“Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

-Matthew 7:20

On January 17, President Xi Jinping delivered remarks to the annual Davos Summit where a coterie of billionaires with larger than life aspirations for reshaping the world into a new techno-feudal dystopia conglomerated for several days of self-congratulatory speeches and networking.

As could be expected, Xi’s speech garnered a fair bit of hysteria from many nationalists across the Trans Atlantic who are obviously not reacting well to the ugly fact that their governments have been hijacked and their lives threatened by a very sociopathic supranational entity that wants to reset the clock on human civilization.

One particular nationalist news outline named LaRouche PAC- historically supportive of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), took the occasion of Xi’s remarks to suffer an uncomfortable meltdown with a January 22 editorial authored by Robert Ingraham stating:

“Xi’s speech was reprehensible. Despite the references to ‘global cooperation’ and ‘win-win,’ his remarks can only be read as a veiled attack on Donald Trump and an unambiguous endorsement of the Davos agenda. He endorsed ‘holistic’ environmentalism, carbon neutrality, and a ‘complete transition to a green economy.’ He endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, praised free trade and condemned protectionism. He expressed effusive admiration for the COP26 agenda, as well as the WTO and WHO. Perhaps, most disgusting was his strong praise (twice in his speech) of the United Nation’s genocidal policy of ‘sustainable development.’ “

Although LaRouche PAC was but one of many news outlets decrying Xi’s speech as proof of China’s complicit role in the WEF’s Global Great Reset, I decided to direct the thrust of my defense of Xi to this organization for two reasons.

• They otherwise represent many very good ideas which I sincerely believe could play an important role in putting out the fires engulfing civilization… as long as they don’t self-sabotage by giving into simple-minded populism when it matters most.
• The author of the editorial has conducted some of the best historical research I have ever read which should have inoculated him from making the sorts of inexcusable errors in judgement which will do great damage to the minds of his own readers, his organization, and the cause of truth more generally.

Perhaps my words are harsh, but I hope to demonstrate in the following response, that I am absolutely serious in my claim that the author is misguided in his analysis of China’s motives.

Claim 1: “China Supports Decarbonization and is thus Evil”

For those who have come to discover that COP26 de-carbonization targets are actually driven by an intention to dismantle industrial civilization (and the means of sustaining modern population levels), congratulations. You have earned an intellectual edge to cut through misinformation lacking in those cave dwellers who still wish to believe that Greta Thunberg, Prince Charles and Bill Gates are climate experts or that the world will end in a hellish oven in 12 years unless we radically alter our collective behavior and shut down industrial civilization pronto.

To those who have stepped out of the cave on this issue, Xi’s public remarks have certainly drawn some confusion. Does the Chinese President actually support the “globalist” depopulation agenda? Does he support the dismantling of advanced industrial civilization?

If we focus on those actions beyond the mere surface words used by Xi at Davos, the answer is a resounding “no”.

Eurasian vs Trans Atlantic “Decarbonization”

China’s approach to “decarbonization” and “sustainable development” are very different from those dominant in the NATO-Five Eyes cage on numerous levels. Unlike the western occupied states who are being told to brace for a reduction in living standards, production, and even ownership of possessions under a new age of scarcity, China’s “green agenda” is geared towards hydrocarbon development with a focus on natural gas, coal, oil and nuclear.

In terms of China’s robust nuclear power sector (which emits zero CO2), theirs is the only nation currently utilizing EVERY single third and fourth generation reactor design existent including molten salt thorium, and fast breeder reactors with more advanced initiatives to break through to practicable commercial fusion than any other state.

While China is also a leading investor in so-called “renewable” energy including windmills and solar panels, unlike the Trans Atlantic community, they have not made their capital-intensive industrial productive bases reliant on these low intensity, unreliable and expensive forms of electricity, preferring to use “green” energy principally for residential consumption.

It is also no secret that China has become the world’s primary user of concrete, steel, iron, and other minerals vital for building large scale megaprojects emblematic in the evolving Belt and Road Initiative.

Claim 2: “China Supports TPP and is Thus Evil”

To say Xi “is pro-Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)” is beyond simplistic.

As Pepe Escobar explains extraordinarily well, there is a fight over who will shape the rules of globalization 2.0.

The globalization 1.0 that has run rough shod over the world for 50 years is dead in the water waiting only for the immanent snap to break the ship apart like a new Titanic being pulled into the dark abyss. This collapse is not actually a flaw in the system as many conjecture, but was in fact always designed to be a time bomb from the moment the dollar was floated off the gold reserve in 1971 to the current systemic bubble breakdown.

The question is thus not ‘WILL the system collapse’ but rather: WHO will shape this new system and upon WHAT operating system will its rules be based?

Will it be an open system capable of creative growth and self-directed improvement or would it be a closed system defined by the assumed immutable laws of entropy and diminishing returns? Would the system be zero sum (win-lose) or would the whole be more than the parts (win-win)?

The Obama-era TPP which Trump rightfully killed in 2016 was nothing but a blatant economic assault onto both the Peoples’ Republic of China specifically the Sovereign Nation State system generally. This assault was premised on several factors:

1. A) Binding all TPP-member nations of the Pacific into a top-down NAFTA-like system controlled by London and Wall Street.
2. B) Giving corporations the right to sue nations directly for breaking the rules of TPP’s version of “free trade” (which in truth were never free as multinational private interests like those coordinating through such outlets as the World Economic Forum were always working to stay in control).
3. C) Cutting off China from its neighbors since the pre-2016 version of TPP always excluded China.

The “TPP 2.0” to which Xi is referring is only “TPP” in name.

In regards to its operating system, this version looks more like an extension of the RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) launched in 2020 as the largest trade deal in history involving 15 Pacific nations representing 30% of the world’s population.

Does it involve free trade? YES. Is this version of free trade being used to justify the imperial rape of poor nations? NO.

Free Trade Governed by What Intention?

It should be an obvious fact that much evil has been done behind the cover of “free trade” since Adam Smith wrote his infamous Wealth of Nations in 1776.

From opium wars, to potato famines, to repeated Indian genocides, to modern cases of pillage under globalization, British “free trade” has often been used as a means to get nation states to turn off their security systems while bandits robbed them naked.

The difference between the Chinese vs Anglo-American versions of free trade comes down to INTENTION.

Where the Anglo-American variants were designed to destroy national development, the Chinese (or earlier U.S. Hamiltonian System) variations are inextricably tied to the industrial improvement of all participating nations. Where one intends to divide, conquer and destroy, the other intends to unite, cooperate and create. Big difference.

One might here scream: “YOU CAN’T KNOW INTENTIONS!”

As Jesus once responded to the question: “you will know them by their fruits”. A materialist would not know how to process this, but anyone looking at world history would quickly recognize that in politics, using words that make your intention transparent will nearly always undo your objectives. We love John F. Kennedy’s robust candor, but his murder after only 1000 days in office resulted in the destruction of many great goods which a more wise and savvy statesman like Benjamin Franklin would never have permitted to occur.

Let me say it one more way: sometimes bad men committed to bad acts use good words and sometimes good men committed to good acts use bad words. How do you know their intention or goodness? Not through their words, but through their fruits.

China’s Hamiltonian Fruits

China has provably pulled over 800 million souls out of abject poverty while the unipolar system of empire has only created decades of starvation, poverty and war. China has launched trillions of dollars worth of productive long-term credit through state-owned banks tied not to speculating on debts, but building actual infrastructure both within their own nation and internationally.

Where our western system is entirely dependent on hyperbolically increasing rates of speculative/fictitious capital, the Chinese system is premised on PHYSICAL systems of production and value. An Evergrande bubble popping in the west would be an atomic force of destruction, whereas in China, it is an extremely containable aberration.

IF the LaRouchePAC-affiliated author attacking Xi actually read the original works of economist Alexander Hamilton (which the author professes openly to have done), he would know that the American System which he espouses is not intrinsically against free trade, nor is it always pro-protectionism.

What Did Hamilton Create?

The point Hamilton made in his reports to congress of 1791 was that every bankrupt, undeveloped state of the new nation were condemned to disastrous internal division and chaos. During its first 7 years, America was a financial wreck waiting to be retaken by the British Empire. Each state controlled its own economic priorities, currency issuance and none of the 13 states even had free trade among each other making it not much of a union at all.

This lack of unity among the early confederacy made the formation of common action impossible. Without a power of common action, there was no weapon sufficient in power to do battle with the highly centralized globally extended financier oligarchy centered in the heart of London.

Hamilton solved this crisis by federalizing the many local unpayable state debts incurred during the war and converting them into assets of a new national banking system that began issuing credit for comprehensive national infrastructure goals. Although each state lost some of its personal liberty “to do whatever they wanted”, trade barriers were broken down, a national currency was launched and this quantum leap allowed the young nation to not only survive but thrive. Under Hamilton, debts were no longer usurious inflation machines, but rather self-liquidating “national blessings” serving the interests of the entire people. China’s tendency to cite Hamilton in their state-news coverage is also not a coincidence on this point.

In the first several decades of the Hamiltonian program, America’s population grew four-fold, technical knowledge, industrial productivity, interconnectivity and inventions grew in leaps soon challenging the world’s largest empire.

Mr. Ingraham might be surprised to know that Hamilton was not a dogmatic supporter of tariffs, supporting free trade as long as it was shaped by a unifying intention to develop the many parts of the whole to their fullest industrial and creative potential. This was the essential purpose of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution including the important Article I Section VIII.

Hamilton’s later follower Friedrich List (who coined the term “American System of Political Economy” in 1828) used this system to unite a disjointed Germany under a “Zollvereine” (aka: custom’s union) driven by free trade among the regional divergent states for the first time in history. Under List’s program, national credit tied to internal improvements (rail, canals, new industries and pure science) launched Germany into the modern age.

Wherever this system was applied (including 19^th century Russia) population growth improved in quantity and quality, harmonious relations between the member states improved, oligarchism lost its hold onto its hosts and creative change governed the self-perfectibility of the increasingly open systems.

These were good fruits.

British Free Trade, like “Globalization 1.0” ALWAYS used nice words, but bore rotten fruit.

Wherever it was applied, British Free Trade destroyed economic sovereign nation states, crippled long-term planning, dismantled the regulation of private capital, and always divided to conquer.

Adherents to this system indoctrinated across Anglo-American Ivy League universities found themselves assimilated ever more into myopic money crazed fiends incapable of seeing a whole beyond their local self-serving identities… which was just the way an oligarchical elite running the system like a nightmarish video game always wanted it.

Claim 3: “Xi Spoke Well of WTO and is Thus Evil”

The World Trade Organization (WTO), much like the UN Charter, has many fine words and rules of economic conduct embedded in it. IF said rules and words were followed, neither organization would do any harm to anyone and might in fact do quite a lot of good.

The problem isn’t with the nice words promoting healthy competition, fairness, or freedom to trade.

The problem is found in the MINDS of those forces who wrote many of those rules with the intention of breaking them.

WTO rules, much like the British demands for national obedience to free trade that kept the tiny island in the dominant alpha position over the majority of the world during the 19^th century, were meant to be believed by credulous victims, but were always understood to be just another tool of colonialism and slavery by those shaping the Great Game.

In this sense, the WTO of 1999 has much in common with Adam Smith’s 1776 Wealth of Nations.

Does Adam Smith extoll the virtues of evil or promote the right of a hegemon to control the weak?

Not at all.

One would find many laudable words in his text and if the world was truly an equal playing field of nations living together aspiring for improving their quality of life and without any internationally extended financier oligarchy, then one would be hard pressed to find anything wrong with it at all.

The problem, as Ben Franklin, Hamilton and many of the most potent founding fathers understood (or Friedrich List afterwards), is that Adam Smith was just a political hack who never actually believed anything he himself wrote. As historian Anton Chaitkin points out in volume 1 of Who We Are, Adam Smith was directly tied to the inner echelons of the British Empire and had been groomed for years by none other than Lord Shelburne himself before publishing his Wealth of Nations (not coincidentally the same year of the U.S. Declaration of Independence).

Smith and his oligarchical masters in London always understood that they were the true owners of his “hidden hand” which they wished their victims believed were the “magical ordering principles” of the unregulated marketplace.

BRI-oriented free trade zones as we have seen applied in the past seven years are shaped by the intention to build real measurable infrastructure and industrial powers among all participating states. Whether we look at the Africa-China Free Trade Agreement, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, China’s RCEP, China-EAEU deals or China-South America free trade agreements, we see the opposite of anything done during the dark years of the British Empire or post-JFK age of imperial capital. Rather than looting and debt slavery, we have seen the largest explosion of industrial growth, large scale infrastructure, manufacturing and education pop up wherever these treaties have been applied. The intention is just very different from anything seen in the age of globalization 1.0.

China knows that if the UN Charter and WTO rules can be actually enforced for once, within the context shaped by the $3+ trillion Belt and Road Initiative, then globalization 2.0 becomes governed by rules that are fundamentally anti-oligarchical, pro-population growth, pro-nation state, pro-cooperation and anti-depopulation.

Good fruit.

Claim 4: “Xi said good things about WHO and COVID Cooperation and is thus Evil”

A final word must be said about Xi’s World Health Organization/pandemic response remarks.

It may not be popular to state this, but I’m going to do it.

To date, China still has not fully purged the transhumanist-oriented west leaning fifth column set into motion during the 1980s under the reign of Soros’ agent Zhao Ziyang.

During Zhao’s period of influence over China’s government, vast infusions of transhumanists, monetarists and technocrats shaped China’s modern deep state. Many of these parasites were thankfully flushed in phases starting in 1989, again in 1997, and with the most recent purge launched with Xi’s ascension in 2012 with over 1.5 million officials nailed on corruption charges to this day.

Despite these purges, there is still a World Economic Forum/Anglo-American presence felt within certain quarters, seen most clearly in “the Shanghai Clique” centered around former President Jiang Zemin and his coterie of western leaning billionaires like Jack Ma who have at various times made attempts to subvert China’s economic sovereignty.

Russia also suffers from its own deep state problems built up during the Gorbachev-Yeltsin years.

Unlike China which has maintained national controls of banking, Moscow’s technocratic deep state still enjoys more influence over their Keynesian-infested liberal central banking system which is closely linked up to Russian big pharma giants (see: Sberbank as one of many instances).

Unlike North America or Europe, China has always provided alternative COVID remedies that do not simply fixate on vaccines or shutting down their economy on behalf of computer models. China’s use of hydroxychloroquine-zinc and various eastern medicine treatments have been provided from the get-go to great effect resulting in a 0.6% covid death rate compared to America’s. China has made it clear that it has no idea if COVID emerged out of one of the 200+ Pentagon connected biolabs, or if a future genetically targeted creation will be released onto their society as was outlined in blood curdling detail in the 2000 PNAC document Rebuilding America’s Defenses. What is clear is that since January 2020, they have responded to COVID as if it were a possible war scenario.

Just as in the case with Russia, we have seen numerous clashes between various regional powers and the federal government on the issue of mandatory vaccination protocols.

Unlike most western governments whose federal institutions have become the primary enforcers of tyrannical vaccination mandates (vs. regional/state government resistance), the opposite pattern is seen in both Russia and China.

In these Eurasian states, it is the federal government that has principally intervened against the tyrannical excesses of local authorities cattle herding their citizens.

The leaders of both Russia and China are fighting not only for the survival of their own civilizations but something much bigger than themselves. Moreover, they not only intend to emerge from this fight alive, but in a dominant position as the system crumbles and globalization 2.0 is brought online.

It is hard for some Americans to accept the fact that their beloved republic has fallen to a fascist coup. It is hard to accept that Donald Trump may not have the moral or intellectual capacity to do anything about this, and it is hard to accept that the USA does not currently have the internal fortitude to change itself without a broader global change being forced upon it externally by nations of Eurasia.

Sometimes the truth is a bitter medicine. But a bitter medicine that saves the patient is always better than a sugar-coated poison.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

In case you were beginning to feel like your world was becoming a cliché dystopian movie script, don’t feel bad. It appears that at least some of the villains agree with you.

Not happy with unsatisfying stories, scripts and narratives that shape our disorganized zeitgeist, Klaus Schwab and other creepy dungeon masters trying to manage the post-covid world have called for a ‘New Narrative’ to shape our 21st century and beyond. Schwab described the World Economic Forum’s Great Narrative Initiative announced on November 11 as a “collaborative effort of the world’s leading thinkers to fashion longer-term perspectives and co-create a narrative that can help guide the creation of a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable vision for our collective future.”

