People whom none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate and business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”
These people constitute a network called the Global Public-Private Partnership (GPPP). While some elected representatives are within their ranks, these representatives of the public set neither the agenda nor the policy of GPPP. We need to both recognise who the GPPP members are and understand the implications of their gambit. How is this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons, and why should we resist them?
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policymakers mean by the global commons, we can begin to appreciate the jaw-dropping magnitude of their ambitions.
They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like “inclusive,” “sustainable,” “equity” and “resilience” are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.
While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the GPPP constituents who orchestrated the chaos have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This control is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).
This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.
Laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID-19. This was planned.
The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by former US President Clinton following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.
We will need to consider the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21 and its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources. But for now we can simply reference them in order to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will allow us to understand why politicians around the world have used the phrase.
Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:
“By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards [. . .] adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:
“The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk; [. . .] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership [. . .] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels [. . .] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation. [. . .] Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed [. . .] and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.”
“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post-“disaster” reconstruction. It means the global “participation of relevant stakeholders” to strengthen “international cooperation and global partnerships” in order to “implement instruments” to achieve “sustainable development.”
SDG 11 (b) was a plan to “substantially increase” the global number of “human settlements” adopting “build back better” policies by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved, thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.
Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM) were devised by the World Economic Forum, which describes itself as an international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP network to seize the entire Earth—all its resources and everything on it, including us.
In order to be controlled, we are being transitioned into a technocracy, with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security, and centralised control of the entire system has been established during—and as a result of—the pseudopandemic.
The new IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI) or similar state payments, which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). This will ensure our compliance, as central banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports, or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.
The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money, it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.
Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” We will see how it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up Earth’s resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.
Throughout the pseudopandemic, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Its Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea that is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.
This idea is the self-serving belief that some “special” people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate democratic mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption that they were born to rule.
The WEF has asserted a supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy, which it intends to do by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”
The WEF has put itself forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the Fourth Industrial Revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF is not alone in its ambitions but is, rather, the leading proponent for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of the WEF’s self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.
The UN acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.
In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet, the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013, the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.”
The UN wrote:
“International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space. [. . .] Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations — such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity — have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons [. . .] while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace. [. . .] Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”
This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020, the Rothschild-backed bank, called the Global Environment Facility, offered a more extensive list of the “shared resources all life relies upon”:
“In order to protect our global commons [. . .] humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”
That coalition is the GPPP. Citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they go along with promoting the agreed-upon policy agenda. In December 2020, Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept. Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the 1930s development of the Technocracy Inc. movement, he said:
“To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken. [. . . H]uman activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos. [. . . T]he recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity. It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it. . . . We must turn this momentum into a movement. [. . .] Everything is interlinked — the global commons and global well-being. [. . .] This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas. Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries. [. . .] More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries. [. . .] From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line… From classroom education to community engagement… From voting booths to places of work. [. . .] We cannot go back to the old normal. [. . .] We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change. [. . .] Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world — and with each other.”
Again, we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us; we are a pestilence that must be controlled; COVID-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same; and everything must be transformed.
Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breathe), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs. No, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.
Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), the places we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and political systems, our education systems, the communities we live in and even our human relationships—all are to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.
In other words, the “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything: all life forms, resources, land, water, air and even the entire celestial sphere. It is their intention to dominate all.
The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. When we read the WEF’s June 2021 article “The case for the digital commons,” we realize that whenever the WEF wants to include something else in the global commons list, it uses the language of sustainable development. It need not make rational sense. The point is to sell the notion with the right buzzwords:
“COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”
Now the WEF claims the authority to rule the internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the taxpaying cash cows who will fund the construction of the empire:
“In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress. [. . .] Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems . . . as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”
It is truly remarkable that a low-mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation. The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:
“One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years. [. . . T]he consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild. [. . .] It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”
At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019, Schwab wrote “What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?” The “we” referenced in that title is not “us” but, rather, the GPPP, though the article assumes we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:
“Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”
Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. “Trustee” has a specific legal definition:
“The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”
It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with managing our society. Many of us would disagree with that objective—which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked for our input. In fact, there is no justification for Schwab’s claim.
I speak for no one but myself, yet I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be significant contributors to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe these corporations should determine the alleged solutions?
Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.
Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and its leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are composed of people who are no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.
They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they cannot imagine it is hard to say.
We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more, if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.
