A tax exempt foundation located in Silicon Valley started by billionaire, French-Iranian eBay founder Pierre Omidyar. It funds such leftist organizations as The Clinton Foundation, Politifact, Full Fact, First Look Media, the Democracy Fund, and other left-wing organizations. Pierre and his wife have given nearly $1M to Democratic candidates, causes and campaign committees in recent years, including Hillary, Biden, Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and a host of Democratic political committees. Omidyar is the single largest contributor to the “NeverTrump PAC” and also a major contributor to The Lincoln Project, another anti-Trump GOP group. In 2016, the NeverTrump PAC received $303,550 in money, $250,000 of which came directly from Omidyar.
Omidyar is the principle owner of First Look Media, the parent corporation of The Intercept. While The Intercept has covered important issues in the past, it has been charged with privatizing Edward Snowden’s leaks and promoting regime change efforts in Syria through direct attacks on the democratically-elected government of Bashar Al-Assad. Furthermore, The Intercept possesses a troubling record of outing the identities of those leaking secret government information. In a word, Omidyar has used his influence over The Intercept to stifle dissent while promoting the outlet as a pioneer of “independent” media.
Omidyar also funded the American Economic Liberties Project, led by Sarah Miller, a democrat operative who worked with the 2008 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign and had Satanic High Priest John Podesta officiate her wedding when she married Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Faiz Shakir.
The National Voter Registration (NVF) is sponsored by the Democracy Fund, a charitable foundation also created by the eBay founder and far-left activist, or most likely by his handlers. The Omidyar Network has partnered with the Open Society on various projects for a number of years and it has given grants to third parties using the Soros funded Tides Foundation as a “fiscal sponsor.” Tides is one of the largest donors to left-wing causes in the United States.1 One of the other organizations funded by both Soros and Omidyar’s ‘philanthropic’ organizations is Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit co-founded by Mark Zaid and the lawyers for the so-called whistleblower that was at the center of the impeachment movement targeting President Trump.
Omidyar is most concerned, however, with ensuring that the US empire maintains corporate and military control over the world’s nations and peoples. He has donated millions to the Clinton Global Initiative responsible for imposing ruthless austerity measures on nations such as Haiti. There is also documented evidence that Omidyar used his philanthropic network to support the “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014 which propelled neo-Nazis into state power, much to the pleasure of the IMF. The billionaire eBay mogul has also been a critical supporter of the United States Agency for International Development or USAID. USAID is well-known for its support of “soft power” tactics to promote regime change in nations that do not bow down to U.S. military and corporate power such as Cuba.
It was Omidyar’s section of the ruling class that created the economic and political conditions for Trump. For over thirty years, billionaires such as Omidyar, Steyer, and Buffet have bled workers and poor people dry. Wages and wealth have plummeted for the majority while profits and land holdings have soared for the minority. The only thing that workers and poor people can count on is that the military, police, and surveillance apparatus will grow as people become more desperate and impoverished. Omidyar and the Democratic Party-aligned billionaires have coalesced with as many repressive forces in the ruling class as possible to wage a struggle against Trump. In doing so, they avoid the very real crisis of legitimacy that elected Donald Trump in the first place.
We should steer clear of supporting Omidyar and expose his putrid political record as proof that there is no such thing as a “progressive” billionaire. Real progressives and radicals stand for universal healthcare, peace, jobs, and against war, mass incarceration, and mass surveillance. These are the political issues of our time that the entire ruling class stands against. Trump knew this and politically appealed to anti-regime change and anti-free trade sentiment within the Republican and Democratic Party. Through their “resistance” toward Trump, Omidyar and his ilk have as their real goal the suppression of this sentiment so that it never becomes a truly progressive movement for social transformation in this country.
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.
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.
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.
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 ‘TheGreat Reset‘ agenda appears on the surface to be a newly devised concept created directly in response to Covid-19. As it turns out the first soundings of a ‘reset‘ were actually made as far back as 2014. To appreciate the significance of the WEF’s intervention, it is important first to recognise the years leading up to 2020 and how they laid the foundations for where we are today.
Each January the WEF host their annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland. In 2014, Christine Lagarde, who was then the managing director of the IMF, called for a ‘reset‘ of monetary policy, the financial sector regulatory environment and structural reforms of global economies.
Lagarde was adamant that a reset was required ‘in the way in which the economy grows around the world‘. Fleshing this out, Lagarde cited the dangers to financial stability due to ‘bubbles developing here and there‘, the over 200 million globally who were unemployed and economic growth being too slow.
Despite these concerns, Lagarde’s view was that fiscal consolidation within national economies was still necessary in order to control spending and ensure the post 2008 ‘recovery‘.
In January 2019 I posted an article that went into detail about the monetary policy aspect of the ‘reset‘ promoted by Lagarde (Monetary Policy ‘Reset’: From Rhetoric to Actuality). I raised how at the time of Lagarde’s intervention the Federal Reserve were tapering their asset purchasing scheme (quantitative easing), introduced in the aftermath of the collapse of Lehman Brothers that triggered the 2008 financial crisis.
Come the end of 2014, the Fed had called a halt entirely to QE. A year later in December 2015, they began to raise interest rates for the first time in over a decade and would later go on to introduce an asset reduction programme where the central bank began to roll off assets from its balance sheet.
For Lagarde, international cooperation would be essential for a reset to succeed. Without nations cooperating, it would likely be fraught with instability and market turbulence. In an interview with Bloomberg at the time of the WEF meeting, Lagarde stressed the importance of the ‘medium term‘ when it came to achieving the reset:
The short term collides with the medium term but the question is to bring the medium term into the personal, political and corporate equation. And that’s the job of the IMF.
Looking back, 2015 was a highly significant year that saw global planners state quite openly their ambitions for a New World Order to be implemented over the next decade and a half.
First came the unveiling of the United Nation’s derived Agenda 2030 in September, and with it seventeen main objectives known as the Sustainable Development Goals. Agenda 2030 was adopted by the 193 members of the UN, with adoption coinciding with the 70th anniversary of the institution’s existence.
Chief amongst the seventeen goals were to end poverty by 2030 and for there to be zero hunger. Action on climate change was also needed, as was the creation of sustainable cities and communities and good health and wellbeing (which the UN directly associate with vaccinating families).
Agenda 2030 replaced the Millennium Development Goals, which were introduced in 2000 and encompassed a series of targets to be completed by 2015. According to the UN, ‘enormous progress‘ had been made ‘but more needs to be done‘.
To get a sense of what the UN means by ‘more‘, when the Sustainable Development Goals were signed off Claire Melamed, who in 2015 was Director of the global think tank Overseas Development Institute, told the BBC:
If they’re going to be met we’re going to have to see huge amounts of money. We’re going to have see governments behaving in a completely different way. We’re going to have to see companies totally changing their business practices. It can be done, but the real question is whether we want to do it enough.
Melamed is now the Chief Executive Officer of Global Partnership for Sustainable Development Data. Amongst the organisation’s funding partner’s are the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is a prominent organisation in the drive for a vaccine to immunise people against Covid-19.
In December 2015, three months after the announcement of Agenda 2030, came the founding of the Paris Climate Agreement at the COP21 conference. The agreement ties directly into the United Nations and operates within the bounds of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was the first ever universal and legally binding agreement adopted on the subject.
To achieve the goals of the agreement, one of which is limiting global warming to below two degrees, ‘appropriate financial flows, a new technology framework and an enhanced capacity building framework will be put in place, thus supporting action by developing countries and the most vulnerable countries, in line with their own national objectives.’
So far, 189 countries have ratified the agreement out of 197 that were present at the Paris conference. In October 2016, the required threshold was reached for the accord to enter into force.
