Central Banking, Part 3: End The Fed (US)

(30 minute documentary on US Federal Reserve and deficit spending)

(60 minute video “Fiat Empire”)

Central banking, and private government loans were addressed a previous case for Canada. Also, the COMER Case 2011-2018, (Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform) was outlined.

This article covers a similar topic, but the American experience, with their Federal Reserve. We will detail an organization called “End The Fed”, which is dedicated to ending this practice.

This is what happens when you:

  • Stop backing your currency by gold
  • Allow a private bank to generate currency
  • Surrender your debt to outside interests

But hey, it regulates interest and inflation. It is good for consumers, so we are told.

1. Important Links


CLICK HERE, for Part I, To Restore 1934 Bank of Canada Act
CLICK HERE, for Part II, the COMER Case.

CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org.
CLICK HERE, for endthefed.org recommended websites.
CLICK HERE, for Federal Reserve Act.
CLICK HERE, for fractional banking.
CLICK HERE, for fractional reserves.
CLICK HERE, for a disclosure lawsuit against the Federal Reserve. Spoiler: It’s a private entity.
CLICK HERE, for verdict forcing Federal Reserve to disclose who it has been financially bailing out.
CLICK HERE, for US Federal debt by year.
CLICK HERE, for an article on Fed background.
CLICK HERE, for who owns the Federal Reserve.

2. What Is “End The Fed”?


This is a website posted to make people aware of the Federal Reserve. It contains links to books, videos, documentaries, websites, and other information.

The Federal Reserve, “the Fed”, is the central bank of the United States of America that was created in 1913 by Congress. It is a banking cartel that has a government-granted monopoly on the creation of money and credit. The Fed literally loans “money” (Federal Reserve Notes) into existence. Federal Reserve Notes are paper promises backed by nothing of intrinsic value and they are only functioning as money because the government forces them on the public through legal tender laws. Federal Reserve Notes are referred to as dollars but are not. The definition of a dollar is a weight of silver (371 grains). To put it simply, the Fed is a group of banks running a national counterfeiting operation with the protection of the government.

Why Should I Care?
Because you’re being systematically robbed and enslaved. The Fed’s counterfeiting causes the price of goods and services to rise which requires you to work harder in order to purchase them. Even with all the technological advances over the last century, you have to work just as hard or even harder to survive. The Fed is siphoning off the productivity that should have come from those technological advances. The reality is that you are working overtime solely for the benefit of some bankers who the government gave the power to conjure money out of nothing. In addition, the Fed’s counterfeiting finances the tools of the government’s oppression over you: the militarization of the police, the surveillance apparatus, and the endless wars.

If you cherish truth, freedom, justice, and want to leave behind a better world for your loved ones then you must…END THE FED! A free market, where each individual has the freedom to choose what form of money to use rather than one being forced on them, must be allowed to function in its place.

End The Fed is basically a reference site, which connects you to many great tools and resources. It is well worth spending time here. Even those who are Canadian can benefit from it, as many of the same issues the US faces also impact Canada.

3. Quotes From Federal Reserve Act


(From page 15 of 112)

DIVISION OF EARNINGS. SEC. 7. (a) DIVIDENDS AND SURPLUS FUNDS OF RESERVE BANKS.— (1) STOCKHOLDER DIVIDENDS.—
(A) DIVIDEND AMOUNT.—After all necessary expenses of a Federal reserve bank have been paid or provided for, the stockholders of the bank shall be entitled to receive an annual dividend on paid-in capital stock of—
(i) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of more than $10,000,000,000, the smaller of—
(I) the rate equal to the high yield of the 10 year Treasury note auctioned at the last auction held prior to the payment of such dividend; and
(II) 6 percent; and
(ii) in the case of a stockholder with total consolidated assets of $10,000,000,000 or less, 6 percent.
(B) DIVIDEND CUMULATIVE.—The entitlement to dividends under subparagraph (A) shall be cumulative.
(C) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT.—The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System shall annually adjust the dollar amounts of total consolidated assets specified under subparagraph (A) to reflect the change in the Gross Domestic Product Price Index, published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis

So, if you are a stockholder in the Federal Reserve, you are guaranteed at least 6% interest on your “investment”. Talk about predatory lending.

Now, if you think that participating in this system is voluntary for banks, think again. This is from Section 2, Part 5 of the Act:

5. Failure of national bank to accept terms of Act¿ Any national bank failing to signify its acceptance of the terms of this Act within the sixty days aforesaid, shall cease to act as a reserve agent, upon thirty days’ notice, to be given within the discretion of the said organization committee or of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

6. Penalty for violation of Act by national banks¿ Should any national banking association in the United States now organized fail within one year after the passage of this Act to become a member bank or fail to comply with any of the provisions of this Act applicable thereto, all of the rights, privileges, and franchises of such association granted to it under the national-bank Act, or under the provisions of this Act, shall be thereby forfeited. Any noncompliance with or violation of this Act shall, however, be determined and adjudged by any court of the United States of competent jurisdiction in a suit brought for that purpose in the district or territory in which such bank is located, under direction of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, by the Comptroller of the Currency in his own name before the association shall be declared dissolved. In cases of such noncompliance or violation, other than the failure to become a member bank under the provisions of this Act, every director who participated in or assented to the same shall be held liable in his personal or individual capacity for all damages which said bank, its shareholders, or any other person shall have sustained in consequence of such violation

Banks don’t have the choice to “opt-out”. They are in if they want to be in this industry.

4. Blog Article From End The Fed


This is a blog entry, on reserve banking, worth a read.

Logic dictates that the ideal form of money should be durable, divisible, portable, fungible, scarce, and in demand for purposes other than a medium of exchange. Market supply and demand dynamics demonstrate that precious metals, specifically gold and silver, meet these criteria better than any other good. Many people voluntarily chose to use gold or silver as money throughout history for this reason.

So who has the power to create fiat currency? The answer is central banks. Central banks are banking cartels that have a “government” granted monopoly on the creation of fiat currency. In the United States, it’s the Federal Reserve System (the Fed). In the United Kingdom, it’s the Bank of England (the BoE). In Europe, it’s the European Central Bank (the ECB). In Japan, it’s the Bank of Japan (the BoJ). The model is the same across the world. Central banks loan fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes, Pounds, Euros, Yen, etc) into existence. These fiat currencies often bear the name of money, such as the Federal Reserve Note bearing the word “dollar” (which is by definition a weight of silver), but they are not money. To put it simply, central banks run “legalized” counterfeiting operations with the protection and enforcement of “government.” Counterfeiting is theft because it steals purchasing power from the current holders of the currency or money and transfers it to the counterfeiter. The Fed has stolen approximately 95% of the purchasing power from the users of the Federal Reserve Note since its creation in 1913 and other central banks have similar track records. Unfortunately, that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Central banks use their counterfeiting rackets to rig interest rates, bailout their cronies, fund the welfare state, fund the police state, fund the warfare state, create asset booms and busts, and stifle economic growth. You pay for all of this through lost purchasing power, whether you want to or not.

This artificial system of creating money sets up a system where the only way to pay off existing debt is to use a substantial portion of your currency.

Now, since you have used up a significant amount of your currency making debt payments, a nation now finds itself short on currency to pay for the needs of its people. How do you solve that problem? Answer, by borrowing more. This system creates a dependency where the only solution is to borrow more to pay off existing debts.

5. Fractional Reserve Banking


US banks are not required to holdanywhere near the amount of money they are lending out. They are allowed to only hold a fraction of it, hence the name “fractional banking”.

In 2016, the minimum reserves required were:

In the United States, the reserves are held in the bank’s vault or the nearest Federal Reserve Bank. The Board of Governors of the Fed set the reserve requirements and use it as one of the tools of guiding monetary policy. As at January 2016, commercial banks with deposits of less than $15.2 million were not required to maintain reserves. Banks with deposits valued at $15.2 million to $110.2 million were required to maintain the reserve requirement at 3% while those with more than $100.2 million in deposits were required to keep a reserve requirement of 10%. The Garn-St. Germain Act of 1982 exempted the first $2 million of reserve liabilities from the reserve requirements.

Bank Deposit Total Percentage required
Under $15.2M 0%
$15.2M to $100.2M 3%
Over $100.2M 10%

Let’s take a look at it. If you own a US bank, you can claim $15.2 million in deposits without actually having any. Your bank can be worth billions, and you will only be required to hold 10% of the total amount.

Lending out potentially 10 times the money that you actually have sounds absurd, yet it is entirely legal. Of course this is completely unsustainable.

6. US Federal Debt


This is very unpleasant to read, but is needed.

End of Year Debt (billions) Percent of GDP
1930 16 18%
1935 29 39%
1940 43 50%
1945 260 114%
1950 257 89%
1955 274 65%
1960 286 53%
1965 317 43%
1970 375 35%
1975 533 32%
1980 908 32%
1985 1,823 42%
1990 3,233 54%
1995 4,974 65%
2000 5,674 55%
2005 7,933 60%
2010 13,562 90%
2015 18,151 99%
2020 (est) 24,057 106%

-Trump added $3T to national debt (~15%)
-Barack Obama added almost $10T to the national debt (~50%)
-Bush Jr. added $4T (~20%)
-Clinton added $1.6T (~8%)
-Bush Sr. added $1.3T (~6.5%)
-Reagan added $1.7T (~9%)
-National debt broke $1T in 1981. More than 95% of national debt has come “after” that benchmark.

7. Who Owns Federal Reserve


(From USA Gold article)

Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. Mullins reported that the top eight stockholders of the New York Fed were, in order from largest to smallest as of 1983, Citibank, Chase Manhatten, Morgan Guaranty Trust, Chemical Bank, Manufacturers Hanover Trust, Bankers Trust Company, National Bank of North America, and the Bank of New York (Mullins, p. 179). Together, these banks owned about 63 percent of the New York Fed’s outstanding stock. Mullins then showed that many of these banks are owned by about a dozen European banking organizations, mostly British, and most notably the Rothschild banking dynasty. Through their American agents they are able to select the board of directors for the New York Fed and to direct U.S. monetary policy. Mullins explained,

‘… The most powerful men in the United States were themselves answerable to another power, a foreign power, and a power which had been steadfastly seeking to extend its control over the young republic since its very inception. The power was the financial power of England, centered in the London Branch of the House of Rothschild. The fact was that in 1910, the United States was for all practical purposes being ruled from England, and so it is today’ (Mullins, p. 47-48).

Admittedly, this is difficult to confirm, since the Federal Reserve tries to keep its ownership secret.

8. Conspiracy Theory: JFK’s Assassination Tied To Federal Reserve


There has long been a theory that former US President John F. Kennedy was murdered because of his opposition to the Federal Reserve. Look up “Executive Order 11110”.

Was Kennedy killed for wanting to stop this scam? I don’t know, but it is possible. It certainly was lucrative to the stockholders of the Federal Reserve.

9. System Will Collapse


As should be apparent, this system is not sustainable in the slightest.

This Federal Reserve is a bank creating its own money, and then lending it out, with interest. Note: “shareholders” are to receive a minimum of 6% return on their investments annually.

Banks operate on a “fractional reserve” system, meaning they only need to keep a portion of the actual money they claim to have on hand. Even for the biggest banks, this is capped at 10%. The same money can in fact be loaned out multiple times, since there is no requirement no have much of it on hand.

In order to finance this system, the US Government adds to its debt, year after year. This is debt that will never be paid back. The only way the US can “service the debt” is by continued economic growth. Of course, this is not possible. The dollar “used” to be backed by gold, but that is no longer the case.

The “debt ceiling” will continue to be raised, since no President or member of Congress wants to see it collapse on their watch.

But at some point it will.

World Domination: Connecting The Dots

How do you take over the world without war, guns, and bombs? You do it incrementally, and strategically. This guide will outline some of the major steps.

1. Important Links

This section will be empty. Instead, links are interwoven in the article. Also, Part II, will address who is behind these global takeover efforts.

2. Convention On Preventing & Punishing Genocide To Be Used As “Guideline”

No two ways about it. If you are serious about world domination, then you can’t have strong groups and populations standing in your path. The population needs to go. Either it needs to be killed off, or it needs to be “phased out”. This idea was addressed in a previous article.

He are sections of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishing Genocide:

Article I
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III
The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) Genocide;
(b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) Attempt to commit genocide;
(e) Complicity in genocide.

This applies if there are certain groups, such as racial or ethnic, that are obstacles to the plan. Yes, we can kill them, or we can just reduce their populations, by preventing births or causing mental harm to the group.

Ironically, this convention outlines some effective “non-violent” ways to erase a group, or groups.

We will get back to this later.

3. Financing The Global Domination Mission

No doubt about it: a scheme to control the world is expensive and complex. The right people have to be in place, and the organization needed is substantial. So let’s discuss a few methods to finance our agenda.

(Option A:) Get wealthy nations to borrow extensively from private banks. Most countries have their own internal banking, which means that they effectively borrow from themselves. A much better alternative is to get nations to start borrowing from private banks, but never completely pay it back. This ensures permanent interest payments. However, we must be careful to fight any and all attempts by concerned citizens to take back control of their finances.

(Option B:) Convince wealthy nations to participate in bogus scheme such as the “climate change scam”, which is based entirely on junk science. Rather than endlessly appealing to give foreign aid (which we then steal), we should be appealing to the mutual survival instinct. Doing this can raise hundreds of billions in revenue each year. Sure there will be resistance, but we can establish some controlled opposition “Conservatives” to give the illusion of fighting for the average people. These initiatives, once established, will be profitable.

(Option C:) While using the money raised from (A) and (B) immediately seems like a good idea, we must be more strategic about it. A serious option is to loan out to developing nations, huge sums of money they cannot possibly pay back. As such, once nations begin defaulting, we can either seize assets, or “forgive debt” in return for favours. Sure this is predatory lending, and the middle class will suffer, but their leaders will be put in an impossible position.

Note: the debts that we “lend” to developing nations are not actually losses we accrued. Rather they will be from the perpetual “debt repayments”, which developed nations pay us after they started taking out private loans.

(Option D:) Make globalism more profitable and have our partners contribute to the efforts. Making mass migration more profitable leads to an almost endless supply of new customers. A wide variety of groups, can get involved, ensuring a diversified portfolio for us. By linking their business interests with our ideological interests, it will ensure these organizations are vested in our survival.

(Option E:) It doesn’t just have to be foreign aid that gets transferred outside of host nations. Many national pension funds are screaming to be invested in our global development. Sure, there are criticisms that they are underfunded and unsustainable, but the potential growth will offset any risks to the funds. If seniors object, we can always subsidize their efforts to start smoking.

(Option F:) For the purposes of trade, it is antiquated to think of it as “nations” trading. Rather, if we think of them as economic zones, trade can be liberalized much more effectively. Sure there will be job losses here and there. But it’s all for the good of the “global economy”.

4. Mass Migration Is Critical To Our Success

In order to achieve the “One World Order”, individual nations must be destroyed. Sure they may keep their flags and names, but for all practical purposes, they cannot exist. There must be no true sovereignty allowed.

This aspect has unique challenges. There are plenty of nationalists and ethno-nationalists who want to keep their race, culture, language, heritage, customs, traditions, and way of life intact. There are those who reject conservatism and libertarianism, (which favour individuality over group survival), in favour of the long term stability of their nation. We need to completely replace the host populations. Being direct and honest will not work in this case. As such other approaches are required:

(Option I:) We can buy off media outlets. The rise in internet use and citizen journalists had led to an utter devastation of traditional media outlets. This presents an opportunity never thought possible: to keep certain media solvent in return for favourable coverage of our practices.

(Option II:) We can install puppet candidates and fund parties whose populist agendas are very similar to ours. With the right rhetoric, the sheeple won’t care that we lie about the true size of annual mass migration. Nor will they care that a “right-wing populist” is only proposing a 7% reduction in current rates. With the right messaging, the patriots will overlook that forced multiculturalism and diversity has never actually been successful, and only leads to balkanization. Members of the Government and Opposition should both have their campaigns contributed to. While common in the US, campaign contribution laws shall be used fully to ensure a cooperative Congress or Parliament.

(Option III:) Straight up gaslighting can and does still work, but the citizenry is getting tired of it. This technique should be used less frequently. Not saying stop entirely, but it shouldn’t be the first tool anymore.

(Option IV:) Present mass migration as “normalized” and inevitable. Yes we will need other puppets to sign the New York Declaration, and the UN Global Migration Compact. Yes, there will be many critics, and the gaslighting should be used sparingly. There are many intellectually dishonest tactics we can use without being too obvious. Our shill media — addressed earlier — will be useful in attacking border control efforts, or even the idea of border control.

(Option V:) In order to facilitate mass migration and population replacement, we should introduce “throw-away” ideas such as repatriating terrorists to home countries. If successful, we further destabilize the nation states. If unsuccessful, we at least divert their attention away from our real goals.

(Option VI:) One subset of mass migration is promoting high levels of Islamic immigration. Given their desire to take over the world, and propensity for “playing the victim”, this will be useful. Further, the drain on resources of the host nations will make it harder for them to put up resistance. Given Muslims’ very high birthrate, and violent intolerance towards others, they can help replace the populations for us.

Note: we won’t allow the Muslims to actually take over. Rather, they will do much of the leg work for us.

Naturally, the elites will need to meet annually, to ensure a smooth post-national transition takes place.

Once mass migration is sufficiently underway, we can focus on controlling the new masses, and that leads to the next topic: education.

5. Taking Control Of Education

If the agenda is to succeed, we need to take control of the next generation, and the one after that. As noted, children are to become dependent on the schools for everything from meals, to health care, to actual parenting. Yes, the financial costs will be high, but we will pay for it out of the interest payments from the loans we grant to governments. So really, it costs us nothing.

Academia has an important role to play, which is obvious. Scholarly articles, such as those written by Frank Geels and Kirsten Jenkins will add legitimacy to what we are doing.

Another important aspect is to redefine what cultural norms are. This in turn will also help reduce the host populations, which will make it easier to replace them. One such technique is encouraging people, especially young children, to have sex changes. A further technique is to keep pushing for abortion as a “human right”. Less births will of course reduce the host nation’s population. An extra benefit is that baby parts sell for huge amounts to organizations which are sympathetic to our globalist methods.

6. Making It All Come Together

Okay, this is definitely a lot to absorb. But knowing and implementing all of these steps, what have we actually accomplished? Let’s list them:

  • We have identified ways to commit genocide against nations and their host populations without the obvious evidence of guns, bombs and war
  • We have raised money by getting nations to borrow heavily from private banks, and never fully pay it back, leading to permanent interest payments
  • We raised money via bogus environmental scams
  • We loaned out to nations who cannot pay
  • We have enlisted corporate partners in our goals
  • We have invested national pensions and other assets
  • We have eliminated borders, ensuring efficient trade
  • We have bought off an obedient media
  • We have propped up puppet politicians
  • We reduced the overt gaslighting
  • We changed the narrative to mass migration being normal
  • We normalized repatriating terrorists
  • We weaponized Islamic immigration
  • We coordinated global leadership meetings
  • We have made children dependent on schools
  • We controlled the academic output
  • We replaced traditional cultural norms
  • We centralized globalization via UN
  • This list is by no means exhaustive. However, it should serve as an introduction to global domination.

    The UN, naturally, is a great way to centralize the consolidation of the global empire. But should the UN stop being a useful tool, we have backups in reserve.

    Just remember: taking over the world is a marathon, not a sprint.

    7. Who’s Behind All Of This?

    That will be addressed in part II, a post all by itself. There are simply too many players to do it justice in one article.

    Under 1948 UN Convention, Multiculturalism and Replacement Migration Are Genocide

    (Trudeau, speaking to the media)

    (1948 Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide)

    (Canadians encouraged to have less children)

    (Russian Pres. Putin: woke on the myth of civic nationalism. “We may be a multiethnic country, but we are one civilization. We are Russian, first and foremost.”)

    (Al Quds in Toronto: We execute gays, and Canada will at some point follow Sharia law. We are making babies. Your population is going down the slumps).

    Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau is in the news again. This time the MMIWG Inquiry (Missing or Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls) Inquiry has laid accusations of genocide against Canada, for doing nothing to prevent targeting killings of one group of people.

    Apparently, Trudeau believes that the findings amount to a pattern of genocide committed against Indigenous women and girls. In an effort to virtue signal, this had lead to admissions that Canada “does” engage in genocidal practices.

    As such, it is now reasonable to ask: will the UN and other foreign bodies be able to investigate Canada for genocide? Will this lead to an even bigger erosion of our sovereignty? Sadly, this is not where this article is heading. Sorry for misleading you.

    Strangely, this led to another thought: What if Canada actually “did” commit genocide, but in an entirely different way? What if mass migration, multiculturalism, forced diversity and speech codes actually led to the destruction of a nation and its people?

    The article looks at the actual 1948 UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide. It will unironically be compared to some existing laws and practices in Canada. This should be interesting.

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the MMIWG Report.
    CLICK HERE, for the supplemental.

    CLICK HERE, for the UN Convention On Prevention and Punishing Genocide.
    CLICK HERE, for pushing for replacement of Canadian population.
    CLICK HERE, for 1988 Multiculturalism Act.
    CLICK HERE, for a previous critique of multiculturalism.
    CLICK HERE, for Iqra Khalid.
    CLICK HERE, for UN pushing global blasphemy laws.
    CLICK HERE, for Cairo Declaration on Human Rights.
    CLICK HERE, for review of Cairo Declaration.
    CLICK HERE, for Nationalist’s rejection of Conservatism and Libertarianism.

    2. Quotes From UN Convention On Genocide


    Having people killed or go missing is horrible, no doubt about it. However, it is not the only way to breach the Convention on Preventing and Punishing Genocide. See the following sections.

    Article I
    The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

    Article II
    In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

    Article III
    The following acts shall be punishable:
    (a) Genocide;
    (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
    (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
    (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
    (e) Complicity in genocide.

    Article IV
    Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

    Article V
    The Contracting Parties undertake to enact, in accordance with their respective Constitutions, the necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the present Convention, and, in particular, to provide effective penalties for persons guilty of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III.

    Article VI
    Persons charged with genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be tried by a competent tribunal of the State in the territory of which the act was committed, or by such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted its jurisdiction.

    Article VII
    Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.
    The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force.

    Although killing and mass executions are an obvious and overt form of genocide, there are more subtle ways. Government, media and private organizations can work together in ways to bring about a group’s destruction “over time”. As will be demonstrated, there are ways to erase groups that don’t involve firing a shot.

    Keep in mind, Article 2 refers to “bring out the destruction, in all or in part” of a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. This will be demonstrated in the coming sections.

    3. Replacement Migration


    This topic was covered in an earlier article, shown here, but the topic is worth bringing up again. While the Government is not explicitly calling for the replacement of the Canadian population, it does push 2 competing narratives:

    (A) Canadians should have less children.
    (B) Canada needs more mass migration.

    Here is the contrast from the previous article.

    (CBC wants less Canadian children)
    CLICK HERE, for “we’re only having 1 kids, and that’s okay”.
    CLICK HERE, for beware of middle child syndrome.
    CLICK HERE, for criticizing those with too many kids.
    CLICK HERE, for why I only have 1 child.
    CLICK HERE, for childless women changing culture.
    CLICK HERE, for not teaching a daughter to be polite.
    CLICK HERE, have less children to lower emissions.

    (and in case you think CBC just wants less children in general)
    CLICK HERE, for multiculturalism is critical to Canada.
    CLICK HERE, for border walls are useless.
    CLICK HERE, for nothing will stop migration.
    CLICK HERE, for Europe should have open borders.
    CLICK HERE, for Hungary’s Orban is a dictator for rejecting migration.
    CLICK HERE, for bigot Orban wanting a Christian nation.
    CLICK HERE, for Global Migration Compact is harmless.
    CLICK HERE, for Canada having 100M people by year 2100.

    The above are just a small sample of what the CBC, our state funded broadcaster, has been putting out. While calling for Canadians to have fewer (or no) children, our government also advocates for increased immigration to cover for “declining birthrates”.

    It is untrue that Canada was “always multicultural”. In the 1971 census, the population was 96% European descent. This “multiculturalism” is a phenomenon of the last 50 years. This was imposed on the population, without any democratic consent.

    While CBC is an easy target, it should be noted that politicians of all political parties promote mass migration of very different people, from very different backgrounds and cultures. Diversity is our strength, so the saying goes.

    Is this not pushing for the destruction of a group of people? Or is anything and anyone Canadian who wants to be?

    4. 1988 Multiculturalism Act


    Section 3 of the Act is the most interesting for the purposes of this article. Here it is, in its entirety:

    3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to
    (a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage;
    (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
    (c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;
    (d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development;
    (e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
    (f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
    (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins;
    (h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those cultures;
    (i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
    (j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada in harmony with the national commitment to the official languages of Canada.”

    Throughout, the Act refers to Canada’s “multicultural history”. This is a complete rewrite of history. For over 100 years, Canada had been built largely as a British colony, with heavy French regions in the east. There are also great swaths of land which belong to various Indigenous groups, and many treaties are still discussed today.

    This leaves out that the more extra cultures who gain prominence, the host(s) become diluted and weakened. They become just one of many.

    (I) and (J) are nonsensical. They want to promote languages “other than” English and French, while strengthening the status of the official languages. Newsflash, of you promote “other” languages, it leads to the weakening of the status of English and French.

    Missing from Section 3 (or any section) is a description of what Canada actually is. All this says is that it is a “collection of identities”. We are told repeatdly that “diversity is our strength”, but with no explanation of how so.

    This part, while nice, omits a crucial detail: how does a group preserve their language and culture? Simple, get like people together, form an enclave, and preserve their identity. This type of legislation directly leads to balkanization.

    5. Destruction of Religious Groups

    Let’s address the elephant in the room: Islam. Liberal idiots seem to believe we can co-exist with a group whose stated (and practiced) goals are the destruction of anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs.

    Despite plenty of available evidence, Liberals believe that mass Islamic migration and nurturing the growth of Islam is somehow “showing diversity and tolerance”.

    Look familiar?

    M103 – Systemic racism and religious discrimination
    That, in the opinion of the House, the government should: (a) recognize the need to quell the increasing public climate of hate and fear; (b) condemn Islamophobia and all forms of systemic racism and religious discrimination and take note of House of Commons’ petition e-411 and the issues raised by it; and (c) request that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage undertake a study on how the government could (i) develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia, in Canada, while ensuring a community-centered focus with a holistic response through evidence-based policy-making, (ii) collect data to contextualize hate crime reports and to conduct needs assessments for impacted communities, and that the Committee should present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than 240 calendar days from the adoption of this motion, provided that in its report, the Committee should make recommendations that the government may use to better reflect the enshrined rights and freedoms in the Constitution Acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Islam does not permit the survival of non-muslims. To help achieve this goal, efforts are being made to shut down and ban criticism of Islam. But hey, diversity is our strength.

    6. Erasing Our Heritage


    Removing the statue of our nation’s founder is a pretty overt symbol of our nation being established.

    Naming a park in Winnipeg, MB, after an Islamic warlord named Jinnah (hence Jinnah Park), to celebrate the Muslim takeover of half of India is another symbol of our history being erased.

    There are too many cases to cite, but those are a few recent and obvious ones. Canadian history is being erased.

