A plan by the World Economic Forum, a globalist group of powerful Deep State elites that meets every year in the Swiss ski-resort town of Davos, announced in June 2020 by H.R.H. the Prince of Wales and Professor Schwab during a virtual meeting, to fundamentally re-engineer industries, societies, education, agriculture, and more, supposedly for the benefit of the masses, but really for the benefit of the ruling classes in a new technocratic system that includes transhumanism and the populous is more easily controlled. After peddling coronavirus lockdowns that crushed the economy and funding riots that terrorized the public under the guise of fighting “systemic racism,” Deep State globalists stepped in to offer ‘The Great Reset‘ as their proposed “solution” to the crises they themselves unleashed.
During the 2008 Great Recession – another globalist engineered crisis, Rahm Emanuel—President Obama’s chief of staff— infamously said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is [it’s] an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”
The creator of the words and ideas for the “Great Reset” is probably the bestselling author and economic development expert Richard Florida with his book “The Great Reset. How New Ways of Living and Working Drive Post-Crash Prosperity”.1
Its advocates are openly saying as much, with WEF boss Klaus Schwab declaring “all aspects of our societies and economies” need to be “revamped.” Even “our thinking and behavior” will have to dramatically shift, he said. A WEF statement marketing the controversial scheme also calls for a “new social contract” centered on “social justice.”
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” added Schwab, calling for even “stronger and more effective” government. “We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.” And there is no other choice but to submit, he and others declared.
Klaus Schwab made several concerning claims in his book, “The Great Reset,” writing that “[m]any of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”
Schwab went on to predict that human history would be differentiated between an era before the pandemic and what comes after. He likened the historical event of the coronavirus pandemic to the birth of Christ, a peculiar slight to Christians who view the life of Jesus as an event quite unlike the spread of a disease.
“Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to as ‘before coronavirus’ (BC) and ‘after coronavirus’ (AC) era. We will continue to be surprised by both the rapidity and unexpected nature of these changes – as they conflate with each other, they will provoke second-, third-, fourth- and more-order consequences, cascading effects and unforeseen outcomes,” writes Schwab.
A video about the looming “Great Reset” offers a creepy glimpse into what the globalists are selling:
Business and economic changes will be massive, Schwab explained. “The Great Reset will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action,” explained Schwab, the globalist front-man who runs the WEF. “We need a change of mindset, moving from short-term to long-term thinking, moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder responsibility. Environmental, social and good governance have to be a measured part of corporate and governmental accountability.”
In short, what remains of the tattered free-market system is set to be tossed out — along with the vibrant middle class it sustained. In its place will rise technocratic governance based on nebulous “social” and “environmental” goals set by the technocrats.
The changes will be systemic, too. “The COVID19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century,” the WEF leader said in a speech about the Great Reset last month, calling a change in “mindsets” the “most important” issue. “Now is the historical moment — the time — not only to fight the virus, but to shape the system for the post-corona era.”
While the Great Reset is being framed by Schwab and other proponents as a response to the coronavirus, the moderator of the Great Reset event admitted that the WEF founder had been working on the agenda “for many decades.” Schwab did not protest that assertion. And judging by the enormous amount of work that went into this — including the “strategic intelligence” program — it is clear that this has been in the works for quite some time.
Globalists have been throwing the term “Fourth Industrial Revolution” around for years now. In 2016, Schwab explained that this “revolution” would “fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another.” The transformation, he continued, would be “unlike anything humankind has experienced before,” bringing together “all stakeholders of the global polity.”
In essence, the “revolution” involves blurring the lines between the “physical, digital, and biological spheres” — literally the merging of man and machine, dubbed “transhumanism” by advocates and opponents alike. And while it seemed like just another kooky globalist pipe dream back then, the coronavirus panic has paved the way for unprecedented changes, as Schwab boasted.
“COVID-19 has accelerated our transition into the age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Schwab said in his remarks about the Great Reset posted on the WEF website. “We have to make sure that the new technologies in the digital, biological and physical world remain human-centered and serve society as a whole, providing everyone with fair access.”
Interestingly, the notion that under free markets, everything serves “capital,” and under collectivism, everything serves “society as a whole, providing everyone with fair access,” is straight out of the Marxist playbook. Such rhetoric almost always precedes a dramatic loss of freedom and prosperity.
That same rhetoric coming from Schwab and the WEF is found in key UN agreements that are serving as the foundation of the emerging New World Order. In UN Agenda 2030, also known as the “Sustainable Development Goals,” every national government and dictatorship on Earth agreed to very similar dictates.
In Goal 10, for instance, the UN and its members pledge to “reduce inequality within and among countries.” To do that, the agreement continues, will “only be possible if wealth is shared and income inequality is addressed.”
As the UN document also makes clear, national socialism to “combat inequality” domestically is not enough — international socialism is needed to battle inequality even “among” countries. “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources,” the document demands, sounding suspiciously like the WEF “Great Reset” manifesto.
The UN document also calls on government to seize control over “production and consumption.” It prescribes government-controlled healthcare systems for all, too.
And it demands that children be “educated” to the point that they do not just agree with the ideology underpinning the scheme, but are actually prepared to “promote” it. Goal 4 — so-called “education” — will be the key to achieving all the others, as the UN has admitted on many occasions.
It is no surprise that the “Great Reset” mirrors the UN agenda so closely. In fact, last year, the WEF inked a “Strategic Partnership Framework” deal with the UN designed to facilitate the imposition of Agenda 2030 on humanity.
“Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for the future of humanity,” explained Schwab at the time. “The World Economic Forum is committed to supporting this effort, and working with the United Nations to build a more prosperous and equitable future.” The head of the UN, self-styled socialist Antonio Guterres, celebrated how the partnership would help bring the private sector onboard.
Indeed, communist leaders, including members of the mass-murdering Communist Party of China, are now openly joining forces with capitalist bigwigs and Big Business CEOs to push the scheme. Guterres, the former chief of the Socialist International alliance of socialist and Marxist parties, also lent his support to the WEF’s “Great Reset” agenda.
“The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call,” he said in his remarks which were also posted on the WEF’s website. “We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”
The IMF is also a key player. IMF boss Kristalina Georgieva boasted of the “very massive fiscal stimulus” being “injected” into the global economy. This massive infusion of cash looted from humanity must be used to forcibly restructure the economy so it can be rebuilt “greener” and “smarter” and “more fairer” in the future.
For instance, she said governments and international organizations could put in place “incentives” such as “carbon prices” to force companies to do what the globalist establishment wants. “Carbon prices,” of course, is just code language for literally taxing the gas exhaled by human beings, CO2. She also demanded more government “social programs” to “take care of people.”
The mass-murdering regime enslaving Communist China played a “crucial role” in developing Agenda 2030, as Beijing’s propaganda organs boasted after it was signed. Not surprisingly, the dictatorship — literally the most murderous government in human history — is also playing a growing role within the WEF.
At the 2017 WEF meeting in Davos, Deep State globalists were tripping over themselves to shower praises on Communist Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. With President Donald Trump in the White House throwing a monkey wrench in the gears of the globalist machinery, the mass-murdering tyrant was seen as the new defender of the “liberal world order.” Yes, seriously. The rise to prominence of Beijing has long been part of the globalist plan.
Beijing’s minions will play a key role in shaping the “Great Reset,” too. Indeed, one of the nine speakers and boosters for the Great Reset was Communist Chinese operative Ma Jun, chairman of the “Green Finance Committee” and a bigwig at the People’s Bank of China. In his remarks on the Great Reset, Ma emphasized “Green” over and over again, calling for “Green” stimulus and a “Green” economy directed by “Green” incentives, employment schemes, subsidies, and more.
UN, communist, and globalist leaders have all started using the term “green economy” almost interchangeably with a totalitarian-technocratic system of global governance. Even in America this is true. Obama’s “Green Jobs” Czar Van Jones, for instance, was forced to resign when his revolutionary Maoist views became well known. And the “Green New Deal,” which mirrors the Great Reset scheme, is transparently a recipe for global tyranny and poverty.
If there was any doubt that technocratic global government was the goal, Schwab put it to rest with his public comments. “This global pandemic has also demonstrated again how interconnected we are,” he explained about the Great Reset. “We have to restore a functioning system of smart global cooperation structured to address the challenges of the next 50 years. We only have one planet.”
