Mark Carney Part 2 - The Globalist Ruling Class Connections

In part one of this two part posting, we looked at Mark Carney - The Environmentalist.  In part two, we'll take a look at this influential individual and his connections to the global elite.

 

1.) The World Economic Forum - The World Economic Forum, created and led by Klaus Schwab and architect of the Great Reset and the dystopian "It's 2030, I don't own anything and I'm happy" mantra, defines itself as follows:

"(The World Economic Forum) serves the needs of the international community by providing a platform for advancing systemic improvements in cooperation and governance through the engagement of multiple stakeholders, industries, technologies, regions and intellectual disciplines. The Forum’s vision and role are uniquely suited to these fast-moving and complex times, requiring agility, engagement and support from leading stakeholders from all walks of life, the creative application of interdisciplinary skill and a high-performance team."

Mark Carney is one of 31 members of the WEF's Board of Trustees as shown here:

...and here:

2.) The Group of Thirty (G30): G30 describes itself as follows:

"The Group of Thirty, established in 1978, is an independent global body comprised of economic and financial leaders from the public and private sectors and academia. It aims to deepen understanding of global economic and financial issues, and to explore the international repercussions of decisions taken in the public and private sectors. The Group is characterized by the extensive experience of its members and open-minded, forward thinking."

The Group has 31 members in addition to 8 senior members and 17 emeritus members who held leaderships positions in the public and private sectors as well as academia.  Currently, the G30 has six leaders within the central banking community and several others who became members while they were central bankers.  Thirty-four of G30's members formerly held senior positions in central banking of which 28 served as central bankers while a G30 member.  

 

Mark Carney is one of G30's current members as shown here:

...and here:

3.) Bank for International Settlements (BIS) - BIS is known as the central bank of central banks.  Its mission is to "support central banks' pursuit of monetary and financial satiety through international cooperation and to act as a bank for  central banks."

 

While Mark Carney is not currently a member of BIS, in the past, he has given a substantial number of speeches that are found on the organization's website as shown here:

He also served as Chairman of the Bank for International Settlements Committee on the Global Financial System from July 2010 to January 2012 as shown here:

4.) The Council for Inclusive Capitalism with the Vatican - The "Council" is "a historic new partnership between some of the world's largest investment and business leaders and the Vatican, launched today. It signifies the urgency of joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity. Under the moral guidance of His Holiness Pope Francis and His Eminence Cardinal Peter Turkson, who leads the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development at the Vatican, and inspired by the moral imperative of all faiths, the Council invites companies of all sizes to harness the potential of the private sector to build a fairer, more inclusive, and sustainable economic foundation for the world.".  The Council is led by a core group of global leaders who are known as "Guardians for Inclusive Capitalizms'. They meet annually with Pope Francis and Cardinal Turkson.  Mark Carney is one of the "Guardians/Stewards" or Council Members as shown here:

 

...and here:

...and here from the original announcement of the formation of the Council where he is part of the group then called a Guardians:

 

Now, let's look at a couple of bonus Carney connections:

 

5.) Brookfield Asset Management - Brookfield Asset management is, in their words:

 

"...a leading global alternative asset manager with over $600 billion of assets under management across real estate, infrastructure, renewable power, private equity and credit. Our objective is to generate attractive long-term risk-adjusted returns for the benefit of our clients and shareholders.

We manage a range of public and private investment products and services for institutional and retail clients. We earn asset management income for doing so and align our interests with our clients by investing alongside them. We have an exceptionally strong balance sheet, with approximately $59 billion of capital invested, primarily in our listed affiliates: Brookfield Property Partners, Brookfield Infrastructure Partners, Brookfield Renewable Partners and Brookfield Business Partners. This access to large-scale capital enables us to make investments in sizeable, premier assets and businesses across geographies and asset classes that few managers are able to do."

Mark Carney is one of Brookfield's directors as shown here:

Given Carney's position as the United Nation's climate change czar, it is interesting to note that Brookfield has significant investments in hydrocarbon businesses as shown here:

...and here:

While Brookfield has pledged to support the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, there is absolutely no guarantee that this target will be met.  The company also has significant greenhouse gas emissions from business air travel (which dropped in 2020 thanks tot the pandemic) as shown here:

6.) Stripe - Carney is a member of the board for Stripe, a global digital payments company building infrastructure for the internet as shown here:

Given Carney's penchant for Central Bank Digital Currencies, this directorship really shouldn't surprise anyone since Stripe's mission is "to increase the GDP of the internet".

 

From these two postings on Mark Carney, I hope that you have learned quite a bit about one of the members global ruling class.   With his position as climate czar for the United Nations, his links to some of the world's most influential NGOs as well, his links to the world's central banking system and his close links to the Liberal Party of Canada (and his potential run as a Liberal candidate in Canada's next federal election), we can be certain that his agenda will see the light of day if the global technocracy gets their way. 

Mark Carney Part 1 - The Environmentalist

While many people around the world have absolutely no idea who Mark Carney is, Canadians and citizens of the United Kingdom are very familiar with this gentleman.  As former Governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, two of the world's most influential advanced economy central banks, Mr. Carney is a leading figure in the world of central banksters.  As though that weren't enough, this darling of the global ruling class is also doing his best to influence the global response to climate change.  In part one of this two part series, we'll look at Mark Carney the "environmental evangelist" followed by an examination of his links to the global aristocracy in part two.

 

Let's start with this announcement from the United Nations, soon to be the world's sole parliamentary body if they have their way with the rest of us, dated December 1, 2019:

 

From the information that is available online, it would appear that while Mr. Carney has extensive experience in the field of finance, he has limited or no formal training in environmentalism, climatology, chemistry, physics or any of the sciences that are involved in formulating an educated response to impacting the world's climate, however, like his ruling class peer, Mr. Bill Gates who just happens to be the world's foremost expert on epidemiology, vaccinology and human health in general, one should never let a lack of training get in the way of forcing your ideas on the rest of humanity.

 

Here's what I could find regarding his qualifications:

 

Since his retirement from the heady and cloistered world of central banking at the end of 2019, Carney now happens to be a member of the Board of Directors of the Nature Conservancy of Canada, a Canadian non-profit conservation organization.  One would think that this would give him ample opportunity to flaunt his environmental and science credentials, however, such is not the case as shown here:

 

 

With that background behind us, let's look at some interesting comments that were made by Mark Carney during his tenure as climate "czar" for the United Nations.  Here is an interview of the Special Envoy that appears on the United Nations website dated January 2021:

 

Here is the first question:

 

"You have said that the goal of net zero is the greatest commercial opportunity of our time. Why?"

 

And, here's his answer with my bolds for emphasis throughout:

 

Climate change is an existential threat. We all recognize that, and there’s increasing urgency around it. But the converse is, if you are making investments, coming up with new technologies, changing the way you do business, all in service of reducing and eliminating that threat, you are creating value. And what we have seen increasingly, spurred initially by the Sustainable Development Goals, accelerated by Paris, and then by social movements and governments, is societies putting tremendous value on achieving net zero. Companies, and those who invest in them and lend to them, and who are part of the solution, will be rewarded. Those who are lagging behind and are still part of the problem will be punished.

  

How these companies and investors will be punished, he does not say but it is a rather threatening statement given his stature in the world of finance.

 

Here is another question:

 

"Why is mandatory carbon disclosure by large companies so important?

 

Here's his response:

 

"We all know that what gets measured gets managed. Climate change is not yet consistently measured, although the private sector has moved in this direction since Paris. We now need to make measurement and disclosure mandatory. That’s a priority of the UN COP26 climate conference in Glasgow at the end of this year."

 

And, the follow-up question:

 

"How do small companies figure in this?"

 

And again, his answer:

 

"If I’m running a company committed to net zero, what does that mean? It’s not just disclosing and managing the emissions in producing my product. It’s also the emissions involved in the energy I use, and the emissions all the way through my value chain, in other words, the emissions of my suppliers, many of whom are small businesses, as well as the emissions from people using a product. That company becomes responsible for disclosing all of those, and it has an incentive to manage all of those down. So it has an incentive to work with small businesses or choose those working towards lower emissions. 

 

If multinational companies focus on their emissions all the way across their value chain, many parts of which are based in developing countries, they have an incentive to invest and help reduce emissions there as well. It is quite powerful. That’s how emissions reductions can be pulled through economies and across the world."

 

So, in other words, even small companies will be expected to calculate and disclose their carbon footprint, an issue that will prove to be extremely expensive for very small family-run businesses who supply goods and services to megacorporations.

 

Let's close with this advice from a central banker on how we can all get involved in the global climate agenda, albeit, not at his level since he is far more important that we can ever hope to be:

 

"We all have a role in this adjustment. One of the most basic roles we have as individuals is asking questions. The bank that has our money, what’s their position on climate change? How well are they managing relative to net zero? If they give an answer you don’t like, you can move your money to an institutions that is part of the solution. 

 

One other thing, I’m not a politician. But I’ve worked around them many times, and when constituents ask questions it is very powerful. It tells politicians what people care about. Don’t assume that your politician cares about this issue as much as you do. But they will the more you and others raise it with them. And now is the time, because climate is becoming a mainstream issue, and a lot of big decisions are being taken."

Since we appear to be heading toward a cashless society funded by a universal basic income, the point about moving your money to another bank may prove to be moot.

 

I do agree - a lot of big decisions are being taken, unfortunately, the climate decisions being made by governments on our behalf are, at best, first order thinking where the ultimate impact of the decision is not considered (i.e. forcing us into electric vehicles but not considering where the electricity is sourced, where the plastic to make the vehicle is sourced and how the vehicles and the lithium batteries that power them will be managed once the batteries reach the end of their life cycle).

 

Should you happen to be interested in the entire interview, here it is:

 

While Mr. Carney's pontifications sound relatively reasonable, let's take a brief but only partial look at his personal impact on the climate.  Thanks to the Bank of England, here is a copy of Mark Carney's expenses for the period from January to December 2019, noting in particular the number of flights that he took:

 

 

In 2019, Mr. Carney took 26 flights (in business class) on official business for the Bank of England to various destinations around the globe, travelling as far as San Francisco.  In addition, there were 11 rail trips within Europe.  This does not include trips that were paid for by other parties on his behalf.  I dare say, that's quite a substantial carbon footprint, isn't it?

  

Let's summarize.  As you can see, Mark Carney is another of the global elite who preaches what he does not practice.  It's quite easy for the ruling class to tell us what to do regarding cutting back on our personal greenhouse gas emissions; it is quite another thing for the oligarchs who live by a totally different set of rules that benefits them commercially or personally.  With Mark Carney's growing influence in the global environmental/financial movement, you can be certain that you will hear from him or about him as time passes.  In part 2 of this posting, I will take a look at Mark Carney's connections to various ruling class organizations, some of which have plans in place for global domination.

Death from the Skies - America's Counterterrorism Drone War

While it almost never makes the mainstream/drive by media today, America's counterterrorism war continues unabated after nearly 20 years.  Thanks to research by New America, we can track Washington's actions in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.  In this posting, we'll look at the operations in Pakistan, Yemen and Libya, how many people were killed and how each presidential administration was involved.

 

1.) The drone war in Pakistan:  The first known American drone strike in Pakistan took place on June 19, 2004, killing Taliban leader Nek Muhammad.  Under the Bush Administration, the drone war was limited until 2008 when strikes escalated, continuing until they peaked in 2010 and slowly declined until May 21, 2016, the date of the last attack during the Obama Administration which killed Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour.  On March 2, 2017, the Trump Administration conducted its first strike in Pakistan after a 9 month pause.  Thus far, no attacks have taken place under the Biden Administration.

 

Here is a graphic showing the U.S. air and drone strikes in Pakistan by Administration and year:

 

Here is a graphic showing the deaths of militants, civilians and people of unknown status from these strikes by year:

 

Here are the total strikes and deaths by Administration:

 

Bush - 48 strikes killing 399 to 540 people (116 to 137 confirmed civilians)

 

Obama - 353 strikes killing 1,934 to 3,094 people (129 to 162 civilians)

 

Trump - 13 strikes killing 33 to 68 people (0 to 4 civilians)

 

Only 3.1 percent of the total people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan were militant leaders.

  

2.) Yemen:  The first known American drone strike in Yemen took place on November 3, 2002, killing Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harithi who was believed to have devised the attack on the USS Cole which killed 17 American military personnel.  This was the sole drone attack on Yemen under the Bush Administration.  Under the Obama Administration, a further 185 drone attacks took place followed by 106 confirmed strikes under the Trump Administration (with an additional 82 attacks with insufficient detail).  In 2017, the United States conducted more individually identifiable strikes than in any other year except 2012.  Over the period between March 2 and 6, 2017, the U.S. military undertook between 25 and 40 attacks using a combination of drones and air attacks.  Thus far, no attacks have taken place under the Biden Administration.

 

Here is a graphic showing the U.S. air and drone strikes in Yemen by Administration and year:

 

Here is a graphic showing the deaths of militants, civilians and people of unknown status from these strikes by year:

 

Here are the total strikes and deaths by Administration:

 

Bush - 1 strikes killing 6 militants (no confirmed civilians)

 

Obama - 1853 strikes killing 1,094 to 1,394 people (88 to 101 civilians)

 

Trump - 106 strikes killing 278 to 375 people (27 to 48 civilians)

 

Only 6 percent of the total people killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan were militant leaders.

 

Here is a map of Yemen showing how geographically widespread the American air, drone and ground operations are in Yemen:

3.) Libya: Libya is one of the many nations that have "benefitted" from the extension of America's armed drone program outside of the two main conventional war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq.  The Obama Administration's Presidential Policy Guidance (PPG) authorized drone and air strikes between August 2016 and December 2016 under Operation Odyssey Lightning with the goal of destroying ISIS' stronghold in Sirte.  Under the Trump Administration, PPG was replaced with Principles, Standards and Procedures (PPS) in 2017.

 

Libya's first civil war began on February 15, 2011 with backing from NATO, United States and the United Kingdom (among other members of the international coalition) and its replacement government was officially recognized by the United Nations on September 16, 2011 with the official end of the war being declared on October 23, 2011.  A second civil war began on May 16, 2014 between various militias  and ended on October 23, 2020 when a permanent ceasefire was signed and ratified between the opposing forces.

 

After NATO's intervention in 2011, various nations have undertaken a lengthy series of air, drone and artillery strikes in Libya since the end of the United Nations-sanctioned campaign on October 31, 2011.  Estimates show that 4517 attacks took place with between 624 and 915 civilians being killed between September 2012 and March 15, 2020 as shown on this table:

Here is a graphic which shows monthly strikes by each of the belligerents in Libya with LNA being the Libyan National Army, GNA being the Government of National Accord and GNC being the General National Congress which controlled Libya between 2012 and 2014, noting that the United States has been involved intermittently throughout the war:

Here is a graphic showing the U.S. air and drone strikes in Libya by Administration and year:

 

Here is a graphic showing the deaths of militants, civilians and people of unknown status from these strikes by year: 

 

Despite the fact that the ongoing War on Terror has received almost no coverage over the past year and a half, data from this study by New America would suggest that drone and airstrikes launched by Washington are still claiming innocent civilian lives in regions of the world outside of the conventional war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.On the upside, the continued use of these high tech weapons is making the corner office dwellers in the defense industry very, very happy despite the fact that these operations are negatively impacting thousands of innocent civilians who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

RT-PCR Diagnostic Testing - Differentiating Between Seasonal Influenza and COVID-19

A recent announcement from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warrants a closer look since it may explain some of the issues that appeared during the 2021 influenza season.

 

Here is a Lab Alert from the CDC dated July 21, 2021:

 

 

The CDC is pre-warning clinic laboratories and testing sites that, effective January 1, 2022, the CDC is withdrawing its request to the Food and Drug Administration for the Emergency Use Authorization of its CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel which was originally approved for use on February 4, 2020.  Test sites are advised to use one of the other 250 RT-PCR COVID-19 authorized molecular diagnostic tools as shown on this screen capture (which shows only a few of the approved tests) with the soon-to-be withdrawn CDC product highlighted:

 

Here is the key phrase of the CDC's Lab Alert:

 

"CDC encourages laboratories to consider adoption of a multiplexed method that can facilitate detection and differentiation of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses. Such assays can facilitate continued testing for both influenza and SARS-CoV-2 and can save both time and resources as we head into influenza season."

 

It would appear that the CDC's own RT-PCR diagnostic equipment is not capable of differentiating  between influenza and COVID-19 and, as such, is being withdrawn from service before the 2022 influenza season begins.

This issue with the RT-PCR testing equipment may go a long way to explaining why there were very few positive tests for influenza over the 2021 season as shown here:

...when compared to the 2019 and 2020 influenza seasons as shown here (note the dramatic change in the y-axis scale):

 

This begs two questions since the entire narrative of the COVID-19 pandemic was built on the foundation of the RT-PCR tests: 

 

1.) How many of the tests that were positive for the SARS-CoV-2 virus were actually detecting the virus that causes seasonal influenza during the 2021 flu season?

  

2.) How many of the other 250 RT-PCR COVID-19 molecular diagnostic tools that have been in use throughout the pandemic have the same issue of differentiating between the two viruses?

 

I'm guessing that we'll never know.

Addendum July 29, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration recently released information regarding RT-PCR tests that should no longer be used and/or distributed for COVID-19.  Here are the most recent tests that have been withdrawn from use:

In addition to these 22 tests which were removed from service on the July 6 and July 15, 2021 updates, the FDA announced the removal of an additional 267 tests on the July 2, 2021 update.

Here's what the FDA had to say about the removal of RT-PCR tests:

"The FDA had previously included them on the website notification list of commercial manufacturers distributing serology test kits under that policy, but they have now been removed from that notification list and placed on the list below. As noted in the guidance, if an EUA request is not submitted by a commercial manufacturer of a serology test within a reasonable period of time, or if significant problems are identified with such a test that cannot be or have not been addressed in a timely manner, the FDA intends to remove the manufacturer and test from the notification list."

Tests may also be removed voluntarily by the manufacturer.

A Template for Mandatory Vaccinations

Florida has been among the most open states when it comes to America's repose to the COVID-19 pandemic, and yet, as you will see in this posting, is prepared to take what can only be described as draconian measures to its emergency measures laws.

  

Bill CS/CS/SB/2006 "Emergency Management" is typical of government bills; extremely wordy and mind-numbingly boring to read.  Yet, as is the case with most legislation, the "devil is in the details".  Let's look at Section 17:

 

Paragraph (c) of subsection (1) and subsection (2) of section 381.00315, Florida Statutes, are amended to read:

 

"381.00315 Public health advisories; public health emergencies; isolation and quarantines.—The State Health Officer is responsible for declaring public health emergencies, issuing public health advisories, and ordering isolation or quarantines."

 

A public health emergency is defined as follows:

 

"“Public health emergency” means any occurrence, or threat thereof, whether natural or manmade, which results or may  result in substantial injury or harm to the public health from infectious disease, chemical agents, nuclear agents, biological toxins, or situations involving mass casualties or natural disasters."

 

Now, let's focus on lines 1097 to 1111 which are found under Section 17 with bolds being mine:

 

"Ordering an individual to be examined, tested, vaccinated, treated, isolated, or quarantined for communicable diseases that have significant morbidity or mortality and present a severe danger to public health. Individuals who are unable or unwilling to be examined, tested, vaccinated, or treated for reasons of health, religion, or conscience may be subjected to isolation or quarantine.

 

a. Examination, testing, vaccination, or treatment may be performed by any qualified person authorized by the State Health Officer.

 

b. If the individual poses a danger to the public health, the State Health Officer may subject the individual to isolation or quarantine. If there is no practical method to isolate or quarantine the individual, the State Health Officer may use any means necessary to vaccinate or treat the individual.

 

c. Any order of the State Health Officer given to effectuate this paragraph is immediately  enforceable by a law enforcement officer under s. 381.0012.

Basically, it is up to the discretion of the State Health Officer to determine whether the threshold has been reached that would require a public health emergency to be declared and as we have discovered during the COVID-19 pandemic, health officers and governments seem willing to stretch these emergencies for many, many months.  

In case it should change or disappear from the internet, here is a screen capture showing the pertinent section:

 

Here is the bill history noting that it when it was voted on in the Senate, it was approved with 23 yeas and 15 nays, when it was voted on in the House, it was approved with 78 yeas and 36 nays and that the bill was approved by the state governor on May 3, 2021:

 

And there we have it,  the template for mandatory vaccinations.  The Florida state legislature has just given the itself the right to isolate or quarantine individuals who present a "severe danger" to public health for an undefined period of time.  Even if your religion or health contradicts vaccination, the State Health Officer has the right to isolate, quarantine and vaccinate you.  If isolation and quarantining are not possible, the State Health Officer can use "any means necessary" to vaccinate or treat the individual.  And, just in case you think that you can just refuse, law enforcement officers are given the right to enforce this section of the bill.

  

Welcome to our collective futures.  If governments can lock us down for health reasons, there are many other reasons that they can lock us down, force us into quarantine and isolate us from our families and each other.