    7. Is Multiculturalism & Mass Migration “Genocide”?


    Let’s go through the list

    • Founding people of a nation are replaced.
    • Culture is replaced in favour of “multiculturalism”.
    • Common language becomes just one of many.
    • Main religion (Christianity) is removed, often through violence.
    • Heritage and history are removed.

    The ironically named “Conservatives” do nothing to actually conserve what our nation is. As such, they are complicit in its breakdown.

    Yes, it is fair to say that Canadian laws are in fact leading to the genocide of certain groups in Canada. But hey, diversity is our strength.

    8. What Was IN MMIWG Report Anyway?


    It would not be fair to readers to not at least address this topic.

    The conclusions of the MMIWG Report is that these victims are not given the care and seriousness they should have.

    1.1. The National Inquiry’s Mandate The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec entrusted a very broad mandate to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, for Quebec.

    First, according to Order 711-2016 that created the provincial commission of inquiry, the National Inquiry had to “investigate” and “report on” two main topics: the systemic causes of all forms of violence, and the institutional policies and practices implemented in response to the violence against Indigenous women and girls. To that end, the National Inquiry’s mandate included reviewing the factors that could be associated with the relationships between public services under Quebec’s constitutional jurisdictions, including police forces, health facilities, social and educational services, and Indigenous people more generally.

    In addition, the National Inquiry had a mandate to “make recommendations.” These recommendations had to focus on two objectives: to propose concrete and sustainable actions to be implemented to prevent situations of violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA people, and to significantly improve the quality of relationships between Indigenous people and public services.

    Noticeably absent is any mention of “solving the cases” of these women and girls. In fact, the mandate is not about solving any of these murders or disappearances.

    In fact, it is a report about various “marginalizations” that these women face. Very little of it has anything to do with the cases of the missing/murdered women.

    Kirsten Jenkins: Humanizating Sociotechnical Transitions Through Energy Justice

    1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


    This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled. It you haven’t been there, what are you waiting for?

    2. About The Authors


    CLICK HERE, for the profile of Kirsten Jenkins. Side note: no shocker she has cited Frank Geels.

    CLICK HERE, for Benjamin Sovacool.

    He is a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), due to be published in 2022, and an Advisor on Energy to the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Innovation in Brussels, Belgium.

    He has played a leadership role in winning and managing collaborative research grants worth more than $19.6 million, including those from the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Energy Technology Development and Demonstration Program of Denmark, the Danish Council for Independent Research, and the European Commission. In the United Kingdom, he has served as a Principal Investigator on projects funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council, and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    CLICK HERE, for Darren McCauley.

    3. The Paper Itself

    Humanizing sociotechnical transitions through energy justice: An ethical framework for global transformative change
    Kirsten Jenkins, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Darren McCauley

    Not even kidding. That is the title of the paper.

    ABSTRACT
    Poverty, climate change and energy security demand awareness about the interlinkages between energy systems and social justice. Amidst these challenges, energy justice has emerged to conceptualize a world where all individuals, across all areas, have safe, affordable and sustainable energy that is, essentially, socially just. Simultaneously, new social and technological solutions to energy problems continually evolve, and interest in the concept of sociotechnical transitions has grown. However, an element often missing from such transitions frameworks is explicit engagement with energy justice frameworks. Despite the development of an embryonic set of literature around these themes, an obvious research gap has emerged: can energy justice and transitions frameworks be combined? This paper argues that they can. It does so through an exploration of the multi-level perspective on sociotechnical systems and an integration of energy justice at the model’s niche, regime and landscape level. It presents the argument that it is within the overarching process of sociotechnical change that issues of energy justice emerge. Here, inattention to social justice issues can cause injustices, whereas attention to them can provide a means to examine and potential resolve them

    This article is the first time I have encountered the term “energy justice”. Rather than simply dealing with a problem in a scientific and factual way, the authors add some social-justice element to it. The abstract doesn’t really explain how this works. Hopefully the body will.

    Thus, it calls for greater engagement with the three-tenet energy justice approach (distributional justice, procedural justice and justice as recognition) when planning for more sustainable transitions.

    Energy justice apparently consists of:

    • Distributional justice
    • Procedural justice
    • Justice as recognition

    Okay, but that doesn’t really explain what it is.

    Amidst serious sustainability challenges, transitions frameworks have evolved to either conceptualize or facilitate decarbonised energy systems that provide both security of supply and universal access to energy; a process that it is widely acknowledged will require new ways of producing, living and working with energy (Bridge et al., 2013; Heffron and McCauley, 2018; IEA, 2008; Mernier, 2007). In aiming to implement sociotechnical solutions, governments are increasingly utilising the language of transitions, and the concept has begun to feature in the energy policies of countries including Denmark, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK)

    Some points that should be addressed:

    • They are quite blunt (and proud it seems) that their language is filtering into government activity.
    • Provide universal supply of energy? Is this meant to be some sort of socialist or communist idea?
    • Has it sunk in that if you remove all Carbon forms of energy that it will reduce supply, and make your universal supply harder to obtain?
    • When you say a “new way of living”, does this mean reducing the standard of living in the West to ensure that everyone has access to the same amount of energy?

    Yet despite ongoing debates about ethics or justice across many fields of literature (including extended discussions between antagonist camps that have gone on across the history of political philosophy), one social element missing from transitions frameworks is explicit, practice oriented engagement with the energy justice concept and related approaches to justice concerns. Eames and Hunt (2013) draw attention to the fact that considerations of equity and justice are underrepresented within the sociotechnical transitions literature and the wider energy transitions debate, despite the fact that the concept of sustainable development, the target of many transition plans, is inherently rooted in these core notions (Hopwood et al., 2005). Transitions literatures can also fail to give due consideration to issues of landscape, health and existing property values too (Jefferson, 2017).

    More points to be looked at:

    • This seems a shameless attempt to turn what is supposed to be an environmental issue into a “social justice”, and hence blur the lines.
    • “Equity and justice” and terms that need to be rammed into discussions.
    • It appears that including “social justice” would be a way to better market their ideas. They don’t seem to make an actual connection though.
    • If a platform needs to latch on to overused buzzwords to sell itself, then it’s probably not a very good platform.

    Failure to adequately engage with questions of justice throughout the transition process is dangerous. It may lead to aggravated poverty, entrenched gender bias and non-participation as outcomes or by-products of ‘blinkered’ decision-making. Indeed, without a focus on justice, transitions may fail to acknowledge the burdens of having too much energy, such as waste, over-consumption and pollution, or from not having enough, where some individuals lack access, are challenged by under-consumption and poverty, and may face health burdens and shortened lives as a consequence of restricted energy choices (Sovacool et al.,2016a). This paper therefore utilizes the energy justice concept as a way of engaging with these ethical dilemmas within pre-existing transitions frameworks.

    More nonsense which requires a response:

    • There is an obsession with redefining terms to suit an agenda.
    • This is energy we are talking about, not poverty, gender bias, or non-participation. That’s right, they really played the “gender” card here.
    • Burden of having too much? Can I assume the solution is to force sharing? Or rather, to force “rich” nations to hand over energy supplies?
    • Engaging with these ethical dilemmas? You haven’t demonstrated any sort of cause and effect yet.

    The origins of the energy justice literature is largely reported as coming from activist accounts of energy issues using the environmental justice frame – a precursor to the energy justice concept which shares overlapping philosophical groundings

    That’s right. A bunch of activists made this up.

    Specifically, as environmental justice is commonly defined as the distribution of environmental hazards and access to all natural resources; it includes equal protection from burdens, meaningful involvement in decisions, and fair treatment in access to benefits……….. This approach forms the basis of the energy justice approach and framework. However, mentions of its core notions also appear elsewhere, including in the guise of the “three A’s” of availability, accessibility and affordability

    It reads like the sort of nonsense one would get in a gender studies class. Only thing is that “energy” is being substituted for here.

    note in this regard, that even ‘a “low-carbon” transition has the potential to distribute its costs and benefits just as unequally [as historical fossil-based transitions] without governance mindful of distributional justice’ or, as an extension, without attention to the issues of justice as recognition and due process–energy justice tenets we explore below. We argue that the energy justice concept provides one way of filling this gap.

    Here, we get into some straight up Communism. Is it true that costs and benefits don’t impact everyone equally? Yes. However, there is no practical way to do this. Either you would have to forcefully arrange differences in benefits and costs to “make things right”, or you would have to alter everyone’s standard of living so that they were equal.

    Guess the road to Hell could use a re-paving.

    Throughout, we present three main claims, each coinciding with a level in the MLP model; the niche, regime, and landscape:

    (1) That the energy justice concept can expose exclusionary and/or inclusionary technological and social niches before they develop, leading to potentially new and socially just innovation;

    (2) That in addition to using the MLP to describe regimes, the energy justice framework provides a way for these actors to normatively judge them, potentially destabilising existing regimes using moral criteria;

    (3) That framing energy justice as a matter of priority at the landscape level could exert pressure on the regime below, leading to the widespread reappraisal of our energy choices, and integration of moral criteria.

    (1) Sounds like a way to vilify or outcast technology that is scientifically sound, because it doesn’t meet their criteria.
    (2) Appears to be a method of using peer pressure and social pressure as a way of destabilizing systems.
    (3) Comes across as more overt propaganda.

    This governance focus means that the socio-technical literature increasingly acknowledges the political dynamics related to the process through which innovations scale, diffuse or entrench. We focus here on the most prominent socio-technical transitions framework, the multi-level perspective (MLP). The MLP takes the form of a series of nested levels, the niche, regime, and landscape

    Nothing scientific. Purely political manoeuvering.

    Analysis through the energy justice lens reveals that although electric vehicles (EVs) do have laudable environmental (and social) attributes, they can be exclusionary in the sense that they can perpetuate already widening gaps between the wealthy and poor, as well as potentially raising new forms and geographies of injustice – distributional and justice as recognition concerns.

    I thought the point was protecting the environment. But here, they talk about how electric cars will not impact everyone equally, even if they do have considerable environmental benefits. Again, is this an argument in favour of socialism or communism?

    Equal opportunity v.s. equal outcome.

    In addition to applications in niches, the energy justice framework can support the current role of the MLP to describe regimes by providing a means for policy actors to normatively judge them—exposing unjust practices and resultantly, increasing regime ‘humanisation’. We illustrate this first through the exploration of nuclear power and hydroelectric power production, regimes in which there is some consensus that technological development and lock-in raises issues of justice, or injustice. We identify that the metrics, frameworks, or checklists presented above – as well as the three-tenet framework of energy justice more generally – provide a means of normatively judging both planned and current energy and future sociotechnical regimes, leading to potential re-evaluation of our energy selection criteria. These approaches also recognise the need to politicise the actualisation of energy justice itself.

    Finally some honesty. This is a political agenda.

    And working to “humanize” a movement? What happened to simply relying on scientific consensus?

    4. Conclusions From The Paper

    Energy decisions are all too frequently made in a moral vacuum, culminating in a strong normative case for combining the literature on sociotechnical transitions with concepts arising from energy justice. Moreover, we illustrate that energy justice can play a role at each level of one of the more expansive sociotechnical transitions frameworks, the MLP. Within this latter contribution, (1) the energy justice concept could expose exclusionary niches, (2) provide a means for actors to normatively judge regimes, and (3) through the framing of energy justice at the landscape level foster the reappraisal of our energy choices and integration of moral principles. Across all stages of this argument, we present a case for not only mitigating environmental impacts of energy production via sociotechnical change, but doing so in an ethically defensible, socially just way.

    To repeat, this is not about environmental protection. It is about blending a social justice causes and lingo into an unrelated topic.

    Our caveats come as recognition of the intricacies of politics and political processes around energy transitions and energy justice. For as Meadowcroft (2009) highlights, long-term change is likely to be even messier and more contested than the transitions literature discusses. Indeed, there are likely to be political aspects that approaches such as the MLP are ill equipped to negotiate, and trade-offs that a tenet approach to energy justice cannot entirely resolve.

    This may be the most honest thing they say. Politically, this is a very tough sell. They also admit that there “energy justice” approach will not answer the hard questions.

    Nonetheless, they still cover those facts in academic jargon.

    5. My Own Thoughts

    The authors keep repeating that they are just “framing the issue”. In reality, they are publishing propaganda.

    There is nothing scientific that the paper adds. There is no building on previous work, or fact checking of previous research. It is entirely about manipulating people to their cause by pretending it is a “social justice” issue. This is blatant activism, masquerading as science.

    I also noticed a lot of overlap with the Frank W. Geels article. Do they merely cite each other, or do they just republish the same articles over and over again?

    This environmental movement seems to have a lot of self-inflicted problems. For example, this obsession with “energy justice” and other non-issues actually stonewalls progress that they could have made.

    Frank Geels & Disruptive Innovation Framework (Climate Change Scam #6)

    (From actual academic writing: Frank W. Geels)

    (More academia: Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester University)

    (Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation” video)

    (From the Uppity Peasants site)

    1. Go Check Out Uppity Peasants Site


    This is a fairly new site, however, it has some interesting content on it. Well researched, it will give some alternative views on how we are really being controlled.
    Go check out “Uppity Peasants“.

    2. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the Sustainable Consumption Institute & Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, The University of Manchester, Denmark Road Building, M13 9PL, Manchester, United Kingdom.
    CLICK HERE, for Clayton Christiansen and “Disruptive Innovation”.
    CLICK HERE, for SCI Collective Action & Social Movements.
    CLICK HERE, for SCI Social Inequality.
    CLICK HERE, for Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability.
    CLICK HERE, for a Wiki explanation of disruptive innovation.
    CLICK HERE, for removing the innovator’s dilemma.

    CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Funding.

    3. Quotes From The Geels Article

    Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective

    This will be elaborated on, but is about subverted the status quo, or “disruption”. Worth pointing out, that although these types of articles are published and marketed as “science”, they are anything but.

    As this title would suggest, the article is extremely political. The concern is not about science itself, but how to “sell” the science. And the agenda here is searching for political methods of implementing the transition to a Carbon free

    ABSTRACT
    This paper firstly assesses the usefulness of Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework for low-carbon system change, identifying three conceptual limitations with regard to the unit of analysis (products rather than systems), limited multi-dimensionality, and a simplistic (‘point source’) conception of change. Secondly, it shows that the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) offers a more comprehensive framework on all three dimensions. Thirdly, it reviews progress in socio-technical transition research and the MLP on these three dimensions and identifies new challenges, including ‘whole system’ reconfiguration, multi-dimensional struggles, bi-directional niche-regime interactions, and an alignment conception of change. To address these challenges, transition research should further deepen and broaden its engagement with the social scienceseconomy.

    The usefulness of Christiansen’s disruptive innovation framework? While used in a business sense, it appears to be a way for entrepreneurs to get into a market or business. However, in this context it is used as disrupting an environmental policy.

    It is mildly (or downright) creepy that the author, Frank Geels, openly suggests that research should broaden its engagement with social sciences. In plain English, this means merging, where scientific research is viewed through a “social” lens.

    Christiansen’s “Disruptive Innovation Framework” is explained in the above video. Also see “disruption in financial services“.

    Christensen [4] made important contributions to the long-standing debate in innovation management about new entrants, incumbents and industry structures. He argued that disruptive innovations enable new entrants to ‘attack from below’ and overthrow incumbent firms. Christensen thus has a particular understanding of disruption, focused mainly on the competitive effects of innovations on existing firms and industry structures. His framework was not developed to address systemic effects or broader transformations, so my comments below are not about the intrinsic merits of the framework, but about their usefulness for low-carbon transitions.

    Christensen’s disruptive innovation framework offers several useful insights for low-carbon transitions (although similar ideas can also be found elsewhere). First, it suggests that incumbent firms tend to focus their innovation efforts on sustaining technologies (which improve performance along established criteria), while new entrants tend to develop disruptive technologies (which offer different value propositions). Second, it proposes that disruptive technologies emerge in small peripheral niches, where early adopters are attracted by the technology’s new functionalities. Third, incumbent firms may initially overlook or under-estimate disruptive technologies (because of established beliefs) or are not interested in them, because the limited return on-investments associated with small markets do not fit with existing business models. Fourth, price/performance improvements may enable disruptive technologies to enter larger markets, out-compete existing technologies and overthrow incumbent firms

    Worth pointing out right away, Geels has no interest in the “intrinsic merits” of the disruptive innovation framework that Christiansen talks about. Rather, he focuses on applying that technique to reducing/eliminating Carbon emissions from society.

    Christiansen’s idea could be applied fairly practically to business, where new players want to establish themselves. However, Geels “weaponizes” this idea and wants to apply it with the climate-change agenda.

    Geels also makes it obvious that overthrowing incumbents is a priority. Again, Christiansen’s writings were meant with the business approach, and trying to start your own, but Geels “repurposes” it.

    While Christensen’s framework focuses on technical and business dimensions, the MLP also accommodates consumption, cultural, and socio-political dimensions. Although co-evolution has always been a core concept in the MLP, this is even more important for low-carbon transitions, which are goal-oriented or ‘purposive’ in the sense of addressing the problem of climate change. This makes them different from historical transitions which were largely ‘emergent’, with entrepreneurs exploiting the commercial opportunities offered by new technology

    [27]. Because climate protection is a public good, private actors (e.g. firms, consumers) have limited incentives to address it owing to free rider problems and prisoner’s dilemmas. This means that public policy must play a central role in supporting the emergence and deployment of low-carbon innovations and changing the economic frame conditions (via taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards) that incentivize firms, consumers and other actors. However, substantial policy changes involve political struggles and public debate because: “[w]hatever can be done through the State will depend upon generating widespread political support from citizens within the context of democratic rights and freedoms” ([28]: 91).

    Again, Geels hijacking a legitimate business concept, but using it for his enviro agenda.

    How to implement this? Taxes, subsidies, regulations, standards for businesses and consumers. Use these to regulate and influence behaviour.

    Geels rightly says that widespread political support will be needed. But he frames the climate change scam as a way to protect rights and freedoms. Nice bait-and-switch.

    Conceptually, this means that we should analyse socio-technical transitions as multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes. These struggles include: economic competition between old and new technologies; business struggles between new entrants and incumbents; political struggles over adjustments in regulations, standards, subsidies and taxes; discursive struggles over problem framings and social acceptance; and struggles between new user practices and mainstream ones.

    Despite Geels’ article being published in the Journal, “ENERGY RESEARCH AND SOCIAL SCIENCE”, this anything but scientific. If anything, it seems analogous to the “lawfare” that Islamic groups perpetuate on democratic societies.

    While Geels promotes economic competition, this is anything but a fair competition. He also calls for:

    • Political struggles over regulations
    • New standards
    • Subsidies
    • Taxes
    • Discursive struggles over problem framings & social acceptance
    • Struggles between new and mainstream user practices

    There is nothing scientific here. This is a call for using “political” manoeuvering for achieving social goals.

    The importance of public engagement, social acceptance and political feasibility is often overlooked in technocratic government strategies and model-based scenarios, which focus on techno-economic dimensions to identify least-cost pathways [32]. In the UK, which is characterized by closed policy networks and top-down policy style, this neglect has led to many problems, which are undermining the low carbon transition.

    • Onshore wind experienced local protests and permit problems, leading to negative public discourses and a political backlash, culminating in a post-2020 moratorium.

    • Shale gas experienced public controversies after it was pushed through without sufficient consultation.

    • Energy-saving measures in homes were scrapped in 2015, after the Green Deal flagship policy(introduced in2013) spectacularly failed, because it was overly complicated and poorly designed, leading to limited uptake.

    • The 2006 zero-carbon homes target, which stipulated that all new homes should be carbon-neutral by 2016, was scrapped in 2015, because of resistance by major housebuilders and limited consumer interest.

    • The smart meter roll-out is experiencing delays, because of controversies over standards, privacy concerns, and distribution of benefits (between energy companies and consumers).

    While these points are in fact true, Geels suggests that problems could have been avoided if there was sufficient public consultation. This is wishful thinking.

    These points raise many legitimate concerns with the eco-agenda. Yet Geels shrugs them off as the result of not engaging the public enough.

    Christensen and other innovation management scholars typically adopt a ‘point source’ approach to disruption, in which innovators pioneer new technologies, conquer the world, and cause social change. Existing contexts are typically seen as ‘barriers’ to be overcome. This ‘bottom-up’ emphasis also permeates the Strategic Niche Management and Technological Innovation System literatures. While this kind of change pattern does sometimes occur, the MLP was specifically developed to also accommodate broader patterns, in which niche-innovations diffuse because they align with ongoing processes at landscape- or regime-levels [9].

    The MLP thus draws on history and sociology of technology, where processual, contextual explanations are common. Mokyr [58], for instance, emphasizes that “The new invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment” (p. 292) and that “Macro-inventions are seeds sown by individual inventors in a social soil. (.) But the environment into which these seeds are sown is, of course, the main determinant of whether they will sprout” (p. 299). So, if radical innovations face mis-matches with economic, socio-cultural or political contexts, they may remain stuck in peripheral niches, hidden ‘below the surface’.

    Since low-carbon transitions are problem-oriented, transition scholars should not only analyse innovation dynamics, but also ‘issue dynamics’ because increasing socio-political concerns about climate change can lead to changes in regime-level institutions and selection environments. Societal problems or ‘issues’ have their own dynamics in terms of problem definition and socio-political mobilization as conceptualized, for instance, in the issue lifecycle literature [59,50]. Low carbon transitions require stronger ‘solution’ and problem dynamics, and their successful alignment, which is not an easy process, as the examples below show.

    These passages go into marketing strategies, and ways to “frame an argument”. Notice not once does Geels suggest doing more research, or checking the reliability of existing data. Instead, this is a push for emotional manipulation and shameless advertising.

    Invention has to be born into a socially sympathetic environment. Science be damned.

    There are also positive developments, however, that provide windows of opportunity. Coal is losing legitimacy in parts of the world, because it is increasingly framed as dirty, unhealthy and old-fashioned, and because oil and gas companies are distancing themselves from coal, leading to cracks in the previously ‘closed front’ of fossil fuel industries. The UK has committed to phasing out coal-fired power plants by 2025 and several other countries (Netherlands, France, Canada, Finland, Austria) also move in this direction, providing space for low-carbon alternatives, including renewables.

    I would actually agree that coal being phased out would benefit society. However, Geels makes it a “marketing” issue rather than a scientific one. Coal is “increasingly framed” as dirty. Notice that the actual science, such as from this site, are very rarely described.

    Following chemical reactions takes place in the combustion of coal with the release of heat:
    C + O2 = CO2 + 8084 Kcal/ Kg of carbon (33940 KJ/Kg)
    S + O2 = SO2 + 2224 Kcal/Kg of sulfur (9141 KJ/Kg)
    2 H2 + O2 = 2 H2O + 28922 Kcal/Kg of hydrogen (142670 KJ/Kg)
    2C + O2 = 2CO + 2430 Kcal/Kg of carbon (10120 KJ/Kg)

    4. Geels’ Conclusions

    The paper has also identified several research challenges, where the transitions community could fruitfully do more work. First, we should broaden our analytical attention from singular niche-innovations (which permeate the literature) to ‘whole system’ change. This may involve changes in conceptual imagery (from ‘point source’ disruption to gradual system reconfiguration) and broader research designs, which analyze multiple niche-innovations and their relations to ongoing dynamics in existing systems and regimes. That, in turn, may require more attention for change mechanisms like add-on, hybridisation, modular component substitution, knock-on effects, innovation cascades, multi regime interaction.

    Second, we should better understand regime developments. Existing regimes can provide formidable barriers for low-carbon transitions. Incumbent actors can resist, delay or derail low-carbon transitions, but they can also accelerate them if they reorient their strategies and resources towards niche-innovations. The analysis of niche-to-regime dynamics (as in the niche empowerment literature) should thus be complemented with regime-to-niche dynamics, including incumbent resistance or reorientation. Additionally, we need more nuanced conceptualizations and assessments of degrees of lock-in, tensions, cracks, and destabilisation.

    Third, we need greater acknowledgement that socio-technical systems are a special unit of analysis, which spans the social sciences and can be studied through different lenses and at different levels. The recent trend towards deepening our understanding of particular dimensions and societal groups is tremendously fruitful, because disciplinary theories offer more specific causal mechanisms. But, as a community, we should complement this with broad analyses of co-evolution, alignment, multi-dimensionality and ‘whole systems’.

    This all sounds elegant, but read between the lines. It is about influencing public perception. Whenever academics, lawyers or politicians seem to make things confusing we need to ask: are they trying to obscure their goals?

    5. More About Frank W. Geels

    Selected publications of Geels
    If you would like a broader cross section of Geels’ work, perhaps these publications will be of interest.

    • Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F. and Van Vuuren, D., 2016, Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions, Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 576-583
    • Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., Wassermann, S., 2016, The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (19902014), Research Policy, 45(4), 896-913
    • Turnheim, B., Berkhout, F., Geels, F.W., Hof, A., McMeekin, A., Nykvist, B., Van Vuuren, D., 2015, Evaluating sustainability transitions pathways: Bridging analytical approaches to address governance challenges, Global Environmental Change, 35, 239–253
    • Penna, C.C.R. and Geels, F.W., 2015, ‘Climate change and the slow reorientation of the American car industry (1979-2011): An application and extension of the Dialectic Issue LifeCycle (DILC) model’, Research Policy, 44(5), 1029-1048
    • Geels, F.W., 2014, ‘Regime resistance against low-carbon energy transitions: Introducing politics and power in the multi-level perspective’, Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-40
    • Geels, F.W., 2013, ‘The impact of the financial-economic crisis on sustainability transitions: Financial investment, governance and public discourse’, Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 6, 67-95
    • Geels, F.W., 2012, ‘A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies’, Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 471-482
    • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., Dudley, G. and Lyons, G. (eds.), 2012, Automobility in Transition? A Socio Technical Analysis of Sustainable Transport, New York: Routledge
    • Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2010, ‘Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(8), 12141221 Verbong, G.P.J. and Geels, F.W., 2007, ‘The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a sociotechnical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960-2004)’, Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025-1037
    • Geels, F.W., 2002, ‘Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study’, Research Policy, 31(8/9), 1257-1274

    Frank Geels publicly available CV
    Education
    • Ph.D., Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Twente University of Technology (Jan. 1998- July 2002), Netherlands. Supervisors: Arie Rip and Johan Schot. Title PhD thesis: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions: A co-evolutionary and socio-technical analysis.
    • Masters degree in Philosophy of Science, Technology and Society, Twente University of Technology (1991-1996)
    • Bachelor degree in Chemical Engineering, Twente University of Technology (1989-1991)

    For what it’s worth, his formal education is pretty impressive. Where I lose respect is when he deviates from scientific argument in favour of political discourse. What could be very interesting work is corrupted be having an agenda.

    His undergraduate degree is chemical engineering, which again, is very respectable. However, his Masters and PhD show a deviation from science and research.

    While there are many other such authors, Frank W. Geels is a good case of what happens when political agendas and manoeuvering creep into science.

    A morbidly fascinating topic. Check out some of his other publications.

    UN’s New Development Financing (The Bait-and-Switch)

    (Ways to raise money)

    (Sources of money for health initiatives)

    An internationally concerted carbon tax could raise $250 billion per year…

    (Page 13)
    In this vein, a tax of $25 per ton of CO2 emitted by developed countries is expected to raise $250 billion per year in global tax revenues. Such a tax would be in addition to taxes already imposed at the national level, as many Governments (of developing as well as developed countries) already tax carbon emissions, in some cases explicitly, and in other cases, indirectly through taxes on specific fuels

    …and a small currency transaction tax could add an estimated $40 billion…

    1. Important Links


    CLICK HERE, for the 178 page document.
    CLICK HERE, for the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Sustainable Development Goals.
    CLICK HERE, for Devex article explaining debt-for-development.
    CLICK HERE, for World Bank explanation for debt-for-development trade.
    CLICK HERE, for debt swaps for sustainable development.
    CLICK HERE, for loss of sovereignty article.
    CLICK HERE, for an IMF article on debt swaps.

    CLICK HERE, for the Climate Change Scam Part I.
    CLICK HERE, for Part II, the Paris Accord.
    CLICK HERE, for Part III, Saskatchewan Appeals Court Reference.
    CLICK HERE, for Part IV, Controlled Opposition to Carbon Tax.
    CLICK HERE, for Part V, UN New Development Finance.

    2. This Is The Bait:

    (From Page 10)
    Two main sources are considered: taxes levied on international transactions and/or taxes that are internationally concerted, such as the air-ticket solidarity levy, financial or currency transaction taxes and carbon taxes; and revenues from global resources, such as SDR allocations and proceeds derived from the extraction of resources from the global commons, through, for example, seabed mining in international waters. Proposals on potential sources of finance for international development cooperation in both categories have been discussed for decades, although most of these, with the exception of the proposal on an airline levy, have not yet been adopted.

    So what kind of “revenues” are raised?

    • taxes on international transactions
    • internationally concerted taxes
    • air-ticket solidarity levy
    • financial or currency transaction taxes
    • carbon taxes

    This is how bait-and-switch works:
    (1) Raise money using cause A.
    (2) Actually spend the money on cause B.

    3. And Here Is The Switch:

    An array of other options with large fundraising potential have been proposed (see figure O.1 and table O.1), but have not been agreed upon internationally thus far. These include taxes on financial and currency transactions and on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as the creation of new international liquidity through issuance of special drawing rights (SDRs) by the International Monetary Fund IMF), to be allocated with a bias favouring developing countries or leveraged as development financing. Though their potential may be high, these proposals are subject to political controversy. For instance, many countries are not willing to support international forms of taxation, as these are said to undermine national sovereignty.

    There are also challenges in the use and allocation of funds mobilized internationally. Most existing innovative financing mechanisms earmark resources upfront for specific purposes, as is the case for the global health funds. There are perceived benefits in doing so. Advocates argue that the earmarking helps build political support and attract funds by establishing a clear link between fundraising and popular causes. This may come at a cost, however, since earmarking funds can limit domestic policy space for channelling resources to nationally defined priorities.

    This explains why there is the bait-and-switch. Countries are not willing to support international taxation. Therefore it is necessary to raise money under the pretense of “environmentalism”. It also shows that the UN feels little resistance to misleading the public on where money is being used for.

    (From Page 10)
    Some innovations focus on intermediation mechanisms designed to better match funding and needs by facilitating front-loading of resources (which include several mechanisms channelling resources to global health funds and some debt-for-development swap mechanisms), by mobilizing public means to guarantee or insure natural disaster risks or technology development for public causes, or by securing specific-purpose voluntary contributions from the private sector for official development cooperation. Various mechanisms of these types do exist, but they are not large in size.

    Several global funds that act as allocation mechanisms are generally also considered to come under the rubric of innovative development financing. Disbursement mechanisms in the health sector include the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, UNITAID and the GAVI Alliance. These mechanisms collect financing directly from sources or through intermediary financing mechanisms. UNITAID is the only disbursement mechanism that obtains the bulk of its financing from an innovative source, the air-ticket solidarity levy. Other funds rely mainly on traditional sources of financing.

    Though the bulk of money raised is collected under the pretense of “environmentalism”, the UN makes it clear that the cash will be spent on a few “other” purposes.

    1. Global Health Funds
    2. Debt-for-Development Swap Mechanisms

    4. UN Violates Own Convention


    From the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime

    Article 4(1)

    Article 4. Protection of sovereignty
    1. States Parties shall carry out their obligations under this Convention in a manner consistent with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and that of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other States.
    2. Nothing in this Convention entitles a State Party to undertake in the territory of another State the exercise of jurisdiction and performance of functions that are reserved exclusively for the authorities of that other State by its domestic law.

    Article 5

    Article 5. Criminalization of participation in an organized criminal group
    1. Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally:
    (a) Either or both of the following as criminal offences distinct from those involving the attempt or completion of the criminal activity:
    (i) Agreeing with one or more other persons to commit a serious crime for a purpose relating directly or indirectly to the obtaining of a financial or other material benefit and, where required by domestic law, involving an act undertaken by one of the participants in furtherance of the agreement or involving an organized criminal group;

    Consider that the New Development Financing involves obtaining huge sums of money under false pretenses. While the publics are told that much of this revenue will be for environmental causes, it becomes clear from later in the document that it will be spent on other purposes (such as debt-for-development and health care causes).

    Taking money for purposes other than what is advertised is fraud.

    5. Debt Conversion Mechanisms

    (Page 86) Debt-conversion mechanisms
    Debt conversion entails the cancellation by one or more creditors of part of a country’s debt in order to enable the release of funds which would otherwise have been used for debt-servicing, for use instead in social or environmental projects. Where debt is converted at a discount with respect to its face value, only part of the proceeds fund the projects, the remainder reducing the external debt burden, typically as part of a broader debt restructuring.

    Debt to developing nations can be “forgiven”, at least partly, if certain conditions are met. However, the obvious question must be asked:

    Can nations be loaned money they could never realistically pay back, in order to ensure their compliance in UN or other global agenda, by agreeing to “forgive” part of it?

    (Page 86) Debt conversion first emerged, in the guise of debt-for-nature swaps, during the 1980s debt crisis, following an opinion article by Thomas Lovejoy, then Executive Vice-President of the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), in the New York Times in 1984. Lovejoy argued that a developing country’s external debt could be reduced (also providing tax relief to participating creditor banks) in exchange for the country’s taking measures to address environmental challenges. Estimates based on Sheikh (2010) and Buckley, ed. (2011) suggest that between $1.1 billion and $1.5 billion of debt has been exchanged through debt-for-nature swaps since the mid–1980s, although it is not possible to assess how much of this constitutes IDF, for the reasons discussed in box III.1.

    If debt can be forgiven in return for environmental measures, then why not simply fund these environmental measures from the beginning? Is it to pressure or coerce otherwise unwilling nations into agreeing with such measures?

    (Page 88)
    There have been two basic forms of debt-for-nature exchanges (Buckley and Freeland, 2011). In the first, part of a country’s external debt is purchased by an environmental non-governmental organization and offered to the debtor for cancellation in exchange for a commitment to protect a particular area of land. Such transactions occurred mainly in the late 1980s and 1990s and were generally relatively small-scale. An early example was a 1987 deal under which Conservation International, a Washington, D.C.-based environmental non-governmental organization, bought $650,000 of the commercial bank debt of Bolivia (now Plurinational State of Bolivia) in the secondary market for $100,000, and exchanged this for shares in a company established to preserve 3.7 million acres of forest and grassland surrounding the Beni Biosphere Reserve in the north-east part of the country.
    In the second form, debt is exchanged for local currency (often at a discount), which is then used by local conservation groups or government agencies to fund projects in the debtor country. Swaps of this kind are generally much larger, and have predominated since the 1990s. The largest such swap came in 1991, when a group of bilateral creditors agreed to channel principal and interest payments of $473 million (in local currency) into Poland’s Ecofund set up to finance projects designed to counter environmental deterioration. The EcoFund financed 1,500 programmes between 1992 and 2007, providing grants for conservation projects relating to cross-border air pollution, climate change, biological diversity and the clean-up of the Baltic Sea (Buckley and Freeland, 2011).

    We will “forgive” your debt if:
    (1) A portion of your land is off limits; or
    (2) Debt converted to currency to fund “projects”

    Debt For Health

    (Page 89)
    Since the development of debt swaps in the 1980s, there has been a diversification of their uses to encompass social projects, most recently in the area of health under the Debt2Health initiative, which was launched by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2007 to harness additional resources for its programmes. Under Debt2Health, a donor country agrees to reduce part of a loan ineligible for debt relief under global initiatives such as the HIPC and Multilateral Debt Reduction Initiatives, in exchange for a commitment by the debtor to invest (in local currency) half of the nominal value of the debt in programmes approved by the Global Fund. The Global Fund is committed to devoting all of the funds thus generated to financing programmes in the country rather than overhead costs (Buckley, 2011c).

    Debt For Education

    (Page 90)
    In addition to the uses described above, debt swaps have also been successfully implemented for education and development.2 Clear delineation among the various types of swaps is often problematic, however, as debt-for-development swaps typically provide funding for environmental, health and/or education projects.
    ……..
    . Although nominally debt-conversion operations, these Contracts stipulate that debtor countries are to continue to service these debts in full, while receiving, however, an equivalent amount of new ODA grants tied to specific programmes when they do so (Agence Française de Développement, n.d.). Thus, resources are not redirected from debt servicing to other uses; rather, potential fiscal savings from debt-service reduction are forgone, the resources instead being directed to specific uses (Buckley, 2011a). These transactions thus cannot be considered to constitute IDF

    So in these cases the debt isn’t really forgiven. The indebted nation will still have to make payments, while other money will be coming in for other purposes.

    The funding generated by debt swaps is closely tied to their designated end use (although the effectiveness of this depends on monitoring mechanisms). While this effective earmarking of budgetary funds indicates a trade-off with policy space, the debt relief provided by converting debt at a discount (where the debt would otherwise have been serviced) releases resources for use in accordance with national priorities. However, the exclusion of relevant ministries and limited civil society participation in the design and implementation processes may undermine coherence with medium-term national development strategies.

    To make absolutely clear, this debt forgiveness isn’t free. There is always some trade off. Here, it seems to be having your nation’s sovereignty eroded in return for being cut a break.

    While all of this is couched in very pretty rhetoric, one really has to ask what is really the costs?

    6. “Voluntary” Pesticide Use In Crops


    Here is one such “pull measure” (page 98)

    The World Bank is currently developing agricultural projects based on pull mechanisms through the Agricultural Pull Mechanism (AGPM) initiative, with the objectives of increasing production, reducing losses and enhancing food security for small farmers. There are six pilot programmes currently being developed, which are expected to be launched in June 2012. Their objectives are:
    -To develop distribution networks for bio-fortified crop varieties (high pro-vitamin A cassava, maize and sweet potato, and high in iron beans) in Africa
    -To promote the development and use of new hybrid rice varieties in South Asia
    -To develop improved fertilizers and fertilizer production processes
    -To promote adoption of improved post-harvest storage technologies
    -To incentivize the use of biocontrol mechanisms against aflatoxin contamination of crops
    -To promote development and use of a vaccine against peste des petits ruminants in livestock in Africa

    Interesting. How much of this is done in the first world?

    7. Now Comes Climate Change

    (Page 120)
    The unprecedented global improvements in average living standards over the last two centuries have come at the cost of serious degradation of the natural environment. The most serious environmental threat is climate change, brought about by global emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In addition to considerable expenditure for adaptation, climate change necessitates a fundamental shift in development strategies towards a much less carbon-intensive model, and a major reduction in reliance on fossil fuels.

    While climate change arises overwhelmingly from historical emissions in developed countries, it impacts disproportionately the well-being and livelihoods of people in developing countries. This makes a compelling case for the assumption by richer countries of the costs of mitigation and adaptation

    Read the next several pages. While the paper talks at length about how to “raise” money for climate change causes, it is surprisingly vague about how this money will actually be spent. There are some bland references to technology, but no specifics.

    The paper cites “Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases” but CO2 is the only one to actually be named.

    Furthermore, the UN tries to promote mass migration to the West. However, this would be illogical, since on average, Western nations leave a much bigger “footprint” than others do.

    While “financing” climate change efforts features prominently in later sections of the paper, it gives no real information on how the money would be put to use.

    8. Is This Predatory?

    From the Journal of Politics and Law Article (see here).

    Budget constraints are severely undermining the capacity of governments of developing countries to provide their people even the most basic of social services. This lack of finance is in turn caused by several factors including, among others, huge military spending, pervasive corruption and large repayments of debts owed to the developed world. These factors, either singly or in combination, eat up government funds that can otherwise be spent on education, health, housing and other social services. Economists have a better way of describing it – these factors ‘crowd out’ essential public spending designed to benefit the people. (Note 1) As a result, these governments are unable to steer their countries towards the path of economic development and entire peoples are unable to enjoy the most fundamental of economic, social and cultural rights

    This is what we are financing.

    Our leaders take from us, claiming it is for efforts to “protect the environment”. Money is then spent abroad in the developing world, often awarded in the form of loans. When such nations cannot pay back the money they owe, they become indebted to their creditors. This is usually bodies like the UN or IMF.

    Bait: Tax to save environment
    Switch: Predatory loans to developing world.

    This is the bait-and-switch. It is highly unethical to take advantage of people like this.

    Response To: Motion To Strike Challenge To UN Parliament


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    Below is a “cut-and-paste” of what was sent to the Federal Court of Canada (Case: T-476-19). Pardon any formatting issues that may arise in converting this.

    TABLE OF CONTENTS

    Cover Page
    Table of Contents
    Written Representations
    Part I:
    Part II: Facts
    Part III: Law and Cases
    Part IV: Order Sought
    Part V: Authorities Cited
    Draft Order

    Part I: Issues

    (1) Four issues for the Federal Court to consider:
    (a) Does the Applicant have a legitimate ground to bring application?
    (b) Does the Federal Court have jurisdiction to hear the matter?
    (c) Would the proposed UN Parliament, if it ever became a reality, violate constitutional rights? With its “legally binding decisions”?
    (d) Does the Respondent have a legitimate right to sign on to such an agreement without the consent of the public?

    (2) Applicant submits the answers as follows: (1) YES; (2) YES; (3) YES; (4) NO.

    Part II: Facts

    (3)The Applicant is a Canadian citizen. She is seeking an injunction against Canada participating in such a UN Parliament/World Government (UNPA) if ever being enacted.

    (4) Although such a World Government/UN Parliament is not yet a reality, dozens of current Members of Parliament and Senators have endorsed the idea in writing. This includes the Prime Minister. This has been formally discussed since 2007, and informally
    for long before that. The UNPA explicitly states it want to make “legally binding decisions”.

    (5) The Respondent makes a “straw-man argument” claiming that endorsements are not violations of a person’s rights. While this is true, they should be seen as intent and interest to do so. No one ever claimed endorsements alone were violations.

    (6) In the motion, the Government raised a “justification” defense, (prerogative power). As such, it is reasonable to also ask for a writ of quo warranto, to demand a full and complete defense be raised as to the legality and constitutionality of such an action

    (7) It is submitted that she has public-interest standing, aka “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of
    Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    (8) Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    (9) The Federal Court has jurisdiction under 18(1) of the Federal Courts Act to issue an injunction or writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the Federal Court (under Rule 25) has original jurisdiction if no other court is designated as such. Since no person can be named (under 302 of Federal Court Rules), the Attorney General of Canada shall be named.

    (10) The Federal Court also has jurisdiction (under Rule 18.4(2)), to treat the application as an action.

    (11) The Federal Court has the powers (under 47(1) and 53(1) and (2) of Federal Courts Rules), to ask with a wide degree of discretion and to make orders it views as just.

    (12) The Applicant raises several sections of the Constitution and Charter (2, 3, 32, 35, 38, 52, 91 and 92) as grounds for an injunction, or alternatively, a writ of quo warranto. Quite simply, these provisions are protection for myself and all Canadians.

    (13) Our fundamental freedoms (section 2), and right to participate in our democracy (section 3), are rights Canadians take for granted. They must be protected. However, if Canada were to become part of a UN Parliament/World Government, how would we
    ensure the protection of those rights? Could they not be watered down under a “global consensus”?

    (14) Section 35 refers to protection of Aboriginal rights. Yes, “Canada” has ensured to protect them. But how would we do so if Canada ceases to be a nation, and became a province of the UN?

    (15) Sections 91 and 92 lay out Federal v.s. Provincial jurisdictions. This is important as it holds our governments accountable. If governments do things which are in violation (Ultra vires), or against Canadians’ wishes, we can vote them out. We can hold our politicians accountable as a nation. How would we as part of the UN Parliament/World Government?

    (16) Section 52 (paramountcy) gives Canadians protection as it ensures that the Canadian Constitution is supreme law. We will not be subjected to just any laws. And Section 38 (amending), ensures stability by requiring substantial consent in order to amend. This is
    another safeguard for Canadians. Would these safeguards still exist under a UN Parliament/World Government?

    (17) The Government claims that no argument was ever raised to support or justify the claims. This is disingenuous, since only the Notice of Application had been sent.

    (18) The Government raises “prerogative power” as a justification to implement such a policy, calling it a “treaty”. It dismisses the need for the safeguards and protections listed above. Furthermore, the Government says that since such a UN Parliament/World
    Government is not here yet, there is no need for the Court to entertain the matter.

    (19) The Applicant submits that prerogative power does not apply here, and that there is a public interest concern in hearing the matter well in advance of any signing. This is especially true, with the “legally-binding decisions” format of it.

    (20) As an analogous case, the Applicant suggests that the European Union (EU) and the British Exit from it (Brexit) should be considered.

    Part III: Law and Cases

    (21) The Applicant has standing to make just an application under the “Public-Interest Standing” doctrine.

    Public interest standing
    The Supreme Court of Canada developed the concept of public interest standing in three constitutional cases commonly called “the Standing trilogy”: Thorson v. Attorney General of Canada, Nova Scotia Board of Censors v. McNeil, and Minister of Justice v. Borowski. The trilogy was summarized as follows in Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration):

    It has been seen that when public interest standing is sought, consideration must be given to three aspects. First, is there a serious issue raised as to the invalidity of legislation in question? Second, has it been established that the plaintiff is directly affected by the legislation or if not does the plaintiff have a genuine interest in its validity? Third, is there another reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the court?
    Public-interest standing is also available in non-constitutional cases, as the Court found in
    Finlay v. Canada (Minister of Finance)

    First, yes, there are serious issues raised as the invalidity (see below)
    Second, yes, as a Canadian citizen, my rights would directly be influenced by the UNPA,
    and certainly I have a genuine interest.
    Third, no, there doesn’t seem to be another effective or reasonable way to bring the issue
    before the court.

    Substantial Consent required (section 38)
    (22) This was decided regarding the issue of changing the Senate rules (Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38). The Court cited the amending procedure.

    (a) The General Amending Procedure Section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982 provides: 38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1). (3) An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. (4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.

    [34] The process set out in s. 38 is the general rule for amendments to the Constitution of Canada. It reflects the principle that substantial provincial consent must be obtained for constitutional change that engages provincial interests. Section 38 codifies what is colloquially referred to as the “7/50” procedure — amendments to the Constitution of Canada must be authorized by resolutions of the Senate, the House of Commons, and legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces whose population represents, in the aggregate, at least half of the current population of all the provinces. Additionally, it grants to the provinces the right to “opt out” of constitutional amendments that derogate from “the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province”.

    (23) What this means is that to make a huge decision and alter the constitution, there must be substantial consent. This means at least 7 of 10 provinces, whose combined populations make up at least 50% of the population.

    (24) While this is relevant to Senate reform (ie. Term limits and direct elections), it would certainly be more so in creating an extra layer of government, which would be able – in theory at least – to override Federal rulings.

    The Constitution is Canada’s Supreme Law (Section 52)
    (25) From (Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA))

    They include the political reality that it is the people of Canada, expressing their political will through the joint constitutional authority of the Parliament of Canada and the elected legislative assemblies of the provinces, who are sovereign in the delineation of federal-provincial power-sharing under the Constitution of Canada. Beyond that no segment of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is paramount to other segments, or indeed the balance, of the Constitution. The Constitution “as a whole” is Canada’s supreme law.

    [7] Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides: 52(1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect. (2) The Constitution of Canada includes (a) the Canada Act, 1982, including this Act; (b) the Acts and orders referred to in the schedule; and (c) any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.

    [8] Section 52 espouses the equality of its components including amendments. Charter scrutiny could not have been reserved by its drafters: Reference re an Act to Amend the Education Act (Ontario) (1987), 1987 CanLII 65 (SCC), 40 D.L.R. (4th) 18, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, 77 N.R. 241.

    [9] The Constitution Act, 1982, also provides: Application of Charter 32(1) This Charter applies (a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and (b) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.

    (26) Section 52 of the Constitution enshrines the Constitution as the Supreme law of Canada. Section 38 does have an “amending” process, though it is a high burden to meet. These protection are important, as they ensure that we, as Canadians will actually be
    protected by the Constitution.

    (27) If we became part of a UN Parliament, then how (or will) the Constitution be able to protect the rights of Canadians?

    Restricting Fundamental Freedoms (Section 2)
    (28) From Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC)

    C.The Second Step: Was the Purpose or Effect of the Government Action to Restrict Freedom of Expression? Having found that the plaintiff’s activity does fall within the scope of guaranteed free expression, it must next be determined whether the purpose or effect of the impugned governmental action was to control attempts to convey meaning through that activity. The importance of focussing at this stage on the purpose and effect of the legislation is nowhere more clearly stated than in R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, at pp. 331-32 where Dickson J. (as he then was), speaking for the majority, observed:

    In my view, both purpose and effect are relevant in determining constitutionality; either an unconstitutional purpose or an unconstitutional effect can invalidate legislation. All legislation is animated by an object the legislature intends to achieve. This object is realized through the impact produced by the operation and application of the legislation. Purpose and effect respectively, in the sense of the legislation’s object and its ultimate impact, are clearly linked, if not indivisible. Intended and actual effects have often been looked to for guidance in assessing the legislation’s object and thus, its validity.

    Moreover, consideration of the object of legislation is vital if rights are to be fully protected. The assessment by the courts of legislative purpose focuses scrutiny upon the aims and objectives of the legislature and ensures they are consonant with the guarantees enshrined in the Charter. The declaration that certain objects lie outside the legislature’s power checks governmental action at the first stage of unconstitutional conduct. Further, it will provide more ready and more vigorous protection of constitutional rights by obviating the individual litigant’s need to prove effects violative of Charter rights. It will also allow courts to dispose of cases where the object is clearly improper, without inquiring into the legislation’s actual impact.

    (29) How can we ensure that Canadians’ fundamental freedoms are protected? Canada ensures its citizens some of the most expansive civil rights of any nation. But if Canada becomes just 1 of 193 member states, how can we guarantee those rights will be protected?
    What safeguards will be put in place?

    (30) Rather than shrugging it off as “covered by prerogative power”, the Government should be answering these vitally important questions.

    Ensuring the Right to Participate in Democracy (Section 3)
    (31) (Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912), this principle was affirmed conclusively.

    27 An understanding of s. 3 that emphasizes the right of each citizen to play a meaningful role in the electoral process also is sensitive to the full range of reasons that individual participation in the electoral process is of such importance in a free and democratic society. As Dickson C.J. wrote in R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, at p. 136: The Court must be guided by the values and principles essential to a free and democratic society which I believe embody, to name but a few, respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, commitment to social justice and equality, accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, and faith in social and political institutions which enhance the participation of individuals and groups in society.

    (32) The Court held that being able to participate in democratic process was worth protecting. How can we maintain this protection if Canada signed on to the proposed UN Parliament/World Government? If ensuring democratic involvement and meaningful participation is tricky now, how would this help things?

    UN Parliament Would Trample on Indigenous Rights (Section 35)
    (33) From the case: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR
    511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII), the issue of duty to consult to brought up.

    26 Honourable negotiation implies a duty to consult with Aboriginal claimants and conclude an honourable agreement reflecting the claimants’ inherent rights. But proving rights may take time, sometimes a very long time. In the meantime, how are the interests under discussion to be treated? Underlying this question is the need to reconcile prior Aboriginal occupation of the land with the reality of Crown sovereignty. Is the Crown, under the aegis of its asserted sovereignty, entitled to use the resources at issue as it chooses, pending proof and resolution of the Aboriginal claim? Or must it adjust its conduct to reflect the as yet unresolved rights claimed by the Aboriginal claimants?

    27 The answer, once again, lies in the honour of the Crown. The Crown, acting honourably, cannot cavalierly run roughshod over Aboriginal interests where claims affecting these interests are being seriously pursued in the process of treaty negotiation and proof. It must respect these potential, but yet unproven, interests.

    (34) This case referred to land use and resource development. However, the Court should not conclude that adding a level of government would be LESS important.

    (35) The case of Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII), should also be considered, and for much the same principle.

    25 As discussed in Haida, what the honour of the Crown requires varies with the circumstances. It may require the Crown to consult with and accommodate Aboriginal peoples prior to taking decisions: R. v. Sparrow, 1990 CanLII 104 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075, at p. 1119; R. v. Nikal, 1996 CanLII 245 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Gladstone, 1996 CanLII 160 (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, 1997 CanLII 302 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, at para. 168. The obligation to consult does not arise only upon proof of an Aboriginal claim, in order to justify infringement. That understanding of consultation would deny the significance of the historical roots of the honour of the Crown, and deprive it of its role in the reconciliation process. Although determining the required extent of consultation and accommodation before a final settlement is challenging, it is essential to the process mandated by s. 35(1). The duty to consult arises when a Crown actor has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of Aboriginal rights or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect them. This in turn may lead to a duty to change government plans or policy to accommodate Aboriginal concerns. Responsiveness is a key requirement of both consultation and accommodation.

    (36) Managing these rights is tricky enough just within Canada. However, no Indigenous group ever signed onto the proposed UN Parliament/World-Government. So how could the Federal Government claim with any sincerity that there would no violations of the “duty to consult”?

    (37) To repeat, although the UN Parliament is still just a proposal at this point, there are many serious and legitmate questions that need answering. Simply saying “prerogative power let’s us do it” shirks the Feds’ responsibilities.

    (38) Also, the claim is made that the Executive Branch is allowed to sign treaties. However this would conflict with another treaty, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN DRIP).

    Consider the 2000 Clarity Act and Reference Question
    (39) The Applicant submits that the reference questions regarding Quebec separation would also apply to Canada being taken over by the United Nations Parliament/World Government

    ( Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC))
    The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province “under the Constitution” could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework. Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

    (40) Yes these discussions do need to be had. However, to repeat, the Government of Canada says it is its right to unilaterally sign Canada over to the UN Parliament if it ever became operational. Surely there has to be something more than just that.

    Consider Brexit as a Warning
    (41) The European Union started in 1973 as a free trade zone between 6 countries (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands).

    (42) Today it is 28 members are controls nations: trade, immigration, budgeting, commerce, farm subsidies, borders and many other categories. It can also (in the cases of Hungary and Poland), strip member’s voting rights for not towing the line. All of this was accomplished with no democratic referendum. Today, the hierarchy of the EU are unelected bureaucrats accountable to no nations’ voters.

    (43) In fact the only democratic referendum was in 2016, where the UK voted to leave, (Brexit). However, the EU acting in bad faith, and the UK Government’s complicity has led to delay after delay.

    (44) It is not unreasonable for Canada to find itself in such a situation, where even if the majority voted to leave the UN Parliament, we would be prevented from doing so.

    Summary
    (45) The Applicant has public interest standing to raise such an application.

    (46) In the event there are irregularities, the Court has wide discretion to order amendments to rectify them. Fixable errors should not be grounds for denying justice to self-represented litigants (Pintea v. Johns, SCC 2017).

    (47) There is a legitmate public interest in preventing Canada from joining such a world government (injunction), or at least deciding on a minimum standard, or forcing the Government to explain itself (writ of quo warranto).

    (48) Furthermore, there is a public interest in bringing the issue to the Court well ahead of any such signing.

    (49) If Canada ever joined such a World Government, there are very legitimate questions and concerns about how the Constitutional protections listed above would be enforced.

    (50) The Government of Canada cannot simply run roughshod over Canadians by calling this a “treaty” and signing away their Constitutional rights. There has to be some checks and balances. Additionally, it would conflict with other treaties signed with the NATION of Canada as a party.

    (51) Endorsements are not violations of rights (nice strawman), but evidence of intent.

    (52) Even if joining the UN Parliament/World Government were a treaty, would we not be violating “other” treaties, which were formed as the NATION of Canada?

    (Mental Gymnastics At Play….. )

    (53) If the Supreme Court (Harper Re: Senate Reform) stated that unanimous consent of all Provinces was needed to abolish the Senate, then how could the Government justifying effectively eliminating the Legislature altogether, via UN Parliament with 1 signature?

    (54) If the Supreme Court (Re: Seccessation of Quebec) stated that a clear majority of the population needed to vote for it, via referendum, why wouldn’t the people of Canada be called on to make an even bigger decision, to dismantle Canada?

    Part IV: Remedies/Order

    (a) Dismiss the motion

    Alternatively,
    (b) Allow the matter to proceed as a Claim, or as the Court deems appropriate

    Alternatively,
    (c) Grant an injunction, or writ of quo warranto against the Government

    Alternatively,
    (d) Establish a standard necessary for Canada to join such a World Government with
    the following requirements:
    (I) Approval from the Federal House of Commons
    (II) Approval from the Canadian Senate
    (III) Signature of the Prime Minister
    (IV) Endorsement from the Governor General
    (V) Consent from 7 of 10 Provinces with 50%+ of population
    (VI) A national referendum, with 75%+ approval

    And in all cases, the Applicant encourages guidance on the matter from the court
    Sincerely,


    (E-Signature of Party)
    (Applicant/Respondent in Motion)
    May 2, 2019

    Part V: Authorities

    (1) Reference re Senate Reform, [2014] 1 SCR 704, 2014 SCC 32 (CanLII) (S38)

    (2) Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)

    (3) Sibbeston v. Canada (Attorney-General), 1988 CanLII 5673 (NWT CA) (S52)

    (4) Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 SCR 927, 1989 CanLII 87 (SCC) (S2)

    (5) Figueroa v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 912 (S3)

    (6) Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 SCR 511, 2004 SCC 73 (CanLII) (S35)

    (7) Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. British Columbia (Project Assessment Director), [2004] 3 SCR 550, 2004 SCC 74 (CanLII) (S35)

    (8) Canadian Council of Churches v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration),
    [1992] 1 SCR 236, 1992 CanLII 116 (SCC)

    Bilderberg Meetings: Deep State Gettogethers


    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE


    1. Important Links

    CLICK HERE, for the main page.
    CLICK HERE, for the FAQ section.
    CLICK HERE, for the “Participants” section.
    CLICK HERE, for then Immigration Minister Jason Kenney attending in 2014.

    2. 2018 Bilderberg Meetings

    Turin, Italy 7-10 June 2018

    CHAIRMAN STEERING COMMITTEE
    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne

    PARTICIPANTS

    Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Agius, Marcus (GBR), Chairman, PA Consulting Group
    Alesina, Alberto (ITA), Nathaniel Ropes Professor of Economics, Harvard University
    Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
    Amorim, Paula (PRT), Chairman, Américo Amorim Group
    Anglade, Dominique (CAN), Deputy Premier of Quebec; Minister of Economy, Science and Innovation
    Applebaum, Anne (POL), Columnist, Washington Post; Professor of Practice, London School of Economics
    Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO
    Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense
    Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
    Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
    Beerli, Christine (CHE), Former Vice-President, International Committee of the Red Cross
    Berx, Cathy (BEL), Governor, Province of Antwerp
    Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Royal Dutch Shell plc
    Blanquer, Jean-Michel (FRA), Minister of National Education, Youth and Community Life
    Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
    Bouverot, Anne (FRA), Board Member; Former CEO, Morpho
    Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
    Brende, Børge (INT), President, World Economic Forum
    Brennan, Eamonn (IRL), Director General, Eurocontrol
    Brnabic, Ana (SRB), Prime Minister
    Burns, William J. (USA), President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Burwell, Sylvia M. (USA), President, American University
    Caracciolo, Lucio (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Limes
    Carney, Mark J. (GBR), Governor, Bank of England
    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne; Chairman, Steering Committee Bilderberg Meetings
    Cattaneo, Elena (ITA), Director, Laboratory of Stem Cell Biology, University of Milan
    Cazeneuve, Bernard (FRA), Partner, August Debouzy; Former Prime Minister
    Cebrián, Juan Luis (ESP), Executive Chairman, El País
    Champagne, François-Philippe (CAN), Minister of International Trade
    Cohen, Jared (USA), Founder and CEO, Jigsaw at Alphabet Inc.
    Colao, Vittorio (ITA), CEO, Vodafone Group
    Cook, Charles (USA), Political Analyst, The Cook Political Report
    Dagdeviren, Canan (TUR), Assistant Professor, MIT Media Lab
    Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform
    Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
    Ecker, Andrea (AUT), Secretary General, Office Federal President of Austria
    Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
    Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces
    Enders, Thomas (DEU), CEO, Airbus SE
    Fallows, James (USA), Writer and Journalist
    Ferguson, Jr., Roger W. (USA), President and CEO, TIAA
    Ferguson, Niall (USA), Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
    Fischer, Stanley (USA), Former Vice-Chairman, Federal Reserve; Former Governor, Bank of Israel
    Gilvary, Brian (GBR), Group CFO, BP plc
    Goldstein, Rebecca (USA), Visiting Professor, New York University
    Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
    Hajdarowicz, Greg (POL), Founder and President, Gremi International Sarl
    Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Hassabis, Demis (GBR), Co-Founder and CEO, DeepMind
    Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
    Helgesen, Vidar (NOR), Ambassador for the Ocean
    Herlin, Antti (FIN), Chairman, KONE Corporation
    Hickenlooper, John (USA), Governor of Colorado
    Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
    Hodgson, Christine (GBR), Chairman, Capgemini UK plc
    Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, LinkedIn; Partner, Greylock Partners
    Horowitz, Michael C. (USA), Professor of Political Science, University of Pennsylvania
    Hwang, Tim (USA), Director, Harvard-MIT Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative
    Ischinger, Wolfgang (INT), Chairman, Munich Security Conference
    Jacobs, Kenneth M. (USA), Chairman and CEO, Lazard
    Kaag, Sigrid (NLD), Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation
    Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
    Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.
    Knot, Klaas H.W. (NLD), President, De Nederlandsche Bank
    Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
    Köcher, Renate (DEU), Managing Director, Allensbach Institute for Public Opinion Research
    Kotkin, Stephen (USA), Professor in History and International Affairs, Princeton University
    Kragic, Danica (SWE), Professor, School of Computer Science and Communication, KTH
    Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman and Co-CEO, KKR
    Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg
    Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
    Lepomäki, Elina (FIN), MP, National Coalition Party
    Leyen, Ursula von der (DEU), Federal Minster of Defence
    Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
    Makan, Divesh (USA), CEO, ICONIQ Capital
    Massolo, Giampiero (ITA), Chairman, Fincantieri Spa.; President, ISPI
    Mazzucato, Mariana (ITA), Professor in the Economics of Innovation and Public Value, University College London
    Mead, Walter Russell (USA), Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute
    Michel, Charles (BEL), Prime Minister
    Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
    Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
    Mitsotakis, Kyriakos (GRC), President, New Democracy Party
    Mota, Isabel (PRT), President, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation
    Moyo, Dambisa F. (USA), Global Economist and Author
    Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
    Neven, Hartmut (USA), Director of Engineering, Google Inc.
    Noonan, Peggy (USA), Author and Columnist, The Wall Street Journal
    Oettinger, Günther H. (INT), Commissioner for Budget & Human Resources, European Commission
    O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
    O’Neill, Onora (GBR), Emeritus Honorary Professor in Philosophy, University of Cambridge
    Osborne, George (GBR), Editor, London Evening Standard
    Özkan, Behlül (TUR), Associate Professor in International Relations, Marmara University
    Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
    Parolin, H.E. Pietro (VAT), Cardinal and Secretary of State
    Patino, Bruno (FRA), Chief Content Officer, Arte France TV
    Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute
    Pichette, Patrick (CAN), General Partner, iNovia Capital
    Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, Total S.A.
    Pring, Benjamin (USA), Co-Founder and Managing Director, Center for the Future of Work
    Rankka, Maria (SWE), CEO, Stockholm Chamber of Commerce
    Ratas, Jüri (EST), Prime Minister
    Rendi-Wagner, Pamela (AUT), MP (SPÖ); Former Minister of Health
    Rivera Díaz, Albert (ESP), President, Ciudadanos Party
    Rossi, Salvatore (ITA), Senior Deputy Governor, Bank of Italy
    Rubesa, Baiba A. (LVA), CEO, RB Rail AS
    Rubin, Robert E. (USA), Co-Chairman Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations; Former Treasury Secretary
    Rudd, Amber (GBR), MP; Former Secretary of State, Home Department
    Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister
    Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
    Sadjadpour, Karim (USA), Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    Sáenz de Santamaría, Soraya (ESP), Deputy Prime Minister
    Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
    Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy
    Schneider-Ammann, Johann N. (CHE), Federal Councillor
    Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
    Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
    Simsek, Mehmet (TUR), Deputy Prime Minister
    Skartveit, Hanne (NOR), Political Editor, Verdens Gang
    Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO
    Summers, Lawrence H. (USA), Charles W. Eliot University Professor, Harvard University
    Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
    Topsøe, Jakob Haldor (DNK), Chairman, Haldor Topsøe Holding A/S
    Turpin, Matthew (USA), Director for China, National Security Council
    Wahlroos, Björn (FIN), Chairman, Sampo Group, Nordea Bank, UPM-Kymmene Corporation
    Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB
    Woods, Ngaire (GBR), Dean, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University
    Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Editor-in-chief, Hürriyet Daily News
    Zeiler, Gerhard (AUT), President, Turner International

    As should be obvious from the list, a lot of banks and investment holding companies are represented. Why would that be? Are there some big profits to be made in all this?

    3. Brief History

    The Bilderberg meeting is an annual three-day forum for informal discussions designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The pioneering meeting grew out of the concern, expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic, that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on issues of common interest.

    The first meeting took place in Hotel De Bilderberg in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, from 29 to 31 May 1954. Representatives from economic, social, political and cultural fields were invited to hold informal discussions to help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period.

    Throughout the years, the annual meetings have become a forum for discussion on a wide range of topics – from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment and from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. In the context of a globalised world, it is hard to think of any issue in either Europe or North America that could be tackled unilaterally.

    4. Steering Committee

    CHAIRMAN
    Castries, Henri de (FRA), Chairman, Institut Montaigne

    Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer, Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore
    Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), President, Temaris & Associés
    Barroso, José M. Durão (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International; Former President, European Commission
    Botín, Ana P. (ESP), Group Executive Chairman, Banco Santander
    Brandtzæg, Svein Richard (NOR), President and CEO, Norsk Hydro ASA
    Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE
    Elkann, John (ITA), Chairman, Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
    Gruber, Lilli (ITA), Editor-in-Chief and Anchor “Otto e mezzo”, La7 TV
    Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Chairman Foundation Bilderberg Meetings
    Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation; Former European Commissioner
    Hobson, Mellody (USA), President, Ariel Investments LLC
    Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies
    Koç, Ömer M. (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
    Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; President, American Friends of Bilderberg Inc.
    Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group
    Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, KBC Group
    Micklethwait, John (USA), Editor-in-Chief, Bloomberg LP
    Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist
    Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates
    O’Leary, Michael (IRL), CEO, Ryanair D.A.C.
    Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), CEO, Titan Cement Company S.A.
    Sabia, Michael (CAN), President and CEO, Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
    Sawers, John (GBR), Chairman and Partner, Macro Advisory Partners
    Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute
    Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Technical Advisor, Alphabet Inc.
    Scholten, Rudolf (AUT), President, Bruno Kreisky Forum for International Dialogue
    Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), Senior Fellow, Harvard University; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Poland
    Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital
    Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chairman, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

    5. Bilderberg Goals

    What are the Bilderberg Meetings and what are its goals?
    The Bilderberg Meeting is an annual meeting designed to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Bilderberg was established in 1954 as a forum for informal discussions, bringing together individuals who share an active interest in affairs relevant to the relationship between Europe and Northern America. The meeting has one main goal: to foster discussion and dialogue. There is no desired outcome, there is no closing statement, there are no resolutions proposed or votes taken.

    Sounds so harmless and innocuous.
    But then, it always does.

    New York Declaration (September 2016), Prelude to The Global Migration Compact


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    IMPORTANT LINKS

    CLICK HERE, for the UN Migrant/Refugee link.
    CLICK HERE, for a summary of the New York Declaration.
    CLICK HERE, for NY Declaration full text.
    CLICK HERE, for the full text of the Global Migration Compact
    CLICK HERE, for result of legal challenge to UN GMC (February 12, 2019).

    TIMELINE

    • September, 2016, New York Declaration agreed to.
    • July 2018, Text of Global Migration Compact agreed to
    • December 2018, formal siging ceremony for Global Migration Compact

    To give some context, this conference in New York happened TWO YEARS before the signing. And comparing the NY Declaration to the Compact text, it seems that the opinions didn’t change much along the way.

    SUMMARY OF NEW YORK DECLARATION

    Note: for ease of comparison, the points are numbered, although not done so in the actual text.

    What are the commitments?
    The New York Declaration contains bold commitments both to address the issues we face now and to prepare the world for future challenges. These include commitments to:

    1. Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.
    2. Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.
    3. Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.
    4. Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.
    5. Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.
    6. Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.
    7. Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.
    8. Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.
    9. Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.
    10. Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.
    11. Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

    What will happen next?
    The New York Declaration also contains concrete plans for how to build on these commitments:
    Start negotiations leading to an international conference and the adoption of a global compact for safe, orderly and regular migration in 2018. The agreement to move toward this comprehensive framework is a momentous one. It means that migration, like other areas of international relations, will be guided by a set of common principles and approaches.

    Develop guidelines on the treatment of migrants in vulnerable situations. These guidelines will be particularly important for the increasing number of unaccompanied children on the move.

    Achieve a more equitable sharing of the burden and responsibility for hosting and supporting the world’s refugees by adopting a global compact on refugees in 2018.

    CONTRAST NY DECLARATION TO UN GMC

    The Global Migration Compact consists of 23 “non-binding” objectives, which align almost perfectly with the original declaration

    Point #1

    Protect the human rights of all refugees and migrants, regardless of status. This includes the rights of women and girls and promoting their full, equal and meaningful participation in finding solutions.

    Gender will be mentioned throughout the document.

    Point #2, Objective 15(f)

    Ensure that all refugee and migrant children are receiving education within a few months of arrival.

    (Objective, 15(f)) Provide inclusive and equitable quality education to migrant children and youth, as well as facilitate access to lifelong learning opportunities , including by strengthening the capacities of education systems and by facilitating non-discriminatory access to early childhood development, formal schooling, non-formal education programmes for children for whom the formal system is inaccessible, on-the-job and vocational training, technical education, and language training, as well as by fostering partnerships with all stakeholders that can support this endeavour

    Point #3

    Prevent and respond to sexual and gender-based violence.

    Of course, there is the “elephant in the room”. If sexual and gender based violence is anticipated to be such a big problem, “why” are we letting large numbers of these people into our countries?

    Point #4, Objective 8

    Support those countries rescuing, receiving and hosting large numbers of refugees and migrants.

    We commit to cooperate internationally to save lives and prevent migrant deaths and injuries through individual or joint search and rescue operations, standardized collection and exchange of relevant information, assuming collective responsibility to preserve the lives of all migrants, in accordance with international law. We further commit to identify those who have died or gone missing, and to facilitate communication with affected families.

    Notice, they blur the line between:
    (a) Migrant and refugee, and
    (b) Legal and illegal

    Point #5, Objective 13

    Work towards ending the practice of detaining children for the purposes of determining their migration status.

    (Objective 13) We commit to ensure that any detention in the context of international migration follows due process, is non-arbitrary, based on law, necessity, proportionality and individual assessments, is carried out by authorized officials, and for the shortest possible period of time, irrespective of whether detention occurs at the moment of entry, in transit, or proceedings of return, and regardless of the type of place where the detention occurs. We further commit to prioritize noncustodial alternatives to detention that are in line with international law, and to take a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, using detention as a measure of last resort only.

    That’s right. Avoid detention of illegals if at all possible. Release them into the community wherever possible. Just because they are in the country illegally, that doesn’t mean they are breaking the law apparently.

    Point #6, Objective 17

    Strongly condemn xenophobia against refugees and migrants and support a global campaign to counter it.

    (Objective 17) Promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media

    17(c) is the infamous propaganda clause that promotes “sensitizing and educating” media, and shutting down media critical of mass migration.

    Point #7, Objective 2

    Strengthen the positive contributions made by migrants to economic and social development in their host countries.

    We commit to create conducive political, economic, social and environmental conditions for people to lead peaceful, productive and sustainable lives in their own country and to fulfil their personal aspirations, while ensuring that desperation and deteriorating environments do not compel them to seek a livelihood elsewhere through irregular migration. We further commit to ensure timely and full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, as well as to build upon and invest in the implementation of other existing frameworks, in order to enhance the overall impact of the Global Compact to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration.

    As convoluted as the wording is, the parties will be shelling out “BOTH” money for host countries, and to enhance mass migration to the West.

    Point #8

    Improve the delivery of humanitarian and development assistance to those countries most affected, including through innovative multilateral financial solutions, with the goal of closing all funding gaps.

    We commit to promote faster, safer and cheaper remittances by further developing existing conducive policy and regulatory environments that enable competition, regulation and innovation on the remittance market and by providing gender-responsive programmes and instruments that enhance the financial inclusion of migrants and their families. We further commit to optimize the transformative impact of remittances on the well-being of migrant workers and their families, as well as on sustainable development of countries, while respecting that remittances constitute an important source of private capital, and cannot be equated to other international financial flows, such as foreign direct investment, official development assistance, or other public sources of financing for development.

    Interesting side note: “financial flow” is what the Paris Accord calls the Carbon tax. But this is another massive wealth transfer scheme.

    Point #9, Objective 23

    Implement a comprehensive refugee response, based on a new framework that sets out the responsibility of Member States, civil society partners and the UN system, whenever there is a large movement of refugees or a protracted refugee situation.

    Conclude bilateral, regional or multilateral mutually beneficial, tailored and transparent partnerships, in line with international law, that develop targeted solutions to migration policy issues of common interest and address opportunities and challenges of migration in accordance with the Global Compact

    Point #10

    Find new homes for all refugees identified by UNHCR as needing resettlement; and expand the opportunities for refugees to relocate to other countries through, for example, labour mobility or education schemes.

    Even though nations have their own homeless, we are going to provide housing for foreigners. Great.

    (Point #11, Objective 11, 23)

    Strengthen the global governance of migration by bringing the International Organization for Migration into the UN system.

    (Objective 11) We commit to manage our national borders in a coordinated manner, promoting bilateral and regional cooperation, ensuring security for States, communities and migrants, and facilitating safe and regular cross-border movements of people while preventing irregular migration. We further commit to implement border management policies that respect national sovereignty, the rule of law, obligations under international law, human rights of all migrants, regardless of their migration status, and are non-discriminatory, gender-responsive and child-sensitive.

    (Objective 23) We commit to support each other in the realization of the objectives and commitments laid out in this Global Compact through enhanced international cooperation, a revitalized global partnership, and in the spirit of solidarity, reaffirming the centrality of a comprehensive and integrated approach to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration, and recognizing that we are all countries of origin, transit and destination. We further commit to take joint action in addressing the challenges faced by each country to implement this Global Compact, underscoring the specific challenges faced in particular by African countries, least developed countries, landlocked developing countries, small island developing States, and middle-income countries. We also commit to promote the mutually reinforcing nature between the Global Compact and existing international legal and policy frameworks, by aligning the implementation of this Global Compact with such frameworks, particularly the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and their recognition that migration and sustainable development are multidimensional and interdependent.

    A few thoughts:

    • This scheme was outlined in 2016, a full 2 years before the signing of the “treaty”.
    • The documents routinely blur the line between “refugee” and “migrant”.
    • All this talk of rights for “migrants and refugees”, but no consideration given for the host populations which are forced to deal with them
    • They go on and on about Agenda 2030. Guess this is the next step.
    • Media is to be “sensitized” about migration.
    • Looks like Calgary adventure was well worth it.

    The Water Action Hub


    Check toolbar on right for globalism links (under counter). Also view the MASTERLIST.

    PETITION E-1906 (UN Global Migration Compact): CLICK HERE
    PETITION E-2012 (UN Global Parliament) CLICK HERE

    All personal court appearances are under “BLOG
    Fed Court cases are addressed on right under “Canadian Media”.


    IMPORTANT LINKS


    CLICK HERE, for the main page.
    CLICK HERE, for the Business for Social Responsibility.
    CLICK HERE, for Global Water Challenge.
    CLICK HERE, for Human Development Report.
    CLICK HERE, for International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Global Water and Sanitation Initiative.
    CLICK HERE, for Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
    CLICK HERE, for Stockholm International Water Institute.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Global Compact.
    CLICK HERE, for UN Millennium Development Goals.
    CLICK HERE, for UNDP Water Governance Programme.
    CLICK HERE, for UNEP Collaborating Center on Water and Environment.
    CLICK HERE, for UNEP Freshwater Activities.
    CLICK HERE, for UNEP Global Environment Outlook.
    CLICK HERE, for UNESCO Institute for Water Education.
    CLICK HERE, for UNICEF Water, Environment and Sanitation Program.
    CLICK HERE, for WaterAid.
    CLICK HERE, for Water Footprint Network.
    CLICK HERE, for World Bank Group.
    CLICK HERE, for World Business Council for Sustainable Development.
    CLICK HERE, for World Economic Forum Water Initiative.
    CLICK HERE, for World Health Organization.
    CLICK HERE, for WWF International.

    PREAMBLE OF THE GROUP

    We also recognize the following:
    ● Water stress is expected to worsen in many parts of the world as a result of factors including urbanization and population growth, increasing food production, changing consumption patterns, industrialization, water pollution, and climate change.
    ● The main user of fresh water is agriculture. Though much less is used in manufacturing and services, these sectors can still contribute positively.
    ● Scarcity and related problems pose material risks but can also, when well managed, create opportunities for improvement and innovation.
    ● Unsafe drinking water and lack of appropriate sanitation profoundly affect the health and well-being of billions of people, including those who are our customers and employees. In this regard, we note the 2010 resolutions by the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly recognizing the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation.
    ● Companies can have a direct impact on water management in their own business, as well as an indirect impact by encouraging and facilitating actions by those in their supply chains to improve water management.
    ● In order to operate in a sustainable manner, and contribute to the vision of the UN Global Compact and the realization of the Millennium Development Goals, companies have a responsibility to make water-resources management a priority.
    ● Individual and collective efforts – involving partnership with the public sector and civil society and through the supply chain – will be required to adequately address this crisis.

    Some thoughts on the preamble:

    1. Changing consumption patterns is a threat to water supply, but the UN promotes mass migration to the West, which leads to people with previously LOW consumption levels now adopting HIGH consumption levels.
    2. Most water use due to agriculture, but that isn’t where the focus seems to be.
    3. UN recognizes water and sanitation as human rights, though interestingly the Human Rights Council is stacked with members who don’t believe in human rights.
    4. Companies have an obligation to make this agenda a priority.
    5. Collective efforts will be required. Can I assume that force and law will be needed in order to accomplish this?

    MANDATE OF THE GROUP

    The Mandate is governed by the Steering Committee, which oversees the initiative’s strategic, administrative, and financial arrangements. The CEO Water Mandate Steering Committee is composed of:
    (1) Ten corporate representatives from diverse geographies who serve staggered two-year terms. Corporate representatives will be drawn from Action Platform participants only.
    (2) One representative of the UN Global Compact Office
    (3) Special Advisors representing different stakeholder interests and spheres
    (4) Patron sponsors of the Action Platform – Water Security through Stewardship

    The Secretariat makes decisions based on a consensus model. When consensus cannot be reached, a simple majority vote decides matters.

    So the mandate seems to be fluid, to put it mildly. This “Steering Committee” will decide what the mandate will be, and consisted of these people.
    Endorsing Company Members

    1. Troy Jones, Teck Resources
    2. Mark Weick, The Dow Chemical Company
    3. Carlo Galli, Nestlé
    4. Andre Fourie, ABInbev
    5. Naty Barak, Netafim
    6. Inge Huijbrechts, Radisson Hotel Group
    7. Feroz Koor, Woolworth Holdings
    8. Adriana Lagrotta Leles, SANASA
    9. Erika Korosi, BHP
    10. Michael Alexander, Diageo

    Some observations on this list:

    • Teck Resources is a mining conglomerate, and Dow Chemical is (no shocker), a chemical company. Strange choices to have on your committee.
    • Interesting to note: The Radisson Hotel in Toronto has been converted into a migrant camp. Of course this could be a total coincidence.
    • Woolsworth Holdings is a retail giant based in South Africa.
    • SANASA is a banking institution.

    While individual organizational efforts will be critical in helping to address the water challenge, collective efforts – across sectors and societal spheres – will also be required. Such multi-stakeholder collaboration can draw on significant expertise, capacities and resources. Utilizing frameworks such as the UN Global Compact, companies can participate in collective efforts to address water sustainability.

    COLLECTIVE ACTION


    Therefore, we pledge to undertake the following actions, where appropriate, over time:

    • Build closer ties with civil society organizations, especially at the regional and local levels.
    • Work with national, regional and local governments and public authorities to address water sustainability issues and policies, as well as with relevant international institutions – e.g., the UNEP Global Programme of Action.
    • Encourage development and use of new technologies, including efficient irrigation methods, new plant varieties, drought resistance, water efficiency and salt tolerance.
    • Be actively involved in the UN Global Compact’s Country Networks.
    • Support the work of existing water initiatives involving the private sector – e.g., the Global Water Challenge; UNICEF’s Water, Environment and Sanitation Program; IFRC Water and Sanitation Program; the World Economic Forum Water Initiative – and collaborate with other relevant UN bodies and intergovernmental organizations – e.g., the World Health Organization, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and the World Bank Group

    The collective action that they speak of, is collaborating with the United Nations, and approved partners. This is globalist control over water resources.

    Of course, while this wording sounds all lovely and flowery, it is not yet clear what sort of force will be used (if any) to ensure these goals are met.

    Globalist regulation of water resources and determination over how it is used, and in what amounts. What could possibly go wrong?