Great Reset, The

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.

James Corbett Goes In-Depth on The Great Reset
What is The Great Reset, exactly, and what does it mean for the future of humanity? James Corbett of the Corbett Report takes us through his in-depth exploration of the latest rebranding of the New World Order agenda and its vision of a post-human Fourth Industrial Revolution.

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.

2014

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.

2015

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.

2016

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.

2019

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.’

Social Engineering

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.

Maybe a more accurate title for WEF’s pet project would be: The Great Trojan Horse.2

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 DepressionFranklin 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.

Eugenics

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.

Conclusion

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.

Sources:

Global Warming

Global warming is a theory with four components: (1) The Earth’s surface temperature is rising because of human activity, particularly industrial production and personal consumption; (2) Weather extremes we now experience are more destructive than in the past because of this warming effect; (3) If this trend is not stopped, the planet will soon be unable to sustain human life as we have known it; and (4) The solution is government management of all human activity, including the elimination of private property and personal freedom. The theory is based on junk science and fraud. In other words, it does not exist. The driving force behind this theory comes from politicians, bureaucrats, and those employed by institutions that depend on government funding. All of these benefit from the alleged solution to the alleged problem. The proposed solution requires crushing taxation, confiscation of private property, and denial of freedom-of-choice. The threat of global warming is the bedrock foundation of almost all programs on behalf of totalitarian government based on collectivism.

Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a theory that suggests that human activity is causing the Earth to warm. The theory posits that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and water vapor, trap solar warmth on the planet. Globalists use this theory as a basis to propose cuts in energy production and consumption, a global UN tax on every person, and to promote de-industrialization.

The Beginning of the Hoax

The Club of Rome is a global think tank that develops strategies meant to influence the world’s most powerful elites. They represent the intellectual avant-garde of globalist thinking and have developed much of the geopolitical doctrine shaping our world today. The end of the first half of a report written in 1991, by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, for the Club of Rome, titled: “The First Global Revolution” concludes:

In searching for the new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. In their totality and in their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which demands the solidarity of all peoples. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap about which we have already warned, namely mistaking symptoms for cause. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changing attitudes and behaviors that they can be overcome.  The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”

Before the Club of Rome think tank was another think tank that was likely commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, New York. G. Edward Griffin devoted a section of his popular book, The Creature From Jekkyl Island, regarding the report named ‘The Report from Iron Mountain‘. “It is clear from the start that the nature of the study was to analyze the different ways a government can perpetuate itself in power.

The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to achieve that goal. It contends that only during times of war or the threat of war are the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint. Fear of conquest and pillage by an enemy can make almost any burden seem acceptable by comparison. War can be used to arouse human passion and patriotic feelings of loyalty to the nation’s leaders. No amount of sacrifice in the name of victory will be rejected. Resistance is viewed as treason. But, in times of peace, people become resentful of high taxes, shortages, and bureaucratic intervention. When they become disrespectful of their leaders, they become dangerous. No government has long survived without enemies and armed conflict. War, therefore, has been an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” These are the report’s exact words:

The war system not only has been essential to the existence of nations as independent political entities, but has been equally indispensable to their stable political structure. Without it, no government has ever been able to obtain acquiescence in its “legitimacy,” or right to rule its society. The possibility of war provides the sense of external necessity without which no government can long remain in power. The historical record reveals one instance after another where the failure of a regime to maintain the credibility of a war threat led to its dissolution, by the forces of private interest, of reactions to social injustice, or of other disintegrative elements. The organization of society for the possibility of war is its principal political stabilizer…. It has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has insured the subordination of the citizens to the state by virtue of the residual war powers inherent in the concept of nationhood. (2)

The report then explains that we are approaching a point in history where the old formulas may no longer work. Why? Because it may now be possible to create a world government in which all nations will be disarmed and disciplined by a world army, a condition which will be called peace. The report says: “The word peace, as we have used it in the following pages, … implies total and general disarmament.” (3)

Under that scenario, independent nations will no longer exist and governments will not have the capability to wage war. There could be military action by the world army against renegade political subdivisions, but these would be called peace-keeping operations, and soldiers would be called peace keepers. No matter how much property is destroyed or how much blood is spilled, the bullets will be “peaceful” bullets and the bombs – even atomic bombs, if necessary – will be “peaceful” bombs.

The report then raises the question of whether there can ever be a suitable substitute for war. What else could the regional governments use – and what could the world government itself use – to legitimize and perpetuate itself? To provide an answer to that question was the stated purpose of the study.

The Report from Iron Mountain concludes that there can be no substitute for war unless it possesses three properties. It must (1) be economically wasteful, (2) represent a credible threat of great magnitude, and (3) provide a logical excuse for compulsory service to the government.

On the subject of compulsory service, the Report explains that one of the advantages of standing armies is that they provide a place for the government to put antisocial and dissident elements of society. In the absence of war, these forced-labor battalions would be told they are fighting poverty or cleaning up the planet or bolstering the economy or serving the common good in some other fashion. Every teenager would be required to serve – especially during those years in which young people are most rebellious against authority. Older people, too, would be drafted as a means of working off tax payments and fines. Dissidents would face heavy fines for “hate crimes” and politically incorrect attitudes so, eventually, they would all be in the forced-labor battalions.

The first consideration in finding a suitable threat to serve as a global enemy was that it did not have to be real. A real one would be better, of course, but an invented one would work just as well, provided the masses could be convinced it was real. The public will more readily believe some fictions than others. Credibility would be more important than truth.

Poverty was examined as a potential global enemy but rejected as not fearful enough. Most of the world was already in poverty. Only those who had never experienced poverty would see it as a global threat. For the rest, it was simply a fact of everyday life. An [lightbox full=”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwubPWt_lrE”]invasion by aliens from outer space[/lightbox] was given serious consideration. The report said that experiments along those lines already may have been tried. Public reaction, however, was not sufficiently predictable, because the threat was not “credible.” Obviously, they have decided to prepare and build it up as a backup plan or to test it as can be ascertained from the warnings of Dr. Steven Greer.

The final candidate for a useful global threat was pollution of the environment. This was viewed as the most likely to succeed because it could be related to observable conditions such as smog and water pollution– in other words, it would be based partly on fact and, therefore, be credible. Predictions could be made showing end-of-earth scenarios just as horrible as atomic warfare. Accuracy in these predictions would not be important. Their purpose would be to frighten, not to inform. It might even be necessary to deliberately poison the environment to make the predictions more convincing and to focus the public mind on fighting a new enemy, more fearful than any invader from another nation – or even from outer space. The masses would more willingly accept a falling standard of living, tax increases, and bureaucratic intervention in their lives as simply “the price we must pay to save Mother Earth.” A massive battle against death and destruction from global pollution possibly could replace war as justification for social control.

End-of-world scenarios based on phony scientific studies – or no studies at all – are uncritically publicized by the CFR controlled media; radical environmental groups advocating collectivist doctrine and anti-business programs are lavishly funded by CFR dominated foundations, banks, and corporations, the very groups that would appear to have the most to lose. The Report from Iron Mountain answers those questions. Obviously, global warming has taken the forefront as the biggest global environmental threat to mankind, although no proof can be made of the hoax. Pollution has also been heavily propagandized and is also being used, although a real concern, as a means of advancing their agenda. The War on Terror, born on 9/11 has been the biggest cause of fear throughout the world although it can be shown to also be a creation of the deep state.

As the Report pointed out, truth is not important in these matters. It’s what people can be made to believe that counts. “Credibility” is the key, not reality. All that is required is media cooperation and repetition. The plan has apparently worked. People of the industrialized nations have been subjected to a barrage of documentaries, dramas, feature films, ballads, poems, bumper stickers, posters, marches, speeches, seminars, conferences, and concerts. The result has been phenomenal. Politicians are now elected to office on platforms consisting of nothing more than an expressed concern for the environment and a promise to combat the threat of global warming. Not one in a thousand will question that underlying premise. How could it be false? Look at all the movie celebrities and rock stars who have joined the movement.

The Club of Rome’s propaganda man and main proponent Of global warming, Maurice Strong said the following on global warming:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

“Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to choose between the force of darkness and the force of light. We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.“

Like Dorothy, Lion, Tin Man and Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve all been dancing down the Yellow Brick Road of “settled science” in search of answers from the Emerald City, only to find that what we suspected all along — the Wizard has been telling us fibs. But who exactly is the Wizard? And where did this seeming-madness all begin? Undoubtedly there are many “wizards”, but the man behind the green curtain, the man who managed to get the climate industry to where it is today is a mild mannered character by the name of Maurice Strong. The whole climate change business, and it is a business, started with Mr Strong.

Maurice Strong

Maurice Strong, a self-confessed socialist, was the man who put the United Nations into the environmental business, being the shadowy-figure behind the UN secretaries general from U Thant to Kofi Annan. His reign of influence in world affairs lasted from 1962 to 2005. Strong has been variously called “the international man of mystery”, the “new guy in your future” and “a very dangerous ideologue”.

Strong made his fortune in the oil and energy business running companies such as Petro Canada, Power Corporation, CalTex Africa, Hydro Canada, the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, Ajax Petroleum, Canadian Industrial Oil and Gas— to name just a few.His private interests always seemed to be in conflict with his public persona and his work on the world stage. Strong’s extensive range of contacts within the power brokers of the world was exceptional. One admirer christened him “the Michelangelo of networking”.

In 1972 he organized for U Thant the first Earth Summit, The Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment. This led to the formation of UN Environment Program with Maurice Strong at its head. Later, as the UNEP boss he organized the first international expert group meeting on climate change.

This led to exotic UN sponsored organizations such at Earth Council and Earth Charter, The World Resources Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and later The Commission for World Governance and the UN’s University for Peace. Strong was the driving force behind the idea of world governance by the United Nations when he dreamt up a world tax on monetary transactions of 0.5% which would have given the UN an annual income of $1.5 trillion. About equal then to the income of the USA. The stumbling block was the Security Council, and their power of veto. He devised a plan to get rid of the Security Council but failed to get it implemented. Then came along the idea that global warming might just be the device to get his World Governance proposal up and running.

In 1989 Maurice Strong was appointed Secretary General of the Earth Summit and in 1992, addressing Earth Summit II in Rio, he told the thousands of climate change delegates:

It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class— involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work place air-conditioning, and suburban housing — are not sustainable.

There goes the Sunday roast, a house to live in, the car, the occasional hamburger and generally, life on earth as we know it. But what Strong didn’t tell the delegates was that he was involved in the purchase of the Colorado Land and Cattle Company, which he bought from Adnan Khashoggi, an arms dealer who had strong connections with the Bin Laden family.

This 200,000 acre cattle property, called the Baca had two hidden secrets. One was that it sat above vast underground water systems, which Strong wanted to remove. He formed the American Water Development Corporation to exploit the water by pumping it out for commercial intent but was stopped by the locals as they feared it would destroy the delicate environment.

The second secret was that Maurice Strong had been told by a mystic that:

The Baca would become the centre for a new planetary order which would evolve from the economic collapse and environmental catastrophes that would sweep the globe in the years to come.

As a result of these revelations Strong created the Manitou Foundation, a New Age institution located at the Baca ranch — above the sacred waters that Strong had been denied permission to pump out. This hocus-pocus continued with the foundation of The Conservation Fund (with financial help of Laurance Rockefeller) to study the mystical properties of the Manitou Mountain. At the Baca ranch there is a circular temple devoted to the world’s mystical and religious movements.

The valley in which the Baca establishment is located is also traditional home for various Navajo tribes. They believe that their ancestors were led underground here by “Ant People” and according to Navajo tradition they were warned of a coming cataclysm by “sky katchinas” (sky spirits). No wonder Strong wanted to buy the Baca.

Meanwhile Maurice was also busy founding the Earth Council Institute in 1992 and recruiting world luminaries such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Shimon Peres, Al Gore and David Rockefeller. In 2000 Earth Charter was formed as a further push by Strong to create a world governing body.

Unfortunately, in 2005, the most powerful man in the push to save of humanity — by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases — was caught with his hand in the till.

Investigations into the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program found that Strong had endorsed a cheque for $988,885 made out to M. Strong — issued by a Jordanian bank. The man who gave the cheque, South Korean business man Tongsun Park was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal court of conspiring to bribe UN officials. Strong resigned and fled to Canada and thence to China where he has been living ever since.

Strong is believed to have sanctuary in China because of his cousin, Anne Louise Strong, a Marxist who lived with Mao Tse Tung for two years, and when she died in 1970, her funeral was arranged by Premier Chou En-Lai. Anne Louise Strong was a Comintern member — an organization formed in 1919 as the Third International, with one of its aims to use “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie…”

Maurice Strong, as an 18-year-old Canadian from Manitoba, started work at the United Nations in 1947 as a junior officer in the UN Security Section, living with the UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honors he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman. The exposure and downfall of climate change’s most powerful wizard? Dorothy and Toto would have loved it! (Source)

Climategate

On November 19, 2009, a scandal labeled ‘Climategate‘ erupted when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The scandal that the suffix –gate implies is the state of climate science over the past decade, revealed by more than a thousand emails, documents, and computer code sets between various prominent scientists. The released information is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation.

The Climategate emails, originating from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showed how all the data centers worldwide, including NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did. NASA’s two primary climate centers, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, N.C., and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University in New York City, “systematically eliminated 75% of the world’s stations with a clear bias toward removing higher-latitude, high-altitude and rural locations.”

The CRU scientists, from the Climategate emails, on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. As scientific data began showing a downtrend after 2001, the Climategate emails show a criminal intent to create fraudulent data, and defraud the public of massive amounts of money with a cap and trade scheme as part of a Global Warming movement. Climate scientists at the CRU worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act process in the UK. The Freedom of Information Act explicitly forbids deletion of any material subject to a FOIA request. The penalty for such a criminal act is a fine of up to £5,000. Presumably being found guilty of such an act, or even suggesting it, would also bring about significant disciplinary procedures at any reputable university.

Iain Murray at Pajamas Media pointed out three takeaways that people must know about Climategate.[2]

  1. First, the scientists discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. The most prominently featured scientists are paleoclimatologists, who reconstruct historical temperatures and who were responsible for a series of reconstructions that seemed to show a sharp rise in temperatures well above historical variation in recent decades.
  2. Secondly, scientists on several occasions discussed methods of subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. In 2003, Tom Wigley of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, complained that paleoclimatologist Hans von Storch was responsible for “the publication of crap science ‘in order to stimulate debate’” and that they “must get rid of von Storch” (1051190249) as an editor of the journal Climate Research (he indeed subsequently resigned).
  3. Finally, the scientists worked to circumvent the Freedom of Information process of the United Kingdom.

Read more on Climategate…

Sustainable Development & Agenda 21

Sustainable development has been the catchphrase of the environmental movement for over 20 years and rarely are underlying motives questioned. After all, a majority of people want a healthy future, free of pollutants and global warming where the earth is protected for ourselves and subsequent generations. There is a catch, however. The underpinnings of sustainable development are rooted in Agenda 21, a body of regulations inspired by the United Nations “Earth Summit” conference in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. At first glance, the agenda looks beneficial and harmless — except for the fact that it sets forth a policy which strips individuals of freedom and controls private land unconstitutionally.

The number one issue identified at the meeting of globalists was that of global warming, or climate change as it is now referred to as colder temperature trends have squashed the warming hoax.

The scientific establishment use great energy to attack any scientist who does dare ask questions or finds data contrary to the “official” line. The U.S. Justice Department even considered legal action against climate “deniers.” Why is it so vitally important that they continue to promote something that clearly is, to say the least, questionable? It’s because all of Agenda 21 policy is built on the premise that man is destroying the Earth. Climate change is their “proof.” To eliminate that premise is to remove all credibility and purpose for their entire agenda. They are willing to go to any length, even lies, to keep the climate-change foot on our throats.

On the local level, this translates into planning policy that controls energy use and the efforts to cut down on the use of cars, enforcement of the building of expensive light rail train systems, and bike paths and installation of smart meters, etc.

But don’t take my word for it. I’ll let them speak for themselves:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” — Christine Stewart, former Canadian minister of the environment

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” — Timothy Wirth, president, UN Foundation

“It doesn’t matter what is true. It only matters what people believe is true.” — Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Follow the money

Most truth seekers are familiar with the fact that an unfathomably wealthy banking and oil dynasty has been hijacking governments, media organs, universities, non-profits, and other power centers. Would anyone be surprised to find that the same culprits seek to expand its control over the economy and the energy sector in particular, according to a recently released investigation by a watchdog group? That dynasty, of course, is the Rockefeller family. In essence, they have largely created, bankrolled, and weaponized what is known as the “green” movement “as a means to expand their empire over the past three decades,” the report found.

Under the guise of fighting alleged “man-made global-warming,” the Rockefeller family and its billions have been bankrolling everything from “climate” journalism propaganda efforts, politicians, and “academia” to politically motivated “investigations” of energy companies and non-profit organizations by government officials. Billionaire extremist George Soros also helped fund the efforts, according to the report by the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) entitled The Rockefeller Way: The Family’s Covert “Climate Change” Plan.

Continued on next page…

Report from Iron Mountain

A think-tank study released in 1966 with which the origin of the report is highly debated, the document itself hints that it was commissioned by the Department of Defense under Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara (CFR) and was produced by the Hudson Institute located at the base of Iron Mountain in Croton-on-Hudson, NY. The Hudson Institute was founded and directed by Herman Kahn (CFR), formerly of the Rand Corporation. The major conclusion of the report was that, in the past, war has been the only reliable means to lure the masses compliant enough to carry the yoke of government without complaint and should continue to be an indispensable condition for “stabilizing society.” The report sought to redefine ‘peace’; use a more sophisticated form of slavery for the masses; preoccupy them with recreation, trivial game shows, pornography, situation comedies, and especially violent blood games; and to find a credible global threat such as poverty, environmental pollution (deemed the most credible), or an alien invasion. Continue Reading…

Climategate

The scandal erupted on Nov. 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the Univ. of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory. The released information including thousands of emails, is evidence of deceit by climate scientists, which was kept a secret or hidden from the public until the data was leaked from the CRU. The CRU’s apparent obstruction of freedom-of-information requests, as revealed by the leaks, was only the tip of the iceberg. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history as the worst scandal of this generation, but it hasn’t stopped the hoaxers from spewing their propaganda. Continue Reading…

Green New Deal

Proposed U.S. legislation in 2018 by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez that aims to address climate change and economic inequality and proposes the following to be completed in ten years or less: (1) A ban on 99% of the estimated 270 million cars currently on the road; (2) A ban on all oil, natural gas and nuclear power. That’s probably over 90% of how the country gets its energy. There’s no plan or mention on how we’d replace it; (3) AOC also wants EVERY building in America to be gutted and rebuilt so that they can be outfitted with energy efficient materials; (4) A ban on all air travel. Say goodbye to Hawaii; (5) The plan also calls for guaranteed jobs, a free house, free education for life, guaranteed income – whether the person has a quote “will to work” or not – and free healthy food (ie: no meat) for every American. It is essentially a communist green-glossed Trojan horse designed to increase government control over the economy.

Perhaps the most obvious flaw with anyone proposing a modern-day New Deal—whether green or any other hue—is that we are not currently in the midst of an economic depression. Even textbook Keynesians, who think that (say) the incoming Obama Administration was justified in administering a large “stimulus package” because we were stuck in a so-called liquidity trap, now admit that there is no economic rationale for continuing to run large budget deficits. (As Paul Krugman notoriously and conveniently wrote soon after the election of Trump, “Deficits Matter Again.”)

The very term “New Deal” was chosen to appeal to the 20%+ of the unemployed in the workforce, who had ostensibly been left behind by the traditional U.S. economic system. Yes, Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters are touting the Green New Deal as (among other things) the solution to lingering economic inequities in the current system. But to call concern over a wage gap a “New Deal” is as inapt as christening a bullet train program a “Green Moon Shot.”

The New Deal Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy and Prolonged the Great Depression

To reiterate, even if you were a die-hard Keynesian who believed in the virtues of fiscal stimulus, right now—with official unemployment at 3.7% and price inflation rising above the Fed’s target—it makes no sense to launch another New Deal.

But things are worse, because the Keynesian fans of FDR are wrong. The New Deal actually hurt the U.S. economy and prolonged the Great Depression.

I’ve written an entire book on this topic, but here is one key table, comparing unemployment rates in the U.S. and Canada:

Source: Robert P. Murphy, The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal, p. 103.

Roosevelt was elected in late 1932 and was inaugurated in early 1933. (Presidents were sworn in on March 4 back then.) As the table shows, unemployment in absolute terms remained awful for the next 8 years—it was not until 1941 that the annual average unemployment rate got back into the single digits (and just barely, at 9.9%).

Even worse, fans of FDR can’t simply blame the problem on the huge hole that FDR inherited from Herbert Hoover. In 1933, the U.S. unemployment was 5.6 percentage points higher than Canada’s. The next year, the gap widened to 7.2 percentage points. Jumping ahead to 1938—five years after Roosevelt is sworn in—the gap between the two countries’ unemployment rates is 7.6 percentage points.

In light of the above figures, why is it that people say of Roosevelt, “He got us out of the Depression”? As I ask in my book: What would the unemployment data have to look like, in order for conventional historians and the public to say FDR kept us mired in the Great Depression?

The “Green New Deal” Is a Power Grab for Progressives

Although it is of course cloaked in the mantle of peer-reviewed natural science, the Green New Deal is clearly a political program, designed to check every box on the progressive wish-list. For example, here is how Naomi Klein makes the case to left-wing activists to support Ocasio-Cortez against the establishment Democrats:

Pulling that [a 45-percent reduction in fossil fuel emissions in 12 years—RPM] off, the [IPCC] report’s summary states in its first sentence, is not possible with singular policies like carbon taxes. Rather, what is needed is “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.” By giving the committee a mandate that connects the dots between energy, transportation, housing and construction, as well as health care, living wages, a jobs guarantee, and the urgent imperative to battle racial and gender injustice, the Green New Deal plan would be mapping precisely that kind of far-reaching change. This is not a piecemeal approach that trains a water gun on a blazing fire, but a comprehensive and holistic plan to actually put the fire out. [Naomi Klein, bold added.]

As Klein’s discussion makes perfectly clear, this really isn’t about climate change at all. That is simply the pretext to fundamentally transform every aspect of society and culture the way progressive leftists have wanted to do even before people talked about “global warming.”

Incidentally, the quixotic pundits and wonks who still plead with conservatives and libertarians to agree to a “carbon tax deal,” should see Naomi Klein in the quotation above spell it out just like so many of her colleagues before her: They are explicitly saying a carbon tax is not close to being enough to achieve their environmental goals.

An Inconvenient Omission

There’s one more clue to clinch it for the naïve reader, to realize that the “Green New Deal” really isn’t merely a technical solution to the problem of negative externalities: The word “nuclear” doesn’t appear once in the entire draft legislation for the Select Committee. Isn’t it odd that Ocasio-Cortez and Naomi Klein think we have 12 years to act, in order to save humanity from climate catastrophe, yet they have the time to talk about fixing gender imbalances while they don’t talk about a dispatchable, scalable energy source that is carbon-emission-free? (This source currently provides 20% of U.S. electricity.)

In fairness, some progressive outlets have grudgingly started talking about nuclear—but even the example of Grist only started in January 2018. The obvious explanation here is that these activist progressives don’t really believe their alarmist rhetoric. Imagine someone warning that a killer asteroid was hurtling toward Earth, and we had a mere decade to do something about it. And then these activists spent their time on funding medical clinics to treat society’s downtrodden when the asteroid smashed into the planet, killing billions of people.

Some puzzled onlookers might timidly ask, “Instead of worrying about demographics, shouldn’t we be building lasers or missiles to knock the asteroid off course?” But the activists would explain, “No, promoting heavy weaponry would interfere with our messaging on gun control.”

In that scenario, would you believe the activists who told you we had a decade to act before the asteroid hit? Would their actions lead you to think they believed their own rhetoric?

A “Green New Deal” makes no sense on economic grounds, either in spirit or in letter. Even if one endorsed a Keynesian economic framework in which the historical New Deal “worked,” it still would be nonsensical to implement such a program today, with very high (peacetime) debt loads and an economy at officially full employment. What’s more, the historical New Deal did not in fact work, but rather prolonged the Depression. When an economy is already on the ropes, the last thing it needs is for more resources to be allocated politically, or for more regulations to rain down from Washington.

Furthermore, the rhetoric of Ocasio-Cortez and her supporters shows that the Green New Deal is only distantly related to the ostensible scientific problem of greenhouse gas emissions. The people pushing a Green New Deal are using it as a vehicle to advance the traditional potpourri of the left’s political agenda.

A Carbon Tax Won’t Satisfy the Green New Dealers

Regarding this last point, consider the following excerpt from the Green New Deal draft text’s Frequently Asked Questions:

[Question:] Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes alone, such as a carbon tax or an eventual ban on fossil fuels?

Regulations and taxes can, indeed, change some behavior. It’s certainly possible to argue that, if we had put in place targeted regulations and progressively increasing carbon and similar taxes several decades ago, the economy could have transformed itself by now. But whether or not that is true, we did not do that, and now time has run out.

Given the magnitude of the current challenge, the tools of regulation and taxation, used in isolation, will not be enough to quickly and smoothly accomplish the transformation that we need to see.

Simply put, we don’t need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment…

We’re not saying that there is no place for regulation and taxes (and these will continue to be important tools); we’re saying we need to add some new tools to the toolkit. [Green New Deal “draft text’]

The above excerpt confirms what I stressed above, in reference to Naomi Klein’s discussion: The proponents of government intervention on the progressive Left have quite definitively rejected the notion that a mere carbon tax would be enough to deal with climate change, in their book.

Don’t get me wrong, they want to impose a stiff tax on carbon dioxide emissions—as well as a 70 percent tax on high income earners, as Ocasio-Cortez revealed in a recent interview. But the point is, no libertarian or conservative should go along with a “deal” that ostensibly gets rid of other energy and transportation regulations in exchange for a carbon tax. The orthodox position among progressives is that such a deal would fall far short of the necessary climate goals to avoid catastrophe. Such a deal wouldn’t be acceptable to them, even in principle, let alone in practice.

A Green New Deal Would Be Incredibly Wasteful

The Green New Dealers’ desire for top-down regulations and massive new spending programs not only shows the futility of a carbon tax deal, it also underscores just how wasteful the program would be. Even if one believed in a “negative externality” from greenhouse gas emissions, there is no reason to suppose that policymakers have the knowledge or the incentives to correctly pick the proper ways in which the economy should adapt.

Especially when we are realistic about the political process, it should be obvious that funneling more than one trillion dollars in green “investment” spending through Washington will involve a gross misallocation of resources. For example, the draft text’s call for “retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient” is a blank check to funnel money into the coffers of politically powerful groups in the construction industry. Anyone who thinks these funds will be spent according to the “social cost of carbon” needs to watch a few episodes of House of Cards.

Stringent Fuel Economy Standards Cause Automobile Fatalities

In his recent endorsement of the Green New Deal, Paul Krugman confirms that “it should emphasize investments and subsidies, not carbon taxes.” Ironically, Krugman and I for once agree that a political deal between conservatives and progressives is a no-go. As he puts it: “[C]laims that a carbon tax high enough to make a meaningful difference would attract significant bipartisan support are a fantasy at best, a fossil-fuel-industry ploy to avoid major action at worst.”

After throwing carbon taxes under the bus, Krugman moves on to argue why top-down regulations and spending programs can achieve significant emission cuts without imposing too much pain on ordinary Americans.

How is this possible? Krugman explains:

The majority of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions come from electricity generation and transportation. We could cut generation-related emissions by two-thirds or more simply by ending the use of coal and making more use of renewables (whose prices have fallen drastically), without requiring that Americans consume less power. We could almost surely reduce transportation emissions by a comparable amount by raising mileage and increasing the use of electric vehicles, even if we didn’t reduce the number of miles we drive each year.

Krugman is quite flippant in his above quotation with the word “simply,” as if eliminating coal—which in 2017 provided thirty percent of U.S. electricity—is no big deal. Krugman says we can simply “mak[e] more use of renewables,” without telling his readers that in 2017 (non-hydro) renewables accounted for less than 10 percent of electricity.

Regarding fuel economy, the simple fact is that in order for vehicles to achieve more miles to the gallon, automakers must make them more expensive, but also lighter and smaller. That means more Americans dying in car accidents than would otherwise be the case. How big a deal is this? Reputable studies have estimated that CAFE standards have caused anywhere from 40,000 – 125,000 excess vehicle fatalities.

Of course, proponents of stricter CAFE standards could quibble with these numbers, but the more significant point is that neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Krugman even admit that there is a tradeoff. They speak of cranking up mileage standards as if it’s a mere technical problem, without reckoning the tremendous human cost.

Conclusion

A so-called Green New Deal is aptly named, in the sense that the original New Deal was a massive boondoggle that restricted individual liberty and crippled economic growth. Besides revealing their plans for massive spending and inefficient regulations, the discussion of a Green New Deal indicates that there is no room for a “carbon tax deal” with conservatives.

Sources:

Chronological History of Events Involving the Green New Deal

First Presidential Debate of 2020: Trump vs. Biden... and 'Debate Moderator' Chris Wallace

First Presidential Debate of 2020: Trump vs. Biden… and ‘Debate Moderator’ Chris Wallace

The first of three scheduled debates between Trump and Biden took place on Sept. 29 at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. “The format for the first debate calls for six 15-minute time segments dedicated to topics announced in advance in order to encourage deep discussion of the leading issues facing the country,” the commission stated in a news release a week before the event, ...
Read More
Rockefeller Foundation Releases 'Reset the Table' Report, part of “The Great Reset” Describing Radical Transformation of Our Food System

Rockefeller Foundation Releases ‘Reset the Table’ Report, part of “The Great Reset” Describing Radical Transformation of Our Food System

The Rockefeller Foundation has released a new report, “Reset The Table” — an implied part of “The Great Reset” — describing a radical transformation of our food system in the face of the most significant disruption to our food supply in history. The report calls to provide food to all (like UBI), use schools as community nutrition distribution anchors, de-fund farms/ranches via “true cost accounting” that ...
Read More
Portland Passes “Green New Deal” Carbon Tax, First Of Its Kind in the Nation

Portland Passes “Green New Deal” Carbon Tax, First Of Its Kind in the Nation

Referring to it with happy little buzzwords such as “climate justice,” the city of Portland will soon be implementing the first (and hopefully only) “green new deal” carbon tax in the nation, which city “leaders” estimate will suck $60 million out of the economy. The money will allegedly be going toward “creating” “green energy” jobs. They say the tax will only affect The Evil Corporations™ specifically ...
Read More
Study: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

Study: Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice”

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which 'climate change' is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after a series of studies. “During the last hundred years the temperature ...
Read More
Guaido invites Ocasio-Cortez to Venezuela to Witness Socialism in Action

Guaido invites Ocasio-Cortez to Venezuela to Witness Socialism in Action

Venezuelan President Juan Guaido is fighting for what’s left of his country as citizens rummage through the garbage for scraps to eat and collect sewer water for their children. Humanitarian aid is waiting at the border, but anyone who attempts to retrieve it is attacked by the military. Those who haven’t already fled the country are now rioting in the streets against Nicolas Maduro, an illegitimate ...
Read More