Having got this far, one must feel at least perplexed concerning the sequence of the philosophical downfall that slowly transformed the (somewhat) capitalistic system, posited by the liberal theorists of the 18th and 19th centuries, into the collectivist one we have to endure today. If that was not bad enough, the fact that the principal instigators for this ideological regression have been the very ones who everybody nowadays seems to associate with capitalism and its exploitative nature, surely, has to make one’s head spin. All the same, when one realises that the natural tendency of the elites, both economic and intellectual, is to gravitate towards the political apparatus so as to use its coercive power to encroach on the rest of society, incrementing and consolidating their wealth and status as a consequence, it all begins to make sense. This is precisely what I have been trying to convey in the last four instalments of this series, with this one being the seventh. Yet, there is a lot more to explore. As we have seen in those previous episodes, the international banking cabal, which I have exposed as being the force majeure of globalism (a.k.a. New World Order) and all its guises through the ages, has used the environmental movement and climate change hoax as a gigantic Trojan horse to overhaul the global economic structure entirely. To achieve their goals, which so happen to be the SDGs under the overarching Agenda 21 of the UN, they have to revolutionise the international monetary and financial system (IMFS) altogether. In the end, they hope to implement a system of global governance, using the concept of stakeholder capitalism. Nevertheless, there is still a missing piece to fulfil their totalitarian dream of a technocratic world government. Keep reading if you want to find out, although you may already have an inkling. The dialogue has shifted from viewing climate change as a risk, to seeing the opportunity, and really translating that into a single objective, which is to move our economies to net zero as quickly as possible. That’s a tremendously exciting development because what we have now in private finance is a focus on a clear goal – net zero – and finding the opportunities to advance that and to be rewarded by it.” Continuing the exposition commenced on the last chapter, the central banker and UN special envoy on climate change and finance Mark Carney has taken the initiative to reconstruct the IMFS. To begin with, he has, ostensibly, managed to transform the risks and costs of advancing the policies and projects regarding the green economy paradigm into a lucrative business proposition. Kudos for him! In that January 2021 interview for the UN, Carney talks about the need to employ private finance to achieve the objective of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, where emissions produced equal those removed from the atmosphere. His talking points relied on the main elements of the globalist agenda that entail the reset of the global economic structure. To wit, he voiced the necessity of mandatory carbon disclosures (i.e., ESG metrics), the role of companies to pursue emissions reductions all the way across their value chains, the need for national climate plans, the importance of carbon offsets and the urgency of supporting the developing countries adapt to the new economic model. Through the course of this and the following posts, I am going to elaborate on each one of these points, resuming the elucidation under way from the previous episode. At any rate, what jumps out from that interview is when the interviewer makes reference to his claim that “the goal of net zero is the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.” In truth, Carney has been recorded affirming this at least twice before. The first instance was on February 27, 2020, even before the Covid ‘scamdemic’ and the Great Reset really started. Then, a few months later on November 8, of that annus horribilis, on occasion of the release of the pre-COP26 report Building a Private Finance System for Net Zero, he went on stating the same line. Looking at the reports made by the institutions that embrace the green agenda, it is easy to see why Carney feels this way. For example, on that pre-COP26 report presented at the Green Horizon Summit, which was hosted by the City of London Corporation with WEF’s backing, total investments required solely to enable a transition in the energy sector is estimated to be $3.5 trn a year, with 70% of that amount applied onto developing countries, while as much as $135 bn annually will flow to carbon capture and biofuel technology, and additional funds will be needed for the research and development of new technologies to boot. Albeit an outwardly high number, do not fret taxpayers. Insofar as the presumed costs of the business-as-usual scenario have been biasedly computed to be skewed on the high side, the inescapable conclusion is that, by 2030, “the benefits of shifting to a low-carbon pathway are estimated at $26 trillion.” Exactly the same skulduggery James Corbett clarified on an article that was glossed over on the previous episode. Notwithstanding, this is only, quite literally, half the story. In 2018, a report published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Bank, asserted that $6.9 trn per year, throughout the next decade, was needed to meet both the temperature targets of the Paris Agreement – to limit global temperature increase to well-below 2°C and towards 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – and the SDGs. Assuming that global GDP grows at an average annual rate of 5.08% (using the figures from Statista) till 2030, totalling $149,022.16 bn, the proportion of spending on sustainable development is expected to be 4.63% of world GDP, being 6.88% in 2022 ($6.9/$100.2184). To give some perspective, global military spending in 2022 added up to 2.24% of world GDP ($2.24/100.2184). This is no random comparison. Owing to learning early on that war was the most efficacious means of inducing the intended changes, besides wealth consolidation, the globalist clique has in many ways approached this agenda with a war economy mentality. Per the then Prince Charles, speaking at the COP26 in Glasgow, “we need a vast military style campaign to marshal the strength of the global private sector, with trillions at its disposal far beyond global GDP”. Intriguingly, the globalist institutions appear to be very worried and interested in solving the problems, allegedly caused by man-made climate change, faced by the developing countries. Evidently, they are acting disingenuously. Unsurprisingly, Mark Carney and his financier cronies are not the only ones insisting that the amounts reportedly needed to aid the developing countries transition to the sustainable development model are in the trillions. As a matter of fact, these banksters are merely following the dictates imposed by the UN. In the wake of the 2009 COP15 held in Copenhagen, Denmark, “developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion dollars a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.” To make long story short, sadly for the banking cabal, this has been an abject failure. According to an expert report prepared at the request of the UN Secretary-General, released on December 2020, the $100 bn target was not being met (the latest available data for 2018 was $79 bn). Furthermore, Bonesman John Kerry, who currently acts as the US climate envoy, contended last year that the developed countries might finally meet this pledge this year. Seeing that this goal was not reached in due time, the globalist cadre has now been asserting that the efforts have to be multiplied to make up for those past sluggish undertakings. For missing their mark, that $100 bn a year is now to be seen as a floor. Thus, the estimates made by the UNEP suggest that “adaptation costs alone faced by just developing countries will be in a range of $140 billion to $300 billion per year by 2030, and $280 billion to $500 billion annually by 2050.” On top of that, by adding the costs of mitigation, decarbonisation and “global resiliency” – whatever that means –, for the entire world, “the annual cost will greatly exceed $500 billion and possibly even more than a trillion dollars.” Apparently, the UNEP is low-balling its figures since, as I have already shown, the annual expenditures, through this decade, will have to be close to $7 trn to fulfil the Paris Agreement and achieve the SDGs. Coincidentally, a November 2022 report titled Finance for climate action: Scaling up investment for climate and development, made by the Independent High-Level Expert Group on Climate Finance (IHLEGCF), claims that “[e]merging markets and developing countries other than China will need to spend around $1 trillion per year by 2025 (4.1% of GDP compared with 2.2% in 2019) and about $2.4 trillion per year by 2030 (6.5% of GDP),” to address the challenges “on mitigation, adaptation/resilience/damage, and natural capital.” In line with the OECD report. Interestingly, the IHLEGCF is supported by the UN Economic Commission for Africa, the Brookings Institution, and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE), besides some other foundations, which, this latter, was founded by some notable Fabian socialists, including Sidney and Beatrice Webb. This “independent” group was launched by the COP26 and COP27 Presidencies in July 2022, having Vera Songwe and Lord Nicholas Stern as co-chairs. This last character, Lord Stern, is an experienced trickster where mathematical models relating to the presumed costs of GHG emissions born by society are concerned. Following his stint as Chief Economist and Senior Vice-president of the World Bank, from 2000 to 2003, he went to work for Gordon Brown, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, until 2007. During this period, he conducted studies on the economics of climate change, a creative form of scientism. In October 2006, the Stern Review was published with much ballyhoo. In this landmark report, Stern and his team concluded the usual and expected verdicts that stopping anthropogenic climate change was of paramount importance and an international response was urgent and necessary, all to reduce the costs of the inevitable impacts of climate change, of course. Hence, Stern and his colleagues argued that “international frameworks” would have to be built to help each country play its part in meeting their assumedly common goals. In other words, what the UN and the WEF calls multistakeholder partnerships. Be that as it may, amongst other elements included in those future international frameworks, emissions trading would be a preeminent one. And if the decision to pollute is free, […] then the actual cost there are misleading you because you are seeing them as free. They are really not free. Due to gaining a great deal of popularity, policy makers from around the world began to consider the results of this review rather seriously. On February 13, 2007, Stern gave his testimony on his Review’s findings before the US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Obviously, he seized this opportunity to profess the alarmist narrative, and open the door for a new market as well. Naturally, he claimed that if we carried on business as usual, the damage of climate change would take a toll of 5% on the global economy every year, on average. However, reducing the risks of that via controlling GHG emissions would only cost 1% of GDP per annum. Accordingly, the strategy to “correct the biggest market failure the world has ever seen” must firstly involve “[p]ricing carbon directly through either tax or carbon trading or implicitly through regulation”. In any event, he ended up determining that because of the “efficiency that comes from using economic instruments, developing a global price for carbon is crucial.” Ergo, an emissions trading scheme must be instituted. In the next month, it was Al Gore’s turn to appear in Congress. Needless to say, he took this chance to advocate for a cap-and-trade system. Basically, far from an expert opinion, it was a mere sales spiel. Nonetheless, this self-proclaimed expert had been working with Stern in his report. Hardly were these events happening in a vacuum. Around this time, there was a series of developments that kicked off in the 90’s and culminated with a bill proposal which, fortunately, never materialised. Despite that, this idea has always lingered around, waiting for the right timing. In 1991, in preparation for the Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, the prominent ‘green oiligarch’ Maurice Strong inaugurated the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Concurrently, a UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) study pushing for international trade in emissions was co-authored by Richard L. Sandor, another eminent character in the carbon trading ruse. Owing to his key role in engineering all sorts of financial derivative products, most noteworthy being the interest rate futures, when he was chief economist and vice president of the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), he came to be known as the “father of financial futures”. As part of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment, the HW Bush Administration erected a market for trading allowances in sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions, which are believed to cause acid rain. Guess who was put in charge of devising it? Unmistakably, Sandor took over, acting as chairman of the Chicago Board of Trade Clean Air Committee, from 1991 to 1994, developing the first spot and futures markets for SO2 emission allowances. If that was not enough already, he was also responsible for supervising the annual allowance auctions conducted on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A few years later, in 1997, the COP3 in Kyoto, Japan, spawned a momentous agreement between the parties. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997, and due to a complex ratification process, it entered into force on February 16, 2005. Indeed, the process of ratification took a while because this covenant failed to persuade most governments to act. For instance, the US, under the W. Bush Administration, abandoned this treaty, even though the Clinton Administration had signed it in 1997. The justification was that “the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide” precluded him from ratifying this protocol, which “exempts 80 percent of the world...from compliance.” Succinctly, the Kyoto Protocol instructs the signatories to limit and cut GHG emissions in accordance with agreed individual targets. By binding emission reduction targets for only 37 industrialised countries and economies in transition and the European Union, the developed countries would have to carry all that burden. Overall, these targets add up to an average 5 per cent emission reduction compared to 1990 levels over the five year period 2008–2012 (the first commitment period). The second commitment period, which lasted from 2013 to 2020, was agreed upon at the 2012 COP28, bringing about the Doha Amendment. All the same, this amendment seems to have been totally futile. Recalling the testimonies of Al Gore and Lord Stern before the US Congress, once the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012, there would be no need to wait for a new global treaty. To understand this, you have to know that this agreement constituted two market-based mechanisms to trade emission allowances, also known as carbon offsets or carbon credits: the Joint Implementation (JI) and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Perfectly exemplifying the stupidity and uselessness of the cap-and-trade systems, these schemes were not only unsuccessful at limiting GHG emissions, but this pair actually provoked an increase during their implementation period. All in all, “the use of JI may have enabled global GHG emissions to be about 600 million tCO2e higher than they would have otherwise been.” One of the most misleading practices of historians has been to lump together ‘merchants’ (or ‘capitalists’) as if they constituted a homogeneous class having a homogeneous relation to state power. The merchants either were suffered to control or did not control the government at a particular time. In fact, there is no such common interest of merchants as a class. The state is in a position to grant special privileges, monopolies, and subsidies. It can only do so to particular merchants or groups of merchants, and therefore only at the expense of other merchants who are discriminated against.” Fascinatingly, this anti-business agenda, as one would normally regard it as, had the support of some of the largest corporations and financial institutions at that time. Instead of standing for the tenets of capitalism that enabled all the progress and growth we enjoy today, and which are in part thanks to the entrepreneurs that founded these companies, the scoundrels that later on began to permeate their boards have decided to take the path of least resistance and join forces with the state apparatus to consolidate and easily maintain their position in the market. After all, big business loves big government. As Murray Rothbard asserted, for being “in a position to grant special privileges, monopolies, and subsidies”, the state “can only do so to particular merchants or groups of merchants, and therefore only at the expense of other merchants who are discriminated against.” Having said that, by manufacturing the climate change scam which inevitably pertained to combined matters of politics and business, several oligarchical factions competed to get the upper hand. In spite of the environmental movement being captured since, essentially, its inception by the ‘oiligarchy’ and its cronies, they have never had total control over it, nor have they ever been a monolithic collective. For that reason, there has been now and then infighting among the various suits and tree-hugging hippie camps. Seeing that the UN’s institutions were (and still are) packed with pretentious and self-important socialists, the direction of the debate – if one can call it that – about climate change was being steered more and more so by the watermelon socialists. Amidst this struggle for power, the ‘oiligarchs’ and fellow financiers counterattacked, in 1989, with the formation of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC). Indubitably, this was a reaction to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the UNEP, plus the alarmist testimony before Congress by NASA’s very own James Hansen, where he attributed global warming to the greenhouse effect with a risible 99% confidence, both the year before. According to its website, their mission is “to coordinate business participation in the international policy debate on the issue of global climate change and global warming.” Simply put, to take the helm and steer it in favour of the cabal. To be fair, I am glad they did this, and so should you, because we would be living in squalor by now if those green-gilded comrades had their way. At least we have gained a few years. Nevertheless, this organisation and its members did not deny the greenhouse effect hypothesis nor the AGW/ACC theory. Yet, GCC took a lot of flak, which still goes on till this day, for their slight disagreement with the prevailing dogmas. However, in view of deeming the policy suggestions for tackling these issues as ineffective and destructive, they fought against them. First and foremost, as John Shlaes, the executive director of this institution, put it, the GCC was “concerned that carbon taxes are often promoted on the basis that they offer significant environmental benefits. What must be made clear is that carbon taxes will have little, if any, impact on global carbon dioxide emissions.” Continuing expressing his scepticism about the usefulness of carbon taxes, he argued that this would effect “a shift of carbon-intensive activities to countries without a carbon tax, thereby limiting or negating the desired effect of such a policy.” To finish off, he urged policy makers to acknowledge “that strong economic growth is a prerequisite for continued environmental protection.” Thus, GCC campaigned severely against the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. At any rate, more public-private partnerships and subsidies for green technologies, please! As soon as the US Congress and the Bush Administration rejected the Kyoto Protocol, for accomplishing its mission, the GCC was deactivated in 2002. Be that as it may, the cabal was about to face other challenges. Without surprise, new sham organisations soon crop up. Before we get to that, we ought to explore the major players behind the GCC. Colour me shocked because “the collection of energy companies, primarily from the coal sector, created the Global Climate Coalition to fight impending climate change regulations.” An instrumental founding member was the American Petroleum Institute, whose executive vice president became chairman of the GCC a few years later. Another powerful founding member was the largest oil company in the world, Exxon, which became ExxonMobil after the two sisters merged in 1999. Joining them were also automotive and other petroleum companies, as well as the National Association of Manufactures which represented both large and small enterprises. As this coalition proudly admitted, the GCC was the main instigators for the US rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. This much was revealed by some documents that emerged in 2005, where it was conceded that this was “in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]”. Aside from the GCC, there have been a myriad of environmental organisations founded and funded by the globalist clique, in one way or another, as I have evidenced and alluded to many times throughout this series. Inasmuch as the list would be too extensive to give a thorough account, check out this article that discloses, chronologically, the development the most illustrious of such entities. Instead, focusing on the essentials, notice that outfits of the sort of GFANZ, IBC and TCFD are not unprecedented. In reality, there have been institutions that have long tried to transform business practices to instil environmental awareness. One of such organisations was the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies, or CERES, later rebranded as Ceres, having been founded in 1989. Right from its outset, the Ceres Principles were launched, consisting of “a ten-point code of corporate environmental conduct to be publicly endorsed by companies as an environmental mission statement or ethic.” In 1993, the oil company Sunoco became the first Fortune 500 member to adhere to this code. In addition, Ceres originated the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), in 1997, which fashioned the GRI Standards “for corporate reporting on environmental, social and economic performance.” By the way, its Global Sustainability Standards Board (GSSB) are the first global standards for sustainability reporting. As of 24 March 2022, GRI and the IFRS announced that they would collaborate to align the ISSB's – see previous episode – investor-focused Sustainability Disclosures Standards for the capital markets with the GRI's multi-stakeholder focused sustainability reporting standards. Through its Investor Network on Climate Risk (INCR), now simply labelled Ceres Investor Network, Ceres works with multiple institutional investors, which are 220 of them managing $60 trn in assets, to force corporations to accept the ESG model. Lastly, Ceres has also been very active in producing reports to persuade investors, corporations and financial firms to join the crusade against climate change, promising to be a profitable endeavour. Essentially, these studies are just an exercise in wishful thinking. As Warren Buffett implied, the forecasts always have the authors’ biases embedded into them. Forecasts usually tell us more of the forecaster than of the future.” In any event, the GCC was an exception to the rule. Almost every other group endorses and helps to formulate the professed “scientific consensus” on climate change and its policy agenda. Lamentably, only a few emasculated conservative- and libertarian-inclined think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute which hosts the annual International Conference on Climate Change, the Institute for Energy Research or the Cato Institute, have had the courage to stand up to these well-funded green behemoths. Notwithstanding, on account of