The Great Reset, page 9
Schwab also probably didn’t realize that Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York would resign in shame on August 24, 2021, under a cloud of sexual assault allegations, likely scuttling any chance he had of becoming president of the United States in either 2024 or 2028. Maybe Schwab is betting on Prince Charles becoming King of England, where he will most likely be the least popular king in English history.
I sometimes wonder if Klaus Schwab gets angry that he just can’t find any good henchmen. That is the universal problem of most villains throughout history. It seems that idiocy is just part of the typical operating system of your average globalist.
But not to worry. Like any good supervillain, the globalists don’t like to brood on past failures but instead always look forward to the next wonder weapon, like a laser to blow up the moon, or in the real world, digital surveillance, to finally achieve that long-desired control over humanity:
Now that information and communication technologies permeate almost every aspect of our lives and forms of social participation, any digital experience that we have can be turned into a “product” designed to monitor and anticipate our behavior. The risk of dystopia stems from this observation . . . In academia, it finds its expression in the research undertaken by scholars like Shoshana Zuboff. Her book Surveillance Capitalism warns about customers being reinvented as data sources, with “surveillance capitalism” transforming our economy, politics, society and our own lives by producing deeply anti-democratic asymmetries of knowledge and the power that accrues to knowledge.15
In plain language, that means when the government knows everything about you, then you are at their mercy. That’s called an “asymmetry of knowledge.” In a better world, you know all about the government, but they know little about you. Klaus Schwab really doesn’t like that world and makes it clear. It’s probably not a surprise that Schwab would turn to his favorite globalist academic, Yuval Noah Harari, in order to justify this new tool. He quotes the Harari argument at length:
Surveillance technology is developing at breakneck speed, and what seemed science fiction 10 years ago is today old news. As a thought experiment, consider a hypothetical government that demands that every citizen wears a biometric bracelet that monitors body temperature and heart rate 24 hours a day. The resulting data is hoarded and analyzed by government algorithms. The algorithms will know that you are sick even before you know it, and they will also know where you have been, and who you have met. The chains of infection could be drastically shortened, and even cut altogether.16
In fairness to Harari’s article from March 2020, he does go on to detail the danger of such a system in the hands of a government that could also monitor your enthusiasm at a political rally or while watching certain shows, but the discussion doesn’t seem to go any further.
As an observation, I must note a pattern I’ve noticed in Schwab’s work: he seems to acknowledge the arguments of the other side but never really addresses them. He strikes me much like that boss who pretends to acknowledge the complaints of his employees but never fights against upper management over their decisions.
In Schwab’s case, though, he’s just pretending to be the manager.
He’s really angling to be the boss.
He wants to be the one you complain to about being fired, but in reality, he’s the one who made the decision.
* * *
Another example of how Schwab and his globalist allies try to pit both sides against each other comes in the next section on governments and business. In this section, he tries to sound like a conservative:
For all the reasons expanded upon in the first chapter, COVID-19 has rewritten many of the rules of the game between the public and private sectors. In the post-pandemic era, business will be subject to much greater governmental interference than in the past. The benevolent (or otherwise) greater intrusion of governments in the life of companies and the conduct of their business will be country-and-industry dependent, therefore taking many different guises.17
This might strike you as the initial setup of a conservative speaker. But it’s not. This is the opening gambit of a fascist. Sure, Schwab wants to use the government for a while to achieve his aims, but then toss it overboard when his corporate buddies can fully implement their plans.
And right on cue, Schwab comes up with his new idea: stakeholder capitalism. It will sound like he wants to be more democratic. He doesn’t. It’s just a trick to get more power into the hands of his buddies:
The pandemic struck at a time when many different issues, ranging from climate change activism and rising inequalities to gender diversity and #MeToo scandals, had already begun to raise awareness and heighten the criticality of stakeholder capitalism and ESG [environmental, social, and governance] considerations in today’s interdependent world. Whether espoused openly or not, nobody can deny that companies’ fundamental purpose can no longer be simply the unbridled pursuit of financial profit; it is now incumbent upon them to serve all their stakeholders, not only those who hold shares.18
Remember when I said that the globalists will use any issue to promote their plans? There’s COVID-19, climate change, inequality, gender diversity, and now the #MeToo movement, all part of the globalist plan to create maximum chaos and fear, the better to implement their authoritarian agenda.
The issue really doesn’t matter because the answer is always the same: globalism.
In the world of the globalists, the pattern is always the same: the individual must be overruled by the power of the group, inevitably led by Schwab and his buddies. This is from a section of Schwab’s COVID-19 book on the need for everybody to undergo an individual reset:
Psychologists tell us that cognitive closure often calls for black-and-white thinking and simplistic solutions—a terrain propitious for conspiracy theorists and the propagation of rumors, fake news, mistruths, and other pernicious ideas. In such a context, we look for leadership, authority and clarity, meaning that the question as to whom to trust (within our immediate community and among our leaders) becomes critical. In consequence, so too does the countervailing issue of whom we distrust.19
For all their supposed brilliance, it’s remarkable how little these globalists seem to want to engage in any type of intellectual debate. They simply want to prevent any debate from happening. The only question seems to be who has the authority to speak. After that we’re supposed to believe the words that spill from the mouth as if we were listening to the voice of God.
When one is starting a relationship with a domestic abuser, the behavior can look much different from when one is deep into the relationship. People do not get into abusive relationships because they want to be harmed. It’s because they’re persuaded. The new person is charming, attentive, passionate, all things that may have seemed to be missing from the other person’s life.
But once the relationship is set, once there is some sort of commitment, the abuse can begin. The abusive acts will not be seen as common, but as an anomaly.
“Oh, that happened because he hadn’t gotten much sleep the night before.”
Or “That fight wouldn’t have happened if that other guy hadn’t been checking me out.”
However, the actions tell you the truth. This is Schwab being persuasive to you, hoping you’ll join with him:
The deep crisis provoked by the pandemic has given us plenty of opportunities to reflect on how our economies and societies work and the ways in which they don’t. The verdict seems clear: we need to change; we should change. But can we? Will we learn from the mistakes in the past? Will the pandemic open the door to a better future? Will we get our global house in order? Simply put, will we put into motion the Great Reset?20
What is Schwab giving us other than a call to action with no substance behind it? It sounds warm and cozy, and yet it’s maddeningly vague. At least when the television preachers give you such a pitch, they helpfully give you a phone number to call so you can pledge your money.
But you need to be aware of how Schwab plans to get to that good place. I don’t want you to forget for a second the line in which he wrote, “No extreme scenario can now be taken off the table.”
With that quote fresh in your mind, I want you to consider the following passage from the conclusion of COVID-19: The Great Reset:
The absolute prerequisite for a proper reset is greater collaboration and cooperation within and between countries. Cooperation—a “supremely human cognitive ability” that put our species on its unique and extraordinary trajectory—can be summed up as “shared intentionality” to act together towards a common goal. We simply cannot progress without it.21
When I read that passage, I’m filled with fear. This is the key. They want your cooperation, just like the vampire of legend needs an invitation to cross the threshold of a house. The globalists want you to invite them into your lives.
The globalists keep focusing on the words “collaboration and cooperation” because they don’t want you to think about those who raise questions, the dissidents. The globalists don’t like individuals or individual accomplishments because they prevent them from taking control behind a facade of “all the people want this outcome.” Just think back to your high school years and what the adults told you about avoiding peer pressure to engage in activities that might be harmful to yourself or others, like drag racing down the street at 120 miles per hour.
Sure, you might have succumbed a few times to the peer pressure. But your older and wiser self asks, “How the hell did I survive to adulthood?” That’s probably why the wildest kids turn into the strictest parents, because they know how easy it is to do stupid things. This is what Schwab wrote on the last page of his COVID-19 book, to make sure that if you disagree with him, you realize you’re not one of the cool kids at school:
These expressions of individual hope are supported by a multitude of surveys concluding that we collectively desire change. They range from a poll in the UK showing that a majority of people want to fundamentally alter the economy as it recovers, in contrast to one-fourth wanting it to return to how it was, to international surveys finding that a large majority of citizens around the world want the economic recovery from the corona virus to prioritize climate change and to support a green recovery. Worldwide, movements demanding a “better future” and calling for a shift to an economic system that prioritizes our collective well-being over mere GDP growth are proliferating.22
Do you get it? Everybody is demanding a better world. Get with the program. You don’t want to be left behind. You might be forced to eat your lunch all by yourself in the high school cafeteria.
But you know that’s never how it goes when the uptight-know-it-alls try to run a school. That’s because you’ve got the stoners, the car heads, and the jocks, and they can’t stand the brown-noser, student council, perfect kids who cry if they don’t get a hundred percent on every test. It’s why the globalists are going after the disruptive people, like Dave Chapelle, Ricky Gervais, or Elon Musk. They can’t stand anybody making fun of them.
If that happens, Klaus Schwab and his goons, under the rubric of “No extreme scenario can now be taken off the table,” are likely to take you behind the gymnasium and beat the hell out of you, or even worse.
* * *
Did you think the easing of the COVID-19 crisis would lessen the maniacal plans of the globalists?
The World Economic Forum at Davos was canceled in 2021 and held virtually in January 2022, but they decided by May 2022 that it was safe for them to once again meet in person. This is how it was depicted in the media:
The WEF 2022 is meeting in springtime rather than January—when it is traditionally held—for the first time, having been postponed on multiple occasions by COVID-19.
Besides the novelty that the change of season brings, the WEF is meeting at a crucial time.
In its 50-year history the WEF has never been confronted with such unprecedented global issues as it now faces in 2022, as the world recovers from a global pandemic, grapples to contain the devastating impact of the climate crisis and navigates a geopolitical storm following the invasion of Ukraine.23
For the globalists it’s always five seconds to midnight on the doomsday clock, and they’re the only ones who can save us. If you’re wondering what might transpire at a typical meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, let’s look at what happened in 2022.
On May 18, Klaus Schwab held a talk with eager journalists who wanted to know what was going to be on the agenda for the globalists:
“In a world which is becoming more fragmented, more divided, and where many of the traditional multilateral organizations tend to become dysfunctional, or at least mistrustful, a global platform based on informal, trust-faced and action-oriented cooperation will be ever more relevant, more important than before,” Schwab declared.
More than 50 heads of state and government will attend the meeting next week, including NATO Secretary general Jens Stoltenberg, German Chancellor Olaf Schloz, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, the WEF lists.24
Schwab may have wanted to present a warm and welcoming appearance to the rest of the world, but he wasted little time in letting people know that if they didn’t behave, he was ready to use an iron fist.
Schwab warned anyone who sought to trivialize the event or hijack its key messages, including the often-mentioned Great Reset, will be treated with contempt.
Contrary voices will simply not be tolerated.
“The atmosphere in which Davos takes place will be welcoming. But it is also of utmost seriousness,” he confided. “So, there’s no place for the frivolous fringe that seeks to distract and divert attention. And I condemn it wholeheartedly, particularly of those who have nothing to do with the World Economic Forum, community, and just come to Davos to hijack our brand.”25
It’s a little disheartening to realize that more than fifty heads of state, as well as many more high government officials and heads of industry, attended an event that is so hostile to free speech.
But Davos 2022 wasn’t going to limit its disapproval of free speech to comments by their fearless leader. Many of the participants seemed eager to follow Schwab’s anti-free speech agenda, such as Australia’s E-Safety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant:
Speaking to the WEF Panel on Monday, commissioner Julie Inman Grant spoke of the need to rethink various rights, including the right to free speech.
“We are finding ourselves in a place where we have increasing polarization everywhere, and everything feels binary, when it doesn’t need to be,” Inman Grant said.
“So I think we’re going to have to think about a recalibration of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online, from the freedom of speech to be[ing] free from online violence,” she added.26
The current Australian government seems to be committed to a “recalibration” of free speech. That is a truly terrifying idea, as we know it means they will seek to ban or limit any speech that affects their political power. There can be little question that this is exactly what they are seeking.
If one wonders if this is the actual plan, one need only consider what happened to journalist Jack Posobiec, probably one of the most effective and popular of the Davos critics:
Heavily armed Swiss officers, appearing from the Ordnungsdienst police force, allegedly “frisked” and detained Human Events Daily host and Turning Point USA contributor Jack Posobiec on Monday afternoon.
The officers, who also told independent journalist Savannah Hernandez not to film them, claimed they have a right not to be filmed in Switzerland, despite there not appearing to be a federal law prohibiting people from filming police.27
This is typical for the globalists, who don’t seem to let a little thing like the lack of a law prevent them from exercising their will. They apparently exist above any national laws.
If you want a more authoritative take, one only had to wait for the talk by Susan Wojciki, the CEO of YouTube (now owned by Google). The article from Fortune magazine opened with this:
It’s a precarious time for tech CEOs whose businesses have to juggle misinformation, free speech, and demands from employees to take a stand on global and domestic issues. For YouTube CEO Susan Wojciki, those responsibilities come on top of her efforts to grow the company with new competitors vying for screen time, the war in Ukraine, and an economic downturn that many predict will become a recession.28
Poor Susan Wojciki. It can be so difficult to be a “Master of the Universe” when the peasants don’t appreciate what you’re doing. Helpfully, Wojciki tries to explain her thinking to the crowd at Davos, and the barbarians beyond the gates:
“There are a number of different ways we can look at this,” she said. “The first would be from a policy standpoint. We would look at content that we would think about in terms of being violative of our policies.”
If you look at COVID, she suggested, YouTube came up with 10 different policies that the platform said would be deemed violating—like saying that COVID came from something other than a virus. Wojciki said YouTube did see people attacking 5G equipment because they thought it was causing COVID. That would be an example of content that would be removed.
The second viewpoint, she continued, would be raising up authoritative information. “If you are dealing with a sensitive subject like news, health, science, we are going to make sure that what we’re recommending is coming from a trusted, well-known publisher that can be reliable.”29
It is genuinely remarkable that, in this day and age where we have the best educated populace in our history, these Big Tech companies believe they must resort to such censorship. The old understanding that good ideas will win over bad ideas in the marketplace of thought has been replaced by a mistrust of robust debate. The new answer seems to be to “trust the experts,” even if they’re the ones who might have caused the problem or are profiting from the crisis.
