Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 1


People whom none of us elect, who ultimately control international finance, all corporate and business activity, government policy and international relations have constructed a system that will enable them to seize the “global commons.”

These people constitute a network called the Global Public-Private Partnership (GPPP). While some elected representatives are within their ranks, these representatives of the public set neither the agenda nor the policy of GPPP. We need to both recognise who the GPPP members are and understand the implications of their gambit. How is this group of global stakeholders going to seize the global commons, and why should we resist them?

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore these questions. By recognising what the globalist think tanks and other policymakers mean by the global commons, we can begin to appreciate the jaw-dropping magnitude of their ambitions.

They consistently use deceptive language to conceal their intentions. Words like “inclusive,” “sustainable,” “equity” and “resilience” are often employed to portray some vague but ultimately duplicitous concept of caring environmentalism. We must unpick their language to fully comprehend their intentions, in the hope that we can resist and deny them.

While we have been distracted and transitioned by the alleged global pandemic, or pseudopandemic, the GPPP constituents who orchestrated the chaos have been very busy. They have created the asset rating system that will afford them total, global economic control. This control is based upon Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and utilises Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM).

This new global economic system is what the politicians mean by “build back better.” It is the essence of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset.

Laying the foundations for a new International Monetary and Financial System (IMFS) was a key to the pseudopandemic. The new IMFS will emerge from the deliberate economic destruction wrought by government policy responses to COVID-19. This was planned.

The phrase “build back better” was first widely popularised by former US President Clinton following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. During the pseudopandemic it has been adopted by politicians globally to signal that the project to seize the “global commons” is underway.

We will need to consider the United Nations (UN) Agenda 21 and its 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in more detail, as these are key to the theft of all resources. But for now we can simply reference them in order to understand what “build back better” actually means. This will allow us to understand why politicians around the world have used the phrase.

Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 11 (b) of Agenda 2030 states:

“By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards [. . .] adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels.”

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), written in 2015, states:

“The recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction phase, which needs to be prepared ahead of a disaster, is a critical opportunity to Build Back Better; recognition of stakeholders and their roles; mobilization of risk-sensitive investment to avoid the creation of new risk; [. . .] strengthening of international cooperation and global partnership [. . .] it is necessary to continue strengthening good governance in disaster risk reduction strategies at the national, regional and global levels [. . .] and to use post-disaster recovery and reconstruction to ‘Build Back Better’, supported by strengthened modalities of international cooperation. [. . .] Clear vision, plans, competence, guidance and coordination within and across sectors, as well as participation of relevant stakeholders, are needed [. . .] and fosters collaboration and partnership across mechanisms and institutions for the implementation of instruments relevant to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development.”

“Build back better” policy was prepared ahead of the arrival of COVID-19. It is part of the planned risk management and preparedness framework for post-“disaster” reconstruction. It means the global “participation of relevant stakeholders” to strengthen “international cooperation and global partnerships” in order to “implement instruments” to achieve “sustainable development.”

SDG 11 (b) was a plan to “substantially increase” the global number of “human settlements” adopting “build back better” policies by 2020. This SDG has now been achieved, thanks to the COVID-19 pseudopandemic. In particular, the planned “mobilization of risk-sensitive investment,” outlined in the SFDRR, has surged ahead.

Stakeholder Capitalism Metrics (SCM) were devised by the World Economic Forum, which describes itself as an international organisation for public-private cooperation. When combined with the SDGs outlined in the UN Agenda 21 and 2030 frameworks, SCM enable the GPPP network to seize the entire Earth—all its resources and everything on it, including us.

In order to be controlled, we are being transitioned into a technocracy, with the biosecurity state acting as the central control mechanism. Public health is the new focus for global security, and centralised control of the entire system has been established during—and as a result of—the pseudopandemic.

The new IMFS is designed to tie our biosecurity commitments to Universal Basic Income (UBI) or similar state payments, which will be paid with Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). This will ensure our compliance, as central banks will use AI algorithms, combined with population monitoring (track and trace, vaccine passports, or some other form of social credit surveillance system), to monitor and control all of our transactions, behaviour and movements.

The dreaded authoritarian knock on the door will be replaced with the dreaded authoritarian beep of a refused card payment. If you can’t buy food with your money, it doesn’t really matter how much of it you have. Comply or starve is a distinct possibility.

Over the next couple of articles we are going to explore this “new abnormal.” We will see how it encapsulates the seizure of everything by favoured stakeholder capitalists, as the chosen winning corporations divide up Earth’s resources amongst themselves. This is the zenith of the planned “build back better” response to the pseudopandemic.

Throughout the pseudopandemic, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has taken the public relations lead on the planned recovery. Its Great Reset is just the repackaging of an idea that is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old.

This idea is the self-serving belief that some “special” people are destined, and therefore have the right, to lead the rest of us. They don’t require any kind of legitimate democratic mandate or even popular support. Their claimed right to rule is an imperious assumption that they were born to rule.

The WEF has asserted a supposed right to direct three key areas of global policy, which it intends to do by assisting world leaders to manage “disruptive change.”

The WEF has put itself forward as the GPPP front organisation for managing the Fourth Industrial Revolution, addressing global security issues and solving the problems of the global commons. It is important to note that the WEF is not alone in its ambitions but is, rather, the leading proponent for the wider GPPP policy platform. We will focus on the third sphere of the WEF’s self-proclaimed authority: control of a global commons.

The UN acts as a policy hub for the GPPP. It allows stakeholders to introduce the policies, formulated by the think tanks, into the nascent global governance structure. The desired policy agendas can be moulded and eventually filtered down to national and then local government administrations across the planet.

In the September 2011 issue of Our Planet, the UN offered a description of the global commons as “the shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon.” In 2013, the UN Systems Task Team expanded on this and published “Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015.

The UN wrote:

“International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space. [. . .] Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations — such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity — have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons [. . .] while some define the global commons even more broadly, including science, education, information and peace. [. . .] Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance.”

This habit of expanding the definition of the global commons has continued. In April 2020, the Rothschild-backed bank, called the Global Environment Facility, offered a more extensive list of the “shared resources all life relies upon”:

“In order to protect our global commons [. . .] humanity must develop new ways of doing business to deliver transformational change in food, energy, urban, and production and consumption systems. It will take coalitions that bring together governments, businesses, finance, and citizens to realize this goal.”

That coalition is the GPPP. Citizens are involved, via civil society, only if they go along with promoting the agreed-upon policy agenda. In December 2020, Secretary General of the UN Antonio Gutteres really fleshed out the global commons concept. Speaking to an audience gathered at Columbia University, the pivotal academic institution in the 1930s development of the Technocracy Inc. movement, he said:

“To put it simply, the state of the planet is broken. [. . . H]uman activities are at the root of our descent towards chaos. [. . . T]he recovery from the pandemic is an opportunity. It is time to flick the ‘green switch’. We have a chance to not simply reset the world economy but to transform it. . . . We must turn this momentum into a movement. [. . .] Everything is interlinked — the global commons and global well-being. [. . .] This means: More and bigger effectively managed conservation areas. Biodiversity-positive agriculture and fisheries. [. . .] More and more people are understanding the need for their own daily choices to reduce their carbon footprint and respect planetary boundaries. [. . .] From protests in the streets to advocacy on-line… From classroom education to community engagement… From voting booths to places of work. [. . .] We cannot go back to the old normal. [. . .] We have a blueprint: the 2030 Agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on climate change. [. . .] Now is the time to transform humankind’s relationship with the natural world — and with each other.”

Again, we see the recurrent themes of the GPPP. The planet must be saved from us; we are a pestilence that must be controlled; COVID-19 is, as ever, an opportunity to transform the global economy; our survival and GPPP stewardship of the global commons are one and the same; and everything must be transformed.

Not only are the oceans (everything in them and beneath them), the atmosphere (the air we breathe), Antarctica (the only continent with a universally respected international treaty protecting it) and the universe up for grabs. No, GPPP avarice doesn’t end there.

Energy (all natural resources), all productivity and our livelihoods (the workplace), biodiversity (ecosystems and life on Earth), all land (managed conservation areas), agriculture and fisheries (all food), our consumption and behaviour (carbon footprints), the places we are allowed to exist (planetary boundaries), our political opinions and political systems, our education systems, the communities we live in and even our human relationships—all are to be controlled and transformed by the GPPP.

In other words, the “global commons” is GPPP shorthand for everything: all life forms, resources, land, water, air and even the entire celestial sphere. It is their intention to dominate all.

The global commons are not fixed. Other aspects of our existence are being added all the time. When we read the WEF’s June 2021 article “The case for the digital commons,” we realize that whenever the WEF wants to include something else in the global commons list, it uses the language of sustainable development. It need not make rational sense. The point is to sell the notion with the right buzzwords:

“COVID-19 highlighted and accelerated the centrality of digital technology in our lives. Yet the digital ecosystem is one of the most unequal and dysfunctional aspects of our collective lives. How can we build a digital ecosystem that ensures broadly shared participation and prosperity? We argue that shifting our view to see technology infrastructure as a digital commons could point the way forward for an inclusive and sustainable ecosystem with shared social benefit.”

Now the WEF claims the authority to rule the internet and all digital communication technology. We see once more that the pseudopandemic is the catalyst for this transformation and that government is merely the implementation partner for the GPPP agenda. We are just the taxpaying cash cows who will fund the construction of the empire:

“In this post-pandemic time of broad economic and social re-envisioning and re-alignment, an emphasis on the digital commons can point the way forward for collective recovery, solidarity and progress. [. . .] Governments will have to push forward on real regulation of privately controlled systems . . . as well as providing funding to allow a sustainable ecosystem of innovation that is not beholden to venture capitalists or large companies.”

It is truly remarkable that a low-mortality respiratory disease has provided such an immense opportunity for global transformation. The leading figures within the GPPP knew that COVID-19 didn’t present much of a threat. In their June 2020 book COVID-19: The Great Reset, authors Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret wrote that the pseudopandemic was:

“One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years. [. . . T]he consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild. [. . .] It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.”

At the heart of this seizure of everything lies stakeholder capitalism. In December 2019, Schwab wrote “What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want?” The “we” referenced in that title is not “us” but, rather, the GPPP, though the article assumes we all agree on the GPPP’s definition of global problems. Schwab wrote:

“Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”

Schwab’s use of the term “trustee” is notable. “Trustee” has a specific legal definition:

“The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”

It is not at all evident that global corporations should be entrusted with managing our society. Many of us would disagree with that objective—which is one of the main reasons we haven’t been asked for our input. In fact, there is no justification for Schwab’s claim.

I speak for no one but myself, yet I would wager that most people consider global corporations to be significant contributors to the social and environmental challenges we face. Why would anyone believe these corporations should determine the alleged solutions?

Schwab’s is a ludicrous assertion. Yet this is the insistence of the stakeholder capitalists. It is also the basis for the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN’s Agenda 21 and 2030 policy platforms.

Despite their claims of omniscience, the GPPP and its leading proponents, like the WEF and the IMF, are not infallible. They are composed of people who are no different in most regards to anyone else on Earth.

They are collaborating in a huge, though not unprecedented, global effort. Many people have come to think an operation on this scale is impossible. Why they cannot imagine it is hard to say.

We have already had two world wars requiring similar degrees of international cooperation. Arguably more, if we consider that whole populations were engaged in these collective efforts.

There are many global corporations that operate tortuously complex international operations incorporating global logistics, international finance and cross-border regulatory alignment. These worldwide endeavours overwhelmingly rely upon a hierarchical, authoritarian management structure. Only a few senior board-level figures have oversight of the whole system. The GPPP relies upon exactly the same setup.

Ida Auken

However, because ordinary people are leading this organisation, mistakes happen. In September 2020 the WEF produced a promotional video making the point, from their perspective, that “you will own nothing and you will be happy.” This backfired terribly and was a PR disaster. The Video was hastily pulled down, too late to hide the real intention of the GPPP.

However, the original article, upon which the video was based, can still be read. It was written by the former Danish Environment Minister, climate activist and WEF “young global leader” Ida Auken. Unlike most of us, she isn’t a disenfranchised constituent. Ida is a carefully selected GPPP spokeswoman.

The article’s title was changed and an explanatory note added. Ida said that the article was not intended to describe her “utopia” but that the intention was to explore the “pros and cons” of a possible near-term future:

“Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. [. . .] When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. [. . .] Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me. [. . .] We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.”

The offer from the GPPP is clear. In exchange for submitting to their will and allowing them sole possession of everything (the global commons), they will take care of us.

Why? is the obvious question. If they control all of Earth’s resources, if everything is free, and if AI and robots do most of the work, why do they need us? What is in it for them? We would no longer be required in such a system. Certainly losing “way too many people” would suggest at least acknowledgment of a much smaller global population.

We should also note why Ida’s envisaged future becomes necessary. It is, just as we have seen with the COVID-19 “opportunity,” a response to a set of crises that gives rise to doing “things differently.”

We are already seeing the knock-on effects of the COVID-19 lockdowns and economic destruction. An approaching set of crises over the next few years is a reasonable prediction.

As Schwab noted, there was no “existential threat.” The consequent disasters we are likely to face will be the result of policy promoted by GPPP representatives, like the World Health Organisation, not the result of a respiratory disease.

It would be easy to dismiss Ida’s musings as simply the wishful thinking of an ideologue. In part, it probably is. When we look at Agenda 21 and 2030, however, an uncomfortable realisation dawns.

While the sustainable development agenda is couched in terms of environmental concerns and apparent humanitarian principles, the detail of the proposed policies presents an entirely different prospect. The true horror of Ida’s vision is not that she is among the tiny clique of GPPP representatives who are committed to constructing this dystopian prison planet. Instead, it is that the policy framework to make her futurescape a reality already exists in Agenda 21 and 2030.

Make no mistake, the GPPP collective intends to control every aspect of our planet and our lives. That goal is the transformation these globalists are working towards, and they have used the pseudopandemic to set that transition in motion. There is no political opposition to the GPPP. They are realpolitik entire. All they need, for their “solutions” to close the trap, is our compliance.

While we have been preoccupied with SDGs and a low-mortality respiratory illness, the GPPP has not only started building, it has partly completed the new global monetary and financial system. Once installed, this system will finalise the coup d’état and enable the GPPP to seize everything, all under the guise of stewardship of the global commons.

We will explore how this has been done, and the remaining elements needed to accomplish the theft, in Part 2.


The Time for Silence is Over

A unified pushback against the globalist agenda

It’s finally here, the Global Walkout begins September 4th at 8pm London time and continue every weeks. Next step 4th June 2023.

One step at a time, hand in hand, we are walking out from the globalist society they are trying to enslave us into

ANYONE can participate
ANYWHERE in the world

JOIN or read about it here –

The third step is to unsubscribe from all mainstream media outlets. Delete the apps from your phone, laptop, and tablet and unfollow all of their social media and YouTube channels. Try to avoid mainstream media for at least one week, even if the headline is intriguing.

In the same time why not removing all the big tech tracking/spying/social credit system around you: (Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik Tok, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Whatsapp, Zoom, Linkedln, Snapchat, Tumblr, Pinterest, Reddit, Myspace, etc.)

The fourth step of the global walkout is to move as many accounts as you can to a union or local bank.

If you like our work please consider to donate :


If you are looking for solutions (lawyer, form, gathering, action, antidote, treatments, maybe this could help you:

If you want to fight back better:

Find the others:

Spike Protein Protocol 

Glutathione (most important for body detoxification) or better
NAC = N-Acetyl-Cysteine 600-750mg (causes the body to produce glutathione itself)
Astaxantin 5mg (also improves vision)
vitamin D3
Milk thistle (also liver and stomach protection)
Melatonin 1mg to 10mg (against 5G)
Alternatively CDS/CDL and zeolite

Dr. Zelenko’s Protocol contains Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), Zinc, Vitamin D3, and Quercetin.

How to find the truth :

Search engine:,, Searx (choose the server that you want) or

Facebook style: or


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: