Not only did they have to attempt to minimize the destruction caused by the attack in the exercise, but they had to restore the grid as quickly as possible as well.
The results of the exercise were finally published on April 7 in the form of the Electricity Information Sharing and Analysis Center (E-ISAC).
The exercise was comprised of two components: “distributed play” and “tabletop play.”
At least within the distributed play component, the simulation was comprised of five different “moves,” the first of which was “Move 0.”
Within Move 0, a nation-state begins reconnaissance of the North American electrical grids, telecommunications infrastructure, and natural gas facilities as they seek out the best avenue of attack. The next move, Move 1, resulting in large explosions at generators throughout North America and cyber attacks that hit the control systems of various aspects of the power industry.
Move 2 was a continuation of the cyber attacks combined with actual physical attacks against the pipelines throughout the continent. By Move 3, critical employees within the power industry were “targeted” by the nation-state aggressor. And then, in Move 4, there were numerous anonymous threats made over social media to other workers within the power industry to sow fear and panic.
The end results of the exercise showcased a few things that may be of interest to the prepper.
For starters, the simulation ended with the encouragement of the power industry to focus on areas that have their telecommunications infrastructure damaged after a power outage/attack. This is because the simulation highlighted the importance of proper communications ability for speedily turning the lights back on. If you want the electricity to come back online as quickly as possible, workers within the power industry need to be able to communicate with each other instantaneously. Without proper comms, the timeframe of getting back to “normal” increases drastically.
There are three different power grids that exist within the United States. Roughly, they’re separated into the Western US, the Eastern US, and Texas. Texas is the only state in the continental US that has its own grid. This is an interesting fact to remember when upon reading through the report, you discover that Texas had more participants in the simulation than any other state in the Union (witness page 4 of the report).
But that’s not what I noticed most about the GridEx VI report.
It was after reading Behind the Green Mask that I first became aware of the token phrases that are associated with Agenda 21. Directly linked with Agenda 21 is the World Economic Forum. One of the token phrases of the World Economic Forum is “stakeholders.”
After seeing the work ‘stakeholders’ first appearing on page 8 of the report, I instantly became suspicious. At first, I thought that this might be just another inert simulation/exercise – something akin to the fight for Pineland.
Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum. Seeing that the NERC is now associated with the WEF, does this mean that Klaus Schwab is in control of the American electrical grid? There are a few interesting aspects of this to look into.
For starters, Schwab has been talking about cyberattacks for quite some time now. It wasn’t long ago that we were warned of an incoming “cyber pandemic” that would be worse than any infectious disease we’d ever seen. This was what Cyber Polygon looked at.
It’s also interesting to point out that GridEx VI starts with the warning that a nation-state is conducting reconnaissance of the American power grid. In real life, we’renow being warned that a nation-state is conducting reconnaissance of the American power grid. If there’s one thing we’ve learned of late, it’s that the first casualty of war is truth.
All I know is this:
There are clear ties between a globalist/communist organization that wants to rob the entire world of their private property (and then tell you you’re happy about it) and the American power grid. Is this something you’re comfortable with? Because I, for one, am not.
If I was an employee within the American energy sector, I would have a large number of difficult questions to ask my boss about their involvement with GridEx VI, the NERC, and the World Economic Forum.
What are your thoughts on the matter? Let us know in the comments.
(By the way, kudos to Forward Observer for first raising our awareness of this simulation’s existence. If you’re not a subscriber there, we highly recommend that you do so for some of the best analysis of current events you’ll find out there.)
I first heard the phrase “Great Reset” way back in 2014. Christine Lagarde, who was head of the IMF at the time, was suddenly becoming very vocal about global centralization. It was an agenda that was generally only whispered about in the dark corners of institutional white papers and the secretive meetings of banking elites, but now these people were becoming rather loud about it.
Lagarde was doing a Q&A at the World Economic Forum and the notion of the “Reset” was very deliberately brought up; what the project entailed was vague, but the basic root of it was a dramatic shift away from the current economic, social and political models of the world into a globally centralized and integrated system – A “New World Order,” if you will…
It’s important to remember that we had just jumped through the fires of an international credit collapse which started in 2008 and had continued to cause uncertainty in markets for years. The central banks had dumped tens of trillions of dollars worth of stimulus into the system just to keep it on life support. Some of us in the alternative media believed that these actions were not meant to save the economy, only zombify the economy through currency devaluation and inflation. Not long down the road, this zombie creation would turn on us and try to eat us alive, and only the central bankers knew exactly when this would occur.
Think of the crash of 2008 as Stage 1 of the Reset agenda; the globalists were getting cocky and were ready to unveil their plans to the public.
Lagarde’s discussion at the WEF was also held around the time that Klaus Schwab was introducing his 4th Industrial Revolution concept, which is a little more forward with what the globalists really want. He talks excitedly of a true “global society” and a world in which people turn to Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a better means of governance. He even suggests that laws would eventually be dictated by AI and that courts would be run by robots.
Of course, he admits that this cannot happen without a period of economic deconstruction in which people and governments will have to choose between sacrifice for the sake of stability, or continued pain in the name of holding on to the “old ways.” Look at it this way: The Great Reset is the action or the chaos, and the 4th Industrial Revolution is the intended result or planned “order.” That is to say, it’s a new order created out of engineered chaos.
Yeah, it sounds like bad science fiction, but remember these are the people that enjoy the undivided attention of many of our political leaders and they rub elbows with the central bankers at the Federal Reserve. I’ll say it again: The proponents of the Great Reset and the 4th Industrial Revolution, who want to completely undermine and reconstitute our society and way of life, are close partners with our national leaders and the very bankers that could force such a reset to happen through a deliberate collapse.
The globalists have been trying to rebrand and repackage their New World Order agenda for many years, and the Reset was what they came up with. Rather than being innocuous sounding, the term threatens systemic upheaval and an erasure of the past. When you “reset” something it usually goes back to zero – a blank slate that the engineers can use to rewrite the code and the functions. But what does this really mean?
What do the globalists REALLY WANT? Here are the details, so far as I can prove or support with evidence, of what the “Great Reset” actually is and what programs they hope to enforce:
Total Global Economic Centralization
Some people might claim that we already have global economic centralization, but they don’t understand what this really means. While national central banks are all members of the IMF and the Bank for International Settlements, and take their marching orders from these institutions, what the globalists want is open global governance of finance, probably through the IMF.
In other words, it’s not enough that they manipulate economies secretly by using national central banks as proxies; what they want is to stop hiding and to come out into the light as the magnanimous rulers they think they are.
The ultimate goal of full centralization is to erase the very idea of free markets and to allow a handful of people to micromanage every aspect of trade and business. It’s not just about influence, it’s about economic empire. But in order to achieve a global central bank they must first implement a one-world currency plan.
A One World Digital Currency System
The IMF has been talking about using their Special Drawing Rights basket as the foundation for a global currency for years (since at least the year 2000). Around a decade ago China started taking on trillions of dollars in debt just to qualify as a member of the SDR system, and the IMF has hinted that when all is said and done that system will go digital. All that is needed is the right kind of crisis to shock the public into compliance.
This was evident at the height of the covid pandemic lockdowns and the threat of economic disaster when globalist institutions began to suggest that the IMF’s SDR could be used as a safety net for nations, with strings attached, of course. But beyond the stresses of the pandemic there is a much bigger crisis; namely the stagflationary crisis now on our doorstep. With multiple national currencies in decline and the dollar’s world reserve status increasingly in question, I have no doubt that the globalists will take the opportunity to offer the public their digital currency as a solution.
The new system would be more like a phantom currency for a time. The SDR would be the glue or the backing while national currencies remain in circulation until the digital framework becomes pervasive. The IMF and the people behind it would become the de facto world central bank, with the power to steer the course of all national economies through a single currency mechanism.
On the micro-economic side, each and every individual would now be dependent on a digital currency or cryptocurrency which removes all privacy in trade. All transactions would be tracked, and by the very nature of blockchain technology and the digital ledger this would be required. The money elites wouldn’t have to explain the tracking, all they would have to say is “That’s how the technology functions; without the ledger it doesn’t work.”
A Global Social Credit System
The evil inherent in globalism was readily apparent during the recent lockdowns and the violent push for medical tyranny. Despite the fact that covid only had a median Infection Fatality Rate of only 0.27%, according to dozens of official studies, the WEF contingent of politicians and world leaders were frothing at the mouth, proclaiming that the existence of covid gave them the right to take total control of people’s lives.
Klaus Schwab and the WEF happily announced that the pandemic was the beginning of the “Great Reset” and the 4th Industrial Revolution, stating that the covid crisis presented a perfect “opportunity” for change.
The vaccine passports were thankfully defeated by numerous conservative red states in the US, leading to the complete reversal of such policies across most of the Western world. We were free for years while many blue states and other countries were facing authoritarianism, and this caused a lot of problems for the globalists. It’s hard to institute a global medical dystopia when people around the world can look at the conservatives in the US and see that we are living just fine without the controls.
The vax passports need to be understood as a first step towards something else – The beginning of a massive social credit system much like the one being used in China right now. If you think cancel culture is a nightmare today, just think what would happen if the collectivist mob had the power to drop a review bomb on your social credit account and declare you to be untouchable? Imagine if they had the power to simply shut down your ability to get a job, to shop in grocery stores and even shut down access to your money? Without your compliance to the collective, access to normal survival necessities would be impossible.
This is what the globalists want, as they openly admitted at the start of the pandemic, and the vax passports would have been an introduction to that technocratic horror had we conservatives not stood our ground.
You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy By 2030
The “Sharing Economy” (also sometimes referenced in parallel with “Stakeholder Capitalism”) is a concept that has been making the rounds in the WEF for a few years now. The media has attempted at every turn to spread lies and disinformation claiming that the plan does not exist; but again, it is openly admitted.
The sharing economy is essentially a communistic economy, but distilled down to a bizarre minimalism even people who lived in the Soviet Union did not have to experience. The structure is described as a kind of commune-based society in which people live in Section 8-style housing, with shared kitchens, shared bathrooms, and barely any privacy. All property is rented, or borrowed. All cars are borrowed and shared, most transit is mass transit, basic personal items such as computers, phones, and even cooking utensils might be shared or borrowed items. As the WEF says, you will own nothing.
Being happy about it is another matter.
The argument for this kind of society is of course that “climate change” and the frailties of consumer economics demand that we reduce our living standards to near zero and abandon the sacred ideal of property ownership for the sake of the planet.
Set aside the fact that carbon-based global warming is a farce. The world’s temperatures have only risen by 1 DEGREE CELSIUS in the span of a century, according to the NOAA. This was data that climate scientists had attempted to hide or gloss over for years, but now it is out there for everyone to see. There is no proof of man-made global warming. None.
The globalists have been scheming to use environmentalism as an excuse for centralization since at least 1972, when the Club Of Rome published a treatise titled “The Limits To Growth.” Twenty years later they would publish a book titled The First Global Revolution. In that document they specifically recommend using global warming as a vehicle:
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”
The statement comes from Chapter 5 – The Vacuum, which covers their position on the need for global government. The quote is relatively clear; a common enemy must be conjured in order to trick humanity into uniting under a single banner; and the elites see environmental catastrophe, caused by mankind itself, as the best possible motivator.
They present the solution of the shared economy concept as if it is a new and bold idea. What the globalists ultimately want for their Great Reset, however, is a tidal-wave reversal from freedom and individual prosperity back to a very old manner of doing things, similar to ancient feudalism. You become a peasant working on land owned by the elites, or by the state, and you will never be allowed to own that land.
The only difference would be that in a feudal empire of the past peasants could not own land because of the class system. This time around, you won’t be allowed to own anything, including land, because wanting to own anything is “selfish” and destructive to the planet.
Total Information Control
The truth is a rare commodity these days, but nowhere near as rare as it will be if these elitists get what they want. The globalists are far more open about their agenda today than they have ever been before, and I suspect this is because they believe they will be able to rewrite the history of today’s events with impunity after the Reset unfolds. They think they will own the world of information and will be able to edit our cultural memory as they go.
The mainstream media calls all of this “conspiracy theory.” I call it conspiracy reality. It’s hard to deny openly spoken admissions by the globalists themselves; all they can do is try to spin the information as much as possible to keep the public on the fence in terms of what needs to be done, which is a purge of the globalists from our country and perhaps the entire world.
If we do not do this, there will come a time when nothing I say here is remembered and no evidence of the Reset plan will exist. The establishment will have eliminated all notions of it from written history, leaving only a fantasy tale of how the world collapsed and a small organization of “visionary” globalists saved it from oblivion through a new religion of centralization.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
After 14 long years of ultra-loose monetary policy from the Federal Reserve, it’s no secret that inflation is primed to soar. If your IRA or 401(k) is exposed to this threat, it’s critical to act now! That’s why thousands of Americans are moving their retirement into a Gold IRA. Learn how you can too with a free info kit on gold from Birch Gold Group. It reveals the little-known IRS Tax Law to move your IRA or 401(k) into gold. Click here to get your free Info Kit on Gold.
Guests included Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum and Kristalina Georgieva of the International Monetary Fund.
While much of the “mainstream” world has spent the last few days obsessing over and debating the celebrity spectacle surrounding American actor Will Smith slapping American comedian Chris Rock, the international elite were meeting in Dubai for the 2022 World Government Summit.
From March 28th to the 30th, corporate media journalists, heads of state, and CEOs of some of the most profitable companies in the world met for discussions on shaping the direction of the next decade and beyond. Anyone with a functioning brain should ignore the tabloids and instead pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats.
Let’s take a look at the speakers and the panels, starting with Mr. Great Reset himself, Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum.
Schwab gave a talk entitled, Our World Today… Why Government Must Act Now?. “Thank you, to his excellency for enabling this initiative to define a longer-term narrative to make the world more resilient more inclusive and more sustainable,” Schwab stated during his address. The use of the term narrative is important because in January 2021, Klaus and the World Economic Forum announced the next phase of The Great Reset, The Great Narrative.
As with The Great Narrative event, the World Government Summit was also held in Dubai. As I wrote during the Great Narrative meeting:
“While the political leaders of the UAE and Klaus Schwab may promote themselves as the heroes of our times, we should judge them according to their actions and the company they keep, not the flowery language they use to distract us. The simple fact is the UAE has a horrible record on human rights. The nation is known for deporting those who renounce Islam, limited press freedoms, and enforcing elements of Sharia law.”
During Schwab’s short talk he also mentioned his pet project “the 4th Industrial Revolution,” which is essentially the digital panopticon of the future, where digital surveillance is omnipresent and humanity uses digital technology to alter our lives. Often associated with terms like the Internet of Things, the Internet of Bodies, the Internet of Humans, and the Internet of Senses, this world will be powered by 5G and 6G technology. Of course, for Schwab and other globalists, the 4IR also lends itself towards more central planning and top-down control. The goal is a track and trace society where all transactions are logged, every person has a digital ID that can be tracked, and social malcontents are locked out of society via social credit scores.
Immediately following Schwab was a panel which made no attempt to hide the goals of the globalists. The panel, Are We Ready for A New World Order?, featured Fred Kempe, president and CEO of the Atlantic Council since 2007, as well as an anchor for CNN and a former advisor to former US president George W. Bush. Before joining the Council, Kempe was a prize-winning editor and reporter at the Wall Street Journal for more than 25 years.
In fact, the Atlantic Council had a fairly large presence at the World Government Summit, including appearances by Defne Arslan, senior director of the Atlantic Council IN TURKEY program, and Olga Khakova, Deputy Director of Global Energy Center of Atlantic Council.
For those who are unfamiliar with the Atlantic Council, I first reported in May 2018 that Facebook had partnered with the thinktank connected to NATO. I wrote:
“The Atlantic Council of the United States was established in 1961 to bolster support for international relations. Although not officially connected to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Atlantic Council has spent decades promoting causes and issues which are beneficial to NATO member states. In addition, The Atlantic Council is a member of the Atlantic Treaty Organization, an umbrella organization which “acts as a network facilitator in the Euro-Atlantic and beyond.” The ATO works similarly to the Atlantic Council, bringing together political leaders, academics, military officials, journalists and diplomats to promote values that are favorable to the NATO member states. Officially, ATO is independent of NATO, but the line between the two is razor thin.
Essentially, the Atlantic Council is a think tank which can offer companies or nation states access to military officials, politicians, journalists, diplomats, etc. to help them develop a plan to implement their strategy or vision. These strategies often involve getting NATO governments or industry insiders to make decisions they might not have made without a visit from the Atlantic Council team. This allows individuals or nations to push forth their ideas under the cover of hiring what appears to be a public relations agency but is actually selling access to high-profile individuals with power to affect public policy. Indeed, everyone from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to the family of international agent of disorder Zbigniew Brzezinski have spoken at or attended council events.”
The Russia-Ukraine conflict was also part of the discussions. Notably, Maxim Timchenko, CEO of DTEK, made an appearance. His bio states, “under his leadership, DTEK has evolved from a regional conventional energy company into Ukraine’s largest private investor as well as leading energy company.”
The appearance of Mr. Timchenko should not be overlooked, especially because he appears in a discussion called Post-Crisis Ukraine: New Energy for a New Europe, featuring Olga Khakova of the Atlantic Council, and Paula Dobriansk, Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School of Government of Atlantic Council. Again, the presence of the Atlantic Council should not be taken lightly. They are the representatives of the Western Bloc of the New World Order.
– María Sandoval, First Lady of Colombia of Government of Republic of Colombia, discussed “The Role of Women in Achieving the SDGs“. The first day of the summit was actually dedicated to the role women will play in rolling out the so-called New World Order and global governance schemes. Sandoval celebrated the fact that Colombian President Ivan Duque launched “the first national development plan that was directly aligned with the SDGs, and this of course was something that provided a wider spectrum for women to act react and participate in these achievements of the SDGs.”
– Catherine Russell, Executive Director of United Nations Children Fund, participated in a panel titled SDGs for Every Child
The Summit also addressed the Environmental, Social, and Governance criteria (ESG) promoted by the UN in a panel entitled, Where does ESG Go From Here?. ESG investing is also sometimes referred to as sustainable investing, responsible investing, or socially responsible investing (SRI). The practice has become an increasingly popular way to promote the SDGs. The panel featured Neil R. Brown, Managing Director, KKR Global Institute and KKR Infrastructure. KKR Global Institute is the same organization that former US Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus joined in 2013.
Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence are a major piece of the Technocratic vision for 2030, so naturally there were several discussions on the use of blockchain, AI, and even 6G (the eventual successor to 5G technology).
There was also a panel focused on the introduction of Central Bank Digital Currencies entitled, CBDCs and Stablecoins: Can They Co-Exist?. The CBDCs schemes being rolled out in nations around the world are a crucial component of The Great Reset.
One panel focuses on a concept called Human Meta-Cities, which sound like a rebranding or updating of the so-called Smart Cities. The panel description states,
“in a world of change and rapid technological development, we shed light on a new vision for planning future cities centered around human needs and aspirations. This new framework will help governments refine their role in planning the new world taking advantage of the digital transformation opportunities that are taking place.”
“Technology is creating new possibilities as it simplifies processes, enables instant feedback, and ultimately improves customer experience. In the public sector, digitalization and artificial intelligence are creating a new model of governance – ‘invisible’ governments that are more agile, responsive, human-centric, and data-driven. In this session, global policymakers and experts will share their bold vision and experience in utilizing technology to eliminate bureaucracy and innovate government services for the future.”
What goes unsaid in the panel description is that making the government “invisible” will actually lead to a world of no accountability for government and politicians. In reality, the Technocrats imagine a world where the tyrannical technological systems are invisible and the average person has zero recourse for preventing exclusion or punishment based on their social credit score.
This is the world these Technocrats — many of whom are unelected — envision. The only way this vision will not come to pass is if the people of the world throw their televisions away, ignore the celebrity drama, and start exiting from these slavery systems.
Metabiota, the US company funded by US Department of Defence’s Threat Reduction Agency (“DTRA”) to operate biolabs in Ukraine, was founded by Nathan Wolfe who is linked to the Global Virome Project, EcoHealth, World Economic Forum and Jeffrey Epstein.
Wolfe, directly and/or through Metabiota and its sister non-profit Global Viral, is not only been funded by various branches of US Department of Defence but, is also funded by Hunter Biden’s Rosemont Seneca and CIA venture capital company In-Q-Tel. And this is merely scratching the surface of those backing the biolabs in Ukraine.
This is Part 3 of a three-part series. Part 1 can be read HERE and Part 2 HERE.
In Part 1 we explained what products and services Metabiota sells, who their customers are and how badly they handled the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014-2015.
In Part 2 we explored the common links between USAID, US Department of Defence, EcoHealth and Metabiota. How EcoHealth is linked to the CIA, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the development of the Covid spike protein bioweapon while Metabiota is linked to US Military biolabs in Ukraine often run by experts in biological weapons and biological terrorism.
Citing reasons entirely independent to the above, Dr. Masahiro Matsumura concluded in his article ‘Ukraine as Biden’s Sacrificed Pawn’: “The current Russia-Ukraine war has been consequent on the globalist mismanagement of the US hegemonic decline in which President Biden has continually played a central role for more than a decade.”
Callahan and Biden
Currently the lead investor in Metabiota is Pilot Growth Management. Pilot Growth’s co-founder and CEO is Neil Callahan who also sits on Metabiota’s Board of Advisors.
Hunter Biden’s attorney told the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) in 2020 that Biden had divested himself from his holdings in RSTP before a controversial investment in mbloom in late 2015. However, emails reviewed by FOX Business showed that Hunter Biden was in regular communication with RSTP leaders and had investment interests in multiple RSTP funds in 2016 and 2017, despite his attorney claiming he “severed his relationship” with RSTP.
RSTP’s financing of Metabiota was during the period, 2008 to 2017, when Black & Veatch and DTRA signed contracts for the construction and operation of biolabs in various countries. Under these contracts for biolabs in Georgia and Ukraine Metabiota, Black & Veatch’s subcontractor, signed a $18.4 million federal contract.
During a 2016 meeting in Lviv, Ukraine, representatives of Black & Veatch and Metabiota discussed biological security, safety and surveillance with representatives of Ukraine, Poland and the United States. It was amid these clandestine projects, in 2015, Google-funded Metabiota to the tune of $1 million and RSTP was Metabiota’s lead financer.
IQT, formerly Peleus and In-Q-It, is an American not-for-profit venture capital firm based in Arlington, Virginia. It invests in high-tech companies to keep the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, equipped with the latest in information technology in support of US intelligence capability.
Not many people may be aware of IQT which has backed some of Silicon Valley’s most prevalent advents, influencing widely used Google apps and possibly even Facebook.
Google was spawned by the CIA, via Stanford University, and has carried out several contracts with the agency throughout its existence. In 2004, Google bought the company Keyhole, which had originally been funded by IQT.
The image above is taken from a lengthy and detailed twitter thread by Bobby Rajesh Malhotra. Unfortunately, the thread is not available on Thread Reader so in the event it is removed from twitter we have copied this thread and attached it below.
Wolfe also founded the non-profit Global Viral and is director of the Global Viral Forecasting Initiative (“GVFI”). In 2008, GVFI received $5.5 million from Google and $5.5 million from Skoll Foundation “to detect early evidence of future pandemics.” “We want to stop viruses dead in their tracks – their animal tracks – before they jump to humans,” noted Dr. Mark Smolinski, Google.org’s Threat Detective.
Wolfe has served on a number of advisory and editorial boards, including, since 2004, the editorial board of EcoHealth and since 2008, DARPA’s Defence Science Research Council (“DSRC”).
According to his biography on University of Houston, he has received research support totalling over $20 million in grants and contracts from the Google.org, The Skoll Foundation, NIH, the National Science Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the National Geographic Society, Merck Research Laboratories and various branches of the US Department of Defence.
For USAID’s PREDICT project, two of the core partners being EcoHealth Alliance and Metabiota, Wolfe was a co-author, together with EcoHealth’s Peter Daszak, of a 2017 study on coronaviruses in bats. PREDICT was a forerunner of the more ambitious Global Virome Project (“GVP”).
GVP is a founding member of The Trinity Challenge, a £10m challenge to protect the world against future pandemics in collaboration with global business and academic leaders. In 2020 Dame Sally Davis, UK Special Envoy on Antimicrobial Resistance, “was immensely proud to launch The Trinity Challenge” together with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus of the World Health Organisation.
Although Wolfe was one of initiators of GVP in 2018, on their website he isn’t shown as being directly involved. However, Edward Rubin, Metabiota’s Chief Scientific Officer, is a board member of GVP. And it was Rubin who, in 2016, attended a Rockefeller Foundation forum alongside Daszak to discuss the GVP.
In an interesting twitter thread – linking Wolfe and Metabiota to EcoHealth, DARPA, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and World Economic Forum – HashTigre shared an image of page from a book Wolfe wrote in 2012 titled, “The Viral Storm: The Dawn of a New Pandemic Age,” where he thanked friends including deceased paedophile Jeffrey Epstein and biotech venture capitalist Boris Nikolic.
Nikolic was named as the “back-up executor” on Epstein’s will and Wolfe has been photographed hanging out with Ghislaine Maxwell on multiple occasions.
“Always nice to see a name from Epstein/Maxwell associate Nathan Wolfe’s CIA funded company Metabiota—as the first name on an article related to dangerous virus collection tactics/research in China,” HashTigre tweeted.
Corporate Media’s Shifting Narrative on Biolabs in Ukraine
We conclude this series of articles where it began – biolabs in Ukraine. We know independent media and citizen journalism is managing to keep up to date on events but how are USA’s corporate media faring? Epoch Times’ Truth Over News sums it up in a recent report.
The corporate media’s narrative creation in response to widespread reports of biolabs in Ukraine has truly been something to behold, Truth Over News begins.
What the shifting corporate media narrative shows us is we must keep sharing the truth because, however small the effect may seem, together we can make a difference.
Welcome to the second phase of the Great Reset: war.
While the pandemic acclimatized the world to lockdowns, normalised the acceptance of experimental medications, precipitated the greatest transfer of wealth to corporations by decimating SMEs and adjusted the muscle memory of workforce operations in preparation for a cybernetic future, an additional vector was required to accelerate the economic collapse before nations can ‘Build Back Better.’
I present below several ways in which the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine is the next catalyst for the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda, facilitated by an interconnected web of global stakeholders and a diffuse network of public-private partnerships.
1. The war between Russia and Ukraine is already causing unprecedented disruption to global supply chains, exacerbating fuel shortages and inducing chronic levels of inflation.
As geopolitical tensions morph into a protracted conflict between NATO and the Sino-Russia axis, a second contraction may plunge the economy into stagflation.
In the years ahead, the combination of subpar growth and runaway inflation will force a global economic underclass into micro-work contracts and low-wage jobs in an emerging gig economy.
Another recession will compound global resource thirst, narrow the scope for self-sufficiency and significantly increase dependence on government subsidies.
With the immiseration of a significant portion of the world’s labour force looming on the horizon, this may well be a prelude to the introduction of a Universal Basic Income, leading to a highly stratified neo-feudal order.
Therefore, the World Economic Forum’s ominous prediction that we will ‘own nothing and be happy’ by 2030 seems to be unfolding with horrifying rapidity.
2. The war’s economic fallout will lead to a dramatic downsizing of the global workforce.
The architects of the Great Reset have anticipated this trend for a number of years and will exploit this economic turbulence by propelling the role of disruptive technologies to meet global challenges and fundamentally alter traditional business patterns to keep pace with rapid changes in technology.
Like the pandemic, disaster preparedness in the age of conflict will rest significantly on the willingness to embrace specific technological innovations in the public and private spheres so that future generations can supply the labour demands of the Great Reset.
He emphasises the primacy of emerging technologies in a next generation workforce and highlights the urgency to push ahead with plans to digitise several aspects of the global labour force through scalable technology based solutions.
Those spearheading the Great Reset seek to manage geopolitical risk by creating new markets which revolve around digital innovations, e-strategies, telepresence labour, Artificial Intelligence, robotics, nanotechnology, the Internet of Things and the Internet of Bodies.
The breakneck speed in which AI technologies are being deployed suggest that the optimization of such technologies will initially bear on traditional industries and professions which offer a safety net for hundreds of millions of workers, such as farming, retail, catering, manufacturing and the courier industries.
However, automation in the form of robots, smart software and machine learning will not be limited to jobs which are routine, repetitive and predictable.
AI systems are on the verge of wholesale automation of various white collar jobs, particularly in areas which involve information processing and pattern recognition such as accounting, HR and middle management positions.
Although anticipating future employment trends is no easy task, it’s safe to say that the combined threat of pandemics and wars means the labour force is on the brink of an unprecedented reshuffle with technology reshaping logistics, potentially threatening hundreds of millions of blue and white collar jobs, resulting in the greatest and fastest displacement of jobs in history and foreshadowing a labour market shift which was previously inconceivable.
While it has long been anticipated that the increased use of technology in the private sector would result in massive job losses, pandemic lockdowns and the coming disruption caused by a war will speed up this process, and many companies will be left with no other option but to lay off staff and replace them with creative technological solutions merely for the survival of their businesses.
In other words, many of the jobs which will be lost in the years ahead were already moving towards redundancy and are unlikely to be recovered once the dust is settled.
3. The war has significantly reduced Europe’s reliance on the Russian energy sector and reinforced the centrality of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and ‘net zero‘ emissions which lies at the heart of the Great Reset.
Policymakers marching lockstep with the Great Reset have capitalised on the tough sanctions against Russia by accelerating the shift towards ‘green’ energy and reiterating the importance of decarbonisation as part of the ‘fight against climate change’.
However, it would be very short-sighted to assume that the Great Reset is ultimately geared towards the equitable distribution of ‘green’ hydrogen and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels replacing petrol & diesel.
While UN SDGs are crucial to post-pandemic recovery, more importantly, they are fundamental to the makeover of shareholder capitalism which is now being vaunted by the Davos elites as ‘stakeholder capitalism’.
In economic terms, this refers to a system where governments are no longer the final arbiters of state policies as unelected private corporations become the de facto trustees of society, taking on the direct responsibility to address the world’s social, economic and environmental challenges through macroeconomic cooperation and a multi-stakeholder model of global governance.
Under such an economic construct, asset holding conglomerates can redirect the flow of global capital by aligning investments with the UN’s SDGs and configuring them as Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) compliant so that new international markets can be built on the disaster and misery of potentially hundreds of millions of people reeling from the economic collapse caused by war.
Therefore, the war offers a huge impetus for the governments pushing the reset to actively pursue energy independence, shape markets towards ‘green and inclusive growth’ and eventually move populations towards a cap-and-trade system, otherwise known as a carbon credit economy.
This will centralise power in the hands of stakeholder capitalists under the benevolent guise of reinventing capitalism through fairer and greener means, using deceptive slogans like ‘Build Back Better’ without sacrificing the perpetual growth imperative of capitalism.
4. Food shortages created by the war will offer a major boon to the synthetic biology industry as the convergence of digital technologies with materials science and biology will radically transform the agricultural sector and encourage the adoption of plant-based and lab-grown alternatives on a global scale.
Russia and Ukraine are both breadbaskets of the world and critical shortages in grains, fertilisers, vegetable oils and essential foodstuffs will catapult the importance of biotechnology to food security and sustainability and give birth to several imitation meat start-ups similar to ‘Impossible Foods’ which was co-funded by Bill Gates.
One can therefore expect more government regulation to usher a dramatic overhaul to industrial food production and cultivation, ultimately benefiting agribusiness and biotech investors, since food systems will be redesigned through emerging technologies to grow ‘sustainable’ proteins and CRISPR gene-edited patented crops.
5. Russia’s exclusion from SWIFT (The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) foreshadows an economic reset which will generate precisely the kind of blowback necessary for corralling large swathes of the global population into a technocratic control grid.
As several economists have opined, weaponizing SWIFT, CHIPS (The Clearing House Interbank Payments System) and the US Dollar against Russia will only spur geopolitical rivals like China to accelerate the process of de-dollarisation.
The main benefactor of economic sanctions against Russia appears to be China which can reshape the Eurasian market by encouraging member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and BRICS to bypass the SWIFT ecosystem and settle cross-border international payments in the Digital Yuan.
While the demand for cryptocurrencies will see a massive spike, this is likely to encourage many governments to increasingly regulate the sector through public blockchains and enforce a multilateral ban on decentralised cryptocurrencies.
The shift to crypto could be the dress rehearsal to eventually expedite plans for programmable money overseen by a federal regulator, leading to the greater accretion of power in the hands of a powerful global technocracy and thus sealing our enslavement to financial institutions.
I believe this war will bring currencies to parity, therefore heralding a new Bretton Woods moment which promises to transform the operation of international banking and macroeconomic cooperation through the future adoption of central bank digital currencies.
6. This war marks a major inflection point in the globalist aspiration for a new international rules-based order anchored in Eurasia.
As the ‘father of geopolitics,’ Halford Mackinder, opined over a century ago, the rise of every global hegemon in the past 500 years has been possible because of dominance over Eurasia. Similarly, their decline has been associated with losing control over that pivotal landmass.
This causal connection between geography and power has not gone unnoticed by the global network of stakeholders representing the WEF, many of whom have anticipated the transition to a multipolar era and return to great power competition amid America’s receding political and economic influence and a pressing need for what technocrats call smart globalisation.
While America tries desperately to cling to its superpower status, China’s economic ascent and Russia’s regional ambitions threaten to upend the strategic axial points of Eurasia (Western Europe and Asia Pacific).
The region in which America previously enjoyed uncontested hegemony is no longer impervious to cracks and we may be witnessing a changing of the guard which dramatically alters the calculus of global force projection.
Although China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has the potential to unify the world-island (Asia, Africa and Europe) and cause a tectonic shift in the locus of global power, the recent invasion of Ukraine will have far-reaching consequences for China-Europe rail freight.
The Ukrainian President Zelensky claimed that Ukraine could function as the BRI’s gateway to Europe. Therefore, we cannot ignore China’s huge stake in the recent tensions over Ukraine, nor can we ignore NATO’s underlying ambition to check China’s rise in the region by limiting the sale of Ukrainian assets to China and doing everything in its capacity to thwart The Modern Silk Road.
As sanctions push Russia towards consolidating bilateral ties with China and fully integrating with the BRI, a Pan-Eurasian trading bloc may be the realignment which forces a shared governance of the global commons and a reset to the age of US exceptionalism.
7. With speculation mounting over the war’s long-term impact on bilateral trade flows between China and Europe, the Russia-Ukraine conflict will catapult Israel –a leading advocate of the Great Reset –to even greater international prominence.
Israel is a highly attractive BRI market for China and the CCP is acutely aware of Israel’s importance as a strategic outpost connecting the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea through the Gulf of Suez.
Furthermore, the Chinese government has for many years acknowledged the primacy of Israel as a global technology hub and capitalised on Israel’s innovation capabilities to help meet its own strategic challenges.
Therefore, Naftali Bennet’s mediation between Moscow and Kiev is likely to factor the instrumental role of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in expanding both China and Israel’s regional and global strategic footprint.
Israel’s status as among the leading tech hubs of the future and gateway connecting Europe and the Middle East is inextricably tied to the web of physical infrastructures, such as roads, railways, ports and energy pipelines which China has been building over the past decade.
Already a powerhouse in auto-technologies, robotics and cybersecurity, Israel aspires to be the central nation in the millennial Kingdom and the country’s tech startups are predicted to play a key role in the fourth industrial revolution.
Strengthening its evolving relationship with China amid the Russia-Ukraine crisis could help propel Israel into a regional hegemon par excellence with a large share of centralised economic and technological power converging in Jerusalem.
As Israel embarks on efforts to diversify its export markets and investments away from the United States, it begs an important question.
Is Israel in the formative stages of outsourcing its security interests away from the US and hedging its bets on the Sino-Russia axis?
8.It is now common knowledge that Digital IDs are a central plank in the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset agenda and are to be streamlined across industries, supply chains and markets as a way of advancing the UN 2030 SDGs and delivering individualised and integrated services in future smart cities.
Many have cottoned on to how such a platform can be used to usher in a global system of technocratic population control and compliance by incorporating humanity into a new corporate value chain where citizens are mined as data commodities for ESG investors and human capital bond markets and assigned a social and climate score based on how well they measure up against the UN SDGs.
This seamless verification of people and connected devices in smart environments can only take place once our biometrics, health records, finances, education transcripts, consumer habits, carbon footprint and the entire sum of human experiences is stored on an interoperable database to determine our conformity with the UN SDGs, thus forcing a monumental change to our social contract.
Vaccine passports were initially touted by public-private partnerships as an entry point for Digital IDs. Now that such a logic has run its course, how might the present geopolitical tensions contribute to scaling what is the key node in a new digital ecosystem?
Ukraine has traditionally been called Europe’s breadbasket and alongside Russia, both nations are major global suppliers of staple grains. Therefore, the war has all the makings of a black swan for commodities and inflation.
With an economy teetering on the brink of collapse due to a global supply crunch, I believe the resulting economic tremors will trigger wartime emergencies across the world and the public will be told to brace themselves for rationing.
Once this takes place, the multilateral adoption of Digital IDs which interface with Central Bank Digital Currencies can be touted as the solution to efficiently manage and distribute household rations under an unprecedented state of emergency and exception.
The Bank of England has already floated the prospect of programmable cash which can only be spent on essentials or goods which an employer or government deem sensible.
Once the issuer is granted control over how it is spent by the recipient, it will become nigh impossible to function adequately without a Digital ID, which will be required to receive food parcels and obtain a basic means of subsistence. Think UBI (Universal Basic Income).
If food inflation continues on an upward trajectory with no signs of abating, governments may institute price controls in the form of rationing and ration entries could be logged on blockchain ledgers on the Digital ID to track our carbon footprint and consumptive habits during a national emergency.
9. Europe is directly in the line of fire once a hybrid war between NATO and the Sino-Russia axis is underway.
I would be remiss to ignore the clear and present danger posed by a cyber attack on banks and critical infrastructure or even a tentative and tactical nuclear exchange with intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
I can’t see how any warring party will not be limited by the doctrine of mutually assured destruction so a thermonuclear fallout is unlikely.
However, the use of remote-access technologies to erase system memory from the SWIFT banking apparatus or Cross-Border Interbank Payment System can potentially render much of the international economy non-operational and send the dollar into a tailspin.
If an event of such cataclysmic proportions was to occur, it will undoubtedly lead to increasing demands to overhaul cyber security.
The fallout from such an event could very well establish a new global security protocol according to which citizens must possess a Digital ID as a necessary national security measure.
One can imagine how accessing the internet or public services in the aftermath of a nationwide cyberattack may require citizens to use a Digital ID to authenticate that their online activities and transactions are from a legitimate and non-malicious source.
There are few coincidences in politics.
10. The economic implications of this war will be so disastrous that governments and the public sector will require a significant injection of private capital to address the financing shortfall.
This will effectively render the traditional separation of powers between central banking institutions and governments obsolete, as the former will be positioned to disproportionately influence the fiscal trajectory of nation states, whose sovereignty will be hollowed out by the wholesale capture of governments by the central banks and hedge funds.
Therefore, the nation-state model is gradually being upended by a global technocracy, consisting of an unelected consortium of leaders of industry, central banking oligarchs and private financial institutions, most of which are predominantly non-state corporate actors attempting to restructure global governance and enlist themselves in the global decision-making process.
Therefore, the future of international relations and the social, economic and political transformation which the world is presently undergoing in light of the pandemic and Russia-Ukraine conflict will not be decided through multilateralism and elected representatives of sovereign states.
Rather, it will be decided through a network of multi-stakeholder partnerships which are motivated by the politics of expediency and not accountable to any electorate or beholden to any state and for whom concepts like sovereignty and international law are meaningless.
Klaus Schwab’s globalist cabal, the World Economic Forum (WEF), announced that it has severed “all relations” with the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin due to the ongoing invasion of Ukraine.
“We are not engaging with any sanctioned individual and have frozen all relations with Russian entities,” spokesperson Amanda Russo told Politico this week.
Putin was also completely purged from the WEF website earlier this week before Russo’s announcement.
The WEF’s decision comes as the United States, European Union, Canada, and several other countries have put crippling sanctions on Russia’s economy and banking sector, as well as Russian politicians, oligarchs, and Putin himself. There are also dozens of major corporations that have followed suit, cutting off business operations in the country entirely.
However, the public decoupling for the WEF is somewhat surprising because of the close relationship it has maintained and Russia in the past. Not only has Putin been a keynote speaker for the Schwab-led organization several times over the years, but he is also a graduate of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders program, which has also produced other notable globalist-puppets like Canadian PM Justin Trudeau, US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, New Zeland PM Jacinda Ardern and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.
In other words, some of the worst of the worst sellouts among elected officials in the West.
The WEF uses these loyal graduates of its programs to infiltrate governments around the world in order to further their globalist utopia agenda, and that’s not a wild conspiracy theory that emerged from the dark recesses of the far-right interweb – Schwab openly, and often, brags about corrupting governments by infiltrating them from within.
Just take a look at this one clip from a speech in 2017:
With Putin being a graduate of the WEF program, does this public decoupling signal that troubles are brewing in the globalist’s ‘utopia’ agenda?
After all, Ukraine is the most poorly kept secret of Western elites. The country has long been used by the likes of the Biden crime family, Obama, Soros, the Clintons, and the WEF, among many others to run their corrupt dealings through. And now, with the sh*tstorm kicking up about the US-Backed, EcoHealth-linked biological warfare testing labs that Putin is reportedly targeting, things are getting sketchy for the criminal cabal.
What’s more, the Ukrainian government has also announced that they are planning on evacuating all sensitive data and servers to other countries overseas if Russian forces continue to gain control of the country.
Although the WEF has made the decision to cut Putin off, they have left the possibility of a return to good graces on the table if he decides to come around and play ball again.
The last time Putin and Schwab met was sometime in 2021. Schwab told the Russian leader that his country was of “particular importance” in world events, so he is definitely interested in maintaining a relationship. The WEF founder has even gone so far as to say that Putin’s voice was “essential” in world affairs.
It is said that this new, emerging international order will be founded upon a global multipolar system of sovereign states and international law. This new system allegedly stands in opposition to the fading, western “rules-based” model.
This time, rather than relying upon western imperialism, the new international law-based system will emphasise multipolar cooperation, trade and respect for national sovereignty. It will instead be led by a Eurasian economic and technological power-block.
The apparent, ongoing antagonism of geopolitics looks likely to maintain the East-West divide we are familiar with. However, what is now being framed as the multipolar order is, in reality, the multistakeholder order.
As we shall discover, nation states are not the driving force behind the current restructuring of global governance. The geopolitical narratives we are given are frequently superficial.
Those leading the transformation have no allegiance to any nation state, only to their own globalist network and collective aspirations. In their hands, international law is no more of an impediment to their ambitions than a vague commitment to “rules.”
National governments are partners within this network formed of both state and non-state actors. Despite professed animosities, they have collaborated for decades to fashion the global governance complex that is now emerging.
No matter who is said to lead it, the IRBO is set to continue in a new form. As the post WWII system recedes, the framework being imposed to take its place is completely alien to the people who live in the former western, liberal democracies.
Thus, we too must be transformed if we are to accept the realignment. We are being conditioned to believe in the promise of the new IRBO and the global technocracy it is built upon.
Rooted firmly in American exceptionalism, Patrick described how the so-called IRBO acted as a mechanism for hegemonic control of global politics, the world’s economy and the international monetary and financial system (IMFS):
“What sets the post-1945 Western order apart is that it was shaped overwhelmingly by a single power, the United States. Operating within the broader context of strategic bipolarity, it constructed, managed, and defended the regimes of the capitalist world economy […] In the trade sphere, the hegemon presses for liberalization and maintains an open market; in the monetary sphere, it supplies a freely convertible international currency, manages exchange rates, provides liquidity, and serves as a lender of last resort; and in the financial sphere, it serves as a source of international investment and development.”
While international law is a component of the IRBO, it is not in and of itself law. Professor Malcolm Chalmers, writing for the UK Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), described the IRBO as a combination of universal security and economic systems combined with international agreement and conflict resolution processes.
The current IRBO is supposedly a western system of international norms and institutions. Based upon both the post WWI and WWII settlements, what is suggested as order is little more than a realisation of “might is right” on the international stage.
Actions Not Words
In the West, we have been educated to have faith in the IRBO. It is sold to us as an arrangement that establishes normative behaviour for nation states. A basis for international relations is supposedly agreed upon and acceptable behaviour ordained.
Far from being a set of rules to facilitate peaceful coexistence between nation states, the IRBO has always been a tool for manipulation. The question is who wields it?
The recent joint statement between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China appeared to explicitly redefine the current IRBO. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping agreement read, in part:
“Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order. [. . .] a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world. [. . .] the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role.”
By contrast, the speech delivered by UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss to the Lowy Institute, a Rothschild backed Australian policy think-tank with a focus upon the Asia-Pacific region, illustrated the western position. She said:
“Russia and China are working together more and more, as they strive to set the standards in technologies like artificial intelligence, assert their dominance over the Western Pacific. [. . .] They’re destabilising the international rules-based order and they’re chipping away at the values that underpin it. [. . .] We believe in freedom and democracy. [. . .] As Prime Minister Scott Morrison said, ‘we know from the evidence of human history that democracies are the engine room of change.’ [. . .] Technology has empowered people by enabling incredible freedom, but we know it can be seized upon by others to promote fear. [. . .] By joining forces with the US we are showing our determination to protect security and stability across the region.”
Taken on face value, we would inevitably conclude that, while the axis is in flux, the adversarial stand-off continues. To a great extent, this is a fabrication.
In discussing the IRBO, we immediately run into a nomenclature problem. Sometimes referred to as the “rules-based international order;” at other times the “international order” or “rules-based system;” or occasionally the “rules-based international system,” now we seemingly need to add “international law-based world order.”
While there is no settled definition for this alleged system of global governance, it all amounts to the same thing. The fulcrum may have moved, but the ruse remains intact.
This definition problem illustrates the primary flaw with any notion of a global rules-based order. It is ill-defined and transient. It relies more upon the realpolitik of the day than any genuine moral, legal or political precepts.
While Truss accurately outlined how that so-called order can be seized and exploited, she misled her audience in regards to who the abusers are. Nor is the existing IRBO founded upon democracy and freedom. Her claims were a deceit.
Recently the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated that undermining trust in the government was achieved by individuals spreading “false” narratives and that this was tantamount to terrorism. In other words, no US citizen has any right to question government policy. If they do, they are spreading disinformation. Consequently, the DHS suggests that not trusting the government should be prosecuted as a crime.
This is the claimed justification for the focus of the new domestic terrorism unit working alongside the US Justice Department’s National Security Division. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Olsen told a Senate Judiciary Committee that the unit was created to combat the growing threat of “extremism,” which apparently includes “anti-government and anti-authority ideologies.”
To question either “authority” or “government” is an extremist position, according to the US Justice Department and the DHS. There is no room for freedom of speech in the government’s extremist ideology. Without freedom of speech, US democracy is finished.
Similarly, in New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (a World Economic Forum Young Global Leader) admitted her government’s intention to ignore people’s inalienable right to roam unless they submitted to vaccination. So too with the European Commission, whose EU Digital COVID Certificate limits freedom of movement only to citizens who have the right pharmaceutical products injected into them.
These vaccine “certificates” are the gateway to full digital ID for all compliant citizens. Speaking in June 2021, the President of the EU Commission, Ursula Von Der Leyen, said:
“We want to offer to Europeans a new digital identity. An identity that ensures trust and protects users online. [. . .] It will allow everyone to control their identity online, and to interact with governments and businesses, across the EU.”
In other words, the EU citizen’s vaccine status, which will form a key part of digital identity per EU plans, will also be required for them to access goods and services. Without the appropriate authorisation, they will be excluded from society.
The commitment to digital identity, controlling every aspect of our lives, is inherent to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 16.9. The policy trajectory towards digital identity is global, no matter who allegedly leads the IRBO.
None of these policies indicates, as Truss claimed, any underlying belief in “freedom and democracy.” Among the Five Eyes nations and across the EU, all we see is a commitment to authoritarian dictatorship.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act 2020 empowers the state to commit any crime it likes and removes all legal liability from its operatives; the Police, Crimes, Sentencing & Courts Bill effectively outlaws all public protest and, while currently stalled after the House of Lords rejected the Bill, some minor amendments will almost certainly see it passed into law; the Online Safety Bill, when enacted, will end freedom of speech online and the proposed changes to official secrets, counter-espionage; and counter-terrorism legislation will remove the journalist’s defence of acting in the public interest, effectively ending whistle-blowing and investigative journalism in the UK.
All these tyrannical changes are exemplified by the UK government’s proposed Human Rights Act reforms. Their press release demonstrates how their claim of respecting individual rights, freedoms and democracy is nothing more than propaganda designed to dupe an unsuspecting public.
While they speak of diversity and a historical commitment to freedom, peppering their press release with fluffy sound-bites, their actions belie their intent. They state:
“The government wants to introduce a Bill of Rights in a way that protects people’s fundamental rights whilst safeguarding the broader public interest [. . .] [T]he growth of a ‘rights culture’ [. . .] has displaced due focus on personal responsibility and the public interest. [. . .] Whilst human rights are universal, a Bill of Rights could require the courts to give greater consideration to the behaviour of claimants and the wider public interest when interpreting and balancing qualified rights. [. . .] The shift of law-making power away from Parliament towards the courts, in defining rights and weighing them against the broader public interest, has resulted in a democratic deficit. [. . .] [F]reedom of expression cannot be an absolute right when balanced against the need to protect national security, keep citizens safe and take steps to protect against harm to individuals.”
While the UK state claims “human rights are universal” they clearly aren’t if they are “qualified rights” based upon whatever the government decides to be more important. Individuals pressing their rights in court has hampered the government’s programs. This is considered to be a “democratic deficit.” Therefore, the New Bill of Rights will protect the government’s power and authority over-and-above the freedoms of the people.
The UK Government will define “national security.” Protecting it, as they see fit, will override all individual rights. Freedom to roam, of speech and expression will not be tolerated by the UK state. Instead a commitment to the “public interest,” “safety” and protecting the population from some nebulous notion of “harm,” will replace freedom and democracy.
On both sides of the Atlantic, and in the Five Eyes global south, a new system is emerging which facilitates what Mussolini described as the Fascist State:
“The Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State. [. . .] Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. [. . .] The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism, is totalitarian, and the Fascist State — a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values — interprets, develops, and potentates the whole life of a people.”
It is the US led alliance of Five Eyes nations and the European Union that claim themselves to be the protectors of the international rules-based order. With their commitment to a new form of global fascism, the idea that the IRBO keeps us safe is questionable. In truth, the current IRBO has never actually promoted either freedom or democracy.
While the western hegemony insists that all follow their rules, they don’t hold themselves to the same. A few recent examples, among many, have witnessed the U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), often referred to as the Iran Nuclear Deal; NATO renege on assurances, given to the last Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, that it would not expand “one inch eastward”; and the imprisonment of journalists.
This is not to claim that the supposed opponents of the current IRBO, notably Russia, China and Iran, are above reproach themselves. However, it is untenable for the “leading nations” of the existing IRBO to commandeer any moral supremacy.
Politicians like Truss promote the IRBO as the cornerstone of international peace and security, but these are meaningless platitudes. There is nothing inherently peaceful or secure about it.
The Real IRBO
The current IRBO is portrayed as a project of western, formerly liberal, democratic states that has capitalised upon U.S. economic and military dominance. However, despite that being how mainstream media (MSM), academia and think-tanks present it, that is not what the international rules-based order is today.
The IRBO can more accurately be described as a vehicle for a worldwide stakeholder capitalist network to manipulate nation states in pursuit of its own predominantly private, corporate agenda. Indeed, we might argue that is all it has ever been.
A truly global network of corporations, think-tanks, private foundations, intergovernmental organisations, NGOs and governments work in partnership to convert global policy agendas into policy and legislation at the national and local government level. This is the Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P) and its reach extends to every nation.
We may view the global political map as a patchwork of sovereign nations, existing in a state of anarchy (no one rules them), but the G3P does not. What the global stakeholder capitalist network (G3P) sees is an authoritarian, compartmentalised structure to be manipulated to reach their objective, with that objective being, to create a cohesive system of global governance under their rule.
Our democratic oversight only reaches as far as our national government’s influence as a G3P stakeholder allows. We can appreciate the extent of this democratic accountability if we consider the comments of Dominic Cummings, former chief advisor to UK Prime Minister. In testimony given to a parliamentary committee on May 2021 (go to 14:02:35), Cummings said:
“In March I started getting calls from various people saying these new mRNA vaccines could well smash the conventional wisdom.. People like Bill Gates and that kind of network were saying. Essentially what happened is, there is a network of people, Bill Gates type people, who were saying completely rethink the paradigm of how you do this […] What Bill Gates and people like that were saying to me, and others in number 10, was you need to think of this much more like the classic programs of the past.. the Manhattan Project in WWII, the Apollo program […] But what Bill Gates and people were saying […] was, the actual expected return on this is so high that even if does turn out to be all wasted billions it’s still a good gamble, and that is essentially what we did.”
Cummings was talking about the UK government’s public health policy response to an alleged global pandemic. These were decisions that would impact the health of every man, woman and child in the country.
His comments reveal that the UK government was simply following the orders issued by the network of “Bill Gates type people.” The UK state designed a crucial national policy at behest of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). They were acting under the instruction of a private, tax exempt foundation.
The BMGF are among the leading stakeholders within the G3P. Like the WEF, their partnerships with government and intergovernmental organisations are extensive.
As we now know, the alleged vaccine safety and efficacy claims made by the BMGF, and the politicians who implemented public health policy for them, weren’t even remotely accurate. We also know that this failure is immaterial to the BMGF because the “return on this is so high” it doesn’t matter.
The policy think-tanks lie at the heart of the G3P. They collaborate with other G3P stakeholder partners to devise the policy agendas that governments then enforce upon their populations.
Think-tanks, such as the Royal Institute for Interantional Affairs (RIIA – Chatham House), are invariably formed by representatives from multinational corporations (including central banks), financial institutions, NGO’s, philanthropic foundations, private donors, intergovernmental organisations, academic institutions and governments, etc.
For example, Chatham House members include the United Nations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundation, The Bank of England, Astrazeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Bloomberg, The Guardian, The City of London, The European Commission & Union, BAE systems, Goldman Sachs, De Beers, BlackRock, China International Capital Corporation, Huawei, Kings College London, the London School of Economics (LSE), Oxfam, the British Army and governments from around the world. The list goes on.
To imagine that these globalist organisations are effectively powerless and exist merely to help governments devise policy is extremely naive. A more accurate summation has been offered by a few academics. Prof. Hartwig Pautz wrote:
“[T]hey seek to influence policymakers and the wider public, and that they try to do so via informal and formal channels and by making use of their well-connected position in often transnational policy networks encompassing political parties, interest groups, corporations, international organizations, civil society organizations, and civil service bureaucracies. [. . .] [P]olicymakers increasingly need curators, arbiters, or filters to help them decide which information, data, and policy expertise to use in their decision-making processes.”
However, we only need look at the comments of people like Dominic Cummings or Hillary Clinton to recognise that even Pautz’ observations fall short. As then US Secretary of State, Clinton said that the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) role – as a US foreign policy think-tank – was to tell the US State Department “what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
Governments, including those of the US, Russia and China, are G3P stakeholders. In 2017, speaking at a Harvard seminar, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, said:
“Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they have all been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of this cabinet, or even more than half of this cabinet, are for our… actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.”
This was no idle boast. Political leaders such as Tony Blair, Jacinda Ardern, Emmanuel Macron, Alexander De Croo (Belgian PM), Sanna Marin (Finnish PM) and many more political heavyweights have been through the YGL programme. This is why, in an address to the Canadian nation in November 2020, in direct reference to the WEF’s so-called Great Reset, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said:
“Building back better means getting support to the most vulnerable while maintaining momentum on the 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the SDGs. [. . .] This pandemic has provided an opportunity for a reset. This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to re-imagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like extreme poverty, inequality and climate change.”
Trudeau is one among many WEF Young Global Leaders (YGL), and members of its predecessor program called the Global Leaders of Tomorrow, who have shaped the global policy response to the pseudopandemic. As a YGL graduate, his task was to convince the Canadian public to embrace the G3P’s Great Reset policy agenda.
Despite Schwab’s claims, Russian President Vladimir Putin does not appear to have been among the WEF’s YGL protégés. Yet, speaking in 2019 to President Quesada of Costa Rica, Klaus Schwab repeated his statement about Putin:
“Mrs Merkel, Tony Blair, they were all, even President Putin, they were all Young Global Leaders.”
In 1993, when the Global Leaders of Tomorrow program began, Putin was 41 and the upper age limit for entry into the program was supposedly 38. It seems unlikely that Putin was “officially” a WEF YGL trainee.
Putin was instrumental in encouraging foreign investment into the city and it was during his time in St Petersburg that Putin seemingly developed a close relationship with Klaus Schwab. In his address to the WEF’s 2021 virtual Davos gathering, Putin said:
“Mr. Schwab, dear Klaus, [. . .] I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organized by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. [. . .] [I]t is difficult to overlook the fundamental changes in the global economy, politics, social life, and technology. The coronavirus pandemic [. . .] spurred and accelerated the structural changes.”
In terms of G3P partnerships, Russia’s is perhaps one of the closest to the WEF. The WEF’s annual Cyber-Polygon global cybersecurity training exercise is orchestrated by Bi.Zone, a subsidiary of Sberbank.
Other CCS partners include leading US foreign Policy think-tank the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), Europol (representing EU governments), INTERPOL, the Organisation of American States (representing the governments of the North and South American subcontinents), and national cyber security centres from Israel, the UK, Korea, Saudi Arabia and Switzerland (home of the BIS).
Of the many corporations involved in Cyber Polygon 2021, Russian companies formed the largest contingent from any single nation. In addition, the WEF partners with the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF.)
The SPIEF International Foundation was formed in St Petersburg in 1998 under the direction of Herman Gref. He was serving as vice governor of the city at the time.
In 1993, Gref was also a close associate of Anotoly Sobchak in St Petersburg where Putin was Sobchak’s senior advisor. Gref is currently the CEO and Chairman of Sberbank.
In 2017, Schwab recognised that the SPIEF and Russia were global leaders on international regulation and stated:
“In the new economic environment and with due regard for the latest technological breakthroughs, we are faced with the need for new cooperation formats. [. . .] I am absolutely positive that Russia, as one of the leaders in responsible global regulation, must play a central role in determining new forms of co-existence in the era of the fourth industrial revolution.”
Russia and the SPIEF are part of the G3P network and are heavily involved in global cybersecurity and, in particular, the regulation of technology. It is clear that, through partners like the CFR, BMGF and the WEF, the Global Public-Private Partnership is pushing a global policy agenda supported by both sides of the East-West divide.
WEF assets, like Trudeau and other compromised officials, are positioned to ensure policy distribution is as frictionless as possible. The Russian and, as we shall see, Chinese governments are equally active stakeholders in the G3P’s global governance efforts.
If we believed the western MSM, this would present a seemingly unfathomable conundrum. While these nation states are G3P partners, we are told that they are also undermining the IRBO. Something doesn’t add up.
All of this seems extremely odd given that western global corporations such as IBM, Deutsche Bank and Santander were engaged in cyber polygon preparedness exercises that were largely run by a Russian state-owned bank. If any of the MSM’s claims are even remotely plausible, the industrial espionage risk alone would appear to have been off the charts.
Governments from across the western world participate in the WEF Cyber Security Centre which was founded, in part, by Sberbank. At the same time, they keep warning their populations about the danger of Russian cyber attacks.
Frankly, these Russian cyber-threat stories are puerile. The western governments and corporations, who appear to follow G3P orders to the letter, are seemingly content to be guided by a Russian state bank’s cybersecurity assessment and recommendations.
A far more credible rationale for these MSM stories and government fearmongering is that they are designed to prepare us, and provide justification, for the digital transformation of the financial sector. In their 2020 cyber threats report, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) stated that the pseudopandemic had necessitated this change.
In a barely concealed reference to Russia and China, the CEIP asserted that cyber attacks from nation states were inevitable. They then predicted that the response to this supposedly unavoidable attack would be to fuse the activities of banks, the financial authorities and the national security apparatus of nation states.
Centralising authority, especially over financial systems, is always the solution as far as the G3P are concerned. Primarily because they assume the right to exercise that authority.
On the major issues, governments don’t form policy and policy is instead curated by the G3P think-tanks like the CEIP. We should not labour under the illusion that the think-tanks simply offer suggestions. They have the financial, economic and political power to make decisions on the global stage and they have done so for generations.
No one votes for think-tanks. To this extent, so-called representative democracy is a charade. We, the people, have never had any say on the “big issues.” For those of us who live in western democracies, government grandstanding simply serves to convince us that we are somehow represented in the deliberations. It is essentially a confidence trick.
This is the context within which we can come to understand the International Rules Based Order. While it currently relies upon what appears to be the western hegemony and is transitioning towards a Eurasian led multipolar system, both are just convenient mechanisms through which the G3P wields power and authority.
As noted by many commentators, including the WEF, the IRBO is changing. As it does we all move ever closer to an IRBO based upon the Chinese model of technocracy.
Technocracy: A G3P Love Affair
The G3P think-tanks, perhaps most notably, but not exclusively, the Trilateral Commission, have been pursuing the dream of creating a global Technate for nearly a century. The often heard pseudopandemic mantra of “led by science” exemplifies technocracy.
Technocracy grew out of the efficiency movement during the US progressive era in the early 20th century. It capitalised upon the principles of scientific management suggested by Frederick Winslow Taylor and the economic ideas of social-economist like Thorstein Veblan, who famously coined the term “conspicuous consumption.”
Veblan was among the founding members of a private research initiative in New York funded by John D. Rockefeller called the New School For Social Research. This soon led to the creation of the Technical Alliance.
Howard Scott, the leader of the Technical Alliance, subsequently joined M. King Hubbert at Columbia University. In 1934, they published the Technocracy Inc. Study Course.
This was a blueprint for a North American Technate. It proposed a society led by science, engineering and academia rather than politics. Hubbert wrote:
“Technocracy finds that the production and distribution of an abundance of physical wealth on a Continental scale for the use of all Continental citizens can only be accomplished by a Continental technological control, a governance of function, a Technate.”
Technocracy demands that the activity of every citizen be continually recorded and controlled. It requires constant surveillance of the population.
This enables the Technate’s total energy expenditure to be calculated in real time. The data is then collated and analysed in order for the central committee of technocrats to manage and distribute the Technate’s resources right down to the level of the individual.
Scott and Hubbert planned a new monetary system based upon energy consumption, with goods and services priced according to the energy cost of production. Citizens would be allocated the new currency in the form of “energy certificates.”
In the US of the 1930s, this was a technologically impossible task. Though popular for a decade or so, the people came to realise that the suggested Technate was something of an absurdity.
Despite the seemingly preposterous system proposed by Scott and Hubbert, the Rockefellers in particular could see the potential to use technocracy to enhance their control of society. They continued to bankroll the technocracy movement and associated programs, for many years, regardless of waning public interest.
In 1970, Professor Zbigniew Brzezinski published Between Two Ages: America’s Role In The Technetronic Era. At the time, he was a professor of political science at Columbia University, where Scott had met Hubbert in 1932. He had already been an advisor to both the Kennedy and Johnson campaigns and would later become National Security Advisor to US President Jimmy Carter (1977 – 1981).
Through a paper thin veil of caution, Brzezinski wrote enthusiastically about how a global scientific elite could not only use all-pervasive propaganda, economic and political manipulation to determine the direction of society, but could also exploit technology and behavioural science to brainwash and alter populations’ behaviour. Describing the form of this society and the potential for authoritarian control, he wrote:
“Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behaviour and keeping society under close surveillance and control.”
While he didn’t use the word “technocracy,” Brzezinski nonetheless described a Technate. Realising that technology was fast approaching the point where technocracy would be feasible, he described how digital technology would dominate the “technotronic era” to transform society, culture, politics and the global balance of political power.
“[T]he most immediate purpose was to draw together [. . .] the highest-level unofficial group possible to look together at the key common problems. [. . .] .[T]here was a sense that the United States was no longer in such a singular leadership position as it had been in earlier post-World War II years. [. . .] , and that a more shared form of leadership [. . .] would be needed for the international system to navigate successfully the major challenges of the coming years. [. . .] The ‘growing interdependence’ that so impressed the founders of the Trilateral Commission in the early 1970s has deepened into ‘globalization.’ [. . .] Doubts about whether and how this primacy will change [. . .] have intensified the need to take into account the dramatic transformation of the international system. [. . ] Our membership has widened to reflect broader changes in the world. Thus, the Japan Group has become a Pacific Asian Group, including in 2009 both Chinese and Indian members.”
In 1973, the Trilateralists had already identified that US primacy would be dramatically transformed. This stemmed from Brzezinski’s realisation that global corporations in the technotronic era would surpass nation states in terms not only of their financial and economic power, but also in their ability to innovate and direct the activities of billions of citizens. In Between Two Ages he wrote:
“The nation-state as a fundamental unit of man’s organized life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multi-national corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state.”
Fully committed to the process of globalisation, the Trilateralists started to create the new IRBO. Rather than US economic and military power the new world order would be based upon a communitarian commitment to the efficient management of resources and, via that mechanism, social control.
Nation states would give way to a global network formed by the fusion of state and corporation. This network would manage populations and business activity through a new resource-based monetary system and economic central planning.
Individual citizens and businesses would be constantly monitored and their behaviour restricted and ordered. This would afford the G3P the global governance capability they sought.
Brzezinski suggested how this future could be secured. Technocracy would enable the transformation:
“Both the growing capacity for the instant calculation of the most complex interactions and the increasing availability of biochemical means of human control augment the potential scope of consciously chosen direction. [. . .] In the technetronic society the trend seems to be toward aggregating the individual support of millions of unorganized citizens [. . .] and effectively exploiting the latest communication techniques to manipulate emotions and control reason. [. . .] Though the objective of shaping a community of the developed nations is less ambitious than the goal of world government, it is more attainable. [. . .] In China the Sino Soviet conflict has already accelerated the inescapable Sinification of Chinese communism. [. . .] This may both dilute the regime’s ideological tenacity and lead to more eclectic experimentation in shaping the Chinese road to modernity.”
The modernisation of China was seen as an opportunity to develop an advanced technocratic society which, while developing both economically and technologically, would remain a dictatorship. This presented the G3P with a perfect test bed for the construction of a Technate.
Technocracy provides centralised authority over a managed capitalist system. It allows business to prosper so long as it adheres to the diktats of the technocrats.
The new IRBO will not be based upon the primacy of nation states or their imposition of any agreed values or norms. Rather, it will be founded upon the multistakeholder system, where nominally pragmatic solutions to a declared crisis form the moral imperative. Multistakeholding means a fusion between state and corporation.
“After the Second World War, leaders worked together to develop new institutional structures and governance frameworks. [. . .] The world has changed dramatically since then. [. . .] [T]he context for governance and cooperation is changing due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. [. . .] We have entered a distinctly new era in which many of the assumptions of prior periods no longer hold. [. . .] As emerging technologies transform our systems of health, transportation, communication, production, distribution and energy, to name just a few, we will need to construct a new synergy between public policy and institutions on the one hand, and corporate behaviour and norms on the other. [. . .] As the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, the Forum plans to use its platform to advance such thinking and collective action through multistakeholder dialogue. This bottom-up or inductive approach involving national governmental as well as non-state and subnational actors can help accelerate the pace of governance innovations needed in the 21st century as well as enhance the legitimacy and degree of public trust in it.”
Trust is a product of faith and we are being directed to believe in the new resilient and sustainable IRBO — one based, not upon the dominance of nation states who claim moral authority, but upon a globalist multistakeholder alliance between national governments and private interests who will keep us “safe.”
The WEF stresses the need for the people to have faith in the G3P’s globalist project. One of the key themes of the 2021 Davos meeting was rebuilding trust and for 2022 restoring trust. Referring to the alleged global trust crisis, Klaus Schwab said:
“[W]e see a degradation of trust in the world, and trust only builds through personal relations. [. . .] [W]e need a slogan. The slogan is ‘Working Together, Restoring Trust.’”
Trust is key because decisions that impact us at the local level will be taken at the global level by a policy making body that is predominantly a project of unelected private corporations. We must put aside any notion of democratic accountability or oversight and accept that the G3P knows best.
This multistakeholder, globalist structure will use technocracy to conduct its policies. We will be afforded the illusion of democracy in the form of civil society. However, via technocracy, we will be robbed of all agency and political means.
“China is a power with an enormous potential in human and other resources, and its leaders have set out on a course of rational modernisation intended to turn it into a leading world power […] China has never acquired a sphere of influence corresponding to its strength […] The West should not be content to defend its fundamental values […] It should set itself the objective to influence the natural processes of change […] in a direction that is favorable rather than unfavorable to those values. […] There seems to exist sufficient ways for aiding China in acceptable forms with advanced civilian technology […] To grant China favourable conditions in economic relations is definitely in the political interest of the West.”
A thriving export market in China and widening the Sino-Soviet split was in the political and economic interests of western nation states. However, constructing a new superpower to rival the Soviet Union also meant building one capable of challenging the existing IRBO.
As a G3P think-tank, the Trilateral Commission are among those that maintain they are little more than talking shops for the most powerful individuals on Earth. As with all think-tanks, they portray themselves as fundamentally reactive rather than proactive. They claim that they offer suggested policy agendas, but that they have no authority to enforce adoption of those policies.
Yet, these recommended policy agendas often unfold precisely as “suggested” by the think-tanks. Multinational corporations (MNCs) the world over seemingly responded to the Trilateralists’ agenda by engaging in a concerted effort to “influence the natural process of change” in China and to empower it to acquire “a sphere of influence corresponding to its strength.”
The economic, industrial and technological revolution in China has been remarkable, but it didn’t happen by chance. China now stands as the world’s first Technate and the western, liberal democracies are earmarked for the same transformation.
Chinese state media reported that, between 1983 – 1991, foreign direct investment in China increased from $920M to 4.37Bn. By 2019, it had eclipsed $2.1Tn. In 1994, in terms of US overseas investment, China ranked 30th. By 2000, it was 11th, as MNCs quadrupled their FDI into China between 1994 and 2001.
The pseudopandemic saw an initial 42% slow-down in global FDI. Yet, investment in to China actually increased by 4%, as it overtook the US to become the world’s leading recipient of foreign direct investment. Given the huge slump during 2020, inevitably global FDI bounced back in 2021. FDI, excluding financial services, reportedly rose by an additional 20% (in dollar terms) to achieve an annual record high of $178.48Bn in China.
In 1979, the US granted China full diplomatic recognition; in 1982, the commitment was reaffirmed in the third joint communiqué; in 1984, Beijing was permitted to purchase US military hardware; in 1994, the Clinton Whitehouse intervened to scrap the cold war embargo on the export of “sensitive technology” to China (and Russia); the 2000 US – China Relations Act was signed by President Clinton (a member of the Trilateralist Commission), establishing further improvements to trade relations; and, in 2005, then Deputy Secretary of State Robert B. Zoellick, called on China to take its place as a “responsible stakeholder.” Then, in 2008, China became the world’s leading US creditor.
This is not to suggest that the relationship between the western hegemony and the rising superpower were all plain sailing. For example, news of NATO’s “accidental” 1999 bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade wasn’t received well in China. There were also marked periods of apparent political enmity between the US, its western allies and China.
Yet, a cursory look at the western mainstream media (MSM), and the persistent rhetoric of politicians like the UK Foreign Secretary, suggest we should be fearful and that China is a threat to the western order. How do we reconcile these allegations while, at the same time, the western order has been investing and transferring technology to bring about China’s transformation?
Despite the surface hyperbole, occasional vitriolic exchanges and alleged military accidents, the policy trajectory, in the political, economic and even military sphere, was consistent. Just as the Trilateralist Commission “advised,” the western hegemonic order tilted towards enabling the rise of China as both a technocracy and a superpower.
George Soros – Photo: Guliver/Getty Images
George Soros is a convicted insider trader, hedge fund manager, currency speculator and investor. His tax exempt Open Society Foundation has funded political campaigns, activist movements and coups around the world for decades. Though he is ageing today, he was formerly a member of the Trilateral Commission.
As such, Soros was among the global political, financial and corporate “thought leaders” who encouraged the modernisation of China. In a 2009 interview with the Financial Times, he said:
“You really need to bring China into the creation of a new world order; a financial world order […] I think you need a new world order that China has to be part of the process of creating it and they have to buy in. They have to own it the same way as, let’s say, the United States owns the Washington consensus […] A decline in the value of the dollar is necessary in order compensate for the fact that the US economy will remain rather weak […] China will be the engine driving it forward and the US will be actually a drag that’s being pulled along through a gradual decline in the value of the dollar.”
Years later, the 2016 – 2020 US Trump administration took what appeared to be an aggressive stance against China. Of particular alleged concern was the US bilateral trade deficit of up to $500Bn annually. A trade war ensued and tariffs were exchanged.
“America has a huge annual trade deficit with China [. . .] shockingly, hundreds of billions of dollars each year. Estimates are as high as $500 billion a year. We must immediately address the unfair trade practices that drive this deficit, along with barriers to market success. We really have to look at access, forced technology transfer, and the theft of intellectual property, which just, by and of itself, is costing the United States and its companies at least $300 billion a year.”
The Trump administration complained bitterly about so-called forced technology transfers(FTT) stipulated by China in exchange for access to their market. Speaking of the supposed trade war between the leaders of the current IRBO and China, the CFR think-tank were among those who criticised China’s apparent protectionism and suggested theft of intellectual property.
These allegations and the declared trade hostility appeared to be little more than a diversion designed for western public consumption. In truth, both public and private deals with China were consistently built upon FTT agreements.
In 2018, the Trump administration started to impose up to 25% tariffs on imports from China. The Chinese soon reciprocated. As the US’ largest single creditor, recently eclipsed by Japan, the US ran the risk of China dumping trillions of dollars worth of US treasuries – a nuclear option, in economic terms, which would also mean huge losses for China.
While a small reduction in the US trade deficit with China was achieved in 2019, global trade tensions increased the US deficit to the rest of the world. At the start of the pseudopandemic, the overall US trade deficit had not changed. In 2020, it reached record highs. During the FDI slump in 2020, the only investment winners were China and India.
In addition to continuously approving technology transfers, the leading IRBO nations had significantly increased their research and development (R&D) partnerships with China over the same period. Irrespective of Trump’s media circus, a 2019 report by the World Bank, referencing western nations public-private R&D investments in China, noted:
“Governments in other high-income countries have supported specific technologies and industries, particularly by targeting research and development (R&D). In the United States, government agencies such as the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the National Institutes of Health provided critical financing for key technologies. [. . .] These policies are complemented by support for key enabling technologies and industries—such as the space, defense, automotive, and steel industries—including through various funds, such as the European Structural and Investment Funds (five funds worth more than €450 billion) and Horizon 2020 (€77 billion for 2014–20).”
The Chinese government openly stated its intention for China to become a manufacturing superpower. Degrading US influence and bolstering China’s had been hardwired into western foreign economic & industrial policy and MNC investment strategies for more than a generation. It is difficult to see how any current IRBO nation, or western corporation, has been “forced” to share technology or intellectual property rights against its will.
Although the western MSM and politicians persistently alleged that China was acting against the IRBO, quite clearly that wasn’t true. Western states, and their corporate partners, were fully engaged in a process of modernising China and transforming the international order.
In response to China’s 2015 announcement of the “Made In China 2025” strategy, Klaus Schwab said that China would become “the leader in the fourth industrial revolution.” This is just as Soros and his fellow Trilateralists planned.
The WEF, not national governments, has been the leading proponent for the 4th industrial revolution (4IR). With China clearly set as the “engine” driving the global technological transformation, and Russia leading on regulation, it is apparent that, despite the sabre-rattling of politicians, western governments and corporations have been willing accomplices.
“Technocracy is the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.”
Rather like feudalism, resource distribution is controlled by a centralised authority, who mete out access to resources dependent upon the citizen’s behaviour. This is the preferred “social credit” method of population control in China. An increasing number of China’s citizens need a good social credit score in order to access resources and society.
The whole system is administered by central planners within a subordinate policy body to the State Council called the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC). They oversee a data mining, collection and analysis operation on an immense scale.
China’s National People’s Congress Photo: Xinhua
Without any democratic oversight, technocracy in China stipulates that the people trust the edicts of the technocrats. They are required to believe, or at least publicly state, that decisions are taken in the interest of the general good. If they don’t comply the Technate can use its surveillance systems to identify offenders and punish them for their selfish behaviour.
In its 2014 document Planning A Social Credit System, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) spoke of their intention to “construct a social credit environment of honesty, self-discipline, trustworthiness, and mutual trust.” They announced:
“Our country is currently in a key period of economic and social transformation. Stakeholder entities are more diversified [. . .] the forms of social organization and management are undergoing deep changes. Comprehensively advancing the establishment of a social credit system is an effective method of strengthening societal creditworthiness, promoting mutual trust in society, and reducing social contradictions, and it is an urgent requirement for strengthening and innovating in social governance. [. . .] The establishment of a social credit system is an important foundation for comprehensively implementing the scientific viewpoint of development. [. . .] Accelerating and advancing the establishment of the social credit system is an important precondition for promoting the optimized allocation of resources.”
This is the epitome of technocracy. It is a monoculture where all are subservient to the technocratic state.
There are two arms to the social credit system in China. Both individual citizens and corporations are given a rating based upon the aggregation and analysis of the data collected from their lives and business practices.
Approximately 80% of China’s provinces have rolled out some form of the social credit system. While still in development, individual surveillance and control systems are most pervasive in the cities. People can either be placed on a “blacklist,” limiting their freedoms, or a “redlist” permitting them to engage in society in a manner deemed appropriate by the Technate. Punishments include denial of access to public transport, refused payments, public shaming or restricted employment opportunities.
Nationally, the focus has been on constructing the Corporate Social Credit System (CSCS). Millions of businesses in China are required to demonstrate their commitment to the general good, as defined by the Technate. As long as they do, they will be allowed to prosper. If they don’t obey, they won’t.
For numerous reasons, explored by Prof. Liu Yongmou in the Benefits of Technocracy in China, the Chinese political system lent itself well to the creation of the world’s first Technate:
“In China today, there exists a more favourable attitude toward technocracy than is found elsewhere. [. . .] Insofar as it is scientism applied to politics, the Chinese tend to have a positive attitude toward technocracy. [. . .] Technocracy also fits with the Chinese tradition of elite politics and the ideal, to reference a Confucian phrase, of ‘exalting the virtuous and the capable.’ [. . .] knowledge was more important than the representation of the interests of those being governed. [. . .] Against the background of the Chinese heritage of a long feudal culture, technocracy is a better way to confront social problems than authoritarian politics divorced from technical expertise.”
The WEF, the Trilateral Commission and other G3P think-tanks have encouraged the development needed for the PRC State Council’s NDRC to construct the burgeoning Technate. Foreign investment and an infusion of technology, from the current leading nations of the existing IRBO, has brought China to a position where it will provide the economic, political and cultural impetus for a new world order.
Technocracy, as piloted in China, is now being rolled out globally. Individual sovereignty and freedoms, the claimed moral basis for the current IRBO, are being replaced by a commitment to efficiency and resource management in the interests of the “general good.” In the West, we know this as “sustainable development.”
Such a system is perfect for those who want to wield supreme autocratic power, which is precisely why the G3P have long wished to install technocracy globally. It is the reason why they have assisted the construction of a Technate in China. The new IRBO will be led by the technocrat and they will serve the Global Public-Private Partnership.
The world is reporting on Russia’s Putin who just ‘took over’ Ukraine after signing agreements with two Ukrainian republics who called for their independence from Ukraine. But the real threat from globalists is being virtually ignored.
The media and the world are focused on Russia’s ‘evil’ Vladimir Putin who just signed an agreement with two independent republics in Ukraine. This came after Biden and Kamala Harris warned for weeks about Russia invading Ukraine.
But while the world focuses on Ukraine and Russia, there is a more formidable force that few are really speaking of – the New World Order. Yesterday former US Rep. and current the Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University spoke about this. She summarized her thoughts on Ukraine by suggesting that maybe this is just a distraction, keeping our focus on Putin rather than the global elites who are stripping away our civil liberties.
The World Economic Forum is one entity that many associate with globalism and the New World Order. After the recent protests in Canada and the harsh crackdown on those who protested, Canada is looked at in a new light. Prime Minister Trudeau is considered the Castro of Canada for his actions. While he claimed in Parliament that the people wanted to be free in the town of Ottawa, the truckers were protesting for their freedom from Trudeau’s harsh mandates related to COVID. Trudeau’s comments on freedom were shocking after all he has done to the people in that country.
But maybe this is no surprise. Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum bragged about Trudeau and others in the Canadian Cabinet who have been groomed for globalism. In a video that is being taken down from some social platforms, Schwab shared on this topic.
Trudeau’s Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland is in Trudeau’s Cabinet. She also supportive of Trudeau’s actions to remove civil liberties from the people of Canada. As we reported, her grandfather was a high-level Nazi in World War II and she is a fan of George Soros. She is also a member of the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees.
DEAR AMERICAN PEOPLE, DEAR FRIENDS, for two years now, a global coup has been carried out all over the world, planned for some time by an elite group of conspirators enslaved to the interests of international high finance. This coup was made possible by an emergency pandemic that is based on the premise of a virus that has a mortality rate almost analogous to that of any other seasonal flu virus, on the delegitimization and prohibition of effective treatments, and on the distribution of an experimental gene serum which is obviously ineffective, and which also clearly carries with it the danger of serious and even lethal side effects. We all know how much the mainstream media has contributed to supporting the insane pandemic narrative, the interests that are at stake, and the goals of these groups of power: reducing the world population, making those who survive chronically ill, and imposing forms of control that violate the fundamental rights and natural liberties of citizens. And yet, two years after this grotesque farce started, which has claimed more victims than a war and destroyed the social fabric, national economies, and the very foundations of the rule of law, nothing has changed in the policies of Nations and their response to the so-called pandemic.
Individuals like Michele Bachmann and Archbishop Vigano are right. We must stand together for freedoms and life. We are the majority.
Last month, 2017 footage of World Economic Forum (WEF) head Klaus Schwab resurfaced in which he boasts of having ‘penetrated’ various governments through its Young Global Leaders program. The clip is notable because the WEF – known best for its annual gathering of the global elite in Davos – has been openly pushing for digital IDs and vaccine passports, while leaders of said governments continue to impose Orwellian vaccine mandates which have resulted in widespread protests for medical freedom.
“I have to say, when I mention now names, like Mrs. (Angela) Merkel and even Vladimir Putin, and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum … But what we are very proud of now is the young generation like Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau … We penetrate the cabinets.”
“So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders.” -Klaus Schwab
Other notable Young Global Leaders include: New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda “this will never end” Ardern, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other high-ranking officials from Germany, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands and Denmark. It might even explain Pete Buttigieg’s odd success-to-competence ratio.
Enter the pandemic
Three years after Schwab bragged about having ‘penetrated cabinets’ of world governments, he wrote in a June 2020 publication titled Now is the time for a ‘great reset’ how the pandemic presented a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”
Then in May 2021, the WEF acknowledged that “The Forum is involved in the WHO task force to reflect on those [vaccine credential requirements] standards and think about how they would be used.”
And so, given the WEF’s “infiltration” – people have begun asking questions over the group’s influence in current events.
Podcaster Joe Rogan appeared shocked at the WEF’s ‘infiltration’ in a recent episode of with Maajid Nawaz.
Meanwhile, Canadian MP Collin Carrie was cut off when asking about the influence of the WEF in domestic politics.
“Klaus Schwab is the head of the World Economic Forum and bragged about how his WEF has infiltrated governments around the world,” asked Carrie, who was then cut off when he asked which ministers were behind the WEF agenda – with the speaker saying the sound had become “very poor.”
Another MP then accused Carrie of “disinformation.”
Ahem, explain this:
All names of those included;
1.Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister of Canada
2.Francois Philippe Champagne, Minister of Foreign Affairs
3.Brian Gallant, Leader of New Brunswick Liberal Party
4.Terry Beech, department of fisheries, oceans and Canadian coast guard
5.Ailish Campbell, Chief Trade Commissioner, Global Affairs Canada
6.Michelle Rempel Garner (conservatives)
7. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh
8.Renee Maria Tremblay, Supreme Court Of Canada, Senior counsel
9.Elissa Golberg – Minister for strategic policy, Global Affairs Canada
10.Karina Gould – Minister of International Development, Global Affairs Canada
11. Melanie Joly – Minister of economic development and official languages, science and economic development
12.Maryam Monsef – ministry for women , Gender equality and rural economic development
On paper, the WEF (also known as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation) is an NGO and think tank “committed to improving the state of the world.” In reality, it is an international network of some of the wealthiest and most influential people on the planet. The Forum positions itself as the thought leader of global capitalism.
The organization is best known for its annual gathering of the global ruling class. Each year, hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives, and heads of state gather in Davos to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become the major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”
In 2017, German economist and WEF founder Klaus Schwab introduced the concept of “The Fourth Industrial Revolution” with the title of the book he published that year. The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) denotes the current “technological revolution” that is changing the way people “live, work, and relate to one another,” and with implications “unlike anything humankind has experienced,” according to Schwab. For him, the 4IR is the “merging of the physical, digital and biological worlds.” Schwab has even said that the 4IR will inevitably veer into trans-humanism, or human genome editing.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson