looting operation were simultaneously funding the growth of this new array of “new rights” groups led by a growing armada of non-governmental organizations, ecology protection and human rights groups is not a coincidence.
Today’s involvement of both Julian Huxley’s WWF and IUCN (no renamed Conservation International) as partners with the Intrinsic Exchange Group should not make any honest lover of nature in any way comfortable.
Much more obviously remains to be said both about the history of conservationism, and how it is being used once again to conduct a new age of population control, or how it has been used to disrupt large scale infrastructure projects across the world for over 120 years, or how nature reserves across the global south have supported narco terrorist groups.
However, for the time being, it is sufficient to note that the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires. Based on the momentum we see being driven by the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative and ambitions from Latin American and African leaders to finally break free of centuries of imperial manipulation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that COP26’s utopic computer models are increasingly breaking down when confronted with the reality of humanity’s creative power to leap outside of the fixed rules of imperial games when a true crisis moves us into action.
Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 2
By Iain Davis | OffGuardian | November 8, 2021
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension on morality.”
– Garret Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”
In Part 1 we explored the ongoing process of defining of the global commons and the claim of the stakeholder capitalists they they should be the “trustees” both of the commons and society. We are now going to look at how systems have been established to enable those stakeholders to seize them.
We should be mindful of what “global commons” means for the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). For them it means possession of everything: every resource on the planet, all land, all water, the air we breath and the natural world in its entirety, including all of us.
PRINCIPLES OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS
The notion of the “global commons” sprang from an amalgam of two principles in International Law. The Tragedy of The Commons (ToC) and the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM).
In his 1968 paper on the ToC, the U.S. ecologist and eugenicist Garrett Hardin, building upon the earlier work of the 19th century economist William Forster Lloyd, outlined the population and resource problems as he saw them. He said “a finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.”
While logically this is ultimately true, if a whole raft of assumptions are accepted, the point at which zero population growth becomes necessary is unknown. The evidence suggests we are nowhere near that limit. Eugenicists, like Hardin, have claimed and continue to claim that the Earth faces a population problem. There is no evidence to support their view.
Hardin theorised that when a resource, such as land, is shared in “common,” people acting in rational self-interest will tend to increase their use of that resource because the cost is spread among all. He called this type of thinking a tragedy because, if all act accordingly, he maintained that the resource would dwindle to nothing and everyone suffer as a result.
Hardin insisted that this tragedy could not be averted. Therefore, as human beings were, in his eyes, incapable of grasping the bigger picture, the solutions were “managed” access to resources and “population control.”
While Hardin’s elitist ToC concept suggested regulated, enclosed (private) access to “common” resources, the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) rejected the idea of enclosure (privatisation). CHM instead advocated that a special group should be created by international treaty as “trustees” of the global commons. Seen as more “progressive,” it was no less elitist that Hardin’s concept.
The philosophical concept of CHM emerged onto the global political stage in the 1950’s but is was the 1967 speech by the Maltese ambassador to the U.N., Arvid Pardo, which established it as a principle of global governance. This eventually led to the 1982 U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (LOSC).
Citing the CHM, in Article 137(2) of the LOSC, the U.N. declared:
All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”
That “Area”, in this case, was the the Earth’s oceans, including everything in and beneath them. The “authority” was defined in Section 4 as the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Article 137(2) of the LOSC is self contradictory.
The legal definition of “vested” implies that the whole of humanity, without exception, has an absolute right to access the global commons. In this instance, those commons were the oceans. While the legal definition speaks of ownership, “vested” seems to guarantee the no one can lay any individual claim to ownership of the oceans or its resources. Access is equally shared by all.
Supposedly, this alleged right can never be “defeated by a condition precedent.” This is repudiated entirely by “on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”
Who among the billions of Earth’s inhabitants gave the ISA this alleged authority? When were we asked if we wanted to cede our collective responsibility for the oceans to the ISA?
This authority was seized by U.N. diktat and nothing more. It is now the ISA who, by a condition precedent, control, limit and license our access to the oceans.
This is the essential deception at the heart of GPPP’s “global commons” paradigm. They sell their theft as stewardship of the resources vested in all humanity, while simultaneously seizing the entirety of those resources for themselves.
SEIZING THE GLOBAL COMMONS: THE OCEANS
When interpreted by International Law, the CHM appears to place the private ownership of the global commons, suggested by the ToC, beyond the reach of government stakeholder partners. They should have no more right to these riches than anyone else. Legal challenge to any claim should be a relatively straight forward process for any concerned individual or group to make one.
This is not even a remote possibility. International Law, as it pertains to the global commons, is a meaningless jumble of inconsistencies and contradictions that ultimately amounts to “might is right.” For anyone to challenge the GPPP’s claim they would need to retain a legal team capable of defeating the UN’s and a judiciary willing to find in their favour.
The “law” is ostensibly designed to leave us imagining that we have “protected” rights and responsibilities towards these shared resources. Whereas, if subjected to any reasonable scrutiny, the legal notion of the global commons looks more like a diversion to facilitate a robbery.
If we look at the ISA’s record of stakeholder engagement we quickly find their Strategic Plan for 2019 – 2020. This succinctly outlines how the scam operates:
In an ever-changing world, and in its role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind, ISA faces many challenges… The United Nations has adopted a new development agenda, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’[…] Of most relevance to ISA is SDG 14 — Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.”
The shared resource – global commons – of the Earth’s oceans are not freely accessible to humanity as a whole anymore. Rather, the ISA determine who gets access to oceanic resources based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Effectively they have turned access to the global commons into a new market.
The most vital questions we must ask is how these allocation decisions are made and by whom. This will reveal who controls these new highly regulated markets. The ISA state:
States parties, sponsoring States, flag States, coastal States, State enterprises, private investors, other users of the marine environment and interested global and regional intergovernmental organizations. All have a role in the development, implementation and enforcement of rules and standards for activities in the Area”
In addition, the ISA will:
Strengthen cooperation and coordination with other relevant international organizations and stakeholders in order to… effectively safeguard the legitimate interests of members of ISA and contractors… The rules, regulations and procedures governing mineral exploitation… are underpinned by sound commercial principles in order to promote investment… taking into account trends and developments relating to deep seabed mining activities, including objective analysis of world metal market conditions and metal prices, trends and prospects… based on consensus… that allows for stakeholder input in appropriate ways.”
The Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) of governments, global corporations (other users of the marine environment), their major shareholders (private investors) and philanthropic foundations (private investors) are the stakeholders. They, not us, will have an input to ensure the rules, regulations and procedures will promote investment that will safeguard their interests.
In the space of a few short decades, broad concepts have evolved into principles of International Law which have subsequently been applied to create a regulatory framework for controlled access to the all the resources in the oceans. What was once genuinely a global resource is now the sole province of the GPPP and its network of stakeholder capitalists.
THE GLOBAL COMMONS ARE GLOBAL
We should be wary of falling into the trap of thinking the GPPP comprises solely of the western hegemony. The stories we are fed about the global confrontation between superpowers are often superficial.
While there are undoubtedly tensions within the GPPP, as each player jostles for a bigger slice of the new markets, the GPPP network itself is a truly global collaboration. This doesn’t mean that conflict between nation states is impossible but, as ever, any such conflict will be fought for a reason absent from the official explanation.
[click to enlarge]
SDG’s led to net zero policies and they stipulate, among a swath of enforced changes, the end of petrol and diesel transport. We are all under orders to switch to electric vehicles (EVs) which the vast majority won’t be able to afford. In turn, this means a massive increase in demand for lithium-ion batteries.
Manufacturing these will require a lot more cobalt which is widely considered to be the most critical supply chain risk for producing EVs. The World Bank estimate that the growth in demand for cobalt between 2018 and 2050 will be somewhere in the region of 450%. To say this is a “market opportunity” is a massive understatement.
The ISA have granted 5 cobalt exploration contracts to JOGMEC (Japan), COMRA (China), Russia, the Republic of Korea and CPRM (Brazil). When located deposits become commercially viable, as they undoubtedly will, the corporate feeding frenzy can begin.
Corporations, such as the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, with its wholly owned subsidiary UK Seabed Resources (UKSR), are also among the many ISA stakeholders. UKSR received their exploration license for the South Pacific in 2013. As an ISA exploration contractor, UKSR stakeholders are free to submit their recommendations for amendments to the ISA regulations governing their own mining operations.
For example, the ISA stated that mining corporations should provide a financial guarantee that would cover “unexpected costs, expenses and liabilities.” Lockheed Martin didn’t like this at all and so suggested a slight change. They recommended the addition of the following:
The Guarantee is not to cover costs, expenses and liabilities incurred as a result of tortious liability for environmental damage.”
This was presumably because, in their pursuit of SDG “protection” of the planet, Lockheed Martin don’t wish to be liable for the environmental damage they will inflict upon it in the process. This risk of this is high because the proposed method for “scraping the seabed” will almost certainly destroy it.
Fortunately for UKSR and other stakeholders like COMRA, the ISA’s is committed to regulations which promote sound commercial principles and safeguard their commercial interests. Destroying the seabed is a risk worth taking but not if you have to pay for it.
When it comes to fighting climate change, human life is even cheaper. Nearly all cobalt is currently mined from Africa’s copper belt and more than 60% of the world supply comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is clawed from the Earth by tens of thousands of child slaves.
This poisonous torture dramatically shortens the abject misery of their suffering on this Earth. However, it does mean other young people like Greta Thunberg can inspire more fortunate children to mobilise on social media, using their fully charged devices, to save the planet.
Only the commercial viability of deep-sea reserves seems capable of saving the cobalt mine slaves. Alas, it is difficult to envisage how deep see reserves will become viable until land based reserves near exhaustion.
This openly condoned child abuse has been ongoing for years. A fact which the world’s media admits but never mentions when it eulogises about the green revolution.
The estimated 94,000 tonnes of cobalt in the Clarion Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the Eastern Pacific alone represents 6 times the known land based reserves. With total deep sea reserves estimated to be worth between $8 – $16 trillion, as we progress towards a carbon neutral economy, deep sea mining is an inevitability. Regardless of the environmental cost.
