MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Great Reset’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

The Great Reset, Part II: Corporate Socialism | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 29, 2020

Nevertheless, the aims of the WEF are not to plan every aspect of production and thus to direct all individual activity. Rather, the goal is to limit the possibilities for individual activity, including the activity of consumers—by dint of squeezing out industries and producers within industries from the economy. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”6

https://mises.org/wire/great-reset-part-ii-corporate-socialism

Michael Rectenwald

As I noted in the previous installment, the Great Reset, if its architects have their way, would involve transformations of nearly every aspect of life. Here, I will limit my discussion to the economics of the Great Reset as promoted by the World Economic Forum (WEF), as well as to recent developments that have advanced these plans.

As F.A. Hayek suggested in his introductory essay to Collectivist Economic Planning, socialism can be divided into two aspects: the ends and the means.1 The socialist means is collectivist planning, while the ends, at least under proletarian socialism, are the collective ownership of the means of production and the “equal” or “equitable” distribution of the end products. Distinguishing between these two aspects in order to set aside the question of the ends and to focus on the means, Hayek suggested that collectivist planning could be marshalled in the service of ends other than those associated with proletarian socialism: “An aristocratic dictatorship, for example, may use the same methods to further the interest of some racial or other elite or in the service of some other decidedly anti-equalitarian purpose.”2 Collectivist planning might or might not run into the calculation problem, depending upon whether or not a market in the factors of production is retained. If a market for the factors of production is maintained, then the calculation problem would not strictly apply.

The collectivist planners of the Great Reset do not aim at eliminating markets for the factors of production. Rather, they mean to drive ownership and control of the most important factors to those enrolled in “stakeholder capitalism.”3 The productive activities of said stakeholders, meanwhile, would be guided by the directives of a coalition of governments under a unified mission and set of policies, in particular those expounded by the WEF itself.

While these corporate stakeholders would not necessarily be monopolies per se, the goal of the WEF is to vest as much control over production and distribution in these corporate stakeholders as possible, with the goal of eliminating producers whose products or processes are deemed either unnecessary or inimical to the globalists’ desiderata for “a fairer, greener future.” Naturally, this would involve constraints on production and consumption and likewise an expanded role for governments in order to enforce such constraints—or, as Klaus Schwab has stated in the context of the covid crisis, “the return of big government”4—as if government hasn’t been big and growing bigger all the while.

Schwab and the WEF promote stakeholder capitalism against a supposedly rampant “neoliberalism.” Neoliberalism is a weasel word that stands for whatever leftists deem wrong with the socioeconomic order. It is the common enemy of the Left. Needless to say, neoliberalism—which Schwab loosely defines as “a corpus of ideas and policies that can loosely be defined as favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention and economic growth over social welfare”5—is a straw man. Schwab and company erect neoliberalism as the source of our economic woes. But to the extent that “antineoliberalism” has been in play, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries (or corporatocracy), and not competition, has been the source of what Schwab and his ilk decry. The Great Reset would magnify the effects of corporatocracy.

Nevertheless, the aims of the WEF are not to plan every aspect of production and thus to direct all individual activity. Rather, the goal is to limit the possibilities for individual activity, including the activity of consumers—by dint of squeezing out industries and producers within industries from the economy. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”6

As Hayek noted, “when the medieval guild system was at its height, and when restrictions to commerce were most extensive, they were not used as a means actually to direct individual activity.”7 Likewise, the Great Reset aims not at a strictly collectivist planning of the economy so much as recommends and demands neofeudalistic restrictions that would go further than anything since the medieval period—other than under state socialism itself, that is. In 1935, Hayek noted the extent to which economic restrictions had already led to distortions of the market:

With our attempts to use the old apparatus of restrictionism as an instrument of almost day-to-day adjustment to change we have probably already gone much further in the direction of central planning of current activity than has ever been attempted before….It is important to realize in any investigation of the possibilities of planning that it is a fallacy to suppose capitalism as it exists to-day is the alternative. We are certainly as far from capitalism in its pure form as we are from any system of central planning. The world of to-day is just interventionist chaos.8

How much further, then, the Great Reset would take us toward the kinds of restrictions imposed under feudalism, including the economic stasis that feudalism entailed!

I call this neofeudalism “corporate socialism”—not only because the rhetoric to gain adherents derives from socialist ideology (“fairness,” “economic equality,” “collective good,” “shared destiny,” etc.) but also because the reality sought after is de facto monopolistic control of production via the elimination of noncompliant producers—i.e., a tendency toward monopoly over production that is characteristic of socialism. These interventions would not only add to the “interventionist chaos” already in existence but further distort markets to a degree unprecedented outside of centralized socialist planning per se. The elites could attempt to determine, a priori, consumer needs and wants by limiting production to acceptable goods and services. They would also limit production to the kinds amenable to the governments and producers who buy into the program. The added regulations would drive midsized and small producers out of business or into black markets, to the extent that black markets could exist under a digital currency and greater centralized banking. As such, the restrictions and regulations would tend toward a static caste-like system with corporate oligarchs on top, and “actually existing socialism”9 for the vast majority below. Increasing wealth for the few, “economic equality,” under reduced conditions, including universal basic income, for the rest.

The Coronavirus Lockdowns, the Riots, and Corporate Socialism

The covid-19 lockdowns, and to a lesser extent the leftist riots, have been moving us toward corporate socialism. The draconian lockdown measures employed by governors and mayors and the destruction perpetrated by the rioters just so happen to be doing the work that corporate socialists like the WEF want done. In addition to destabilizing the nation-state, these policies and politics are helping to destroy small businesses, thus eliminating competitors.

As the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) points out, the lockdowns and riots have combined to level a one-two punch that is knocking out millions of small businesses—“the backbone of the American economy”—all across America. FEE reported that

7.5 million small businesses in America are at risk of closing their doors for good. A more recent survey showed that even with federal loans, close to half of all small business owners say they’ll have to shut down for good. The toll has already been severe. In New York alone, stay-at-home orders have forced the permanent closure of more than 100,000 small businesses.10

Meanwhile, as FEE and others have noted, there is no evidence that the lockdowns have done anything to slow the spread of the virus. Likewise, there is no evidence that Black Lives Matter has done anything to help black lives. If anything, the riotous and murderous campaigns of Black Lives Matter and Antifa have proven that black lives do not matter to Black Lives Matter. In addition to murdering black people, the Black Lives Matter and Antifa rioters have done enormous damage to black businesses and neighborhoods, and thus to black lives.11

As small businesses have been crushed by the combination of draconian lockdowns and riotous lunacy, corporate giants like Amazon have thrived like never before. As BBC noted, at least three of the tech giants—Amazon, Apple, and Facebook—have appreciated massive gains during the lockdowns,12 gains which were abetted, to a lesser extent, by riots that cost 1 to 2 billion in property damages.13 During the three months ending in June, Amazon’s “quarterly profit of $5.2bn (£4bn) was the biggest since the company’s start in 1994 and came despite heavy spending on protective gear and other measures due to the virus.” Amazon’s sales rose by 40 percent in the three months ending in June.

As reported by TechCrunch, Facebook and its WhatsApp and Instagram platforms saw a 15 percent rise in users, which brought revenues to a grand total of $17.74 billion in the first quarter.14 Facebook’s total users climbed to 3 billion in March, or two-thirds of the world’s internet users, a record. Apple’s revenues soared during the same period, with quarterly earnings rising 11 percent year-on-year to $59.7 billion. “Walmart, the country’s largest grocer, said profits rose 4 percent, to $3.99 billion,” during the first quarter of 2020, as reported by the Washington Post.15

The number of small businesses has been nearly cut in half by the covid-19 lockdowns and the Black Lives Matter/Antifa riots while the corporate giants have consolidated their grip on the economy, as well as their power over individual expression on the internet and beyond. Thus, it would appear that the covid lockdowns, shutdowns, partial closings, as well as the riots are just what the Great Resetters ordered, although I am not hereby suggesting that they did order them. More likely, they have seized the opportunity to cull from the economy the underbrush of small and medium-sized businesses in order to make compliance simpler and more pervasive.

In the end, the Great Reset is merely a propaganda campaign, not some button that globalist oligarchs can push at will—although the WEF has represented it as just that.16 Their plans need to be countered with better economic ideas and concerted individual actions. The only reasonable response to the Great Reset project is to defy it, to introduce and promote more competition, and to demand the full reopening of the economy, at whatever peril. If this means that smaller-scale producers and distributors must band together to defy state edicts, then so be it. New business associations, with the aim of foiling the Great Reset, must be formed—before it’s is too late.

Author:

Contact Michael Rectenwald

Michael Rectenwald was a professor of liberal studies at New York University (retired).

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alberta, Canada Premier Rejects Idea of “The Great Reset” & Explains What He Believes It Represents – Collective Evolution

Posted by M. C. on December 9, 2020

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/12/07/alberta-canada-premier-rejects-idea-of-the-great-reset-explains-what-he-thinks-it-really-is/

ByArjun WaliaCE Staff Writer

In Brief

  • The Facts:In the video below Alberta Premiere Jason Kenney shares his thoughts and opinions on the World Economic Forum’s “The Great Reset.” He believes it represents a power grab for the global elite who are taking advantage of the COVID crises.
  • Reflect On:Are problems created by those who want to propose the solution? Do naturally occurring issues become hi-jacked to implement greater measures of control? Are we living through an epidemic of control?

Throughout history global chaos has always been used as a precursor to big change on our planet. Sometimes many of these changes are done under the guise of good will, where the initiators of these measures claim they are doing it for humanities best interests. We saw this, for example, when NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden exposed the extent of surveillance that’s conducted by the U.S. government, measures put in place that are supposedly for our protection. Snowden has recently expressed his opinion that COVID-19 is being used by governments to grab even more power and take away many of our basic rights and freedoms. This seems to be a common theme also expressed by many when it comes to what’s called “The Great Reset.”

What is “The Great Reset?” It’s an initiative that’s been started by the World Economic Forum (WEF). The House of Windsor, and the UN are prime executive co-producers. It was the title of a book that was published by WEF founder Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret earlier this year. Top sponsors include BP, Mastercard and Microsoft. According to them, “There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.”

I am not going to go into great detail here about The Great Reset, as I recently published an essay on it doing just that titled COVID-19: A Precursor To A ‘New World Order?’ aka “The Great Reset.” You can refer to it if interested as it’s a much deeper discussion on the topic. With this piece I simply wanted to share the opinion of Alberta Premier, Jason Kenney, and encourage people to ask themselves why controversial topics are always presented as a “conspiracy theory” and never really discussed or addressed properly by mainstream media.

It’s time to truly begin having serious conversations about controversial topics and learning to empathize with differing positions on them. The need for collective sensemaking is at an all-time high, and if we are constantly divided and unable to perceive reality from the perspective of anybody else we are going to struggle to create meaningful change. This is both a time to consume information and to develop ourselves personally to become effective changemakers.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Central Bank Digital Currencies and the War on (Physical) Cash | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on December 7, 2020

At the end of the day, central bank digital currencies are all about control, not meeting consumer demand. The ECB admits as much at several points in their report. Here is just one instance: If people are really demanding a digital euro, why would it have to be assigned legal tender status in order for it to be accepted, as the authors of the report clearly state would be necessary (p. 33)? The only scenario where introducing a CBDC makes sense is in order to phase out the use of physical cash in order to be able to impose whatever negative interest rate regime the central bankers in charge judge necessary. Helicopter money, restrictions on cash holding, and negative interest rates are all part of the bundle of desirable policies that can only—or most easily—be achieved with digital currencies fully controlled by the issuing central banks.

https://mises.org/wire/central-bank-digital-currencies-and-war-physical-cash

Kristoffer Mousten Hansen

Twenty twenty is a year dominated by bad news. While governments around the world have imposed extremely destructive restrictions on economic life and promise a “Great Reset” that amounts to a great leap forward into the socialist future, central bankers have advanced plans for implementing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). These may arrive as early as next year. Yet what is the motivation behind this innovation? Reports recently published by the Bank for International Settlements1 and the European Central Bank2 provide part of the answer. These publications provide fascinating insight into the theories and ideologies driving central bankers in their pursuit of CBDCs.

Monetary Policy? Moi?

One perhaps surprising theme in both reports is the disavowal of any monetary policy behind plans for introducing CBDCs. The BIS report claims that “[m]onetary policy will not be the primary motivation for issuing CBDC” (p. 8) and the ECB report notes that a “possible role for the digital euro as a tool to strengthen monetary policy is not identified in this report” (p. 3). One might first of all suppose that introducing a new form of money would by definition amount to monetary policy, at least in a broad sense, and secondly perhaps find it a tiny bit weird that institutions dedicated to researching and implementing monetary policy would not have considered the potential effects of a new form of money in light of its effects on policy. But what is really striking is that both reports—and especially the one issued by the ECB—at great length detail the implications for monetary policy of CBDC. True, they say they don’t, but looking beyond the executive summary and paying attention to what is written in the report itself puts the lie to that claim.

In order to see this, we only need to look at the key features the central bankers identify as desirable in a CBDC: it should be interest bearing, and it should be possible to cap how much each individual can hold. Both measures are clearly aimed at supporting monetary policy. The cap on holdings forces people to spend their money, driving either price inflation or investment in financial assets, and by making the CBDC interest bearing (or remunerated, in the language of the ECB) it becomes a tool of setting and passing on policy rate changes, including negative interest rates.

The ECB’s Report on a Digital Euro in particular goes on at great length about the need to limit or disincentivize “the large-scale use of a digital euro as an investment” (p. 28). The reasoning behind this position is crystal clear: since monetary policy has driven interest rates into negative territory, the ECB should not allow large-scale holding of digital euros, since investors would then, quite sensibly, chuck their holdings of negative-yielding bonds and seek a safe haven in digital euros—that is, if they can hold them at no cost. Similarly, the ECB is averse to letting people convert their bank deposits into digital euros (p. 16), which would reside in their individual wallets rather than in a bank account. Indeed, the horror of what the BIS and ECB reports call “financial disintermediation” looms large in the minds of central bankers: if people keep their money outside of banks, these will have less money to lend out, thereby increasing borrowing costs. In the words of the BIS report, they are concerned that

a widely available CBDC could make such events [i.e., bank runs] more frequent by enabling “digital runs” toward the central bank with unprecedented speed and scale. More generally, if banks begin to lose deposits to CBDC over time they may come to rely more on wholesale funding, and possibly restrict credit supply in the economy with potential impacts on economic growth. (p. 8)

Of course, Austrian economists since Ludwig von Mises3 understand that “financial disintermediation” can really be a blessing. In the context of digital euros, all it means is that people would hold the amount of cash they deemed desirable outside the banks. They would only make true savings deposits in banks, i.e., they would only surrender money that they did not want instant access to. Under such circumstances, banks would be incapable of expanding credit by issuing unbacked claims to money; they could only make loans out of the funds their customers had explicitly made available for that purpose. This would not only result in a leaner or sounder financial system, it would also avoid the problems of the perennially recurring business cycle. And contrary to what the central bankers fear, the supply of credit would not be restricted, it would simply be forced to correspond to the supply of real savings in the economy. This, unfortunately, is an understanding of economics completely alien to central bankers.

Negative Interest Rates

One aim in introducing CBDCs that is only hinted at is the possibility of imposing even lower negative interest rates. In recent years monetary economists4 have increasingly discussed the problem of the “zero lower bound” on interest rates: the fact that it is impossible to set a negative interest since depositors in that case would simply shift into holding physical cash. When manipulating the interest rate is the main policy tool of central banks this is obviously a problem: How can they work their alchemy and secure an acceptable spread between the main policy rates and the market rate of interest when interest rates are already very low? Allowing for the cost of holding physical cash, –0.5 percent seems to be about as low as they can go.

