US Senator Joe Manchin said at the World Economic Forum on Monday that he opposes any kind of peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia.
Manchin, who at the moment is one of the most powerful elected officials in Washington, added that only the complete forcible ejection of Russia from all of Ukraine is acceptable, that the war should ideally be used to remove Putin from power, and that he and the strategists he talks to see this war as an “opportunity”.
“I am totally committed, as one person, to seeing Ukraine to the end with a win, not basically with some kind of a treaty; I don’t think that is where we are and where we should be,” Manchin said.
“I mean basically moving Putin back to Russia and hopefully getting rid of Putin,” Manchin added when asked what he meant by a win for Ukraine.
Joe Manchin, speaking today at the World Economic Forum, rejects the idea that the Ukraine war should ever be resolved with "some type of a treaty." Instead demands fighting "to the end," until total victory — which includes "getting rid of Putin" pic.twitter.com/wPj8qfsF1P
Manchin clarified that he did not mean pushing Putin back to “pre-February”, ostensibly meaning with Russia still controlling the largely Moscow–loyal Crimea and supporting separatist territories in the Donbass, but with Kyiv fully reclaiming all parts of the nation.
“Oh no, I think Ukraine is determined to take their country back,” Manchin said when asked to clarify, further clarifying that he wants his call for regime change in Russia to be carried out by “the Russian people.”
“I believe strongly that I have never seen, and the people I talk strategically have never seen, an opportunity more than this, to do what needs to be done,” Manchin later added. “And Ukraine has the determination to do it. We should have the commitment to support it.”
Joe Manchin, one of the most powerful elected officials in Washington, tells the WEF that he opposes any kind of peace agreement in Ukraine and only wants total victory with the ultimate goal of regime change in Russia. In the next clip, he calls this war an "opportunity". 1/2 pic.twitter.com/gsgCUzA0TF
Manchin’s comments fit in perfectly with what we know about the US-centralized empire’s real agendas in Ukraine.
Earlier this month Ukrainian media reported that UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the nation’s president Volodymyr Zelensky on behalf of NATO powers that “even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not.”
Last month US Secretary of “Defense” Lloyd Austin acknowledged that the goal in this war is not peace in Ukraine or the mere military defeat of Russia but to actually weaken Russia as a nation, saying “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”
Last week The New York Times reported that the Biden administration is developing plans to “further choke Russia’s oil revenues with the long-term goal of destroying the country’s central role in the global energy economy.”
Just the other day Ukraine’s military intelligence chief announced that the mission has already creeped forward from the goal of defeating the Russian invaders to reclaiming the Crimean territory which was annexed by the Russian Federation in 2014.
Two months ago Biden himself acknowledged what the real game is here with an open call for regime change, saying of Putin, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
Statements from the Biden administration in fact indicate that they expect this war to drag on for a long time, making it abundantly clear that a swift end to minimize the death and destruction is not just uninteresting but undesirable for the US empire.
This is not a proxy war with peace as an option anywhere within sight. It’s not about saving Ukrainian lives. It’s not even about beating Russia in Ukraine. It’s about achieving regime change in Moscow, no matter how many lives need to be destroyed in the process.
Peace is not on the menu.
Yes, The Ukraine War Could Have Been Prevented
An agreement in which Ukraine promised to remain a neutral country and the fulfilment of the Minsk accords could have stopped Putin’s invasion, @I_Katchanovski explains.https://t.co/iZjTYxNaA8
This war could easily have been prevented with a little diplomacy and reasonable compromise. As the University of Ottawa’s Ivan Katchanovski recently explained to The Maple, “an agreement in which Ukraine promised to remain a neutral country and the fulfilment of the Minsk accords could have stopped Putin’s invasion.”
We know now that the US intelligence cartel had good visibility into what the Kremlin had planned for Ukraine, so they would have known exactly what could have been done to prevent the invasion. They knowingly chose to do none of those things, because the goal was to provoke this war the entire time and then weaponize it against Moscow.
That’s why the Biden administration has been hindering diplomatic efforts to negotiate an end to this war, why it has refused to provide Ukraine with any kind of diplomatic negotiating power regarding the possible rollback of sanctions and other US measures to help secure peace, and why Washington’s top diplomats have consistently been conspicuously absent from any kind of dialogue with their counterparts in Moscow.
Empire spinmeisters and their propagandized victims like to claim that Ukrainian forces are fighting for “peace” in Ukraine. The other day Kyiv Independent’s Illia Ponomarenko, who has called the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion his “brothers in arms,” tweeted this:
Good god, I want peace in Ukraine by Christmas time. Fireworks and joy in the snowy streets of Kyiv. Patriotic music, strangers hugging each other at the Maidan, “merry Christmas, war is over.” That would be just awesome, don’t you guys think so?
— Illia Ponomarenko 🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) May 21, 2022
But anyone who understands this war knows this is ridiculous. Peace is not the goal in Ukraine. Most of the Ukrainians doing the fighting surely believe they are fighting for peace in their homeland, and peace is surely their intention, but that’s not something the empire will allow if the empire gets any say in the matter.
Even if Ukraine does somehow avoid being used as cannon fodder to draw Moscow into a long and costly slog as US officials have admitted was done in both Afghanistan and in Syria, and even if they do somehow manage to deliver a crushing and conclusive defeat to Moscow in the near term (which is far less probable than the western media would have you believe), that wouldn’t be the end of the war. The war would just change shape as the empire and its proxies go on the offensive against Moscow.
This war does not end with Russia being driven from Ukraine, it ends with regime change and the balkanization of the Russian Federation. Really it doesn’t end until the rise of China has been stopped and US unipolar hegemony secured. Or when the empire collapses. Or when we all die in a nuclear holocaust.
All forward motion in this war has nothing but violence as far as the eye can see on its trajectory into the future. No matter how much wealth and war machinery you pour into this conflict, that trajectory of death and destruction will just keep stretching out to the horizon. As Chris Hedges recently explained, war is the only path the empire has left open to itself.
I’ve seen some cute kids in my time, but nobody’s as adorable as people who think the US pours weapons into foreign nations in order to achieve peace.
While elite control over human societies started to gather pace with the Neolithic revolution 12,000 years ago, it was rapidly accelerated with the dawn of human civilization 7,000 years later. Since that time, ‘ordinary’ human beings like you and me have fought an unending sequence of battles to defend ourselves against these ongoing efforts by elites to kill or control us and capture the bulk of Earth’s resources for their own use.
We have had to fight off elites in a vast range of contexts: Pharaohs and Emperors politically, the Popes and other Vatican officials religiously, the City of London Corporation and other financial elites economically, monarchs and political elites nationally, and now a Global Elite that exercises enormous control technologically, economically, politically, militarily and otherwise over the entire world. For a fuller explanation of this point, see ‘Why Activists Fail’.
But there is a profound difference between all of the battles in earlier eras and the one we are in now.
If we lose this battle, there will be no subsequent battle. The Long War against humanity will have been lost, once and for all.
Why? Because this battle is for everything that it means to be human – human identity, human freedom, human rights, privacy, dignity, free will and anything else that makes life worth living – and for control of the Earth and all its resources.
And while it is true that no human has any of these elements in anything like its entirety – who would claim to be fully ‘free’ in this world? – and many humans still lack all of these elements in any meaningful form, it is nevertheless true that the totalitarian nature of the program being imposed on us will transform the very concept of ‘human’ in a way that has only been conceived in the past 100 years or so and not previously attempted. Moreover, if successful, any ‘free will’ that humans might still possess will be utterly eliminated.
How is this Happening? The Deep Level
Despite the unending efforts of those people aware enough to perceive the true depth of this conflict, elites have been able to use a long series of techniques to ensure that the vast bulk of ‘ordinary’ people either do not perceive the conflict or waste their dissent by expressing it within frameworks designed and controlled by elites for that precise purpose. By doing this, it appears that dissent is ‘allowed’ and valued when, in fact, it is simply dissipated.
A second way in which elites have been able to distract us from where the real power in society lies is by convincing us that we have ‘legal recourse’ against injustice, including against elites who kill and exploit us. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.
A third way in which elites retain control over societies is by designing compulsory education systems that ensure that whatever unique emotional, intellectual, sensory and physical potential a child has at birth is either utterly eliminated within a few years of that birth or channeled to serve elite will. See ‘Do We Want School or Education?’
And, of course, elites control populations by using extensive propaganda – marketed variously as ‘education’, ‘entertainment’ and ‘news’ – to ensure the passive submission of the bulk of the population to elite directives.
In short, an unending sequence of violence – ‘visible’, ‘invisible’ and ‘utterly invisible’ – is used to terrorize the individual throughout childhood and adolescence into submissive obedience. This violence ensures that only a rare individual survives with any sense of ‘Self’, with the capacity to critique society and resist violence and exploitation strategically. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
So here we are in 2022, deeply engaged in the final battle to defend humanity, with most of the population unaware of what is happening and the bulk of those who are aware dissipating their dissent through elite-controlled channels.
Hence, as the World Economic Forum puts it so clearly in one of its promotional videos: By 2030, ‘You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.’ See ‘8 predictions for the world in 2030’.
And that could well become true for the simple reason that key measures of the transformation taking place are shifting wealth from those with less to those who will shortly own everything, including you, as Dr Joseph Mercola points out – see ‘Who Will Eventually Own Everything, Including You?’ – and the technologies that will destroy your volition will also remove any concept of happiness.
In short, a transhuman slave needs nothing and experiences only those emotions that are programmed. A transhuman slave, whether as worker, soldier or consumer, will simply perform its programmed tasks until it is no longer functional and is ‘decommissioned’.
A human being without free will cannot resist because they do not know that they are enslaved.
Every day, while most people content themselves with trying to get on with living some version of the life that they experienced prior to 2020, another detail is mapped out and another measure is taken by compliant politicians in one or more countries around the world to destroy everything we have ever known. And the noose is ever-tightening.
Let me offer you just a taste of what else is happening, beyond what is ordinarily discussed as part of the ‘Great Reset’, as elements of the Global Elite’s agenda, about which you are not being consulted or even given thoughtful critiques to consider in government and corporate media.
The World Health Organization: International Health Regulations & the Pandemic Treaty
The World Health Organization continues to promote its initiative to create a ‘Pandemic Treaty’. Using wonderful-sounding words such as ‘to build a more robust global health architecture that will protect future generations’, the Treaty sounds like something we have all been dreaming about. See ‘Global leaders unite in urgent call for international pandemic treaty’.
But like all elite initiatives of this nature, the devil is in the detail and, often enough, hidden in plain sight. Rather than offer a detailed critique here, you can consider several fine critiques by thoughtful scholars in the following articles or videos:
Kit Knightly: The ‘Pandemic Treaty’ would ‘hand supranational powers to an unelected bureaucrat or “expert”, who could exercise them entirely at his own discretion and on completely subjective criteria. This is the very definition of technocratic globalism.’ See ‘“Pandemic Treaty” will hand WHO keys to global government’.
But it would be unwise to ascribe too much significance to these latest, ongoing encroachments on national sovereignty. As explained above, the Global Elite has long exercised control over national governments (as well as international organizations) and the ongoing formalization of this process through the various measures outlined immediately above are simply the latest (health) details in this long-standing process.
Consequently, rather than focusing our resistance on these latest details by, yet again, falling for the trap of lobbying elite agents, as suggested by organizations such as the World Council for Health – see ‘#StopTheWHO: How You Can Take a Stand Against International Health Regulation Amendments’ – it is superior strategy to focus our resistance on the entire elite agenda by undermining elite power at its source.
World Government Summit
The World Government Summit was held in Dubai on 29-30 March 2022. See ‘World Government Summit 2022’. The event was sponsored and hosted by the United Arab Emirates, that bastion of ruthless dictatorship and human rights abuses – see ‘United Arab Emirates 2021’ – and brought together ‘thought leaders, global experts and decision makers from around the globe to share and contribute to the development of tools, policies, and models that are essential in shaping future governments.’ See ‘World Government Summit 2022’.
‘The World Government Summit community is an opportunity for thought-leaders from the public and private sectors to join forces with world-renowned experts to design a better life for citizens across the world. Through Memberships and Partnerships, the Summit brings together change makers to shape a better future for humanity.’ See ‘World Government Summit: Community’.
It is reassuring to know that the WGS felt that the views of constituencies of ‘ordinary’ people – women, indigenous peoples, working people, the poor, the homeless, the unemployed, farmers, non-white peoples, religious people… – were not required and that the ‘world renowned experts’ were quite capable of designing ‘a better life for citizens across the world’ without even consulting us. Surely, after all, these high profile people fully understand the daily struggles of those who battle to survive, have a different worldview or are just simply not white, wealthy and ‘well-connected’.
In any case, as the host country’s long record reminds us, human rights are to be eviscerated in the world that is now being introduced, which is why those attending the Summit were obviously very supportive of the UAE’s ruthless approach to human rights.
As Derrick Broze noted in his thoughtful critique of this gathering: ‘Anyone with a functioning brain should… pay attention to this little known gathering of globalist Technocrats… [who] 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.’ See ‘While You Were Distracted by Will Smith, the International Elitists Met at The World Government Summit’.
