The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sun Sep 06, 2020 10:10 pm

.

Cross-post.

conniption » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:51 pm wrote:
RT

The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns

6 Sep, 2020

By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, 'Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,' is available here.

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.

When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that’s what happened.

Also on rt.com Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus & are not contagious. Every stat about the disease is bogus

Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn’t measure the weather; it became the weather – for a few seconds anyway.

An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn’t convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.

Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it’s 0.67 – I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn’t notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.

Kaboom!

With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate – and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.

In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same – but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.

Which fatality rate, did you say?
First, there’s the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms – those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.

Then there’s the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill – the “cases” – are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don’t have symptoms. Put simply – all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.

Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.

Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.

The error started in America, but didn’t end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.

On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: “… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

Also on rt.com ‘Corona World’ game backed by German public TV dehumanizes lockdown resisters & kids – but sure, what could go wrong?

They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.

But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low – they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal – quite literally – mistake.

The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid’s CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.

At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.

Flu toll 1,000 – Covid toll 10,000
So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.

READ MORE: Lockdown supporters are using psychology pseudoscience to label anti-maskers as irrational, stupid sociopaths

If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.

I don’t expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn’t. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.

Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”

On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season – almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.

Enter the Mad Modellers of Lockdown
In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.

Is this prediction anywhere close?

So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say... “We had lockdown... without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected…” etc.

To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.

With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.

Also on rt.com We might have to wait forever for science to show the Covid threat is over, so let’s use our common sense & get back to normal

So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.

As of last week, Iceland’s IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can’t start dying of a disease they haven’t got.

This means that we’ll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu – somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.

Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved, almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Mangled beyond recognition
Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

READ MORE: Weird science: Covid-19 does NOT cause heart damage, as blockbuster study had basic calculation errors

When researchers look back at this pandemic, they’ll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died –coincidentally– with it. Everything’s been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible.

Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.

That’s the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys… bad mistake.

We’ve killed tens of thousands – for nothing
But because we panicked, we’ve added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.

We threw – to use health secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly – in particular - were trampled to death.

We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.


https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19 ... ake-panic/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Joe Hillshoist » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:11 am

Belligerent Savant » 07 Sep 2020 12:10 wrote:.

Cross-post.

conniption » Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:51 pm wrote:
RT

The 1% blunder: How a simple but fatal math mistake by US Covid-19 experts caused the world to panic and order lockdowns

6 Sep, 2020

By Malcolm Kendrick, doctor and author who works as a GP in the National Health Service in England. His blog can be read here and his book, 'Doctoring Data – How to Sort Out Medical Advice from Medical Nonsense,' is available here.

In February, US Covid guru Anthony Fauci predicted the virus was ‘akin to a severe flu’ and would therefore kill around 0.1 percent of people. Then fatality rate predictions were somehow mixed up to make it look ten times WORSE.

When you strip everything else out, the reason for lockdown comes from a single figure: one percent. This was the prediction that Covid, if left unchecked, would kill around one percent of us.

You may not think that percentage is enormous, but one percent of the population of the world is 70 million people – and that’s a lot. It would mean 3.2 million Americans dead, and 670,000 Britons.

But where did this one percent figure come from? You may find this hard to believe, but this figure emerged by mistake. A pretty major thing to make a mistake about, but that’s what happened.

Also on rt.com Up to 90% of people who test positive for Covid barely carry any virus & are not contagious. Every stat about the disease is bogus

Such things occur. On September 23, 1998, NASA permanently lost contact with the Mars Climate Orbiter. It was supposed to go round and round the planet looking at the weather, but instead it hit Mars at around 5,000 mph, exploding into tiny fragments. It didn’t measure the weather; it became the weather – for a few seconds anyway.

An investigation later found that the disaster happened because engineers had used the wrong units. They didn’t convert pound seconds into Newton seconds when doing their calculations. Imperial, not metric. This, remember, was NASA. An organisation not completely full of numbskulls.

Now you and I probably have no idea of the difference between a pound second and a Newton second (it’s 0.67 – I looked it up). But you would kind-of hope NASA would. In fact, I am sure they do, but they didn’t notice, so the figures came out wrong. The initial mistake was made, and was baked into the figures.

Kaboom!

With Covid, a similar mistake happened. One type of fatality rate was substituted for another. The wrong rate was then used to predict the likely death rate – and, as with NASA, no-one picked up the error.

In order to understand what happened, you have to understand the difference between two medical terms that sound the same – but are completely different. Rather like a pound second or a Newton second.

Which fatality rate, did you say?
First, there’s the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). This is the total number of people who are infected by a disease and the number of them who die. This figure includes those who have no symptoms at all, or only very mild symptoms – those who stayed at home, coughed a bit and watched Outbreak.

Then there’s the Case Fatality Rate (CFR). This is the number of people suffering serious symptoms, who are probably ill enough to be in hospital. Clearly, people who are seriously ill – the “cases” – are going to have a higher mortality rate than those who are infected, many of whom don’t have symptoms. Put simply – all cases are infections, but not all infections are cases.

Which means that the CFR will always be far higher than the IFR. With influenza, the CFR is around ten times as high as the IFR. Covid seems to have a similar proportion.

Now, clearly, you do not want to get these figures mixed up. By doing so you would either wildly overestimate, or wildly underestimate, the impact of Covid. But mix these figures up, they did.

The error started in America, but didn’t end there. In healthcare, the US is very much the dog that wags the tail. The figures they come up with are used globally.

On February 28, 2020, an editorial was released by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the editorial stated: “… the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza.”

Also on rt.com ‘Corona World’ game backed by German public TV dehumanizes lockdown resisters & kids – but sure, what could go wrong?

They added that influenza has a CFR of approximately 0.1 percent. One person in a thousand who gets it badly, dies.

But that quoted CFR for influenza was ten times too low – they meant to say the IFR, the Infection Fatality Rate, for influenza was 0.1 percent. This was their fatal – quite literally – mistake.

The mistake was compounded. On March 11, the same experts testified to Congress, stating that Covid’s CFR was likely to be about one percent, so one person dying from a hundred who fell seriously ill. Which, as time has passed, has proved to be pretty accurate.

At this meeting, they compared the likely impact of Covid to flu. But they used the wrong CFR for influenza, the one stated in the previous NEJM editorial. 0.1 percent, or one in a thousand. The one that was ten times too low.

Flu toll 1,000 – Covid toll 10,000
So, they matched up the one percent CFR of Covid with the incorrect 0.1 percent CFR of flu. Suddenly, Covid was going to be ten times as deadly.

