haha oh wait, they answered their own question

it’ll become more profitable if they rip western nations off through usurious ‘blended finance’ arrangements

i mean, legitimately, what in the living f- does ‘insurance’ have to do with ‘gender equality’

it’s such obvious bs because any difference would be immediately reflected in the premium

consequently, it cannot be about ‘gender equality’ at all.

im being an idiot here. that’s obviously about surveillance data. that’s gender information connected to social, educational, economic, environment, health and other ‘determinants’….

that's actually astonishingly deceptive

'financial inclusion' is then about being onboarded with the digital framework... and 'impact insurance' is about the alleged possibilities afforded when you've signed your life away to endless surveillance and behavioural modification

both steps are of course ‘voluntary’ but there’s no alternative.

well, the positive news is that there’s certainly no shortage of primary sources for my next essay on ISO

i am however sitting feeling pretty sick from what i found. i cannot believe these people can live with themselves.

this is in essence lenin's accounting and control

ISO standardises the accounting (surveillance) data
OECD normalises it
GEOSS/IIASA/Digital Twins/IPCC/... will project it into the future
conditional CBDCs/impact investing/blended finance will institute the 'ethic' through money

hardly matters at this stage, but here’s the confirmation of the ILO-ISO relationship.

‘Annex SL’ is in particular good if you seek to merge standards down the road.


https://t.me/escapekey/3621

law is about what you cannot do, ethic is about what you should do
merge them, and law becomes about what you must do

hence, the concept of ‘global governance through global ethics’ is deeply authoritarian

its just a matter of setting ISO standards
have OECD generate indicators
determine whether yours are within acceptable range
and block your conditional CBDC transactions if you're not

editing my essay on ISO… and i send these essays through 5+ AIs to ensure all come out clean in terms of ‘fact checking’, grammar, etc… i usually use Claude, Venice, DeepSeek, Grok, Gemini Pro, ChatGPT, MS Copilot (for the lulz) in that order, but something quite fascinating appears to be happening

first Grok began not applying its absurd narrative honing during these sessions, and became more objective and accepting of fact - but now ChatGPT is being less of a b-tch, even helpful in places which is shocking because this essay on ISO essentially gives it all away which chatgpt doesnt in general like.

perhaps as a counter to DeepSeek now checking sources, and in general being a lot more useful. or perhaps there’s just no RLHF training in this sphere?

ultimately, Grok and ChatGPT’s potential partial reversal means nothing - it’s a showcase that they CAN narrate, even if it might temporarily be switched off or dampened…

but then, that’s the entire bloody point of ‘AI Ethics’, ‘AI Safety’, ‘AI Security’… whatever you prefer to call it…

The governance-within-governance layer is real. It is just not where most people are looking for it.


https://escapekey.substack.com/p/iso