The Great Narrative
The Great Narrative was a forum sponsored by the World Economic Forum from 10-13 November 2021. According to the WEF: It was ‘a collaborative effort of the world’s leading thinkers to fashion longer-term perspectives and co-create a narrative that can help guide the creation of a more resilient, inclusive and sustainable vision for our collective future.’ The gathering involved ‘Top thinkers from a variety of geographies and disciplines – including futurists, scientists and philosophers – [to] contribute fresh ideas for the future.’ See ‘The Great Narrative’.
Again, perhaps like me, you find it difficult to identify with the people at this gathering. I wonder if they could see things from your perspective? Or mine?
The good news is that Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, authors of the original book on Covid-19: The Great Reset, also wrote a book about The Great Narrative: For a Better Future. So at least you can read what they are doing to you and plan to do to you. As long as you can read between the lines.
But, again, Derrick Broze has been kind enough to offer a thoughtful critique:
Authoritarians use great narratives to legitimize their own power, and they do this by claiming to have knowledge and understanding that speaks to a universal truth…. With this understanding, the WEF’s call for a ‘Great Narrative’ should be seen for what it truly is – an attempt to displace all other visions of the future of humankind by placing the WEF and their partners at the heart of a narrative which paints them as the heroes of our time. This fits perfectly with the Technocratic philosophy employed by WEF founder Klaus Schwab. He envisions a future where ‘public-private partnerships’ of government and private business and so-called philanthropies use their wealth, influence, and power to design the future they believe is best for humanity. In actuality, the Technocrat philosophy merges with a Transhumanist mindset that sees humanity as limited, flawed, and in need of augmentation by technology in order to accelerate what Schwab calls the Fourth Industrial Revolution…. 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. See ‘The Great Narrative and The Metaverse, Part 1: A Dystopian Vision of the Future’.
Sound like the sort of world that will be good for you?
Defeating the Global Elite’s Agenda
As you ponder the enormity of this elite project, I hope it will encourage you to deeply consider what meaningful resistance in this context will entail. We cannot succeed if we beg elite agents, including politicians, to fix it for us. In the last 18 months, five presidents who resisted the elite-driven narrative have been assassinated to remind us of that.
So resisting it effectively and, ultimately, defeating its agenda, will require focused, strategic action that undermines the power of the Elite to implement its plan.
If you are interested in being part of this strategy, you can read how to do so on the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’website which offers further analysis, resources and a list of 29 strategic goals for doing so.
This includes campaigning to cause all sectors of society to refuse to develop and make available, or to purchase/use, technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism (including 5G and 6G, military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], and quantum computing) because these technologies will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and/or human privacy. See ‘Strategic Goals related to resisting the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism’.
In addition and more simply, you can download a one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 15 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish & Slovak) with more languages in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.
Notably, these latter actions avoid certain problems. Because they involve actions by people dispersed throughout the population, rather than people concentrated in one location (as with rallies), they are extremely difficult to interrupt. Hence, they virtually eliminate the risk of violent repression.
If strategically resisting the ‘Great Reset’ (and related agendas) appeals to you, consider joining the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ Telegram group (with a link available from the website).
Conclusion
The insane Global Elite has launched the final stage of a long-planned program to kill off a substantial proportion of the human population and enslave those left alive. They have agents (including international organizations such as the UN and WHO, politicians, medical personnel, government and corporate media) throughout society playing a part in implementing this program on their behalf.
If we are to defeat this program we must mobilize sufficient thoughtful and courageous people to act strategically to undermine the power of the Global Elite to inflict this program upon us. This can be done as described above.
As you ponder your involvement, remember this. If we do not fight successfully now to defend our humanity, no human being will have the opportunity to fight in future. It is ‘now or never’ for us all.
In that sense, this is the final battle.
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?‘ . His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com
In a televised address on 24 February 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced his decision to order Russian military forces to invade Ukraine in what he labeled a ‘special military operation’ to defend the recently declared self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk and ‘to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine’. Watch President Putin’s speech here or read a transcript here.
Since the invasion started, there has been a huge amount of commentary on it from a vast range of authors with a remarkably diverse range of perspectives. Beyond this, the cascading impacts of the war along with the changes that have been precipitated at various levels, have already been far-reaching and will be increasingly devastating for humanity as a whole.
Here I will focus on some of the more obscure aspects of the deeper agenda that is driving this conflict to manifest in the way that it is occurring. This reflects my own long-standing interest in understanding how elite power manifests in the world.
As I have explained previously, since the dawn of human civilization 5,000 years ago, ‘ordinary’ people have been engaged in an ongoing struggle against elites, whether local, imperial, religious, economic, national or, now, global. See ‘Why Activists Fail’. But whatever the context, the elite intention is always the same: to kill undesired populations and/or control the lives of everyone else by depriving them of their fair share of political, economic, social and ecological resources.
Since about 1500CE, the intensity of this conflict has deepened considerably with elites intent on killing off a substantial proportion of the human population and enslaving those left alive. This has been done through imperial conquest precipitating genocidal campaigns against indigenous peoples, wars, control of food supplies and other resources to generate mass starvation, medical technologies, the deployment of lethal technologies notably now including 5G and, most recently, an injectables program, ostensibly to protect against a ‘virus’. See ‘Killing Off Humanity: How the Global Elite Is Using Eugenics and Transhumanism to Shape Our Future’.
In essence, elite intention has never really wavered. To reiterate: Whatever ideology supposedly guided any elite in a particular context, the elite has usually wanted a substantial proportion of any local human population killed off and the bulk of those left alive reduced to slavery, in one form or another, while endlessly commandeering planetary resources for elite use.
The only differences between earlier eras and the present is that the assault on humanity is now genuinely global and it is in its final stage.
Unfortunately, too, this assault is happening in plain sight with the bulk of the population completely unaware of what is taking place and those who are at least concerned and resisting in some way focused on the ‘smoke and mirrors’ distraction presented by the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative and the antics of politicians.
Which means that the Elite’s kill and control agenda, being implemented through the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’, proceeds with minimal resistance. And those not killed by the various measures being used to depopulate humanity will be enslaved in a technological prison from which there will be no escape. After all, the absolutely minimum requirements for effective resistance are life, a mind with free will and food to eat, none of which can be taken for granted any longer.
So Where Does the War in Ukraine Fit into All This?
Well, at immediate and great personal cost to those soldiers and civilians killed or otherwise adversely impacted by the fighting, the war is being used as a smokescreen to obscure a highly orchestrated sequence of events that accelerate the Global Elite’s kill and control agenda, in just the same way that the Covid-19 narrative has done.
Well, while this war rages on, generating enormous emotion among those siding with either Russia or Ukraine – and thus, in extremely simplified terms, outraged by either NATO’s precipitating encroachment and military buildup over recent decades or Putin’s ‘unjustified’ aggression – here is a short, partial list of rapidly accelerated key outcomes, all compliments of this war, that bring you closer to death or technological slavery in the near term, wherever in the world that you live.
The war, by accident (given that other key elite agents are well aware of what is happening and probably won’t precipitate it deliberately), could ‘go nuclear’, and kill off a huge proportion of humanity and, depending on its severity, starve most or even all of those left alive. But, assuming this outcome is avoided, there are plenty of other unpalatable options to contemplate.
Russia and Ukraine supply 30% of the world’s wheat and significant percentages of other grains, sunflower oil, fertilizers, oil and gas, and strategic minerals (such as palladium and platinum), among other products. The war, as well as the sanctions imposed on Russia by many countries, has exacerbated the already seriously interrupted supply chains of these products, which either cannot be alternatively sourced or not as cheaply. And the previously generated supply chain collapses in all sectors, causing food (and other) shortages, price hikes and energy crises around the world, cannot be restored in any timeframe that is short. Millions will starve to death because of these supply chain collapses.
According to one recent report: ‘We believe we are at the onset of a global famine of historic proportions.’ See ‘Farmers on the Brink’.
To repeat: ‘we are at the onset of a global famine of historic proportions.’
And the thoughtful account by Riley Waggaman includes this comment from Anatoly Nesmiyan: ‘That is why the “special [military] operation” is a minor episode of little importance against the background of impending cataclysms…. The fact that Ukraine and Russia have been used as a tool speaks not so much about the mind of the West, but about the impenetrable stupidity of the direct participants in the current competition.’ See ‘Up next: Global food crisis?’
If you want to keep close track of the destruction of your food supply, now being dramatically accelerated by the war in Ukraine, check out the daily updates shared by the Ice Age Farmer (Christian Westbrook) on various channels.
But a quick check reveals that the Russian and Ukrainian governments have both enthusiastically participated in the entire Covid-19 ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ scam imposing the familiar range of measures – mandatory vaccinations, QR codes… – implemented elsewhere to fulfil the elite’s kill and control agenda.
This includes elite Russian participation in the Global Preparedness Monitoring Board (GPMB) which, as noted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his recent book The Real Anthony Fauci is ‘the real-life authoritative collective for imposing rules during the… pandemic. This so-called “independent” monitoring and accountability body’s purpose was to validate the imposition of police state controls by global and local political leaders and technocrats…: subduing resistance, ruthlessly censoring dissent, isolating the healthy, collapsing economies, and compelling vaccination during a projected worldwide health crisis.’ See ‘I Believe We Are Facing an Evil That Has No Equal in Human History’ and ‘Sputnik V is a scam: “A socioeconomic experiment on the Russian population”’.
The government of Ukraine is no different, using coercive measures to force vaccination on its citizens despite an unusually high level awareness of the dangers of vaccines – leading to substantial resistance – among the general population. See ‘As COVID Surges, Protesters Hit Streets of Ukraine to Decry Vaccine Mandates’.
Are you keeping track of the ever-lengthening list of those who are injured or killed by the injection, which is taking place in the background of this war?
The rollout of 5G, essential to elite creation of their surveillance and control grid, gathers pace under cover of the ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ narrative and now the Russia/Ukraine war. Of course, the electromagnetic radiation will also kill vast numbers of people, both outright and via decimation of the insect population (thus further reducing global food supplies), and the surveillance and control grid it will make possible will trap you in your home and immediate neighborhood, with any semblance of human freedom and human rights consigned to memory. See ‘Sleepwalking into Hell: The Global Elite’s Technological Coup d’état Against Humanity’ and ‘Deadly Rainbow: Will 5G Precipitate The Extinction Of All Life On Earth?’
And, unless you have been ignoring the World Economic Forum’s ‘Great Reset’, you are well aware that the Global Elite plans to transform 200 areas of human life using technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism (including 5G and 6G, military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], and quantum computing). These technologies will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and human privacy reducing those left alive to transhuman slavery in which you will have a digitized personal identity. This digitized identity will be connected to your banking, health, legal and other records to establish your personal ‘social credit score’, like that used in China, to determine what you can, and cannot, do while living in your ‘smart city’ eating food-like substances synthesized from trash and insects. See ‘The Great Reset’.
In Ukraine, the government is simply using the war to rapidly expand what was already ‘one of the most expansive government-run digital ID systems in the world’, making the country the ‘world leader’ in some aspects of digitization via their Diia app, with all that this portends for the human future. See ‘How Ukraine Government Is Converting Digital ID System Into Wartime Tool’. Of course, there will be no backtracking from this at war’s end.
Russia is equally committed to its digitization program, although it is also playing a key role in developing the elite-controlled banking system, complete with digitized currencies, that will supersede the current model. It is hosting the annual Cyber Polygon simulations. See ‘Taking Control by Destroying Cash: Beware Cyber Polygon as Part of the Elite Coup’.
Like many people, I am concerned about the war too. In drawing attention to the deeper elite program that is rapidly trapping humanity in a nightmarish future, I am not suggesting that the war does not matter.
But I also know from long experience that the anti-war movement remains devoid of the capacity to act to prevent or halt wars because it lacks the analysis, strategic orientation, tenacity and courage to do so. I wish it was otherwise.
And if you want to participate in a strategy to end all war, you can read how to do so here: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.
Having noted this, let me highlight that key aspects of these strategies are the need to recognize that violence is built deeply into human society by a parenting model that, in essence, is based on demanding obedience from a child, rather than nurturing the child’s Self-will. See ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.
And this generates a society in which many people are so adversely impacted that they are rendered effectively insane. Unfortunately, some of these people end up in situations where they exercise extraordinarily levels of control. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.
Hence, if you want to reduce violence and war in the future, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.
So What Does All of this Mean?
Whatever your concerns about the war in Ukraine however, I encourage you to not let it distract you from acting powerfully to defeat the deeper elite agenda. If you get caught up in the war hysteria and fail to defend yourself and those you love, you will soon find that everything about the life you have known has been taken away, irrespective of the outcome of this war.
So What Can You Do?
Ideally, if you wish to strategically resist the elite agenda, your most powerful option is to participate in the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ campaign.
The simplest version of this strategy is explained on the one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 15 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish & Slovak) with more in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.
Conclusion
The war in Ukraine is a tragedy for those immediately impacted but for all of us as well. Particularly if we do not recognise the threat it conceals and act powerfully in response to this deeper threat.
