The Grander Plan
Spaceship Earth is a metaphor for a systems theory model of our planet, Sustainable Development relate to its control, with specific goals (SDGs)—meant to be updated progressively—relating to specific detail. These all constitute systems theory models, with the Circular Economy describing flow within a closed system. And Planetary Health, One Health and the Ecosystem Approach are all logical systems theory extensions in this framework as well.
This a continuation of the January, 2024 post, The Grand Plan1.
And - as outlined by UNEP GEO-6 - per ‘A Long-Term Vision for 2050’, SDGs 1-15 relate to the Natural Resource Base (ecology), Sustainable Production and Consumption (economy), and Human Well-being (social). And these three lead to demands made of the environment (nature), human organisation (matter), and long-term survival of humanity on planet Earth (time)2.
Let’s begin by tracing the theoretical underpinning of the management aspect, which can be traced back to Spinoza’s philosophical view of religion, outlined through his 1677 book titled ‘Ethics’, where his take on philosophy and religion was later synthesised with science by Paul Carus through—ethics. Later, Hermann Cohen introduced his Neo-Kantian Universal Moral Framework through his book ‘Ethics of Pure Will’ published in 1904, which emphasised responsibilities to all equally through an objective perspective. Heidegger disagreed, instead taking his Neo-Kantian ideology into the temporal domain through ‘I and Thou’, while Martin Buber interpreted Cohen’s view subjectively which Emmanuel Levinas adopted and developed by introducing asymmetric responsibility through potential non-reciprocity in his ‘infinite responsibility for the other’. Hans Jonas applied this in context of the environment and future generations, before Hans Kung fused Jonas’s intergenerational justice (representing future generations, thus time) with environmental justice (nature) and social justice, leading to his Global Ethic presented at the 1993 centennial of the 1893 Parliament of the World’s Religions. Incidentally, the original event was chaired by none other but the highly influential Paul Carus, who worked tirelessly during the early stages of the interfaith movement, but further edited the Open Court and the Monist journals, the latter specialising in scientific monism, which in short is materialistic monism with the scientific method integrated3.
As for catholicism; the First Vatican Council in 1870 introducted papal infallibility, which in effect concentrated power with the pope under certain circumstances. Then followed Rerum Novarum in 1891 and later the 1967 Populoum Progressio, progressively establishing social justice and Jacques Maritain’s Integral Humanism on Vatican conscience. The Second Vatican Council (1982-65) further introduced Nostra Aetate, relating to Carus’s interfaith dialogue, and Gaudium et Spes, which called for modernisation. And the event included several highly influential advisors, such as the future Pope Ratzinger who in 2009 became the first Pope to publicly speak of Teilhard, Henri de Lubac, who placed Maritain and Teilhard on the agenda, and Hans Kung, who would later regularly cooperate with Leo Swidler, who in 1978, launched the precursor to the Global Dialogue Institute, specialising in interfaith dialogue the objective of the which is to determine a set of universal ethical principles relating to religion—an objective incidentally first explored by Aldous Huxley in 1947 through his book, ‘perennial philosophy’. But while both Swidler and Kung authored works titled ‘A Global Ethic’, Swidler’s version not only was cosmo-anthropo-centric, but further detailed that it rested upon ‘middle principles’ of rights and responsibilities, and with a basic foundation akin to collectivism4.
Swidler’s ‘cosmo-anthropo-centric’ Global Ethic hints at a subjugation of humanitarian ethical concerns, where the cosmic comes first, followed by the planetary, and then humanitarian—notably coinciding thematically with Richard Shweder arguing that ‘3 ethics are better than one’ leading eventually to Jonathan Haidt’s ‘moral foundations theory’, and drawing parallels with Ken Wilber’s thematically similar 6-level efforts, though he instead frames his around ‘levels of consciousness’. In terms of planetary concerns, a planetary ethic was called for through the Earth Charter in 2000, based on Caring for the Earth released by the IUCN in 1991, which can further be traced back to the 1980 IUCN World Conservation Strategy. This, in turn, served as a significant input relating to the 1982 World Charter for Nature, which called for planned land use (first seen in the 1976 UN Habitat report) and which also referred to long-range pollution, thus leading back to the CLRTAP released in 1979—incidentally the same year in which the implied consensus arrived on climate change through the 1979 First World Climate Conference’s call to action, arranged by the ever-partial, foundation funded ICSU, which failed to invite a single dissenting voice on the issue of carbon dioxide being an issue of planetary concern—at a time where the ‘science’ most certainly was not ‘settled’ in any capacity5.