All the real environmental issues are to be ignored as the world embarks upon a transition to a new global economy based upon one highly questionable theory: namely anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
THE GLOBAL COMMONS NEW MARKET(S)
This transition to the green economy will see myriad new markets created as the Earths “common” resources are converted into proverbial investment gold mines. Cobalt scraped from the seabed is just one example, there are thousands more.
The GPPP will have exclusive access, and thus control, over these new, essential resources. The investment opportunities are endless. It is this prospect, not any concerns for the Earth or humanity, that is driving the seizure of the global commons.
The GPPP have recognised that if they can squeeze something into the “global commons” they can then control of it. Consequently, the list of alleged “commons” continues to grow, as the the GPPP seek more control over more of the planet and everything on it.
In 1996 the late John Perry Barlow, from the Electronic Freedom Foundation, presented a Declaration for the Independence of Cyberspace to the annual Davos conference of the World Economic Forum (WEF). It perhaps seems odd that the GPPP wanted to hear this radical, libertarian call for governments around the world to leave cyberspace unregulated.
However, as I stress in my book Pseudopandemic, the intent of ideas, political and economic philosophies or social doctrines is not what interests the GPPP. Rather, it is how those ideologies can be exploited to achieve their goals.
In making his address Barlow was, perhaps inadvertently, laying the groundwork to include cyberspace as part of the “global commons.”
As we shall discuss shortly, the GPPP already had a plan in place to appropriate everything defined as a global commons. It was this prospect which enthralled the assembled Davos (GPPP) crowd.
In their 2015 Davos executive summary the WEF illustrated how the GPPP manipulate narratives to reshape the context of our daily lives.
In this case, the objective was to institute the precepts for their claimed jurisdiction of cyberspace.
What is clear is that we are confronted by profound political, economic, social and, above all, technological transformations… resulting in an entirely ‘new global context’ for future decision-making… The World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting provides an unparalleled platform for leaders to develop the necessary insights, ideas and partnerships to respond to this new context…
Based on the principle that a multistakeholder, systemic and future-oriented approach is essential in this new context, the issues to be addressed through sessions, taskforces and private meetings at the Annual Meeting 2015 include… The inability to significantly improve the management and governance of critical global commons, most notably natural resources and cyberspace.
We have considered the example of the oceans and their resources, but the process for creating regulated markets for all commons is the same. First something must be levered into the category of the global commons. Once declared to be among the “shared resources all life relies upon,” some GPPP quango is appointed to oversee access to the new regulated market.
This body will be formed to serve the stakeholders capitalists who will then have exclusive access to and control of that resource.
In accordance with the U.N. definition “stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.” Global governance is formally convened via the process of stealing the global commons. The entire operation is founded upon sustainable development.
THE AGENDAS FOR SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL COMMONS
As mentioned previously, this plan has been in-place for decades. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are set in Agenda 2030 as way-points along the path to completion of the plan for the 21st century: Agenda 21.
When GPPP stakeholders say they are committed to SDG’s they mean Agenda 2030, in the short term, and ultimately Agenda 21. Agenda 21 has a lot to say about what it calls “human settlements.” It lays out how they will be planned, constructed and managed by a public-private partnership. However, in constructing human settlements, human beings do not appear very high on the priority list.
Objective 5.29 states:
In formulating human settlements policies, account should be taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem health.”
Resource allocation, waste management and environmental protections are the prerequisites for “human settlements.” Not the welfare of humanity.
The GPPP will oversee the construction or allocation of our settlements. Objective 7.30. d. states:
Encourage partnerships among the public, private and community sectors in managing land resources for human settlements development.”
All land, not just the commons, will be managed by the GPPP. Again, subsequent Agenda 2030 SDGs have provided the justification for the land grab.
Objective 10 of Agenda 21 states:
The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources”
Clearly this raises issues of private land ownership and use. Not just among householders but by industry, farmers, train companies or any other private land owner. The trick in holding on to land will be to secure its designation as having a “sustainable” purpose. This allocation will need to be agreed by the GPPP, so friends in high places will be key.
Agenda 21 demands, under “Activities” in section 7.29, that all nations must develop:
A comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a land information system in which land resources will be classified according to their most appropriate uses and environmentally fragile or disaster-prone areas will be identified for special protection measures.”
If the place where you live is deemed to be environmentally fragile, and we are told the whole planet is, then the GPPP will follow section 7.30. h and implement:
Practices that deal comprehensively with potentially competing land requirements for agriculture, industry, transport, urban development, green spaces, preserves and other vital needs.”
This will involve the creation of “protected areas.” Among many of their authoritarian powers, this means that the GPPP will have control of all drinking water. Water sources automatically become “protected areas” under Agenda 21, for the good of our “health.”
Activity 18.50 it states:
All States, according to their capacity and available resources, and through bilateral or multilateral cooperation, including the United Nations and other relevant organizations as appropriate, could implement the following activities:.. Establishment of protected areas for sources of drinking-water supply.”
By exploiting the deception of “sustainable development” a planetary system of global governance, under the auspices of the GPPP, is currently being established. This is “build back better,” the “Great Reset,” the “Green New Deal” or whatever the GPPP choose to sell it as.
It means GPPP dominion over absolutely everything. We truly will own nothing, although it seems unlikely that many of us will be happy about it.
Those who do not understand, or do not wish to admit the reality of this global coup d’état, are quick to point out that Agenda 21 – and 2030 – are not legislation. Nation-states are not compelled to go along with any of it. This observation fails to appreciate what “global governance” is.
Global governance is not the setting of either policy or legislation. It is the creation of policy agendas which individual nation states may or may not implement as policy or subsequent legislation. It can only have teeth if nation states comply.
The problem we face is that nation states are “partner organisation,” some might say junior partners, within the GPPP. While they remain sovereign entities they do not act as such. We only need look at how global markets are created by Agenda 21 to see how all nation states have willingly collaborated in the sustainable development scam.
In Agenda 21 the declared “Basis for Action” at section 8.41 states:
A first step towards the integration of sustainability into economic management is the establishment of better measurement of the crucial role of the environment as a source of natural capital… A common framework needs to be developed whereby the contributions made by all sectors and activities of society, that are not included in the conventional national accounts, are included… A programme to develop national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries is proposed.”
The clearly stated plan, written in 1992, was to create “natural capital” to shift “sustainability into economic management.” All sectors and all society will be involved in this effort to transform nature into economic capital.
This will include the oversight of the “activities of society,” such as our use of cyberspace, which are “not included in the conventional national accounts.” The global commons in other words.
It doesn’t matter if Agenda 21 (2030) has legislative authority or not. All the matters is the complicity of legislative authorities. They are in full compliance.
Agenda 21 proposed the development of “national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries.” This was envisaged to complete the transformation of the Earth and all of its natural resources into a centralised system of economic control.
As Whitney Webb explored in her excellent article, Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class that is precisely what has happened. By once again misusing the concept of the global commons, the GPPP has created Natural Asset Companies (NACs). These will allegedly:
Preserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.”
This allusion to caring for the global commons all sounds wonderful but when we consider its impact upon the oceans depths, for example, it is really just the creation of new markets. Concern for environmental destruction barely registers.
THE METRICS OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS
Clearly, the objective of NACs is to secure GPPP stakeholder’s exclusive access to resources which, hitherto, weren’t “owned” by anyone. Michael Blaugrund, the Chief Operating Officer of the New York Stock Exchange, admitted as much:
Our hope is that owning a natural asset company is going to be a way that an increasingly broad range of investors have the ability to invest in something that’s intrinsically valuable, but, up to this point, was really excluded from the financial markets.”
To put this into perspective, the current, total GDP of the whole planet is approximately $94 trillion. By converting the Earth into an asset portfolio, nature is projected to be worth $4000 trillion. More than 40 times world GDP. Needless to say, this is one hell of an investment opportunity.
The transformation of the global economy is well underway. The entire GPPP is, understandably, committed to the project. What disagreements that exist only extend to who gets what. There is no opposition to the new global economic model. As Webb pointed out:
The ultimate goal of NACs is not sustainability or conservation – it is the financialization of nature, i.e. turning nature into a commodity that can be used to keep the current, corrupt Wall Street economy booming under the guise of protecting the environment and preventing its further degradation.”
NACs will enable investors to acquire assets primarily in developing nations, as multinational corporations and financial funds hoover up former global commons and other resources. However, the financialization of nature is global, transforming the Globe into a bull market.
This will be achieved using Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics. Assets will be rated using environmental, social and governance (ESG) benchmarks for sustainable business performance. Any business requiring market finance, perhaps through issuing climate bonds, or maybe green bonds for European ventures, will need those bonds to have a healthy ESG rating.
A low ESG rating will deter investors and the project or business venture won’t get off the ground. A high ESG rating will see investors rush to put their money in projects which are backed by international agreements. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDG’s into market regulations.
This centralises authority over the global economy, placing it in the hands of the GPPP. Speaking in July 2019, then Governor of the Bank of England (BoE) and soon to be U.N. special envoy for Climate Action, Mark Carney, simply stated:
Companies that ignore climate change and don’t adapt will go bankrupt without question.”
Later, speaking at the Green Horizons Summit in November 2020, jointly hosted by The City of London Corporation, the Green Finance Institute and the World Economic Forum, Carney, acting in another role as UK Prime Ministerial Finance Adviser on COP26, said:
“Transition plans will reveal the leaders and laggers on the road to Glasgow… We will not get to net zero in a niche, it requires a whole economy transition.”
The leaders in the new global economy will be those selected by the GPPP through the appropriate rating of their issued securities. The laggers will be weeded out via the same mechanism. They will go bankrupt without question.
All business, not just global corporations, will be required to “adapt” to the new SDG based economic system. This isn’t some projection of what the future global economy will look like, it has already happened. While the world has been obsessing over the pseudopandemic the GPPP has initiated a global revolution.
