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.“
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.
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.