But there were other international conferences; the 1972 Stockholm event led to the UNEP, whose GEMS programme (called for by Maurice Strong in 1971, evaluated by SCOPE, but indirectly announced by Moynihan already in 1969) launched global surveillance which gradually expanded to include of ever-more data streams, to in 1984 comprise more than 30 different types of data including water (GEMS/Water), air (GEMS/Air), and public health surveillance. In 1985, UNEP launched GRID, the global database containing UNEP GEMS data, which incorporated GIS information and satellite imagery, with that particular initiative accelerating through the 1990s, first through GCOS/GOOS/GTOS initiatives, then Clinton’s 1996 announcement relating to emerging infectious disease surveillance triggering the 1997 establishment of the DoD-GEIS. And by 2023, a report announced their scope of surveillance had expanded to encompass… practically everything. But back in 2003, the launch of GEOSS evolved through derivatives to track developments in biodiversity (GEO BON/GBIOS), public health (EO4HEALTH/GEOHEALTH), and even citizen science (CIT-SCI), involving surveillance data gathered though mobile phones and social media, combined with the GEOSS satellite imagery. The 2019 Canberra Declaration further called for the inclusion of real-time satellite imagery, first announced in 2018 by Surrey Satellite Systems, which by 2024 had been turbo-charged through the revelation that SpaceX since 2020 has placed spy satellites in geostationary orbit for the intelligence community, from which there will be ‘nowhere to hide’. And that year is further relevant as it became clear that things were not developing quite right in April, 2020, when one of the worst papers—co-authored by Peter Piot from his alleged deathbed—during the alleged pandemic was published by Georgetown6.
Other noteworthy conferences include the 1992 Earth Summit, launching Agenda 21 which announced the future framework for global governance, the Convention on Biological Diversity (leading to the Ecosystem Approach), and the UNFCCC (used to control emissions of carbon dioxide). But another, less well-known yet highly influential conference was held back in 1968—the UNESCO Biosphere Conference—as its 20 recommendations detailed emphasis on not only environmentalism, aspects of implementation through education, the global surveillance system, and the establishment of reserves, but these recommendations led further calls for not only UNEP GEMS and the UNESCO Man-and-the-Biosphere Programme—leading to large quantities of land set aside for conservation through the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves, likely set to grow as Debt-for-Nature Swaps fail (by design), an idea originally conceived by Thomas Lovejoy in 1984 following the 1982 LatAm debt crisis, which likely will ultimately see collateral used in those swaps transferred to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserves7.
And while most are aware of the 1987 Brundtland Report—the first to openly call for Sustainable Development—the Fourth World Wilderness Congress also took place in 1987, where the conceptual World Conservation Bank was officially first called for. And though France called for its establishment in 1989, it came into existence in 1991 as the Global Environment Facility, whose official capacity relate to the financing of biodiversity and climate change projects, thus serving as the financing mechanism for both the UNFCCC and CBD as these were launched only the following year. A pilot project of their was Iwokrama in Guyana, which though lauded as a model project has been an epic disaster since its founding moment. And the GEF—the first UN organisation to be run through stakeholder governance—act as facilitators of blended finance deals, titled such because they draw in both public (taxpayer) and private capital, while philanthropes take the credit in spite of contributing… virtually nothing. And this concept is similar in scope to those tranched CDOs which in 2008 blew up, taking colossal market intervention and major taxpayer bailout to stabilise. And these are similar, because while the private investor takes senior equity the much larger public investor takes mezzanine (junior) debt, which not only carries a much lower return on investment, but this structure further transfers virtually all risk to the public. And these GEF blended finance deals typically involve the conservation or restoration of forests or mangroves from which ‘ecosystem services’ are rendered in the form of carbon emission permits; the ‘carbon sink’ side of the equation laid out by the founding 1992 UNFCCC document, while ‘carbon sources’ relate to all emitters of carbon dioxide. And the strategy here is that these two—carbon sinks and sources—must be ‘netted’, leading to not only Net Zero, but also emission permits, permit banking and other ‘market-based mechanisms’, discussed in depth in the two 1992-4 documents by the UNCTAD on Combating Global Warming, which further drew in the monetisation of water and air. And the author of the section on ‘market-based mechanisms’ (Richard Sandor) in betwen the reports (in 1993) quit his job to launch an outfit trading so2 emission permits, which would appear more than grossly unethical—potentially even suggestive of insider trading—as his chapter relating to co2 trading were more than inspired by the so2 reports he similarly co-authored for the EPA in 1991, leading to the so2 trading system framework. But ultimately, the structure relating to the trading of co2 was first outlined by IPCC working group 3 in 19908 - two years before the UNFCCC came to pass.
