Posts
Exposes 2012 Rockefeller
Virus Plan
The Great Reset Fraud
By Matthew Ehret
18 July, 2020
Like everyone, I would love to live in a pollution-free world.
I would love to see human civilization strike a balance with nature and at the risk of sounding like a naïve idealist, I sincerely do believe that this is ultimately our destiny as a species.
My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that we have only failed to achieve this paradigm as a species due to the system (and cultural influence) of oligarchism which has managed to stubbornly sink its claws parasitically onto its host for a few too many generations- corrupting and perverting everything that it dominates.
Due to the pervasiveness of oligarchism, mass exploitation, wars and pollution have lain waste to ecosystems and countless human lives alike, and as the neo-liberal order continues to careen towards the inevitable breakdown of a 2 quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble which our un-repentant decades of decadence has caused, very serious choices will need to be made.
False Remedies to the Oncoming Meltdown
Many false solutions will be presented as society wakes up to the burning building it is trapped in, and unless our minds have become aware of those false solutions, (not to mention those arsonists managing this fire from the top), then many well-intentioned souls from all walks of life may sign onto their own death warrants and accidentally usher in a solution far worse than the disease they sought to remedy.
Before you, dear reader, accuse me of being overly dramatic in my claims, let me bring your attention to a June 3rd event sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) entitled The Great Reset featuring impassioned calls by leaders of the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.
WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
Schwab’s message was amplified by Prince Charles who gushed over the this golden opportunity to radically modify human behaviour in ways that decades of environmentalism have failed to accomplish when he said: “We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this [COVID-19] crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,”
While the World Economic Forum is usually known as a forum of global corporate elites, this organization branched out in recent years to become a leader in global pandemic coordination as a co-sponsor of the creepy October 2019 Event 201 and has embraced leaders of typically “anti-capitalist” resistance groups like Greenpeace who now speak regularly at their events.
Jennifer Morgan (current head of Greenpeace) stated at the event “We set up a new world order after World War II… We’re now in a different world than we were then. We need to ask, what can we be doing differently? The World Economic Forum has a big responsibility in that as well—to be pushing the reset button and looking at how to create well-being for people and for the Earth.”
So is this definition of international wellbeing truly what it appears? Or does something more nefarious lurk under the surface? How can we know?
Those who are ignorant to their history will easily believe the cover story they are being fed by the players managing the World Economic Forum. The cover story is as follows: A new system was shaped during a two week conference in Bretton Woods New Hampshire 1944 under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and this was designed to export the New Deal program which reconstructed America after the Great Depression to the rest of the world. Since our current crisis demands a new system in a similar manner as the world needed a reset in 1932 and again in 1945, so too must we do so again.
On the surface this is all true. But here’s the rub…
FDR’s New Deal was premised around: 1) Stopping a bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 when he singlehandedly torpedoed the Bank of England/League of Nations’ London Conference, 2) imposing mass regulation on Wall Street speculators under Glass-Steagall laws and the broad bank acts that broke up megabanks, created the SEC, protected legitimate savings and put hundreds of elite bankers on trial under the Pecora Commission, 3) launched vast infrastructure projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification projects, Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dams etc which increased the national productive powers of labor turning America into a FULL SPECTRUM agro-industrial economy capable of constant growth, and 4) fought valiantly to guarantee those same capabilities to all nations of the world in total opposition to the British Empire.
Today’s Green New Dealers use the form and name of FDR’s historic precedents but are totally committed to the opposing goals.
Under the global response mechanisms being proposed by the oligarchs running the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset strategy, green energy grids designed to lower the world temperature by two degrees within 30 years by de-carbonizing society will have the effect of reducing the productive powers of labor of all nations rather than increasing those powers as the original New Deal had done.
Meanwhile Cap and Trade/Carbon pricing mechanisms designed by the Bank of England and the Carney/Bloomberg Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures promise to create financial incentives to reduce the world population potential by deconstructing the industrial economic order needed to sustain the nearly 8 billion souls on the surface of earth currently. In a recent speech to the City of London the former head of the Bank of England who now leads Boris Johnson’s Climate Finance team said:
“Achieving net zero emissions will require a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models. This could turn an existential risk into the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.”
Carney, who also happens to be the architect of the Central Bankers Climate Compact has previously threatened destruction on all businesses that refuse to conform to the new green standards which he and his controllers wish be imposed upon the world saying: “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.
While the new reset green system promises to feature more regulations onto finance, will those regulations be controlled by sovereign nation states in the interests of the general welfare of their people or by private central banks in the interests of an oligarchical elite obsessed with control, balance, and keeping nations gullible, confused, divided, depopulated and impoverished?
I think you can figure this out for yourself.
The only form of a legitimate Great Reset that will protect people, nations and reduce the influence of the financial oligarchy WHILE actually protecting the environment in the long-run is tied to the modern International New Deal known as the Belt and Road Initiative. By creating a new system of finance tied to long-term development, agro-industrial growth of full spectrum economies across the world, China and its allies have taken up the torch which was dropped by Franklin Roosevelt’s early death on April 12, 1945. Any arrangement for a new economic reset would have to adhere to the proven principles of anti-fascist political economy that have been proven to work in the past and continue to work in the present.
A powerful start to this reset would involve President Trump agreeing to an emergency summit of Russia-China and the USA followed by a five-nation summit featuring the UK and France under the guidelines set forth by President Putin in January 2020 and reiterated again weeks ago.
BIO: Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .
Investigative journalist Harry Vox warns of plandemic in 2014
In 2012, the pandemic that the world had been anticipating for years finally hit. Unlike 2009’s H1N1, this new influenza strain—originating from wild geese—was extremely virulent and deadly. Even the most pandemic-prepared nations were quickly overwhelmed when the virus streaked around the world, infecting nearly 20 percent of the global population and killing 8 million in just seven months, the majority of them healthy young adults. The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies: international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt, debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains. Even locally,normally bustling shops and office buildings sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers.
The pandemic blanketed the planet—though disproportionate numbers died in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Central America, where the virus spread like wildfire in the absence of official containment protocols. But even in developed countries, containment was a challenge. The United States’s initial policy of “strongly discouraging” citizens from flying proved deadly in its leniency, accelerating the spread of the virus not just within the U.S. but across borders. However, a few countries did fare better—China in particular. The Chinese government’s quick imposition and enforcement of mandatory quarantine for all citizens, as well as its instant and near-hermetic sealing off of all borders, saved millions of lives, stopping the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter postpandemic recovery.
China’s government was not the only one that took extreme measures to protect its citizens from risk and exposure. During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets. Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even intensified. In order to protect themselves from the spread of increasingly global problems—from pandemics and transnational terrorism to environmental crises and rising poverty—leaders around the world took a firmer grip on power.
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their privacy—to more paternalistic states In exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose order in the ways they saw fit. In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests. In many developed countries, enforced cooperation with a suite of new regulations and agreements slowlybut steadily restored both order and, importantly, economic growth.
Across the developing world, however, the story was different—and much more variable. Top-down authority took different forms in different countries, hinging largely on the capacity, caliber, and intentions of their leaders. In countries with strong and thoughtful leaders, citizens’ overall economic status and quality of life increased. In India, for example, air quality drastically improved after 2016, when the government outlawed highemitting vehicles. In Ghana, the introduction of ambitious government programs to improve basic infrastructure and ensure the availability of clean water for all her people led to a sharp decline in water-borne diseases. But more authoritarian leadership worked less well—and in some cases tragically—in countries run by irresponsible elites who used their increased power to pursue their own interests at the expense of their citizens.
There were other downsides, as the rise of virulent nationalism created new hazards: spectators at the 2018 World Cup, for example, wore bulletproof vests that sported a patch of their national flag. Strong technology regulations stifled innovation, kept costs high, and curbed adoption. In the developing world, access to “approved” technologies increased but beyond that remained limited: the locus of technology innovation was largely in the developed world, leaving many developing countries on the receiving end of technologies that others consider “best” for them. Some governments found this patronizing and refused to distribute computers and other technologies that they scoffed at as “second hand.” Meanwhile, developing countries with more resources and better capacity began to innovate internally to fill these gaps on their own. Meanwhile, in the developed world, the presence of so many top-down rules and norms greatlyinhibited entrepreneurial activity. Scientists and innovators were often told by governments what research lines to pursue and were guided mostly toward projects that would make money (e.g., market-driven product development) orwere “sure bets” (e.g., fundamental research), leaving more risky or innovative research areas largely untapped. Well-off countries and monopolistic companies with big research and development budgets still made significant advances, but the IP behind their breakthroughs remained locked behind strict national or corporate protection. Russia and India imposed stringent domestic standards for supervising and certifying encryption-related products and their suppliers—a category that in reality meant all IT innovations.
The U.S. and EU struck back with retaliatory national standards, throwing a wrench in the development and diffusion oftechnology globally. Especially in the developing world, acting in one’s national self-interest often meant seeking practical alliances that fit with those interests—whether it was gaining access to needed resources or banding together in order to achieve economic growth. In South America and Africa, regional and sub-regional alliances became more structured. Kenya doubled its trade with southern and eastern Africa, as new partnerships grew within the continent. China’s investment in Africa expanded as the bargain of new jobs and infrastructure in exchange for access to key minerals or food exports proved agreeable to many governments. Cross-border ties proliferated in the form of official security aid. While the deployment of foreign security teams was welcomed in some of the most dire failed states, one-size-fits-all solutions yielded few positive results.
By 2025, people seemed to be growing weary of so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them.
Wherever national interests clashed with individual interests, there was conflict. Sporadic pushback became increasingly organized andcoordinated, as disaffected youth and people who had seen their status and opportunities slip away—largely in developing countries—incited civil unrest. In 2026, protestors in Nigeria brought down the government, fed up with the entrenched cronyism and corruption. Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something wouldinevitably upset the neat order that the world’sgovernments had worked so hard to establish.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.