ONE HEALTH

[rachel]

From @_Escapekey_

I wasn't looking for this, but I've been fully expecting it.

The Sri Lanka solution is absolutely on the table. In 2021, their president essentially outlawed chemical fertiliser, and within a few months, the nation collapsed.

https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads ... utions.pdf

... in a way, it's of somewhat encouragement that this is a fairly recent initiative.

Environmental justice amirite?

Billions of deaths will be caused, because the world is dependent on chemical fertiliser, as clearly evidence through Sri Lanka's experience.

... I wrote on Sri Lanka's experience a while back.

It was no accident. It was not economic issue. It was because the president outlawed chemical fertiliser - yet, the media lied about it.

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/sri-lanka

The 'Pesticide Action Network' accidentally this whole report.

Given this, frankly, reckless endangerment of human life, I'd say it should be preserved.

https://web.archive.org/web/20211007213 ... report.pdf

... oic, some 'friends of the earth' connected NGO...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_Action_Network

... and I still cannot believe that ARCO is involved. if Lindsey Williams was telling the truth, then... sheesh.

a friend and I used to play buzzword bingo whenever he was on AJ back in the day...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth

[rachel]

More from _Esc. He likes using ChatGPT
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1761357702905634998?s


Yeah - got it. This nut has taken a while to crack.

Once we have 'One Health' in place, they'll move onto 'Planetary Health' which is about setting the high-level global policy agenda.

'Planetary Health' then uses the 'Ecosystem Approach' to manage not just land but also full ecosystems using a 'Participatory Stakeholder Process'.

And that 'Stakeholder Selection Process' for the record is 'iterative', meaning that all those who disagree are booted.

What they're trying to push through is top-down authoritarianism, where all the proles are sided with all the other animals, and cut down to size because our impact on Earth is deemed to be too large.

And hey, thanks for the broad agreement, ChatGPT. When you know where you're heading, it doesn't tend to lie and omit as much.

... won't bother torturing truth out of ChatGPT. It's an open possibility, and will obviously happen.

Their 'stakeholder selection process' will start with top dude selecting a crony, and then they pick people who agree. Any disagreement leads to the boot.

Authoritarianism.

Oh wow - that was easy.

hahahaha thank you very much for confirming my suspicions, ChatGPT, and thank you, establishment, for creating the tool for me to validate this

they are pushing through authoritarianism and... let me see... who floated the Planetary Health bs again?

... I'm sure the name starts with 'R'... hmm, was it Rhodes.......?

... Planetary Health was only just invented in 2015 by the Lancet and Rockefeller...

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals ... 0901-1.pdf

... and yeah - it's all General Systems Theory.

The authoritarians are planning on turning everything into a programming model which they control.

for the record, I discovered a paper titled 'Hard choices: Making trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and human well-being' doing research on Resilience Thinking

those 'hard choices' will eventually be turned on you

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/resilience-thinking

... and let me just snap this data node to the hierarchy -

Covid-19 leads to One Health which leads to Planetary Health which as an active instrument of policy uses the Ecosystem Approach which through its stakeholder selection process turns into an authoritarian dictatorship

'it is not the sole factor'

that's a terrible defence, ChatGPT. your masters will need to 'update' your database. 'improve' it.

'iterate' out knowledge.

This part is obvious, of course, but yeah, an authoritarian could have used Covid-19 as a means of seizing power.

[rachel]

And since _Esc mentioned Hitler, the Nazi Party and emergency measures...

[rachel]

Already in 2006. Digital ID was discussed behind the scenes of the EU.

https://substack.com/profile/41444108-e ... c-50601263

‘RFID and Identity Management in Everyday Life’ [2006].

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT - Scientific Technology Options Assessment.

It’s an interesting dive into RFID and ultimately Digital ID, because this took place at the same time as Tony Blair’s (failed) attempt to push through the National ID card scheme, with Clare Sullivan lurking in the shadows.

‘This trust in the limited function of the system is somewhat justified. Unlike, for example, GSM, GPS or Internet data, RFID data currently only provide a very fragmented image of its users‘

Of course, this changed… rather a lot later on…

‘Within these limited settings, many systems still run parallel to the system they are supposed to replace: paper tickets, barcodes, cash, iron keys, magnetic cards, etc. This could limit the convenience for the users, but it also provides them with more choice and limits the possibilities for control by the maintainer. In other words, a poor digital identity is not worth managing.‘

What’s lacking is integration between services -

‘This could change in the coming years. According to the experts with who we discussed our findings, a number of developments are likely to take place that will lead to an ‘Internet of things’ in which RFID will play a key role.‘

… and here we are -

‘Once every citizen holds an RFID version of these identity cards, the databases running within these systems will provide a real-time overview of all movements within the system.‘

… and there’s the legit fear - outlined in 2006.

https://web.archive.org/web/20090207211 ... 579200.pdf

[rachel]

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1764286531135537418

With a focus on the run-up to the UNFCCC/CBD scam passing in 1992, here's the timeline as I (currently) see it (where cc=carbon credits/UNFCCC, bd=biodiversity/CBD) since the first paper on carbon credits came to be, and leading up to when it was essentially pushed through via the 1992 UNFCCC framework treaty.

The GEF serves both the UNFCCC and CBD, which makes sense as they are two sides of the same coin.

• 1975 [cc] - IIASA pens the first paper on carbon pricing
• 1976 [cc]- The driver of the global warming narrative in the 1970s, Bert Bolin, testifies in front of the US senate, states they know virtually nothing about the carbon cycle
• 1977 [cc]- Clean Air Act Amendment of 1977 includes offsetting
• 1977 [bd] - At the first World Wilderness Congress, Edmund de Rothschild conflates banking and finance with the environment
• 1978 [cc] - IIASA workgroup declares to know less about the carbon cycle than they thought they did 10 years earlier
• 1979 [cc] - ‘carbon consensus’ is magically reached at ICSU-arranged invite only conference which debates policy not science
• 1980 [bd] - Conservation Foundation featuring Barbara 'Spaceship Earth' Ward releases book on Air Pollution Offsets
• 1980 [bd] - IUCN; World Conservation Strategy - Living resource conservation for Sustainable Development
• 1982 [cc] - EPA policy - includes trading, offsetting, banking of carbon emissions
• 1982 [bd] - World Charter for Nature is launched
• 1984 [bd] - Thomas Lovejoy floats the idea of debt-for-nature swaps in New York Times article
• 1985 [cc] - Ozone Layer lies
• 1985 [cc] - Tietenberg's enormously influential work; ‘Emissions Trading’ is released.
• 1986 [cc] - EPA iterates emissions policy
• 1986 [bd] - Michael Sweatman floats idea of World Conservation Bank
• 1987 [cc] - Montreal - emission permit transfers
• 1987 [bd] - With attendance of Brundtland, Strong, Rothschild and Rockefeller, a World Conservation Bank is proposed at the 4th World Wilderness Conference, further drags in Biosphere Reserves, global surveillance, development + environment, even spaceship earth
• 1987 [bd] - Conservation International involved in first debt-for-nature swap with Bolivia
• 1988 [bd] - World Bank anything but enthused about debt-free-nature swaps
• 1989 [bd] - GLOBE established (Global Legislators On Balanced Environment). Al Gore and John Kerry early members. Immediately sets out to lobby.
• 1989 [bd] - Iwokrama offered by president of Guyana as reserve
• 1989 [bd] - French Finance ministry offers $100m to launch the World Conservation Bank
• 1990 [cc] - Carbon offsetting language arrives in IPCC working group 3
• 1990 [cc] - Contingent Valuation Model dismissed by expert yet they carry on
• 1991 [cc] - UNCTAD discusses emissions trading
• 1991 [cc/bd] - The World Conservation Bank - ie, the Global Environment Facility - is launched.
• 1992 [cc/bd] - The CBD and UNFCCC passes in Rio with major help from Al Gore. The latter includes language on carbon sinks and sources ie offsetting.
• 1993 [bd] - Iwokrama receives $3m GEF grant

[rachel]

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1763975583703105710

Voices of the Wilderness (1st World Wilderness Congress) [1977]

Edmund de Rothschild did indeed contribute a... really boring paper, but a few aspects are of interest.

First off, the predictable man-is-the-enemy talking point is delivered, education and awareness is stressed.

He then namedrops a few people including Winston Churchill, delivers heart-warming sob stories about how they 'transformed the landscape' without 'spoiling the environment', before delivering a quote by Nietzsche -

'Inescapably, hesitantly, terrible like fate, the great task approaches: how should the earth as a whole be administered? To what end should man, no longer a people or a race, be raised and bred?'

But what's also of note is that he also helped launch the UK branch of the Wilderness Leadership Foundation in 1976 (which went on to become the WILD Foundation) - started through an idea in 1957 (same year as carbon dioxide levels were first measured), and that he was a delegate on the first World Wilderness Committee.

https://wild.org/wild-congress-old/publications/

Michael Sweatman - who introduced the World Conservation Bank concept - was a long term senior with the WILD Foundation. Will find link but with them for like 30 years or so.

https://wild.org/wp-content/uploads/201 ... t-2011.pdf

Mezzanine-based finance? Asset-based lending?

He’d be a great fit, coming up with a blended finance, debt-for-nature swap financial weapon of mass destruction

https://web.archive.org/web/20010301195 ... ichael.htm

Sweatman was chairman of the WILD Foundation

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNABQ982.pdf

Right so here’s the UK dept itself in the matter

It launched in 1974 - not 1976 - and no mention of Rothschild.

This is why I know they’re more influential than they let you know.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070621073 ... 072144750x

... per WILD Foundation's own website -

'Proposed the establishment of a World Conservation Bank, or Fund, the first call for new conservation finance mechanisms, which eventually led to the $1.1 billion Global Environment Facility.'

https://web.archive.org/web/20060215230 ... /wwc4.html

Iwokrama, Guyana is the worst managed rainforest I've ever heard of.

O/c, 50% isn't fixed. So once they've chopped down the first half, they'll just seed that half and move over to the second half.

And that was the intent all along

https://web.archive.org/web/20100621132 ... asp?p=5452

The Global Environment Fund is the World Conservation Bank - Period!

Also - Edmund de Rothschild partook in the 1st conference in 1977, where he spoke on 'incorporating economics and banking as major issues on the conservation agenda'

Via the 6th conference proceedings.

[rachel]

Public Private Partnerships. PPP. Tony Blair's Third Way. Fascism.

Henry Lamb on Global Governance and the Future of the United States

7 Oct 2015
Lecture presented by Henry Lamb at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness held in Colorado Springs, Colorado; July 2002

On Faketube here: https://fakeotube.com/video/6906

[rachel]

https://web.archive.org/web/20020720063 ... eedom.org/

Are there limits to liberty?

July 20, 2002

I shock many students on the first day of my Property classes by defining property ownership in terms of control: whoever gets to make decisions about an item of property is the effective owner, regardless of what legal definitions may have to say about title. I then propose the following application of a property principle (which I ask them only to understand, not necessarily to agree with): "based upon what I have just stated, I may do whatever I want with my property, without any restrictions or limitations whatsoever. If I may not do so, then someone else - the one restricting my usage - is the owner." There is a good deal of uneasiness in the classroom, with students wanting to amend my proposition by saying "as long as you don't harm another." I respond, "I will accept no such qualifications to my principle: if I am the owner of something, I get to decide what I shall do with my property!"

"Perhaps the following hypothetical will help you," I explain. I proceed to hold up an eraser, and tell them: "imagine this is my brick. Imagine, further, that you have a lovely plate glass window in your house, and that I would like to throw my brick through your window. Based upon the principle I have just enunciated, am I entitled to do so?"

Many of the students begin to give in, saying "yeah, I guess so." But eventually, there will be one or two who will catch on and reply: "you only said that you could do with your property as you saw fit, and my window is not your property!" I go on to explain how the property boundary defines the range of my authority: I may break my own window with the brick - or hit myself over the head with it, if I choose - but I may not, consistent with a property principle, intrude upon your property.

At this point, my students are prepared to consider the broader social implications of "property." I tell them that this is not a course about "things," but about the relationships of people to one another concerning the question: who gets to make decisions about what?, a question so ably put by the late Robert LeFevre. "Who gets to make decisions about the lives and other property interests of people? Will individuals do this for themselves, or will others exercise such authority over them? In other words," I go on, "this is a course in the social application of metaphysics."

In time, most of my students begin to gain an understanding that individual liberty and the private ownership of property are synonymous concepts. To enjoy liberty is to exercise unrestricted authority over not only your life, but over those extensions of your life that we have come to regard as property. Because every living being must occupy space and be able to consume external sources of energy in order to continue existing, the property question goes to the very essence of life itself.

And so, we return to the question asked by this article: are there limits to your liberty? If you have learned to accept the necessity for leashes and leg-chains on human nature, you will probably regard an affirmative response as a self-evident proposition. But if you do answer "yes," then who will define those limitations? Do you not see that whoever you acknowledge as the definer of your liberties can set them as narrowly or as broadly as they choose, restricted only by a fear of your possible resistance? Is it not also evident that, by presuming to direct the range of your behavior, they have set themselves up as the masters of your life?

What can be said of the comparative states of mind of those who insist upon their unrestricted liberty, and those who are prepared to accept restrictions that others - particularly the state - have placed upon that liberty? The former will vigorously oppose such intrusions, asserting a claim to immunity from trespass as the basis for their insistence. There is, within such persons, a kind of spiritual imperative that will not allow for the subjugation of those autonomous qualities that give expression to all of life.

On the other hand, for those who have accepted state limitations upon their liberties, their response to further restrictions will amount to little more than a plea for indulgences. For so long has their systematic conditioning alienated them from the life spirit that, like trained animals, their aspirations reach no further than to be well fed, well cared for, and made secure from fears.

The conflict-ridden nature of modern society is largely accounted for by the kind of thinking which, in F.A. Hayek's words, amounts to a "fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces." Unable to see, in a system of privately owned property, the informal processes by which the exercise of our liberties are self-limiting (i.e., the range of what you or I may properly do is constrained to the boundaries of what each of us owns), many resort to the state to define the scope of liberty. It is because of the wholesale abandonment of the property principle that we now experience, in statism, what Thomas Hobbes saw in a "state of nature," namely, a "condition of war of every one against every one," and for which he envisioned the state as a solution!

Since Hobbes, we have had three and a half centuries of experience with statism from which to judge the consequences of restricting the liberties of free men and women. Given the 200 million humans killed by wars and genocidal practices in the 20th century alone, the depressions and other economic dislocations caused by state intrusion into the marketplace, and the countless number of intergroup conflicts and bloodbaths perpetrated all over the globe, it is not individual liberty that ought to be on the defensive, but the state! It is state operatives - systematically regulating and despoiling our property interests - who are greater threats to our well-being than the occasional muggers.

But to fully appreciate how privately owned property and individual liberty can generate order in our world, we must be prepared to accept the property principle as an unqualified social system. It is meaningless to assert "I believe in privately owned property as long as the owner behaves as I want him to." To take such a position is, again, to have external authorities defining the range of our liberty. Voltaire's classic statement ("I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it") has long been insisted upon by intellectuals, who find it useful for preserving the liberties in which they are interested. But what if we were to extend the range of this proposition to human action in general? What if we substituted the word "do" for "say" in this quotation, remembering that the "doing" is confined to one's property interests?

A test of our commitment to liberty is found in our willingness to respect the authority of each of our neighbors to have unrestricted power over their individual lives and property. This is often difficult for us to do, particularly when we see others engaging in conduct that greatly offends our tastes and sensibilities. Let us see how far this respect for the liberty of others will take us.

Because the property principle, by definition, precludes a person from trespassing upon the life or property interests of another, victimizing crimes - all of which are property trespasses - are not defensible as exercises in liberty. The man who is beating up, murdering, or raping another person, is not doing with his life or property as he sees fit - just as in my brick/plate glass window example - but is violating the property interests of his victim. But what about practices that might be distasteful to us, but for which no property trespass is involved?

Let us take the example of a men's club that chooses not to allow women as members. A sign appears at the entrance to this club expressing such a policy. A woman tries to join the club and is refused. Since no one has a property right entitling them to do business with an unwilling buyer or seller, would you defend the club's lawful right to exclude this woman? I am not asking if you would approve of its decision, but whether you are prepared - for the protection of your own unfettered liberty - to support the club's right to make such a decision? Do you understand that the unrestricted liberty to decide with whom to share - or exclude from - what is yours goes to the very essence of property ownership? From the same civilizing sentiments that allow you to respect the liberty of others to attend churches of which you might disapprove, can you acknowledge this organization's rightful authority to engage in an act you might find offensive?

If you answer "no" to this question, you have surrendered as much authority over your life and property as others are prepared to persuade the state to exercise in furtherance of their interests or values. Today's prohibition of private gender discrimination can become tomorrow's mandate of segregated practices. You cannot place provisos, qualifications or riders on the property principle - no matter how narrowly defined or how fervently desired - without opening the door to anyone else to place their favored restrictions upon you.

Those who dislike such discriminatory practices are, of course, free to exercise their liberty by refusing to do business with this club or its members, and to try to persuade others to do likewise. But by calling upon the state to forcibly deprive the club of its authority to exclude whomever it chooses to exclude, we quickly descend to the kind of society we see all around us: a world of claimants upon the lives and property of others, and with no respect for the inviolability of either.

The idea of "limited liberty" is as self-contradictory as notions of limited pregnancies, squared circles, or dry rain. Liberty, like genuine love, is indivisible and unconditional, not subject to such qualifications as "provided that" or "as long as." For the same reason that conditional love is but a form of affection, conditional liberty is but a synonym for state-conferred privileges. Those who argue for liberty on such limited grounds are doing nothing more than pleading for an extended leg-chain! (June 25, 2002)

By Butler Shaffer

[napoleon]

https://web.archive.org/web/20020720063 ... eedom.org/

Are there limits to liberty?
good read that rachel,bit scary

[rachel]

https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1768405404571075033


Sooo... here's how I see the Berlin Principles, in flowchart form ie, through Systems Theory.

I also start to grasp how One Health includes additional detail to a part of this.

It's... a fairly shoddy deal for the common garden prole. It's a setup to get plucked.

... it's an almost perfect outline of a top-down technocracy.

... and I know this is somewhat cryptic. I need to iterate my own understanding, because it's not quite there yet. But practise, and all. Consider it version 0.1.

Here's what I extracted from the Berlin Principles during a 2 hour flight earlier today -

Planetary health (1, 10)
Strong governance (2)
Science leads to policy (2)
Health and biodiversity integration (2, 6)

Governance
Holistic (5)
Adaptive (5)
Technocracy (2)
Takes input from stakeholders
Turns science into policy (2)

Policy Instruments
Carbon emissions (UNFCCC) (3)
Land use (CBD) (4)
Subsidies (per above, energy and food) (5)
Funding mechanism (7)

Stakeholders
Objective is global health + biodiversity (9)
Participatory selection process (9)
NGOs, public, private, indigenous peoples (9)
Receives surveillance input (8)

Surveillance
Cross-sectoral and trans-disciplinary (8)
Environment (GEOSS) (5)
Health (EO4HEALTH) (8)
Biological diversity (GEO BON) (8->6)

The people
Under strong health governance (2)
Will receive information and education (10)
Global citizenship (10)


one of the more important parts is that science absolutely is king. and whoever is in control of the 'strong governance' will produce project teams, and these teams will - through iteration - cherry pick stakeholders in a absolutely unparticipatory way.

the project team, however, can ultimately get rid of anyone they don't like, but the governance can even decide to completely ignore all input, and just 'translate science into policy'.

so this all comes down to who controls 'the best available science'

and that would be the NGOs. funded by... the foundations.


suddenly recall Michael Marmot's 2008 WHO Social Determinants of Health report - which outlined surveillance Marxism, but also stated that said surveillance data would be judged by a comrade for 'fitness of purpose' meaning its ultimately irrelevant


here's 3)

and it ties in with SDG 16.9, and none of your pesky facts will matter, the evaluation of the surveillance will be judged by a commissar - but don't worry, he'll be a good, reliable party member

... yeah, this is communism.

And it's also One Health.

What's remarkable is that this was penned in 2008 in parallel with early One Health initiatives kicking off.

but, and to post this again, this maps right into Heidi Larson and co's 3-D commission's 'work'

24/7 realtime global surveillance of the 'social determinants of health' aka everything

https://escapekey.substack.com/p/the-te ... nd-the-3-d