And as for ethics - and the three levels first discussed relating to time, space and nature - these are pursued through frameworks of rights versus responsibilities - which Leo Swidler through his 1997 ‘Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities’ suggest lead to the top-level facilitation of a Global Ethic, where the basic, foundational level is highly suggestive of collectivist ideology, thus leading towards the development of the ‘human super-organism’, followed by the middle layer consisting of rights and responsibilities. But the 3D control outlined through time, space, and nature is further pursued through Wilber’s Integral Metatheory, an 8 zone extension of Wilber’s 4 quadrant AQAL Integral Theory, where the horisontal axis aligns with time (passive interior leading to active exterior), the vertical through the size of the societal group aligns with space/matter (individual-group), and perspective (human-nature) is his 3rd dimension. And should you swap the perspective dimension with nature, you arrive at a concept first laid out by David Tabara in 1999 on sustainability culture9. Consequently, these 8 zones lead to a 3D grid of rights and responsiblities, which through the progressive philosophical synthesis of Cohen/Buber/Levinas/Jonas/Kung leads to a system which can ultimately be entirely controlled through ethics.
And to this end we have the Ecosystem Approach10 which is top-down systems theory Integrated Landscape Management administration of the geosphere (land), and we have One Health11 which is a top-down systems theory administration of the biosphere (life). And the latter is based on Universal Healthcare (human health)12, which originated with Primary Healthcare13 and thus the 1978 Declaration of Alma-Ata which reorganised healthcare top-down - and these two combined (One Health and the Ecosystem Approach) allow for Planetary Health14 - the control of both geo- and biosphere - through Planetary Management, first hinted at in the 1969 UNESCO Courier January special edition called for by the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference, but made express by a WWF 2016 report on the ‘Codex Planetarius’15, explicitly calling for ‘Planetary Management for Planetary Health’.
Geosphere/biosphere health has a third aspect through the Noosphere (relating to collective human thought) - a topic touched upon by both Pierre Teilhard de Chardin16 and Vladimir Vernadsky - where science is turned into environment ethics at international level through the United Nations, but per Fabian Socialist and Rockefeller Foundation trustee Gordon Brown should be codified and legislated at sovereign level17, with UNESCO pushing for a similar ethic through Global Citizen Education thus filtering through to national curriculum, with Lifelong Learning serving to progressively update, and thus ensure the ‘education’ stays relevant. However, as outlined by Hermann Cohen, the road to fuse science based rationality into morality can also travel through religion, thus used to facilitate the encoding of moral principles based on the ‘best available scientific consensus’.
As for the inclusion of the noosphere with the biosphere and geosphere - when combined, these lead to Zev Naveh’s Total Human Ecosystem18, which in short is a future, top-down authoritarian global surveillance society on steroids, combining Ecosystem Approach land management with the One Health biological life management strategy, in a world devoid of market-based capitalism but rather operating through principles of scientific socialism.
The governance thereof was briefly touched upon above through Agenda 21, which detailed it as reformed top-down. Though claimed to ‘decentralise’ through principles of ‘subsidiarity’19, these both are Aesopian terms, seeking to transfer final say over local decision-making to the stakeholders operating at the top level when it matters the most. And this uses a trisectoral network20 approach, where public-private-partnerships21 will fund-and-execute jobs, originally ‘placed on the agenda’ by influential NGOs like ECOSOC registered General Consultative Status NGOs and other influential organisations, with the WWF and ISC being two such examples. And through this is all completely undemocratic, UNEP GEO6’s ‘Vision for 2050’ is suggestive of a separate, disconnected SDG 16-17 axis relating to governance, suggestive of a magnet inducing a copper coil (or non-coil), as outlined by Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars22.
The ethical direction will be applied through principles of ‘Good Governance’23 to government itself (Good Government Governance; public; elected individuals), corporate (Good Corporate/Business Governance; business enterprise), and even civil society (Good Society Governance; CSOs, thus NGOs), but this travels even further through science, religion, education and every other aspect of human life. Ergo, all of this logically leads to a world controlled through Global Ethics, sliced into Cosmic Ethics as the ultimate authority (eventually becoming the new religion), followed by Planetary Ethics (environmentalism, as determined by ‘the best available scientific consensus’), then Global Ethics (humanitarian + social justice). These levels are followed by Civic Ethics, Communitarian Ethics, and Personal Ethics—as outlined by Wilber and others.
Consequently, ethics reigns supreme. And to ensure compliance, enforcement mechanisms will be implemented at every level, ensuring you are fired or even prosecuted should you refuse to play ball—easily observed through fired healthcare staff during the alleged pandemic. This was the logical culmination of applying enforcement of ethics codes in the medical field, where climate change is sure to be the next to follow, followed by… eventually everyone with an ethics code applied—ultimately to include even politicians, as this initiative launched in 2005 through the establishment of the UN Ethics Office (investigation and enforcement is farmed out—at least initially). Business likely won't be allowed to operate without a Social License to Operate24, granted on basis of adherence to ESG or CSR principles which both centre around ethics—which is where B Corporations come in. Consequently, the future business environment is one in which corporations will have to adhere to the same principles of global ethics dictated to everyone, or they could face obstacles ranging from higher cost of financing (fees could apply to non-green bonds) all the way through to the outright rejection of operation through revoking said license to operate, suggested by Tony Blair in his 1991 Marxism Today article.
When transhumanism eventually becomes reality through BCIs25, these will come with added Neuroethics, which along with AI Ethics seek to control computational output, thus ensuring advice is coherent and fully compliant with the full palette of global ethics—though possibly applied in local context. This will ensure full compliance with ethical direction, or the enforcement mechanism will see you fired, or possibly prosecuted. And Hermann Cohen’s other influential concept relating to ‘infinite judgment’ in effect dictates alignment of ethics with law, setting the stage for an eventual, hypothetical but entirely possible future global dictatorship, acting to justify its actions much like authoritarianism did under Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin—all of whom fused morality and ethics straight into the legal system26.
But there is some leeway in this system, informally titled a ‘social operating system’ which then logically leads to ‘Game B’ theory27 - which doesn’t appear to resonate with traditional, classical western liberal ideology in the slightest. Incidentally, beyond JB Peterson and Bret and Eric Weinstein, Ken Wilber also contributed in this regard, whose efforts further count his ‘Integral Operating System’.
Computers are centric to this vision, driven through both passive and active adaptive management, where said breaks into four components through information theory (global surveillance), general systems theory (digital twin modelling), resilience theory (equitable distribution of resources), and cybernetics (exchange of equitable resources), where a subsystem failure to adhere to equity demands can result in the loss of ‘dignity’, translating into potential punitive measures for the subsystem, where said could well be a family, or even a singular human cell in the ‘human super-organism’.
But back on the topic of religion which through the Interfaith Declaration of 1993 influenced global Business Ethics, followed by the 1994 release of the Caux Principles, and the Cadbury/King/… reports which led to legislation related to listed companies, which changed the course of financial legislation as this initiative was turbo-charged through… the 2001 alleged ‘ethical’ failure of Enron28.
Contemporary bioethics was launched in France in 198929 by Michel Rocard who would go on to co-found the ‘Ethical Collegium International’30, and Guy Breibant, a French Communist who led the same International Institute of the Administrative Sciences which in the 1930s collaborated with Nazi Germany, whilst being funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. And this accelerated through Moscow in 1991, leading to ICSU’s SCRES in 1996, UNESCO COMEST in 1997, ultimately arriving with ethics declarations and statements in 2002 and forward… but only after the 2001 Anthrax Attacks brought bioethics to the forefront of public attention.
The contemporary calls for the wrapping of the public, elected official in ethics declarations we currently see unfold in EU capacity (launched in may, 2024), and considering the Fabian Socialist Keir Starmer’s31 related, public wow (and who on his first day in office met with his new ‘independent’ ethics advisor, who could now launch investigations by his own merit), and as we see similar efforts in the US including the house, senate, with even contemporary efforts relating to the Supreme Court—these began in 2005 with the establishment of the United Nations Ethics Office in 2006, which started due to the 1996-2003 Oil-for-Food Scandal32, entirely overlapping Kofi Annan whose UN reforms centered around deeply undemocratic trisectoral network concept, a reform further calling for the ‘elimination of duplicate efforts’ which in effect reduces the quantity of oversight, thus facilitating systemic corruption.
And as for religion, Catholicism similarly saw a scandal in 2001, with sexual assaults ultimate used to pursue Pontifical Commissions for the Protection of Minors33 and a Financial Information Authority - both of which are similar ethics initiatives relating to religion - which no doubt will merge down the road, should track record be a guide. Consequently, business, government, religion, with further efforts in science, civil society, health, media and even education sees the entire world, progressively wrapped up in ethics declarations, which can then eventually be used to facilitate directive ethics (ethics codes with enforcement), leading it able to direct people, thus progressively enabling… Teilhard’s Omega Point34.
On the practical side, all of this is ultimately driven by system theory, where Alexander Bogdanov—co-founder of the Russian Bolshevik Party along with Lenin in 1903—came up with Tektology35, a system enabling a progressive societal takeover through scientific socialism, without the need for a violent revoltion in the process. And Tektology served as inspiration for Bertanalffy’s General Systems Theory36, turned hierarchical in 1956 through Kenneth Boulding37 whose 1966 paper titled ‘Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth’ not only solidly placed Spaceship Earth38 as systems theory, but further detailed Spaceship Earth as a closed system which served an early precursor to Circular Economy39, ultimately introduced by Pearce/Turner in the 1989 landmark book, ‘Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment‘40.
Erich Jantsch further progressed GST through his efforts on autopoesis further integrating a neoplatonistic emphasis, leading to a 4-level university education structure with empirical at the lowest level (matter), followed by pragmatic (organisation), normative (codes, standards, ethics), and finally the purposive (objective) on top, where the two bottom levels relating to social organisation and natural sciences can be synthesised through general systems theory, an effort launched in 1956, through the Fabian Society’s CP Snow launching his scathing ‘Two Cultures’41 attack on social sciences - incidentally in the same year Fabian Socialist Anthony Crosland wrote his influential book, ‘The Future of Socialism’, which in no uncertainty declared the term ‘socialism’ to be completely meaningless, an aspiration for ethical ideals which made sense in context of the founding Fabian objective being ‘the reconstruction of society in accordance with the highest moral possibilities‘. As for the the two top levels of Jantsch’s pyramid - normative and purposive - these are ultimately synthesised through a ‘systems designer’, the job of which is to create normative science from the purposive, which is where the Collegium International42 come in as they work to translate an objective into rules, standards, and… codes of ethics, ultimately to be fused into sovereign law through the United Nations, business through CSR/ESG43, education through UNESCO, and religion through the Vatican, using exactly the kind of scientific reasoning derived morality observable through Laudato Si44—a strategy for which Hermann Cohen advocated through his utilitarian take on religion. Incidentally, Pope Francis was the 2nd pope to refer to Teilhard, but Laudato Si further included mention of not only the Earth Charter, but further Integral Ecology—undoubtedly aligned with Ken Wilber.
But general systems theory itself is insufficient as this only describes the system itself - not the flow within. That particular science is titled input-output analysis45, and though Leontief is credited this invention, this can in fact also be traced back to the father of Tektology; Alexander Bogdanov. And to control IO flows, one must perform systemic surveillance on what one seeks to control, and in that regard—measuring Spaceship Earth calls for global surveillance, and this was announced on September 17, 1969 through the Moynihan46 memo47, put into action through the May 23, 1972, USA-USSR Cooperation on Environmental Matters48, which to the world announced this was to drive global policy—but it also led to the founding of the IIASA later in 1972; the world’s premier organisation on systems theory, and a major partner of the same IPCC who not only employed the Club of Rome’s Paul Raskin49 in lead capacity on a report of theirs, but in general manufacture the garbage science used by the UNFCCC, using it to promote the agenda of curtailing emissions, planned to lead to… a complete destruction of liberal, Western democracy.
The climate agenda accelerated around this time as well. The 1957 Keeling Curve50 led to the first, borderline absurd ‘carbon consensus’ in 1963, followed by a White House conference in 1965, before ending up with a call for the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Conference51 detailed earlier. And its recommendation 3 not only outlined the ‘balancing of humanity with nature’, but further emphasised ‘zoonotic diseases’, which by stellar coincidence saw a fairly statistically irrelevant incidence arise out of Hong Kong in that same year, later to be upwards revised. Simultaneously, US public health was centralised beginning in 196652, before 1974 saw it passed into law. And while yet another hugely questionable alleged zoonotic event took place in 1976, this took place at the precise time that a big pharma industry conference was held in Rougemont, Switzerland, at which they primarily discussed surveillance and vaccines. CDC number 2, Walter Dowdle, delivered opening and closing remarks at this event, and coupled with the 1976 Fort Dix event, this led to the first US Pandemic Plan53 signed by William Foege in 1978—the exact same year in which the Declaration of Alma-Ata54 laid out its emphasis on top-down controlled primary healthcare, centralised information, education, drugs, and vaccines, while ‘decentralising’ the rendering of services down the hierarchy. And in 1984, William Foege would launch the Task Force for Child Survival55, whose primary objective was child vaccination in 3rd world nation. This eventually led to the Children’s Vaccine Initiative56 in 1990, before GAVI57 came to be in 2000. And their strategy was helped through financially rewarding on a per-vaccination basis58, for this to become a financial cash cow to some.
But pandemic planning was only just getting started, with the Options for the Control of Influenza 259 conference in 1992 seeing the launch of the European Scientific Working group on Influenza (ESWI)60, who by 1993 outlined a pandemic plan, incidentally around the same time both US and UK worked on similar. But when a 3 year old tragically died in 1997 in Hong Kong from an allergic reaction caused by aspirin61, the Hong Kong authorities took full advantage, claimed it was a zoonotic disease event, thus pushing for livestock surveillance, poultry vaccination, even to the point of culling of poultry—a practice first rolled out in UK in 1996 due to BSE, by advice of a Wellcome group including a young Neil Ferguson. And this same Ferguson would later state that 2003 Hong Kong SARS was a ‘no-autopsy, diagnosis of exclusion’ event, before he in 2009 at an ESWI conference stated that lockdowns had little to no effect, finally to ludicrously recommend these in 2020—the same year which saw healthcare professionals fired for ethical violations for refusing to carry out orders. And 2020 onwards also saw a flurry of articles in medical journals related to the ethics of mandatory vaccination62, the ethics of public health surveillance63, and the ethics of quarantines64 and lockdowns65.
The 1997 H5N1 call came down to a group of Dutch specialists, one of whom was Ab Obsterhaus, a controversial character who would later lead the ESWI, but on several occasions was nearly outed, including when the BMJ released a report in 201066, questioning his relation with the World Health Organisation. Either way, the very same ESWI not only contributed to the 1999 WHO Influenza Pandemic Plan67, in fact, all authors had a direct relationship with the ESWI. And the ESWI would behind the scenes go on to push for surveillance and vaccine measures at European level, author the vaccination distribution system, and see the both the UK and US progressively integrate their 1999 WHO Influenza Pandemic Plan with similar national efforts—before the 2001 Anthrax Attacks led to the 2002 Public Health Security and Bioerrorism Preparedness and Response Act68, fused with the US pandemic plan to become the 2005 Department of Homeland Security influenza plan69. And pandemic planning continued, not least through the 2006 WHO/World Bank report which in stunning levels of detail outlined the approach taken in 202070, with this eventually evolving to become the currently negotiated WHO Pandemic Plan71 which in several articles calls for the use of a ‘One Health Approach’, and further for the establishment of balance between humanity and nature, similar to that laid out by recommendation 3 in 1968… which further warned of zoonotic disease.
The 1997 Hong Kong episode thus led to a call for surveillance, vaccines, and culling. and through the 2001 Pilanesberg Resolution72, this initiative saw progressive integration with human health, before in 2004 at the Rockefeller Centre being annouced by William Foege through the very same 12 Manhattan Principles73, later turned into the 2019 Berlin Principles74, advocating the treatment of humanity in line with the other animals. And as for the Manhattan Principles, these were originally penned by Wildlife Conservation Society members, Steve Osofsky who would later co-author the Planetary Health75 document released by Rockefeller/Lancet in 2015, and William Karesh, who would go on to join the Council on Foreign Relations76, while employed by EcoHealth Alliance, as run by the same Peter Daszak who contributed much to DIVERSITAS programmes decades prior, relating to ecosystem services and biodiversity health.
And while everyone speaks of the 1992 Earth Summit, the WHO also publicly made an announcement in that year through ‘Our Planet, Our Health’77, which launched efforts to merge human health with the environment, ultimately in the same year that saw Lederberg’s article on Emerging Infectious Diseases78, which led to Clinton’s global surveillance drive in 199679 and of course the progressively built narrative, relating to the Hong Kong episodes relating to H5N1 in 1997 and SARS in 2003. And the chief health official in Hong Kong calling for culling was none other but Margaret Chan, who in 2006 was elected WHO General Secretary. Yet, the allegation were such that this was enabled through massive corruption—the same kind which supposedly led to current WHO SecGen Tedros being elected as opposed to virtual shoe-in for the job, David Nabarro, who spend at least a decade behind the scenes working to facilitate, not least through his efforts on UNSIC, but also competed with Neil Ferguson to see who could come up with the most ludicrious potential death counts arising from the pandemic which failed to take off in 2005.
Health is a consideration of ‘human well-being’, the top level of the hierarchy outlined by the UNEP Long-Term Vision for 2050 figure, which also outlines ‘natural resource base’ at the bottom level, and ‘sustainable production and consumption’ as middle layer. And as many documents detail, the emphasis is on the merger of ecology and economy, which can be achieved through carbon emission permit backed CBDCs, incidentally a solution first arrived at by Technocracy Inc in 1936, whose primary document - the technocracy study course80 - was penned by MK Hubbart, who in 1956 introduced the concept of Peak Oil81. This study course further explained the bidirectional nature of the chemical reaction relating to atmosphetic carbon dioxide, and carbon sequestration, ultimately meaning that as energy in contemporary society is closely aligned with carbon dioxide emissions, one can roughly measure energy consumption through measuring atmosphetic levels of carbon dioxide. Only problem was—nuclear was rapidly gaining ground at this stage, a development which could hypothetically lead to vastly cheaper (and untraceable) energy production, but the Union of Concerned Scientists82 instead objected, and in 1979 released a nugget file full of complete irrelevancies relating to the nuclear power industry in an effort to fearmonger—timed a spectacular 2 months prior to the Three Mile Island incident, which could realistically have only happened through a careful execution of several stages, hypothetically extremely unlikely to happen. The event was amplified to the maximum by the same hysterical media who promoted the fake 1976 flu only few years prior, thus slowing down nuclear power plant construction to ultimately reach contemporary levels of… virtual standstill.
And 1979, as previously mentioned, was also the year which saw the release of the CLRTAP and the First Climate Conference indirect ‘carbon consensus’, through the launch of a ‘call for action’ on the back of a ludicrous biased, yet impeccably foresightful conference proceeding document, which would come to drive environmental policy throughout the western nations—though ludicrously so, as the IIASA in 1978 admitted that they, in effect, had absolutely no understanding of the global carbon cycle, but further also because Bert Bolin in 1976 in front of the US House of Representatives admitted they knew very little, if anything at all—beyond co2 being plant food. However, the year prior gave birth to the Belgrade Charter83 which emphasised environmental education, to which extent a global ethic was required before a 1976 report on same emphasised the use of the media and ‘information on alternate lifestyles’ to that extent. And the oddly timed incidences kept occouring, as the IIASA released the first report on carbon pricing in 1975, followed by the EPA through the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments84 pushed through the very first offsetting mechanisms into legislation.
However, by 1976 absolutely no-one had the faintest idea about temperature developments, clearly evidenced as several senior employees at the NOAA contributed to the infamous Life Magazine article speaking of a global temperature decline. However, by 1979 the ‘science was settled’, at least to a sufficient level to declare an implicit ‘consensus’, after which temperatures mysteriously started increasing in an almost linear fashion - even though by 1982 scientists were still discussing whether temperatures were rising at all. Yet, all of this ultimately was almost exposed in 2009 as Climategate85 made international headlines, conveniently in the same year where the ‘ethics declaration’ on climate change was established - yet carrying no enforcement at this stage. However, though contemporary arguments now write off Climategate as an ‘email controversy’, the real story actually exposes systemic corruption on a global scale, and later measures have exposed temperature measurements as nothing but synthetic data generated by computational models, exaggerated for maximum manipulative effect.
But back to the topic of the integration of economy with ecology, because social also integrates—through the implementation of a social credit system, rewarding people for ‘doing good things’, and penalising ‘bad’ things—much like Elon Musk’s contemporary Twitter86 offers ‘good’ content the carrot of monetisation, but throttles ‘bad’. But outside of Twitter, as intergenerational justice calls for intergenerational equity, this can lead to systemic discrimination on account of people who have allegedly been mistreated in the past, leading to the differences in policing standards so obviously on display at present. And this can through 15 minute cities87 be used to justify even climate lockdowns88, thus if you live in a wealthy surburb of London, you could either be stopped from leaving your zone, or you might have to pay fees on account of your grandparents owning a car (and thus emitting carbon dioxide)—even if they didn’t as this punishment is collective; besides, your postcode alone can be sufficient evidence to establish guilt. And to this extent, CBDCs are convenient, as these on a backing of carbon emissions permits can be used to price things more dearly, as these relate directly to carbon emissions. Consequently, a 20% ‘Original Sin’ tax for the alleged crimes of your grandparents owning a car—even if they didn’t—is entirely within reach. In a wholly non-systemically discriminant way, of course.
However, there’s not just one type of carbon-backed CBDC, there are two89. One is backed by emission permits while the other relates to carbon sequestration. Thus, while the carbon emission permit based CBDC resonates strongly with the UNFCCC, the carbon sequestration CBDC resonates equally strongly with the Convention on Biological Diversity. However, as the emission-backed currency relates to a temporal emission right, that will likely lead to a trading currency with an expiration date which you cannot save. Consequently, you will own nothing but you won’t necessarily be very happy. But for CBDCs to even come to pass, Digital ID90 is a prerequisite - and per Alan Gelb of the CGD in February, 202191, this was attempted passed through the EU Vaccination Certificates92 which strangely could be introduced, discussed, passed into law, trialled, and the technology fully written and functioning virtually flawlessly, all within a 3 month timespan and this of all through the EU Parliament, known not to be able to agree on lunch in 2 months. And it is this system, incidentally, which the WHO adopted for global rollout in the summer of 202393.
A contemporary, major area of resistance is that of free speech. and though efforts to ‘update’ the meaning of this through efforts by the UN have appeared, this drive saw a contemporary launch through a 1998 statement by Clinton and a later aborted Russian UN declaration both relating to ‘information terrorism’, progressively developing through the 2009 Camden Principles94, eventually to become fully formed through the Boardband Commission95, and rolled out through a range of initiatives including (but not limited to) the Transatlantic Working Group on Content Moderation96, a group featuring members as diverse as the same Michael Chertoff who personally profited from the 2005 DHS report leading to body scanners, Damian Collins, the ‘Conservative’ UK Folkestone Tory MP who repeatedly called out alleged ‘Russian misinformation’, feigned outrage at allegedly poorly treated illegal immigrants, and even David Kaye, who took time out of his busy schedule to criticise people including Elon Musk for exercising ‘grade-school versions of free speech’, where his version contained the same kind of ‘exemptions’ visible to UNESCO’s promises of ‘right to access to information’, relating to all the ‘transparency’ outlined by their ‘good governance’ principles - ultimately ruled by ethics.
And good governance97… though the overriding principle that runs through this concept is that of ‘ethics’, key to understanding these 8 primary principles is through the lens of systems theory. Consequently, the ‘holistic approach’ calls for all information to be passed up the chain in a ‘transparent’ fashion, but this will be sent through ‘information clearinghouses’98 which at each level can dictate to which ‘stakeholders’ said information is ‘relevant’, when they process your ‘right to information’ request. This mechanism, in short, entirely enables a framework of systemic censorship and control of information, under the guise of being ‘transparent’. As for the other principle of being ‘accountable’, this relates to your ‘rights and responsibilities’, where the former can be considered your ‘distributive justice’, and the latter relates to ‘contributive justice’, where the difference between the two relate to your ‘equity’, which you must respect or you will no longer ‘live with dignity’, and consequently your ‘human rights’ could legally be revoked. And all this describes a mechanism entirely aligned with a Marxist Approach to Social Justice, which isn’t really all that strange considering it’s input-output analysis arrived at through surveillance, thus taking us back to Alexander Bogdanov who specifically fathered Tektology - in short describes the ‘arteries’ of a system, while the flow relates to ‘blood circulation’ - and all for sakes of enabling the societal transition to scientific socialism.
As for the surveillance data used to facilitate said, we already discussed GEMS, GEOSS and related derivatives, but a topic we left out was that of determinants, where the Social Determinants of Health99 is probably the most visible. These relate to secondary, indirect factors relating to health, which could describe virtually anything. And these determinants which exist in huge volume in health capacity alone through Political/Economical/Environmental/... Determinants of Health also have related determinants in other fields, with a few examples being ‘Technological Determinants of Economic Growth‘, ‘Cultural Determinants of Consumer Behavior‘ and even ‘Social Determinants of Mental Health‘. But the key to understanding is that all these determinants are converted to become the same type of indicators, which in the context of the Aichi Biodiversity Target Indicators100 relate to the alleged state of environmental health which when combined with GEO BON101 become the input surveillance data (information theory) component processed by the Digital Twin102 Modelling (general systems theory) in the AI-driven adaptive management processes, which in the future will control the very same Spaceship Earth, popularised by Buckminster Fuller who in 1927 created his ‘4D Time Lock‘ vision, displayed at the top of his article, relating to his vision in regards to the future society driven by comprehensive input-output analysis and thus surveillance, and which appears amazingly prescient, given contemporary efforts.
And though all promises of using accumulated surveillance data appropriately, through privacy statements framed around ethics - given the extensive rollout of ethics disclaimers in every nook and cranny of contemporary society, including business enterprise, government, religion, education, social organisation, and health, where said surveillance data through ethics codes and enforcement thereof led to the wholesale dismissal of many, many healthcare staffers—concern in this regard is entirely warranted. Especially considering the United Kingdom during the alleged pandemic saw it entirely fit to wholesale ignore signed opt-out forms on account of the ‘common good’, but further considering the reformed UN structure, which through trisectoral networks lead to general consultative status NGOs taking an active role, acting in expressly the leadership role, envisioned through Fabian Socialist Tony Blair’s 1991 Marxism Today article and his 1998 Third Way103 pamphlet released by said Fabian Society, through which he made perfectly clear that public and private should cooperate for the common good, and this should take place through an emphasis on rights and responsibilities, which through Swidler is the middle layer, leading to a global ethic. And as for the objective, the common good104 so to speak would be - he left that unansweews, though did outline in 1991 that this vision resulted in a societal structure, where the determining of this goal would be would become the overriding question of society.
And through his 1998 pamphlet, he further outlined the role of civil society organisations, a description closely aligning with the restructured united nations pushed through by Kofi Annan105, where those CSOs are free to participate in every stage from placing the item on the agenda, through to formulating a response strategy, and even take charge of the created instutution as an outcome. And all this takes is for an issue to be placed on the agenda with the United Nations, which can be achieved by an NGO with general consultative status, or an otherwise highly influential NGO - with two examples being the IUCN or ISC, though likely not until after a civil society pressure group has drummed up a fake grassroots campaign, or caused negative ‘Cultural Energy’106 through having the ever biased media stir up race riots in the most overtly biased, systemically dishonest way - an approach which should appear grossly unethical to most.
But in context of ethics, the Institute of Noahide Code in 2021107 was promoted to UN General Consultative Status, and their very own mission statement detailed on the United Nations website explicitly states that their mission is to codify global ethics into legislation108, where Hermann Cohen’s principle of ‘Infinite Judgment’ would ensure no delay between the setting of ethical code, and its codification into legislation. And should they be successful in this endeavour, this would replicate the exact conditions arising in past, which led to dictatorships committing the worst, most atrocious historical crimes on record with complete impunity.
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3800/3800-h/3800-h.htm
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.201244/page/n1/mode/2up
https://philarchive.org/archive/MATTEI-10
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781503627680-029/html?lang=en
https://www.themarginalian.org/2018/03/18/i-and-thou-martin-buber/
https://archive.org/details/levinasreader0000levi
https://www.chicagohistory.org/parliament-of-the-worlds-religions/
https://www.routledge.com/The-Interfaith-Movement-Mobilising-Religious-Diversity-in-the-21st-Century/Fahy-Bock/p/book/9780367726744
![WHO Pandemic Agreement [April, 2024]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_140,h_140,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fb69c8066-0498-4924-af63-1344abb2ec85_1206x612.png)
Wow! Congratulations on such a comprehensive piece.