The Fourth Industrial Revolution

What is the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and why the hell does Klaus Schwab have a bust of Lenin in his office?

So grab yourself a drink - I’d recommend something light, say, a triple scotch on the rocks - strap yourself in, and read on - because it all makes sense, and furthermore perfectly aligns with the broader agenda at play.

Unless you’ve lived under a rock, you should be familiar with Klaus Schwab and his almost comedic levels of portrayed evil, suggestive of a dark emperor of the infamous business forum known for its annual event in Davos - the World Economic Forum. You’ve probably even heard of his 2016 book, the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’¹.

But… it’s not a terribly exciting book, to be quite honest with you. Like most material on the topic of the ‘4IR’, it speaks of how the world is alleged to change - yet he somehow manages to steer clear of the single most important change of all.

But I suppose it’s worth mentioning that beyond a mention of Buckminster ‘Spaceship Earth’ Fuller, a nod is also given in the direction of Karl Marx - and the book even includes the phrasing ‘importance of a purpose’ which happens to be entirely contextual.

Perhaps there indeed is something to this ‘radical change’ promised early on.

Should you choose to investigate the 4IR, you will by and large be told about automation, AI, Internet-of-Things, connectivity, big data, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology… with the word ‘smart’ included in healthy measure - just about everywhere. And that word itself provides a hint of the existence of a more covert objective, because ‘smart’ encapsulates a shift towards ‘more intelligent, interconnected, and adaptive systems’, where ‘intelligent’ means capable of learning, and ‘adaptive’ entails changing circumstances, where both can briefly be summarised as ‘self managed’. And that’s of importance, because central to this alleged ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ is adaptive management, which emphasizes flexibility, continuous learning, and real-time responsiveness to change.

In fact, should you investigate you’ll find that the most obvious - artificial intelligence - through interconnected systems (enabling smart management), efficiency (monitor based adjustment), data-driven insights (adaptive management input), even through to human-machine collaboration² - all of these ultimately come down to processing surveillance information - big data - to drive automatic processes, leading to managerial decisions taken in real-time - with or without human intervention.

And that is no joke. Should you perform a contextual web search, you will find an almost infinite amount of hits when combining the terms ‘adaptive management’ and ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’³, spanning each and every corner of the world. There are particularly large amounts in the context of Ukraine⁴ in general⁵, but even Namibia⁶ joins the fray.

And the World Economic Forum has been particularly busy in this field, promoting ‘Adaptive Management’ in just about every context imaginable. Here are four examples spanning disease control⁷, climate-resilient infrastructure⁸, saving Life on Earth⁹, and climate metrics for Oil&Gas¹⁰, with the first example being the earliest, dating back a decade to 2014.

They also released a Business Action Agenda¹¹ on March 11, 2020 (at the start of the alleged ‘pandemic’), let us in on the 4 questions of supposed pivotal importance relating to the future of technology back in 2018¹², … and their agenda authors include specialists in this field, with two examples given through Fred Boltz¹³, and Tara Martin¹⁴. Consequently, when I say that Adaptive Management is central in the context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution… it’s because it is.

But adaptive management as a theory isn’t specific to the underlying field itself. Whether applied in the context of smart cities, alleged climate change, or even disease control - it’s ultimately a management philosophy, and the underlying context is irrelevant. That should be pretty clear from the above, but just in case - as I’m about to include a specific document courtesy of the IUCN - here’s yet another WEF document¹⁵, ‘Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution for Oceans’ relating more specifically to marine biodiversity, but this document further adds that the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution is first and foremost a data revolution.‘

Consequently, the Fourth Industrial Revolution is about Adaptive Management, and the data revolution is central to it all. And the computer science equivalent of adaptive management primarily come down to information theory, general systems theory, resilience theory, and cybernetics, where each, respectively, comprise surveillance data, modelling, adaptive capacity, and decision-making.

Thus, in the context of computer science, adaptive management involves:

• Collecting Surveillance Data (Information Theory): Continuously monitoring a given system for performance and environmental data.

• Modelling (General Systems Theory): Creating and using models to predict future states and behaviors based on historical record and real-time data, gathered through information theory.

• Decision-Making (Cybernetics): Making informed decisions based on general systems theory model predictions and information theory surveillance data to guide system actions and adjustments.

• Adjusting Adaptive Capacity (Resilience Theory): Improving the system's ability to adapt through self-modification, ensuring its capability to withstand shocks of primarily external nature.

… incidentally also observed in the context of the pandemic response framework.

Prevent, Predict, Detect, Respond

The report mentioned above (in the context of adaptive management) which I will now include comes courtesy of Australia and the IUCN, UNEP, and even the Convention on Biological Diversity - a very cornerstone of the ‘New World Order’, per Henry Lamb himself¹⁶.

The Convention on Biological Diversity

The report titled ‘Protected Area Governance and Management‘¹⁷ was released in 2015 - though really only a single chapter is of interest; Chapter 8 which is titled ‘Managing Protected Areas‘¹⁸.

‘The chapter presents some management theory in providing a definition for management that includes its four core functions‘ it starts off, before briefly discussing active management, and through ‘Land-use changes’ include an explicit mention of the Convention on Biological Diversity before continuing -

‘Protected area practitioners will be acutely aware of the need for active, effective and responsive management‘, principles which are general, and do not apply singularly in the context of biological diversity before asking the essential question - ‘What is management?‘, fortunately continuing by answering the question -

‘Process: This is about undertaking four functions of management and the activities and operations that are associated with them. The four functions are ‘planning’, ‘organising’, ‘leading’ (implementing) and ‘controlling’ (evaluating), …‘

But before shedding further light on each on these functions, it continues -

‘Goal-directed manner: This recognises there is clarity of direction provided by a protected area organisation. The activity being managed has a purpose and direction within a strategic management context and aims to achieve a certain level of desired results‘

This, of course, relates to a said purpose, further confirmed through -

‘In an organisation: This identifies management that is undertaken by people with different functions within a protected area organisation and that is structured and coordinated to achieve predetermined common purposes‘

The four functions are detailed through -

• Planning, which includes modelling and analysis of data

• Organising, through the efficient allocation and marshalling of resources

• Leading, through directing and influencing

• Evaluating (controlling), monitoring outcomes relative to expectation.

The book carries on by detailing Adaptive Management, stating that this ‘has been defined as ‘a systematic approach for improving resource management by learning from management outcomes’‘. And there’s truth to that, because it essentially boils down to input-output analysis, and Leontief in 1948 (though which began in 1941).

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

And while it could appear tempting to map these four to the computer science adaptive management fields detailed above, they’re not a good fit, as can most clearly be observed through the evaluation stage, appearing to sit somewhere between information theory and general systems theory.

But, per the IUCN, we have their description of adaptive management, and we have their outlined 4 functions of management, but they also included a very helpful figure, outlining how the continuous management cycle works through 8 separate steps, through which we can fit the 4 functions of management outlined above to their respective inputs and outputs -

• Leading takes management objective inputs, and outputs policy.

• Planning takes (poorly named) ‘planning’ inputs, and outputs requirements in terms of input resources, which will logically include human resources.

• Organising uses the input resources, and generates outputs, through products or services rendered, and finally

• Controlling uses outcome monitoring inputs (surveillance), and outputs a comparison of said to expectation.

… of course, there’s nothing connecting those 4 blocks of 2 tasks each… or is there?

Well, it just so happens a well-known framework slips right into this cycle; and it’s one outlined by none other but Erich Jantsch, in his 1971 paper ‘Inter- and Transdisciplinarity University: A Systems Approach to Education and Innovation‘¹⁹. I have sourced this paper on occasion, mainly because of the framework highlighting a university structure broken into 4 distinct levels; the purposive, normative, pragmatic, and empirical. And though these terms may appear confusing, they are contextually important, because they relate to meaning (purposive), ethics/morality/procedures/standards (normative), organisation (pragmatic), and observation (empirical). And with that in mind, it should be fairly clear that these connect the 4 blocks of 2 in the following manner -

• Purposive takes misprediction as input, and adjusts the objective.

• Normative takes policy input, and drafts a standard of implementation.

• Pragmatic takes allocated resource input, and creates an organisational output.

• Empirical takes created results and creates an evaluation.

Perhaps that all sounds a bit vague. Let me do a full cycle to explain -

• Leading (Objectives ==> Policy)
  Through direction, legislation becomes departmental action.

• Normative (Policy ==> Planning)
  Jantsch’s normative level ensures that departmental action becomes standards, procedures, practices, or even ethical guidelines.

• Planning (Planning ==> Inputs)
  Determining requirements, standards, etc, are turned into input resources.

• Pragmatic (Inputs ==> Processes)
  Via organisation, the utilisation of input resources, are turned into managerial execution.

• Organising (Processes ==> Outputs)
  The managerial execution yields outputs.

• Empirical (Outputs ==> Outcomes)
  Through observation, created outputs are documented through outcomes.

• Controlling (Outcomes ==> Evaluation)
  By comparing expected results with outcomes, an evaluation is carried out, detailing quality of execution.

• Purposive (Evaluation ==> Ojectives)
  This evaluation is then used to adjust legislation, thus completing the cycle. Repeat until the purpose has been achieved.

That is how the continuous management cycle works, through applying observation, organisation, and principles to hone in on an objective through the progressive fine-tuning by self-modification of the structure of said observation, organisation and principles, with the aim to ultimately achieve the purpose. And adaptive management is an example of this continuous management cycle, per the IUCN above.

And the purposive/normative/pragmatic/empirical framework was the output of Jantsch, who further wrote a fair bit on General Systems Theory, specifically, on self-organisation²⁰.

The Skeleton of Science

… but though this book really does deserve closer scrutiny, it’s hard doing so without losing 99% of reader appeal. So let me instead show you a different book of his.

Let me show you ‘Perspectives of Planning’, the output of a 1968 working symposium at Rockefeller’s Bellagio, which went to detail that -

‘Many of the most serious conflicts facing mankind result from the interaction of social, economic, technological, political and psychological forces and can no longer be solved by fractional approaches from individual disciplines.‘

… so we need a trans-disciplinary, holistic approach?

‘The need for planning is not generally recognised. Further, the pursuance of orthodox planning is quite insufficient, in that it seldom does more than touch a system through changes of the variables. Planning must be concerned with the structural design of the system itself and involved in the formation of policy.‘

… there’s the call for trans-disciplinarity…

‘The need is to plan systems as a whole, to understand the totality of factors…‘

… and then the call for a holistic approach…

‘Planning must nevertheless be undertaken simultaneously at different levels and must be integrated across these levels.‘

… and there they both are, together. A trans-disciplinary, holistic approach. And that, of course, means that it will call for central coordination. Oh, but perhaps you’d like to see who contributed to this report?

We have Jay W. Forrester²¹… the MIT pioneer of system dynamics who authored the World2 model, the source of Club of Rome’s revised World3 model, the output of which was discussed at lengths in their 1972 classic ‘Limits to Growth’ report. We have… Aurelio Peccei who co-founded the Club of Rome²² together with Alexander King… who incidentally also was present at Bellagio.

We also find Stafford Beer²³… who worked on cybernetics, especially in context of corporate planning. And as for Rene Dubos - his CV is very impressive. He penned Recommendation 3 (seeking to balance human impact on nature, with bonus mention of ‘zoonotic disease’) in the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, which incidentally took place just the month prior. And he also co-authored ‘Only One Earth’ with Barbara ‘Spaceship Earth’ Ward in 1972.

The 1968 Launch Event

Spaceship Earth

This report for the record was a major influencing input wrt R Edward Freeman’s 1984 classic, ‘Strategic Management’ which led to the ‘stakeholder approach’, a term ultimately originating back in 1963, ultimately reflecting a merger of governance through public-private-partnerships.

And here’s a comparison of private and public organisational structures, as outlined through that 1968 report. Oh gee, they’re identical.

The US Government is ready to be merged with… no, acquired by corporations!

And we also see four general functions ‘required for the pursuit of the ideal society’ - let’s investigate these out of order. We have the Aesthetic, the Ethico-Moral, the Politico-Economic, and the Scientific. And those 4? Well, those would be Jantsch’s purposive, normative, pragmatic, and empirical we saw above, or you could otherwise detail them as ‘objective, humanities, social science, natural science’.

The objective of these 4 classifications can be briefly explained through a simple, yet somewhat cynic example -

• The purposive is about the meaning of it all. So, say, some moron occupying Number 10 in the United Kingdom decides that national spirits require a lift, and that we should form together to serve a common purpose to instill some level of unity in the public, regardless of how utterly retarded the concept itself may well appear.

• This purposive becomes normative ethics, as a psychotic behavioural psychologist (who may or may not be a member of the communist party) decides that we should all clap for the NHS at 8 o’clock in the evening. This message will be further amplified in a such manner to suggest that those who refuse to engage in this idiotic ritual are social outcasts, thus leading to a punitive social reaction should you fail to go along.

• The normative become pragmatic through organisation. That would be your television, your newspapers, your podcasts, your doctor, your politicians - all telling you to clap like a seal for those nurses, who wasted all that time recording stupid f-ing tiktok dance routines as opposed to telling the truth about empty hospitals, thus building up increased cancer backlogs in the general population.

• Finally, the pragmatic becomes empirical through observation, through monitoring the people for compliance, ensuring said go along with this ritual absurdity. But, sure, you weren’t made to comply with clapping… but that would simply be a matter of supplying a different example.

Now, let’s make a swift, backwards move from the practical to the conceptual.

Purposive-Normative-Pragmatic-Empirical thus becomes a weaponisable vector through Purpose-Ethics-Organisation-Observation. And it just so happens that 4 historical theorists align perfectly in this regard. And those (in reverse order) are -

• Observation aligns with Vladimir Vernadsky, who pioneered work relating to the biosphere, fathering the practical conceptualisation of the Noosphere, encompassing the collective consciousness and intellectual activity of humanity, but also being one of the first scientists to recognize and articulate the impact of human activity on Planet Earth.

• Organisation aligns with Alexander Bogdanov, who pioneered Tektology, a universal science of organization.

• Ethics aligns with Paul Carus, a monist who not only fused religion and science through ethics²⁴, but also chaired the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions²⁵.

• And as for the purpose… that’s where dialectical materialism comes in.

Because -

• Vladimir Vernadsky’s ideology could be described as ‘observational organisational scientific monism’ as this uses scientific principles to unify empirical observations of the organized hierarchy of natural systems - including human thought - into a single, cohesive framework.

• Alexander Bogdanov’s could be described as ‘organisational scientific monism’ as it uses scientific principles to unify the organized structures and processes of various systems into… a single, cohesive framework.

• Paul Carus’s philosphy was ‘scientific monism‘ as it seeks to explain all phenomena through a unified, scientific framework comprising all aspects of reality, thus… leaving us with the final theorist of the four, who can really only be…

• Karl Mark, whose ‘materialistic monism’ philosophy laid the groundwork for ‘scientific monism’ and all later derivatives.

And though you could table the argument that Ernst Haeckel is a marginally better fit - on account of him being credited with the concept of ‘ecology’²⁶ - that argument ignores Vernadsky, Bogdanov, and Marx being entirely politically aligned. And though Carus wasn’t particularly politically active, he did enable the crucial 1893 ‘Interfaith Movement’ at the Parliament of the World’s Religions - which gradually worked to undermine traditional, religious morality - but he also palled about with Felix Adler²⁷, credited with the founding of Ethical Culture, based on the principles of ethical humanism²⁸.

Laudato Si and the Islamic Declaration on Global Climate Change

… and as for ‘ethical humanism’ - that’s what Julian Huxley similarly got up to.

To Build a Better World

And we haven’t yet properly dealt with Bogdanov, who - along with Lenin - co-founded the Bolshevik party in Russia in 1903²⁹. But his primary scientific contribution came through Tektology³⁰, a theory of universal scientific organisation, which acted the precursor of both General Systems Theory and Cybernetics³¹. And those two serve as very cornerstones of Adaptive Management theory.

But - beyond the founding of the Bolshevik party - how did Bogdanov align specifically, and for what purpose did he create Tektology³²?

‘Marx believed that socialism would create an integral human community, which would end the fragmentation of the human psyché brought about by the division of labour and specialization. Bogdanov conceived of the future collective in a similar fashion – all of its members would be able to transfer from specialty to specialty. Science would be available to everyone and the human collective would be able to control it. But for Marx, the future socialist society was to result from the inherent social nature of Mankind, whereas for Bogdanov it would result from the active self-organization of society‘

Bogdanov and Marx shared political ideology, but where Marx believed the socialist society of the future would come about through the nature of mankind, Bogdanov thought it would come through by means of self-organisation -

‘For Bogdanov, Tektology was the ultimate tool for the construction of new kinds of relationships between members of the social organization in the advance towards socialism… in Bogdanov’s own words, Tektology was an “all-human science” – an instrument for the organization of humankind into “single intelligent human organism‘

And to the end, Tektology filled the gap.

Tektology is an extention to Marxist ideology, providing an ‘active’ facility to enable the gradual, societal transition to Marxist Socialism…

… though you might be more familiar with the term ‘The Great Reset’³³, or even ‘The Great Transition’³⁴.

And in 2023, ‘Reconsidering the Limits to Growth. A Report to the Russian Association of the Club of Rome‘³⁵, was released detailing two potential future options for society, where the first option…

‘From our point of view, option No. 1 implies the formation of a hierarchical totalitarian society controlled by an explicit or implicit, formal or informal "global authority" (a global elite that includes representatives of financial capital, transnational companies, the internet giants that control resource and information flows)… In essence, this is a sort of new feudalism, the reincarnation of the X-system of a totalitarian type in the cybernetic era...‘

… outlines feudalism under a global elite where the prole owns absolutely nothing, while option number 2 -

‘An alternative to option No. 1 can be option No. 2 of future W-society under the conditional name "World-Organism." This is a society where, in the presence of a deep professional specialization of the population, there is no discrimination, and governance is carried out on the basis of network technologies (network technologies are used to "synchronize" collective activities and implement direct democracy). An important role is played by ideology (in the form of ethical norms and self-restrictions that suppress antagonistic competition), which establishes a system of rules for developing coordinated decisions.‘

… details explicitly the vision of a ‘global super-organism’ outlined by exactly Bogdanov (and half the Society for the Advancement of General Systems Theory), though carried through under the guise of Global Ethics.

Global Governance and the Role of Ethics

A Global Ethic

… and incidentally, on the topic of the ‘Great Transition’ mentioned above, the Great Transition Initiative in February, 2020, convened a forum titled ‘Toward a Great Ethics Transition: The Earth Charter at Twenty‘³⁶.

… and the mention of the Earth Charter - that’s no coincidence³⁷. Here, from chapter 4, penned by Steve Rockefeller, and explicitly dragging in Paul Raskin’s Great Transition Initiative in the context of…

‘The Earth Charter states: "We urgently need a shared vision of basic values to provide an ethical foundation for the emerging world community." The Earth Charter was drafted in an effort to address this need. This chapter considers the importance of a new planetary ethics for good global governance and international cooperation. Further, it describes the contributions the Earth Charter is making to the formation of a global ethics and to international law, and it describes some of the ways Earth Charter principles are being implemented worldwide.‘

It’s global… no, planetary ethics, it’s global governance, and…

‘The new beginning envisioned by the Earth Charter is the transition to a sustainable way of life, which involves as radical a shift in human thinking and behavior as the emergence of agriculture, the rise of the nation state, or the industrial revolution. One recent study aptly describes this shift as "The Great Transition."‘

… it’s sustainable.

