Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development - Part I
Jeffrey D Sachs edited and contributed to it.
EcoPope Francis wrote the foreword.
It’s about Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development.
How could it fail to disappoint?
Let me start off by saying that had it not been for Bret Weinstein’s comment relating to this being a ‘sloppy accusation’, I wouldn’t have written the substack article, leading to my discovery of the book covered in detail in this article.
And let me also unequivocally state early on that their plan for Global Governance goes through Global Ethics. This document could not possibly make that any more clear - even down to the role of Global Citizenship education, and morality-based institutions.
And finally - yes. This is admittedly yet another behemoth of an article, consequently, I decided to split it in two, where this first part outlines the premise, and part two will focus on important detail contained within specific chapters.
These things genuinely are complex - by intent. But the 20 minutes it should take to read is an absolute fraction, compared to the amount of time I had to put in, comprehending this opaque, manipulative, crass Marxist garbage.
The bottom line here is that this document describes a gradual societal transition, in process of which they will steal every penny of yours, allow endless economic migrants to walk right in, brainwash your kids through ‘ethical’ education, corrupt your religion and its traditional morality, facilitated through the fabrication of fraudulent environmental quack science, … whilst simultaneously parading about on a claim of looking after our ‘human rights’, our ‘dignity’, ‘common good’, and ‘sustainable development’, furthermore also used to fabricate a ‘Global Ethic’ which - allegedly - justify all of the above.
This report genuinely is that bad, and not only will we systematically go through the claims above, but we will pay particular attention to Jeffrey Sachs - because he has most definitely not ‘Switched Sides’. And - as I absolutely predicted - Bret Weinstein has not paid attention to my request for comment. As previously stated, I usually steer clear of these exercises of he-said-she-said, but Bret has acted very strangely as of late, quite frankly.
-
As for the report itself - where else to start but with the Catholics’ alleged spiritual leader on Earth - EcoPope Francis -
‘The urgent call and challenge to care for creation are an invitation for all of humanity to work toward sustainable and integral development... respond to the plea of millions and support the consensus of the world for the healing of our wounded creation. We are convinced that there can be no sincere and enduring resolution to the challenge of the ecological crisis and climate change unless the response is concerted and collective, unless the responsibility is shared and accountable, unless we give priority to solidarity and service‘
It just all appears so absurd. So utterly absurd. Forget all about traditional morality, the EcoPope is in town, and an EcoPope must do what all good EcoPopes do - care about scientific rationalism… as fused into religion through Paul Carus in 18931.
All of it just appears as though it’s some terrible, overdone joke - but it genuinely isn’t. I just can’t help shake my head in disbelief, and this ridiculous headline only contributes in that regard2 - ‘JEFF SACHS BRINGS THE SDGS TO THE VATICAN‘.
‘In this spirit, we hope that people in all parts of the world—especially students and young leaders… in calling for human dignity and economic justice for all peoples across faiths, cultures, traditions, nations, and geographies‘
… but at least the sick joke snaps to material we recently visited.
‘… the world’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by all 193 member states of the United Nations, can help us to find a global path forward for the common good, and a method of worldwide collaboration to address the pressing social, economic, and ecological challenges of our age. The SDGs help to nurture a strong sense of the common good‘
… and all in the name of common good collectivism.
‘Yet though people of goodwill everywhere yearn for the common good and social justice, we observe that the prevailing culture of hate, greed, arms race, and power that is not at the service of the poor is taking the world in the opposite direction: an upward spiral of war, violence, poverty, forced migration, and environmental destruction. We must, with all our hearts, speak out against this hate and violence, which is of course a dire negation of love, the common good, and social justice. We must, above all, recognize humanity’s current peril‘
If you disagree with any of this, then you won’t be considered a ‘person of goodwill’, thus you fail to uphold your part of the deal, and won’t be considered ‘living in dignity’… trodden ground, of course, but this level of divisive language, even straddling questionable claims of ‘culture of hate’… written by someone, supposedly a great unifier of people? And what is this ‘peril’ of which he speaks, anyway?
‘Step by step, we are moving towards catastrophe… We see these rising dangers in a pandemic that has claimed the lives of millions while leaving the poor without access to life-saving vaccines and medicines. We see the rising dangers in the multiple ecological crises—climate change, habitat destruction, and wanton pollution—that have all intensified in recent years’
Yeah, the EcoPope now appears to make his living from shilling quack science, destined to ‘change’ frequently - and selling ‘vaccines’, tested on all of 8 mice.
