A funny thing happens when corporate culture becomes indistinguishable from government culture. Corporatized governments promote and grant authority to those ‘ambitious’ individuals who can best over-sell and over-promise results. Think of unimpressive appointees like Trudeau, Ardern, Johnson, and Morrison.

At first glance it doesn’t really matter that these aims are unattainable. But it does matter, because from it we can crystalize this axiom: the more impossible the dream, the more it promotes the likes Ardern, et al.

As each one percent increase in unemployment sustained over a year creates some thirty-six thousand ‘deaths of despair’, a widely known and published fact, the shutting down of economies several years ago was going to cause millions of such deaths as initial unemployment rates in the U.S. alone spiked to nearly 15% according to Pew Research.

Ambitious leaders in league with the IMF/WEF were onboard with this, knowing full well the consequences. It was the pushback from popular ‘populist’ forces that prevented this early on, and in the U.S. a strong case can be made that the White House itself was on the side of these populist forces at the time, as it called for an opening of the U.S. economy and fought openly with governors from blue states.

But the eager-to-please misleaders in service of the IMF, for their part, would never approach any success without an entire cultural substrate. Narratives are a type of soft power, and like all forms of power, narratives can only go so far. We are now witnessing now just how far they can go.

Narratives are just ‘stories in our heads’. But if these are shared with broader communities, real or virtual/digital, then they are reinforced and become part of reality.

The WEF and the IMF it works for have a grand plan for the future – the technocratic aims of which are by now thoroughly understood. The WEF begins with these aims as a foregone conclusion, and so the only questions they wanted answered were ‘Who will carry it out?’, and ‘How will it be done?’

Whether or not it can be done (let alone, ‘should be done’) is not a question they are interested in. It’s a non-starter, because these things simply have to be done.

But this is a positive sign, is it not? The corporate culture of over-selling and over-promising investors and shareholders works in the public’s interest insofar as these catastrophically dystopian aims are far less stable or realizable than advertised.

In other words, the public has been resisting illegal legislation and shattering the narrative which justifies it, and so resetism itself is in danger of failure.

This much has meant the organic development of a counter-narrative, one that resonates with increasing layers in affected societies. Big tech oligarchs have done their part in trying to police, punish, and silence this counter-narrative.

Elites have fallen into a vicious cycle, as the populist counter-narrative is proven in part by that very censorship and repression. The more they push, the weaker they become.

Yet that point is so very well understood by Sorosian Color Revolutionary social engineers, planners, organizers, that one might raise some greater suspicion. It is indeed an axiom of Gene Sharp books like From Democracy to Dictatorship – A Conceptual Framework for Liberation (2012)and one of the most important points to make in popular organizing against ‘regimes’.

Each time the ‘regime’ attempts to make some ‘show of strength’, the counter-narrative prevails as mass publics understand that ‘shows of strength’ are derived from crises of strength and actual weakness.

Freedom, like love, come from places of strength. Dictatorship, like fear, come from a place of losing control. And power is like water, the more you grasp at it, the faster you lose it.

The absolute panic is palpable.

The Majority of People Trust Their Elites Less

One thing the WEF does by positioning itself as some independent watch-dog critic of a rapacious globalist oligarchy, when in fact it is employed by them, is demonstrate that they are ‘tuned in’ to how mass publics think and feel.

This is meant to subvert ‘tired’, ‘dated’, and ‘slow-to-change’ constitutional institutions.

Technocrats mean to show that by simple analysis of internet user data – their hopes, dreams, proclivities, political views and biases – they can arrive at top-down solutions which somehow reflect the user data.

They can then use state-of-emergency laws to enact these solutions into law, or into practice. So much of actual life takes place in the private sphere, that simple collusion and agreement between corporate chiefs on police is already enough to take the place of government and law. Elections are a cumbersome thing of the past, and – they reason – can be done away with.

As a managerial class, here they show the ruling class that because they so very well understand the ‘people’, they are capable of using an entire array of social sciences to achieve the desired result which they have over-promised and over-sold.