It is no question that this new project is bone chilling, but can it work? Does it have any basis in reality or is the oligarchical high priesthood stage managing this shit show intoxicated by their own self-induced narratives and completely incapable of seeing the seeds of self-destruction they have created for themselves?

Let’s examine this question in a bit of detail.

As far back as we look, recorded history demonstrates myths and stories that shape each culture’s subjective experience trying to make sense of the objective world and the many tenuous challenges that are tossed into our path.

Deep Structure Narratives

An ice age comes to an end and sea levels rise hundreds of feet drowning millions while wiping out coastal cities. As a consequence, flood myths appear across various cultures of the world.

Fires from the sky reflect terrible asteroids striking the earth wrecking havoc on ecosystems and perhaps even inducing volcanism and vast weather anomalies. As a consequence, more myths are created featuring heroes, villains, angels and Gods punishing sinners and rewarding those with virtue.

Throughout history, countless stories have been created by shamans, priests, and poets which have attempted to infuse meaning onto traumatic events induced by either nature or geopolitical strategies. Some classical stories may have even exposed geopolitical evils under the safer terrain of fiction when literal truths were impossible. One instance of this latter case can be found in the Olympian Gods of Homer’s stories who were in all likelihood representative of actual oligarchical families who manipulated never ending wars and exploited the folly and corruption of their chosen chess pieces on the Great Game of ancient Greece.

These stories are a part of the human condition and for the most part, perfectly natural.

However, in our supposedly enlightened secular era, these forms of myths are discarded as the foolish practices of simpler unscientific times.

Science has taught us to believe in logic. Not faith in God or the health of our immaterial souls.

The medieval myths of sea monsters and flat earths beyond which unsuspecting voyagers would meet a terrible fate were superseded for a new set of narratives during the enlightenment period. During this period, pure logic and empiricism were placed upon the new altars where religion once stood and we were told to worship new godheads by the names such as Kant, Locke, Hegel, Bacon and Newton. When Nietzsche proclaimed God to be dead, this was the current of thinkers that supposedly killed him.

The Indian poet Rabindranath Tagore referred to those suffering from this disease of metastasized logic saying: “A mind all logic is like a knife all blade. It makes the hand bleed that uses it.”

When the foundation of enlightenment logic began to break down under the pressure of reality over a century ago, new narratives taking the form of the Standard Model quantum mechanics began teaching modern man that what appears to be living is in truth, just made up of non living atoms and chemical interactions… and what appears to be ordered form operating with purpose is merely the stochastic motion of atoms devoid of purpose, beauty or even objective truth. We were told that all of this was held together only by a mix of luck (statistical probability) and four fundamental forces created 13.7 billion years ago. All behavior in human life or in nature thus explained away by Darwinian models of survival of the fittest and random mutations. The rise of modern monstrosities like eugenics, and neo-Malthusianism were the sick children of these ghoulish assumptions.

The more we probe behind the impressive veneer of these popular narratives, the more we discover that myths spun by modern day high priests on behalf of political interests has not only continued into our present age, but have continuously adopted new costumes to adapt to our changing world. Those brilliant minds whose discoveries actually overturned old narratives by leaping beyond the domains of inductive/deductive thinking are carefully obscured under mathematical formulas devoid of the spirit and personality of these exceptional individuals (1).

The Political Consequences of False Macro-Narratives

Some political expressions of today’s secular narratives were seen as neocons trotted out in front of cameras broadcasting the message that the two hijacked planes which destroyed three towers on 9/11 was orchestrated by angry Muslims in caves who hated our freedom.

We were told that covid-19 arose from a badly cooked mammal that kissed a bat requiring a total abolition of our constitutional freedoms.

We were told that the protests of January 6, 2021 in Washington D.C. was an insurrection worse than anything the U.S.A had seen since the Civil War when 500,000 Americans slaughtered each other for four years.

We are continuously told that Russia has ambitions to undermine democratic elections across the entire free world while China is aiming to subvert western values and impose a global communist government through its imperial New Silk Road.

I could obviously go on for quite some time here, but needless to say, political myth making is an ugly part of life. But while each lie certainly does grave damage, our susceptibility to falling for these falsities is in no way disconnected from our acceptance of those higher meta narratives embedded in those scientific myths that shape HOW our minds move. Every high priest knows that controlling HOW people think is always infinitely more powerful than controlling WHAT they think about any particular thing. This is how the neocon rot grew in the U.S.A over a few generations leading us to today’s multifaceted systemic breakdown crisis.

One of the fathers of the mutant that became neoconservatism was a narrative-building master named Leo Strauss.

Leo Strauss’ Neocon Monstrosity

Working closely with Fabian Society and Frankfurt School agents throughout his career as a teacher in Columbia, New School and the University of Chicago, Strauss preached a perverse interpretation of Plato’s Republic to tens of thousands of devoted students spread across several decades.

Among the highest lessons contained in Strauss’s teachings (at least for a select few among his students) was the idea of the Noble Lie developed by Plato in Book 3 of the Republic. Strauss taught his students that this Noble Lie was the greatest weapon and rightful tool of anyone who found themselves in a position of power to rule over the weak at any time in history.

In true Nietzschean fashion, the narrow definition of “power” as the subordination of the weak to the strong was the only definition permitted by Strauss who taught his students that while Plato preached love of wisdom to the masses, he secretly held a different teaching for those elite among his Academy who would control political power. To these elite few, he gave the name ‘gentlemen’ and ‘Guardians’.

Strauss taught that Plato’s Guardians would control the shadows cast on the cave wall which the plebs shackled to their senses, would believe were the only reality possible. The mandate of these perverse neo-Platonists was to live the ideal not of Socrates, but rather of Thrasymachus whose immoral doctrine Socrates annihilated in the first book of the Republic. Those young neocons learning from their master were taught that the true ‘secret Socrates’ believed, like Thrasymachus, or Callicles (student of Gorgias), was that the highest purpose in life is to attain power, satisfy our lusts and control the shadows in the cave.

As many of Strauss’ own students (like Shadia Drury) came to realize over the years, the old master was himself guilty of projecting his own perverse penchant for fascism onto Plato as he himself maintained secret teachings for his chosen elite students as all good oligarchical head-hunters must.

Cleansing Plato of Strauss

While I adore Plato, I would never deny that he was a myth maker.

The stories showcased in his dialogues from the Timaeus, Critias, Theaetetus, Sophist, Statesman, Meno, Laws, Phaedo, Apology, Gorgias, Republic etc… have shaped the minds of some of the greatest historic figures across 2400 years of world history. Renaissance figures like St. Augustine, Ibn Sina, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Benjamin Franklin, Lincoln, Moses Mendelsohn, Pushkin, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other brilliant souls had their wits sharpened on the stories and lessons contained in Plato’s writings.

But was Plato truly the tyrannical double-speaker portrayed by Strauss and his followers who preached morality for the weak and vice for those who would control the shadows?

To be a true Guardian in Plato’s world meant more than simply getting out of the cave to see with the light of the sun (symbolic for creative reason) and then lord over the masses.

While Nietzscheans like Strauss stop reading at this moment and choose to dominate the slaves using a higher power of thinking reserved only for a select few of the golden collar elite… Plato made it very clear in his Republic and other writings, that the TRUE philosopher (and implicitly true guardian) was obliged to return back into the cave at risk of his or her life in order to help liberate their fellow captives.

Narratives for Freedom or Slavery?

“Every artist, every scientist, every writer must decide now where he stands. The artist must take sides. He must elect to fight for freedom or for slavery. I have made my choice”

-Paul Robeson, 1937

The question can now be posed: how do we know which narratives are designed to enslave us, which empower us, and which are benign (like a child’s belief in the tooth fairy or the toy-bearing fat guy who trades gifts for good behavior)?

Since each person’s internal universe interfaces with the external reality through the filter of both logic, senses, imagination, and free will, is it possible that some narratives can uplift and inspire us to be more than we are in the face of impossible odds? Can certain stories sharpen our wisdom and free us from the shackles of sense perception as we are taught to see ever more through the eye of reason and a developed imagination?

When George Washington led a small force of farmers against the world’s largest mercenary force in 1776, was it purely logic that guided them in this statistically impossible fight, or were stories of Christ’s passion animating this seeming irrational drive for freedom? When Syria was beset with foreign sponsored Jihadists and teetered on the brink of the abyss, did stories of the Prophet Mohammed animate their hearts to do the impossible when an easier albeit more slavish road awaited their surrender?

Certainly, history has proven time and again, that a certain type of poetic story can empower us to leap beyond our limitations and gain insights into the deeper truths of the human condition and universal reality itself. Even Shakespeare’s “fictional” stories offer the sensitive soul great universal lessons into humanity and real politic which has served great statesmen for centuries.

A Last Look at Today’s Oligarchical Narrative Builders

Although we can affirm with certainty that narratives can be good and others evil, is it possible that the oligarchs managing today’s Great Narrative project wish humanity no harm?

Perhaps Lynn Forrester de Rothschild is completely genuine when she launched the Council for Inclusive Capitalism alongside Prince Charles, Mark Carney and a handful of Davos Billionaires representing tens of trillions of dollars of capital in 2014. Helping to transform capitalism into a green, eco friendly, more inclusive system that treats everyone equally is a good thing isn’t it?

When this Council merged with the Vatican in December 2020, Lynn de Rothschild described the event as “a historic new partnership between some of the world’s largest investment and business leaders and the Vatican… joining moral and market imperatives to reform capitalism into a powerful force for the good of humanity.”

This council is even led by “a core group of world leaders” who even call themselves “Guardians” following the title used by Plato 2400 years ago.

These guardians include the CEOs of powerful organizations as State Street, Bank of America, Johnson and Johnson, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Merck, British Petroleum, and the Rothschild banking houses. Not exactly the most morally advanced coterie of political heavy weights one could imagine, but still maybe the evil that they have been a part for decades has all been arranged for the sake of a higher good that only the elite may be permitted to know…

Unfortunately for the Davos Guardians, the reality of the New Great Narrative is a world devoid of those very principles that humanity requires to survive and thrive within our creative, reasonable universe. Wielding the power to control a shadow land of dumbed down slaves within a cave might seem impressive for some, but when juxtaposed with the active, creative multipolar paradigm now rising to become a global force for scientific and technological progress, controlling cave dwellers becomes little more than a bleak and pitiful ambition.

And like any parasite which can do naught but kill the very host it needs to suckle on for its very survival, those Davos guardians are likely to meet the same fate as that encountered by Edgar Poe’s impotent, nihilistic oligarch Roderick Usher as his castle crumbled into an abyss.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

Note
(1) Some exemplary names of these exceptional individuals include Leonardo Da Vinci, Luca Pacioli, Pierre Fermat, Christian Huygens, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck, and Dimitry Mendeleyev (to name but a few).

Fifteen years ago, a man who was head of the GW Bush White House bio-terrorism study group, and a special adviser to the President, unexpectedly found himself propelled into becoming the ‘father’ of pandemic planning, after Bush had come to his bioterrorism people to demand some huge plan to deal with some imagined calamity. “We need a whole-of-society plan. What are you going to do about foreign borders? And travel? And commerce?”. From his perch of influence – serving an apocalyptic president — Dr Venkayya became the driving force for a dramatic change in U.S. policy during pandemics.

The then White House guidelines (born out of a bio-terrorism context), allowed the government to put Americans in quarantine while closing their schools, businesses, and with churches shuttered, all in the name of disease containment. It seemed so simple; “Why didn’t these epidemiologists figure it out?”: A model of disease control, based on stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, business closures, and forced human separation.

Well, from there, the “founding father of lockdowns” (not unnaturally) became successively head of pandemic policy at the Gates Foundation, and then President of Global Vaccine Business Unit. However, as U.S. commentator Jeffrey Tucker observes, the policy models developed by this White House study group “kept spitting out a conclusion that shutting down schools would drop virus transmission by 80%. I’ve read his memos from this period — some of them still not public — and what you observe is not science, but ideological fanaticism in play”.

Whatever its parentage, the lockdown movement that this adviser authored is global, ferocious, and, as a fully credentialised meme (bio-war parentage, White House and Gates), is almost irrepressible. It is the same in today’s euphoric stock markets: everyone gets caught up in the dance … chasing credentialised stock narratives to the point of irrationality. Who cares about the fundamentals, contra-indications, or even warnings from financial or medical experts. This pandemic policy approach has evolved into a form of contagion, in itself.

As in markets, so in politics: Memes, however well-credentialised, shift. The global political meme since early 2020 of lockdown and vaccine pandemic control – that became a quasi-hegemony – now is being overtaken by a fresh meme, and a new rising phase of politics: the politics of inflation.

Hot inflation figures are already defining the debate on the Biden agenda, the broader economy, and spooking the White House. Prices rose in the U.S. 0.9% from last month, for an annual inflation rate of 6.2% (the biggest inflation spike in 30 years).

This spike in inflation may sink Biden’s Build Back Better agenda (BBB), potentially killing a quick deal on the $1.75 trillion package. Many Americans are unsettled, finding themselves inhabiting this ‘weird pandemic economy’. Shelves are empty. Wages are up, but so are prices (by more than official figures suggest), on almost anything you want to buy. The stock market soars, on the conviction that the Fed can never allow ‘the market’ to fall more than 10%. The economy is adding jobs, albeit mainly low quality ones. But ports are backlogged. ‘For hire’ signs are plentiful. Yet businesses report difficulty recruiting workers. And no one knows when things are going to straighten out, or even if they will straighten out.

Republicans have been ramming home the message that the inflation spike effectively, is a covert government ‘tax’, and they blame Biden’s ‘Big Spend’ for the inflation demon’s frightening apparition. Some ‘up’ the anxiety further, reminding Americans that the global ‘Davos’ élite have been openly telling us that one day we will own nothing; have no privacy, and will be happy. And the way they will make it happen, it is said, is through destroying the value of money.

It seems that the ‘politics of fear’ may be ‘crossing the aisle’. But, in this shift, Big Tech cannot ride so easily to the Establishment’s rescue. With the vaccine meme, it has been relatively routine for the Tech social media to censor and delete all contrarian opinion, whether credentialed or not; but when it comes to inflation, ‘fact-checking’ becomes not just redundant, but counter-productive, for the ‘facts’ are visible with every purchase made. And every consumer can attest that prices are rising well above 6.2%.

Inflation will become the hottest political issue as we head toward 2022. Two ex-Federal Reserve members say the Fed should raise rates to “at least 3%,” and maybe 4%. And two current Fed Presidents warn that the Treasury market is “not as resilient” as it should be, and that even modest stress could break it.

The former Treasury Secretary, Larry Summers, says that if the Fed doesn’t deal with inflation, then it “could result in the re-election of Donald Trump”. The Fed however, is locked tight in a corner of its own making: it has to finance Biden’s big BBB spend – and this implies keeping interest rates low (to keep Federal interest expenditure from ballooning). To ‘Go Big’ with fiscal spending will just accelerate inflation, yet this what the White House wants to do, when it says that spending will win the voters hearts, and that Biden too, very much shares Americans’ worries about inflation, and the prospect of rising mortgage payments. It is a plain non-sequitur.

Another ‘fully credentialised’ meme, chased to the point of exuberance, has been the ‘re-opening’ and return of ‘normal’ meme – if only (and when) vaccination rates were to reach 70% (a rate recently upped to 90%). But there is no normal. We’re living in a new post-pandemic world. The ever more complex, network, economic system is experiencing breakages at key points.

The notion that the economy could be locked down for two years, and then simply would ‘rebound’ just as ‘it was’, entirely intact, was always magical thinking, (and yet was widely embraced on Wall Street). The more complex the system, the greater the risk of systemic instability, as cascades start to slide away.

And human psychology and social culture is yet another complex networked system. The pandemic has made us question the ‘way we were’, and to rethink our life-balance. The behavioural changes induced by the Great Depression, for instance, did not fade until 30 years after the Depression was over. Such is the staying power of social trauma – whether it be war, depression or pandemic. Accordingly, we will not likely recover from this pandemic according to the logic embraced by the ‘bounce back’ meme.

On the whole, the ‘meme-politics of lockdown and vaccine mandates’ may be fading, but the inflation meme and the economic aftermath meme has only just begun.

Digging down deeper, we find that all this furious meme-chasing does have a common thread. Tucker observed that that the original pandemic planning was deeply ‘ideological’. How so? It may have become political-ideological since 2020, but the planning was years earlier. The link perhaps is expressed in the career progression of the ‘father of lockdown’ (as Tucker calls him): aide to the U.S. President, head of pandemic policy with the Gates Foundation and President of the Global Vaccine Business Unit.

The link would seem to be the commingling of Big Tech (Silicon Valley), Defence Tech, Big Business (Davos) and Big Pharma – giving birth to the technocratic managerialist mindset. (The managerial technocratic approach which so spectacularly blew-up, with the U.S. rout in Afghanistan, leaving in its wake only systemic human instability seeping across the nation).

Tucker gives us this thought about the ‘ideology’ underlying so many of these seemingly credentialised memes:

“In a surprising interview, Bill Gates said the following: “We didn’t have vaccines that block transmission. We got vaccines that help you with your health, but they only slightly reduce the transmission. We need new ways of doing vaccines.”

“What can we make of Gates’s passing statement: “We need a new way of doing vaccines”?”, Tucker asks. “Let’s travel back in time to examine his career at Microsoft and his shepherding into existence the Windows operating system. By the early 1990s, it was being billed as the essential brain of the personal computer. Security considerations against viruses were not part of its design, however, simply because not that many people were using the internet …

“The neglect of this consideration turned into a disaster. By the early 2000s, there were thousands of versions of malware (also called bugs) floating around the internet, and infecting computers running Windows worldwide … The problem of malware was dubbed ‘viruses’. It was a metaphor. Not real”.

It’s not clear that Gates ever really understood that. Computer viruses aren’t anything like biological viruses. To maintain a clean and functioning hard drive, you want to avoid and block a computer virus at all costs, explains Tucker. Any exposure is bad exposure. The fix is always avoidance until eradication.

“With biological viruses, we have evolved to confront them through exposure, and let our immune system develop to take them on. A body that blocks all pathogens without immunity, is a weak one that will die at the first exposure, which will certainly come at some point in a modern society. An immune system that confronts most viruses and recovers, grows stronger. That’s a gigantic difference that Gates never understood.

“In short, keeping viruses out of computers constitutes the single biggest professional struggle in Gates’ life. The lesson he learned was that pathogen blocking and eradication was always the path forward. What he never really understood is that the word virus was merely a metaphor for unwanted and unwelcome computer code. The analogy breaks down in real life.

“After finally stepping back from Microsoft’s operations, Gates started dabbling in other areas, as newly rich people tend to do. They often imagine themselves especially competent at taking on challenges that others have failed at simply because of their professional successes … And what subject did he pounce on? He would do to the world of pathogens what he did at Microsoft: he would stamp them out! He began with malaria and other issues and eventually decided to take on them all. And what was his solution? Of course: antivirus software. What is that? It is vaccines. Your body is the hard drive that he would save with his software-style solution.”

In parenthesis, we should note that dualism in ratiocination has be-devilled western thinking since the outset: First, the divine sphere of perfection redeeming the corrupted sinful sphere of humanity. And in its secularised form: Science redeeming wayward humanity towards universal utopias. And in our Tech age, AI ‘software’ correcting and ‘improving’ human hardware.

Here is the point; and here the thread: All our seemingly credentialised memes are hollow, in the same way Gates’ understanding of biology is. “Early on in the pandemic, to get a sense of Gates’s views”, Tucker says, “I watched his TED talks. I began to realize something astonishing. He knew much less than anyone could discover by reading a book on cell biology from Amazon. He couldn’t even give a basic 9th-grade-level explanation of viruses and their interaction with the human body. And yet here he was, lecturing the world about the coming pathogen and what should be done about it. His answer is always the same: more surveillance, more control, more technology”.

Let’s not pin this all onto Gates however – this dualistic way of ratiocination runs through all of western modernity. Tech vaccines are the solution to the Covid virus. And, forced (human) separation is good for placing the malware into quarantine. The real-economy is the hardware that Central Bank ‘software’ will protect against recessionary pathogens. The Davos’ Re-Set will upload new global software for a ‘fairer, greener future’. A fourth Industrial Revolution is the digital technological management that will clean out Climate malware. Etc, etc.

In reality, all these are highly complex network systems, not susceptible to dualistic intervention. They work – if they work – as organic wholes. At best, we face systemic instability, as a result of these naïve ‘software’ interventions. At worst, systemic collapse.

At a time when the world is being overwhelmed with an array of perplexing problems, the political leadership necessary for solving them is coming up short everywhere. Is this perceived shortage of talent on the global stage a mere coincidence, or is it by design?

For 40 years, Klaus Schwab, the German economist and engineer, has played host to the World Economic Forum in the picturesque town of Davos, Switzerland, a venue that the WEF itself describes as “sufficiently removed to foster among participants a feeling of seclusion and camaraderie.” It is amid that comfortable setting that the global elite are seeing through their plans without much transparency in the process. It’s probably safe to say that the financial elite deciding the fate of the planet at an isolated Swiss ski resort is probably not what the Ancient Greeks had in mind when they theorized about democracy and ‘rule of the people.’

Yet that is exactly what we’ve come to inherit from this exclusive Forum, which fervently believes that global affairs are best managed by an unelected assembly of corporations and technocrats that exert unprecedented power over governments and civil society. And now, thanks to the totally, 100% completely unexpected visitation to planet Earth by a virus of uncertain origins, the elite have been blessed with “a rare but narrow window of opportunity,” according to Schwab, to “reset our world” through a grand initiative known as the Great Reset, which can be summed up in six words: “You’ll own nothing and be happy.”

With such a downsized future ahead of us, the one question that seems to have escaped the world’s divided attention is: how is it remotely possible that one individual has managed to concentrate so much unwieldy power into his hands? The short answer is that it was probably no accident.

As the quaint story goes, in February 1971 the 32-year-old Schwab somehow managed to organize the first ‘European Management Symposium’ in Davos, which would change its name in 1987 to the World Economic Forum. That first meeting managed to attract over 400 corporate executives from 31 nations, an astonishing feat even for an ambitious young man like Schwab. In fact, the native of Ravensburg, Germany may have been less directly involved in the formation of the group than is typically believed.

As the journalist Ernst Wolff explains, “the Harvard Business School had been in the process of planning a management forum of their own, and it is possible that Harvard ended up delegating the task of organizing it to him.” Incidentally, 1971 was the very same year that President Richard Nixon enacted a plan that ended dollar convertibility to gold, a move that soon brought an end to the Bretton Woods System.

Now that Klaus Schwab and the WEC have drafted up the blueprints for their highly coveted technocratic state, there remains one crucial key, and that is making sure leaders sympathetic to the message are in positions of power to see it through.

Welcome to Schwab’s ‘Young Global Leaders’

In 1992, Schwab and the WEC established the Global Leaders for Tomorrow school, which went on to become Young Global Leaders in 2004. The Who Who’s list of past members of this “most exclusive private social network in the world,” as Bloomberg described it, suggests that Davos Man was fishing for a very particular type of future leader.

Included among the alumni of this elite grooming factory are former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and California Governor Gavin Newsom. Aside from Blair, who hailed from an earlier, more muscular period of U.S.-dominated history that focused heavily on the ‘war on terror,’ the two common features that unite these politicians is their strong liberal tendencies and draconian approach to the coronavirus pandemic.

Last month, Jacinda Ardern, for example, without the slightest hint of regret, smiled as she said that New Zealand was on its way to becoming a “two-tier society,” divided between those who choose to get the Covid vaccine and those who do not. Currently, residents must scan into stores using a QR code, which isn’t tied to a person’s vaccine status, but rather used for ‘contact tracing.’ Eventually, the Ardern government plans to implement vaccine passports and all of the delightful chaos that will inevitably incur.

In France, another graduate from the Young Global Leaders (YGL), French President Emmanuel Macron, has made it mandatory that visitors to cultural venues, like museums and theaters present a so-called ‘green pass’ to gain entry. Thus far, however, public resistance is stalling any future efforts at preventing the unvaccinated from shopping at the large retail outlets.

“There are protests all the time,” said Peter Kellow, a correspondent from London now residing in Toulouse. “I can use all the shops now. They tried making hypermarkets illegal for the non-vaxxed but backed down.”

“I expect the big companies were losing too much business,” he added.

Meanwhile, across the pond, in the United States, California Governor Gavin Newsom (Class of 2005), after mandating first-in-the-nation school masking and staff vaccination protocols, now wants to enforce vaccinations on children as young as five years old. Protesters gathered at the State Capitol in Sacramento this week in an effort to prevent the mandate from passing. Organizers of the rally emphasized they are not against vaccines, but simply want to have a democratic say in the matter.

A striking thing about the global leaders who passed through Schwab’s tutelage is their relative lack of any special achievements before rising to power. As Wolff further explains in an interview with the RAIR Foundation, “the thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power…” Wolff goes on to surmise that this may demonstrate that it is “their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers.”

As shocking as it may be that so many like-minded politicians did an apprenticeship under the direction of Klaus Schwab, that twist of fate pales in comparison with the news that Microsoft founder Bill Gates also fell under the sway of YGL (Class of 2003). Perhaps more than any other person, Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and despite having no medical training whatsoever, has been a staunch proponent of Covid-19 vaccines. The problem here is not the vaccines per se, but rather the massive conflict of interest for the parties involved.

Here we have the secretive World Economic Forum not only grooming young overachievers who go on to advocate on behalf of Mr. Schwab and his technocratic vision for the future (i.e. the Great Reset), but also the business leaders who will profit handsomely from the great global transition, which the pandemic has made possible.

Take, for example, Jeff Bezos, yet another alumnus of YGL. Mr. Bezos saw his personal wealth explode exponentially as small businesses, many of which will never rise from the ashes, were forced to close their doors at the peak of pandemic. Millions of consumers, forced to ‘shelter in place,’ did the only thing possible, which was to flock to online stores, like Amazon.

Again, it is the glaring conflict of interest that makes the story of Klaus Schwab, the WEF and these fine, young protégés, who are perfectly placed at just the right moment in Schwab time, not a little disturbing. Not only did the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security anticipate with astonishing accuracy the outbreak of a pandemic just two months before it happened with a security exercise dubbed ‘Event 201,’ the predicted health emergency allowed for Schwab’s long sought-after “better world” that he discussed with such enthusiasm in his book, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset.’

“At the time of writing (June 2020), the pandemic continues to worsen globally,” Schwab writes, once again, with amazing foresight, especially considering the pandemic was just six months old. “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never. Nothing will ever return to the ‘broken’ sense of normalcy that prevailed prior to the crisis because the coronavirus pandemic marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.”

“Some analysts call it a major bifurcation, others refer to a deep crisis of “biblical” proportions,” he continues, “but the essence remains the same: the world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more, dissolved in the context of the pandemic.”

Few other men have had the pleasure of watching their life dream – and a bold one at that – play out in real time as Klaus Schwab has. Indeed, the 83-year-old may just live to see his Great Reset come to fruition in his own lifetime. How much of that was the result of intense planning and preparation, or a random roll of the dice is anybody’s guess, but it may be wise to heed Franklin D. Roosevelt’s keen observation that “in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”

A miracle appears to be happening, as the multibillionaires of the World Economic Forum (WEF) appear to have grown consciences.

As if by magic, it appears that these gold collar elites no longer yearn for profit and power as they once had. As COP26 closes up its 12 day annual ceremonies, leading WEF-connected figures like Prince Charles, Jeff Bezos, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney and Klaus Schwab have announced a new system of economics that is based on virtue over profit!

According to the COP26 website, “95 high profile companies from a range of sectors commit to being ‘Nature Positive,’ agreeing to work towards halting and reversing the decline of nature by 2030.”

Prince Charles has boasted that he has coordinated 300 companies representing over $60 trillion to get on board with a global green transition, and after meeting with the Prince on November 2, Jeff Bezos announced his new $2 billion Earth Fund to protect nature’s ecosystems with a focus on Africa. Even Prime Minister Mario Draghi has joined Mark Carney on this new green path, as both men have moved beyond their old Goldman Sachs money worshipping days and embraced a better destiny. At the Nov 1 G20 Summit, Draghi embraced Prince Charles’ Green Markets Initiative and threw Italy’s full support behind the de-carbonization initiative.

The Prince himself (who also happens to be the nominal creator of the Great Reset Agenda launched in 2020), spoke as an enlightened statesman saying to the world’s leaders “as the enormity of the climate challenge dominates peoples’ conversations, from news rooms to living rooms, and as the future of humanity and Nature herself are at stake, it is surely time to set aside our differences and grasp this unique opportunity to launch a substantial green recovery by putting the global economy on a confident, sustainable trajectory and, thus, save our planet.”

Among the new array of financial mechanisms which we see being brought online in this war against humanity involve Bezos’ new Earth Fund, and Sir Robert Watson’s Living Planet Index (unveiled in 2018 at the World Economic Forum) and the new Rockefeller Foundation-sponsored Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG) which seeks to turn global ecosystems worth an estimated $4 quadrillion into financial equity controllable by new private corporations (dubbed “natural asset companies”).

On its website, the IEG stated: “In partnership with the New York Stock Exchange, IEG is providing a word-class platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible… In 2021, we began seeking regulatory approval to bring the first natural asset transactions to the capital markets. Our vision is to bring to market hundreds of Natural Asset Companies representing several trillion dollars’ worth of natural assets.”

These new companies will become the stewards of new protected zones across the globe which the UN demands encapsulate 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030 and much more by 2050.

Is this time to rejoice, or is something darker at play?

To answer this question it is worth asking: Does this new virtue-driven order have anything to do with lifting people out of poverty or ending economic injustice?

Sadly, it is designed to do very much the opposite.

As we are coming to see, and as statesmen around the world are beginning to point out, this new order has more in common with oligarchical obsessions with controlling human cattle, and less to do with actually preserving the environment. The thousands of tons of CO2 emitted by private jets at Davos and COP26 represents on small aspect of this disingenuity.

Obrador Calls out the Game

On October 30, Mexico’s President Lopez Obrador called out this new virulent form of colonialism while presiding over a ceremony in celebration of the ongoing construction of the $6.7 billion high-speed Maya Train now being built in the southern regions of Mexico. The project which would dramatically uplift living standards in Mexico by driving the growth of industrial and infrastructure production has fallen far behind schedule due in large part to vast legal battles led by indigenous groups who have been used as proxies by foreign interests to defend Mexico’s ecosystems. In many of the legal cases opposing the project, the argument has made that since several species of insect, fauna and even some leopards will be affected by the new railways, then the project must be ground to a halt and buried.

In his remarks to a journalist inquiring into the rail project, Obrador said:

“One of the things which they [the neoliberals] promoted in the world, in order to loot at ease, was the creation or promotion of the so-called new rights. So, feminism, ecologism, the defense of human rights, the protection of animals was much promoted, including by them. All these causes are very noble, but the intent was to create or boost all these new causes so that we don’t remedy—so that we don’t turn around and see that they were looting the world, so the subject of economic and social inequality would be kept out of the center of debate….The international agencies which supported the neoliberal model, which is a model of pillage where corporations grab national property, the property of the people—these same corporations financed, and continue to finance, environmentalist groups, defenders of ‘liberty.’ ”

Many people have been confused over these remarks since they cannot conceptualize how neoliberal monetarists that have parasitically driven the new age of pillage under globalization would also support such ‘new rights’ groups outlined by Obrador.

For nations of the global south who feel resentment that their rights to support their people by having their lands and resources kept off limits, they are told not to worry, since streams of money will be showered upon them from on high. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of monopoly money will be sprayed onto the developing sector as rewards for remaining undeveloped. If that isn’t sufficient, then carbon exchange markets will be set up so that poor nations can sell their un-used carbon quotas to private polluting companies (perhaps the same companies controlling the African cobalt mines which seek a monopoly in controlling the renewable energy sector). That is another way they can make money which at least can keep them warm at night as kindling since the world’s poor will not have to worry about having nature-killing hydro electric dams mucking up their pristine environments.

Even in the west where Biden’s 30×30 executive order has been signed into action, farmers will be offered money to stop grazing on soon-to-be protected lands, while a supposedly grassroots-based WWF-connected American Prairie Reserve (with a $160 million endowment) can be seen pushing a program designed to take 5000 square miles of grazing land in Montana out of use and converted into a pure ecosystem.

As President Obrador has alluded to, today’s billionaire-funded conservation movement simply seeks to take earth’s ecosystems out of bounds of any human economic activity under a new global feudal system of controls.

Even the indigenous populations which such billionaires profess to admire as role models for global “good behavior” are being monetized by these new green indices, with monetary values being placed not only on keeping land and water untouched, but also the very cultural ecosystems of indigenous groups around the world receiving dollar values which wealthy green financiers will somehow be able to invest into. To the degree that such immutably fixed patterns of indigenous lifestyles remain unchanged by the toxic pollution of modern technology or infrastructure, the more these eco-assets will be worth for whomever professes to invest in them. This may not be scientific but it is sick.

The term ‘feudal’ is in no way used for hyperbolic purposes, as we can see a stark parallel to the 12^th century Europe, except that today’s aspiring feudal lords manage such companies as Blackrock, Vanguard, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and State Street and seek to punish all serfs from infringing on properties which only the nobility may control. Blackrock alone manages over $9 trillion in assets and $21.6 trillion in technology platforms and along with Vanguard is fast becoming one of the largest real estate owners in the USA with Bill Gates having recently become the largest owner of American farmland.

The Deeper Imperial Roots of Conservationism

With this vast imperial landgrab in mind, one should not be surprised to discover that the modern conservation movement actually finds its origins not in Greenpeace activists fighting poachers as mythmakers have cooked up, but rather in the bowels of the British Empire. It was this empire that innovated “nature conservation” regions in India during the late 19^th century specifically to keep the poor of India under control after having destroyed India’s once powerful textile sector. The practice was applied across India during the greatest density of famines struck southern India in 1876 killing tens of millions. It was amidst this darkness that British Imperial overlords took the opportunity to create “The Imperial Forestry Department’ in 1876 putting two fifths of India’s lands under “protection” and off limits to humans. This ensured no starving subject could use the protected zones which they had relied upon for survival for decades for food, or water.

The Nazi embrace of both Anglo-American funded science of eugenics on the one side and the Reich’s embrace of nature conservationism were also not unconnected. Herman Goring, who served as Minister for German Forests believed in a poisonous worldview that held that: 1) nature is pure and thus good due to its pure unchanging natural order while 2) humanity is impure and thus un-natural due to our aspirations for progress. This dangerous equation resulted in seemingly innocent programs launched by the Fuhrer and Goring to cleans the German ecosystems of all foreign and thus un-natural fauna and flora in order to return the forests of Germany to their supposedly pure pre-industrial states. The worship of nature was an integral part of the new master race and the weeding out of impurities extended itself to human genetics following racial theories advanced by British eugenicists and anthropologists.

Julian Huxley’s New Eugenics Revolution

Upon Hitler’s defeat, the repackaging of eugenics took the form of British Eugenics Society Vice President Julian Huxley’s outline in the founding Manifesto for UNESCO where he said:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic, and in any case it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

Putting this new eugenics into practical action took on many heads of a hydra in the post WWII years. The particular hydra head most relevant to the thrust of this article took the form of another project Julian created in 1948 called the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) followed soon thereafter by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1961 which he co-founded alongside two misanthropic princes named Philip Mountbatten and Bernhardt of the Netherlands.

Between 1959 and 1962 Julian had risen to become president of the British Eugenics Society and had put the finishing gloss on a new field of scientific misanthropic theology which he dubbed ‘Transhumanism’ alongside a Jesuit collaborator named Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

If you haven’t guessed, Transhumanism was merely another form of re-packaged eugenics serving the spiritual needs of a new priesthood of elitist social engineers that would be expected to manage the gears of a new technocratic feudal machine. This neo-paganism is not intrinsically different from the cultish beliefs of the Nazi Thule society of the past which gave spiritual direction to the members of Hitler’s government.

The neo-Malthusian revival that these eugenicists would spearhead through the end of the 1960s took the form of a new array of international organizations which incorporated systems analysis, and cybernetics, which aimed to control nation states and ecosystems alike. This took the form of the World Economic Forum’s early embrace of the Club of Rome’s computer models outlined by Aurelio Peccei (and incorporated into Schwab’s second official Davos meeting in 1973). These new models aimed to impose fixed immutable limits to humanity’s growth potential beyond which no technology or scientific discovery could ever penetrate. The fact that these same multibillionaires managing the overhaul of the world economy as it transitioned into a neo-liberal looting operation were simultaneously funding the growth of this new array of “new rights” groups led by a growing armada of non-governmental organizations, ecology protection and human rights groups is not a coincidence.

Today’s involvement of both Julian Huxley’s WWF and IUCN (no renamed Conservation International) as partners with the Intrinsic Exchange Group should not make any honest lover of nature in any way comfortable.

Much more obviously remains to be said both about the history of conservationism, and how it is being used once again to conduct a new age of population control, or how it has been used to disrupt large scale infrastructure projects across the world for over 120 years, or how nature reserves across the global south have supported narco terrorist groups.

However, for the time being, it is sufficient to note that the world’s developing sector is generally not going to accept being sacrificed on the altar of a new Gaia cult managed by a priesthood of Davos billionaires. Based on the momentum we see being driven by the Greater Eurasian Partnership, the Belt and Road Initiative and ambitions from Latin American and African leaders to finally break free of centuries of imperial manipulation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that COP26’s utopic computer models are increasingly breaking down when confronted with the reality of humanity’s creative power to leap outside of the fixed rules of imperial games when a true crisis moves us into action.

The author delivered a presentation on this topic which can be viewed here.

By Jeremy LOFFREDO, Max BLUMENTHAL

The titans of global capitalism are exploiting the Covid-19 crisis to institute social credit-style digital ID systems across the West.

The death by starvation of Etwariya Devi, a 67-year-old widow from the rural Indian state of Jharkhand, might have passed without notice had it not been part of a more widespread trend.

Like 1.3 billion of her fellow Indians, Devi had been pushed to enroll in a biometric digital ID system called Aadhaar in order to access public services, including her monthly allotment of 25kg of rice. When her fingerprint failed to register with the shoddy system, Devi was denied her food ration. Throughout the course of the following three months in 2017, she was repeatedly refused food until she succumbed to hunger, alone in her home.

Premani Kumar, a 64-year-old woman also from Jharkhand, met the same demise as Devi, dying of hunger and exhaustion the same year after the Aadhaar system transferred her pension payments to another person without her permission, while cutting off her monthly food rations.

A similarly cruel fate was reserved for Santoshi Kumari, an 11-year-old girl, also from Jharkhand, who reportedly died begging for rice after her family’s ration card was canceled because it had not been linked to their Aadhaar digital ID.

These three heart-rending casualties were among a spate of deaths in rural India in 2017 which came as a direct result of the Aadhaar digital ID system.

With over one billion Indians in its database, Aadhaar is the largest biometric digital ID program ever constructed. Besides serving as a portal to government services, it tracks users’ movements between cities, their employment status, and purchasing records. It is a de facto social credit system that serves as the key entry point for accessing services in India.

Having branded Aadhaar’s creator, fellow billionaire Nandan Nilekani, as a “hero,” initiatives backed by tech oligarch Bill Gates have long sought to bring the “Aadhaar approach to other countries.” With the onset of the Covid-19 crisis, Gates and other mavens of the digital ID industry have an unprecedented opportunity to introduce their programs into the wealthy countries of the Global North.

For those yearning for an end to pandemic-related restrictions, credential programs certifying their vaccination against Covid-19 have been marketed as the key to reopening the economy and restoring their personal freedom. But the implementation of immunity passports is also accelerating the establishment of a global digital identity infrastructure.

As the military surveillance firm and NATO contractor Thales recently put it, vaccine passports “are a precursor to digital ID wallets.”

And as the CEO of iProove, a biometric ID company and Homeland Security contractor, emphasized to Forbes, “The evolution of vaccine certificates will actually drive the whole field of digital ID in the future. So, therefore, this is not just about Covid, this is about something even bigger.”

For the national security state, digital immunity passports promise unprecedented control over populations wherever such systems are implemented. Ann Cavoukian, the former privacy commissioner of Ontario, Canada has described the vaccine passport system already active in her province as “a new, inescapable web of surveillance with geolocation data being tracked everywhere.”

For tech oligarchs such Bill Gates and neoliberal institutions such as the World Economic Forum, digital ID and digital currency systems have already enabled the extraction of unbelievable profits in the Global South, where hundreds of millions of people remain “unbanked” and therefore outside the sphere of electronic payments systems.

Now, with grassroots protest building against an exclusionary regime of vaccine passports, the captains of global capitalism are campaigning with more urgency than ever to bring digital ID to the West.

For these elite interests, the digitization of immunity passports represent a critical tool in a long-planned economic and political transformation.

“With no Covid Pass, my wife and I are banished from society”

Across the globe, the certification of vaccination against COVID-19 is already a requirement to participate in daily life.

In Indonesia, COVID-19 vaccines are mandatory, and those who refuse may face fines or be refused access to public services. In Greece, residents must present immunity to work in or enter bars, theaters, and other indoor public spaces.

France has similarly required residents to carry a health pass for access to all restaurants, bars, trains, and any venue accommodating more than 50 people, a decision that has stoked widespread protests throughout the country. The socialist French former presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon has blasted the new restrictions as “absurd, unfair and authoritarian.”

Les premiers contrôles de #Police ont démarré à titre préventif à #Paris dans les cafés et restaurants où le #PassSanitaire est obligatoire dès aujourd’hui. Verbalisation de 135 euros à partir de la semaine prochaine, jusqu’à 9000 euro en cas de récidive.#Passanitaire #reuters pic.twitter.com/Vvyh75sun3

— Antony Paone (@PaoneAntony) August 9, 2021

Italy has mandated its Green Pass for all workers, threatening them with termination from jobs and suspension of pay. Italy also requires the pass to use Italian public transit. Scenes of private security over-enforcement of the Green Pass and the exclusion of Italy’s elderly from vital services have already begun to go viral on social media.

Italy’s Green Pass in action: an old woman is turned away from medical exams at a hospital because she can’t produce her mandatory “health” passport. These systems inherently discriminate against members of vulnerable groups and encourage private security overreach, as seen here. https://t.co/Y9Tr12A9jq

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) October 19, 2021

Restrictions for Lithuanians who are not double vaccinated or unable to demonstrate recent prior infection from Covid-19 represent some of the harshest in the world. They are banned from restaurants, all non-essential stores, shopping centers, beauty services, libraries, banks or insurance agencies, universities, inpatient medical care, and train travel.

Gluboco Lietuva, a self-described “Lithuanian father” who has refused vaccination, stated on Twitter: “With no Covid Pass, my wife and I are banished from society. We have no income. Banned from most shopping. Can barely exist.”

Life under the EU’s first strictly-enforced Covid Pass regime covering all society: Lithuania.

Without a Pass, you’re banned: shopping, work, eating out…

This is the future facing countries that impose a Covid Pass: EU, US, UK,Australia,Canada…

Is this the world you want? pic.twitter.com/xdffSPriNO

— Gluboco Lietuva (@gluboco) September 25, 2021

Four out of ten Canadian provinces currently require citizens to show proof of vaccination against COVID-19 to enter indoor public venues like restaurants and theaters. All federal public servants and some other workers must be vaccinated to keep their jobs.

The government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau also requires all air travelers and interprovincial train travelers to be vaccinated. Canada’s Alberta province took the measures a step further this September when it announced that those who cannot prove full COVID vaccination will no longer be allowed to socialize indoors in groups of more than 12.

In Israel, meanwhile, only those who have received three doses can work or shop indoors and go to restaurants; citizens who received two shots over six months ago are now considered unvaccinated. This rule has consolidated what even the New York Times has deemed a “two-tier system for the vaccinated and unvaccinated … raising legal, moral and ethical questions.”

In the US, President Joe Biden is “moving forward with vaccination requirements wherever [he] can.” Biden, who declared that his “patience is wearing thin” with unvaccinated Americans, recently announced new federal requirements mandating that about 80 million Americans – including all those who work at companies with more than 100 employees – must either be vaccinated or get tested for COVID-19 weekly.

Biden has also mandated that those working at facilities which receive Medicare or Medicaid must show proof of immunity to keep their jobs. According to AP, President Biden is considering proof of immunity for interstate travel, a restriction his former public health advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, has clamored for.

In the state of Colorado, the UCHealth hospital system has announced that it will not allow organ transplants to be performed on unvaccinated patients, prompting some to travel to Texas for life-saving procedures.

New York City offers a glimpse of the program in store for the rest of the country. The city’s “Key to NYC” requirement, which went into effect September 13, requires proof of vaccination to work at or attend indoor dining, indoor fitness, and entertainment venues like museums, stadiums, arcades, and theaters.

“If you want to participate in our society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” Mayor De Blasio stated. “[New York City] is a miraculous place literally full of wonders … if you’re un-vaccinated, unfortunately, you will not be able to participate.”

COVID-related mandates could be permanent

While outlets like CNN have referred to vaccine passports as a “useful, temporary measure,” it is increasingly evident that the proof of immunity restrictions imposed on Western populations may not go away any time soon.

Australia’s New South Wales Ministry of Health Dr. Kerry Chant has stated that citizens “need to get used to being vaccinated with COVID vaccines for the future… it will be a regular cycle of vaccination and revaccination.”

Albert Bourla, CEO of the Pfizer corporation that has seen its stock skyrocket during the pandemic, remarked that the “most likely scenario” is coronavirus vaccine shots mandated on an annual basis.

As a February Nature headline read, “the coronavirus is here to stay.” Or, as Dr. Mike Ryan, Executive Director of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Health Emergency Program, put it: it is “very, very, unlikely” that COVID-19 will ever go away.

“Eradicating this virus right now from the world is a lot like trying to plan the construction of a stepping-stone pathway to the Moon,” said Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “It’s unrealistic.”

“This is our life from now, in waves,” Israel’s Coronavirus Czar, Salman Zarka, acknowledged.

Already, Zarka has prepared plans to mandate a fourth dose for Israelis.

COVID mandates to be digitally enforced

While a state-mandated treadmill of boosters may seem unappealing to many, if not outright hellish, for others the nightmare presents the opportunity of a lifetime. As early as May 2020, only seven weeks after the pandemic was declared, US tech billionaire Bill Gates predicted that “eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently or when we have a vaccine who has received it.”

Now, over a year later, a growing number of local and national governments require some form of digital proof of vaccination or natural immunity against COVID-19.

Those who want to travel to Canada, for example, are required to download an app that verifies the vaccination status of incoming travelers. The government also plans to introduce a federal, Canada-wide digital vaccine passport in the coming months.

When the European Union (EU) opened up to foreign tourists this summer, it introduced a “Digital COVID Certificate” which granted entry to those vaccinated against COVID-19, those who have had a negative test, or those who recently recovered from an infection. Its proposed “Digital Green Certificate” has been branded as a means to facilitate safe free movement inside the EU during the pandemic.

The government of France is partnering with a biometric technology company called IDEMIA to “make it easier for its citizens to prove their identity and complete online transactions using a smartphone.” The new app will “enable French citizens to place their national electronic identification cards [introduced to France as a COVID-19 response in August 2021] …  on the back of their smartphones and have their identity instantly confirmed.” IDEMIA is also helping France certify travelers immunity data with their Health Travel Pass suite.

The US is still accepting paper vaccination records, and President Biden has insisted no national app is in the works. However, seven U.S. states (California, New York, Louisiana, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and Hawaii) have already implemented apps certifying vaccination against COVID-19 and have various degrees of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in place.

ImmunaBand, a wearable wristband, whose company mission is “to bring the world a little closer in a time of the COVID-19 pandemic and for you to demonstrate to the world your vaccination status,” has also been approved by New York City as proof of vaccination.

“In typical American fashion, the US government is relegating the creation of digital vaccination certifications to the private sector,” stated the non-profit Data & Society.

Indeed, behind the push for digital vaccine passports is a coterie of supra-national neoliberal institutions guided by oligarchic tech industry donors.

Elite corporate interests behind digital COVID passports

Mega-corporations, international finance institutions, and billionaire-backed private foundations have played a vital role in lobbying for and implementing digital immunity passports.

The burgeoning global health passport system has been coordinated under the umbrella of the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO). However, this institution is so intertwined with wealthy private interests it can hardly be characterized as a “public” health body.

As former WHO director Margaret Chan told filmmaker Lilian Franck, “only 30 percent of my budget is predictable funds. The other 70 percent, I have to take a hat and go around the world to beg for money. And when they give us the money, [it] is highly linked to their preferences, what they like.”

Chief among those private funders is the second wealthiest man in the world, Bill Gates, and his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which happens to be the second largest donor to the WHO.

Bill Gates with World Health Organization Director-General Tedros Adhanom

Also at the forefront of the shift to digital credentials is the World Economic Forum (WEF). “The Forum is involved in the WHO task force to reflect on those [vaccine credential requirements] standards and think about how they would be used,” reads a May WEF article.

On paper, the WEF (also known as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it is an international network of some of the wealthiest and most influential people on the planet. The Forum positions itself as the thought leader of global capitalism.

The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the global ruling class. Each year, hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives, and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become the major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”

In 2017, German economist and WEF founder Klaus Schwab introduced the concept of “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” with the title of the book he published that year. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) denotes the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced,” according to Schwab.

For him, the 4IR is the “merging of the physical, digital and biological worlds.” Schwab has even said that the 4IR will inevitably veer into trans-humanism, or human genome editing.

Klaus Schwab, 2015:

‘And you see, the difference of the fourth industrial revolution is, it doesn’t change what you are doing, it changes you. If you take genetic editing just as an example, it’s you who are changed’#greatreset #thegreatreset pic.twitter.com/IWFJoqrVkG

— Ole Ó’Súilleabháin : (@OlisGud) September 6, 2021

In January 2021, several WEF partners, including Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, and several other “heavyweights,” announced a partnership to launch the Vaccine Credential Initiative (VCI) to develop digital immunization authentication tools, according to Forbes.

Aiming to institute a single “SMART Health Card” for the world, the VCI intends for its SMART Health Cards to be recognized “across organizational and jurisdictional boundaries.”

In the US, some states are already deploying the SMART Health Cards developed by the VCI. These SMART Health Cards have laid the basis for a de-facto national standard for vaccine credentials.

“If enough states embrace the technology, it could become a de facto nationwide standard and relieve the Biden administration of having to lay out federal requirements for domestic purposes,” Politico noted.

SMART Health Cards have emerged as a de facto national standard for vaccine credentials. JP Pollak, co-founder of @commons_prjct predicts these credentials will be available to 100M+ Americans within a month. Via @HiawathaBray at @BostonGlobe https://t.co/wnkdv88AAE pic.twitter.com/xz5vEU03jW

— The Commons Project Foundation (@commons_prjct) August 9, 2021

The latest version of Apple’s iOS, iOS 15, even includes SMART Health Card support.

As of today, those who received a vaccine in California, Hawaii, Louisiana, New York, Virginia, or certain counties in Maryland can obtain a SMART Health Card from the state.

In most other states, a SMART Health Card is available to those who were vaccinated at one of more than 17,100 CVS, Walgreen’s, or Rite Aid pharmacy chains nationwide.

“More states, pharmacies, and health systems will begin issuing SMART Health Cards very soon,” promises the site of the Commons Project, one of the founders of the VCI initiative.

Commons Project CEO Paul Meyer happens to be a WEF “young leader.”

Commons Project CEO and World Economic Forum Young Leader Paul Meyer

In India, tech oligarchs use digital ID to force social credit on rural poor, spawning exclusion and even death

In 2015, The Gates Foundation provided seed money to a Yale School of Public Health project that would become known as Khushi Baby. Now a non-profit, Khushi Baby makes microchip-equipped necklaces for a child to wear at all times to track their vaccination status and establish continuous monitoring from their first immunizations through adulthood. The non-profit says it is now using data from over 35,000 villages in India to create algorithms that “predict health outcomes for mothers and children.”

From the website of KhushiBaby.org

In 2016, IDEMIA, the security firm now working with the French government on vaccination and identity verification, designed the microchip-equipped necklaces. The necklaces have been used to track health data for 13 million people in India since the beginning of the pandemic.

These programs have been marketed by corporate consultants as essential tools for improving equality and inclusion in the Global South. “Digital identification is key to inclusive growth,” claimed McKinsey, the global consulting firm, in 2019.

“Something like 1 billion people could be more financially included and participative,” said Mike Kubzansky, managing partner of Ebay founder and media mogul Pierre Omidyar’s Omidyar Network during a WEF panel exploring how “Digital Identification Provides a Significant Opportunity for Value Creation.”

Like Gates, Omidyar is heavily invested in the advancement of digital ID and currency systems through his Omidyar Network, which collaborates with the World Economic Forum on the Good ID initiative.

#COVID is moving us increasingly towards a cashless society meaning unbanked people who lack formal identification will be excluded.

Could digital identity be the solution?https://t.co/TpgZMW6bXL#GoodID

— #GoodID (@GoodID) November 9, 2020

A closer look at the push for “inclusion” by corporate behemoths reveals their altruistic language as little more than public relations cover for raw profit motives, resulting in marginalization and even death for many of those roped into their digital ID systems.

Besides serving as the staging ground for the Khushi Baby venture, India has become a laboratory for digital tracking and identity systems. With support from Western capitalist outfits like the Gates Foundation and the World Bank, the country has become the site of the world’s largest digital ID database, known as Aadhaar.

The Aadhaar system is named for a 12 digit number that serves as a proof of identity and address, among other markers, anywhere in India. To date, a whopping 1.3 billion Indians have been enrolled in the system, making it the largest biometric ID database ever constructed. It contains iris scans and fingerprints from both hands of each user. The technology for this system was provided by none other than the French security firm IDEMIA.

Nandan Nilekani, creator of the Aadhar digital ID system, with Bill Gates

Aadhaar was implemented in 2014, the year that the free marketeering, tech-centric Narendra Modi entered the prime minister’s office. Its creator, tech billionaire Nandan Nilekani, has been branded “the Bill Gates of Bangalore,” celebrated by globalization enthusiasts like Thomas Friedman, and hailed by none other than Gates as an altruistic “hero.” Gates’ foundation has collaborated with Nilekani through its “Co-impact” project alongside billionaire eBay co-founder Jeffrey Skoll’s Skoll Foundation.

“Aadhaar is a huge asset for India,” effused Gates in a 2019 interview with the Indian network Times Now. “The fact that you can make digital payments and open a bank account so easily, India is a leader in that. There are huge benefits in being able to get digital government money to the beneficiary.”

But behind the neoliberal spin, Nilekani’s Aadhar digital ID system has wreaked havoc on the lives of India’s most vulnerable and stigmatized populations.

In the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand, a wave of deaths took place in 2017 when impoverished citizens were cut off from government-subsidized food rations by the Aadhaar system. In several cases, aging widows were denied rice for several months because the system rejected their fingerprint scans.

Around the same time, three brothers died of starvation after they failed to properly register with Aadhaar and were subsequently denied rations for six months. The same cruel fate was visited on the Kumari family, which was unable to obtain an electronic Aadhaar ID, lost its ration card, and saw its 11-year-old daughter, Santoshi, die of hunger.

“Many people in Jharkhand have been victims of similar deprivation of food entitlements during the last few months,” reported India’s Scroll. “The main reason is that Aadhaar-based biometric authentication is now compulsory in about 80% of ration shops in the state.”

According to Scroll, a random sample of 18 villages where biometric authentication was compulsory found that a staggering 37% of cardholders were unable to buy their food rations.

Besides making Aadhaar the key to obtaining government services, the Modi government has integrated data collected by Aadhar to establish a “360-degree database” that “automatically track[s] when a citizen moves between cities, changes jobs, or buys a new property,” according to the Huffington Post.

When Covid-19 first reached India in early 2020, Nilekani proposed employing Aadhar as the basis for an anti-Covid vaccination and tracking program. “We must ensure that everybody gets a digital certificate with the date of vaccination, name of the vaccine and through which vendor and at what location,” he declared in 2020.

Unsurprisingly, Nilekani’s system of mass surveillance has proven much more effective at harvesting data than it has been at protecting it. In 2018, the Indian Tribune newspaper was able to purchase the personal information of nearly every Aadhaar user through anonymous sellers over WhatsApp. The process took only 10 minutes and cost about $6 USD, the paper reported.

The Tribune “purchased” a service being offered by anonymous sellers over WhatsApp that provided unrestricted access to details for any of the more than 1 billion Aadhaar numbers created in India thus far. https://t.co/UepQkXLPFJ

— Shivam Vij (@DilliDurAst) January 4, 2018

The system’s serial breaches of privacy even prompted some HIV-positive Indians to drop out of antiretroviral treatment programs that require the Aadhaar card. Though the Aadhaar is said to be voluntary, individuals with HIV have complained to Indian media that they were pressured into enrolling into the ID program, and had been threatened with the loss of medical services.

US privacy advocates have pointed to digital national identity programs like Aadhaar as gargantuan surveillance tools that establish the basis for a social credit system.

Addressing the US House Committee on Financial Services in July 2021, Elizabeth Renieris of Notre-Dame’s Technology Ethics Lab warned, “The Aadhaar number in India is able to track your activity across all facets of your life, from employment to healthcare, to school, to pretty much everything you do. You can’t retain autonomy over specific domains of your life. You can’t separate your personal and professional reputation. You can’t have this kind of contextualized personal identity. I think that’s really problematic.”

“We must avoid building digital identity systems and infrastructure in a way that further expands and entrenches the surveillance state, as does the national identity system in India,” Renieris continued.

But it is the all-encompassing social credit aspect of Aadhaar that has made Gates so fond of the system.

Addressing India’s top policy makers in 2016, the world’s second wealthiest man declared, “Over time, all of these transactions create a footprint and so when you go in for credit, the ability to access the history that you’ve paid your utility bills on time, that you’ve saved up money for your children’s education, all of those things in your digital trail, accessed in an appropriate way allow the credit market to [score the risk properly].“

ID4D expands digital ID to track more human activity than ever

In 2016, the Gates Foundation ponied up funding for a World Bank project called the Identity for Development (ID4D) Initiative for the declared purpose of bringing the “Aadhaar approach to other countries.”

To date, the World Bank has invested $1.2 billion into the ID4D initiative, with the official aim of creating “identification systems using 21st Century solutions.”

Among the four financial partners that established the initiative were two familiar Big Tech-backed operations: The Gates Foundation and The Omidyar Network, along with Australian Aid and UK Aid. According to the World Bank, the Gates Foundation’s “catalytic contributions” in particular transformed the project from an idea to a functional World Bank initiative.

Aadhaar’s Nilekani currently sits on the ID4D Initiative advisory council.

According to the World Bank, ID4D “promote[s] the use of digital ID systems for free movement and service delivery, by creating linkages across systems that allow users to authenticate themselves for key services such as receiving social transfer payments, completing financial transactions, and crossing borders.”

Promotional materials frame this venture as a humanitarian cause centered on helping poor women and making sure ”unbanked” individuals (those without a bank account) such as refugees and migrants are included in the modern economy.

Yet a closer look at the initiative’s backers and their agenda reveals a longstanding goal of the captains of global capitalism: creating a digitally centered identity system that enables powerful public and private institutions to track more human activity than ever.

“Digital ID … can be leveraged by government and commercial platforms to facilitate a variety of digital transactions, including digital payments,” explains the World Bank.

In an August 2021 white paper, the World Bank called on African nations to achieve a “single digital market” and loosen regulations on digital infrastructure to lower the risk for investors. The paper revealed the real intentions behind the World Bank’s push for a closure to the digital divide: opening up the continent for foreign investment. “Government regulation,” the paper declared, “needs to smoothen the path to digital transformation in the region.”

“By accelerating Africa’s digital transformation, businesses can reap the benefits,” the World Economic Forum (WEF) proclaimed in a 2020 article titled, “Africa has the potential to boost global growth.”

“There will […] be lucrative opportunities in Algeria, Angola, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Morocco, Sudan, and Tunisia … a good bet for companies seeking to enter new markets,” the WEF advised.

As the World Economic Forum recently wrote, “COVID-19 has highlighted the advantages of creating a digital economy.” Yet the advantages the group speaks of will likely fall on the side of its stakeholders.

Partners of the World Economic Forum’s “Platform for a Good Digital Identity ” include the biometric ID firm Accenture, Amazon, Barclays Bank, Deutsche Bank, HSBC Bank, Mastercard, the biometric technology firm Simprints, and the credit giant, Visa.

The initiative’s stakeholders represent the key beneficiaries of a biometric ID system imposed on the Global South, with Western multinational financial firms functioning as the gateway for its inhabitants to participate in the global economy.

The WEF has also made clear that the “end goal” of its agenda is expanding the model it established in India until every person in the world holds a unique digital ID.

In an article titled “Digital ID is the Catalyst of Our Digital Future,” Mohit Joshi, a WEF ‘young leader,’ argued that “governments should use [Aadhaar] to streamline the delivery of services and payments, and massively increase financial inclusion.”

In a separate paper, however, the WEF conceded that the new digital system will not necessarily provide users with the liberation they have been promised: “Fourth Industrial Revolution digital identity will determine what products, services, and information we can access – or, conversely, what is closed off to us,” the WEF stated.

ID2020 leverages vaccinations to push “beyond dystopian” digital ID’s and payments

Back in 2016, Bill Gates’ Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), Microsoft, Accenture and the Rockefeller Foundation established a new consortium to provide digital ID certificates to infants when they receive their routine immunizations. They called it ID2020, incidentally naming it for the year that a global pandemic would be declared.

ID2020 says it is “dedicated to spearheading a global digital biometric identity standard,” and claims Digital IDs will lead to “financial independence.”

Yesterday’s #ID2020 is today’s Good Health Pass, is tomorrows Digital Identity for All.#Freedom-As-A-Service

The covid vaccine certificate is the catalyst to drive, unify, & implement a #4IR digital identity global infrastructure.

2016 pic.twitter.com/0MkPamCTvg

— Cory Morningstar (@elleprovocateur) October 2, 2021

Partners in the ID2020 initiative include the credit card giant Mastercard and Simprints, a biometric technology firm supported by the US Agency for International Development, a traditional front organization for US intelligence.

Mastercard’s ‘community pass’ project aims to capture the biometrics of 30 million individuals in remote parts of Africa over the next three years and issue them a Mastercard Community Pass biometric smart card, which will in turn provide Africans with a digital biometric identity and a digital bank account.

ID2020 is currently operating in Bangladesh, where it administers biometric enrollment and digital ID to infants when they receive routine immunizations. GAVI CEO Seth Berkely has said he plans to expand the program across the underdeveloped world, working with mega-corporations such as Facebook and Mastercard to tie vaccination status to a biometric identification system.

“Eighty-nine percent of children and adolescents without identification live in countries supported by Gavi,” Berkley stated. “We are enthusiastic about the potential impact of this program not just in Bangladesh, but as something we can replicate across Gavi-eligible countries.”

With the WHO’s declaration of a global pandemic in March 2020, an unprecedented opportunity arrived for the forces advancing digital IDs. As Andrew Bud, the CEO of biometric tech company and Department of Homeland Security contractor iProov, enthused, “The evolution of vaccine certificates will actually drive the whole field of digital id in the future. So, therefore, this is not just about Covid, this is about something even bigger.”

By the following year, ID2020 and the USAID-partnered biometric ID firm, Simprints, had leveraged funding from Gates Foundation to publish an article entitled, “COVID-19 Vaccine Delivery: An Opportunity to Set Up Systems for the Future.” The authors argued that COVID-19 vaccines in the Global South could be used as a “potential lever” to deliver digital biometric IDs.

They went on to admit that such digital biometric systems would stay in place long after the COVID-19 pandemic was over, and would be exploited for an array of purposes after the rollout: “Biometrics have the advantage of being agnostic to use case,” the co-authors wrote, “meaning they can connect different systems during or even after rollout.”

From Simprints.com

Elizabeth Renieris of the Notre Dame-IBM Tech Ethics Lab resigned from a technical advisory role on ID2020, citing “risks to civil liberties” after the initiative teamed up with tech giants to design COVID immunity passports backed up by experimental blockchain technology.

Renieris went on to denounce the burgeoning ID system as a civil liberties nightmare: “The prospect of severely curtailing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals through ill-thought-out plans for ‘immunity passports’ or similar certificates, particularly ones that would leverage premature standards and a highly experimental and potentially rights-infringing technology like blockchain, is beyond dystopian.”

Digital ID mavens prey on the global poor

While linking a digital biometric ID to individuals’ finances is almost certain to exclude masses of people, and has even killed some by cutting impoverished citizens off from government services, predatory financial and credit institutions see the technology as the perfect means for capitalizing on untapped and developing markets.

A September 2021 report by BankservAfrica, the largest automated digital payments clearinghouse in Africa, which is headed by former executives at MasterCard, VISA, and IBM, urged South Africa to adopt a biometric digital ID system.

The report proclaimed, “The time has come for consumers, investors, and the private and public sectors to work collectively to achieve the common goal of enabling a robust, secure, and trusted digital identity for South Africa.”

BankServAfrica’s digital payment platform is currently being tested in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania with financial support from the World Bank, USAID, and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

“The COVID-19 pandemic has shown just how critical a digital ID is,” BankServAfrica’s Chief Business Officer insisted.

BankservAfrica’s report argued that a robust biometric digital ID system will help South Africa achieve “simpler FICA [credit score] processes” and “a fair, transparent, competitive, sustainable, responsible, efficient and effective consumer credit market.”

But behind the lofty neoliberal rhetoric deployed by the financial industry lies a sordid record of profiteering and privacy invasion on a massive scale.

In 2007, Vodafone and Safaricom launched mPesa, a system that allows users to digitally deposit, withdraw, transfer, and pay with money. The project was “able to make credit and growth capital available to millions of people who have never had access to credit before,” according to Areiel Wolanow, who led the team that designed and built the credit scoring engine for mPesa in Kenya.

But a study by economist Alan Gibson revealed that it was the financial sector – not the rural population of the Global South – that truly benefited from mPesa. Meanwhile, the living conditions of the system’s mostly impoverished participants failed to improve at all:

“What is indisputable is that the supply-side of the finance market has benefited greatly from the last ten years. Banks’ sales have increased by 2.5 times and profits by 3.5 times, with profit margins also increased; the inclusion years have undoubtedly been good years for the banks. This apparent contrast between conspicuous supply-side success and a still-poor economy … raises questions on the role of the finance sector. In particular, it begs questions on who/what it is there to serve, and on the incentives that drive behavior.”

In a further indictment of supposedly “inclusive” digital payment schemes, the Review of African Political Economy found that “the bulk of this [mPesa] value does not go to the poor. Rather, such fintech is very clearly designed to hoover up value and deposit it into the hands of a narrow global digital-financial elite that are the main forces behind the fintech revolution.”

Despite the evidence of widening inequality, Bill Gates – whose foundation spends hundreds of billions of dollars promoting digital financial services for the poor – gushed praise for mPesa.

“M-Pesa is an excellent program,” Gates effused on Twitter in one of several tweets hailing the digital payments system.

Gates linked to an article promoting the program by NPR, the US public broadcaster which has received upwards of $17.5 million from Gates while producing hundreds of articles praising the tech billionaire and his initiatives around the world.

Back in the US, meanwhile, Gates’ ID2020 campaign has collaborated with the forces advancing a system that registers Americans’ vaccination status with the same corporation that calculates their financial credit score.

The US credit industry and digital immunity ID outfits collaborate on “huge opportunities for the commercial sector”

In Illinois, residents are currently required to verify that they have received the COVID-19 vaccine through an online portal called Vax Verify which will work in concert with Chicago’s soon-to-be-implemented vaccine passport.

To register their proof of vaccination, Illinois residents must turn to Experian, the world’s leading credit score service.

Already, the Vax Verify portal is facing backlash for providing inaccurate vaccine status information. It is also the subject of serious security concerns given Experian’s record of breaches that leaked the personal data of millions of citizens from Brazil to South Africa.

Further, the online portal requires that any resident with a freeze on their credit must unfreeze it with Experian before registering a vaccination.

“Using Experian is definitely one of the worst [vaccine passports] I’ve seen yet,” Electronic Frontier Foundation Director of Engineering Alexis Hancock commented to Yahoo News.

After Illinois became the first US state to forge a formal relationship between vaccine certifications and Experian, Illinois Congressman and financial industry darling Bill Foster introduced legislation that would foist a digital biometric ID onto the entire American population.

The Improving Digital Identity Act of 2021, introduced by Foster in July, calls for the public sector, and particularly the Department of Homeland Security, to work with the private sector to develop a new biometric digital ID infrastructure for the United States.

In November 2020, the Gates-sponsored ID2020 provided an online forum for Foster to promote his bill. During the event, the congressman advocated for a “trusted biometric digital immunity certificate system” while explaining that his bill would obtain biometrics from every citizen so private corporations could then “leverage” it to generate enormous profits.

Rep. Bill Foster headlined the Gates-backed ID2020’s November 2020 webinar

“Once the government has [taken] those fairly serious biometrics from you – there will be huge opportunities for the commercial sector to leverage that,” he said. “And to try to get this all started, I introduced the ‘Improving Digital ID Act.’”

Banking and credit card companies are among the many “commercial sectors” that Foster’s bill will benefit through digital biometric IDs. The bill plainly states that the corporate ID system will give “under-banked and unbanked individuals better access to digital financial services,” cloaking the opening of markets for finance giants in the same woke language that ID4D and ID2020 employ.

But as tech oligarchs and their partners in the financial and national security industries leverage the coronavirus epidemic to institute a lucrative apparatus of digital monitoring, dissent is erupting in the countries where vaccine passports have begun to exclude millions.

Protests erupt against vaccine passports and “people who have very little to do with parliament”

In New York City – ground zero of the US vaccination passport roll-out – where over 80 percent of all Covid social distancing arrests were conducted against Black residents in 2020, simmering tensions boiled over when three Black diners initiated a brawl with staff at Carmine’s, an Upper West Side restaurant that prevented them from dining without their vaccination proof.

The incident spurred condemnation from a local Black Lives Matter chapter, which accused city authorities of exploiting mask mandates and vaccine passports to exclude and incarcerate Black residents. “What we are seeing here is the NYPD and restaurants using vaccination proof as a reason to discriminate against Black people,” declared BLM activist Kimberly Bernard.

“We will not sit by and allow you to use this pandemic, for you to use vaccination cards, for you to use masks as another reason to be racist” said BLM Activist Kimberly Bernard, co-founder of Black Women’s March, during Cancel Carmines protest in NYC. pic.twitter.com/RS5gtoHugN

— Scootercaster (@ScooterCasterNY) September 24, 2021

France has been the site of some of the world’s largest protests against the vaccine passport system imposed under the watch of former banker and President Emanuel Macron. On August 14, over 210,000 people took to the streets in over 200 protests across France against the nascent biomedical security regime.

Puncturing the corporate media’s pigeonholing of the demonstrators as far-right shock troops, France’s Le Monde described them as “alone, coupled up, here with their family or friends, of all ages, white, Black, employed, retired, some vaccinated, others who refuse to get the shot.”

French journalist Pauline Bock noted that in her country, “the only trade that’s exempt from mandatory vaccination — the police — will be the one to make sure everyone else obeys. The policy is ripe for authoritarian misuse.”

In Italy, meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister and former European Central Bank President Mario Draghi has mandated that all employees of both public and private businesses produce a Green Pass proving vaccination in order to enter their place of work.

The Green Pass vaccine passport system has already excluded unvaccinated individuals from restaurants, gyms, as well as trains, buses and domestic flights across the country. Official government numbers show the pass has failed to increase vaccine uptake.

With the expansion of the Green Pass to places of work, Italians have risen up in some of the largest protests the world has seen against the nascent biosecurity regime.

Enorme manifestazione a Roma contro l’obbligo del passaporto sanitario: “La gente come noi non molla mai!” pic.twitter.com/517qxac7ki

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) October 9, 2021

On October 9, hundreds of thousands of protesters poured into Italian streets from Rome to Trento to voice their rejection of Draghi’s policy. In Rome, where police repressed peaceful demonstrators with batons and riot shields, a group of about 20 far-right hooligans attacked a local union office while police stood by. Interior Minister Carlo Sibilia exploited the incident to claim that “neo-fascist groups hide behind the so-called anti-vaxxers.”

The secretary of a faction of Italy’s Communist Party, Marco Rizzo, who has condemned the passport system as “a discriminatory, divisive tool that pits one against the other,” cast suspicion on the incident.

ROME PROTESTS . “The union building usually closed on a Saturday was strangely open. In this video you can see people who we believe are police changing into black clothes to incite violence and indicate ‘violent blackshirts fascist protesters’.” h/t Robin Monotti pic.twitter.com/ZO71hsfsbu

— Club des Cordeliers (@cordeliers) October 13, 2021

In an October 10 statement, Rizzo warned that the incident of “fascist violence” the day before played directly into the hands of the neoliberal government, and questioned whether a new “strategy of tension” was in play. The communist leader was referring to the Italian state’s covert weaponization of far-right militants during the 1970’s “years of lead” to foment violence and neutralize Marxist organizations.

The demonstrations have now spread to the port city of Trieste, where union dock workers have refused to offload goods until the Green Pass is revoked. On October 18, Italian police attempted to break the workers’ strike with water cannons, tear gas, and heavy repression.

La mattanza al porto di Trieste. pic.twitter.com/KG9qD17g72

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) October 18, 2021

Two days before anti-Green Pass protests exploded across Italy, the renowned philosopher Giorgio Agamben appeared before the Italian Senate’s Constitutional Affairs Commission to issue a dramatic statement of opposition to the Green Pass.

Agamben is most famous for his concept of Homo Sacer, or bare life, in which an individual is stripped of rights and reduced to their biological essence in an extra-legal regime justified by war or other emergencies. When Italian authorities declared the first lockdown in March 2020, the philosopher applied the theory to his own country’s heavy-handed restrictions.

“The defining feature…of this great transformation that they are attempting to impose is that the mechanism which renders it formally possible is not a new body of laws, but a state of exception – in other words, not an affirmation of, but the suspension of constitutional guarantees,” the philosopher explained in the foreword to his collection of 2020 writings on Covid-19, “Where Are We Now: The Epidemic As Politics,”

In his remarks before the Italian Senate, Agamben pointed to a sinister agenda behind the official rationale for vaccine passports: “It has been said by scientists and doctors that the Green Pass has no medical significance in itself but serves to force people to get vaccinated. Instead, I think we must say the opposite: that the vaccine is a means of forcing people to have the Green Pass. That is, a device that allows individuals to be monitored and tracked, an unprecedented measure.”

The philosopher concluded his address by taking aim at the supra-national forces – Bill Gates, the World Economic Forum, and Rockefeller Foundation, among others – determined to impose a system of digital identification and high-tech social credit as much of the human population as possible.

“I believe that in this perspective,” Agamben warned, “it is more urgent than ever for parliamentarians to consider the political transformation underway, which in the long run is destined to empty parliament of its powers, reducing it to simply approving – in the name of bio-security – decrees emanating from organizations and people who have very little to do with parliament.”

thegrayzone.com

“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

– The Holy Bible (Luke 16:13)

“Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the netherworld whom he has called up by his spells.”

– Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, Chapter 1 – Bourgeois & Proletarians

Klaus Schwab most certainly has based his career on the maxim “The height of originality is skill in concealing origins”. For indeed, Marxian sociology and poststructuralist, post-fascist derivatives have been established by the World Economic Forum, and the prestigious academic institutions, as the foundational methodology in the execution of their long-term plans. Generally this involves the study of the relationship between the evolution of technology and its changes upon law, social organization, culture, and the power relations between socioeconomic classes.

In the last chapter we looked at the post-fascist derivatives from critical theory and poststructuralism, that combined Marxian structuralism with reconstituted technologies from fascism, and from Heidegger. In this chapter we look at the tremendous influence of Marx upon Schwab who conceals his sources on multiple fronts. This will be once again demonstrated in the following chapter on the bifurcated neo-fascism of the burgeoning technocracy, settings aside critical theory and poststructuralism, and instead looking at this same question through the development of ‘stakeholder’ business management and administration as a partial refutation of Milton Friedman’s ‘shareholder theory’ ethos, the so-called Friedman Doctrine.

In Marx’s work we discern that the age of industrial revolutions, unlike previous ages, brings about a new kind of social order which overwhelmingly subsumes the consciousness of its various and incidental actors. It possesses them, like a demonic being from the netherworld in the image of Mammon himself, the logic of the machinations of capital.

It lays the framework for understanding AI, and how that system could become effectively self-conscious, or at least from observations, indistinguishable from a conscious living being. It shows how, with the rise and implementation of new technologies, the logic of that techno-industrial system is far more complex than in prior historical stages, such that its processes mimic or even evidence a consciousness of its own.

A Sorcerer with the Powers of the Netherworld

From Marx we find that modernity’s ruling class, arising formally into power as the financiers of the 1^st Industrial Revolution, had summoned up from the netherworld through its complexity, that the logic of its process constitutes an artificial consciousness beyond the control of industrial society itself.

Thus, the beginning of the 4^th Industrial Revolution stands at the precipice of late modernity and post modernity, bearing the birthmarks of the old society, at the great divide before a new paradigm which situates beyond the control, comprehension, and class interests of the ruling class of modernity.

The aim of Klaus Schwab is to be the sorcerer who can control, comprehend, and manage the spirits of the netherworld into the next paradigm while delimiting the havoc and contradictions which such undertakings had in prior historical epochs brought forth.

Klaus Schwab attempts to serve two masters. First, the netherworld spirit of Mammon, conjured by the ritualized capital accumulation of the plutocracy, which in turn possesses them. Second, God: through certain discoveries, technological and otherwise, that benefit the whole of humanity such as 3D printing. But Schwab, with his sorcerer’s robe, cannot serve two masters.

Schwab donning faculty regalia, which partly originates with the magi and alchemists

In Klaus Schwab’s 2016 primer “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”, we are introduced to immediately in Chapter 1.1 (pg. 6) to a direct paraphrasing of Marxian historical materialism, without attribution:

“Revolutions have occurred throughout history when new technologies and novel ways of perceiving the world trigger a profound change in economic systems and social-structures. Given that history is used as a frame of reference, the abruptness of these changes may take years to unfold […] the transition from foraging to farming – happened around 10,000 years ago and was made possible by the domestication of animals […] The agrarian revolution was followed by a series of industrial revolutions that began in the second-half of the 18^th century…”

The chapter goes on to express Schwab’s greatest concern, that there is a problem in elected leadership who do not understand what is required for this revolution to be realized smoothly and effectively. Part of his immediate solution is global cultural hegemony and the use of a class of political commissars (a diversity trained set of individuals) to enforce it. He believes that if done correctly, they can mitigate the class struggle, by dividing the disenfranchised and displaced working class along ‘community’ lines (race, gender/orientation) such that populations will not revolt along the lines of class:

“Second, 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 underway.”

But why would there be a popular backlash, if such changes are universally positive?

Because such changes aren’t. There is an overarching inability to tackle the problem of planned obsolescence, and also takes the position of the plutocracy as an immovable given. This is connected to a slow-down of innovation and future technologies in the sense understood in modernity, because the return on investment would, on the whole, tend to decline in inverse proportion to the rise in production technique.

Planned obsolescence has long been tied in our paradigm to innovation, that innovation of features was so great that the use of higher quality construction goods was unnecessary. This forced consumers into newer models that had novel features and functions, even if the core technology or utility of the commodity was not significantly improved compared to the waste created. This allowed for a return on investment for very minor innovations of questionable utility, and relied instead on advertising and conspicuous consumption as integral to the distribution process.

While the World Economic Forum’s discourse dances adjacent to a future paradigm, the logic of the industrial mode of production is an unchangeable variable. This, even though the planned obsolescence of the era of the 3^rd Industrial Revolution was tied to extracting surplus value from human labor, from monopolistic pricing, from usurious lending, and employment as a form of social control (idle hands do the devil’s work), all of which are exceptionally redundant in an age of total automation.

In pieces like Coronavirus Shutdown: The End of Globalization and Planned Obsolescence – Enter Multipolarity we develop a foundation for understanding that the real aims of the Great Reset are towards further slavery, despite that the technological possibilities presented by 3D printing and the internet of things (IoT) organically tend towards localism and decentralization (away from globalization). It is evident that planned obsolescence is greatly wasteful and is responsible for perhaps most of the waste that damages the environment (whether or not we accept the anthropogenic global warming thesis).

Whatever other cause of carbon emissions, pollution, or unsustainable environmental harm we can imagine, we can almost always tie that outcome to some part of the cycle of production and distribution of goods which are being unnecessarily replicated (from energy production to product delivery), thousands of times a day, because of planned obsolescence.

And yet the solutions of the IMF are not to significantly increase product lifetime, against planned obsolescence, but to reduce human consumption of still poorly-made items through making them expensive in terms of price-point or taxes, and by reducing the number of humans because human beings, within the rubric of modernity, only have value as producers and consumers-for-profit. With robots producing, consumption becomes ‘useless eating by useless eaters’.

As human beings who are among these numbers scheduled for redundancy, we must meditate on the profoundly genocidal and evil premise of this equation.