With a centrally controlled digital currency this problem would disappear. The central bank could set a limit on how much each person and company could hold cost free, and above this limit, they would have to pay whatever negative interest rate (or “remuneration,” as the ECB insists on calling it) is consonant with central bank policy. In this way, holding cash would not obstruct monetary policy, as the cash holdings would be fully under the control of the central bank.

There is just one problem with using CBDC in this way: it only works if physical cash is outlawed. Otherwise, physical cash would still simply play the role it does today, i.e., as the most basic and least risky way of holding one’s wealth and of avoiding negative interest rates. The BIS report clearly identifies this problem (p. 8n7), as does the ECB (p. 12n18): a CBDC could help eliminate the zero lower bound on interest rates, but only if physical cash disappeared. So long as physical cash remains in use, the zero lower bound cannot be breached.

But the People Demand It!

However, people might of their own accord come to the rescue of the world’s central banks, sorely beset as they are by the zero lower bound. At least according to Benoît Coeuré, head of the BIS Innovation Hub (the group tasked with researching CBDC), plenty of people want a central bank digital currency. The ECB also sees the decline in the use of physical cash in favor of other means of payment as one of the main scenarios that would require the issue of a digital euro (p. 10).

Now, while some people might like CBDC, there is really no reason to believe, notwithstanding monsieur Coeuré’s anecdotal evidence, that there is widespread demand for central bank digital currency. The ECB admits as much when they write that physical cash is still the dominant means of payment in the euro area, accounting for over half the value of all payments at the retail level (p. 7). But Coeuré does not need to go far to see the continuing relevance of cash: in 2018 researchers at the BIS itself concluded that cash, far from declining in importance, was still the dominant form of payment.5 More recently, a study in the International Journal of Central Banking showed that cash usage is not only not declining, but even increasing in importance.6

Be that as it may, the central bankers are certainly right that there is an increased demand for digital payment solutions and for cryptocurrencies. However, it is erroneous to conclude from this that therefore a central bank digital currency is demanded. Demand for a payment solution is not the same as demand for a new kind of money. It simply means that people demand payment services that allow them to more cheaply transact with each other. Such services are plentifully provided by companies such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, banks, and so on and so forth. There is no reason to believe that central banks need to provide this service nor that they could do it better than private companies and banks, and it is simply a mistake to equate demand for such services with demand for a money.

The mistake in the case of cryptocurrencies is even more egregious. When people hold bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, it is not because their heartfelt demand for a CBDC has to go unfulfilled and this is their closest alternative. On the contrary, people want to own bitcoin precisely so they can avoid the negative interests imposed on the established banking system and the risks of holding inflationary fiat money. Introducing a CBDC would not mitigate those risks, but rather add to them, as the central bank would assume total control of the money supply through it and the attendant abolition of physical cash. The felt need for inflation hedges and the desire to escape central bank control, including as it does negative interest rates and caps on how much cash one could hold, would only increase.

It’s All about Control

At the end of the day, central bank digital currencies are all about control, not meeting consumer demand. The ECB admits as much at several points in their report. Here is just one instance: If people are really demanding a digital euro, why would it have to be assigned legal tender status in order for it to be accepted, as the authors of the report clearly state would be necessary (p. 33)? The only scenario where introducing a CBDC makes sense is in order to phase out the use of physical cash in order to be able to impose whatever negative interest rate regime the central bankers in charge judge necessary. Helicopter money, restrictions on cash holding, and negative interest rates are all part of the bundle of desirable policies that can only—or most easily—be achieved with digital currencies fully controlled by the issuing central banks.

Ironically, far from buttressing the role of central banks and government fiat money, imposing a CBDC may have the completely opposite effect. Replacing physical cash with a CBDC would only strengthen the undesirable qualities of fiat money and further hamper a free market in money and financial services, increasing the demand for alternatives to government money, such as gold and bitcoin.

  • 1. Bank of Canada, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Sveriges Riksbank, Swiss National Bank, Bank of England, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, and Bank for International Settlements, CBDC: Central Bank Digital Currencies: Foundational Principles and Core Features (N.p: Bank for International Settlements, 2020), https://www.bis.org/publ/othp33.htm.
  • 2. European Central Bank, Report on a Digital Euro (Frankfurt am Main: European Central Bank, October 2020), https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/html/digitaleuro-report.en.html.
  • 3. Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, trans. H. E. Batson (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953), p. 261ff.
  • 4. See, e.g., Marvin Goodfriend, “Overcoming the Zero Bound on Interest Rate Policy,” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 32, no. 4 (2000): 1007–35.
  • 5. Morten Bech, Umar Faruqui, Frederik Ougaard, and Cristina Picillo,”Payments Are A-Changin’ but Cash Still Rules,” BIS Quarterly Review (March 2018): 67–80.
  • 6. Jonathan Ashworth and Charles A.E. Goodhart, “The Surprising Recovery of Currency Usage,” International Journal of Central Banking 16, no. 3 (2020): 239–77.

Author:

Kristoffer Mousten Hansen

Kristoffer Mousten Hansen is a research assistant at the Institute for Economic Policy at Leipzig University and a PhD candidate at the University of Angers. He is also a Mises Institute research fellow. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hungary and Poland Create The Unbridgeable Gap of the Great Reset

Posted by M. C. on November 30, 2020

Through bullying, bad arguments, derision and shaming the relentless pressure of sociopaths and psychopaths wears most people down to the point where they negotiate away something that they didn’t have to.

They get you to agree to putting on a mask to make people feel better, accepting “sensible” gun legislation, voting for the guy who promises to only take 25% of your income versus that guy that wants 40%, etc.

In Brexit talks the EU tried to cleave off Northern Ireland as a cost to Brexit or maintain control over British law through the European Court of Justice.

https://tomluongo.me/2020/11/28/hungary-poland-unbridgeable-gap-great-reset/

Author: Tom Luongo

There comes a point where negotiation becomes surrender. Those actively undermining you will always demand more than their right. Those behind the Great Reset have been creating no-win situations for voters for decades to this exact end.

Over the summer Hungary’s Viktor Orban and Poland’s Mateusz Morawiecki led the opposition to the EU’s budget and COVID-19 relief package standing firm that funds not be tied to any internal political decisions member EU states make.

Both of these countries have incurred the wrath of German Chancellor Angela Merkel over things they do she doesn’t like, invoking Article 7 against Poland over changes made to its Supreme Court, for example.

So, this is nothing new. Neither is the way the EU conducts itself in negotiations.

For the past four years we’ve watched the EU put the United Kingdom through the worst kind of psychological torture over Brexit negotiations which have been anything but.

Fishy Brexit Talks

It’s been a calculated and cynical campaign coordinated with global media, foreign governments, paid political propagandists and intelligence agency operatives.

Through bullying, bad arguments, derision and shaming the relentless pressure of sociopaths and psychopaths wears most people down to the point where they negotiate away something that they didn’t have to.

They get you to agree to putting on a mask to make people feel better, accepting “sensible” gun legislation, voting for the guy who promises to only take 25% of your income versus that guy that wants 40%, etc.

In Brexit talks the EU tried to cleave off Northern Ireland as a cost to Brexit or maintain control over British law through the European Court of Justice.

Negotiation is a natural part of human interaction. There’s nothing inherently wrong with it, as long as both sides approach the negotiation honestly.

But, in politics, especially when dealing with those of a particularly self-righteous leftism so common today — as as shorthand I’ll just call them Commies — negotiation for them is a tactic in a strategic war.

Because at the core of their argument is always the threat of violence at worst and emotional blackmail at best. And that forms the basis for a negotiation that truly isn’t one, but made to look like you have a say in the outcome.

