Tag Archives: The Great Reset

Biden and the ‘Yellow Brick Road’, by Alastair Crooke

The Biden administration wants to use The Great Reset to reassert the US’s fading primacy in the world. It’s probably not going to work out like they think it will. From Alastair Crooke at strategic-culture.org:

Across the board, there probably is not enough ‘majority’ to push through this new, 4IR Re-set – at least for now.

Biden intoned the sacred word ‘democracy’ over and over again at the Munich Security conference, including three times in his concluding sentence; but the mask already was stripped from America’s long-service, 1940s, moralising myth some time ago. Recent events in the U.S. have only served to underline ‘democracy’ as sham and to expose the bitter divisions lying beneath America’s skin.

America’s position as ‘global leader’, Stephen Wertheim has observed in his book Tomorrow the World, was premised on a set of impermanent and atypical post-war circumstances that handed primacy to the U.S.; but Wertheim then goes on to underscore how “those days of incontestable unipolarity are over, and cannot be wished back”. The U.S. empire is, then, at an impasse: Its moral and political justification of overseeing a global order shaped to its norms is now beyond its capabilities (militarily or financially) to maintain.

Yet those original ‘pathologies’ built into the system persist. Aris Roussinos, an editor at Unherd notes: “As the useful myth [of spreading democracy hardened into] dogma, the neurotic belief that the end of American hegemony would mean the return of dark forces has become so entrenched that it constrains America’s ability to negotiate reality … Indeed, there are worrying intimations that America’s leaders believe that victory is predestined, purely through its own perceived moral virtue: as if the victories of the Second World War and the Cold War were won through holding to correct ideology”.

Continue reading→

If Davos Man Views Lockdowns as ‘Quietly Improving Cities,’ Then Klaus Schwab and His Great Reset Cannot Be Trusted, by Robert Bridge

The Great Reset is just the same old collectivism is a brand new package. From Robert Bridge at strategic-culture.org:

Schwab’s happy talk about the lockdown regime is at the very least plain stupid and at the worst pure sinister, Robert Bridge writes.

As millions of citizens around the world are suffering the loss of employment, together with mental and physical breakdown due to the debilitating effects of pandemic lockdowns, the World Economic Forum celebrated by pointing to the environmental benefits the moment has created, like more accuracy in predicting earthquakes.

In a tweet that resonated with all the subtlety of an empty beer can being kicked down the road, the World Economic Forum (WEF) informed its 3.9 million followers that “lockdowns are quietly improving cities around the world.” And “quietly” is the really disturbing part of that statement – a sick inside joke, as it were – as many urban centers, once bustling day and night with myriad forms of economic activity, have transformed into barren ghost towns.

In fact, the photo accompanying the tweet, which has since been deleted and replaced by an equally discombobulated message (below), features some unidentified cityscape betraying all the outward signs of urban decay and quietude – fading graffiti and empty shop windows. It is an urban scene that is totally devoid of human beings, the very life force of any city. The stark image, any normal person would think, is at odds with the WEF’s message that cities are “improving” under protracted lockdowns. And then comes the video.

Continue reading→

Party Like It’s 1984, by James Howard Kunstler

There’s no way Americans are going to allow themselves to be herded into The Great Reset. So says James Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

Chalk up a fatal blow to The Patriarchy. That avatar of toxic masculinity, Mr. Potato Head has been dumped into the same humid chamber of perdition where the ghosts of Nathan Bedford Forrest, Theodore Bilbo, and Phyllis Schlafly howl and squirm — liberating the billions of potatoes world-wide from the mental prison of binary sexuality. The move by Hasbro (bro? really??) may yet disappoint the legions in Wokesterdom as a-bridge-not-far-enough while they await the debut of Transitioning Potato Head, complete with play hormone syringe and play scalpel, so that the under-six crowd can begin to map out their own gender reassignments without the meddling of Adult 1 and Adult 2, formerly known as Mommy and Daddy.

Was it mere coincidence that the action in Toyland happened the same week that one Rachel Levine was grilled in hir Senate confirmation hearing for the post as Assistant Secretary for Health in the Department of Health and Human Services? The hearing tilted toward transphobia when Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) asked zie, a little too aggressively, if they were in favor of pubescent children opting for sexual reassignment in opposition to xyr parents. The nominee, who hirself transitioned from “male” to “female” in 2011, answered that transgender medical issues are “complex and nuanced.” True (perhaps). And probably more than a Senator who transitioned from ophthalmologist to politician might appreciate.

