The Great Reset

nivek

As Above So Below
Dangerous Marxist leaders call for ‘The Great Reset’ to destroy capitalism

A disturbing movement to reform capitalism is gaining traction by those using the coronavirus tragedy to call for “The Great Reset”. These are not the ramblings of a few disgruntled teenagers or a wacky sociology professor from inner-city Sydney.

The body pushing The Great Reset happens to be the World Economic Forum and its charismatic German leader Klaus Schwab who is calling for a return to Marxist principles, claiming that capitalism has empirically failed.

Professor Schwab has just released a book titled The Great Reset and has dedicated a large portion of the official WEF website to such articles as “Does capitalism need some Marxism to survive the Fourth Industrial Revolution?”.

It is truly a terrifying notion that a man as educated and powerful as Schwab would use his supposedly independent economic organisation to push for a return of the deadliest social experiments of the 20th century. And how does he justify putting an end to capitalism?

“There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis,” Schwab says “To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting The Great Reset initiative.

“Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.”

A new social contract. Decided by who?

Well Schwab himself, of course. Schwab promises a new world. A better world. A fairer world.

You see Mao and Stalin, they were not true Marxists. They didn’t have the best intentions. A Utopia is indeed possible.

And what evidence does Schwab present to support his new world order?

Well, let’s quote Schwab’s organisation in full so that we can fully understand his point of view. “Capitalism as we know it needs to be reformed,” the WEF writes. “The growing discontent at the ideology that has created so much wealth and progress on the one hand, and yet so much inequality and instability on the other hand, is causing increasingly frequent social disruptions across the world.

“The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare most of these dysfunctions, ranging from uneven access to healthcare, education, economic opportunities, and social progress, to growing inequality among and within nations and racial and ethnic groups. At the centre of these multiple crises lies the tension between privilege and meritocracy.”

There’s a lot to unpack in the above but the general theme relates to the existence of inequality being evidence capitalism has failed. It is of course true to an extent that not all systems create inequality. But this is actually a case for capitalism. Even the most junior economist will study the four primary economic systems and even the most ideologically possessed of those students will come across the system favoured by the USSR, North Korea and Maoist’s China.

The Command Economist System. A system which eliminates inequality because citizens all live equally in tragedy. Those living in Ukraine discovered this in the early 1930s when the Holodomor – or The great Famine – struck. Somewhere between 3 million and 12 million people starved to death after the Soviets convinced people to turn on their village’s farmers.

Marxist logic dictates that if someone profits from a sale, they have robbed you. If there is inequality, a crime has been committed. That notion has prompted much horror over the years and left many people equal in poverty.

Capitalism indeed creates inequality, but it is also the only system known to man which also creates equality. This is because wealth creation is not a zero-sum game. There is not a finite amount of money or wealth. Money can be created, jobs can be created and people can be pulled out of tragedy and despair by capitalism itself.

In the last few decades, according to our friends at the World Economic Forum, more than 1.1 billion people have been pulled out of extreme poverty. The world was on track to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030 – a timeline which will undoubtedly be side-tracked by COVID-19 but that is hardly the fault of our economic system.

The evidence for capitalism in the form of humanity’s rapidly improving way of life is enormous. But the Marxist principles Schwab endorses are stained with blood. Or as Karl Marx would say: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce”.


.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
From lockdown to police state: The “Great Reset” rolls out

We are living through a coup d’état based on the oldest of ploys: Declaring emergencies, suspending law and rights, and issuing arbitrary rules of behavior to excuse taking ‘full powers’.


Mayhem in Melbourne

On August 2, lockdown measures were implemented in Melbourne, Australia, that were so draconian that Australian news commentator Alan Jones said on Sky News: “People are entitled to think there is an ‘agenda to destroy western society.’



The gist of an August 13th article on the Melbourne lockdown is captured in the title: “Australian Police Go FULL NAZI, Smashing in Windows of Civilian Cars Just Because Passengers Wouldn’t Give Details About Where They Were Going.”

Another article with an arresting title was by Guy Burchell in the August 7thAustralian National Review: “Melbourne Cops May Now Enter Homes Without a Warrant, After 11 People Die of COVID — Australia, This Is Madness, Not Democracy.

Burchell wrote that only 147 people had lost their lives to coronavirus in Victoria (the Australian state of which Melbourne is the capital), a very low death rate compared to other countries.

The ramped up lockdown measures were triggered by an uptick in cases due to ramped up testing and 11 additional deaths, all of them in nursing homes (where lockdown measures would actually have little effect). The new rules include a six week curfew from 8 PM to 5 AM, with residents allowed to leave home outside those curfew hours only to shop for food and essential items (one household member only), and for caregiving, work and exercise (limited to one hour).

But the piece de resistance,” writes Burchell, “has to be that now police officers can enter homes with neither a warrant nor permission. This is an astonishing violation of civil liberties…. Deaths of this kind are not normally cause for government action, let alone the effective house arrest of an entire city.

He quoted Victoria Premier Daniel Andrews, who told Victorians, “there is literally no reason for you to leave your home and if you were to leave your home and not be found there, you will have a very difficult time convincing Victoria police that you have a lawful reason.” Burchell commented:

“Under this new regime you can’t even remain in your house unmolested by the cops, they can just pop ’round anytime to make sure you haven’t had Bruce and Sheila from next door round for a couple of drinks. All over a disease that is simply not that fatal…

Last year more than 310,000 Australians were hospitalised with flu and over 900 died. By all metrics that makes flu a worse threat than COVID-19 but police weren’t granted Stasi-like powers during the flu season. Millions of people weren’t confined to their homes and threatened with AUS$5,000 fines for not having a good reason for being out of their homes.

At an August 19th press conference, Australia’s second most senior medical officer said the government would be discussing measures such as banning restaurants, international travel, public transport, and withholding government programs through “No Jab No Pay” in order to coerce vaccine resisters.

An August 13 article on LifeSiteNews quoted Father Glen Tattersall, a Catholic parish priest in Melbourne, who said the draconian provisions “simply cannot be justified on a scientific basis:”

“We have a curfew from 8 pm to 5 am, rigorously enforced including by the use of police helicopters and search lights. Is the virus a vampire that just comes out at night? Or the wearing of masks: they must be worn everywhere outside, even in a park where you are nowhere near any other person. Why? Does the virus leap hundreds of meters through the air? This is all about inducing mass fear, and humiliating the populace by demanding external compliance.

Why the strict curfew? Curfews have been implemented recently in the US to deter violence during protests, but no violence of that sort was reported in Melbourne. What was reported, at least on social media, were planes landing in the night from ‎the Chinese province of Guandong carrying equipment related to 5G and the Chinese biometric social credit system, which was reportedly being installed under a blanket of secrecy.

Angelo Codevilla, professor emeritus at Boston University, concluded in an August 13th article,

We are living through a coup d’état based on the oldest of ploys: declaring emergencies, suspending law and rights, and issuing arbitrary rules of behavior to excuse taking ‘full powers’.


Questioning the Narrative


Melbourne has gone to extremes with its lockdown measures, but it could portend things to come globally. Lockdowns were originally sold to the public as being necessary just for a couple of weeks to “flatten the curve,” to prevent hospital overcrowding from COVID-19 cases.

It has now been over five months, with self-appointed vaccine czar Bill Gates intoning that we will not be able to return to “normal” until the entire global population of 7 billion people has been vaccinated. He has since backed off on the numbers, but commentators everywhere are reiterating that lockdowns are the “new normal,” which could last for years.

All this is such a radical curtailment of our civil liberties that we need to look closely at the evidence justifying it; and when we do, that evidence is weak.

The isolation policies were triggered by estimates from the Imperial College London of 510,000 UK deaths and 2.2 million US deaths, more than 10 times the actual death rate from COVID-19.

A Stanford University antibody study estimated that the fatality rate if infected was only about 0.1 to 0.2 percent; and in an August 4th blog post, Bill Gates himself acknowledged that the death rate was only 0.14 percent, not much higher than for the flu.

But restrictive measures have gotten more onerous rather than less as the mortality figures have been revised downward.

A July 2020 UK study from Loughborough and Sheffield Universities found that government policy over the lockdown period has actually increased mortality rather than reducing it, after factoring in collateral damage including deaths from cancers and other serious diseases that are being left untreated, a dramatic increase in suicides and drug overdose, and poverty and malnourishment due to unemployment.

Globally, according to UNICEF, 1.2 million child deaths are expected as a direct result of the lockdowns. A data analyst in South Africa asserts that the consequences of the country’s lockdown will lead to 29 times more deaths than from the coronavirus itself.