’We see the rising dangers most starkly in the war against Ukraine, which escalates with frenzied calls for even more destructive weapons, and with no urgent call for peace, negotiations, and conciliation on behalf of the main actors‘
… which, actually, is an outright lie, because that war would have come to a prompt halt had Boris Johnson not gone to Kiev back in April, 20223. Of course, the lying MSM has since tried to cover this up, but reality is that this was published by Russian newspapers almost as soon as it took place.
‘These crises of poverty, disease, nature, and war are inseparable from the shifts in our global culture… Consumerism, throwaway culture, and the technocratic paradigm together make us blind to our interdependence with one another as human persons and the environment… and think of “one world with a common plan.”...
This special volume that brings together people of many faiths, cultures, and traditions thereby helps us to see how humanity together can put ethics to action in the service of the common good and social justice.‘
The document is all about One World, interdependence, ethics, the common good, and social justice. Oh yeah, and selling vaccines, dubious ‘science’, questionable definitions of ‘dignity’, … and not forgetting - ‘sustainable development’.
I don’t fundamentally disagree with religion. A lot of people are lost and need some level of moral or spiritual guidance - if for no other reason but it being a lot easier to subscribe to an infrequently changing book, rather than progressively refined science - which may or may not have been corrupted for political expedience. But religious morality is supposed to flow from within and up the spiritual social hierarchy - not be pushed from top-down in an overly aggressive, divisive manner, where those disagreeing aren’t even invited to ‘participate’. Oh wait, I’m getting ahead of myself.
But what I absolutely loathe is people taking advantage of their fellow man - and that EcoPope is a mockery of a Catholic.
The introduction is co-authored by obvious snake oil salesman, Jeffrey D Sachs -
‘The Ethics in Action initiative set out to find a moral consensus on the concept of sustainable development and a practical common agenda… respective religious and intellectual traditions—divergent in many ways—shared a common concern for the social, economic, and environmental aims expressed in the framework of the SDGs‘
Somewhat more the friendly tone - ‘it’s ok that we disagree on some things’… provided said disagreements are within the contextual Overton Window, as set by… them4.
They continue, dragging in the ‘finite Earth and limited resources’ theory - Spaceship Earth5, if you will - speaks of ‘overshooting the carrying capacity’ which will lead a ‘deep ecological, social and economic crisis’. And if you think that sounds a tad Club of Rome’esque, that’s because it is, explicitly dragging in ‘Limits to Growth’.
It carries on, outlining a brief historical timeline from the UNCED meet in Stockholm, 1972 (which led to UNEP), through Brundtland in 1987, the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, with the UNFCCC and the Convention of Biological Diversity explicitly detailed - two cornerstones of the greatest, ongoing, scam of all time.
It continues by claiming the Kyoto Protocol did very little - which is a total lie, as it integrated the carbon emission offsetting mechanism within UN treaties - and never mind said was practically outlined in full by a report, output by working group 3 of the IPCC - in 1990.
The introduction continues -
‘The goals for the year 2030 can be summarized as follows: no poverty, zero hunger, good health and well-being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, responsible production and consumption, climate action, healthy oceans, sustainable ecologies, peace and justice, and international cooperation to meet these goals. The 2030 Agenda thereby constitutes a holistic agenda that combines economic, social, and environmental objectives, with sustainable development as the core organizing framework for global cooperation‘
It all sounds so harmless, good-spirited, but ultimately, a bit toothless, no? Well… apart from the mention of a ‘holistic agenda‘, of course.
‘To what extent do the world’s religious and ethical traditions support the ethos of the 2030 Agenda? Might there be an overlapping moral consensus, sometimes called an unforced consensus, on the SDGs that spans these diverse sacred and secular traditions?‘
What this is meant to sound like, is organic cooperation. But what it actually is, is (corrupt) scientific rationalism pretending to be religious morality.
‘Notably, in 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote a pathbreaking encyclical titled Rerum novarum, meaning “Of the New Things.” Leo XIII highlighted the historical novelties of the industrial age and raised profound concerns about the challenges it would pose to human societies, thus beginning the modern era of Catholic social teaching…‘
What’s of interest here is that not only did this arrive a few years prior to the 1893 Parliament on World’s Religions, but it’s... essentially the genesis moment of Catholic modernity. And if ‘Yes, Prime Minister’ taught me anything, it’s that ‘modernisers’ of religion don’t tend to be religious - at all.