At the eventual COP26 summit in Glasgow, Mark Carney, allegedly speaking as the U.N envoy – or perhaps as a Board Trustee of the World Economic Forum, it’s hard to say – launched something he called GFANZ:
The architecture of the global financial system has been transformed to deliver net zero. We now have the essential plumbing in place to move climate change from the fringes to the forefront of finance so that every financial decision takes climate change into account … [This] rapid, and large-scale, increase in capital commitment to net zero, through GFANZ, makes the transition to a 1.5C world possible.”
The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, followed up Carney’s statement with the declaration of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ). The plan is to initially “align,” (force) 40% of the world’s current financial assets, amounting to $130 trillion, to commit to the transition towards a decarbonised global economy. The UK government press release reported:
The UK has convened over 30 advanced and developing countries from across 6 continents and representing over 70% of global GDP to back the creation of a new global climate reporting standards by the IFRS Foundation to give investors the information they need to fund net zero.”
All this is necessary, according to Carney, Sunak and all the other GPPP leaders, to control the Earth’s climate. They really imagine, or rather want you to imagine, that they can tweak the temperature of the Earth by centralising their authority over the world’s economy.
As Whitney Webb accurately observed on Twitter:
GLOBAL GOVERNANCE OF EVERYTHING
GFANZ is largely based upon double accounting and financial slight of hand. There isn’t really any commitment to actually reducing GHG emissions. The major banks will still be free to invest in fossil fuels while it remains profitable.
Once again the mainstream critics, or at least those reported by the financial MSM, utterly fail to understand what they are looking at. They fantasise that it is all about “saving the planet” or creating a greener economy for the good of all.
It is not, and it never was. It is about centralising financial and economic power.
It doesn’t matter if the numbers don’t add up. The real environmental impact is totally irrelevant. All that matters is that a mechanism is created by which the upper echelons of the GPPP hierarchy can firstly rescue and then extend their authority and control. That is the primary objective and until the pet economists and media commentators grasp this, they will never see that which is staring them in the face.
Presumably they still believe it is just an incalculable coincidence that this transformation has occurred just in time to save the failed IMFS (international monetary and financial system.) The GPPP have simply struck lucky. Saving the planet just happens to require exactly the same economic and financial restructuring needed to cover up the complete collapse of their former control structure.
At the 2019 annual G7 bankers symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, just four months before the first cases of COVID 19 were reported, the second largest investment management firm in the world, BlackRock, presented their report Dealing With The Next Downturn to the gathered G7 central bankers. They reported:
Unprecedented policies will be needed to respond to the next economic downturn. Monetary policy is almost exhausted as global interest rates plunge towards zero or below. Fiscal policy on its own will struggle to provide major stimulus in a timely fashion given high debt levels and the typical lags with implementation… Conventional and unconventional monetary policy works primarily through the stimulative impact of lower short-term and long-term interest rates. This channel is almost tapped out.”
Unable to either spend or tax their way out of trouble, BlackRock admitted that, for the GPPP, the existing IMFS was a finished. This was the source of their power and therefore, if they were to retain their “authority,” a new system was required.
Mark Carney, on this occasion speaking as the governor of the BoE, affirmed BlackRock’s assessment:
Most fundamentally, a destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS is growing… a multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS to realise its full potential. That won’t be easy… the deficiencies of the IMFS have become increasingly potent. Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold… I will close by adding urgency… Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multipolar global economy that is emerging.”
All agreed that a new IMFS was urgently needed. There was no time left to lose. In their paper BlackRock suggested that the new financial order could be created by “going direct:”
Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders… enforcing policy coordination so that the fiscal expansion does not lead to an offsetting increase in interest rates.”
This was a revolutionary concept. Central banks theoretically served solely as the bank for commercial banks and government. Their official role was to invest in government bonds and manage settlements between commercial banks using central banks reserves called “base money.” The money you and I use every day is “broad money.” It had always circulated in the economy separately from base money.
Base money had never before been used to directly stimulate or manipulate broad money markets (in theory). With their going direct plan BlackRock were suggesting a mechanism by which it could. Effectively placing central banks in charge (enforcing policy coordination) of government fiscal policy: government taxation and spending.
Going direct represents a fundamental change in the nature of our political systems. It suggests that elected governments are no longer in charge of spending. It appears to be the establishment of taxation without representation: the end of any notion of democracy.
BlackRock added that going direct would be required if an “unusual conditions” arose. The center couldn’t hold, an extraordinary catalyst was needed to bring about the transformation.
In yet another remarkable and, for the GPPP, incredibly fortuitous coincidence, the U.S. “repo market” floundered just a month later. This delivered the necessary unusual condition, triggering BlackRock’s plan.
Things became extremely unusual just a few months later as the world was plunged into a global pseudopandemic. In response, by March 2020, going direct went into overdrive.
BlackRock said that going direct would only be required while the “unusual condition” persisted, although the nature of the arrangement would require a “permanent set-up.” Once fiscal policy objectives were achieved, which were also monetary policy objectives, the temporary permanent set-up could then move on to the “exit strategy” placed on the “policy horizon”.
We now know what that policy horizon is. It is the transformation of the IMFS, the seizure of the global commons, the financialization of nature and the establishment of a central financial body that rules it all. This process is more commonly referred to a “sustainable development” or the contruction of the green economy.
Mark Carney – formerly of Goldman Sachs & the Bank of England
ONE RING TO RULE THEM ALL
Prior to his GFANZ proclamation, in November 2020, Rishi Sunak stated that the UK intended to issue the world’s first sovereign green bond. The UK Government decreed that it would make reporting to the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TFCD) mandatory for all UK businesses by 2025. Sunak added that this would encourage investment in new technologies “like stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies”.
The UK Government added:
The UK will become the first country in the world to make Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) aligned disclosures fully mandatory across the economy by 2025… The UK will also implement a green taxonomy — a common framework for determining which activities can be defined as environmentally sustainable.”
The UK government’s pretence that it was in control of this initiative was comical. The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which determine ESG asset ratings, and the development of NACs, aren’t managed by the UK, U.S. or any other elected government. These financial levers are firmly rooted in the private sector.
GPPP leaders like the Bank for International Settlements, national central banks, BlackRock, Vanguard and WEF partners like Deloitte, PwC, McKinsey and KPMG are controlling these investment strategies. Governments are just junior, facilitating partners in the Global Public-Private Partnership.
The TCFDs are evaluated in response to a company’s “sustainability report.” According to the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the sustainability report “describes a company’s or organization’s impact on society, often addressing environmental, social, and governance issues.”
The TDFD assessment determines the ESG rating of its assets. This will be the deal maker, or breaker, whenever it wants to raise capital investment.
The sustainability report standards are set by the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) foundation. The IFRS foundation states that it is a non profit, public-interest organisation.
It sets agreed accountancy standards in 140 jurisdictions for both public and private organisations. Its jurisdictions include the U.S., the EU, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China and Russia.
However its claim to operate in the “public interest” is not supported by its own statements. The IFRS foundation also reports:
IFRS Standards are set by the International Accounting Standards Board and are used primarily by publicly accountable companies—those listed on a stock exchange and by financial institutions, such as banks.”
The International Accountancy Standards Board (IASB) is a private-sector organisation. Currently 12 people supposedly decide upon the IFRS standards which stipulate the sustainability report requirements for businesses and other organisations, including governments, across the planet.
Under the chairmanship of Mark Carney – he’s a busy man – the Financial Stability Board (FSB) created the TCFD in 2015:
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) announced today it is establishing an industry-led disclosure task force on climate-related financial risks.. The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to lenders, insurers, investors and other stakeholders.
Five years later it was again Carney who, knowing that the “center cannot hold,” announced the consolidation and unification of the whole system at the COP26 summit. Inline with GFANZ, the IFRS announced the next step in the process, with the creation of its International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB.)
The head auditor at PwC, Hemione Hudson, said:
The launch today of the International Sustainability Standards Board is an important step towards achieving a global common approach to ESG related disclosure standards. Harnessing the power of the financial markets to play a leading role in the transition to a net zero economy… Reporting standards are a critical component to achieving this”
We can now see how the whole system will work.
Every business, every project they wish to embark upon, every initiative they plan and every policy they pursue must adhere to SDGs. Their compliance to the agreed agenda will be measured via their “sustainability report.”
The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) will judge their performance. Their ESG subcommittees, such as the International Sustainability Standards Board, will approve the relevant ESG rating for that business.
The private investment ratings agencies like Deloitte who are “members” of the IFRS and, by definition, the GPPP, will effectively control every business’s investment strategy and thus their operations. Deep-sea mining, cybersecurity, digital currency innovation, exploitation of the global commons and anything else ordained as “sustainable” will receive the corresponding ESG rating.
All of this is centrally controlled through the TCFD system, operated by the FSB. They will be able to select who prospers and who doesn’t. The FSB secretariat is “hosted” and funded by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and is based at BIS headquarters in Basel, Switzerland.
Not only are the central banks, under the authority of the BIS, going direct and funding global fiscal policy, they are intent upon controlling all business, all commerce and all finances. They are seizing the global commons, financializing nature and moving beyond the old IMFS to establish true global governance.
If we don’t act. If we simply allow the puppets in our so-called governments to maintain their GPPP positions then the BIS, the central banks and other “valued stakeholders” are going to seize everything on this Earth. We will be beholden to them for the resources that “all life relies upon.”
If we allow that to happen then, just like the forgotten souls abandoned to the brutality of the cobalt mines, we will all be slaves.
UN-Backed Banker Alliance Announces “Green” Plan to Transform the Global Financial System
BY WHITNEY WEBB |
UNLIMITED HANGOUT| NOVEMBER 5, 2021
On Wednesday, an “industry-led and UN-convened” alliance of private banking and financial institutions announced plans at the COP26 conference to overhaul the role of global and regional financial institutions, including the World Bank and IMF, as part of a broader plan to “transform” the global financial system. The officially stated purpose of this proposed overhaul, per alliance members, is to promote the transition to a “Net-Zero” economy. However, the group’s proposed “reimagining” of international financial institutions (IFIs), according to their recently published “progress report”, would also move to merge these institutions with the private banking interests that compose the alliance; create a new system of “global financial governance”; and erode national sovereignty among developing countries by forcing them to establish business environments deemed “friendly” to the interests of alliance members. In other words, the powerful banking interests that compose this group are pushing to recreate the entire global financial system for their benefit under the guise of promoting sustainability.
This alliance, called the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), was launched in April by John Kerry, US Special Presidential Envoy for Climate Change; Janet Yellen, US Secretary of the Treasury and former chair of the Federal Reserve; and Mark Carney, the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance and former chair of the Bank of England and Bank of Canada. Carney, who is also the UK Prime Minister’s Finance Advisor for the COP26 conference, currently co-chairs the alliance with US billionaire and former Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg.
Upon its creation, GFANZ stated that it would “provide a forum for strategic coordination among the leadership of finance institutions from across the finance sector to accelerate the transition to a net zero economy” and “mobilize the trillions of dollars necessary” to accomplish the group’s zero emissions goals. At the time of the alliance’s launch, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson described GFANZ as “uniting the world’s banks and financial institutions behind the global transition to net zero” while John Kerry noted that “the largest financial players in the world recognize energy transition represents a vast commercial opportunity.” In analyzing those two statements together, it seems clear that GFANZ has united the world’s most powerful private banks and financial institutions behind what they see as, first and foremost, “a vast commercial opportunity”, their exploitation of which they are marketing as a “planetary imperative.”
GFANZ is composed of several “subsector alliances”, including the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative (NZAM), the Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance (NZAOA), and the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA). Together, they command a formidable part of global private banking and finance interests, with the NZBA alone currently representing 43% of all global banking assets. However, the “largest financial players” who dominate GFANZ include the CEOs of BlackRock, Citi, Bank of America, Banco Santander and HSBC, as well as David Schwimmer, CEO of the London Stock Exchange Group and Nili Gilbert, Chair of the Investment Committee of the David Rockefeller Fund.
Notably, another Rockefeller-connected entity, the Rockefeller Foundation, recently played a pivotal role in the creation of Natural Asset Corporations (NACs) in September. These NACs seek to create a new asset class that would put the natural world, as well as the ecological processes that underpin all life, up for sale under the guise of “protecting” them. Principals of GFANZ, including BlackRock’s Larry Fink, have long been enthusiastic about the prospects of NACs and other related efforts to financialize the natural world and he has also played a key role in marketing said financialization as necessary to combat climate change.
As part of COP26, GFANZ – a key group at that conference – is publishing a plan aimed at scaling “private capital flows to emerging and developing economies.” Per the alliance’s press release, this plan focuses on “the development of country platforms to connect the now enormous private capital committed to net zero with country projects, scaling blended finance through MDBs [multilateral development banks] and developing high integrity, credible global carbon markets.” The press release notes that this “enormous private capital” is money that alliance members seek to invest in emerging and developing countries, estimated at over $130 trillion, and that – in order to deploy these trillions in invest – “the global financial system is being transformed” by this very alliance in coordination with the group that convened them, the United Nations.
Proposing a Takeover
Details of GFANZ’s plan to deploy trillions of member investments into emerging markets and developing countries was published in the alliance’s inaugural “Progress Report”, the release of which was timed to coincide with the COP26 conference. The report details the alliance’s “near-term work plan and ambitions,” which the alliance succinctly summarizes as a “program of work to transform the financial system.”
The report notes that the alliance has moved from the “commitment” stage to the “engagement” stage, with the main focus of the engagement stage being the “mobilization of private capital into emerging markets and developing countries through private-sector leadership and public-private collaboration.” In doing so, per the report, GFANZ seeks to create “an international financial architecture” that will increase levels of private investment from alliance members in those economies. Their main objectives in this regard revolve around the creation of “ambitious country platforms” and increased collaboration between MDBs and the private financial sector.
GFANZ Progress Report (Download)
Per GFANZ, a “country platform” is defined as a mechanism that convenes and aligns “stakeholders”, i.e. a mechanism for public-private partnership/stakeholder capitalism, “around a specific issue or geography”. Examples offered include Mike Bloomberg’s Climate Finance Leadership Initiative (CFLI), which is partnered with Goldman Sachs and HSBC, among other private-sector institutions. While framed as being driven by “stakeholders,” existing examples of “country platforms” offered by the GFANZ are either private-sector led initiatives, like the CFLI, or public-private partnerships that are dominated by powerful multinational corporations and billionaires. As recently explained by journalist and researcher Iain Davis, these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models – despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism – instead allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision-making by placing them on equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism,” the definition of fascism infamously supplied by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini.
In addition to the creation of “corporatist” “country platforms” that focus on specific areas and/or issues in the developing world, GFANZ aims to also further “corporatize” multilateral development banks (MDBs) and development finance institutions (DFIs) in order to better fulfill the investment goals of alliance members. Per the alliance, this is described as increasing “MBD-private sector collaboration.” The GFANZ report notes that “MDBs play a critical role in helping to grow investment flows” in the developing world. MDBs, like the World Bank, have long been criticized for accomplishing this task by trapping developing nations in debt and then using that debt to force those nations to deregulate markets (specifically financial markets), privatize state assets and implement unpopular austerity policies. The GFANZ report makes it clear that the alliance now seeks to use these same, controversial tactics of MDBs by forcing even greater deregulation on developing countries to facilitate “green” investments from alliance members.
The report explicitly states that MDBs should be used to prompt developing nations “to create the right high-level, cross-cutting enabling environments” for alliance members’ investments in those nations. The significantly greater levels of private capital investment, which are needed to reach Net-Zero per GFANZ, require that MDBs are used to prompt developing nations to “establish investment-friendly business environments; a replicable framework for deploying private capital investments; and pipelines of bankable investment opportunities.” GFANZ then notes that “private capital and investment will flow to these projects if governments and policymakers create the appropriate conditions”, i.e. enabling environments for private-sector investments.
In other words, through the proposed increase in private-sector involvement in MDBs, like the World Bank and regional development banks, alliance members seek to use MDBs to globally impose massive and extensive deregulation on developing countries by using the decarbonization push as justification. No longer must MDBs entrap developing nations in debt to force policies that benefit foreign and multinational private-sector entities, as climate change-related justifications can now be used for the same ends.
BlackRock CEO and GFANZ Principal Larry Fink talks to CNBC during COP26; Source: CNBC
This new modality for MDBs, along with their fusion with the private sector, is ultimately what GFANZ proposes in terms of “reimagining” these institutions. GFANZ principal and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, during a COP26 panel that took place on November 2nd, explicitly referred to the plan to overhaul these institutions when he said that: “If we’re going to be serious about climate change in the emerging world, we’re going to have to really focus on the reimagination of the World Bank and the IMF.”
Fink continued:
“They are the senior lender, and not enough private capital’s coming into the emerging world today because of the risks associated with the political risk, investing in brownfield investments — if we are serious about elevating investment capital in the emerging world … I’m urging the owners of those institutions, the equity owners, to focus on how we reimagine these institutions and rethink their charter.”
GFANZ’s proposed plans to reimagine MDBs are particularly alarming given how leaked US military documents openly admit that such banks are essentially “financial weapons” that have been used as “Financial Instruments and Diplomatic Instruments of US National Power” as well as Instruments of what those same documents refer to as the “current global governance system” that are used to force developing countries to adopt policies they otherwise would not.
In addition, given Fink’s statements, it should not be surprising that the GFANZ report notes that their effort to establish “country platforms” and alter the functioning and charters of MDBs is a key component of implementing pre-planned recommendations aimed at “seizing the New Bretton Woods moment” and remaking the “global financial governance” system so that is “promote[s] economic stability and sustainable growth.”
As noted in other GFANZ documents and on their website, the goal of the alliance is the transformation of the global financial system and it is quite obvious from member statements and alliance documents that the goal of that transformation is to facilitate the investment goals of alliance members beyond what is currently possible by using climate change-related dictates, as opposed to debt, as the means to that end.
The UN and the “Quiet Revolution”
In light of GFANZ’s membership and their ambitions, some may wonder why the United Nations would back such a predatory initiative. Doesn’t the United Nations, after all, chiefly work with national governments as opposed to private-sector interests?
Though that is certainly the prevailing public perception of the UN, the organization has – for decades – been following a “stakeholder capitalist” model that privileges the private sector and billionaire “philanthropists” over national governments, with the latter merely being tasked with creating “enabling environments” for the policies created by and for the benefit of the former.
Speaking to the World Economic Forum in 1998, then-UN Secretary General Kofi Annan made this shift explicit:
“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution’… A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society…The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”
With the UN now essentially a vehicle for the promotion of stakeholder capitalism, it is only fitting that it would “convene” and support the efforts of a group like GFANZ to extend that stakeholder capitalist model to other institutions involved in global governance, specifically global financial governance. Allowing GFANZ members, i.e. many of the largest private banks and financial institutions in the world, to fuse with MDBs, remake the “global financial governance system” and gain increased control over political decisions in the emerging world is a banker’s dream come true. To get this far, all they have needed is to convince enough of the world’s population that such shifts are necessary due to the perceived urgency of climate change and the need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Yet, if put into practice, what will result is hardly a “greener” world, but a world dominated by a small financial and technocratic elite who are free to profit and pillage from both “natural capital” and “human capital” as they see fit.
Today, MDBs are used as “instruments of power” that utilize debt to force developing nations to implement policies that benefit foreign interests, not their national interests. If GFANZ gets their way, the MDBs of tomorrow will be used to essentially eliminate national sovereignty, privatize the “natural assets” (e.g. ecosystems, ecological processes) of the developing world and force increasingly technocratic policies designed by global governance institutions and think tanks on ever more disenfranchised populations.