… and Paul Raskin’s Great Transition³⁸ not only explicitly outlines the ‘sustainable world’, but does so in context of the future historical era titled the ‘planetary phase’, which include… Global Governance.

Further, Paul Raskin in 2012 on the (now gone) ‘Forum for a New World Governance‘ website called for ‘Advancing a Global Citizens Movement‘³⁹.

… and on that website we also find Michel Rocard and Gustavo Marin in 2010 calling for us⁴⁰… ‘Moving Toward A New World Governance‘

Michel Rocard, of course, co-founded the World Governance calling Collegium International⁴¹. See, there he is, in the company of Mary Robinson, Roosevelt, and the husband of Emma Rothschild, Amartya Sen.

The Collegium International

But back on the topic of Paul Raskin, because beyond being a member of everyone’s favourite malthusians⁴², the notorious Club of Rome, he also ‘was a lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the UNEP Global Environment Outlook, the Earth Charter, and other international efforts‘.

Setting aside that he co-authored the Earth Charter itself, and thus Steve Rockefeller’s reference being of somewhat self-referencing nature, the very man who belongs to this select group of Malthusians also acted the lead author of the IPCC, who produce the ‘science’ which we must ‘trust’.

But even this breathtaking conflict of interest appears somewhat marginal, upon the discovery that the origin of the topic of the ‘Great Transition’ itself also is… the Club of Rome, as detailed by none other but CoR co-founder Alexander King in 1986⁴³… further going to outline that ‘particular stress is laid on problems of governance with the need for social and institutional innovation and also for the evolution of a new system of global ethics‘.

Global Ethics… in a 1986 document... penned by a co-founder of the Club of Rome… on the topic of a ‘Great Transition’… expressly detailing ‘the world has entered a lengthy phase of transition towards an entirely new type of global society‘… and in which context a CoR member not only setup a parallel initiative, but also acted the lead author for the IPCC, the very organisation through which the mechanism enabling said societal transition would eventually be forced.

What an extraordinary set of extraordinary coincidences!

The Grand Plan

And to contextually finish off⁴⁴, in 1988 the ‘Club of Rome celebrated its 20th anniversary with a conference on the theme: "The Great Transition: reasons to live and to hope in a new global society."‘⁴⁵. And I quite simply can’t help but laugh at the revelation that ‘The Government of France hosted the meeting, which was opened with a statement of Prime Minister Michel Rocard.‘

Yes, the very same Rocard who co-founded the Collegium International.

… and from the Collegium International’s own website⁴⁶ we establish that - ‘The International Collegium was created in 2002 as an extension of the Group of Ten‘

The ‘Group of Ten’ is more correctly known as ‘Groupes des Dix’, which was founded in France in 1969⁴⁷, and -

‘The Groupe des Dix may be seen as France’s response to America’s Cybernetics Group.‘

… but more to the point -

‘… the Groupe des Dix’s initial aim of applying transdisciplinary science directly to politics (Chamak, 1997; 1999), which in turn explains the participation of career politicians, such as Michel Rocard and Jacques Delors.‘

… we have trans-disciplinarity, and we have a potential link between science and politics. See where this is going?

We further discover through Brigitte Chamak⁴⁸ that -

‘The aim of the Groupe des Dix (named after the 10 founders), set up in France in 1969, was to strengthen relationships between science and politics… these “science and politics” encounters, using a trans-disciplinary approach, set out to elaborate a new system of interpretation…‘

What they, in short, were looking for, was a way to fast track science into policy… yes, using said ‘trans-disciplinary approach’.

And what else did they look into, you may ask⁴⁹?

‘The systemic approach and the cybernetic theory, shared by other members of the Groupe des Dix, allows an analysis of complex systems, from cellular societies to human societies (Edgar Morin), from the microscope to the macroscope (Joël de Rosnay).‘

General Systems Theory and Cybernetics… both of which are trans-disciplinary approaches that study complex systems. And all of this, right around the time when the Club of Rome launched.

Thus, the Collegium International, officially launched in 2002⁵⁰, was a continuation of the Groupes Des Dix. But further, the (fully named) ‘International Ethical, Political, and Scientific Collegium’ concerns itself greatly with the biosphere, global warming, deadly pandemics, and even calls for the establishment of a ‘world pact for the preservation of our environment’.

It also calls for the emergence of a world citizenry (global citizenship)⁵¹, a world democracy (global governance)⁵², which should provide an ethical quality to the democratic model (global ethics)⁵³, and - most astonishingly in the context of democracy - without a hint of irony goes on to state that -

‘Democracy cannot be confined to the electoral principle or even to the power of people to govern themselves‘

Before outlining that said ‘democracy’ must be built on a ‘world ethos’ (global ethics), which relies on universally shared values (UN SDG Universal Values⁵⁴), human dignity, human rights (and responsibilities), …

The Universal Declaration on Human Rights

Living with Dignity

… and in May, 2003, the recently formed ‘Association for the International Ethical, Political and Scientific Collegium’ submitted their ‘Declaration of Interdependence’ to the United Nations⁵⁵. And what was the overriding message?

‘… priority is given to Ethics as the final arbiter of political agreements among States; ethical considerations alone, present in the basic values and principles of the cultures who share the management of our planet, can give the necessary authority to the UN Charter…‘

Thus, through Groupes des Dix’s founding, utilising a holistic, trans-disciplinary approach, the Collegium International seeks to integrate science and politics… incidentally also the objective of the Groupes des Dix… through ethics. Global Ethics.

And it does so for sakes of World Governance… for which it seeks a Global Citizenship Education… to ultimate protect our common property; ie the biodiversity and environment… for which it requests a pact.

[Insert something about extraordinary coincidences here]

And as for the above called-for ‘world pact for the preservation of the environment’, well, 2017 saw the arrival of the ‘Draft Global Pact for the Environment‘⁵⁶, an initiative supported by Jeffrey D ‘Global Governance through Global Ethics’ Sachs, and Arnold ‘screw your freedom‘ Schwarzenegger.

Switching Sides - the story of Jeffrey Sachs

And though the similarities between this document and the 1982 World Charter for Nature are striking, there’s a major, major difference through Article 21 -

‘A compliance mechanism to facilitate implementation of, and to promote compliance with, the provisions of the present Pact is hereby established.‘

The World Charter for Nature

And what is a compliance mechanism? It’s really rather simple - should you pollute too much per completely arbitrary rules, you’ll be fined, or potentially even invaded. Or - if you’re a large corporation - you’ll be sued for alleged environmental impact - and never mind that none of this ‘science’ is ultimately… trustworthy, given the absurdity of a Club of Rome member… being a lead author of the IPCC!

In fact, Jeffrey D Sachs and Owen Flanagan penned a full chapter on exactly this strategy, outlining who to sue, for what, … and so forth.

Ethics in Action for Sustainable Development - Part III

And this is very much happening as we speak⁵⁷ -

‘The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is currently considering an Advisory Opinion on the Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change, having been formally requested to do so by the UN General Assembly in March 2023‘.

See - here’s noted Collegium International member, Mary Robinson, extoling the virtues of… destroying the West on account of absolutely nothing short of environmental quack science.

The Climate Consensus

And this court case is currently ongoing⁵⁸, with the latest update dated May 31, 2024. However, back in March, 2024, the World Health Organisation was invited to participate⁵⁹.

… and do you know why the WHO received this invite? Simple. They were invited to promote lies about climate change, environmental risk, and air pollution⁶⁰. That’s what their relentless drive relating to non-communicable disease is about.

Shutting down Western economies.

But on occasion something good comes out of something bad, and this is one such occasion. Because none other but the United Nations themselves submitted a document relating to the case which goes to show exactly the level of cynical, manipulative, fraudulent, psychopathic liars they truly are, and why the United Nations immediately should promptly be turned into a diving attraction.

Through submitted a 145-page document⁶¹, chock full of the small, imperceptible resolutions, gradually withering away your liberties in extreme slow motion over 4 decades, under the guise of ‘environmental protection’.

And the objective here genuinely is to create a punishable offense out of polluting, and they’ve even invented a brand new term in that regard… Ecocide⁶². And as for the United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres… well, he obviously is entirely on board with this idea⁶³.

… which, of course, shouldn’t be much of a surprise, given that he’s a member of… yeah, the World Governance pushing Collegium International⁶⁴.

… though he didn’t attend this 2004 meeting at the United Nations⁶⁵, featuring Michel Rocard, Kofi Annan, Mary Robinson, and… George Soros.

Kofi Annan

But reverting way, way back to the context of enabling theorists - what I suggest we deal with here is a progressive refinement of Marxist Socialism, through Carus, Bogdanov, and Vernadsky as rolled out in practice through contemporary society.

But testing a such hypothesis is difficult. Very difficult. But in such circumstances, ChatGPT actually becomes useful, because it will readily shoot down unpalatable ideas, telling you how two ideas are definitely not the same because the alleged intent somehow differs. So to be on the safe side, I crafted a prompt which would merely hint at the connection between the 4, and let ChatGPT derive the logical conclusion. And, oh boy, did it ever. The prompt is this -

• Riddle time.
  Karl Marx, Paul Carus, Alexander Bogdanov, Vladimir Vernadsky.
  please connect the 4 in a structured, coherent, integrated vision for societal change.

I then ran it, over and over and over again. Every single time it landed on something, looking broadly like the left side below⁶⁶. And you can then optimise the prompt slightly, achieving what you see on the right.

And where I am ultimately going with all of this is here⁶⁷.

And here⁶⁸.

And here.

Because scientific socialism is entirely wedded to the concepts of… dignity⁶⁹, rights⁷⁰, duties⁷¹…

… diversity, equity, inclusion⁷², ethics⁷³, and - most of all - social justice⁷⁴.

Because ultimately, every single one of those is about control, about stipulating some level of societal guidance, some ethical perspective that you better abide.

-

But back to Jantsch. As we saw above, we have four levels. Purposive, normative, pragmatic, and empirical. And these correspond with purpose, ethics, organisation, and observation.

But we also see… ‘systems design laboratories’, ‘function-oriented departments’, and ‘discipline-oriented departments’. What do they do, you ask?

A ‘Systems-Design Laboratory’ fuses the purposive and normative. That would be the Collegium International, fusing ‘planetary health and well-being’ quack science into normative ethics.

So which might be the ‘function-oriented department’ organisation, seeking to fuse normative ethics into pragmatic social science? Well, here’s a⁷⁵ guess⁷⁶.

And who might then be the ‘discipline-oriented department‘ organisation, fusing pragmatic global governance with the empirical? Well, here’s another⁷⁷ guess⁷⁸.

Because when you go through the two mega-foundations, you’ll gradually come to realise that the initiatives of Carnegie and Rockefellers complement rather than compete. And that just leaves us with one question. Which organisation acts upon empirical data, to gradually adjust the objective? Well, that’s the big question, really. Whoever sits on top of that pile, essentially holds the world a prisoner. It could be argued that this is the Club of Rome. It could be argued that it’s the United Nations. Or, given the epic pile of garbage science produced all around, you could argue that it’s the International Science Council aka the ICSU, or even Julian Huxley and Joseph Needham’s UNESCO who appear to be here, there, and everywhere in this regard. And then there’s the Collegium International itself…

The International Council of Scientific Unions

Or perhaps it could be argued that it’s yet another organisation preferring to live in the shadows. And it just so happens that the ISC, Collegium International, and UNESCO all are not just pivotal organisations in this construct, but also happen to all be in the relative minority, all being headquartered outside of Switzerland.

In fact, all three are located in Paris… which, incidentally, and very strangely happens to be the preferred location of NGOs⁷⁹. Who, exactly, do they seek to lobby?

Or from whom do they take their marching orders?

-

But, wait, before finishing, let me show you what else the framework proposed through Marx/Carus/Bogdanov/Vernadsky can be used to logically explain.

Bezmenov’s Ideological Subversion⁸⁰.

• Marx represents demoralisation; the undermining of the existing system.
  This is facilitated through rendering the news media completely worthless, promoting false heroes, and shoving absurd, patent lies in your face daily.
  This leads to your loss in the existing establishment, and the current order.

• Carus represents destabilisation. During this stage, traditional religious morality is replaced by science-based rationalism, where said science may or may not be the best ‘consensus’ money can buy.
  This is accompanied by the arbitrary upholding of legal rights, a continuous cross-border invasion, and an increasingly hyper-partisan political system.
  And with this ongoing, they corrupt absolutely everyone behind the scenes, leading to a situation where even EcoPope Francis pushes absurd morality, fabricated through environmental quack science aka ‘Laudato Si’.

• Bogdanov represents the crisis. During this stage, the organisational model is switched from the traditional one to one based on - in our case - claimed science-based rationalism.
  This is accompanied by increasingly heavy handed - yet seemingly arbitrary - instances of police brutality, defending those employed to break down the existing order⁸¹, while attacking those standing up for tradition.

• Finally, Vernadsky represents the normalisation, which will come through the New World Order, controlled in totalitarian fashion through patently fraudulent quack sciene - all while applying one-way policing, brutally suppressing any discontent⁸².

… and, again, as these theories are extremely hard to verify, let’s ask ChatGPT.

Incidentally, what Marx created was in effect derivative work off of Proudhon. The primary difference being him splicing a ‘temporary’ ‘dictatorship if the proletariat’ into Proudhon’s structure, to allegedly manage this transition. Yet, he never really included much in terms of how this ‘temporary’ arrangement should be reversed.

Why do you think that is?

1. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/3385454/Schwab-The_Fourth_Industrial_Revolution_Klaus_S.pdf

2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050922024747

3. https://www.mir-nayka.com/jour/article/view/1649?locale=en_US

4. https://icteri.org/icteri-2021/proceedings/volume-2/202110106.pdf

5. http://psae-jrnl.nau.in.ua/journal/1_94_2024_ukr/23.pdf

6. https://www.namibiansun.com/news/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-opportunity-to-reboot-namibia2022-02-14

7. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2014/11/whats-best-way-controlling-disease-outbreaks/

8. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/09/designing-climate-resilient-infrastructure-lessons-from-disaster/

9. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/can-technology-save-life-on-earth/

10. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/11/five-key-climate-metrics-for-the-oil-and-gas-sectors-next-five-years/

11. https://www.weforum.org/publications/outbreak-readiness-and-business-impact/business-action-agenda/

12. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/09/four-questions-civil-society-must-ask-about-technology-for-good/

13. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/fred-boltz/

14. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/tara-martin/

15. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Harnessing_4IR_Oceans.pdf

16. https://web.archive.org/web/20121016122211/http://www.freedom.org/reports/srbio.htm

17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1657v5d

18. https://mpg.eurosite.org/wp-content/uploads/IUCN-Managing-protected-areas-CHAPTER8.pdf

19. https://www.sci-hub.ru/10.1007/bf00145222

20. https://monoskop.org/images/9/9e/166495032-The-Self-Organizing-Universe-by-Erich-Jantsch.pdf

21. https://systemdynamics.org/news/memorial/jay-w-forrester/

22. https://www.clubofrome.org/history/

23. https://metaphorum.org/staffords-work

24. http://iapsop.com/archive/materials/open_court/open_court_v1_1887-88.pdf

25. https://books.google.pl/books?id=KbH3yNuNQAsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

26. https://www.britannica.com/science/ecology

27. https://web.archive.org/web/20170222110318/http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015679/1893-11-07/ed-1/seq-6.pdf

28. https://ethical.nyc/history/

29. https://www.gcsehistory.com/faq/bolshevik.html

30. https://monoskop.org/images/e/e9/Bogdanov_Alexander_Tektology_Book_1.pdf

31. https://systemsthinkingalliance.org/brief-history-of-systems-thinking/

32. https://bogdanovlibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/bogdanovs-tektology-a-science-of-construction.pdf

33. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/

34. https://greattransition.org/

35. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-34999-7

36. https://greattransition.org/gti-forum/great-ethics-transition

37. https://earthcharter.org/wp-content/assets/virtual-library2/images/uploads/Chapter%204.pdf

38. https://greattransition.org/documents/Great_Transition.pdf

39. https://web.archive.org/web/20120517152807/http://www.world-governance.org/spip.php?article807

40. https://web.archive.org/web/20201022025624/https://www2.world-governance.org/IMG/pdf_16._621_Blin_Marin_Rocard_-_Moving_Toward_a_New_World_Governance_EN.pdf

41. https://www.collegium-international.org/membres-collegium-international?lang=en

42. https://web.archive.org/web/20180228204802/https://www.clubofrome.org/member/raskin-paul/

43. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02604027.1989.9972134?journalCode=gwof20

44. https://whitehead-family.ca/drrennie/chap13.html

45. https://web.archive.org/web/20240527022216/https://membacasoedjatmoko.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/P_523_I_D1-4_88.pdf

46. https://www.collegium-international.org/histoire-objectifs-collegium?lang=en

47. https://web.archive.org/web/20200507104458/https://www.nss-journal.org/articles/nss/pdf/2019/02/nss190032.pdf

48. https://web.archive.org/web/20200507094417/https://www.nss-journal.org/articles/nss/pdf/2019/02/nss190030.pdf

49. https://web.archive.org/web/20231202000749/https://www.nss-journal.org/articles/nss/pdf/2019/02/nss190035.pdf

50. https://web.archive.org/web/20070928191645/http://www.collegium-international.org/annex/01_appeal.htm

51. https://web.archive.org/web/20180227000826/https://en.unesco.org/themes/gced

52. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/transforming-global-governance

53. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000152796

54. https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values

55. https://search.archives.un.org/uploads/r/united-nations-archives/1/6/9/169442101ed808d20c5a4ff672c6dfba5a15cfcd953e7dc145e6eb35c491ef8a/S-1098-0056-01-00008.pdf

56. https://globalpactenvironment.org/uploads/EN.pdf

57. https://earthgovernance.org/campaigns/icj-climate-change/

58. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/187

59. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20240326-pre-01-00-en.pdf

60. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/integrated-support/environmental-risk-factors-and-ncds

61. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20230630-req-07-01-en.pdf

62. https://earthgovernance.org/campaigns/stop-ecocide/

63. https://www.stopecocide.earth/2024/un-secretary-general-notes-need-for-international-crime-of-ecocide

64. https://www.collegium-international.org/membres-collegium-international?lang=en

65. https://www.collegium-international.org/united-nations-2004?lang=en

66. https://chatgpt.com/share/5c6197ff-0fd8-4bf3-8789-72d3d162d863

67. https://www.marxists.org/archive/weisbord/conquest17.htm

68. https://archive.org/details/AldousHuxley--TheUltimateRevolution--ABlueprintToEnslaveTheMasses

69. https://www.un.org/en/desa/dignity-all-practice

70. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

71. https://unsceb.org/topics/duties-future

72. https://hr.un.org/page/diversity-equity-and-inclusion

73. https://www.un.org/pga/77/code-of-ethics-2/

74. https://www.un.org/en/observances/social-justice-day

75. https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/about/news/press-release/celebrate-global-ethics-day-2024-on-october-16

76. https://carnegieendowment.org/topics/global-governance?lang=en

77. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Berggruen-Institute-2-Summary-Note.pdf

78. https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/news/the-rockefeller-foundation-commits-over-usd-1-billion-to-advance-climate-solutions/

79. https://web.archive.org/web/20210316080016/https://en.unesco.org/sites/default/files/list_ngos_official_partners_unesco.pdf

80. https://unintendedconsequenc.es/bezmenovs-steps/

81. https://web.archive.org/web/20191109004545/https://www.unv.org/news/first-un-refugee-volunteer-east-and-southern-africa-urges-world-davos-empower-refugees-agents

82. https://gript.ie/sharp-contrast-in-garda-and-media-treatment-of-asylum-related-protests/