For 5,000 years elites have been pitting us against each other – at work, on the battlefield, in life generally – by drawing attention to, and magnifying, superficial differences (based on gender, race, religion, class, nationality….), exacerbating conflicts and convincing us that they are acting in our own best interests when we do what they tell us via their agents in government, the corporate media and elsewhere, and that human solidarity is worth nothing.
Well, one day very soon now, we would do well to realize that in the end only three things matter: Human solidarity is essential if we are to survive this existential crisis, our true enemy is not each other but the insane Global Elite, and we must act powerfully and nonviolently if we are to defeat it.
A human future worth living will be short otherwise.
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?‘ . His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is at http://robertjburrowes.wordpress.com
We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
– William J. Casey, 1913-1987, Director, CIA (Republican), Statement at his first CIA staff meeting, 1981
And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars…
– King James Bible, Matthew 24:6
In the years prior to the new millennium, most readers of George Orwell’s novel “1984” would have considered the book to be a stark warning to mankind. However, in light of world events over the last 22 years it appears Orwell’s book was, instead, an instruction manual for the world’s financial elite.
The setting of 1984 took place in a futuristic, post-apocalyptic Great Britain which was a part of “Oceania”, a world super-state alternately engaged in never-ending warfare with two other global powers: Eurasia and Eastasia.
The INSOC Party was a totalitarian regime led by a figurehead known only as “Big Brother” and the “Ministry of Truth” promoted war hysteria to unite the citizens of Oceania by continuously broadcasting propaganda that simultaneously subverted autonomous thought and action.
Today, it appears the U.S. Military Industrial Complex of which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his 1961 farewell address, has assumed the role of Orwell’s Oceania; along with the other English-speaking nations that comprise the “Five Eyes” global surveillance network: Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. In endless propaganda purveyed to rile and unify the masses, this Anglo intelligence apparatus ostensibly wages war against Islamic terror, Russia, China, and Covid-19, alternately, contingent upon which puppet politicians are appointed to rule at any given time.
What began as Operation Mockingbird during the Cold War, has been perfected in modern media as news agencies, like the Associated Press and Reuters, continually broadcast state-sponsored narratives which are, in turn, repeated by online “fact-checkers”.
Currently, 90% of the modern mainstream media is owned by six corporations doing big business with Big Business: Time-Warner, Comcast, News Corp, Sony, Viacom, and Disney.
Of course, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is near the top-of-the-pyramid where Big Brother, Big Government, and Big Business all merge into the modern-day INGSOC Party also known as the New World Order (NWO).
Orwell considered war as the means by which a collectivist oligarchy could maintain a hierarchical society by purging the excess production of material goods from the economy; thus, keeping the masses impoverished and ignorant:
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
— Orwell, George. ”1984”: part 2, chapter 9
That meant, as Orwell claimed, wars around the world are not to be won, per se, but, rather, to be continuous in order to keep the masses forever alarmed, confused, deceived, misinformed, and poor.
With this in mind, I wrote the following in the commentary of a blog post on August 20, 2021:
The Afghanistan debacle marks the official end of U.S Global Hegemony. As the globalists are sifting the nations into the NWO, they now want China to absorb Taiwan and Russia to invade Ukraine. The Fall of Afghanistan® paves the way. Dissolve & coagulate. Of course, it will look like World War III, but it’s all part of the plan because Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia but not Eastasia; except the times it has fought against Eastasia but not Eurasia.
Just like Orwell’s Oceania, we know the global ship of state (i.e. military-industrial complex) is fueled by these manifestations:
1.) War 2.) Propaganda 3.) Tyranny
Furthermore, the War on Covid-19, like the War on Terror, like Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, et al, all demonstrate how these materializations are actualized through false justification and plausible deniability.
For example, most recently, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau utilized false justification and plausible deniability (i.e. the War on Covid) to violently push back against the Freedom Convoy in Ottawa (tyranny) as Trudeau and the Orwellian Media labeled the truckers as racists, white nationalists, and a “fringe minority”. (propaganda).
Why? Because Oceania has always been at war against its citizens.
Indeed, Orwell’s vision has become an ideal lens by which to interpret current world events and circumstances.
The Truck Drivers Demonstrated the Dangers of Thoughtcrime
The Canadian Freedom Convoy cornered the globalists between a rock and a hard place: They could not lose the battle of Ottawa without sacrificing vaccine passports which are crucial to establishing a global control grid built upon comprehensive digital identification.
Yet, at the same time, the Ottawa protest demonstrated to the entire world the modus operandi of the authoritarians as follows:
1.) First, the tyrants smeared and slandered
2.) They spouted false narratives that were, in turn, propagated by the Orwellian Media
3.) They threatened the enforcement of “laws” citing justification under the guise of a faux morality
4.) As the first three steps above progressed, the totalitarians continued gathering on-the-ground intelligence on those protesting for liberty (i.e. the opposition)
5.) The sources of funding were attacked
6.) The tyrants attempted to remove, or diminish, on-the-ground support and logistics (i.e. stolen fuel)
7.) A false flag was implemented so the Orwellian Media could propagate and, seemingly, “prove” previous and current false narratives thus further justifying an aggressive response (i.e. truckload of firearms and ammo). The false flag also confused, deceived, and discouraged the non-violent protesters.
8.) While steps 1-7 above were commencing, the tyrants strategized enforcement and mustered stormtroopers who were willing to follow orders
9.) An aggressive offensive was launched against non-violent protesters by means of the stormtroopers following orders. Leaders were arrested at the start of the offensive in order to decapitate the protest. (Paradoxically, the stormtroopers were paid by tax monies collected from the very citizens who were violently removed.)
10.) The Orwellian Media propagandized the aggressive offensive against non-violent protesters as having been necessary and morally justified
Surely, these revelations did not benefit Big Brother as the eyes of the proles watched from around the world.
And look what the Canadian truckers accomplished:
– Trudeau ran and hid like a little girl then said he had Covid (in spite of his three shots) for the entire world to see.
– Multiple Canadian provinces dropped Covid mandates
– GoFundMe and the Orwellian Media were completely exposed
– More people around the globe were awakened to the tyranny we all now face
– Canadian premiers, and various political pundits, and national organizations, criticized Trudeau’s actions. A U.S. congresswoman from New Mexico even proposed the Canadian Truckers be offered political asylum.
– Frozen bank accounts generated a loss of faith in the corrupt banking system and revealed to the world the genuine dangers of a digital financial system.
– The American People’s Convoy began in California and steered toward Washington D.C. which caused corrupt D.C. party leaders to weaponize the national guard against blue-collar working-class Americans in the nation’s capitol city.
However, in spite of the world peeking behind Big Brother’s curtain in Canada, vaccine passports remain the World Economic Forum’s line in the sand. This is because digital identity and tracking are crucial to transitioning the entire globe into a cashless financial system and social credit scores.
Additionally, vaccine passports corral the compliant, identify and isolate “the resistance”, and seemingly facilitate a global depopulation agenda.
Even so, the globalists have another big problem: The truth about vaccine injuries and deaths are getting out and, thus, threatening the mainstream narrative – especially the propaganda claiming Covid vaccines are “safe and effective”.
After all, dictators like Trudeau have weaponized a faux morality (i.e. false justification and plausible deniability) by claiming vaccine mandates protect people. But what is occurring now in the bodies of the vaccinated has the potential of tipping Big Brother’s narrative upside-down.
Ignorance is Strength, Sickness is Health, Fauci is Wise, and Covid Vaccines are Safe and Effective
In late 2021, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book “The Real Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health” was published in time to land under living room pine trees at Christmas. Robert Kennedy is former president John F. Kennedy’s nephew; he is politically liberal, an environmental activist, a children’s advocate, and his book contains 2,194 well-documented citations – all of which are extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth to dispute.
Furthermore, on January 6, 2022 U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled against the FDA to suppress data on Covid vaccine adverse events for 75 years. The recently released documents have revealed “1,291 different adverse events following vaccination”, according to “data Pfizer submitted to FDA from its clinical trials in support of a COVID-19 vaccine license”.
Pursuant to a January 24, 2022 roundtable discussion on Covid vaccine “efficacy and safety”, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin regarding data from the Department of Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) provided by three military whistleblowers and showing a “significant increase in registered diagnoses on DMED for miscarriages, cancer, and many other medical conditions in 2021 compared to a five-year average from 2016-2020.”
In response, the military and online “fact-checkers” claimed the DMED data was not correct for the years 2016 through 2020. But how could data glitches have been addressed in 2021 that weren’t made known until this year?
Additionally, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was criticized in February for withholding data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 and the effectiveness of booster shots, for fear the information might be “misinterpreted” and “lead people to question the vaccines’ effectiveness”.
Moreover, funeral directors, embalmers, and life insurance executives, are expressing alarm over strange blood clots discovered in Covid-vaccinated individuals as well as double-digit excess mortality rates which are not attributed to Covid-19.
Even the Ministry of Truth’s online purveyor, Microsoft News Network (MSN), had turned against Oceania’s chief Covid advisor, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director, Anthony Fauci.
Obviously, Big Brother needed to change the channel from Covid to something else.
But, to what exactly?
After all, Covid had been a center of focus for the entire world for two years. What could possibly transition away from such a massively successful propaganda campaign?
How about World War III?
Consider the timing: The official departure date of the People’s Convoy from California was Wednesday, February 23, 2022. That same day Canadian PM Trudeau, seemingly under duress, revoked his self-assigned emergency powers. Then, the very next day, on February 24, 2022, Vlad Putin changed the world headlines to World War III.
Big Brother Said: “Change the Channel! Change the Channel!”
It was too late. The tin-pot tyrant Trudeau could never walk back his previous slander, and aggressive action, against the Ottawa protesters.
Certainly, the dreamweavers within the modern-day Ministry of Truth own the media so they can create reality by spinning narratives; and, for us proles, it is like watching a movie but with real consequences. We witnessed the Orwellian Media’s power to deceive with Trump’s Russiagate, impeachment hearings, the 2020 Presidential Election heist, and the January 6th “insurrection”.
Trudeau’s hard-line approach, and non-compromising, action against the Ottawa protesters was surely gamed out some time ago. He merely read from a pre-written script and the Orwellian Media took it into production.
But, by late February, much damage had been done.
The propaganda channel had to be changed.
Putin in Russia, like Trudeau in Canada, like Macron in France, and like other political and economic leaders throughout the Orwellian West and elsewhere are all Klaus Schwab hand-picked selections from the WEF young leaders program. In fact, until recently, Putin had his own page on the WEF website.
Of course, the first causality of war is truth.
As Putin took military action in Ukraine, plausible deniability was afforded to Big Brother and false justification was used to change the narrative on COVID, diminish and vilify the American People’s Convoy (because we are at WAR, dammit!), legitimize inflationary economic collapse, and… eventually…. shut down the internet and blame Putin for responding to economic sanctions and/or military retaliation with… wait for it…. cyberattacks..
Even “conservative” pundits like Hannity, O’Reilly, Levin, and others, immediately jumped upon the jingoistic war train and with expectations for a red wave in the mid-term elections; peace through strength, and all that jazz.
The point is this: The channel was changed to Russia and Ukraine, all the time, for both Democrat and Republican politicos and pundits alike.
Now, many reading this may believe current world events are naturally occurring, and, perhaps they are happening spontaneously. Or, on the other hand, it remains possible that those peering out from behind the eye of the pyramid, or rather, the most elite of the elite puppetmasters, are, indeed, pulling all the strings from behind the watchful eye of Big Brother.
Since Trump’s election in 2016, consider how the propaganda channels have transitioned so smoothly from one media narrative to another: Russiagate, Ukrainegate, impeachment, Covid, trade wars with Eastasia, and, now, actual war with Eurasia.
Although the geopolitical dynamics prior to Putin’s invasion, the actual warfare, and the ensuing consequences are all genuine – I believe Russia versus Ukraine is, ultimately, comparable to Coke versus Pepsi and Republicans against Democrats: endless ad campaigns saturating our televisions as the Blackrock, Vanguard, and State Street investment firms rule them all from behind the cameras.
Think about it this way: Communist Russia is fighting the neo-Nazis in Ukraine that does the dirty work of the U.S. Deep State that is in bed with communist China.
Ukraine had about as much of a chance of joining NATO as Donald J. Trump being invited to join John Kerry’s, Al Gore’s, and Mitt Romney’s acapella serenade at Greta Thunberg’s birthday party. But any consolation for Vlad in that regard was just a bridge too far, even under the potential of an early nuclear winter.
It doesn’t compute.
Thus, the considerations then become a matter of ideological proximity: For the pundits on the field it looks as though the diplomacy game was lost by means of poor judgment manifesting into a comedy of errors.
But, from out here in the cheap seats, it becomes a matter of considering the timing of events and calculating the odds of specific outcomes occurring in the exact right wrong sequences – and all paired to cui bono.
At this point, any number of plausible scenarios could lead to Russian energy blockages in Europe and, ultimately, to Red Dawn the Reality Show in America.
Ironically, “Red Dawn”, a movie about Russia invading America, was released in 1984.
But I digress.
