TRANSFORMING OUR LIVES 2030 (THE GLOBAL AGENDA) – THE PRINCIPLE =LEAVING NO-ONE BEHIND

Stakeholder Capitalism, the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal target 16.9 (legal identity for all), the necessity of inclusive Digital Transformation, and the core principle of Leave No One Behind.

These terms are frequently used by international organizations (such as the UN and World Bank) and private sector entities in discussions about sustainable and equitable global development in the digital age.

Key Concepts

Leave No One Behind (LNOB): This is the “central, transformative promise” of the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is an unequivocal commitment to eradicate poverty, end discrimination, and reduce inequalities, focusing on the most marginalized populations first. This principle is meant to cut across all 17 SDGs.

SDG 16.9: This specific target under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) aims to “provide legal identity for all, including birth registration, by 2030”. A legal identity is considered a fundamental human right and a prerequisite for accessing many other rights and services (healthcare, education, finance, voting, social protection), making it a key enabler for the entire 2030 Agenda.

Digital Transformation: The rapid shift towards a digitally enabled society offers immense opportunities for sustainable development but also risks exacerbating existing inequalities if not implemented thoughtfully. International bodies advocate for “inclusive by design” digital transformation strategies that place people and human rights at the center to ensure that vulnerable populations are not excluded from new digital services and opportunities.

Stakeholder Capitalism Partnership: This concept involves a business model where companies focus not just on shareholder value but also on meeting the needs of all stakeholders (employees, customers, suppliers, local community, and the environment). Literature suggests that this approach can foster global partnerships and provide an optimal source for promoting decent work, economic growth, and innovation in a sustainable manner, aligning with the SDGs.

Interconnection The provided phrase connects these elements as a framework for inclusive global progress:

  1. Stakeholder Capitalism Partnership approach is seen as a way to mobilize resources and bring together different actors (governments, private sector, civil society).
  2. This collaborative effort would drive a worldwide Digital Transformation that is intentionally designed to be inclusive.
  3. A core objective of this digital transformation is to achieve SDG 16.9 (legal identity for all), often by leveraging digital identity systems.
  4. The ultimate goal of all these intertwined efforts is to uphold the promise to Leave No One Behind in the digital era.

n 2025, the intersection of Stakeholder CapitalismSDG 16.9 (Legal Identity), and Digital Transformation has become a critical focal point for global development efforts aimed at ensuring no one is left behind.

Global Strategy and Progress 2025

SDG 16.9 and Legal Identity: As of 2025, approximately 850 million people worldwide still lack official identification, a fundamental barrier to accessing health, education, and financial services.

Leave No One Behind (LNOB): This remains the central promise of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, focusing on reaching the “furthest behind first” to eradicate poverty and systemic discrimination.

Digital Transformation as a Lever: The UN and its partners have identified digital transformation as one of six critical transitions needed to accelerate SDG progress by 2030.

Key 2025 Partnerships and Initiatives

Stakeholder Capitalism & Business Action: The World Economic Forum (WEF) hosted the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings 2025 in September to convene business leaders and policymakers on digital trade and inclusive growth.

Identification for Development (ID4D): The World Bank’s ID4D cross-practice initiative continues to support countries in implementing digital ID systems to achieve the SDG 16.9 target.

UN System-Wide Efforts: The 2025 ECOSOC Partnership Forum utilized global stakeholder consultations to harness the power of multi-sector partnerships for SDG implementation.

The SDG 16 Conference 2025 (held May 12, 2025) focused on how investing in peace, justice, and institutions delivers practical dividends for governments and people.

Risks and Challenges in 2025

  • Digital Exclusion: Experts warn that rushing digital solutions without robust legal frameworks can inadvertently “lock out” vulnerable groups, making them “invisible” to governments.
  • Data Protection & Privacy: Ensuring data protection alongside digital identity is a major challenge; misuse of biometric data remains a grave risk for marginalized populations.
  • Funding Gaps: Official Development Assistance (ODA) saw its first decline in five years in late 2024/early 2025, primarily due to shifting global priorities and debt crises in low-income countries.
  • In 2025, programmable and multi-functional digital identification systems have moved from theory to widespread practical implementation across several nations. These systems allow users to selectively share attributes, sign documents, and access integrated government and private services directly through mobile applications.
  • Countries with Active Systems (2025)
  • Bhutan
  • : In February 2025,
  • Bhutanintroduced its National Digital Identity (NDI), which uses self-sovereign identity (SSI) technology. By October 2025, key parts of the system were anchored to the public Ethereum blockchain, allowing residents to manage credentials for over 40 services, including banking and healthcare.
  • India
  • : The Aadhaar system, covering 97% of the population, has evolved in 2025 with a new mobile app that allows for offline verification via QR codes and face authentication. It is used for “programmable” benefits delivery, where subsidies are sent directly to bank accounts linked to digital IDs.
  • South Korea
  • : Launched a digital Resident Registration Card in 2025 that uses blockchain and encryption. It fully replaces physical cards for mobile banking and is tied to a specific smartphone for security; if the device is lost, the ID can be deactivated immediately via a telecom provider.
  • Brazil
  •  continues to expand its blockchain-based digital ID program, which began in 2023. This decentralized system links the Federal Revenue Service with state databases, ensuring data protection and preventing document fraud across all 27 states.
  • European Union (Member States):
  • Estonia
  • : A long-term leader, Estonia’s e-ID allows for digital signatures that are legally binding across the EU. As of 2025, it is transitioning toward the EUDI Wallet.
  • Austria
  •  & 
  • Spain
  • : Both launched or expanded mobile ID systems (ID Austria and MiDNI) in 2025, allowing citizens to store driver’s licenses and national IDs on smartphones for online and offline use.
  • Poland
  • : Over 8 million citizens use the mObywatel app, which is now legally equivalent to physical ID cards for most daily activities.
  • Emerging “Programmable” Features in 2025
  • Selective Disclosure: New systems in
  • China
  •  (launched July 2025) and the EU (EUDI Wallet pilots) allow users to verify specific attributes—such as being over 18—without revealing their full name or date of birth.
  • Conditional Access: The
  • United Kingdom
  •  announced a nationwide Digital ID in September 2025, which will become mandatory for employment by 2029.
  • Cross-Border Interoperability: In September 2025, 16 southern African countries (SADC) announced a regional cross-border digital ID infrastructure to enable federated e-KYC (Know Your Customer) for banking and payments.

In 2025, Programmable Digital Identification refers to identity systems where the credentials are not just static records but can interact with software (such as smart contracts) to automate actions based on verified identity attributes.

Key Features of Programmable ID in 2025

Smart Contract Integration: Digital IDs are increasingly tied to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and other digital assets. This allows “programmable money” to be released only when specific identity conditions are met, such as age verification or residency status.

Selective Disclosure: Users can “program” their ID to share only the minimum necessary data—for example, proving they are over 18 without revealing their actual date of birth or name.

Conditional Access: Access to services can be automated. For instance, a digital wallet can automatically unlock a rental car or a hotel room as soon as it cryptographically verifies the user’s booking and identity.

Machine-to-Machine ID: In 2025, “identity” has expanded to include IoT devices and AI agents, which use programmable credentials to authorize autonomous transactions.

Implementation by Country (2025 Status)

Bhutan: In October 2025, Bhutan’s National Digital Identity (NDI) anchored its credentials to the public Ethereum blockchain, making it the first national-scale system to use a public ledger for programmable identity verification.

United Arab Emirates: Recognized as the global leader in digitalization in 2025, the UAE uses the UAE Pass to allow citizens to sign documents and access 3,000+ services with a single, programmable biometric login.

European Union: In 2025, member states are rolling out the European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet, which allows citizens to store and “program” the use of diplomas, driver’s licenses, and IDs for cross-border services.

India: The Aadhaar mobile app (updated in 2025) now supports offline verification via QR codes and face authentication, enabling “programmable” interactions with private sector services without constant central database queries.

United Kingdom: In September 2025, the UK announced the “Brit Card,” a mandatory app-based system aimed for full rollout by 2029 to simplify interactions with healthcare and welfare.

Emerging 2025 Trends

Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI): A shift toward users owning their data on their own devices rather than in a central government “honeypot” database.

Liveness Detection: To combat AI-generated deepfakes, 2025 systems now mandate 3D face scans and micro-movement tracking as standard for “programmable” remote verification.