‘In 2015, Pope Francis carried on the legacy of the Church’s social teachings with the issuance of his remarkable encyclical Laudato si’. In this magisterial work, Pope Francis takes up the environmental crisis in its ethical dimensions and focuses on the duties of stewardship and responsibility that we have toward the planet and toward each other. He links the Church’s conception of human dignity (imago dei) with our collective responsibility to take care of both each other and the physical earth. Laudato si’ calls us to an integral ecology that recognizes the essential relationality or interconnectedness of all things.‘
All previously addressed in the article linked above. In short - Laudato Si marked the fusing of fickle, science-directed religious morality into Catholicism - with Islam having a similar venture. I’m sure other religions did, too.
It includes a chronology of events, dragging in the Paris Agreement on climate change, before outlining -
‘In Laudato si’, Pope Francis writes that our interdependence—with each other and with the planet—“obliges us to think of one world with a common plan.” That is precisely what the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement aim to achieve. And the objective of one world with a common plan is the driving force of our search for an overlapping consensus among the world’s diverse religious and philosophical traditions.‘
The Paris Agreement will gradually worsen our quality of life, as the aim is the progressive slashing of carbon emissions… in the West… never mind China, etc, building coal plants at breakneck speed6.
And this is absolutely not about ‘saving the world’. This is an attempt by a handful of people to seize global control, siphoning all wealth out of the West, and using said to steal every tract of land in the 3rd world. I outlined that process over here -
‘… we should explore the possibility of a shared global ethics of achieving these objectives…‘
I will repeat this message for as long as it takes. Consider the global coup d’etat end station being Global Governance through Global Ethics.
‘One might compare the aim of Ethics in Action to an earlier UN initiative that also sought and located an unforced and overlapping moral consensus: the 1948 UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)‘
Let me get another link out of the way. But get ready for something truly shocking.
‘Third, one large tradition not thoroughly represented in our deliberations was non-Catholic Christianity, which makes up about 40 percent of Christianity, including some vocal movements that, in America at least, are unlikely to be as friendly to the SDGs as the representatives we worked with‘
… this is straight down the narrow of the IPCC way of ‘doing science’ - by refusing to invite those who fundamentally disagree.
And I don’t particularly care if you believe in human induced climate change or not. You absolutely do not commit to ‘good science’ when you actively seek to exclude anyone disagreeing. But should you be so foolish to accept this premise, it will so obviously be abused within minutes.
And - on net balance - I would actually argue that this case is even worse. Why? Because the 40% of Christianity mentioned will to a very large extent overlap the nations primarily affected by this scam. How is that ‘ethically’ correct - in any capacity? If anything, this simple fact alone should lead to an outright dismissal of the entire project, because what they clearly did, was establish a ‘consensus’ in exactly the same way as that set in 1979, at the First World Climate Conference.
Which, incidentally, was an invite-only event, arranged by hyper-conflicted ICSU, and at which they primarily discussed policy, not science. Believe me, I have studied this period of time very carefully, and even self-proclaimed ‘climate policy historian’ Gerald Kutney point blank refuses to respond to anything in this regard, instead opting for absolutely pathetic, juvenile insults, which frankly shows him for exactly who he is.
What I say is that this report has absolutely no legitimacy. None. Because the institutes, explicitly dealing with ‘morality’ took it upon themselves to actively discriminate against those who disagreed.
‘Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development captures the intellectual depth and diversity of this initiative by collecting the religious and ethical thought... You will read about the intersection of the SDGs, ethics, and philosophy. You will be able to reflect on the consensus statements, and you will hear from practitioners on specific challenges to sustainable development.‘
… and - much like that 1979 Climate Conference - the primary output of this… this… mockery of religious morality is a ‘consensus’. Gee, how appropriate that both this and the 1979 event actively excluded those who disagreed on core principles.
Let’s jump to the conclusion. I like doing so, because it provides an outline of the top-down view, allowing you to gradually fill in detail as you then go through each chapter.
‘Toward a Moral Economy‘
… I like honesty. If anything, this is exactly that.
‘Over the course of two years of meetings, the Ethics in Action Working Group drew attention to an overlapping ethical consensus centered on the Sustainable Development Goals shared by a diverse group of religious and secular ethical traditions. These traditions consistently—if imperfectly—summon their adherents and others to live their lives more deeply in accord with a vision of human dignity and the common good, marked by environmental sustainability, a just distribution of resources, and a holistic sense of well-being centered on the fullest development of capacities. What emerged most clearly in our program was a strong multireligious emphasis on the need for a truly moral economy in order to achieve the SDGs and integral and sustainable development‘
Setting aside the exclusion of those who disagreed, accepting fallible ‘science’, slotting it all in with ‘human dignity’, an ‘ethical’ framework ripe for abuse (by intent), redistributive economics, and a dubious claim of creating a ‘moral economy’… we also have added holism, in essence a vehicle of arbitrary rule. A strong, strong start.
‘A moral economy is one that explicitly recognizes universal human dignity and is oriented toward the common good: a vision of the good held in common that sufficiently recognizes our interdependence and shared well-being. It is fueled neither by relentless profit-seeking... A moral economy not only guides us to act in the interest of the common good but also teaches us to truly desire the common good, a task in which religious institutions ought to be playing a large role‘
So, it’s an economy, realigned towards the ‘common good’ (collectivism), recognising our interdependence (collectivism), and shared well-being (collectivism), and which seeks to… exploit religion to ‘teach’ us to desire… common good collectivism.
We then continue on the topic of ‘Virtue Ethics’ -
‘But how is it that one learns to desire the common good and to act accordingly? The Ethics in Action Working Group consistently emphasized the need for a new kind of virtue ethics that would attend to the reality of our social, economic, and ecological interdependence. A virtue ethics for the twenty-first century would have much in common with previous secular and religious virtue ethics traditions, including a focus on moral habits, rationality, and the telos of human beings, but it would also incorporate knowledge from modern science.’
This… is actually really interesting. Because during Covid-19, Season 2, do recall all those people posting their vaccination status on Facebook, only for ‘likes’ to immediately pile in from every direction. Of course, those of us who refused never received free donuts, tuition fees, McDonalds, lottery tickets, and - most important of all - ‘likes’ on Facebook! Talk about inequity!
’Contributors to this volume have sketched out some necessary (though not sufficient) components of a modern virtue ethics, including some of the hallmark virtues that should be located at its center. Justice is an important virtue for a modern ethic, for both individuals and corporate bodies, especially an attentiveness to distributive justice or economic fairness‘
In case you don’t know what ‘distributive justice’ is, it refers to societal reallocation of resources. It’s the philosophical concept of economic redistribution7.
‘… we need to leverage the technical capacity and moral resources of both religious communities and secular institutions of education to teach and lead people into practices—and ultimately lives— of moderation‘
Not only will they seek to brainwash you through quasi-religious morality, created on the back of flimsy claims of ‘scientific consensus’… they also also seek to mobilise education to brainwash your kids.
‘Prudence demands patience, anticipation of the consequences of one’s actions, and humility when these consequences are uncertain. The precautionary principle, for instance, urges prudence in the face of environmental or technological change and innovation. And a prudent economy not only attends to waste and inefficiency but also to the distribution of wealth and resources‘
There are quite simply so many lies and instances of Aesopian language packed into this paragraph that it’s almost deserving of some kind of award - probably presented by Jen Psaki… on MSNBC. The precautionary principle8, first, is a rhetorical device which is abused to hell and back. They apply it in the context of flimsy claims of climate change, environmentalism… or even pandemics… regardless of how many jobs and thus livelihoods it’ll destroy. It will, in other words, be applied in only the direction benefiting their purpose. But - in this same paragraph - they also tell you to accept responsibility for your actions (while they point blank refuse to accept responsibility for theirs), show humility in the face of uncertainty (ie, do nothing, because otherwise it could be used against you), be patient (accept less), and… expect you to ignore that their description of a ‘prudent economy’ is one of top-down central planning, because you could not possibly make a such claim in a free-market economy structure.
‘A modern virtue ethics must also be oriented toward the achievement of some end or goal (a telos) for an individual or society. It must center on the of notion of an agreed common good, the achievement of which requires democratic deliberation in both politics and economics. Our initiative demonstrates that there is a widely shared, unforced consensus on what this common good is, as outlined by the SDGs‘
The SDGs are supposedly our ‘agreed common goal’, which the ‘virtue ethics’ must reflect, and ‘democratic deliberalisation’ means taking a ‘participatory’ and ‘inclusive’ approach to discussions - in exactly the same way the ‘stakeholder approach’ does. No, really - that quite genuinely is what it means. It’s just that Marxists are completely incapable of being honest about anything... in a ‘transparent’ way.
