‘The Flemish conservative party, Vlaams Belang, is pressuring the government to cancel its World Economic Forum (WEF) membership. This year, the Flemish government will pay a whopping EUR 200,000 in membership fees to the WEF and approximately EUR 27,000 as a participation fee in their annual meeting in Davos.’https://newspunch.com/dutch-government-preparing-to-cancel-world-economic-forum-membership-we-are-a-sovereign-nation/
This is from a much longer article.
‘Stating the obvious: Here in the United States, the commander in chief is far past his intellectual prime, and prone to petulant retaliation against those who disagree with him and his policies. Biden is no Kennedy. His administration has jumped Constitutional guardrails in many areas, and increasingly acts as a Globalist lapdog, just as we have seen happen in current WEF-influenced Canadian, UK, Australian, and New Zealand political leadership structures.
US Nuclear saber rattling in Europe will further damage the cohesion of the European Union, NATO, and is adding to the profound geopolitical insecurity and instability of the entire region as it heads into what looks like a truly “Dark Winter”.
One has to wonder, what are the US National interests in Ukraine which merit this level of risk?
If there is not a clear and compelling US National interest in the region, has the US Military and NATO merely become tools for enforcing a Globalist agenda seeking to punish Putin for incursion into what has become a US/WEF puppet territory?
The Belgian people and most Europeans still remember Flanders Fields. I only wish that Joe Biden could.’https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/an-inconvenient-opinion-from-europe?publication_id=583200&post_id=81904344&isFreemail=true
‘The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has reprimanded French courts for upholding a feminist’s conviction over an abortion stunt in a Catholic church.
Abortion activist, Eloïse Bouton, was charged, and sentenced by French courts in 2013 after disrupting a Christmas carol rehearsal dressed as Mary wearing a crown of thorns.’https://caldronpool.com/eu-fines-france-for-violating-feminists-rights-over-kill-christmas-abort-jesus-stunt/
‘A jaw-dropping, peer-reviewed paper shows China’s old-school vaccine produces a far stronger T-cell response to the coronavirus than the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA jab.
China’s CoronaVac shot caused people to make far more T-cells targeting the coronavirus than those who received Pfizer’s mRNA shot, scientists in Hong Kong have found.
Though it is only one datapoint, the study hints the Chinese shot – which is based on older, well understood principles of vaccinology – may ultimately provide longer-lasting protection than the hastily developed mRNA jabs from Pfizer and Moderna.
The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal called Respirology in November, but has (unsurprisingly) received no attention. It offers a rare head-to-head look at the immune-system effects of the Chinese and Pfizer Covid vaccines, which work in very different ways.
“Humoral responses” are antibodies, the body’s first-line defense against infection; the mRNA vaccines are known to produce supra-natural levels of antibodies, giving rise to short-term protection that fades within months.
T-cells are a part of the immune system crucial for producing long-term immunity and reducing severe disease in people who are infected. The mRNA jabs have been shown to produce relatively limited T-cell protection, but this study appears to have been the first time anyone directly compared them to the Chinese vaccine.
The scientists compared the immune responses in more than 700 people who had received either CoronaVac or mRNA shots, matching them by age and demographic data.
As expected, they found very high levels of anti-spike protein antibodies in people who received the mRNA shot. The mRNA jabs force our cells to make large amounts of the spike protein that sticks out of the shell of the coronavirus. Those proteins then cause the immune system to produce antibodies against it.
The CoronaVac recipients had lower levels of anti-spike protein antibodies. But they also had antibodies to other parts of the coronavirus. Even more importantly, when the scientists ran further tests on a smaller group of about 100 people, they found the CoronaVac shot had sharply increased the level of their coronavirus-targeting T-cells, which last far longer than antibodies.
The new T-cells targeted both the spike protein and another important part of the virus. They included both CD4+ T-cells – which stimulate the overall immune response to infection – and CD8+ T-cells – which directly attack infected cells. Meanwhile, the mRNA jab produced an equally good response in only one of those four types of T-cell.
“The average magnitude of post-vaccination responses was higher in CoronaVac subjects for structural and S-specific T-cell responses,” the researchers explain.
The research was possible because Hong Kong offers its citizens both the CoronaVac shot and the BNT162b2 mRNA jab – the Pfizer/BioNTech shot. (In Hong Kong, BNT162b2 is distributed by a Chinese drugmaker called Fosun, but it is still made by BioNTech and is identical to the shot Pfizer sells elsewhere. A Beijing-based company called Sinovac Biotech makes CoronaVac, which is not approved in the United States.)
CoronaVac’s advantage in producing a T-cell response probably occurs because it presents the body with an invader that is far more like the actual coronavirus than the mRNA shots do.
The CoronaVac shot is a traditional “inactivated virus” vaccine. It contains whole Sars-Cov-2 particles grown in kidney cells and chemically treated so they cannot reproduce. They are then injected alongside an “adujvant” meant to boost the immune response.
In short-term trials, the mRNA vaccines reduced infections far more than the CoronaVac and a second Chinese vaccine called Sinopharm BIBP, which is also an inactivated virus vaccine.
The early results led to considerable chest-pounding about the superiority of Western vaccines and biotechnology in general.
But the real-world data from the last year has made clear that the mRNA shots lose their protective effect quickly. Because they focus the body’s immune response on a small part of the coronavirus, they are also very vulnerable to new variants such as Omicron, even after a third “booster” dose.
In fact, Western countries have faced a much harsher Omicron wave since December than countries such as Indonesia, which used more Chinese vaccines than any country except China (although in the last two weeks Omicron cases have risen sharply in Indonesia).
The Hong Kong study may also help explain China’s apparent reluctance to move forward with mRNA vaccines – either its own or those from Moderna and Pfizer/BioNTech. Fourteen months after Fosun announced a deal to make the BNT162b2 mRNA shot available in mainland China, Chinese regulators have refused to approve it.
Don’t worry, though, China will no doubt be glad to set up CoronaVac clinics at pharmacies across America if we ask nicely!’https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/no-wonder-china-isnt-using-mrna-shots?utm_source=url
‘Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion
Empowering Public Conscience through Natural Law
‘Injustice to One is an Injustice to All’
We, a group of international lawyers and a judge, hereby are conducting criminal investigation modelled after the United States Grand Jury proceedings.
This Grand Jury Investigation serves as a model legal proceeding to present to a jury (consisting of the citizens of the world) all available evidence of COVID-19 Crimes Against Humanity to date against “leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices” who aided, abetted or actively participated in the formulation and execution of a common plan for a pandemic.
Crimes to be investigated include all acts performed or omitted by a person in pursuance of a common design to commit Crimes Against Humanity, and all such criminal acts condemned in the various communities of jurors around the world.
This investigation is of the people, by the people and for the people and shall be referred to as the ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion.
Having been unable to find a court to hear the actual evidence in the current system´s courts of law, we are undertaking this proceeding outside of the current system and based on natural law.
This, in turn is founded on the firm belief that every person can easily distinguish between good and evil, and between right and wrong.
The allegation is that the world’s governments have come under the controlling influence of corrupt and criminal power structures.
They colluded to stage a pandemic that they had been planning for years. To this end they deliberately created mass panic through false statements of fact and a socially engineered psychological operation whose messages they conveyed through the corporate media.
The purpose of this mass panic was to persuade the population to agree to the so-called “vaccinations” which have in the meantime be proven to be neither effective, nor safe, but extremely dangerous, even lethal.
The economic, social, and health damage that these Crimes Against Humanity have caused to the world’s population can be measured in quadrillions of dollars.
The lawyers listed below, with the assistance of a number of highly respected scientists and experts from around the globe and under the auspices of a judge from Portugal,
will conduct this Grand Jury Investigation and thereby provide the jury (the citizens of the world) with a complete picture of these Crimes Against Humanity.
The ‘Peoples´ Court of Public Opinion´s investigation´s purpose is twofold: On the one hand it is to serve as a model proceeding and get indictments against some of the criminally and civilly responsible figure heads of these Crimes against Humanity.
And on the other hand it is – through showing a complete picture of what we are facing, including the geopolitical and historical backdrop – to create awareness about
the factual collapse of the current, hijacked system and its institutions, and, as a consequence
the necessity for the people themselves retaking their sovereignty, and
the necessity to first stop this plandemic´s measures by refusing to comply, and
the necessity to jump-start their own new system of health care, education, economics and judiciary, so that democracy and the rule of law on the basis of our constitutions will be reestablished.
The Peoples ‘Court of Public Opinion works independent of any government and any non-governmental organization’https://odysee.com/@GrandJury:f?view=about
‘Pfizer is desperate to maximize 2022 profits while the getting is good. The less competition, the better for Pfizer. The company has already monopolized the market for injecting children. But less than half of Americans eligible for boosters have received them. That statistic is unlikely to improve. Pfizer tried interfering, to no avail, with the freedom of information lawsuit filed by the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency.
A federal judge ordered the FDA to release 320,000 pages of Pfizer data by August, starting with 10,000 pages due on March 1. Once all that truth gets out, Pfizer is done. There’s also the “Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion” grand jury proceedings, arranged by Attorney Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, commencing this week. If nothing else, it will be very interesting and compelling to watch.’https://thecovidblog.com/2022/02/09/charade-is-over-new-south-wales-israel-data-confirm-that-the-fully-vaccinated-and-boosted-are-vast-majority-of-deaths-and-serious-cases-of-so-called-covid-19/?utm_source=February+9+email
‘As we have seen all throughout human history, those that would like to impose tyranny upon a nation need at least a certain percentage of the population to go along with their plans. It doesn’t even have to be a majority. All that is required is enough “true believers” to enforce the tyrannical dictates of the elite. Many had assumed that the United States would always be immune from such a scenario because our Constitution guarantees certain liberties and freedoms. Unfortunately, things have dramatically changed in recent years. Today, a surprisingly large percentage of the U.S. population is openly embracing authoritarianism, and that should deeply alarm all of us.
If you think that I am exaggerating, let’s take a look at some of the results of a recent Heartland Institute and Rasmussen Reports national survey. I will pull certain lines from their report and put them in bold, and then I will follow with my own thoughts…
“48% of voters favor President Joe Biden’s plan to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the employees of large companies and government agencies”
All of the other results we will look at are specifically for Democratic voters, but this figure is for U.S. voters as a whole.
It should deeply grieve all of us to see that nearly half the country actually supports Joe Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates.
Have we really fallen this far as a nation?
Thankfully the Supreme Court just struck down Biden’s national OSHA mandate, but more mandates are inevitably coming on the state level.
“Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine”
Are you kidding me?
A solid majority of all Democrats would like to lock the unvaccinated in their own homes except for “emergencies”.
And since Dr. Fauci just admitted that COVID will be with us forever, such a measure would theoretically be implemented on an indefinite basis.
That is extremely chilling.
“Nearly half (48%) of Democratic voters think federal and state governments should be able to fine or imprison individuals who publicly question the efficacy of the existing COVID-19 vaccines on social media, television, radio, or in online or digital publications”
This is another sign that free speech is almost completely dead in our country.
If we can’t even ask questions, what kind of society are we going to have?
The U.S. Constitution is supposed to forbid such government restrictions on speech, but apparently nearly half of all Democrats don’t believe in the Bill of Rights anymore.
“Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine”
Yes, you read that correctly.
They really do want to put the unvaccinated in camps.
I am having difficulty finding the words to describe how evil this is.
Sadly, this isn’t just a fringe group of Democrats we are talking about.
Nearly half of the entire party would support doing such a thing, and that says a lot about where we are as a society today.
“Twenty-nine percent (29%) of Democratic voters would support temporarily removing parents’ custody of their children if parents refuse to take the COVID-19 vaccine”
Nearly a third of all Democrats would actually support this?
I honestly do not know how people can be this evil.
This is yet another sign that people need to be moving out of blue states while they still can.
Of course it isn’t just Democrats that are pushing for tyrannical measures.
Utah is supposed to be “deeply red”, but the editorial board of the largest newspaper in the entire state is openly calling for the unvaccinated to be strictly confined to their own homes…
The editorial board of Utah’s largest newspaper – the Salt Lake Tribune – which is controlled by the family of former Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., has called for the deployment of the National Guard “to ensure that people without proof of vaccination would not be allowed, well, anywhere.”
The draconian measure was suggested in a Saturday op-ed titled “Utah leaders have surrendered to COVID pandemic,” suggesting that elected officials have failed to mandate the vaccine for all citizens, and that if Utah was a “civilized place” Governor Spencer Cox (R) would treat the unvaccinated (and no mention of the naturally immune) as lepers with severe lockdown mandates.
Jon Huntsman is a Republican that ran for president.
And his newspaper is pushing for this type of authoritarian measure?
What in the world is happening to us?
Our freedoms and liberties are under unprecedented assault, and once they are gone it will be exceedingly difficult to ever get them back.
For years, I have been warning about the “Big Brother” police state control grid that is being constructed all around us, and of course that process has only accelerated during this pandemic.
At this point, new authoritarian measures are being implemented on an almost constant basis. For example, I just learned that the Biden administration has just set up a system for federal workers to track all “unvaccinated employees who ask for religious exemptions”…
According to a report by the Daily Signal, the Pretrial Services Agency for the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency designed to aid Washington D.C. courts, created the “Employee Religious Exception Request Information System” to track unvaccinated employees who ask for religious exemptions from President Joe Biden’s federal COVID-19 shot mandate.
The Federal Register describes the new system as the best way to keep track of “personal religious information” that is collected “in the context of a public health emergency or similar health and safety incident, such as a pandemic, epidemic, natural disaster or national or regional emergency and/or any other lawful collection of employee information or data that is necessary to ensure a safe and healthy environment for individuals.” Those with concerns about the system only have until Feb. 10 to offer any public comments.
It is very wrong for the Biden administration to do such a thing, but they are going to do it anyway.
In other articles, I have documented countless other ways that they are violating our fundamental rights.
Fortunately the courts are slowing them down, but they aren’t going to give up.
The good news is that at least we haven’t descended into the sort of dystopian tyranny that we are now seeing in Australia, New Zealand, Germany, France, Austria, Italy, China and elsewhere.
But if the authoritarian wing of the Democratic Party has their way, we will eventually get there.
This is such a dangerous time in our history, because we really are on the verge of losing all of the liberties and freedoms that previous generations of Americans worked so hard to win for us.’http://endoftheamericandream.com/a-shockingly-high-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-actually-wants-an-authoritarian-big-brother-police-state/
The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on November 7, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “The Great Reset.”
‘Is the Great Reset a conspiracy theory imagining a vast left-wing plot to establish a totalitarian one-world government? No. Despite the fact that some people may have spun conspiracy theories based on it—with some reason, as we will see—the Great Reset is real.
Indeed, just last year, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)—a famous organization made up of the world’s political, economic, and cultural elites that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland—and Thierry Malleret, co-founder and main author of the Monthly Barometer, published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. In the book, they define the Great Reset as a means of addressing the “weaknesses of capitalism” that were purportedly exposed by the COVID pandemic.
But the idea of the Great Reset goes back much further. It can be traced at least as far back as the inception of the WEF, originally founded as the European Management Forum, in 1971. In that same year, Schwab, an engineer and economist by training, published his first book, Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering. It was in this book that Schwab first introduced the concept he would later call “stakeholder capitalism,” arguing “that the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” Schwab and the WEF have promoted the idea of stakeholder capitalism ever since. They can take credit for the stakeholder and public-private partnership rhetoric and policies embraced by governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international governance bodies worldwide.
The specific phrase “Great Reset” came into general circulation over a decade ago, with the publication of a 2010 book, The Great Reset, by American urban studies scholar Richard Florida. Written in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Florida’s book argued that the 2008 economic crash was the latest in a series of Great Resets—including the Long Depression of the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s—which he defined as periods of paradigm-shifting systemic innovation.
Four years after Florida’s book was published, at the 2014 annual meeting of the WEF, Schwab declared: “What we want to do in Davos this year . . . is to push the reset button”—and subsequently the image of a reset button would appear on the WEF’s website.
In 2018 and 2019, the WEF organized two events that became the primary inspiration for the current Great Reset project—and also, for obvious reasons, fresh fodder for conspiracy theorists. (Don’t blame me for the latter—all I’m doing is relating the historical facts.)
In May 2018, the WEF collaborated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to conduct “CLADE X,” a simulation of a national pandemic response. Specifically, the exercise simulated the outbreak of a novel strain of a human parainfluenza virus, with genetic elements of the Nipah virus, called CLADE X. The simulation ended with a news report stating that in the face of CLADE X, without effective vaccines, “experts tell us that we could eventually see 30 to 40 million deaths in the U.S. and more than 900 million around the world—twelve percent of the global population.” Clearly, preparation for a global pandemic was in order.
In October 2019, the WEF collaborated with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on another pandemic exercise, “Event 201,” which simulated an international response to the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. This was two months before the COVID outbreak in China became news and five months before the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, and it closely resembled the future COVID scenario, including incorporating the idea of asymptomatic spread.
The CLADE X and Event 201 simulations anticipated almost every eventuality of the actual COVID crisis, most notably the responses by governments, health agencies, the media, tech companies, and elements of the public. The responses and their effects included worldwide lockdowns, the collapse of businesses and industries, the adoption of biometric surveillance technologies, an emphasis on social media censorship to combat “misinformation,” the flooding of social and legacy media with “authoritative sources,” widespread riots, and mass unemployment.
In addition to being promoted as a response to COVID, the Great Reset is promoted as a response to climate change. In 2017, the WEF published a paper entitled, “We Need to Reset the Global Operating System to Achieve the [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals].” On June 13, 2019, the WEF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations to form a partnership to advance the “UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Shortly after that, the WEF published the “United Nations-World Economic Forum Strategic Partnership Framework for the 2030 Agenda,” promising to help finance the UN’s climate change agenda and committing the WEF to help the UN “meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” including providing assets and expertise for “digital governance.”
In June 2020, at its 50th annual meeting, the WEF announced the Great Reset’s official launch, and a month later Schwab and Malleret published their book on COVID and the Great Reset. The book declared that COVID represents an “opportunity [that] can be seized”; that “we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world”; that “the moment must be seized to take advantage of this unique window of opportunity”; and that “[f]or those fortunate enough to find themselves in industries ‘naturally’ resilient to the pandemic”—think here of Big Tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon—“the crisis was not only more bearable, but even a source of profitable opportunities at a time of distress for the majority.”
The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam—Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism—which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.”
In brief, stakeholder capitalism involves the behavioral modification of corporations to benefit not shareholders, but stakeholders—individuals and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate behavior. Stakeholder capitalism requires not only corporate responses to pandemics and ecological issues such as climate change, “but also rethinking [corporations’] commitments to already-vulnerable communities within their ecosystems.” This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant.
One of the WEF’s many powerful “strategic partners,” BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, is solidly behind the stakeholder model. In a 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that “climate risk is investment risk,” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” The COVID pandemic, Fink wrote, accelerated the flow of funds toward sustainable investments:
We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders. . . . As more and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability-focused companies, the tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further. And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock.
Fink’s letter is more than a report to CEOs. It is an implicit threat: be woke or else.
In their recent book on the Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret pit “stakeholder capitalism” against “neoliberalism,” defining the latter as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare.” In other words, “neoliberalism” refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy.
Proponents of the Great Reset hold “neoliberalism” responsible for our economic woes. But in truth, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries—what used to be known as corporatism or economic fascism—has been the real source of what Schwab and his allies at the WEF decry.
While approved corporations are not necessarily monopolies, the tendency of the Great Reset is toward monopolization—vesting as much control over production and distribution in as few favored corporations as possible, while eliminating industries and producers deemed non-essential or inimical. To bring this reset about, Schwab writes, “[e]very country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”
Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below.
Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system. Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase was meant to rationalize the CCP’s allowance of for-profit development under a socialist political system. The CCP considered the privatization of the Chinese economy to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as 100 years if necessary—on the way to a communist society. Party leaders maintain that this approach has been necessary in China because socialism was introduced too early there, when China was a backward agrarian country. China needed a capitalist booster shot.
Stripped of its socialist ideological pretensions, the Chinese system amounts to a socialist or communist state increasingly funded by capitalist economic development. The difference between the former Soviet Union and contemporary China is that when it became obvious that a socialist economy had failed, the former gave up its socialist economic pretenses, while the latter has not.
The Great Reset represents the development of the Chinese system in the West, but in reverse. Whereas the Chinese political class began with a socialist political system and then introduced privately held for-profit production, the West began with capitalism and is now implementing a Chinese-style political system. This Chinese-style system includes vastly increased state intervention in the economy, on the one hand, and on the other, the kind of authoritarian measures that the Chinese government uses to control its population.
Schwab and Malleret write that if “the past five centuries in Europe and America” have taught us anything, it is that “acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The draconian lockdown measures employed by Western governments managed to accomplish goals of which corporate socialists in the WEF could only dream—above all, the destruction of small businesses, eliminating competitors for corporate monopolists favored by the state. In the U.S. alone, according to the Foundation for Economic Education, millions of small businesses closed their doors due to the lockdowns. Yelp data indicates that 60 percent of those closures are now permanent. Meanwhile companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google enjoyed record gains.
Other developments that advance the Great Reset agenda have included unfettered immigration, travel restrictions for otherwise legal border crossing, the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money and the subsequent inflation, increased taxation, increased dependence on the state, broken supply chains, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances.
Such policies reflect the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—fairness requires lowering the economic status of people in wealthier nations like the U.S. relative to that of people in poorer regions of the world. One of the functions of woke ideology is to make the majority in developed countries feel guilty about their wealth, which the elites aim to reset downwards—except, one notices, for the elites themselves, who need to be rich in order to fly in their private jets to Davos each year.
The Great Reset’s corporate stakeholder model overlaps with its governance and geopolitical model: states and favored corporations are combined in public-private partnerships and together have control of governance. This corporate-state hybrid is largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments.
Governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. As such, corporations become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise private organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky voters. Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes globalist, whether or not a one-world government is ever formalized.
As if the economic and governmental resets were not dramatic enough, the technological reset reads like a dystopian science fiction novel. It is based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution—or 4-IR for short. The first, second, and third industrial revolutions were the mechanical, electrical, and digital revolutions. The 4-IR marks the convergence of existing and emerging fields, including Big Data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. The foreseen result will be the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds, which presents a challenge to the ontologies by which we understand ourselves and the world, including the definition of a human being.
There is nothing original about this. Transhumanists and Singularitarians (prophets of technological singularity) such as Ray Kurzweil forecasted these and other revolutionary developments long ago. What’s different about the globalists’ vision of 4-IR is the attempt to harness it to the ends of the Great Reset.
If already existing 4-IR developments are any indication of the future, then the claim that it will contribute to human happiness is false. These developments include Internet algorithms that feed users prescribed news and advertisements and downrank or exclude banned content; algorithms that censor social media content and consign “dangerous” individuals and organizations to digital gulags; “keyword warrants” based on search engine inputs; apps that track and trace COVID violations and report offenders to the police; robot police with scanners to identify and round up the unvaccinated and other dissidents; and smart cities where residents are digital entities to be monitored, surveilled, and recorded, and where data on their every move is collected, collated, stored, and attached to a digital identity and a social credit score.
In short, 4-IR technologies subject human beings to a kind of technological management that makes surveillance by the NSA look like child’s play. Schwab goes so far as to cheer developments that aim to connect human brains directly to the cloud for the sake of “data mining” our thoughts and memories. If successful, this would constitute a technological mastery over decision-making that would threaten human autonomy and undermine free will.
The 4-IR seeks to accelerate the merging of humans and machines, resulting in a world in which all information, including genetic information, is shared, and every action, thought, and motivation is known, predicted, and possibly precluded. Unless taken out of the hands of corporate-socialist technocrats, the 4-IR will eventually lead to a virtual and inescapable prison of body and mind.
In terms of the social order, the Great Reset promises inclusion in a shared destiny. But the subordination of so-called “netizens” implies economic and political disenfranchisement, a hyper-vigilance over self and others, and social isolation—or what Hannah Arendt called “organized loneliness”—on a global scale. This organized loneliness is already manifest in lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and the social exclusion of the unvaccinated. The title of the Ad Council’s March 2020 public service announcement—“Alone Together”—perfectly captures this sense of organized loneliness.
In my recent book, Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, which is on the leading edge of a nascent world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate-socialist totalitarianism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system.
Just as Schwab and the WEF predicted, the COVID crisis has accelerated the Great Reset. Monopolistic corporations have consolidated their grip on the economy from above, while socialism continues to advance for the rest of us below. In partnership with Big Digital, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, national and international health agencies, and compliant populations, hitherto democratic Western states—think especially of Australia, New Zealand, and Austria—are being transformed into totalitarian regimes modeled after China.
But let me end on a note of hope. Because the goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free will, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t, again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake—which is all the more reason to oppose it now and with all our might.’https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/what-is-the-great-reset/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=200270733&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9pUdL9eoE–Qv06SXF2RqmjlNp9rj7Ig2I5AyRAPL2qbSoG2ErLUyhl7ZsS_720qtTHaWhjEj_KzInio4a8ugX44-DFg&utm_content=200270733&utm_source=hs_email
THE WHITE IDENTITY CRISIS — VERTIGOPOLITIX – What do you think? Is there a reverse racism going on here? Is there a culture of the European countries and if there is how will it be changed by those immigrating from the Middle East, Asia and Africa?