by Iain Davis
Mark Carney, then governor of the BoE, also spoke at the Jackson Hole symposium [15]. In August 2019 He said:
"Most fundamentally, a destabilising asymmetry at the heart of the IMFS is growing.. a multi-polar global economy requires a new IMFS to realise its full potential. That won’t be easy.. History teaches that the transition to a new global reserve currency may not proceed smoothly.. Technological developments provide the potential for such a world to emerge.. The Bank of England.. have been clear.. the terms of engagement for any new systemic private payments system must be in force well in advance of any launch.. perhaps through a network of central bank digital currencies.. the deficiencies of the IMFS have become increasingly potent. Even a passing acquaintance with monetary history suggests that this centre won’t hold.. I will close by adding urgency to Ben Bernanke’s challenge. Let’s end the malign neglect of the IMFS and build a system worthy of the diverse, multipolar global economy that is emerging."
It is clear the GPPP had accepted that the existing IMFS was finished prior to the pseudopandemic. As Carney alluded to, there was a sense of urgency and an agreement that the IMFS must be replaced by a new model.
The financial rescue package, allegedly rolled out in response to the pseudopandemic, was implemented before SARS-CoV-2 had been discovered. A key motive for the pseudopandemic was to prepare us for the transition to the new IMFS. It is unlikely that it will proceed smoothly. Hence the need for an all pervasive surveillance and behavioural control system.
Despite what many of us believe, the solution to the alleged climate crisis has been planned for more than half a century. It may well deliver a greener, less polluted world but it is based upon some central precepts: a smaller, genetically modified race of humanoid cyborgs living in AI controlled settlements in a Technate under the rule of a technocratic and financial superclass.
The GPPP are using the excuse of climate change to create a New World Order. There is nothing new about this ambition. It is as old as political authority itself.
Hitherto the society of the elect relied upon the hoarding and control of capital for their power. They no longer need to do this. In response to the climate crisis they have developed a new IMFS based upon them controlling access to the natural world. All resources come under their authority and they are stealing them from us using their new net zero, carbon neutral global economy.
In January 2020, just as the pseudopandemic was building, the World Economic Forum (WEF) published their Metrics for Sustainable Value Creation [16]. This established the SDG criteria by which all investment assets will be rated.
Any business that needs to raise capital will have to meet these requirements. They stipulate that the winners in this new IMFS will have the right (pivotal) people on its board, they will engage with the right stakeholders, their ethical behaviour will meet WEF approval and they will be able to afford all the necessary carbon offsets and other climate change adaptations.
In March 2020, as the pseudopandemic was declared, the WEF combined their sustainable metrics into an environmental, social and governance (ESG) score. The WEF stated [17]:
"In light of mounting evidence, activism and regulation, investors are including climate considerations in their investment decision-making. For example, a group of investors managing $118 trillion in assets now expects companies to provide disclosures in accordance with the Task Force on Climate - related Financial Disclosures (TCFD)"
The mounting evidence is being produced by computer models, the activists are people like Mark Carney, who threatens to make businesses bankrupt unless they comply, and the regulation (TCFD) is determined by the Financial Stability Board [18] of the BIS. This means the whole system ultimately comes under the control of the Bank for International Settlements [19].
By January 2021 the GPPP had agreed to "convergence." ESG's were established as the Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics [20]. Through a process they called "dynamic materiality,” the WEF constructed a mechanism to convert a commitment to SDGs into the basis for a new monetary system.
Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics define a sustainable investment as any in a company with good ESG rating. As climate change SDGs are underpinned by global State franchise agreements, high ESG rated companies are considered safe investments. Unless businesses can gain a good ESG rating they won't survive.
Investors are monetising debt by grabbing corporate bonds from the ESG high flyers and have already created a $17.1 trillion sustainable asset market [21]. With $120 trillion in ESG assets already under the management of financial institutions like BlackRock, this is where investors are heading in the carbon neutral gold rush.
This is the capitalisation of the carbon bond market that UK chancellors Philip Hammond, Rishi Sunak and other political mouthpieces have been so confident about. In order for this $120 trillion bond market to become the basis for a new IMFS, investors need to be encouraged to purchase ESG rated assets. The debt monetisation process needs to continue at pace to complete the transformation.
Janet Yellen, former Fed chair and current US Treasury Secretary, laid out how the favoured GPPP stakeholders will be the financiers of the net zero corporate hegemony [22]. For example, BlackRock already holds $200 billion in sustainable ETF securities. These track the performance of ESG rated investments, thus driving companies who need capital to commit to SDG's. BlackRock intend to increase their ETF holding to £1 trillion by 2030 and are committed to their policy of "carbon transition readiness."
It doesn't matter how bad inflation gets because we don't matter. Once the carbon bond market is capitalised the broken IMFS can be discarded and the new SDG based system brought in.
In his 2021 letter to CEO's, Larry Fink, the chairman of BlackRock, outlined how the pseudopandemic created this unprecedented opportunity [23]:
"The pandemic has presented such an existential crisis.. that it has driven us to confront the global threat of climate change more forcefully.. Markets started to price climate risk into the value of securities.. then the pandemic took hold.. and the reallocation of capital accelerated even faster. I believe that this is the beginning of a long but rapidly accelerating transition – one that will unfold over many years and reshape asset prices of every type.. the climate transition presents a historic investment opportunity."
You can't run a system of global governance without a system of global taxation. As usual, this was also prepared before the WHO's declaration. In October 2019 the OECD published their consultation document Secretariat Proposal for a ‘Unified Approach’ under Pillar One [24]. The document outlined a global tax regime based upon allocated "taxing rights."
The justification given was to tackle corporate tax evasion in the digital economy, as big tech firms are prone to that sort of thing. National taxation, based upon the physical presence of a company, was no longer considered sufficient. Therefore a new tax with "wider scope" was needed. The OECD suggested that his may be achieved through "a new self-standing treaty provision."
It remains to be seen what model of global taxation we will get, but there are some things of which we can be certain. The GPPP stakeholders will continue to avoid paying tax and the philanthropic tax exempt foundations will remain tax exempt. The only people who won't be able to avoid the global tax is us.
For most people taxation without representation is the defining democratic deal breaker. We can only speculate if people will still believe that they live in democracies when the inevitable global tax regime is installed. However, by then, it might not make any difference
In late May 2021 the central bankers of the G7 met to discuss the new IMFS. State franchise central bank governors joined representatives from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank Group, OECD, Eurogroup and FSB (BIS). By going direct the attending G7 State franchise finance ministers were told what fiscal polices to implement.
Following the meeting they released their communiqué [25] to the world:
"We will continue to work together to ensure
a strong, sustainable, balanced and inclusive global recovery that builds back better and greener from the Covid-19 pandemic.. We emphasise the need to green the global financial system so that financial decisions take climate considerations into account.. We commit to increase and improve our climate finance contributions through to 2025, including increasing adaptation finance and finance for nature-based solutions.. We also commit to a global minimum tax of at least 15% on a country by country basis.."
In other words the G7 financial authorities were committed to Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics. Two weeks later the Trusted News cartel reported to the public that this was all US President Biden's idea [26]:
"Joe Biden has won support at the G7 summit for a “carry on spending” plan, as western leaders rejected austerity in a post-Covid world."
Apparently this wasn't his only success. According to the propagandists he was also instrumental in forging ahead with the new global tax system [27]:
"Finance ministers from Group of Seven nations meeting in London on Friday are expected to back President Biden’s call for a global minimum tax on corporate profits."
Joe Biden did not devise going direct, he did not propose a global tax and he did not suggest unbridled debt monetisation to capitalise the carbon bond market. Biden was just saying what he was told to say like all the other political puppets on parade at the G7 media event.
The stories we are given about the leaders we elect are complete nonsense. We vote for people whose primary purpose is to maintain our trust in the party political show. None of it is real, just a drama to keep us entertained while the GPPP get on with business. Our representative democracy has always been a farce and we are rapidly approaching the point where the GPPP can dispense with the pretence entirely if they wish.
The G7 central bankers had something else to communicate:
"Innovation in digital money and payments has the potential to bring significant benefits.. Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).. could act as both a liquid, safe settlement asset and as an anchor for the payments system.. CBDCs should be resilient and energy-efficient; support innovation, competition, inclusion, and could enhance cross-border payments.. We will work towards common principles and publish conclusions later in the year."
In 2010 a remarkable article was published in the UK Telegraph. Called How To End Boom and Bust: Make Cash Illegal [28] it didn't garner too much interest at the time, but today it appears to be incredibly prescient. Based upon the research of Norwegian academic Trond Andresen, the article was written by the head of retail fixed interest at the global investment firm M&G Investments, Jim Leaviss. Describing what he saw as the advantages of a cashless society, he wrote:
"Once all money exists only in bank accounts – monitored, or even directly controlled by the government.. All payments are made by contactless card, mobile phone apps or other electronic means, while notes and coins are abolished. Your current account will.. be held with..the central bank.. To boost spending, the bank imposes a negative interest rate.., a tax on saving. Faced with seeing their money slowly confiscated, people are more likely to spend.. What about.. when the economy is overheating? The central bank.. could.. impose a tax on transactions.. That makes people less inclined to spend.. If notes and coins were abolished and the only way to hold money was through a government-controlled bank, there would be no escape."
Jim appears to have made the mistake that most of humanity has been making for thousands of years. He assumed that "government" is broadly benign and has some sort of interest in our welfare. From this mistake he concluded that the only people who would ever want to "escape" would be criminals.
Jim was advocating a system of total economic enslavement, unwittingly perhaps. He also delivered a stunningly accurate description of the new normal IMFS we are being propelled towards.
In November 2018 the International Monetary Fund published Winds of Change: The Case For A New Digital Currency [29]. They proposed different models for Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC's). In her speech launching the document then Managing Director of the IMF Christine Lagarde gave us some more thought-terminating cliché propaganda. She said:
"Cryptocurrencies seek to anchor trust in technology.. you might trust their services.. Proper regulation of these entities will remain a pillar of trust. Various central banks around the world are seriously considering these ideas.. They are embracing change and new thinking—as indeed is the IMF."
Lagarde, a convicted accomplice to fraud [30], asserted a truism that trust in financial transactions only comes via State franchise and GPPP regulation and control. We should consider this in the context of the existing IMFS which is riven with corruption, predicated upon ruthless economic exploitation and has established a financial sector which is practically defined by its criminal activity [31]. For the IMF to demand that we trust financial regulators is preposterous.
Cryptocurrencies are based upon decentralised, distributed ledger technology using the block-chain. Essentially this means that transactions are mathematically authenticated, not by one centralise authority, but by a network of computers performing extremely complex checksum calculations. In this way trust itself is distributed. It is block-chain technology that makes this possible but it is the distribution of trust that makes cryptocurrencies revolutionary.
We no longer need a third party to oversee our transactions. There's no centralised banking facility taking a cut or charging interest and, perhaps for this reason, we can potentially place more trust in a cryptocurrency than we ever could in money created out of nothing by banks.
The proposed CBDC's are not cryptocurrencies. Most are proposed to be based upon block-chain technology but that does not mean they are similar to cryptocurrencies. The only thing they share with them is that they are a form of electronic money.
CBDC's use the block-chain in a completely different way. By setting block-chain permissions, restricting access to transaction verification process, block-chain technology can be transformed from a tool for the egalitarian distribution of shared trust to an oppressive financial control grid.
The core conspirators and their informed influencers despise decentralised cryptocurrencies. The Securities and Exchange Commission in the US is just one GPPP stakeholder desperate to assert its regulatory authority [32] over cryptocurrencies.
In February 2021 the Wall Street Journal asked Bill Gates what technology the world would be better without. Given his passion for public health and our safety you might think he would say "bio-weapons" or "nuclear weapons," but he said [33]:
"The way cryptocurrency works today allows for certain criminal activities. It’d be good to get rid of that."
Then he remembered to add that what he should have said was "bio-weapons."
The Bank of England and the Treasury, because they are now ostensibly the same thing, announced their CBDC unit on the 19th April 2021:
"The Bank of England and HM Treasury have today announced the joint creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) Taskforce to coordinate the exploration of a potential UK CBDC. A CBDC would be a new form of digital money issued by the Bank of England and for use by households and businesses.. The Bank of England has also announced it will establish a CBDC Unit. This new division of the Bank of England will lead its internal exploration around CBDC."
The International Monetary Fund and central banks are "embracing change" because CBDC will give them total control over the new IMFS and our lives. In October 2020 Lagarde's successor Kristalina Georgieva referred to the pseudopandemic as a "Bretton Woods moment" [34]. Claiming that adding trillions to the global debt had somehow "prevented" destruction, she eagerly promoted the digital economy and claimed that digitalization would improve financial inclusion.
It is difficult to understand what these new words and platitudes mean. CBDC was explained more succinctly by Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the BIS. He joined a group discussion moderated by Georgieva during the virtual IMF and World Bank annua
l meeting [35]. The Manager of the BIS said:
"CBDC.. will be the third type of liability of a central bank.. we tend to establish the equivalence with cash and there is a huge difference there. For example in cash we don't know for example who is using a $100 bill today.. A key difference with the CBDC is that the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that. Those two issues are extremely important and that makes a huge difference in respect to what cash is.. If an advanced economy issues a CBDC and somebody in a third country wants to use it, they will require the consent of the central bank of the residency of that person.. The degree of control will be far bigger.. I think this is good news."
Speaking at the same virtual conference the Chairman of the Fed, Jerome Powell, said:
"For many of the world’s central banks, discussion of CBDCs has shifted from 'if' they will be developed to 'when' they will be introduced and widely used."
The BIS have been dreaming of CBDC for years. In 2017 the BIS were openly discussing what they were then calling Central Bank Crypto Currencies [36] (CBCCs). They were aware that cryptocurrencies afforded the user anonymity:
"The peer-to-peer element of the new technology has the potential to provide anonymity features that are similar to those of cash but in digital form. If anonymity is not seen as important, then most of the alleged benefits of retail CBCCs can be achieved by giving the public access to accounts at the central bank."
The BIS concluded that anonymity was not important especially as the CBDC model gives them absolute control. In January 2020, the BIS published a research paper [37] looking at the impending arrival of CBDC. They found:
"80% of central banks.. are engaging in some sort of work.., with half looking at both wholesale and general purpose CBDCs. Some 40% of central banks have progressed from conceptual research to experiments, or proofs-of-concept; and another 10% have developed pilot projects."