READ MORE: Lockdown supporters are using psychology pseudoscience to label anti-maskers as irrational, stupid sociopaths

If influenza killed 50, Covid was going to kill 500. If influenza killed a million, Covid was going to get 10 million. No wonder Congress, then the world, panicked. Because they were told Covid was going to be ten times worse than influenza. They could see three million deaths in the US alone, and 70 million around the world.

I don’t expect you or I to get this sort of thing right. But I bloody well expect the experts to do so. They didn’t. They got their IFR and CFR mixed up and multiplied the likely impact of Covid by a factor of ten.

Here’s what the paper, “Public health lessons learned from biases in coronavirus mortality overestimation”,says: “On March 11, 2020,... based on the data available at the time, Congress was informed that the estimated mortality rate for the coronavirus was ten-times higher than for seasonal influenza, which helped launch a campaign of social distancing, organizational and business lockdowns, and shelter-in-place orders.”

On February 28 it was estimated that Covid was going to have about the same impact as a bad influenza season – almost certainly correct. Eleven days later, the same group of experts predicted that the mortality rate was going to be ten times as high. This was horribly, catastrophically, running-into-Mars-at-5,000-miles-an-hour wrong.

Enter the Mad Modellers of Lockdown
In the UK, the group I call the Mad Modellers of lockdown, the Imperial College experts, created the same panic. On March 16, they used an estimated IFR of 0.9 percent to predict that, without lockdown, Covid would kill around 500,000 in the UK.

Is this prediction anywhere close?

So far, the UK has had around 40,000 Covid deaths. Significantly less than 0.1 percent, but not that far off. Of course, people will say... “We had lockdown... without it so many more would have died. Most people have not been infected…” etc.

To answer this, we need to know the true IFR. Is it a 0.1 percent, or one percent? If it is one percent, we have more than 400,000 deaths to go. If it is 0.1 percent, this epidemic has run its course. For this year, at least.

With swine flu, remember that the IFR started at around two percent. In the end, it was 0.02 percent, which was five times lower than the lowest estimate during the outbreak. The more you test, the lower the IFR will fall.

Also on rt.com We might have to wait forever for science to show the Covid threat is over, so let’s use our common sense & get back to normal

So where can we look to get the current figures on the IFR? The best place to look is at the country that has tested more people than anywhere else as a proportion of their population: Iceland.

As of last week, Iceland’s IFR stood at 0.16 per cent. It cannot go up from here. It can only fall. People can’t start dying of a disease they haven’t got.

This means that we’ll probably end up with an IFR of about 0.1 percent, maybe less. Not the 0.02 percent of Swine Flu – somewhere between the two, perhaps. In short, the 0.1 percent prophecy has proved to be pretty much bang on.

Which means that we’ve had all the deaths we were ever going to get. And which also means that lockdown achieved, almost precisely nothing with regard to Covid. No deaths were prevented.

Mangled beyond recognition
Yes, we are testing and testing, and finding more so-called cases. As you will. But the hospitals and ICUs are virtually empty. Almost no-one is dying of Covid anymore, and most of those who do were otherwise very ill.

Instead of celebrating that, we’ve artificially created a whole new thing to scare ourselves with. We now call a positive test a Covid “case.” This is not medicine. A “case” is someone who has symptoms. A case is not someone carrying tiny amounts of virus in their nose.

Now, however, you test positive, and you’re a “case.” Never in history has medical terminology been so badly mangled. Never have statistics been so badly mangled.

READ MORE: Weird science: Covid-19 does NOT cause heart damage, as blockbuster study had basic calculation errors

When researchers look back at this pandemic, they’ll have absolutely no idea who died because of Covid, or who died –coincidentally– with it. Everything’s been mashed together in a determined effort to make the virus look as deadly as possible.

Lockdown happened because we were told that Coivid could kill one percent. But Covid was never going to kill more than about 0.1 percent – max.

That’s the figure estimated back in February, by the major players in viral epidemiology. A figure that has turned out to be remarkably accurate. Bright guys… bad mistake.

We’ve killed tens of thousands – for nothing
But because we panicked, we’ve added hugely to the toll. Excess mortality between March and May was around 70,000, not the 40,000 who died of/with Covid. Which means 30,000 may have died directly as a result of the actions we took.

We protected the young, the children, who are at zero risk of Covid. But we threw our elderly and vulnerable under a bus. The very group who should have been shielded. Instead, we caused 20,000 excess deaths in care homes.

It was government policy to clear out hospitals, and stuff care homes with patients carrying Covid, or discharge them back to their own homes, to infect their nearest and dearest. Or any community care staff who visited them.

We threw – to use health secretary Matt Hancock’s ridiculous phrase – a ring of steel around care homes. As it turned out, this was not to protect them, but to trap the residents, as we turned their buildings into Covid incubators. Anyone working in care homes, as I do, knows why we got 20,000 excess deaths. Government policy did this.

That is far from all the damage. On top of care homes, the ONS estimates that 16,000 excess deaths were caused by lockdown. The heart attacks and strokes that were not treated. The empty, echoing hospitals and A&E units. The cancer treatments stopped entirely.

Which means that at least as many people have died as a result of the draconian actions taken to combat Covid, as have been killed by the virus itself. This has been a slow-motion stampede, where the elderly – in particular - were trampled to death.

We locked down in fear. We killed tens of thousands unnecessarily, in fear. We crippled the economy, and left millions in fear of their livelihoods. We have trapped abused women and children at home with their abusers. We have wiped out scores of companies, and crushed entire industries.

We stripped out the NHS, and left millions in prolonged pain and suffering, on ever lengthening waiting lists, which have doubled. There have also been tens of thousands of delayed cancer diagnoses – the effects of which are yet to be seen, but the Lancet has estimated at least sixty thousand years of life will be lost.

Lockdown can be seen as a complete and utter disaster. And it was all based on a nonsense, a claim that Covid was going to kill one percent. A claim that can now be seen to be utterly and completely wrong. Sweden, which did not lock down, has had a death rate of 0.0058 percent.

It takes a very big person to admit they have made a horrible, terrible mistake. But a horrible, terrible mistake has been made. Let’s end this ridiculous nonsense now. And vow never to let such monumental stupidity happen ever again.


https://www.rt.com/op-ed/500000-covid19 ... ake-panic/


Some of these figures are flat out wrong.

For example Sweden's death rate... Sweden has lost 0.058% of its total population.

That's not the idr in Sweden. It's the total death rate due to COVID. Unless everyone in Sweden has had COVID the infection death rate has to be higher because the same number of people died but less than the total population were infected.

The authors claim that Swedens death rate is 0.0058%. That is at least 100 times lower than the percentage of all Swedish people who died from COVID. I don't understand how that is possible.

I also don't understand how none of the 30000 excess deaths during lockdown were because of COVID.
Joe Hillshoist
 
Posts: 10594
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: World Economic Forum "RESET"

Postby Elvis » Tue Sep 22, 2020 2:22 am

Listening to a BBC radio program, I caught a detail about the "reset" ruminated over at the WEF and around the talkosphere. No transcript, but the program is worth a listen for its main content.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3cszcnf

Covid unemployment: a new crisis?
The Real Story
How does surging unemployment complicate the global response to the pandemic?


The host, having previously interviewed numerous WEF types etc., asked the panelists about the WEF "reset," which he described mainly as switching from measuring the success of an economy by its growth in GDP (Gross National Product) — a classically unsustainable capitalist model — to measure quality of life, or well-being indices. That's a very sensible change in perspective, and goes hand-in-hand with finance industry chatter about "peak globalism" and the general failure of neoliberal ideology.

The thing is, not every person working in the WEF is a Machiavellian Satan worshipper who fervently desires the enslavement of humanity for the benefit of a handful at the top. We can assume that a few of those types are in the mix (and why wouldn't they be?), but it appears to me that, while institutionally the aim is to make the world safe for capital, the thinkers doing the work A) really just want to make things function, and B) are waking up to the fact that conventional, 'neoclassical' economics is crap. A few, I'm sure, just want to prevent another French Revolution (mistakes were made).

It's the ugly mix of capitalism and technocracy handing down a bogus economics which after a few generations becomes "conventional wisdom" cemented in the minds of citizens. John Kenneth Galbraith coined that phrase "conventional wisdom," and others including "innocent frauds" of economic policy, which he discusses here, in his final published essay, pertinent now: https://progressive.org/dispatches/john ... ket-fraud/

When your whole education, job, salary, career, peer validation and "making a name for yourself" depend on clinging to the conventional claptrap, it's hard to let go. Some "reset" is needed, those at the top are catching on and will try to get ahead of the game to own it. I don't think it's all in a bad direction; Europeans are better at this, the US seems fucked for the time being.

Naturally this particular dyseducation, infecting formal and folk knowledge alike, benefits banking & corporate elites above all. The BBC program linked above is more evidence that this is changing as myths and lies are exposed.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:59 pm

.

This can also be posted on the more recent 'digital currency/Great Reset' thread, but I'm placing it here as it applies more broadly to larger WEF/"Great Reset" agendas.

https://wrenchinthegears.com/2020/10/27 ... t-prisons/

How Data-Driven Government and the Internet of Bodies Are Poised To Transform Smart Sustainable Cities Into Social Impact Prisons

What follows is a transcript of the remarks I made as part of an online forum, Politics In And Out Of Europe, hosted by Rutgers University’s Center for European Studies on Monday October 26, 2020. There were two panels followed by an hour of discussion. I was the second presenter. Framing remarks and response was provided by Naomi Klein. Video of my portion of the event here. All combined, it’s about a half hour. I reference two blog posts. One is about solutions journalism and impact media and the other is about Omidyar Network and digital education as well as the resolution against blockchain identity passed by the NAACP last year (search for “blockchain”).

Introduction: Alison McDowell is a mother and an independent researcher based in Philadelphia, PA. She blogs at the intersection of race, finance, nature, and technology at wrenchinthegears.com. Her activism began fighting to slow the privatization of public education in her city. These efforts eventually led her to an examination of globalized poverty management, euphemistically known as social impact investing. This new form of capitalism – biocapitalism or stakeholder capitalism – aims to turn humans into data commodities. As the Fourth Industrial Revolution, which has been planned out by Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, seeks to replace human labor with artificial intelligence and robotics, a problem has arisen as to how life can be made profitable for transnational global capital interests once the poor have no buying power and are drowning in debt. The solution? Human capital bond markets, but first everyone must be tagged and trackable for “impact.” That’s where biometric Covid health passports come in. Alison welcomes curious engagement and fellow travelers. You can follow her on Twitter at @philly852.

We’re living in tumultuous times with polarizing political theater and pandemic providing ample cover for the roll out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. From the World Economic Forum’s outpost at San Francisco’s Presidio, the tentacles of dispossession triggered by Klaus Schwab’s “Great Reset” are rapidly encircling the globe.

We are witnessing the culmination of a century of machinations by western social engineers. We see predatory philanthropy using such euphemistic framing as “Living Cities,” “Healthy Cities,” “Resilient Cities,” and “Build Back Better” to package the profoundly anti-human and anti-life initiatives coming out of Davos as aspirational goals for “smart” living.

The oligarch class asks us to play along and overlook the fact that all of this smartness rests on a foundation of continued growth, fossil-fuel expansion, child labor, toxic waste, and space pollution. They demand we overlook the insatiable energy requirements needed to run the augmented reality Internet of Things illusion. That we put out of our minds the existence of vast data centers cooled 24/7 with the water of a thirsty, poisoned world.

They’ve outdone themselves propagandizing youth to cheer on transnational global capital’s plans to implement a final “green” solution. Though my hope is after months of digital alienation people’s spirits will stir in time to derail the intentions of this cruel biocapitalist regime's aim to push us away from our rightful connection to natural systems, and one another, and instead, into isolated virtual realms. The spell of faux ICT sustainability must be broken.

Predatory debt-finance got a spit and polish makeover, rebranded as circular economies and stakeholder capitalism to make it more palatable. Post-Covid, vast poverty mining enterprises will emerge from the ashes. Smart city sensor networks, predictive policing, and public-private partnerships will latch onto shell-shocked families trying to pick up the pieces.

And while Bitcoin-loving Agorists dream of liberation on Blockchain, central bankers have an entirely different vision in mind. They are conjuring a future of data flowing through digital wallets, fuel for an emergent social impact economy, one carefully plotted out for Third Sector, now Fourth Sector, implementation by Social Finance and Sir Ronald Cohen, Harvard Business School graduate and father of UK venture capital.

Bloomberg Philanthropies Digital Innovation Project and the Global Parliament of Mayors based out of The Hague will ensure gov-tech and open data platforms are ready to deliver all the data that is needed. Conveniently, a new “operating system for government” developed by Neil Kleiman of NYU’s GovLab and Stephen Goldsmith of Harvard Kennedy School’s Data-Smart City Solutions, will permit politicians to deftly shift accountability for devastating policies onto faceless cadres of analysts. Dashboards are effective weapons to sway populations conditioned for compliance. It’s difficult to effectively direct public sentiment against something as ephemeral as an algorithm.

The war on terror has been swapped out for pandemic preparedness, which should work out well for the World Bank’s efforts to grow their vaccine and pandemic bond markets. We all pose threats to state security simply by living in a human body. Robot police dogs, drones, facial recognition cameras, wearable sensors, and biometric tracking are framed vital investments needed to keep communities “safe” in what is rapidly becoming a global open air prison. Track and trace free-range humans; look to industrial farming; look to wildlife management; look to Gaza; look to The Commons Project.

Image

CommonPass isn’t their only venture. Not by a long shot.

It’s not just air travel that the Rockefeller Foundation and the World Economic Forum intend to regulate. In their imagined future, presentation of tokenized credentials will be required to go to work, to school, to the store, to access public buildings and events. Such micro-management was unfathomable mere months ago, at least to everyone not in on the scheme.

When we speak of politics, when we speak of citizens’ rights this is THE game changer. Who voted in Common Pass? Who decided individual liberties will now be governed by apps advanced by corporations that stand to profit from population management?

How relevant will national borders be in an age of real-time geo-fencing? Pass laws have long been used to control targeted populations: on Indian reservations, in Nazi Germany, in Apartheid South Africa. Now we have Serco. Now we have legal discrimination based on health status? In the global biosecurity state on any given day the border could very well end up being your front door.

If we don’t object, moving forward blockchain tokens representing all sorts of digital assets, including rights and privileges, will be held in digital accounts. Social entrepreneurs need these biometric identity systems in place in order to install their planned impact economy. Using health status as an issue of national security, our hijacked governments plan to impose this upon us, not for our own good, but because the biocapitalist agenda must proceed.

Few realize it, but the Covid drama is providing cover for a far more insidious program of perpetual tracking and tracing tied to health management and Sustainable Development Goal . Health data will create new equity markets meaning more and more wearable tech surveillance. The Impact Management Project’s practitioners, the asset holders whose greed led to a world beset by chronic illness, have structured profit centers in Internet of Things preventative care – social determinants of health weaponized.

What we are living through is not a public health emergency but a reset of the global economy managed from Davos on behalf of the finance, technology and defense sectors. This “new normal” is totalitarianism wrapped up in a shiny “green” bow.

Image

The post-Covid world will be characterized by welfare dependency on a scale heretofore unimaginable, justifying the creation of innovative human capital debt products. Portfolios of people, poor people, will emerge as a new asset class enabled by pay for success government contracts.

Education, training, healthcare, counseling, nutrition, and housing services all aligned to the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals to generate the metrics needed to satisfy contractual obligations. The richness of life narrowed to fit the stingy confines of a data analyst’s worldview.

Image
This is a diagram featuring a digital wallet where food assistance funds are stored on blockchain with coded nudges guiding a recipient’s food purchase behaviors.

Stakeholder capitalists can’t profitably mine poverty without biometric identification that can be used to aggregate interoperable data. Vaccine registries are central to this program. GAVI is a key player with Gates sitting at the pinnacle of the Stakeholder Capitalist pyramid. ID2020 efforts running through the United Nations will ensure no one “gets left behind,” but few are aware the US Department of Homeland Security bankrolled much of the World Wide Web Consortium’s work in the digital identity space.

As I prepared these remarks I couldn’t help but mull over the intelligence communities’ interest in signals intelligence, weaponized narrative, simulation, predictive modeling, and social contagion. How will our collective voices ripple through this militarized cloud architecture into the general consciousness and beyond? Such are the thoughts that haunt the corners of a Zoom consciousness – Bluffdale and the NSA always out on the horizon, you know?

But those with eyes to see have the duty to speak.

So I am here today as a mother.

I am here as a mapper of geographies of power, as a voracious LinkedIn profile reader, and a viewer of obscure government webinars.

I am here as a resident of Philadelphia, a “smart” city set up for predatory “what works” “data-driven” government.

I am here to shine a light on municipal nudge units funded by self-interested foundations seeking to replace civil servants with apps that manage citizens as agents in behavioral economic equations.

I am here as a human relative living among a multitude of non-human beings on this beautiful earth, not yet remade as a planetary computer to profit social impact investors.

I am here as a lover of stars who opposes the weaponization of space, the atmosphere, and our weather systems.

I am here as a voice for peace who views 5G and the planned 6G installation as a domestic military occupation.

I am here to speak of Davos’s plans to deny us the opportunity to communally atone for and begin to remedy the devastation capitalism has wrought against nature and Indigenous people.

Image

I am here because we have entered a cyborg era in which sociopathic billionaires and defense contractors want to fundamentally alter what it means to be human, tapping nano-technology and morally bankrupt scientists to do their dirty work.

To the wealth hoarders, the masses exist as nodes in the Internet of Bodies, nodes that must be separated from the cosmic dance through force of law, hydro-gel biosensors, and blockchain.

Will you own your ledger or will your ledger own you? We are looking at a future where the masses will forfeit their innate human freedoms in exchange for the behavioral currency needed to survive within the panopticon.

Human capital bonded. Each life calculated according to its perceived burden on the coming robot society, at least in the eyes of hedge fund traders as they place their bets.

Don’t worry there’s safety on the “continuum of care” pathway. Just do as you’re told and keep your social credit score where it needs to be.

Every move in every country advances lockstep – a playbook aligned to strategic investments made over decades by philanthro-capitalists like Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Pierre Omidyar, Steve Ballmer, and Marc Benioff.

Will human rights mean anything once financiers, faith community endowments, health insurers, pensions, and even sovereign wealth funds hold our futures in escrow?

Rockefeller Foundation-funded think tank change agents have cleared the way for life to be railroaded into virtual space – for our own good, the good of the planet, in service of the World Bank’s One Health initiative.

The oligarchs will use the UN Sustainable Development Goals to justify imprisoning the planet using sensor networks. Once the electrical engineers have nature and humanity firmly in their grasp, transnational global capital can channel its concentrated wealth through our bodies, our social relationships, and our non-human kin.

As we stand on this threshold questions must be asked.

Who intends to rule life on Earth?

To what end?

On whose authority?

So today I am here to declare on behalf of the women of the world to say we do not consent to Davos’s Fourth Industrial Revolution.

In this battle of sacred and profane we stand ready to defend the children and the earth from further predation and to strive towards a future of reciprocity and abundance and spirit.