Hopefully, WWIII will not go thermonuclear, but it would be a mistake to put anything past Big Brother. Because, it seems, the globalists always have a plan.
In fact, if the Covid plandemic has shown us anything, it’s that Klaus & the Build Back Betters still have a few obstacles to their New World Order:
Even now, world citizens in many places are required to show proof of vaccination or a negative Covid test before crossing certain local, regional, and national borders. Given what we have seen with the rise of the Freedom and People’s Convoys, as well as daily revelations on vaccine injuries and deaths, how long will vaccine passports be tolerated by peaceful protesters?
Soon, the Covid War could go hot and when that happens during WWIII, Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth will surely label the resistance as Russian-backed nationalists waging a domestic terror campaign.
Again, as history has revealed: The one-way road to hell has two lanes: false justification and plausible deniability.
World War III has allowed for further dissolution and coagulation on a global scale; and, paradoxically, brought to us by the same Big Brother who still seems quite concerned about us proles catching the flu.
So, whether as a temporary distraction or an event generating genuine, ever-expanding, negative long-term global consequences, it appears WWIII, started as a diversion and, seemingly, for purposes of propaganda and tyranny.
In a real war, Putin would not have kept Ukraine’s internet intact so Zelensky could become an international hero bravely fighting against the tyrannical Russian Bear.
The propaganda sells itself. And, last week, I overheard 4th graders talking amongst themselves and cheering on Ukraine like WWIII was a football game.
2 + 2 = 5: Hegelian Wars Benefit Big Brother & the Globalists
A puppet government may be installed in Ukraine, or it could be Russia becomes bogged down for the war to remain continuous, or, the worst-case scenario, mushroom clouds sprouting into skies all over the world.
In any of these scenarios, however, Putin’s aggression validates the global order.
It’s that simple.
Order out of chaos.
What do communists and Covidists have in common? Both weaponize the collective against the natural rights of individuals who wish to live peacefully, prosperously, and free.
Therefore, all communists and Covidists are puppets in one way or another.
Nationalists like Putin and Trump are not stupid. They fully understand what is going on behind the scenes. And, if they truly loved their countries, they would have defended their nation’s citizens from medical tyranny. Instead, however, both have facilitated, and continue to expedite, the global Great Reset by pretending to be nationalists.
In other words, controlled opposition acts as a quickening agent in the dissolution and coagulation alchemy that is transitioning traditional globalism into the New World Order.
The circles are closing and Big Brother cannot rule without permission from the plebes. Hence the deceptive narrative wars that are not meant to be won, per se, but to remain continuous.
Consider what this latest Ministry of Truth “channel change” has done to infinitely malleable minds: Ukraine has demonstrated how the Political Left is genuinely concerned about defending borders, arming citizens, and shielding neo-nazis from communists.
2 + 2 = 5
Doublethink, much?
Furthermore, as these words are typed, Canada’s Justin Trudeau is in Europe and meeting with allies “about the intensifying situation in Ukraine.” Boom. Vladimir Putin has turned an embarrassingly desperate tin-pot tyrant into an international statesman during a time of war. Just like that.
World War Three has made the Political Left heroes once again, valiantly fighting against Vlad the Bad, in ways that make Orwell’s “Two-Minutes of Hate” look like afternoon tea at Buckingham Palace. At the same time, Trump supporters, the Freedom Convoy, and the People’s Convoy are now labeled as Russian-backed terrorists and war criminals, according to Oceania’s Ministry of Truth (i.e. the mainstream media).
This is because Big Brother has identified the real enemy: The truth, those who tell it, and the spirit of free people who refuse to yield their natural rights.
Division is Unity! Stronger Together!
Vlad Putin starting WWIII has allowed political bootlickers like Mitt Romney to excoriate disgusting pro-Putin republicans as “almost Treasonous” while the Ministry of Truth has scolded the true Emmanuel Goldstein of our time, Donald J. Trump, for praising the Ukrainian president he once “tried to extort”:
Donald Trump praised the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a “brave man” for his handling of the Russian invasion – nearly three years after he tried to extort him for political dirt on Joe Biden.
The revelation that the then-president was secretly linking military aid to opening an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, his son, led to Mr Trump’s first impeachment by the House of Representatives.
But, amidst all of the war propaganda, jingoistic patriotism, and political infighting, always remember the original timing of events:
The official departure date of the People’s Convoy was Wednesday, February 23, 2022. The very same day Canadian PM Trudeau revoked his self-assigned emergency powers and then, the next day, on February 24, 2022, Vlad Putin invaded Ukraine.
Even as the omicron variant loosens its grip on the world, destinations continue to require travelers to show proof of vaccination. And, increasingly, a paper CDC vaccination card is not cutting it.
While the United States government has not issued a federal digital vaccine pass, a national standard has nevertheless emerged. To date, 21 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico offer accessibility to the SMART Health Card, a verifiable digital proof of vaccination developed through the Vaccination Credential Initiative (VCI), a global coalition of public and private stakeholders including Microsoft, Salesforce, Oracle, the Mayo Clinic and other health and tech heavyweights.
And very soon, at least four more states will be rolling out access to SMART Health Cards. “We’ve seen a notable uptick in states that have officially launched public portals where individuals can get verifiable vaccination credentials in the form of SMART Health Cards with a QR code,” says Dr. Brian Anderson, co-founder of the VCI and chief digital health physician at MITRE.
If Covid vaccines don’t prevent infection or transmission of the virus, then how do vaccine passports make sense? In truth, they don’t. But, to Big Brother, Covid mandates were never about health anyway.
On March 3, 2022 the Council of the European Union, in coordination with the World Health Organization (WHO), began negotiations on an “international pandemic treaty” that would be “legally binding under international law” and “enable countries around the globe to strengthen national, regional and global capacities and resilience to future pandemics.”
According to the European Council, the “10 incentives and benefits of an international treaty on pandemics” are as follows:
1.) Faster and better information for signatory countries about pandemic threats
2.) Greater certainty for citizens regarding equitable access to pandemic countermeasures (e.g. diagnostics, medicines, vaccines)
3.) Cost-effective solutions, based on regional and global planning, for stockpiling and production of pandemic supplies in, or near, a given country
4.) A guaranteed “seat at the table” for national leaders at all treaty for a where decisions on pandemic preparedness and response will be taken
5.) More secure global supply chains and sufficient healthcare workers during pandemics
6.) Clarity about each country’s core capacities
7.) Insight and research and development on pandemic solutions, and better sharing of R&D solutions
8.) Great confidence that all partners are doing their part, through fair accountability systems
9.) Integration of the ‘one health’ approach into the global health architecture, thereby improving prevention by connecting the health of humans, animals, and the planet
10.) Partnership and networking with national counterparts in overcoming the threat of future pandemics, and with all other relevant actors (international organisations, civil society, private sector)
What could go wrong? For citizens of once-free nations… everything; because once the circles close on digital identity and vaccine passports in a cashless system, liberty will have been just a mere memory.
In summary, as Big Brother was creating order out of chaos, truck drivers spontaneously threatened to turn the Great Reset narrative upside down. Hence the TV remote was given to Vladimir Putin so he could change the global news channel to WWIII.
False flags have been utilized to start previous wars throughout history and, at the very least, we must always consider the impeccable timing of events in correlation with specific outcomes.
The war in Ukraine now serves as cover for the final stages of a global control grid constructed both in plain sight and behind the scenes as WWIII was initiated to coagulate the new world order in the same Hegelian way WWI delivered the League of Nations and WWII produced the United Nations.
Now, if the reader refuses to accept such massive conspiracy theories on a global scale, then, at least, consider the following:
But if the War on Covid is over, as the Ministry of Truth now reports, then why the need to disparage Kennedy and his book – especially just two days after WWIII appeared to begin as Russian forces invaded Ukraine?
Perhaps because the War on Covid remains continuous. It is not over by a long shot (pun intended).
And the warfare is being waged against the formerly free societies around the world; even as WWIII begins in Ukraine.
CONCLUSION
At the end, we must understand the real war is between truth versus deception, good versus evil, and free will versus totalitarianism. Political dissident and author Alexander Solzhenitsyn said the battle line between good and evil runs through the heart of every man. Author and theologian C.S. Lewis claimed evil comes by the abuse of free will and, for me, this raises specific questions:
Can one stop a monster without becoming a monster too? And, if not, can Big Brother be defeated by peaceful protests?
Food for thought.
C.S. Lewis, furthermore, asserted that a good person understands both good and evil but a bad person understands neither – mainly because good people have experience fighting evil but bad people do not.
As Orwell wrote in his “1984” instruction manual:
…. no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.
– Orwell, George. ”1984”: part 3, chapter 3,
Certainly, there are decent citizens in Ukraine now suffering. And their pain is real. But they are mere pawns in the revolution.
The war is meant to be continuous and Eurasia has always been at war with Ukraine.
Here, in Oceania, if a political puppet of the Inner Party willingly claimed victory in a fraudulent presidential election and later attempted to coerce citizens to choose between their livelihoods or experimental medical procedures, and was later overruled by the Supreme Court, then, surely, the puppet forfeited even the constitutional authority he knows he never had.
The proles must awaken before Big Brother’s economic, political, and societal control circles are fully closed and the real lockdowns begin.
Federal elections were surrendered under Trump and, as Covid has demonstrated, local and state are the new battle lines against Trump’s Operation Warpspeed and Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset. This is why U.S. states with GOP governors and legislatures are passing laws to secure future elections as Oceania’s Inner Party has recently attempted to pass federal election legislation – complete with an Orwellian name: The “Freedom to Vote Act”.
The actions and mandates of public health organizations, Democrats, and Blue State authoritarians are a matter of historical public record. What must occur now is for true freedom fighters to continue revealing Covid vaccine injuries, ailments, and deaths, so the vaccine passport agenda can be stopped before it’s too late.
Those who would resist tyranny must not focus upon distant wars. Instead, local parallel structures must be established, and then networked, beyond the reach of an unjust dystopia. This can be accomplished by communities centered upon common values. And, certainly, this sort of engagement is far more advantageous than blindly succumbing to the divide and conquer propaganda spewed by Big Brother’s Ministry of Truth.
An 8-year-old child in my area recently died as a result of unknown reasons. Yes, unknown reasons. Was the child vaxxed? I don’t know. But if hospital personnel, military whistleblower, insurance mortality rates and funeral industry revelations continue, people just might start asking the right questions.
And, if the right questions are asked and answered, Big Brother will be exposed.
In other words, 2 + 2 must be made to equal 4 again.
In late February the international news cycle moved between two very important focuses. One addressed controversies in Canada. The other continues to highlight events unfolding primarily in Russia, Ukraine, and the USA. While different in many ways, both stories have many-faceted worldwide implications.
Both involve configurations of power and intrigue that overlap in crucial ways. Both involve conflicts with profound life-and-death implications. Both conflicts highlight that humanity and our civilizational inheritances are at a crossroads.
At this parting of the ways, the most well-travelled autobahn looming up ahead points towards tyrannies far more extreme than anything we have known in history so far.
Whatever highway we follow, it seems there is no escaping the onslaught of new forms of aggressive warfare that are fast pushing humanity into a jagged collision with high-tech weaponry capable of unprecedented destruction. To say we are living in dangerous times is a gross understatement.
Will humanity be subjected to even greater extremes of outright militarization? Will we continue to be assaulted by a novel array of overt and covert tactics aimed at radically re-engineering society as well as the very genetic attributes of the human genome? Will human beings continue to be reconfigured to advance the conditions of our decline into submissive enslavement? Will we continue to be subject to litanies of media lies, strategies of behavior modification, and unregulated medical experiments aimed at merging our biological persons with aspects of digital technology?
Some common themes wind through the convoluted array of unregulated assaults that menace humanity’s very survival in anything like the God-given form we inherited from nature. Powerful enemy forces are exploiting for their own self-interested advantage, our credulousness, naivety, and susceptibility to programs of mind control. The goal of the master class, it seems, is to modify our behavior so we can be better integrated into a world of pervasive robotization.
Enslavement With the Help of Digital IDs Combined with Cashless Transactions
Right now in the Western countries’ onslaughts of psychological warfare are integral to the military showdown initiated in Eurasia.
While experts in “perception management” are using the media to lure the public into single-minded condemnation of Russia, our attention is being drawn away from stunning revelations coming to light in our midst.
The disclosures underway illuminate the role of COVID Officialdom in forcing on us through mandates and other coercive techniques, highly lethal and injurious medical procedures. These procedures have been purposely designed to induce pathogenic outcomes and depopulation agendas. Throughout Europe and North America, dramatic increases in all-cause rates of death are being reported especially by life insurance companies and funeral homes.
One result is that Pfizer and Moderna investors are “running for the exit.” Former BlackRock investment advisor, Edward Dowd, has sounded the alarm on Moderna and Pfizer “as sinking ships that investors need to abandon.”
The bad news for the vaccine companies and their notoriously negligent regulators is compounded by the fact that their indemnification is threatened.
The companies and their regulators can be sued if it can be demonstrated that they have lied about their products. Indeed, they have lied on an epic scale and continue to do so. The evidence is clear that the inadequately-tested medical injections advertised as “safe and effective” are no such thing. Now there are headlines proclaiming, “Pfizer and Moderna are modern versions of Enron.”
As blanket coverage of the Ukrainian conflict dominates the media, the next stage in the insidious COVID con is being executed with blitzkrieg speed. The objective is to rush humanity into a privatized system of universalized and standardized Digital ID before most people have an opportunity to get informed on the fuller implications.
The growing contingent of people devoted to principled non-compliance to the myriad COVID frauds must resist allowing the COVID hucksters to advance their diabolical agenda. The COVID con men and women must be forced to back away from their attempt at making sweeping appropriations and instrumentalizations of yet more elements of our private information. We need to hold the line against slick kleptocrats seeking total control of everything through digital invasion and theft of the little that remains of our personal realms.
Included in the Digital ID con job is the creation of a new type of One World digital currency presently being rushed into existence by the private central banks holding membership in the Swiss-based Bank of International Settlements (BIS). This process is being pushed ahead in partnership with the dystopian World Economic Forum (WEF).
Recently Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder, bragged that more than one-half of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Canadian cabinet is infiltrated with WEF insiders. Chrystia Freeland, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, is one of them.
In fact Freeland is currently a prominent member of the WEF’s governing body of trustees. As shall become clear, Freeland is emblematic of the abundant conflicts-of-interest and round-the-clock lies that have come to characterize the Liberal Party during the time of Trudeau’s denigration of public office in Canada.
A pervasive system of social credit scoring is taking shape with the rush to entrench in many jurisdictions a transnational system of Digital IDs. The other necessary element is our willingness to go along with the creation of a single digital currency. The new system requires the consolidation of a One World megabank that is meant as a key element in the so-called Great Reset.
The advancement of a system of total surveillance and total control requires the termination of all cash transactions. Hence our insistence on continuing the conduct of business through the circulation of cash must be an expression of our principled non-compliance.
The merger of Digital ID together with the replacement of cash transactions would give central authorities the ability to cut off our “freedoms,” including, for instance, even our capacity to buy food. The entrapment of people in digital enclosures would put the vast majority of humans in a virtual penitentiary of unmitigated top-down authority.
The creation of a social credit dystopia is being pushed rapidly forward under the cover of wall-to-wall coverage devoted to Russia’s intervention in Ukraine. According to Russian President Vladimir Putin, Russian troops are intervening with the goal of “demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine.”
It is also thought that Putin intends to dismantle about fifteen US biological warfare labs. The Pentagon sponsors of these “research facilities” for mass murder would have us believe they are engaged in a “Biologic Threat Reduction Program.”
In his memorable speech of 24 Feb., Putin claims that the Russian mission in Ukraine, “is not a plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory.” The Russian government asserts that its actions in Ukraine are necessary for the protection of the Russian Mother Country. Over many years Putin has been stressing the themes that the Russian Armed Forces are now acting upon.
The explanation of this military operation as an act of self-defense depends on a historical analysis highlighting the decades-long campaign to strangle Russia in a boa constrictor’s grip of NATO’s aggressive militarism. The core agreements enabling the end of the Cold War have been violated by the patterns of NATO’s expansion since 1991.
NATO has been ingesting former Soviet republics into a US-backed militarized zone of organized anti-Russia zealotry. As Putin warned again and again over recent years, the US goal of transforming Ukraine into yet another militarized enemy of Moscow established a “red line,” a “matter of life or death” for Russia.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Follow us on Instagram, @globalresearch_crg and Twitter at @crglobalization. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums, etc.
Dr. Anthony Hallis editor in chief of the American Herald Tribune. He is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall, has recently finished a big two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon”.
Opposed to vaccine mandates, QR codes and other restrictions on our rights and freedom?
Refusing to wear a mask, have the vaccine and stay locked-down when ordered?
Attended a number of demonstrations protesting the government-imposed restrictions in your country? Involved in or supporting the truckers convoys?
Already celebrating some lifting of restrictions in some countries?
Unfortunately, there is one simple reason why the sorts of actions nominated above cannot win back our rights and our freedom: Our various protests are not integrated parts of a comprehensive strategy designed for the purpose. Moreover, in the case of the truckers convoys, they also complicate one already serious problem: supply chain disruptions that are causing serious food shortages. See ‘The Global Elite’s “Kill and Control” Agenda: Destroying Our Food Security’.
And, rest assured, there is nothing to celebrate unless you do not understand what is happening beneath the surface.
Which, uniquely in this case, requires a strategy that recognizes, and addresses, the technological coup d’état that is being carried out against us.
As anyone conversant with the history of peoples’ struggles is well aware, that history is littered with the ‘bodies’ of failed social movements and national liberation struggles, even if some of these ‘bodies’ are still twitching rather than dead.
Ever wondered why the anti-war movement goes around in circles? Or whatever happened to the Occupy Movement? Or why so many environmental and social justice movements go nowhere? Or even why so many national liberation struggles fail, or lose vital gains subsequently to an initial victory.
Well, there are clearcut reasons for their failure and they can be readily identified. I have previously discussed some key reasons in the article ‘Why Activists Fail’.
So let us consider the current freedom movement and analyze why it is on the course to failure at the moment and see if we can turn it around before it is too late. And to do this, we need a sound strategic framework.
Nonviolent Strategy
Sound nonviolent strategy has twelve components – see the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel – and, unfortunately, most social movements and (nonviolent) national liberation struggles are devoid of a comprehensive strategy simply because only the rarest activist has a sense of what strategy really means.
So what is strategy? Very simply, strategy is a planned series of actions (tactics) conducted over an appropriate timeframe that is designed to achieve the two strategic aims that govern the strategy.
For any strategy to be effective, it must be based on a thorough understanding of the conflict in question.
Analysis
Sound strategy in any conflict begins with a deep analysis of what is taking place so that we can identify who is driving it, why they are driving it, how they are driving it, what they intend to implement and what they intend to achieve if successful?
Hence, if we deeply analyze what is taking place around the world at the moment, we can start by observing that we are being told by the World Health Organization, national governments, medical authorities and the corporate media that the human population is at risk of catching a virus (labeled ‘SARS-CoV-2’) that causes a life-threatening disease (labeled ‘Covid-19’) and that we need a long series of restrictions (including lockdowns and QR codes) as well as several injections to protect ourselves from this alleged disease.
So, obviously, any serious analysis must begin with identifying proof that the virus exists, given that it is the supposed cause of everything that follows. Then we can investigate its projected harm.
However, if we seek proof of the isolation of this virus, we quickly discover that there is none.
However, doctors, scientists and researchers who present evidence such as this are all being censored by government and corporate media and social media. In this context, there is very little space for meaningful debate, let alone space for the truth to emerge into wider view.
If there is no virus, of course, there is no need for any of the restrictions that have been imposed and there is no need for any vaccine. So why have all these restrictions and ‘vaccines’ been imposed?
By this point in any serious investigation, research will have exposed the role of the World Economic Forum in promoting the ‘pandemic’ narrative and, under cover of these ‘virus’/‘vaccine’ lies, progressively implementing its ‘Great Reset’program. Any careful reading of this documentation quickly reveals that the ‘Great Reset’ is designed to utterly transform human society and even human life in accord with elite wishes, which is why the rest of us have not been consulted. This is because the detail outlined in the ‘Great Reset’ documentation, which anyone can investigate for themselves, clearly identifies intended changes to some 200 areas of human activity, essentially characterized as part of the ‘fourth industrial revolution’.
The point is that democratic governance was subverted long ago: it just has many manifestations. As Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, declared at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 2017: ‘What we are very proud of is that we penetrate the global cabinets of countries with our WEF Young Global Leaders… like Justin Trudeau.’ See ‘WEF’s Klaus Schwab Boasts of Young Global Leaders Penetration of Western Cabinets’.
These ‘Young Global Leaders’, which means those, including politicians, who represent the Global Elite rather than the people of their countries, include a range of current (or immediate past) national leaders, such as Emmanuel Macron (France), Angela Merkel (Germany), Vladimir Putin (Russia) and Jacinda Ardern (New Zealand). See ‘World Economic Forum Young Global Leaders’ and ‘World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders”’.
So any careful investigation of what is happening globally reveals four fundamental points:
1. Who? The Global Elite is implementing this technological coup d’état. Hence, what little is left of the sovereignty of governments is being destroyed by the coup, and governments are powerless to restore the fundamental rights and freedom that are stake in this conflict. Of course, governments might be allowed to remove particular mandates in some contexts as the importance of particular mandates is superseded by other components of the Elite agenda. Similarly, legal challenges can bear minimal fruit, and not on the primary program.
2. Why? The Global Elite, using the World Economic Forum as its vehicle, seeks total control of the human population and the Earth’s resources.
4. How? The ‘Great Reset’ is being implemented by using elite agents such as the World Health Organization, national governments, official medical associations, the pharmaceutical industry and the corporate media to promote the Elite’s lies – that the deadly SARS-CoV-2 ‘virus’ exists and that an onerous series of measures ranging from mask-wearing to lockdowns to multiple injections are necessary to address it – while employing heavy-handed censorship to ensure that the truth, and the evidence to explain it, about the deeper elite agenda is suppressed. Meanwhile, unaware people throughout society are playing their part in implementing the ‘Great Reset’ on behalf of the Global Elite.
So what can we do?
If we are to defeat this (fundamentally technological) elite coup against humanity, our strategy must undermine the power of the Global Elite to conduct it. Unfortunately, our protests (whether in person or by blockading with trucks) against particular mandates cannot undermine, in a strategic sense, the foundations that make possible the underlying elite agenda being inflicted upon us. Briefly, this is because they are incorrectly targeted (at governments rather than foundational elements of elite power in this context) and they are the wrong tactics in this circumstance (especially because of their failure to identify and address the technological elements of the coup), among other shortcomings.
So we have two choices: We can keep doing things that don’t work or refocus what we are doing so that it does have strategic impact.
Strangely, this doesn’t mean that we should stop conducting rallies or even cease the convoys. But it does mean that we need to use these events to explain the deeper agenda behind what is happening and to raise awareness of the strategic actions the wider public must take if we are to defeat the elite program.
Otherwise, while they build relationships and even a sense of solidarity, rallies and convoys are, strategically speaking, a waste of time.
So what does ‘strategic impact’ mean in this context?
Once we understand that the Global Elite is driving the ‘Great Reset’ to impose a global order that serves elite interests, we can identify the appropriate set of strategic goals for defending ourselves and then thoughtfully consider what actions we might take to achieve these goals, that is, actions that actually make a difference.
So what does ‘make a difference’ mean in this context? It means designing and taking action that undermines the power of those driving what is happening to achieve what they want. If an action is simply designed to allow us to express our complaint (often expressed as a list of specific demands that particular things be changed) – as the mass rallies and truck convoys are essentially doing – there is no reason for anything to be achieved. Elites have enormous experience of ignoring us and understand how well it works.
As former US Secretary of State Alexander Haig once noted about a massive anti-war demonstration: ‘Let them march all they want, as long as they continue to pay their taxes.’ See Alexander Haig. As a four-star general, Haig, not regarded as the most intelligent Secretary of State in US history, certainly understood the importance of tactical choice. Most activists have no idea.
Which is why the history of mass mobilizations in these forms failing to achieve significant change is long. And this list starts with the largest demonstration in human history when, as part of a series of large demonstrations that was occurring, up to 30 million people in 600 cities protested the imminent US invasion of Iraq on 15 February 2003. See ‘The World Says No to War’.
And remember the Occupy Movement in 2011? It was huge, mobilizing people to camp in public places in cities all over the world. It’s focus? The 1% (wealthy individuals who own and control the major corporations and manage the financial system in a way that disproportionately benefits a minority while undermining democracy). Its strategy? Essentially occupying public locations. The movement ended after it had been heavily infiltrated – see ‘FBI Documents Reveal Secret Nationwide Occupy Monitoring’ – and police forcibly removed encampments a few months after it had taken off globally.
So why do these movements fail? It is always the same reason: poor strategy, invariably including inadequate analysis, inaccurate identification of target and wrong tactical choice, and often including failure to deal adequately with infiltrators and provocateurs. Although, it should be emphasized, movements usually make a series of ill-informed decisions so that the details of the poor strategy vary from one movement to the next. The point is that people generally do not understand the concept of strategic resistance; they simply confuse any form of mass mobilization with resisting strategically.
Identifying What We Must Resist
Once we identify who is driving the conflict – in this case, the Global Elite, not governments – as well as why and how they are doing it and what they intend, we can identify those foundational components that make possible what the Elite wants to achieve.
So, as noted above, a careful reading of the key documentation soon exposes that the Global Elite intends to kill off a substantial proportion of the human population (using a variety of measures including the ‘injectables’) and enslave those left alive in a technological prison. And this is now happening.
How, exactly, is the Elite doing this?
In relation to its eugenics program, it is using four primary measures: the injections, the massive redistribution of wealth from poor to rich, the destruction of global supply chains (including those in relation to food) and the deployment of 5G. For explanations of these measures, see ‘The Global Elite’s “Kill and Control” Agenda: Destroying Our Food Security’.
But even those who resist the injection will be enslaved. Using drones, smart phones, GPS devices, smart TVs, social media, smart meters, surveillance cameras, facial recognition software, online banking, license plate readers and driverless cars, you will live under constant surveillance and be readily controlled whether in your home, car or out in the community. And you will be photographed many times each day. As John and Nisha Whitehead have noted: ‘We’re on the losing end of a technological revolution that has already taken hostage our computers, our phones, our finances, our entertainment, our shopping, our appliances, and now, our cars.’ See ‘The Government’s Kill Switch for Your Car, Your Freedoms and Your Life’.
Moreover, as Whitney Webb has explained, plans are well advanced to ‘require a digital ID to access and use the internet as well as eliminate the ability to conduct anonymous financial transactions. Both policies would advance the overarching goal of both the WEF and many corporations and governments to usher in a new age of unprecedented surveillance of ordinary citizens.’ See ‘Ending Anonymity: Why the WEF’s Partnership Against Cybercrime Threatens the Future of Privacy’. Obviously, this would also dramatically advance elite control.
In addition, using a combination of technologies largely dependent on 5G, the intention is to digitize our identity and connect it with our bank, health, legal and other records, and create a social credit score that will determine what we can and cannot do and where we can do it. In short, we will be locked in a technological prison, whether it is our own home, our car or our local community, in a ‘smart city’. Physical prisons won’t matter because everywhere will be the prison. Human volition will be unknowingly surrendered by those unaware of the degree of technological control they accepted each time they purchased the latest gadget.
A vital part of this control is explained by Catherine Austin Fitts in this short video on the ‘financial transaction control grid’ being created. See ‘Digital Concentration Camps’.
Welcome to your imminent technocratic dystopia. Human freedom? Gone. Human rights? Gone. Human identity? Gone. Privacy? Gone. Free will? Gone. Anything else that makes life worth living? Gone.
So with this briefest of summaries, hopefully you can see why these rallies and convoys, in themselves, cannot achieve anything significant. Powerlessly begging governments to remove certain vaccine mandates and even other now-familiar restrictions, while ignoring the ongoing technological measures being implemented ‘behind the scenes’, is not impeding, in any way, the elite program to entrap you in a technological prison, assuming you survive the death needle.
Hence, if we wish to resist this elite program effectively, we must identify its foundational components; that is, those components that make what the Elite wants to achieve possible. And then resist these components.
Resisting Strategically So what are the components that give the Global Elite the power to inflict its agenda upon us?
These include the injections; deployment of 5G; the technologies that enable comprehensive (not just mass) surveillance, digitization (of our identity, banking, health, legal and other records to generate our personal social credit score) and robotization of the workforce; measures to restructure the global economy in favour of the mega-corporations and consolidation of ownership and control of agricultural land as well as the production, distribution and even nature of the world’s food supply. It also includes the power to control the narrative by using government and corporate media and social media to promote Elite propaganda while censoring the truth.
Hence, we must resist these if we are to undermine the power of the Global Elite to control us.
As noted above, rallies and convoys are only useful if we use them to educate people about the true nature and full extent of the threat and inform those involved how to effectively resist this threat. To reiterate, while we are focusing on governments, the various lockdown restrictions and ‘vaccine’ mandates, and employing the wrong tactics, people will be mobilized to no avail. This is because there are plenty of tactical options – see ‘198 Tactics of Nonviolent Action’ – but understanding what has strategic impact in any context is crucial.
Why? Because the nonviolent actions and the numbers participating, in themselves, are not determinative. It is the strategy that determines the outcome.
In short, we must give people the range of actions that will make a critical strategic difference; that is, the precise actions that will undermine the power of the Global Elite to inflict their overall program on us. Unless we do this, our rallies and convoys (and those people who speak at these events) are simply failing to inform their audiences of the vital information that is necessary for us to be successful.
So mass gatherings of resistance (such as protest demonstrations, truck convoys, religious services…), in whatever variation they take, can be useful because they mobilize people with a shared perspective but they only have strategic impact if these people are then ‘deployed’ to take action that undermines the elite’s power to inflict this coup upon us.
To illustrate this point: What is the value of mobilizing an ‘army’ in war? So that you can send it out to fight a strategically-chosen series of battles. What activists do not understand is that we need to mobilize our activist ‘army’ – which is the primary value of the mass mobilizations – but we need to use these mobilizations to inform activists what tactics we need them to undertake subsequently.
Otherwise we have simply mobilized rally participants to be told to go home again and do nothing or, in the case of the convoys, to remain until a very limited set of demands, which do not address the fundamental technological agenda, are granted (which is one option the Elite might consider as the simplest means of dissipating the dissent in this instance).
If you are interested in strategically resisting the Global Elite’s technological agenda and other measures associated with the ‘Great Reset’, you can read how to do so on the ‘We Are Human, We Are Free’ website which offers further analysis, resources and a list of 29 strategic goals for doing so.
This includes campaigning to cause civilian and military scientists and technologists to refuse to do any research or undertake any work associated with the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism, to cause workers to refuse to do any work (by producing, distributing or installing any technology) associated with the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism, and to cause consumers to refuse to buy or otherwise acquire any product associated with the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism.
That is, to campaign to cause all sectors of society to refuse to develop and make available, or to purchase/use, technologies associated with the fourth industrial revolution and transhumanism (including 5G and 6G, military weapons, artificial intelligence [AI], big data, nanotechnology and biotechnology, robotics, the Internet of Things [IoT], and quantum computing) because these technologies will subvert human identity, human freedom, human dignity, human volition and/or human privacy. See ‘Strategic Goals related to resisting the fourth industrial revolution and/or transhumanism’.
In addition and more simply, you can download a one-page flyer that identifies a short series of crucial nonviolent actions that anyone can take. This flyer, now available in 15 languages (Czech, Danish, English, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Romanian, Russian, Spanish & Slovak) with more in the pipeline, can be downloaded from here: ‘The 7 Days Campaign to Resist the Great Reset’.
Notably, these latter actions avoid certain problems. Because they involve actions by people dispersed throughout the population, rather than people concentrated in one location (as with rallies), they are extremely difficult to interrupt. Hence, they virtually eliminate the risk of violent repression.
For the first time in history, all of humanity is threatened by a coup d’état that is killing vast numbers of people through a complex series of measures while destroying human liberty and human rights for those not killed outright.
Moreover, for the first time in history, this coup is being implemented by a series of technological measures that promise to imprison those left alive in a hi-tech prison from which there will be no escape.
Hence, given that several foundational elements of this coup are not yet quite fully in place, 2022 will be the most critical year in human history to date.
But to defeat this hi-tech coup we need to be strategically savvy and mobilize enough people to participate. You are welcome to join us.
Biodata: Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is flametree@riseup.net and his website is here.
A global network of stakeholder capitalist partners are collaborating to usher in what they claim to be a new model of enhanced democratic accountability that includes “civil society”. However, beneath their deceptive use of the term civil society lies an ideology which offers this network an unprecedented degree of political control that threatens to extinguish representative democracy entirely.
Representative democracy is quietly being phased out to be replaced with a “new normal.” This “new normal” is a nascent form of governance being referred to as “civil society.” It is founded upon the principles of communitarianism and it is being offered to us as an illusory replacement for representative democracy.
The Global Public-Private Partnership (G3P), who set the worldwide policy agenda, have long-seen the manipulation of the concept of civil society as a means to achieve their ambitions. This is at odds with how many emergent “civil society” groups understand their allocated roll.
Set against the background of a corporate, global state, in this article, we will explore the exploitation of communitarian civil society and consider the evidence that, despite possibly good intentions, civil society is very far from the system of increased democratic accountability that communitarians had hoped for. In the hands of the G3P, what they refer to as “civil society” is a tyranny.
Shaping the Global Public-Private Partnership
Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual Davos meeting in 1998, then United Nations (UN) Secretary General Kofi Annan, described the transformation of the United Nations. He signalled the transition to the G3P model of global governance:
“The United Nations has been transformed since we last met here in Davos. The Organization has undergone a complete overhaul that I have described as a ‘quiet revolution’ […] A fundamental shift has occurred. The United Nations once dealt only with governments. By now we know that peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society […] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.”
The WEF describes itself as the “International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” It represents the interests of more than 1000 global corporations and, in June 2019, it signed a Strategic Partnership Framework agreement with the United Nations. The WEF and the UN agreed to work together to “accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
Agenda 2030 establishes the initial waypoints along the path to completion of the plan for the 21st century, also known as Agenda 21. The policies required to achieve these goals will be developed by the multi-stakeholder partnership. The UN explain how this is envisaged to operate:
“Cross sectorial and innovative multi-stakeholder partnerships will play a crucial role for getting us to where we need by the year 2030. Partnerships for sustainable development are multi-stakeholder initiatives voluntarily undertaken by Governments, intergovernmental organizations, major groups and others stakeholders, which efforts are contributing to the implementation of inter-governmentally agreed development goals and commitments, as included in Agenda 21.”
For its part, the UN describes itself as the “place where the world’s nations can gather together, discuss common problems and find shared solutions.” Currently 193 sovereign states are signed up to the UN Charter.
National governments commit to abide by the principles of the Charter and the ruling arbitration of the International Court of Justice. While UN General Assembly recommendations are non-binding on member states, the UN provides a mechanism by which governments can take collective action.
With the Strategic Partnership in place, the WEF and the corporations they represent are now engaged in “effective collaboration” with the 193 national governments represented at the UN. They are directly partnering with government in the development of global policy agendas.
The partnership will guide the formation of policies and regulations related to international finance and the global financial system; the transition to a new, low carbon global economy; international public health policy, disaster preparedness and global health security; the technological development deemed necessary to bring about the Fourth Industrial Revolution; policies on diversity, inclusion and equality; oversight of the global education systems and more.
In an attempt to add a veneer of democratic accountability to this Strategic Partnership Framework, as the world uniformly moves towards Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the UN strongly advocates collaboration with “civil society.” Indeed, SDG 17 specifically refers to this arrangement: “Goal 17 further seek to encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships”
Civil society will be engaged by utilising the WEF concept of the “multistakeholder platform.” This is a core element of the WEF’s definition of stakeholder capitalism.
The communitarian model of civil society is based upon a triumvirate power sharing structure between state (public sector), market (private sector) and community (social or third sector.) However, the WEF’s interpretation of stakeholder capitalism assumes that the public-private partnership stakeholders (state-market) select the civil society communities (social or third sector) they wish to engage with.
Selection bias is a concern, as it obviously excludes the communities the public-private partnership does not wish to engage with. In part, this contradicts the communitarian view of civil society.
The WEF’s multistakeholder platform appears to exploit, rather than embrace, communitarian civil society. Understandably, the WEF’s partnership with the UN drew strong criticism from many civil society groups. The Transnational Institute (TNI) encapsulated their concerns as follows:
“This public-private partnership will permanently associate the UN with transnational corporations […] This is a form of corporate capture […] The provisions of the strategic partnership effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions […] The UN’s acceptance of this partnership agreement moves the world toward WEF’s aspirations for multistakeholderism becoming the effective replacement of multilateralism […] The goal was to weaken the role of states in global decision-making and to elevate the role of a new set of ‘stakeholders’, turning our multilateral system into a multistakeholder system, in which companies are part of the governing mechanisms. This would bring transnational corporations, selected civil society representatives, states and other non-state actors together to make global decisions, discarding or ignoring critical concerns around conflicts of interest, accountability and democracy.”
Less than six months after the Strategic Partnership Framework was signed the pseudopandemic allegedly began in Wuhan, China. Resulting world events have somewhat obscured the corporate capture of global governance from public attention, but it remains in place.
The Civil Society Tradition
Representative democracies have a long tradition of civil society. Between 1835 and 1840 the French aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote and published two volumes of “Democracy in America.” He noted that, for the representative democracy of the “new world,” the voluntary institutions of civil society promoted active engagement in decision making and acted as a bulwark against the excesses of centralised, governmental authority:
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, and all dispositions, constantly form associations. They have not only commercial and manufacturing companies, in which all take part, but associations of a thousand other kinds -religious, moral, serious, futile, extensive, or restricted, enormous or diminutive. The Americans make associations to give entertainments, to found establishments for education, to build inns, to construct churches, to diffuse books […] and in this manner they found hospitals, prisons, and schools […] they form a society.”
While he found that American civil society empowered the citizenry, de Tocqueville also identified some of the apparent risks:
“When several members of an aristocracy agree to combine, they easily succeed in doing so; as each of them brings great strength to the partnership, the number of its members may be very limited; and when the members of an association are limited in number, they may easily become mutually acquainted, understand each other, and establish fixed regulations. The same opportunities do not occur amongst democratic nations, where the associated members must always be very numerous for their association to have any power.”
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with concept of civil society, but even in the 19th century the potential for it to be exploited by powerful interest groups was apparent.
Today, civil society is sold to us as a way to fix what many people see as the “democratic deficit”. First coined in the late 70’s by the Congress of Young European Federalists (JEF), the “deficit” was conceived to explain the observed failings in representative democracy.