But in reality you don’t. They want all that you have and are willing to take it from you one bite at a time. In fact, the most psychotic of them truly enjoy this process of consuming you slowly.

Brexit negotiations have supposedly come down to how much French fishermen will still be able to plunder British fishing waters even though the U.K. is supposedly a sovereign country. The latest offer from the clueless Michael Barnier is the Brits get tithed 15 to 18% of what the French steal.

BREAKING: the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier will propose that between 15pc and 18pc of the fish quota caught in UK waters by EU fleets will be restored to the UK under a free trade agreement, @rtenews understands— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) November 27, 2020

This is supposed to be seen as a breakthrough, according to the breathless regime media. But really it’s an insult. If the U.K. is sovereign and by international law these waters are theirs, then the EU has no rights to them unless the Brits grant them access.

But it seems on this small issue, which has now become symbolic of the entire Brexit process, the U.K. is still saying no. Negotiating even this small point is tantamount to surrender.

And they are right. Because agreeing to anything with these people is ultimately telling them what your price is.

Cigarettes and Blindfolds?

This is why, in all things political from the local to the trans-national, every small victory codified into some rule or same treaty is used as a springboard to the next victory and so on. There is no end to the war until one side achieves total domination or the other side, backed into a corner, stands its ground.

While I’ve used Brexit talks as the metaphor here, it’s not really apropos because Brexit, legally, already happened. In a little over a month there may be no formal relationship between the U.K. and the EU.

For Hungary and Poland, however, the situation is far more existential. And it is why they had to veto the 7-year EU budget and with it the COVID-19 relief package two weeks ago.

This piece of news is truly one of the most historic decisions made by any national leader in 2020. And if not for the U.S. presidential election fraud it may well have been the biggest story of the past month.

Neither Hungary nor Poland have the economic or political power of even the U.K. Together they aren’t close to the U.K. in global influence. And because of that have much more to lose in angering the EU gods in Brussels than the Brits ever did.

It’s why both Prime Ministers Orban and Morawiecki tread lightly and go along with so many terrible edicts that come from the EU — really from France and Germany — against their will.

Both men understand the difficult position their countries are in, trapped between no less than three major powers — the U.S., the EU and Russia. The balancing act between those three powers is, at best, a difficult one. At worst, it’s a complete nightmare.

So them standing tall here is truly a momentous event and most probably a harbinger of big changes coming to the EU. They’ll both be under the most intense pressure to cave. Expect activation of Soros-bots in Hungary.

The smartest thing either could do right now is to open up new rounds of talks with the Russians who just announced they are pretty much done with negotiating anything more with the EU.

That would give them both tremendous leverage with Brussels, by cutting down their list of ‘enemies’ from three to two, even if it means courting further sanctions from Merkel and her new Stasi.

Where the State, as an institution, is at its most pernicious is in providing a vector by which these people, when their arguments are rejected via persuasion, can force them into being through the ballot box or legislative fiat.

And since we all agreed to be governed by these rules, so the argument goes, then you have to submit to the outcome otherwise there is chaos. And that’s the rhetorical and psychological wedge tyrants use to separate you from your liberty and, most importantly, your money.

When in the Course of Human Events…

But what happens when the people in the negotiations lie, cheat, manipulate and bend the rules? What happens when negotiations at one point in time, say July at the European Council Summit, yield one outcome and the final legislation says the exact opposite?

If you are Viktor Orban and Mariusz Moraweiki you stand your ground and realize that anything less than outright rejection is full on surrender, no different than the argument over EU fishing access to UK waters.

This is what these men had to do. Because by tying vague EU standards of what constitutes violations of the ‘rule of law’ to disbursement of funds under the budget is far more than what Hungarians or Poles signed up for when they entered the EU in the first place.

It is precisely because of this creeping centralization of control to the unelected bureaucracy in Brussels that the Brits voted for Brexit, in effect, twice. The second time they did so even more emphatically than in 2016.

Hungary and Poland are very clear as to what their problems are and why they will not budge. Read their joint statement here. The most important part is the final paragraph however.

Our common proposal is to facilitate the speedy adoption of the financial package by establishing a two-track process. On the one hand, to limit the scope of any additional budgetary conditionality to the protection of the financial interests of the Union in accordance with the July conclusions of the European Council. On the other hand, to discuss in the European Council, whether a link between the Rule of Law and the financial interests of the Union should be established. If it is so decided, then the appropriate procedures foreseen by the Treaties, including convening an intergovernmental conference, should be considered in order to negotiate the necessary modification of the Treaties.

Note they use the word ‘negotiation.’ But they also tie the outcome of that negotiation to a modification of the Treaties signed by each member state. In effect, saying, we as heads of state will negotiate the best possible offer, but it will still be up to you, the people, to ratify this.

And if you turn us down, then so be it.

This, of course, is anathema to the World Economic Forum, Open Society Foundation and the rest of the burgeoning technocracy being built through the expansion of powers wielded by the European Commission, which this budget and relief package sought to greatly expand.

We all know how voters choose in Europe when it comes to the European Union and the vote is open, fair and the people well-informed. The EU would never survive such a vote on the amendment of the Treaties which form it.

Orban, especially, knows this. And he has taken on the leadership role in this fight. You know he is effective because they despise him, drawing him up as a cartoonishly evil cross between Snidely Whiplash and Vlad the Impaler.

And despite the massive amount of money Soros spends in Hungary to overthrow Orban it hasn’t worked. So, something will have to be done quickly to remove him from the game board or we’ve reach Peak EU.

Reset This!

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: This is the Most Alarming Thing I Have Read About the Likely Biden Administration

Posted by M. C. on November 28, 2020

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2020/11/this-is-most-alarming-thing-i-have-read.html

Joe Cirincione, who identifies himself as a “Hill Rat,” teaches at Georgetown and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, has sent this tweet out:

In his remarks, Jake Sullivan says @JoeBiden tasked them to “reimagine national security” to include “the pandemic, the economic crisis, the climate crisis, technological disruptions, threats to democracy, racial injustice and inequality in all forms.” 💯— Joe Cirincione (@Cirincione) November 24, 2020

This is the “Great Reset” combined with social justice warrior madness.

It is all part of the crony globalist attempt to gain control of the world and turn everyone, except for insiders, into serfs.

This is extremely alarming. If a battle needs to be launched, it is against this. –RW

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on the COVID Restrictions and the “Great Reset”

Posted by M. C. on November 27, 2020

Doug Casey: There’s not much question about it. First, let me draw your attention to an important fundamental: the type of people who go into government. It doesn’t matter if it’s national, state, county, or city government.

They’re the kind of people who think they know what’s best for others and like bossing them around. They see the virus as a great opportunity to make themselves important and to cement themselves in power. They want to deconstruct America. The phrase “build back better” is being used not just by people in the new Biden regime but by people all over the world.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-the-covid-restrictions-and-the-great-reset/

by Doug Casey

International Man: Thanksgiving and the holiday season are here. The COVID hysteria has justified a new wave of government restrictions.

Many governors and mayors are ordering citizens to “stay at home” and cancel their traditional plans.

Is this a “new normal” in which local officials feel emboldened to dictate more and more of what people can do in their own homes?

Doug Casey: There’s not much question about it. First, let me draw your attention to an important fundamental: the type of people who go into government. It doesn’t matter if it’s national, state, county, or city government.

They’re the kind of people who think they know what’s best for others and like bossing them around. They see the virus as a great opportunity to make themselves important and to cement themselves in power. They want to deconstruct America. The phrase “build back better” is being used not just by people in the new Biden regime but by people all over the world.

These people see the COVID hysteria as an excuse for a “Great Reset.” They don’t describe exactly what the elements of the Great Reset might be, but they’re hitting the same notes sung by the people that go to the World Economic Forum in Davos. They’re promoting a great change in the world at large and America in particular.