Continue reading→

The Great Reset, Part V: Woke Ideology, by Michael Rectenwald (with links to Parts I-IV)

For those who want to deep dive into The Great Reset, Michael Rectenwald is providing a comprehensive guide. From Rectenwald at The Mises Institute via zerohedge.com:

Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

Read Part I: Reduced Expectations And Bio-Techno-Feudalism here…

Read Part II: Corporate Socialism here…

Read Part III: Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics here…

Read Part IV: “Stakeholder Capitalism” Vs. “Noeliberalism” here…

In previous articles, I’ve discussed the Great Reset and introduced several ways of understanding the economics of it. The Great Reset can be thought of as neofeudalism, as “corporate socialism,” as “capitalism with Chinese characteristics,” and in terms of “stakeholder capitalism” versus “neoliberalism.” In future installments, I intend to treat the technological (transhumanist) and monetary (centralized banking and digital currency) aspects that Klaus Schwab and others anticipate and prescribe.

But in this essay, I wish to consider the ideological aspect of the Great Reset. Just how do the planners mean to establish the reset ideologically? That is, how would a reset of the mass mind come to pass that would allow for the many elements of the Great Reset to be put into place—without mass rebellion, that is? After all, if the Great Reset is to take hold, some degree of conformity on the part of the population will be necessary—despite the enhanced, extended, and more precise control over the population that transhumanist technology and a centralized digital currency would afford.

This is the function of ideology. Ideology, as the Marxist historian of science Richard Lewontin has argued, works “by convincing people that the society in which they live is just and fair, or if not just and fair then inevitable, and that it is quite useless to resort to violence.” Ideology establishes the “social legitimation” that Lewontin sees as necessary for gaining the assent of the ruled. “The battleground is in people’s heads, and if the battle is won on that ground then the peace and tranquility of society are guaranteed.” Ideology on this account is not the same as world view. It is rather the mental programming necessary for domination and control short of the use of force. Ideological indoctrination is easier, less messy, and less expensive than state and state-supported violence.

Continue reading→

Great Reset? Putin Says, “Not So Fast” by Tom Luongo

Neither Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping had anything nice to say at the Davos virtual conclave about the Davos crowd’s Great Reset. From Tom Luongo at tomluongo.me:

Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years?

It would have been easy to miss given everything going on.  In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.

The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I’m calling Virtual Davos, and at this year’s event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.

But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn’t have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin’s speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.

The last time someone walked into a major international forum and issued such a scathing critique of the current geopolitical landscape was Putin’s speech to the United Nations on September 29th, 2015, two days before he sent a small contingency of Russian air support to Syria.

There he excoriated not only the U.N. by name but most importantly the U.S. and its NATO allies by inference asking the most salient question, “Do you understand what you have done?” having unleashed chaos in an already chaotic part of the world?

As important as that speech was it was Putin’s actions after that which defined the current era of geopolitical chess across the Eurasian continent.   Syria became the nexus around which the resistance to the “ISIS is invincible” narrative unraveled

And the mystery of who was behind ISIS, namely the Obama administration, was revealed to anyone paying attention.

Continue reading→

The Great Reset, Part IV: “Stakeholder Capitalism” Vs. “Neoliberalism”, by Michael Rectenwald (with links to Parts I-III)

This series is the most comprehensive and detailed analysis of the Great Reset. From Michael Rectenwald at zerohedge.com:

Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,

Read Part I: Reduced Expectations And Bio-Techno-Feudalism here…

Read Part II: Corporate Socialism here…

Read Part III: Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics here…

Any discussion of “stakeholder capitalism” must begin by noting a paradox: like “neoliberalism,” its nemesis, “stakeholder capitalism” does not exist as such. There is no such economic system as “stakeholder capitalism,” just as there is no such economic system as “neoliberalism.” The two antipathetic twins are imaginary ghosts forever pitted against each other in a seemingly endless and frenzied tussle.

Instead of stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism, there are authors who write about stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism and companies that more or less subscribe to the view that companies have obligations to stakeholders in addition to shareholders. But if Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have their way, there will be governments that induce, by regulations and the threat of burdensome taxation, companies to subscribe to stakeholder redistribution.

Stakeholders consist of “customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities” in addition to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any corporate behavior—other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations that do not “serve” their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must be abandoned. Racial “equity,” the promotion of transgender agendas, and other such identity policies and politics, will also be injected into corporate sharing schemes.

Continue reading→

Conservatives Must Now Draw A Line In The Sand And Stop The “Great Reset”, by Brandon Smith

Now’s the time for localized, decentralized protest and action: a concerted resistance to the all the odious planks of the Great Reset platform. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.us:

There are many millions of Americans today in the post-election environment that feel uneasy about the fate of the country given the rise of a Biden presidency. And though I understand why this tension exists, I want to offer a possible “silver lining”; a different way of looking at the situation:

With Biden in the White House, there is no longer any ambiguity about what conservatives (and some of the more courageous moderates) need to do and need to accomplish. Now we know where we stand, and now the stakes are clear.

With Trump in office, a lot of liberty minded people became a little too comfortable, to the point that they were inactive. They actually believed the system could be repaired and corruption ended from within, and without much effort on our part beyond our votes. Trump made many conservatives lazy.

Then there was the Q-anon-sense floating around on the web which also misled some freedom activists into thinking that people much higher placed or “smarter” than us were fighting the good fight behind the scenes and that the globalists would be swept up in a grand 4D chess maneuver. This was a fantasy; it was never going to happen. Finally, everyone knows this and we can get on with the business of fighting the real battles ahead.

I think we are reaching a stage in the conflict between freedom advocates and collectivist tyrants when many illusions are going to melt away, and all we will be left with is cold hard reality. Now is the time when we find out who is going to stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, and who is going to cower and submit just to save their own skin. Now is the time when we find out who has balls.

The last four years plus the election of 2020 have revealed that political solutions are out the window. A lot of conservatives should have known better, but maybe it takes a perceived disaster to shock some people out of their waking dreams. Elections, voting, potential third parties; it’s all Kabuki theater. It’s all a facade to keep us docile and under control.

Continue reading→

Get Used to Living under “Subsidiarity” after The Great Reset, by Mark E. Jeftovic

Freedom under The Great Reset is the freedom to live your own life as long as you follow their rules. From Mark E. Jeftovic at bombthrower.com:

It means they set the rules, and you get to follow them any way you want.

#Davos2021 starts today.

We’ve all been hearing a lot The Great Reset lately, new slogans abound such as Build Back Better, the New Normal, and what seems to be a “new” model called “Stakeholder Capitalism” is being espoused (although it is not new, I wrote about the pendulum swinging from stakeholder supremacy to shareholder supremacy back in the days of Milton Friedman in the inaugural post for this site).

Recently I decided it would be helpful challenge my own reflexive inclination to suspect that we were all being collectively screwed by our institutions, yet again.  I wondered if these momentous shifts were simply one of those tectonic phase shifts that occur throughout history and that I shouldn’t leap to the conclusion that it’s some disingenuous and ultimately malevolent  pseudo-reality being imposed from above.

It is fitting that on this  first day of #Davos2021 I outline my arc in which I tried to suspend disbelief around The Great Reset narrative, forcing myself to pose the question:

What if The Great Reset was getting a bad rap?

Maybe it’s true that the world has changed irrevocably, and that change hasn’t been driven or captured by a razor thin scab of elites at the top of the socio-economic pyramid who are setting the agenda. The idea of a reset may be well founded, after all when I first started writing about wealth inequality and crony capitalism over a decade ago, I called it “Rebooting Capitalism”.

Continue reading→

Mutated COVID Virus Marketed to Justify New Lockdowns, by Joseph Mercola

Surely you’re not surprised? From Joseph Mercola at mercola.com:

Mounting mortality data show COVID-19 is hardly the deadly pandemic it’s been made out to be. But just as people were starting to wake up to this fact, the British technocracy came up with a new narrative to keep the fearmongering going.

Mere days before Christmas, U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced there’s a new, mutated, and far more infectious, strain of SARS-CoV-2 on the loose.1,2 The answer? Another round of even stricter stay-at-home orders, business shutdowns and travel bans, just in time for the holidays.

According to The New York Times, the U.K. restrictions may remain in effect for months. Considering these unscientific strategies didn’t work the first or second time around, it strains believability to think they’ll work now.

Indeed, anyone who knows anything about the Great Reset agenda can now see that the lockdowns, which destroy local economies and small businesses, have nothing to do with public health. They are mere smokescreens for the greatest transfer (if not theft) of wealth the world has ever seen.

The biggest losers are low- and middle-income earners, especially private business owners, who have been absolutely decimated while large box stores and multinational companies report record-breaking profits.

Continue reading→

The Great Reset, Part III: Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics

China is the model for the Great Reset. From Michael Rectenwald at mises.org:

Part 1

Part II

The title of this essay represents a play on the Chinese Communist Party’s description of its economy. Several decades ago, when China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the CCP, its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe the Chinese economic system.1 Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase became an essential component the CCP’s attempt to rationalize Chinese capitalist development under a socialist-communist political system.

According to the party, the growing privatization of the Chinese economy was to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as a hundred years according to some party leaders—on the way to a classless society of full socialism-communism. The party leaders claimed, and still maintain, that socialism with Chinese characteristics was necessary in China’s case because China was a “backward” agrarian country when communism was introduced—too early, it was suggested. China needed a cap­italist booster shot.

With the slogan, the party was able to argue that China had been an exception to the orthodox Marxist position that social­ism arrives only after the development of capitalism—although Marx himself deviated from his own formula late in life. At the same time, the slogan allowed the CCP to confirm the ortho­dox Marxist position. China’s communist revolution had come before developed industrial capitalism—an exception to orthodox Marxism. Capitalism was thus introduced into China’s economic system later—a confirmation of orthodox Marxism.

Continue reading→