Though GFANZ has cloaked itself in lofty rhetoric of “saving the planet,” their plans ultimately amount to a corporate-led coup that will make the global financial system even more corrupt and predatory and further reduce the sovereignty of national governments in the developing world.
Google, Amazon staff protest ties to Israel spy network
MEMO | October 13, 2021
Employees of the tech giants, Google and Amazon, have condemned the companies for their contract with the Israeli military to develop cloud-based cybersecurity services, and have called on their employers to cut their ties with the occupation forces.
As part of the major $1.2 billion contracts signed with the Israeli military in May, following a bid in which it beat other giants like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are to provide cloud services technology to Tel Aviv and its armed forces.
In an article published yesterday in the Guardian newspaper, however, hundreds of anonymous employees of the companies, who described themselves as “employees of conscience from diverse backgrounds”, condemned the program named ‘Project Nimbus.’
Referencing their belief “that the technology we build should work to serve and uplift people everywhere,” the employees stated that “we are morally obligated to speak out against violations of these core values.”
They wrote that “we are compelled to call on the leaders of Amazon and Google to pull out of Project Nimbus and cut all ties with the Israeli military,” revealing that the signatories of the letter-number over 90 at Google and over 300 at Amazon.
The employees, who confirmed that they “are anonymous because we fear retaliation,” acknowledged that “We cannot look the other way, as the products we build are used to deny Palestinians their basic rights, force Palestinians out of their homes, and attack Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.”
If Google and Amazon continue with the project which would “sell dangerous technology to the Israeli military and government”, then it would only enable the “further surveillance of and unlawful data collection on Palestinians, and facilitate the expansion of Israel’s illegal settlements on Palestinian land.”
Aside from urging the companies to abandon the project and their ties with Israel’s occupation forces, the employees also “call on global technology workers and the international community to join with us in building a world where technology promotes safety and dignity for all.”
Cultural Warfare in the 20th Century: How Western Civilization Came Undone
By Matthew Ehret | Strategic Culture Foundation | October 9, 2021
In my last article “Guterres and the Great Reset: How Capitalism Became a Time Bomb”, I made the case that the time bomb justifying a Great Reset of civilization was set into motion over 50 years ago. In that location, we were introduced to a cast of characters surrounding the World Economic Forum and Trilateral Commission who played instrumental roles in bringing about a controlled disintegration of western civilization.
Despite the fact that this un-natural transformation occurred over the dead bodies of great statesmen of the 1960s, a question still lingers: HOW did the western nations… especially the United States, so deeply shaped by a love of freedom, wilfully relinquish its democratic institutions in favor of a new system of supranational governance and de-growth? How did the very people who were targeted for destruction not only let this happen but in some cases even aide and abet the perpetrators?
Epistemological Warfare in America
Here it helps to look to the writings of an imperial grand strategist who is too often championed as a defender of freedom: Aldous Huxley.
While Aldous’ brother Julian was reshaping the global paradigm by re-packaging eugenics under several new costumes post-1945, Aldous’ creative juices were driven entirely by his role as a cultural warrior.
Grand children of Thomas Huxley who was commissioned to re-organize the British Empire in the late 1850s, both grandchildren vigorously embraced the family business working closely with the elite Bloomsbury Group of Bertrand Russell, and John Maynard Keynes between 1914-1937.
Among these creative misanthropes, Lord Bertrand Russell (another celebrated pacifist) had gone far in outlining the sort of bone chilling ideal that Darwinian laws of evolution demanded be humanity’s destiny under a scientifically managed priesthood. In his 1930 Scientific Outlook, Russell stated:
“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.”
“Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world state and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous, and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific techniques and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements”.
Huxley would have Russell’s thesis firmly in mind when he began writing his Brave New World in 1931.
Aldous Goes to Work
Having set up his base of operations in Hollywood in 1937, Aldous lived out his days in the USA writing scripts for Hollywood, exploring psychotropic drugs and coordinating a new cultural movement that would soon overtake the youth growing up amidst the insanity of the Cold War.
In an infamous 1962 speech titled “The Ultimate Revolution”, Aldous Huxley outlined the principles of this new science of governance telling adoring fans amidst the wannabe alphas in the Berkeley auditorium:
“If you are going to control any population for any length of time, you must have some measure of consent. It’s exceedingly difficult to see how pure terrorism can function indefinitely. It can function for a fairly long time, but I think sooner or later you have to bring in an element of persuasion, an element of getting people to consent to what is happening to them. Well, it seems to me that the nature of The Ultimate Revolution with which we are now faced is precisely this: That we are in process of developing a whole series of techniques, which will enable the controlling oligarchy who have always existed and presumably always will exist, to get people, actually, to love their servitude.”
Getting people to love their servitude would be made possible by an array of new techniques outlined in both Huxley’s fiction and non-fiction writings and put into motion by the hard work of CIA-funded laboratories working under secretive umbrella of Allan Dulles’ MK Ultra. Utilizing many techniques pioneered by Nazi psychiatrists in WWII, one of the primary objectives of MK Ultra was to deconstruct the human psyche using a mix of electroshock therapy, psychotropic drugs and other conditioning in order to reconstruct personalities from scratch by professional psychiatrists. As Naomi Klein demonstrated in her famous book The Shock Doctrine, the idea behind MK Ultra was always to extend these behavioral techniques to reprogramming entire groups, societies and nations.
Within Huxley’s Brave New World, psychotropic drugs (soma), cultural norms driven by pre-adolescent sensualism, constant Tinder-esque sexual escapades, the disintegration of family units and hyper-sensualized entertainment (dubbed “feelies”) did the job nicely. Huxley’s dystopia featured a society which had successfully evolved to become a total oligarchy with a scientific priesthood managing the test tube babies bio engineered to become alphas, betas, gammas or the lowly toilet cleaning epsilons reminiscent of the sub-human Morlocks described in H.G. Wells’ earlier Time Machine. In Huxley’s world, family units have long since disintegrated with the nation state and any belief in God.
In his 1958 Brave New World Revisited, Aldous decries the ultimate evil caused by faith in scientific and technological progress as an illusion which cannot provide an escape from the ultimate determining law of humanity: overpopulation. Citing creative breakthroughs in atomic power, space exploration and medicine, Huxley bemoans how each time humanity solves a problem that allows us to save more lives, the species replicates at faster rates bringing about the inevitable Malthusian problems of future wars for resources, diseases and the breeding of the inferior races.
Huxley writes:
“In this second half of the twentieth century we do nothing systematic about our breeding; but in our random and unregulated way we are not only over-populating our planet, we are also, it would seem, making sure that these greater numbers shall be of biologically poorer quality. In the bad old days children with considerable, or even with slight, hereditary defects rarely survived. Today, thanks to sanitation, modern pharmacology and the social conscience, most of the children born with hereditary defects reach maturity and multiply their kind.”
In another speech delivered to the University of California in 1961, Huxley elaborated on this bone chilling plan saying:
“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel – by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”
Huxley knew that if this sort of brainwashing were successfully induced, the ruling oligarchy could ensure that the hedonistic identities of those coming of age within this controlled environment would detach themselves from outdated concepts like nationalism, love of family, or religion, in order to create LSD-driven personal “micro-realities”. Honoring the past and sacrificing for the future became replaced with a new wisdom of “living in the now”.
Huxley was happy to discover that LSD-25 mixed with cannabis, hashish and mescaline was a perfect supplement for soma writing in his 1958 Revisited:
“In LSD-25 (lysergic acid diethylamide) the pharmacologists have recently created another aspect of soma – a perception-improver and vision-producer that is, physiologically speaking, almost costless. This extraordinary drug, which is effective in doses as small as fifty or even twenty-five millionths of a gram, has power (like peyote) to transport people into the other world. In the majority of cases, the other world to which LSD-25 gives access is heavenly; alternatively it may be purgatorial or even infernal. But, positive, or negative, the lysergic acid experience is felt by almost everyone who undergoes it to be profoundly significant and enlightening. In any event, the fact that minds can be changed so radically at so little cost to the body is altogether astonishing.”
During his time in the United States coordinating this new countercultural insurgency, Aldous recruited a young professor of psychiatry named Timothy Leary to his cause. Describing his interaction with Huxley as the two planned this final revolution, Leary wrote in 1983:
“We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.”
The Creation of Organized Schizophrenia
How the counter-culture was formed in the bowels of such oligarchical psychiatric mental meatgrinders like London’s Tavistock Institute and was applied by psychiatric shock troops strategically placed across all schools, military, unions, corporate boards and government bureaucracies throughout the years is beyond the scope of this present article, although it was explored in a recent video by this author.
What must be kept in mind for our present purposes is that cultural warfare during this intense post WW2 period was full spectrum in nature- taking every major branch of human life into account and extracting all traces of creative reason, universality, Freedom, and Truth anywhere it could be found.
Whether it was in the fine arts and music or whether it was in scientific practice, new dualisms were imposed severing logical thinking from the “pollution” of subjective emotions. Where the arts became shaped increasingly by hedonism liberated from reason (with a “high” post-modern art for the elites and a “low” populist art for the dumb masses), the sciences became governed by the dogmatic faith in cold mathematical sterility governed by “statistics”, entropy, and blind fatalism.
Random paint splashes of CIA-funded artists like Jackson Pollock or the fuzzy squares of Mark Rothko became the new artistic ideal while scientists found themselves trained to think like computers modelling their minds of the methods of Bertrand Russell’s Principia, Norbert Weiner’s Cybernetics and John von Neumann’s Information Theory. Bertrand Russell’s role coordinating the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom should not be lost on anyone.
With the severing of creativity from reason, the minds of those processed by this new cultural field was increasingly shaped by blind rules and axioms enforced by expert consensus rather than personal acts of discovery. Computer modelling thus found itself replacing acts of genuine human thought and within this sterile intellectual climate, a new cult of artificial intelligence began to find fertile soil to grow its perverse roots.
When mixed with heavy doses of imperial wars, assassinations, coups, and the looming threat of nuclear annihilation, the parents of the baby boomers had no clue what evil they were dealing with as their children were absorbed into a new drug/sex-ridden cultural field that no one had ever experienced before. Schizophrenic chaos in the world bred schizophrenic chaos in the culture as increasingly large arrays of youth gave up on reality in order to “tune in, turn on and drop out”.
Throughout the 1960s, patriotic forces around the world rallied to revive the spirit of scientific and technological progress which these neo-Malthusians despised so much. President John F Kennedy attempted to amplify Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace along with large scale investments into Africa, Asia and Ibero America alongside leaders of the Pan African and Pan Arab world who were committed to ending colonialism and bringing their people into the 21st century.
After Kennedy’s murder, Charles de Gaulle worked with international co-thinkers like Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson, Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker and German Chancellor Adenauer to bring about a coalition of progress which peaked in 1968 with Bobby Kennedy’s inevitable leadership of the United States.
Just as in the period of the late 19th century when a win-win system of international cooperation was threatening to replace the dying Hobbesian system of the British Empire, a dense string of coups, color revolutions and assassinations ensured the crushing of this dynamic as a new age of post-industrialism, Anglo-American imperialism and monetarism was unleashed onto an unsuspecting society.
The Club of Rome Takes the Stage
In this new post-1968 political climate, new scientific conferences were organized in an attempt to impose statistic modelling premised on systems analysis onto biological, economic and especially ecological systems. Extrapolating present trends into the future and disregarding the sorts of non-linear qualitative leaps caused by creative thought allowed this new breed of scientist to “predict” the inevitable crises caused by population growth and the diminishing returns on finite resources.
The iconic study for this new scientific movement was the Club of Rome-commission MIT report Limits to Growth that “predicted”, as Malthus had done two centuries earlier, the point of crisis when population pressures would outstrip nature’s bounty- giving technocrats managing humanity the tools needed to make the proper sacrifices in the present.
When figures like Mark Carney discuss the “greening of global finance” and placing monetary values upon the reduction of carbon footprints, this is the sick and unscientific foundation of their thinking. Where formerly, humanity valued economic growth via scientific and technological progress (and implicitly the support of increased numbers of people at higher standards of life), the new system of “values” promoted by these misanthropes demanded that profit be tied to the reduction of human activity on the earth.
Club of Rome co-founder Aurelio Peccei, who presented at the inaugural World Economic Forum meetings in Davos, stated:
“The economy and the ecology are inextricably united… A strategy of generating wealth and one of safeguarding this patrimony are opposed. Activities that generate wealth but destroy the natural patrimony even more, create negative value”.
Former President of the World Federation of Mental Health during the high point of MK Ultra, Margaret Mead (wife of MK Ultra controller Gregory Bateson) presided over one such 1975 conference on the environment and atmosphere sponsored by the Club of Rome (this club also being an early sponsor of the World Economic Forum in 1971). Echoing the spirit of Russell and Huxley earlier, Mead called for the creation of a new science of statistics premised on equating pollution to climate change that would become internally consistent and shape the behavior of humanity going into the 21st century. The focus was always population control. In her speech Mead said:
“The unparalleled increase in the human population and its demands for food, energy, and resources is clearly the most important destabilizing influences in the biosphere. We are facing a period when society must make decisions on a planetary scale.”
“What we need from scientists are estimates, presented with sufficient conservatism and plausibility but at the same time as free as possible from internal disagreements that can be exploited by political interests, that will allow us to start building a system of artificial but effective warnings, warnings which will parallel the instincts of animals who flee before the hurricane. [We must] draw from the necessary capacity for sacrifice. It is therefore a statement of major possibilities of danger, which may overtake humankind, on which it is important to concentrate attention”.
Rather than seeing science as a field for optimistic problem solving, this misanthropic cult of elitists demanded that science be redefined around a “new wisdom” of adapting to problems real or imagined. This cynical science of “problematique” (the science of problems) assumed that since all creative discovery caused population growth, the real enemy was found in the naïve optimists who believe it good to promote discoveries. Mead ridiculed those cultural optimists who rejected this cynical view of science saying:
“Those who react against prophets of doom, believing that there is not adequate scientific basis for their melancholy prophecies, [for they] tend to become in turn prophets of paradisiacal impossibilities, guaranteed utopias of technological bliss, or benign interventions on behalf of mankind that are none the less irrational just because they are couched as ‘rational.’ They express a kind of faith in the built-in human instinct for survival, or a faith in some magical technological panacea.”
Using more truthful language, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the preface of The First Global Revolution (1991):
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
Today’s world is being pulled by two opposing dynamics.
The prophets of doom who set the time bomb in place half a century ago giddily prepare their utopian Great Reset which demands vast bloodletting as an overpopulated humanity is to be sacrificed by a modern pagan scientific priesthood devoted to Gaia and computer models. On the other hand, the spirit of progress and open system thinking has come alive in the form of the multipolar alliance which premises its planning on an opposing set of assumptions about the nature of humanity, creative thought, value, economics, progress and natural law.
Which future wins out in this battle over humanity will be shaped by the decisions and discoveries we make (or fail to make) in the days ahead.
436 Randomly Generated ‘Peer Reviewed’ Papers Published by Springer Nature
By Mike Hearn • The Daily Sceptic • October 3, 2021
The publisher Springer Nature has released an “expression of concern” for more than four hundred papers they published in the Arabian Journal of Geosciences. All these papers supposedly passed through both peer review and editorial control, yet no expertise in geoscience is required to notice the problem:
The paper can’t decide if it’s about organic pollutants or the beauty of Latin dancing, and switches instantly from one to the other half way through the abstract.
The publisher claims this went through about two months of review, during which time the editors proved their value by assigning it helpful keywords:
If you’re intrigued by this fusion of environmental science and fun hobbies, you’ll be overjoyed to learn that the full article will only cost you about £30 and there are many more available if that one doesn’t take your fancy, e.g.
- Distribution of earthquake activity in mountain area based on embedded system and physical fitness detection of basketball
- Detection of rare earth elements in groundwater based on SAR imaging algorithm and fatigue intervention of dance training
- Detection of PM2.5 in mountain air based on fuzzy multi-attribute and construction of folk sports activities
- Characteristics of heavy metal pollutants in groundwater based on fuzzy decision making and the effect of aerobic exercise on teenagers
Background
Peer-reviewed science is the type of evidence policymakers respect most. Nonetheless, a frequent topic on this site is scientific reports containing errors so basic that any layman can spot them immediately, leading to the question of whether anyone actually read the papers before publication. An example is the recent article by Imperial College London, published in Nature Scientific Reports, in which the first sentence was a factually false claim about public statistics.
Evidence is now accruing that it’s indeed possible for “peer reviewed” scientific papers to be published which have not only never been reviewed by anybody at all, but might not have even been written by anybody, and that these papers can be published by well known firms like Springer Nature and Elsevier. In August we wrote about the phenomenon of nonsensical “tortured phrases” that indicate the usage of thesaurus-driven paper rewriting programs, probably the work of professional science forging operations called “paper mills”. Thousands of papers have been spotted using this technique; the true extent of the problem is unknown. In July, I reported on the prevalence of Photoshopped images and Chinese paper-forging efforts in the medical literature. Papers are often found that are entirely unintelligible, for example this paper, or this one whose abstract ends by saying, “Clean the information for the preparation set for finding valuable highlights to speak to the information by relying upon the objective of the undertaking.” – a random stream of words that means nothing.
Where does this kind of text come from?
The most plausible explanation is that these papers are being auto-generated using something called a context-free grammar. The goal is probably to create the appearance of interest in the authors they cite. In academia promotions are linked to publications and citations, creating a financial incentive to engage in this sort of metric gaming. The signs are all there: inexplicable topic switches half way through sentences or paragraphs, rampant grammatical errors, the repetitive title structure, citations of real papers and so on. Another sign is the explanation the journal supplied for how it occurred: the editor claims that his email address was hacked.
In this case, something probably went wrong during the production process that caused different databases of pre-canned phrases to be mixed together incorrectly. The people generating these papers are doing it on an industrial scale, so they didn’t notice because they don’t bother reading their own output. The buyers didn’t notice – perhaps they can’t actually read English, or don’t exist. Then the journal didn’t notice because, apparently, it’s enough for just one person to get “hacked” for the journal to publish entire editions filled with nonsense. And finally none of the journal’s readers noticed either, leading to the suspicion that maybe there aren’t any.
The volunteers spotting these papers are uncovering an entire science-laundering ecosystem, hiding in plain sight.
We know randomly generated papers can get published because it’s happened hundreds of times before. Perhaps the most famous example is SCIgen, “a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations” using context-free grammars. It was created in 2005 by MIT grad students as a joke, with the aim to “maximize amusement, rather than coherence“. SCIgen papers are buzzword salads that might be convincing to someone unfamiliar with computer science, albeit only if they aren’t paying attention.
Despite this origin, in 2014 over 120 SCIgen papers were withdrawn by leading publishers like the IEEE after outsiders noticed them. In 2020 two professors of computer science observed that the problem was still occurring and wrote an automatic SCIgen detector. Although it’s only about 80% reliable, it nonetheless spotted hundreds more. Their detector is now being run across a subset of new publications and finds new papers on a regular basis.
Root cause analysis
On its face, this phenomenon is extraordinary. Why can’t journals stop themselves publishing machine-generated gibberish? It’s impossible to imagine any normal newspaper or magazine publishing thousands of pages of literally random text and then blaming IT problems for it, yet this is happening repeatedly in the world of academic publishing.
The surface level problem is that many scientific journals appear to be almost or entirely automated, including journals that have been around for decades. Once papers are submitted, the reviewing, editorial and publishing process becomes handled by computers. If the system stops working properly editors can seem oblivious – they routinely discover they published nonsense only because people who don’t even subscribe to their journal complained about it.
Strong evidence for this comes from the “fixes” journals present when put under pressure. As an explanation for why the 436 “expressions of concern” wouldn’t be repeated the publisher said:
The dedicated Research Integrity team at Springer Nature is constantly searching for any irregularities in the publication process, supported by a range of tools, including an in-house-developed detection tool.
The same firm also proudly trumpeted in a press release that:
Springer announces the release of SciDetect, a new software program that automatically checks for fake scientific papers. The open source software discovers text that has been generated with the SCIgen computer program and other fake-paper generators like Mathgen and Physgen. Springer uses the software in its production workflow to provide additional, fail-safe checking.
A different journal proposed an even more ridiculous solution: ban people from submitting papers from webmail accounts. The more obvious solution of paying people to read the articles before they get published is apparently unthinkable – the problem of fake auto-generated papers is so prevalent, and the scientific peer review process so useless, that they are resorting to these feeble attempts to automate the editing process.
Diving below the surface, the problem may be that journals face functional irrelevance in the era of search engines. Clearly nobody can be reading the Arabian Journal of Geosciences, including its own editors, yet according to an interesting essay by Prof Igor Pak “publisher’s contracts with [university] libraries require them to deliver a certain number of pages each year“. What’s in those pages? The editors don’t care because the libraries pay regardless. The librarians don’t care because the universities pay. The universities don’t care because the students and granting bodies pay. The students and granting bodies don’t care because the government pays. The government doesn’t care because the citizens pay, and the citizens DO care – when they find out about this stuff – but generally can’t do anything about it because they’re forced to pay through taxes, student loan laws and a (socially engineered) culture in which people are told they must have a degree or else they won’t be able to get a professional job.
This seems to be zombie-fying scientific publishing. Non-top tier journals live on as third party proof that some work was done, which in a centrally planned economy has value for justifying funding requests to committees. But in any sort of actual market-based economy many of them would have disappeared a long time ago.
Featured Video
Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
China and India have ‘low intellectual potential’ – top Zelensky aide
RT | September 13, 2023
The people leading India and China lack the ability to predict the long-term consequences of their policies, a senior aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has claimed.
Mikhail Podoliak pointed to what he called “the problem of the modern world,” singling out India and China, in an interview with Ukrainian media on Tuesday.
“The problem with these countries is that they do not analyze the consequences of their own moves. These countries, unfortunately, have low intellectual potential,” he said.
Podoliak suggested that even though India has a lunar exploration program, it “does not mean that this nation understands what the modern world precisely is.”
The dismissive remarks were in the context of Beijing and New Delhi’s refusal to support Kiev in its conflict with Moscow. Podoliak complained that India, China and Türkiye were “profiting” from the war by maintaining trade with Russia.
“Technically, it is in their national interests,” he acknowledged, before presenting his view of what would benefit China in the long-run.
“China should be interested in Russia disappearing, because it is an archaic nation that drags China into unnecessary conflicts,” he claimed. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given… papasha408 on Is Israel About to Return to G… Bill Francis on NSW Premier Admits New “Securi… Richard Ong on Israeli forces arrest writer a… Bill Francis on How reporting facts can now la… Gemma on Israel’s diamond industr… Bill Francis on Victoria Moves to Force Online… papasha408 on The Empire of Lies: How the BB… loongtip on US Weighs Port Restrictions on… Bill Francis on Chris Minns Defends NSW “Hate… Sheree Sheree on I was canceled by three newspa… Richard Ong on Czech–Slovak alignment signals…
Aletho News- The new German totalitarianism
- Stanislav Krapivnik: Massive Escalation – Attack on Putin’s Residence
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Dayton At 30: US Betrayal Old And New
- UNRWA head slams ‘outrageous’ Israeli law to cut water, energy to agency’s facilities
- Trump Says Hamas Will Be Given a ‘Short Period of Time’ to Disarm
- Is Israel About to Return to Genocide? Three Scenarios for What Comes Next
- Netanyahu Aligned Think Tanker: Somaliland Offered To ‘Absorb’ One Million Palestinians
- The DOJ is flaunting the law on the Epstein Files. Why isn’t Pam Bondi in handcuffs?
- The Epstein Saga: Chapter 4, Good Old Robert
- If Americans Knew
- TCN Warns – “ISRAEL FIRST: U.S. May Attack Iran Again”
- Hamas calls on Israel to allow impartial investigation into 7 October attacks
- Indiegogo Withholds $51K In Donations From MintPress in Financial Censorship Crackdown
- Gaza races to preserve what remains of its 5,000-year-old archaeological legacy
- Gaza health official says miscarriages surge as births fall by 40%
- Leahy Law Requires Ban on Aid to Israeli Police Unit for Killing Two Palestinians Who Surrendered
- Israel blocks entry of eye drops for blind people in Gaza
- I did not understand I grew up in a concentration camp until I left Gaza
- One excavator, 10,000 bodies, a sea of rubble: inside Gaza’s effort to retrieve and bury its dead
- Rights Group Warns Israel’s Genocide Isn’t Over in Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study Finds A Higher Rate Of Global Warming From 1899-1940 Than From 1983-2024
- Meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue Warns “Germany Won’t Make It” If Winter Turns Severe
- Merry Christmas Everybody!
- Two More New Studies Show The Southern Ocean And Antarctica Were Warmer In The 1970s
- Der Spiegel Caught Making Up Reports About Conservative America (Again)
- New Study: 8000 Years Ago Relative Sea Level Was 30 Meters Higher Than Today Across East Antarctica
- The Wind Energy Paradox: “Why More Wind Turbines Don’t Always Mean More Power”
- New Study Reopens Questions About Our Ability To Meaningfully Assess Global Mean Temperature
- Dialing Back The Panic: German Physics Prof Sees No Evidence Of Climate Tipping Points!
- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Challenges The Climate Consensus … It’s The Sun, Not CO2
Aletho News 
ORIGINS OF TECHNOCRACY
Utopian movement seeking to abandon the use of money to price goods, instead judging value purely by energy inputs. Technocracy is a method of governance that has no political ideology. Plato’s Republic has a chapter on cybernetics and social control.
Utopians took many forms — communism, socialism, fascism — and some came close to religion, like scientism and humanism.
Henri Saint-Simon stated, “A scientist, my dear friends, is a man who foresees; it is because science provides the means to predict that it is useful, and the scientists are superior to all other men.”
Saint-Simon’s disciple was Auguste Comte, the father of sociology. They developed Positivism, the concept that truth can only be determined through rationalism or science. Positivism in turn gave birth to Scientism, which says that only science can discover truth about humans and reality and there is no other truth. As it does not explain the soul, emotion, caring or jealousy, it does not acknowledge these truths. The Prussian physiologist and psychologist Wilhelm Wundt took this further, insisting humans have no soul and so can be manipulated like a clockwork orange and this gives rise to outcomes-based education, focused on standardization as an end in itself.
Born in the white heat of industrial expansion. Gained attention from the apparent failure of capitalism during the Great Depression. Boosted when taken up by Columbia University in 1932. Technocracy Inc formed as an ideological movement in 1933.
FOCUS ON DATA PROCESSING, LINKS TO IBM
Shared basement in Hamilton Hall, Columbia U, with the early IBM which was then developing the tabulators which they would lease to the German government for social profiling in the 1930s and 40s. No further information exists as IBM historical documents have been lost.
Brzezinski in his book Political Power: USA/USSR (1964) writes that the DDR Stasi was gathering huge amounts of data on people but lacked the technical power to put it to use.
LINKS TO HITLER’S GERMANY
Technocracy and technocrats don’t care what political system they operate under. It is concerned with the correct scientific methodology rather than the political ends.
German technocracy movement was not connected to the U.S. counterpart but shared and reprinted articles. Hitler saw technocrats as a rival and outlawed the organisation. However, technocrats had a profound influence on Hitler’s Germany and continued to communicate. The Third Reich could not have happeed without technocrats and the Technocracy movement. Ironically, Canada temporarily outlawed Technocracy Inc fearing it had fascists links.
Technocracy started at Columbia U, jumped over to Germany. The experiments in the concentration camps created a body of science that they brought back to the U.S. After WW2, Operation Paperclip transfered thousands of German technocrats to the U.S. where the German scientific experiments were continued under MK-Ultra by the CIA.
TECHNOCRACY IS NOT FASCISM OR SOCIALISM
Mistaken association with Communism. Members of Technocracy Inc would have bridled at association with Communists, who still used money and priced goods in money. However Brzezinski proposed that Marxism could be a stepping stone, destroy capitalism prior to installing the technotronic era. This will not be a personal dictator but a system of control, technology enforcing laws that keep you in line.
As for Fabian socialism, which aimed to merge the corporate and government world but still envisaged private property and a price based system. In short, all former systems have supply and demand, resolved by prices, and technocracy has an energy or resource-based economy. Technocracy is not proposed as a political form of government.
OVERLAP WITH EUGENICS
Eugenics was mostly based in California rather than Columbia but the peak of eugenics coincided with that of technocracy. There was no organizational link between Technocracy and the Eugenics movement, however they shared a common approach. From a scientists’ perspective managing society is similar to livestock.
Eugenics was a response to the challenge of Darwin and Marx and the fascists, challenging people to think of ways to change society in previously unthinkable ways. These were radicals of their time: not of a left-wing radicalism but utopians in a race to the future. The Eugenics Record Office, of Cold Spring Harbor, New York, inspired many of Hitler’s speeches.
ELITES AND TECHNOCRACY
There was no backing from the tax-exempt foundations in the beginning. Technocracy was a grass roots movement and its founders were relatively poor.
In the 1960s Brzezinski taught at Columbia U and many of his books mirror Technocracy.
The Journal on Race Development (1910) became the Journal of International Relations, which in turn was merged with Foreign Affairs in 1922. It was founded by Yale alumnus Stanley Hall who was a student of Wilhelm Wundt and a member of Skull and Bones. This shows the link between the Council on Foreign Relations, the elite secret societies dedicated to “thinking the unthinkable” or shaking up society, as well as the sending of American academics to Europe for indoctrination before returning them to shape U.S. universities, future graduates and social institutions.
THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION
At the 1972 Bilderberg meeting, Rockefeller and Brzezinski went to sell the TC. They likely invited the Europeans of the Bilderbergers to join, such as Kissinger. They invite members, like any fraternity.
Brzezinski picked Jimmy Carter as presidential candidate, to whom he became National Security Adviser, gatekeeper to the President (10/17 have been members of the Trilateral Commission). Brzezinski bragged about educating Carter on foreign affairs and economics. At one point Carter had one third of the U.S. membership of the Trilateral Commission to his administration. Of his Cabinet, all were TCs bar one.
The Trilateral Commission decides policy in advance and implements it without reference to Congress through control of the Executive. What’s more, this was not political control.
They only wanted the executive branch in order to use the influence of the U.S. presidency to create their new world economic order. Of U.S. Trade Representatives, the first was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Of 12, nine have been members of the TC.
In addition to the U.S. Executive, the Trilateral Commission influences the World Bank. Of WB presidents, 6/8 have been members of the Trilateral Commission.
David Rockefeller in April 1967 as he spearheaded construction of the new World Trade Center, eight months after breaking ground.
ROCKEFELLER LOCK ON POLICY
Involved in Council on Foreign Relations, Columbia U, and United Nations. It is surprising that they did not fund Technocracy at the start, given that it was housed in Columbia. It’s competitor was the even more radical New School. Until the 1970s, these families never funded Technocracy.
The payback for the Rockefeller influence to the UN was the use of the UN as a contagion mechanism to spread Agenda 21 around the world. The UN makes an ugly project look pretty. It is the user interface that makes evil look friendly. Slogans like interdependence,
Jay Rockefeller is one of the few family members to be elected, in W. Virginia. Nelson had to be appointed as Vice President but as head of the Senate he pushed through the fast-track mechanism for trade treaties. It was used to push through trade deals with minimal oversight, including NAFTA, CAFTA, TIP and TPP. The Senate knew how dangerous this legislation is, by delegating to the executive branch the ability to negotiate treaties. They should be passed with a two-thirds vote but the president can now present a treaty for approval, that has 20 hours of floor debate, no amendments allowed and reduces the floor vote to 50 per cent. In the case of NAFTA, the Trilateral Commission pulled out all the big guns including Henry Kissinger to browbeat Congressmen to pass it. And it only just passed.
NAFTA was written by Carla Hills, member of the Trilateral Commission, signed by George HW Bush a member of the TC, pushed into law by Bill Clinton, a member of the TC, and lobbied by numerous members of the TC like Jimmy Carter, Henry Kissinger…
Nelson Rockefeller ensured through the fast-track mechanism could force through these changes.
FAMILY TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONS
NGOs, Trust Funds, Foundations have been the engine of social change for 100 years, as exposed by the Reece committee and the testimony of Norman Dodd.
These have reshaped universities, grade school and common core, business regulation, and then they for the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank. Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies was closely associated with the Trilateral Commission at board of directors level.
Beneath this like a submarine is Technocracy, now surfacing.
AGENDA 21, AKA TECHNOCRACY
1930s Technocracy proposed “functional sequences” or common functions that need to be managed by a central authority: health, manufacturing… Their view of the “service sequence” of education is “conditioning”.
Smart Grid is an original specification of Technocracy — the idea of controlling the energy that is consumed.
Total Awareness Surveillance is an original specification of Technocracy — you cannot manage what you cannot monitor. That is an engineer’s mindset.
For an economic system: financial records, people’s purchase intentions and desires, health records, education records like Common Core collects 400 data points on students now.
Public Private Partnership with flavors of partenrship.
All of these are in the Rio 1992 conference which was preceded by the Gro Harlem Brundtland Commission which convened 1982-87 producing a report, Our Common Future, popularising the phrase, sustainable development. Brundtland was a member of the Trilateral Commission, whose stated purpose is to create a new international economic order.
Was Agenda 21 an organic United Nations creation or was it produced by the Trilateral Commission, just like NAFTA? It completely reflects the new international economic order. The UN picks it up, the Rio Conference follows, Agenda 21 is published, book on biodiversity is published… Today Earth Charter and Sustainable Development has spread to every country right dnown to county and district level.
ROTHSCHILD EMPIRE
This overlaps with Agenda 21, as espoused in the UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) promoted by Edmond de Rothschild in 1987 with Maurice Strong: they were participating in a United Nations project but if you see where their interests lay, they were gaining authority to pursue personal financial interests.
David de Rothschild wrote the comic book to spread the gospel to young people.
DISARMING THE PEOPLE
How do the Rockefellers and Rothschilds benefit from people not being able to defend themselves.
Why would Rockefeller try to end capitalism?
Bankers’ expertise is money. They don’t make anything. Perhaps it was never meant to be permanent and there is an end to money.
Their view of wealth is different. They don’t see thousands in the bank as security. There is no value in money. It can be declared obsolete tomorrow.
Wealth lies in resources of the Earth that support all life.
These will be licensed to people as the feudal barons let you survive in return for 80 per cent of your produce.
Sustainable development is twisting the resources out of the people and transfering it to a global trust (they never say who are the trustees: they will be those who set up the system).
WHITHER LIBERTY
It took 300-500 years to develop the principles of liberty.
They culminated in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
If Technocracy wins it could take hundreds of years, perhaps even longer, for liberty to surface again.
Once they get control of the economic mechanims, they will control life itself.
THE CASTE SYSTEM
The system will manage your carbon footprint. If you use too much electricity at home you may be denied a flight to a funeral. The elite will face no such restrictions.
THE CRISIS IN DEMOCRACY
This paper was issued in 1975 by the Trilateral Commission. The republic and democracy was outmoded for the coming technotronic era.
This suggested democracy is out of date… Brzezinski argued in his book Between Two Ages that bankers and multinational corporations already control countries, rendering the nation state a plaything. People who support nation states are derided as nativists.
THE MEDIA
Antony Sutton meanwhile was fired and censored for reporting on the Trilateral Commission. Sutton exposed how Wall Street had enabled the revolutions to take place in Russia and Germany and continued to finance and support the fascists and communists. Sutton saw the stacking of the Carter administration and recognized the patterns.
Before he even published anything David Packard, of Hewlett Packard, a member of the Trilateral Commission and trustee of the Hoover Institution had Sutton fired.
THE CHURCH
Steven Clark Rockefeller put together the Earth Charter. A theologian, Rockefeller is an instigator of the interfaith movement and all the major faiths have gone Green, with encyclicals from the Pope on climate change. Global stewardship, sustainable planning and development are the common buzzwords indicating their complete co-option. This goes back to the World Council of Churches and the Dulles brothers.
Nazi Oaks, by Mark Musser, explores the first Green movement to become state policy, which was that of the NAZI movement. Now there are books with titles like, Green Faith. Yet the new priesthood are the scientists who go up the mountain to listen to the volcano and come down and say the god of science says, ‘you must do x or y.’ No one is allowed to go to the volcano themselves, or to question what the scienpriests say they know, otherwise you are punished as a denier and excommunicated as a heathen.
TRANSHUMANISM AND THE DENIAL OF DEATH
Death is central to life. Transhumanism excludes god without being atheistic: they believe that they will become immortal.
In religion, the fall of man prescribes that death will be a feature until god wraps things up in the future. The transhumanists are making an end run around what religion says.
The mass surveillance society competes with god in another way, seeking to be the overseer of humanity and the recording of all your life’s deeds, good and bad. You will pay for your sins through your social credit score.
SURVEILLANCE STATE AS TECHNOCRACY.
In 2005 the intelligence system in the U.S. was completely overhauled with the creation of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, lording it over 17 national intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency.
The legislation to Congress to authorize the ODNI was sponsored by Jay Rockefeller and Dianne Feinstein, both members of the Trilateral Commission. George Bush created the ODNI and appointed John Negroponte as the first director: member of the Trilateral Commission.
So the TC proposed the law, filled the position and has taken control of the reorganisation of all intelligence gathering.
We know they want a new international economic order. Now the ODNI takes full control of data gathering, under which the NSA is merely an agent. This is the monitoring network for the whole Technocracy system.
They have all the phone calls and emails, all the health records through Obamacare, all the education data through Common Core, all financial and business data. The collection has grown but the ability to analyse the data has not kept up: moving the data from the storage devices into the CPUs to process, that’s the bottleneck, and putting it back again if necessary. They estimate they will solve that problem in three to five years. Then we’ll be in big trouble (date of interview, 2015).
This alone shows how close we are to the launch of Technocracy. This is an expression of the Trilateral Commission’s dominance over policy for the past 40 years. The odds of this small group having this much influence are, according to mathematicians, infinitesimal.
THE FIGHT NOW
Two economic systems are fighting for control. They cannot co-exist. Technocracy and Capitalism are matter and anti-matter. One will die, one will live.
If the Technocracy system is set up properly, the system does the controlling. It monitors you and self corrects. This allows it to manage populations of billions without many people being involved. That is the idea of a scientific dictatorship.
The global elite are pedestrian academics and intellectuals at best. They have never had an original idea of their own. To gain advantage they have to hijack the ideas of others.
Technocracy was not their idea. It goes way back. The originals Greens of the 1960s will “spit molten nails that they got pushed out of their own movement”. The global elite took over the green movement and the purest objectives were hijacked by this elite who took off in a totally different direction.
They are hijackers. They take whatever idea suits them to push forward their own vested interests. It does not speak too well of their intellectual abilities.
Know who the enemy is. We have had our ladder leaning against the wrong wall, and we are worse off than we’ve been, for 40 years. We must identify the enemy to have any success, and make a target of them.
In the longer term, we must retain some vestige of liberty in the hearts of men, says Patrick Wood. If we lose our liberty people will be living in a scientific dictatorship where freedom is a curiosity. Hopefully enough people can keep a seed of liberty alive so that one day, when the dark ends, it may sprout again.
Notes from an interview by Patrick M Wood given to Richard Grove.