Have you ever wondered why most of the world adopted the same tools to combat the Covid19 pandemic in 2020? Surely, different countries should have adopted different strategies based on their own senses of democracy and justice, their histories and their constitutions. Yet, instead, we saw them all – except Sweden – throwing out their Pandemic Response Plans and reaching for the same tools: lockdowns and mass testing and masks. Now they are all in various stages of bringing in vaccine mandates – including Sweden. Why? It’s because our governments are not making their own decisions.
Our governments take their orders from unelected, undemocratic supranational organisations like the UN; the EU; the Council of Europe; WHO; IMF; World Bank; IPCC and World Trade Organisation. The WHO, for example, recommended that Covid19 deaths be recorded as anyone who died within 28 days of a positive Covid test. As a result the Covid19 death figures for every country are grossly inflated by double counting terminal conditions such as cancer and car crashes as Covid19 deaths. Countries have shown no independence in their Covid19 death counts. The fake death counts have driven everything else: the lockdowns and vaccine mandates. Did you notice that so many politicians in 2020 started referring to ‘Build Back Better’ and ‘the new normal’? We were being softened up to accept that Global plans were being put into motion. Plans like the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’, for example. Plans like the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’.
Bodies like the UN and the IPCC are setting the Global agenda with regard to Climate Change. The Conference of the Parties on Climate Change – ie COP26 in 2021 – is organised by the UN. National politicians turn up to pay fealty to the climate change narrative. At COP, the UN hot-houses a bunch of politicians for 2 weeks in order to work them into a delirium of belief in the coming climate apocolypse. They leave COP as Climate Cultists ready to do the UN’s bidding.
These organisations love to use the term ‘sustainable’ as in ‘sustainable development’ or ‘sustainable capitalism’ to describe their objectives. These terms are designed to appeal to the public so that scrutiny is minimal. Don’t be fooled: the planned changes being cloaked by these fluffy terms have the potential to be hugely damaging for large numbers of the world’s population. Judged on their own merits, plans for sustainable development will never win popular consent. Therefore, International organisations habitually ride the coat tails of International crises in order to further their agendas. For example, Climate Change propaganda has been ramped up in recent years purely so that International Organisations can use the resulting fear to further their cause. ‘Sustainability’ is a word that will be used ‘gain centralized control over earth’s resources and populations under a one world government.’
Covid19 has also presented huge opportunities for the fingers of Global Governance to spread. The UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’ had been on the back-burner for years. The emergence of Covid19 has been seized as an opportunity to bring in a New World Order. However, they may have over-played their hand as people like me are beginning to realise what’s going on behind the curtain.
The goal of UN Agenda 2030 is to transform global society into a technocracy under the guise of sustainable development by 2030:
https://humansarefree.com/2020/10/un-agenda-2030-driving-force-behind-covid-19.html
National governments have signed up to supporting the UN’s Agenda 2030 programme:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agenda-2030-delivering-the-global-goals
The next piece of the Globalist pie to scrutinise are the Foundations, like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF); Open Society Foundations (George Soros’ advocacy group); The Ford Foundation; The Rockefeller Foundation; Guggenheim Foundation and many more. The Foundations have huge amounts of money at their disposal, usually bequeathed by the richest people in the world, which enables them to wield huge amounts of influence. The Gates Foundation, for example, has been all over Covid19, working with WHO and GAVI (Global Vaccine Alliance) to promote vaccines. The tax exempt Foundations specialise in wielding soft power. If a billionaire wants to wield political influence, he doesn’t need to go through the unpredictable, debasing ordeal of being elected. These days he just needs to set up a Foundation, call himself a ‘philanthropist’ and he’ll be invited to parlay with with all of the Global Elites that are calling the shots. Trump was an idiot for running for President, that’s not how it’s done anymore. Why put up with that abuse when you can work virtually unnoticed behind the scenes?
Another example of Foundations manoeuvring behind the scenes can be found in ‘ID2020’, which was launched in 2016 by none other than Bill Gates’ Gavi, Microsoft, the Rockefeller Foundation, Accenture, and Ideo.org. ID2020 is described as follows on its own website:
ID2020 is building a new global model for the design, funding, and implementation of digital ID solutions and technologies.
ID2020 proposes moves to develop a “persistent digital identity from birth,” with “cutting-edge infant biometric technologies.”
I’m sure it was just a coincidence that they identified 2020 as a target date for a “digital ID solution”.
Take a look at the ‘Our Partners’ section of the website for any Foundation or NGO: you’ll see the same organisations popping up everywhere: organisations like the UN and the WHO and others. There is a circle of interconnectivity.
Also, take a look through the (long) list of organisations that fund the CDC. Notice how many Foundations and Charitable Trusts are listed. What benefit do they derive from funding the CDC?:
https://www.cdcfoundation.org/partner-list/foundations
Foundations are using their money to lobby governments but unlike corporate lobbying whose purpose is explicitly linked to profits, the objective of the Foundations is ‘social change’. For example, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation admits this objective, stating on their website that they are ‘an independent funder of research for social change in the UK’. ‘Social change’ sounds nice but what do they mean by this term? Any organisation that is trying to change society without a mandate from the electorate needs to be watched. Social changes can be negative as well as positive. We cannot assume all ‘social change’ is a good thing.
These organisations are engaged in charitable lobbying but like all lobbying the objective is to influence the Government to assist in the furthering of their agenda but there is no scrutiny as to what that agenda is. Nor is there any transparency on the influence Foundations have on our Governments. Bill Gates met with Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, 3 times in 2020. Do you think our Governments are focused on meeting the needs of their electorates? Or are they focused on delivering what their billionaire friends would like them to deliver? Scrutiny is required.
As part of my research on Foundations, I came across an interview of Norman Dodd by Ed Griffin, recorded in 1982. In the 1950s Norman Dodd was a staff director of the Congressional Special Committee to Investigate Tax-exempt Foundations. Dodd discovered that Foundations he was investigating – Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie and Guggenheim Foundations are explicitly mentioned during the interview – were working towards changing the culture of the United States. Dodd found evidence from as early as 1908 that Foundations were agitating for war as a way of introducing social change. The Foundations also targeted education as something they could influence to bring about social change. I recommend you watch the full 50′ interview:
Then there’s the countless Think Tanks like the World Economic Forum (WEF), Council on Foreign Relations; the Trilateral Commission; the Bilderberg Group; The Club of Rome, The Rand Corporation and many, many more.
All of these organisations have the ears of our Governments. Hell, most of the time Government figures are members of groups like the WEF; The Bilderberg Group etc.. All of these bodies have the same viewpoint on the world: Globalism is good; nationalism is bad. And that is why most liberal democracies follow the same path on all of the big issues of the day, such as Covid19 and Climate Change: they are being told what policies to adopt.
Why do you think the politics of Boris Johnson have completely changed since he became PM? BoJo used to revel in his liberal instincts. Once upon a time he railed against government overreach and sneered at climate change apocalyptism. Since he became PM, he has adopted the biggest government overreach in living memory: he imposed one-size-fits-all lockdowns; he is supportive of vaccine mandates and, most hypocritical of all, he has become a zealot for net zero and plans to impose the restrictions that will keep us cold and hungry in 20 years time. Johnson has been bought and paid for.
Now the Elites have discovered a new tool that will allow them to consolidate their power and control: Stakeholder capitalism. This term describes the new coalition between governments and corporations that is being leveraged to supposedly tackle issues of Global concern.
What is stakeholder capitalism? It’s a form of centralised capitalism whereby companies are not motivated by maximising value for their shareholders, instead they seek to reward society at large. It sounds very hippy-esque but it offers very large companies the prospect of partnerships with Governments and the monopoly position that comes with that:
Today’s shareholders are increasingly seeking social approval, power, and political favors and they’re using the businesses they own as the vehicle to achieve those desires.
Instead of on-brand activism, we’re seeing a new age where corporations at the highest level merge with the political establishment. They offer control over their customers in exchange for political access.
https://mainstreetcrypto.com/articles/what-is-stakeholder-capitalism/
Guess who came up with the term ‘stakeholder capitalism’? Klaus ‘Davos’ Schwab of World Economic Forum fame! Yet the concept has been enthusiasistically embraced. It is now being used to tackle Climate Change.
Look at the latest development in co-ordinated global banking, the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ):
‘Today, through the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), over $130 trillion of private capital is committed to transforming the economy for net zero. These commitments, from over 450 firms across 45 countries, can deliver the estimated $100 trillion of finance needed for net zero over the next three decades.’
GFANZ is an example of stakeholder capitalism.
The investigative journalist Whitney Webb explains GFANZ in the following terms:
‘The most powerful private financial interests in the world, under the cover of COP26, have developed a plan to transform the global financial system by fusing with institutions like the World Bank and using them to further erode national sovereignty in the developing world.’
From the GFANZ website:
GFANZ provides a forum for leading financial institutions to accelerate the transition to a net-zero global economy.
GFANZ is an agglomeration of banks and other financial institutions set up by the former Bank of England governor Mark Carney in April 2021 to try to push for stricter climate regulation. One of its central demands is that governments introduce ‘mandatory net zero transition plans and carbon reporting’ from all private and state-owned enterprises by 2024.
Ask yourself why the Bankers and Fund managers are suddenly so keen to get involved in fighting carbon change. It’s because they’ve worked out how to make a load of money from it. Part of the reason for that is that they will be able to impose restrictions that will push their competitors out of business. Measuring carbon use and meeting carbon limits is much easier for bigger firms. Plus, they can outsource their carbon footprints to other countries, if necessary. Forget the Greenies, the Bankers have now taken control of the Green Agenda. That is why there has been a significant uplift in Climate Change propaganda over the last year. The final piece of the puzzle needed to consolidate Global control is ‘stakeholder capitalism’…
…these “stakeholder capitalism” mechanism models, despite being presented as offering a “more responsible” form of capitalism, allow corporations and private entities to participate in forming the regulations that govern their own markets and giving them a greatly increased role in political decision making by placing them on an equal footing with national governments. It is essentially a creative way of marketing “corporatism”…
Mussolini defined fascism as “corporatism”: governments and corporates working together. That is the model that is now re-emerging as ‘stakeholder capitalism’. Governments and corporates should not be forming alliances!
Do not be under any illusion: fascism is what we’re up against here. In order to put in place the ‘sustainable’ goals such as the UN’s ‘Agenda 2030’, the lives of everyone in the Western world will be changed for the worse. This is why scientific and medical doubts about first lockdowns and then C19 vaccines have been censored: it was soon realised that the pandemic could be leveraged to introduce the biosecurity state. This is why all national governments are moving towards vaccine passports: vaccine passports are a pre-cursor to the real objective which is Digital ID’s (which, in turn, will facilitate Central Bank Digital Currencies). Attempts at digital id’s have failed before but it will be much easier to transition to digital id’s if you have convinced the population to adopt vaccine passports ‘to protect your loved ones’. If you are registering your movements with ‘Track and trace’, you are effectively building your own prison. This isn’t about health, it’s about control. The biosecurity state will provide authorities with the level of control needed to suppress the citizenry once they wake up to what Agenda 2030, ‘stakeholder capitalism’ and The Great Reset mean in practise. You will own nothing and you will be happy. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
“It’s important to realize that net zero demands a transformation of the entire economy.” – Larry Fink, Chief Executive Officer, BlackRock
Iain Davis, a researcher and investigative journalist who often writes for UK Column describes the stitch up that is underway:
The new global IMFS [International Monetary and Financial System] is built upon carbon trading and a $120 trillion carbon bond market is currently under construction. Assets are being defined in terms of their Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics which rate investments depending upon their environmental, social and governance (ESG) score.
These metrics have been established by the World Economic Forum working in partnership with the central banks, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and other stakeholder capitalists, such as the investment firm BlackRock.
In this way, the global technocracy will facilitate the continuation of crony capitalism, as only the right stakeholders will receive the approved ESG rating. Those who don’t will not be able to raise the investment capital they need and will be forced out of business.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2021/06/29/pseudopandemic/
This is governments and corporations working very closely in order to deliver a monopolistic closed shop. Governments and corporations working together towards a common goal is never a good idea.
Global elites like to say that ‘National solutions to international problems don’t work’. This maxim allows them to neatly sidestep electoral accountability by placing themselves above national politics. They have a seat at the table that their fortunes have paid for. Global politics has no transparency and no accountability. These things are not needed: the elites have national governments that are prepared to take responsibility for the globalist agenda. Look at Boris Johnson trying to glean as much personal credit as he possibly could after COP26. The reality is that Johnson is the UN’s useful idiot. Johnson – and other leaders – provide the wafer-thin veneer of democracy that is allowing the whole shit-show to put in place the controls that will remove our final freedoms.
This diagram from Iain Davis shows how the International Organisations, Foundations and Think-Tanks work with National governments to create a system of Global Governance:
So now everything is classed as an international problem. Like Covid19, like climate change, like security against terror, like corporate tax rates. We can see what ‘International Solutions’ mean for the rest of us: lockdowns; vaxx passports (precusor to Digital ID’s) restrictions on travel; more expensive energy; eating insects and ‘whole economy transitions’ meaning cold homes (heat pumps) and expensive electric vehicles. Yet no one has voted for stakeholder capitalism and no one has voted for these organisations. And no one has voted for the people who run these organisations. Democracy has been usurped without most of us being aware of it.
The ultimate goal is to introduce something that is deeply authoritarian but wrapped in social justice and climate change so that people cannot protest. In this way, there will be a significant percentage of the population who will attempt to justify their poorer lifestyle and the limitations placed on their freedoms by claiming ‘it’s necessary for Climate Change’; or ‘it’s the only way to fight the pandemic’. We can all think of such people in our lives. They are people who always believe whatever they are told by Authorities without application of any Critical Thinking on their part. Such people will take the Blue Pill every time.
Klaus Schwab wrote the following in 2010:
The Global Redesign process has provided an informal working laboratory or marketplace for a number of good policy ideas and partnership opportunities.. We have sought to expand international governance discussions.. to take more pre-emptive and coordinated action on the full range of risks that have been accumulating in the international system.
Imagine how much international governance has progressed since 2010. Note that the term used is ‘governance’, not ‘government’. These organisations are not able to create legislation – they rely on Prime Ministers for their dirty work – but that is their strength: a Global Government would attract attention. There would be demands for transparency and accountability and democracy. That was the weakness of the EU: it was painfully obvious how undemocratic it was. EU leaders were not elected! Whereas Global Governance is operating without 99% of the population being aware of it. Here is a reminder of the alliance made between the WEF and the UN in June 2019:
Our votes don’t count. Vote for who you like, it won’t make any difference. Labour and Tories have the same policies. They report to the same masters.
All of the above may be a lot to take in. It’s taken me 18 months to reach the understanding that I have documented in this piece. It’s been a gradual process of incremental discovery for me. By all means, do your own research. Read up on ‘stakeholder capitalism’. I would also recommend you look into ‘Global Public Private Partnerships’ (GPPPs) and ‘Stronger Cities Network’ for further context to the ideas I have raised here. Also look into ‘Agenda 2030’: Rosa Koire is a good starting point here. You would also do well to read more of the research by Iain Davis and Whitney Webb. Corey Lynn is another writer I have recently discovered. Here is a link to one of his pieces that describes how our digital identities will be used against us:
Let me end with a quote by Edward Bernays. Bernays (1891-1995) is described on Wikipedia as ‘an American pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda’. This quote is taken from his book ‘Propaganda’, published in 1928:
There are invisible rulers who control the destinies of millions. It is not generally realized to what extent the words and actions of our most influential public men are dictated by shrewd persons operating behind the scenes.
Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda
Atticus Fox 