Countries and states that did very little to restrict their populations, including Sweden and South Dakota, have fared as well as or better overall than locked down US states. In an August 12th article in The UK Telegraph titled “Sweden’s Success Shows the True Cost of Our Arrogant, Failed Establishment,” Allister Heath writes:

“Sweden got it largely right, and the British establishment catastrophically wrong. Anders Tegnell, Stockholm’s epidemiologist-king, has pulled off a remarkable triple whammy: far fewer deaths per capita than Britain, a maintenance of basic freedoms and opportunities, including schooling, and, most strikingly, a recession less than half as severe as our own.

Not restraining the populace has allowed Sweden’s curve to taper off naturally through “herd immunity,” with daily deaths down to single digits for the last month. (See chart.)

the-pandemic-that-wasnt.png

The Pandemic That Wasn’t?

Also bringing the official narrative into question is the unreliability of the tests on which the lockdowns have been based. In a Wired interview, even Bill Gates acknowledged that most US test results are “garbage.”

The Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) technology used in the nasal swab test is considered the “gold standard” for COVID-19 detection; yet the PCR test was regarded by its own inventor, Nobel prize winner Kary Mullis, as inappropriate to detect viral infection. In a detailed June 27th analysis titled “COVID-19 PCR Tests Are Scientifically Meaningless,” Torsten Engelbrecht and Konstantin Demeter conclude:

Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.

The authors discussed a January 2007 New York Times article titled “Faith in Quick Test Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t,” describing an apparent whooping cough epidemic in a New Hampshire hospital. The epidemic was verified by preliminary PCR tests given to nearly 1,000 healthcare workers, who were subsequently furloughed. Eight months later, the “epidemic” was found to be a false alarm. Not a single case of whooping cough was confirmed by the “gold standard” test – growing pertussis bacteria in the laboratory. All of the cases found through the PCR test were false positives.

Yet “test, test, test” was the message proclaimed for all countries by WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom at a media briefing on March 16, 2020, five days after WHO officially declared COVID-19; and the test recommended as the gold standard was the PCR. Why, when it had already been demonstrated to be unreliable, creating false positives that gave the appearance of an epidemic when there was none? Or was that the goal – to create the appearance of a pandemic, one so vast that the global economy had to be brought to a standstill until a vaccine could be found?

Recall Prof. Codevilla’s conclusion: “We are living through a coup d’état based on the oldest of ploys: declaring emergencies, suspending law and rights, and issuing arbitrary rules of behavior to excuse taking ‘full powers’.

People desperate to get back to work will not only submit to a largely untested vaccine but will agree to surveillance measures that would have been considered a flagrant violation of their civil rights if those rights had not been overridden by a “national emergency” justifying preemption by the police powers of the state. They will agree to get “immunity passports” in order to travel and participate in group activities, and they will submit to quarantines, curfews, contact tracings, social credit scores and informing on the neighbors. The emergency must be kept going to justify these unprecedented violations of their liberties, in which decision-making is removed from elected representatives and handed to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats.

A national health crisis also a necessary prerequisite for relief from liability for personal injuries from the drugs and other products deployed in response to the crisis. Under the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA), in the event of a declared public health emergency, manufacturers are shielded from tort liability for injuries both from the vaccines and from invalid or invasive tests. Compensation for personal injuries is a massive expense for drug companies, and the potential profits from a product free of that downside are a gold mine for pharmaceutical companies and investors. The liabilities will be borne by the taxpayers and the victims.

All this, however, presupposes both an existing public health emergency and no effective treatment to defuse it. That helps explain the otherwise inexplicable war on hydroxychloroquine, a safe drug that has been in use and available over the counter for 65 years and has been shown to be effective in multiple studies when used early in combination with zinc and an antibiotic. A table prepared by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (below) found that the US has nearly 30 times as many deaths per capita as countries making early and prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine.

the-pandemic-that-wasnt-1.png

The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug. Lowering the US mortality rate by 79% could have saved over 100,000 lives. But an effective, inexpensive COVID-19 treatment would mean the end of the alleged pandemic and the vaccine bonanza it purports to justify.

The need to maintain the appearance of a pandemic also explains the inflated reports of cases and deaths. Hospitals have been rewarded with increased fees for reclassifying cases as COVID-19.

As deaths declined in the US, the numbers of cases reported by the Centers for Disease Control were also gamed to make it appear that America was in a “second wave” of a pandemic. The reporting criterion was changed on May 18 from people who tested positive for the virus only to people who tested positive for either the virus or its antibodies.

The exploding numbers thus include people who have recovered from COVID-19 as well as false positives. The Loughborough and Sheffield researchers found that when controlling for other factors affecting mortality, actual deaths due to COVID-19 are 54% to 63% lower than implied by the standard excess deaths measure.

Ushering in “The Great Reset”

Forcing compliance with global vaccine mandates is one obvious motive for maintaining the appearance of an ongoing pandemic, but what would be the motive for destroying the global economy with forced lockdowns? What is behind the “agenda to destroy Western society” suspected by Australian commentator Alan Jones?

Evidently it is this: destroying the old is necessary to usher in the new. Global economic destruction paves the way for the “Great Reset” now being promoted by the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the International Monetary Fund and other big global players.

Although cast as arising from the pandemic, the “global economic reset” is a concept that was floated as early as 2014 by Christine Lagarde, then head of the IMF, and is said to be a recharacterization of the “New World Order” discussed long before that. It was promoted as a solution to the ongoing economic crisis triggered in 2008.

The World Economic Forum – that elite group of businessmen, politicians and academics that meets in Davos, Switzerland, every January – announced in June that the Great Reset would be the theme of its 2021 Summit. Klaus Schwab, founder of the Forum, admonished:

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.

No country will be allowed to opt out because it would be endangering the rest, just as no person will be allowed to escape the COVID-19 vaccine for the same reason.

Who is behind the Great Reset and what it really entails are major questions that need their own article, but suffice it to say here that to escape the trap of the globalist agenda, we need a mass awakening to what is really going on and collective resistance to it while there is still time.

There are hopeful signs that this is happening, including massive protests against economic shutdowns and restrictions, particularly in Europe; a rash of lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the lockdowns and of police power overreach; and a flood of alternative media exposés despite widespread censorship.

Life as we know it will change. We need to ensure that it changes in ways that serve the people and the productive economy, while preserving our national sovereignty and hard-won personal freedoms.

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
I'm starting to question some of this reasoning because of the growing situations happening in the world as stated in the above article points out, there seems to be a growing movement to destroy all and everything which will leave a void that must be filled, but with what?...This great reset idealism and mentality is dangerous and must not be allowed to flower...Using this pandemic as a door for this is also dangerous and we must be very careful how we proceed to move forward and through this pandemic...

I think the above article makes some valid points that must be considered...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
This is a disturbing suggestion and statement and in my opinion just adds more fuel to the fire...

...

Democratic senator warns democracy 'unnatural,' may not be 'permanent'

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., warned that democracy in the U.S. could be on its last legs, claiming that the very concept is "unnatural" and not likely to work long term.

In a New York Times interview, the Connecticut Democrat said this does not necessarily mean that the current administration would be the end of democracy – although he did not rule it out.


"I have a real belief that democracy is unnatural," Murphy said. "We don’t run anything important in our lives by democratic vote other than our government. Democracy is so unnatural that it’s illogical to think it would be permanent. It will fall apart at some point, and maybe that point isn't now, but maybe it is."

(More on the link)

.
 

Standingstones

Celestial
This is a disturbing suggestion and statement and in my opinion just adds more fuel to the fire...

...

Democratic senator warns democracy 'unnatural,' may not be 'permanent'

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., warned that democracy in the U.S. could be on its last legs, claiming that the very concept is "unnatural" and not likely to work long term.

In a New York Times interview, the Connecticut Democrat said this does not necessarily mean that the current administration would be the end of democracy – although he did not rule it out.


"I have a real belief that democracy is unnatural," Murphy said. "We don’t run anything important in our lives by democratic vote other than our government. Democracy is so unnatural that it’s illogical to think it would be permanent. It will fall apart at some point, and maybe that point isn't now, but maybe it is."

(More on the link)

.
Democracy in basic terms means ‘rule by the majority.’ So is Senator Murphy stating that majority rule is unnatural and illogical? If so, I wonder how many other like minded legislators have the same thoughts?
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Democracy in basic terms means ‘rule by the majority.’ So is Senator Murphy stating that majority rule is unnatural and illogical? If so, I wonder how many other like minded legislators have the same thoughts?

I'm wondering what he and others like him think should replace democracy...

...
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

August

Metanoia
Socialist and Marxist exponents will never give up until they take over the planet. We have them here in Australia and they are forever trying to infiltrate the education system with their wacky ideas. A pox on them all. This is Australia's leading Socialist Marxist Roz Ward she wants to run the red flag up our nations flagpoles.
AAus_KM.png
 

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
Socialist and Marxist exponents will never give up until they take over the planet. We have them here in Australia and they are forever trying to infiltrate the education system with their wacky ideas. A pox on them all. This is Australia's leading Socialist Marxist Roz Ward she wants to run the red flag up our nations flagpoles.
AAus_KM.png

She even has a Kim Jong Un haircut.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

JahaRa

Noble
This is a disturbing suggestion and statement and in my opinion just adds more fuel to the fire...

...

Democratic senator warns democracy 'unnatural,' may not be 'permanent'

Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., warned that democracy in the U.S. could be on its last legs, claiming that the very concept is "unnatural" and not likely to work long term.

In a New York Times interview, the Connecticut Democrat said this does not necessarily mean that the current administration would be the end of democracy – although he did not rule it out.


"I have a real belief that democracy is unnatural," Murphy said. "We don’t run anything important in our lives by democratic vote other than our government. Democracy is so unnatural that it’s illogical to think it would be permanent. It will fall apart at some point, and maybe that point isn't now, but maybe it is."

(More on the link)

.

I bet if we dug deep into Chris Murphy's history we would find that he is owned by some huge corporation. That is what we are battling in the U.S. Corporate government because we only have a two party system and it is rife with abuse of power that all leads to corporations. Democracy worked fine until we let lobbyists buy our representatives. It is capitalism at it's worst, and democracy is needed to balance capitalism. Marxism will only make it worse. There is a lot of grumbling and shouting in the U.S. about socialism and communism. It is propaganda designed to keep everyone upset and not talking to each other so that the corporations can take more of us. Right now the most powerful companies in the country are Google, Amazon, Microsoft, the oil companies, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies. There are no humans currently involved in our "democracy".
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

nivek

As Above So Below
 

nivek

As Above So Below
WEF: Why does this influential, unelected globalist entity really exist?



When Canadian parliamentarian, Colin Carrie, of the Conservative Party, asked Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government this week how many Canadian ministers were actually “on board with the World Economic Forum agenda” — before his connection “broke up” in the videoconference — he and the Canadians he represents deserved an honest response rather than accusations of spreading “disinformation”, as left-leaning New Democratic Party MP Charlie Angus did.



The World Economic Forum (WEF), colloquially known as “Davos”, for those familiar with the annual pilgrimage by the international elite to the eponymous town in Switzerland, has been on the tips of many tongues over the past two years — notably within the context of the Covid-19 crisis. Just before the Covid pandemic, on October 15, 2019, the organization announced that it was holding a “live simulation exercise to prepare public and private leaders for pandemic response.” If that sounds oddly coincidental, buckle up, because it only gets weirder.



Speaking at a United Nations videoconference in the fall of 2020, Justin Trudeau raised eyebrows, with a hint of a potential link between the global pandemic and the Forum. “This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset,” Trudeau said. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts, to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change,” he added, evoking a “reset” concept much promoted by the WEF from the onset of the pandemic, that frames the crisis as an opportunity to fundamentally change the way that developed societies function.



Then in August 2021, Dutch MP Gideon van Meijeren asked Prime Minister Mark Rutte about a letter he wrote to WEF Founder Klaus Schwab in which he said that Schwab’s book, “Covid-19: The Great Reset,” published on July 9, 2020, within the first few months of the pandemic, “inspired him to build back better.” The phrase also happens to be the name of US President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, which includes increased wealth transfer into the murky black hole of climate change and “social spending.”



It would be easy to chalk it all up to creepy rhetorical coincidence if there wasn’t an actual link between Schwab, Davos, and elected officials like Rutte and Trudeau. It’s a link about which even Schwab himself has bragged. In 2017, he told an audience at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government: “What we are very proud of is the young generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau… We penetrate the cabinets.”



He’s not kidding. Current Canadian finance minister and deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, is on the WEF’s board of trustees, alongside former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor, Mark Carney. Freeland was last seen announcing asset freezes and crackdown measures against truckers and supporters in the streets of Canada demanding an end to heavy handed Covid mandates and restrictions. And Carney recently qualified the Freedom Convoy as “sedition” in a hysterical opinion piece published in the Globe and Mail newspaper.

It’s only logical that when citizens start seeing visible “World Economic Forum” branding on those taking – or publicly advocating for – drastic and unprecedented liberticidal measures against them, they start asking questions about the nature of the organization’s influence.

No citizen in any country actually voted to adopt the Davos agenda. And it’s debatable whether a sufficient number actually would. According to its own website, the WEF agenda includes increased digital integration and digitization, “urgent” climate change response, and a vision of a “Fourth Industrial Revolution” that is “characterized by a range of new technologies that are fusing the physical, digital and biological worlds, impacting all disciplines, economies and industries, and even challenging ideas about what it means to be human.” The organization is also exploring the notion of “human enhancement”.



And those are just the aspects that are public. It all sounds like it has the potential to give rise to a dystopian reality, particularly coupled with the previously unimaginable measures taken by democratic governments under a sanitary pretext over the past two years. And who, or what, influences the organization itself? A massive list of multinational entities with fiduciary obligations to increase shareholder wealth, according to the organization’s website. The WEF would like for the average citizen to believe that everything it does is for our own interests. But it’s difficult to imagine what the organization’s backers actually gain by empowering average citizens rather than maintaining control over them.

Nonetheless, what is glaringly obvious is that the WEF serves as a clearinghouse and consolidator for ideas that promote a one-size fits all global agenda that has become interchangeable with the Western establishment status quo. There is nothing more undemocratic than elected officials serving any other master than their people.

Much more light deserves to be shed on this supranational entity, its string-pullers, and the extent to which their agenda trickles down into our daily lives.

.
 

nivek

As Above So Below
Klaus Schwab’s top adviser: Professor Yuval Noah Harari:

 

nivek

As Above So Below
Ukraine silently implemented the WEF’s ‘Great Reset’ by setting up a Social Credit Application combining Universal Basic Income (UBI), a Digital Identity & a Vaccine Passport all within their Diia app

In a logic of digitizing and centralizing everything, the Ukrainian government launched in 2020 an application called Diia which brings together identity card, passport, license, vaccination record, registrations, insurance, health reimbursements, social benefits, and more of millions of Ukraine residents.

Such a model is only known so far in China with the famous social credit.

Ukraine is the champion of digital identity with the Diia app

As you all know here, governments want to move towards digitization of everyday life by bringing together almost all services on your telephone. While the European Union had announced a test to digitize the vaccination record, wallet and identities in 2018, Ukraine was very quick to react, deploying the Diia application already two years ago. Since then, the platform has continued to grow.

Ukrainians can download Diia and store a whole lot of official information, in order to easily carry out most of the administrative procedures (from tax paying to identity paper renewal, fine payments and social benefits recovery, among others).

With COVID-19, the government has announced that the payment of benefits will be conditional on the presence of a vaccination certificate on the app. When reality catches up with Orwell…

At the start of 2021, the ‘control’ app had already claimed more than 4.5 million active users. As of the end of 2021, more than 12 million Ukrainians were using the Diia application, showing an almost five-fold increase compared to the end of 2020 (2.5 million users).

Meanwhile, it has been discovered that Russia had access to the Diia mobile application and thus to the personal data of millions of Ukrainians as two Russian companies are among those involved in providing some services.

The most interesting part is that one of these companies – EPAM Systems – has ties with the Russian government and develops software, in particular for Sberbank of Russia, VTB, Rostelecom and Yandex, i.e falls within the purview of the Russian FSB.

Taking a closer look at what is currently being done digitally, it turns out that:

  • Poland has a mobile application similar to that of Ukraine, which was launched at the end of 2019. This Polish app displays seven digital documents and allows users to identify themselves with a digital ID card in places where a paper passport is not legally required.
  • In the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates, citizens can use electronic passports at airports for check-in and security screening. It’s coming soon to the US thanks to Apple Wallet.
  • In China, citizens have access to virtual identity cards integrated into a mobile application. Users can use it to identify themselves when they register in a hotel or to benefit from certain government services, with a ‘point system’ that allows them to have additional rights in the event of “good behavior”.
  • In Estonia, 70% of the population uses digital ID cards, while 99% of public services are available online.
What do you think of this transition to all-digital? Practical or disturbing? [iPhoneSoft, EMPR]



.
 
Top