+++++CONNECTIONS+++++

Tonight in the midst of the Blood Moon, a celestial event that has not occured in 580 years, a full moon/lunar eclipse, the UIA is holding it’s conference in Prague. The UIA authored this Encyclopedia of World Problems and Human Potential. The content found in the encyclopedia written in 1976 (with updates) is the material basis for the United Nations Agenda 2030, 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The partnership between the World Economic Forum (Davos) and the United Nations to carry out the implementation of Agenda 2030 is known as the Great Reset.

The material conditions for development of the Encyclopedia are rooted in Masonic Sacred Geometry. This Sacred Geometry is derived from the Kabbalah.

Material conditions for seismic paradigm shift include the Virus-Cyber-Climate Trifecta.

The Sacred Geometry is immersed in The Great Work.

The Great Work is also known as the Construction of the Third Temple of Solomon.




Esoteric Knowledge: “The Great Work” = “The Construction of the Third Temple of Solomon” …Sacred Geometry, Blood Moon, Kabbalah, [United Nations = Union of Intelligible Associations(UIA)]

The meeting of the UIA over the duration of:

November 18-19, 2021

of which a celestial event:

(BLOOD MOON)

….recurring for first time in:

580 YEARS

… in Prague is…

NOT HAPPENSTANCE

of which the topic of discussion:

The source is right there: https://uia.org/

Why COP26 Refused to Address Planned Obsolescence • Strategic Culture

Source: https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2021/11/08/why-cop26-refused-to-address-planned-obsolescence/

Joaquin Flores

November 8, 2021


The ugly truth about cap and trade and all similar schemes is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same, Joaquin Flores writes.

The failure of the UN’s COP26 conference in Glasgow was spectacle of hypocrisy befitting of a moribund ruling class. These kinds of antics harken back to the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where its decadent ruling class was deadly out of touch with the causes of growing decentralization and dissatisfaction in the periphery. And so taking our historical analogy further, we may begin to unwrap an epochal catastrophe which today’s elite now faces.

The transition from the Roman imperial system, through the Carolingian period, into to the system of medieval Europe, saw a continual decentralization of power, and the evolution of slaves and serfs into land-owning peasants.

Boris Johnson arrives at COP26 by private jumbo jet ready to tackle other leaders on emissions

This economic decentralization was connected to localized power structures. Roman forts thereby formed the basis of the medieval system of castles, and the relative weakness of these lords and little kings correlated to an improvement in the rights and economic power of what became the small land-owning peasantry.

Therefore a method of re-introducing an element of centralization to these structures, to the Vatican in Rome, was the development of the Church and the refinement of its system of tithing from individual offering to an imposed and required tax, enforced by law and collectively. Significant theological and metaphysical questions and dissimilarities aside, here’s what’s critical:

The carbon tax system is a mystical system that cannot be justified by material sciences or concerns, and instead sits as a type of ‘new religion’ that the historical centres of capital have rolled out to justify a type of tithing upon increasingly sovereign and decentralized corners of the world.

Payment of tithing, like the carbon tax system, is an ideological project to maintain powers of a moribund economic system, after the decline of the physical structures of imperialism that held together the old empire.

The various carbon tax systems, (cap and trade CAP/ETS, etc.) are little more than a rehashing of a tithing system.

Like with the Church’s control over the scribes and monasteries, the new carbon cult relies upon its monopoly over the inherited centers of knowledge creation and distribution, to create a parallel reality which requires a payment into something which cannot be rationalized in either scientific or economic terms.

Likewise, one could argue that the influence of abstracted aims of the Church lent towards the management of high unemployment and inflation caused by this tithing tax, through the calling of crusades and counter-rational measures for dealing with plagues, which tended to account for the premature deaths of countless ‘worthless eaters’.

This very much parallels the gross neo-Malthusian solutions proffered by the elites in our day and age.

The amazing part of this? The entire catastrophe today can be avoided if planned obsolescence was eliminated as an economic practice.

It doesn’t matter where one stands on climate science – even a true believer would be forced to see the logic in eradicating planned obsolescence if the aim was carbon neutrality.

Carbon Reduction as Cover for a Sinister Depopulation Agenda

The fundamental issue driving the COP26 population reduction scheme which parades as ‘carbon reduction’, therefore, is the hard problem of overcoming planned obsolescence. This single issue, almost more than any other, is definitive proof that there is no real concern for the environment, and that the ruling class is purely focused on population reduction and the suppression of actual 3D printing and eradicating a real Fourth Industrial Revolution.

That last point may come as a surprise to many, who are following the talking points of Klaus Schwab and company, at the World Economic Forum, who have incorporated these terms into their neo-Malthusian agenda.

They use these words so that we cannot understand them, so we will not look right where they are hiding their real meanings and implications – in their mouths.

So in place, they use the words and phrases – 4IR, 3D printing, IoT – but in actuality they are trying to subvert these while other technologies, entirely coercive and centralizing in nature, are rolled out onto the suffering faces of the masses.

As we have shown in our work on planned obsolescence, nowhere is the subject of planned obsolescence directly confronted – either in Schwab’s “Covid-19: The Great Reset” (in fact the opposite is proposed), nor is it confronted in the SDG Agenda. There is an oblique reference to repairable products and longer product lifespans only on page 62 of the 250 page manifesto. This adds justification to our charge that among the points of the ‘Great Reset’ is a serious reduction in human population.

Global Fight-back – The UN and Beyond

The same technologies to create the three industrial revolutions in the imperial core, were later used by developing countries, to grow and improve their physical economy. But these efforts were conducted in fierce opposition to the centrally directed model of modernity; a centralism coming from the financiers of the City of London and conducted through the geopolitics of the so-called Washington Consensus.

While accurately understanding some of the mutually shared concerns among and between nations, the Agenda 2030 solutions offered stem from the same kind of thinking, and from the very same actors, which produced the problem itself. Why would anyone trust these solutions?

Again, there is nothing profound or rhetorical in that question. The right-thinking leadership of many developing countries entirely understands that point. They are frustrated by the gas-lighting that comes from this globalist institutions which enforce austerity measures which breed corruption and poverty, all while preaching that these same countries haven’t done enough to increase transparency and fight poverty.

Real sovereignty for the so-called global south is intimately tied to two related factors: import substitution industrialization using 3D printing, and a physical economy based in automated production of super-long life goods. This must up-end the present planned obsolescence paradigm with its intentionally shortened PLC (product life cycle). A functional bridge between here and there, is an increased focus on regional trade, which encourages regional cooperation and enlarges spatial conceptions of the sovereign towards a growing multipolarity.

Instead of focusing on this very obvious solution to a whole range of problems which are, generously speaking, fairly represented in the UN Agenda 2030 goals, we are being corralled down a path which unjustifiably focuses on climate change. But critics like Vance Packard in ‘The Waste Makers’ (1960) already saw the problem, and the solution.

We are therefore in a race towards next-generation productive technologies, like localized 3D printing (3DP) which ultimately work against globalized production, against interdependency, and the supply-line security problems, like war, that comes along with it.

The underlying rationale of globalized production, is the exploitation of low wage labor and the maintenance of endemic global inequalities. But as techniques of production improve, and more materials can be synthesized, the twin drivers of this paradigm – low-wage production and raw material extraction – are overcome together.

Ending planned obsolescence vs. ending climate change, represent two different paradigms. The first is connected to a forward looking paradigm reflective of a real and sustainable 4IR, and the second is a cynical ruse not only to limit the rational development of the physical economy, but also human horizons.

The synthesizing of materials eliminates the ‘carbon emissions’ produced by the entire present model of resource extraction, including those emitted by hundreds of millions of workers who generate otherwise unnecessary emissions upstream and downstream, globalized supply-lines, while the carbon footprint for material synthesis will ultimately be smaller. And this much matters only if a real problem is carbon emissions, which is arguable at best.

In other words, we can eliminate those emissions without eliminating the human beings, and moreover, without limiting the quality of life they enjoy. To the contrary, overcoming artificial scarcity in its present form would see a great improvement in quality of life and life expectancy.

And so the focus on improving hyper-efficient methods of globalized distribution is missing the point, if relatively equivalent investment into R&D can get better results in the arena of material synthesis. Synthetic materials are based on polymers which are stronger and longer-lasting than natural or regenerated materials, and lend towards longer lasting products.

What is more efficient than the most efficient delivery system? Not having to distribute it at all.

Nations are not Bound to Agenda 2030 by Force of Treaty

Are most UN member states really ‘all in’ with the climate change game? The vast majority of countries tied into the IMF/UN system of neo-colonialism, are simply waiting out the clock, as alternatives such as BRICS grow against the petro dollar.

The UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), known also as Agenda 2030, use the language of post-colonialism to reinforce a new kind of neo-colonialism. The system behind this push being so-called ‘sustainability’ is what is actually unsustainable, and so developing countries see they simply need to bear with it until it finally implodes.

A lot of unrelated environmental concerns have been collapsed into ‘climate change’. And climate change has been dogmatically tied to carbon emissions. The primary issue then deals with carbon emissions, therefore, even though it is just a single goal (goal 13) among the 17 goals of Agenda 2030.

Seeing the UN graphic below, we can see that the following goals are actually all important matters: 6 (Clean water and sanitation); 7 (Affordable and clean energy); 9 (Industry, innovation and infrastructure); 11 (Sustainable cities and communities); 12 (Responsible consumption and production); 14 (Life below water); 15 (Life on land).

And so it’s of peculiar interest that 13, climate action (which is merely carbon emissions), is the guiding logic behind all of these, when in fact it is failure to address goal 12 (Responsible consumption and production) which represents the entire economic, social, and environmental cancer of this age, a danger so clear and present and yet rooted so deeply in this paradigm, that the IMF cannot propose a solution that can tackle this.

Goal 12 – responsible consumption and production – is the foundation of all the other goals, if we are to take them seriously. Not goal 13 – climate action – as that in fact goes in the opposite direction. This point will be underscored.

All of this seems so terrible, so why did the majority of UN member states sign on? In fact, Agenda 2030 is not a treaty, it is non-binding and not a criteria for UN membership, and its provisions are not enforceable through the mechanism of treaties between sovereign states. Rather, it was reached ‘by consensus’, whatever that means. What has been constructed as Agenda 2030 presents an outline at best, using input from many UN member states, of what they ‘could’ agree to someday.

Therefore, many countries will make their own sovereign announcements about reaching this part, or that part, of the various goals. This will receive a lot of press, much of it misleading, because these were decisions these countries make on their own. Many of these already overlap with their own national agenda (poverty reduction, clean water, gender inclusiveness). But they do so on their own accord, and this point is critical.

Predatory multinationals like to use provisions on 2030 to place the spectre of global governance and shared goals as justification for policies which undermine the economic and sovereign foundation of developing countries.

But the 17 goals of Agenda 2030 (SDG) represent merely a ‘plan of action’, which countries are not obliged to separately from various accords and treaties which they might presently or later agree to, or which multinationals may attempt to unilaterally impose as a condition of trade, (often backed by the IMF) but which carry their own names and legal details.

Many of the concerns that these goals address are the right ones for countries to be focusing on, and therein lies the rub. Just like with the 4IR, Agenda 2030 turns these on their head, and cynically misdirects them towards a neo-Malthusian genocide.

The ugly truth about cap and trade, and all similar schemes to enforce this globally, is that they do not really reduce carbon emissions, if most other factors remain the same. Among the other factors required for this scheme to approximate ‘working’, is to reduce population size. Note that this is not to reduce the rate of population growth, but to reduce the total human population in absolute terms.

In other words, at the heart of the 17 SDG for 2030, the primary source of carbon footprints are human beings.

Overcoming this Paradigm’s Problem

Just like with the human development indexes, and broader economic concerns, Agenda 2030 seizes upon legitimate concerns for the environment, human exposure to carcinogenic materials, birth defects, and clean air and water.

But these become subsumed under the heading of global warming (or, in explaining cooling spells, ‘climate change’), in such an incoherent way that one cannot speak about the legitimate concerns without being forced to answer for climate change.

Innovations that potentiate a 4IR, like 3DP, contain much potential. But there are already existing solutions to the production/income and distribution/purchase cycle plaguing humanity in the face of the rapid automation process underway.

These solutions are as simple as using higher quality parts to substitute the ‘planned to break’ parts in already existing products, all other factors of production being left untouched.

Indeed, we hold that while there are hypothetically limits to growth, the biggest limitation at present is limited thinking about what growth looks like and what new possibilities and discoveries it holds.

Taken together, we can see that overcoming the wastefulness of economies of scale is not the problem which the elite’s conception of Agenda 2030 is aimed at. They want to preserve some type of system of subsidized commodity production, perhaps making products less sturdy, and commonly shared through a drone-delivery rental system.

This would decrease product lifespan while also requiring less goods to be produced, connected to the rental system and a lower total human population.

In some tenacious balance between population reduction and flimsy rental goods, the WEF proposes that this will result in a net decrease in carbon emissions. In looking at the second part of that balance, we can conclude that the population reduction must be significant in order to justify the net reduction claim.

Instead, we maintain that ‘two heads are better than one’, that the increase in human population has a multivariate, non-linear effect towards improvement not only of the human experience, but its positive interrelation with the entire noosphere.

The author can be reached at FindMeFlores@gmail.com

Great Reset: NATO Vying To Be Global Censorship Police… • Helena: The Nationalist Voice

This blog is excellent, excellent insight on the globalist machine.

By: Helena

Source: Helena

NATO is inflamed over the amount of ‘disinformation’ that is plaguing social media platforms. According to their own self image, NATO states: “NATO member countries maintain open civil communications systems, some with very high rates of social media and social messaging use.” Simultaneously, NATO states that false messages and inflammatory statements are a direct danger in “the damage they can do to citizens’ faith in the institutions of democratic governance and resources of public information and discussion.” Therefore, ‘open communication’ must be censored.

These ‘warfare campaigns’ must be silenced in order to have a free open source of information. Please read that again… ‘silencing in order to be free and open source’. Claiming disinformation is warfare sets the stage for the institution of Nazi style laws that prohibit anyone from saying anything deemed disinformation.

Given that humans are currently responsible for tattling on other humans, NATO wants AI to take control.

Currently, certain words or phrases are delisted and are the source of censorship. But together with Johns Hopkins, NATO wants emotions to be targeted. They term this new design as ‘Sentiment Analysis’. If AI determines a particular sentiment is not within the programmed guidelines, a circuit breaker effect would be instituted globally.

Within this algorithm of AI regulatory analysis, censors will not only delete the communication pathway, but could also insert legal action resulting in censor police knocking down doors. All of this is based on The Great RESET of global governance.

Member states of NATO would be required to adopt these censorship mechanisms or face de-alliance.

DISINFORMATION Definition: false information which is intended to mislead, especially propaganda issued by a government organization to a rival power or the media.

In other words, disinformation is born of government propaganda according to dictionary.com. That would indicate that the government is using the media to convey the notion that disinformation is parlayed via individuals on social media – which IS the disinformation! Funny word-play!

Johns Hopkins is a partner of NATO. They have other interesting partnership alliances, including with; Tsinghua University in China, China University in Hong Kong, Shanghai Jia Tong University – China, and Nanjing University – China. They have been heavily involved in the Thousand Talent Program in China and have yet to decouple that arrangement despite concerns over the sharing of US intellectual property.

While our media, NATO and White House Handlers would have us believe China is our enemy… Johns Hopkins does not. ODD!

Johns Hopkins is also the designated source of statistics for CoVid cases and deaths via their algorithm. They are a perpetuator of Climate Change Theory including climate change’s racism. An event with two speakers , one from Bloomberg’s Johns Hopkins is scheduled at Harvard the latter part of this month to discuss Climate’s racism.

Given climate is racist, trees are racist, birds are racist, street signs are racist, sidewalks are racist, crayons are racist… the Cloud should be deemed racist given it represents fluffy whiteness. Right?

In 2020, Johns Hopkins contributed $2.4 million to Democrats and $92,000 to Republicans. But they are nonpartisan. Its most recent grant from NIH announced October 2021 is in the amount of $4 million. The purpose of the grant is to study and research the use of psilocybin mushrooms to explore the impact on tobacco addiction. So you might cure that smoking addiction but you’ll be crazy and confined in a mental institution, so who cares…

A total of 85% of Johns Hopkins funding is via federal and state governments – $2.562 million. That means ALL taxpayers are paying for Johns Hopkins to give the money to Democrat PACs… Sounds logical.

Johns Hopkins provides internships for students with: GAVI, UNICEF, WHO and Pan American Health Organization, although a WHO internship was cancelled this year because of CoVid. ???

At the recent NATO Summit, US Defense blunderer, Lloyd Austin, made the following playbook statement with regard to China: “We see an increasing interest in our allies and partners [in the Indo-Pacific] to ensure the region remains free and open, and the rules-based international order remains in place.”

However Jens Stoltenberg was quick to add that Russia continues to take a close second place as the target of demonizing after NATO expelled 8 Russian ‘spies’, errr diplomats. The evidence? NATO declared their decision was based on intelligence and they are not going to comment on their intelligence… Ah

NATO has gone Full ballistic mental in abiding by the Handlers that make the rules. What becomes increasingly clear is that the pedophilia based NATO is being situated to be the global police, not just of coups but of censorship as in Big Brother. Not one UN Peacekeeper or NATO personnel accused of sexual assault was jailed despite more than 2,000 allegations. Just one allegation was from a 12 year old who claimed she was paid 75 cents for each of the 40 men she was prostituted to.

Great Reset • WEF Creates Framework For ‘Responsible’ Facial Recognition

Posted on: World Economic Forum

In April 2021, the European Commission (EC) released its much-awaited Artificial Intelligence Act, a comprehensive regulatory proposal that classifies AI applications under distinct categories of risks. Among the identified high-risk applications, remote biometric systems, which include facial recognition technology (FRT), were singled out as particularly concerning. Their deployment, specifically in the field of law enforcement, may lead to human rights abuses in the absence of robust governance mechanisms.

Law enforcement and facial recognition technology
Across jurisdictions, policymakers are increasingly aware of both the opportunities and risks associated with law enforcement’s use of FRT. Here facial recognition refers to the process of the (possible) recognition of a person by comparing a probe image (photos or movies/stills of suspects or persons of interest) to facial images of criminals and missing persons stored in one or multiple reference databases to advance a police investigation.

On one hand, FRT has the potential to help resolve, stop and prevent crimes and bring offenders to justice. More specifically, it could be useful for various types of investigations, including finding the identity of an ATM fraud criminal, looking for a terrorist in public spaces, fighting child abuse or even finding missing persons. On the other hand, early experience shows that without proper oversight, FRT could result in abuses of human rights and harm citizens.

In this context, striking the right balance appears difficult. Policymakers may explore various options ranging from an outright ban to the introduction of additional accountability mechanisms to limit the risk of wrongful arrests. In the US, cities such as San Francisco, Oakland and Boston have banned the use of FRT by public agencies, while the states of Washington, Virginia and Massachusetts have introduced legislation to regulate its use. In other regions, court decisions play an important role in shaping the policy agenda. The UK Court of Appeal ruled unlawful the deployment of FRT by the South Wales Police to identify wanted persons at certain events and public locations where crime was considered likely to occur.

At a more global level, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) recent report on the right to privacy in the digital age recommends governments halt the use of remote biometric recognition in public spaces in real-time until they can show there are no significant issues with accuracy or discriminatory effects. It also suggests that these AI systems must comply with robust privacy and data protection standards.

Facial recognition technology requires a robust governing structure


Despite these important developments, most governments around the world recognize the potential of facial recognition systems for national safety and security but are still grappling with the challenges of regulating FRT because crucial considerations have been largely overlooked. If we were to authorize the proportional use of FRT for legitimate policing aims, what oversight body should be in charge of assessing the compliance of law enforcement activities with human rights and following potential complaints from citizens? How might we maintain a high level of performance of the FRT solutions deployed? What procurement processes should be in place for law enforcement agencies?

To address these challenges, the World Economic Forum – in partnership with the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics of the United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) and the Netherlands police – has released a white paper that introduces a governance framework structured around two critical components:

  • A set of principles for action that defines what constitutes responsible use of facial recognition for law enforcement investigations by covering all relevant policy considerations;
  • A self-assessment questionnaire that details the requirements that law enforcement agencies must respect to ensure compliance with the principles for action.

As such, this initiative represents the most comprehensive policy response to the risks associated with FRT for law enforcement investigations, led by a global and multistakeholder community.

Moving forward


This project is now entering the pilot phase. During this period, we will test the governance framework to ensure its achievability, relevance, usability and completeness. We will update it based on the observed results.

The Netherlands police force is the first law enforcement agency that has agreed to participate in the testing process. Yet, considering the sensitivity of this use case, we strongly encourage other law enforcement agencies to join us and contribute to this global effort. We also invite policymakers, industry players, civil society representatives and academics engaged in the global policy debate about the governance of facial recognition technology to join our initiative.

Once this pilot phase is completed, we will update the principles and the self-assessment questionnaire, and the final version will be published.

Supranational Globalist Projects #1: ORGANIZATIONS & INSTITUTIONS: CLUB OF ROME

Name: Club of Rome

Classification: Organizations & Institutions

Chaos Variant: Environmental Emergency

Key Associations: World Wildlife Foundation, Nature4Climate, Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Mikhail Gorbachev, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, United Nations, World Economic Forum, Stockholm Resilience Center, Leaders Pledge for Nature, the Global Goal for Nature, UNFCCC Race to Zero and Race to Resilience campaigns and the 50×30 Coalition.

Gorbachev has a few select quotes on the aspect of Climate Change and a One World Order:

“There are two dangers threatening humanity… The threat of devastating war using weapons of mass destruction and the threat of ecological catastrophe due to accelerating global warming. It’s no longer possible to deny that [climate change is] connected with human activity.”

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

It was within these walls of this is the organization, the concept of an Environmental Emergency aka Global Warming aka Climate Change emerged. It emerged as a central theme, a common enemy, for mankind to unite behind in fighting it.

Circa 2021, it is in plain sight that the Climate Hoax in the central mechanism in the implementation of a New World Order.

Two of the founding members are David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger.

As of 2021, there are five “Impact Areas”:

IMPACT HUBS:

Youth Leadership & Intergenerational Dialogues:

In this context, the Club of Rome will establish a global young leadership programme, based on three key areas – Education, Engagement and Action. This approach encapsulates both the value of nurturing future leaders through education – inspired by the Club of Rome’s core vision for a sustainable future for humanity and the planet – whilst recognising that this learning process needs to be leveraged and translated into concrete projects with genuine and lasting impact. The leadership programme will focus on the Club’s guiding pillars: Climate Emergency, An Emerging New Civilization, Reclaiming & Re-framing Economics and Rethinking Finance.

The Planetary Emergency Partnership:

The Climate-Planetary Emergency Impact Hub aims to:

  • ensure that the transformations detailed in the Planetary Emergency Plan are adopted, and
  • raise awareness of the need for an integrated emergency response and the opportunity for transformation that emergence offers.

Published in 2019, the Planetary Emergency Plan provides a set of key policy levers to address the cross-cutting challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and human health and well-being. Through implementing these actions, we can emerge from emergency and ensure long-term resilience and well-being within our planetary boundaries.

For years, scientists warned about the risks of straying beyond our planetary boundaries. The Limits to Growth report issued the first warning about unsustainable human activity on our planet 50 years ago. In 1972, its authors made the case that unlimited growth in population, material goods and resources on a finite planet would eventually lead to the collapse of Earth’s environmental and economic systems. Yet, it was only in 2020 that the public at large experienced the real impact of the encroachment of humanity on these limits through a zoonotic disease called COVID-19.

Living our lives as if Earth is infinite and shock resistant as we are doing today, is pushing our planet towards a series of tipping points that will become the greatest existential threat to humanity. Decades of exponential consumption and population growth have come to imperil the Earth’s climate and life-supporting systems, while reinforcing social and economic inequalities globally.

The Planetary Emergency Plan
Too often, interconnected crises are viewed in siloes, when there is an urgent need to address them as one integrated challenge. The Planetary Emergency Plan, which was drafted in partnership with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), aims to do just that.

First published in 2019, the Planetary Emergency Plan provides a set of key policy levers to address the cross-cutting challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and human health and well-being. The Plan outlines a vision of transformation and regeneration; a roadmap for governments and other stakeholders to shift our societies and economies to bring back balance between people, planet and prosperity. Only then can we truly emerge from emergency.

The Plan is a novel contribution to the emergency debate, recognising the inextricable interconnectedness of the three challenges referred to above and providing an alternative approach to conventional siloed, sectoral policy action. It combines a focus on protecting and restoring our Global Commons with implementing a series of economic and social transformations to guarantee the long-term health and well-being of people and planet.

Since being launched at the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019, the Planetary Emergency Plan has been infused into international discussions on climate, biodiversity, sustainable development and global risks. It forms the foundation of a global Planetary Emergency Partnership and has inspired global campaigns and policy efforts.

COVID-19 has further exposed our vulnerabilities and reinforced the case for emergency action. Therefore, the Planetary Emergency Plan 2.0 accurately reflects the convergence of three urgent crises (climate, biodiversity and health) and guides the work of the Planetary Emergency Partnership post-COVID.

Decade of action
The Planetary Emergency Partnership strives to raise awareness for an integrated, systemic approach that addresses the cross-cutting challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss and human health and well-being. The partnership advocates for implementation of the commitments and actions of the Planetary Emergency Plan, and builds momentum for a recognition that we are in a Planetary Emergency.

Bringing together voices from the climate, biodiversity and health communities the partnership emphasises the need for a decade of decisive delivery to ensure we meet the interlinked 2030 agendas.

Initiated by The Club of Rome and Potsdam Institute for Climate-Impact Research, with initial partners WWF and Nature4Climate, the Planetary Emergency Partnership now consists of over 350 scientists, policymakers, business leaders, youth representatives and NGOs. The Partnership supports the Leaders Pledge for Nature, the Global Goal for Nature, UNFCCC Race to Zero and Race to Resilience campaigns and the 50×30 Coalition.

By bringing together civil society organisations, academics, scientists, business leaders and public officials from across the globe, the partnership provides one of the largest, unbranded civil society coordination platforms to help build for a successful ‘triple crown’ of the UN Food Systems Summit, CBD COP15 and COP26 summits in 2021.

Summary Report of 2020 activities.

The Planetary Emergency Partnership meets monthly for a virtual strategy discussion on specific policy areas and key influencing moments. Partner calls focus on calls to action, intelligence briefings, network-building and coordination on collective targets and campaigns. We welcome new Partners to join us.

  • Summary of Limits to Growth:

    Published 1972 – The message of this book still holds today: The earth’s interlocking resources – the global system of nature in which we all live – probably cannot support present rates of economic and population growth much beyond the year 2100, if that long, even with advanced technology. In the summer of 1970, an international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of continued worldwide growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet-population increase, agricultural production, nonrenewable resource depletion, industrial output, and pollution generation. The MIT team fed data on these five factors into a global computer model and then tested the behavior of the model under several sets of assumptions to determine alternative patterns for mankind’s future. The Limits to Growth is the nontechnical report of their findings. The book contains a message of hope, as well: Man can create a society in which he can live indefinitely on earth if he imposes limits on himself and his production of material goods to achieve a state of global equilibrium with population and production in carefully selected balance.

  • 1972- Limits to Growth is published

    Under the supervision Dennis Meadows, a group of professors at MIT were commissioned by the Club to study the complex problems with which the group was grappling, using the now-famous World3 computer model. The result was the publication of The Limits to Growth in 1972, a milestone for the Club and a definitive moment in the advent of the sustainability movement. The Report was ground-breaking, as the first to fundamentally challenge the dominant paradigm of unbridled economic growth without regard for its environmental consequences.

    Download the book:

    <object class="wp-block-file__embed" data="https://muunyayo.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/limits-to-growth-digital-scan-version-1.pdf&quot; type="application/pdf" style="width:100%;height:600px" aria-label="Embed of <strong>Limits to Growth pdfLimits to Growth pdf
Reframing Economics:

Beyond GDP:


The objectives of the Reframing Economics Impact Hub are to:

push for the exploration of economic thinking that promotes the well-being of people and the planet to ensure a reversal of crucial eco system, climate and social tipping points created by humanity’s thirst for economic growth.
advocate for a shift from the current system which is based on fundamentally flawed economic theory and indicators promoting a growth centric philosophy.


As stated by American politician, Robert Kennedy, in his speech on Beyond GDP in 1968: “The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.”

Almost fifty years have passed since the launch of the “Limits to Growth” report by the Club of Rome. Its key message was that a combination of resource depletion and pollution, if unchecked, would ultimately bring the global economy down. This is the situation today.

Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals within Planetary Boundaries:

Earth4All is an international initiative to accelerate the systems-changes we need for an equitable future on a finite planet. Combining the best available science with new economic thinking, Earth4All is designed to identify the transformations we need to create prosperity for all. Earth4All is initiated by The Club of Rome, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School. It builds on the legacies of The Limits to Growth and the Planetary Boundaries frameworks.Earth4All will publish a major report in advance of the Stockholm+50 summit. The report will focus on transformational economics and five essential policy turnarounds to achieve the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals within Planetary Boundaries.

Transforming Economics:

The Transformational Economics Commission aims to provide decision makers with insights on how to protect the interests of people and the planet, prepare for future crises and build resilience, and transform our societies, economies, and our relationship with the planet.Previous Club of Rome reports have highlighted the need for transformative action, providing pathways and urgent actions that are required. The Transformational Economics Commission will take this further and analyse the economic and financial paradigm shifts necessary to ensure the adoption and implementation of these actions across different geographies.At this significant moment in history where we see the impact of the convergence of the health-climate-biodiversity loss tipping points and the growing existential risk to the survival of all species, the time has come for key systems thinkers, economists and policy leaders to come together as a collective of solution providers for resilience building to future shocks. The Transformational Economics Commission will focus on highlighting the need to replace short-term thinking with long term policies and systemic change, while considering today’s existing policy frameworks and intergenerational inequity.As part of the Earth4All initiative, the results will be published in a report in May 2022, which will include policy implementation scenarios and transformative pathways towards both environmentally and socially sustainable economies.

Rethinking Finance:

The monetisation of all transactions will need to be re-visited to enhance the equitable distribution of wealth and ensure broader well-being of all peoples. This means putting conscious effort and science into moving away from finance as a value system benefiting the few to accelerating a move toward real economy wealth creation for the many.

With a view of moving the current sustainable finance discussion from surface changes to the deep shift needed in our relationship to money and the existing finance system at large, the new Club of Rome Finance Impact Hub brings together real economy actors, investors, thoughts leaders to address core systemic alterations needed to support a well-being economy in balance with nature and responding to core global tipping points.

The Finance Impact Hub was launched on 20th February 2020 with a high-level roundtable at the Club’s new EU office, housed at Triodos Bank in Brussels. It convened officials from the European Institutions, EIB, ECB, Central Banks, Impact Investors, Finance Institutes, Foundations, Academics, and Members of the Club of Rome. Its primary objective was to explore key areas of change and existing leverage points and commence a co-creation partnership with a community of champions.

The spirit of the new Finance Hub is anchored in the seminal report to The Club of Rome, “The Limits to Growth” (1972), where calls were made for a deep-systems shift away from conventional finance models to one at the service of people-planet-prosperity. A series of publications since have continued to call for this shift. In particular, the Club of Rome’s Climate and Planetary Emergency Plans published in September 2019, calling for a decade of action that will enable the necessary change in systems to ensure long-term environmental and social sustainability.


From the Website: https://www.clubofrome.org/about-us/

About The Club of Rome
The Club of Rome was created to address the multiple crises facing humanity and the planet. Drawing on the unique, collective know-how of our 100 members – notable scientists, economists, business leaders and former politicians – we seek to define comprehensive solutions to the complex, interconnected challenges of our world.

Decades of exponential consumption and population growth have come to imperil the earth’s climate and life-supporting systems, while reinforcing social and economic inequalities and impoverishing billions globally.

As a network of thought leaders from a rich diversity of expertise, our members are committed to facilitating the difficult conversations and the bold actions required to confront the planetary emergency facing humanity and our common home. Our goal is to actively advocate for paradigm and systems shifts which will enable society to emerge from our current crises, by promoting a new way of being human, within a more resilient biosphere.

Drawing on thorough scientific analysis, the Club of Rome makes holistic proposals to address these immense, interconnected problems. It does so through research, concrete policy proposals and the convening of high-level meetings, debates, conferences, lectures and other events.

It also publishes a limited number of peer-reviewed “Reports to the Club of Rome”. Its seminal, best-selling 1972 report, The Limits to Growth, alerted the world to the consequences of the interactions between human systems and the health of our planet. Since then, more than 45 Reports have reinforced and expanded that intellectual foundation.

Recently, the Club has prioritised five key areas of impact: Climate-Planetary Emergency, Reclaiming and Reframing Economics; Rethinking Finance; Emerging New Civilization(s); Youth Leadership.

The efforts of our members are supported by the International Secretariat in Winterthur (Switzerland) a satellite office in Brussels (Belgium) and National Associations in more than 30 countries.

EMERGING NEW CIVILIZATIONS INITIATIVE (ENCI)

The Club of Rome is repositioning itself to challenge humanity to rise to its full potential and become good stewards of the Earth’s limited resources. Our call is anchored on the need for a paradigm shift in our fundamental belief matrix, and the complex economic, financial, social systems underpinning our daily interactions. We are determined to identify and mobilize those already engaged in the quest for a New Civilization to become part of a Network of Networks to pursue this vision.

The exploration of a New Civilization is being enriched by the responses of many fellow explorers who are engaged in asking tough questions of humanity in a variety of spaces. Common threads are emerging that affirm what we already know:

  • We are living beings who are inherently relational
  • Wisdom of ancients tells us that “the I Am because you Are”, the African Ubuntu philosophy, or there is “no Me without We.” Buddhists and other indigenous knowledge systems also have similar orientations. This wisdom enabled humanity to evolve into the intelligent species it is today, and we would be remiss not to tap into it.
  • The emergence of the need for a New Civilization is a manifestation of a rising consciousness of who we are as humans, and what values would best shape our relationships to one another and to nature.
  • New paradigms are needed to foster core values that promote human dignity, respect for nature and protection of the commons, beyond current.

Muunyayo disposition: alot of Marxist, cultural Marxist, equality, pseudoscience.

History:


Most influential organizations begin with the meeting of a few like minds. In 1965, Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, made a speech that proved inspirational to Alexander King, the Scottish Head of Science at the OECD. The two found that they shared a profound concern for the long-term future of humanity and the planet, what they termed the modern ‘predicament of mankind’.

Three years later, King and Peccei convened a meeting of European scientists in Rome. Although this first attempt failed to achieve unity, a core group of like-minded thinkers emerged. Their goal: to advance three core ideas that still define the Club of Rome today: a global and a long-term perspective, and the concept of “problematique”, a cluster of intertwined global problems, be they economic, environmental, political or social.

At the group’s first major gathering in 1970, Jay Forrester, a systems professor at MIT, offered to use computer models he had developed to study the complex problems which concerned the group more rigorously. An international team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology began a study of the implications of unbridled exponential growth. They examined the five basic factors that determine and, in their interactions, ultimately limit growth on this planet – population, agricultural production, non-renewable resource depletion, industrial output and pollution.

In 1972, the Club’s first major Report, The Limits to Growth was published. It sold millions of copies worldwide, creating media controversy and also impetus for the global sustainability movement. This call for objective, scientific assessment of the impact of humanity’s behavior and use of resources, still defines the Club of Rome today. While Limits had many messages, it fundamentally confronted the unchallenged paradigm of continuous material growth and the pursuit of endless economic expansion. Fifty years later, there is no doubt that the ecological footprint of humanity substantially exceeds its natural limits every year. The concerns of the Club of Rome have not lost their relevance.

Current Membership:

Stakeholder Globalism • American Mind

Source: https://americanmind.org/salvo/stakeholder-globalism/

Armed security personnel stand guard on the rooftop of a hotel, next to letters reading “Davos” surrounded by snow, near the Congress Centre on January 25, 2018 in Davos, eastern Switzerland. / AFP PHOTO / Fabrice COFFRINI (Photo credit should read FABRICE COFFRINI/AFP via Getty Images)

At the end of the twentieth century, the triumph of capitalist democracy convinced many that the field of human advancement had been cleared of adversaries. In the ensuing decades, Westerners were shocked to discover that field had filled with technological challengers.

As Cambridge historian David Runciman notes in How Democracy Ends, “the information technology revolution has completely altered the terms on which democracy must operate.” Capitalism is becoming less democratic and democracy less capitalist. Surveillance cameras are embedded in more places; cell phones track our movements; programs log our keystrokes.

The resulting information is fed into databases and assembled into profiles of unprecedented depth and fungibility. The decline in personal privacy might be worthwhile if it were matched by comparable levels of democratic choice and transparency. But for the most part, it is not. Unauthorized opinions are increasingly censored online, while giants like Amazon, Apple, and Google bar disfavored customers and businesses from their marketplaces.This shifting relationship between capitalism and democracy has not gone unnoticed by the West’s sharpest critics. At his first press conference in 20 years, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid was asked about the Taliban’s commitment to freedom of speech. Journalists, Mujahid suggested, should ask the “promoters of freedom of speech” at Facebook why his government is banned from posting on Instagram and WhatsApp.The irony is rich.

In the heady millenarian days at the “end of history,” Silicon Valley imbued Big Tech with the wide-eyed spirit of the idealistic counterculture. Today, however, these former cultural nonconformists have become global gatekeepers. Twitter’s decision to suspend President Trump after the unrest at the Capitol opened the floodgates for tech companies and other services to ban political dissidents from their platforms.What is becoming clear is that there was a crucial flaw in the end-of-history vision.

What if the capitalists lose interest in democracy or find it inconvenient?

An intriguing concept almost unused in journalism but common in political discourse is a “globalist state” whose members have given up part of their sovereignty in return for a say in their neighbors’ affairs.Big Tech is at home in this globalized schema. Like most billionaires, Mark Zuckerberg regards the concept of nationalism with open hostility. The “struggle of our time,” Zuckerberg suggested, pits the “forces of freedom, openness and global community against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism and nationalism. Forces for the flow of knowledge, trade and immigration against those who would slow them down.”Those who seek a grand conspiracy theory to explain this phenomenon will be disappointed. What we are dealing with here are often marginal reforms—a trickle rather than a flood. From western Europe to sub-Saharan Africa, policy-makers are moving many policy fields “upwards,” to the international or supranational arena, and “downwards” to NGOs and private companies.

This has been accompanied by a modest measure of structural change which has allowed powerful bureaucracies in the UN more control over national affairs.One influential advocate of this outlook is the former British prime minister Theresa May. Speaking to the House of Commons on the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, May described the events unfolding in the region as a “major setback” for UK foreign policy, adding: “We boast about Global Britain, but where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?” May found it “incomprehensible” and “worrying” that the UK was not able to bring together an alternative peacekeeping alliance.Globalism is best conceptualised less as a fantastic conspiracy so much as an emergent phenomenon among elites with overlapping interests, the goal of which is to deterritorialize politics. Members of the professional and managerial elite—journalists, economists, humanitarian aid workers, technologists—have adopted a very different attitude to borders than sectors of society who are bounded to their community’s territory.

As Zygmunt Bauman observed in the 2000s, territorial allegiances have become a class-specific property.Why history hasn’t endedIt would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of this change. For many hundreds of years, nationalism was the bedrock of international relations. Foreigners were routinely considered to be outsiders and could not be full members of the moral community.Over the past couple of decades, however, we have seen a dramatic reversal of this rule: pre-political ties are expanding to include larger groups, nations, families of nations, and perhaps even all humans. As a result, elite positions on global issues actually tend to be highly incoherent, and the need to consult “stakeholders” often leads to more liberal policy outcomes.A case in point here is the British government’s failure to stem the flow of illegal immigrants crossing the Channel in record numbers.

In 2019, the British Home Secretary, Priti Patel, campaigned on a platform of opposition to mass immigration, withdrawal from key human rights laws, and hostility to illegal entrants and bogus asylum seekers. Her views accurately reflected the opinions of the great majority of Conservative members, as well as great swathes of the electorate. They were not, however, acceptable within 10 Downing Street, so she failed to muster the support necessary to “take back control.”This state of affairs illuminates one of the central paradoxes of Western politics.

Although the technical capacity of states to control immigration has increased rather than diminished, and border control is widely held to be common sense by the majority of the population in every country, most Western governments are reluctant to implement effective enforcement of their own immigration laws. There is a gap between what politicians say and what politicians do, because immigration policy is considered above the pay grade of the masses. It is the domain of the globalist managers.

The withdrawal of the elites: Globalism belongs to a species of liberal thinking that deplores barriers to trade and disapproves strongly of borders. ‘’Openness,” “inclusion,” “diversity”: the globalist is, in his own eyes, a defender of enlightened universalism against the exigencies of geography. The key articulators of this movement now include not only Silicon Valley but also the military-intelligence complex, NGOs, and non-institutionalised protest groups whose global operations are facilitated by smartphones.Globalism has ushered in a period of massive wealth redistribution, from the lower middle class to the superrich, and from towns to cities. Today, a large firm in a modern city can source its capital in Shanghai, locate its industrial plant in Wolfsburg, and tap information from a database in Bangalore. Moreover, thanks to improvements in transport technology and infrastructure, businesses can hire large numbers of overseas graduates whose skills could not be realistically recruited from the domestic labor market. This explains why big business and its agents of opinion are without exception supporters of “Global Britain.”Meanwhile, at the lower end of the labor market, foreign workers are increasingly used to fill jobs that are considered too degrading for the native population to undertake.

Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter for some debate, but it is beyond question that the wealthy now prefer employing cheap labor from abroad. Today, as David Edgerton argues in The Rise and Fall of The British Nation, “a new anti-egalitarian snobbism is permissible, and a certain reactionary chic possible.”This is a formidable combination. And it is easy to see why elites don’t want to give up on it, at least not yet.

However, these policies must be debated with the utmost honesty if we are to do what is best for our country and for the planet. There is no denying that a gap has opened up between civilians, soldiers, governments, and corporations: the “we” feeling seems no longer to have a voice among our leaders.Contrary to what many have said, globalism does not rid the world of the nation state. It does, however, delimit it. Once in a position of power, globalists will hive off the functions of the state and farm them out to a complex range of extra-governmental organizations and semi-independent bodies. Their key function is to push “the rules of the game” beyond the reach of democratic politics, the strategy of deterritorialization. To a large extent, therefore, conflicts over territorial sovereignty have replaced many of the more familiar ideological battles of the twentieth century.

Great Reset Nomenclature

The Great Reset is the name of the partnership formed between the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. The endgoal is to usher in the objectives of Agenda 2030. The United Nations’ purpose is to implement global governance. The World Economic Forum is a consortium of members which include governments, corporations, NGOs, foundations, universities, international-level institutions, trade associations and more. Each year, key individuals from the aforementioned group meet in Davos, Switzerland to discuss to global economic matters. The 2021 Davos convention focused almost entirely upon implementation of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals elaborated upon within Agenda 2030.

The following are buzzwords to be aware of when reading news, publications, books, websites, trade publications, SEC filings – basically every form of medium known to man:

  • Rebirthing culture
  • Water-wise
  • Climate change
  • Climate action
  • Climate refugee
  • Climate migrant
  • Climate justice
  • Climate awareness
  • Climate warrior
  • Visioning
  • Synergies
  • Leave no one behind
  • Mainstreaming
  • People, Planet, Profits
  • Reporting requirements
  • Domestic extremism
  • New economy
  • Regenerative tourism
  • Green bond
  • Green investment
  • Green Funds
  • Medical inequality
  • Medically necessary
  • Co-creation: science and society
  • The geopolitics of vaccine inequality
  • Sustainable
  • Equality
  • Equity
  • Green New Deal
  • Build Back Better
  • Circular economy
  • Nature-based solutions
  • Ecological connectivity
  • Stakeholder capitalism
  • Fourth Industrial Revolution
  • Robotics for nature
  • Cyber threats
  • Cyber security
  • Cyber fingerprint
  • Digital fingerprint
  • Carbon reduction
  • Net zero carbon emissions
  • Triple Bottom Line
  • ESG ( Environment, Sustainability, Governance)
  • Neighborhood revitalization
  • Restoration
  • Asset based community development
  • Netizen
  • Digital currency
  • Ledger
  • Invasive species
  • “DEMOCRACY”
  • Traffic calming
  • Greenways
  • Blueways
  • Direct Instruction
  • Smart cities
  • Smart devices
  • Smart development
  • Vax
  • Community-based
  • Life-Long Learning
  • Governance
  • Reinventing Government
  • Communitarian
  • Resilient city
  • Clean energy
  • Renewable resources
  • Efficiency credits
  • Human Capital
  • Rethinking
  • Carbon credits
  • Communitarianism
  • Common Core
  • Transformational change
  • Building a shared future
  • World Conservation Congress
  • Anchoring biodiversity to nature

The United Nations (UN) & Zionism

NONE WORLD ORDER

The Communist-Zionist United Nations was designed from its inception to subvert the national policies of sovereign Nations and secretly impose world tyranny on the peoples through the back door.


Goals of the Zionist World Order


FREEMASONRY (mafia-style, occult secret societies) are present in every town (example below). They are an essential part of politics and economy (again since 1945 in Germany, Italy and Austria).

Small-town in Austria


Supreme Court of Israel with the pyramid on top


View original post

Post #4 – Great Reset/Agenda 2030 – Modern Globalist People and Entities – KPMG

KPMG is known as one of the “Big Four” global accounting firms. From their website:

“Through helping other organizations mitigate risks and grasp opportunities, we can drive positive, sustainable change for clients, our people and society at large.

KPMG firms operate in 146 countries and territories, and in FY20, collectively employed close to 227,000 people, serving the needs of business, governments, public-sector agencies, not-for-profits and through KPMG firms’ audit and assurance practices, the capital markets. KPMG is committed to quality and service excellence in all that we do, bringing our best to clients and earning the public’s trust through our actions and behaviours both professionally and personally.

We lead with a commitment to quality and integrity across the KPMG global organization, bringing a passion for client success and a purpose to serve and improve the communities in which KPMG firms operate. In a world where rapid change and unprecedented disruption are the new normal, we inspire confidence and empower change in all we do.”

What alarms me about KPMG, not only are they onboard with the Great Reset, but they have been behind Sustainable Development Goals since 2014 – as evidenced by this document:

Of course, it was not until 2015 that the United Nations unveiled Agenda 2030, which made public the “17 Sustainable Development Goals” . So KPMG is deep in this shit. I love their new “Our Impact Plan” which is a nice amalgamation of globalist/Great Reset/hell on earth key words like:

  • Sustainability
  • Decarbonization
  • Stakeholder Capitalism
  • People, Planet, Profits
  • Inclusion and Diversity
  • Net-Zero Carbon Emissions by 2030
  • Responsible Tax Program
  • Circular economy
  • Enhancing social inclusion and prosperity through education

This is one of the most revealing captions of their bullshit:

“Our Purpose and Values guide us and continue to shape our business, informing our actions and defining the work we do every day. To inspire confidence and empower change, we need to
consider the economic, environmental and social impact of our activities, align our financial and societal performance as part of a shift towards stakeholder capitalism, and ensure we have strong governance to oversee all our activities.


Our work with the World Economic Forum, setting the IBC metrics for ESG reporting, is one example of how we’re using our experience and knowledge to help shape the future of sustainable business. We are seeing this work as part of the wider role we believe we must play to get to harmonized, consistent
and credible information on sustainability matters — both risks to and impacts by companies. We have been pleased to accept roles at the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), FSB Taskforce
on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), Corporate Reporting Dialogue and Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), among others.”

The reason for pinpointing KPMG is for they are one of the important entities behind the coming valuation of companies performances in compliance with ESGs.

Symbols Conceal and Reveal

Above are the official symbols of:

  1. Early symbol of Christianity merged with the Roman Empire
  2. Israeli Mossad
  3. The United Soviet Socialist Republics emblem
  4. The current United Nations emblem

It’s quite interesting how similar these all are to one another as it’s also interesting how each of these “wreathed” emblems represent domination.

Constantine converted to Christianity – in essence merging the Roman Empire with the faith. The wreath represents what’s embodied within will not be broken.

The Mossad’s moto is “By Deception, thou shalt do war”, which explains a lot when dignitaries world wide become frustrated with Israel’s clandestine false flags, espionage and terrorist attacks self-defense operations.

The USSR was the pinnacle of what started with the Bolshevik Revolution which overthrew the Czar (monarchy) in Russia in 1917. The Bolsheviks were funded with Wall Street mega-bankers bankrolls. This is a good example of how capitalism and communism are reliant upon one another to exist. If anyone calls into question symbiosis between Capitalism and Communism – take a look at World War 2 – with the United States and the USSR entering into an alliance to defeat National Socialist Germany.

And finally we have the United Nations. The mechanism created by the Rothschild-led international central banking consortium to bring nations to the table in order to establish a one world system of governance, with people becoming a one world culture (globalism), under a uniform ideological framework called Communitarianism – which is explicitly a Capitalism/Communism hybrid.

And this hybrid is being brought about via the implementation of the UN Agenda 2030’s “Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)” . Stated very simply, the SDG targets are only attainable if the world as you know it was dramatically repurposed; societal, economic, political, financial, educational, medicinal and on and on.

But the East India Trading Company wants those SDG targets hit. And the dynasty that owns the East India Trading Company happens to own the controlling interest in the world’s central banking octopus, they own the City of London, they possess the deed to Palestine (Mossad was a response) …

Now, through the UN’s partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) that was launched in June 2019, the WEF became tasked with the responsibility of making the SDG package a reality.

The battle plan to achieve the implementation of Agenda 2030’s SDG is called THE GREAT RESET.

And the Great Reset was publicly launched on June 3rd, 2020 amidst the depths of the worldwide Coronavirus (panic, misguidance and worst of all – decimation of the middle class and the economy in it’s entirety). This is all being done to drive people into the arms of the concept of Communitarianism.

They’ll use the Fourth Industrial Revolution as the guise to the most massively sophisticated and powerful surveillance and security apparatus ever imagined; complete with big data feeding artificial intelligence, enhancing deep machine learning – complete with drones, robots, biometrics-capturing video and audio systems…the Bank of International Settlements will be tasked with the ultimate rollout of a uniform, global digital currency that will be tethered to all existing currencies in circulation as of now (ultimately to consolidate and phase then out).

Climate Change will be the big one to frighten the people – the Americans – into thinking the Earth will blow the Fuck up if they do not abolish whiteness, relinquish their private property, abandon religious, medicinal, scholastic, economic, recreational, social and most absolutely of all POLITICAL values and beliefs, accept the concept of global citizenship… the UN, for the past ten years or so, has been interchangeably using the terms “economic migrant” and “refugee” . And they have officially declared economic migration a human right – and have meme’d poorly developed parts of the world as casualties of climate change and global warming.

Thus, migration is needed to heal the Earth. And pronoun rehabilitation camps. And dildo sanitizer.

Except for Israel.

HOW FAKE AND GAY IT ALL HAS BEEN.

Brendan O’Connell – 2020 & the Forced Economic Collapse of America

This video captures everything…check out the tags below