The JEF held that the ponderous, centralised bureaucracy of national government was unable to adapt to rapidly changing economic and social conditions. Further, that the interdependent, international nature of modern, technologically advanced industrial societies created conditions that no single nation could address in isolation.
This left the electorate unable to affect the policy changes they needed, as government became unresponsive to social and economic realities. Civil society was suggested as a way to bridge the gap between governance, government and community. Unfortunately, the inherent credulity of the communitarian theory driving it rendered civil society vulnerable to manipulation by more Machiavellian global forces.
Communitarian Civil Society Model
In 1848, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels published the first edition of the Communist Manifesto. In it they criticised their intellectual forebears, Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier and others, for their utopian naivety. In particular they decried the “utopian socialist” rejection of the class struggle, pointing out that, in their opinion, the proletariat needed an independent political movement in order to overturn the rule of the bourgeoisie.
In 1841, John Goodwyn Barmby coined the term “communitarian.” He was among those who Marx would subsequently label as utopian socialists. Communitarianism elucidated their theory that individual identity was a product of familial, social and community interactions. Communitarianism wasn’t widely referenced until, in 1996, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor highlighted that a new form of political communitarianism was building in the US:
“The term has been taken up by a group under the leadership of Amitai Etzioni in the US. This group has a political agenda. One might say that they are concerned social democrats who are worried about the way that various forms of individualism are undermining the welfare state. They see the need for solidarity, and hence for ‘community’ on a number of levels, from the family to the state.”
Amitai Etzioni, an Israeli-American dual citizen, is the director of the Center for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. A former advisor to the Carter administration, he formed an association of like minded sociologists and other scholars called the Communitarian Network.
In 1991, the Network produced its manifesto in the form of the Responsive Communitarian Platform. Etzioni et al. defined civil society as the moral and political space between community and state. They suggested that global problems could only be tackled with the participation of civil society:
“A communitarian perspective must be brought to bear on the great moral, legal and social issues of our time […] Moral voices achieve their effect mainly through education and persuasion, rather than through coercion […] they exhort, admonish, and appeal to what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature […] this important moral realm, which is neither one of random individual choice nor of government control, has been much neglected […] we see an urgent need for a communitarian social movement to accord these voices their essential place […] civil society is a constant, ongoing enterprise.”
Communitarianism is opposed to authoritarian control. It specifies “community” as representative of the people. Accordingly, in order for government to be genuinely responsive to the changing needs of the electorate, it must engage with communities:
“We seek to find ways to accord citizens more information, and more say, more often. We seek to curb the role of private money, special interests, and corruption in government. Similarly, we ask how ‘private governments,’ whether corporations, labor unions, or voluntary associations, can become more responsive to their members and to the needs of the community.”
Etzioni and other communitarians, like the utopian socialists before them, believe that the community represents the individual. Therefore, the community can speak for the individual. Further, they believe that governments and “private governments” can engage with the people via consultation with the communities. In combination, these communities form civil society.
Communitarian Assumptions
In his 2000 commissioned treatise for the UK-based, privately funded think tank DEMOS, titled The Third Way To A Good Society, Etzioni argued that civil society could remedy public disillusionment in democratic institutions. He noted the dwindling public trust in government and increasing sense of disenfranchisement. The remedy he proposed for this democratic deficit has since proven disastrous:
“We aspire to a society that is not merely civil but is good […] When we bond with family, friends or community members we live up to the basic principle of the good society […] The good society is one that balances three often partially incompatible elements: the state, the market and the community. […] Communities, in my understanding, are based on two foundations […] First, communities provide bonds of affection that turn groups of people into social entities resembling extended families. Second, they transmit a shared moral culture (a set of shared social meanings and values that characterise what the community considers virtuous verses unacceptable behaviour) […] These traits differentiate communities from other social groups […] Contemporary communities evolve among members of one profession working for the same institution […] members of an ethnic or racial group even if dispersed among others; people who share a sexual orientation; or intellectuals of the same political or cultural feather […]Groups that merely share specific interests – to prevent the Internet from being taxed or to reduce the costs of postage – are solely an interest group or lobby. They lack the affective bonds and shared culture that make communities.”
For communitarians shared morality defines the “good society” which manifests in the exercise of power sharing between “the state, the market and the community.” Communities, as defined, stand apart from mere “interest groups” because they have “affective bonds” whereas interest groups don’t, in the communitarian’s view.
Community is, according to the communitarians, held together because people have affection for each other. They suggest that interest groups lack cohesion by comparison.
Community is “good” and therefore the power-sharing triangle is “good” for society. Certainly the vast majority of us want to live in a peaceful society, where families of every shape and size can thrive, where children have the opportunity to reach their full potential and conflict is resolved without resorting to violence. Nonetheless, communitarianism poses some questions.
Absent a shared “specific interest,” it is not easy to define community. Which “communities” will be chosen to form civil society, how is this decision made and who makes it? Who represents the local community? Is it the church, if so which church? Is it a local charity or an environmentalist group? Does the local cyclist community represent the interests of the local road hauliers community? What “good” values do these selected communities promote, who among us agree with them and how many of us share their aims and objectives?
Who is selected from each alleged community to represent the opinions of all of its constituent members? Do the community members share the views of their representatives? Are they happy for these community leaders to speak for them?
In the multistakeholder platform-based model of civil society it appears that these judgments fall to the public-private partnership. How confident can the rest of us be in their rationale? Even the notion of the local community is a nebulous concept. Where are the boundaries of local? Is it our street, our town, city or nation state? Does everyone who lives in whatever is prescribed as the local community agree? Do we all share the same opinions, do we even want to be part of a community?
Communitarians offer few, if any, answers to these questions. It is an implicit assumption of communitarianism that this thing they call community is capable of acting as a voice for the individual. This is not evident.
Communitarian “New Normal” Intolerance
An oft quoted sound-bite during the 2020 iteration of the pseudopandemic was the phrase the “new normal.” Many of us probably believed that the prospect of a new normal referred to little more than the introduction of stringent public health measures following an unprecedented global pandemic. However, this is not what “new normal” means.
While he was far from the first to use it, the “new normal” was a phrase offered by Amitai Etzioni in his 2011 book of the same name. He accompanied his book with an essay, titled The New Normal, also written in 2011. In both the book and the essay, Etzioni explored the communitarian view on the new, post global economic collapse world. The “new normal” was the name Etzioni gave to a society of “diminished economic condition.”
He suggested that people must accept that continual growth was unlikely and should, in any case, eschew consumerism as a measure of success. He welcomed this envisaged change to a society that valued relationships as well as emotional, intellectual and spiritual growth beyond material acquisition. He claimed that a reduction in consumption was required to save the planet. We all needed to reduce our carbon footprints, he asserted.
As people have come to question the often dispiriting pursuit of modern materialism, Etzioni’s perspective was welcome perhaps. However, it is in Etzioni’s exploration of the balance between individual rights and the “common good” where doubts arise. Etzioni, alongside most communitarians, considers that balance to be fluid. Neither individual rights nor the common good take precedent in a sociological concept Etzioni called “libertarian communitarianism.”
As new situations arise and technologies emerge, what is good for the community today may not be good for the community tomorrow. Therefore, the point at which the common good does override individual rights—as it must—is constantly shifting, according to libertarian communitarianism.
However, one value which communitarianism does not espouse is diversity of opinion. In the communitarian model, the power to define the common good is absolute. The traditional democratic values of freedom of speech and expression are distinctly unwelcome in communitarian philosophy. This is not admitted, but it is implicit to their theory. For communitarians, dissent from the community or disagreement with the stated “common good” is not tolerated.
“We should not hesitate to speak up and express our moral concerns to others when it comes to issues we care about deeply […] Those who neglect these duties, should be explicitly considered poor members of the community […] A good citizen is involved in a community or communities. We know that enduring responsive communities cannot be created through fiat or coercion, but only through genuine public conviction […] Although it may seem utopian, we believe that in the multiplication of strongly democratic communities around the world lies our best hope for the emergence of a global community that can deal concertedly with matters of general concern to our species as a whole.”
Communitarians are ambitious. They see their civil society as a global project where everyone involved has a “genuine public conviction” to communitarian principles. This ambition is shared by the G3P, but for very different reasons.
What if we are not convinced? What if we believe individual sovereignty is sacrosanct and that freedom of speech and expression, of organic public protest and freedom of choice are more important than a commitment to any prescribed community or the community’s authorised version of the common good?
According to communitarians, like Etzioni, this makes us poor members of the community. We are not “good citizens” and they suggest how we should be dealt with:
“Responsibilities are anchored in community […] communities define what is expected of people; they educate their members to accept these values; and they praise them when they do and frown upon them when they do not […] Whenever individuals or members of a group are harassed, many non-legal measures are appropriate to express disapproval of hateful expressions and to promote tolerance among the members of the polity.”
This is community as a control mechanism, not as an extension of any egalitarian meritocracy where individuals can flourish. The community will define our responsibilities and spell out what is expected of us. The community will instill its values and we must agree with them. If we don’t, we will be “educated” to accept them.
If we strongly express disagreement with community values this could constitute “hate” and “harassment” of community members. Those of us outside of the community, for any reason, will be receive its disapproval and efforts will be made to make us more tolerant of the community’s beliefs. Whatever they may be.
Therefore, uniformity of opinion within these communities is enforced. Debate will be welcome as long as it doesn’t challenge the community’s precepts. These are off limits. Members will probably have to leave independent thought at the door before entering the community and certainly before being accepted by it.
There is a significant risk that groupthink will develop. The roots of communitarianism are in the utopian socialist view that identity is formed by the community. In turn, this also suggests that community identity becomes individual identity.
An individual suffering from groupthink possesses unquestioned certainty, intolerance for any opposing views and an inability to engage in logical discourse. Their critical thinking skills are impaired, because to question the community is to question their own identity.
Those who do not share the ordained group ethos, or those who question the evidence base underpinning the group’s certainty, are not part of the community. They are “other.”
Etzioni describes anyone who doesn’t embrace vaccine passports as Individual Rights Luddites. Having thought about vaccine passports, he concluded:
“These passports could enable scores of millions of people to leave their depressing quarantines, to go to work, to attend school, and to be socially active again, all of which would help revive the economy and reduce social tensions.”
He accepts that lockdowns and the closure of the global economy was an unavoidable response to a global pandemic and not a policy choice. He believes that school closures make sense and that the economy will be revived once the vaccine passport system is established. He believes that the mRNA and viral vector injections are vaccines and that they work as described by the manufacturers.
In other words Etzioni accepts a whole raft of assumptions. Based upon them, he insists that denying access to society to those who don’t want to be injected is not “discrimination” but rather “differentiation.” Applying his communitarian principles he wrote:
“Differentiation will exert some pressure on those who refuse to be vaccinated, as they will be unable to reap the benefits of the passports unless they reconsider their position.”
Etzioni has defined the common good. Or rather, he accepts the common good as defined for him. Freedom of choice or principles such as bodily autonomy are overridden by the “common good.”
Etzioni disagrees with the philosopher Giorgio Agamben who pointed out the horrific ramifications of a biosecurity state. This is fine, disagreement and debate are welcome in any free society.
Unfortunately, unlike Agamben, Etzioni doesn’t advocate a free society. He suggests a communitarian civil society based upon the consensus view of what does or does not constitute the common good. As did Hitler’s National Socialists in 1930s Germany, a society from which Etzioni fled as a child to what is now the state of Israel.
Communitarians oppose the abuse of power and it is unfair to describe them as fascists. Nonetheless, it is entirely reasonable to point out the parallels. Both political ideologies accept authoritarian diktat. That is what enforcement of the “common good” is.
However, this is not the most worrying aspect of the communitarianism. It is communitarians’ naive grasp of the global realpolitik, which renders communitarian civil society the perfect policy vehicle for the G3P. This is what should concern us most. Unlike communitarians, the G3P definitely wants to enforce dictatorial control.
The Political Class Embraces Communitarian Civil Society
In one sense, the global political class’ apparent enthusiasm for communitarian civil society seems surprising. It is unusual for them to seek ways to increase public scrutiny of state and corporate power or public involvement in their policy development.
While public consultation is nothing new, policy is typically designed via internal party political processes, set at party conferences and so-forth. The parties then produce manifestos that the people are invited to select in elections, once every 4 or 5 years.
Civil society, as envisioned by communitarians, suggests a permanent power sharing structure that affords individual voters “more say, more often” in an effort to “curb the role of private money, special interests, and corruption in government.” It is rare that governments, and the political parties that form them, willingly diminish their own power and authority.
That this seeming diminution of party political power should be embraced both simultaneously and globally is unprecedented. Yet, that is what we have seen, as Western representative democracies have advocated, what appears to be, increasing political power for civil society groups.
The recent COP26 summit, which established the basis for action for the new global economy, invited representatives from “governments, businesses, NGOs, and civil society groups.” The US State Department brought together “leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector” for their Summit For Democracy to deliberate on US foreign policy.
The German government has appointed a National Civil Society Body to monitor the site selection for potential nuclear waste storage facilities. The UK government has created the Office for Civil Society within the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport. On the surface, it seems democracy is exploding everywhere.
