Ushering in The Great Reset

Discussion in 'End Times & Conspiracies' started by nivek, Aug 10, 2020.

  1. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,068
    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”.


    .
     
  2. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,068
    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.

    .
     
  3. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,068
    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...

    ...
     
  4. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,068
    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)

    .
     
  5. Standingstones

    Standingstones Celestial

    Messages:
    1,860
    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?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. nivek

    nivek As Above So Below

    Messages:
    20,068
    I'm wondering what he and others like him think should replace democracy...

    ...
     

Share This Page