‘To reach this end, a modern virtue ethics would emphasize the development of good habits and practices in the individual and social dimensions—to help us act in ways that are aligned with the individual and common good. This suggests a role for moral education and training.‘
Indoctrination. Through the education system. Targeting you as an individual, but also your cultural association.
‘Modern science has much to bear on this. For example, ecological and climatological sciences would help inform the telos of moral action, because a world characterized by climate stability and environmental sustainability can be brought about only by a certain kind of person…‘
And what should be indoctrinated is the ‘best available scientific consensus’.
‘We’ve noted that modern science will be of assistance in updating virtue ethics for our contemporary situation, in the sense of better informing us of the kinds of ends (and virtues) necessary for a sustainable future and what would best facilitate training in virtuous behavior and comportment. For both of these purposes, we need to more broadly develop and promulgate ethical education.‘
Thus implicitly leading to acceptance that the purposive (SDGs) is set to forever change, as informed by the latest (quack) science, translated into virtuous behaviour, and fused into your kids’ curriculum via the education facilities.
I have stated almost exactly this repeatedly on Twitter. Nice to have it confirmed. There are a few steps missing, of course, so allow me to fill in a few of the blanks9. The present purpose - outlined in Sachs, etc - is sustainable development. However, when said purpose eventually changes, this will be intersected with alleged ‘human rights’ (and duties), leading to ‘Global Ethics’, which thus will call for a required indoctrination update on occasion.
And when that happens, it will be in entire alignment with all other aspects of your life. That’s how the scam is set to operate. And that is the structure they’ve spent generations putting together - in super slow motion.
‘Ethical education plays a large role in determining our desires and shaping what we consider to be the telos or purpose of our lives‘
And that’s where UNESCO’s ‘Lifelong learning’10 relating to ‘Global Citizenship’11 enters the stage.
And let’s just take a quick look at the Global Citizen Education. We see.. a ‘deep understanding of human rights’ (and responsibilities, soon enough), the ever-predictable ‘environment’, ‘systems of inequalities’, ‘thinking critically’, ‘asking questions about what’s equitable’… and ‘instilling values that reflect the vision of the world and provide purpose‘.
Their critical theory. Their vision of the world. And their purpose. Which - at present - is ‘sustainable development’ but will gradually change, thus calling for an update to your indoctrination through ‘lifelong learning’… much like your mobile phone upgrades its Operating System on occasion.
‘Supports the development of curricula and learning materials on global citizenship themes tailored for diverse cultural contexts… general guidance document on teaching and learning objectives of global citizenship education or recommendations on integrating social and emotional learning principles (SEL) in the education process‘
Yes, really. The education will be tailored to locality and culture, and SEL principles will play an active role just as well. James Lindsay has done a fantastic job breaking down that concept12, no need for me to. Either way, all of this - of course - should feature a healthy ‘infusion’ of ‘respect for human dignity’.
Back to the main document -
‘Education is always guided by values, so there is no such thing as an ethically neutral education, curriculum, or pedagogical method. We must always be oriented toward some sort of good, as Aristotle, Augustine, and others have cogently demonstrated‘
Yes, a purpose. An ever-changing one at that.
‘The good that education should aim us toward is that of sustainable and integral human development. Through classroom learning, religious training, and practical instruction, ethical education will encourage students to attend to the complex challenges of sustainable development, including the thematic topics discussed throughout this compendium. Ethical education will teach virtues to illuminate the path toward sustainable development, not only for individuals and religious groups but for corporations, communities, and other institutions.‘
Purpose (SDGs) ==> Ethical Education ==> Individuals, religious groups, corporations, communities, and other institutions.
See? What all of this really means, is that we should - and let me quote SDG 213 on Universal Values for you - Leave No One Behind.
And let me clear up a misconception in that regard. It’s not because they care about you. This is not about them wanting to protect you - oh no, no, no. This is about you not being given the choice. You have to go along. You have to accept collectivism.
It’s Critical (tm)!
‘In short, ethical education will develop students more fit for life and work in the moral economy. It will challenge conventions of market capitalism and its encouragement of egocentric motives and self-interest. A renovated virtue ethics will render students more attentive to the challenges of distributive justice and environmental degradation. Ultimately, an ethical education that orients students toward sustainable development will produce better business leaders, educators, politicians, and practitioners.‘
So first they demonise market capitalism, then they proclaim that their indoctrinated lemmings will carry out the bidding of their corrupt ‘morality’ - even down to economic redistribution aka ‘distributive justice’ - and finally, they make clear that… this very much applies to, essentially, everyone.
‘The group advocated for a moral economy based on the dignity of all people, … ethical traditions represented by the initiative all agree that such a summons applies to both people and communities. It is therefore intrinsically linked to the common good and entails the development of both social and individual virtues‘
We have a moral economy connecting up with dignity, which connects to the common good, which entails the development of individual and group virtues.
‘In the final analysis, no person may be excluded from this holistic sense of development‘
Leave no one behind.
Then follows a number of specific actions -
‘Ethics in action to end poverty. This meeting recognized that the juxtaposition of extreme poverty amid global plenty is a moral scandal and that the integral development of people is blocked when they are beset by poverty. Accordingly, the initiative called for financial transfers from rich to poor, both within and between nations. It called for ending the gross ethical misallocation of resources. And it called for social activism…‘
… we have economic redistribution on a global scale, we have a call for central planning through claims of ‘ethical misallocation’, we have a call for Soros to dial Jeremy Heimans and Purpose Campaigns, drumming up more fake protests…
‘Ethics in action to support migrants and refugees. The initiative acknowledged that, owing to prolonged conflict, climate change, and a lack of sustainable development, migrants and refugees are increasingly vulnerable populations. The group therefore called for ethical actions to aid these people, especially in terms of meeting their basic material needs, supporting their political participation, and fostering openness to their full integration into their adopted homelands‘
These people are planning to absolutely flood Western nations with 3rd world economic migrants. More on that later.
‘Ethics in action for education. Another necessary component of any moral economy is comprehensive education. All people must have access to decent education, at least to the secondary level, so they are enabled to unfold their capabilities and contribute to the common good. Accordingly, the initiative called for a global fund to invest in education in developing countries. It also stressed the importance of moral education, given the importance of virtue to integral human development.‘
And - especially - your kids will be targeted for indoctrination. Bet on it. They will teach your kids that they are the awful oppressors, while the ‘culturally tailored’ education elsewhere will teach those kids that they are being oppressed - by you! And due to ‘intergenerational equity’, it is their right to march into your country and take back what you - allegedly - took from them.
See, this is what Marxists do. They set up people against one another. And for that purpose, what could be a better instrument then something as fundamentally racist, sexist, and overtly discriminatory than their concept of ‘intersectionality’?
‘Ethics in action for climate justice. The initiative recognized that climate change is one of the most important and urgent moral challenges facing the world today. It called for the immediate implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change and for providing assistance to the countries that suffer most from the effects of climate change. In terms of concrete strategies, the initiative recommended actions to phase out fossil fuel technologies, as well as fossil fuel divestment and lawsuits against offending companies.‘
Gee, do tell me - is the genuine reason why you didn’t invite 40% of Christinanity because those are the people you are actively trying to destroy?
‘Ethics in action to combat corruption. The group agreed that corruption corrodes any attempt to develop a moral economy. To combat corruption, the initiative called for the elimination of tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions and recognized an option to impose wealth taxes on accounts shielded behind these screens. It also called for the removal of money from politics.‘
On the surface of things, it sounds good, no? Because - yes - there is a lot of wealth currently going untaxed. However, where the real money hides is in the Foundations. Tax exempt foundations, to be exact. Rockefeller. Carnegie. Gates. Ford. And this report does NOT seek to impose ‘wealth taxation’ upon any of those - I wonder why!
End Foundations Now.
And on the topic of ‘wealth taxation’, what will so obviously happen is that once introduced, they will demand to push it downwards - until they’ve gradually confiscated every penny of yours. Because even if it turns out a remarkable success, bringing much needed tax receipts in the face of mounting state expenditure… it will somehow never manage to be enough. And why, do you ask -
Because those same states will progressively spend an increasing amount of their budget on restoring, say, mangroves in Brazil through the Global Environment Facility, after which the Foundation class will monetise the carbon credits generated from said mangroves and make you pay for them. No, really. If you’re not upset about any of this, then you genuinely haven’t understood - because these people are crooks and thieves of the highest order.
‘The proceedings of the Ethics in Action initiative reflect a shared vision of the primary contours of a truly global common good. Following the initiative’s recommendations would encourage the development of a moral economy and, ultimately, the realization of sustainable and integral human development‘
It leads to Marxist Socialism. Nothing short thereof.
In part two, we go through the individual chapters, because - oh boy - is this report potent.
Sachs is a CFR man
'nuff said.