In the piece The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials , we explain how it is the moribund thinking of the paradigm we are leaving, which is bearing its mark up the one we are entering. Corporate culture of Friedman’s doctrine, (externalizing costs, the bottom line) leads to genocide when human labor itself is no longer required.

Because there is a difference between using social technologies (Marxian, etc.) in the revolutionary process involving new technologies to eliminate the possibility of a rotation of elites on the one hand, and the broader problem of ‘solutions originating from within paradigm’, on the other. These are two different problems, and the WEF does not concern itself with the later, because they are of the paradigm of the 2^nd and 3^rd Industrial Revolutions, of employee downsizing, of the use of war and disease as methods of population control, of the destruction of free trade and market functions, of permanent austerity as a way to show a strange version of ‘economic growth’ on a ledger.

What is the Purpose of the WEF?

There are two real possibilities of a 4IR. The one pursued by the WEF/IMF is centralized and in the interests of the ancien regime, the massive corporations, is part of a mass depopulation campaign, (a population no longer required in light of automation) as well as a push to revolutionize methods of social control.

The other, coming through medium-to-larger businesses, is decentralized and establishes new lines of production and local distribution through 3D printing, which upend and relegate the members of the plutocracy to the dustbin of history.

This is why we see the push to destroy small and medium and larger enterprises, through the cutting off of supply-lines at the ports and restricted access to capital.

Photo: Mario Tama/AFP/Ritzau Scanpix

And so the next immediate aim of the plutocracy, is to eliminate medium enterprises before these can create decentralized 3D printing and usher in a 4IR which follows the model of upending the old power structure.

Combining Marxian ideas of historical materialism and technological determinism, with fascist-futurist ideas of technocracy and bureaucratic managerial scientism, the World Economic Forum pursues a path of ‘inclusivity’ for the shareholders (the managerial class elite). This increases their function in setting policy more than the present financialist stock-holders (the plutocracy) have so far required, given that the cycle of production and distribution formed the largest control mechanism on the activities of regular people as workers and consumers.

This managerial elite can guarantee that the hereditary practice of the aristocratic plutocracy is undisturbed by what would otherwise be a contest between decentralized vs. centralized production methods, a likely rotation of elites, and undesirable political outcomes.

Conclusion

Marxism and fascism-integrated poststructuralism and critical theory has greatly informed the scope of the designs of the WEF, both broadly but also in the micro-engineering of the manufactured pandemic and the social credit system arising from it, as we explained in “Deplorable Until Proven Compliant: Kafka, Social Credit, & Critical Theory”. In describing it as a ‘4^th Industrial Revolution’ an expectation is created and reinforced that, just as with the first through third, the same dynastic plutocratic families can remain in power.

In our piece “The Globalist Dilemma: How to Implement a 4th Industrial Revolution Without Losing Power”, we explained that historically, revolutions in the productive & technological forces led to great social turmoil as these new productive forces created new social classes based on those forces, with their own political project to reflect their newfound social power.

These came into conflict with the old order, and generally led to what Pareto describes as a rotation (circulation) of elites. Marx also informs these sociological points, and goes on to claim that through his science, society may for the first time be self-aware of the science of history development as a series of revolutions in the productive forces, and those in control of society may also control these processes as a sorcerer who has truly tamed the powers of the netherworld.

What members of the elite may well understand, which explains the inter-elite conflict underway, is that the same technologies used to reduce the population and enslave the remaining sum of humanity, are not based in a scientific or technological necessity. Instead, despite the use of techno-industrial and rationalistic language, stemming from scientific traditions of modernity, the real impulses and aims are ‘evil’. The fact that Mammon as a high-ranking entity in the pantheon of evil gods may now be rotated out for the first time in known history, what we have in place is a new system of a greater incarnation of evil from the netherworld, the adversary and accuser himself, signaling to religious communities a process described in Revelation.

These can and will be used until there is a maximum of only one human being left on the planet, as explained in ‘Have the Great Reset Technocrats Really Thought This Through? Evil: Between Depopulation & Neuralink’ , because there is no end to the appetite being summoned. Managing the transition of the plutocracy into a technocracy without hiccup is only part of the requirement for this bill of goods to be as advertised. The new technologies are being implemented with a new expressed evil, the logic of which will not be manageable, and creates a “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” disaster.

‘The Sorcerer’s Apprentice’, from Disney’s ‘Fantasia’, 1940

This fact must be better understood by further layers of the elite, that their own doom is also spelled out in this process despite being called the ‘stakeholders’ of Schwab’s 4IR ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’. In our next chapter we will focus on the ‘Fascism of Klaus Schwab’, looking at how business administration and management theory, in preparing for their hoped-for next-wave in social metamorphosis post Milton Friedman, re-constructed the essence of fascism.

The author can be reached at FindMeFlores@gmail.com

During the 76 session of the United Nations General Assembly on September 20, 2021, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres lunged into a dire warning saying:

“I am here to sound the alarm.  The world must wake up.  We are on the edge of an abyss—and moving in the wrong direction.  Our world has never been more threatened or more divided.  We face the greatest cascade of crises in our lifetimes… A surplus in some countries.  Empty shelves in others.  This is a moral indictment of the state of our world.”

While these words appear very truthful on the surface, sitting as we are upon a systemic meltdown of the world economy and potential collapse of population levels unseen since the days of the 14^th century dark age, it is worth asking: What are the primary causes for the collapse into an abyss which Guterres is so concerned about?

Is it neocolonialism managed by a financier oligarchy which has kept the majority of the global south poor, indebted, starved, divided and at war?

Is he concerned about the drive for full spectrum first strike nuclear hegemony by Anglo-American unipolarists?

Or is it the immanent collapse of the $1.2 quadrillion financial bubble masquerading as the western economy?

It is in fact none of those things.

In Guterres’ mind, the existential crises which demands a total overhaul of all human collective behavior, thinking and traditions is shaped by the boiling of the earth caused by man-made global warming (which has less to do with anthropogenic CO2 than you might image) and a pandemic which has a 99.8% survival rate.

What sort of solution does Guterres envision?

The Great Reset Magic Wand

In June 2020, just months after the World Economic Forum signed a strategic partnership to merge its functions with the United Nations, Guterres laid out his vision stating:

“The Great Reset is a welcome recognition that this human tragedy must be a wake-up call. We must build more equal, inclusive and sustainable economies and societies that are more resilient in the face of pandemics, climate change and the many other global changes we face.”

This was merely a rehashing of the words of World Economic Forum President Klaus Schwab who just days earlier said:

“The world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Upon reading this, one might interject “but isn’t it true that capitalism has proven itself too corrupt to salvage and that a new system is needed that is driven by moral values?

Certainly, worshipping money is as bad as Guterres and Schwab frequently attest and additionally a new system driven by moral values is needed to bring us out of the abyss… but is the system now imploding referred to by Klaus actually “capitalism” or has a slight of hand occurred?

It is my contention that the thing labelled “capitalism” outlined by Schwab in his Great Reset speech above was never capitalism at all.

Self-Cannibalism by Another Name

Capitalism requires the creation of capital to merit the name.

Under nationalist statesmen like John Quincy Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, William McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt and JFK in America (and many like minded figures internationally) the past 250 years has seen amazing leaps of progress under the form of capitalism. Large scale, government directed credit, protective tariffs and social programs merged the needs of the nation with the liberty of the individual and free enterprise.

On the other hand, the consumer society cult created during the 1970s was never about creating anything at all… but only consuming what previous generations had created and leaving nothing durable for the future but unpayable debt, never-ending wars, addiction to cheap labor and atrophied infrastructure.

The global transformation unleashed with the 1971 destruction of the gold reserve standard was always driven by an intention to replace national systems of economic planning with a new anti-nation state system driven by myopic speculation.

In this new liberalized system, being a good citizen meant only being a good consumer where the worship of short-term gains blinded corrupt fools to the reality that a hive of oligarchs were taking control of all media, science, academia, corporate governance and the civil service of governments across the Trans Atlantic. What they called “capitalism” was merely a looting operation that emerged over the dead bodies of patriots such as Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Enrico Mattei and many others.

The network which ran this systemic transformation within the USA was a powerful group called “the Trilateral Commission”.

Co-founded by Chase Manhattan bank president David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, the manifesto for this group was outlined by Brzezinski in his 1970 book ‘Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era’.

In this manifesto, Brezinski wrote:

“The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.”

The Bomb is Set

In order to get from one obsolete age of nationalism and the belief in scientific progress to a new age of post-nationalist world government, an intermediary period had to be created “in between two ages”. That intermediate age would call itself capitalism on the surface and America would be a Leviathan-like enforcer of this system of looting on a global stage.

During this time, supranational consortiums of international finance, corporate power and intelligence agencies beholden to no nation state would increasingly use the deregulation of the system under globalization to re-colonize western nations stripping them of all actual economic sovereignty and leaving them sovereign in name only.

The system that emerged under this new order was less capitalism and more an elaborate time bomb.

By virtue of its emphasis on the increased rates of fictitious capital accumulation, this new system of self-cannibalism would kill long term investments required to sustain society, and create a speculative bubble premised on ever increasing mountains of unpayable debt. This bomb would blow up like the early bubbles that had been set to pop in 1929 New York and even earlier in 1923 Germany with “scientifically managed” forms of fascist governance offered as solutions.

As the Trilateral Commission was taking control within the USA, a former student of Kissinger named Klaus Schwab was co-founding a new organization in Switzerland called the World Economic Forum (originally named the European Management Fund).

This new organization would serve in tandem to the Bilderberger Group established in 1956 by Dutch Prince (and World Wildlife Fund co-founder) Bernhardt and serve as an influential platform for the world’s elite to plan and coordinate a supranational game plan designed to nudge the world into a new utopia.

World Economic Forum co-founder (and later chairman) was a Canadian Rockefeller protégé named Maurice Strong who had leapt from mining executive to leading controller of Canada’s Liberal Party during the 1960s to become an international leader of the neo-Malthusian revival heading the United Nations’ first environmental conference in Stockholm in 1972. Described lovingly by Schwab as “my mentor”, it was at Davos that Maurice Strong began openly advocating world government and population control which became a loud theme throughout his life. It was in reference to the Davos group that Strong had mused in 1991:

”What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

One frequent WEF guest was another Trilateral Commission member who had first coined the term “Davos man” in 2004. His name was Samuel P. Huntington, and in 1975, he took part in a Trilateral Commission study called “Crisis in Democracy” where he wrote:

 “We have come to recognize that there are potential desirable limits to economic growth. There are also potentially desirable limits to the indefinite extension of democracy… a government which lack authority will have little ability to impose on its people the sacrifices that will be necessary”.

Here a theme is raised which is characteristic of all techno-feudal thought: The nation state’s only purpose is to serve as an appendage for a supranational elite in order to enforce: 1) limits to growth onto civilization, and 2) draconian sacrifices that no democratic people would willfully permit being imposed onto themselves or their children.

On the Verge of a New Age

Today, the new age which golden collar elites of the Davos clique have made their religious mission to bring online as part of an anti-Christian scientific paganism, has been called “the fourth industrial revolution”.

To recap: The period of chaos launched in 1971 with the floating of the dollar was never capitalism.

It was always just a temporary social Darwinist age of pillage and hedonism masquerading as capitalism which could do nothing but collapse by its very nature.

Over fifty years into this age of chaos, nation states of the trans Atlantic community have been systematically stripped down of anything which rendered them economically sovereign.

Yes, there are still certain confused sparks of life from republican forces in piecemeal form within parts of the USA, and Europe which still value freedom, but the sort of political or economic sovereignty once enjoyed during the times of Kennedy and de Gaulle are long gone. Privatizations, outsourcing of industry and atrophy of infrastructure has resulted in a transfer of power to the hands of an immensely wealthy oligarchical class.

The defenders of humanity today are found among the Multipolar Alliance led by Russia, China and a growing array of nations who want to have a future.

These are nations which are being led by statesmen who recognize the existential value of real economic growth, nationalism, long term planning, and scientific progress which are needed to bring humanity out of the fire sweeping across the world and into a future worth living in.

It is this emerging new paradigm which a frightened Guterres referred to when he said:

“I fear our world is creeping towards two different sets of economic, trade, financial, and technology rules, two divergent approaches in the development of artificial intelligence—and ultimately two different military and geo-political strategies.  This is a recipe for trouble.  It would be far less predictable and far more dangerous than the Cold War.”

In a future report we will dig more deeply into the question of “HOW did this oligarchical clique embed itself within the United States during the Cold War and induce an emerging baby boomer generation to democratically de-construct Judeo Christian civilization?”

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

The world and its affairs have been turned upside down, and overnight the elite’s game plan was laid out bare for the world to see: the use of new coercive technologies, AI, automation, and transhumanism.

The public has experienced the roll-out of the new normal regime through a series of sudden changes such as lockdowns and requirements for new kinds of current medical documentation in order to preserve the right of travel and work.

With the ‘new normal’, the ‘great reset’, or ‘building back better’, are we fair in asking if this is their last, best, and final? It is certainly strange that Klaus Schwab, a man who presents so poorly and provokes such suspicion among the audience, would have been rolled out as best spokesman for this endeavor.

When smart cities entered the popular debate, it was clear that technical colleges and universities were being actively propagandized by vectors representing this agenda. These can be understood as a type of large-scale housing project for a post-labor economy that uses control over access to electrical power and proximity to delivery drones as its model.

Smart vehicles and drones are said to expedite delivery

The outlines of a new social contract such as Klaus Schwab’s; that an academic may have penned such a thing or that society might be discussing it, is normal and even important. But that his ideas are being rolled out as the new reality we must accept, is most surely an affront to civil society and human dignity. It is an attack on pluralism and constitutional systems around the world.

Yet a part of this agenda involves what is arguably the end of humanity as we have known it, perhaps the end of mankind itself if defined a certain way. We are naturally being assured that this is yet the beginning of a new kind of man.

All of this has the frightening look and feel of a ruling class that has just jumped from one way of doing things over to some grand new singular idea.

The particular publicly promoted culture of the elite, of the ruling class, necessarily bears the marks of social ‘good’ and social ‘permissibility’, because this whole public display is for popular consumption and has been selected just for that reason. As we have developed in past works, they merely use this discursive framework because it disarms the public. In developing on describing the aspirations and modus operandi of technocracy in rising, Alastair Crooke explains in Is the Era Finally Coming to an End?

“We are dealing here with the ideology of an aspirant ruling class that aims to hoard wealth and position, whilst flaunting its immaculate progressive and globalist credentials. Intractable culture wars, and an epistemic crisis, in which key factual and scientific questions have been politicised, is essentially nothing more than a bid to retain power, by those who stand at the apex of this ‘Creative Class’ – a tight circle of hugely wealthy oligarchs.

Even so, schools are pressured to teach a single version of history, private corporations sack employees for deviant opinions, and cultural institutions act as guardians of orthodoxy. The prototype for these practices is the U.S., which still proclaims its singular history and divisions as the source of emulation for every contemporary society.”

For much of the 20^th century the institutions implored us to believe that socially directed labor does not fundamentally produce the origin of value, only later to find that at the end of that era only this truth could explain the crisis that AI and automation bring.

Because Robots do not Eat or Own Things

So much of the economy is simply people washing each other’s clothes. The rise of automation and AI makes some great number of humanity, greater than some 9/10th’s of the population, entirely redundant in terms of labor force.

Therefore, the intentional slow-down of business not only accomplishes the obvious upwards redistribution of wealth and further consolidating corporate monopoly “capitalism”, but in the long-term establishes new efficiency matrixes regarding the actual optimal human population size at this particular time.

And yet we have a very serious problem. New coercive technologies have been developed, while other liberatory technologies have been suppressed, to control the great mass of humanity. Yet there’s much more, it is that a whole new period can be ushered in, within which population reduction is a goal. In relation to this is the birth of a new type of man, who is beyond man and also no longer man.

In Klaus Schwab’s book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016), it is clear that transhumanism is a project which aims to integrate cybernetic technologies and nano-tech to transform human beings at the level of DNA (ch. 2.1.3 Biological, Megatrends, The Fourth Industrial Revolution).

Schwab implores us in this section of the book to set-aside the admittedly grave and serious ethical questions these raise, and proceeds to the assertion that these hold the potential to solve the present economic and ecological problems decisively and positively.

If we take these at face value, perhaps the proposals such as smart cities can seem attractive as solutions. But there is high danger in this naiveté.

Because Schwab writes his text in the language of European center-left social-democracy, which is the legitimating ideology in the Trans-Atlantic sphere, the real and truly unspeakable conclusions which one would necessarily have to infer from the text, are left unsaid.

Yet we have large sectors of the staff and employees of the so-called humanitarian spheres, including health and education NGO’s, and the university systems, believing that the proposed changes are humanitarian. Schwab makes explicit overtures to this theme throughout the text.

We must understand to the contrary that the use of nano-tech, cybernetics, and other transhumanist technologies which are proposed to be integrated into the human organism are not what they seem. We are approached with the idea that these only enhance and do not direct thinking, and that these merely work to assist in the body’s functions, longevity, cognitive capacity and so forth.

But this would be true only for the elite themselves along with some other layer. For the rest of humanity, the use of oncoviruses through mandatory inoculation, as well as other forms of biological warfare as a class-war weapon could be the norm.

Whatever future population will remain after depopulation efforts, the resources at the disposal for this remaining population per capita will be less than presently enjoyed by those of the middle-class populations in 1st world countries. This seems counterintuitive, if one believes there is some aim of improving the living conditions for the population that remains. But here we confront smart cities.

As we have discussed previously, this involves using Tokyo as an example in terms of living spaces – 150 square foot apartments with low ceiling heights. There are even greater dangers to the development of so-called smart cities which like panopticons are large prison networks.

The development of these kinds of arrangements works against decentralized living models as well. They rely upon the same supply line frailties which in turn will justify the further development of the police state, using cyberterrorism as a pretext.

In addition, all energy consumed will be tracked in the apartment with ‘smart appliances’ that will send the data back to monitoring and enforcement agencies. The aim of smart cities is to create the hydraulic despotism as discussed in our past discussion of oriental despotism.

The Single-Minded Crisis

It all does seem like a new idea, indeed, has been decided upon and rolled out. Not an invitation for a conversation, not a proposal that we get a referendum on. Just rolled out over the heads of the public.

The disastrous result we have encountered through the formalization of anti-democratic technocratic institutions which want to rule indefinitely, is the erroneous belief that the technocratic elite today – who have ruled over the past century – are equipped to effect a social transformation that accounts for the new technologies. What the World Economic Forum publishes makes us aware that the elite are aware that their system is producing “undesired” inequities. Despite this, they are apparently aware of the limitations imposed on them by their position in relation to everything else.

The efforts and plans of the WEF assume and rely upon the existence of an interlocking directorate at the top level of Western society. Conversely, its vision is necessarily limited and its aims are directed in large part by the imposition of this directorate on a common vision. From this common vision, we begin to produce single-mindedness.

So they created semi-meritocratic educational institutions, recruiting and scouting fresh minds for the great new idea, so that the problem of single-mindedness can be overcome.

The Platonic-gnostic film ‘Dark City’ explains why these are attempts will fail. In this film, a dying alien race of strangers rules over abducted people on a small city-sized flat-earth island in deep-space, where the people believe they are living back on earth. This race is dying because they have a single consciousness and thought, and they are studying humans – for their diversity – to find the single-mind to emulate for the coming period.

What this race of strangers does is akin to what the elites today attempt to do with their think tanks and gestures towards meritocracy. The strangers are trying to distill from the collectivity of humanity the single new idea that will give them new life.

But the strangers are engaged in self-defeat, the solution they envision is at the root of their problem. A single consciousness cannot be used to replace the old consciousness of a single-minded entity if the problem is a single-consciousness problem. What makes humanity are the multiplicity of divergent consciousness and the differences through the diversity of their experiences.

The ruling class in the west presents itself like these strangers, having awareness of the crisis of their own making, but with a limited understanding of solutions to those things it can understand.

Concluding Thoughts

We can see that changes in the productive forces such as any sort of 4th Industrial Revolution must also come with vigorous public debate and referendums on planning for a post labor economy.

For humanity, a 4th Industrial Revolution is one that could promise to decentralize power because it decentralizes the entire cycle of commodity production and distribution. Therefore, we have the possibility of a new kind of elite, whose power is based upon more horizontally situated power vectors, flattened as a product of their localized domain of power. But the elites today are working against this idea of a 4IR.

We understand already that the elites have proposed smart cities and the use of these kinds of ‘hydraulic’ despotisms, as concentrations of power and society. They will control the power source and can control citizens’ access to amenities and rental objects to their smart apartment, based on social credit. Such a proposal is misanthropic and tyrannical in its essence, but is also the best that a single-minded consciousness can arrive at.

These kinds of smart cities will have a total size, that correspond to a total human population, a lower number to be sure – but what exactly to be determined by technocratic solutions that represent the sensibilities of the ruling class at the time.

Because there are any number of viable alternatives, all of which appear better than the best offer being made by the elites, the civilizational crisis in the west right now is a political crisis and one characterized by irreconcilable differences.

There are two men named Klaus Schwab, no doubt.

One man named Klaus Schwab is seen by the true-believers, fachidiots, the liberal intelligentsia, the institutionally refined population, as a man who deeply cares about humanity. It seems they believe his warnings to be earnest even if uncannily and strikingly prescient. The World Economic Forum after all, must have been established out of great concern for humanity since it is propped up chiefly by the most humane institution in human history, the International Monetary Fund. This Klaus Schwab is a humanist.

So perhaps this is precisely the case for the true-believers; those who accept at face value the new Schwabian ‘distinction’ we are asked to appreciate between a shareholder capitalism and a capitalism 2.0, a stakeholder capitalism.

Then there is a second man named Klaus Schwab, who is seen by the rest of the world and the thinking people within it, for the monster that he is. A grimacing Klaus Schwab who appears on smartphone and tablet screens to warn of impending doom, no going back to normal, new pandemics which will strike very soon, and a wave of cyber-attacks. This Klaus Schwab is a terrorist at large, a character who like Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates appear like a central casting dispatch of Bond villains.

For people who haven’t traded in basic social intelligence for social credit realize that if the person who is issuing warnings of catastrophes is best friends with the very same people who will go on to create those catastrophes, those aren’t warnings. Just like for Fauci who said in 2017 that a massive pandemic would strike within Trump’s term. Those are not warnings, they are threats. Schwab is the one delivering the threats; Schwab is the terrorist.

Why is it so hard to understand that the WEF only does what’s in the interest of the IMF?

How are we to understand shareholder capitalism from stakeholder capitalism?

The idea of ‘socially responsible’ capitalism isn’t a new one. It represented the centrist wing of fascism some 90 years ago; it is to wit the embodiment of the last century’s corporatist and technocratic ideal until about the 1970’s with the introduction of Friedmanism. In that sense, we can say that the U.S. and EU existed on two separate trajectories, with more of the underpinnings of the EU based in the idea of social responsibility in the board room.

In our past work in the section on corporate ideology and the state in The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials , we discussed the bifurcation of the corporatist idea of social good, a type of stakeholder capitalism that existed alongside progressivist ideas. These were trumpeted as reasons that socialism was not necessary, since what was good for corporations was also good for society because these industrialists needed strong communities to create stable conditions, well paid workers to buy the products they produced. This was the era of capitalism before globalization. We also had believers in this ideal, like Henry Ford.

Then came a new idea, increasingly prominent in the American discourse into the 1980’s – where only the bottom line mattered. We can say that the Friedman period that had crept into culture in the 70’s had finally hit mainstream.

But ultimately, the old idea of social capitalism has come back in a new incarnation, a new branding, from the WEF – stakeholder capitalism and capitalism 2.0.

A critical difference that cannot be underscored enough, however, is that there is no long-term plan for the ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) of stakeholder capitalism. They simply use the term ‘capitalism’ to maintain social and ideological continuity from the present incarnation of monopoly capitalism. But the aim is to manage a strictly post-capitalist society. This is however not the one envisaged by the left, but rather one which develops new coercive and depopulating technologies along a misanthropic path towards the transition of the plutocracy into a technocracy.

Its true believers who assume that people are good when they say good things and make good promises, and entirely ignores centuries of peoples’ history or any insights into political and social theory: as Lord Acton, the British historian said: “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is a reason we are seeing a resurgence of this old type of corporate ideal. As sovereign governments and democracies cease to exist, then the Friedmanian concept of externalizing costs which is unshakably a part of the present paradigm, can no longer be the official ideology of the ruling class.

In truth, they must maintain this cost-externalizing view, which is the foundation of and explanation for their misanthropic scheme. Paradigms are not shaken this way, they tend to crash and burn along with their adherents. This gives rise to what Pareto has called the rotation of elites. So, we can see that the present ruling class does not really embrace any change of tact. Rather, they see it as a new demagoguery.

And so we superficially see ‘stakeholder society’ embraced by a new ruling technocracy especially in light of automation and the fact that most of the human population will be a surplus and redundant one. Naturally, a shareholder society must give way to talking points about a stakeholder society.

And so we are asked to imagine that there is a revolutionary difference between the ‘old’ Friedmanian concept of the shareholder run society, is the new stakeholder run society. This happy talk began a few decades ago, when we were asked to embrace a ‘Capitalism 2.0’, capitalism with a friendly face, and so on. That has been the official ideology of social democracy in the post-war era, and for these reasons we see the European moderate left (what in the U.S. would be misframed as ‘far left’) can get behind the Great Reset agenda provided they ignore the actual needs or labor, whether organized or not.

The Great Hypocrisy of the Great Reset

The two men named Klaus Schwab are both voices in his reader. Any apparent focus on humanity, inclusion, improving living conditions, controlling the power of corporations in Schwab’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’, is cant lip-service to curry to the liberal-idealist segment of the institutionally refined population.

The WEF hosts forums on ‘Combatting Global Poverty’, and publishes reports like ‘Poverty: the past, present and future’.  As the primary think-tank of the IMF, it should come as no surprise that the actual aims of the WEF are to provide progressive cover for the upwards redistribution of capital to the same lending institutions which they serve, while disguising this through the reversal and bifurcation of the language in the Orwellian sense of ‘doublespeak’.  And it has been the concentration of capital along upwards distribution vertices – real capital flight – that is chiefly responsible for global poverty.

The World Economic Forum presents an upside-down world, one where their policy briefs and white papers voicing concerns about poverty are working in harmony with the IMF’s upwards distribution schemes. Reduction of the local power of sovereign states are framed as ‘anti-corruption’ and ‘transparency’. The austere reduction in access to health and human services in developing countries are viewed positively as economic growth indicators, despite the high causal direct relationship between austerity (via structural adjustment) and poverty.

They present the developing world’s compliance with global governance, i.e. stability, as directly related to poverty eradication – when in reality these two vectors are inversely related.

To wit, the more that countries comply with structural adjustment schemes, the more difficult it actually is to overcome poverty. The IMF had until now oriented its work towards geopolitical and geoeconomic monopolarity, with its own Trans-Atlantic hub as the loci of power.

Now it appears that the IMF and its Trans-Atlantic hub have given up on their aim of re-establishing their monopolar moment of the 1990’s.

It is true that many countries have made strides in overcoming poverty – this has been accomplished by struggling against the IMF, and creating alternatives to the IMF like BRICS. This is not to say that the countries behind BRICS are well intended, but that intentions here have little to do with the net benefit to borrowing countries introduced by the mere fact of a competing interest.

Klaus Schwab’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ is written in an identical fashion: lamentations over economic crisis faced by populations are better read as exaltations. Descriptions of a dangerous process of dystopia formation in that book, openly referring to ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, ought to be read as actual ‘solution’ traps in the works.

Mock Execution of Handmaids from the Dystopic drama series, ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ – referred to in Schwab’s ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’

In Klaus Schwab’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’, any potential ‘abuses’, ‘crimes’, and ‘dystopic futures’ arising from the social policies of the Great Reset, are contemplated or at least mentioned. In The Macro Reset chapter, section 1.6.3, subtitled ‘The Risk of Dystopia’, (pg. 167) for example, nightmarish visions like television’s ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’, ‘Black Mirror’, and the critiques of data mining and surveillance in ‘Surveillance Capitalism’, by Shoshana Zuboff, are discussed.

These dystopias are acknowledged as analogous to real and potential outcomes of the legislation and corporate policies that populations will suffer and endure at the hands of corporate and government policy as a result of the Great Reset.

On full display here in microcosmic form, is the entire ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) of the technocracy and, for some decades, neo-liberalism itself – through the parties of the 2^nd International, through the NGOs of Soros and U.S.-AID and the NED, etc., ad infinitum.

Two Men Named Klaus Schwab

Schwab must be understood as a sort of Dr. Mengele of organizational psychology, and also ideologue for a new system which uses trauma – terrorist acts and terrorist threats – to introduce a new acceptance of reality in a horrific parallel to Max von Sydow’s character Dr. Naehring in Shutter Island.

Trauma is the point of entry, and prior crimes which have been made against humanity can be warped through this trauma into being crimes that humanity has made itself, and must now pay for and very dearly. The crimes of the ruling class against people are changed into crimes that the people have made and that the ruling class – the stakeholders (governments, NGO’s, institutions) must now correct. And the corrective measures will be punitive and disciplinary in nature.

Because the progressive ideology (modernity’s ISA) recognizes its present defects, it attempts to divide itself from the actual system it supports. It can be both the legitimating ideology of a system, and the primary critic of that system towards an improved future system. It legitimizes itself today based on things it promises can be fixed in the future.

Max von Sydow’s character ‘Dr. Naehring’ from the 2010 psychological thriller, Shutter Island

The WEF does not really need to listen to and hear the population’s actual problems, it can rely on an academy filled with professional critics which the system’s own academies produced, which use a concoction of ideology and speculation to synthesize something resembling a recognition of the population’s problems. This created the illusion that the system was pluralist, when it was practicing a high form of demagogic social psychology and sociology.

The technocracy of the modern plutocracy, as it transitions to a new kind of oligarchy, is similar to fascism in that it takes many of the tropes and discursive framings of anti-capitalism and social justice but in a way that punches downwards as fascism-in-power did, and weaponizes them in the interests of the decidedly anti-social and unjust technocratic leviathan.

The technocracy is different from fascism in that it uses the actual left, and clearly not the populist right. This is evidenced in Trumpism in the U.S. or Le Pen in France, whose base opposes the lockdowns, mask and vaccine mandates, business closures, and prison-like quarantines of the Covid-19 Great Reset. Here, the rising technocratic dystopia may even appear to carry forward the legacy of social-democracy, though perversely, and therefore the utilization of Green parties and social-democratic parties in Europe to implement these is both predicted and rational.

Worse still, center-right parties are also part of this scheme, and when they also move in lockstep with the Great Reset agenda, they can even receive positive press from the center-left (cultural left) establishment media which defines most of European and Western media at present.

And yet again, these are all political parties that, with the rise of neo-liberalism and globalization, in the aftermath of the destruction of the USSR, have for three decades (or more) taken up the mantle of corporate-public synergy – in the actual tradition of various fascisms, while not acknowledging so.

To refine this point with clarity: fascism and social democracy share a nearly identical conception of political economy (corporate-public synergy). If fascism is social democracy without pluralism nor a liberal conception of human rights – or rather – if social democracy is fascism but with pluralism and a liberal conception of human rights – then the technocracy founds itself on that shared political economy of fascism and social democracy as a starting point, merely paying lip service to pluralism and liberal conceptions of human rights while in fact using a fascist method of undemocratic and anti-pluralist governance. That is why we have two men named Klaus Schwab.

A July 15th 2021 Newsweek clipping shows that the movement against the 2030 Agenda is framed as ‘right-wing’.

Adding to this, the social media corporate technocrats who are committed to the Great Reset, use the imaginary threat of ‘the far right’, and now ‘vaccine hesitancy’, to pursue a censorship policy indistinguishable from totalitarianism (of either far left or far right).

In viewing the cynical perversion which is Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset text, his criticism of the very system he is developing within the very same book which touts its merits and inevitability, is so as to absorb, bureaucratize, professionalize, manage, subsume, and overtake actual criticisms of the emerging dystopia, as a form of ‘self-criticism’. The end-notes are filled with references to articles by authors and thinkers who are opposed to the rising technocracy, which the World Economy Forum exists solely in service of.

This gas-lighting ‘self-criticism’ is a method of control by the system over potential criticisms of the system. It is a contrived criticism, managed by the system and in service of the system, as it marches forward with those very same features being criticized, nonetheless.

Because regular people no longer possess political power in systems where corporate rule has replaced constitutional republics, the devastating costs will be pushed downwards.

For these reasons we can see that there are two men named Klaus Schwab.