The New New Economic Policy
Here’s another executive summary of past articles, this time centered around the new fraudulent financial ecosystem built up around the Convention on Biological Diversity.
-
In 1992, with help from US Senator Al Gore, the Convention on Biological Diversity was ratified by all nations but one - The United States. And though Bill Clinton signed it on behalf of the US, the senate refused. And still, to this day, the CBD remains lacking that final signature, which would make official this… global deal with the devil.
But that wasn’t all Gore was busy with some 30-odd years back. Apart from releasing an absurdly alarmist paper in 1989, claiming that global temperatures would increase by a ridiculous 5 degrees celsius within the lifetime ‘of our children’, he - and John Kerry - also founded GLOBE International along with Michael Gorbachev who, as the Soviet Union went on to collapse only months later, suddenly become an avid environmentalist.
The primary concept of the Convention on Biological Diversity is the 12 principles, outlining the Ecosystem Approach, which, once you successfully decipher their excessive verbiage and opaque terminology, in short outlines a return to feudalism where the few own everything, and you nothing. Being happy is optional.
Along the way, the CBD would periodically issue their decadal Global Biodiversity Framework update, with the most recent agreed upon in 2022 - the Kunming-Montreal GBF - outlining targets to be achieved by 2030. The most recent update has 23.
Target two states the aim to restore 30% of land to its original state (by 2030), with all trace of human activity fundamentally removed - which is in line with, for instance, HRH Prince Charles’s Terra Carta.
But though it’s easy for Rockefeller to write a wish list for Santa, bringing this to fruition is a somewhat harder proposition.
But further, target 19 details the mechanism of the game-plan, so to speak. The plan is to restore huge quantities of land back to their natural state through the magic of Blended Finance.
Blended Finance is titled as such, as it draws in philanthropic capital, private investments, and taxpayer funding. Of course, should you wish to sort these by relative size of contribution, then the latter should go first, as the taxpayer contributes realistically in the region of 85-90% of total finances required. As for the ‘philanthropes’ - they barely contribute at all.
Public sector financing is scheduled to progressively increase to $700bn by 2030, a number which will be reached through elimination of practically every subsidy benefiting the people, ensuring the cost of energy and food will increase dramatically.
But even those flows are insufficient. So to ensure money raised goes even further, they borrow typically $4 per $1 raised, meaning leverage. However, leverage also magnifies risk, meaning that should this investment decline by 20%, the real loss is 5x higher - ie 100%. Consequently, for every $100 invested, with a 4:1 ratio, only $20 would require raising. And of the $20, private would need to raise 10-15%, ie $2-3.
Now, the projects sponsored are typically risky, and consequently, the much smaller private sector demanded a more beneficial structure from their perspective — and Santa delivered, as through structural finance practically all risk was offloaded onto the taxpayer, while private yield increased. And to top things off, their minority investment also became senior, meaning the taxpayer would lose their money before the private would ever feel the pain.
The Global Environmental Facility structure these deals, and documentation is not public. Consequently, it’s impossible to tell what happens under the circumstances of bankruptcy. Hence, it is entirely possible that the senior equity holders take security in the collateral, meaning should the deal default, the private investors end up owning the underlying asset - in this case, the land.
Which makes great business sense. Unless you’re the taxpayer of course.
So, should the unthinkable happen, and the economy go into a tailspin, it is hypothetically possible that the taxpayer will lose every penny, and the private sector end up owning the collateral - in this case, the land - bought on a bargain.
In 2021, the (Henry) Paulson Institute released a report, in which they let slip that a potential future income stream could arise through forests, as these would be credited for being carbon sinks. And these credits could be sold to polluters, through ‘Biodiversity Offsetting’, leading to a system where sitting on undeveloped forests is prioritised over any level of human activity. In fact, as humans exhale carbon dioxide, and consume ‘ecosystem services’, inarguably, humans are bad for biodiversity, and consequently life on earth in this new economy.
And what all of this means is that should those private investors who bought forests through largely tax payer funded Blended Finance, only to see these deals defaulting, not only will they acquire large plots of land for an absolute bargain, but the even get to tax humanity for their efforts, post-crash, due to owning those essentially taxpayer purchased forests.
And finally, in 2024 new legislation will enter law in the United Kingdom, forcing developers to perform said offsetting in their new unit of biodiversity account, titled the Biodiversity Net Gain.
Forest provided timber, fresh water, and carbon credits in short describe ‘ecosystem services’, which could alternatively described as sustainable exploitation rights. These can be licensed by a Natural Asset Company, and this floated via an IPO on a stock exchange.
Of course by doing so, there’s not much reason for keeping people living on the lands, because they’ll eat the fish, drink the water, and even breathe the air and hence - cost the stakeholders money. No, it’ll probably be better from a business perspective to wholesale evict the bothersome serfs.
The alternative, of course, is demand payment from said people for their consumption of the ecosystem services provided by the Natural Assets, aka biodiversity.
And all of this is wrapped in ‘the best available science’, the likes of which we saw during the scamdemic, complete with an enforcement mechanism should anyone dare to question said - which we also saw during said scamdemic, as doctors were fired for speaking up.
And as for the science, the entire system is based upon biodiversity conservation, and ‘ecosystem service valuation’. Only thing here is that with 30m species, and ecosystem service valuation hypothetically not only considering they alone but also links to other species upon which they depend… as well as the genetic variety within species… the numbers involved alone not only make this completely impossible to realistically calculate, but in fact, utterly impossible to even measure.
A fact which they repeatedly - though indirectly - own up to themselves.
But that doesn’t mean they won’t at least try to measure. In fact, they have since 1972 created an apparatus set out for the task of Global Environmental Monitoring, which through several iterations, eventually became GEOSS (Global Earth Observing System of Systems), and formally connected to the Convention of Biological Diversity for sakes of allegedly protecting biodiversity - and hence - protecting us.
Data gathered flies under the umbrella of being ‘indicators’, or the Essential Biodiversity Variables, first time defined with the GBF 2011-2020 aka the Aichi Targets.
Of course, this global surveillance system gradually included more information, with initiatives on public health surveillance being ready by the break of the scamdemic. Another initiative related is titled ‘citizen science’, which in short describes collecting information from ‘participants’ via social media, and explicitly, Facebook and Twitter.
Of course, this global system can also be used for other means, especially considering in 2018, live-streaming from satellites was first confirmed working. Combine that with your mobile phone tracking you, and your social media giving away your present state of mind… yes, should you wish to stop the people from revolting, that would appear a pretty cool toy to have at your disposal.
But the people still have ways to step outside state dependency, largely through post-taxation income being too high, largely stemming from private enterprise. And naturally, this discrepacy is intolerable, and consequently, need monitoring as well through claims of these secondary determinants impacting your state of health.
With a such system, one could hypothetically target anyone outside of control by simply claiming these ‘inequities’ cause illness, and consequently, must be eliminated - which, incidentally, was expressly what the WHO claimed in their SDoH report, released in 2008. And to address the larger issue of private enterprise being a driver behind this 'inequiy’, progressively, arbitrary rules are rolled out by which free enterprise is expected to live, constituting not just ESG regulation, but ultimately becoming a Social License to Operate.
This system can furthermore progressively be expanded to tap the lifeblood of any competitive enterprise, until they, too, have collapsed under a progressively larger pile of arbitrary taxes, not necessarily applied evenly.
And this system, further, has the added benefit that it can also be used to target inconveniencies speaking out.
The bottom line here is that all of this rests upon a cradle of unfathomable quack science, as when you drill even fractionally into what they claim passes as ‘science’ is quickly exposed for what it truly is.
A shambolic attempt to establish a new new economic policy.