Club Of Rome: The Origin Of Climate And Population Alarmism

This view from Sweden reiterates the history of climate alarmism as being rooted in the Club of Rome, Maurice Strong, and the Rockefeller dynasty. When David Rockefeller created the Trilateral Commission in 1973, its stated goal was to “foster a New International Economic Order.”

Today, there are several synonyms for the NIEO: Circular economy, smart growth, sustainable development, Green New Deal and the Great Reset. These all point back to historic Technocracy, a resource-based economic system vs the price-based system of Free Market Economic theory. ⁃ TN Editor

In the shadow of the Corona pandemic, Sweden has introduced a new environmental strategy called “Circular Economy – Strategy for the Transition in Sweden”. This agreement between the government, the Center Party and the Liberals will bring about a dramatic change in our entire society where red-green socialism has a full impact.

Circular Economy is based on the recycling tank and maximum utilization of all resources. Fine words which, unfortunately, conceal a dark backside, namely a red-green agenda that benefits a few, restricts our freedom and harms the environment. To be effective over time, you need the Internet of Things, with constant connection where all material flows and are followed in real time throughout the life cycle. According to philosophy, this should lead to a world without waste, since clothing, furniture, lighting, appliances and means of transport are not owned but rented, which is giving producers incentives to make products more sustainable.

ONE BIG “HAPPY” FAMILY

Entrepreneurs and freelancers will market themselves through digital platforms, providing reduced prices and greater accessibility for the consumer. Companies such as Airbnb for the rental of private homes and Uber for taxi ordering are now increasing frivolous competition from operators without professional experience, training, union membership, fixed costs or tax liability in the form of VAT and employer’s contributions. This provides access to global labor for temporary jobs offered by TaskRabbit, Ryan Air or Amazon, which has been criticized for a race to the bottom with temporary microjobs without any security whatsoever.

Circular Economy is based on the circular ity, which unfortunately hides a dark backside, namely a red-green agenda that benefits a few while most people have to manage their way with temporary low-wage jobs without any security. Photo: @stereophototyp,Unsplash.

Here we see forced collectivisation and proletariisation, where people go from being employers or self-employed to being employed as low-wage workers. A historically proven concept with disastrous results as a result. From the turn of the year 2021, swedes now get in good circular spirit tax deductions for screwing together furniture, leaving clothes at dry cleaning and installing solar cells. At the same time, a fully functional nuclear reactor isbeing shut down. The justification is that it is no longer profitable. This is because the government has introduced an energy effect tax, which is fully in line with the Green Party’s philosophy of either taxing or closing down.

CLUB OF ROME – ORIGIN OF THE CLIMATE THREAT

The origins of the Circular Economy are found in Barbara Ward’s book Spaceship Earth (1966) where Earth is a closed system, as on a spaceship, with finite resources that must be used and reused. “Spaceship Earth – The Life Support System” is also the title of a chapter in the Rockefeller Brother Foundation’s 1977 book “The Unfinished Agenda”, a book that has since been promoted by the Club of Rome.

The same year this book was published, the circular economy concept was created by the Walter Stahel of the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome is a Masonic lodge founded in 1968 on David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. The Member Squadron is a traditional collection of grandiose reformers with heads of state, UN bureaucrats, leading politicians and government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and big business leaders. A collection from all over the world with a strong side of rich Western “elite”. This political lodge also brings together multi-billionaires in the Rockefeller, Rothschild and Soros families along with political chameleons such as Anders Wijkman and industrial magnates such as the now deceased oil businessman Maurice Strong.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published the acclaimed report “The Limits of Growth”, which reveals directly racist ideas based on Malthus’s philosophy that the population tends to grow faster than the means of supply. The working classes, the poor, are therefore condemned to a life on the brink of starvation if they do not exercise severe sexual abstinence¹.

MAURICE STRONG – THE MAN BEHIND THE SCARE MONGERING

Now the late Maurice Strong is one of the industrial tycoons who have been part of the Club of Rome’s circle of grandiose reformers. Photo by Lymantria, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Ahead of the first environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972, Maurice Strong prepared “Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet” together with economist Barbara Ward and microbiologist Rene Dubos. The report summed up the findings of 152 leading “experts” from 58 countries in preparation for the global UN meeting on the environment chaired by Maurice Strong. In the same year, he created the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and made a fortune as a businessman for Alberta Oil and the mineral industries. He was also good friends with David Rockefeller who chaired the Club of Rome. In addition, he was the man who created the scare mongering about global warming:

“Both the industrial nation and the car engine use fossil fuel. You can stop the engine by stopping the fuel supply, but if this is done, it will be an outcry which is politically dangerous. However, you can stop the engine by plugging the exhaust pipe if carbon dioxide is shown to be the contributing factor to global warming, which destroys the planet, this will justifies plugging again the exhaust pipe”².

Furthermore, Maurice Strong contributed to the creation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by merging the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and UNEP. A smart move was to bring the WMO and its official bureaucrats into the United Nations. The meteorologists were able to easily take and accompany the politicians wherever they wanted.

UN CORRUPTION LED BY KOFI ANNAN

An investigation by the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme, conducted by federal investigators in 2005, revealed that Strong had certified a check for USD 988 885 (today the equivalent of USD 1 610 431) printed on “Mr. M. Strong” by Jordanian bank while working for Kofi Annan at the United Nations. The check was personally handed over to Strong by a South Korean businessman who in 2006 was convicted in New York Federal Court of conspiracy and bribery by U.N. officials to rig the Oil-for-Food program in Saddam Hussein’s favour.  Strong was never convicted of any wrongdoing, but he resigned from his UN position on the grounds that he “went on the side-lines while the clouds dissipated”.

In 2017, the World Economic Forum started the public private collaboration initiative “Platform for Accelerating the Circular Economy” (PACE) with Philips CEO Frans van Houten as chairman and with the British solo sailor Dame Ellen as the frontman. Already in 2009 she had founded the Ellen MacArthur Foundation together with the companies Cisco, BT Group, B&Q, Renault and National Grid and by 2013 she had been elected as a member of the Club of Rome.

In 2016, former EU parliamentarian Anders Wijkman, who is linked to Globe, Club of Rome and the World Future Council, carried out a “study” for the Club of Rome based on models that predicted positive effects on the climate, environment and economy. He also pointed out the commitment of the European Commission that resulted in the CircularEconomy Package.

ANDERS WIJKMAN CAN BE FOUND IN SIX DIFFERENT BODIES

A more professional lobbyist and political chameleon than Anders Wijkman can hardly be found. Nevertheless, the red-green government has hired him as chairman of a parliamentary inquiry into the “climate strategy” called “Environmental Goals Committee” carried out by the “National Committee for Climate Research”. At the same time, he is honorary chairman of The Club of Rome and chairman of Circular Sweden, where he, together with his unscrupulous club, is sponsored with tax money and money from companies such as IKEA, H&M, SCA, Coca-Cola, which thereby helps to whitewash his tainted environmental image.

The network behind the propaganda about the climate crisis. Note that Anders Wijkman is found in SIX different bodies. Source: “Ordo AB Chao” by Jacob Nordangård.

If Sweden had a constitution worthy of the name, it would have banned this type of linkin the democratic process. Instead, the pandemic is now taking advantage of to push through changes that will have dramatic consequences for our entire society.

Under the radar of the pandemic, on 9 July 2020, the government departed from the principles of democracy with one single purpose – namely to achieve the world-changing ideas of global governance, population control and zero growth of the Green Party and the Club of Rome. In the days surrounding the 2020 Christmas rush, it then took the opportunity to introduce a pandemic law that makes advice and calls for laws with a penalty payment and, at worst, a ban on the nutrition of companies that lack to limit the spread of infection.

Now the government can work for zero growth and decide which companies will prosper and which ones will die out. In the early 1980s, the Danish lecturer Steen Steensen said “With the help of ecology, goals are now achieved that socialism only dreams of”. One can not more than agree, because with Sweden’s new Circular environmental strategy, red-green socialism is a fact.

¹: Racial biology From the perspective: “How was Sweden involved?” and “What do we learn in school today?”

²: Professor Tim Ball “Human Caused Global Warming” – 2016

Read full story here…




Prince Charles Jawbones Corporations To Sign ‘Earth Charter’

British Royalty has announced a megalomaniac program called “Terra Carta” and is urging all businesses to sign the Earth Charter, which “seeks to inspire in all peoples a sense of global interdependence and shared responsibility for the well-being of the human family, the greater community of life, and future generations.” ⁃ TN Editor

Read The Earth Charter Here…

The Prince of Wales has launched a new charter in order to promote sustainable practices within the private business sector.

The Terra Carta charter sets out a ten-point action plan for businesses as part of a recovery plan designed to drastically improve the carbon footprint of businesses by 2030.

Designed by  former Chief Design Officer at Apple, Sir Jony Ive, the Terra Carta comes as part of the Sustainable Markets Initiative that was launched by Prince Charles in January 2020 at the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.

The Terra Carta “provides a roadmap to 2030 for businesses to move towards an ambitious and sustainable future” reads a statement about the launch, “one that will harness the power of nature combined with the transformative power, innovation and resources of the private sector”.

The statement continues: “The Terra Carta is based on a series of recommendations developed over a year of HRH convening ‘coalitions of the willing’ among global business leaders across industries in almost every sector, challenging them to identify ways to set our planet on a fundamentally more sustainable trajectory.

“Together, they have developed a charter of ambitious, but practical action aimed at building a truly sustainable future.”

There are nearly 100 actions for business outlined in the 17-page-long Terra Carta, which has already acquired the support of leading businesses such as Bank of America, Blackrock, EY, AstraZeneca, Schroders, BP, and Heathrow Airport.

Speaking at the One Planet Summit, Prince Charles commented: “Today, I am making an urgent appeal to leaders, from all sectors and from around the world to give their support to this ‘Terra Carta’ – to bring prosperity into harmony with Nature, People and Planet over the coming decade.

“I can only encourage, in particular, those in industry and finance to provide practical leadership to this common project, as only they are able to mobilize the innovation, scale and resources that are required to transform our global economy.”

Read full story here…




Weasel Words: ‘Sustainable’ Newspeak Coming By 2050

When Technocrat-inspired pseudo-science is at risk of being discovered to be false, the standard solution is to gaslight their critics by reversing the language to mean the polar opposite. For example, ‘”War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.” ⁃ TN Editor

George Orwell pointed out that one of the first casualties of socialism is language. The damage is not collateral, it is deliberate—designed to numb minds and render critical thought difficult or impossible. The instrument of this dumbing down in Nineteen Eighty-Four was Newspeak, the official language of the English Socialist Party (Ingsoc). Newspeak was a sort of Totalitarian Esperanto that sought gradually to diminish the range of what was thinkable by eliminating, contracting, and manufacturing words. New words had a “political implication” and “were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” The meaning of words was often reversed, as was most starkly emphasized in the key slogans of Ingsoc:

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Nineteen Eighty-Four was written in 1949. Its nightmarish fictional world is now 36 years in the past, so one might reasonably conclude that Orwell was far too pessimistic, but his great book was less a prediction than a warning, and above all an analysis of the totalitarian mentality. Meanwhile, there is another significant date in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The book’s Appendix on the principles of Newspeak stressed that the corruption of language was a multi-generational project whose fruition would not come until well into the present century. Ingsoc’s objective was to render independent thought impossible by “about 2050.”

Intriguingly, that is the same year that the world allegedly has to become “carbon neutral,” or “Net Zero,” to avoid climate Armaggedon.

Weasel Words

Twenty Fifty has become a key date for the UN’s “Global Governance” agenda, which seeks nothing less than to oversee and regulate every aspect of life on the basis of a suite of alarmist projections. The main existential threat is claimed to be catastrophic man-made climate change. “Climate governance” has thus emerged as the “fourth pillar,” of the UN’s mandate, joining Peace & Security, Development, and Human Rights.

So far—as with the other three pillars—the UN’s climate efforts have been spectacularly unsuccessful. It has held 25 enormous “Conferences of the Parties,” or COPs, which have promoted a morass of uncoordinated national policies that have had zero impact on the climate.

COP 21 in Paris in 2015, for instance, was meant to hatch a successor to the failed Kyoto Agreement. But all it produced was a raft of hypocritical, voluntary, fingers-crossed “Nationally Determined Contributions.” The failure of Paris, and of temperatures to rise in line with flawed models, led to a doubling down of “ambitions.” One new commitment that seeped out of Paris was for the countries of the world to hold temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius above levels before the Industrial Revolution (The Original Climate Sin). Staying below that level, UN policy wonks rapidly calculated, would require the world to become carbon neutral, or Net-Zero, by 2050.

In a video lecture to Chinese students earlier this year, UN Secretary-General António Guterres claimed that there was “No excuse” not to meet the Net-Zero emission target by 2050. “The time for small steps has passed,” he said. “What is needed now is transformational change.”  For “transformational” read “revolutionary;” change that would involve the destruction of Western industrial society and freedom.

In fact, there is no climate “crisis” or “emergency.” However, as Orwell noted, the language of fear and panic is one of the main instruments of political control.

Today, just as in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the classical liberal concepts of liberty and equality(of opportunity) are under relentless attack, as are the values of reason and objectivity. Liberty and equality were classified in Newspeak as “Crimethink.” Objectivity and rationalism were “Oldthink.” A doomed Newspeak lexicographer named Syme tells the book’s equally doomed hero, Winston Smith, that even the party slogans will eventually become incomprehensible: “How could you have a slogan like ‘freedom is slavery’ when the concept of freedom has been abolished?”

Orwell was hardly the first observer to point to the political dangers of linguistic manipulation, which go back to discussions of sophistry in Plato. The great economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek pointed in particular to the left’s use of “social.” He dubbed it a “weasel word” that not merely sucked meaning from words to which it was attached but often reversed meaning. Thus, by classical liberal standards, social democracy is undemocratic, social justice is unjust, and a social market economy is anti-market. We have a prime current example in the phrase “social license to operate,” which in fact means a potential veto on corporate activities by radical environmental non-governmental organizations (ENGOs), the stormtroopers of the Global Governance agenda. Private corporations were once socialism’s enemies; now they have been co-opted as its partners, agents of “Global Salvationism.” Nobel economist Milton Freidman pointed to the subversive, open-ended nature of “Corporate Social Responsibility,” where “responsibility” represents another weasel word. CSR’s purpose is to force corporate executives to abandon their responsibility to their shareholders in favour of an endless list of “stakeholder” demands.

Like the word “social,” “sustainable” tends to vitiate or reverse the meaning of words to which it is attached. Thus “sustainable” development is development retarded by top-down control.

Friedman has been regularly and ritually subjected to the Two Minutes Hate ever since. The most recent example was a collection of overwhelmingly condemnatory essays in the New York Times to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the publication of Friedman’s essay on CSR. Typically, it grossly misrepresented Friedman and wrote off his alleged bottom line as “Greed is Good.”

The shackles of CSR have now been tightened by the concept of ESG (Environmental, Social, and corporate Governance). ESG is, like the neologisms of Newspeak, “intended to impose a desirable mental attitude” on executives, who often seem intellectually and morally defenceless in the face of NGO campaigns of lies and intimidation. Business schools certainly don’t appear to equip them to counter such assaults.

A Climate of Newspeak

Perhaps the most significant new weasel word to have emerged from the UN’s equivalent of the Ministry of Truth is “sustainable.” Commitment to sustainability is now mouthed by every politician, bureaucrat, marketing executive, and media hack on earth. It sounds so benign, so reasonable, but what it actually means is “bureaucratically controlled and NGO-enforced within a UN-based socialist agenda.” Like most aspects of socialism, it is based on incomprehension and/or hatred of the nature and function of market capitalism, not least because markets—which signal scarcity, reward economy, and promote profitable innovation—are the only true source of sustainability. Projected catastrophic man-made climate change was enthusiastically embraced by global socialism becasue it was—in the words of Nicholas Stern, who was ennobled for his manufacture of an egregiously skewed review of climate impacts for his political masters in the UK Labour Party—“the greatest market failure the world has ever seen.” The problem is that we haven’t actually seen it, except, that is, through the biased lens of “official” science and an alarmist crusading media.

Like “social,” “sustainable” tends to vitiate or reverse the meaning of words to which it is attached. Thus sustainable development is development retarded by top-down control, and whose effectiveness is further compromised by the insertion of a long list of cart-before-the-horse social policy objectives, from gender equity to “responsible consumption.”

Recently, “Sustainable Finance” has also bubbled up from the UN verbal swamp. What it means, not surprisingly, is stopping the financing of fossil fuels by browbeating banks and investors, and rigging the regulatory process. Its champion is that archetypal aspiring global governor Mark Carney, former governor both of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, and now UN special envoy for climate action and finance.

There are no dictionaries of sustainable Newspeak. Its mavens rely less on new words than on perverting or reversing the meaning of old ones. One recent clarion call heard echoing around the corridors of power is that recovery from the COVID crisis must be “resilient.” Insofar as that means forcing the use of more expensive, less reliable, and less flexible energy sources such as wind and solar, it will inevitably make economies less resilient. Thus it promotes the first energy “transition” in history that involves moving backwards. Typically, such backward movement is a key part of a “progressive” agenda.

Attempts to restrict thought and reverse meaning go well beyond the climate issue, which is just part of a broader socialist thrust. Another of Ingsoc’s slogans was “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” The new version is “Who pulls down statues controls the educational curriculum.”

The indoctrination of young people was a key strategy of Ingsoc. Likewise, Agenda 21, the doorstop socialist wish list that emerged from the UN’s Earth Summit at Rio in 1992, declared: “Students should be taught about the environment and sustainable development throughout their schooling.” They should learn that “The world is confronted with worsening poverty, hunger, ill health, illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of ecosystems on which we depend for our wellbeing.” In other words, a catalogue of alarmism that has—or should have been—utterly discredited by the evidence of the intervening decades. However, we tend to see what we have been taught to believe. Walls may have ears but more important is that ears have walls. Building such walls was the specific purpose of Ingsoc’s Crimestop, or “protective stupidity.” The capture of academic institutions has virtually installed Crimestop as a compulsory course.

An entire generation of children has been miseducated on environmental issues and exposed to what might be called pre-traumatic stress disorder, not least by being forced to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and its sequel, which was filled with frightening untruths that have proved particularly convenient for serial power- and rent-seekers such as Gore.

Meanwhile not only did Agenda 21 demand that children be indoctrinated, it demanded that the most indoctrinated among them be allowed into political fora to lecture their elders. This programme came to stunning fruition last fall at the UN, when Greta Thunberg, a bright, anxious, and thoroughly indoctrinated Swedish teenager, was elevated to the podium to paraphrase Agenda 21: “People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

One is reminded of the Newspeak Appendix: “A Party member called upon to make a political or ethical judgement should be able to spray forth the correct opinions as automatically as a machine gun spraying forth bullets.”

Greta is a manipulated child spouting machine gun words designed to promote the ever-mutating yet never-changing socialist agenda: seeking absolute power.

Meanwhile, the political establishment’s current watchwords of inclusivity, diversity, and equity are all aimed at perverting truth and concealing real meanings. Inclusivity and diversity involve excluding white men and conservatives of either sex (although it is a “thoughtcrime” to suggest that there are fundamentally two sexes, as J.K.Rowling discovered). Equity falsely equates the inevitable inequality of outcomes in a free society with moral inequity. Everybody is invited to “join the conversation,” except those who dare to disagree. Defenders of free—and accurate—speech are ignored, cancelled, or viciously attacked as “Racists” or “Deniers.”

Read full story here…




UN Pushes Universal Health Care To Fight COVID-19

To help the world better deal with pandemics, the United Nations is calling for a Universal Health Care system that would span all nations and be controlled by the UN itself. This is all in the name of furthering the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that the UN created to usher in Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

UN Secretary-General António Guterres has urged governments to speed up and scale up their investment in universal health coverage (UHC) and stronger health systems, in order to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare for future crises. The policy brief also addresses the health impact of COVID-19 on refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). 

In a video message to launch the brief titled, ‘COVID-19 and Universal Health Coverage,’ Guterres said the “world was not prepared” for the COVID-19 pandemic, and underinvestment in health care can have devastating impacts on societies and economies. He said the pandemic also revealed “yawning gaps in social protection and major structural inequalities within and between countries.” The brief argues that countries could more effectively and efficiently address the COVID-19 crisis through a UHC system, and underscores the critical linkages between public health and broader economic and societal resilience.

The policy brief cautions that the effects of the pandemic could “seriously impair or reverse progress towards the SDGs.” Each health-related SDG target is expected to go backwards. For instance, the brief states that reductions in maternal and child health interventions, such as immunization, could lead to over 250,000 additional child deaths and 12,000 maternal deaths in six months in 118 countries. If lockdowns continue for at least six months in 114 low- and middle-income countries, an additional 31 million cases of gender-based violence “can be expected to occur.” The brief also documents potential negative impacts on malaria deaths, AIDS-related illnesses, and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs).

In addition, the pandemic is affecting other SDGs. The global recession is expected to lead to the first rise in global extreme poverty since 1998, pushing 70 to 100 million people into extreme poverty and “wiping out progress made since 2017.” A large share of the new extreme poor will be in South Asia, and one-third is projected to be concentrated in Sub-Saharan Africa.

The brief presents five major recommendations:

  • Urgently control COVID-19 transmission, including with stronger public health measures to reduce local transmission to zero, facilitate universal provision for COVID-19 testing, isolating, and contract tracing, and ensure access to care for COVID-19 patients to reduce deaths;
  • Protect delivery of other essential services;
  • Massively expand access to new rapid diagnostics and treatments, and ensure future COVID-19 vaccines are a global public good with equitable access for everyone, everywhere, including through fully funding the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator (ACT-Accelerator) and urgently addressing the spread of misinformation about vaccine safety;
  • Achieve UHC by investing in core health systems functions that are fundamental to protecting and promoting health and well-being, and suspending user fees for COVID-19 and other essential health care; and
  • Strengthen national and global pandemic preparedness and aim for healthy societies.

The brief shares examples of good practice in addressing the health impact of COVID-19 on refugees and IDPs. Rwanda has included urban refugees in Kigali in its national health insurance scheme. Peru approved temporary health coverage for refugees and migrants suspected of or testing positive for COVID-19. In Argentina, Chile, and Peru, to address the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 on those who have been forcibly displaced, the governments have allowed foreign-trained refugee doctors, nurses, and others with medical training to work during the COVID-19 response. Ireland’s Medical Council announced that refugees and asylum-seekers with medical training can provide medical support, including as healthcare assistants. The Government of South Africa has provided financial support for foreign-owned businesses, including those owned by refugees.

The brief concludes that UHC can be a “powerful social equalizer” and a catalyst for economic growth. It underscores that systems that sustain progress towards UHC through a whole-population perspective are better positioned to respond to disease outbreaks like COVID-19.

Read full story here…




Flashback: U.S. Participated In Extremist ‘One World, One Health’

The “challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead” were all wildly speculative and smacked of environmental extremism, but why did the CDC and Department of Agriculture participate in this craziness? Both of these agencies should have condemned these proceedings rather than embraced them.

Was our own government selling America down the river without so much as a press release to tell us so? Today’s scope of the COVID panic and the ‘Great Reset’ is coming into focus: it’s all about the entire basket of policies emanating from the United Nations over the last 30 years under the umbrella of Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

About “One World, One Health”

Health experts from around the world met on September 29, 2004 for a symposium focused on the current and potential movements of diseases among human, domestic animal, and wildlife populations organized by the Wildlife Conservation Society and hosted by The Rockefeller University. Using case studies on Ebola, Avian Influenza, and Chronic Wasting Disease as examples, the assembled expert panelists delineated priorities for an international, interdisciplinary approach for combating threats to the health of life on Earth.

The product—called the “Manhattan Principles” by the organizers of the “One World, One Health” event, lists 12 recommendations (see below) for establishing a more holistic approach to preventing epidemic / epizootic disease and for maintaining ecosystem integrity for the benefit of humans, their domesticated animals, and the foundational biodiversity that supports us all.

Representatives from the World Health Organization; the UN Food and Agriculture Organization; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the United States Geological Survey National Wildlife Health Center; the United States Department of Agriculture; the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre; the Laboratoire Nationale de Sante Publique of Brazzaville, Republic of Congo; the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law; and the Wildlife Conservation Society were among the many participants.

The Manhattan Principles on “One World, One Health”

Recent outbreaks of West Nile Virus, Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, SARS, Monkeypox, Mad Cow Disease and Avian Influenza remind us that human and animal health are intimately connected. A broader understanding of health and disease demands a unity of approach achievable only through a consilience of human, domestic animal and wildlife health – One Health. Phenomena such as species loss, habitat degradation, pollution, invasive alien species, and global climate change are fundamentally altering life on our planet from terrestrial wilderness and ocean depths to the most densely populated cities. The rise of emerging and resurging infectious diseases threatens not only humans (and their food supplies and economies), but also the fauna and flora comprising the critically needed biodiversity that supports the living infrastructure of our world. The earnestness and effectiveness of humankind’s environmental stewardship and our future health have never been more clearly linked. To win the disease battles of the 21st Century while ensuring the biological integrity of the Earth for future generations requires interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral approaches to disease prevention, surveillance, monitoring, control and mitigation as well as to environmental conservation more broadly.

We urge the world’s leaders, civil society, the global health community and institutions of science to:

1. Recognize the essential link between human, domestic animal and wildlife health and the threat disease poses to people, their food supplies and economies, and the biodiversity essential to maintaining the healthy environments and functioning ecosystems we all require.

2. Recognize that decisions regarding land and water use have real implications for health. Alterations in the resilience of ecosystems and shifts in patterns of disease emergence and spread manifest themselves when we fail to recognize this relationship.

3. Include wildlife health science as an essential component of global disease prevention, surveillance, monitoring, control and mitigation.

4. Recognize that human health programs can greatly contribute to conservation efforts.

5. Devise adaptive, holistic and forward-looking approaches to the prevention, surveillance, monitoring, control and mitigation of emerging and resurging diseases that take the complex interconnections among species into full account.

6. Seek opportunities to fully integrate biodiversity conservation perspectives and human needs (including those related to domestic animal health) when developing solutions to infectious disease threats.

7. Reduce the demand for and better regulate the international live wildlife and bushmeat trade not only to protect wildlife populations but to lessen the risks of disease movement, cross-species transmission, and the development of novel pathogen-host relationships. The costs of this worldwide trade in terms of impacts on public health, agriculture and conservation are enormous, and the global community must address this trade as the real threat it is to global socioeconomic security.

8. Restrict the mass culling of free-ranging wildlife species for disease control to situations where there is a multidisciplinary, international scientific consensus that a wildlife population poses an urgent, significant threat to human health, food security, or wildlife health more broadly.

9. Increase investment in the global human and animal health infrastructure commensurate with the serious nature of emerging and resurging disease threats to people, domestic animals and wildlife. Enhanced capacity for global human and animal health surveillance and for clear, timely information-sharing (that takes language barriers into account) can only help improve coordination of responses among governmental and nongovernmental agencies, public and animal health institutions, vaccine / pharmaceutical manufacturers, and other stakeholders.

10. Form collaborative relationships among governments, local people, and the private and public (i.e.- non-profit) sectors to meet the challenges of global health and biodiversity conservation.

11. Provide adequate resources and support for global wildlife health surveillance networks that exchange disease information with the public health and agricultural animal health communities as part of early warning systems for the emergence and resurgence of disease threats.

12. Invest in educating and raising awareness among the world’s people and in influencing the policy process to increase recognition that we must better understand the relationships between health and ecosystem integrity to succeed in improving prospects for a healthier planet.

It is clear that no one discipline or sector of society has enough knowledge and resources to prevent the emergence or resurgence of diseases in today’s globalized world. No one nation can reverse the patterns of habitat loss and extinction that can and do undermine the health of people and animals. Only by breaking down the barriers among agencies, individuals, specialties and sectors can we unleash the innovation and expertise needed to meet the many serious challenges to the health of people, domestic animals, and wildlife and to the integrity of ecosystems. Solving today’s threats and tomorrow’s problems cannot be accomplished with yesterday’s approaches. We are in an era of “One World, One Health” and we must devise adaptive, forward-looking and multidisciplinary solutions to the challenges that undoubtedly lie ahead.

Read full story here…




Globalists Pledge To Halt Earth’s Destruction Ahead Of UN Summit

It has been well documented that the U.N. polices of Sustainable Development will not save the world, but rather destroy it. World leaders are still saying they will stop the destruction while implementing more Sustainable Development.

This is Hegelian dialectic on steroids. The “Pledge for Nature’ they all signed states,

Political leaders participating in the United Nations Summit on Biodiversity in September 2020, representing 76 countries from all regions and the European Union, have committed to reversing biodiversity loss by 2030. By doing so, these leaders are sending a united signal to step up global ambition and encourage others to match their collective ambition for nature, climate and people with the scale of the crisis at hand. ⁃ TN Editor

 

World leaders have pledged to clamp down on pollution, embrace sustainable economic systems and eliminate the dumping of plastic waste in oceans by the middle of the century as part of “meaningful action” to halt the destruction of nature on Earth.

Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern and Boris Johnson are among 64 leaders from five continents warning that humanity is in a state of planetary emergency due to the climate crisis and the rampant destruction of life-sustaining ecosystems. To restore the balance with nature, governments and the European Union have made a 10-point pledge to counteract the damage to systems that underpin human health and wellbeing.

The commitments include a renewed effort to reduce deforestation, halt unsustainable fishing practices, eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies and begin the transition to sustainable food production systems and a circular economy over the next decade. The leaders describe the pledge as a “turning point” by which future generations will judge their willingness to act on environmental destruction.

All signatories to the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, launched virtually in New York on Monday, have committed to putting wildlife and the climate at the heart of post-pandemic economic recovery plans, promising to address the climate crisis, deforestation, ecosystem degradation and pollution.

The announcement comes ahead of a major UN biodiversity summit on Wednesday, which will be hosted virtually from New York, and part way through negotiations on a Paris-style international agreement on nature. The speaking slots at this week’s summit are oversubscribed, with more than 116 heads of states and governments asking to address the event.

“Science clearly shows that biodiversity loss, land and ocean degradation, pollution, resource depletion and climate change are accelerating at an unprecedented rate. This acceleration is causing irreversible harm to our life support systems and aggravating poverty and inequalities as well as hunger and malnutrition,” the pledge reads.

“Despite ambitious global agreements and targets for the protection, sustainable use and restoration of biodiversity, and notwithstanding many local success stories, the global trends continue rapidly in the wrong direction. A transformative change is needed: we cannot simply carry on as before.”

The leaders also commit to ending environmental crime and cracking down on organised crime groups involved in the illicit trafficking of wildlife and timber.

Boris Johnson will speak at the pledge’s launch on Monday.

The prime minister will say: “We must turn these words into action and use them to build momentum, to agree ambitious goals and binding targets.

“We must act now – right now. We cannot afford to dither and delay because biodiversity loss is happening today and it is happening at a frightening rate. Left unchecked, the consequences will be catastrophic for us all. Extinction is forever – so our action must be immediate.”

Read full story here…




Blueprint For Overthrow: Transition Integrity Project (TIP)

technocracy

A group of high-powered globalists from the US, including John Podesta (Trilateral Commission), are plotting the overthrow of the United States to achieve the Great Reset of the Green New Deal and Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. This subversion is a clear and present danger to the integrity of our national government and Constitution.

TIP is saturated with Trilateral Commission influence: John Podesta, Condalezza Rice, Eric Schmidt, Bill Clinton and Ernesto Zedillo. ⁃ TN Editor

Let’s take a moment to think about something called the Transition Integrity Project.  Just by its name you’ll be impressed by a seemingly highly moral commitment to honesty during the election.  But wait: what about that word ‘Transition’?  Doesn’t it presuppose a change in the presidency?  Yes, it does.  And it’s a ‘Project.’  What could that mean?  A project of what?

Nicolas Berggruen, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum, is a billionaire who has spent at least 10 years and millions of dollars in ‘reinventing and restructuring democracy.’  What could that mean?  Through his Berggruen Institute this financier/stock market savant has suavely assembled groups of ‘influencers’ to do just that:  to write books, form spin-off groups, and endow positions in business and universities. Nicolas Berggruen is the force behind the Transition Integrity Project.

I first became aware of Berggruen in 2012 when his think tank ‘Think Long’ produced a ballot initiative in California with the intention of changing the California constitution.  ‘Think Long’ which included in its elite membership Condelezza Rice, Willie Brown, Gray Davis, and Eric Schmidt (Google CEO) was an alliance of neo-cons and ‘progressives’ who wanted to use the California initiative process to literally craft a new set of rules for governance.  It was, as I called it in a speech against their Proposition 31 which I gave at the Los Angeles Federal Building, a razor blade buried in a candy apple—-a Trojan horse.  This craftily worded manipulation proposed using Agenda 21 Sustainable Development federal grants to stealthily implement regional governance.

This new law, this amendment to the California Constitution, would shift state funds to local governments for the purpose of implementing new ‘Community Strategic Action Plans.’   What does that mean?

For the purposes of ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’ state revenue would be shared in supra-governmental, unelected regional entities.  Those who are paying attention will recognize the 3 E’s of United Nations Agenda 21/Sustainable Development in this deceptive proposition.  Economy, Environment, Equity. This is not just some happy coincidence.  This is the legal and funding mechanism for a regional layer of government.  You don’t vote for regional representation, as you know.  You vote in city, county, state, and federal elections.   Agenda 21 is a global plan implemented locally and you see it as regional plans.

Far from being a black helicopter paranoiac fantasy UN Agenda 21 is real and Prop 31 is what it looks like.  It is a plan to take state money and allow local entities– counties and cities–to determine how that money gets allocated as long as it goes for Smart Growth, the preferred development style of UN Agenda 21.  The Agenda for the 21st century was signed onto by George HW Bush in 1992. President Clinton created the President’s Council on Sustainable Development for the sole purpose of implementing Agenda 21 in the US.

All federal agencies changed their policies to conform to Sustainable Development principles, and it then moved into the states and local municipalities via General Plans and regional boards.

This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a conspiracy fact.  Regionalization is the stepping stone to global governance by creating a parallel government and then funding it.  These regions already exist and are administered now by Metropolitan Planning Organizations and Councils of Government like the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

New urbanism is the goal and you’ll see this as these new Community Strategic Action Plans dictate that your tax dollars go for shifting funds to high density cities. That’s what they mean by ‘a prosperous economy, quality environment, and community equity’. It’s code for redistributing money to cities that agree to the blurring or erasure of jurisdictional boundaries.

Prop 31 failed but he didn’t give up and came back later with another proposition which did pass.

Now, what is the Transition Integrity Project?  It’s a group (including John Podesta and Michael Steele,  former Repub Party head) of hard core neo-liberals and neo-con Never Trumpers who are consolidated into a force for insurrection: Color Revolutionaries.  After cutting their teeth on Argentina, Ukraine, Venezuela, Egypt, etc they’re ready for the Big Kahuna; the United States. Their premise is ‘What if Trump loses and won’t leave the White House?’ But really the deal is ‘How will we respond when the ambiguous results of this seriously flawed takeover are exposed?’ Berggruen paid for and organized this tabletop exercise and, much like Event 201 and Dark Winter, they’re readying for a revolutionary civil war here in the US.  The overthrow of the republic is being war-gamed.

Scenarios of Biden/Harris being unable to establish their win and having to grab it are played through with the recognition that the press will have to bear down on us, and social media will need to shut us down, fast. Law enforcement, military…this is a coup d’etat. The Transition Integrity Project runs those scenarios, none of which includes Trump actually winning, and makes it clear that complete disruption is the goal.  This is UN Agenda 21.

Destroying the existing system.  RE-INVENTING Democracy is what they call it, and they do not intend to lose.

Read full story here…




Fauci Looks To UN To ‘Rebuild The Infrastructure Of Human Existence’

Dr. Anthony Fauci is a United Nations wolf in sheep’s clothing telling America why it is so important to save lives from the dreaded COVID-19 virus while pandering for the most radical parts of United Nations agenda for the world. That is, Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy.

In his paper, EmergingPandemicDiseases:HowWeGot toCOVID-19, he wrote the following paragraph:

Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact. [emphasis added]

This is plain evidence that Fauci is an agent for the United Nations and that he is a self-professed “social engineer” who wants to rebuild the “infrastructures of human existence.” Why should Fauci’s phony propaganda be so hard for America to understand? It’s because Technocrats have created and leveraged fear to the whole world, making populations wide-open to their ‘suggestions’. ⁃ TN Editor

I have never been a singer in the anti-Dr. Anthony Fauci chorus. I always admired his work in the 90s to bring the HIV catastrophe to heel and thought his early efforts as Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advising President Trump on fighting the COVID crisis, provided a vital public service to our country.

But of late, I had been having second thoughts. I am mildly put off by Fauci’s relishing embrace of worldwide celebrity. I thought it a bit frivolous, for example, his agreeing to be interviewed for a cover story in the fashion magazine, In Style.

And it was certainly an eye-popping obeisance to popular culture when the man—who said we will have to give up handshaking forever—benignly blessed in a Vanity Fair interview (of course) “asymptomatic strangers” hooking up for sexual liaisons using the dating app Tinder.

Still, those were minor irritations. Nobody is perfect, after all. When the beautiful people decide to make one an icon, resistance is futile.

But now, Fauci has crossed a line that should sound the alarm—audaciously declaring that combatting infectious disease requires the mindboggling task of “rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence.” Not only that but he opined that accomplishing these top-to-bottom “radical changes” requires “strengthening the United Nations and its agencies, particularly the World Health Organization.”

Fauci’s advocacy for essentially establishing an international rule by experts technocracy—co-authored with his National Institute Scientific Senior Adviser David M. Morens—appeared in the respected scientific journal Cell, an important peer-reviewed publication in which scientists usually share discoveries in fields like stem cell research, genetics, and immunology.

Articles in Cell (and its ilk) mostly focus on important but arcane technical issues of science and medicine. But with increasing frequency, such journals have lately pushed ideology too—usually promoting left-wing and internationalist public policy prescriptions, as Fauci and Morens did in Cell.

Fauci and Morens’ prescription should give every lover of liberty and national sovereignty great pause. To prevent future pandemics, the authors argue that virtually everything in society will have to be transformed, “from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues.”

The scope and breadth of their ambition is stunningly hubristic. “In such a transformation,” they write, “we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming.”

Oh, is that all? No, as a matter of fact, it is not. The authors quickly add: “Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact.” Holy cow!

Think about what all of that would take! At the very least, the gargantuan task would require unprecedented and intrusive government regulations and the transferring of policy control from the national to international level—nothing less than an international technocratic and authoritarian supra-governing system—with the power to direct how we interact with each other as family, friends, and in community.

This hyper-state would have to control how the economy operates, where we could build factories and plow farms. It would also determine how and where we live, what we eat, and permanently dictate when and if we can travel. And think about the cost and the means it would take to break inevitable popular resistance. No thanks!

Read full story here…




Pandemic’s Collapse Of SDGs Exposes True Goals Of Sustainable Development

When the SDGs collapse, do not pass Go and go straight to Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. The long-term UN goal to “decouple development and growth” spawns calls for “green bonds, sustainability bonds and impact investing .” ⁃ TN Editor

COVID-19 is exposing the fragility of the goals adopted by the United Nations — two-thirds are now unlikely to be met.

As COVID-19 batters the world and its economy, it’s time to rethink sustainable pathways for our planet. Rosy hopes that globalization and economic growth would bankroll waves of green investment and development are no longer realistic. It’s unlikely there will be enough money or attention to banish poverty and inequality, expand health care and overturn biodiversity loss and climate change, all by 2030.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus has already killed more than 512,000 people, disrupted the livelihoods of billions and cost trillions of dollars. A global depression looms. The United States and other nations are gripped by protests against structural inequality and racism. And geopolitical tensions between superpowers and nuclear states are at levels not seen for decades.

Things were different back in 2015, when the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to improve people’s lives and the natural world by 2030. It was arguably one of humanity’s finest moments — the whole planet signed up. Many national budgets were flush with funds. Governments agreed ambitious treaties, including the Paris climate agreement, the Sendai framework on disaster risk reduction and the Addis Ababa plan for financing development.

Five years on, as the UN celebrates its 75th anniversary, that mood of optimism has gone. In other words, the very foundations on which the SDGs were built have shifted.

The success of the SDGs depends on two big assumptions: sustained economic growth and globalization. COVID-19 has torn these to shreds. The global economy is expected to contract by at least 5% this year, and the timeframe for its recovery is years, not months, if the past is any guide. Industrialized countries struggling to support their own citizens will not bankroll the development of others. Overseas development aid could drop by US$25 billion in 2021. The United States has announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organization. Increasing the scale of human activity on the planet looks foolish when it could open wells of new diseases once hidden in the wild, similar to COVID-19.

Governments have basic worries. Food security is under threat, because farm workers are unable to travel to harvest crops; prices of rice, maize (corn) and wheat are rising. The UN World Food Programme has just doubled its estimate of the number of people who are likely to face acute food shortages this year, to 265 million. Demand for cash crops, such as Kenya’s flower exports, has stalled. Ecotourism has collapsed. Even oil-rich developing countries such as Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, cannot sell their resources profitably in the global slowdown.

And the world will face further stressors in the next decade. More pandemics, yes, but also extinctions and the continued degradation of the ecosystems on which all life depends. Storms, wildfires, droughts and floods will become more frequent owing to climate change. Geopolitical unrest might follow. Mounting costs to address these will divert yet more funding from existing SDG targets. Last year alone, the United States experienced 14 separate billion-dollar disasters related to climate change.

COVID-19 is demonstrating that the SDGs as currently conceived are not resilient to such global stressors. As the UN’s High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development meets (virtually) this week, delegates must chart a new course for the SDGs. As the world recovers from this pandemic, the forum must establish a few clear priorities, not a forest of targets. It should also consider which goals can be achieved in a less-connected world with a sluggish global economy.

Read full story here…




UN: May See ‘New Normal’ On Other Side Of 5-Year Global Depression

The Secretary-General of the UN lays out two possibilities to get through the pandemic: either accept UN leadership today or go through a five-year global depression and then accept their leadership as the “new normal”. Either way, it’s the same outcome. ⁃ TN Editor

From COVID-19 to climate disruption, from racial injustice to rising inequalities, we are a world in turmoil.

At the same time, we are an international community with an enduring vision – embodied in the United Nations Charter, which marks its 75th anniversary this year. That vision of a better future —  based on the values of equality, mutual respect and international cooperation —  has helped us to avoid a Third World War that would have had catastrophic consequences for life on our planet.

Our shared challenge is to channel that collective spirit and rise to this moment of trial and test.

The pandemic has laid bare severe and systemic inequalities both within and between countries and communities.  More broadly, it has underscored the world’s fragilities – not just in the face of another health emergency, but in our faltering response to the climate crisis, lawlessness in cyberspace, and the risks of nuclear proliferation.  People everywhere are losing trust in political establishments and institutions.

The emergency is compounded by many other profound humanitarian crises: conflicts that are continuing or even intensifying; record numbers of people forced to flee their homes; swarms of locusts in Africa and South Asia; looming droughts in southern Africa and Central America; all amid a context of rising geopolitical tensions.

In the face of these fragilities, world leaders need to be humble and recognize the vital importance of unity and solidarity.

No one can predict what comes next, but I see two possible scenarios.

First, the “optimistic” possibility.

In this case, the world would muddle through.  Countries in the global North would engineer a successful exit strategy.  Developing countries would receive enough support and their demographic characteristics – namely, the youth of their people – would help contain the impact.

And then perhaps a vaccine would appear in the next nine months or so, and would be distributed as a global public good, a “people’s vaccine” available and accessible to all.

If this happens, and if the economy starts up progressively, we might move towards some kind of normality  in two or three years.

But there is also a second, bleaker scenario in which countries fail to coordinate their actions.  New waves of the virus keep occurring.  The situation in the developing world explodes.  Work on the vaccine lags — or even if there is a vaccine relatively soon —  it becomes the subject of fierce competition and countries with greater economic power gain access to it first, leaving others behind.

In this scenario, we could also see greater movement toward fragmentation, populism and xenophobia.  Each country could go it alone or in so-called coalitions of the willing to address some specific challenges.  In the end, the world would fail to mobilize the kind of governance needed to address our shared challenges.

The result may well be a global depression that could last at least five or seven years before a new normal emerges, the nature of which is impossible to predict.

It is very difficult to know if we are moving in one direction or the other.  We must work for the best and prepare for the worst.

The pandemic, as horrible as it is, must be a wake-up call that prompts all political leaders to understand that our assumptions and approaches have to change, and that division is a danger to everyone.

This understanding could lead people to recognize that the only way to address global fragilities is through much more robust mechanisms of global governance with international cooperation.

After all, we cannot simply return to the systems that gave rise to the current crisis.  We need to build back better with more sustainable, inclusive, gender-equal societies and economies.

In doing so, we must reimagine the way nations cooperate.  Today’s multilateralism lacks scale, ambition and teeth — and some of the instruments that do have teeth show little or no appetite to bite, as we have seen in the difficulties faced by the Security Council.

We need a networked multilateralism, in which the United Nations and its agencies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, regional organizations such as the African Union and European Union, trade organizations and others work together more closely and effectively.

We also need a more inclusive multilateralism.  Governments today are far from the only players in terms of politics and power.  Civil society, the business community, local authorities, cities and regional governments are assuming more and more leadership roles in today’s world.

This, in turn, will help lead to an effective multilateralism with the mechanisms it needs to make global governance work where it is needed.

A new, networked, inclusive, effective multilateralism, based on the enduring values of the United Nations Charter, could snap us out of our sleepwalking state and stop the slide towards ever greater danger.

Political leaders around the world need to heed this wake-up call and come together to address the world’s fragilities, strengthen our capacity for global governance, give teeth to multilateral institutions, and draw from the power of unity and solidarity to overcome the biggest test of our times.

Read full story here…