September 21, 2021 | by Martin Armstrong
Any small businessman is always trying to improve his business and expand it to be more profitable. That seems to be a common trait but what you must understand is that the same human trait dominates the bureaucracies and it is dominant at the United Nations, et al. From the very beginning, those in the UN believed that they should rule the world, for the only way to stop World War III was a one-world government.
Sir Julian Sorell Huxley (eugenicist; "unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous"
From the very beginning, the UN saw democracy as a nuisance. The people were too STUPID to know what was best. How could they ever be relied upon to select world leaders? Julian Huxley, the first director of UNESCO, actually put in the founding documents that "unrestricted individualism is equally erroneous." In other words, the very idea of human rights, liberty, and freedom was equally as wrong as communism. The only kind of government was one that was authoritarian and not subject to the whims of the people. This has been the goal, and they are pulling it off.
The United Nations has produced a 26-page report outlining an action plan to address the various socio-economic impacts of COVID-19 and the DESTRUCTION of the world economy. This has been intentionally carried out to create this one-world government ultimately. The UN is at the helm and its subdivisions — the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Health Organization (WHO), World Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) — herein referred to as the UN Consortium.
The United Nations has been using climate change to create a one-world government order, but they have run into way too much resistance. So when they were not convincing people to hand them all the power they dreamed of using climate change, they switched and kick-started this grab for power using COVID-19. The origin of the virus was most likely a deliberate leak in China so that everyone would blame them.
This UN Consortium has moved on to something that allows them to use the threat that people will die IMMEDIATELY unless they surrender all their freedoms using COVID terrorism. So far, this has worked very well. Meanwhile, they have sold the fact that socialism is collapsing and the revolution will become inevitable, so we need the Great Reset to restructure a new world order eliminating Democracy in any meaningful manner. Oh, certainly they will allow you to think your vote means something like electing MPs in Europe when Parliament cannot do anything but show up for the cameras.
The climate change agenda was to seize industry and effectively nationalize them, but it was also the justification as to why the UN must be in charge since no single nation would be able to save the planet. They will do that now by virtually bankrupting them, and the state will just take them over. This scheme was even discussed in Germany to nationalize companies since they could not bail them out. For years, the IMF has wanted to replace the sovereignty of the nation-states with a neutral body of experts. This one-world government should be able to dictate financial policy to nation-states. Such a "government" would give the top finance bosses direct access to the savings accounts and assets of the citizens.
________
Source: UK Column
The Not So Great Carbon Reset
by IAIN DAVIS | Sunday, 25th July 2021
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:
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 CEOs 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:
Corporate Glue
Sustainable development means stakeholder capitalism as the corporate glue holding together a global network of public-private partnerships that 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 worldwide 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 behavioural 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:
More recently — now as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, the UK Government's Special Advisor to the COP26 conference and a Board Trustee of the WEF — Carney reinforced his message and signaled to his stakeholder partners how the new IMFS would select the corporate winners and losers.
Source: UK Column
The Not So Great Carbon Reset
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 CEOs 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.Yet they did imagine exactly this possibility. One WBSCD partner, 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 CEOs, 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.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.
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.
Corporate Glue
Sustainable development means stakeholder capitalism as the corporate glue holding together a global network of public-private partnerships that 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 worldwide 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 behavioural 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.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.
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?
More recently — now as the UN Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance, the UK Government's Special Advisor to the COP26 conference and a Board Trustee of the WEF — Carney reinforced his message and signaled 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 dichotomy 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, in turn, had stated:
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 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 artificial intelligence (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:
The 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, which 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 wrote:
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:
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 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 artificial intelligence (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.
The 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, which 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 wrote:
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:
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:
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 so doing, 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 an "unusual condition" arising from "unusual circumstances". While the "unusual condition" would require a "permanent set-up", nevertheless 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".
Please go to UK Column to read more.
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 so doing, 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 an "unusual condition" arising from "unusual circumstances". While the "unusual condition" would require a "permanent set-up", nevertheless 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".
Please go to UK Column to read more.
________
More on BlackRock:
More on BlackRock:
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.