2020 has been a year in which many illusions have been shattered, not least that of liberal-capitalist “democracy” itself. Many movements which we previously imagined to be opposed to the system have aligned themselves with it. Many individuals who had built a reputation for speaking out against the status quo have stepped forward to defend […]Cory Morningstar: challenging the global business dictatorship — organic radicals
by Paul Cudenec
The only good thing to have come out of recent nightmarish months is that a lot of people have had to think seriously about the way they see the world.
I have not been exempt from this phenomenon, of course, and have been forced by circumstance into serious bouts of ideological soul-searching, but am delighted to report that, as 2020 draws to an end, I remain attached to the same principles with which I began the year!
What has changed, though, is that I now feel the need to provide certain additional explanations to my overall viewpoint which I would not have previously considered necessary.
Take, for example, my position with regard to the nation-state. I have been outspoken in my condemnation of nation-states and nationalism in my writing, but the global fascist coup has reminded me that a different perspective exists.
This says that truly independent nation-states, free from the chains imposed by all those globalist institutions from the World Bank and the IMF to the United Nations and the World Health Organization, would not have succumbed so meekly to the global capitalist putsch.
I can concede that the resurgence of anti-globalist national sovereignty, in the Global South as well as in Europe and the USA, might well be the best short-term bet for seeing off this horrific attempt to permanently enslave humankind in a techno-fascist world dictatorship.
However – and I would emphasise that word! – it is crucial to remember that nation-states were the first form of centralised authority imposed on free human communities and that the nation-state is the tool with which the exploiting class has long kept us in line.
The weary old mantra of “we’re all in this together” is the language of nationalism, in which the supposed common “national” interest of the serf and the billionaire, and their shared hatred of “foreigners”, is supposed to override any sense of social injustice on the part of the former.
The nation-state, with its fake “democracy”, its “legitimate authority”, its controlled media narratives, its public figures, its academic institutions, its police and its monopoly on violence, is the very real and immediate means by which we are oppressed.
Globalism may be the prison, but the nation-state is both the cell in which we are held and the prison guard standing outside.
If we ever want to taste real freedom, we will have to decentralise power completely, to the community level.
Unless we dismantle the national level of tyranny as well as the global one, everything will remain in place for the same thing to happen all over again.
A second issue I have been contemplating has been the issue of private property. My past criticism has been levelled at the system of private property (particularly land ownership) rather than at individuals who own their own home or farm.
In this society, we have no choice as to whether we want to participate in the system of private property. If we are not home-owners then we are home-renters. It is no better to be ripped off by a landlord than by a building society. People get by as they can.
When I first saw the World Economic Forum propaganda proposing a future in which we “own nothing”, my blood ran cold for a moment. Had I had been inadvertently promoting their agenda through my criticism of private property?
No, because the globalists’ vision is, like everything else they come out with, a lie. They certainly want the vast majority of human beings to own nothing, but that is because they want to own everything themselves – including those selfsame human beings!
Their “own nothing” option in fact represents the next step in the domination of private property, rather than its reversal. They want to consolidate the power of their own ultra-rich ruling class to the extent that the rest of us are left with nothing at all.
It is important to note that it is only through the development of private property as we have hitherto known it, that they have been able to reach this point.
Over many centuries, the ruling class has used its property to create wealth, used its wealth to acquire property and power, used its power to protect and increase its property and wealth.
Our overlords may have thrown us a few crumbs from the table as a sop to keep us quiet – convincing us that we too were part of their “property-owning democracy” – but it was always only a matter of time before they would try to push the thing a step further and grab everything for themselves.
Again, if we were able to pull back from the brink of this global totalitarian coup, there would be no point in returning to the pre-Covid status quo, as all the conditions would remain in place for the global ruling elite to try the same thing again, a few years down the road, using a different trick.
We need to prevent property from being used as a form of power and exploitation over others and develop organic form of communal democracy and co-operative ownership which cannot be hijacked by greedy tyrants.
I do not want to see land or homes owned either by billionaire capitalists or by the state, but by people, in ways that suit them best, on the most decentralised local level possible, in a spirit of sharing, caring and mutual aid.
The third issue I want to address here is that of business. I hate the “business” ethos which was notoriously instilled in the UK under Margaret Thatcher. Greed is good. Anyone who makes money (off other people) is a hero and the rest of us are all losers.
So it was strange to find myself sympathising with the plight of smaller businesses in the face of the lockdowns.
Strange, but perfectly explicable when I looked at it more closely.
As with the previous two thorny issues, what we are seeing today is the massive amplification of the “business” principle which I oppose, not its negation.
The Great Fascist Reset is, after all, being promoted by a business organisation, the World Economic Forum, and all the bias built in to the so-called “sustainability” agendas of the EU, the UN and so forth concerns prioritising the ongoing growth and expansion of business “stakeholders”.
The version of “business” sold to the little people by the global financial mafia was nothing but a gesture, a carrot dangled in front of them to persuade them to consent to the marvellous capitalist system and to stand with the billionaires against any “freedom-hating” left wingers who wanted a fairer distribution of wealth.
Now, that little game has outlived its usefulness and the people who thought they were living the free-market dream will find themselves herded into the same electronic concentration camps as the rest of us, as the slave-masters move to seize complete economic and social control.
The seeds for this have been there all along, from the moment that our societies started moving away from old-fashioned community values and towards the worship of money above all else.
In the words of the German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936), this was the historic transition from Gemeinschaft (traditional community) to Gesellschaft (modern commercial society).
The French radical Georges Lapierre talks about the dominating “cosmovision” of a society based entirely on money: “In a mercantile society we are all merchants, our heads are filled with the thoughts of big capitalist merchants, we all think about money”.
If there is a Great Awakening from the Great Reset, there is no point in falling back into the money-thinking that has progressively corrupted our world for the last 500 years or more.
Just because things are worse now, with the Covid coup, than they were a year ago, or ten years ago, does not mean that we should aim to return to that previous step of the process.
I keep thinking of the apocryphal story of the man who fell from the top of a skyscraper and, as he passed each floor on the way down, was heard declaring “so far so good!”
While it may have been better to have been alive in 1960 or 1980 or 2000 than in 2020, rewinding to any of those stages would only condemn us to live through the same thing again, as we plummet towards the current calamity.
Instead, we need to go back to the point before we fell off the edge and take a different civilizational direction.
We need to rediscover what it means to be truly human, to cherish value over price, communal belonging over personal self-interest, honour above wealth.
We need to look deep inside ourselves and search out and nurture everything that makes us noble, authentic, generous and kind.
We need to remember that we are animals, that we are part of nature, part of the living cosmos and that respect for everything around us is essential for our happiness and survival.
That ancient human wisdom is still there, even though it has long been marginalised and spat upon by the same venal parasite class which is currently trying to steal everything from us and turn us into their slaves.
Our task is to find it, to drink it in deeply and then to share it as the health-giving elixir of a free and natural future for all of humankind.
Further reading: Organic radicals website
by Paul Cudenec
Rob Hopkins (pictured above) has become one of the iconic figures of the environmental movement, not just in the UK but throughout the world.
“There’s no one on earth who’s just done more stuff – and inspired more doing – than Rob Hopkins,” as one admirer has put it.
He started the Transition movement in Totnes in 2005 and soon Transition Towns were springing up all over the country.
I went along to a few events where I lived, in Sussex, attracted by the idea of encouraging a shift away from industrial capitalism and consumerism into a healthier decentralised way of being.
There were some pleasant people involved, some of whom I already knew from local eco-campaigning, but it was not quite my thing.
The Post-It note brainstorming sessions, rejection of “political” activity and much use of the UK state-approved term “resilience” all put me off a bit.
But I didn’t hold it against them. There is more than one way of campaigning and it’s unrealistic to imagine that everyone will do so in the way we personally would prefer.
I initially felt the same thing, from afar, about Extinction Rebellion until the penny dropped and I realised they were an astrofurf organisation being used to manipulate good-hearted people for hidden corporate ends.
So I drifted away from the Transition Town crowd with no hard feelings and didn’t really give them much more thought until last month.
It was then that I came across an essay entitled ‘The Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead‘ written by something called the Global Scenario Group in 2002.
This announces: “The global transition has begun — a planetary society will take shape over the coming decades”.
The imminent “Planetary Phase of civilization” would involve “Global governance” and “Globalization”.
This “Great Transition” sounds very much like the Great Reset announced by Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, also branded as the Fourth Industrial Revolution, Build Back Better and the Future We Want.
I was struck by the fact that this Great Transition document came out just three years before Rob launched his own “Transition” project in Devon.
But I was also very aware that he seemed to be proposing something very different – relocalisation rather than globalisation. Surely there could be no connection?
I decided, out of curiosity, to have a look at what Rob has been doing and saying, to see if this could shed any light on the matter.
The first thing I read was an article from August 2020 in which Rob sings the praises of the Climate and Ecological Emergency Bill, which he describes as “one of the few rays of hopeful sunshine in the UK’s currently bleak political landscape” and “rather brilliant”.
There were a couple of strange lines in Rob’s article.
For instance, he says that the future brought about by this Bill would “would feel like all of the brilliant inventiveness of the Industrial Revolution compressed into 20 years”.
“Brilliant inventiveness of the Industrial Revolution”? That’s a peculiar turn of phrase for anybody dedicated to combating the deadly damage caused to Mother Nature by industrialism!
He also writes: “This Bill would give a clear signal to the education system, to business, to investors, that this is now the ‘new normal’…”
The new normal? Now where have we heard that before?
Browsing through Rob’s blog, I next noticed that he had been the “keynote speaker” at an event in Belgium on November 10, 2020.
Here he mixed his chosen theme of “the human imagination” with talk about “bold international action”, “governments acting with vision and purpose”, “individual lifestyle changes” and businesses acting with “a willingness to reimagine everything”.
If that last turn of phrase sounds familiar, it is perhaps because it had been used earlier in 2020 by Klaus Schwab: “We need to reimagine everything… What we need is a Great Reset”.
I was also a little concerned to see Rob using the term “storytelling” in his talk, explaining how public opinion could be shaped by “a longing created not by graphs, by statistics, by policy, but by storytelling and imagination”.
“Storytelling” is a term often used by corporate manipulators to describe the opinion-forming propaganda with which they try to mislead us into endorsing agendas we would normally reject. (See this article, for instance, or this).
Rob continues: “So much of my work is about creating longing for that low carbon world”. “Creating” longing?
I decided to take a closer look at the event at which Rob’s speech was “widely applauded by the 200 or so participants” – the Philippe de Woot Award Ceremony organised by the Louvain School of Management at UCLouvain.
The award in question “aims to promote sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility”.
Previous ceremonies have involved talks on topics such as “Citizen Participation in Smart Cities”, “The case of the Kenyan renewable energy sector” and a demonstration that “product carbon audits are a means to create value in supply chains“.
The award scheme boasts an impressive array of “financial partners“.
These include medical equipment business Iba (“We dare to develop innovative solutions pushing back the limits of technology”), chemical companies Solvay S.A. and BASF, steel wire business Bekaert, house-building firm Blavier, supermarket chain Colruyt, “professional services” business Deloitte, luxury leather goods firm Delvaux, multinational banking group ING, finance firm Investsud, minerals business Lhoist, mining company Umicore N.V, “clean energy” firm Engie (still using coal power stations in Chile), and, last but by no means least, GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.
Baron De Woot was evidently a very well-connected individual, having been a member of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the Royal Academy of Belgium and the International Academy of Management.
He also “served on the board of directors and advisory committees of several national and international corporations” and was “an active member” of the Global Responsible Leadership Initiative, an organisation founded in 2004 by the European Foundation for Management Development and the United Nations Global Compact.
The affinities between the late Baron’s world of business and global governance and Rob’s eco-friendly Transition project may seem hard to grasp – why did they choose him as their “keynote” speaker? – but this alignment is not a one-off.
In 2016, Rob’s work was cited by none other than Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum.
But then maybe they were just returning the favour, since in 2011 Rob had dedicated a blog post to discussing the “importance” of a WEF graph on “global risks”.
Delving further into Rob’s archives, I found this statement from March 2009: “I am delighted to be able to announce that I recently became a Fellow of Ashoka, the international organisation that supports social entrepreneurs.
“Becoming an Ashoka Fellow brings some great resource to Transition. It brings a stipend, which means for the first time I can be paid fulltime for the work I do, it also brings some amazing project support, both from Ashoka itself and from the range of organisations that offer pro bono work to them”.
Ashoka is a somewhat mysterious organisation which is funded by “charitable foundations” and wealthy individuals such as Antonis Schwarz, now of Guerrilla Foundation (see this article on the Winter Oak site) and provides advice to organizations such as the World Bank.
It is worth noting that the video was posted by Andres Falconer, who at the time was managing director of Ashoka UK and went on to become “head of partnerships” at the World Bank Secretariat for the Global Partnership for Social Accountability.
In August 2020 Falconer turned up as host of an online event for Climate Investment Funds, jointly staged with Climate Capital Partners (“We create climate finance solutions to help clients thrive in an ever-changing global environment”).
Another interesting aside regarding the video is that it involves what Rob describes as “some good people from Transition Stroud”.
Stroud in Gloucestershire, UK, would ten years later be hailed by The Guardian as “the gentle Cotswold town that spawned a radical protest”, as it was from here that Extinction Rebellion first surfaced.
Says the April 2019 report: “Two of the group’s three founders, Gail Bradbrook and her partner Simon Bramwell, live in the town.”
As regards the actual content of the video, Rob talks about decentralisation and relocalisation, as you would expect, but also about “resilience” and the need to come up with a “Plan B” for the economy.
Rob identifies three challenges facing the world in 2009, a year after the economic crash.
These are peak oil, climate change and “the rapid contraction of the economy, which is something that is quite historically unprecedented”.
Why is that a challenge from the green point of view that Rob is supposed to represent? If you want to see an end to climate change and environmental destruction, then the contraction of the capitalist economy would be a good thing, wouldn’t it?
The contraction of the capitalist economy is only a problem for the capitalists who get rich from that economy.
Is the “challenge” for them in fact to keep their wealth and profiteering going in the face of an imminent collapse of their fraudulent global Ponzi scheme? Does the goal of “sustainability”, for them, really apply to capitalism, rather than the environment?
Like his friends in Extinction Rebellion, Rob is keen to avoid any scrutiny of the capitalist system and its ruling elite.
He says in the video: “One of the things that makes Transition different from a lot of the previous environmental campaigns that we’re both [he and Falconer?] familiar with is that its starting point isn’t trying to work out whose fault it is that we’ve got into this mess so it doesn’t attribute blame, it focuses on we’re all in this together…”
“We’re all in this together!” Uncanny how he keeps coming up with these phrases!
Zooming forward 11 years to 2020, the big news in Rob’s world is the arrival of a new book, “From What Is To What If“.
You can often learn a lot about someone’s place in society by looking at who is keenest to praise them and their work.
Remember that quote at the top of this article, for instance, about there being no one on earth who’s “done more stuff” than Rob Hopkins? That was Bill McKibben.
Yes, that’s right, the Bill McKibben who founded 350.org and whose gang of full-time climate “activists” were thoroughly exposed in the film “Planet of the Humans” as “de facto lobbyists for green tech billionaires and Wall Street investors determined to get their hands on the whopping $50 trillion profit opportunity that a full transition to renewable technology represents”.
It’s very much the same story if you look at the rave reviews for Rob’s new book.
“I love this book. It is an extraordinary, reality-based report on people around the world applying the power of imagination to rebuild relationships and create a fulfilling, creative, and possible human future together. An essential read for all who care,” writes David C. Korten.
Korten has spent his life working for the likes of the Ford Foundation, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Forum on Globalization. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
Here is another review: “Rob Hopkins has long been a leader in imagining how we could remake our societies for the benefit of nature and humankind. His new book is a powerful call to imagine a better world. It should be widely read and appreciated”.
That one comes from Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and World Bank Climate Leader, whose brother José María Figueres was the first CEO of the World Economic Forum, “where he strengthened global corporate ties to social and governmental sectors”.
For more on Figueres and her family, see this Winter Oak article.
Just as worrying as these endorsements for Rob’s work is the way he seems to give little nods of affiliation to the global capitalist elite by slipping their catchphrases into his own statements.
“Plan B”… “new normal”… “we’re all in this together”… “storytelling”… “reimagine everything”… Could all this really be down to coincidence?
Any lingering shred of doubt in this respect is swept away by the subheading of Rob’s new book – “Unleashing the Power of Imagination to Create the Future We Want”.
In his talk to the Philippe de Woot Award Ceremony, Rob described an exercise in which, echoing the title of his book, he invited groups of people “to come up with as many ‘What If’ questions they could”.
I would like to take part in this little game with some “What if” questions of my own.
What if Rob’s famous Transition project was never really about empowering local communities, about the relocalisation of society and a return to a natural way of living?
What if it has, all along, been a cunningly-disguised long-term “storytelling” propaganda exercise, softening up public opinion, building “social licence” and “creating longing” for the Great Transition aka the Great Reset?
What if its real roots do not lie in the organic allotments of Totnes, but in the boardrooms of mega-corporations and investment funds, at the UN, the World Bank and the WEF, in the toxic realm of a global power elite seeking to consolidate its complete control over humanity and the natural world?
What if Rob Hopkins is a total fake?
The thinking behind the Great Reset can certainly be understood by reading and analysing the works of Klaus Schwab, as we did in October.
But here Cory takes a big step further by highlighting the sheer scale of this incredibly sinister and dangerous project, not just in terms of its warped ambition but in terms of those taking part.
More crucially still, she does not just hint at or speculate about this massive web of manipulative ill-doing, but proves that it exists through link after link, document after document.
This wealth of detail is the cornerstone of the article, even if it means it will be a challenging read for some.
Cory explores numerous aspects to this vast technocratic push for total global domination and control, such as:
Information and Communications Technology
2030 Agenda on sustainable development
Internet of Things
Industrial Internet of Things
Creation of a digital technosphere
Neuro-technological brain enhancements
Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems
Cybersecurity certification schemes
Digital identity systems
Hyperscale data centres
Cashless benefit payments
Mobile phone advertising
Private public partnerships
Ruling class control
New economic architecture
Privatisation of nature
Destruction of informal economy
Impact investing/social impact bonds
Monetization of “social and human capital”
She refers to a vast array of organisations and individuals associated with what can only be described as the Great Reset Conspiracy, including:
The World Economic Forum
The World Economic Forum’s Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
The World Bank
The Business Roundtable
The Imperative 21 RESET campaign
The Global Inclusive Growth Summit
The B Team
Chief Executives for Corporate Purpose Inclusive Capitalism
The Center for Humane Technology
The Unfinished Network
The Max Steinbeck Charitable Trust
The Internet Society
The Center for Democracy & Technology
Charles Koch Institute
Twentieth Century Fox
The World Health Organization
COVID Action Platform
The United Nations
The UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development
The UN High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation
The UN Industrial Development Organization
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
The World Food Programme
The Nature Conservancy
Breakthrough Energy Ventures
The United Arab Emirates’ Council for the Fourth Industrial Revolution
The Social Dilemma
Jay Coen Gilbert
Mohammad Al Gergawi
Sheikh Hamdan bin Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum
Fekitamoeloa Katoa ‘Utolkamanu
Pony Ma Huateng
Cory explains that these players are trying to manufacture “social license” for their Great Reset by packaging it as a combined response to the climate/environmental crisis and to the Covid-19 “pandemic”.
It is here that the Great Reset/4IR conspirators are really scraping the barrel of the lowest possible type of human behaviour, displaying all the symptoms of what Cory calls a “depraved psychosis”.
In order to accelerate their destruction of our world with their toxic cult of greed, they are trying to pass themselves off as the planet’s saviours.
In order to push humanity into the high-tech cages they have prepared for us, they are using not just fear, but also a misplaced, hijacked, sense of social responsibility on the part of those who have swallowed their globally-orchestrated brainwashing propaganda about the need to “fight the virus”.
Cory writes: “Promises for a just transition, green deals, new deals, build back better schemes, are nothing but empty, hollow assurances, void of intent. These are the lies they tell. Promises and assertions that are nothing more than alibis.
“While ‘corona’ serves to distract a global populace, a virus Klaus Schwab describes as ‘mild’ in his book COVID-19 The Great Reset, one thing is clear – billionaires are the most dangerous virus of all”.
She identifies smart phones as a key weapon in the dictatorship’s technological armoury of repression.
“Anything ‘smart’ serves capital first and foremost. More than just abstaining, the solution has to be for everyone who owns a smartphone to trash it – never looking back… The truth is, if no one purchased smartphones, they would give them away in cereal boxes”.
“We are embarking on an inescapable and irreversible technological enslavement… This we know: the planet will not be saved by those that have destroyed it”.
And in one passage of particular wisdom, she challenges to the core the myth of “progress” which has been used to push us further and further away from natural happiness and deeper and deeper into an industrial capitalist hell.
“Humans have survived successfully for millennia without mobiles. All we require for our survival is healthy food, clean water, clean sanitation, and shelter. And as social animals, we seek physical community, companionship, joy, and love”.
Will we let the corporate control freaks steal all that from us for ever?
After publishing our exposé of Berlin-based Guerrilla Foundation and its wealthy founder Antonis Schwarz, we came across a telling insight into the world we described.
This is on the site of Interweave, “an awarded, global Interactive Marketing Agency” working for “brands and companies worldwide”.
One of the “brands” Interweave have built is none other than Guerrilla Foundation, famous funder of activists.
Our favourite section comes under the heading “A Complete Corporate Visual Identity”.
This states: “As [sic] integral part of a holistic corporate identity, creating Guerrilla Foundation’s complete visual identity was one of the pillars of this project: a logo that stands out because of its elegant, minimal design illustrating all brand positioning aspects in a solid way – and everything that comes along: typography, colour pallette, letterhead, business cards, and corporate signature”.
“Corporate signature”. We couldn’t have put it better ourselves!
We have listed below some of the organisations that have been receiving funds from Guerrilla Foundation, according to its own site.
If any of our readers are in contact with any of these groups, we suggest they raise the Guerrilla Foundation question with them.
Those pocketing their cash might want to consider exactly what this corporate-branded grant-maker is telling us when it describes its mission as “bringing about major systemic change across Europe in line with the Great Transition”.
They might want to ponder over what Guerrilla Foundation really means when it says it wants to see a “deeply connected” world of “planetary civilization”.
They would do well to consider whether, when Guerrilla Foundation declares “We are not risk averse”, this is the language of activism or of financial speculation.
They could also join us in wondering what kind of “value” Guerrilla Foundation has in mind when it talks about a “broader value shift in society”. Ethical or financial?
And in what direction, precisely, does it hope this “value” will shift?
Receivers of Guerrilla Foundation grants include:
UK. Autonomy: “Could be described as an independent activist think tank, an action-oriented rebel research crew, or a multi-disciplinary lab for rethinking work”.
UK. Red Pepper Magazine: “A pluralist, socialist, feminist and environmentalist media collective”.
UK. The World Transformed: “Supporting, developing and delivering radical political education across the UK in order to build a movement capable of transforming society”.
UK. London Renters Union: “Building the power needed to transform the housing system”.
UK. Extinction Rebellion: “A campaign by the Rising Up network, that promotes a fundamental change of the UK’s political and economic system to one which maximises well-being and minimises harm”.
UK. Plan B: “A network of volunteers pursuing a rational, evidence based response to the climate crisis through strategic legal action”.
Scotland. All Hands On: “A non profit, activist media group”.
Global. Shareable: “Nonprofit media outlet & action network that uses its global communications platform to empower activists, organizations, and municipalities to share for a more equitable, resilient, and joyful world”.
Belgium/Global. The COVID-19 Chronicles podcast: “We cannot go back to normal as normal was the problem”.
Italy. Genova che osa: A “grassroots” organisation that acts locally in Genoa and strives for “big structural changes”.
Germany. Brand New Bundestag: “A grassroots movement, which will channel the energy of social movements into the German parliament by encouraging civil society leaders to run for office and helping them win”.
Germany. Reclaim Our Economy: “Tackles economic leverage points by organising concerted activities to reimagine, co-create and experience systemic change”.
Germany. Frag Den Staat (Ask the State): “Part of the Open Knowledge Foundation, which has a mission to ‘create a more open world'”.
Germany. Disruption Network Lab: “New possible routes of social and political action within the framework of digital culture and information technology”.
Germany. Peng!: “Draw inspiration and learn from the arts, hacking, politics and big business in order to design provocative and critical culture-jamming interventions”.
Germany. The Centre for Intersectional Justice: “Offers a paradigmatic shift to the way we analyse, address and combat systemic inequalities”.
Austria/Europe. Stay Grounded: “Works towards an ecologically sustainable and just form of mobility”.
Netherlands. Fossil Free Culture NL: “Collective of artists and activists creating disobedient art to end oil and gas sponsorship of cultural institutions”.
Spain. The Artivist Network: “Focuses specifically upon climate justice organising for its power as an intersectional platform to unite diverse movements”.
Spain. Ulex Project: “Supporting organisations and groups who are working towards the structural transformations needed to address key irrationalities and injustices in the current socio-economic system”.
Spain. Minim: “A collective that amplifies the voice of municipalism by sharing practical and theoretical knowledge, via a community of activists, scholars, journalists, and public officials”.
Spain. 2020 Rebelión por el Clima: “New coalition of diverse eco-social movements from across the Iberian Peninsula”.
Serbia. The Ministry of Space: “Activist collective that envisions a city in which everyone participates in the decision-making processes”.
Hungary. The School of Public Life: “A grassroots training and research centre in Budapest that promotes active citizenship and social movement organising”.
Czech Republic. Limity jsme my: “Climate justice movement working to address the root causes of the climate crisis by striving to keep fossil fuels in the ground”.
Also possibly relevant is this article.
In this special report, we look at the ultra-rich investors who are funding “activists” in the hope of profiting from “systemic change”
The firepower behind the Great Reset can be utterly mind-boggling at times.
And the enormous scope and scale of this global fascist coup, led by the World Economic Forum, becomes particularly apparent when the scam is challenged.
In France, shockwaves of panic have been spread through the ruling elite by a powerful documentary film exposing the hidden Covid-19 agenda.
As word spread, boosted by the recommendation of actress Sophie Marceau, the Thought Police decided the film could no longer simply be ignored.
Macronist politicians screamed “conspiracy theory!” and “fake news!” and now-familiar fascistic measures swung into operation: Pierre Barnérias’s film was taken down from nearly everywhere it was put up online and its crowdfunding disabled.
But this wasn’t enough! This kind of reaction only confirmed the film’s message that the truth was being hidden from the public by the establishment and its cronies.
Another special weapon had to be rolled out to defend the system.
So it was that so-called radicals stepped forward to condemn the film, not just for promoting “conspiracy theories” (automatically conflated with anti-semitism despite the total absence of any such content), but also for the crime of getting positive reviews by some right-wing websites. Smear by unsolicited association!
A certain breed of “activist” also rushed to circulate a video made by a group, ‘Partager c’est Sympa’ (‘Sharing is nice’), which attacks the Hold-Up film from what might appear on the surface to be a leftish perspective.
It attempts to discredit Hold-Up by means of a pseudo-deconstruction voiced by a self-satisfied and self-appointed representative of the Youth of Today wandering around a ruined chateau.
So what lies behind this would-be “debunking” of Hold-Up?
It is interesting to note, in this article showcasing Partager c’est Sympa, that they are involved in “copying Youtubers’ codes and formats” in order to influence viewers in a certain direction, using “unbranded, high-quality videos designed to communicate efficiently on social media”.
“Unbranded” videos and “copying Youtubers’ codes and formats”? This is the language of people trying to pass themselves off as something which they are evidently not.
The article in question adds: “What Partager c’est Sympa are doing has never been done before, in France, and probably in the world (as far as we know). They are a dedicated and young team (26-27 years old), with proven records that they know how to talk to millennials, working hard and fast, and are efficient at getting their videos shared far FAR beyond the usual crowd of NGOs”.
This description appears, in English, on the site of a Berlin-based organisation called Guerrilla Foundation, which has given thousands of euros to Partager c’est Sympa.
Guerrilla Foundation explains on its site that it is involved in “grant-making activities” and in what it calls “storytelling”. This “storytelling” is said to involve creating a “radical, systemic change narrative”.
The ‘Why We Do What We Do‘ section kicks off with a quote from the academic Marshall Ganz, clearly a great inspiration behind Guerrilla Foundation.
Ganz, who offers courses on ‘Leadership, Organizing and Action‘ at the Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, is widely credited with devising the successful “grassroots” organising model and training for Barack Obama’s winning 2008 presidential campaign.
He is also on the board of directors of the Leading Change Network, which describes itself as “a global community of organizers, educators, and researchers” involved in “training the craft of organizing both online and on the ground”.
Ganz is also an enthusiast for what Guerrilla Foundation term “storytelling”.
He declares, in the quote used by Guerrilla Foundation: “Movements have narratives. They tell stories, because they are not just about rearranging economics and politics. They also rearrange meaning”.
So who exactly are these mysterious grant-making guerrillas who want to tell us stories, rearrange economics and politics, even “rearrange meaning”?
The founder of Guerrilla Foundation is Antonis Schwarz, described on its site as “an activist, philanthropist and impact investor of Greek-German descent” who has “used his inherited wealth to support a variety of social causes since 2011”.
In this video, Schwarz boasts about having established “a powerful network across Europe”, which he presents as consisting of radicals opposing the capitalist system.
But one of the groups to have benefited from Guerrilla Foundation’s largesse (to the tune of “20-40K” in 2018) is Extinction Rebellion, long since exposed as an astroturf movement serving the interests of climate capitalists.
There are unfortunate echoes of that insidious agenda when Guerrilla Foundation declares on its website that “Systemic or Systems Change Activism is what we’re banking on”!
And further research quickly reveals that financial profit very much goes hand in hand with the kind of “activism” it promotes.
Guerrilla Foundation links to a sister site called ‘Good Move Initiatives‘, where Schwarz makes it totally clear that this kind of “philanthropy” is not about giving money away but about gambling today on the possibility of a massive pay-out tomorrow.
Schwarz enthuses: “Advocacy impact strategies are surely accompanied by high levels of risk. Outcomes are by no means guaranteed and your donation will be gone indefinitely irrespective of whether a change was achieved on the actual issue.
“However, if you are a risk-taker and care about achieving the maximum impact with your money, investing into political advocacy is very much worth looking into”.
In a video featured on the home page of the Good Move Initiatives site, Schwarz talks about his “campaign to unlock dormant assets for social impact investing in Germany”.
She summarises: “As bets and counter-bets are made by elite financial investors, the future prospects of real people are woven into the oppressive operations of global financial markets. Human potential is subsumed within a colossal machine designed to profit from suffering”.
The reduction of human beings to the status of “human capital” by social impact investors is very much part of The Great Reset promoted by Klaus Schwab and his WEF.
It is therefore a little alarming to discover that Guerrilla Foundation’s mission statement speaks of their commitment to something they term “The Great Transition”.
One of Schwarz’s colleagues goes into more detail about this in the ‘Why We Do What We Do‘ section of the Guerrilla Foundation site.
He points readers towards a 2002 essay called ‘The Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of the Times Ahead‘ from the Global Scenario Group.
“The global transition has begun — a planetary society will take shape over the coming decades,” this announces.
“We are now in the midst of a third significant transition, we argue, toward what we shall refer to as the Planetary Phase of civilization”.
The above table, which also features on the Guerrilla Foundation site, sets out the envisaged Great Transition from old-fashioned ideas like villages, settled agriculture, language and writing to the “Planetary Phase” characterised by “Global governance”, “Globalization” and “Internet”.
A graph shows how the authors imagine this change will happen. There are striking similarities here with how Klaus Schwab describes his Great Reset: a sudden crisis (“take-off” here) is followed by acceleration and then the “stablization” of a new normality.
The “storytelling” used by Guerrilla Foundation and others like them is intended to build a narrative justifying a certain kind of politics, to sell the illusions of nice capitalism, of progressive banking and sustainable growth.
They pride themselves on facilitating “unlikely collaborations” between “activists” and the world of high finance, as this rather strange article on their site reveals.
The author explains how Guerrilla Foundation paid “activists” to attend a capitalist Impact Hub “Unlikely Allies” event.
“We channel all our support towards activists & grassroots movements, so a pluralistic assembly of diverse backgrounds could not possibly be complete without self-identifying activists.
“Ergo, we pitched the idea to cover all expenses associated with participation, accommodation, travel for five European activists, who would not likely (pun intended) come to the event, to do just that”.
The article concludes: “‘Unlikely Allies’ is the name of a book that approximately four people have read, by professor Joel Richard Paul. It is about a merchant, a playwright and a spy who used espionage, betrayal and sexual deception to help win the American Revolution.
“While we are certainly not going to read it, we hope to see this gathering spread like populism, and we are going to take unlikely alliances seriously in helping to achieve the great transition that’s coming”.
There is that key Guerrilla Foundation theme again – the use of deception to bring about a “great transition”.
Further insight into the agenda behind Guerrilla Foundation can be gained from another of its founder’s connections.
Antonis Schwarz is involved with the Center for Sustainable Finance and Private Wealth at the University of Zurich’s Department of Banking and Finance, Switzerland.
Under the title ‘Wealth Owner Programs’, this insititution offers a course entitled ‘Impact Investing for the Next Generation’.
This training apparently “equips next generation members of ultra high net worth families with the technical and soft skills needed to move assets towards impact”.
Schwarz actually makes an appearance in this promotional video of the course aimed specifically at the “wealth holders of the next generation” – the global ruling elite of the decades to come – although, in common with some other interviewees, his family name is not disclosed.
The course is also offered across the Atlantic by the Harvard Kennedy School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA – which by a remarkable coincidence is the very same institution where Guerrilla Foundation guru Marshall Ganz teaches ‘Leadership, Organizing and Action’!
A 2019 article on the Bloomberg website explains: “The program has barely been advertised since its founding in 2015 and word is spread through old-money networks and among European royalty”.
It reports the endorsement of Antonis “Guerrilla” Schwarz, who says: “It gets the scions of the world’s wealthiest families together to talk about impact investing, and I don’t know a lot of programs like that”.
And the article also quotes some of the participants, who are “all staggeringly wealthy”.
One of these is Cheng Ming Zhe, an analyst at Singapore-based Golden Equator Wealth, whose family “made a fortune in property”.
Says Cheng: “When people see there are people changing the world and earning a lot of money at the same time, I believe it will set an example for others of our generation to follow”.
“Changing the world and earning a lot of money at the same time”.
There’s the plan in a nutshell!
At the risk of being condemned as “conspiracy theorists” by an army of fake-left guerrillas, we would also like to point out that the ‘Impact Investing for the Next Generation’ course is held “in collaboration with” none other than Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum…
See our Great Reset page for more resources.
The Great Reset (aka Build Back Better, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, the New Normal, the Green New Deal or the New Deal for Nature) is an attempted global capitalist coup on a scale never before imagined. It is a bid by an ultra-wealthy elite to take total control over every aspect of our world, our lives and our bodies.
The future they have lined up for us is a fascist transhumanist hell in which freedom has been abolished and humans are merged with robots and turned into commodities for elite profit.
There is a massive overlap between those behind this insidious scheme and the Climate Capitalists whom we and others have previously exposed.
The scam is essentially the same: using a façade of combatting climate change, or a virus, or even social injustice, this criminal mafia intends to force us, our children, and our children’s children into a miserable future of slavery, while they install themselves as undisputed rulers of the world.
Their technological ‘solutions’ to the environmental crisis use the fig leaf of phoney #NetZero ‘sustainability’ to hide the toxic reality of spiralling economic ‘growth’ and profit.
The Great Reset will do nothing to help Mother Nature but will instead prop up and expand the very industrial capitalist system which is murdering her.
The more that people are aware of what this vile billionaire elite are really up to, the less chance they have of getting away with it, and we hope this ever-expanding collection of resources will help spread awareness and, therefore, resistance!
We invite you to have a look at our newly-created Great Reset page of resources.
Since March 2020, the form of rule that has been systematically unfolding since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989/1990 has been fully in evidence: A transnationally operating oligarchic caste has taken over rule in the Western “democracies”.
The mass base of “traditional” fascism was the enthusiastic petty bourgeoisie, incited by propaganda (1). The leader (state) promised the masses salvation from all evils. The leader carried the masses, the masses carried the leader (state) and the latter led them into war and ruin in the interest of (monopoly) capital.
