A Closer Look at the Great Reset

A Fake Utopia Sold to Us by Sheisters

As the drums keep beating the same tune, expect to hear much more about The Great Reset and building back better. Far from resulting in a low-carbon dream life, though, it’s a cartoonish fantasy that will hand the global Ubermeisters complete power. Meanwhile, you are beaten mercilessly to accept the vaxx, now on its fourth iteration.  The desperation on the part of the power mongers is that their scheme of mass genocide is becoming visible to the point where even empty-headed followers are now frightened by what they see as the results of their folly.

Rather than seeing strong healthy specimens, survivors of the fake scam covid disease, the vaxx’d are mostly racing to the hospital emergency rooms with a whole new set of symptoms based on myocarditis and massive blood clotting, leading to death. This is stemming directly from the novel vaxx-disease plandemic.

Now we have a real plandemic in place of the fake covid19 fabricated scamdemic.  Except this one has these ‘vaxx’d’ locked into a pathology where there is no vaxx for this vaxx disease.  This is just straight out graphene oxide poisoning that kills all who have voluntarily accepted this poison and keep returning for more.

So, What’s Next?

The Great Reset’ is a term that has been bandied about quite readily by most Western neo-liberal politicians. So often, in fact, and without proper explanation, that it strikes the prudent observer as a kind of paid advertisement.  Kind of exactly what the Great Vaxx Campaign advertising program looked like.

But what is it exactly? The term rose to prominence at the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in June 2020. Imagine, the 50th annual meeting of the WEF, 49 of which must have taken place in Prince Charles private bathroom.   It was initially launched by the Prince of Wales, before being absorbed into the philosophy of the sartorially dystopian sci-fi villain Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the WEF, formerly known as SPECTRE, under the direction Klaus Stavro Blofeld.

The Great Reset refers to the UN plan to rebuild the world’s infrastructure ‘in a sustainable way’ following the economic ravages of the Covid-19 scamdemic and to establish a global treaty to prevent future  manufactured scamdemics, or as it is described more formally, to “build a more robust international health architecture that will protect future generations.” If you ever hear people talking about “building back better,” they are referring to The Great Reset of SPECTRE. The term ‘better’ refers only to their idea of ‘better’, not yours. And, the term ‘build back’ refers to the UN sustainable development that has room for only 500 million plandemic survivors.

Probably the most disturbing part of The Great Reset is how much it strongly resembles business-as-usual, only with EXTRA globalism and very small consumption. You may say “why would they want ‘small consumption? Wouldn’t they make a lot more money with a lot more consumers?”. The answer may surprise you. No, they do not care one whit about the funny money that they create for free, in as large a quantity as they chose. This funny money has zero value for them. They can just print it up and drop in in the mail to everyone. It is still worthless. It does not establish a basis for economics.

Most of the plan’s outlines include a further weakening of national boundaries and individual national autonomy, in favor of a more ‘universal global governance under the UN. As usual, it is the rapidly vanishing Western middle class which must shoulder this burden, as their freedoms are further curtailed to meet the quotas of corporate-media-fueled activism.

Regardless, many world leaders, no doubt charmed into acquiescence by Schwab’s commandingly sinister Blofeld-esque wardrobe, agreed to the Great Reset, including Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Angela Merkel, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, Mark Rutte, Pedro Sánchez, Erna Solberg and Volodymyr Zelensky. According to John Kerry, Joe Biden’s administration is on board, too.  He unfortunately did not show up for the meeting, having somehow forgotten the date, place and time.

But the general agreement of the Western leaders is absolutely typical of any agenda which is espoused by the UN’s WEF. If an emotionally charged, politically vague and ultimately ineffectual edict or bill is proposed by one of these entities – each resembling a shabby, globe-trotting team of insurance salesmen – our effete politicians line up to show the most fervent compliance and support.

As a rule, it seems their solutions to specific environmental or scientific problems mysteriously become entwined with LGBTQ+ rights, workplace equity, open borders initiatives and other unrelated social justice causes that are not social justice causes at all. Just ways to justify their actions in some twisted manner. It’s as though any goals they have are somehow unilaterally from the same source, or entail the same solution, regardless of causality or consequence. Therefore, a united response to a global scamdemic mysteriously also equals trans rights activism and transhumanism.

In their own words“No single government or multilateral agency can address this (scamdemic) threat alone. Together, we must be better prepared to predict, prevent, detect, assess and effectively respond to scamdemics in a highly coordinated fashion.”

There are many other sweeping sentiments expressed by Schwab and his acolytes which can seem either trite or threatening. Consider “the gulf between what markets value and what people value” and “we want more attention paid to scientific experts. No one can “self-isolate” from climate change so we all need to “act in advance and in solidarity.” There is much talk of the pursuit of “fairer and equitable outcomes.”

International treaties always tend to be about concentrating power. It’s one of those rules of life, for realists, as there is no escaping power dynamics in human affairs. Real problems don’t often have feel-good solutions. Often, they require ‘solutions that sound mean’, that don’t sound good on a corporate goals bulletin. Initiatives like The Great Reset all entail the gradual loss of the autonomy of individual nations, as their decision-making power is transferred to an international, disembodied rule-maker.

It has been, without a doubt, a globalist fantasy for a long time, but the key question is: do they realize what they are doing or not?

As far as their amazing coordinated scamdemic response goes, this appears to be nothing more than forced world-wide vaxxinations for EVERYBODY, over and over again and again. According to Klaus Schwab himself: “As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe.” To which the attendant neo-liberal world leaders nodded in re-affirming unison, repeating in unison their mantra: “Global public good.”

BREAKING! Klaus Schwab Calls for Global Health Pass Based on Implantable Microchip.

Very Detailed Explanation of the Great Reset and the New World Order

What is this “Great Reset” we’re now hearing about? In a nutshell, the Great Reset refers to a global agenda to monitor and control the world through digital surveillance, ala 5G.

As explained by journalist James Corbett in his October 16, 2020, Corbett Report: the Great Reset is a new “social contract” that ties every person to it through an electronic ID linked to your bank account and health records, and a social credit ID that will end up dictating every facet of your life.

It’s about getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise, and replacing them with the UN Agenda 21, “sustainable development” and “stakeholder capitalism” — terms that belie their nefarious, anti-humanity intents.

“… Sustainable Development is Technocracy … The Sustainable Development movement has taken careful steps to conceal its true identity, strategy and purpose, but once the veil is lifted, you will never see it any other way. Once its strategy is unmasked, everything else will start to make sense.”

The Grand Plan

In her blog post “The Great Reset for Dummies,” Tessa Lena summarizes the purpose behind the call for a global “reset”:

“The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that, thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust — but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as ‘their limited resources.’  And, the need to clear the playing field of the all-to-numerous “useless eaters”.

Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air — literally — while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with ‘behavioral modification,’ a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful ‘privilege’).  The Queen was quite serious when she declared that the “useless eaters” are a plague, a scourge upon the Earth, that requires immediate rectification.

The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet itself.

I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill created by humans on your property.

Just ants (humans) and numbers, your assets.

Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

One, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology).

And two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest ‘science.’

And, that all inventory be culled of the obsolete, inefficient destructive humans who have outlived their usefulness.

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital … precision — all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability.”

Global Asset Reallocations Will Not Benefit ‘The People’

These new global “assets” can also be turned into brand new financial instruments that can then be traded. An example of this was given by Vandana Shiva, Ph.D

.In it, she explained how India is headed toward Zero-Budget Natural Farming — a brand-new concept of farming in which farmers must trade the carbon rate in their soil on the global market if they want to make a living. They’ll get no money at all for the crops they actually grow.

There’s not a single aspect of life that is left out of this Great Reset plan.

The planned reform will affect everything from government, energy and finance to food, medicine, real estate, policing and even how we interact with our fellow human beings in general.

Privacy protections, of course, are a major hurdle in this plan, which is why every effort is made to get people to open their views on the right for privacy.  Do you think “opening your views on ceding the right to privacy” is the correct answer?

In the U.S., we also have the Constitution that stands in the way, which is why efforts to undermine, circumvent, ignore or nullify it are increasing. Having succeeded in liberal programs to ‘dunb down the public-educated individuals’, most do not have a real conception of the Constitution and take a “Biden knows best” attitude about such matters.

“To sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously unavailable, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory.

“It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account — perhaps without any human intervention at all,” Lena writes.

Stakeholder Capitalism

An October 5, 2020, Winter Oak article addressed the “technocratic fascist vision” of professor Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum who wrote the book on the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Schwab announced the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset Initiative in June 2020, which includes stripping all people of their privately owned assets. There is no ownership of private property among the world of humans, which now numbers around 500 million persons total.

In addition to being a staunch technocrat, Schwab also has a strong transhumanist bent, and he has spoken of a near future in which humans merge with machines and in which law enforcement will be able to read our mind.

Winter Oak — a British nonprofit social justice organization — points out that Schwab and his globalist accomplices are using the COVID-19 scamdemic “to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of the unwitting humankind.”

This is no conspiracy theory. The plan is out in the open. As noted by Time magazine, “The COVID-19 scamdemic has provided a unique opportunity to think about the kind of future we want.”

Ultimate Proof: Covid-19 was Planned to Usher In The New World Order

The same statement has been delivered by a number of politicians and organizations around the world in recent months.

Schwab’s book, “COVID-19: The Great Reset” also urges industry leaders and decision makers to “make good use of the scamdemic” and “not letting the crisis go to waste.” This amounts to outright admission that the covid19 scamdemic was planned and perpetrated against humanity.

Incidentally, the owner of Time magazine and founder of Salesforce, Mark Benioff, is also a board member of the World Economic Forum, so he’s clearly familiar with the reset plan and all the rest of the skullduggery.

The problem is that while the plan is being sold as a way to finally make life fair and equitable for all people, the required sacrifices do not apply to the technocrats running the system.

Ultimately, the Great Reset will result in two tiers of people: the technocratic elite, who have all the power and rule over all assets, and the rest of humanity, who have no power, no assets and no say-so in anything. This is clearly the reason why currency will be obsolete in this scheme.

While technocracy is not a political system but an economic one, in practical terms it does resemble fascism. None of it is being sold under the banner of fascism, of course.  But there will be no on-going need to maintain the illusion of individual freedom, so politics, politicians and that whole dialectic will be no more.

Instead, they use financial terms like “stakeholder capitalism,” described by Forbes magazine11 as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community and society as a whole.”

In that same article, Forbes points out that this strategy has already been tried and failed. But it could never work without the drastic reduction in the human population.

It failed because balancing conflicting stakeholder claims was near-impossible and only led to mass confusion and poor returns.

The failure of this strategy is what led big businesses to focus on maximizing shareholder value instead. Now, shareholder implies stock market equity, but this will have been totally phased out of existence too.  “Humans will own nothing and be happy about it.”

Now, at a time when big business finds itself under attack for “single-mindedly shoveling money to its shareholders and its executives at the expense of customers, employees, the environment and society as a whole,” the answer, they say, is to return to stakeholder capitalism. Which, in the case at hand, means humans will have no skin in this game.  Humans will have no currency with which to purchase anything.  Humans will have no right to own anything.

Great Reset Plan for Big Food

A November 9, 2020, article in The Defender, a new media platform by the Children’s Health Defense, also points out the problems with the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset plan for the food industry:

“The architects of the plan claim it will reduce food scarcity, hunger and disease, and even mitigate climate change. But a closer look at the corporations and think tanks the WEF is partnering with to usher in this global transformation suggests that the real motive is tighter corporate control over the food system by means of technological solutions.” It is going to require a small fraction of the prior food supply to feed only 500 million humans, compared to 8 billion.

Aside from the food industry, partners include data mining giants, telecommunications, weapons manufacturers, finance, drug companies and the biotechnology industry. But the same observation holds true in all sectors.  With a tiny fraction of the present population, who are under direct control at all times, the needs will shrink proportionally.

Looking at that list, it should come as no surprise that the World Economic Forum insists the future of food and public health hinges on genetically modified organisms (GMOs), laboratory-grown protein, drugs and industrial chemicals.  The rats (people) are going to be in a program with no latitudes.  Nature is totally out of the equation.  Artificial is totally in.

The EAT Forum and the Rise of Food Imperialism

To further the fake food takeover, the World Economic Forum has partnered with the ‘EAT Forum’, which will set the political agenda for global food production, none of which will resemble what most know as ‘farming’.

The EAT Forum was cofounded by the Wellcome Trust, which in turn was established with the financial help of GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals.

EAT currently collaborates with nearly 40 city governments across Africa, Europe, Asia, North and South America and Australia, and maintains close relationships with imitation meat companies such as Impossible Foods, which was cofounded by Google, Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates.

As noted by The Defender, the ultimate aim is to “replace wholesome nutritious foods with genetically modified artificial lab creations.”

To this end, EAT is working with the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to establish global dietary guidelines and sustainable development initiatives.

The “Planetary Health Diet” developed by EAT is a diet that is supposed to replace all others.  These idiots apparently are unable to see the symbiotic relationship between animals, plants and invertebrates in this habitat.  They want to cut down large healthy forests, dig enormous holes, and bury the trees with the goal of stopping CO2 emissions by plants.  They apparently do not realize that the plants take in CO2 and outgas Oxygen, while animals intake the Oxygen while outgassing CO2, in harmony. But they could not possibly be this stupid, so another agenda is at play here, that is yet unmentioned.

Federic Leroy, a food science and biotechnology professor at University of Brussels told The Defender:

“The diet aims to cut the meat and dairy intake of the global population by as much as 90% in some cases and replace it with lab-made foods, cereals and oil.”

Vandana Shiva, Ph.D., has raised harsh critique against the proposed diet saying it “is not about nutrition at all. It’s about big business and it’s about a corporate takeover of the food system.”

The Defender adds:

“According to EAT’s own reports, the big adjustments the organization and its corporate partners want to make to the food system are ‘unlikely to be successful if left up to the individual,’ and the changes they wish to impose on societal eating habits and food ‘require reframing at the systemic level with hard policy interventions that include laws, fiscal measures, subsidies and penalties, and other economic and structural measures.’

But Shiva said this is the wrong approach, because ‘all of the science’ shows that diets should be centered around regional and geographical biodiversity. She explained that ‘EAT’s uniform global diet may be produced with western technology and agricultural chemicals. Or, the food may be produced with Asian ingredients.  Or, the food may be totally bland and neutral in taste.  It is doubtful that special care will be taken to flavor the food according to some ethnic taste.

However, Shiva forgets that the total population of humans on the planet is going to be under 500 million and there will be no sovereign nations.  No farming of the traditional nature will be permitted.  Humans will not own farm equipment and land.  They will not own food processing facilities nor distribution means.  This may be hard to grasp, but it is just as simple as can be.

The Future of Food and Health Care

You can get a feel for where the future of food is headed by analyzing the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence map.

As you can see, this top-down approach ties food production to a wide range of sectors, including biotech, the chemical industry, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and the digital economy.  But not to seeds, tractors, reapers, land, silos, processing plants or delivery trains.

For more details on Schwab and the World Economic Forum’s strategic intelligence plan, see Covert Geopolitic’s article, “Breaking Down the Global Elite’s Great Reset Master Plan.”

If any of this raises your concern, you’re probably not going to like what the World Health Economic Forum has in store for health care reform either. As detailed on their website:

“Our current capital intensive, hospital-centric model is unsustainable and ineffective. The Platform for Shaping the Future of Health and Healthcare leverages a data-enabled delivery system and virtual care, integrated across the continuum of care from precision prevention to personalized care delivery.”

Aiding the World Economic Forum in this health care transformation are the biggest corporate criminals in the history of the modern world, including Bill Gates, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Pfizer, Novartis and a host of others.

These companies have at various times been found guilty of all sorts of crimes that they have paid tens of billions of dollars in fines for.  All with ‘funny money’, of course.

They are also loaded with conflicts of interest in nearly every venture they are involved with.

Yet we’re now supposed to believe these companies are going to put aside their profit incentives and fix the whole system? No, there will be no profit incentives.  They already own everything and do not need a lot more toilet paper.

Build Back Better

As noted in a July 21, 2020, World Economic Forum article, the economic devastation caused by COVID-19 scamdemic shutdowns “has the potential to hobble global prosperity indefinitely.” The truth is, ‘global prosperity’ cannot be referred to in dollars or currency, which will no long exist.  No one will be vying for prosperity, because all assets will already belong to the Ubermensch, just the same as it is right now.  Only the illusions of freedom and property ownership will have disappeared.

But while at it, countries are urged to make sure the economic system is “built back better.”  You may have gleaned some ideas as to what that phrase really means.  Everything that is ‘better’ is not from the perspective of the humans. It’s from the perspective of the Ubermensch.

Make no mistake, this catchy slogan is part and parcel of the Great Reset plan and cannot be separated from it, no matter how altruistic it may sound. As reported by Fox News:

“A radical movement called the Great Reset embraced by some Democrats poses a grave threat to liberty and free markets in the United States and around the world … The Great Reset intends to eliminate individual freedoms for the small group of survivors, who will be used so long as they are worth feeding and cleaning up after.  When a point is reached, they will be sent on to the next dimension of existence.

It would destroy the current capitalist system and replace it with progressive and modern socialist systems, with a special emphasis placed on eco-socialist policies …

Policy ideas offered by ‘Great Reset’ advocates include government-provided basic income credit programs, universal health care, massive tax increases and the Green New Deal …

For example, at a campaign event on July 9, Biden said we need to end the ‘era of shareholder capitalism,’ a major part of the Great Reset proposal that would alter how companies are evaluated, elevating social justice causes and climate change concerns and eliminating property rights.

The Build Back Better plan comes straight from the Great Reset’s playbook … As recently as July 13, the World Economic Forum promoted ‘building back better’ through ‘green’ infrastructure programs as part of the Great Reset …”

Read: Joe Biden’s Campaign Slogan ‘Build Back Better’ Was Actually Taken From UN’s New World Order Agenda

Part of the “building back better” is to shift the financial system over to an all-digital credit system, which in turn is part of the system of social control, as it can easily be used to incentivize desired behaviors and discourage undesired ones.

An August 13, 2020, article on the Federal Reserve website discusses the supposed benefits of a central bank digital currency credit (CBDC).

There’s general agreement among experts that most major countries will implement CBDC within the next two to four years.

Many uninformed people believe that these new CBDCs will be very similar to existing cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, but they would be mistaken.  The block chain crypto currencies will all become non-viable, and recognized as the Ponzi schemes they are.  No form of tender will be permitted outside of the technocratic system of digital credits.

Bitcoin, along with all other private currency schemes will be worthless post RESET.  No form of tender other that that issued by the government will be legal or employable. The government will periodically update your credit balance based on performance criteria they have established.  You will be able to redeem your credits only at designated outlets, all controlled and operated by the government.  Nothing will be private.

The Great Reset Psyops Guide

It goes without saying that to achieve the kind of radical transformation of every part of society has its challenges. No person in their right mind would agree to it if aware of the details of the whole plan. With a small population under a tight thumb, options for defying the rules of the system will be few to none.  Punishment will likely be death.

So, to roll this out, they had to use psychological manipulation, and fear is the most effective tool there is.

As explained by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, there’s an entire school of public health research that focuses on identifying the most effective ways to frighten people into accepting desired public measures.

By adding confusion and uncertainty to the mix, you can bring an individual from fear to anxiety — a state of confusion in which one can no longer think logically — and in this state, you are more easily manipulated.

The following graphic illustrates the central role of fearmongering for the successful rollout of the Great Reset.

Social Engineering is Central to Technocratic Rule

In closing, keep in mind that technocracy is inherently a technological society run through social engineering.

Fear is but one manipulation tool. The focus on “scientism” is another. Anytime someone dissents, they’re simply accused of being “anti-scientism,” and any scientism that conflicts with the status quo is declared “debunked science.”

The only science that matters is whatever the technocrats deem to be true, no matter how much evidence there is against it.

We’ve seen this first hand during this scamdemic, as Big Tech has censored and banned anything going against the opinions of the World Health Organization, which is just another cog in the technocratic machine.  Almost every detail of the scamdemic is patently false, and has factual data proving the bogus data or claims of efficacy.  That has not slowed down the narrative one iota.  They just continue repeating the lies as though the data has demonstrated them to be true.

If we allow this censorship to continue, the end result will be nothing short of devastating. We simply must keep pushing for transparency and truth. We must insist on medical freedom, personal liberty and the right to privacy. At this moment, when less than half the US population has taken the vaxx, the power balance may be in favor of the humans, should they all become aware of the scams under which they are living.

One fight in particular that I don’t see us being able to evade is the fight against mandatory COVID-19 vaxxinations. This is the essential strategy to reduce human the population of the world to 500 million.

If we don’t take a firm stand against that and fight for the right to make our own choice, there will be no end to the medical tyranny that will follow. As noted in the Covert Geopolitics article:  Conceding this issue will leave the population of humans devastated to the point of failure without any hope of future opposition.  That is what the current hysterical race is all about.  They need only get one inoculation into each person, and the ‘walking dead syndrome’ will take from there.

“As you might have guessed, ‘the most important lie to be spoon fed to the humans is for acceptance of a COVID-19 vaxxination … The implication is that without a vaxxine the world will be always be unable to return to any sense of normality, particularly in terms of open interaction with your fellow man.

You can actually participate in the global efforts to cripple the Deep State organized criminal cabal’s ability for genocide, while enjoying healthcare freedom at the same time, by boycotting Big Pharma for good.

Schwab, despite appearing like an immortal brothel-keeper at Kublai Khan’s Xanadu, is really cut from the same cloth as your typical EU technocrat. His ideas are not creative, they are quite staid and pedestrian, and research of his career shows they have been unchanged since the 1970s. He has consistently been preaching the very same thing, like a broken record.

Schwab believes that once the population of humans in the world is below 500 million, the excesses of capitalism will be controllable by an iron-fisted Nazi Tyranny, to whom the corporations will be held accountable, while (conveniently) the elites and systems already in place will continue as they are. This is the master plan of the World Economic Forum, largely unchanged for 40 years.

The result? A green technocracy, one assumes, with a WEF-mandated ‘ethical stakeholder’ apparatus, a worldwide spiderweb organization ruling by the threatened fears of pandemic and carbon doom. No section of society would be exempt from edicts of ‘the new tyranny.

The Great Reset website appears to be little more than an advertisement for modern pod-living. It seems to style itself as a low-carbon dream-life (without loss of modern convenience) to effeminate hipsters. One can see slovenly-looking neo-liberal youths, frequent references to LGBTQ+ values, and an overall urgency about carbon footprints.

There is a hint of Adbusters about the website, creator of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Despite the fact that the WEF and Davos and all associated entities are entirely elite institutions, the website styles itself on grassroots urban activism. There is much cringeworthy symbology in its white papers, such as a green and rainbow flag-combination with fey slogans like ‘we salute you, zoom queen!’

Schwab refers to the aim of The Great Reset as “the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” with the first being powered by water and steam, the second introducing mass production, and the third electronic automation. The fourth will blur the lines between “physical, digital and biological spheres.”

In this grab-bag of magical advances, he lists, “fields such as artificial intelligence, transhumanism, robotics, the Internet of Things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing.”

This sounds like cartoonish optimism, as many of these technologies are anything but clean and don’t seem to relate to side-stepping out of industrialism or anything else. On top of that, fewer than 9% of companies use the machine learning, robotics, touch screens and other advanced technologies listed as somehow ‘changing everything.’ Stakeholder capitalism, as a concept, does not explain itself as foolproof, and will no doubt be freely interpreted by the likes of Silicon Valley or supply chain conglomerates.

The jewel in the crown of Great Reset optimism has to be the belief that the advent of AI will alter everything positively, again without specifics, to somehow create a low-carbon new world. We are all carbon-based creatures, so exactly why they hate carbon is unclear.  Why do they see trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere as causing a problem with temperature warming is not scientific or logical.  The temperature of the planet is not abnormally high.  If anything, it is low.  The sun is the determinant of the temperature of the Earth.  Man can do nothing about the sun emissions.  These are just more lies to add to the trove of lies that our lives are based upon.

It appears, at best, to be all smoke and mirrors, a childish corporate fantasy manufactured by isolated bean counters or master manipulators. At worst, it is an intentional power-grab by unaccountable international agencies and hidden oligarchs.

Either way, it is a fake utopia at the price of privacy and autonomy, sold to us by used-car salesmen who think they are princes.  The ‘old normal’, that people think is going to be restored, is never going to be seen again.  Take all the vaxx’s they trot out.  You are never going back to anything that in any way resembles the ‘normal’ everyone is hoping for and obediently taking their vaxx’s like good little toddlers in order to achieve.  The new normal, build back better is a scary pipe dream of absolute tyranny and eventual elimination of all humans.  Be careful what you wish for.  The chance to do something about this rapidly evolving disaster is fast dissolving.

The Theft of the Global Common Treasures

Iain Davis

The people who none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate & business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”

They are the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) and while elected representatives are within their ranks, they don’t set either the agenda or policy. We need to both recognise who the GPPP are and understand the implications of their gambit. How are this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons and why should we resist them?

By recognizing what the globalist think tanks and other policy makers mean by the global commons we can begin to appreciate the jaw dropping magnitude of their ambitions.

They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like ‘inclusive,’ ‘sustainable,’ ‘equity’ and ‘resilience’ are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.

While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP), who orchestrated the chaos, have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilizes Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).

This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.

laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID 19. This was planned.

The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by US President Clinton following the 2004 Indonesian tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.

We will need to consider UN Agenda 21 and 2030 in more detail, as these are key the theft of all resources, but for now we can reference it to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will explain why politicians around the world have used it.

Sustainable Development Goal (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 (SFDRR), 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; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk;

[…] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership […] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels […] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation…

Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed.. and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.

“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post “disaster” reconstruction. It means the global participation of relevant stakeholders to strengthen international cooperation and global partnerships in order to implement instruments to achieve sustainable development. 

SDG 11 (b) was a plan to substantially increase the global number of human settlements adopting “build back better” polices by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.

Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics – SCM – were devised by the World Economic Forum, who describe themselves as the international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP to seize the entire Earth, all its resources and everything on it, including us.

In order to control us we are being transitioned into a technocracy with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security and centralised control of the entire system has been established during, and as a result of, the pseudopandemic.

The news IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI or similar state payments) which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC.)

This will ensure our compliance, as Central Banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.

The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” How it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up the Earths resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.

Throughout the pseudopandemic the World Economic Forum (WEF) have taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Their Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea hundreds, if not thousands of years old.

It is the self-serving belief that some special people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate “democratic” mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption.

The WEF have claimed the supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy. They intend to do this by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”

They have put themselves forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF are not alone in their ambitions, but rather the leading proponents for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of their self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.

The United Nations (UN) acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.

In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013 the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.

They wrote:

International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space…Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity – have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons…while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace…Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”

This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020 The Rothschild backed bank the Global Environment Facility offered a more extensive list of the shared resources all life relies upon:

In order to protect our global commons.. humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”

That coalition is the GPPP and citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they agree to promote the agreed policy agenda.

In December 2020 the Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept.

Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the development of Technocracy, he said:

To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken.. human activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos.. the recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity…It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it…We must turn this momentum into a movement…

Everything is interlinked – the global commons and global well-being…This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas… Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries…More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries…From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line…From classroom education to community engagement…From voting booths to places of work…

We cannot go back to the old normal…We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change…Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world – and with each other.

Again we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us, we are a pestilence that must be controlled; Covid-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same and everything must be transformed.

Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breath), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.

Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), where we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and system, education, the communities we live in and even our relationships, are all to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.

The “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything. All life, all resources, all land, all water, the air, the stars and all of us. It is their intention to have dominion over all.

The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. In June 2021 the WEF wrote the Case for a Digital Commons. Whenever they want to include something else in the list they use the language of sustainable development. It doesn’t matter that this makes no rational sense, the point is to sell the notion with the right buzz-words:

COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”

Now they claim the authority to rule the Internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the tax paying cash cows that will fund the construction of the empire:

In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress.. Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems.. as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”

It is truly remarkable that a low mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation.

The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, the authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:

One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years….the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild…It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”

At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019 Schwab wrote What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want.

The “we” referenced in that title was not “us” but rather the GPPP, though the article assumed we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:

Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”

Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. It has a specific legal definition:

The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with our society. Many of us would disagree which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked. There is no justification for Schwab’s claim.

I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?

Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals and their Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.

Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and their leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are just people, no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.

They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they imagine this is hard to say.

We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.

There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations. These incorporate global logistics, international finance and cross border regulatory alignment. These world-wide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few, senior board level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same.

However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.

However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. The article was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader,” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.

Ida Auken

The title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that her article was not intended to describe her “utopia” and that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near term future:

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service… When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people… Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me… We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”

The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons) they will take care of us.

Why, is the obvious question. If they control all of the Earths resources, everything is free and AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly loosing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.

We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID 19 opportunity, a response to a set of crises which gives rise to doing “things differently.”

We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.

As Schwab noted, there was no existential threat. The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not a respiratory disease.

It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. However, when we look at Agenda 21 and 2030 an uncomfortable realisation dawns.

While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect.

The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet, it is that, in Agenda 21 and 2030, the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists.

Make no mistake, the GPPP intend to control every aspect of the Earth and our lives. That is the transformation they are working towards and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.

Combined with SDGs, while we have been preoccupied with a low mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP have not only started building, they have partly completed the new global monetary and financial system.

Once installed this will finalize their coup d’état and enable them to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.

Stealing the Global Commons and Everything Else 

While the world focuses on global warming and pandemics, the greatest heist of all time is taking place right under our nose: “For them it means possession of everything: every resource on the planet, all land, all water, the air we breath and the natural world in its entirety, including all of us.” TN Editor

“The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension on morality.” – Garret Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”

Let’s look at how systems have been established to enable those stakeholders to seize them.

We should be mindful of what “global commons” means for the Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP). For them it means possession of everything: every resource on the planet, all land, all water, the air we breath and the natural world in its entirety, including all of us.

PRINCIPLES OF THE GLOBAL COMMONS

The notion of the “global commons” sprang from an amalgam of two principles in International Law. The Tragedy of The Commons (ToC) and the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM).

In his 1968 paper on the ToC, the U.S. ecologist and eugenicist Garrett Hardin, building upon the earlier work of the 19th century economist William Forster Lloyd, outlined the population and resource problems as he saw them. He said “a finite world can support only a finite population; therefore, population growth must eventually equal zero.”

While logically this is ultimately true, if a whole raft of assumptions are accepted, the point at which zero population growth becomes necessary is unknown. The evidence suggests we are nowhere near that limit. Eugenicists, like Hardin, have claimed and continue to claim that the Earth faces a population problem. There is no evidence to support their view.

Hardin theorised that when a resource, such as land, is shared in “common,” people acting in rational self-interest will tend to increase their use of that resource because the cost is spread among all. He called this type of thinking a tragedy because, if all act accordingly, he maintained that the resource would dwindle to nothing and everyone suffer as a result.

Hardin insisted that this tragedy could not be averted. Therefore, as human beings were, in his eyes, incapable of grasping the bigger picture, the solutions were “managed” access to resources and “population control.”

While Hardin’s elitist ToC concept suggested regulated, enclosed (private) access to “common” resources, the Common Heritage of Mankind (CHM) rejected the idea of enclosure (privatisation). CHM instead advocated that a special group should be created by international treaty as “trustees” of the global commons. Seen as more “progressive,” it was no less elitist that Hardin’s concept.

The philosophical concept of CHM emerged onto the global political stage in the 1950’s but is was the 1967 speech by the Maltese ambassador to the U.N., Arvid Pardo, which established it as a principle of global governance. This eventually led to the 1982 U.N. Convention on Law of the Sea (LOSC).

Citing the CHM, in Article 137(2) of the LOSC, the U.N. declared:

“All rights in the resources of the Area are vested in mankind as a whole, on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”

That “Area”, in this case, was the the Earth’s oceans, including everything in and beneath them. The “authority” was defined in Section 4 as the International Seabed Authority (ISA). Article 137(2) of the LOSC is self contradictory.

The legal definition of “vested” implies that the whole of humanity, without exception, has an absolute right to access the global commons. In this instance, those commons were the oceans. While the legal definition speaks of ownership, “vested” seems to guarantee the no one can lay any individual claim to ownership of the oceans or its resources. Access is equally shared by all.

Supposedly, this alleged right can never be “defeated by a condition precedent.” This is repudiated entirely by “on whose behalf the Authority shall act.”

Who among the billions of Earth’s inhabitants gave the ISA this alleged authority? When were we asked if we wanted to cede our collective responsibility for the oceans to the ISA?

This authority was seized by U.N. diktat and nothing more. It is now the ISA who, by a condition precedent, control, limit and license our access to the oceans.

This is the essential deception at the heart of GPPP’s “global commons” paradigm. They sell their theft as stewardship of the resources vested in all humanity, while simultaneously seizing the entirety of those resources for themselves.

SEIZING THE GLOBAL COMMONS: THE OCEANS

When interpreted by International Law, the CHM appears to place the private ownership of the global commons, suggested by the ToC, beyond the reach of government stakeholder partners. They should have no more right to these riches than anyone else. Legal challenge to any claim should be a relatively straight forward process for any concerned individual or group minded to make one.

This is not even a remote possibility. International Law, as it pertains to the global commons, is a meaningless jumble of inconsistencies and contradictions that ultimately amounts to “might is right.” For anyone to challenge the GPPP’s claim they would need to retain a legal team capable of defeating the UN’s and a judiciary willing to find in their favour.

The “law” is ostensibly designed to leave us imagining that we have “protected” rights and responsibilities towards these shared resources. Whereas, if subjected to any reasonable scrutiny, the legal notion of the global commons looks more like a diversion to facilitate a robbery.

If we look at the ISA’s record of stakeholder engagement we quickly find their Strategic Plan for 2019 – 2020. This succinctly outlines how the scam operates:

In an ever-changing world, and in its role as custodian of the common heritage of mankind, ISA faces many challenges…The United Nations has adopted a new development agenda, entitled ‘Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.’[…] Of most relevance to ISA is SDG 14 — Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources.”

The shared resource – global commons – of the Earth’s oceans are not freely accessible to humanity as a whole anymore. Rather, the ISA determine who gets access to oceanic resources based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Effectively they have turned access to the global commons into a new market.

The most vital questions we must ask is how these allocation decisions are made and by whom. This will reveal who controls these new highly regulated markets. The ISA state:

States parties, sponsoring States, flag States, coastal States, State enterprises, private investors, other users of the marine environment and interested global and regional intergovernmental organizations. All have a role in the development, implementation and enforcement of rules and standards for activities in the Area”

In addition, the ISA will:

Strengthen cooperation and coordination with other relevant international organizations and stakeholders in order to…effectively safeguard the legitimate interests of members of ISA and contractors…The rules, regulations and procedures governing mineral exploitation…are underpinned by sound commercial principles in order to promote investment…taking into account trends and developments relating to deep seabed mining activities, including objective analysis of world metal market conditions and metal prices, trends and prospects…based on consensus…that allows for stakeholder input in appropriate ways.”

The Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) of governments, global corporations (other users of the marine environment), their major shareholders (private investors) and philanthropic foundations (private investors) are the stakeholders. They, not us, will have an input to ensure the rules, regulations and procedures will promote investment that will safeguard their interests.

In the space of a few short decades, broad concepts have evolved into principles of International Law which have subsequently been applied to create a regulatory framework for controlled access to the all the resources in the oceans. What was once genuinely a global resource is now the sole province of the GPPP and its network of stakeholder capitalists.

THE GLOBAL COMMONS ARE GLOBAL

We should be wary of falling into the trap of thinking the GPPP comprises solely of the western hegemony. The stories we are fed about the global confrontation between superpowers are often superficial.

While there are undoubtedly tensions within the GPPP, as each player jostles for a bigger slice of the new markets, the GPPP network itself is a truly global collaboration. This doesn’t mean that conflict between nation states is impossible but, as ever, any such conflict will be fought for a reason absent from the official explanation.

SDG’s led to net zero policies and they stipulate, among a swath of enforced changes, the end of petrol and diesel transport. We are all under orders to switch to electric vehicles (EVs) which the vast majority won’t be able to afford. In turn, this means a massive increase in demand for lithium-ion batteries.

Manufacturing these will require a lot more cobalt which is widely considered to be the most critical supply chain risk for producing EVs. The World Bank estimate that the growth in demand for cobalt between 2018 and 2050 will be somewhere in the region of 450%. To say this is a “market opportunity” is a massive understatement.

The ISA have granted 5 cobalt exploration contracts to JOGMEC (Japan), COMRA (China), Russia, the Republic of Korea and CPRM (Brazil). When located deposits become commercially viable, as they undoubtedly will, the corporate feeding frenzy can begin.

Corporations, such as the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin, with its wholly owned subsidiary UK Seabed Resources (UKSR), are also among the many ISA stakeholders. UKSR received their exploration license for the South Pacific in 2013. As an ISA exploration contractor, UKSR stakeholders are free to submit their recommendations for amendments to the ISA regulations governing their own mining operations.