having been financed by some big crony capitalists, including oil barons and businesses like Charles Koch and Exxon, their opposition efforts are gravely restricted. Consequently, the fundamental principles and hypotheses grounding the climate change hoax and the environmental movement in general, are never allowed to be debunked once and for all. As a result, the globalist clique slowly, but incessantly, keeps on fulfilling its plan. On that account, the push for a cap-and-trade system seriously ramped up in the turn of the century. Abiding to the pledge of cutting GHG emissions made in Kyoto, the WBCSD and the UNCTAD, drawing from the latter’s study co-authored by Richard Sandor, referred to above, instituted the International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), in 1999, “to establish a functional international framework for trading in greenhouse gas emission reductions.” Then, starting in 2003, Ceres, through INCR, has hosted conferences to attract institutional investors to the environmental honeypot. In collaboration with the UN, it was called Institutional Investor Summit on Climate Risk. Although it has changed its name as years went by, and the UN collaboration has been on and off, these conferences are still held with the participation of the corporate and financial habitués. Simultaneously, Sandor, the derivatives guru and director on the board of the London International Financial Futures Exchange, founded the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) with Maurice Strong on the board, listed on the Chicago Board of Trade. The owner of the CCX is the Climate Exchange Plc group, which in turn owns the European Climate Exchange (ECX). The ECX was launched in 2005 to capitalise on the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) that was initiated that same year, following a 2003 directive from the European Commission. In 2001, the International Petroleum Exchange (IPE), the world’s leading energy futures and options exchange, was acquired by the Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE), a literal offshore financial centre based in London. A year later, in November 2002, Sandor joined the board of directors of ICE, which so happened to be two months before he debuted the CCX. After CCX and IPE signed a co-operation and licensing agreement on September 21, 2004, it was now possible to trade cash and futures products of carbon emissions in an efficiently liquid venue, the ECX; only in 2010 did the ICE bought out the CCX and its affiliates. All was left to do was to replicate that European model in the US and, then, spread this idea worldwide. Having founded, in 1998, the Environmental Financial Products LLC (EFP), which specialised “in inventing, designing, and developing new financial markets”, this was the predecessor to the CCX. While Sandor was teaching at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University, he received two grants in 2000 and 2001, totalling $1.17 million “to examine whether an emissions market was feasible in the United States to facilitate significant greenhouse gas reductions.” These funds came from the Joyce Foundation, on whose board of directors the uppity state senator of Illinois Barack Obama sat from 1994 through 2002. Curiously, the treachery behind the cap-and-trade systems was pioneered by the corporate poster child of corruption, Enron. Without Enron, a founding member of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change’s Business Environmental Leadership Council, which was a leading industry front group pushing the Kyoto agenda, the Kyoto Protocol might have never occasioned. Owing to its entire business model being based on dodgy emission allowances, it lobbied governments and UN entities to limit GHG and pollutant discharges, creating more emissions trading markets in the process. Having found stupendous success with the EPA’s $20 billion per year sulphur dioxide cap-and-trade scheme, Enron sought to dominate the US energy market. In view of being a major natural gas trader, if a carbon trading programme was forced on industry, the electric utilities would be pressed to switch from coal to natural gas, producing a gigantic profit windfall for Enron. For having gone against the interests of major industrial and manufacturing companies, like Exxon, it got more than it had bargained for. In the end, the rapacity, cheating and mismanagement caught up to them, and the company closed its doors in 2001. To sum up, Kenneth Lay and his associates loved green a tad too much, becoming too greedy. Established in 1998, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and its Business Environmental Leadership Council have aimed at advancing the now familiar sustainable development scam. As of 2011, this organisation renamed itself as the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) and is chaired by the investment banker and CFR member Theodore Roosevelt IV, the great-grandson of the former US President, who was also Chairman of Lehman Brothers’ Council on Climate Change from February 2007 until its bankruptcy. Once again, the year 2003 comes to the forefront. That year, the C2ES partnered with Senators John McCain (R, AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D, CT) to introduce in Congress the first bipartisan bill with provisions for a carbon cap-and-trade system, the Climate Stewardship Act. Due to failing to gain support, these senators tried a total of three times to pass such a bill through Congress, but always with the same outcome – whoopee! – in which the last attempt was co-sponsored by Senator Barack Obama (D, IL). While this was going on, a bunch of corporations, seen by many as some of the biggest polluters – in their brainwashed heads CO2 is a pollutant – in the world, and environmental organisations, including C2ES’ predecessor, teamed up to institute the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), so as to “recommend the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow, stop, and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions”. To make good on that promise, USCAP members released a report titled A Blueprint for Legislative Action, suggesting a detailed framework for legislation to address climate change. Visibly, this became the backbone of the Wall Street-backed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. More commonly known as the Waxman-Markey bill, after its sponsors, the rat-looking Henry Waxman (D, CA30) and Ed Markey (D, MA7). This bill was the last one of a series that commenced, as we have seen, in 2003 and continued with the Safe Climate Act of 2006 and 2007, both by Waxman, then the Lieberman-Warren Climate Security Act of 2007 and, at last, the President Obama’s campaign promise. All the same, the American Petroleum Institute, which had been reigned by Standard Oil’s successor, ExxonMobil, issued a letter to Congress expressing its disagreement with this bill, reasoning that it would be too punitive for consumers and the economy. Seeing that the USCAP had in its ranks fossil fuel giants of the likes of British Petroleum and Royal Dutch Shell, it is funny how after a century, the Rockefellers and the British and Dutch royal dynasties still bicker with each other to see who reaches the top of the heap. Plainly, Exxon has dominated, being consistently at the top echelon in terms of market capitalisation in America. Finally, another vital character in this tale was Goldman Sachs. In an effort to construct a repeat of the derivatives and the commodities market casinos that had been highly generous to this investment bank, these banksters had gone to great lengths to engender a carbon emissions trading outlet for many years. In fact, they were the most pronounced propellers of this agenda. We don't have a lot more time to deal with climate change… We need the right balance between regulation and market-based approaches.” On the one hand, they were pushing for legislation to create a cap-and-trade programme and producing documents for regulators and politicians to that effect. On the other hand, Goldman was distinctly invested on ‘environment-friendly’ ventures, in carbon credit firms and in the CCX, besides its future owner ICE.
Moreover, the former CEO of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, along with two other Goldmanites, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris, got together with the prophet/profit Al Gore and his minion, Peter S. Knight, to set up the London-based investment fund, Generation Investment Management (GMI), which insiders cleverly styled as “Blood and Gore”. Taking advantage of the hoax they, especially Al Gore, helped to fabricate, the GMI has invested in putative green projects and businesses that accumulate carbon credits. Therefore, selling these offsets through the carbon emissions markets has been exceedingly lucrative to eco-banksters Hank Paulson and his ilk. No wonder they have been hyperactive in pushing these schemes. Subsequent to his lengthy run on the Defense and State Departments, Paul Wolfowitz, the Straussian neocon of the Project for the New American Century that got its “new Pearl Harbor” wish realised, remained in the DC swamp and became president of the World Bank from June 2005 to June 2007. In this period, Wolfowitz forged the Carbon Finance Organization, which still carries on under the label Climate Change Fund Management Unit. In the midst of those 2007 congressional hearings alluded to above, Wolfowitz bang the drum for $100 bn aid for carbon-reducing programmes to the developing countries. Furthermore, he avowed to push for a global carbon emissions trading system, within a year, worth $200 bn. On the next day, Jeroen Ven der Veer, the then CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, replicated the call for a global cap-and-trade system. As luck would have it, these schemes were constantly hampered, with CCX being dissolved in 2010, though the EU ETS regrettably survived. Perhaps, it was because of the people, particularly the non-elite “merchants” – hinting at Rothbard’s quote –, and some reporters wising up and seeing through this despicable profiteering. After all, the truth always comes out sooner or later and, that being the case, occasionally some of the racketeers bite the dust, as it happened to the CEO of the biggest carbon credit certifier, Verra, where former Goldman Sachs’ carbon chief, Ken Newcombe, is a director. Alternatively, the GFC might have conceded us a reprieve. Were it not for the economic debacle that ensued, maybe they could have already promoted this cap-and-trade swindle, plus the broad Agenda 21, successfully by now. As a silver lining, the banking cabal’s hubris spawned one scheme too many and, consequently, it delayed the implementation of the globalist plan. Be that as it may, as the saying goes, if at first you do not succeed, try, try again. Alas, they definitely have kept at it, even though the Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012. As Al Gore pointed out in his testimony to Congress, they were already preparing for this, adamantly pressing for voluntary initiatives. Still, their tenacity is really something to behold. But so is mine. Until next time!
0 Comments
As I have demonstrated, the technocratic agenda is not about saving the earth, nor about helping the public and nor even about making money. In reality, its grand overarching purpose is the complete control over every aspect of our daily life, so as to institute a formidably inescapable neofeudalistic structure to administer society and all its countless affairs. To achieve this, the globalist cabal and their sycophants have eagerly and diligently been at work, trying out various scares, boogeymen and humbugs to manipulate the populace to acquiesce, willingly, their liberty and natural rights to the progressively collectivist governments. Amazingly, even though all those cabal-promoted hoaxes having been debunked, for being so preposterous and baseless, a long time ago, they have never vanished popular consciousness. Au contraire, they have been crucial, to this day, in forming the core of public opinion, permitting the elite to carry out their totalitarian agenda on a planetary scale. Hardly has a hobgoblin been more useful to the globalist agenda than the alleged prospects of environmental catastrophe. Whenever resistance and disagreement to their initiatives appears, the politicians, scholars and talking heads compliant to the NWO institutions pushing for their globalist-driven policies whip out their trump card. Somewhere along these lines, they reply that their policies must be enacted to protect the environment or to fight climate change. In recent years, this has even gone to the ludicrous extreme of calling climate change systemically racist and, thus, we must seek ‘climate justice’. Therefore, more welfare programmes and wealth redistribution schemes have to be implemented, especially from the rich to the poor countries. Undoubtedly, more efforts for a global consolidation of powers would have to be pursued. 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 forty 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 now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” Remarkably, despite the fact that the main sponsors of the world government movement have for several occasions confessed their true intentions, the population at large has incredibly dismissed it entirely. On one of such occasions, albeit a disputed one, the scion David Rockefeller admitted to having been working for the formation of a world government commanded by “an intellectual elite and world bankers”. Regardless, in his memoirs he avowed to being an ‘internationalist’. Recalling the previous posts, the UN has always been intended to eventually acquire the functions of a proper world government. Building upon the Club of Rome’s “world problematique”, which they considered “humanity itself” the culprits, and a myriad of other ‘oiligarchy’-sponsored environmental conferences, the infamous 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro spawned off, besides the despicable United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change – which limited the terms of reference to the possible causes of climate change as being solely anthropogenic –, the Agenda 21. To engender a policy framework to fulfil their plan for a sustainable world, at the Earth Summit they came out with a series of objectives to preserve, not just the global commons, but “human settlements” too. Obviously, as time passed, every economic activity and aspects of human behaviour have been regarded as part of or impacting the global commons to justify their totalitarian aspirations. Hence global commons began to mean anything that the globalist cabal wanted to govern. In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet, the UN offered a simple description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” Then, in 2013, the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015 where it was asserted that, according to international law, the four global commons are “the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space”; notwithstanding, the list had casually been enlarged, containing “[r]esources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations — such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity”; however, the UN admitted that it could be defined “even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace.” As the Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ raged on, the globalist institutions showed us their true colours and shamelessly displayed their ambitions, intensifying their efforts and resolve to achieve their technocratic goals. On that account, the definition of global commons had to be extended. In April 2020, the Rothschild-backed bank, called the Global Environment Facility (GEF), took the view “to protect our global commons [. . .] humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems.” That being said, because every aspect of human activity affects the environment and potentially hinders sustainable development, nothing is left outside of their scope. A few months later, in December 2020, Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept. Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the 1930’s development of the Technocracy, Inc. movement, in addition to agreeing with the GEF definition, he declared that they “have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change.” From the multitude of environmental and climate conferences held in the 1980’s and 90’s, the UN adopted the Millennium Development Goals, giving way, in 2015, to the United Nation’s full adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While the former included 8 goals, the latter consists of “17 goals broken down into 169 targets and seeks to realize inclusive and equitable economic, social and environmental sustainable development.” In spite of its intentions appearing honourable to the unsuspected crowd, the truth is these goals serve the tyrannical and megalomanic wishes of the cabal. As I am going to show, these vague platitudes can be molded to legitimise any proposed collectivist initiative. This is the point the World Economic Forum (WEF) enters the picture. Founded in 1971, as the European Management Forum, by Ernst Stavro Blofeld impersonator Klaus Schwab, changing to its current name in 1987, it has strived to be “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” Initially, Schwab focused the meetings on how European firms could catch up with US management practices. He also developed and promoted the ‘stakeholder’ management approach, which based corporate success on managers taking account of everyone’s interests: not merely shareholders, clients and customers, but employees and the communities within which they operate, including government. Nevertheless, he realised he had the chance to develop and promote his own vision of management, which went beyond the traditional profit-maximisation motive. In an interview recorded in 2007, at the WEF’s headquarters in Geneva, Schwab affirmed that to tackle the planetary issues affecting the global commons, “we need today in the world […] corporations which are engaging into making this world a better place, not only to serve the shareholders” and customers, but their employees and communities within which they operate, including government. Moreover, he laid out the vision of his Forum, stating that the WEF is “a foundation bringing together key decision makers from all walks of life to address the challenges on the global agenda.” Discernibly, the global agenda he hints at is the Agenda 2030 and its SDGs as waypoints along the path to completion of the master plan for the 21st century: Agenda 21. To achieve this, Schwab proposed a new economic model, dubbed stakeholder capitalism. In a December 2019 article titled What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?, this concept “first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.” All the same, this model has been around since the beginning of the Forum/Symposium. Indeed, in 1973, participants spontaneously took the initiative to draft a “Code of Ethics” based on Schwab’s stakeholder philosophy, with the text being unanimously approved in the final session of the Symposium. This Davos Manifesto declares that corporations must serve the interests of all stakeholders, with negotiations and concessions amongst the various parts to reach some form of harmony. A. The purpose of professional management is to serve clients, shareholders, workers and employees, as well as societies, and to harmonize the different interests of the stakeholders.” Perhaps, before we move on, I ought to take a little detour to expose the real, unauthorised history of the WEF. After attaining doctorate degrees in engineering and economics, Schwab went to Harvard in 1965 to study government and business. Whilst being there, he would attend Kissinger’s “International seminar” which was funded by the CIA via a known conduit. Through this process, Klaus Schwab would be introduced to a group of men who were actively trying to influence European public policy by any and all methods, including using the fear of impending nuclear doom. Recognising his potential straight away, they would be there for Schwab all through the founding of the World Economic Forum, with Herman Kahn, Henry Kissinger and John Kenneth Galbraith bringing perceived credibility to the project. It was not easy for Schwab alone to explain to European elites what he intended to do, so he would bring Kahn and Galbraith to Europe to persuade other important players to become part of the project. Owing to those three individuals being instruments of the Deep State Milieux, namely the Council on Foreign Relations, they sought to subject the world under the Anglo-American establishment. As a result, they wanted to keep Europe under their sphere of influence, being a steppingstone so that they would go on to unite Europe with America, followed by the remaining superstates, into a New World Order designed by the powerful and obsequious globalist agents. Getting back on track, since stakeholder capitalism means looking out for the interests of society at large, one may wonder how this is any different from the numerous branches of collectivism that were explored on the last episode of this series. The answer is, plainly, the differences boil down to the irrelevant minutiae. What really matters is that, just like the socialist, progressive and technocracy movements have attempted to abolish individuals’ liberties and natural rights in favour of a despotic form of government ruled by the intellectual and monied elites, so does Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism. To my understanding, stakeholder capitalism is the conceptual amalgamation of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, Benito Mussolini’s corporatism, Fabian socialism and the ‘oiligarchs’’ environmentalism. Who are these stakeholders, then? Simply put, by taking a look at its partners, this moniker involves businesses, governments, banking institutions and alike, hedge funds and other investment firms, “philanthropic” foundations, NGOs, media, as well as trade unions, academia, religious leaders and social entrepreneurs – the latter is a nicer term for activists like Greta Thunberg –; not to mention think tanks, though only indirectly represented. As Herr Schwab proudly confessed, “we penetrate the cabinets.” When we discover that the WEF’s Young Global Leaders programme has actually been tied to the CIA since its inception, it becomes clear why Klaus is so proud of all that penetration. Seeing that Schwab’s WEF is simply the leading front organisation to push and pursue the goals set on the Agenda 21, we quickly find out that this economic model is one of the SDGs. Scrolling to the last one of the 17 SDGs, specifically item 17.16, the UN claims that multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential to “mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries”. Once again, this is just an evolution of an idea formulated on the Agenda 21. On item 8.2, the basis for action for integrating environment and development at the policy, planning and management levels, “the responsibility for bringing about changes lies with Governments in partnership with the private sector and local authorities, and in collaboration with national, regional and international organizations,” all aiming at “global partnership for sustainable development” (Preamble). Furthermore, item 17.13 of the SDGs, states that “global macroeconomic stability” has to be enhanced “through policy coordination and policy coherence”. Interestingly, keeping to their Orwellian tradition, the definition of macroeconomic stability has changed to suit their agendas. Whereas it used to mean “full employment and stable economic growth, accompanied by low inflation,” the UN has announced that is no longer the case. Governments and legislators must “develop smart economic policies that foster sustainable and inclusive economic growth, and address challenges to economic stability including climate change” so as to meet SDG requirements. 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.” Following the broad instructions embedded on the Agenda 21 to the letter, the WEF has played a crucial role in revolutionising the whole economic system. Written in 1992, the clearly stated plan was to create “natural capital” that shifts “sustainability into economic management”. All sectors and all society will be involved in this effort to transform nature into financial capital. By proposing the development of “national systems of integrated environmental and economic accounting in all countries”, the cabal seeks to complete the transformation of Earth and all of its natural resources into a centralised system of economic control. As Whitney Webb explained 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 banksters have created Natural Asset Companies (NACs). These will allegedly “[p]reserve 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 by deep-sea mining, for example, it is really just the creation of new markets, while concern for environmental destruction barely registers. Being an anarcho-capitalist myself I am all for the privatisation of all land, all bodies of water and every commodity, provided that the laws are applied and judged equally. Unsurprisingly, this is not the opinion of the globalists. Due to being enlightened geniuses, boasting superior knowledge and skills, in comparison to the rest of us common mortals, they would rather have an unelected, international agency, which they would design and finance. On that account, the decision to give the green or red light to projects that relate to their jurisdiction and purview would be extremely swayed by the interests of these globalist, stakeholder capitalists. After all, this clique is the “trustee of the material universe for future generations.” Continuing with the case of the oceans, the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has been given the responsibility to manage the high seas, including the seabed where it has the distinct duty to “organize and control all mineral-resources-related activities in the Area for the benefit of humankind as a whole.” On their document presenting their strategic plan for the period 2019-2023, they say that to stick to the UN’s 2030 Agenda, their most relevant SDG is number 14 – Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources. Complying with its “role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind,” ISA vows it will “[s]trengthen cooperation and coordination with other relevant international organizations and stakeholders in order to [. . .] effectively safeguard the legitimate interests of members of ISA and contractors.” All of this “in order to promote investment […] in deep sea mining activities”. In the space of a few short decades, broad concepts have evolved into narrow principles of international law that, when applied, create a regulatory framework for controlled access to all resources in the oceans. What was once a genuinely global resource is now the sole province of the network of stakeholder capitalists. Essentially, this is the global governance sought by the elite. As the UN think piece aforementioned declared, “stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.” In short, the offer from our overlords is straightforward. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons), they will take care of us. As far as they are concerned, “[y]ou’ll own nothing” and you’d better “be happy” with it. Although the WEF did insist that this was based on an article , written by the young global leader Ida Auken, merely entertaining an hypothetical scenario for the near-future, the truth is that the-powers-that-be are seriously advancing and implementing such a scenario, in the form of “smart cities”. Be that as it may, this may or may be not have the design of 15-minute cites, at least we can safely bet this idea is inspiring the WEF-associated urban planners’ futurescape – wait till you get to the 2060-90 period, that is when it gets extraordinarily bizarre, like something out of Huxley’s Brave New World. Not to dwell too much on this topic, but these cities look awfully a lot like Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon template of a prison. Curiously, is it not a spectacular case of serendipity that the Covid-19 ‘scamdemic’ opened the window of opportunity for Schwab and the rest of the stakeholder capitalists to execute their long-awaited plan? As soon as the first meaningless PCR tests in Europe and North America were coming back positive, Schwab began to salivate just thinking about what this would entail. Almost immediately, the Great Reset was launched. As you may guess, this initiative is just more of the same globalist smooth-talking banalities. In addition to “help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons”, it will “build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.” Evidently, in view of being the “trustees of society”, they do not need the commoners’ signatures or consent to validate that contract. By abiding to the overarching Agenda 21, where it is laid out how “human settlements” will be planned, constructed and managed by a public-private partnership, we are being increasingly being shoved around like cattle, while our governments and policymakers have been taking over every economic aspect, even the most elemental ones. Unmistakably, under the veil of environmentalism, sustainability, equality or some other vacuous buzzword, they are transforming society into a technocratic prison planet. Just remember what has been happening in the Netherlands, the second biggest exporter of agricultural products. Because of the paranoia prompted by the climate change alarmism, the Dutch government has been fiercely trying to shut down 3,000 farms. The rationale is “to cut nitrogen oxide emissions” that, for being an ostensible greenhouse gas, are supposedly contributing to the warming of the planet (and sometimes cooling and other times to extreme weather events). Perhaps I should take another detour to briefly explain my scepticism, though still very relevant for today’s topic. Despite being regarded nowadays as an axiomatic and unassailable fact, becoming de facto sacrilegious to doubt it, the truth of the matter is that the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) – it used to be anthropogenic global warming until round about the noughties – theory is just that, a theory; and a rather risible one, if its consequences had not been so horrific. As James Corbett put it, “climate change is unfalsifiable woo-woo pseudoscience”. At its basis, the ACC theory leans on the atmospheric greenhouse effect hypothesis. When the greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as water vapor, carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxide, absorb infrared radiation and re-emit it back to the Earth’s surface, they increase the Earth’s energy balance, leading to warming; or so the story goes. Therefore, the more GHGs in the atmosphere, the more warming will ensue. However, there is a slight problem with this hypothesis. As Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller brilliantly demonstrated, the belief that atmospheric gases regulate the planets’, not just Earth’s, average temperature is complete nonsense. Go ahead and watch Nikolov give his presentation on his findings, where he elucidates the audience on how it is all about the energy received by solar activity and the atmospheric pressure at each planet. As a result, they did humanity a huge service by proving, using the laws of thermodynamics, that the globe’s temperature and climate are utterly independent of atmospheric composition. Needless to say, since the climate alarmism camp only has biasedly programmed computer models, a mass propaganda apparatus (mainstream media) and fallacious arguments, like appeals to authority and circular reasoning, as weapons, they attack the detractors with absurd pseudoscience. Be careful with what you believe or they might diagnose you with science denialism. By exploiting the deception of climate change and, consequently, their crafty mission of pursuing “sustainable development”, a planetary system of global governance is currently being established under the auspices of technocratic-esque stakeholder capitalism. Whether their propagandists market it as Build Back Better, the Great Reset or the Green New Deal, or whatever slogan they choose to sell it as, they are all the same dystopic agenda. Concerning these initiatives that purport to transition the energy system into a green one, “the idea that windmills, solar panels and unicorn farts are a magical pixie dust capable of transforming the human population from greedy, fat-cat crapitalists [sic] raping the planet for fun and profit into peace-loving, Kumbaya communists living in perfect harmony with nature” is unquestionably a scam. Naturally, the ‘oiligarchs’ and their watermelon comrades have not changed their old ways. Nevertheless, in view of managing to conceal the reality that the environment movement has been fuelled, quite literally, by oil, while calling any critic a “Big Oil shill!”, the masses have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker. Despite the energy transition agenda costing trillions of dollars, and wholly disrupting and ruining our well-being and way of life, the globalist boffins assure us that executing their “green energy” plans will actually save us trillions of dollars. To reach this conclusion, all these experts had to do was to employ outrageous assumptions on their models and studies that have no basis in reality. By doing this, they can fabricate the evidence that support their predetermined conclusions. Incredibly, the truth is just the complete opposite of their claims. Switching to the “green economy” (another term for sustainable development) not only severely hinders the economic structure, resulting in lower productivity and, ergo, purchasing power and material welfare, but it gravely harms the environment. Adhering to the technocratic ideals, by making energy even more scarce, those with their hands on the energy spigot will have the ultimate control over society, deciding when, where and how to allocate scarce energy supplies to the public. Obviously, this greenwashing hype involves more than virtue-signalling to consumers. Even if business executives are in total disagreement with this strategy, they are being corralled into the globalist agenda. If they want to keep their doors open, they must comply with the stakeholder capitalism model. The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes – stupid greed and false philanthropy.” Indeed, the transformation of the global economy is well underway. The entire stakeholder clique is, understandably, committed to the project. What disagreements exist only extend to who gets what. On the whole, there is no opposition to the new global economic model. As Whitney Webb pointed out, “[t]he 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.” By enabling investors to acquire assets primarily in developing nations, multinational corporations and financial funds will hoover up the global commons and other resources. According to the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), the Rockefeller-backed entity responsible for devising the new-fangled NACs, which aims at converting Earth into a commodity market underpinning a new global asset portfolio, nature is projected to be worth $4,000 trn. Through putting their guile to “good” use, every time the cabal wants to take charge of some market or commodity, the list of global commons subject to global governance just gets a little bit larger. Which, with the justification that sustainability, equality and inclusivity have to be guaranteed, is something fairly simple to do. This will be achieved using Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, where assets and business ventures 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 a healthy ESG rating to issue those bonds. In combination, financial initiatives like NACs and ESGs are converting SDGs into market regulations. In the midst of the legendary 2015 COP21 summit, where the infamous Paris Agreement was born, and already building upon the Agenda 2030, which was passed at the September 25, 2015 United Nations Summit on Sustainable Development, the then Bank of England Governor, Mark Carney, got the ESG ball rolling. Simultaneously acting as chairman of the Financial Stability Board (FSB), the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) was founded under the leadership of billionaire, former NYC mayor and the UN special envoy for cities and climate change Michael Bloomberg. Keeping to the agenda, the TCFD “will develop voluntary, consistent climate-related financial risk disclosures for use by companies in providing information to lenders, insurers, investors and other stakeholders.” Fast forwarding to the post-Great Reset paradigm, in preparation to the 2021 COP26 summit in Glasgow, the pivotal character Mark Carney once again took the lead at taking another step to the fulfilment of the globalist nightmare. This time acting as the UN special envoy for climate action and finance, substituting Bloomberg, besides being on the Board of Trustees of the WEF, he established, still with the help of Bloomberg, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero. On its mission statement, these banksters pledge “to expand the number of net zero-committed financial institutions”. Speaking of which, “net-zero” is just another duplicitous buzzword that hides its true totalitarian and technocratic purpose; just wait until they start pursuing the “absolute zero” goal. On November 5, 2021, concurrently to the COP26, the International Business Council (IBC) of the WEF, the very same entity responsible for coming up, on September 2020, with the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics, released a statement welcoming “the recent announcement from the IFRS Foundation on the establishment of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB).” The International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation or IFRS Foundation is a nonprofit organization that oversees financial reporting standard-setting, having as main objectives the development and promotion of the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), through the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB), for accounting standards and now the International Sustainability Standards Board for sustainability-related standards. Undeniably, the collective TCFD’s, GFANZ’s and IBC’s endeavour, in order to be successful, had to lobby the regulatory and standard-setting agencies to demand businesses to comply with these new rules and regulations inspired by Klaus Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism. Therefore, on May 12, 2021, the IBC, which is chaired by Bank of America’s chairman and CEO, Brian Moynihan, had vowed to support the IFRS Foundation in its efforts to establish a “co-ordinated, global comprehensive corporate reporting system that includes sustainability standards.” By the look of things, it seems that the financial elite is having their tyrannical wish come true. How nice for them! All the same, they still want more. As I have already mentioned, the Covid-19 scare allowed the enormously felicitous chance for the cabal to carry out their megalomaniacal plan. Showing a great sense of timing and clairvoyance, on June 2019, the UN and the WEF signed “a Strategic Partnership Framework outlining areas of cooperation to deepen institutional engagement and jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Among other areas, this partnership focuses on “digital cooperation”. The objective is to address the challenges posed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which entails the transhumanist vison of “merging the physical, digital and biological worlds”. Moreover, this partnership seeks to advance “digital governance and digital inclusiveness.” In its 2015 Davos executive summary, the WEF illustrated how the stakeholder capitalists had manufactured a narrative to reshape the context of our daily lives. As the centre of attention, the objective was to institute the precepts for their claimed jurisdiction of the global commons. Lamentably, they were finding tremendous difficulty “to significantly improve the management and governance of critical global commons, most notably natural resources and cyberspace.” Thus far, we have already dealt with the natural resources, particularly the oceans and the seabed. Notwithstanding, the process for creating regulated markets for all global commons is the same. Firstly, the globalist elite, acting as “the trustees of society” and “of the material universe for future generations”, will administer the global commons. Once declared to be among the “shared resources all life relies upon”, some puppet organisation is appointed to oversee access to the new regulated market. Finally, if projects pass muster, regarding the ESG metrics, the authorities and the banks will approve and fund those initiatives. Even though the global Big Data market is projected to grow to $745.15 bn by 2030, from $271.83 billion in 2022, and the staggering value of all of our personal data is, believe it or not, inestimable, the monetary gain and wealth increment is not their main source of motivation. What they are truly after is to control the cyberspace, both its content and its access. Noticeably, it is no accident that the drive to tag every citizen with a Digital ID has been very active. Regardless of the Covid era’s contact tracing systems that achieved nothing in terms of public health, our neo-feudal busybodies have kept at it. Up to this point, this should be hardly surprising, given that this framework is critical to ultimately achieve the globalist agenda. In fact, by managing and monitoring the Internet’s usage, they can turn their biggest weakness into their greatest strength. Till now, the people have been fairly able to organise, share information and, most importantly, criticise the policies and agendas of the elites. By governing the cyberspace’s access, any dissent will not be tolerated. As punishment, once they manage to reform the international monetary and financial system (IMFS) under their totalitarian modules, instead of precluding you from using your IoT appliances and devices that are connected to the corporate-controlled “smart grid”, they could merely shut down your ability to purchase any good or service, or to send and receive money. Of course, the UN and the other New World Order institutions disguise their true intentions under virtuous and commendable wording, as depicted above. As I am going to bring to light on the next instalment, there is more to revolutionising the IMFS than the lame excuse of ending poverty.
|
AuthorDaniel Gomes Luís Archives
March 2024
Categories |