In the course of recent decades, a transnational, well-connected caste has emerged, which no longer conducts its wars only outwardly, but has recognized civil societies as a whole as a threat to its power. Since March 2020, the centers of power have expanded their wars inwards in the name of the corona infection regime.
By transnational “elite” fascism I mean an alliance of transnational capitalist class, transnational power elite (2) with the transnational digital, military, intelligence, science and media complex and the governments as their executive committees. I refer to this conglomerate as the parasites of civil societies, which serve as their “host” bodies.
Their new means of rule is a health dictatorship based on infection regimes that can be activated at any time. Today Covid-19, tomorrow rhinoviruses, the day after tomorrow perhaps malaria or a “biological warfare” attack.
A propagandistic masterpiece unprecedented in the history of mankind
The never-ending “war on terror” has been extended by the “war on infection” since March 2020. This is directed against humanity as a whole.
The “great concern” of the centres of power for “public health” is a propagandistic masterpiece unprecedented in the history of mankind. It is a PSYOP prepared for years, a psychological warfare against civil societies.
After decades of mistakes by the ruling cliques, the legitimacy of Western politics was at zero by the end of 2019. And those who have ruined the planet, humanity, coexistence, inner and outer peace and all positive values of human history, should now be the great saviours of humanity?
How ahistorical, unsuspecting, naive and brainwashed by the media does one have to be to relieve the drivers of globalized catastrophe capitalism and the perpetrators of the disaster that has been wreaked of the great concern for the health of the people?
Emergency state as permanent state
The “mass base” of the centers of power has long since ceased to be the followers of convinced people. Their new followers are the masses of manipulated, lied to and terrorized people in a state of fear and panic. The mass media stupefaction secures the fear-based entourage.
Jeffrey A. Tucker from the American Institute for Economic Research writes about this in his article “When will the Madness end?
““I’m a practicing psychiatrist who specializes in anxiety disorders, paranoid delusions, and irrational fear. I’ve been treating this in individuals as a specialist. It’s hard enough to contain these problems in normal times.
“What’s happening now is a spread of this serious medical condition to the whole population. It can happen with anything but here we see a primal fear of disease turning into mass panic. It seems almost deliberate. It is tragic. Once this starts, it could take years to repair the psychological damage”. (3)
From now on, the state of emergency can be declared a permanent state at any time
In addition, the mask compulsion is intended to practice obedience and subservience, to ensure the “cohesion” of the mask wearers and their submission to supposed authorities, as well as to outlaw the “mask enemies” as “non-solidary endangerers”.
Currently, the perpetrators are terrorizing our children in the schools by forcing them to wear masks. This is where the new subject is bred.
The means of domination of the centers of power is the “infection” state of emergency with the exclusion of civil rights.The Merkel clique and their entourage have cold-cleaned the Basic Law. From now on, the state of emergency can be declared a permanent state at any time.
Even “democracy” in its deficient form of party democracy has been suspended by the Covid state of emergency,and the separation of powers has largely collapsed.
Bill Gates and his scientific and political collaborators do not want us to ever return to the pre-Covid 19 state (4).
This is the end of the democracy project and the final takeover by the plutocracy, a silent coup d’état
Democracy as we knew it belongs to the past. Bernd Hamm wrote about this already in 2017: “The neoliberal ideology has helped to reduce state regulations & accumulate wealth at 1 percent. The rich are able to influence a considerable part of state legislation in their favour.
“They and their wealth are advised and protected in their services by hosts of parliamentarians, managers, accountants, lawyers, tax advisors, think tanks, radio stations, film studios, publishers, media, researchers, hacks, lobbyists, bodyguards and other lackeys.
“Private property is the golden calf of capitalism and unregulated capitalism is the bible of the ruling class. They can even mobilize police and military on their behalf. The nation state and its government remain important institutions, but above all, governments must keep the masses under control. This is the end of the democracy project and the final takeover by the plutocracy, a silent coup d’état” (5).
Traditional fascism combined mass support and propaganda with hard-hitting (street) terror and hall battles against its enemies.
By contrast, transnational “elite” fascism is much more subtle and intelligent. As the German variant of transnational “elite” fascism, Merkel clique, the neoliberal party unit and media front, as well as the third-party prostituted science (6), try to push through their position and maintain their power by all means of propaganda, censorship, the dismantling of any opposition and the suppression of “deviators”.
Reset of World Economy
The centers of power intend to enforce several lockdowns to achieve their goals. Ultimately, they aim to reset the world economy (7).
They want to “rebuild” the “old” globalized disaster capitalism that brought the planet to the brink of collapse. But the fundamental goal is to maintain the capitalist system under the newly created conditions of the 4th Industrial Revolution after the Great Reset.
The states are to be fully subjected to the control of the international financial industry.
Before the Corona crisis, Germany had national debts of around 2 trillion euros. It took Germany 75 years to accumulate these. It took the Merkel team 3 months to double this national debt.
The centres of power are striving to privatize the remaining state property under the control of the international financial industry through the total indebtedness of the states
Deutsche Bank wrote about the consequences of the Corona crisis on April 24, 2020: “According to our calculations, the German state can fall back on a staggering sum of up to 1.9 trillion euros, well over 50 percent of German GDP, through the anti-crisis packages that have been launched […]” (8).
Deutsche Welle wrote on 24 June 2020: “At least $15 trillion […] has already been earmarked by governments and central banks to fight the corona pandemic and its consequences. Including the debts… of companies and banks, the IIF (Institute of International Finance), the banking lobby association, comes to an unimaginable 250 trillion dollars” (9).
In June 2020 the World Bank offered Belarus a loan of 940 million US dollars on condition that the country agreed to a lockdown, i.e. the ruin of its economy (10).
The centres of power are striving to privatize the remaining state property under the control of the international financial industry through the total indebtedness of the states.
The total indebtedness of states is a means of enslaving humanity
Broke companies, which have been driven to the brink of insolvency by the Corona crisis, are then taken by the radical market governments under state control in order to force the taxpayer to bear the cost of their restructuring. The total indebtedness of states is a means of enslaving humanity (11).
In Europe, the EU is the decisive control center for the de-democratization of nation states. The ruling economic and political cliques do everything they can to maintain the faltering EU as their power project, to completely undermine the democratic institutions of the nation states and to further disempower the parliaments.
The 27 EU states have just agreed on a budget and financial package in the historic order of 1.8 trillion euros.
It is already certain that the money will primarily end up in banks to refinance old debts, as was the case with the earlier aid to Greece (12).
Democracy-free commissions, directorates, senates, stakeholder agreements and backroom committees of all kinds secure the totalitarian rule of the transnational oligarch caste. The nation state serves them solely as a surveillance and repressive state to keep the populations under control.
Global population reduction is an integral part of the great global economic reset. For the 4th industrial revolution billions of people are “superfluous” (13).
The “cleansing” of the world population will take place through the creeping destruction of small and medium- sized businesses and the worldwide supply chains with hundreds of millions of employees.
The part of the small and middle class that can be “exploited” by the international investment strategists is being squeezed out of self-employment and into the dependent low-wage sector, others are being subjected to digital and platform corporations and their exploitation strategies, and large parts are going under, as the domination strategists intended.
According to the International Labor Organization, the first lockdown has already left 1.6 billion people in the so-called informal sector unemployed, i.e. people without regular employment contracts.
The question is: “How many hundreds of millions of people will lose their lives through the economic destruction of existence?
All that matters is new gigantic business models for Big Pharma, Big Money and Big Government, which are staged with all means of propaganda and repression
The centres of power tread smilingly over millions of corpses. They have sufficiently proven this through their wars alone after 1989. The First and Second World Wars claimed more than 100 million lives.
If “only” 10 percent of the 1.6 billion died as a result of the targeted economic destruction of existence, this would mean 160 million people (14). But there will certainly be more!
Whether the centers of power and their figurehead Bill Gates also aim to reduce the world population through vaccination regimes is open to speculation (15).
Bill and Melinda Gates act as the great saviours of humanity through vaccination regimes (16). They are definitely not saviours of humanity! All that matters is new gigantic business models for Big Pharma, Big Money and Big Government, which are staged with all means of propaganda and repression.
“For Bill Gates, vaccines are a ‘strategic philanthropy’ that feeds his many vaccine businesses and gives him dictatorial control over global health policy” (17).
The 4th Industrial Revolution
Goals of the 4th industrial revolution (18) are:
- the abolition of all democracy
- a new geopolitical order
- 5G (19) and the associated satellite technology. 5G is primarily a technology for the military to wage wars on completely new bases. 5G is installed and the consequences for man and nature are completely ignored
- the Internet of Things (20), it is about technologies of a global infrastructure of information societies
- a cashless world (21)
- the establishment of a cold social life of social distance and total biometric control
- a compulsory vaccination regime using genetic engineering and nanotechnology, with the pharmaceutical companies being absolved of all liability
- the expansion of artificial intelligence in conjunction with post- and transhumanism, i.e. the fusion of man and machine (22)
- the construction of “smart cities” (23)
The transnational “elite” fascists are seeking a New World Order of dictatorial global governance
In summary, the transnational “elite” fascists are seeking a New World Order of dictatorial global governance.
After the great reset (24) the remaining world population will supposedly live in a new world. The centres of power are doing their utmost to ensure that after the transition to the 4th Industrial Revolution their New World Order will be irreversible.
Requirements for a new beginning…
Since the centers of power are rebuilding the world unrestrainedly, the resistance is allowed to think about how humanity, in particular in the western facade democracies, could find its way out of the current morass. Here are some thoughts on this:
- Dissolution of political parties in their present form and function
- Resolution of corrupting lobby complexes
- Dissolution of the secret services, at least their massive reduction
- Reduction of the military to national defense
- Abolition of politician immunity
- Confiscation of party assets or political assets in the event of proven constitutional and legal violations and damage to the general public
- Responsibility through genuine assumption of responsibility, i.e. political liability – Penalty reinforcement in case of breaking oaths of office
- Convening Constituent Assemblies
- Strengthening direct democracy
- Completely new conception of the media, i.e. placing them under popular democratic control.
A new generation of politicians must have proven themselves “in life”, must comply with ethical-moral principles, constitutional and legal compliance and must be accountable for this before assuming public office.
This would be an essential start.
(1) Ignazio Silone, Seine Entstehung und seine Entwicklung, (Original 1934), Frankfurt 1978, hier: S. 273 ff
(2) See: William I. Robinson, Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, New York 2014
(4) Michael Morris, Lockdown, 2. Auflage, Fichtenau 2020, S. 153
(5) Bernd Hamm, ‘Das Ende der Demokratie – wie wir sie kennen’, in: Ullrich Mies, Jens Wernicke (Hg.) Fassadendemokratie und Tiefer Staat. Auf dem Weg in ein autoritäres Zeitalter, Wien 2017
(13) Michael Morris, a.a.O., S. 142ff
(14) https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/world-workers-face-losing-jobs-ilo-200427171840169.html; https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_743146.pdf; https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_743036/lang–en/index.htm
(15) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uew9y-Iln-g, 0:42
(16) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gAdEp7pcFc; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzcERrUyeFI
(17) https://childrenshealthdefense.org; see also Michael Morris, a.a.O., S. 148
(18) https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1Gb0000001RIhBEAW?tab=publications; https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000004Q9aRUAS?tab=publications
(20) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_der_Dinge; https://www.weforum.org/platforms/shaping-the-future-of-technology-governance-iot-robotics-and-smart-cities
(22) https://deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/505482/Roboter-sollen-kuenftig-aufgebrachte-Kunden-beruhigen; https://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1Gb0000000pTDREA2?tab=publications&searchTerm=
“The corporate world that lies and breathes this depraved ideology never has espoused nor never will espouse a higher regard for humanity than for profits”.
So writes Cory Morningstar in ‘It’s not a Social Dilemma, it’s the calculated destruction of the social‘, the first of a new series of articles on 2020s capitalism, which we strongly urge people to read.
It is clear to anyone paying attention that we live in a system built on endless spin, lies and manipulation.
Even groups who voice criticism of certain aspects of our society often do so with the aim of reinforcing its general credibility and domination.
Did you know, for instance, that Amnesty International serves as partner to the World Economic Forum ‘Civil Society in the Fourth Industrial Revolution Initiative’?
They and other well-known NGOs form part of what Cory terms a ‘non-profit industrial complex’ shilling for the empire of capitalist greed.
She writes: “Avaaz and Purpose, serving many of the most powerful corporations and institutions on the planet, create emotive campaigns for climate change, while serving as instruments for war and occupation on targeted sovereign states.
“The irony that the military is a key driver of both climate change and ecological devastation is seemingly lost on the collective Western citizenry”.
In the modern Spectacle nothing is what it claims to be, everything is fake. Honesty has been abolished.
Fake greens promote the further destruction of nature under the false flag of fighting climate change and the fake left defends the capitalist system in the name of a phoney progress.
In 2018, Klaus Schwab’s WEF identified a “growing public backlash against technology” and so the system’s troops have been sent in to put things right using their usual weapons of mass deception.
The ‘Tech for Good’ offensive identified by Cory includes the widely-viewed documentary The Social Dilemma and organisations such as the Center for Humane Technology.
Behind this brand, she warns, lies “the exponential ‘scaling up of social transformation in the fourth industrial revolution’… transforming children, people, and all life into data commodities – a new asset class”.
She adds: “This is a global behavioural change project, unprecedented in scale, with civil society groups and groomed influencers, having been tasked with replacing societal backlash with social licence”.
In fact, it is just another prong of the assault on our lives and our world being launched by the ultra-rich elite centred around the Schwabist fascist/capitalist agenda.
Cory explains: “Time Well Spent/Center for Humane Technology identifies its purpose as ‘a movement to align technology with our humanity’. Yet, its answer to the inhumanity of tech is to be found in market solutions, within the capitalist framework, which can neither be tamed, nor negotiated. For it itself, is inhumane”.
The elephant in the green-wallpapered room frequented by proponents of ‘sustainable’ technology is, of course, the fact that their chosen infrastructures are destroying our planet.
Cory writes: “In the same way that Greta Thunberg never touches upon the sought financialization of nature, global in scale (expected to be implemented in 2021), instead serving as the very face of the campaign; in the same way that Thunberg does not shine an imperative light on militarization as a key driver of climate change, the Center for Humane Technology, which highlights climate change as a key concern, makes no mention of the massive and growing carbon footprint by the Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) sector.
“In the same way that Thunberg remains silent on the roll-out of 5G (the fifth generation technology standard for broadband cellular networks), adding additional layers of threats to biodiversity and all living life forms, including human, neither does the Centre for Humane Technology. 5G is, unequivocally, the very foundation of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, launched to the public as ‘the great reset’.
“Without 5G, the Fourth Industrial Revolution architecture, as sought by the ruling class, will collapse like a house of cards. These deliberate omissions represent the most egregious form of climate denialism that goes largely unchallenged. To call for humane technology while making no mention of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is an impossible oversight.
“We are being conditioned to accept, and even demand, the very infrastructure and said ‘solutions’ that the states, serving the ruling classes, wish to impose on us. This is social engineering en masse.
“Just as there is no negotiating with the brutality of capitalism – there is no negotiating with a trillion dollar social media industry, firmly entrenched in the jaws of capitalism. ‘A path to humane technology’ is just one public relations effort going forward to quell any backlash against the new global architecture, financed by the very entities advancing their depraved collective ideologies”.
Of course, with Cory Morningstar, this is just not an opinion. She names names, details connections, provides dates, links and quotes to thoroughly expose yet another scam aimed at propping up the Great Lie which imprisons us all.
This merits a very careful read!
Full article: It’s not a Social Dilemma, it’s the calculated destruction of the social by Cory Morningstar
Born in Ravensburg in 1938, Klaus Schwab is a child of Adolf Hitler’s Germany, a police-state regime built on fear and violence, on brainwashing and control, on propaganda and lies, on industrialism and eugenics, on dehumanisation and “disinfection”, on a chilling and grandiose vision of a “new order” that would last a thousand years.
Schwab seems to have dedicated his life to reinventing that nightmare and to trying to turn it into a reality not just for Germany but for the whole world.
Worse still, as his own words confirm time and time again, his technocratic fascist vision is also a twisted transhumanist one, which will merge humans with machines in “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life”, which will infect our bodies with “Smart Dust” and in which the police will apparently be able to read our brains.
And, as we will see, he and his accomplices are using the Covid-19 crisis to bypass democratic accountability, to override opposition, to accelerate their agenda and to impose it on the rest of humankind against our will in what he terms a “Great Reset“.
Schwab is not, of course, a Nazi in the classic sense, being neither a nationalist nor an anti-semite, as testified by the $1 million Dan David Prize he was awarded by Israel in 2004.
But 21st century fascism has found different political forms through which to continue its core project of reshaping humanity to suit capitalism through blatantly authoritarian means.
This new fascism is today being advanced in the guise of global governance, biosecurity, the “New Normal”, the “New Deal for Nature” and the “Fourth Industrial Revolution”.
Schwab, the octogenarian founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, sits at the centre of this matrix like a spider on a giant web.
The original fascist project, in Italy and Germany, was all about a merger of state and business.
While communism envisages the take-over of business and industry by the government, which – theoretically! – acts in the interests of the people, fascism was all about using the state to protect and advance the interests of the wealthy elite.
Schwab was continuing this approach in a denazified post-WW2 context, when in 1971 he founded the European Management Forum, which held annual meetings at Davos in Switzerland.
Here he promoted his ideology of “stakeholder” capitalism in which businesses were brought into closer co-operation with government.
“Stakeholder capitalism” is described by Forbes business magazine as “the notion that a firm focuses on meeting the needs of all its stakeholders: customers, employees, partners, the community, and society as a whole”.
Even in the context of a particular business, it is invariably an empty label. As the Forbes article notes, it actually only means that “firms can go on privately shoveling money to their shareholders and executives, while maintaining a public front of exquisite social sensitivity and exemplary altruism”.
But in a general social context, the stakeholder concept is even more nefarious, discarding any idea of democracy, rule by the people, in favour of rule by corporate interests.
Society is no longer regarded as a living community but as a business, whose profitability is the sole valid aim of human activity.
Schwab set out this agenda back in 1971, in his book Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau (Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering), where his use of the term “stakeholders” (die Interessenten) effectively redefined human beings not as citizens, free individuals or members of communities, but as secondary participants in a massive commercial enterprise.
The aim of each and every person’s life was “to achieve long-term growth and prosperity” for this enterprise – in other words, to protect and increase the wealth of the capitalist elite.
This all became even clearer in 1987, when Schwab renamed his European Management Forum the World Economic Forum.
The WEF describes itself on its own website as “the global platform for public-private cooperation”, with admirers describing how it creates “partnerships between businessmen, politicians, intellectuals and other leaders of society to ‘define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda’.”
The “partnerships” which the WEF creates are aimed at replacing democracy with a global leadership of hand-picked and unelected individuals whose duty is not to serve the public, but to impose the rule of the 1% on that public with as little interference from the rest of us as possible.
In the books Schwab writes for public consumption, he expresses himself in the two-faced clichés of corporate spin and greenwashing.
The same empty terms are dished up time and time again. In Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World Schwab talks of “the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits” and of “sustainable and inclusive partnerships” which will lead us all to an “inclusive, sustainable and prosperous future”! (1)
Behind this bluster, the real motivation driving his “stakeholder capitalism”, which he was still relentlessly promoting at the WEF’s 2020 Davos conference, is profit and exploitation.
For instance, in his 2016 book The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab writes about the Uberisation of work and the consequent advantages for companies, particularly fast-growing start-ups in the digital economy: “As human cloud platforms classify workers as self-employed, they are—for the moment—free of the requirement to pay minimum wages, employer taxes and social benefits”. (2)
The same capitalist callousness shines through in his attitude towards people nearing the end of their working lives and in need of a well-deserved rest: “Aging is an economic challenge because unless retirement ages are drastically increased so that older members of society can continue to contribute to the workforce (an economic imperative that has many economic benefits), the working-age population falls at the same time as the percentage of dependent elders increases”. (3)
Everything in this world is reduced to economic challenges, economic imperatives and economic benefits for the ruling capitalist class.
The myth of Progress has long been used by the 1% to persuade people to accept the technologies designed to exploit and control us and Schwab plays on this when he declares that “the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a significant source of hope for continuing the climb in human development that has resulted in dramatic increases in quality of life for billions of people since 1800”. (4)
He enthuses: “While it may not feel momentous to those of us experiencing a series of small but significant adjustments to life on a daily basis, it is not a minor change—the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a new chapter in human development, on a par with the first, second and third Industrial Revolutions, and once again driven by the increasing availability and interaction of a set of extraordinary technologies”. (5)
But he is well aware that technology is not ideologically neutral, as some like to claim. Technologies and societies shape each other, he says. “After all, technologies are tied up in how we know things, how we make decisions, and how we think about ourselves and each other. They are connected to our identities, worldviews and potential futures. From nuclear technologies to the space race, smartphones, social media, cars, medicine and infrastructure—the meaning of technologies makes them political. Even the concept of a ‘developed’ nation implicitly rests on the adoption of technologies and what they mean for us, economically and socially”. (6)
Technology, for the capitalists behind it, has never been about social good but purely about profit, and Schwab makes it quite clear that the same remains true of his Fourth Industrial Revolution.
He explains: “Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies are truly disruptive—they upend existing ways of sensing, calculating, organizing, acting and delivering. They represent entirely new ways of creating value for organizations and citizens”. (7)
In case the meaning of “creating value” was not clear, he gives some examples: “Drones represent a new type of cost-cutting employee working among us and performing jobs that once involved real people” (8) and “the use of ever-smarter algorithms is rapidly extending employee productivity—for example, in the use of chat bots to augment (and, increasingly, replace) ‘live chat’ support for customer interactions”. (9)
Schwab goes into some detail about the cost-cutting, profit-boosting marvels of his brave new world in The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
He explains: “Sooner than most anticipate, the work of professions as different as lawyers, financial analysts, doctors, journalists, accountants, insurance underwriters or librarians may be partly or completely automated…
“The technology is progressing so fast that Kristian Hammond, cofounder of Narrative Science, a company specializing in automated narrative generation, forecasts that by the mid-2020s, 90% of news could be generated by an algorithm, most of it without any kind of human intervention (apart from the design of the algorithm, of course)”. (10)
It is this economic imperative that informs Schwab’s enthusiasm for “a revolution that is fundamentally changing the way we live, work, and relate to one another”. (11)
Schwab waxes lyrical about the 4IR, which he insists is “unlike anything humankind has experienced before”. (12)
He gushes: “Consider the unlimited possibilities of having billions of people connected by mobile devices, giving rise to unprecedented processing power, storage capabilities and knowledge access. Or think about the staggering confluence of emerging technology breakthroughs, covering wide-ranging fields such as artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, the internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage and quantum computing, to name a few. Many of these innovations are in their infancy, but they are already reaching an inflection point in their development as they build on and amplify each other in a fusion of technologies across the physical, digital and biological worlds”. (13)
He also looks forward to more online education, involving “the use of virtual and augmented reality” to “dramatically improve educational outcomes” (14), to sensors “installed in homes, clothes and accessories, cities, transport and energy networks” (15) and to smart cities, with their all-important “data platforms”. (16)
“All things will be smart and connected to the internet”, says Schwab, and this will extend to animals, as “sensors wired in cattle can communicate to each other through a mobile phone network”. (17)
He loves the idea of “smart cell factories” which could enable “the accelerated generation of vaccines” (18) and “big-data technologies”. (19)
These, he assures us, will “deliver new and innovative ways to service citizens and customers” (20) and we will have to stop objecting to businesses profiting from harnessing and selling information about every aspect of our personal lives.
“Establishing trust in the data and algorithms used to make decisions will be vital,” insists Schwab. “Citizen concerns over privacy and establishing accountability in business and legal structures will require adjustments in thinking”. (21)
At the end of the day it is clear that all this technological excitement revolves purely around profit, or “value” as Schwab prefers to term it in his 21st century corporate newspeak.
Thus blockchain technology will be fantastic and provoke “an explosion in tradable assets, as all kinds of value exchange can be hosted on the blockchain”. (22)
The use of distributed ledger technology, adds Schwab, “could be the driving force behind massive flows of value in digital products and services, providing secure digital identities that can make new markets accessible to anyone connected to the internet”. (23)
In general, the interest of the 4IR for the ruling business elite is that it will “create entirely new sources of value” (24) and “give rise to ecosystems of value creation that are impossible to imagine with a mindset stuck in the third Industrial Revolution”. (25)
The technologies of the 4IR, rolled out via 5G, pose unprecedented threats to our freedom, as Schwab concedes: “The tools of the fourth industrial revolution enable new forms of surveillance and other means of control that run counter to healthy, open societies”. (26)
But this does not stop him presenting them in a positive light, as when he declares that “public crime is likely to decrease due to the convergence of sensors, cameras, AI and facial recognition software”. (27)
He describes with some relish how these technologies “can intrude into the hitherto private space of our minds, reading our thoughts and influencing our behavior”. (28)
Schwab predicts: “As capabilities in this area improve, the temptation for law enforcement agencies and courts to use techniques to determine the likelihood of criminal activity, assess guilt or even possibly retrieve memories directly from people’s brains will increase. Even crossing a national border might one day involve a detailed brain scan to assess an individual’s security risk”. (29)
There are times when the WEF chief gets carried away by his passion for a sci-fi future in which “long-distance human space travel and nuclear fusion are commonplace” (30) and in which “the next trending business model” might involve someone “trading access to his or her thoughts for the time-saving option of typing a social media post by thought alone”. (31)
Talk of “space tourism” under the title “The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the final frontier” (32) is almost funny, as is his suggestion that “a world full of drones offers a world full of possibilities”. (33)
But the further the reader progresses into the world depicted in Schwab’s books, the less of a laughing matter it all seems.
The truth is that this highly influential figure, at the centre of the new global order currently being established, is an out-and-out transhumanist who dreams of an end to natural healthy human life and community.
Schwab repeats this message time and time again, as if to be sure we have been duly warned.
“The mind-boggling innovations triggered by the fourth industrial revolution, from biotechnology to AI, are redefining what it means to be human,” (34) he writes.
“The future will challenge our understanding of what it means to be human, from both a biological and a social standpoint”. (35)
“Already, advances in neurotechnologies and biotechnologies are forcing us to question what it means to be human”. (36)
He 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?” (37)
A whole section of this book is devoted to the theme “Altering the Human Being”. Here he drools over “the ability of new technologies to literally become part of us” and invokes a cyborg future involving “curious mixes of digital-and-analog life that will redefine our very natures”. (38)
He writes: “These technologies will operate within our own biology and change how we interface with the world. They are capable of crossing the boundaries of body and mind, enhancing our physical abilities, and even having a lasting impact on life itself “. (39)
No violation seems to go too far for Schwab, who dreams of “active implantable microchips that break the skin barrier of our bodies”, “smart tattoos”, “biological computing” and “custom-designed organisms”. (40)
He is delighted to report that “sensors, memory switches and circuits can be encoded in common human gut bacteria”, (41) that “Smart Dust, arrays of full computers with antennas, each much smaller than a grain of sand, can now organize themselves inside the body” and that “implanted devices will likely also help to communicate thoughts normally expressed verbally through a ‘built-in’ smartphone, and potentially unexpressed thoughts or moods by reading brain waves and other signals”. (42)
“Synthetic biology” is on the horizon in Schwab’s 4IR world, giving the technocratic capitalist rulers of the world “the ability to customize organisms by writing DNA”. (43)
The idea of neurotechnologies, in which humans will have fully artificial memories implanted in the brain, is enough to make some of us feel faintly sick, as is “the prospect of connecting our brains to VR through cortical modems, implants or nanobots”. (44)
It is of little comfort to learn that this is all – of course! – in the greater interests of capitalist profiteering since it “heralds new industries and systems for value creation” and “represents an opportunity to create entire new systems of value in the Fourth Industrial Revolution”. (45)
And what about “the bioprinting of organic tissues” (46) or the suggestion that “animals could potentially be engineered to produce pharmaceuticals and other forms of treatment”? (47)
Ethical objections, anyone?
It’s all evidently good for Schwab, who is happy to announce: “The day when cows are engineered to produce in its [sic] milk a blood-clotting element, which hemophiliacs lack, is not far off. Researchers have already started to engineer the genomes of pigs with the goal of growing organs suitable for human transplantation”. (48)
It gets even more disturbing. Ever since the sinister eugenics programme of the Nazi Germany into which Schwab was born, this science has been deemed beyond the pale by human society.
But now, however, he evidently feels eugenics is due a revival, announcing with regard to genetic editing: “That it is now far easier to manipulate with precision the human genome within viable embryos means that we are likely to see the advent of designer babies in the future who possess particular traits or who are resistant to a specific disease”. (49)
In the notorious 2002 transhumanist treatise I, Cyborg, Kevin Warwick predicts: “Humans will be able to evolve by harnessing the super-intelligence and extra abilities offered by the machines of the future, by joining with them. All this points to the development of a new human species, known in the science-fiction world as ‘cyborgs’. It doesn’t mean that everyone has to become a cyborg. If you are happy with your state as a human then so be it, you can remain as you are. But be warned – just as we humans split from our chimpanzee cousins years ago, so cyborgs will split from humans. Those who remain as humans are likely to become a sub-species. They will, effectively, be the chimpanzees of the future”. (50)
Schwab seems to be hinting at the same future of a “superior” enhanced artificial transhuman elite separating from the natural-born rabble, in this particularly damning passage from The Fourth Industrial Revolution: “We are at the threshold of a radical systemic change that requires human beings to adapt continuously. As a result, we may witness an increasing degree of polarization in the world, marked by those who embrace change versus those who resist it.
“This gives rise to an inequality that goes beyond the societal one described earlier. This ontological inequality will separate those who adapt from those who resist—the material winners and losers in all senses of the words. The winners may even benefit from some form of radical human improvement generated by certain segments of the fourth industrial revolution (such as genetic engineering) from which the losers will be deprived. This risks creating class conflicts and other clashes unlike anything we have seen before”. (51)
Schwab was already talking about a “great transformation” back in 2016 (52) and is clearly determined to do everything in his not inconsiderable power to bring about his eugenics-inspired transhumanist world of artifice, surveillance, control and exponential profit.
But, as revealed by his reference above to “class conflicts”, he is clearly worried by the possibility of “societal resistance” (53) and how to advance “if technologies receive a great deal of resistance from the public”. (54)
Schwab’s annual WEF shindigs at Davos have long been met by anti-capitalist protests and, despite the current paralysis of the radical left, he is well aware of the possibility of renewed and perhaps broader opposition to his project, with the risk of “resentment, fear and political backlash”. (55)
In his most recent book he provides a historical context, noting that “antiglobalization was strong in the run-up to 1914 and up to 1918, then less so during the 1920s, but it reignited in the 1930s as a result of the Great Depression”. (56)
He notes that in the early 2000s “the political and societal backlash against globalization relentlessly gained strength”, (57) says that “social unrest” has been widespread across the world in the past two years, citing the Gilets Jaunes in France among other movements, and invokes the “sombre scenario” that “the same could happen again”. (58)
So how is an honest technocrat supposed to roll out his preferred future for the world without the agreement of the global public? How can Schwab and his billionaire friends impose their favoured society on the rest of us?
One answer is relentless brainwashing propaganda churned out by the mass media and academia owned by the 1% elite – what they like to call “a narrative”.
For Schwab, the reluctance of the majority of humankind to leap aboard his 4IR express reflects the tragedy that “the world lacks a consistent, positive and common narrative that outlines the opportunities and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution, a narrative that is essential if we are to empower a diverse set of individuals and communities and avoid a popular backlash against the fundamental changes under way”. (59)
He adds: “It is, therefore, critical that we invest attention and energy in multistakeholder cooperation across academic, social, political, national and industry boundaries. These interactions and collaborations are needed to create positive, common and hope-filled narratives, enabling individuals and groups from all parts of the world to participate in, and benefit from, the ongoing transformations”. (60)
One of these “narratives” whitewashes the reasons for which 4IR technology needs to be installed everywhere in the world as soon as possible.
Schwab is frustrated that “more than half of the world’s population—around 3.9 billion people—still cannot access the internet”, (61) with 85% of the population of developing countries remaining offline and therefore out of reach, as compared to 22% in the developed world.
The actual aim of the 4IR is to exploit these populations for profit via global techno-imperialism, but of course that cannot be stated in the propaganda “narrative” required to sell the plan.
Instead, their mission has to be presented, as Schwab himself does, as a bid to “develop technologies and systems that serve to distribute economic and social values such as income, opportunity and liberty to all stakeholders”. (62)
He piously postures as a guardian of woke liberal values, declaring: “Thinking inclusively goes beyond thinking about poverty or marginalized communities simply as an aberration—something that we can solve. It forces us to realize that ‘our privileges are located on the same map as their suffering’. It moves beyond income and entitlements, though these remain important. Instead, the inclusion of stakeholders and the distribution of benefits expand freedoms for all”. (63)
The same technique, of a fake “narrative” designed to fool good-thinking citizens into supporting an imperialist capitalist scheme, has been used extensively with regard to climate change.
Schwab is a great fan of Greta Thunberg, of course, who had barely stood up from the pavement after her one-girl protest in Stockholm before being whisked off to address the WEF at Davos.
He is also a supporter of the proposed global New Deal for Nature, particularly via Voice for the Planet, which was launched at the WEF in Davos in 2019 by the Global Shapers, a youth-grooming organisation created by Schwab in 2011 and aptly described by investigative journalist Cory Morningstar as “a grotesque display of corporate malfeasance disguised as good”.
In his 2020 book, Schwab actually lays out the way that fake “youth activism” is being used to advance his capitalist aims.
He writes, in a remarkably frank passage: “Youth activism is increasing worldwide, being revolutionized by social media that increases mobilization to an extent that would have been impossible before. It takes many different forms, ranging from non-institutionalized political participation to demonstrations and protests, and addresses issues as diverse as climate change, economic reforms, gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The young generation is firmly at the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset”. (64)
In fact, of course, the ultra-industrial future proposed by Schwab is anything other than green. It’s not nature he’s interested in, but “natural capital” and “incentivizing investment in green and social frontier markets”. (65)
Pollution means profit and environmental crisis is just another business opportunity, as he details in The Fourth Industrial Revolution: “In this revolutionary new industrial system, carbon dioxide turns from a greenhouse pollutant into an asset, and the economics of carbon capture and storage move from being cost as well as pollution sinks to becoming profitable carbon-capture and use-production facilities. Even more important, it will help companies, governments and citizens become more aware of and engaged with strategies to actively regenerate natural capital, allowing intelligent and regenerative uses of natural capital to guide sustainable production and consumption and give space for biodiversity to recover in threatened areas”. (66)
Schwab’s “solutions” to the heart-breaking damage inflicted on our natural world by industrial capitalism involve more of the same poison, except worse.
Geoengineering is one of his favourites: “Proposals include installing giant mirrors in the stratosphere to deflect the sun’s rays, chemically seeding the atmosphere to increase rainfall and the deployment of large machines to remove carbon dioxide from the air”. (67)
And he adds: “New approaches are currently being imagined through the combination of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies, such as nanoparticles and other advanced materials”. (68)
Like all the businesses and pro-capitalist NGOs backing the threatened New Deal for Nature, Schwab is utterly and profoundly ungreen.
For him, the “ultimate possibility” of “clean” and “sustainable” energy includes nuclear fusion (69) and he looks forward to the day when satellites will “blanket the planet with communications pathways that could help connect the more than 4 billion people still lacking online access”. (70)
Schwab also very much regrets all that red tape preventing the unhindered onward march of GM food, warning that “global food security will only be achieved, however, if regulations on genetically modified foods are adapted to reflect the reality that gene editing offers a precise, efficient and safe method of improving crops”. (71)
The new order envisaged by Schwab will embrace the entire world and so global governance is required in order to impose it, as he repeatedly states.
His preferred future “will only come about through improved global governance” (72) he insists. “Some form of effective global governance” (73) is needed.
The problem we have today is that of a possible “global order deficit”, (74) he claims, adding improbably that the World Health Organization “is saddled with limited and dwindling resources”. (75)
What he is really saying is that his 4IR/great reset society will only function if imposed simultaneously everywhere on the planet, otherwise “we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges”. (76)
He admits: “In a nutshell, global governance is at the nexus of all these other issues”. (77)
This all-englobing empire very much frowns on the idea of any particular population democratically deciding to take another path. These “risk becoming isolated from global norms, putting these nations at risk of becoming the laggards of the new digital economy”, (78) warns Schwab.
Any sense of autonomy and grassroots belonging is regarded as a threat from Schwab’s imperialist perspective and is due to be eradicated under the 4IR.
He writes: “Individuals used to identify their lives most closely with a place, an ethnic group, a particular culture or even a language. The advent of online engagement and increased exposure to ideas from other cultures means that identities are now more fungible than previously… Thanks to the combination of historical migration patterns and low-cost connectivity, family structures are being redefined”. (79)
Genuine democracy essentially falls into the same category for Schwab. He knows that most people will not willingly go along with plans to destroy their lives and enslave them to a global techno-fascist system of exploitation, so giving them a say in the matter is simply not an option.
This is why the “stakeholder” concept has been so important for Schwab’s project. As discussed above, this is the negation of democracy, with its emphasis instead on “reaching out across stakeholder groups for solution building”. (80)
If the public, the people, are included in this process it is only at a superficial level. The agenda has already been pre-supposed and the decisions pre-made behind the scenes.
Schwab effectively admits as much 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”. (81)
So the public must “also” be considered, as an afterthought. Not even directly consulted, just “considered”! And the role of the people, the demos, will merely be to “participate” in the “shaping” of biotechnological developments. The possibility of the public actually rejecting the very idea of biotechnological developments has been entirely removed thanks to the deliberately in-built assumptions of the stakeholder formula.
The same message is implied in the heading of Schwab’s conclusion to Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: “What You Can Do to Shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution”. (82) The techno-tyranny cannot challenged or stopped, merely “shaped”.
Schwab uses the term “systems leadership” to describe the profoundly anti-democratic way in which the 1% imposes its agenda on us all, without giving us the chance to say ‘no’.
He writes: “Systems leadership is about cultivating a shared vision for change—working together with all stakeholders of global society—and then acting on it to change how the system delivers its benefits, and to whom. Systems leadership requires action from all stakeholders, including individuals, business executives, social influencers and policy-makers”. (83)
He refers to this full-spectrum top-down control as “the system management of human existence” (84) although others might prefer the term “totalitarianism”.
One of the distinguishing features of historical fascism in Italy and Germany was its impatience with the inconvenient restraints imposed on the ruling class (“the Nation” in fascist language) by democracy and political liberalism.
All of this had to be swept out of the way to allow a Blitzkrieg of accelerated “modernisation”.
We see the same spirit resurging in Schwab’s calls for “agile governance” in which he claims that “the pace of technological development and a number of characteristics of technologies render previous policy-making cycles and processes inadequate”. (85)
He writes: “The idea of reforming governance models to cope with new technologies is not new, but the urgency of doing so is far greater in light of the power of today’s emerging technologies… the concept of agile governance seeks to match the nimbleness, fluidity, flexibility and adaptiveness of the technologies themselves and the private-sector actors adopting them”. (86)
The phrase “reforming governance models to cope with new technologies” really gives the game away here. As under fascism, social structures must be reinvented so as to accommodate the requirements of capitalism and its profit-increasing technologies.
Schwab explains that his “agile governance” would involve creating so-called policy labs – “protected spaces within government with an explicit mandate to experiment with new methods of policy development by using agile principles” – and “encouraging collaborations between governments and businesses to create ‘developtory sandboxes’ and ‘experimental testbeds’ to develop regulations using iterative, cross-sectoral and flexible approaches”. (87)
For Schwab, the role of the state is to advance capitalist aims, not to hold them up to any form of scrutiny. While he is all in favour of the state’s role in enabling a corporate take-over of our lives, he is less keen about its regulatory function, which might slow down the inflow of profit into private hands, and so he envisages “the development of ecosystems of private regulators, competing in markets”. (88)
In his 2018 book, Schwab discusses the problem of pesky regulations and how best to “overcome these limits” in the context of data and privacy.
He comes up with the suggestion of “public-private data-sharing agreements that ‘break glass in case of emergency’. These come into play only under pre-agreed emergency circumstances (such as a pandemic) and can help reduce delays and improve the coordination of first responders, temporarily allowing data sharing that would be illegal under normal circumstances”. (89)
Funnily enough, two years later there was indeed a “pandemic” and these “pre-agreed emergency circumstances” became a reality.
This shouldn’t have been too much of a surprise for Schwab, since his WEF had co-hosted the infamous Event 201 conference in October 2019, which modelled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.
And he wasted little time in bringing out a new book, Covid-19: The Great Reset, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, who runs something called the Monthly Barometer, “a succinct predictive analysis provided to private investors, global CEOs and opinion- and decision-makers”. (90)
Published in July 2020, the book sets out to advance “conjectures and ideas about what the post-pandemic world might, and perhaps should, look like”. (91)
Schwab and Malleret admit that Covid-19 is “one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years”, adding that “the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild compared to previous pandemics”. (92)
They add: “It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades”. (93)
Yet, incredibly, this “mild” illness is simultaneously presented as the excuse for unprecedented social change under the banner of “The Great Reset”!
And although they explicitly declare that Covid-19 does not constitute a major “shock”, the authors repeatedly deploy the same term to describe the broader impact of the crisis.
Schwab and Malleret place Covid-19 in a long tradition of events which have facilitated sudden and significant changes to our societies.
They specifically invoke the Second World War: “World War II was the quintessential transformational war, triggering not only fundamental changes to the global order and the global economy, but also entailing radical shifts in social attitudes and beliefs that eventually paved the way for radically new policies and social contract provisions (like women joining the workforce before becoming voters). There are obviously fundamental dissimilarities between a pandemic and a war (that we will consider in some detail in the following pages), but the magnitude of their transformative power is comparable. Both have the potential to be a transformative crisis of previously unimaginable proportions”. (94)
They also join many contemporary “conspiracy theorists” in making a direct comparison between Covid-19 and 9/11: “This is what happened after the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. All around the world, new security measures like employing widespread cameras, requiring electronic ID cards and logging employees or visitors in and out became the norm. At that time, these measures were deemed extreme, but today they are used everywhere and considered ‘normal'”. (95)
When any tyrant declares the right to rule over a population without taking their views into account, they like to justify their dictatorship with the claim that they are morally entitled to do so because they are “enlightened”.
The same is true of the Covid-fuelled tyranny of Schwab’s great reset, which the book categorises as “enlightened leadership”, adding: “Some leaders and decision-makers who were already at the forefront of the fight against climate change may want to take advantage of the shock inflicted by the pandemic to implement long-lasting and wider environmental changes. They will, in effect, make ‘good use’ of the pandemic by not letting the crisis go to waste”. (96)
The global capitalist ruling elite have certainly been doing their best to “take advantage of the shock inflicted by the panic”, assuring us all since the very earliest days of the outbreak that, for some unfathomable reason, nothing in our lives could ever be the same again.
Schwab and Malleret are, inevitably, enthusiastic in their use of the New Normal framing, despite their admission that the virus was only ever “mild”.
“It is our defining moment”, they crow. “Many things will change forever”. “A new world will emerge”. “The societal upheaval unleashed by COVID-19 will last for years, and possibly generations”. “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never”. (97)
They even go as far as proposing a new historical separation between “the pre-pandemic era” and “the post-pandemic world”. (98)
They write: “Radical changes of such consequence are coming that some pundits have referred to a ‘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. In so doing, they will shape a ‘new normal’ radically different from the one we will be progressively leaving behind. Many of our beliefs and assumptions about what the world could or should look like will be shattered in the process”. (99)
Back in 2016, Schwab was looking ahead to “new ways of using technology to change behavior” (100) and predicting: “The scale and breadth of the unfolding technological revolution will usher in economic, social and cultural changes of such phenomenal proportions that they are almost impossible to envisage”. (101)
One way in which he had hoped his technocratic agenda would be advanced was, as we have noted, through the phoney “solutions” to climate change proposed by fake green capitalists.
Under the title “environmental reset”, Schwab and Malleret state: “At first glance, the pandemic and the environment might seem to be only distantly related cousins; but they are much closer and more intertwined than we think”. (102)
One of the connections is that both the climate and virus “crises” have been used by the WEF and their like to push their agenda of global governance. As Schwab and his co-author put it, “they are global in nature and therefore can only be properly addressed in a globally coordinated fashion”. (103)
Another link is the way that the “the post-pandemic economy” and “the green economy” (104) involve massive profits for largely the same sectors of big business.
Covid-19 has evidently been great news for those capitalists hoping to cash in on environmental destruction, with Schwab and Malleret reporting: “The conviction that ESG strategies benefited from the pandemic and are most likely to benefit further is corroborated by various surveys and reports. Early data shows that the sustainability sector outperformed conventional funds during the first quarter of 2020”. (105)
The capitalist sharks of the so-called “sustainability sector” are rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of all the money they stand to make from the Covid-pretexted great fascist reset, in which the state is instrumentalised to fund their hypocritical profiteering.
Note Schwab and Malleret: “The key to crowding private capital into new sources of nature-positive economic value will be to shift key policy levers and public finance incentives as part of a wider economic reset”. (106)
“A policy paper prepared by Systemiq in collaboration with the World Economic Forum estimates that building the nature-positive economy could represent more than $10 trillion per year by 2030… Resetting the environment should not be seen as a cost, but rather as an investment that will generate economic activity and employment opportunities”. (107)
Given the intertwining of climate and Covid crises set out by Schwab, we might speculate that the original plan was to push through the New Normal reset on the back of the climate crisis.
But evidently, all that publicity for Greta Thunberg and big business-backed Extinction Rebellion did not whip up enough public panic to justify such measures.
Covid-19 serves Schwab’s purposes perfectly, as the immediate urgency it presents allows the whole process to be speeded up and rushed through without due scrutiny.
“This crucial difference between the respective time-horizons of a pandemic and that of climate change and nature loss means that a pandemic risk requires immediate action that will be followed by a rapid result, while climate change and nature loss also require immediate action, but the result (or ‘future reward’, in the jargon of economists) will only follow with a certain time lag”. (108)
For Schwab and his friends, Covid-19 is the great accelerator of everything they have been wanting to foist upon us for years.
As he and Malleret say: “The pandemic is clearly exacerbating and accelerating geopolitical trends that were already apparent before the crisis erupted”. (109)
“The pandemic will mark a turning point by accelerating this transition. It has crystallized the issue and made a return to the pre-pandemic status quo impossible”. (110)
They can barely conceal their delight at the direction society is now taking: “The pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way (comparable to the exacerbation effect it has had on other underlying global and domestic issues) and ‘turbocharging’ any digital business or the digital dimension of any business”. (111)
“With the pandemic, the ‘digital transformation’ that so many analysts have been referring to for years, without being exactly sure what it meant, has found its catalyst. One major effect of confinement will be the expansion and progression of the digital world in a decisive and often permanent manner.
“In April 2020, several tech leaders observed how quickly and radically the necessities created by the health crisis had precipitated the adoption of a wide range of technologies. In the space of just one month, it appeared that many companies in terms of tech take-up fast-forwarded by several years”. (112)
Fate is obviously smiling on Klaus Schwab as this Covid-19 crisis has, happily, succeeded in advancing pretty much every aspect of the agenda he has been promoting over the decades.
Thus he and Malleret report with satisfaction that “the pandemic will fast-forward the adoption of automation in the workplace and the introduction of more robots in our personal and professional lives”. (113)
Lockdowns across the world have, needless to say, provided a big financial boost to those businesses offering online shopping.
The authors recount: “Consumers need products and, if they can’t shop, they will inevitably resort to purchasing them online. As the habit kicks in, people who had never shopped online before will become comfortable with doing so, while people who were part-time online shoppers before will presumably rely on it more. This was made evident during the lockdowns. In the US, Amazon and Walmart hired a combined 250,000 workers to keep up with the increase in demand and built massive infrastructure to deliver online. This accelerating growth of e-commerce means that the giants of the online retail industry are likely to emerge from the crisis even stronger than they were in the pre-pandemic era”. (114)
They add: “As more and diverse things and services are brought to us via our mobiles and computers, companies in sectors as disparate as e-commerce, contactless operations, digital content, robots and drone deliveries (to name just a few) will thrive. It is not by accident that firms like Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix or Zoom emerged as ‘winners’ from the lockdowns”. (115)
By way of corollary, we might suggest that it is “not by accident” that governments which have been captured and controlled by big business, thanks to the likes of the WEF, have imposed a “new reality” under which big businesses are the “winners”…
The Covid-inspired good news never stops for all the business sectors which stand to benefit from the Fourth Industrial Repression.
“The pandemic may prove to be a boon for online education,” Schwab and Malleret report. “In Asia, the shift to online education has been particularly notable, with a sharp increase in students’ digital enrolments, much higher valuation for online education businesses and more capital available for ‘ed-tech’ start-ups… In the summer of 2020, the direction of the trend seems clear: the world of education, like for so many other industries, will become partly virtual”. (116)
Online sports have also taken off: “For a while, social distancing may constrain the practice of certain sports, which will in turn benefit the ever-more powerful expansion of e-sports. Tech and digital are never far away!”. (117)
There is similar news from the banking sector: “Online banking interactions have risen to 90 percent during the crisis, from 10 percent, with no drop-off in quality and an increase in compliance”. (118)
The Covid-inspired move into online activity obviously benefits Big Tech, who are making enormous profits out of the crisis, as the authors describe: “The combined market value of the leading tech companies hit record after record during the lockdowns, even rising back above levels before the outbreak started… this phenomenon is unlikely to abate any time soon, quite the opposite”. (119)
But it is also good news for all the businesses involved, who no longer have to pay human beings to work for them. Automation is, and has always been, about saving costs and thus boosting profits for the capitalist elite.
The culture of the fascist New Normal will also provide lucrative spin-off benefits for particular business sectors, such as the packaging industry, explain Schwab and Malleret.
“The pandemic will certainly heighten our focus on hygiene. A new obsession with cleanliness will particularly entail the creation of new forms of packaging. We will be encouraged not to touch the products we buy. Simple pleasures like smelling a melon or squeezing a fruit will be frowned upon and may even become a thing of the past”. (120)
The authors also describe what sounds very much like a technocratic profit-related agenda behind the “social distancing” which has been such a key element of the Covid “reset”.
They write: “In one form or another, social- and physical-distancing measures are likely to persist after the pandemic itself subsides, justifying the decision in many companies from different industries to accelerate automation. After a while, the enduring concerns about technological unemployment will recede as societies emphasize the need to restructure the workplace in a way that minimizes close human contact. Indeed, automation technologies are particularly well suited to a world in which human beings can’t get too close to each other or are willing to reduce their interactions. Our lingering and possibly lasting fear of being infected with a virus (COVID-19 or another) will thus speed the relentless march of automation, particularly in the fields most susceptible to automation”. (121)
As previously mentioned, Schwab has long been frustrated by all those tiresome regulations which stop capitalists from making as much money as they would like to, by focusing on economically irrelevant concerns such as the safety and well being of human beings.
But – hooray! – the Covid crisis has provided the perfect excuse for doing away with great swathes of these outmoded impediments to prosperity and growth.
One area in which meddlesome red tape is being abandoned is health. Why would any right-minded stakeholder imagine that any particular obligation for care and diligence should be allowed to impinge on the profitablity of this particular business sector?
Schwab and Malleret are overjoyed to note that telemedicine will “benefit considerably” from the Covid emergency: “The necessity to address the pandemic with any means available (plus, during the outbreak, the need to protect health workers by allowing them to work remotely) removed some of the regulatory and legislative impediments related to the adoption of telemedicine”. (122)
The ditching of regulations is a general phenomenon under the New Normal global regime, as Schwab and Malleret relate:
“To date governments have often slowed the pace of adoption of new technologies by lengthy ponderings about what the best regulatory framework should look like but, as the example of telemedicine and drone delivery is now showing, a dramatic acceleration forced by necessity is possible. During the lockdowns, a quasi-global relaxation of regulations that had previously hampered progress in domains where the technology had been available for years suddenly happened because there was no better or other choice available. What was until recently unthinkable suddenly became possible… New regulations will stay in place”. (123)
They add: “The current imperative to propel, no matter what, the ‘contactless economy’ and the subsequent willingness of regulators to speed it up means that there are no holds barred”. (124)
“No holds barred”. Make no mistake: this is the language adopted by capitalism when it abandons its pretence at liberal democracy and switches into full-on fascist mode.
It is clear from Schwab and Malleret’s work that a fascistic merging of state and business, to the advantage of the latter, underpins their great reset.
Phenomenal sums of money have been transferred from the public purse into the bulging pockets of the 1% since the very start of the Covid crisis, as they acknowledge: “In April 2020, just as the pandemic began to engulf the world, governments across the globe had announced stimulus programmes amounting to several trillion dollars, as if eight or nine Marshall Plans had been put into place almost simultaneously”. (125)
They continue: “COVID-19 has rewritten many of the rules of the game between the public and private sectors. … The benevolent (or otherwise) greater intrusion of governments in the life of companies and the conduct of their business will be country- and industry-dependent, therefore taking many different guises”. (126)
“Measures that would have seemed inconceivable prior to the pandemic may well become standard around the world as governments try to prevent the economic recession from turning into a catastrophic depression.
“Increasingly, there will be calls for government to act as a ‘payer of last resort’ to prevent or stem the spate of mass layoffs and business destruction triggered by the pandemic. All these changes are altering the rules of the economic and monetary policy ‘game’.” (127)
Schwab and his fellow author welcome the prospect of increased state powers being used to prop up big business profiteering.
They write: “One of the great lessons of the past five centuries in Europe and America is this: acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason why it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic”. (128)
And they add: “Looking to the future, governments will most likely, but with different degrees of intensity, decide that it’s in the best interest of society to rewrite some of the rules of the game and permanently increase their role”. (129)
The idea of rewriting the rules of the game is, again, very reminiscent of fascist language, as of course is the idea of permanently increasing the role of the state in helping the private sector.
Indeed, it is worth comparing Schwab’s position on this issue with that of Italian fascist dictator Benito Mussolini, who responded to economic crisis in 1931 by launching a special emergency body, L’Istituto mobiliare italiano, to aid businesses.
He declared this was “a means of energetically driving the Italian economy towards its corporative phase, which is to say a system which fundamentally respects private property and initiative, but ties them tightly to the State, which alone can protect, control and nourish them”. (130)
Suspicions about the fascistic nature of Schwab’s great reset are confirmed, of course, by the police-state measures that have been rolled out across the world to ensure compliance with “emergency” Covid measures.
The sheer brute force that never lies far beneath the surface of the capitalist system becomes increasingly visible when it enters it fascist stage and this is very much in evidence in Schwab and Malleret’s book.
The word “force” is deployed time and time again in the context of Covid-19. Sometimes this is in a business context, as with the statements that “COVID-19 has forced all the banks to accelerate a digital transformation that is now here to stay” or that “the micro reset will force every company in every industry to experiment new ways of doing business, working and operating”. (131)
But sometimes it is applied directly to human beings, or “consumers” as Schwab and his ilk prefer to think of us.
“During the lockdowns, many consumers previously reluctant to rely too heavily on digital applications and services were forced to change their habits almost overnight: watching movies online instead of going to the cinema, having meals delivered instead of going out to restaurants, talking to friends remotely instead of meeting them in the flesh, talking to colleagues on a screen instead of chit-chatting at the coffee machine, exercising online instead of going to the gym, and so on…
“Many of the tech behaviours that we were forced to adopt during confinement will through familiarity become more natural. As social and physical distancing persist, relying more on digital platforms to communicate, or work, or seek advice, or order something will, little by little, gain ground on formerly ingrained habits”. (132)
Under a fascist system, individuals are not offered the choice as to whether they want to comply with its demands or not, as Schwab and Malleret make quite clear regarding so-called contact-tracing: “No voluntary contact-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system; if any individual refuses to download the app (and therefore to withhold information about a possible infection, movements and contacts), everyone will be adversely affected”. (133)
This, they reflect, is another great advantage of the Covid crisis over the environmental one which might have been used to impose their New Normal: “While for a pandemic, a majority of citizens will tend to agree with the necessity to impose coercive measures, they will resist constraining policies in the case of environmental risks where the evidence can be disputed”. (134)
These “coercive measures”, which we are all expected to go along with, will of course involve unimaginable levels of fascistic surveillance of our lives, particularly in our role as wage slaves.
Write Schwab and Malleret: “The corporate move will be towards greater surveillance; for better or for worse, companies will be watching and sometimes recording what their workforce does. The trend could take many different forms, from measuring body temperatures with thermal cameras to monitoring via an app how employees comply with social distancing”. (135)
Coercive measures of one kind or another are also likely to be used to force people to take the Covid vaccines currently being lined up.
Schwab is deeply connected to that world, being on a “first-name basis” with Bill Gates and having been hailed by Big Pharma mainstay Henry McKinnell, chairman and CEO of Pfizer Inc, as “a person truly dedicated to a truly noble cause”.
So it is not surprising that he insists, with Malleret, that “a full return to ‘normal’ cannot be envisaged before a vaccine is available”. (136)
He adds: “The next hurdle is the political challenge of vaccinating enough people worldwide (we are collectively as strong as the weakest link) with a high enough compliance rate despite the rise of anti-vaxxers”. (137)
“Anti-vaxxers” thus join Schwab’s list of threats to his project, along with anti-globalization and anti-capitalist protesters, Gilets Jaunes and all those engaged in “class conflicts”, “societal resistance” and “political backlash”.
The majority of the world’s population have already been excluded from decision-making processes by the lack of democracy which Schwab wants to accentuate through his stakeholderist corporate domination, his “agile governance”, his totalitarian “system management of human existence”.
But how does he envisage dealing with the “sombre scenario” of people rising up against his great newnormalist reset and his transhumanist Fourth Industrial Revolution?
What degree of “force” and “coercive measures” would he be prepared to accept in order to ensure the dawning of his technocratic new age?
The question is a chilling one, but we should also bear in mind the historical example of the 20th century regime into which Schwab was born.
Hitler’s new Nazi normal was meant to last for a thousand years, but came crashing down 988 years ahead of target.
Just because Hitler said, with all the confidence of power, that his Reich would last for a millennium, this didn’t mean that it was so.
Just because Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret and their friends say that we are now entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution and our world will be changed for ever, this doesn’t mean that it is so.
We don’t have to accept their New Normal. We don’t have to go along with their fearmongering. We don’t have to take their vaccines. We don’t have to let them implant us with smartphones or edit our DNA. We don’t have to walk, muzzled and submissive, straight into their transhumanist hell.
We can denounce their lies! Expose their agenda! Refuse their narrative! Reject their toxic ideology! Resist their fascism!
Klaus Schwab is not a god, but a human being. Just one elderly man. And those he works with, the global capitalist elite, are few in number. Their aims are not the aims of the vast majority of humankind. Their transhumanist vision is repulsive to nearly everyone outside of their little circle and they do not have consent for the technocratic dictatorship they are trying to impose on us.
That, after all, is why they have had to go to such lengths to force it upon us under the false flag of fighting a virus. They understood that without the “emergency” justification, we were never going to go along with their warped scheme.
They are scared of our potential power because they know that if we stand up, we will defeat them. We can bring their project crashing down before it has even properly started.
We are the people, we are the 99%, and together we can grab back our freedom from the deadly jaws of the fascist machine!
We don’t want their Great Fascist Reset! Printable A4 leaflet
1. Klaus Schwab with Nicholas Davis, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Guide to Building a Better World (Geneva: WEF, 2018), e-book.
2. Klaus Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (Geneva: WEF, 2016), e-book.
3. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
4. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
10. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
14. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
15. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
18. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
19. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
23. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
26. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
27. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
34. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
35. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
43. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
44. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
47. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
50. Kevin Warwick, I, Cyborg (London: Century, 2002), p. 4. See also Paul Cudenec, Nature, Essence and Anarchy (Sussex: Winter Oak, 2016).
51. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
53. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
56. Klaus Schwab, Thierry Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset (Geneva: WEF, 2020), e-book. Edition 1.0.
59. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
61. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
64. Schwab, Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
66. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
67. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
72. Schwab, Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
78. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
80. Schwab, Shaping the Future of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.
90. Schwab, Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
100. Schwab, The Fourth Industrial Revolution.
102. Schwab, Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
130. Benito Mussolini, cit. Pierre Milza and Serge Berstein, Le fascisme italien 1919-1945 (Paris: Editions de Seuil, 1980), p. 246.
131. Schwab, Malleret, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
Reposts and translations of this article on other websites: