The Berlin Principles
The 12 Manhattan Principles - aka One Health - were penned in 2004. And these in 2019 were updated through the Berlin Principles1. And though these were covered in the past, let’s take a second look.
The post to which I refer is this.
To quickly summarise the Manhattan Principles, it’s about conflating human and animal health, accepting that decision by man lead to a change of land use, and this drives illness some of which cause zoonotic illnesses leading to disease in humans, and we all know that these are terrifying, simply terrifying and in no way made up in exactly the way that the 1997 H5N1 event in Hong Kong wasn’t a big, fat, zoonotic lie.
To ‘solve’ these terrifying, terrifying events, we need surveillance, lots of it, vaccines, and when these events threaten human well-being, we must let the ‘scientific consensus’ do its thing, which can lead to culling of ‘wildlife species, more broadly’.
In other words - One Health leads to surveillance, vaccines, and a dash of culling, and this in all living species, combined - ie, the ‘holistic’ approach.
The Berlin Principles updates these 12 Manhatten Principles, in fact, slims these down to 10. And let’s quickly run through these -
Biodiversity conservation for sakes of protecting life on planet Earth.
Strong institutions to be rolled out to guarantee said, guided by the ‘best available science’, which should be translated into policy.
Loops in the ‘climate crisis’ leading to an amplification of existing threats.
Refers to ‘land and sea use decisions’ impacting health and well-being, calling for us to mitigate and eliminate said impacts.
Calls for predictive capacity - surveillance leading to adaptive management - but also promising to stamp out ‘harmful subsidies’.
Calls for the integration of human health and the environment.
Requests investments along with a funding mechanism to carry out this program.
Refers to surveillance and the timely sharing of said with other ‘stakeholders’.
Pretends to pay the dues of those ‘indigenous peoples’ (who will promptly escorted off their homelands should it be financially worthwhile), requests strengthening of the public sector for sakes of global health and biodiversity conservation.
Calls for information and education of the above for sakes of ‘global citizenship’, which should emphasise human health depending upon the health of the planet.
You can then simplify these further to arrive at -
Conservation of all biota for sakes of life on Planet Earth.
Strong governance that translates biota conservation science to policy.
Fight carbon emissions (UNFCCC)
Restore biodiversity (CBD), and Land-use reform (CBD Ecosystem Approach).
Adaptive management using surveillance data, elimination of harmful subsidies.
Biodiversity and human health integration.
Investments + a funding mechanism.
Global surveillance, with stakeholder access.
Strong public sector with stakeholder ‘participation’.
Global Citizenship & Planetary Health education and information.
We can then further refine and summarise -
Planetary Heath / Governance [1, 10] -
Strong institutions [2]
Science translates into policy [2]
Human health and biodiversity integration [6]
Strong public sector [2]
Holistic [5]
Adaptive [5]
Takes input from stakeholders [8, 9]
In a public-private-partnership scenario, (1) and (4) amount to the same, especially when considering (2), and (3) is the holistic approach outlined in (5), also considering (6) and (7) -
Technocratic governance (1, 2, 4)
Human health and environment holism (3, 5)
Adaptive management, with stakeholder input (6, 7)
‘Adaptive management’ in short leads to a loss of oversight mechanism, meaning no-one will ever be held to account, but will publicly lead to claims of ‘resilience’ -
Next; Policy Instruments -
Carbon emission reductions [3]
Land use, conservation and restoration [4]
Subsidies [5]
Investments, and a funding mechanism [7]
Carbon emission reductions will cause an increase in carbon offsetting costs, and hence will affect farmers and energy production, thus escalating food, heating, and transportation costs - ie, cost-push inflation - on primarily the Western taxpayer.
Land use reform relates to the Ecosystem Approach, which in short is the elimination of private property rights, instead transferred to the Project Team-appointed stakeholders, and the conservation and restoration will be carried out through taxes levied on primarily the Western taxpayer.
Subsidies will - by and large - affect… farming, due to its (alleged) polluting nature, and energy for… much the same reason. Consequently, this will lead to an increase in inflation on primarily the Western taxpayer.
Incidentally, if you’d like to know where said eliminated ‘harmful subsidies’ will come from, you can find a very interesting Hank Paulson report over here…
And finally, investments in the surveillance apparatus will be paid for through taxation, and the funding mechanism will also be a combination of inflation and taxation levied on primarily the Western taxpayer.
Consequently, the above can be summarised -
Inflation
Taxation
Moving on; Stakeholders -
Objective is global health + biodiversity [9]
Participatory selection process (9)
NGOs, public, private, indigenous peoples (9)
Receives surveillance input (8)
Not that much to add here, simply because not only can individually selected ‘participating’ stakeholders be ‘iterated’ out, but they can entirely be ignored should the project team carry all decision-making power in the first place. Finally, they already stated in [2] that science should lead to policy, meaning a swift fabrication of the latest ‘best available scientific consensus’, and all bets are off.
Next up; Surveillance -
Cross-sectoral and trans-disciplinary [8]
Environment [5]
Health [8]
Biological diversity [6, 8]
The first point means integrating virtually any datastream into their global surveillance, for the environment we have GEOSS2 (Global Earth Observation System of Systems), health could be covered by another GEO derivative, EO4HEALTH3 (Earth Observations for Health) along with - say - contact tracing public health surveillance for real-time tracking, and biological diversity also has its own GEO-derivatives, GEO BON4 (Group on Earth Ovservations Biodiversty Observation Network), when then has then even further derivatives5, where MBON (Marine Bon) is just one example6, SOIL BON another7, and finally GBIOS8, the ‘Global Biodiversity Observing System‘ which links to ‘indicators’ developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity, and example thereof being the Aichi Target Indicators9. But ultimately, all of these derive from GEOSS, being the platform of global surveillance.
Finally, as for The People -
Under strong health governance [2]
Receive information and education [10]
Global citizenship [10]
Planetary Health [10]
Yeah, we get to live under a political system where we have no influence on decisions, and where our children are brainwashed with quack science.
Thanks, but no thanks.
-
Summary
Science relating to human health and environment will be conflated, used to drive a technocratic decision-making process utilising adaptive management, meaning the government ultimately will never be held to account.
Policy instruments include land right reform, hence stripping private ownership rights, and will in general be financed through taxation and inflation, to be levied on especially the middle class Westerner, the latter through higher costs on food and energy.
Though a ‘participatory’ stakeholder process is involved, even if said ‘stakeholders’ should not continuously be ‘iterated’ to ultimately become cherry picked yes-men, these can be wholesale ignored by the project team if the decision-making process is not distributed downward, meaning said ‘stakeholders’ act entirely in advisory capacity. Finally, should ‘the science’ disagree in any form, then everything can be discarded wholesale for sakes of the ‘best available scientific consensus’ - meaning this genuinely is a Soviet-Style technocracy, where those fabricating said ‘science’ are your genuine, new-age religious masters.
To ensure everyone stays in line, a surge in global surveillance capacity is called for, linked up with public health surveillance and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s biodiversity indicators, which ultimately also stay entirely outside of a democratic process.
And as for the people - they’ll live in a Soviet-style democracy, be subjected to round-the clock Planetary Health propaganda, and see their children indoctrinated with values, pushing for ‘Global Citizenry’.
-
And if that wasn’t bad enough, let’s just finish off with a few other tidbits observable in the document in question, because the Berlin Principles also drag in the ‘One Planet, One Health, One Future’ event taking place in 2019, with participaiton of Andy Haines, Christian Drosten, Peter Daszak, and Cristina Romanelli.
Quite the gathering.
But more specifically, there’s a line which… lays out - in no uncertain terms - exactly what they think of you -
'Underpinning the Berlin Principles is a broad One Health ethical framework... the impossibility of protecting human health in isolation from the health of other animals and the environment.'
That’s right. As outlined by the document - in terms of consideration, human health is now in line with ‘the health of other animals'.
I suppose I should also point out that the list of co-authors include one Andrew Farlow. He’s got his own website10, and he’s very much contributed to the narrative the entire way, with a few notable publications following. Sure, we’ve got Covid-19 vaccines11… and AI, digital, and GIS tools.
But that’s quite late on, how about earlier? Sure, here’s Covid-1912… wet markets, and planetary health.
But - though interesting - those absurd lies are quite where I’m going with this. No, let’s have a look at a different link. This one -
– Foster, A., Cole, J., Petrikova, I., Farlow, A., Frumkin, H. (2020). Planetary Health Ethics. Planetary Health: Protecting Nature to Protect Ourselves. Myers, S., & Frumkin, H. (eds), Island Press, 453-47413.
I covered that book a while back on Twitter, and it’s… quite revealing, really. Because it… frankly… is nothing short of neo-Marxist trash, through and through.
We have the ‘interdependent’ angle, a vast call for ‘ethics’, ‘intergenerational responsibility’, ‘morals’, ‘the rights of animals’, the IPBES-coined term ‘relational value’, comprehensive and continuous lies about ‘indigenous peoples’, ‘distributive justice’, ‘wealth inequity’, ‘planetary degradation‘, and a strategic omission of China when discussing primary GHG polluters… in a book from 2020!
Incidentally, the focus on ‘wealth inequity’ is an implicit call to steal every penny out of the pocket of an already struggling Western middle class… penned by Westerners. What does that tell you about the political views of said authors?
So much concentrated Marxist trash… and on only 4 pages!
But it carries on; deceptively ignoring China, promotes global communism (through carbon allowances, soon to be linked to your CBDCs), lies about their ‘biodiversity’ programs which seek to privatise gains for the benefit of the ultra-elite, speaks of ‘environmental refugees’, yet disregards who drives the population increase, adds a libellous claim about the climate being the driver of said migration, and demands even more compensation stolen through taxes on said struggling Western middle-class taxpayer, peppered over with complete and utterly shameless lies througout.
It continues by claiming ideologically held values of honesty and objectivity, which of course is nothing short of outright lies, adds more Marxist terms like intersectionality, heaps on the claims of ‘human destruction’, claims to be open to listening, and debate in general, then only to continue deeming skepticism ‘climate denial’, which quite obviously means they will never, ever, ever in a trillion years genuinely listen.
And their ‘respect for autonomy’ only carries so far that it’s politically expedient, of course - such as allowing those ‘indiginous peoples’ the rights to hand over their lands through complex debt-for-nature swaps, which will never, ever be repaid, but will see their lands transferred to UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, through which they will promply be monetised for carbon credits by the ultra-elite through the GEF. One wonders if they take a cut from these ‘deals’, or if the authors are legit that braindead they don’t realise what the genuine play is here. Corrupt or incompetent? Place your bets.
It carries on, demaing that mitigating climate change is a ‘government duty’ (though obviously not in the case of China, with whose authoritarian political ideology the authors are clearly in agreement), and plasters emotional distribe in the conclusion in a quality of which Hitler would be proud.
Ultimately, this is all about THEM, and what THEY want, and THEIR ethic and moral values, THEIR attitudes, THEIR science, THEIR philosophy, and should you not hold the equivalent values of this lot of Oxford Martin School of Marxist Revolutionaries, then you’ll no doubt be lined up against the wall the very second these insane lunatics come to power.
Actually, in fairness, if history is anything to go by, then you will be in the second round. The first round of casualties will be the useful idiots, some of whom penned this report. Because, post-revolution, they are now considered dangerous, as they simply know too much.
This chapter was penned by Andrew Farlow - who also continuted to the Berlin Principles, in fact, is highlighted in terms of his (blatantly marxist) ethics points of view, Rockefeller Foundation advisor, Jennifer Cole, and a certain Howard Frumkin who also co-authored the Lancet/Rockefeller special issue on… Planetary Health14.
As for the book? That’s again the work of Frumkin… and Samuel Myers.
And - by pure coincidence, I’m sure - Myers also co-authored said Lancet/Rockefeller special issue on Planetary Health.
Which - clearly - is what the Berlin Principles ultimately are all about.
In short - don’t trust a single person involved with this project. Because while they in public promote values of transparency, fairness, equality, and shared responsibilities, what they actually push - hence, would suggest a reflection of their private values - is for the world to become yet another Marxist hellhole.
-
In closing - some people question how societies can become strongly religious, authoritarian hellholes.
THIS IS HOW.
Because their ‘best available scientific consensus’ has absolutely nothing to do with legit science. Yet, you will be forced to comply, or be deemed a heretic, and burned at the stake as a witch.
Just you wait. It’s coming - unless those Marxists are stopped.