Ocean Health Index: Another Tool Aiding Elitist Domination, not Conservation
By Staff News & Analysis - August 23, 2012

Sea Change: A New Tool for Measuring Ocean Health … I spent late July alongside the Bay of Fundy, marveling at the world's most spectacular tides. But the power of the sea can be misleading. The world's oceans may look omnipotent, but they are all too vulnerable to the short-sighted actions of mankind. As I wrote last summer from Norway's Lofoten Islands, the oceans are in deep crisis, thanks to rampant overfishing, calamitous pollution, and unprecedented acifidication induced by climate change. Fortunately, a new tool has emerged to help us better understand the degradation of the world's oceans and their immense importance to all species—not least Homo sapiens. The just-released Ocean Health Index analyzes how well countries are managing their coastal seas, measuring their performance across ten widely held public goals for healthy oceans. – Council on Foreign Relations blog/P. Stewart

Dominant Social Theme: Here is a very useful tool to help mankind protect its oceans.

Free-Market Analysis: There is a new tool to calibrate the health of the oceans, and it's been written about by Stewart M. Patrick in his blog over at the Council on Foreign Relations entitled, "The Internationalist."

The article itself is titled, "Sea Change: A New Tool for Measuring Ocean Health" and apparently was posted August 20, 2012. In the article, Patrick – a Rhodes Scholar and former US State Department official – explains that while the world's oceans may look omnipotent, they are actually "vulnerable to the short-sighted actions of mankind."

Patrick's view of the ocean goes far beyond that however. The oceans, he writes, "are in deep crisis, thanks to rampant overfishing, calamitous pollution, and unprecedented acifidication induced by climate change."

Fortunately, there's a new way of understanding oceans' "degradation." It's called the Ocean Health Index, and it purports to explain to us "how well countries are managing their coastal seas, [by] measuring their performance across ten widely held public goals for healthy oceans."

The index is oriented around helping policy-makers understand whether man's activities are "sustainable" within the ambit of a particular oceanic region. Patrick greets this as a breakthrough, intimating that by focusing on human interactions with the ocean – and how to position them in a sustainable manner – the Ocean Health Index provides us with a less confrontational approach to conservation.

We're not so sure, of course. No, we're inclined to believe that all these calibrations and resources are aimed at securing the world for a few at the expense of the many. None of these programs seem to be what they pretend they are, in fact.

There are perhaps three billion people in the world living on a couple of dollars a day. Given the history of these institutions, you would think that such extreme poverty would be alleviated by now.

In fact, the globalists who run the world don't want to help its wretched, impoverished masses. These individuals are "useless eaters," and those at the top of the food chain would rather they simply went away. Simply died.

The wretched banking cabal that seeks to run the world uses trickery, lies, war, famine, poverty and authoritarian regimes to realize its goals. The biggest trick of all is to create tools that purport to "help" with problems but that are actually ways for the power elite to aggregate yet more control.

This elite is ever coming up with scarcity memes to illustrate humankind's precarious condition – which then justifies further globalism and rule by technocratic elitists.

The world is in such lousy shape, in other words, that it needs the guiding hand of an appointed few to keep it spinning along.

This conspiracy to run the world – for that is what it is – cannot end up in anything but some sort of genocide. The logical conclusion of all this well-meaning rhetoric and stewardship is an assumption that some people know better than others about configuring resources and maintaining proper population balances.

The Georgia Guidestones tell us that the carrying population these elitists seek is in the area of 500 million. That means somehow that some five-billion-plus people would have to be eliminated.

This is the cold mathematical fact that peers out at us from behind all the fine rhetoric like a leering skull. The endless concern of these folks for the Earth is actually a kind of death cult dressed up in rhetoric that means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Patrick, for instance, quotes project boss Benjamin Halpern as follows:

People are now fundamentally integrated into every ecosystem on Earth. As such, nature not only includes people but also must address the needs of those people. This perspective…represents a radical departure from the goal that has driven ocean and land conservation efforts for centuries—to protect or return nature to a pristine state. In the 21st century, an era that many are calling the Anthropocene, that goal is impossible, and even counterproductive … For conservation and management to be successful, we need to change our relationship with nature, from trying to lock it away to using and enjoying it in a practical but necessarily sustainable way.

On its surface, such rhetoric sounds comforting because it means the green elitists are beginning to understand that their zero sum approach to "conservation" simply hasn't worked. But peer closer and the honeyed words simply disguise the contemptuous reality.

For now, the globalists will pretend that their goal is to create healthier oceans within the context of sustainable usage. But over time the definition of sustainable will shift. Extremism will take the place of reasonableness. Nothing is what it appears to be with the power elite.

Patrick tells us the survey measured oceanic health going out about two hundred miles, which Patrick calls a given country's "economic zone." What he is actually referring to are measurements defined by LOST, the controversial Law of the Sea Treaty put forth by the United Nations. Tea Party Wire explains the treaty this way:

LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

What goes for the US goes for the rest of the world. These treaties, fundamentally, are nothing but power grabs, designed to remove resources and opportunities from individuals in order to hand them over to a privileged few – who will then redistribute them as they see fit.

When it comes to this index, the mischief behind it runs far deeper than support for LOST. The index, which supporters obviously wish to position as a definitive one, enshrines carbon capture as one of ten elements of ocean health.

Since the whole science of global warming has been shown to be something of a sham, the idea that carbon capture is going to be a sign of oceanic health is controversial, to say the least.

This does not bother the Masters, however. They have big plans for their index. According to Patrick, the index should attract attention at both the "Convention on Biological Diversity" (October) and the "first global integrated marine assessment, scheduled to be undertaken in the next UN General Assembly."

Additionally, it will be used to support the "Global Partnership for Oceans," sponsored by the World Bank and run by previous Bank president, Robert Zoellick.

Here's how the article is concluded:

Finally, the Ocean Health Index should empower citizens around the world to hold their leaders accountable when it comes to protecting the world's marine environment for future generations. The index is yet another valuable step toward ensuring that the ecosystem services provided by nature are considered, rather than ignored, in the world of public policy.

After Thoughts

We differ here. This index is flawed from the start, based purposefully on faulty assumptions and intended to be nothing more than a structure on which justifications can be built for further world government and the domination by a rapacious few over the gullible many.