Continuous Multi-Factor Verification (MFV): Systems no longer just verify you at login; they continuously monitor behavior and device signals throughout a session to ensure the identity remains valid.

The World Bank Group, primarily through its Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative, actively supports the implementation of digital identification systems in developing countries but focuses on inclusive, secure, and interoperable systems rather than explicitly “programmable” ones in the commercial sense of smart contracts. Its focus is on using digital ID as a platform for service delivery and financial inclusion, guided by the 10 Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development to ensure data protection and privacy.

World Bank’s Approach to Digital ID

Goal: The ID4D initiative aims to provide a unique legal identity for all by 2030 (SDG 16.9), with over 800 million people worldwide still lacking official ID as of late 2025.

Focus on Service Delivery: The World Bank views digital ID as an enabler for essential services such as social protection, healthcare, and financial access, especially for the poor and disadvantaged. The integration of these services into a broader “service stack” or Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) allows for more efficient and automated service delivery, which shares characteristics with the functionality of “programmable” systems.

Technology & Standards: The Bank promotes the use of biometrics and digital databases to replace paper-based systems, ensuring systems are robust, interoperable, and conform to an overall standards-based architecture.

Data Protection & Rights: The World Bank emphasizes the need for strong legal frameworks, data security, and privacy protection, and provides guidelines for policymakers to consider as they modernize their ID systems.

“Programmable” Aspects within the ID4D Framework..While the World Bank does not use the term “programmable” in official documentation in the context of commercial smart contracts, the systems it helps implement have the functionality to automate conditional service delivery:

G2Px Initiative: ID4D works closely with its sister initiative, G2Px (digitalizing government to person payments), to facilitate the direct and efficient transfer of benefits to individuals’ bank accounts linked to their digital ID, a “programmable” benefit delivery in function. In Thailand, for example, linking digital IDs to bank accounts allowed for rapid distribution of emergency cash assistance.

Conditional Access: The ID systems supported in countries like Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are designed to facilitate linkages with national social registries and health insurance programs to ensure improved targeting of various social programs.

Criticisms .The World Bank’s ID4D program has faced criticism from civil society organizations regarding the potential for human rights violations. Concerns include:

The promotion of potentially harmful models of digital ID systems that use centralized, biometric data collection.

Instances where poorly implemented ID systems have reportedly led to the exclusion and disenfranchisement of marginalized populations, as alleged with the Aadhaar system in India.

A call for greater transparency and independent, rights-based assessments of the World Bank’s role in supporting these systems.

The World Bank Group and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) are involved in digital ID and currency discussions but maintain distinct approaches regarding “programmable” features.

World Bank Group & ID4D Initiative..The World Bank, through its ID4D initiative, supports developing countries in creating inclusive, secure, and interoperable digital identification systems.

Focus: The primary goal is achieving SDG 16.9 (legal identity for all by 2030) and using ID as a platform to deliver essential services like social protection, healthcare, and finance.

“Programmable” Functionality: While not using the explicit term “programmable ID” in the commercial smart contract sense, the systems they help implement enable automated, conditional service delivery (e.g., G2Px payments), which is functionally similar to programmable benefits distribution.

Principles: The initiative is guided by the 10 Principles on Identification for Sustainable Development, emphasizing data protection, privacy, and the minimization of risks like social exclusion.

 

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ)

The RBNZ is exploring a potential Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), referred to as “Digital Cash,” but has explicitly stated it will not program the money itself.

No “Programmable Money”: The RBNZ has clarified that it will not place limitations or constraints on how the digital cash can be used (e.g., expiry dates or restrictions on spending location).

Programmable Payments: Instead, the RBNZ aims to enable a system where third parties (fintechs, banks, etc.) can build innovative “programmable payments” on top of the digital cash platform. This would allow users to set up automated, conditional transfers (e.g., an automatic rent payment via smart contract), giving users control over their money, similar to automatic payments today.

Privacy and Control: A key design principle for New Zealand’s potential Digital Cash is privacy. The RBNZ has emphasized that neither it nor the government would be able to see an individual’s transactions or collect personal data.

New Zealand’s Digital ID Framework: New Zealand’s wider digital identity framework is governed by the Digital Identity Services Trust Framework Act 2023, administered by the Department of Internal Affairs (DIA). This framework focuses on secure, voluntary, and private digital credentials (wallets) that the user controls, rather than a central government-operated tracking system.

There is no formal partnership between the World Bank and the RBNZ specifically for a “programmable digital ID” or currency. The RBNZ’s work on digital cash and the DIA’s work on the digital ID framework are separate from the World Bank’s ID4D initiative, which primarily assists developing nations.

The term “China’s scorecard” most commonly refers to its national social credit system, which rates citizens and businesses on a scale of trustworthiness based on their behavior. The related but distinct digital identification system, officially known as the “Cyberspace ID” system, uses digital technology to link online activity to real-life identities, which complements the social credit system and allows for enhanced state control and surveillance.

China’s Social Credit System (The “Scorecard”)

Function: The social credit system assigns individuals and entities a score, typically ranging from 350 to 950 in pilot programs, which influences their access to various services and privileges.

Behavior Monitoring: The system tracks a wide range of actions, including financial responsibility, compliance with laws (e.g., traffic rules), and general social behavior like littering.

Rewards and Punishments:

High Scores (Rewards): Benefits may include cheaper loans, discounts on travel, and easier access to government services.

Low Scores (Punishments): Consequences can be severe, such as travel bans (being barred from trains or flights), denial of loans or mortgages, public shaming, and exclusion of children from top schools.

Goal: The government presents the system as a way to enhance trust in society and encourage better citizenship.

China’s Digital Identification System:-

Function: Rolled out nationally in July 2025, this system provides a unique, encrypted alphanumeric ID and a digital certificate to internet users after real-name and facial verification.

Integration with Surveillance: The digital ID system allows authorities to link online activities directly to a person’s national monitoring systems, effectively eroding online anonymity, which had already been curtailed by “real-name” registration laws.

Official Rationale vs. Concerns:-

Official Rationale: Authorities claim the system protects citizens’ personal information from data leaks and fraud by minimizing the data shared with private platforms.

Concerns: Human rights groups and analysts express serious concerns that the system is a centralized tool for mass surveillance and censorship, threatening online expression and potentially creating a “honeypot” of data vulnerable to massive leaks.

Status: While authorities maintain that the use of the Cyberspace ID is currently voluntary, some analysts warn it could become de facto mandatory due to its integration with major platforms like WeChat and Taobao.

IN 2025…CHINA’S  “scorecard” is primarily represented by its Social Credit System, which is now increasingly integrated with a centralized National Cyberspace ID. This digital infrastructure allows the state to track behaviors and apply “programmable” consequences—both rewards and punishments—based on an individual’s digital score.

The National Cyberspace ID System (Launched July 2025) On July 15, 2025, China officially implemented a unified digital identity system designed to centralize online authentication.

  • Encrypted Identifiers: Users are issued a “network number” (a unique alphanumeric code) and a “network credential”.
  • Centralized Control: Administered by the Ministry of Public Security and the Cyberspace Administration of China, this system replaces the need to provide personal data to private platforms like WeChat or Taobao.
  • Elimination of Anonymity: While marketed as a privacy tool, critics note it effectively links every online action—posts, purchases, and logins—directly to a government-controlled profile, ending any remaining online anonymity.

Programmable “Scorecard” Functions

The system functions as a programmable scorecard by linking behaviors to real-world access through the Social Credit System:

Behavioral Tracking: The system monitors actions such as shopping habits, social media interactions, and even jaywalking.

Dynamic Consequences:

High Scores: Citizens with high scores can access perks like cheaper loans, travel deals, and priority service.

Low Scores/Blacklisting: Low scores can lead to being barred from high-speed trains, planes, or luxury hotels, and can even prevent children from enrolling in top schools.

Real-Time Enforcement: The digital ID can be programmed to instantly block access to services if a user’s behavior is deemed “anti-social” or non-compliant with state rules.

Key Components of the Digital Infrastructure:-

Biometric Integration: The system relies heavily on facial recognition and national population data for verification.

Digital Yuan (e-CNY): China continues to expand its programmable digital currency, which can be restricted to specific types of purchases or geographic areas, further enhancing the “programmable” nature of citizen control.

Corporate Partnerships: Major platforms like Alibaba and Tencent are integrated into the system to facilitate state-led identity verification.

https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/5512706-china-internet-id-law/#:~:text=The%20digital%20ID%20system%20also,sensitive%20biometric%20records%20in%202022.

In this photo taken Thursday, Nov. 15, 2018, a computer screen shows the leaked online post from Guilin University of Electronic Technology warning of “hostile domestic and foreign powers” that were “wantonly spreading illicit and illegal videos” through the internet in Beijing, China. (AP Photo/Ng Han Guan)

On July 15, China passed new legislation known as the National Network Identity Authentication, also called Internet ID. Under this new law, Chinese citizens would voluntarily enroll via a government app, submitting their true name and a facial scan, after which they would be issued a unique ID code used for all online accounts. As of May, approximately 6 million individuals had already obtained IDs during the pilot phase.

Based upon the nature of the control the Chinese Communist Party has over media and censorship, it is not surprising the Chinese government desires the ability to track its population during their internet sessions, especially those citizens who would be critical of the current regime or dissidents that are living outside mainland China.

The new Internet ID law expands on an ongoing digital authoritarianism agenda pursued by China in recent years. Already, the Chinese government has demonstrated its growing capacity and willingness to monitor its citizens’ online activities.

From the widespread usage of internet backbone filtering through the “Great Firewall” to the mandatory real-name registration implemented since 2010, Beijing has increasingly restricted avenues for anonymous speech online. The new ID system is designed to further tighten the government’s grip on cyberspace at an individual level.

This law would enable the Chinese government, enabled by the new digital ID system, to centralize user identities in a government-controlled database, allowing authorities to track which user fronts which online account, even if platforms only see the anonymized token. This approach applies nation-state censorship in a more individualized way and introduces the possibility that content may be filtered or platforms blocked for certain users, both within China, where the government manages internet access, and potentially on a broader scale.

It could allow the Chinese government to use filters and blocking mechanisms within a platform to limit access to certain services associated with a personalized digital ID for specific individuals. While the legislation claims to be voluntary at launch, many fear that adoption could gradually become mandatory. In China’s regulatory environment, the “voluntary” label has frequently functioned as a transitional stage before compulsory enforcement.

Authorities have encouraged social media giants, e-commerce platforms and even payment providers to begin integrating the Internet ID into their user authentication flows. If access to essential digital services becomes dependent on possession of this ID, individuals may find their ability to function online is effectively contingent upon submitting their biometric and personal data to the state.

This law is just the next step in China’s desire for digital authoritarianism, enhancing the government’s ability to surveil, monitor, shape and control a population down to the individual citizen level.  The digital ID system also complements other previously designed surveillance systems, such as Sharp Eyespolice cloud systemsfacial recognition closed-circuit television systems and grid-style social management, allowing the Chinese Ministry of State Security to link online activities directly into national monitoring systems.

The digital ID system also complements broader data-localization and true-name tracking policies first enacted in 2017 under the Cybersecurity Law and fortified under the Personal Information Protection Law of 2021.

The Chinese government will argue that the system protects its citizens from fraud or other cyber-related crimes and is voluntary, but that voluntary argument fails the reality test, based upon mandatory aspects of previous digital legislation. This new digital ID system erodes the anonymity already curtailed by China’s real-name registration laws from 2010.

The other cybersecurity risk that a centralized database creates is the one-stop honeypot of data that, if compromised, could be catastrophic to the Chinese population, not unlike the past leaks of over 1 billion sensitive biometric records in 2022. Looking ahead, the introduction of China’s Internet ID is a decisive move further away from digital anonymity, putting powerful surveillance and censorship tools in the hands of the authorities.

If history is a guide, this technology may not remain voluntary for long. Its effects on privacy, civil liberties and the freedom of expression within and beyond China’s borders could be profound. As more platforms adopt mandatory digital ID checks, Chinese citizens face an even more controlled and surveilled internet for years to come.

James Turgal is the former executive assistant director for the FBI Information and Technology Branch and Optiv Security’s vice president of cyber risk, strategy and board relations.

Tags china Internet ID Chinese government Great Firewall Sharp Eyes

 

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/564790/china-tightens-internet-controls-with-new-centralised-form-of-virtual-id

China tightens internet controls with new centralised form of virtual ID  21 June 2025

China has mastered the craft of policing the internet, operating one of the world’s most extensive online censorship and surveillance regimes. With mandatory identity checks on every online platform, it has become almost impossible for users to stay anonymous. But this rigidly moderated online environment is about to face even stricter controls with the introduction of a state-issued national internet ID.

Instead of requiring individuals to submit their personal information for identity checks separately on each platform, the government now seeks to centralise the process by issuing a virtual ID that will allow users to sign in across different social media apps and websites. The rules for the new system, currently voluntary, were released in late May and will be implemented in mid-July. It aims to “protect citizens’ identity information, and support the healthy and orderly development of the digital economy,” according to the published rules.

Experts, however, have raised concerns that the new policy will further erode already limited freedom of expression by forcing internet users to relinquish even more control to the state.

Since Chinese leader Xi Jinping took power in 2012, the country has further tightened its grip on the digital space through an army of censors. Deployed around the clock, they remove posts, suspend accounts and help authorities identify critics, quashing any sign of dissent before it can gain traction.

The finalised rules were announced after a proposal that was opened for public comment last summer, a typical step in China’s legislative process. During the course of the public consultation over the past year, the proposal faced backlash from law professors, human rights experts and some internet users. Yet, the finalised rules remained largely similar to the draft.

“This is a state-led, unified identity system capable of real-time monitoring and blocking of users,” said Xiao Qiang, a research scientist studying internet freedom at the University of California, Berkeley. “It can directly erase voices it doesn’t like from the internet, so it’s more than just a surveillance tool – it is an infrastructure of digital totalitarianism.”

Control of China’s vast portion of the global internet has largely been delegated to a decentralised range of different groups, with authorities relying partially on the social media platforms themselves to identify comments deemed problematic. Xiao warned that a centralised system using the internet ID could make it much easier for the government to wipe out a user’s presence across multiple platforms at once.

Shane Yi, a researcher at China Human Rights Defenders, an advocacy group, echoed Xiao’s worries. The system gives the Chinese government expanded power to “do what they want when they see fit” on the internet, as authorities are able to track users’ entire digital trail “from point zero,” she said.

At home, Chinese state-run media has called the internet ID a “bullet-proof vest for personal information” and touted the system as being able to greatly reduce the risk of personal data leaks. Already, more than six million people have registered for the ID, according to Chinese state-run media Xinhua last month, out of a total estimated online population of more than one billion.

A cybersecurity official from the Ministry of Public Security told Xinhua that the internet ID service was strictly “voluntary,” but the government encourages various industries and sectors to integrate with it. “Its goal is to provide individuals with a secure, convenient, authoritative and efficient means of identity verification, in support of the development of the digital economy,” the person was quoted as saying.

But experts have also questioned how voluntary the system truly is and highlighted risks of potential data breaches, as personal information is now being collected in a centralised manner. Haochen Sun, a law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said that, although the law presents the system as voluntary, it could gradually evolve into a system which users may struggle not to opt in to.

“If the government wants to promote this internet ID verification system, it can do so through various arrangements – essentially by encouraging people to adopt it, offering more conveniences in return,” he said. Sun also raised concerns about the increased risks of data leaks. “A centralized, nationwide platform inherently creates a single point of vulnerability, making it an attractive target for hackers or hostile foreign actors,” he said.

Government data breaches have occurred around the world. One notable incident in China involved a police database containing the personal information of one billion citizens being leaked online in 2022.

Criticism silenced..Although the new rules won’t take effect until mid-July, hundreds of apps started trialling the internet ID since last year.

The system was born out of a proposal by a police official early last year. Jia Xiaoliang, a cyber police deputy director in northeastern China who is also a delegate to China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress, first proposed the system during the Congress’ annual meeting in March 2024.

As soon as the government began soliciting public comments on the proposal last July, experts and legal scholars voiced opposition. Lao Dongyan, a prominent law professor at Tsinghua University, compared the system to “installing a surveillance device on every individual’s online activity” in a post on Weibo, an X-like Chinese social media platform.

The post was removed soon after, and her account was subsequently suspended from posting for three months, for “violating relevant rules.”

In late May, when the finalised rules were unveiled after a year, almost no criticism could be found online. Xiao explained that it’s not the first time authorities have spaced out the time between a proposal and its implementation, to allow critics to “blow off steam.” “It’s done deliberately … Many of their measures follow the same pattern, and they’ve proven effective,” he said. 

By John Liu, for CNN

WakeUpNZ

RESEARCHER Cassie

...

Global Governance Blog Posts View all Categories

Carol Sakey
Global Governance

A TOP DOWN DYSTOPIAN GLOBAL HEALTH GOVERNANCE

The WHO (UN) International Health Regulations are reported to be the most important multilateral treaty that regulates the global architecture for Health, Emergency, Preparedness, Response and Resilience (HEPR Architecture). Amendment to the WHO (UN) International Health Regulations, and a new  WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) will be introduced at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Both Helen Clark and Ashley Bloom has been in Geneva working on the Pandemic Treaty and the WHO IHR 2005 Regulations.  Ashley Bloomfield represented as Co chair for the West Pacific Region. Helen Clark Co Chair of the WHO International Pandemic Treaty working council.

The WHO International Health Regulations are being amended by unelected bureaucrats representing UN Nation States. There are major concerns about the Pandemic Treaty and the amendments to the IHR 2005 Regulations. Particularly as to the enormous extended powers of the World Health Organization (UN). Art 12 (1) of the IHR 2005 gives the Director General of WHO (UN) sweeping powers to declare a Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) otherwise known as an ‘Extraordinary Event’ which is determined to constitute a ‘Public Health Risk’ to other States.

A new category has been added to the IHR 2005 namely  ‘Intermediate Public Health Alert’ requiring ‘Heightened International Awareness’ of an undefined low threshold (Proposed in Article 12 (6) safeguards WHO against any  accusation of their powers to abuse the global system of Health preparedness and response. (Immunity). The Director General of WHO in response to such emergencies is to issue recommendations to States to adopt  Medical and Non-medical countermeasures this can have  far reaching implications on livelihoods, health, human rights and the economy of Member States. (Articles 15-17 and 48-49)

This can fast track, trigger development of a global distribution of unlicensed  investigational diagnostics, jabs through the WHO Emergency Use Listing Procedure (EULP). The fast tracking of emergency human trials (guineapig states). Proposed amendments (Art 12 (1)  9 and 10 increases the WHO powers over UN Nation States. Restricts States Sovereign Rights to legislate and implement legislation in pursuance of health policies set out in Article 3 (4) IHR. Also relies on the WHO powers to assess an alleged ‘Global Health Risk’ by relying on information outside of official channels. Thus giving UN Nation States only 24 hrs to verify WHO information to collaborate with the allegations that WHO have made, even if those allegations are unjustified.2

Who guards Who here, who guards the Human Rights, Freedoms of the people to voluntary consent? As citizens of NZ we should be highly concerned about losing our freedoms and rights to ‘Self- determination’ as a Sovereign Nations. The people are the Sovereign Nation. Those that reside behind the closed doors of Parliament are our servants not vice versa.  New Zealand’s I urge you to seek open public debate from those in Parliament because “if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck it probably is a duck”. We have Zilch transparency, no responsibility or accountability shown by those politicians.. the secrecy remains around the WHO Global Health Agenda. This certainly appears to be a top down dystopian dictatorship

A Global Health Architecture that covers everything in life on this earth through the embedded ‘One Health Approach’ that is entrenched in the International Health Regulations and the International Pandemic Treaty (Accord), this also includes compliance and obedience to the UN WHO Director General calling an Emergency Global Boiling Emergency (I kid you not) The ‘One Health Approach’. The control, management of ALL Human , Animals- wild and domestic, oceans, seas, rivers, estuaries, soil, plant life the whole Eco-System’. A top down unelected technocratic bureaucratic global health governance that make decisions over everyone’s lives. Using the COVID 19 Pandemic to justify this.

NZ’s members of Parliament are voted in, entrusted by the people, the people are the Sovereignty of NZ. They are put their to protect and  safeguard our freedoms, human rights, our country’s sovereign rights as a Nation State. There is no voice for the people to challenge this Global Health Governance in the public arena. Why would you trust these unelected bureaucratic, technocratic when they cannot even admit to the serious harms and deaths of all those people whom have died , seriously harmed by the ‘Human Guinea Pig Trials’ that they have supported and promoted (NZrs being used as Lab Rats). And still the COVID Jabs are rolling out.

We are looking at the WHO (UN) Director General having huge powers to monitor 194 UN Nation States populations, enabled by the political bureaucrats in Wellington. Helen Clark Foundation advisory to the Govts policy making. And Ashley Bloomfield look at their history do you trust them? A Mechanism exists called ‘The Compliance Committee and Universal Peer Review Mechanism’ refers to mechanisms to restructure our domestic health systems and the allocations of our domestic health budgets around ‘Pandemic Surveillance, preparedness & response activities. Global decision making over UN Nations States eg NZ. Through these Global Health Governance, the huge powers of the Director General of the Un and the unelected  Bureaucrats, Technocrats of UN Nation  States the proposals include a stronger push globally for immunizations (lots more lab rats- human clinical trials). With more of this authorities touting of the corrupt lying of  ‘Benefits are far greater than Risks’.. do you really trust this..

We know they are lying, they know- we know they are lying- but they just keep on lying’. Do you call this transparency.. I personally call this criminal and corrupt.  March 2022 the World Health Org., (UN) requested that ALL UN Member State authorities classify, count ‘All deaths that take place within 28 days of an individual obtaining a COVID19 test are to be classified as a COVID19 Death.  A police officer shoots and kills a man in New Lynn, this is recorded as a COVID19 death. Surely this actually is a way of masking COVID19 Jab deaths and also other deaths such as Suicide.?? New Zealand has a great reputation on the global stage for being a country of Human Lab Rats. For Human Clinical Trials  there must be many different ethic groups. NZ Fits the picture and all in one basket a small populated country on the other side of the world. NZ has the advantage over other countries.

NZ is the first country to see the first light of day. NZ lacks many medical drugs and some are too expensive for many NZrs to obtain. (Therefore NZrs make good guinea-pigs). Human Clinical Trials time wise much  quicker in NZ, therefore much cheaper than other countries. The government has been putting much more funding into Research over the last few years Research in New Zealand is funded by Government Grants, Scholarships, Corporations and Private Companies, also Global and NZ Foundations, Trusts, Charities and other Institutions. In 2020 alone NZ Government spent $1 billion on research and development in several sectors.

The MPI (Govt) have an annual Research Budget of $130 million. MBIE (Govt 2021 budget in research $56.12 million. The Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) in 2020 $50 million for Research and Universities NZ  funding on top of this is unknown. On top of this is Non-Government funding for Research Agriculture research funded by Dairy NZ, Zoetis Ltd., Corporation Ltd and Meat & Wool NZ Ltd.,  of course there are others too. There are huge amounts of funding being put into Animal Free Agriculture.

University of Invercargill received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Bill Gates lends a hand to Massey University Research into Ebola. The Global Cabal are making their mark locally…Gates Foundation funds research reports the Beehive (21/9/2020) $$27 million. (Speaker of the House is Winston Peters). He was referring to COVID19 Jabs development through global COVAX Facility. Peters said this will act as a pre-purchase of vax if successful. Winston Peters said “It’s important that all countries are able to access sufficient amounts of vaccines to protect their populations and contribute to getting the pandemic under control on a global level.

That “joining the COVAX Facility is complementary to other strands of COVID 19 Vax Strategy, which includes advance purchase arrangements with  pharmaceutical companies, investing in global research and increasing manufacturing capability” (Source Beehive Website) UN Member States are to vote on the amendments to the Health regulation and the International Pandemic Treaty behind closed doors, thus diminishing the right of Self-Determination of Democratic participation. Member States risk losing their sovereignty. WHO in two legal instruments include ‘non-questionable leadership in health matters. WHO will have mass power over ‘ Health Emergencies of Public Concern’ (Article 13 (a) )

Artic 13A A power of mass power of health emergencies of public concern ‘One Health Approach’ is every thing. Level of CO2. Permanent measures declared by the WHO. Will have the right to declare recommendations declare, impose all kinds of restrictions, experimental treatments.

Art 18 Non binding is eliminated and is now binding vaccination. Will be able to decide all information including censorship and surveillance. IHR and the new pandemic treaty. No-one can challenge the WHO whether it be govts or the people.. the imposing of the regime of experimental jabs. (A No Stop  Button) . Self declare, authorize itself a public health concern and impose it as long as they like. Surveillance of the people and of the member state. No science, no legal court proceedings, no court of justice, no scientific process- no democracy. Basic principle that we have as human beings the right to know what we consent to is diminished. IHR by definitions of WHO are qualified as Binding regulations. Originally were non-binding, this has been scrubbed out replaced with  Binding. Thus a violation of Informed Consent. Self Determination of the People.. ( referred to in UN Charter 1946.  Human Rights) not protected, no checks and balances. Benefits will always be recorded that Benefits over risks even if the risks are much greater. A dystopian dictatorship future

Article 1 of the IHR 2005 amendments reference  ‘Health Products including therapeutics, vaccines, medical devices, personal protective equipment, diagnostics, assistive products, cell and gene based therapies and their components, materials or parts.. health products that include medicines, health technologies and know how. Includes organized set or combination of knowledge, skills, health products, procedures, databases, systems developed to solve a health problem, those also related to development or manufacture of health products or their combination its application or usage ‘Health Technologies’ are interchangeably used as health care technologies will be imposed upon  by the power of WHO . What was non-binding advice is now crossed out to say Binding

A principle has been removed from the original IHR as to “full respect for the Dignity, Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Persons”. This has been replace with:-The implementation of these regulations shall be based on principles of equity, inclusivity, coherence and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities of the States Parties, taking into consideration their social and economic development. All rubber stamped by NZ Government,.

The WHO International Health Regulation Amendments and the WHO International Pandemic Treaty (Accord) Articles 13(3) and (4) equates to the World Health Org., (UN) Director General having huge powers over UN Member States during a PHEIC.By deleting the phrase “At the request of the State party” and replacing  ‘MAY’ with ‘SHALL’ assistance offered by the WHO to a  ‘state in the response to public health risks becomes the default option.  If a state does not accept such offers for assistance within two days, it must justify this by declaring the ‘public health rationale for the rejection’ to all other WHO member states, potentially resulting in far-reaching economic and financial consequences for the rejecting state.

WHO assistance offered includes ‘Mobilization of International Assistance’, including on-site assessments, supported further by suggested amendments to Article 15(2) IHR, allowing the WHO Director-General and the Emergency Committees set up by him/her to recommend ‘the deployment of expert teams’ to states experiencing a PHEIC.   The interfering powers violating Sovereign Rights of the people of the Nation State. 300 Amendments have been proposed to the IHR (WHO). All to be concluded in the World Health Assembly gathering in May 2023

LINKS

https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-far-reaching-us-proposals-to-amend-the-international-health-regulations-at-the-upcoming-75th-world-health-assembly-a-call-for-attention/

https://www.nzavs.org.nz/how-research-is-funded  https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/27million-investment-global-vaccine-facility

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

CHURCH BELLS RANG FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM IN NEW ZEALAND ‘CORPORATE CAPTURE’ HAD BEGAN

23rd October 2009 The Mornington Methodist Church members were planning to ring their church bell 350 times over an hour, this was just one od six Dunedin Bells that would ring to support the 350th Day of Action. More than 4,000 events were taking place around the world on October 24th 2009 to encourage people to reduce their carbon emissions. 600 leaflets were distributed around a neighborhood in Dunedin. 350 Dunedin collective members groups as diverse as school pupils, musicians, artists, cyclists and skateboarders collaborated Dunedin’s Day Of Action to encourage Dunedin residents to reduce their fossil fuels.(Otago Daily Times 23/10/2009)

16th October 2008 (Pacific Scoop News) Ringing the Alarm on Climate Change (Release Anglian Church of Aotearoa. Church bells tolled up and down NZ on Saturday 24th October 2009. This was not a ‘civil defense emergency warning’. The church bells rang for the ‘350 Day’- global pointer to cut ‘carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere’. This was promoted by three Anglican Bishops. The Auckland Synod resolution was initiated by its Diocesan Climate Change Action Group, of which the convenor was Dr Richard Milne a Population Health Scientist. Milne said, at the time “remind church communities and individuals of the need to live more sustainably, to reduce their carbon footprint. He added “It’s particularly important, to make this statement before our government enters negotiations at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December”. The church gave a link to their website for further information on theology, science, economics, politics of global climate change (The link for the Diocesan Climate Change Action Group)

November 2009, at the Catholic Bishops Conference ‘Church leaders urged bolder action on climate change’  calling “political leaders to strive for a strong commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Climate Summit” for the strongest commitment by the international community at the Copenhagen Summit. October 2009 following a meeting with the Prime Minister of NZ the church leaders from the Anglican, Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist Churches and the Salvation Army churches released a statement outlining the environmental & economic impacts of climate change, and the importance of immediate action by the whole community. They applauded the steps that the past and present govt had taken, but felt that the urgency of the situation is not sufficiently understood, they reported. Catholic Bishop John Drew Wellington said “The world is perched on the brink of a Kairos moment”, described as a moment in the scripture  that is a moment of opportunity, grace and truth”

Bishop Drew said that “Scientists warn us that the “window of opportunity for change is very narrow”. This “narrow window of opportunity, has been heard and noted many times”. 14th September 2022, 13 years later the World Economic Forum reports that the “UN announced “We have a narrow window of opportunity to create a better future for everyone”. They were referring to ‘global society lurching from crisis to crisis. All the church leaders in NZ joined the World Council of Churches as they called ALL churches throughout NZ to ring their church bells at 3pm Sunday 13th December, midway through the UN Summit in Copenhagen, to call people to prayer and action in the face of climate change

The ‘narrow window of opportunity’ repeats itself time and time again. The UN Website 20th March 2023 14 years later, after the Church in NZ announced the “narrow window of opportunity. A major Un Report referring to the IPCC Greenhouse Emissions, a human caused climate change yet another “narrow window of opportunity” is reported by the UN. 7th November 2022 at a High Level UN Meeting the UN Secretary General announced “We need all hands on deck for faster, bolder climate action. A window of opportunity remains open, but only a narrow shaft of light appears”. A Headline Statement for Policymakers worldwide by the IPCC 4th October 2023 :This is a rapidly closing window of opportunity. Climate Home News 4th October 2023 ‘ a course correction on COP28 negotiating table refers to the “Global  Community and the window of opportunity is rapidly closing”. 23rd April 2023 ‘Off the Charts Records’ Has Humanity finally broken. “However, a tiny window of opportunity remans open to tackle global warming”

Yes the ‘Narrow Window Of Opportunity” has been repeated time and time again. What is this window of opportunity, I have asked myself, through the many hours and years of research I have done? I personally believe “it’s the destruction of the Global Free-market Enterprise Economy’. The exploitation of corporate multi-stakeholderism of Sovereign Nation States. The implanting of destroying Nation States to bring about a One World Governance under what is called Globalization’. The window of opportunity for Multi-stakeholder  Corporate wealth.. the Corporate Capture of the worlds economy, the massive transformation of populations throughout the world.. ‘The WEF/UN Great Reset’

The capitalist marketplace that is characterized by the dominance of hierarchical bureaucratic corporations. As Schwab announced to the world “Time for a Great Reset 3rd June 2020, he was then referring to the Global COVID crisis as n opportunity to build more sustainable systems. People Planet and Profit. A very wealthy profit for self interested corporations, large businesses. The Austrian Institute reported on 2nd June 2022 “The narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world, we need a better capitalism. Namely ‘Corporate Capitalism’. Corporate Capture

The Globe and Mail reported “Its Time For A Massive Reset of Capitalism 3rd June 2020. The pandemic represents a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimaging and reset our world”. (Not Our World But Their World). Harvard Business Review ‘Making Stakeholder Capitalism a Reality.22nd January 2020, spurred by Climate Change (Financing and Investing). As they report that ‘Larry Fink ‘BlackRock’, the worlds largest investor with $7 trillion in asset management. Reporting that his CEO’s received their annual letter “placing long term sustainability at the centre of his investment approach”, as the World Economic Forum kicks off the week as they update their manifesto, for the first time since 1973 saying “business must be the stewards of the environment, global supply chains referring to sustainable shareholders”

13th June 2019  (6 months prior to the global pandemic) the World Economic Forum and the UN signed an official partnership memorandum. This would give much more political clout and wealth for the UN to achieve its Global Development Goals of Agenda 2030. This being a trade off, as the corporations represented by the WEF would then be the whisperers in the ears of UN Agencies. The enabling of a One World Corporate captured Governance

In the wake of the COVID 19 Pandemic, transnational corporations sought to cement their control of the global governance, ensuring they served the interests of large businesses, corporations- for a very wealthy profit rather than the wellbeing of humanity. Transnational corporations are directly responsible for many global crises we face. As we view Corporate Capture in various forums throughout the world. This is a governance, the evolution of a parallel ‘privatized multilateralism’ made up of a myriad of ‘multistakeholder’ bodies.

The World Economic Forum has developed, pushed for privatization of global governance for decade. The ‘Great Reset’ is just the latest of the gradual corporate takeover of global institutions, such as the UN and other international bodies, that take critical decisions over the governance of global common goods such as food, water, health, internet and others.

Civil Society Groups in 2021 produced an open letter opposing plans for a Big Tech dominated Body for Global Digital Governance’ (Source of Information ‘Transnational Institute’). As for the churches supporting, ringing the bells in NZ, many have stated that “Christians have a particular duty to address the moral and human implications of climate change’. The Pope declared heavy criticism at climate deniers and delayers.  He called them “skeptics and irresponsible” (CNN 4th October 2023)

However George Pell saw climate science as a dangerous religious dogma  (The Guardian 13th January 2023). The Guardian reported that Cardinal George Pell left a legacy of ‘climate science denial’ which meant in his later years he became more distanced from his position in the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pell, for decades in newspaper columns and speeches “popularized climate denial, dismissed global heating, branded environmentalists as hysterical and in the grip of a pseudo-religion”. In one 2011 interview with the Catholic media Pell said “In the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate capricious and cruel Gods. Today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions”. Pell often announced that “Climate change was mostly natural and the science is not settled”

Professor Tim Stephens an International Environmental Law expert wrote that “ Pell was prolific, wrote many climate denial pieces. He said that Pell was “ caught up in the right wing cultural view of climate change being a hoax or a conspiracy”. Cardinal Pell died in Rome aged 81, he used his position as Australia’s most senior Catholic to forcefully reject the Climate  Crisis, the Guardian reported. On the eve of the Paris Climate conference in 2015, the former prime minister Kevin Rudd publicly challenged Pell, as Cardinal Pell was climbing the ranks of seniority in the Vatican. Rudd said “It was no small matter, that Pell was muddying the ethical waters with his radical climate skepticism”. But this did not stop Cardinal Pell criticizing the so called climate science”. Like all those real scientists whom publicly speak out about this Climate Alarmism, and the IPCC flawed, corrupt Assessment Reports, they are character assassinated, just as Cardinal Pell was. Public debate is soon shut down time and time again.

However Pope Francis in 2015 released his encyclical on the environment- Laudato Si- calling for global action on climate change to mitigate the risk of serious consequences for ecosystems and humanity. Forbes reported on 9th December 2020 that ‘Pope Francis with his Corporate Titans were to make Capitalism More Fair”.” Corporations to be Holier than thou”. Pope Francis’s virtual signaling to global populations worldwide. As he ignored the rest of society, jumped on the bandwagon of Lady Lynn De Forester Rothschild’s Corporate bandwagon. Yes, the pope spoke about the hundreds of millions of people in extreme poverty, he talked the talk but did not walk the walk. Pope Francis, the Vatican partnered with the Rothschild ‘Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ that boosts over $10.5 trillion in assets under management, companies with more than $2.1 trillion of market capitalization and 200 million workers in over 163 countries.

Members of the Council for Inclusive Capitalism’ calling themselves ‘Guardians’, these are top CEO’s of Corporations that include CEO’s of Mastercard, Dupont, Salesforce, Rothschild Inclusive Capital Partners, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, BP, Bank of America, the Rockefeller Foundation. These are the world’s top wealthiest elite. Key players of the World Economic Forum. The Corporate Capture of the World. Corporate Governance. Digital Governance. A One World Governance to control ALL populations worldwide.

Those church bells that tolled up and down NZ in 2009, should have been ringing for Corporate Alarmism, warning the people of New Zealand what was about to come. Communist Degrowth. Destruction of democracy, democratic states, totalitarian. The loss of the Free-market Enterprising economy- the freedom to choose. Replacing this for a Stakeholder Capitalism where peoples freedoms are seriously at stake. Today we have Eco Churches in NZ funded supported by Local Government.

Auckland Council website that refers to the WEF data. Klaus Schwab ‘4th Industrial Revolution’. Where did the caring churches of humanity go? Earlier this year I emailed the main churches in NZ requesting a ‘day of prayer’ for those jab injured, jab dead” and zilch.

The World Council of Churches that have collaborated with Governments, Authorities on mandatory COVID 19 Jabs, and the implementing of Climate Alarmism. The suffering of Eco Anxiety is reported by National Health in the UN, of the young and thevunerable. I have included my personal thoughts, and evidential information to share with you, for your response.

Links:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/12/09/pope-francis-partners-with-corporate-titans-to-make-capitalism-more-inclusive-and-fair-is-this-for-real-or-just-corporate-virtue-signaling/?sh=1ee896254c7b

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jan/13/george-pell-saw-climate-science-as-a-dangerous-religious-dogma-in-the-end-his-hardline-stance-held-the-church-back

https://www.tni.org/en/article/the-corporate-capture-of-global-governance-and-what-we-are-doing-about-it

https://hbr.org/2020/01/making-stakeholder-capitalism-a-reality

https://austrian-institute.org/en/blog/do-we-need-a-great-reset-or-more-capitalism/

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-its-time-for-a-massive-reset-of-capitalism/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/09/human-development-falling-behind-un-report-countries-global

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/church-bells-peal-climate-action

https://pacific.scoop.co.nz/2009/10/ringing-the-alarm-on-climate-change/

https://www.catholic.org.nz/news/media-releases/church-leaders-urge-bolder-action-on-climate-change/

 

 

 

...

AGENDA 2030- SDG 1 ‘COMMUNIST DEGROWTH ‘SUPREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POVERTY IS SIGNIFICANTLY HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME

UN Agenda 2030: 17 Global Development Goals 169 Targets over 230 Indicators. For starters ignore the warm fuzzy language. Starting from the very beginning, is a very good place to start to describe firstly UN Agenda 2030 SDG ‘End Poverty in ALL Forms Everywhere’.   Remember behind the masks of the fuzzies hides evil monsters.

NZ’s ugly monsters are the political cronies that hide themselves in the toilet bowl of Wellington. UN Agenda 2030 SDG1 – End Poverty in ALL Forms Everywhere’ equates to, really means  ‘Redistribute wealth and resources to make the super rich much more wealthier and the middle class poorer. The super rich have hugely increased their share of the worlds wealth.  The 2020 Wealth, Health  & Inequality Report stated the largest rise in billionaire wealth was recorded as never seen before. The wealthiest in the world making 6 times more than the bottom 90% of humanity. That’s collectively $2.7 Billion per day. Where extreme wealth gaps have totally undermined SDG1 (Ending Poverty in ALL forms everywhere). The DAVOS WEF crowd reveling in their concentration of increased wealth. (World Bank reports Agenda 2030  SDG 1 unlikely to be met)

It is reported that ‘Extreme Wealth’ and ‘Extreme Poverty’ is significantly increasing at the same time. All those basic living expenses have significantly increased in price as worldwide more people struggle. Many more New Zealanders are struggling as inflation increases so does food, gas, energy, rents, loans and mortgages. On top of this is the increased crime, Newshub reported 23rd May 2023 the crime stat’s for NZ’s major cities. Between 2017 and 2022. March 2017 Auckland City 87,971   per year – 2023 to approx..,  110,000 this year already. March 2017 Wellington City 9,800 per annum – 2023 =12,290 per year. Christchurch City  March 2017 =25,547 per year increased in  2023 to 35,941 per year. Businesses are  anxious and concerned many continuing to report they do not feel safe. As for the Labour’s  Govt’s Gun Buy Back Scheme, that’s shot them in the foot so to speak, another failure. The shootings, stabbings, ram-raids have all increased.  Law abiding citizens register their guns, crim’s, gangs do not. Another UN global directive- disarm law abiding citizens.

Law abiding citizens, Conservative and Christians, no matter what race, those that oppose the Socialist Left woke political narratives have been assassinated by the government paid off media as ‘White Supremacists’. “How dare you be a conspiracy theorist, an anti vaxer”, using this to shut voices down, to divide the nation, to silence voices- Silence is Consent’.

It appears those political cronies do not need our consent, they just mandate the population to under human guineapig trails. “Go to Mcdonalds and get a Free Happy Meal with your next jab”- The very unhealthy MacJabber Burger with a free coke full of sugar, giving the message “look after health, your immune system have a McJabber and Coke Happy Meal..Coca Cola’s profit for 12 months ending June 30th 2023 was $25.832 Billion a 6.15% increase over a year. Coca Cola facing a lawsuit for plastic pollution from the Earth Island Institute and Plastic Pollution Coalition. However Coca Cola reports the UN SDGs Agenda 2030 are championed as an important framework  for collective action

What are the SDG Plans of the UN/WEF Partnership Global Governance?  A global registry of policies, commitments, multistakeholder partnerships (Corporate Capture) with governments. UN/WEF support accelerate UN Agenda 2030. All governments are encouraged to register their policies to accelerate the implementation of Agenda 2030 (Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age

Corporate Capture globally, regionally, nationally increasing the price of goods and services, increasing payouts to shareholder. Lining the pockets of the ultra rich, forcing more millions into poverty. (What does SDG 1 look like now?) The FAO (UN) is in Rome, they monitor the worlds food supply report food security and poverty. FOA have reported that 95 food and energy corporations have doubled their profits made shareholder much wealthier. 1.7 Billion workers live in countries where inflation not outpaces wages. This has not just happened, it’s been happening for decades, the global system is totally rigged and corrupt favours the most wealthiest on the planet.

In New Zealand parliamentarians do not publicize that they are selling off assets that belong to All New Zealanders- these are called ‘Crown Enterprises’ will not publicize that the people of New Zealand own Crown Assets under Crown Enterprises, they belong to you namely a non-government party. The Government’s role is to ensure that NZ Assets are retained in ‘public ownership’. The Government has sold many of those assets that ALL the people of NZ own. They have robbed the people blind.

If you are being seriously effected by the much higher cost of living, or you need another car, or house maintenance etc., Or you maybe a business that needs more finance so you are able to survive, or a farmers who is seriously affected by the govts restrictions, so you may well apply to the bank for a loan. Your carbon footprint will be scrutinized by a somewhat similar system as the ‘Chinese Social Credit System’. Compliancy will get the loan, non-compliancy will not, you will be seen as a credit risk. The Global Elite with their mansions by the sea, leaders of governments, corporations travelling around the world multiple times in one year. Yes they try to cause anguish through main stream reporting and legislations to stop the rising seas, measure your carbon footprint. However the worlds 60 biggest banks have provided $4.6 trillion in financing for fossil fuels since the Paris Agreement in 2015. Yet they scrutinize ethical mortgages, ethical savings account, ethical bank accounts, ethical cash . The greedy rich banks that crippled the world economy. Yes the greedy banking morons with their climate and financial risk insanity. Mortgage lenders that cash in on peoples misery.

The role of Greed and Fear and the hiking of interest rates, do they care about you, families and communities ? HELL NO. Do they care about those in poverty? Hell NO. The International Bank of Settlements control all the worlds money. Does it care about the world’s children living in poverty ? Hell NO. Banks are like greedy ugly moths that eat through your savings, eat your standard of living and eat your future away. This is a global, regional, national recession in pursuit of benefiting the already wealthy. Winston Peters interview on You Tube.. the country is $40 billion more dollars in debt. A debt left to you, your children and your children   SDG 1 Agenda 2030. End ALL Poverty everywhere HELL NO.

Crises-Fear-Silenced and Controlled ‘Agenda 2030 Corporate Capture of ALL UN Nations States. Multi-stakeholder Capitalism. SDG 1 Agenda 2030 End Poverty in ALL its forms everywhere, equates to ‘ redistribute wealth and resources’ to make the super rich wealthier, the middle class much poorer. “You will be happy and own nothing”. 7th April 2022 the World Economic Forum  Website includes the chart from the World Inequality Lab’ of global income and wealth inequality. Showing the richest 10% of the worlds population own 76% of wealth globally whereas the poorest half own just a sliver. Then adds -STEP UP THE VACCINES.

Global Citizen reports “New study reveals Immunization could put an end to poverty” 13/2/2018 Harvard Institute. Playing as vital role will help 24 million people from falling into poverty by 2030 (Agenda 2030 (UN) Funded by Melinda & Bill Gates Foundation.(Red Flag). Gates fund the pandemic Preparedness 12/5/2022 commits US $125 million to end one pandemic and prevent the next it is reported by the Gates Foundation itself. Bill Gates net wealth $110 billion. Bill Gates best investment reports CNBC News turned his $10 billion into $200 billion (23/1/2019) A return on his vaccine investments.

The ‘Billionaire Boom’ Boom time increases wealth of America’s richest billionaires. Washington Post March 12th 2021 Six Tech Titans made more than US $360 billion from March 2020 to March 2021. Its reported 8th February 2022 “the richest people in the world got even richer and more people fell into the poverty trap. The wealth gap is killing the poor.

This is the obsessional SDG pushing, ramming it down our throats, destroying small businesses, that may never recuperate again, people struggling to pay for basic items necessary to exist. The worlds richest have doubled their fortunes since the pandemic began whilst the world income of 99% of humanity are much worse off as a result of the Pandemic. The Non-binding Agenda 2030 (UN) was adopted in September 2015. The majority of the population did not know and many are still unaware that this was and is still happening,  this massive transformational shift actioned by NZ’s MP’s in Parliament, therefore ‘Silence remains Consent’.

The people did not vote MPs into Parliament to destroy our economy, punish our people, mandate them out of jobs. Publicly crucify them through the mainstream media because they refuse to take part in a global experiment. UN Envision 2030 Eradicate extreme poverty for ALL people everywhere. Extreme poverty measured at living on less than $1.25 per day.

New Zealander should be outrages at what  destruction these parliamentarians have done to New Zealand. The people of NZ did not vote in prior referendums, or elections to be aggressively controlled by outside interference of corporate capitalism. I for one, an done.. enough is enough. Surely all others have had enough. The Governments initiative, their goal, their purpose is to destroy NZ’s free market economy, free market enterprise and replace it with UN/WEF Multistakeholder Corporatization ‘Corporate Capture. Free market economy is ‘your freedom to choose’. Stakeholder Corporate Capitalism ‘your freedom is seriously, severely at stake’. I will not believe that the people of NZ voted for our Sovereign Nation to be  harshly aggressively ruled by a one world governance. All these parliamentarians need to be gone, enough is enough. New Zealand has become a dangerous place for children, families for all ages. UN Agenda 2030- everyone, everywhere at every age- leave no-one behind.

Stats NZ will report that Poverty in NZ is unchanged (Stats NZ Govt Dept). Govt paid off Mainstream media will confirm this. As does Jan Tinetti’s Beehive speech 22/3/2022. STATS NZ are caught out ‘No inclusion of the most vulnerable families’ (Child In  The City .Org). The 9,000 households questioned in the survey, there were almost no inclusion of some of the most vulnerable families. The Govt’s Advisory Group February 2019 report made 42 recommendations on how the govt could change child poverty rates, not one of them have been implemented.  The Government uses Agenda 2030 Indicators to measure poverty. NZ Labour reports more than 60,000 kids lifted out of poverty.  Business and Economic Research Ltd 4/4/2023 Thousands of children in NZ still living in financial, material hardship (Ardern’s ‘Child Poverty Reduction Act). Again another miserable  FAILURE. Stats NZ estimate child poverty stats

Ministry of Social Development (Govt) report New Zealand Poverty Project’s method of establishing a poverty line using focus groups to establish a consensual-based poverty measure. Rubbish in and rubbish out. They are lying, we know they are lying, you know, that they know, that we know they are lying. SDG 1. UN AGENDA 2030 Communist De-Growth. With high inflation rates, increased cost of loans, mortgages, rents, basic necessities in life, you don’t have to be a researcher, an academic to know that this has significantly negatively affected people, families, children the elderly in NZ. SDG 1. Crises-Fear-Silenced and Controlled ‘Agenda 2030 Corporate Capture of ALL UN Nations States. Multi-stakeholder Capitalism. SDG 1 Agenda 2030 End Poverty in ALL its forms everywhere, equates to ‘ redistribute wealth and resources’ to make the super rich wealthier, the middle class much poorer. ‘You will be happy and own nothing’

AGENDA 2030- SDG 1 ‘COMMUNIST DEGROWTH ‘SUPREME WEALTH AND EXTREME POVERTY IS SIGNIFICANTLY HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME.

I urge people to vote in New Zealand’s General Election whom want morality back, families protected -I say NO to Critical Race Theory and NO to Gender Ideology Theory in the School Curriculum and in the Workplace. Stop this sexually abusing, sexualization of our children NOW. I believe in One Law for One Nation. That our farmers and small businesses must be protected return New Zealand’s economy into a Free market enterprise where there is freedom to choose. Say NO to Multi-stakeholder Corporate Capitalism (Where freedoms are serious threatened

Be Gone Agenda 2030. Be Gone the Undemocratic WTO, the WHO the UN/WEF Globalist Cabal. Do NOT Under-estimate New Zealanders, we have  plenty of farmers that can lend their hand to most things. They can feed our Nation. We have a wealth of Natural Resources, do not let anyone tell you “We need the UN”. We have the ‘Number 8 Wire’ mentality, so lets do it. Surely enough is enough, I certainly have had enough- What about you?  SDG 1 Agenda 2030 Data-Rubbish in and Rubbish Out. Throw it in the rubbish. Step Out Of The Poverty Trap.

Researched By Carol Sakey   WakeUpNZ

LINKS:

https://www.childinthecity.org/2023/03/23/bleak-future-for-children-living-in-poverty-in-new-zealand-report/?gdpr=accept   https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/23/bill-gates-turns-10-billion-into-200-billion-worth-of-economic-benefit.html

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/2022/05/gates-foundation-commits-up-to-125-million-covid19-prevent-pandemics

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/karl-stefanovic-unleashes-on-greedy-big-banks-after-rba-rate-rise/news-story/d1367091a8f4ed37c1609c6de5e63d53

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/02/08/1075509346/oxfam-blames-the-rich-for-the-pandemic-plight-of-the-poor-its-a-controversial-cl

https://www.business-standard.com/article/markets/financial-crisis-explained-how-greedy-us-banks-crippled-world-economy-118090500388_1.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/12/musk-bezos-zuckerberg-gates-pandemic-profits/

https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/money-finance/banks-climate-change-environmental-crisis#:~:text=Here%20we%20discuss%20how%20banks,Banking%20on%20Climate%20Chaos%20report.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/immunization-to-end-poverty/

https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships

 

 

...

PUTTING THE ‘CON’ IN CONSENSUS AMONG CLIMATE SCIENTISTS

Putting the ‘Con’ in ‘Consensus’ There is no 97% consensus among climate scientists, many misunderstand core issues (Appeared in the Financial Post May 2015). It was the lead up to the Paris Climate Summit, there was massive activist pressure in and on all governments to fall in lines with the ‘global warming’ agenda, to accept emission targets which was reported as “could harm our economy”. Governments worldwide, including NZ’s threw out domestic economy under electric vehicles, wind and solar farms, the economy was to be like a train wreckage

It was reported that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change debate, as it turns out that was a massive lie, it was made up. Climate Activist Bill McKibben claimed there was a consensus that greenhouse gases are a ‘grave danger’. He was challenged, asked where his source of information came from, he promptly withdraw it. Barack Obama US President at the time sent out a tweet claiming ‘97% climate experts believe global warming is ‘real’ man -made and dangerous”, he was referring to a survey that did not even ask that question, he made it up

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserts the conclusion that most (more than 50%) of the post 1950 global warming is due to human activity, chiefly greenhouse gas emissions and land use change. (But does not survey its own contributors, let alone anyone else, its unknown as to how many experts agree with this). And the statement, even if were true, does not imply that we face a crisis requiring massive restructuring of the worldwide economy. In fact, it is consistent with the view that the benefits of fossil fuel use greatly outweigh the climate-related costs. One commonly cited survey asked if carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and human activities contribute to climate change. But these are trivial statements that even many IPCC skeptics agree with. Both statements are inconsistent with the view that climate change is harmless. So there are no policy implications of such surveys, regardless of the level of government.

The most highly cited papers supposedly found 97% of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers show that 66% actually took no position. Of the remaining 34%, at least 33% supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. OK, so divide 33 by 34 and there you have it 97%, however 33% includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position. There are more recent surveys that shed light on what atmospheric scientists actually think. Bear in mind that on a topic as complex as climate change, a survey is hardly a reliable guide to scientific truth, but if you want to know how many people agree with your view, a survey is the only way to find out.

In 2012 the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made (the IPCC position). The remaining 48% either think it happened but natural causes explain at least half of it, or it didn’t happen, or they don’t know. Furthermore, 53% agree that there is conflict among AMS members on the question.

They are liars, there was no 97% consensus on man-made global warming. Half reject the IPCC conclusion, more than half acknowledge that their profession are split on the issue. The Netherlands Environmental Agency published a survey of International Climate Experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, 1868 responses were received. The questions referred only to the post 1950 period. 66% agreed with IPCC that global warming had happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either  did not know or think human influence was not dominant. Again NO 97% Con(Sensus) behind the IPCC

The Netherlands Environmental Agency recently published a survey of international climate experts. 6550 questionnaires were sent out, and 1868 responses were received, a similar sample and response rate to the AMS survey. In this case the questions referred only to the post-1950 period. 66% agreed with the IPCC that global warming has happened and humans are mostly responsible. The rest either don’t know or think human influence was not dominant. So again, no 97% consensus behind the IPCC. The Dutch survey that described ‘climate experts’ a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. But the Dutch survey is even more interesting because of the questions it raises about the level of knowledge of the respondents. Although all were described as “climate experts,” a large fraction only work in connected fields such as policy analysis, health and engineering, and may not follow the primary physical science literature. Of 46 per cent of the Dutch survey respondents – nearly half – believe the warming trend has stayed the same or increased. And only 25 per cent agreed that global warming has been less than projected over the past 15 to 20 years, even though the IPCC reported that 111 out of 114 model projections overestimated warming since 1998. ¾ of the respondents disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement “Climate is chaotic and and stated it cannot be predicted.”

The  IPCC said in its 2003 report: “In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore “the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” There are unresolved discrepancies between models, observations regarding issues like warming in the tropical troposphere and overall climate sensitivity, and Natural Climate variability. Its much too difficult to realistically climate model, simulate clouds. Clouds are an enormous influence in Climate Assessments, conclusions.

Lots of people get called ‘Climate Experts’ and they appear to contribute to the appearance of ‘consensus’, without necessarily even be knowledgeable about the core issues. A massive consensus by the misinformed really is NOT a Consensus.. It’s a big Fat Lie. Its worth nothing of any value. The phony claim of 97% consensus is mere political rhetoric aimed at stifling debate and intimidating people into silence. The Barack Obama’s website (barackobama.com) says “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real and man-made … People I urge you to call out all these political corrupt propagandists that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington.

They laugh at you if you dare to publicly debate, discuss this Global Warming Agenda. They derail, shut people down. They even shut the real scientists down. This is not real science, this is about controlling populations worldwide into smart cities, to eat bugs and plant foods. To destroy farming communities, small businesses.This is Corporate Capture world wide, the profiteers are those that are the DAVOS Crowd. The WEF and the UN. The WEF representing the Multistakeholder Corporations. The UN with their International Rules. Like hand in glove WEF and UN official partnership agreement 13th June 2019.. The United Nations implements their one world global governance rules and regulations worldwide to be adopted by UN State’s (Includes New Zealand) and the Corporations are deployed worldwide to accelerate the Global One World Governance Agenda to enslave populations worldwide.  UN Agenda 2030. Leave no-one behind, everyone, everywhere, at every age.

Those political cronies that reside in the toilet bowl of Wellington with their political policing are determining that the people have no voice to call them out on their corruption and lies. I urge you do not remain silent stand up, the more you speak up publically the easier it gets. It may seem uncomfortable, you may feel nervous at first but the more you do this, the more courage you get, the more empowered you are. Remember Silence is the CON in CONSENT.

God Save New Zealand.

Link:  https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/putting-the-con-in-consensus-not-only-is-there-no-97-per-cent-consensus-among-climate-scientists-many-misunderstand-core-issues

 

 

 

...