At the November 11^th 2021 WEF forum in Dubai, “The Great Narrative Meeting”, held in collaboration between the UAE government and World Economic Forum, which aligned with the announcement of the new book by Schwab and Malleret, The Great Narrative, (published December 28^th 2021), it was disclosed by panelist Ngaire Woods, Professor of Global Economic Governance at Oxford University, that global elites are now more trusting of each other than ever before, but that the people they rule over – nation by nation respectively – are far less trusting of their own rulers

Woods went on to say that one obstacle to governments’ Covid restrictions and climate measures in the coming years was that “the majority of people trust their elites less.”

Ngaire Woods, Professor of Global Economic Governance at Oxford University

“At Davos a few years ago [surveys] showed us that the good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more,” … “So we can come together and design and do beautiful things together.

“The bad news is that in every single country they were polling, the majority of people trusted their elite less. So we can lead but if people aren’t following we aren’t going to get to where we want to go.”

The WEF’s new release, The Great Narrative, with its fixation on fake news, is as much an admission of guilt as it is recognition of failure.

The sheer speed, magnitude and scope of the weaponization of Covid-19 to prop up a police-state in Western democracies was a demoralizing psychological operation, an act of political warfare not of nation against nation, but of elites against mass populaces.

This was an information warfare blitzkrieg. But without a decisive vernichtungsschlacht (battle of annihilation), they only left their own line of assault riddled with holes and supply-line issues. Nothing can hide a genuine lack of real preparedness as such displays of confidence. Of course, both their ability to succeed and their operating narrative seemed plausible enough when they launched their attack.

Now, these holes and supply-line issues are termed ‘Fake News’, and this frames the primary focus of The Great Narrative and is the real root of all issues admittedly discussed in the introduction (pg 12-19).

The rest of the thinking world understands instantly what this means: the WEF is calling for further censorship and repression of any alternative narratives.

And yet the hurried pace of the Covid-19 introduced Great Reset, and the way that a sizable portion of the populace has been able to expose it, reject it, and organize with some successes against it, also raises questions.

Was the Great Reset hurried?

What events forced the elites to make this happen now, instead of later?

What conditions would have been riper, and why were those conditions not fostered in advance?

As we have developed this so far in our work on the subject, it indeed appears that the Great Reset was launched with an insufficient foundation for reasons which expose the weakness of the plan. This seems to leave sizable room for the possibility that a notable split within the plutocracy now exists. This can be understood in terms of looking at the future possible outcomes in terms of the balance of class dynamics: billionaires are themselves stratified.

This stratification and conflict among elites is critical to understanding the present balance of forces.

Regardless of political orientation, the predominant error made among citizen-activists pushing back against Resetism is to resort to a default vulgar leftism in their interpretation of the motivations of the elite.

The error here is to project class solidarity onto the owning class. This error is easy to make for a number of reasons, and mostly because indeed the owning class does get behind many if not most of the upwards redistribution schemes which they all benefit from. But these moves tend to conceal or distort the real division which exist among them.

There are signs that their gambit is faltering and those developments were forecasted in our previous work on the subject The Globalist Dilemma: How to Implement a 4th Industrial Revolution Without Losing Power.

Chiefly, their plans were overly publicized, for reasons likely unavoidable given the number of governments, NGOs and organizations required to execute it. Despite their use of euphemisms and the language of human rights and economic development, those parts of the concerned public including lower-order elites, all could see what was really afoot.

In short, the public’s tolerance was misapprehended and through this, the public’s ability to wage a counter-offensive was possibly underestimated. Or conversely – and this also fits the bill –the position of the public to act in the public interest was accurately understood, but the plan had to go forward anyhow.

Either miscalculation would not in and of itself spell demise for the orchestrated Reset agenda.

The rate, volume, and type of upwards capital redistribution is a strong indicator of where the Great Reset agenda stands. But these move in a complex, non-linear fashion. And furthermore, what we can compare the changes to in a concrete sense, are changes over a preceding similar period of time. By that matrix alone, we can say there has been some ‘success’ in the Great Reset scheme.

But comparing this to what was really aimed for, what could have been if executed as it appears they had designed, presents another picture entirely.

A Great Reset in Crisis – A failure to Manufacture Consent

The Non Profit Industrial Complex was not deployed to soft-sell the Great Reset prior to its announcement. Instead, it came all at once, out of nowhere. And for those reasons, it was clumsily attached to their work-to-date (on climate change and poverty reduction).

Suddenly it seemed like a decade or so of propaganda was missing to connect these dots, between climate change, poverty on the one hand, and neuro-implanting and track and tracing the populace, on the other. That’s because there was a decade missing.

A gradual process of building support for the Great Reset, through manufacturing consent, (through building up these ideas through academia and the press, in popular culture and in media), could have been carried out.

The fact that it was not presents us with a contradictory set of postulates. The direct and brutal ‘honesty’ of the reset, in which the medium is the message (“do it because we say!”) makes it easier to combat. At the same time, it raises serious questions as to its timing and its method.

All together then, the release of The Great Narrative is all the more fascinating. This acts much like a sequel to Covid-19: The Great Reset, which itself served the role of narrative instruction. Intended as much for university students as for public relations agencies and politicians, in reading it one discovers all the errors and narrative points which failed to be useful, be related to actual events, and so on.

There is such a discrepancy between the narrative and predicted events in The Great Reset, and what has actually occurred, that we can understand all the better what The Great Narrative had to be written and released so hastily.

It will be an important research task therefore to compare the differences between these two texts.

Ever since the conclusion WWII, western elites have opted for a course of historical development on the foundation of ‘gradual reforms and change’. This, as opposed to the radicalism and rapid changes saw in the first fifty years of the 20^th century.

Many of the changes to the geopolitics of the world and Europe envisioned by the architects of the Third Reich are being implemented today by western elites, but these changes are delivered incrementally and slowly over a period of seven decades instead of seven years.

Through this, concerns can be addressed and cohesion in and among elites can be built. The rapid pace of changes seen in the first half of the 20^th century raised concerns, and caused divisions between western elites, and provoked a ‘histamine’ reaction from the populations in question.

When populations use social media to openly discuss the holes in the mainstream narrative, their comments and posts are called ‘fake news’. Fact checkers say so, even though a recent lawsuit against Facebook revealed through FBs rejoinder that Zuckerberg considers the views of the fact checkers to be merely opinions. “Facebook Quietly Admits Its Third-Party ‘Fact-Checks’ Are ‘Opinions’”

The need to openly talk about ‘narratives’ and combatting fake news as the WEF does, is itself a sign of the times and a sign of their own weakness. The Resestist narrative is crumbling, and lacking popular support they resort to an unstable repression.

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.

“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

Klaus Schwab, the architect of the World Economic Forum (f. 1971), a leading, if not the leading, influencer and funder for what will set the course for world economic policy outside of government, has been the cause of much concern and suspicion since his announcement of “The Great Reset” agenda at the 50^th annual meeting of the WEF in June 2020.

The Great Reset initiative is a somewhat vague call for the need for global stakeholders to coordinate a simultaneous “management” of the effects of COVID-19 on the global economy, which they have eerily named as “pandenomics.” This, we are told will be the new normal, the new reality that we will have to adjust ourselves to for the foreseeable future.

It should be known that at nearly its inception, the World Economic Forum had aligned itself with the Club of Rome, a think tank with an elite membership, founded in 1968, to address the problems of mankind. It was concluded by the Club of Rome in their extremely influential “Limits to Growth,” published in 1972, that such problems could not be solved on their own terms and that all were interrelated. In 1991, Club of Rome co-founder Sir Alexander King stated in the “The First Global Revolution” (an assessment of the first 30 years of the Club of Rome) that:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.” [emphasis added]

It is no surprise that with such a conclusion, part of the solution prescribed was the need for population control.

However, what forms of population control was Klaus Schwab in particular thinking of?

In the late 1960s, Schwab attended Harvard and among his teachers was Sir Henry Kissinger, whom he has described as among the top figures who have most influenced his thinking over the course of his life.

[Henry Kissinger and his former pupil, Klaus Schwab, welcome former- UK PM Ted Heath at the 1980 WEF annual meeting. Source: World Economic Forum]

To get a better idea of the kinds of influences Sir Henry Kissinger had on young Klaus Schwab, we should take a look at Kissinger’s infamous NSSM-200 report: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests, otherwise known as “The Kissinger Report,” published in 1974. This report, declassified in 1989, was instrumental in transforming US foreign policy from pro-development/pro-industry to the promotion of under-development through totalitarian methods in support of population control. Kissinger states in the report:

“… if future numbers are to be kept within reasonable bounds, it is urgent that measures to reduce fertility be started and made effective in the 1970s and 1980s …[Financial] assistance will be given to other countries, considering such factors as population growth … Food and agricultural assistance is vital for any population sensitive development strategy … Allocation of scarce resources should take account of what steps a country is taking in population control … There is an alternative view that mandatory programs may be needed ..” [emphasis added]

For Kissinger, the US foreign policy orientation was mistaken on its emphasis of ending hunger by providing the means of industrial and scientific development to poor nations, according to Kissinger, such an initiative would only lead to further global disequilibrium as the new middle classes would consume more, and waste strategic resources.

In Thomas Malthus’ “Essay on the Principle of Population” (1799), he wrote:

“We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” [emphasis added]

As a staunch Malthusian, Kissinger believed that “nature” had provided the means to cull the herd, and by using economic policies that utilised the courting of the plague, famine and so forth, they were simply enforcing a natural hierarchy which was required for global stability.

In addition to this extremely worrisome ideology that is only a stone’s throw away from eugenics, there has also been a great deal of disturbance over the 2016 World Economic Forum video that goes through their 8 “predictions” for how the world will change by 2030, with the slogan “You’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”

It is this slogan in particular that has probably caused the most panic amongst the average person questioning what the outcome of the Great Reset will truly look like. It has also caused much confusion as to who or what is at the root in shaping this very eerie, Orwellian prediction of the future?

Many have come to think that this root is the Communist Party of China. However, whatever your thoughts may be on the Chinese government and the intentions of President Xi, the roots of the Great Reset agenda can very clearly be traced back to 80 years ago, when an American, former Trotskyist who later joined the OSS, followed by the CIA, and went on to become the founding father of neo-conservatism, James Burnham, wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.”

In fact, it was the ideologies of Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution” that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.

The Strange Case and Many Faces of James Burnham

“[James Burnham is] the real intellectual founder of the neoconservative movement and the original proselytizer, in America, of the theory of ‘totalitarianism.’”

– Christopher Hitchens, “For the Sake of Argument: Essay and Minority Reports”

It is understandably the source of some confusion as to how a former high level Trotskyist became the founder of the neo-conservative movement; with the Trotskyists calling him a traitor to his kind, and the neo-conservatives describing it as an almost road to Damascus conversion in ideology.

However, the truth of the matter is that it is neither.

That is, James Burnham never changed his beliefs and convictions at any point during his journey through Trotskyism, OSS/CIA intelligence to neo-conservatism, although he may have back-stabbed many along the way, and this two-part series will go through why this is the case.

James Burnham was born in 1905 in Chicago, Illinois, raised as a Roman Catholic, later rejecting Catholicism while studying at Princeton and professing atheism for the rest of his life until shortly before his death whereby he reportedly returned to the church. (1) He would graduate from Princeton followed by the Balliol College, Oxford University and in 1929 would become a professor in philosophy at the New York University.

It was during this period that Burnham met Sidney Hook, who was also a professor in philosophy at the New York University, and who professed to have converted Burnham to Marxism in his autobiography. In 1933, along with Sidney Hook, Burnham helped to organize the socialist organization, the American Workers Party (AWP).

It would not be long before Burnham found Trotsky’s use of “dialectical materialism” to explain the interplay between the human and the historical forces in his “History of the Russian Revolution” to be brilliant. As founder of the Red Army, Trotsky had dedicated his life to the spread of a worldwide Communist revolution, to which Stalin opposed in the form of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” ideology. In this ideology, Trotskyists were tactically trained to be militant experts at infighting, infiltration and disruption.

Among these tactics was “entryism,” in which an organisation encourages its members to join another, often larger organization, in an attempt to take over said organization or convert a large portion of its membership with its own ideology and directive.

The most well-known example of this technique was named the French Turn, when French Trotskyists in 1934 infiltrated the Section Francaise de l’International Ouvriere (SFIO, French Socialist Party) with the intention of winning over the more militant elements to their side.

That same year, Trotskyists in the Communist League of America (CLA) did a French turn on the American Workers Party, in a move that elevated the AWP’s James Burnham into the role of a Trotsky lieutenant and chief adviser.

Burnham would continue the tactics of infiltrating and subverting other leftist parties and in 1935 attempted to do a French Turn on the much larger Socialist Party (SP), however, by 1937, the Trotskyists were expelled from the Socialist Party which led to the formation of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) at the end of the year. He would resign from the SWP in April 1940, and form the Workers Party only to resign less than two months later.

Burnham remained a “Trotskyist intellectual” from 1934 until 1940, using militant Trotskyist tactics against competing Marxist movements by turning their loyalties and ransacking their best talent. Although Burnham worked six years for the Trotskyists, as the new decade began, he renounced both Trotsky and “the ‘philosophy of Marxism’ dialectical materialism” altogether.

Perhaps Burnham was aware that the walls were closing in on Trotsky, and that it would only be a matter of six months from Burnham’s first renouncement that Trotsky would be assassinated by August 1940, at his compound outside Mexico City.

In February 1940 Burnham wrote “Science and Style: A Reply to Comrade Trotsky,” in which he broke with dialectical materialism, stressing the importance of the work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead’s approach:

“Do you wish me to prepare a reading list, Comrade Trotsky? It would be long, ranging from the work of the brilliant mathematicians and logicians of the middle of the last century to one climax in the monumental Principia Mathematica of Russell and Whitehead (the historic turning point in modern logic), and then spreading out in many directions – one of the most fruitful represented by the scientists, mathematicians and logicians now cooperating in the new Encyclopedia of Unified Science.” [emphasis added]

He summed up his feelings in a letter of resignation from the Workers Party on May 21, 1940:

“I reject, as you know, the “philosophy of Marxism,” dialectical materialism. …

The general Marxian theory of “universal history”, to the extent that it has any empirical content, seems to me disproved by modern historical and anthropological investigation.

Marxian economics seems to me for the most part either false or obsolete or meaningless in application to contemporary economic phenomena. Those aspects of Marxian economics which retain validity do not seem to me to justify the theoretical structure of the economics.

Not only do I believe it meaningless to say that “socialism is inevitable” and false that socialism is “the only alternative to capitalism”; I consider that on the basis of the evidence now available to us a new form of exploitive society (which I call “managerial society”) is not only possible but is a more probable outcome of the present than socialism. …

On no ideological, theoretic or political ground, then, can I recognize, or do I feel, any bond or allegiance to the Workers Party (or to any other Marxist party). That is simply the case, and I can no longer pretend about it, either to myself or to others.” [emphasis added]

In 1941, Burnham would publish “The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World,” bringing him fame and fortune, listed by Henry Luce’s Life magazine as one of the top 100 outstanding books of 1924-1944. (2)

The Managerial Revolution

“We cannot understand the revolution by restricting our analysis to the war [WWII]; we must understand the war as a phase in the development of the revolution.”

– James Burnham “The Managerial Revolution”

In Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution,” he makes the case that if socialism were possible, it would have occurred as an outcome of the Bolshevik Revolution, but what happened instead was neither a reversion back to a capitalist system nor a transition to a socialist system, but rather a formation of a new organizational structure made up of an elite managerial class, the type of society he believed was in the process of replacing capitalism on a world scale.

He goes on to make the case that as seen with the transition from a feudal to a capitalist state being inevitable, so too will the transition from a capitalist to managerial state occur. And that ownership rights of production capabilities will no longer be owned by individuals but rather the state or institutions, he writes:

“Effective class domination and privilege does, it is true, require control over the instruments of production; but this need not be exercised through individual private property rights. It can be done through what might be called corporate rights, possessed not by individuals as such but by institutions: as was the case conspicuously with many societies in which a priestly class was dominant…”

Burnham proceeds to write:

“If, in a managerial society, no individuals are to hold comparable property rights, how can any group of individuals constitute a ruling class?

The answer is comparatively simple and, as already noted, not without historical analogues. The managers will exercise their control over the instruments of production and gain preference in the distribution of the products, not directly, through property rights vested in them as individuals, but indirectly, through their control of the state which in turn will own and control the instruments of production. The state – that is, the institutions which comprise the state – will, if we wish to put it that way, be the ‘property’ of the managers. And that will be quite enough to place them in the position of the ruling class.”

Burnham concedes that the ideologies required to facilitate this transition have not yet been fully worked out but goes on to say that they can be approximated:

“from several different but similar directions, by, for example: Leninism-Stalinism; fascism-nazism; and, at a more primitive level, by New Dealism and such less influential [at the time] American ideologies as ‘technocracy’. This, then, is the skeleton of the theory, expressed in the language of the struggle for power.”

This is to be sure, a rather confusing paragraph but becomes clearer when we understand it from the specific viewpoint of Burnham. As Burnham sees it, all these different avenues are methods in which to achieve his vision of a managerial society because each form stresses the importance of the state as the central coordinating power, and that such a state will be governed by his “managers”. Burnham considers the different moral implications in each scenario irrelevant, as he makes clear early on in his book, he has chosen to detach himself from such questions.

Burnham goes to explain that the support of the masses is necessary for the success of any revolution, this is why the masses must be led to believe that they will benefit from such a revolution, when in fact it is only to replace one ruling class with another and nothing changes for the underdog. He explains that this is the case with the dream of a socialist state, that the universal equality promised by socialism is just a fairy tale told to the people so that they fight for the establishment of a new ruling class, then they are told that achieving a socialist state will take many decades, and that essentially, a managerial system must be put in place in the meantime.

Burnham makes the case that this is what happened in both Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia:

“Nevertheless, it may still turn out that the new form of economy will be called ‘socialist.’ In those nations – Russia and Germany – which have advanced furthest toward the new [managerial] economy, ‘socialism’ or ‘national socialism’ is the term ordinarily used. The motivation for this terminology is not, naturally, the wish for scientific clarity but just the opposite. The word ‘socialism’ is used for ideological purposes in order to manipulate the favourable mass emotions attached to the historic socialist ideal of a free, classless, and international society and to hide the fact that the managerial economy is in actuality the basis for a new kind of exploiting, class society.”

Burnham continues:

“Those Nations – [Bolshevik] Russia, [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy – which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships…what distinguishes totalitarian dictatorship is the number of facets of life subject to the impact of the dictatorial rule. It is not merely political actions, in the narrower sense, that are involved; nearly every side of life, business and art and science and education and religion and recreation and morality are not merely influenced by but directly subjected to the totalitarian regime.

It should be noted that a totalitarian type of dictatorship would not have been possible in any age previous to our own. Totalitarianism presupposes the development of modern technology, especially of rapid communication and transportation. Without these latter, no government, no matter what its intentions, would have had at its disposal the physical means for coordinating so intimately so many of the aspects of life. Without rapid transportation and communication it was comparatively easy for men to keep many of their lives, out of reach of the government. This is no longer possible, or possible only to a much smaller degree, when governments today make deliberate use of the possibilities of modern technology.”

Orwell’s Second Thoughts on Burnham

Burnham would go on to state in his “The Managerial Revolution” that the Russian Revolution, WWI and its aftermath, the Versailles Treaty gave final proof that capitalist world politics could no longer work and had come to an end. He described WWI as the last war of the capitalists and WWII as the first, but not last war, of the managerial society. Burnham made it clear that many more wars would have to be fought after WWII before a managerial society could finally fully take hold.

This ongoing war would lead to the destruction of sovereign nation states, such that only a small number of great nations would survive, culminating into the nuclei of three “super-states”, which Burnham predicted would be centered around the United States, Germany and Japan. He goes on to predict that these super-states will never be able to conquer the other and will be engaged in permanent war until some unforeseeable time. He predicts that Russia would be broken in two, with the west being incorporated into the German sphere and the east into the Japanese sphere. (Note that this book was published in 1941, such that Burnham was clearly of the view that Nazi Germany and fascist Japan would be the victors of WWII.)

Burnham states that “sovereignty will be restricted to the few super-states.”

In fact, he goes so far as to state early on in his book that the managerial revolution is not a prediction of something that will occur in the future, it is something that has already begun and is in fact, in its final stages of becoming, that it has already successfully implemented itself worldwide and that the battle is essentially over.

The National Review, founded by James Burnham and William F. Buckley (more on this in part two), would like to put the veneer that although Orwell was critical of Burnham’s views that he was ultimately creatively inspired to write about it in his “1984” novel. Yes, inspired is one way to put it, or more aptly put, that he was horrified by Burnham’s vision and wrote his novel as a stark warning as to what would ultimately be the outcome of such monstrous theorizations, which he would to this day organise the zeitgeist of thought to be suspicious of anything resembling his neologisms such as “Big Brother”, “Thought Police”, “Two Minutes Hate”, “Room 101”, “memory hole”, “Newspeak”, “doublethink”, “unperson”,”thoughtcrime”, and “groupthink”.

George Orwell, (real name Eric Arthur Blair), first published his “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” in May 1946. The novel “1984” would be published in 1949.

In his essay he dissects Burnham’s proposed ideology that he outlines in his “The Managerial Revolution” and “The Machiavellians” subtitled “Defenders of Freedom.”

Orwell writes:

“It is clear that Burnham is fascinated by the spectacle of power, and that his sympathies were with Germany so long as Germany appeared to be winning the war…curiously enough, when one examines the predictions which Burnham has based on his general theory, one finds that in so far as they are verifiable, they have been falsified…It will be seen that Burnham’s predictions have not merely, when they were verifiable, turned out to be wrong, but that they have sometimes contradicted one another in a sensational way…Political predictions are usually wrong, because they are usually based on wish-thinking…Often the revealing factor is the date at which they are made…It will be seen that at each point Burnham is predicting a continuation of the thing that is happening…the tendency to do this is not simply a bad habit, like inaccuracy or exaggeration…It is a major mental disease, and its roots lie partly in cowardice and partly in the worship of power, which is not fully separable from cowardice…

Power worship blurs political judgement because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible. If the Japanese have conquered south Asia, then they will keep south Asia for ever, if the Germans have captured Tobruk, they will infallibly capture Cairo…The rise and fall of empires, the disappearance of cultures and religions, are expected to happen with earthquake suddenness, and processes which have barely started are talked about as though they were already at an end. Burnham’s writings are full of apocalyptic visions…Within the space of five years Burnham foretold the domination of Russia by Germany and of Germany by Russia. In each case he was obeying the same instinct: the instinct to bow down before the conqueror of the moment, to accept the existing trend as irreversible.”

Interestingly, and happily we hear, George Orwell does not take Burnham’s predictions of a managerial revolution as set in stone, but rather, has shown itself within a short period of time to be a little too full of wishful thinking and bent on worshipping the power of the moment. However, this does not mean we must not take heed to the orchestrations of such mad men.

In Part two of this series, I will discuss Burnham’s entry into the OSS then CIA, how he became the founder of the neo-conservative movement and what are the implications for today’s world, especially concerning the Great Reset initiative.

The author can be reached at https://cynthiachung.substack.com/

(1) Priscilla Buckley, “James Burnham 1905–1987.” National Review, July 11, 1987, p. 35.
(2) Canby, Henry Seidel. “The 100 Outstanding Books of 1924–1944”. Life, 14 August 1944. Chosen in collaboration with the magazine’s editors.

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.