And in case there was any doubt about what that global system will demand of individuals, Schwab again put it to rest. “We have to decarbonize the economy in the short window still remaining and bring our thinking and behavior once more into harmony with nature,” he said. Read that again: Even your thinking and behavior is in the global elites’ cross hairs.
“A Great Reset is necessary to build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being,” continued Schwab, once again using empty Marxist-style rhetoric to build support for the very policies that always and everywhere strip individuals of their dignity and free agency. “The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness.”
Also jumping onboard the Great Reset bandwagon was population-control zealot Prince Charles, whose family is currently embroiled in the Jeffrey Epstein child-sex-trafficking scandal. “In order to secure our future and to prosper, we need to evolve our economic model and put people and planet at the heart of global value creation,” said Charles, heir to the throne. “If there is one critical lesson to learn from this crisis, it is that we need to put nature at the heart of how we operate,” continued the son of the queen of England. “We simply can’t waste more time.”
While Charles is a fervent advocate of population control, his father was even more blunt, famously expressing his desire to kill large numbers of people: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” This dangerous attitude is widespread among the elites.
A brief look at the other key players reveals a great deal as well. The first of nine names on the list is Victoria Alonsoperez, with a company called “Chipsafer.” The firm makes implantable microchips that transmit data on location as well as physiological changes in cattle — at least for now. More than a few government and corporate bigwigs associated with WEF, the UN, and the move toward Technocracy have openly called for micro-chipping humans, too. It is already happening in some parts of the world.
Other “stakeholders” involved in the scheme include the CEO of Mastercard, which is funding Deep State efforts to eliminate cash in a move toward a cashless society. The president of Microsoft, which recently filed patent WO2020-060606 for implantable crypto-currency technology, is also a key booster.
Also leading the charge was the head of enviro-fascist group Greenpeace, which even its own co-founder has rejected for its anti-human, anti-science fanaticism. Disgraced “climate” guru Al Gore, who serves on the WEF board, is also shilling for the Great Reset, along with Skull and Bones member John Kerry.
Critics are already ridiculing the idea, though. “We should not succumb to the quixotic (and totally unrealistic) notion that a few super smart people at the WEF (or any world organization) could press a society reset button, so that seven billion people could magically thrive under a new world order that their brilliant minds concocted,” quipped Chris Talgo with the Heartland Institute in one of several pieces mocking the Great Reset Initiative. “As humans, we have barely enough wisdom and foresight to keep our own lives in order.” He called on humanity to resist the Great Reset agenda for global government “at all costs.”
The finer details of the “Great Reset” are still being worked out, and will be discussed in a series of “virtual” meetings in the run-up to the annual WEF in Davos. Judging from the brutal comments under the WEF promo video peddling the “Great Reset” though — many of which blasted the scheme as a satanic ploy for a New World Order that would face massive resistance — the globalist elite has a long way to go.
American patriots who love their nation, self-government, the Constitution, and individual liberty will undoubtedly resist. People of faith who believe the Bible and the principles contained within it will, too. The question now is whether the globalists will be able to deceive and manipulate enough people into giving up their freedom in exchange for dishonest promises of “peace” and “safety” that will never be fulfilled.
Taken together, the United Nation’s Agenda 2030, the Paris Climate Agreement, the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Bank for International Settlement’s ‘Innovation BIS 2025‘ offer an insight into how elites want to turn the lives of every man, woman and child inside out over the course of the next decade.
The unveiling on June 3rd by the World Economic Forum of ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda appears on the surface to be a newly devised concept created directly in response to Covid-19. As it turns out the first soundings of a ‘reset‘ were actually made as far back as 2014. To appreciate the significance of the WEF’s intervention, it is important first to recognise the years leading up to 2020 and how they laid the foundations for where we are today.
Each January the WEF host their annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. In 2014, Christine Lagarde, who was then the managing director of the IMF, called for a ‘reset‘ of monetary policy, the financial sector regulatory environment and structural reforms of global economies.
Lagarde was adamant that a reset was required ‘in the way in which the economy grows around the world‘. Fleshing this out, Lagarde cited the dangers to financial stability due to ‘bubbles developing here and there‘, the over 200 million globally who were unemployed and economic growth being too slow.
Despite these concerns, Lagarde’s view was that fiscal consolidation within national economies was still necessary in order to control spending and ensure the post 2008 ‘recovery‘.
In January 2019 I posted an article that went into detail about the monetary policy aspect of the ‘reset‘ promoted by Lagarde (Monetary Policy ‘Reset’: From Rhetoric to Actuality). I raised how at the time of Lagarde’s intervention the Federal Reserve were tapering their asset purchasing scheme (quantitative easing), introduced in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.
Come the end of 2014, the Fed had called a halt entirely to QE. A year later in December 2015, they began to raise interest rates for the first time in over a decade and would later go on to introduce an asset reduction programme where the central bank began to roll off assets from its balance sheet.
For Lagarde, international cooperation would be essential for a reset to succeed. Without nations cooperating, it would likely be fraught with instability and market turbulence. In an interview with Bloomberg at the time of the WEF meeting, Lagarde stressed the importance of the ‘medium term‘ when it came to achieving the reset:
The short term collides with the medium term but the question is to bring the medium term into the personal, political and corporate equation. And that’s the job of the IMF.
Looking back, 2015 was a highly significant year that saw global planners state quite openly their ambitions for a New World Order to be implemented over the next decade and a half.
First came the unveiling of the United Nation’s derived Agenda 2030 in September, and with it seventeen main objectives known as the Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 was adopted by the 193 members of the UN, with adoption coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the institution’s existence.
Chief amongst the seventeen goals were to end poverty by 2030 and for there to be zero hunger. Action on climate change was also needed, as was the creation of sustainable cities and communities and good health and wellbeing (which the UN directly associate with vaccinating families).
Agenda 2030 replaced the Millennium Development Goals, which were introduced in 2000 and encompassed a series of targets to be completed by 2015. According to the UN, ‘enormous progress‘ had been made ‘but more needs to be done‘.
To get a sense of what the UN means by ‘more‘, when the Sustainable Development Goals were signed off Claire Melamed, who in 2015 was Director of the global think tank Overseas Development Institute, told the BBC:
If they’re going to be met we’re going to have to see huge amounts of money. We’re going to have see governments behaving in a completely different way. We’re going to have to see companies totally changing their business practices. It can be done, but the real question is whether we want to do it enough.
Melamed is now the Chief Executive Officer of Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. Amongst the organisation’s funding partner’s are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a prominent organisation in the drive for a vaccine to immunise people against Covid-19.
In December 2015, three months after the announcement of Agenda 2030, came the founding of the Paris Climate Agreement at the COP21 conference. The agreement ties directly into the United Nations and operates within the bounds of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was the first ever universal and legally binding agreement adopted on the subject.
To achieve the goals of the agreement, one of which is limiting global warming to below two degrees, ‘appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives.’
So far, 189 countries have ratified the agreement out of 197 that were present at the Paris conference. In October 2016, the required threshold was reached for the accord to enter into force.
With Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Agreement now set in motion, the World Economic Forum (which fully endorses the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals) ran with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) as the theme for it’s annual meeting. I wrote about this in 2018 (Fourth Industrial Revolution: Mission Creep towards a New World Order – Part One) and picked up on how the executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, described the impact that the Fourth Industrial Revolution would have on the world.
First, it would be all encompassing and involve all stakeholders of the global polity, meaning full engagement with the public and private sectors, academia and civil society. Some aspects to the revolution include disruption to jobs and skills, business disruption, innovation and productivity, agile governance and security and conflict.
Second, connecting through these areas are a whole raft of concerns which comprise the rise of blockchain technology, global governance, the future of enterprise, workforce and employment, the future of government, the future of production, sustainable development and social protection systems.
The revolution is dubbed as a digital revolution, one where the ‘fusion of technologies‘ embodying the physical, digital and biological spheres come together. Artificial intelligence, robotics, nano and bio technology are all part of the vision for 4IR.
Schwab made it very plain that the world can expect the revolution to be a ‘symbiosis between micro-organisms, the human body, the products people consume and the buildings we inhabit.’ One consequence of this is that human beings will no longer just be users of technology, rather they will start to converge with both the digital and biological worlds to become part of it. A second consequence is that every industry on the planet will be subjected to a degree of ‘disruption‘ as the 4IR advances, resulting in the systems of production, management and governance being transformed.
It does not stop there. Outside of jobs, human identity, privacy, notions of ownership, consumption patterns, the time devoted to work and leisure, how we develop as individuals and how we meet people and nurture relationships will all have to change to accommodate 4IR. Since the onset of Covid-19, many of these things have already undergone significant ‘disruption‘
Soon after the 2016 WEF meeting, the world experienced substantial geopolitical ructions with the UK voting to leave the European Union and Donald Trump being elected as the United States’ 45th President.
Three years after they signalled major technological, political and societal change was coming, the World Economic Forum were back with a new theme – ‘Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution‘. It was a subject I covered in an article published around the time (Why Dismissing Globalist Warnings as ‘Project Fear’ May Prove a Mistake).
Executive chairman Klaus Schwab was at it again, reiterating that ‘our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy – just to name a few – will be completely transformed.’ Included in the breadth of transformation would be blockchain and distributed ledger technology, two fundamental components in the drive towards a global digital currency network.
In talking about ‘Globalization 4.0‘, Schwab described the present day as an ‘era of widespread insecurity and frustration‘, and went on to blame this environment for a rise in populism.
What Schwab did not make direct mention of is how a resurgence of protectionist tendencies was assisting the WEF in being able to push the argument for 4IR. The greater the level of global disunity, the more opportunity that groups like the WEF have in being able to cultivate the concept of a New World Order and convince people of its necessity. Globalization 4.0 is a facet of 4IR, a vision that Schwab is unreservedly committed to:
Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it. Clinging to an outdated mindset and tinkering with our existing processes and institutions will not do. Rather, we need to redesign them from the ground up, so that we can capitalize on the new opportunities that await us, while avoiding the kind of disruptions that we are witnessing today.
‘Ready or not‘, Schwab warned, ‘a new world is upon us‘.
Five months on from the WEF meeting, the Bank for International Settlements introduced a new concept called the ‘BIS Innovation Hub‘, also known as ‘Innovation BIS 2025‘. This is a topic I have also written about previously (Innovation BIS 2025: A Stepping Stone Towards an Economic ‘New World Order’).
The BIS described the Hub as a medium term strategy consisting of three main elements:
- Identify and develop in-depth insights into critical trends in technology affecting central banking
- Develop public goods in the technology space geared towards improving the functioning of the global financial system
- Serve as a focal point for a network of central bank experts on innovation
When launching the hub, BIS General Manager Agustin Carstens spoke of ‘reshaping the financial landscape‘ following ‘the scars left by the financial crisis‘. According to Carstens, now was the time to set about reforming the way that the central banking community operates.
When digging down into the BIS Innovation Hub, it becomes clear that at the core of the project is the creation of central bank digital currency (CBDC). In practice, this would mean the abolition of tangible assets such as banknotes and coins and see the creation of a new form of digital money issued by central banks.
Global payment systems are in the process of being reformed to accommodate the use of blockchain and distributed ledger technology, and central banks are now beginning to disseminate technological detail for how a CBDC could be issued.
As it stands, a volatile geopolitical climate, exacerbated by Covid-19 and the unproven fear that handling physical money could transmit the virus, is assisting the BIS in their ambitions for completely resetting how the general public will interact with central bank money over the coming years.
Details of ‘The Great Reset‘ came as nations began to reopen their economies following a global lockdown. The extent to which Covid-19 has dominated every facet of existence – largely because of unrepentant media coverage – has encouraged people to focus exclusively on what life will be like after the virus. For many, what came before now seems inconsequential. It is anything but.
For example, three months before Covid-19 took hold, a global pandemic exercise – ‘Event 201‘ – was held in New York City which simulated the outbreak of a coronavirus that originated in Brazil. The scenario focused on a novel zoonotic virus that ‘transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic.’ Whilst initially some countries managed to control the outbreak, it ended up spreading and ‘eventually no country can maintain control‘.
The simulation culminated at the eighteen month mark with 65 million people having died and severe economic and societal repercussions. But that was not the end of it. As the scenario explained, ‘the pandemic will continue at some rate until there is an effective vaccine or until 80-90 % of the global population has been exposed. From that point on, it is likely to be an endemic childhood disease.’
Event 201 also used the exercise as an opportunity to warn that ‘the next severe pandemic will not only cause great illness and loss of life but could also trigger major cascading economic and societal consequences that could contribute greatly to global impact and suffering.’
That pandemic arrived in the shape of Covid-19, just weeks after the conclusion of Event 201.
On examining the make up of Event 201, we find that the three institutions at the forefront of the simulation were the World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It is through the WEF that ‘The Great Reset‘ was launched, in what the group said was in response to Covid-19. Johns Hopkins has been the go to source for the number of global infections and deaths thanks to their newly established ‘Coronavirus Resource Center‘. And then you have The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has been a driving force behind efforts for a vaccination to be found and disseminated worldwide.
Event 201 consisted of fifteen ‘players‘ that represented, amongst others, airlines and medical corporations. Out of these fifteen, six are direct partners of the World Economic Forum. One is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the other five being Marriott International (hospitality), Henry Schein (medical distribution), Edelman (communications), NBCUniversal Media and Johnson & Johnson.
To be clear, these organisations do not all operate at the same level within the WEF. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johnson and Johnson are ‘Strategic Partners‘, the highest stage for a participant. Only 100 global companies are Strategic Partners, and to qualify for an invitation they must all have ‘alignment with forum values‘. Not only that, but Strategic Partners ‘shape the future through extensive contribution to developing and implementing Forum projects and championing public-private dialogue.’
Beneath the Strategic Partners are the ‘Strategic Partner Associates‘, which is the category that NBCUniversal Media fall under. Strategic Partner Associates include some of the largest businesses in the world, who are ‘actively involved in shaping the future of industries, regions and systemic issues‘. According to the WEF, associates also believe in ‘corporate global citizenship‘.
Next come the ‘Partners‘ which comprise of Marriott International, Henry Schein and Edelman. Partners are described by the WEF as ‘world class companies‘ who possess a ‘strong interest in developing systemic solutions to key challenges‘.
Finally, there are the ‘Associate Partners‘. Whilst they participate in ‘forum communities‘ and have a ‘strong interest in addressing challenges affecting operations and society at large‘, none were present at Event 201.
Every major industry in the world, be it banking, agriculture, healthcare, media, retail, travel and tourism, is directly connected to the World Economic Forum through corporate membership.
What is evident is that the deeper a corporation’s ties with the WEF, the greater its ability to ‘shape‘ the group’s agenda. Which brings us to what the WEF call their Strategic Intelligence platform – the mechanism which brings all the interests that the WEF concentrate on together.
They describe the platform as ‘a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making‘.
As for why the WEF developed Strategic Intelligence, they say it was to ‘help you (businesses) understand the global forces at play and make more informed decisions‘.
Growing the platform is an ever present goal. The WEF are always looking for new members to become part of Strategic Intelligence by joining the ‘New Champions Community‘. But they will only allow a new organisation on board if they ‘align with the values and aspirations of the World Economic Forum in general‘. A 12 month ‘New Champions Membership‘ comes in at €24,000.
In arguing for the relevance of Strategic Intelligence, the WEF ask:
How can you decipher the potential impact of rapidly unfolding changes when you’re flooded with information—some of it misleading or unreliable? How do you continuously adapt your vision and strategy within a fast-evolving global context?
In other words, Strategic Intelligence is both an antidote to ‘fake news‘ and an assembly for corporations to position themselves as global pioneers in a rapidly changing political and technological environment. That’s the image they attempt to convey at least.
We can find more involvement from global institutions via Strategic Intelligence. The platform is ‘co-curated with leading topic experts from academia, think tanks, and international organizations‘.
‘Co-curators‘ are perhaps the most important aspect to consider here, given that they have the ability to ‘share their expertise with the Forum’s extensive network of members, partners and constituents, as well as a growing public audience‘.
It is safe to assume then that when co-curators speak, members and partners of the World Economic Forum listen. This in part is how the WEF’s agenda takes shape.
Who are the co-curators? At present, they include Harvard university, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Oxford University, Yale and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
It was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that in March published an article titled, ‘We’re not going back to normal‘, just as Covid-19 lockdowns were being implemented world wide. Citing a report by fellow co-curator Imperial College London that endorsed the imposition of tougher social distancing measures if hospital admissions begin to spike, MIT proclaimed that ‘social distancing is here to stay for much more than a few weeks. It will upend our way of life, in some ways forever.’
As well as co-curators there are what’s known as ‘Content Partners‘, who the WEF say are ‘amplified by machine analysis of more than 1,000 articles per day from carefully selected global think tanks, research institutes and publishers‘.
Content partners include Harvard university, Cambridge university, the Rand Corporation, Chatham House (aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs), the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.
Getting into specifics, the way Strategic Intelligence is structured means that the higher your position in the corporate fold, the more ‘platforms‘ you can be part of. Whereas Strategic Partners must be part of a minimum of five platforms, Associate Partners only have access to a single platform of their choice.
Here is a list of some of the platforms hosted by the World Economic Forum:
- COVID Action Platform
- Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies
- Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society
- Shaping the Future of Consumption
- Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation
- Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems
- Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
- Shaping the Future of Trade and Global Economic Interdependence
- Shaping the Future of Cities, Infrastructure and Urban Services
- Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials
- Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture
‘The Great Reset‘ is made up of over 50 areas of interest that are formed of both ‘Global Issues‘ and ‘Industries‘, which in turn are all part of the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence platform. Corporate membership is essential for the World Economic Forum to spread its influence, but in the end every single member is in compliance with the agenda, objectives, projects and values of the WEF. These take precedent over all else.
Also in concurrence with the WEF are the organisation’s Board of Trustees. Three of these include the current Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and former Bank of England governor Mark Carney. The Trilateral Commission are also represented amongst the trustees through Larry Fink and David Rubenstein.
To add some historical context to the WEF, the group dates back to 1971 when it was originally founded as the European Management Forum. At the time the conflict in Vietnam was raging, social protest movements were building and the United States was about to relinquish the gold standard. By 1973 when the post World War Two Bretton Woods system collapsed and the Trilateral Commission was formed, the Forum had widened its interest beyond just management to include economic and social issues. From here onwards political leaders from around the world began to receive invitations to the institution’s annual meeting in Davos.
The World Economic Forum is classified today as the ‘International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation‘, and is the only global institution recognised as such. It is in this capacity that the forum ‘engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.’
Like how the Bank for International Settlements acts as a forum to bring central banks together under one umbrella, the WEF plays the same role by uniting business, government and civil society.
The WEF declare themselves as being a ‘catalyst for global initiatives‘, which is accurate considering ‘The Great Reset‘ agenda originates at the WEF level. And it is initiatives like ‘The Great Reset‘ and the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution‘ which the WEF say are distinguished by ‘the active participation of government, business and civil society figures‘.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) narrative was developed out of the World Economic Forum back in 2016. The WEF have confidently asserted that because of 4IR, ‘over the next decade, we will witness changes tearing through the global economy with an unprecedented speed, scale and force. They will transform entire systems of production, distribution and consumption‘.
Not only that, but the world is on the verge of witnessing ‘more technological change over the next decade than we have seen in the past 50 years.’
The group now plan to use ‘The Great Reset‘ as their theme for the 2021 annual meeting in Davos as a vehicle for advancing the 4IR agenda. 4IR is marketed as a technological revolution, where advancement in all the sciences ‘will leave no aspect of global society untouched.’
And like their global counterparts, such as the BIS and the Trilateral Commission, the WEF nurture their agenda gradually and seek to maintain their focus on the long term rather than ‘the emergencies of the day‘. In their own words, ‘success is measured not only in terms of immediate results – we understand that real progress takes time and sustained commitment.’
The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030—because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.
The ideology of the World Economic Forum is neither left nor right, nor progressive or conservative, it is also not fascist or communist, but outright technocratic. As such, it includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.
In recent decades, the consensus has emerged at the annual Davos meetings that the world needs a revolution, and that reforms have taken too long. The members of the WEF envision a profound upheaval at short notice. The time span should be so brief that most people will hardly realize that a revolution is going on. The change must be so swift and dramatic that those who recognize that a revolution is happening do not have the time to mobilize against it.
The basic idea of the Great Reset is the same principle that guided the radical transformations from the French to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. It is the idea of constructivist rationalism incorporated in the state. But projects like the Great Reset leave unanswered the question of who rules the state. The state itself does not rule. It is an instrument of power. It is not the abstract state that decides, but the leaders of specific political parties and of certain social groups.
Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.
The 2020 lockdowns possibly offer a preview of how this system works. The lockdown worked as if it had been orchestrated—and perhaps it was. As if following a single command, the leaders of big and small nations—and of different stages of economic development—implemented almost identical measures. Not only did many governments act in unison, they also applied these measures with little regard for the horrific consequences of a global lockdown.
Months of economic stillstand have destroyed the economic basis of millions of families. Together with social distancing, the lockdown has produced a mass of people unable to care for themselves. First, governments destroyed the livelihood, then the politicians showed up as the savior. The demand for social assistance is no longer limited to specific groups, but has become a need of the masses.
Once, war was the health of the state. Now it is fear of disease. What lies ahead is not the apparent coziness of a benevolent comprehensive welfare state with a guaranteed minimum income and healthcare and education for all. The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.
With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.
The Struggle for a World Government
The Great Reset did not come from nowhere. The first modern attempts to create a global institution with a governmental function was launched by the government of Woodrow Wilson who acted as US president from 1913 to 1921. Under the inspiration of Colonel Mandell House, the president’s prime advisor and best friend, Wilson wanted to establish a world forum for the period after World War I. Yet the plan of American participation in the League of Nations failed and the drive toward internationalism and establishing a new world order receded during the Roaring Twenties.
A new move toward managing a society like an organization, however, came during the Great Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not let the crisis go by without driving the agenda forward with his “New Deal.” FDR was especially interested in the special executive privileges that came with the Second World War. Resistance was almost nil when he moved forward to lay the groundwork for a new League of Nations, which was now to be named the United Nations.
Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945. Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world to comply with the goals that were announced at its foundation.
Yet the unctuous pronouncements of promoting “international peace and security,” “developing friendly relations among nations,” and working for “social progress, better living standards, and human rights” hides the agenda of establishing a world government with executive powers whose task would not be promoting liberty and free markets but greater interventionism and control through cultural and scientific organizations. This became clear with the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1945.
After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.
At the launch of the organization, Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”
With these ideas, Julian Huxley was in respectable company. Since the late nineteenth century, the call for the genetic betterment of the human race through eugenics has been gaining many prominent followers. John Maynard Keynes, for example, held the promotion of eugenics and population control as one the most important social questions and a crucial area of research.
Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In his discourse at the foundation of the UNESCO, Julian Huxley was quite specific about the goals and methods of this institution. To achieve the desired “evolutionary progress” of mankind, the first step must be to stress “the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”
Furthermore, the institution must consider the tradeoff between the “importance of quality as against quantity” (p. 14), which means it must take into account that there is, “an optimum range of size for every human organization as for every type of organism” (p. 15). The educational, scientific, and cultural organization of the UN should give special attention to “unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge” (p 17).
Huxley makes it clear that human diversity is not for all. Variety for “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients…cannot but be bad,” and because a “considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education” and also a “considerable percentage of young men” suffer from “physical weakness or mental instability” and “these grounds are often genetic in origin” (p. 20), these groups must be excluded from the efforts of advancing human progress.
In his discourse, Huxley diagnosed that at the time of his writing the “indirect effect of civilization” is rather “dysgenic instead of eugenic” and that “in any case, it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved” (p. 21). After all, it is “essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics” (pp. 37–38).
Use of the Climate Threat
The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome. In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.”
The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report of the Council of the Club of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.
Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030. The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs). The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument.
Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors. Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse. In the meanwhile, these anticapitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.
In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system. Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system.
In 1945, Huxley (p. 21) noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary. In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN suborganizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders. The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO—have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.
As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38). The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61). This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.
With the foundation of the United Nations and its suborganizations, the drive to advance the programs of eugenics and transhumanism took a big step forward. Together with the activities of the Club of Rome, they have a stage to initiate the great reset that is going on currently. With the pronouncement of a pandemic, the goal of comprehensive government control of the economy and society has taken another leap toward transforming the economy and society. Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.