Intelligence for the People - G20 & The Bali Leaders' Declaration
Paul - Critical Sway
over 1 year ago read
For a moment, let’s set aside any debate about the driving forces behind the creation of the G20.
I have my own opinions, but in reality, it doesn’t make much difference whether the original intent was noble or not - the important thing to consider is what these supranational organizations will always become.
The massive influence they command is an irresistible invitation to mischief.
Global reach and colossal power skews the risk/reward ratio in favor of skulduggery. It’s a simple matter of incentives - these forums are a magnet for corruption.
The annual G20 Leaders Summit plays host to heads of state from the most powerful nations on Earth.
Also among the invitees will be a few "distinguished" members of the elite class. This year, for example, Klaus Schwab graced the event with his presence.
You can listen as they trumpet idealistic notions of collaboration and cooperation. And while that sounds proper and polite, the results will be anything but.
Their most recent gathering was in Bali, Indonesia on 15 and 16 November 2022. At the conclusion, they presented the world with the “G20 Bali Leaders’ Declaration”.
This 19-page report is awash with virtue-signaling rhetoric. But, if you scratch the surface, you will find evidence of intent.
Their words point to an orgy of centralized control. They have hatched a plan for coordinated global governance. And this is, without doubt, a direct route to totalitarianism.
You need to know what is in it.
And I intend to show you.
Before we go on, I want to be certain we're all on the same page.
Short and sharp - what is the G20?
The G20 is a multilateral strategy group (read: cabal).
The members of the G20 account for 80% of the global GDP and 60% of the world’s population.
It started as a meeting of central bankers and finance ministers (which should tell you all you need to know). It soon evolved to include an annual meeting between the heads of state, from each of the 20 member nations.
G20 Members: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. Spain is also invited as a permanent guest.
What do you call it when the ruling powers all march together in lockstep?
The words that come to mind for me are “centralized control”.
And those words are antithetical to liberty.
Let's get into the report.
Before we advance beyond the front cover we’re greeted with this year’s tagline:
"Recover Together, Recover Stronger."
That one might revive memories of another recent crusade… It's “Build back better”, only a little less catchy.
Turning the first page, it seems ironic that the leaders start by pointing out their track record:
"Fourteen years ago, the Leaders of the G20 met for the first time, facing the most severe financial crisis in our generation. We recognized, as large global economies, that collectively we carry responsibilities and that our cooperation was necessary to global economic recovery, to tackle global challenges, and lay a foundation for strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive growth." (p.1)
That was 2008, in the midst of the banking and financial meltdown we now call the GFC.
The leaders go on to declare...
"We designated the G20 the premier forum for global economic cooperation, and today we reaffirm our commitment to cooperate as we, once again, address serious global economic challenges." (p.1)
So, how’s that all been going, guys? Have you cooperated your way to recovery? Built foundations for strong, sustainable, balanced, and inclusive growth?
Well, no. They haven’t. Evidently.
"We met in Bali on 15-16 November 2022, at a time of unparalleled multidimensional crises." (p.2)
“Unparalleled multidimensional crises” doesn’t strike me as a statement of strength. Or balance. Or any of those other things the G20 leaders have spent the last 14 years advertising.
But that’s ok because we can blame the present meltdown on COVID-19 and climate change, right?
If you read the report in full, you will find repeated references to the "SDG’s". These are the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
If you don’t know what they are, I encourage you to spend no more than 15 seconds reviewing this image:
On the face of it, these seem like nice goals. Hard for anybody to argue against.
But in reality, they exist to perpetuate a charade. Their effect is to provide top-cover, while the regime set in place their globalist agenda.
Any initiative that ties to one or more of these goals, can carve out a sizeable chunk of funding.
These broad goals direct the flow of finance, and it all makes more sense when you see that as the driving force.
Setting the tone early in the piece we have this:
"…it is essential that the G20 undertakes tangible, precise, swift and necessary actions, using all available policy tools, to address common challenges, including through international macro policy cooperation and concrete collaborations." (p.5)
And then this:
"...we will take coordinated actions to advance an agenda for a strong, inclusive and resilient global recovery and sustainable development that delivers jobs and growth." (p.5)
With the above in mind, they say, the G20 will:
- "Ensure long-term fiscal sustainability, with our central banks committed to achieving price stability." - "Take action to promote food and energy security and support stability of markets." - "Recommit to accelerate achievement of the SDGs, achieving prosperity for all through sustainable development." (p.5)
As we get into the body of this report, the first big topic box is food.
The leaders cite deep concerns for global food security. Noting that current conflicts and tensions exacerbate this issue.
They make a call for an accelerated transformation. Demanding movement toward sustainable and resilient agriculture, food systems, and supply chains.
The leaders declare:
"We emphasize the importance of building on the G20 Matera Declaration…" (p.6)
The what??? Good question.
In 2021, the G20 Foreign Affairs and Finance Ministers met in Matera, Italy.
The following exerts from that report will give you the appropriate context:
"Advancing these goals requires collective and coordinated leadership and action at the global level and a people-centered approach." (Matera Declaration)
Note the continued emphasis on global coordination. Carrying on…
"We will continue to guard against any unjustified restrictive and distortive measures that could lead to excessive food price volatility in international markets and threaten the food security and nutrition of large proportions of the world…" (Matera Declaration)
*Except for mass money printing. We won’t guard against that. No way. And also wars. We must have frequent wars. Oh, and an anti-carbon agenda too. But otherwise, we promise to guard those international markets as if our lives depend upon it.
Returning to the Bali Leaders’ Declaration:
"We will also implement the One Health approach, intensify research on food science and technology, and improve stakeholders' capacity along the food supply chains." (p.6)
From the WHO website:
"One Health is an integrated, unifying approach to balance and optimize the health of people, animals and the environment."
The same integrated and unified approach that recently undermined fundamental rights like informed consent.
The same one that drove (read: coerced) massive uptake of certain medical interventions.
That one, yes.
Back to Bali again, and turning next to energy:
"We stress the importance of ensuring that global energy demand is matched by affordable energy supplies." (p.11)
Abundant, affordable energy is a great idea.
No issues so far.
(wait for it...)
"We reiterate our commitment to achieve global net zero greenhouse gas emissions/carbon neutrality by or around mid-century…" (p.11)
And that is the opposite of a great idea.
Net zero targets make energy production more expensive and less reliable than it is now.
In a net zero world, balancing global demand and affordable energy means reducing consumption. Or in other words, reducing prosperity and human flourishing (h/t to Alex Epstein for that phrase).
Of course, we can't have an energy discussion without a carbon credit discussion:
"We are committed to promote investment in sustainable infrastructure and industry, as well as innovative technologies and a wide range of fiscal, market and regulatory mechanisms to support clean energy transitions, including, as appropriate, the use of carbon pricing…" (p.12)
Carbon credits are a tax on productive industry. And they create a lever the regulators will pull to manipulate energy use.
I'm not here to debate CO2 emissions or their impact on the environment. But I will say that a carbon credit program is a centralized tool of control.
Those in power will use it to benefit the few, at the expense of the many.
The G20 leaders, of course, all kneel at the altar of climate hysteria:
"We resolve to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. This will require meaningful and effective actions and commitment by all countries, taking into account different approaches, through the development of clear national pathways that align long-term ambition with short and medium-term goals, and with international cooperation and support…" (p.13)
The SDG’s are all money funnels. And climate action is a BIG one…
"We recall and further urge developed countries to fulfil their commitments to deliver on the goal of jointly mobilizing USD 100 billion per year urgently by 2020 and through to 2025 in the context of meaningful mitigation action and transparency on implementation." (p.16)
At several points in this document, the leaders don’t actually say what it is they support. Instead, they say things like this:
"We endorse the 2022 G20 Sustainable Finance Report." (p.18)
Ok, now I have to go read that to see what they mean.
123 pages later, that ancillary report tells us this:
"The Roadmap recognized the importance of public policy levers and their implications to send market signals that influence sustainable investment decisions and incentivize the participation of private capital in sustainable investments…"
If these investments were such a great idea, why would the market signals fail to arise naturally from the market?
The fact that they have to be forced through public policy levers is how you can be sure they are bogus.
Next, the authors shift their focus to global public health.
"We reaffirm our commitment to strengthen global health governance, with the leading and coordination role of WHO and support from other international organizations. We support the work of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) that will draft and negotiate a legally binding instrument…" (p.19)
That one is a deep rabbit hole. Instead of exploring it in the context of this article, here’s a link to a thread I wrote on the matter a little while ago.
When these guys talk about pandemics, you know they are going to talk about vaccinations:
"We recognize that the extensive COVID-19 immunization is a global public good…" (p.22)
It would have been bad enough if they stopped there, but no…
"We remain committed to embedding a multisectoral One Health approach and enhancing global surveillance, including genomic surveillance, in order to detect pathogens and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) that may threaten human health." (p.22)
And in case you thought they were done…
"We support continued international dialogue and collaboration on the establishment of trusted global digital health networks as part of the efforts to strengthen prevention and response to future pandemics, that should capitalize and build on the success of the existing standards and digital COVID-19 certificates." (p23)
If you want to enforce absolute control, digital health certificates and Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC’s) are the only way to go.
First, they express support for one, then without skipping a beat, roll straight into the other…
“We support continued implementation of the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-Border Payments…” (p.27)
Or you can accept my concise, single-sentence summary:
32 pages of noise, during which “CBDC” appears no less than 30 times.
Back to the Bali Leaders, again:
"We welcome continued exploration of how CBDCs could potentially be designed to facilitate cross-border payments, while preserving the stability and integrity of the international monetary and financial system." (p.32)
Let me translate that bit about "preserving stability and integrity" of the system.
What they mean is they want to enforce complete centralized control over your money.
Make no mistake about it, CBDC’s are coming. Stopping them will be the fight of our generation.
The deeper you get into the G20 Bali Leaders Declaration, the further it degenerates.
Let me finish this piece with two remarkable examples. First:
“We will stay agile and flexible in our fiscal policy response, standing ready to adjust to the changing circumstances as needed. Temporary and targeted measures to help sustain the purchasing power of the most vulnerable and cushion the impact of commodity price increases, including energy and food prices, should be well designed to avoid adding to high inflationary pressures." (p.29)
Let’s list the things mentioned in that paragraph, that governments don’t have a history of doing well…
Staying agile and flexible
Implementing “temporary" measures
Sustaining purchasing power
Designing anything well
Avoiding high inflationary pressures
"We will continue to lead by example through strengthening and implementing our obligations and commitments to anti-corruption efforts including through legally binding instruments, while renewing our commitment to zero tolerance for corruption." (p.49)
Think about the people who were in the room. Think about the agenda they are pursuing. Think about how it is all funded and by whom.
To proclaim zero-tolerance for corruption, bare-faced and in this forum, is a joke. And a bad one at that.
Here’s the final summary:
Global governance, with centralized coordination and control of your money, food, energy, and health.
If you still can't see that, scroll back up and skim the bolded sections.