It appears the world is ready for it; however, it’s for the same reasons that Biden won the election. I listed six factors why I thought Biden would win in our interview a couple of months ago: the virus hysteria, a pending economic collapse, negative demographics, the moral collapse of the old order, and the Deep State, and, of course, cheating—which was critical in the short term. There’s no question that stormy times are ahead.

We’re headed for a great leap forward—to borrow a phrase from Mao—in State power. Much higher taxes, much higher inflation, much more regulation, a big drop in the general standard of living, and a fair measure of social chaos.

International Man: Among the most extreme examples of this dystopian power trip is from California’s governor Gavin Newsom.

Recently, he issued a list of nine mandatory requirements for Thanksgiving social gatherings. The ridiculous list includes things like “no more than three households” at Thanksgiving, mandatory masks at all times except when eating, and no shared family-style dishes for guests.

Has the COVID hysteria generated a serious new political threat to individual freedoms?

Doug Casey: It seems like the world is mimicking the dystopian movie, V for Vendetta, in which a virus played a major role.

If it’s not this virus, which is trivial for everyone except very old or very sick people, there will be another virus. In addition to the seasonal flu, about every decade, there’s something new—Hong Kong flu, Asian flu, swine flu, bird flu, SARS… all of them about as deadly as COVID, and none of them even remotely comparable to the Spanish flu of 1918. None of them, even the Spanish flu, had serious economic consequences. This flu is only serious because of the hysteria surrounding it.

Consequences? Testing will be mandatory, and you’ll need a health passport. At some point that may include being chipped, like your dog. What shocks me is that the average person is all for it. Everybody is a “Karen” today. They shame people who don’t wear their masks, despite the fact that masks are of little or no value. Masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and non-gathering are doing immense damage to society at every level—health-wise, socially, and financially. This nonsense is rupturing the social fabric everywhere. That’s extremely dangerous.

The fact is that people are looking for guidance from the government—not independent scientists, who are being “canceled” and de-platformed. This is more serious than the hysteria that started with 9/11, which is ongoing. The COVID hysteria can best be compared to the Salem Witch Trials, the Orson Wells Martian Invasion Hoax, or an end-of-the-world prediction in a religious cult.

International Man: California’s Governor Newsom was recently busted at one of that state’s fanciest restaurants for breaking the exact rules he imposed on everyone else.

When asked to comment, he said it was “an error in judgment.”

What’s your take on politicians like Newsom and others who are revealing that the lockdowns are “for thee and not for me”?

Doug Casey: I don’t think there’s a cure for it. You’ve got to remember that California has elected insane politicians for decades now—one after another after another, each one worse than the one before. Why should that trend change? The voters are clearly getting what they want.

In fact, the trend is accelerating towards more authoritarian leaders at every level. Fear is ruling the public psyche. And when people are afraid—whether of the virus, economic turbulence, a foreign or domestic enemy, or a hundred other things—they want “strong leadership.” Elected politicians have become an elected aristocracy, a new ruling class. And they like it.

The best thing that can happen to California is that it breaks up into several states.

Southern California around Los Angeles is one culture; San Francisco and Oakland are another culture. In the far north—places like Humboldt, Trinity, Siskiyou counties—are totally different cultures again. The farming areas are yet another culture. There’s absolutely no reason for California to be one state. Dividing it would be a way of limiting the damage.

But that’s not going to happen for a lot of reasons. Of course, as I’ve pointed out before, the best thing that can happen to the United States at this point is to break up into several different countries.

Politicians like Gavin Newsom live in their own silos. They’re like medieval royalty. They don’t know and don’t really care what the little people do as long as the little people pay their taxes and do what they’re told.

The plebs are so indoctrinated and browbeaten that they’re happy to pay their taxes and follow orders. They’re told it’s the cost of civilization when it’s actually a sign of how uncivilized the world is becoming, and how different the US is from the ideas that once made America unique. I don’t see any solution because trends stay in motion until they reach a crisis point.

A crisis is coming, and at that point, anything can happen. Generally speaking, when you have a crisis due to bad times, things usually get worse, because the most aggressive liars and power-grabbers take control. So, I’m not terribly optimistic about the near-term future.

Editor’s Note: There’s no question the elite are eager to promote policies like negative interest rates, the abolition of cash and more. These trends are in motion, and are accelerating at a rapid rate.

It’s all shaping up to be a world-class disaster…

That’s exactly why New York Times bestselling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent new report with Doug’s top 7 predictions—including how to survive and thrive in turbulent times. Click here to download the free PDF now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

America’s Economy Cannot Survive Another Lockdown, and the Cult of the Reset Knows It – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 25, 2020

For a real free market to function, weak or corrupt elements must be allowed to fail and die. Instead, central banks around the world and most prominently the Fed kept all of those destructive elements on life support.

This has created what amounts to a “zombie economy:”

The “great reset” is just another phrase for “the new world order.” It is important to understand that the reset these people are talking about has actually been engineered and staged for many years. 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/no_author/americas-economy-cannot-survive-another-lockdown-and-the-cult-of-the-reset-knows-it/

By Brandon Smith
Alt-Market

The U.S. economy has been on the verge of collapse for at least a decade, ever since the crash of 2008 and the subsequent explosion in fiat stimulus from the Federal Reserve. While the mainstream media has always claimed that central bankers “saved” us from another Great Depression, what they actually did was set us up for a far worse scenario — a stagflationary implosion of our society.

Here is the primary problem: By injecting trillions of bailout dollars into the system, the Federal Reserve prevented the economy from going through its natural purging cycle. This cycle would have been painful for many, but survivable, and it would have removed large amounts of excess debt, parasitic corporations that produce little or nothing of use, as well as numerous toxic assets with no legitimate value. For a real free market to function, weak or corrupt elements must be allowed to fail and die. Instead, central banks around the world and most prominently the Fed kept all of those destructive elements on life support.

This has created what amounts to a “zombie economy:” a system that needs constant outside support (stimulus) in order to continue moving forward. In the process of keeping zombie corporations and other parts of the body alive, healthy parts of the economy, like the small business sector, get devoured. Jenga Classic Game Check Amazon for Pricing.

The zombie economy is, however, highly fragile. All it takes is one or two major shocks to bring it down, and the moment this happens the whole facade will disintegrate, leaving the public in panic and disarray. This is what is happening right now in 2020, and it will get much worse in 2021.

Bailouts encourage and reward unhealthy financial behavior, and this is why national debt, corporate debt and consumer debt have recently hit historic highs. When every pillar of the economy is encumbered with the weight of debt, any instability has the possibility of bringing all those pillars down at once. The Federal Reserve turned the U.S. into an economic time bomb, and the Fed is itself more like a suicide bomber than some kind of fiscal savior.

The “Great Reset”

I first heard the term “global reset” or “great reset” back in 2014/2015. I wrote an article about how the reset was actually a long term process in my article The Global Economic Reset Has Begun. Christine Lagarde was the head of the IMF back then, and she mentioned it briefly in multiple interviews.

I made a mental note of it because it seemed planted into the discussion very awkwardly, as if it was scripted. I rarely heard it mentioned for years after that. In 2020, as we descend into social and economic chaos, I’m seeing the phrase used everywhere in the media and by globalists.

Over the past decade, globalist institutions have come up with numerous phrases that seem to refer to a worldwide planned and dramatic shift in human society sometime in the near future. The “great reset” is just another phrase for “the new world order.” It is important to understand that the reset these people are talking about has actually been engineered and staged for many years. This is not something that just popped up in 2020 — they have been talking about it since at least 2014. And before that, they talked about the new world order, and “multilateralism,” and the “multi-polar world order,” and Agenda 2030, etc. Exploding Kittens Card… Buy New $9.99 (as of 06:08 EST – Details)

The reset is the catalyst phase of an agenda that has been in the works for a long time now. The goal, as they have openly admitted many times, is to centralize the entire globe into one monetary structure, one highly interdependent and socialized economy, and eventually one faceless and unaccountable governing body.

One of the biggest obstacles to the finalization of the reset and the formation of the new world order has been liberty-minded populations across the planet — most of all, the liberty-minded people within America. The U.S. has to be destabilized or eliminated; the old world order has to be brought down before the new world order can be introduced. The people have to be beaten down and desperate, so that when the globalists offer their “reset” as the solution, the people will gladly accept it without question — simply because they want the economic pain and uncertainty to stop.

A common statement made by globalists from Klaus Shwab at the World Economic Forum to the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, is that the coronavirus pandemic is the “perfect opportunity” to trigger the “great reset.” As globalist Rahm Emanuel is famous for admitting, in crisis there is opportunity to do things you were not able to do before.

In other words, when people panic in the face of crisis, they become easy to manipulate. And, if a crisis doesn’t happen naturally, then why not create a crisis from thin air and use that to cause panic?

Enter the economic lockdowns…

The lockdowns have not only been proven to do nothing to stop the spread of the coronavirus, but they are also a clear attack on what’s left of our economic system. The small business sector in particular is being gutted as more than 60% of those that shut down during the first lockdown were unable to reopen. Small businesses provide more than half of all employment in the U.S.. When they collapse, the U.S. economy will have nothing left except the big-box corporations that the Fed put on life support over a decade ago. Throw Throw Burrito by… Buy New $24.99 (as of 06:08 EST – Details)

Real unemployment, which is already at 26%, will skyrocket even further if a second national lockdown is initiated. The speedy collapse of the U.S. economy will be assured, and the “great reset” can commence. At least, that is what the globalists want to happen…

With the U.S. presidential election currently being contested, it is hard to say how the next few months will play out in detail. As I have been pointing out since July, a contested election is the best possible scenario for the globalists because it creates a Catch-22 situation:

  1. If Trump stays in office, the political left will accuse him of usurping the presidency and there will be mass riots in the streets. Conservatives will be tempted with the idea of bringing in martial law to suppress rioters, and such measures will undermine the flow of the U.S. economy, causing its fragile structure to implode.
  2. If Biden enters the White House, then he will attempt a Level 4 lockdown similar to the lockdowns we have seen in Australia, France, Germany and the UK; perhaps even worse. Our economy will crumble, conservatives will revolt, and Biden will attempt martial law measures.

Either way, the globalists get their crisis, and therein their opportunity.

Surviving the lockdowns and deterring the globalists

Taco Cat Goat Cheese P… Buy New $9.99 (as of 06:08 EST – Details) But here is where things get less certain for the elites. If liberty-minded Americans organize immediately for security and mutual aid, we can defuse the Catch-22. If we provide for our own security within our own communities, there will be no rationale for Trump to institute martial law. Community security is an awesome deterrent against leftist rioting and looting, and basic economic trade can continue.

By extension, if we organize our own community security as well as localize our economies with barter and trade, we also act as a deterrent to Biden and any ideas he might have of enforcing national lockdowns. The point is, we can’t allow the globalists to dictate the terms of the crisis. We must act to change the rules of the game.

The reset is not a natural inevitability, it is a con, a trap. No matter how bad the crisis in our nation becomes, it is the people — namely the liberty-minded people — who will determine the future, not the globalists. Their plan relies on our panic. Instead of panic, let’s show them a unified front and a plan of our own.

This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Covid-19 Is a Hoax Leading to the Centralization of Control: ‘The Great Reset’ Is the Real Pandemic – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 24, 2020

There are many agendas being pursued by the self-claimed elites, but the core element of this takeover of society is based on centralizing all power in the hands of the few so that the masses and the world economy can be controlled from the top. This has always been about power and control, and has never been about any risk due to any virus.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/11/gary-d-barnett/covid-19-is-a-hoax-leading-to-the-centralization-of-control-the-great-reset-is-the-real-pandemic/

By Gary D. Barnett

“Every time I hear a political speech or I read those of our leaders, I am horrified at having, for years, heard nothing which sounded human. It is always the same words telling the same lies. And the fact that men accept this, that the people’s anger has not destroyed these hollow clowns, strikes me as proof that men attribute no importance to the way they are governed; that they gamble – yes, gamble – with a whole part of their life and their so called ‘vital’ interests.”

 ~ Albert Camus (1978). “Notebooks, 1935-1942”, Harcourt

Is it any wonder that the entirety of our current predicament rests on the lies of the governing system and its ruling accomplices? American governance, all governance in fact, is and has always been susceptible to seeking power and control by means that prove very harmful to the general population. Conspiracy is always evident, and has led to abuses that have included theft, war, killing, imprisonment, torture, and in many cases genocide. In the U.S. today during this false flag event called a ‘virus pandemic,’ we have already seen massive theft in the form of multi-trillion dollar money printing, imprisonment of much of the country through lockdown and isolation mandates, killing of the old and innocent through criminal medical care or lack of medical care, medical martial law, and torture in that many died horrible deaths due to state regulations and procedures. This is a war, but in this case the war is openly being waged against the American public by the very government that most support. Americans have voluntarily allowed its existence, and this is a travesty.

What is likely unknown to most is that this nightmare is just beginning, while the average citizen is still thinking about or hoping for a return to ‘normal.’ Hope and prayer without action will accomplish nothing, but little if any mass dissent and disobedience are evident at this time. The reinstating and acceleration of the tyrannical measures we have seen to date are just around the corner, and with the ‘perfect storm’ of a very weak and unhealthy society with highly compromised immune systems, during what will probably prove to be an especially severe flu season, the sickness and death will all be blamed on a virus that has never been shown to exist. This is astounding, because this information is readily available for any that choose to see, but mass blindness seems to be a real risk we face today. This public blindness is due to ignorance and indifference, and that combination is a recipe for disaster.

There are many agendas being pursued by the self-claimed elites, but the core element of this takeover of society is based on centralizing all power in the hands of the few so that the masses and the world economy can be controlled from the top. This has always been about power and control, and has never been about any risk due to any virus. The fact that no such thing as ‘Covid-19’ has ever been isolated or identified, is staggering to say the least, but this ruse has been fully accepted by the herd, so much so that their very lives and livelihoods have been purposely destroyed due to voluntary compliance. Most have concentrated on being obedient slaves, while becoming fearful of their own family, friends, and neighbors in order to protect themselves from a ‘deadly virus’ that according to the perpetrators of this fraud has a stated survival rate of over 99.8%. In other words, there is no virus threat.

This conspiracy has but one main goal, and that is securing the centralization of power and control over all people and economies in order to achieve global dominance. It is being labeled as ‘The Great Reset,” as described by the very evil Klaus Schwab who is the founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum. He is tied to Bill Gates, George Soros, and the rest of these inhuman monsters. His and the ruling class ‘elites’ plans for our future are ominous, and currently being accepting by the bulk of this pathetic society. Here are some of his predictions for 2030, which include the United States surrender to the United Nations:

  1. “You’ll own nothing” — And “you’ll be happy about it.”
  2. “The U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower”
  3. “You won’t die waiting for an organ donor” — They will be made by 3D printers
  4. “You’ll eat much less meat” — Meat will be “an occasional treat, not a staple, for the good of the environment and our health.”
  5. “A billion people will be displaced by climate change” – Soros’ Open Borders
  6. “Polluters will have to pay to emit carbon dioxide” – “There will be a global price on carbon. This will help make fossil fuels history”
  7. “You could be preparing to go to Mars” — Scientists “will have worked out how to keep you healthy in space.”
  8. “Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.” – “Checks and balances that underpin our democracies must not be forgotten”

He is also a proponent of transhumanism, and has said that 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 stated this even though admitting that: “Unlike certain past epidemics, COVID-19 doesn’t pose a new existential threat.” Covid-19 never existed, and never was a threat, but has been the tool used to advance a new world order, or as he calls it, the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”

Concerning the melding of machines and humans, transhumanism, Schwab spells it out in more detail in “Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution:”

Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies will not stop at becoming part of the physical world around us—they will become part of us. Indeed, some of us already feel that our smartphones have become an extension of ourselves. Today’s external devices—from wearable computers to virtual reality headsets—will almost certainly become implantable in our bodies and brains. Exoskeletons and prosthetics will increase our physical power, while advances in neurotechnology enhance our cognitive abilities. We will become better able to manipulate our own genes, and those of our children. These developments raise profound questions: Where do we draw the line between human and machine? What does it mean to be human?

“We the people” are not a part of this agenda, and are not included in this planning of a new society. We are simply the cattle being prodded and used to sustain the masters. The public makes no decisions, as this plot for gaining technocratic control over all of us has been in the works for many years, but is now going forward at an unimaginable pace, all due to the Covid lie. Everything was planned long ago in secret, but now is being completed and telegraphed out in the open for all to see. This is due to the fact that these manipulating rulers have no fear of the people at large, and believe them too lazy and ignorant to grasp the scope of this totalitarian takeover. Schwab admits this when he writes:

“We must re-establish a dialogue among all stakeholders to ensure mutual understanding that further builds a culture of trust among regulators, non-governmental organizations, professionals and scientists. The public must also be considered, because it must participate in the democratic shaping of biotechnological developments that affect society, individuals and cultures.”

This fake pandemic has supplied what the ruling class calls an opportunity for a reset of society. When the chosen masters call what they claim to be a deadly risk to all mankind an opportunity, one should stand up and take notice, and should immediately understand that we are all the victims of a terrible coup meant to enslave humanity.

Lockdowns, isolation, masks, economic destruction, digitized monetary restructuring, deadly vaccines, gene-controlling technology, transhuman experimentation, total surveillance, and a totalitarian police state are what the masters you have chosen want for all Americans. They are blatantly claiming that this is the new normal they have chosen for you, but you have a choice. Accept all you are being told and become a slave, or realize that the only pandemic is this claimed “Great Reset” that is being used to eradicate you. Acceptance can only lead to hell in a world consumed by evil.

Source links:

Where Is the Coronavirus? The CDC Says It Isn’t Available

https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006OLciUAG?tab=publications

Klaus Schwab says – You will Own Nothing in 10 years
Klaus Schwab & His Great Fascist Reset
https://thenewamerican.com/world-economic-forum-founder-claims-world-will-never-return-to-normal/

The Best of Gary D. Barnett Gary D. Barnett [send him mail] is a retired investment professional that has been writing about freedom and liberty matters, politics, and history for two decades. He is against all war and aggression, and against the state. He recently finished a collaboration with former U.S. Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, and was a contributor to her new book, “When China Sneezes” From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Political-Economic Crisis.” Currently, he lives in Montana with his wife and son.

Visit his website.

Be seing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The United Nations and the Origins of “The Great Reset” | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 19, 2020

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

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.

https://mises.org/wire/united-nations-and-origins-great-reset?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=6513cf7200-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-6513cf7200-228343965

Antony P. Mueller

About twenty-four hundred years ago, the Greek philosopher Plato came up with the idea constructing the state and society according to an elaborate plan. Plato wanted “wise men” (philosophers) at the helm of the government, but he made it also clear that his kind of state would need a transformation of the humans. In modern times, the promoters of the omnipotent state want to substitute Plato’s philosopher with the expert and create the new man through eugenics, which is now called transhumanism. The United Nations and its various suborganizations play a pivotal role in this project which has reached its present stage in the project of the Agenda 2030 and the Great Reset.

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.  

Eugenics

After the foundation of UNESCO in 1945, the English evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and declared globalist Julian Huxley (the brother of Aldous Huxley, author of Brave New World) became its first director.

At the launch of the organization,  Huxley called for a “scientific world humanism, global in extent” (p. 8) and asked to manipulate human evolution to a “desirable” end. Referring to dialectical materialism as “the first radical attempt at an evolutionary philosophy” (p. 11), the director of UNESCO laments that the Marxist approach to changing society was bound to fail because of its lack of an indispensable “biological component.”

With these ideas, Julian Huxley was in respectable company. Since the late nineteenth century, the call for the genetic betterment of the human race through eugenics has been gaining many prominent followers. John Maynard Keynes, for example, held the promotion of eugenics and population control as one the most important social questions and a crucial area of research.

Keynes was not alone. The list of advocates of breeding the human race for its own betterment is quite large and impressive. These “illiberal reformers” include, among many other well-known names, the writers H.G. Wells and G.B. Shaw, US president Theodore Roosevelt, and British prime minister Winston Churchill as well as the economist Irving Fisher and the family-planning pioneers Margaret Sanger and Bill Gates Sr., the father of Bill Gates, Microsoft cofounder and head of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In his discourse at the foundation of the UNESCO, Julian Huxley was quite specific about the goals and methods of this institution. To achieve the desired “evolutionary progress” of mankind, the first step must be to stress “the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization.”

Furthermore, the institution must consider the tradeoff between the “importance of quality as against quantity” (p. 14), which means it must take into account that there is, “an optimum range of size for every human organization as for every type of organism” (p. 15). The educational, scientific, and cultural organization of the UN should give special attention to “unity-in-variety of the world’s art and culture as well as the promotion of one single pool of scientific knowledge” (p 17).

Huxley makes it clear that human diversity is not for all. Variety for “weaklings, fools, and moral deficients…cannot but be bad,” and because a “considerable percentage of the population is not capable of profiting from higher education” and also a “considerable percentage of young men” suffer from “physical weakness or mental instability” and “these grounds are often genetic in origin” (p. 20), these groups must be excluded from the efforts of advancing human progress.

In his discourse, Huxley diagnosed that at the time of his writing the “indirect effect of civilization” is rather “dysgenic instead of eugenic” and that “in any case, it seems likely that the deadweight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability, and disease-proneness, which already exist in the human species, will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved” (p. 21). After all, it is “essential that eugenics should be brought entirely within the borders of science, for as already indicated, in the not very remote future the problem of improving the average quality of human beings is likely to become urgent; and this can only be accomplished by applying the findings of a truly scientific eugenics” (pp. 37–38).

Use of the Climate Threat

The next decisive step toward the global economic transformation was taken with the first report of the Club of Rome. In 1968, the Club of Rome was initiated at the Rockefeller estate Bellagio in Italy. Its first report was published in 1972 under the title “The Limits to Growth.” 

The president emeritus of the Club of Rome, Alexander King, and the secretary of the club, General Bertrand Schneider, inform in their Report of the Council of the Club of Rome that when the members of the club were in search of identifying a new enemy, they listed pollution, global warming, water shortages, and famines as the most opportune items to be blamed on humanity with the implication that humanity itself must be reduced to keep these threats in check.

Since the 1990s, several comprehensive initiatives toward a global system of control have been undertaken by the United Nations with Agenda 2021 and Agenda 2030. The 2030 Agenda was adopted by all United Nations member states in 2015. It launched its blueprint for global change with the call to achieve seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs). The key concept is “sustainable development” that includes population control as a crucial instrument.

Saving the earth has become the slogan of green policy warriors. Since the 1970s, the horror scenario of global warming has been a useful tool in their hands to gain political influence and finally rule over public discourse. In the meanwhile, these anticapitalist groups have obtained a dominant influence in the media, the educational and judicial systems, and have become major players in the political arena.

In many countries, particularly in Europe, the so-called green parties have become a pivotal factor in the political system. Many of the representatives are quite open in their demands to make society and the economy compatible with high ecological standards that require a profound reset of the present system. 

In 1945, Huxley (p. 21) noted that it is too early to propose outright a eugenic depopulation program but advised that it will be important for the organization “to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Huxley’s caution is no longer necessary. In the meantime, the branches of the United Nations have gained such a level of power that even originally minor UN suborganizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) have been enabled to command individual governments around the world to obey their orders. The WHO and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)—whose conditionality for loans has changed from fiscal restraint to the degree to which a country follows the rules set by the WHO—have become the supreme tandem to work toward establishing the new world order.

As Julian Huxley pointed out in his discourse in 1945, it is the task of the United Nations to do away with economic freedom, because “laisser-faire and capitalist economic systems” have “created a great deal of ugliness” (p. 38). The time has come to work toward the emergence “of a single world culture” (p. 61). This must be done with the explicit help of the mass media and the educational systems.

Conclusion

With the foundation of the United Nations and its suborganizations, the drive to advance the programs of eugenics and transhumanism took a big step forward. Together with the activities of the Club of Rome, they have 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. Author:

Antony P. Mueller

Dr. Antony P. Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. Write an email. See his website and blog.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Post Covid World, The WEF’s Diabolical Project: “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda” – After “The Great Reset”. A Horrifying Future – Global ResearchGlobal Research – Centre for Research on Globalization

Posted by M. C. on November 13, 2020

The Great Reset also foresees, a credit scheme, whereby all personal debt would be “forgiven” – against handing over all personal assets to an administrative body or agency – could possibly be the IMF.

So, you would own nothing – and be happy. Because all your necessities will be provided for.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/world-economic-forum-step-two-resetting-future-work-agenda-after-great-reset/5729175

By Peter Koenig

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has just published (October 2020) a so-called White Paper, entitled “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda – in a Post-Covid World”.

This 31-page document reads like a blueprint on how to “execute” – because an execution (or implementation) would be – “Covid-19 – The Great Reset” (July 2020), by Klaus Schwab, founder and CEO (since the foundation of the WEF in 1974) and his associate Thierry Malleret.

They call “Resetting the Future” a White Paper, meaning it’s not quite a final version. It is a draft of sorts, a trial balloon, to measure people’s reactions. It reads indeed like an executioner’s tale. Many people may not read it – have no awareness of its existence. If they did, they would go up in arms and fight this latest totalitarian blueprint, offered to the world by the WEF.

It promises a horrifying future to some 80%-plus of the (surviving) population. George Orwell’s “1984” reads like a benign fantasy, as compared to what the WEF has in mind for humanity.

The time frame is ten years – by 2030 – the UN agenda 2021 – 2030 should be implemented.

Planned business measures in response to COVID-19:

  • An acceleration of digitized work processes, leading to 84% of all work processes as digital, or virtual / video conferences.
  • Some 83% of people are planned to work remotely – i.e. no more interaction between colleagues – absolute social distancing, separation of humanity from the human contact.
  • About 50% of all tasks are planned to be automated – in other words, human input will be drastically diminished, even while remote working.
  • Accelerate the digitization of upskilling / reskilling (e.g. education technology providers) – 42% of skill upgrading or training for new skills will be digitized, in other words, no human contact – all on computer, Artificial Intelligence (AI), algorithms.
  • Accelerate the implementation of upskilling / reskilling programs – 35% of skills are planned to be “re-tooled” – i.e. existing skills are planned to be abandoned – declared defunct.
  • Accelerate ongoing organizational transformations (e.g. restructuring) – 34% of current organizational set-ups are planned to be “restructured’ – or, in other words, existing organizational structures will be declared obsolete – to make space for new sets of organizational frameworks, digital structures that provide utmost control over all activities.
  • Temporarily reassign workers to different tasks – this is expected to touch 30% of the work force. That also means completely different pay-scales – most probably unlivable wages, which would make the also planned “universal basic salary” or “basic income” – a wage that allows you barely to survive, an obvious need. – But it would make you totally dependent on the system – a digital system, where you have no control whatsoever.
  • Temporarily reduce workforce – this is projected as affecting 28% of the population. It is an additional unemployment figure, in disguise, as the “temporarily” will never come back to full-time.
  • Permanently reduce workforce – 13% permanently reduced workforce.
  • Temporarily increase workforce – 5% – there is no reference to what type of workforce – probably unskilled labor that sooner or later will also be replaced by automation, by AI and robotization of the workplace.
  • No specific measures implemented – 4% – does that mean, a mere 4% will remain untouched? From the algorithm and AI-directed new work places? – as small and insignificant as the figure is, it sounds like “wishful thinking”, never to be accomplished.
  • Permanently increase workforce – a mere 1% is projected as “permanently increased workforce”. This is of course not even cosmetics. It is a joke.

This is the what is being put forth, namely the concrete process of implementing The Great Reset.

The Great Reset also foresees, a credit scheme, whereby all personal debt would be “forgiven” – against handing over all personal assets to an administrative body or agency – could possibly be the IMF.

So, you would own nothing – and be happy. Because all your necessities will be provided for.

Also, it should not occur to you to disagree with the system, because – by now each one of you has been covid-vaccinated and nano-chipped – so that with 5G and soon to come 6G, your mind can be read and influenced.

Please do not call this a conspiracy theory. It is a White Paper, an “authoritative report” by the WEF.

DARPA – Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is part of the Pentagon –and has years ago developed the technology. It is just a matter of time to implement it. And Implemented it will be, if We, The People, do not protest — Massive Civil Disobedience is of the order – and that rather sooner than later.

The more we wait with action, the more we sleepwalk into this absolute human disaster.

*

Social and human relations are being eviscerated.

This has several advantages for this novel “totalitarian” WEF approach to humanity – to controlling humanity.

– We, The People, cannot rebel, we have no longer cohesion among ourselves,

-“We, The People”, will be played against each other – and there is an absolute digital control over humanity – executed by a small super elite.

-We have no access to this digital control – it is way beyond our reach. The idea is, that we will gradually grow into it – those of us who may survive. Within a generation or so, it is expected to become the New Normal.

The “survival angle” is an aspect not mentioned directly either in The Great Reset, or in the “Implementation Guide” – i.e. in the White Paper “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda – in a Post-Covid World”.

Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, Kissinger et al, have never made a secret out of their strong opinion that the world is over-populated and that the number of people has to be literally reduced. We are dealing with eugenicists.

A perfect method for reducing the world population, are Bill Gates initiated, and WHO-supported vaccination programs. Scandals of such disastrous vaccine programs resulting in children’s death were recorded in India (in the 1990s), Kenya (2014 and thereafter) and other parts of the world.

See also a very revealing TedTalk by Bill Gates of February 2010, “Innovating to Zero”, just about at the time when the “2010 Rockefeller Report” was issued – the very report that has given us so far, the “Lock Step Scenario” – and we are living it now. Hardly protesting it – the entire world – 193 UN member countries – has been coopted or coerced into following this abject human rights abuse on a global scale.

What either report, The Great Reset and the “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda” fails to mention is who is going to enforce these draconian new rules? – They are supposedly the same forces which now are being trained for urban warfare and for suppressing riots and social unrest – they are the police and the military.

Part of our People’s Organization of Civil Disobedience, will be on how to focus on and talking to,  educating, informing the police and military of what they will be used for by this small elite, and that in the end they are also just human beings, like the rest of us, therefore they better stand up in defense of the people, of humanity. The same needs to be done to teachers and medical personnel – information, the unfettered truth.

That’s the challenge. If we succeed – the game is over. But it’s a long way.

Media disinformation is brutal and powerful and hard to contradict for “us”, without a sizable budget for counter-propaganda, and as a group of people, which is ever more divided by the very media. The mandatory wearing masks and social distancing – has already made enemies of what we used to be, colleagues, friends, even within families.

This very diktat has managed to create rifts, divisions and discord within our societies

No fear – but shredding “Resetting the Future of Work Agenda” and the “The Great Reset” literally to pieces – with a human alternative that would do away with organizations like the WEF, and coopted UN agencies, like WHO, UNICEF, WTO, World Bank, IMF – and maybe even the entire UN system. Political and business leaders behind this project must be confronted. The fundamental principles of international law including Nuremberg must be applied.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for online journals such as Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO) and more. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »