Technocrats Are Preparing ‘Mandatory’ Personal Carbon Allowances

As forecast, the pandemic and global warming memes are merging because they are both orchestrated by the exact same alarmist crowd of Sustainable Development ideologues. The UN’s Sustainable Development goals are the plumb line for the future of humanity and are totally embedded in the WEF’s Great Reset.

The referenced Nature article states,

The introduction of personal carbon allowances (PCAs), a mitigation policy proposal developed in the 1990s5, is ripe for revisitation. This policy aims to link personal action with global carbon reduction goals. A PCA scheme would entail all adults receiving an equal, tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national targets. In its original design, the allowance could cover around 40% of energy-related carbon emissions in high-income countries, encompassing individuals’ carbon emissions relating to travel, space heating, water heating and electricity6. Allowances were envisioned to be deducted from the personal budget with every payment for transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills. People in shortage would be able to purchase additional units in the personal carbon market from those with excess to sell. New, more ambitious PCA proposals include economy-wide emissions, encompassing food, services and consumption-related carbon emissions7, for example.

This results in the micromanagement of all persons subject to the system. Total control over all production and consumption has always been Technocracy’s endgame. ⁃ TN Editor

Technocrats are preparing “mandatory” personal carbon allowances that would introduce rationing into every area of your life via an app that would record your travel, heating expenses and even the food you eat.

Yes, really.

The proposal was presented in the science journal Nature by four environmental “experts” as a means of reducing global carbon emissions.

Everyone would be issued with a ‘carbon allowance card’ “that would entail all adults receiving an equal tradable carbon allowance that reduces over time in line with national [carbon] targets.”

The authors make it clear that the program would be a “national mandatory policy.”

Carbon units would be “deducted from the personal budget with every payment of transport fuel, home-heating fuels and electricity bills,” and anyone going over the limit would be forced to purchase additional units in the personal carbon market from those with excess to sell.”

This means that the private jet-flying rich could simply bypass the system entirely (which they would part-own via investments anyway) by simply buying carbon credits and carrying on living their luxurious lifestyle.

The proposal makes clear that the means of measuring a person’s uptake of carbon units for travel would function “on the basis of the tracking the user’s movement history.”

The authors note how the normalization of contact tracing via COVID-19 apps will ensure a similar system could be used for keeping track of carbon credits with minimum fuss.

“Recent studies show how COVID-19 contact tracing apps were successfully implemented with mandatory schemes in several East Asian countries such as China, Taiwan, and South Korea,” states the article.

“In these countries, the apps assessed the user’s travel history and health status, playing a key role in tracking infection.”

Indeed, the authors specifically note how mass unquestioning compliance with COVID lockdown regulations has greased the skids for further intrusive tyranny and that, “people may be more prepared to accept the tracking and limitations related to PCAs to achieve a safer climate” as a result.

The increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence technologies would also “make it possible to easily track and manage” people’s “food-and-consumption-related emissions.”

In other words, eating what Big Brother deems to be an excess of red meat or anything else deemed “harmful” to the planet will result in a carbon credit reduction.

Just stick to eating UN-recommended bugs and worms though and you’ll be sure to keep within your ration limit.

“We still have the power to thwart rule by experts through democratic means,” writes Wesley Smith. “But if we lack the courage, if we acquiesce—again—to significant liberty constraints in the name of protecting health, the soft totalitarianism we will have facilitated will not be their fault. It will be ours.”

As we previously highlighted, the idea of “climate lockdowns” is also being normalized in light of the mass compliance to pandemic lockdowns.

And they still claim that the ‘Great Reset’ is an “unfounded conspiracy theory.”

Read full story here…


UN Head Urgently States ‘We Need Multilateralism With Teeth’

The head of the UN states, “We must make lying wrong again.” This global gaslighting is astonishing after the UN has amply displayed its own culture of continuous lies on every front, fabricating and corrupting data to show whatever emergency situation that drives their Technocrat agenda. ⁃ TN Editor

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres issued a dire warning that the world is moving in the wrong direction and faces “a pivotal moment” where continuing business as usual could lead to a breakdown of global order and a future of perpetual crisis. Changing course could signal a breakthrough to a greener and safer future, he said.

The U.N. chief said the world’s nations and people must reverse today’s dangerous trends and choose “the breakthrough scenario.”

The world is under “enormous stress” on almost every front, he said, and the COVID-19 pandemic was a wake-up call demonstrating the failure of nations to come together and take joint decisions to help all people in the face of a global life-threatening emergency.

Guterres said this “paralysis” extends far beyond COVID-19 to the failures to tackle the climate crisis and “our suicidal war on nature and the collapse of biodiversity,” the “unchecked inequality” undermining the cohesion of societies, and technology’s advances “without guard rails to protect us from its unforeseen consequences.”

In other signs of a more chaotic and insecure world, he pointed to rising poverty, hunger and gender inequality after decades of decline, the extreme risk to human life and the planet from nuclear war and a climate breakdown, and the inequality, discrimination and injustice bringing people into the streets to protest “while conspiracy theories and lies fuel deep divisions within societies.”

In a horizon-scanning report presented to the General Assembly and at a press conference Friday, Guterres said his vision for the “breakthrough scenario” to a greener and safer world is driven by “the principle of working together, recognizing that we are bound to each other and that no community or country, however powerful, can solve its challenges alone.”

The report — “Our Common Agenda” — is a response to last year’s declaration by world leaders on the 75th anniversary of the United Nations and the request from the assembly’s 193 member nations for the U.N. chief to make recommendations to address the challenges for global governance.

In today’s world, Guterres said, “Global decision-making is fixed on immediate gain, ignoring the long-term consequences of decisions — or indecision.”

He said multilateral institutions have proven to be “too weak and fragmented for today’s global challenges and risks.”

What’s needed, Guterres said, is not new multilateral bureaucracies but more effective multilateral institutions including a United Nations “2.0” more relevant to the 21st century.

“And we need multilateralism with teeth,” he said.

In the report outlining his vision “to fix” the world, Guterres said immediate action is needed to protect the planet’s “most precious” assets from oceans to outer space, to ensure it is livable, and to deliver on the aspirations of people everywhere for peace and good health.

He called for an immediate global vaccination plan implemented by an emergency task force, saying “investing $50 billion in vaccinations now could add an estimated $9 trillion to the global economy in the next four years.”

The report proposes that a global Summit of the Future take place in 2023 that would not only look at all these issues but go beyond traditional security threats “to strengthen global governance of digital technology and outer space, and to manage future risks and crises,” he said.

It would also consider a New Agenda for Peace including measures to reduce strategic risks from nuclear weapons, cyber warfare and lethal autonomous weapons, which Guterres called one of humanity’s most destabilizing inventions.

The secretary-general said a new United Nations Futures Lab will publish regular reports “on megatrends and risks.”

He said the COVID-19 pandemic also exposed deficiencies in the global financial system.

To tackle these weaknesses and integrate the global financial system with other global priorities, Guterres proposed holding summits every two years of the 20 leading economies in the G20, the U.N.’s Economic and Social Council, the heads of international financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, and the U.N. secretary-general.

He also called for the correction of “a major blind spot in how we measure progress and prosperity,” saying Gross Domestic Product or GDP fails to account for “the incalculable social and environmental damage that may be caused by the pursuit of profit.”

“My report calls for new metrics that value the life and well-being of the many over short-term profit for the few,” Guterres said.

Read full story here…


Unraveling The Great Reset And The Irrational Global War On Carbon

People should not forget that they are carbon-based units and that a war on carbon is essentially a war against them. Nevertheless, the global elite represented by the WEF, central banks, NGOs, foundations and Blackrock are shoving their policies of Technocracy down our throat. ⁃ TN Editor

The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Great Reset has been sold to the public as an opportunity to build a sustainable, carbon neutral future. The ubiquitous sound bite of build back better, or “build back greener,” as UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently rephrased it, suggests that recovery from the economic devastation, following the alleged pandemic, is a chance for the world to “reset.”

Sustainable Development Goal 11 (b) of UN Agenda 2030 states:

By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards.. adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, written in 2015, states:

The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better.

With the 2020 emergence of the alleged global pandemic, human settlements have certainly been implementing plans. Fitting in perfectly with Agenda 2030, our leaders efforts to build back better are focused upon a recovery which appears to have been planned long before anyone had even heard of SARS-CoV-2.

A Vision for the Future

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) published their Vision 2050 document in 2010. Aiming to transform the global economy to meet Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), they said that a pathway would be needed. It would “require fundamental changes in governance structures, economic frameworks, business and human behaviour.” They envisaged two distinct periods of transformation.

The WBCSD is an organisation of 200 CEO’s from some of the world’s largest global corporations. It is the hub for more than 60 national and regional business councils and partner organisations including the United Nations, the EU Commission, the World Economic Forum (WEF), the World Bank, The World Health Organisation, The World Wildlife Fund, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ford Foundation and BlackRock.

They called the decade between 2010 to 2020 the Turbulent Teens. This would be the time to construct the mechanisms that would enable the fundamental changes to be established. Transformation Time would start in 2020, once the fundamental changes had been able to “mature into more consistent knowledge, behaviour and solutions.”

In their conclusion the WBCSD suggested how the process of moving from the Turbulent Teens into the Transformation Time could occur:

Crisis. Opportunity. It is a business cliché, but there is truth in it.

While for many of us 2020 was a disaster, the WBCSD were among the central planners of the new normal global economy for whom the global pandemic could not have arrived at a more opportune moment. It was a remarkable coincidence that the right crisis opportunity arrived precisely on schedule. In 2020 they updated their Vision 2050. Recognising that the time to transform had arrived, they said:

Despite its enormous human and financial cost, the COVID-19 pandemic has created an opportunity to drive and accelerate change at a completely different pace than we may have previously imagined to be possible.

Although they did imagine exactly this possibility. WBSCD partners, the WEF, have also been counting their lucky stars. The Covid-19 alleged global pandemic was an opportunity to make the significant social, economic and political changes they had long been hoping for:

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making … As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will … 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.

In his 2021 letter to CEO’s, Larry Fink, the chairman of BlackRock, also expressed his gratitude for BlackRock’s good fortune as he expanded on the unprecedented opportunity presented by Covid-19:

The pandemic has presented such an existential crisis … that it has driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully.. Markets started to price climate risk into the value of securities … then the pandemic took hold.. and the reallocation of capital accelerated even faster. I believe that this is the beginning of a long but rapidly accelerating transition – one that will unfold over many years and reshape asset prices of every type … the climate transition presents a historic investment opportunity.

Fink’s comments outline how the Build Back Better Great Reset is intended to work. Some people seem to think that sustainable development has got something to do with environmentalism, saving the planet or some other vague “green agenda.” Unfortunately, they are way off the mark.

Corporate Glue

Sustainable development means stakeholder capitalism as the corporate glue holding together a global network of public private partnerships who are collectively assuming the mantle of global governors. Under their stewardship the international monetary and financial system (IMFS) is being transformed. The stakeholder partner network is busy capitalising a $120 trillion Carbon Bond market as the foundation of the new IMFS.

Environmentalist campaigners like Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion perhaps imagine they are in the vanguard of a global environmentalist battle against climate change and the big polluters who are guilty of causing it. In reality, unwittingly or not, they are image leaders for the big polluters’ public relations department.

The same despised global corporations are key members of a global public private partnership which is using the ruse of climate change to establish the new IMFS. One that will consolidate their global economic power and thus their world wide authority.

Not only did the claimed global pandemic deliver the right crisis at precisely the right time, in another truly remarkable coincidence, it accustomed us to the behaviour changes required to live in our new, sustainable IMFS. Reduced travel, limited access to resources, low employment, austerity, reliance upon state financial support and new forms of currency based upon sustainable, stakeholder metrics, are all part of our planned net zero future.

WEF partners Deutsche Bank are certainly among the global corporations who are aware of this. They published an article in November 2020 in which their senior analyst Eric Heymann outlined what a carbon neutral economy portends:

The impact of the current climate policy on people’s everyday lives is still quite abstract. Climate policy comes in the form of higher taxes and fees on energy. If we really want to achieve climate neutrality, we need to change our behaviour in all these areas of life. A major turnaround in climate policy will certainly produce losers among both households and corporates. In addition, prosperity and employment are likely to suffer considerably. There are no adequate cost-effective technologies yet to allow us to maintain our living standards in a carbon-neutral way. That means that carbon prices will have to rise considerably in order to nudge people to change their behaviour. Another (or perhaps supplementary) option is to tighten regulatory law considerably. To what extent may we be willing to accept some kind of eco-dictatorship (in the form of regulatory law) in order to move towards climate neutrality?

This is congruent with the observations of both the former and current Bank of England Governors. Prior to his departure as governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney warned that companies unable to meet the SDG regulatory standards “will go bankrupt without question.” In other words, lines of credit, without which even multinational corporations cannot hope to function, will be limited only to those who can afford to implement the required changes.

More recently, now as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, the UK government special Advisor to the COP26 conference and a Board Trustee of the WEF, Carney reinforced his message and signalled to his stakeholder partners how the new IMFS would select the corporate winners and losers.

There will be industries, sectors and firms that do very well during this process because they will be part of the solution. But there will also be ones that lag behind and they will be punished.

The winners and losers won’t just apply to corporations. The new stakeholder IMFS does not appear to be based upon mass employment either. Recently the UK government released their Green Jobs Taskforce Report. Promising a glittering future of employment opportunities they cite the International Energy Agency (IEA) report Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. The IEA State:

The transition to net zero brings substantial new opportunities for employment, with 14 million jobs created by 2030 … In our pathway, around 5 million jobs are lost … meaning structural changes can cause shocks for communities with impacts that persist over time. This requires careful policy attention to address the employment losses. It will be vital to minimise hardships associated with these disruptions … locating new clean energy facilities in heavily affected areas wherever possible, and providing regional aid.

Pivotal Jobs

To be clear, green revolutionaries like Mark Carney and the IEA are suggesting that we can practically eliminate heavy industry, reduce manufacturing capacity virtually to nil, remove fossil fuels from the domestic and commercial energy market and, at the same time, increase employment. This will certainly come as a surprise to PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC), who are partners with both the Chatham House and the WEF.

In 2018 PwC modelled the Workforce of the Future. They presented a number of scenarios based upon megatrends and their assessments of how we might adapt to these apparently unavoidable impositions. Whichever model they outlined the common theme was increasing automation and AI domination of the workplace. Job losses are unavoidable they said, although new jobs will be created.

However, the scope and range of these new jobs appears to be extremely limited. These created jobs will be done by what PwC described as “pivotal people.” They have a very particular skill-set making them valuable to their corporate stakeholder employers. PwC predicted:

Those workers performing tasks which automation can’t yet crack, become more pivotal – and this means creativity, innovation, imagination, and design skills will be prioritised by employers. This view is supported by business leaders worldwide who responded to our most recent CEO survey … These are the ‘pivotal’ people.

It seems there will be meagre employment opportunities for the rest of us in our sustainable future. The few remaining jobs will be limited solely to those tasks that cannot be performed by automation or AI. Only the extraordinary people, with skills suited to the corporate stakeholders, will be of any value. There are many reasons to place considerable credibility in the 2013 study by Oxford University researchers which predicted that 47% of all jobs will be lost.

Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) considered what this new carbon future will mean for us, the ordinary folk. Again in 2018, the RIIA commissioned the Royal Society who conducted a review of the available literature on the impact of AI and automation. They found a distinct lack of research assessing the implications for us, as individuals. They found:

This evidence shows that the use of digital technology in work is linked with increasing polarisation of work between jobs mainly performed by workers with low levels of formal education (‘low-educated’) and jobs performed by high-educated workers … Individual losses from displacement related to automation have not yet been estimated but a broader literature suggests that these losses can be significant and persistent. This may … lead to significant increases in inequality, particularly if employers have significant market power.

So the basis for Green Jobs Taskforce and IEA confidence about job creation appears to be something of a mystery. It is probably worth noting that these are modelled predictions.

Carney’s successor as Governor of the Bank of England (BoE), Andrew Bailey, has already stated that it would be important to get rid of “unproductive jobs” and said that job losses, as a result of the “Covid-19 crisis,” were inevitable. Yet again the global pandemic has seemingly acclimatised us to the new carbon neutral economy.

Unprecedented ‘Economic’ Response

Mark Carney, then BoE Governor, participated in the G7 Central Bankers symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming four months before the first cases of Covid-19 were reported. At that meeting the largest investment management firm in the world, BlackRock, presented their report, titled Dealing With The Next Downturn, to the gathered central bankers. BlackRock stated:

Unprecedented policies will be needed to respond to the next economic downturn. Monetary policy is almost exhausted as global interest rates plunge towards zero or below. Fiscal policy on its own will struggle to provide major stimulus in a timely fashion given high debt levels and the typical lags with implementation.

BlackRock stated that the current IMFS would not be able to respond effectively to a major financial crisis:

Conventional and unconventional monetary policy works primarily through the stimulative impact of lower short-term and long-term interest rates. This channel is almost tapped out.

Fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) wouldn’t be able to respond to a significant “downturn” because government debt was off the charts. A lack of activity in the productive economy meant tax increases would be insufficient to respond to a major financial crash. Similarly monetary policy (creating money) was tapped out because interbank lending, and the associated bond markets, were close to implosion.

There was a sense of urgency among the G7 Bankers, as revealed by Mark Carney. In August 2019, speaking at the Jackson Hole symposium, he said:

Most fundamentally, a destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS is growing.. a multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS to realise its full potential. That won’t be easy. History teaches that the transition to a new global reserve currency may not proceed smoothly … Technological developments provide the potential for such a world to emerge. The Bank of England.. have been clear.. the terms of engagement for any new systemic private payments system must be in force well in advance of any launch.. perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies … the deficiencies of the IMFS have become increasingly potent. Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold … I will close by adding urgency to Ben Bernanke’s challenge. Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multipolar global economy that is emerging.

It is clear that the stakeholder capitalists had accepted that the existing IMFS was finished prior to the global pandemic. Therefore, BlackRock proposed another solution.

They recommended that an investment management firm, BlackRock for example, should be put in charge of hoovering up speculative securities and derivatives on behalf of governments. This could be done by bypassing all risk analysis, allowing central banks to purchase huge volumes of junk assets to fund government policy directly.

In doing so, BlackRock were suggesting that government fiscal policy should be controlled by central bank monetary policy. They were effectively establishing a system of central bank control of government policy. They called this “going direct.”

BlackRock said that going direct would only be required in the event of “unusual condition” arising from “unusual circumstances”. While the “unusual condition” would require a “permanent set-up,” going direct would only be used temporarily. Once fiscal policy objectives were achieved, which under their plan would also be monetary policy objectives, the temporary permanent set-up could then move on to the “exit strategy” placed on the “policy horizon.”

Too Big to Fail – Again

Just one month later those unusual conditions arose with the collapse of the repurchase agreement (repo) market in the US.

Repurchase agreements are short term loans, typically overnight, where bond dealers offer primarily government bonds to investors with an agreement to repurchase them at a higher price the next day. This marginal difference is the repo rate.

The repo market enables corporations and other bond holders to raise capital quickly. Investors can make a swift profit and, as the market mainly consists of safe securities (government bonds), the repo market is usually considered stable. It is a vital component of the interbank lending system where banks exchange central bank reserves to settle payments and move capital.

The repo rate is generally around 2% but on September 17th 2019 the US repo market ground to a halt forcing those holding Treasuries to raise the rate to 10% in one day. Despite this far more attractive rate, investors still didn’t enter the repo market. They should have jumped at the chance to make a quick killing from the hiked repo rate, but they didn’t.

When the repo market crashed just four US banking giants [JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citibank (Citigroup Inc.)] held 25% of Fed reserves and 50% of US Treasuries (US government bonds) between them. Their liquid assets were heavily skewed towards Treasuries. In their 2019 4th Quarterly Report the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) explained why this was a serious problem:

Repo markets redistribute liquidity between financial institutions: not only banks, but also insurance companies, asset managers, money market funds and other institutional investors. In so doing, they help other financial markets to function smoothly. Thus, any sustained disruption in this market … could quickly ripple through the financial system. The freezing-up of repo markets in late 2008 was one of the most damaging aspects of the Great Financial Crisis. The four largest US banks specifically turned into key players: their net lending position … increased quickly, reaching about $300 billion at end-June 2019. At the same time, the next largest 25 banks reduced their demand for repo funding.. swings in reserves are likely to have reduced the cash buffers of the big four banks and their willingness to lend into the repo market.

The BIS recognised that years of Quantitative Easing (virtual money printing,) following the 2008 financial crash, had provided so much liquidity to US commercial banks that they had less need to use the repo market. At the same time the biggest financial institutions were holding so many Treasuries that they were at risk of becoming their own customers. Far from being stable investments US Treasuries were looking distinctly shaky. This provided further disincentive to prospective repo market investors.

In addition, with so many reserves, fluctuation in the base rate made the biggest banks’ cash flows unstable. The BIS noted that, for these too big to fail banks, “their ability to supply funding at short notice in repo markets was diminished.” They added that this was “an underlying structural factor that could have amplified the repo rate reaction.”

The BIS then claimed that the Fed had “calmed markets” by embarking upon yet more QE (money creation) as they purchased the Treasuries from the banking giants clogging up the system. The financial mainstream media remained all but silent as the Fed pumped $6 trillion into Wall Street. The interbank lending system was seizing up again, just as it had in 2007.

Directly Funding Governments

BlackRock’s going direct plan, presented to the G7 in August 2019, started to take effect in September 2019 with the collapse of the repo market. Just a few months later, when the WHO declared the global pandemic, the economic conditions and circumstances became even more unusual. BlackRock explained how going direct enabled the economic response to the global pandemic:

The future evolution and global spread of the coronavirus outbreak is highly uncertain … containment and social distancing are ultimately achieved by reducing economic activity … That requires a decisive, pre-emptive and coordinated policy response … A comprehensive global response should have the following elements: … Generous sick-pay support and short-time work schemes to stabilize incomes and to limit job losses … expanding funding-for-lending facilities … Monetary policy should focus on preventing an unwarranted tightening in financial conditions and ensure the functioning of financial markets.

By going direct, central banks across the world, including the BoE, have engaged in unprecedented levels of QE to directly fund government spending during the global pandemic. This plan was devised in August 2019, seven months before the WHO declared a Covid-19 crisis. There is currently no sign of an end to what is effectively money creation on an unimaginable scale.

During the 2021 Cornwall G7 summit the financial media reported that “world leaders” had agreed to continue QE. They hadn’t agreed to continue anything, that decision was made months earlier by BlackRock and the gathered G7 bankers at Jackson Hole. We must cease our delusions that the political puppets paraded in front of the TV cameras are in charge. They don’t control anything.

In late May 2021 the central bankers of the G7 met again to discuss the new IMFS they were already constructing. Central bank governors joined representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank Group, OECD, Eurogroup and FSB (BIS). Through going direct, the attending G7 government finance ministers were instructed to follow whatever fiscal polices the bankers told them to implement.

Following their meeting the Central Bankers released their communiqué to the world:

We will continue to work together to ensure a strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive global recovery that builds back better and greener from the Covid-19 pandemic … We emphasise the need to green the global financial system so that financial decisions take climate considerations into account … We commit to increase and improve our climate finance contributions through to 2025, including increasing adaptation finance and finance for nature-based solutions … We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis.

BlackRock presented the G7 with the solution they would use in response to the pandemic. The lockdown policies caused the subsequent collapse of economies and global trade. This deepened the financial crisis that began with the repo failure. The central banks then increased the scale of going direct.

QE provided generous sick-pay support and short-time work schemes were used to stabilise incomes and limit job losses. There was never any scientific rationale or public health benefit for lockdowns. They were designed to create a comprehensive global response to expand funding-for-lending in order to protect and ensure the functioning of financial markets.

We now know what BlackRock’s exit strategy policy horizon looks like. It is the successful transition to a net zero, carbon neutral global economy. The central bankers will decide when these sustainable goals have been achieved and, until then, they are “going direct” and are firmly in charge of everything.

In January 2020, just as the global pandemic was building, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published their Metrics for Sustainable Value Creation. This established the SDG criteria by which all investment assets will be rated.

Any business that needs to raise capital will have to meet these requirements. They stipulate that the winners in this new IMFS will have the right (pivotal) people on its board, they will engage with the right stakeholders, their ethical behaviour will meet WEF approval and they will be able to afford all the necessary carbon offsets and other climate change adaptations.

In March 2020, as the pandemic was declared, the WEF combined their sustainable metrics into an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) score. The WEF stated:

In light of mounting evidence, activism and regulation, investors are including climate considerations in their investment decision‑making. For example, a group of investors managing $118 trillion in assets now expects companies to provide disclosures in accordance with the Task Force on Climate‑related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).

The mounting evidence was produced by computer models, the activists were people like Mark Carney, who threatened to make businesses bankrupt unless they complied, and the regulations (TCFD) were determined by the Financial Stability Board of the BIS. This meant the whole system ultimately came under the control of the Bank for International Settlements.

Global PPP – A Great Reset

By January 2021, the stakeholder capitalists agreed to “convergence.” ESG’s were established as the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics. Through a process they called “dynamic materiality,” the WEF constructed a mechanism to convert a commitment to SDGs into the basis for a new IMFS.

Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics define a sustainable investment as any in a company with good ESG rating. As climate change SDGs are underpinned by international agreements, high ESG rated companies are considered safe investments. Unless businesses can gain a good ESG rating they won’t survive.

Now the WEF wish to update their ESG rating to record ‘R’ for resilience. This typifies how this system is designed to operate. The rating system is arbitrary and entirely under the control of the senior partners in the global stakeholder public private partnership. Only those corporations most adept at jumping through the right hoops at the right time will gain benefit from the ESG (R?) Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics rating system. It’s a winner takes all game and the prize is tantalisingly close. The WEF state:

ESG, which has become a widely used set of metrics, involves analysing environmental, social and governance factors when determining which programmes, funds and companies to invest in. With this focus on transformation, the use of ESG frameworks will likely increase as many current and nascent businesses or new projects experience a windfall of incremental investment, both in private capital and by governments around the world: for example, the $1 trillion European Green Deal and the $2 trillion US sustainable infrastructure plan.

While it will be the right multinationals stakeholder corporations and private investors who profit from the transition to the new, carbon neutral IMFS the tax payer is subsidising it. No wonder they are so eager to combat climate change. In return for this, as pointed out by Deutsche Bank and others, we can expect our “prosperity and employment” to “suffer considerably.” This is starting to look like neofeudalism.

Janet Yellen, former Fed chair and current US Treasury Secretary, laid out how the favoured public private partnership stakeholders will be the financiers of the net zero corporate hegemony. For example, BlackRock already holds $200 billion in sustainable ETF securities. These track the performance of ESG rated investments, thus driving companies who need capital to commit to SDG’s. BlackRock intend to increase their ETF holding to £1 trillion by 2030 and are committed to their policy of “carbon transition readiness.”

Investors are hoovering up corporate bonds from the ESG high flyers and have already created a $17.1 trillion sustainable asset market. With $120 trillion in ESG assets already under the management of financial institutions like BlackRock, this is where investors are heading in the carbon neutral, tax payer funded gold rush.

This is the capitalisation of the carbon bond market that UK chancellor Rishi Sunak and other political mouthpieces have been so confident about. In order for this $120 trillion bond market to become the basis for a new IMFS, investors need to be strongly encouraged to purchase ESG rated assets. This process needs to continue at pace to complete the transformation.

To this end, on November the 9th 2020, Sunak announced that the UK intended to issue its sovereign green bond. The UK government stated that they would be making TCFD disclosures mandatory for all businesses, to encourage investment in new technologies “like stablecoins and Central Bank Digital Currencies.” The UK government stated:

The UK will become the first country in the world to make Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) aligned disclosures fully mandatory across the economy by 2025 … The UK will also implement a green taxonomy – a common framework for determining which activities can be defined as environmentally sustainable.

The UK government’s pretence that it is in control of this process is comical. The Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which determine ESG (R?) asset ratings aren’t managed by the UK government.

Giant global investment firms like BlackRock and global corporate institutions like the WEF and the WBSCD are controlling these investment strategies. Governments are just junior, facilitating partners in the global public private partnership.

The TCFD commitments they are compelling UK businesses to comply with are controlled by the FSB of the BIS. Not only are the central banks, under the authority of the BIS, going direct and funding global fiscal policy they are also determining how business will be conducted. In effect, thanks to the global pandemic, they are now in charge of economies around the world. Who we choose to vote for is irrelevant.

Regardless of what you think about the Covid-19 the fact is this: it has presented a global public private partnership with the perfect opportunity to reset the global economy. The social, economic, political and even cultural changes it has wrought dovetail precisely with those we must adopt to transition to the proposed carbon neutral economy. The opportunity has been seized to use the recovery to surge ahead with the creation of a new IMFS to replace the failing model that was close to complete collapse just months before the global pandemic was declared.

For the BIS and the global system of central banks they lead, the pandemic is the gift that just keeps giving. Not only has it delivered everything we have discussed but it is enabling them to seize all resources on Earth and control every aspect of our lives through a new monetary system. The new normal is very far from normal — something we will explore soon.

Read full story here…

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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:




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)


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…