There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations incorporating global logistics, international finance and cross-border regulatory alignment. These worldwide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few senior board-level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same setup.
However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.
However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. It was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.
The article’s title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that the article was not intended to describe her “utopia” but that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near-term future:
“Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. [. . .] When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. [. . .] Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me. [. . .] We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”
The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons), they will take care of us.
Why? is the obvious question. If they control all of Earth’s resources, if everything is free, and if AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly losing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.
We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID-19 “opportunity,” a response to a set of crises that gives rise to doing “things differently.”
We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.
As Schwab noted, there was no “existential threat.” The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not the result of a respiratory disease.
It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. When we look at Agenda 21 and 2030, however, an uncomfortable realisation dawns.
While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect. The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique of GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet. Instead, it is that the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists in Agenda 21 and 2030.
Make no mistake, the GPPP collective intends to control every aspect of our planet and our lives. That goal is the transformation these globalists are working towards, and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.
While we have been preoccupied with SDGs and a low-mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP has not only started building, it has partly completed the new global monetary and financial system. Once installed, this system will finalise the coup d’état and enable the GPPP to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.
We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part 2.
Seizing Everything: Theft of the Global Commons – Part 1
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
You have the stomach to wade through systemic deceits and present a witness for lawful human relationships in their place.
I’m more intuitively moved to look at the mindset of which all this madness explicates, for in my terms so much of the mind we think in has been ‘stolen’ or corrupted by an inner correlate to the stealing of the global commons – which also extends in reach to biotech interface by stealth and mind-control by guile and coercion.
The pattern of the ‘control’ mind as a replacement for the consciousness of our relational being mimics the image and form of life in attempt to seem to have it – and crown it ‘real’.
Power to your ‘pen’ – in love and recognition of power that freely shares to expand and embrace the more of who and what we are in rich diversity.
Likewise Binra. Keep the flow of consciousness coming. I’m a fan, as you know.
I’m wondering where Russia and China fit into this narrative?
Please grab a copy of my book, Pseudopandemic. I go into some depth on how China has been used by the parasite class as a model of Technocracy. I suggest this model is now being exported globally off the back of the pseudopandemic. Russia have imposed the same policies and have their vaccine for the same purpose as everyone else. This really is a “global” coup d’etat.
Iain: It would be nice if all of your writing was available in one place, such as here, where people could comment on it and discuss it. I’m half way through “Blaming Anyone Who Questions Covid-19 Policy for a New Wave of Terrorism” as I type this. There’s lots of important info there. (Incidentally, I’ve even posterized a key section of the part of that article that I’ve already read. I poster all over the city here in Toronto, Canada, when it’s not raining, which is hardly ever these days. My posters: https://arrby.wordpress.com/covid-posters/).
Iain Davis poster: https://i.postimg.cc/ZRMvqcrn/Are-You-With-Police-State-Governments.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/ZRMvqcrn/Are-You-With-Police-State-Governments.jpg
Thanks Arby. Most of my articles are available here. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “all in one place.”
What I mean is that “most” (in your reply) isn’t ‘all’. It’s a quibble. I read the longer article on UKC, “Blaming Anyone…” (Is on “Iain Davis”? Maybe I missed it.) It was very good and useful. But I could not comment on it. (Then again, If I had to deal with a deluge of comments on my own blog, then How productive would I be?) I know that I could pay to join UKC and then comment. Or am I wrong about that? (One big reason I don’t donate / become a paid member to good sites is that there are some things about them – adherence to germ theory – that I have a hard time getting past. I’ve donated to James Corbett, but that began before I was fully aware that he is uninterested in examining his position on germ theory. Which isn’t to say that I don’t think I’m getting my money’s worth. And which isn’t to say that I don’t think I’d get my money’s worth with orgs like UKC.) But I make minimum wage here in Canada and can’t really afford to donate / join more than I already do.
I know that I’m no fun. I am critical (and very disappointed with smart people on my side in covid 1984 who embrace wonky germ theory). I know what I know because I pay attention (for which reason I have over 180 blog posts just on covid 19). If other bloggers read my blog and wanted to, I’m sure that they could find many things to disagree with and quibble about and maybe it would annoy me. But, that’s democracy. (I believe in democracy but in a qualified fashion, since I believe in (true) theocracy.
Thanks for the clarification Arby. When I write for UK Column they have the rights to the articles. So in a sense they aren’t mine anymore. The UKC community is one of the most vibrant, open discussion platforms you will ever find. Members start threads on anything, including most articles, and some have been running for years. People share everything from whole essays to short videos’ and memes. Germ / Terrain / German New Medicine theory is hot topic of conversation. It’s an open research community and a mine of information. Well worth the £3 per month membership in my view.
You are fun. You’re criticism is most welcome. I am not seeking agreement and do not wish to preach. I wan’t to stimulate critical debate. Sadly, I get quite a lot of abuse which I don’t share as that is “boring.” So please keep the criticism and analysis coming. It is what Iain Davis is all about.
And thank you. I may re-think my position on membership in the UKC. I actually have little confidence that my job will even be there after about November 7th, when the (awful) company I work for (G4S) becomes Alliance Universal. That’s when I have to do an online onboarding and I not planning on allowing myself to be assimilated into the borg collective. Ergo… If they allow me to continue as I am, no data on my smart phone, no testing and no jab, then fine. But, We both see where the world is going.
Hi Iain. I was going to offer a comment but when I came to post it, I noticed a comment that seemed so aggressive towards you it frightened me off. I have just revisited and cannot see it. I feel a bit disconcerted – could it have been removed or did I imagine it?
Sorry Jane. I have a particularly vile aggressor attacking me at the moment. I briefly shared one of their comments because they were straying into to illegal territory and I wanted to draw them out on some of their threats. They didn’t bite and so I have removed their comments and won’t be allowing them to post any more. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Thanks for reassurance re my imagination. Apologies – delay enabled my verboseness. Sorrowful re extreme inconvenience to yourself. Fear and restrictions increase aggression.
I didn’t learn re GAVI or originators until last year but knowing Pharma, WHO, work and life in UK, US and Europe I’ve felt dismay for 20+ years re direction: –
“The Public/Masses” discounts the individual and fails to appreciate variety of life.
Money-men ditched old values/ethics late 1990’s on grounds they didn’t pay.
2004 – ‘something in air’ – every organisation in Britain progressing to ‘police state’ – first assumption innocent turned 180, democracy and all other principles of highest value, higher than life, relentlessly destroyed.
Without those values there is no life; only mere existence, hell-on-Earth. Few now understand things like fairness, honesty, humility. Hence fear (hatred) of life including death. ‘Selfies’ display isolated self and zilch else but slaves.
IT’s mantra ‘life does not exist’ doesn’t see that killing or murder exist, which with hatred of life is massively lethal – kills for quantity of possessions; existence dependent on them. If www crashed, repressors would crash.
Old values give inner strength, ability to think thus independence, high quality of life. Old values and repression are natural mutual opposites.
Repression tortures – stops thought and thus ability to decide for oneself what self is going to do – self-determination – definition of human being/being humane.
‘Money-men’, mathematicians, computers are digital – unable to conceive of life’s continuum or think at all – narrow-minds, short-sight, absent logic and analytics.
Without thinking we function on selfish, inhumane auto-pilot – run away and hide or defence in guise of attack – easily manipulated via emotion. Auto-pilot’s our Achilles’ heel – knee-jerk responding, friendly-fire, own goal, shoot-self-in-foot.
Physical impossibility for ‘social-networking’ to be social. If believe it social, behaviour range reduced to unsocial and anti-social – global society destroyed to fit computers’ binary (repressive) digits – same as auto-pilot; no variety – predictable.
“I speak for no one but myself, but I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be a significant contributor to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe they should determine the alleged solutions?”
I would make the same wager. I very, very much agree with Iain there.
It’s incredible how subtly fascism (and nazism) has been rehabilitated. (It seems that the constant refrain that those who don’t go along with the war-making State – in regard to covid and all else – are fascists, is meant to confuse and obscure the fact that those, like Matt Hancock, making those accusations are fascist through and through and are fighting ‘for’ Klaus Schwab’s new fascist biosecurity police State.) The world is going along with Schwab’s fascist power grab as though Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had never happened. But then, that’s what TV is for. Everyone gets their knowledge of the world, and God, from pharma-funded tv. Mix entertainment with propaganda and you’ve got a powerful weapon in the hands of the counterrevolutionaries in their never-ending war against the people. The people bear some responsibility for the destruction that is underway. Lots of us who care and pay attention also grew up with television.
Thanks Arby. Yep we had a TV when I was a kid. As, an adult I have never owned a TV license though I have lived in households that did but I have never been that interested in TV. Have not had one for many years now. When I go to visit people and they have a TV it genuinely cuases me agitation. I find it impossible to watch as nothing I’ve seen doesn’t have some form of propaganda in it. It is truly awful. I really can’t believe people watch it.
Hi Iain. Thank you for this. I sent a reply yesterday morning, did it arrive?
Yes Jane. Thanks for your insightful comments.
Hi Lain, hope you are well. I’ve read your articles for the last year or so, the books and documents you e-mailed and watched your interview with James Corbett yesterday. It’s all well researched and I don’t think anybody could have made a better job of bringing the past, present and planned future all together, encapsulating the whole Global agenda and the framework they’ve built up to allow for the centralised control, than you did in your book psuadopandemic. Because I thought it was so good I shared it with several people that I know, some quite aware and some fairly clueless. I did this so if at some point the more clueless ones become aware at least they have it all spelled out for them there in their e-mails. So far, as far as I am aware, nobody has read it…
I remember a while back commenting about my frustration with the general public for not seeing through this psuadopandemic, a frustration I know shared by many. I posted a link to an article I’d read about cult indoctranation and I think, maybe in response, you emailed me a few books and that document. That led me to contemplate the social engineering that has been going on for, well ever I guess. ‘The silent war’. In a roundabout way I suppose I’m saying that I think most people are lost to this push button, on demand, bagged ready sliced fruit and veg everything for convenience lifestyle. They can’t be arsed to read a book mate. You know, the other day I thought you know what, if 85% or whatever have had this jab then 85% of people are stupid. That sounded a little harsh so I thought ok, not stupid just not capable of critical thinking. In other words stupid! Yes went full circle with that train of thought. Doesn’t make them bad people though and some of those have started thinking since. We are all aware of divide and conquer and must be mindful not to fall into that trap. Like you said in your interview, we have to show them a better way. You’ve said a lot of good stuff but I reckon that might just be the best thing you’ve ever said.
These people, the parasite class, are spinning a lot of plates. It’s easy to focus on the plates rather than who’s spinning them. Take them out and all the plates come crashing down. Now in all probability we can’t do this so we just have to exclude them from our lives. If nobody’s watching anymore then what’s the point of the plate spinning. This is how we win.
Now I have to put into practice what you and others have said for a while and I’ve got a long way to go mate. I’m on near enough minimum wage, 23 years left on the mortgage, 4 kids. I never could fully commit to the persuit of money and stuff, the measuring stick given to us by these parasites. We tried maybe a year ago shopping local and just found it too expensive.
It demands a major overhaul of my life, one that seems very daunting. Baby steps hey. I think a lot of people are probably in the same boat. I’ve felt for a while like a deer frozen in headlights, like I can see this big bloody truck coming and I’m just kinda, shit, gotta get out of the way, what do I do here. I’d like to think I’ve helped a few people to think for themselves and avoid the jab, certainly my family and friends are not representative of this 85%. A longtime friendly friend did go from ‘this is all about control’ to having the jab, he now has a brain tumor, a blood clot and a swollen aorta. All just coincidentally of course. I use cash a lot more. It would be a lot easier if I was on my own but I’m not and I love my wife and kids very much. If I can show them a better way and they grow up happy and aware then I will consider my life a great success.
All the best to you mate and keep up the good work.
👍👌
*family friend and your book’s great but I clearly can’t spell it! Something to be said for proofreading hey.
Thanks LookofEagles for such an excellent comment. We are going to have to live in this tyranny. Some level of compliance will inevitably be required, no matter how much we want to avoid it. Especially if we are on low income with a family to support. I will have to comply too. For example when I attend hospital visits with my mum I wear a mask in the hospital. My mum doesn’t need me to be making “my point” while I am there to support her. Compromise is unavoidable. But, as more and more become disillusioned with the tyranny, as we all seek ways to circumvent and deal with it, the solutions that will inevitable emerge are beyond my imagination. As long as our intent is to minimise compliance, maximise resistance and stay lawful (don’t give them an excuse) then we can build something better.
In 1996 I read many of the documents published by the Agenda 21 Rio summit. I came to the conclusion that it was a proposal to inventory and assume control of all resources and people. https://markgresham.substack.com/p/a-modern-jubilee-to-prevent-the-enslavement
Hi Iain. Sorry to ask, but the situation going all videos and podcasts leaves many of us out of the loop – I and many others don’t have enough broadband width to access videos and we seem to be falling beneath everyone’s radar.
Technology for videos and podcasts doesn’t reach everywhere. Those ways of messaging reach illiterate but limit message’s spread to others.
There’s a video on off-guardian dated 19th Oct of a conversation with yourself about the pseudo-pandemic. Is it a spoken version of any of your written articles, if so which, or is it something new? If it’s new, a summary would help those left out but I realise writing one would add to your already heavy work-load. Is there any help for it or ‘just one of those things’?
Hi Jane it is a video of my discussion with James Corbett on the subject of my book Pseudopandemic. Thankfully, as a subscriber, you can grab a free copy of the book to read at your leisure. The book covers far more than we could possibly cover in a 50 minute discussion.
Thanks for this excellent article Iain, and for all the work you do.
I wonder whether you’ve seen Whitney Webb’s recent article on the intended seizure of nature by way of the new asset class (NAC) created by Wall Street etc.?
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/10/investigative-reports/wall-streets-takeover-of-nature-advances-with-launch-of-new-asset-class/
Reading that and your article has horrified me, but I also realise it’s an incremental creep, and we’ve been conditioned to believe that it’s for our own good. NGOs have been paving the way for this takeover for some time.
I recently went to hike in the Cederberg Wilderness, where I used to go as a child. I am now faced by a sign literally in the middle of nowhere telling me to wear a mask and keep my distance from any people. The wilderness is now governed by the WWF-funded Cape Nature, which has taken control of vast areas of South Africa, kicked off indigenous people and instituted levies on anyone wanting to stroll around and look at the rock formations.
https://twitter.com/soulofwhiteaunt/status/1451576534184206363?s=20
Thanks Toni. Whitney and I will be chatting soon hopefully and this is definitely something I hope we will discuss. Following you on Twitter now. Many thanks.
Certainly helps with with putting the pieces together to understand what otherwise seems to be utter madness … Xi lockdowns, mandatory vaccines that don’t work, passports, digital ID… all towards a new feudalism where we’re the serfs with nothing indentured to an aristocracy of the new normal.
looking forward to part2.
Thanks Howardb It will be out next week I hope.
As a leader in The Tea party for years we will not COMPLY. These Patriots will fight and are prepared. Our group is in Florida where our Governor is saying NO to these overlords.We are fighting local agenda 21/2030 citizens are waking up.
Have faith in God and we will restore our Republic. Cynthia Lucas
‘US President Clinton following the 2004 Indonesian tsunami’ – in 2004 that would be ex-pres Clinton, and it was really the Indian Ocean tsunami, not Indonesia
Thanks Dave I’ll update that.
The people are robbed of our “global commons” and handed a “Common Pass App” in turn.
Thank you for your work.
Thanks I.Rose. So it seems. How ironic?
Excellent article Iain. Essental ‘wake up’ material for all of us.
Thanks Andy A
Dear Iain
I am these days reading “Pseudopandemic” and I must say, it is a Masterpiece of investigative journalism, a Pulitzer beyond anything I have ever read before in my 65 year long life. The facts, the references, the links, the footnotes, the whole work you have put into it is… I fail to find words to describe how impressed and thankful I am. You are truly a gift to humanity.
From the very beginning of the C19, and I have been in China the whole time, I knew something was terribly wrong. My own investigations have lead me to the very same conclusions as yours, but your work are providing evidence in a degree that makes me feel I have found the “Garden Of Eden”, meaning to me the “Garden Of Truth”.
I am a Norwegian Expat to China for the last 15 years and I am writing extensively about this whole topic to my Norwegian readers, but lately I have been close to give up. Whatever I write, they still run like a herd of sheep to the jab-joints. Reading you Iain, tells me to never give up but to continue writing. My kids and my grandkids might think I am a nutcase, they actually do, but my grand-grand-kids (if such a prospect will be possible) might wonder what the hell took place between 2020 and 2040. I feel I have a duty to tell them.
Keep up your exceptional work Iain, and thank you so much for the inspiration you bring to everyone almost giving up, but will absolutely not, because of you.
Hi Terry. Thank you for your kind words. I don’t imagine for one second that I’m a Gary Webb, but I appreciate your confidence in my work. As ever, please check the evidence (as I know you are) and if my own research has encouraged yours that’s all I could ever hope for. Thank you so much.
Thanks Iain. I try to circulate your work as much as I can, even to the TLDR crowd, which is a battle, but I suppose this is a war, tally ho.
Thanks Charlie. Who are the the TLDR crowd? Do you mean “Too Long, Didn’t Read?”
Yep that’s who I’m talking about. I try to plant a seed of doubt in peoples perception of how things are going and back that up with suggested sites, articles and the like to visit and read. Kind of the same approach as in the movie Inception. I’m asking them questions so they can ask questions of themselves, hopefully.
Generally speaking, much of the follow so far is usually along the lines of “Pffft, don’t have time for that mate”.
I’m a persistent bastard though, so tally ho.
If you haven’t read them I heartily recommend C J Hopkins article series the Covidian Cult: – https://off-guardian.org/?s=The+Covidian+Cult&submit=Search
Hi Iain,
Sorry to bother you (and feel free not to publish this comment), but I subscribed to your newsletter (using the same email address that I’m using in this comment), and got the expected acknowledgement web page, promising an email (with the Pseudopandemic download link), but alas, no email has arrived.
I checked my spam folder, but it’s not there.
Could you possibly check whether an email should have been sent to me?
Many thanks!
Best wishes,
Mike Ellwood
Hi Mike. I have just resent you the welcome email with the links. Any problems please reply to [email protected]
Hi Iain, thanks for replying so promptly. Found it now. *red face* It was in spam after all, but folder was ordered by sender not date, so was way down in the list. Very sorry to have troubled you. Now reading the book …
I’m very impressed with the quality and comprehensiveness of all your writing. Thanks for all you do.
Best wishes,
Mike
(p.s. will put the admin address in contacts list, as advised)
No worries Mike.
Comprehensive, cool and classy writing as usual. Thankyou once again… The theft of the digital commons has been under way for a while now, more so with the leasing model all the software houses have poked us onto…I understand fully now why the book of common prayer and the reformation were so important now! Time to raze some monasteries to the ground methinks… 😉
Hi Ian, Thank you for this. Articles like this really summate so well what’s happening and how it’s been built up. I so appreciate it. I am exploring some direct democracy counter-resistance possibilities to all this, though the world seems rather lost atm. We must try no? And to discern the mechanism of the mind that lies underneath it all, as Binra stated so eloquently. I look forward to reading more of your work. And just listened to your interview with Whitney Webb. Meanwhile, I wanted to alert you that there is a redundancy where a paragraph is repeated twice in regards to the wacko promotional video. Onward! Pooja
ayay- i didn’t want my picture here- if there’s a way you could please delete it? or just delete the comment. it was for you anyhow. Cheers,
Hi Pooja. I don’t control the picture it is probably linked to either your wordpress or gravitar accounts. If you change it there, the image will automatically update here.
Thanks Pooja. I’ve removed the redundancy.
Nice article! Thank you. Is there anything we can do to stop this from happening?
Thanks Li, a couple of articles here offer some suggestions:
https://iaindavis.com/inalienable-rights/
https://iaindavis.com/towards-freedom/
If they purport to be ‘trustees’ of the global commons, then there must be a ‘trust’ at play.
Where there is a trust there must have been a settlor/grantor to put the trust res (property) into trust.
In order to put anything into trust the settlor must first have full Rights, Title and Interest (RTI) in the property.
It is also the settlor who decides the terms of the trust, who the beneficiaries shall be and how they shall be entitled to the use of the trust property.
It is the role of the beneficiaries to ensure their trustees perform according to the terms of the trust.
A settlor can be a trustee or a beneficiary of their own trust, but they cannot be all three positions.
So who is the settlor in this case? Us, or them, or neither of us? If the latter, then the whole thing is a legal shame – literally a ‘sham trust’.
We might go back to biblical law and say that God gave us dominion over the earth, and if so, then it is all of humanity that owns the global commons. But not the Universe as far as I’m away.
If we might be the settlor, then still in order to put something into trust there must be an INTENTION to do so. That intention can be explicit or implied.
So either, therefore, WEF and their cronies are taking our acquiescence as implied intention to put the global commons into their ‘safe hands’, or they think they are able to acquire full RTI somehow to the global commons in order that they put it into a trust that they are then the trustee of and they decide the terms of same.
As far as I can see, it doesn’t matter which way you look at it, I cannot see the legal basis for this ‘trust’ to exist.
I don’t think they are too bothered about legality Christine. Thanks for a great comment.