With Agenda 2030 and the Paris Climate Agreement now set in motion, the World Economic Forum (which fully endorses the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals) ran with the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) as the theme for it’s annual meeting. I wrote about this in 2018 (Fourth Industrial Revolution: Mission Creep towards a New World Order – Part One) and picked up on how the executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, described the impact that the Fourth Industrial Revolution would have on the world.
First, it would be all encompassing and involve all stakeholders of the global polity, meaning full engagement with the public and private sectors, academia and civil society. Some aspects to the revolution include disruption to jobs and skills, business disruption, innovation and productivity, agile governance and security and conflict.
Second, connecting through these areas are a whole raft of concerns which comprise the rise of blockchain technology, global governance, the future of enterprise, workforce and employment, the future of government, the future of production, sustainable development and social protection systems.
The revolution is dubbed as a digital revolution, one where the ‘fusion of technologies‘ embodying the physical, digital and biological spheres come together. Artificial intelligence, robotics, nano and bio technology are all part of the vision for 4IR.
Schwab made it very plain that the world can expect the revolution to be a ‘symbiosis between micro-organisms, the human body, the products people consume and the buildings we inhabit.’ One consequence of this is that human beings will no longer just be users of technology, rather they will start to converge with both the digital and biological worlds to become part of it. A second consequence is that every industry on the planet will be subjected to a degree of ‘disruption‘ as the 4IR advances, resulting in the systems of production, management and governance being transformed.
It does not stop there. Outside of jobs, human identity, privacy, notions of ownership, consumption patterns, the time devoted to work and leisure, how we develop as individuals and how we meet people and nurture relationships will all have to change to accommodate 4IR. Since the onset of Covid-19, many of these things have already undergone significant ‘disruption‘
Soon after the 2016 WEF meeting, the world experienced substantial geopolitical ructions with the UK voting to leave the European Union and Donald Trump being elected as the United States’ 45th President.
Three years after they signalled major technological, political and societal change was coming, the World Economic Forum were back with a new theme – ‘Globalization 4.0: Shaping a New Architecture in the Age of the Fourth Industrial Revolution‘. It was a subject I covered in an article published around the time (Why Dismissing Globalist Warnings as ‘Project Fear’ May Prove a Mistake).
Executive chairman Klaus Schwab was at it again, reiterating that ‘our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution, and energy – just to name a few – will be completely transformed.’ Included in the breadth of transformation would be blockchain and distributed ledger technology, two fundamental components in the drive towards a global digital currency network.
In talking about ‘Globalization 4.0‘, Schwab described the present day as an ‘era of widespread insecurity and frustration‘, and went on to blame this environment for a rise in populism.
What Schwab did not make direct mention of is how a resurgence of protectionist tendencies was assisting the WEF in being able to push the argument for 4IR. The greater the level of global disunity, the more opportunity that groups like the WEF have in being able to cultivate the concept of a New World Order and convince people of its necessity. Globalization 4.0 is a facet of 4IR, a vision that Schwab is unreservedly committed to:
Globalization 4.0 has only just begun, but we are already vastly underprepared for it. Clinging to an outdated mindset and tinkering with our existing processes and institutions will not do. Rather, we need to redesign them from the ground up, so that we can capitalize on the new opportunities that await us, while avoiding the kind of disruptions that we are witnessing today.
‘Ready or not‘, Schwab warned, ‘a new world is upon us‘.
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.
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 ‘theactive participation of government, business and civil society figures‘.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) narrative was developed out of the World Economic Forum back in 2016. The WEF have confidently asserted that because of 4IR, ‘over the next decade, we will witness changes tearing through the global economy with an unprecedented speed, scale and force. They will transform entire systems of production, distribution and consumption‘.
Not only that, but the world is on the verge of witnessing ‘more technological change over the next decade than we have seen in the past 50 years.’
The group now plan to use ‘The Great Reset‘ as their theme for the 2021 annual meeting in Davos as a vehicle for advancing the 4IR agenda. 4IR is marketed as a technological revolution, where advancement in all the sciences ‘will leave no aspect of global society untouched.’
And like their global counterparts, such as the BIS and the Trilateral Commission, the WEF nurture their agenda gradually and seek to maintain their focus on the long term rather than ‘the emergencies of the day‘. In their own words, ‘success is measured not only in terms of immediate results – we understand that real progress takes time and sustained commitment.’
The WEF’s great reset project is social engineering at the highest level. Advocates of the reset contend that the UN failed to establish order in the world and could not advance forcefully its agenda of sustainable development—known as Agenda 2030—because of its bureaucratic, slow, and contradictory way of working. In contrast, the actions of the organizational committee of the World Economic Forum are swift and smart. When a consensus has been formed, it can be implemented by the global elite all over the world.
The ideology of the World Economic Forum is neither left nor right, nor progressive or conservative, it is also not fascist or communist, but outright technocratic. As such, it includes many elements of earlier collectivist ideologies.
In recent decades, the consensus has emerged at the annual Davos meetings that the world needs a revolution, and that reforms have taken too long. The members of the WEF envision a profound upheaval at short notice. The time span should be so brief that most people will hardly realize that a revolution is going on. The change must be so swift and dramatic that those who recognize that a revolution is happening do not have the time to mobilize against it.
The basic idea of the Great Reset is the same principle that guided the radical transformations from the French to the Russian and Chinese Revolutions. It is the idea of constructivist rationalism incorporated in the state. But projects like the Great Reset leave unanswered the question of who rules the state. The state itself does not rule. It is an instrument of power. It is not the abstract state that decides, but the leaders of specific political parties and of certain social groups.
Earlier totalitarian regimes needed mass executions and concentration camps to maintain their power. Now, with the help of new technologies, it is believed, dissenters can easily be identified and marginalized. The nonconformists will be silenced by disqualifying divergent opinions as morally despicable.
The 2020 lockdowns possibly offer a preview of how this system works. The lockdown worked as if it had been orchestrated—and perhaps it was. As if following a single command, the leaders of big and small nations—and of different stages of economic development—implemented almost identical measures. Not only did many governments act in unison, they also applied these measures with little regard for the horrific consequences of a global lockdown.
Months of economic stillstand have destroyed the economic basis of millions of families. Together with social distancing, the lockdown has produced a mass of people unable to care for themselves. First, governments destroyed the livelihood, then the politicians showed up as the savior. The demand for social assistance is no longer limited to specific groups, but has become a need of the masses.
Once, war was the health of the state. Now it is fear of disease. What lies ahead is not the apparent coziness of a benevolent comprehensive welfare state with a guaranteed minimum income and healthcare and education for all. The lockdown and its consequences have brought a foretaste what is to come: a permanent state of fear, strict behavioral control, massive loss of jobs, and growing dependence on the state.
With the measures taken in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, a big step to reset the global economy has been made. Without popular resistance, the end of the pandemic will not mean the end of the lockdown and social distancing. At the moment, however, the opponents of the new world order of digital tyranny still have access to the media and platforms to dissent. Yet the time is running out. The perpetrators of the new world order have smelled blood. Declaring the coronavirus a pandemic has come in handy to promote the agenda of their Great Reset. Only massive opposition can slow down and finally stop the extension of the power grip of the tyrannical technocracy that is on the rise.
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 Depression. Franklin Delano Roosevelt did not let the crisis go by without driving the agenda forward with his “New Deal.” FDR was especially interested in the special executive privileges that came with the Second World War. Resistance was almost nil when he moved forward to lay the groundwork for a new League of Nations, which was now to be named the United Nations.
Under the leadership of Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt, twenty-six nations agreed in January 1942 to the initiative of establishing a United Nations Organization (UNO), which came into existence on October 24, 1945. Since its inception, the United Nations and its branches, such as the World Bank Group and the World Health Organization (WHO), have prepared the countries of the world to comply with the goals that were announced at its foundation.
Yet the unctuous pronouncements of promoting “international peace and security,” “developing friendly relations among nations,” and working for “social progress, better living standards, and human rights” hides the agenda of establishing a world government with executive powers whose task would not be promoting liberty and free markets but greater interventionism and control through cultural and scientific organizations. This became clear with the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1945.
After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.
At the launch of the organization, Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”
With these ideas, Julian Huxley was in respectable company. Since the late nineteenth century, the call for the genetic betterment of the human race through eugenics has been gaining many prominent followers. John Maynard Keynes, for example, held the promotion of eugenics and population control as one the most important social questions and a crucial area of research.
Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In his discourse at the foundation of the UNESCO, Julian Huxley was quite specific about the goals and methods of this institution. To achieve the desired “evolutionary progress” of mankind, the first step must be to stress “the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”
Furthermore, the institution must consider the tradeoff between the “importance of quality as against quantity” (p. 14), which means it must take into account that there is, “an optimum range of size for every human organization as for every type of organism” (p. 15). The educational, scientific, and cultural organization of the UN should give special attention to “unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge” (p 17).
Huxley makes it clear that human diversity is not for all. Variety for “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients…cannot but be bad,” and because a “considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education” and also a “considerable percentage of young men” suffer from “physical weakness or mental instability” and “these grounds are often genetic in origin” (p. 20), these groups must be excluded from the efforts of advancing human progress.
In his discourse, Huxley diagnosed that at the time of his writing the “indirect effect of civilization” is rather “dysgenic instead of eugenic” and that “in any case, it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved” (p. 21). After all, it is “essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics” (pp. 37–38).
Use of the Climate Threat
The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome. In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.”
The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report of the Council of the Club of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.
Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030. The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs). The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument.
Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors. Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse. In the meanwhile, these anticapitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.
In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system. Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system.
In 1945, Huxley (p. 21) noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”
Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary. In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN suborganizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders. The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO—have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.
As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38). The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61). This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.
With the foundation of the United Nations and its suborganizations, the drive to advance the programs of eugenics and transhumanism took a big step forward. Together with the activities of the Club of Rome, they have a stage to initiate the great reset that is going on currently. With the pronouncement of a pandemic, the goal of comprehensive government control of the economy and society has taken another leap toward transforming the economy and society. Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.
A “Trojan Horse” has come to mean any trick or stratagem that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or place. The Trojan Horse is a tale from the Trojan War about the subterfuge that the Greeks used to enter the city of Troy and won the war. In the canonical version, after a fruitless 10-year siege, the Greeks constructed a huge wooden horse, and hid a select force of men inside. The Greeks pretended to sail away, and the Trojans pulled the horse into their city as a victory trophy. That night the Greek force crept out of the horse and opened the gates for the rest of the Greek army, which had sailed back under cover of night. The Greeks entered and destroyed the city of Troy, decisively ending the war. Today, the term “Trojan horse” is still used to refer to any kind of deception or trick that involves getting a target willingly to allow an enemy into a secure place.
The most detailed and most familiar version is in Virgil’s Aeneid, Book II (trans. A. S. Kline).
After many years have slipped by, the leaders of the Greeks, opposed by the Fates, and damaged by the war, build a horse of mountainous size, through Pallas’s divine art, and weave planks of fir over its ribs: they pretend it’s a votive offering: this rumour spreads. They secretly hide a picked body of men, chosen by lot, there, in the dark body, filling the belly and the huge cavernous insides with armed warriors. […]
Then Laocoön rushes down eagerly from the heights of the citadel, to confront them all, a large crowd with him, and shouts from far off: “O unhappy citizens, what madness? Do you think the enemy’s sailed away? Or do you think any Greek gift’s free of treachery? Is that Ulysses’s reputation? Either there are Greeks in hiding, concealed by the wood, or it’s been built as a machine to use against our walls, or spy on our homes, or fall on the city from above, or it hides some other trick: Trojans, don’t trust this horse. Whatever it is, I’m afraid of Greeks even those bearing gifts.”
Examples of Trojan horses today are:
Muslim Immigration in multiple countries – The Muslims are being used for multiple reasons: (1) as patsies in the war on terror, (2) as patsies in the war on Christian culture, and destabilization catalysts for the divide and conquer agenda of the New World Order.
Technology such as Windows 10, Pokemon Go, Smart TV, etc. – Many apps and smart technology today have built-in spyware. The government is obsessed with collecting data on every person and tracks your every move, can listen to your conversations through your technology, records your browsing data, and many other Orwellian tactics to be the all-seeing eye in counterfeit fashion to the true God who knows all. Unfortunately, they’re not looking for just the terrorists, as they claim. The true enemies are the free thinkers and freedom-lovers who would dare stand up against their planned tyranny.
Disney– We invite all of the Disney characters freely into our homes, and never expect it to be harmful in any way, but you will learn from the video that it is not what it is thought to be. Instead, children are being brainwashed with subliminal messaging of sex, drugs, and witchcraft.
Tax-Exempt Foundations – Millions of people give yearly to organizations such as the Rothschild Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Foundation, The Clinton Foundation, and many others that pretend to have the best interests of those whom they claim to serve at heart, but truly serve the interest of the New World Order.
‘Free Trade’ Agreements – Wonderfully packaged as great for the American people, trade agreements like NAFTA and the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) are written by corporations for corporations.
… and many more Trojan horses that are disguised as something good, but in reality are very harmful to you.
Trans-Pacific Partnership: An Assessment: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) between 12 Pacific Rim countries has generated the most intensive political debate about the role of trade in the United States in a generation. The TPP is one of the broadest and most progressive free trade agreements since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The essays in this Policy Analysis provide estimates of the TPP’s benefits and costs and analyze more than 20 issues in the agreement, including environmental and labor standards, tariff schedules, investment and competition policy, intellectual property, ecommerce, services and financial services, government procurement, dispute settlement, and agriculture. Through extensive analysis of the TPP text, PIIE scholars present an indispensable and detailed “reader’s guide” that also sheds light on the agreement’s merits and shortcomings.
Chronological History of Events tagged ‘Trojan Horse’
Churches across the country are filing lawsuits against Democrat governors who are not including them among the “essential” services that may immediately “reopen” as states move away from their coronavirus lockdown environments. Oregon, California, Virginia, and Maine churches and faith leaders have filed lawsuits claiming the governors do not have authority to extend, indefinitely, stay-at-home orders against them. Failure to consider the churches as essential as ... Read More
This is obvious censorship. YouTube is planning to silence those who disagree with the political/ruling class and have taken sides. Speaking truth to power is now borderline criminal. The censorship continues… Content creators everywhere are starting to panic about an upcoming policy change over at YouTube that threatens to eliminate all accounts and channels on the Google-owned video platform that are deemed to no longer be “commercially ... Read More
The “Green New Deal” proposed by congressional Democrats is a “recipe for mass suicide” and the “most ridiculous scenario I ever heard,” Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore warned in an exclusive interview with The New American. In fact, Dr. Moore warned that if the “completely preposterous” prescriptions in the scheme were actually implemented, Americans could be forced to turn to cannibalism to avoid starvation — and they ... Read More
Scientists have launched a major new phase in the testing of a controversial genetically modified organism: a mosquito designed to quickly spread a genetic mutation lethal to its own species, NPR has learned. For the first time, researchers have begun large-scale releases of the engineered insects, into a high-security laboratory in Terni, Italy. "This will really be a breakthrough experiment," says Ruth Mueller, an entomologist who ... Read More
The nation's top agency tasked with monitoring, enhancing and making recommendations on civil rights policies released a controversial new report on 7 September 2016 proclaiming that religious exemptions can hamper citizens' civil rights. "Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these ... Read More
The mechanism being used by the global elite to unite all religions of the world. The ecumenical / interfaith movement is a movement interconnected with the Vatican, the UN, and various New Age organizations. Robert Muller has led the movement. Mr. Robert Muller was an assistant secretary general to three secretary-generals at the United Nations. He worked at the UN for 38 years and was an open advocate of a one-world government. In an interview with Irvin Baxter on the Politics and Religion radio program, Muller made the following statement, “We have brought the world together as far as we can politically.” He claimed that “to bring about a true world government, the world must be brought together spiritually.”
Then he said, “What we need is a United Nations of Religions. The political leaders meet every day at the United Nations, and they talk together. This has produced a consensus of opinion so that we actually have a world community, which for the most part speaks with a common voice.” Then he added, “The religious leaders won’t even speak to one another most of the time. We need a United Nations of Religions.”
Although embracing other religions and uniting the world’s religious leaders is a worthy cause, the interfaith / ecumenical movement from the outset was that this call to unity was based on compromise rather than truth. Long-held Biblical truths that our religious forefathers had worked and died for were cast aside like so much obsolete baggage. If the call for unity had been based on truth, Christians could have come together and prayerfully sought out the truths around which they should unify. They could have said, “Let’s pray and study until we know what the Bible actually teaches.” Then we could have had a true Christian rebirth. This was never the goal, but rather a very sinister one – to destroy Judaeo Christian values and culture and manipulate them to accept a single, false religion.
The globalist pushing for a New World Order have a long history of trying to control and manipulate the population. Their goals and objectives show they have targeted the education system, religious organizations, government, and any other means of influence to advance their goals. Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Illuminati, had 3 major goals: (1) abolition of Christianity, (2) abolition of all governments, and (3) abolition of private property. These are too evil to believe and too sinister to achieve without deception, so as always, they have disguised the true aims with counterfeit goals that allow undiscerning leaders to buy-in to a New World Order and a United World Religion, and therefore the duped unknowingly assist in pushing the evil agenda.
James Perloff gives an outstanding history of the War on Christianity in our glossary. Read it for a full understanding. An abbreviated history of the Illuminati goal of abolishing Christianity under the guise of a One World Religion follows:
On May 1, 1776 Adam Weisaupt establishes the Illuminati, an occult religion with the following goals that would eventually allow them to achieve world domination: 1) Abolition of all ordered governments, 2) Abolition of private property, 3) Abolition of inheritance, 4) Abolition of patriotism, (5) Abolition of the family, (6) Abolition of religion, and (7) Creation of a world government.
In 1798, John Robison publishes a book entitled “Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of Free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies” in which he reveals that Adam Weishaupt had attempted to recruit him. He exposes the diabolical aims of the Illuminati to the world. In the Publisher’s preface Robison confirms Weishaupt’s evil plan, “Weishaupt devised an ingenious vehicle for world conquest — a secret Order. He called it the Illuminati Order and grafted it, at selected points, onto Freemasonry — like a fungus…” Thus, the first part of the book deals with Freemasonry and provides an examination of the Masonic movement in the places and at the time the Illuminati Order came into being… It was in this Lodge — to which Weishaupt belonged — that the Illuminati Order was organized by him as a secret organization within a secret organization. It took a number of years before the existence of this secret society within a secret society came to light … In the third chapter of the book … Robison attempts to reveal how after the Bavarian Court of Enquiry exposed and banned the Illuminati Order and its leaders, the Order went underground and emerged as a network of Reading Societies throughout Germany. The goal of this literary network was to monopolize the writing, publication, reviewing and distribution of all literature, more effectively to control the minds of the readers. In this chapter, one sees more clearly than ever how the conspiracy used the printed word as its ultimate weapon in subverting the minds of the people … But most important is the revelation that this was a conspiracy conceived, organized, and activated by professionals and intellectuals, many of them brilliant but cunning and clever, who decided to put their minds in the service of total evil; a conspiracy conceived not by Masons as Masons, but by evil men using Freemasonry as a vehicle for their own purposes.” “It was then discovered that … the express aim of this Order was to abolish Christianity, overturn all civil government, and abolish private property.“
In March 1846, the following extracts are taken from the correspondence of the Italian “Alta Vendita or Haute Vente,” commonly supposed to have been the governing center of European Freemasonry at the time. The documents were seized by the Pontifical Government in 1846. They were communicated by Pope Gregory XVI to Cretineau-Joly (March, 1846), who published them in his work “L’Eglise en face de la Revolution” with the approval of Pius IX. A quote from the documents reads, “Our ultimate end is that of Voltaire and of the French Revolution, the final destruction of Christianity, and even of the Christian idea. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century, perhaps; in our ranks the soldiers die; but the fight goes on… Crush the enemy whoever he may be; crush the powerful by means of lies and calumny…”
In 1848 Karl Marx completes “The Communist Manifesto.” He not only advocates economic and political changes; he advocates moral and spiritual changes as well. He believes the family should be abolished, and that all children should be raised by a central authority. He expresses his attitude toward God by saying: “We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”
In 1869, Rev. Charles G. Finney, the great nineteenth century evangelist and longtime president of Oberlin College wrote a book exposing Freemasonry called ‘The Character, Claims, and Practical Workings of Freemasonry‘.On page one he says, “I know something about it, for I have been a Freemason myself.” On page eight: “I came to the deliberate conclusion, and could not avoid doing so, that my oaths had been procured by fraud and misrepresentations, and that the institution was in no respect what I had been previously informed it was. And, as I have had the means of examining it more thoroughly, it has become more and more irresistibly plain to my convictions that the institution is highly dangerous to the State, and in every way injurious to the Church of Christ.” Prominent ministers who joined Finney in exposing the Masonic institution included Rev. Torrey and Rev. Dwight L. Moody.
In 1884, the daughter of a Russian general living in Paris, Mademoiselle Justine Glinka, paid Joseph Schoerst (alias Shapiro), a member of the Jewish Mizraim Masonic Lodge, the sum of 2,500 francs for a “document [which] contained extraordinary dictated writings from assorted speeches which would later be included in the final compilation of the Protocols of Zion.” Schoerst was later murdered in Egypt. Henry Ford funded printing of 500,000 copies that were distributed throughout the US in the 1920’s. Adolf Hitler was a major proponent. It was studied in German classrooms after the Nazis came to power in 1933 to explain why the German culture had morally declined and why they must be expelled from the country. The Times of London claimed they were fraudulent in 1921, however Ford researched the documents finding them to be authentic. Ford said it should also serve as proof that history shows them to be true, and as we can observe – proof is in history that has followed its pattern since.
Protocol 13 details the dark agenda that all religions will be abolished in favor of a single false religion which their chosen philosophers will falsely lead them at the time they think they will come to rule their kingdom, while they (the self-appointed) guardians of truth, continue in their own false Luciferian religion.
In May 1919, a partial list of Communist Rules for Revolution (Captured at Dusseldorf by Allied Forces) revealed the following goals: (1) Corrupt the young; get them away from religion and interested in sex. Make them superficial; destroy their ruggedness. (2) By specious argument cause the breakdown of the old moral virtues: honesty, sobriety, continence, faith in the pledged word, ruggedness. (3) Encourage civil disorders and foster a lenient and soft attitude on the part of government toward such disorders. (4) Divide the people into hostile groups by constantly harping on controversial matters of no importance. (5) Get people’s minds off their government by focusing their attention on athletics, sexy books, plays, and other trivialities. (6) Get control of all means of publicity. (7) Destroy the people’s faith in their natural leaders by holding the latter up to contempt, ridicule and obloquy (disgrace). (8) Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with a view to confiscation and leaving the population helpless.
On 22 July 1924, the Illuminati, under the guise of Marxist philosophers, formed a think-tank in 1923 called the Institute for Social Research (formed as The Frankfurt School in 1924) based in Frankfurt Univ. in Germany. They determined that the western civilizations were too “blinded by prosperity and relative well-being to recognize their class consciousness and bring about the communist revolution“. They determined they must divorce Marxism from economics and marry it more to the culture of these countries to succeed. They determined that the Christian culture of God, family, and country must first be destroyed and they set out a plan to do so through seminaries, churches, media, Hollywood, etc.
In 1928, “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution” by H. G. Wells is published. A former Fabian socialist, Wells writes: “The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate, and supersede existing governments. The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York. The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will be a world religion.”
In 1932, ‘Toward a Soviet America‘ (Elgin Enterprises, Inc.: Los Angeles) by William Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party of the United States, was published. Foster died in 1961 in Moscow and was given a state funeral in the Kremlin. His book called for a U.S. Department of Education; implementation of a scientific materialist philosophy; studies revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology; students taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and general ethics of a new socialist society; present obsolete methods of teaching would be superseded by a scientific pedagogy. The whole basis and organization of capitalist science would be revolutionized. Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific. God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools. [Note from Iserbyte: Everything called for by Foster has taken place. “Scientific pedagogy” is OBE/mastery learning/direct instruction (Pavlov/Skinner). See the 1973 entry for Foundations of Behavioral Research, Second Edition, for some of the implications of implementing “a scientific materialistic philosophy.”]
On 26 January 1938, an interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, a Rothschild agent who was fighting for his life and his death sentence already pronounced, basically said to Stalin’s men: ‘if you interview me tonight, you will not kill me.” In light of Rakovsky’s powerful connections, Stalin was intrigued enough to order his chief interrogator, Gavriil G. Kusmin, to interview Rakovsky and see what he had to say. Red Symphony is a transcript of the interview – revealing astonishing explanations of Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Hitler, and others; why the international bankers were behind communism, and many other interesting revelations. According to testimony allegedly given by Christian Rakovsky during the interrogation by the Stalinist police, Rakovsky stated that he and Leon Trotsky were representatives of an invincible power known as the Capitalist-Communist Financial International. This power, Rakovsky insisted, was being exercised by the House of Rothschild, which facilitated, financed and controlled the work of Karl Marx and the revolutionary communist movement from the outset. Rakovsky claimed that the organization created the Communist state as a “machine of total power” to establish a global dictatorship of the super-rich.
He said that Communism cannot triumph unless it suppresses the “still living Christianity.”He refers to the “permanent revolution” as dating from the birth of Christ, and the reformation as “its first partial victory” because it split Christianity. This suggests that the “conspiracy” also contains a racial or religious factor. “In reality, Christianity is our only real enemy since all the political and economic phenomena of the Bourgeois States. Christianity controlling the individual is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or Atheist State.”
In March 1942, an article in “TIME” magazine chronicles the Federal Council of Churches [which later becomes the National Council of Churches, a part of the World Council of Churches] lending its weight to efforts to establish a global authority. A meeting of the top officials of the council comes out in favor of: 1) a world government of delegated powers; 2) strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty; 3) international control of all armies and navies. Representatives (375 of them) of 30-some denominations assert that “a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative” – a new order that is sure to come either “through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive revolution.”
In 1946, the United States joins the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) which set in motion the destabilization of our society through the rejection of absolute morals and values, Judeo-Christian tradition, and Roman law. Legislation authorizing United States membership in UNESCO marked the end of United States autonomy in a very crucial area: that of education. From this time on UNESCO would dictate education policy to our government and others. That same year, “The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress” in the William Alanson White Memorial Lectures by Major General G.B. [Brock] Chisholm, C.B.E., M.D., Deputy Minister of Health, was published. Several points are made to leave it to the UN to determine what is right and wrong, not churches or parents.
In April 1953, Herbert A. Philbrick, nine years an undercover FBI agent, operating in the top level of the Communist apparatus in the United States, had this to say in an article titled “The Communists Are After Your Church!” in the Christian Herald: “It is no accident that your church is the number-one target of the Communist conspiracy in America today. . . . Virtually no Communist or Communist-front activity takes place today without ministerial and church support, sponsorship or participation…”
In 1954, Bella Dodd, a leader of the Communist Party of America (CPUSA) in the 1930’s and 40’s who defected, wrote “School of Darkness”, which reveals that Communism was a hoax perpetrated by Jewish Illuminati financiers “to control the common man” and to advance world tyranny. Dodd describes Communism as “a strange secret cult” whose goal is the destruction of Western (i.e.Christian) Civilization. Millions of naive idealists (“innocents”) are tricked by its chicanery, but it cares only for power.
November 1, 1957 – Judge Robert Morris, Chief Counsel of the U. S. Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, in an address before the 16th Annual Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches, warned that Communists have infiltrated the churches and he declared, “Communists in the United States are the advance guard of the legions that are grinding down Hungarian freedom fighters in the streets of Budapest.” Then he appealed: “I adjure you to take up your own brand of arms in this titanic endeavor. Plunge into the tasks ahead with all your skill and evangelistic fervor. This is the greatest challenge that man has ever encountered.”
June 25, 1962 – Engel v. Vitale “The Regents School Prayer” ruled unconstitutional: The New York school system had adopted a prayer to be said before the start of each day’s classes. This prayer was to help promote good moral character of the students, spiritual training and help combat juvenile delinquency. The regents wrote a prayer for the schools which had to be non-sectarian or denominational. It was so bland that it became known to some religious leaders as the “to whom it may concern prayer.”
January 10, 1963 – the House of Representative and later the Senate began reviewing a document entitled “Communist Goals for Taking Over America.” It contained an agenda of 45 separate issues that, in hindsight was quite shocking back then and equally shocking today. Here, in part, are some key points listed in that document.
1. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principal of “separation of church and state.”
June 17, 1963 – Murray v. Curlett ruling: School Prayer removed from school by Supreme Court – Madalyn Murray O’Hair, a militant left wing atheist with close ties to the American Communist Party, took the school board of Baltimore to court for allowing prayer in school. The local court judge J. Gilbert Pendergast dismissed the petition stating, “It is abundantly clear that petitioners’ real objective is to drive every concept of religion out of the public school system.” The case went to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and the court ruled, “neither the First nor the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to stifle all rapport between religion and government.”
June 17, 1963 – Abington Township School District v. Schempp “Bible reading in school” ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Court – The Pennsylvania school system complied with a state law requiring that ten verses of scripture be read every day. The readings were without interpretation, comment or questions asked, and any student could request to be excused. It was voluntary without coercion, and the Schempp girl never asked to be excused and even volunteered to read the Bible on occasions. (This point was not brought up when the case was before the Supreme Court.) Yet the parents brought the case to court on grounds that it was coercion. This case came to the Supreme Court at the same time as the Murray v. Curlett case, and the court ruled on them together. After these last 2 cases were decided, the court’s ruling stated that Prayer and / or Bible reading was a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. In so ruling the court established a secular religion for our school system, thus violating the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment. And thus the First Amendment has been completely revised with regard to religious freedom, putting the restrictions on the people and not the government.
Mar 20, 1969 – There was a meeting of pediatricians and students which took place at the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society and one of the speakers was Dr. Richard Day, an eminent professor and physician as well as well as Director of Planned Parenthood. He asked that no notes or recordings be made of the meeting due to possible danger and/or consequences, but one student did take notes. Dr. Day then revealed not just what is planned for the entire world’s people but also how this evil cabal intend to carry out this plan. He elaborates on the ‘Blending of all Religions …. The Old Religions will have to Go’.
He said: “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need religion, with it’s mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion.” But the major religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily. Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and feel at home in it. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will realize that they don’t need it.
In order to do this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion. Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of meaning. Then, the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word. And as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized, and then gradually that word replaced with another word. I don’t know if I’m making that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this was another one of the times where he said: “… the few who do notice the difference won’t be enough to matter.” Then followed one of the most surprising statements of the whole presentation: He said: ” … some of you probably think the churches won’t stand for this [and he went on to say] The churches will help us!”
1973 – The Second Manifesto was written by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson, and was intended to update and replace the previous one. Among the oft-quoted lines from this 1973 Manifesto are, “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves,” and “We are responsible for what we are and for what we will be,” both of which may present difficulties for members of certain Christian, Jewish, and Muslim sects, or other believers in doctrines of submission to the will of an all-powerful God.
Expanding upon the role the public education establishment should play to bring about the goals described in the Humanist Manifesto II, John Dunphy wrote: “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers that correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being…The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new — the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with the promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of ‘love thy neighbor’ will finally be achieved.”
1976 – Reporters Gerard Colby and Charlotte Dennett travelled to Brazil as part of a journalistic team to write stories about the work of Christian missionaries in the Amazon basin. High on Colby and Dennett’s list of priorities was to learn about a mysterious missionary organization called the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL). This outfit, also known as the Wycliffe Bible Translators, had gotten kudos from both conservatives and liberals for translating the Bible into hundreds of indigenous languages in Central and South America and helping native peoples cope with the intrusion of Western civilization into their lives. However, Colby and Dennett had heard of a darker side to SIL. Numerous critics had alleged that SIL was the vanguard of the destruction of both the rainforests and their native inhabitants. They had heard from Latin American acquaintances that SIL was, in military fashion, a scouting party that surveyed the Amazonian hinterlands for potential sources of opposition to natural resource exploitation (read cattle ranching, clearcutting and strip mining) among native peoples and that it employed a virulent brand of Christian fundamentalism that relied on linguistics to undermine the social cohesion of aboriginal communities and accelerate their assimilation into Western culture. In addition to all this, numerous articles in the Latin American press accused SIL of being funded by the American intelligence community.
1980 – Supreme Court rules that the Ten Commandments cannot be posted in classrooms, “for a child might read them, reflect upon them and then obey them.” (Stone vs. Graham)
May 17, 1983 – President Reagan proposes a Constitutional Amendment to allow school prayer, however it was defeated by the Senate 10 months later though widely supported by the American people.
January 5, 1985 – Judge William Overton released his 38-page ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, the ACLU, ruling that creation science could not qualify as an alternative scientific explanation, on the pretext that it was primarily held by people who believed in the existence of God. This made them religious, and therefore all they believed was tainted with religiosity. Therefore creationism was a religious teaching, and therefore it could not be required in the schools on an “equal time” basis. Overton ruled that Arkansas Act 590 was therefore an attempt to establish religion in a state-supported school in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
June 26, 1995 – Ecumenical Service Held in San Francisco to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the UN Charter: The service was hosted by Bishop William Swing of Grace Episcopal Church in San Francisco at the request of the UN. People attending were UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Princess Margaret of Great Britain, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, President Lech Walesa of Poland and many other international dignitaries. After this ecumenical meeting, Bishop Swing decided he should investigate the possibility of establishing a United Religions Organization, or a United Nations of Religions. He traveled throughout 1996 visiting such people as Pope John Paul II, Bishop Desmond Tutu, the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa. Coming back from those meetings, he reported that the reception to the idea of a UN of Religions was overwhelming. Consequently, in 1997, Reverend Swing decided to hold the first charter writing conference for the United Religions Organization.
August 28-31, 2000 – Millennium World Peace Summit: About three months after the United Religions was formed one week before the Millennium Summit for the world’s political leaders was held, there was a meeting held at the United Nations called the Millennium World Peace Summit. This was the first religious meeting ever held at the United Nations. The supposed concept behind this meeting was to bring about cooperation between the religious leaders of the world and the political leaders of the world, but almost certainly to begin the final push for a single false religion as planned by the New World Order. The Summit was sponsored by Ted Turner, who had gifted $1billion to the UN. Because he put up the money, Turner was the keynote speaker for the meeting. There were about a thousand religious leaders in attendance from all over the world. The hope of the World Peace Summit was to engage religious and spiritual leadership as an interfaith ally to the United Nations in its quest for peace, global understanding and international cooperation.
May 1, 2008 – Globalist puppet Tony Blair founded a new organization called the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. He stated, “Because of globalization moving us all closer together, we need a foundation that will re-educate the world so that religions can learn how to get along together in this ever-closer society.” Blair launched a curriculum at Yale University called “Faith and Globalization”, becoming the key guest lecturer there. The course has since spread to other prestigious colleges. Realizing he needed to reach more than a few prestigious colleges, Tony Blair launched a new curriculum called “Face to Faith” and partnered with the Clinton Foundation in 2010 in order to re-educate the high school students of the world with Interfaithism.
September 2016 – A nearly 300 page document by the US Commission on Civil Rights, titled “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties,” states, “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” “Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these civil rights,” the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ report concluded. “The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” wrote the Chairman Martin Castro.
The nation's top agency tasked with monitoring, enhancing and making recommendations on civil rights policies released a controversial new report on 7 September 2016 proclaiming that religious exemptions can hamper citizens' civil rights. "Religious exemptions to the protections of civil rights based upon classifications such as race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity, when they are permissible, significantly infringe upon these ... Read More
Obama proclaimed to the nation of Turkey that "Whatever we once were, we (the United States) are no longer a Christian nation…" Is America a Christian Nation? by David Barton (Wallbuilders) Modern claims that America is not a Christian nation are rarely noticed or refuted today because of the nation’s widespread lack of knowledge about America’s history and foundation. To help provide the missing historical knowledge ... Read More
Globalist puppet Tony Blair founded a new organization called the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. He stated, “Because of globalization moving us all closer together, we need a foundation that will re-educate the world so that religions can learn how to get along together in this ever-closer society.” Blair launched a curriculum at Yale University called “Faith and Globalization”, becoming the key guest lecturer there. The course ... Read More
August 28-31, 2000 - Millennium World Peace Summit: About three months after the United Religions was formed one week before the Millennium Summit for the world’s political leaders was held, there was a meeting held at the United Nations called the Millennium World Peace Summit. This was the first religious meeting ever held at the United Nations. The supposed concept behind this meeting was to bring ... Read More
The ecumenical service was hosted by Bishop William Swing of Grace Episcopal Church in San Francisco at the request of the UN. People attending were UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Princess Margaret of Great Britain, Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, President Lech Walesa of Poland and many other international dignitaries. After this ecumenical meeting, Bishop Swing decided he should investigate the possibility of establishing ... Read More
John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie pioneered the tax exempt Foundations. Many consider these 2 men as great philanthropists, but these foundations were front organizations to fund their globalist New World Order agenda. Today, the George Soros Open Society Foundation, The Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation have all joined in on the global funding of the New World Order agenda.
“Philanthropy is the essential element in the making of Rockefeller power. It gives the Rockefellers a priceless reputation as public benefactors which the public values so highly that power over public affairs is placed in the Rockefellers’ hands. Philanthropy generates more power than wealth alone can provide.” – Myer Kutz Rockefeller Power (1974)
The hidden influence of tax-exempt foundations and think tanks in the halls of power has dramatically impacted our society, and in turn the world. The Rockefeller dynasty paved the way for eugenics in 20th Century America, heavily influenced the education system, created the medical cartel, and much more. Now Bill Gates’ various philanthropic institutions are impacting the globe, with a new initiative promising to make the next several years the “Decade of vaccines“. These institutions are impacting the globe to such an extent that some have suggested that the large foundations are monopolizing development. The United States has seen a shift of power to individuals who have been called “action intellectuals”. Who’s agenda are they serving? We didn’t elect these individuals, but large foundations are functioning like national governments.
The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense has picked up on this trend in its Strategic Trends program. The MoD’s Global Strategic Trends – Out to 2040 document foresees “…the emergence of a global elite, a powerful network of individuals and institutions that sits above the level of individual states and influences the global agenda…”
Our health, society and future are all impacted by these elites. Who are they? What agenda are they pursuing?
A look back…
The U.S. Congress first investigated the activities of the large foundations in 1915 under the Commission on Industrial Relations. The Commission found that,
“The domination by the men in whose hands the final control of a large part of American industry rests is not limited to their employees, but is being rapidly extended to control the education and social survival of the nation. This control is being extended largely through the creation of enormous privately managed funds for indefinite purposes, hereafter designated “foundations”, by the endowment of colleges and universities, by the creation of funds for the pensioning of teachers, by contributions to private charities, as well as through controlling or influencing the public press…”
Again in 1953 the Reece Committee found that tax-exempt foundations were wielding an unprecedented amount of influence over American society, including the education system. Norman Dodd served as the chief director of research for the Committee. In the monumental interview Dodd outlines what he found (See video above).
Foundations serve another, much less discussed purpose. The wealth of the individuals who own the large foundations is protected from taxation. The Rockefeller Foundation was conveniently founded in 1913, the same year that the income tax was ratified. John D. Rockefeller Sr. pioneered this art of so called “scientific giving”, and modern day philanthropists have followed in his footsteps. When John D’s public image became tarnished by his notoriously ruthless nature in his business dealings, he hired the PR man named “Poison” Ivy Lee. Lee suggested that Rockefeller begin giving away his wealth, and give it away he did; with strings attached.
Gary Allen explains in The Rockefeller File,
“He [Rockefeller] would “give” money away to foundations under his control and then have those foundations spend the money in ways which brought even more power and profits to the Rockefeller empire. The money “given” away would be bread cast upon the waters. But bread that always had a hook in it. John D. Jr. was to refer to this as the “principle of scientific giving.”
The influence of large foundations on American society is documented by Dr. Lily E. Kay in her book The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology. Kay writes, “Their numerous projects and the unprecedented scope of their financial and institutional resources shaped the development of culture and the production of knowledge in the United States. Through education, public opinion, stimulation of specific research agenda, and the promotion of selective categories of knowledge and research, the Foundation played a key role in the creation of a hegemonic bloc…”
At the turn of the 20th century, capitalism’s proclivity for crisis was fomenting rebellion within the U.S. through massive labor strikes, struggles for universal suffrage and relief from poverty as a major depression gripped the nation due to overproduction. In response, the nation’s political and economic elite significantly expanded U.S. pursuits of overseas markets for American goods and investment capital… [rationalizing] U.S. military intervention. These events required the intensification of the social control apparatus of U.S. nationalism – well oiled by its highly effective and profitable role in the conquest of North America – as a means [in part] to deflect attention towards an external “threat.”
To achieve these aims on a more structural level, Prussian inspired common schools established in the 19th century served as the model for the establishment of compulsory secondary education in early 20th century America. According to these altruistic “stewards” of the public good, mass public education needed to be standardized, vocational and efficient as a means to serve their larger “social mission” of preparing students for their future roles in the 20th century industrial workforce. This philanthropic agenda was made explicit in 1914 when the National Education Association passed a resolution that read, in part:
We view with alarm the activity of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations—agencies not in any way responsible to the people—in their efforts to control the policies of our State educational institutions, to fashion after their conception and to standardize our courses of study, and to surround the institutions with conditions which menace true academic freedom and defeat the primary purpose of democracy as heretofore preserved inviolate in our common schools, normal schools, and universities.
Fast forward to the 1990’s when “venture philanthropy” emerged, shifting the social mission of philanthropy to focus on neoliberal structural adjustment programs, which dictate austerity measures in the service of elite financial investors. Since philanthropic foundations are established and controlled by billionaires whose wealth and power is derived from human exploitation and environmental degradation, this modern pursuit should not come as a surprise. The personal interests of this opulent minority are directly tied to today’s financialized economy as investors and as members of politically influential networks that oversee global financial markets. As such, in the 21st century venture philanthropists have focused their efforts on constructing new financial markets through what is referred to as “mission investing,” “social impact investing,” or just “impact investing.” Impact investing is a continuation of the sixty-year colonizing mission of the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, “Troika” and the United States government; yet with a “friendlier,” but more duplicitous methodology.
In May of 2009 several top philanthropists met at the home of Sir Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University. David Rockefeller Jr, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey were all in attendance. According to the London Times, the meeting was so secret that, “…some of the billionaires’ aides were told they were at ‘security briefings’”. The Times reports, “Over dinner they discussed how they might settle on an “umbrella cause” that could harness their interests.” The Times interviewed a guest at the meeting, who said that the group wanted to meet in secret because they didn’t want their statements ending up in the media, “painting them as an alternative world government.”
A brief overview of the activities of these groups will show that they have been acting as an alternative world government, and that they have been for decades. Through their grant-making power and immense wealth, they can effectively choose which scientific research projects are funded, what education reforms are initiated, and in turn the entire direction of society at large.
In an interview with the Seattle Times, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was asked, “Some say the emergence of super rich philanthropies like the Gates Foundation has undermined the effectiveness of the U.N. and its member organizations, like the WHO.” Moon responded,
“On the contrary that is what we really want — contributions from the business community as well as philanthropies. We need to have political support, but it doesn’t give us all that we need. NGOs and philanthropies and many foundations such as Bill Gates Foundation — they’re taking a very important role…”
In October of 2007, the Global Impact Investing Network was established by the Rockefeller Foundation. The GIIN will “help solve social and environmental problems” by encouraging investment that will bring both profit and produce real world change. The GIIN is taking John D’s “principle of scientific giving” to another level. This conglomerate of various banks and foundations will attempt to mold industry and society by investing in selected social programs and “screening” out investments for Co2 emitters and others deemed to be unworthy.
According to GIIN:
Impact investing challenges the long-held views that social and environmental issues should be addressed only by philanthropic donations, and that market investments should focus exclusively on achieving financial returns.” With that purpose in mind, GIIN’s primary mission is to build “critical market infrastructure and supports activities, education, and research that help accelerate the development of the impact investing field.
GIIN is well positioned to do just that since its membership is comprised of the luminaries of global finance and philanthropic foundations, including (but not limited to): The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Goldman Sachs, J.P.Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Prudential Financial, Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association – College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF), Zurich Insurance Group, Ford Foundation, Deutsche Bank, International Finance Corporation, Root Capital, UBS Financial Services and the Inter-American Development Bank Group (long-term IMF/World Bank partner responsible for structural adjustment and austerity throughout Latin America).
As briefly documented earlier, GIIN’s founding member, the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Rockefeller family, have a dark history of leveraging their wealth and power in the service of U.S hegemony, both domestically and internationally. In line with the legacy of John D. Rockefeller Senior, the Rockefeller Foundation went on to become an influential founding member of the “Washington Consensus” and has since been an aggressive supporter of the IMF and World Bank’s draconian policies and practices. The Rockefeller family and its foundation were also early activists and funders of eugenics based population control efforts in the U.S. and abroad via forced sterilization of “inferior” populations (Black, Brown and disabled people). As Edwin Black documented in his 2003 San Francisco Chronicle article “Eugenics and the Nazis — The California Connection,” “Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune.” According to Black, “the Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”
Two of GIIN’s other founding members include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
According to Andy Beckett of The Guardian, the Gates Foundation is known for being “top-down, technocratic, applying the language of engineering to social problems.” Beckett goes on to claim how critics of the Gates Foundation and its form of “philanthrocapitalism” loathe how it plays god with its “creations.” Following this model, the Gates foundation is notorious for many nefarious activities across the planet. Accordingly, Andy Beckett of The Guardian went on to report:
In 2007 an extensive investigation by the Los Angeles Times found that the [Gates Foundation] charity, via its trust, invests in ‘companies that contribute to the human suffering in health, housing and social welfare that the foundation is trying to alleviate.’ The [Gates] foundation did not challenge the thrust of the articles, which included allegations that it invested in an oil company responsible for causing health problems by burning off its unwanted gas, in an African country in which the foundation was active in trying to improve the population’s health. But the charity decided after a brief review not to change its investment policy.
A Gates Foundation spokesperson replied to the Los Angeles Times investigation by glibly stating:
The stories you told of people who are suffering touched us all. But it is naive to suggest that an individual stockholder can stop that suffering. Changes in our investment practices would have little or no impact on these issues.
The Gates Foundation is the largest funder of research in genetic engineering on the planet and is one of the world’s major donors to agricultural research and development. In line with GIIN’s objectives, most of the Gates Foundation’s focus in these areas target the continent of Africa. A 2014 report by the biodiversity and small farmer advocacy organization GRAIN found that the Gates Foundation was indeed living up to its colonizing character, with the claim: “The Gates Foundation fights hunger in the South by giving money to the North.” GRAIN went on to report:
… the Gates Foundation is promoting an imported model of industrial agriculture based on the high-tech seeds and chemicals sold by US corporations… the foundation is fixated on the work of scientists in centralised labs and that it chooses to ignore the knowledge and biodiversity that Africa’s small farmers have developed and maintained over generations. Some also charge that the Gates Foundation is using its money to impose a policy agenda on Africa, accusing the foundation of direct intervention on highly controversial issues like seed laws and GMOs.
As reported in The Guardian, GRAIN co-founder Henk Hobbelink revealed, “The bulk of [Gates Foundation] grants for agriculture are given to organisations in the US and Europe” while the “overwhelming majority of its funding goes to hi-tech scientific outfits, not to supporting the solutions that the farmers themselves are developing on the ground. Africa’s farmers are cast as recipients, mere consumers of knowledge and technology from others.” GRAIN went on to report how Gates “also funds initiatives and agribusiness companies operating in Africa to develop private markets for seeds and fertilisers through support to ‘agro-dealers.’”
GIIN’s other co-founder USAID, has a stated mission that “…carries out U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States, and fosters good will abroad.” As documented by Teresa Meade in her book, A History of Modern Latin America: 1800 to The Present, USAID’s practices in promoting “human progress” and “free societies” infamously include undermining popular liberation movements throughout the globe by engaging in torture, murder, spying and paramilitary terrorism campaigns in order to advance U.S. imperial interests. According to Meade USAID public safety officer Dan Mitrione, who trained police throughout Latin America in the art of surveillance and torture in the 1970’s, is known to have stated during his regular lesson plan, “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect.”
As documented in a 2010 joint report put out by banking giant JP Morgan and the Rockefeller Foundation titled “Impact Investments: An emerging asset class,” “Increasingly, entrants to the impact investment market believe they need not sacrifice financial return in exchange for social impact.” Under the premise of “doing good while doing well,” this report points out that impact investment attracts a wide variety of investors who invest “across the capital structure, across regions and business sectors, and with a range of impact objectives.” These include diversified financial institutions, pension funds, philanthropic foundations, insurance companies, development finance institutions, specialized financial institutions, fund managers, high net worth individual investors and large-scale family offices (private firms that manage just about everything for the wealthiest families). Impact investments often fall within traditional asset classes – private equity/venture capital, debt, and fixed income securities (mortgage-backed securities, municipal bonds, and business loans).
Generally, most individual and institutional investors are hesitant to take on risks associated with untested “seed” and early-stage ventures, often preferring later-stage ventures; especially in what the Unitas Seed Fund refers to as the “challenging segments of society.” For this reason, according to a 2013 article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review titled “Closing the Pioneer Gap,” venture philanthropy plays a crucial role in closing the so called “pioneer gap” through financing “pioneer firms to develop, validate and establish new business models, and even build entirely new markets.” When summarizing a 2012 Monitor Deloitte report titled “From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in Impact Investing,” Vinay Nair of the The Guardian wrote, “without philanthropy… many developing-world businesses serving the poor would never have been able to move towards a point of sustainability or scalability… philanthropy-backed capital can step in and help progress enterprises from earlier stages to where they are capable of attracting growth capital and better delivering social outcomes to the poor.” In this report, the authors note how venture philanthropic funding “does not have to be deployed in isolation from investment capital.” Instead they can “‘layer’ grants with capital to create hybrid models that target high-risk situations” or use “grants to deliver much-needed capacity building (or technical assistance) to overcome the inherent disadvantages of the bottom of the wealth pyramid (details to follow) business environment, alongside a return-capital investment model. As the report “From Blueprint to Scale: The Case for Philanthropy in Impact Investing” points out, “even where funding ultimately flows through as a grant to the pioneer firm or a nonprofit, funders could deploy complementary mission investing strategies.”
Mission investing associated with impact investments encompasses program related investments (PRIs) and mission-related investments (MRIs), both of which according to David A. Levitt, a non-profit and former KIPP charter school network attorney, are “characterized by an intention to create positive social impact as well as some level of financial return.” Impact investing allows “non-profit” philanthropic foundations to function as investment banks that utilize a full menu of debt and equity financial instruments. These instruments allow foundations to leverage influence over their investee companies/projects as creditors and/or as investor owners. Both PRI’s and MRI’s are tax-free investments.
According to Mission Investors Exchange, PRIs “are powerful, versatile tools that foundations use to achieve their philanthropic goals alongside traditional grantmaking.” Similar to grants, PRIs make capital available to nonprofit or for-profit companies that are aligned with a foundation’s philanthropic mission. PRIs are loans and equity investments that are designed to have a social impact while generating below market-rate financial returns.
An MRI is not part of a foundation’s formal “charitable” activity and is instead an investment a foundation makes – as a business – within financial markets. It is therefore a financial instrument that foundations can use to further their stated mission, while also bringing a market-rate financial return on a risk-adjusted basis. Since MRIs derive from investment assets (cash, fixed income, public equity, private equity, venture capital, and real estate) and are commercial investments, by law they must maximize investor returns. Private foundations invest billions in private and publicly traded companies and financial markets, but the idea of MRI’s is that “charity” foundations will invest in markets and corporations that are aligned with their legal mission statements.
When contrasting venture philanthropy’s larger mission with their official propagandized mission, these financial investments further reveal their duplicitous character. Accordingly, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation claims to exist “to dramatically improve the quality of life for billions of people.” With that in mind, according to their 2014 tax return, they invested over 40 billion dollars in equities and securities in hundreds of financial markets and companies. Some of these include investments in nations from Canada to Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well as mortgage and student loan financing firms. Others include major corporations such as Comcast, Verizon, Walmart and Dow Chemical as well as major investment banks, including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Barclays, Bank of America, CitiGroup, Lehman Brothers, Wells Fargo, Bear Stearns and Deutsche Bank.
According to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, their mission “focuses on improving people’s health” and ensuring “that all women and children have the nutrition they need to live healthy and productive lives.” Under this banner, the foundation invests in Coca-Cola, Pepsi, the multitude of highly processed Kraft products; and until very recently, McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and KFC. In a 2014 article in Mother Jones titled, “How Bill Gates Is Helping KFC Take Over Africa,” Alex Park reported that USAID and the Gates Foundation fund:
… companies to build what development experts call ‘value chains’—business relationships that link small farmers to sellers of agricultural inputs like fertilizer on one side, and big buyers of corn and soy on the other. Those buyers turn these commodities into feed, and then sell it to large chicken wholesalers who are staking their future growth on supplying KFC’s African expansion.