User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby dada » Thu Dec 03, 2020 3:40 pm

I think the piece successfully argues itself into a corner. Closed off all avenues to thinking outside the box.

Who knows, advanced tech may be just the tools needed to turn whatever tables need turning. And it's practically being handed to us.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:29 pm

.

This could go in a few threads, but seems apt here.

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2021/01 ... -doctrine/


[plenty of embedded links at the source]


The Virtual Education Shock Doctrine

Wrong Kind of Green Jan 09, 2021 Pacifism as Pathology, Social Engineering

California’s online-schooling model is a glimpse into the future of digital austerity.


By Alex Gutentag

Alex Gutentag is a public school teacher in California and a former union representative. You can follow her on Twitter at @galexybrane

In California, the nation’s most populous state, 90% of students started the school year entirely online. When schools closed in March, 50% of low-income California students lacked the necessary technology to access distance learning. Broader tech distribution was available for the 2020-21 school year thanks to donations from companies like HP, Lenovo, Amazon, Apple, T-Mobile, Microsoft, and Google. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey even personally donated $10 million to the city of Oakland’s tech initiative. With chromebooks and wifi hotspots now available for every student, California legislators and corporations congratulated themselves on closing the “digital divide.”

Despite their improved tech access, many students have more pressing material needs. Over 260,000 California students experience homelessness every year, and over 20% of California children live below the poverty line. The tech industry has not made massive donations to medical and therapy services, which low-income students often receive through community schools. Likewise, there is no private backing for the state’s free grab-and-go meals program.
Distance learning is a sleight of hand. Framed as a panacea, online education is actually the vehicle for a long-desired economic restructuring.

Online schooling will generate a treasure trove of data tech firms can buy and sell. Free meals will not. Silicon Valley boasts a yearly output of $275 billion and has a GDP similar to that of Qatar. Yet California, the world’s fifth largest economy, is currently withholding $11 billion from schools. Districts have been given IOUs for state funding and will not be reimbursed until next year. In contrast, California billionaires increased their net worth by over 25.5% ($175 billion) in the first three months of the pandemic.

Students throughout California are now stuck at home in hot, crowded rooms that occasionally fill with wildfire smoke. 19% of these students are English language learners and almost 13% of them have disabilities. Every day on Zoom they fall more and more behind both academically and socially. In Los Angeles Unified, the state’s largest district, students are receiving 90-170 minutes of daily live instruction (depending on their age), after which they are expected to do independent work. Compared to the traditional six- or seven-hour school day, online education is laughably inadequate.

In real time, teachers and families are watching important developmental windows close for vulnerable children. Meanwhile the California Democratic Party and its affiliates tout virtual schooling as a solution for mitigating COVID-19 transmission. This policy is the result of an alignment between the Democratic Party, corporate power, and a bureaucratic teachers’ union. The purpose of their alignment is to rationalize austerity and boost commercial profits.

...

California cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have been declining since August 1, but since then Newsom has only made reopening guidelines stricter.

The full prohibition on in-person learning directly contradicts the advice of medical and scientific experts. In June the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued recommendations for school re-openings, stating, “the AAP strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school.” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine issued similar guidance. Schools, the authors argue, provide essential services to students and families.

Only after large school districts decided to stay closed did the AAP revise its original guidance to fit a perceived political consensus. Many clinical studies and reviews supported their original conclusion, demonstrating that children are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than adults, and school closures are an ineffective method of disease control. Not only will these irrational closures deepen class disparities, the policy has also overruled some children’s civil right to public education—a right that became universal in federal law less than 50 years ago.

Virtual learning effectively limits educational access for high-need populations. Yet as public resources are funneled into online learning platforms, the CTA regularly claims to be fighting back against billionaires and politicians. In reality, the teachers union is acting as an astroturfing and financing arm of the tech industry and the Democratic Party. There is no real conflict between these entities because their interests are identical.

The Teachers Union as Controlled Opposition

Image

The median teacher salary in California is $65,252. On average, California teachers pay $1,072 in dues, and the majority of dues do not go to local organizations—they go to the CTA. In 2018 at least twelve CTA officers and directors made six-figure salaries. The CTA president took home about $340,000, and the union’s Associate Executive Director over $1 million. It is extremely difficult for teachers to find out how much of their dues money goes to political activities, let alone which of these activities actually help secure better working conditions and wages for teachers.

However, some information is available. California teachers’ dues directly contribute to the CTA’s PAC. Although teachers can opt out from donating to the PAC, this option is only given when they sign the form to join the union. While there are limits to the CTA’s donations to individual candidates through its PAC, the CTA can donate greater amounts through independent expenditure committees. For example, the CTA’s PAC donated only $29,000 to Newsom’s election campaign in 2018, but its independent expenditure committee gave $1 million to “Education Organizations for Gavin Newsom for Governor 2018.”

...

While low-income students and families struggle to adapt, many educators are willing to push rhetoric that presents virtual learning as liberation. In some cities, local union leaders, district administrators, and other organizations have entered into an endless competition to prove who is more woke and more pro-lockdown. Racialized social justice politics have created distractions that serve to rationalize and excuse the absence of public health infrastructure and other services.

Virtual learning is training affluent students for a life of self-directed work at home. It is training low-income students for a life of no work at all.

The woke posturing in Oakland demonstrates a pattern of California educators and other professionals wielding their cultural power to uphold tech profits while taking for granted the profound economic inequalities caused by the COVID-19 lockdown. The major stakeholders, while supposedly at odds, all supported government frugality as a science-based safety measure. With online learning now fully in place, social justice narratives contend that staring at screens is emancipation.

Various tech initiatives like the Modern Classrooms Project allege that online learning is progressive because it allows for self-pacing. The concept of virtual self-pacing is tied to declarations that some students are “thriving” through online education. School, proponents of distance learning claim, is perhaps too long, too demanding; the standards and expectations may be too high. Distance learning, they argue, allows kids to organize their own time, regardless of whether it is developmentally appropriate or not.

Similarly, education theories such as “Abolitionist Teaching” posit that white supremacy creates trauma for Black students at school. Therefore, the fundamental structures of school must be rethought. Intellectuals and writers who characterize school as inherently racist are assisting in a union-busting project. Abolitionist theorists even call on teachers’ unions themselves to demand curriculum and personnel changes, and scheduling that adheres to anti-racist thought.

The digitization of schools is an initial step toward digitization of society as a whole. Just as the school bell schedule was designed around the factory model, so the current model of virtual learning is training affluent students for a life of self-directed work at home. It is training low-income students for a life of no work at all.

Rejecting a Lockdown Future

“The long-term effects of school closures will define a generation. Children are facing increased rates of severe abuse and a mental health catastrophe. We’ve told children that their existence is harmful and their lives are unimportant. We abandoned them and they won’t forget it.”


“Greater income inequality, increased unemployment, growing dependence on government, and more mass migrations are a few of the most pressing problems that failing to train the next generation of workers for the digitally driven economy will bring.” [page 3]


Image

Given this threat to the teaching profession, the CTA and local unions must divest from corporate interests that aim to dismantle labor. Bribing politicians can only get educators so far. Teachers can no longer give in to the mafia-style antics of the Democratic Party if they want to survive. Union dues should not be spent on Newsom’s reelection campaign, but on a state-wide strike fund. Charter school champions benefit when public schools lose enrollment because of systematic mismanagement. They will also benefit when the union starts hemorrhaging membership due to its corruption and negligence. Since March the American left has framed neoliberal lockdown policies as the only morally viable option for dealing with COVID-19. In doing so, they have fetishized teachers’ unions and used their labor negotiations as the prime example of worker support for lockdown. Now that the damage has been done and soaring unemployment has disempowered all workers, the left may begin to roll back its discredited justifications for lockdown. No matter what challenges arise, social services and public institutions should be non-negotiable for any socialist, populist, or pro-worker politics.

Schools are necessary for communal and individual well-being—they are just as essential as health care. In their education children do not only learn content; they also learn by example and through experience. It is our collective task to consider what message continued policies of school closure and austerity send to the younger generation. They will not forget it if we fail to develop alternatives.



User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:35 pm

.


“Glowing advertisements of undiminished progress will continue to rain down upon us from official quarters; there will always be well-researched predictions of light at the end of every tunnel. There will be dazzling forecasts of limitless affluence; there will even be much real affluence. But nothing will ever quite work the way the salesmen promised; the abundance will be mired in organizational confusion and bureaucratic malaise, constant environmental emergency, off-schedule policy, a chaos of crossed circuits, clogged pipelines, breakdowns in communication, overburdened social services. The data banks will become a jungle of misinformation, the computers will suffer from chronic electropsychosis. The scene will be indefinably sad and shoddy despite the veneer of orthodox optimism. It will be rather like a world’s fair in its final days, when things start to sag and disintegrate behind the futuristic façades, when the rubble begins to accumulate in the corners, the chromium to grow tarnished, the neon lights to burn out, all the switches and buttons to stop working. Everything will take on that vile tackiness which only plastic can assume, the look of things decaying that were never supposed to grow old, or stop gleaming, never to cease being gay and sleek and perfect.”

-- Theodore Roszak’s prediction of the future of technological society from his 1972 book Where the Wasteland Ends.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby Belligerent Savant » Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:59 pm

.

Naomi Wolf. On Tucker's show. I don't watch the "news" but happened across this from our landlord's twitter feed.
Yes, this is a variation of the 'Great Reset' for dummies (or perhaps more accurately: an intro to the Great Reset for those that still subscribe to divisive, and disingenuous, political constructs), but still worth sharing here.





Image

.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5214
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby conniption » Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:45 pm

RT
(embedded links)

If, as the Buddhists suggest, we should ‘drive all blames into one,’ we may as well blame the Great Reset for our dystopia

Michael Rectenwald

Michael Rectenwald is an author of 11 books, including the most recent, Thought Criminal. He was Professor of Liberal Arts at NYU from 2008 through 2019. Follow him on Twitter @TheAntiPCProf

21 Feb, 2021

Image
FILE PHOTO: A demonstrator holds a sign depicting World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab during a protest amid the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic in Zug, Switzerland, February 6, 2021 © REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

The Great Reset is on everyone’s mind – or should be. It can be blamed for woke madness, cancel culture, Covid lockdowns, Antifa/BLM riots, Big Tech censorship, and the endless propaganda coming out of mainstream media.

There’s a Tibetan Buddhist practice called “lojong” (mind-training) that uses short slogans for training the mind to lessen daily suffering. I’ve found that one of the most useful of the slogans is “drive all blames into one.”

We are faced every day with inevitable troubles, and often go about looking for their sources – not only to solve the troubles but also to find likely targets for blaming them on. The point of driving all blames into one is to short-circuit our suffering. Rather than looking for someone or something to blame for each and every problem, this slogan suggests that we blame one thing for all of them. Tibetan Buddhists might blame suffering itself. In our contemporary dystopian predicament, I suggest blaming everything on the Great Reset.

And why not? Focusing on the Great Reset really can be good mental training for dealing with the political and social malaise that afflicts us. Therefore, if we can define this one target, we will go a long way toward lessening our suffering. My job here is to convince you of the horrors of the Great Reset so that it can become the sole object of all your blaming.

So, what is the Great Reset?

Rather than yielding to the comments below, or to the so-called “conspiracy theories” bandied about on the web, let’s take the language of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) at face value and go from there. We shall see that our concern about the Great Reset is not, after all, as the New York Times would have it, a baseless conspiracy theory. The Great Reset is the decades-old brainchild of Schwab and company. But only within the past year has the Great Reset gained a foothold in public consciousness and become the almost universally recognized agenda of the WEF, and, by extension, of corporations and world governments.

In their book Covid-19: The Great Reset, WEF founder and executive chairman Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret write that the Covid-19 crisis should be regarded as an “opportunity [that can be] seized to make the kind of institutional changes and policy choices that will put economies on the path toward a fairer, greener future.” See that? The Great Re-setters have been there all the time, just waiting to seize on something to justify their plans. If climate change didn’t work, then Covid damn well better. And they are working night and day to make sure that it does. But just how do they mean to go about this Great Reset?

The Stakeholder Economy

To usher in “fairness,” the Great Reset aims to reset the economy to “stakeholder capitalism,” as a replacement for “shareholder” capitalism. Stakeholder capitalism involves the consideration of “customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities” in addition to shareholders in the business operations of the world’s major corporations and governments. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from corporate behavior – other than competitors, we may suppose. Stakeholder capitalism involves changes to the behavior of corporations with respect to carbon use but also in terms of the distribution of benefits and “externalities” or detriments that corporations produce.

By fairness, the Great Reset means much more than the “equitable” distribution of goods and detriments in terms of “environmental justice.” According to the WEF, corporate responsibility must be redefined in terms of “social justice” as well. This includes compensation to black people, the indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC). BIPOC are special stakeholders in stakeholder capitalism. In addition to BIPOC, special stakeholders also include LGBTQ+ persons as well. Guess who is going to pay for all this environmental and social justice? That’s right – you. But don’t worry – you’ll just have to give up your property.

Corporate Socialism

I can now name the evil socio-economic system aimed at by the Great Reset: corporate socialism. “Fairness,” you see, means an “equality” without property for the masses.

“Welcome to my city – or should I say, ‘our city,’” writes a blogger for the WEF. “I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.” This report from 2030 is “not a utopia or dream of the future,” we are told. Yet the future just so happens to meet all the criteria of the Great Reset. Moreover, this propertyless future “makes perfect sense” to the city dweller of 2030, when property has become unnecessary due to the conversion of most goods into “services.”

But what of the corporate producers of goods and services? We must assume that their ownership will not be disrupted. After all, corporations still need to produce the services that the city dwellers “enjoy.” While the city-dwellers will own nothing, they will still need to pay for the services made available by what can only be a corporate oligarchy, which will hold a veritable monopoly over production. After all, where could competition come from when the majority owns nothing? This is corporate socialism.

Also on rt.com If the ‘Great Reset’ really is so good for us, let’s hold a referendum on it, so it can have a democratic mandate (or not)

Wokeness and Cancel Culture

This brings us to the first element explained in terms of the Great Reset. As defined by true believers, wokeness is enhanced awareness of social and political injustice and the determination to eradicate it. But what could wokeness have to do with the Great Reset?

First of all, wokeness is not aimed at the sufferers whose complaints, or imagined complaints, it means to redress. Wokeness works on the majority, the supposed beneficiaries of injustice. It does so by making the majority understand that it has benefitted from “privilege” and preference – based on birthplace, skin color, gender, sexual proclivity, gender identity, and the domination of nature, etcetera. This majority must be rehabilitated, as it were. The masses must understand that they have gained whatever advantages they have hitherto enjoyed on the basis of the unfair treatment of others, either directly or indirectly. The “privilege” of the majority has come at the expense of those minorities designated as the beneficiaries of wokeness, and wokeness is the means for rectifying these many injustices.

And what are the effects of being repeatedly reprimanded as such – of being told that one has been the beneficiary of unmerited “privilege,” that one’s relative wealth and well-being have come at the expense of oppressed, marginalized, and misused Others? Shame, guilt, remorse, unworthiness. The solution is to give up your property.

Cancel culture is a tool of wokeness, a weapon for debunking the “privileged,” a levelling perfectly aligned with stripping you of your property. Cancel culture not only reduces the status of its victims but also serves a premonitory role for others, the onlookers of cancellations. They learn that they counter woke ideology at their own peril. Cancel culture keeps the majority in line as wokeness erases their “privilege,” drawing down the majority into the propertyless future.

The Lockdowns and Riots

The Covid-19 lockdowns, and to a lesser extent the leftist riots, have been moving us toward the corporate socialism of the Great Reset. The draconian lockdown measures employed by leaders of nation states, regions and cities, and the destruction perpetrated by the rioters, just so happen to be doing the work that corporate socialists like the WEF and their collaborators want done. In addition to destabilizing nation-states, these policies are helping to destroy small businesses, thus eliminating competitors.

As small businesses have been crushed by the combination of draconian lockdowns and riotous lunacy, corporate giants like Amazon have thrived like never before. As BBC News noted, at least three of the tech giants – Amazon, Apple and Facebook – have appreciated massive gains during the lockdowns, gains which were abetted, to a lesser extent, by riots that cost at least $1 billion to $2 billion in property damages. During the three months ending in June, Amazon’s “quarterly profit of $5.2bn (£4bn) was the biggest since the company's start in 1994 and came despite heavy spending on protective gear and other measures due to the virus.” Amazon’s sales rose by 40 percent in the three months ending in June.

Likewise, the lockdowns and riots have done much work toward resetting the economy in the direction of the Great Reset. They have eliminated competition for the corporate-state oligarchs and moved us in the direction of the two-tiered, neo-feudalistic, “corporate socialist” economy.

Also on rt.com We must depoliticise life in the West otherwise we will turn into a totalitarian society where nothing is personal anymore

Big Tech Censorship and Media Propaganda

As would-be monopolists, Big Tech stands to gain directly from the Great Reset agenda. The Big Tech cartel’s attempts to eliminate competition and competing views is of a piece with these monopolistic consolidation efforts.

Big Tech and mainstream media aid the Great Reset agenda through censorship and the dissemination of propaganda. Mainstream and social media censor all views that run contrary to the promoted, official narratives regarding climate change, Covid, systemic racism, transgenderism, woke ideology, cancel culture, and all the other essential narrative elements for the Great Reset. And it openly gaslights those who seek and find evidence that runs contrary to these narratives.

Conclusion

If you aren’t yet convinced that the Great Reset is the source of all your suffering, you should be. For the Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory; it’s a conspiracy fact, and you, my friends, are the ones having your lives reset according to its precepts. So, drive all blames into one. Blame the Great Reset for everything that ails you. Even if you are mistaken, you will decrease your suffering by doing so.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/516072-great-r ... id19-woke/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby dada » Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:22 am

"corporate socialism"

How is this new? Bail out the banks is corporate socialism.

I think the failure to connect a critique of the 'great reset' to a greater critique of capitalism makes it powerless and irrelevant. The analysis has a huge blind spot, which makes the terminology weak and innacurate. It gets lost in its effort to avoid elephant in room. A critique in a vacuum.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby dada » Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:10 pm

So we read these critiques of the devastating effects of capitalism, where any actual critique of capitalism is off-limits. The language has to be careful not to implicate capitalism, all arguments must insist that problems will be solved simply by purging capitalism of its bad actors. The bad actors might be the liberal elite, but the arguments are oddly liberal.

They would never call themselves liberal, though, or admit to how liberal they sound. So we have this kind of cryptoliberalism, a wish to maintain the capitalist social order by defending it from the bad actors poisoning it from within.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby conniption » Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:41 am

RT

What to do post-Covid? Deprived of routine, Americans haven’t a clue... and the Great Resetters couldn’t be happier

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 and on Telegram

9 Feb, 2021

Successfully infantilized by a year of seemingly arbitrary government health orders, Americans have become expert rule-obeyers. But the Covid-19 vaccine which was supposed to get us “back to normal” is here – and normality isn’t.

Many Americans found relief early on in the government shutdown of their everyday lives, supposedly a necessity required by the deadly Covid-19 pathogen. Faced with what was declared an unprecedented threat, they were encouraged to seek comfort from the World Health Organization (presented as an omniscient, omnipotent force for good) and government health agencies. Literally, to seek comfort in the arms of Big Brother.

After a year of absorbing the wisdom of Saint Fauci and Pope Gates, lapping up detailed instructions on how to live their new-normal lives shrouded in masks and pickled in hand sanitizer, two thirds of Americans feel lost at sea when confronted with the possibility of freedom – even as their rational minds are “perceiving less risk from the pandemic than any time since last October.” Having their thoughts pre-conceived for them by the leading lights of scientific dogma’s traveling medicine show, in the manner of a baby bird consuming food lovingly regurgitated by its mother, they remain unprepared for the task of thinking for themselves.

Also on rt.com The More You (Think You) Know? Maddening Covid-19 flip-flops keep population scared, obedient, & ignorant

Opening the floodgates to a seemingly endless string of authoritarian mandates, the pandemic emergency spared us of the burden of making important decisions for ourselves and our families – or to make any decisions at all. Want Chinese or Indian food for dinner? Never mind, restaurants are closed. Where should we take the kids for vacation this summer? Nowhere, airlines are grounded. Whose party are we going to tonight? Surely you mean a Zoom party…

The massive bureaucracy brought to life by the virus speaks in the firm, sterile tones of Alexa or Siri to tell you what you are and aren’t allowed to do today. Never mind that you have no symptoms – isn’t it about time you got tested? And aren’t you grateful you get to work from home, a perennial fantasy of the downtrodden cubicle-dweller? For the truly alienated, a scheduled moment of banging on pots and pans every week felt almost like friendship. That $1,200 aid check felt for a brief moment like the government actually cared about your survival.

While many at first chafed at having their liberties rudely stripped away without so much as a vote to supply the window dressing of democracy, others clung to that feeling of relief that came from having the government and its corporate tentacles make their decisions for them. Complaining about the pressures of adulthood is effectively taboo in the US, where overwork is a religion unto itself, but who hasn’t at least once fantasized about abandoning one’s dreary routine and living free of responsibility for at least a few days?

After all, in pre-pandemic reality, yelling at your neighbor for not putting grimy little bits of cloth over her children’s faces would get you slapped, maybe worse. Now, half the supermarket cheers you on, and before you even get home, someone’s uploaded a video to social media of you telling those snot-nosed brats you hope they die. Karens worldwide send messages of support. You sure showed those 10-year-olds who’s boss!

Nevertheless, the novelty is fast wearing off. Far from bringing us together in solidarity, the pandemic has unleashed Americans’ worst instincts – the snitch and the tattletale, the unemployed glutton stuffing their face on the couch because why bother to look for jobs that don’t exist, the delusional denialist who still refuses to believe – a year later – that “two weeks to flatten the curve” expired almost a year ago and has been replaced with a totalitarian nightmare that shows no signs of ending.

Because now, people are comparing notes. Over a quarter (28 percent) of Americans say they’re back to spending time with family and friends, according to an Ipsos poll conducted earlier this week, even though the other three quarters are steadfastly refusing to commit such a bold act of heresy (at least not until everyone they know gets the jab and/or local health officials say it’s OK). More and more of the country is waking up to the fact that Covid-19 wasn’t the life-ending pandemic the media sold it as – just ask the doomsday scientists whose job consists of predicting the end of the world – and that the elaborate “mother may I” pageantry slathered on top of the increasingly threadbare dogma Americans are being forced to swallow serves no real purpose outside of reminding us to be afraid.

Also on rt.com One mask good, two masks better: Nearly a year into the pandemic, is advocating double masking really the way to reassure people?

Vaccinated Americans don’t feel comfortable removing their masks or hugging their friends any more than the unvaccinated, the Ipsos poll confirms, raising the question of why exactly they’ve rushed to get the jab to begin with given that they know “the Covid-19 vaccine isn’t the silver bullet to returning to normal life.” Indeed, as time passes on and Americans’ memories fade, so does the possibility that there can be a “normal life” to return to.

The narrative managers in charge of guiding Pandemic America into the Great Reset are enjoying success beyond their wildest dreams. One must not be fooled by the forlorn tone of some of these polls – to see three quarters of the country not only enforcing the rules upon themselves and their families but eagerly looking for new rules to enforce can only delight the ruling class. Forget this “land of the free, home of the brave” nonsense – freedom and bravery are incompatible with the global security state, and besides, it’s not like you were really using them anyway. Isn’t it so much easier to just do what you’re told?

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/515070-covid-r ... obedience/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Sat Feb 27, 2021 7:22 am

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 and on Telegram


Is she? Really? A "journalist?"

Well, fuck her and all the bullshit she spews in the above "article" or "story."

Nope, no agenda whatsoever in this reportage. Straight Facts.

Moron.
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

Postby conniption » Sat Feb 27, 2021 9:11 am

mentalgongfu2 » Sat Feb 27, 2021 4:22 am wrote:
Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23 and on Telegram


Is she? Really? A "journalist?"
[ well..I don't know if she's really a journalist. If someone hires you as a "journalist" does that make you a "journalist"? idk]

Well, fuck her and all the bullshit she spews in the above "article" or "story."

Nope, no agenda whatsoever in this reportage. Straight Facts.
[ No one is suppose to have an agenda? The Facts seem straight enough to me. Who doesn't have an agenda? ]

Moron.
[ I apologize for my thoughtlessness in posting the above "article" or "story." We can have it removed if it so upsets you. Just say the word.]


_______

RT

World Economic Forum shouted down on Twitter for suggesting Covid-19 lockdowns ‘improved cities all over the world’
27 Feb, 2021


The World Economic Forum, globalist champion of the Great Reset, has ruffled feathers online with an “out-of-touch” tweet how Covid-19 lockdowns are “quietly improving cities” across the globe.

A video accompanying the Friday tweet by the WEF shows images of deserted streets, grounded airliners and idle factories, then notes record declines in air pollution and a drop in carbon emissions. It later shows busy, smog-choked highways and notes that “the drop won't slow climate change unless we lock in emissions cuts.”
...

The tone-deaf tweet – coming amid millions of Covid-19 deaths and countless lives and businesses being destroyed by lockdowns – was quickly ratioed by Twitter users. The WEF's comments and linked article about the historic quietness brought on by lockdowns leading to better detection of small earthquakes were lost on most observers, who focused instead on the group's apparent affection for a dystopian, depopulated world.

continues... https://www.rt.com/news/516734-world-ec ... lockdowns/
conniption
 
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests