Pseudopandemic
Page 29
A "global commons" is GPPP code for planet Earth, everything on it (including us) and all of its natural resources. The Earth and nature is the new commodity to be quantified, catalogued, divided and owned in the new global economy. It is not our planet, it is theirs. That is the claim of stakeholder capitalism.
In order for this global seizure of everything to work, we must be willing to accept this new state of affairs, recently termed the "new normal." This has been sold to us via the pseudopandemic.
We should be under no illusions as to what this means. In September 2020 the WEF put out a Great Reset promotional video [20] in which they stated "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy." What they meant was that the GPPP stakeholders they represent will own everything and they will be happy. Though "ownership," in the financial sense, is perhaps the wrong word. It is possession of the requirements for life that they seek, and the ultimate global dictatorial authority that comes with it.
The parasite class led GPPP are not imbued with god like omniscience. They are ordinary people, perfectly capable of making mistakes. Their promotional video backfired horrendously as it alerted a minority of millions to their pseudopandemic scam. The video was swiftly removed from the public domain.
It was inspired by an article, published by the WEF in 2016, originally titled "Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better." [21] Following the video calamity they changed the title of the article and added an explanatory note which did little to alleviate any misgivings. The realisation that this is the "thinking" behind stakeholder capitalism is a concern. You can still read the article with its original title, but only via Forbes [22].
The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF young global leader Ida Auken [23]. She presented the potential future where we will own nothing and be happy. Her explanatory note now says that she merely intended to start a debate and that her article did not attempt to describe a utopia. It certainly didn't, but the fact that she thought some might interpret it is such is baffling given the dystopian nightmare she described.
The U.N Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals [24] and associated SDG's are milestones along the path towards U.N Agenda 21 [25]. When GPPP stakeholders say they are committed to SDG's they mean Agenda 2030, in the short term, and ultimately Agenda 21. The most alarming aspect of Ida's article is not her suggestion that we might become AI controlled slaves whose lives are ordered by GPPP resource allocation, but that Agenda 21 (and 2030) contain the proposed legislative framework to make this hell a reality.
Agenda 21 has a lot to say about what it calls "human settlements." It lays out how they will be planned, constructed and managed by a public-private partnership. However, in constructing human settlements, human beings do not appear very high on the priority list. Objective 5.29 states:
"In formulating human settlements policies, account should be taken of resource needs, waste production and ecosystem health."
It isn't clear in either Agenda 21 or 2030 what will happen to the people who don't want to live in their allocated settlement. Ida may have been on to something when she wrote:
"My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city... Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over.. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city."
It appears that human settlements will be planned based upon resource allocation, waste management and environmental protections. This planning will be conducted by the democratically unaccountable public-private partnership (the GPPP). They will decide what resources the local settlement can access. Objective 7.30. d. states:
"Encourage partnerships among the public, private and community sectors in managing land resources for human settlements development."
Objective 10 of Agenda 21 spells out how land will be managed by the GPPP:
"The broad objective is to facilitate allocation of land to the uses that provide the greatest sustainable benefits and to promote the transition to a sustainable and integrated management of land resources.. evaluation systems for land and.. strengthen institutions and coordinating mechanisms for land and land resources"
Land will be allocated via GPPP management processes based upon sustainability goals. This will be supported by State franchise policy which will plan and evaluate land systems and resources. GPPP institutions will coordinate the mechanisms of this land allocation as the population transition to the new system.
This means the GPPP will have to manage everything to keep us safe. They will need to implement:
"Practices that deal comprehensively with potentially competing land requirements for agriculture, industry, transport, urban development, green spaces, preserves and other vital needs."
We won't be able to choose where we live due to "the adverse consequences of unplanned settlements in environmentally vulnerable areas." Therefore "appropriate national and local land-use and settlements policies" will be required for this purpose. This means the GPPP will have to create "protected areas."
This will necessitate supranational and global governance because "protected areas in transboundary locations" will cross national borders. The GPPP can manage this if they "enhance the capacity of governmental and private institutions, at the appropriate level, responsible for protected area planning and management."
As Ida Auken envisaged:
"Nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being."
You certainly won't be able to build a house in a "protected area," or even near one, because the GPPP have to "promote environmentally sound and sustainable development in areas adjacent to protected areas with a view to furthering protection of these areas." They will extend the areas for protection through "appropriate land-use policies" and the introduction of "planning regulations specially aimed at the protection of eco-sensitive zones against physical disruption."
Privately owned land will also fall under the control of the GPPP as they seek to "encourage the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of biological and genetic resources on private lands." In our sustainable future, where we own nothing, the idea is that we will be allowed to be "land users." Fortunately for us the GPPP will "establish appropriate forms of land tenure that provide security of tenure for all land users."
In order to divide the Earth's resources and allocate them to themselves the planet needs to be turned into assets with some sort of unit value. Agenda 21 explains how this process will occur:
"All countries should consider.. undertaking a comprehensive national inventory of their land resources in order to establish a land information system in which land resources will be classified according to their most appropriate uses.. Build an inventory of different forms of soils, forests, water use, and crop, plant and animal genetic resources."
To protect the Earth from the harm caused by humanity, population control will be required. To ensure we stay away from "protected areas" and remain within the confines of out allocated "human settlements" a policy framework for the GPPP stakeholder management of the global population is proposed in Agenda 21:
"An assessment should also be made of national population carrying capacity.. special attention should be given to critical resources, such as water and land, and environmental factors, such as ecosystem health and biodiversity.. Population programmes should be consistent with socio-economic and environmental planning.. Population programmes should be implemented along with natural resource management and development programmes.. that will ensure sustainable use of natural resources."
The population carrying capacity of the nation will be calculated. Population programmes will be implemented to ensure the sustainable use of natural resources based upon that calculation.
Many people point out that Agenda 21, written in 1992, and Agenda 2030, produced in 2015, aren't treaties and can't be
enforced in international law. They claim that they are simply an environmentalist's wish lists, based upon nothing more than the worthy intention to manage the climate crisis for the benefit of the whole of humanity.
This assumes the people who designed these sustainable goals share that concern and didn't, in fact, intend to exploit people's fear of climate change to further their own agenda. Regardless of their legal status Agenda 21 and 2030 have already had an immense global impact.
There is not a single policy area or administrative region in the entire developed world that hasn't been influenced by sustainable development. At a global policy level the obsession with Sustainable Development Goals is even more pronounced. They may be a wish list but they are wishes being enacted as hard policy everywhere.
We are about to discuss numerous examples of planned policy initiatives that have come to fruition as a result of the pseudopandemic. For example, SDG 11 (b) of 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 [26], 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."
The pseudopandemic has substantially increased the global integration of plans to adapt to climate change and build resilience to disasters. Right on schedule, the pseudopandemic provided the GPPP with the opportunity to "Build Back Better." Fitting in perfectly with Agenda 2030 and Agenda 21.
Sources:
[1] - https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0096.xml
[2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210203103030/https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621149/bp-the-inequality-virus-250121-en.pdf
[3] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-17/global-debt-hits-all-time-high-as-pandemic-boosts-spending-need
[4] - https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/052715/how-big-derivatives-market.asp
[5] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210320151855/https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/13066/file/Main%20Report.pdf
[6] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200505015248/https://www.wanttoknow.info/articles/tragedy_hope_banking_money_history
[7] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings
[8] - https://archive.is/J4S3x
[9] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101085710/https://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-davos-world-economic-forum-conference-2020-1?op=1&r=US&IR=T
[10] - https://www.weforum.org/partners#search
[11] - https://web.archive.org/web/20191203054643/https://time.com/5742066/klaus-schwab-stakeholder-capitalism-davos/
[12] - https://thelawdictionary.org/trustee/
[13] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201117022212/https://www.weforum.org/great-reset
[14] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200713065938/https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/un-75-now-time-%E2%80%9Cbuild-back-better
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201116103849/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/to-build-back-better-we-must-reinvent-capitalism-heres-how/
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200207220944/https://www.weforum.org/projects/frontier-2030
[17] - https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8041/-Our%20Planet_%20GLOBAL%20COMMONS%20%20The%20planet%20we%20share-20111059.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y
[18] - https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/untaskteam_undf/thinkpieces/24_thinkpiece_global_governance.pdf
[19] - https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2020-12-02/address-columbia-university-the-state-of-the-planet
[20] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201106025212/https://twitter.com/wef/status/799632174043561984
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201120092841/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/how-life-could-change-2030/
[22] - https://archive.is/BZW2Y
[23] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201124081850/https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/ida-auken
[24] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210614062955/https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
[25] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200616051832/https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20210427125512/https://www.unisdr.org/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf
Chapter 14 - Population Control Eugenics
History and John Stuart Mill teaches us: "bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing."
The ugly reality exists and our desire to look away does nothing to address it. The parasite class' commitment to population control has a long history. Protecting the planet is just an excuse to pursue it.
Faith in their own divine right to rule gave them the conceit to assume the power of life and death. They sought to legitimise this through the pseudo-science of eugenics [1].
In 1798, the economist Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population As It Affects the Future Improvement of Society. He ventured that human population would grow exponentially and outstrip the food supply, thus resulting in famine and political upheaval. In order to avert what his acolytes still see as the inevitable disaster, Malthusian doctrine declares that human population growth must be limited.
Malthusian thinking influenced Darwin's theory of evolution, first published in the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection in 1859. In the preface Darwin wrote that his theory was:
"An application of the theories of Malthus to the entire animal and vegetable kingdom.”
Later, in his 1871 publication the Descent of Man, Darwin stated that weaker races would be diminished and potentially wiped out. Darwin saw war, famine, disease and other destructive forces as part of the process of natural selection.
In 1883 Francis Galton [2] (Darwin's cousin) coined the term eugenics to provide an alleged scientific basis for the highly dubious sociopolitical philosophy of Social Darwinism [3].
Social Darwinism advocated that human society functioned like a biological organism. Just as the theory of evolution suggested that the struggle for life resulted in adaptation which gave species physical advantages, so Social Darwinism claimed that society was also a biological system of sorts. It was competitive by nature and therefore individuals and cultures with better "social standing" would and should dominate. Thereby facilitating an ordered society for the public good.
Galton proposed the law of ancestral heredity. He believed that it wasn't just physical traits that were inherited but also a range of other attributes, from talents to morality.
Based upon his cousin's scientific ideas, he considered it possible to control human populations through selective breeding. Galton's eugenics was a social movement, rather than a science. He advocated positive eugenics, breeding "good stock," and negative eugenics, limiting "defective stock." Thus Galton grandiosely defined eugenics as:
"The science of improving the human stock by giving the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable."
The son of a banker, who despite considerable advantage didn't make the most of his education, Galton's predetermined intention was to use the scientific principles developed by others to justify the prevailing social order. In 1865 he published Hereditary Talent and Character [4]. Galton made it clear what his purpose was:
"The power of man over animal life, in producing whatever varieties of form he pleases, is enormously great. It would seem as though the physical structure of future generations was almost as plastic as clay, under the control of the breeder's will. It is my desire to show....that mental qualities are equally under control."
<
br /> Galton believed nature, rather than nurture, determined good character, morality and intellectual superiority. Qualities he attributed in abundance to the ruling class of which he was a part. He set about proving his own conviction that it was the philanthropic duty of his class to control the population through selective breeding.
In Hereditary Genius [5] (1869) he attempted to provide a scientific rationale for his hypothesis. Galton wasn't particularly innovative. His notion of hereditary characteristics was based upon Darwin's concept of inheritance and the experiments of Gregor Mendel, who described dominant and recessive traits in his work with the selective breeding of pea plants.
We now know that genes determine a wide variety of characteristics in human beings. There is evidence that genes can affect our behaviour [6], predisposing us towards gregariousness, empathy or aggression for example. To this limited extent, some of Galton's wider theories had some merit.
However, eugenics itself was pure pseudo-science. It was formed from little more than a series of assumptions drawn primarily from the misinterpretation of other's ideas. It deployed meaningless terms to describe assumed genetic characteristics that didn't exist. Social deprivation was not the consequence of injustice or subjugation but rather "bad breeding." Other allegedly undesirable characteristics such as disability, psychiatric disorders and substance dependence were equally considered the product of unsuitable breeding among the defective stock.
Today we know that genes do not express themselves (take effect) in isolation of our environment. Epigenetic modification [7] is the process by which our environment, and the resultant physiological and psychological effects, alter gene expression. There is an intricate relationship between combined gene expression, life events, environmental stimulus, biological disturbance and more which determines how genes impact our lives.