Communitarian Civil Society Is A G3P Project
The Communitarian Network’s ideas certainly enthralled the western political class. During the 1990s, US president Clinton and then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, with German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder leading the mainland European charge, embraced what they called “the Third Way.”
“Elements of both stakeholding and communitarianism can be found in the Third Way […] communitarian ideas have undoubtedly influenced New Labour [..] Outputs and not ideology are driving the new agenda of governance under New Labour. This is seen to have its roots in the new ways of working the party has embraced in local governance, where public–private partnerships have become the norm and a new ethos of public service has emerged.”
This transformation in governance was not solely a political shift of the “progressive left.” Following the demise of the UK Labour government, the Conservative-led coalition, under David Cameron, advocated the “Big Society.” Today, under another Conservative government, virtually no UK policy initiative or announcement is complete unless it speaks of engagement with “civil society.”
“Public-private partnerships” became prevalent in UK local government decision-making during the 1980s & 90s. This was an aspect of the forerunner of the Third Way, named by the UK Labour party as the “stakeholder society.”
The idea of the stakeholder society owed much to the reforms introduced by former UK Conservative Prime Minster, Margaret Thatcher. Under her leadership in the 1980s the pursuit of “Reagonomics” led the introduction of compulsory competitive tendering (CCT) for all local authority contracts.
Hitherto, standard local government practice had been to allocate infrastructure projects to private contractors while the regional government provided many local services. With CCT, all contracts were opened up to the private sector. This meant that multinational corporations had access to new taxpayer-funded markets.
“The key idea behind one nation socialism is the stakeholder society, a society in which all individuals and interests have a stake through democratic representation, and through the adoption by political parties like the Labour Party of a conception of the public interest.”
However, the stakeholder society redefined who would determine the public interest? Traditionally, this had primarily been an undertaking for elected governments. They could be kicked out of office if the public disagreed with their policies. However, the stakeholder society gave a formal policymaking role to both the third (social) and the private sector. No one voted for them, nor could they be removed through any electoral process.
Nor was the Third Way simply a European project. In the US, the Third Way policy think tank was formed in Washington in 2005. Supposedly a think tank of the “progressive left”, the Third Way was heavily backed by global corporations and lobbied Congress intensively to adopt multinational trade deals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Initially, it seems difficult to understand why global corporations and governments would be eager to promote an idea like the Third Way or civil society. For global corporations, the ability to focus their lobbying efforts on a handful of elected officials would appear preferable, and easier, than trying to influence the communities forming civil society. Centralised authority benefits them, so why would they seek to to dilute it?
The “key idea” of the stakeholder society did not originate in centre-left think tanks like the Resolution Foundation or the Third Way. It sprang from the heart of the global capitalist network forming the Global Public Private Partnership (G3P).
Stakeholder capitalism is supposedly a new model of so-called responsible capitalism which the founder and current executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, pioneered in the 1970s. The G3P he represents claims the right to act as trustees of society. In December 2019, Schwab wrote “What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want”, where he outlined the stakeholder capitalism concept:
“Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.”
“The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”
The referenced “other” is us, the population. We all apparently agree that private corporations should be invested with the power to administer the global estate. Or at least that is the assumption at the heart of stakeholder capitalism.
Communitarianism and stakeholder capitalism merge to form what is now being referred to as “civil society.” This then is the proposed model of representative democracy that will ostensibly enable us to have a say in the policy formation process. If we examine this claim, however, it is resoundingly hollow.
In the hands of the global stakeholder capitalists, with the connivance of a power hungry “progressive” left, Etzioni’s dream of a communitarian civil society has metastasised into a global control mechanism for the G3P. Civil society, as the term is now being used, is a threat to every democratic principle we value.
The Tyranny of the New Normal Communitarian Civil Society
Etzioni, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor and other proponents of communitarianism, who advocate local and national governance via civil society, offer a model ripe for exploitation. Governments across the world have enthusiastically seized the opportunity presented by this rendering of civil society, typically in the form of people’s or citizen’s assemblies.
Many assemblies have formed their consultative community through the drawing of lots. So-called sortition is a governance model that invites members of the local community to deliberate on important policy issues. For example, the UK Government commissioned the Climate Assembly to look at policy enabling the UK to achieve “net zero” carbon emissions by 2050.
Selected delegates were able to debate what the net zero policy priorities should be. They considered how fast net zero policies should be implemented and looked at how net zero policies could impact their communities, considering what mitigation measures may be required. What they could not do is question net zero policy nor the underlying assumptions it is based upon.
“Civil society actors from a wide range of fields come together to collaborate with government and business leaders on finding and advocating solutions to global challenges. They also focus on how to best leverage the transformation brought by the Fourth Industrial Revolution and partner with industry, philanthropy, government and academia to take action and engage in the development, deployment, use and governance of technology. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), labour and religious leaders, faith-based organizations and other civil society stakeholders are key members of the World Economic Forum’s multistakeholder platform.”
There is no questioning of either government or business. No opportunity is provided for the people, the subjects of the policy agenda under debate, to explore alternatives.
The necessity for the WEF model of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is assumed, as is the partnership with industry to achieve it. The problems are predetermined and the “solutions” have already been decided before civil society has the opportunity to “collaborate with government and business.”
The civil society stakeholders are chosen. Representatives from NGOs, religious communities, unions and philanthropic foundations are the selected stakeholders whose only role is to agree with the policies placed on the table by the public-private partnership. Their consent is deemed to be public consent.
As previously stated, the communitarian civil society creates a power sharing structure between state (public sector), market (private sector) and community (social or third sector.) It assumes that all three sectors are independent of each other and therefore governance, the setting of policy agendas, is achieved through equal compromise of all three parties.
This fatal naivety effectively extinguishes, rather than enhances, democratic accountability. In truth, the public and private sector are not independent of each other. They are working as equals in partnership.
Between them, they have all the money, all the legal authority, all the resources. Via the public sector (government), they also possess a monopoly on the use of force to compel communities to comply.
On the other side of the civil society equation sits some abstract form of “community” that is invited by the public-private partnership to collaborate. The public-private partnership selects the community or communities they want to rubber stamp their policies. The community has neither power, nor access to resources. Unlike their civil society “partners”, the community can’t force anyone to do anything.
The parameters of the alleged debate are set before the community joins and it will only be allowed to select from whatever “solutions” are put in front of it. All of this fulfills the immediate objectives of the G3P.
At the same time, this allows the G3P to address an issue that has plagued it for years: the democratic deficit or the public’s loss of trust in the institutions of government.
Within the G3P, governments don’t necessarily devise policy. Instead, their primary role is to market the policy and then enforce it.
Governments also provide the enabling environment for G3P policy agendas. They provide this environment both in terms of investment, via the taxpayer, and perhaps more importantly because the population is more likely to accept the rule of an allegedly democratic government rather than a dictatorship composed of a network of global corporations, NGOs and philanthropic foundations.
Consequently, a democratic deficit that erodes that trust is a problem. If you want to convert your policy agenda into legislation and regulation that impacts people’s lives, then you need to make them believe they still have some way of holding decision makers to account. Otherwise, they might resist your undemocratic rule.
The communitarian model of civil society is a gift for the G3P. Not only can they use it to continue maintaining the illusion of democracy, they can exploit claimed engagement with the community and build trust. Building trust is a current, major goal fo the G3P. For example, a “Crucial Year to Rebuild Trust” was the central theme of the 2021 Davos summit, hosted largely virtually by the WEF, and their planned theme for 2022 is “Working Together, Restoring Trust.”
Our continued “trust” in their institutions is vital for the G3P and the stability of their rule. The constant reference to civil society is intended to convince us that we too are stakeholders in the G3P’s multistakeholder platform. In reality, we aren’t. This is a deceit.
Instead, we are the subjects of the predetermined policy agendas that civil society will be invited to approve on our behalf. If we question the selected representative civil society groups, their communitarian beliefs or their assumed right to speak for us, we will be castigated as “bad citizens.”
Being in a community of like-minded souls, with whom we feel a bond, is nice but such a community has no chance against against a committed “interest group.” Such groups have a shared goal and often the will and the resources to attain it. Throughout history, communities have been ruthlessly oppressed by such “interest groups.”
Interest groups’ big advantage is that their members don’t have to feel any affection for each other or even agree on anything other than their objective. Its constituent members simply need to settle their purpose and they do so because each recognises how it benefits them. They are committed to the cause, not to each other.
In the case of the G3P, their cause is the creation and control of new markets and, in doing so, the establishment of a new global economic model. Civil society has helped to set this process in motion.
One of the G3P objectives is the global roll-out of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). This offers the G3P the ability to individually monitor and control every financial transaction on Earth. We have every reason to fiercely oppose its introduction. It represents nothing less than absolute economic enslavement.
Yet, the civil society deception is being used to convince us that we are somehow stakeholders in its development. This will undoubtedly be exploited to persuade us to accept its imminent introduction.
The Bank of England (BoE), who claim they have yet to make a decisions on CBDC, has committed its CBDC Taskforce to “engage widely with stakeholders on the benefits, risks and practicalities.”
To this end, they have set up the CBDC Engagement Forum (EF). The BoE states that the EF will:
“Provide a forum to engage senior stakeholders and gather strategic input on all non-technology aspects of CBDC from a diverse cross-section of expertise and perspectives […] The EF will inform the Bank’s further exploration of the challenges and opportunities of potentially implementing CBDC […] Participation in the EF is at the invitation of the Bank and HMT (Her Majesty’s Treasury.) Members will be drawn from the relevant range of CBDC stakeholders: from financial institutions, to civil society groups, to merchants, business users and consumers.”
Given that the introduction of CBDC will radically transform all our lives, it would be good to know who the civil society groups are that will supposedly be representing the public interest. The BoE explains that representatives will be invited to join, following their application, from any of the following organisations:
“Organisation active in retail or the digital economy, a university, a trade or consumer representative body, a think-tank, a registered charity or non-government organisation.”
It is not clear how any of these hand-picked delegates will actually advocate in the public’s interest. However, the BoE assures us that they will:
“On an individual level, the EF will be representative of the gender and ethnic diversity of the UK population, and seek to incorporate members of different backgrounds to support diversity of thought.”
This is what the BoE call engaging widely with stakeholders. In many respects, it is the epitome of communitarian ideology.
The community (in this case, the British public) will be represented because the EF will reflect the right gender and ethnic balance. This is appropriate, but it is missing one vital aspect of diversity: Class.
Just like the utopian socialists who inspired Etzioni and other communitarian thinkers, the BoE does not think that economic power matters when it comes to defining civil society. As long as they tick the right diversity boxes, class is not an issue. However, when they decide to introduce CBDC, it is the working and middle class who will suffer most as a result.
This may not be the model of civil society that the communitarians intended, but it is the model that the rest of us are going to get. A powerful interest group, the G3P, has seized upon the opportunity of communitarianism to construct a form of fake democratic accountability that consolidates their power and authority.
In one sense, it does fix the democratic deficit. By cutting out the electorate, the “new normal” communitarian civil society effectively ends representative democracy.
There has been an unfortunate shift in Western educational practices in the past few decades away from what we used to call “critical thinking.” In fact, critical thinking was once a fundamental staple of US colleges and now it seems as though the concept doesn’t exist anymore; at least not in the way it used to. Instead, another form of learning has arisen which promotes “right thinking”; a form of indoctrination which encourages and rewards a particular response from students that falls in line with ideology and not necessarily in line with reality.
It’s not that schools directly enforce a collectivist or corporatist ideology (sometimes they do), it’s more that they filter out alternative viewpoints as well as facts and evidence they do not like until all that is left is a single path and a single conclusion to any given problem. They teach students how to NOT think by presenting thought experiments and then controlling the acceptable outcomes.
For example, a common and manipulative thought experiment used in schools is to ask students to write an “analysis” on why people do not trust science or scientists these days. The trick is that the question is always presented with a built-in conclusion – That scientists should be trusted, and some people are refusing to listen, so let’s figure out why these people are so stupid.
I have seen this experiment numerous times, always presented in the same way. Not once have I ever seen a college professor or public school teacher ask students: “Should scientists today be trusted?”
Not once.
This is NOT analysis, this is controlled hypothesis. If you already have a conclusion in mind before you enter into a thought experiment, then you will naturally try to adjust the outcome of the experiment to fit your preconceived notions. Schools today present this foolishness as a form of thinking game when it is actually propaganda. Students are being taught to think inside the box, not outside the box. This is not science, it is anti-science.
Educational programming like this is now a mainstay while actual science has taken a backseat. Millions of kids are exiting public schools and universities with no understanding of actual scientific method or science in general. Ask them what the equations for Density or Acceleration are, and they’ll have no clue what your are talking about. Ask them about issues surrounding vaccination or “climate change”, and they will regurgitate a litany of pre-programmed responses as to why the science cannot be questioned in any way.
In the alternative media we often refer to this as being “trapped in the Matrix,” and it’s hard to think of a better analogy. People have been rewarded for so long for accepting the mainstream narrative and blindly dismissing any other information that when they are presented with reality they either laugh at it arrogantly or recoil in horror. The Matrix is so much more comfortable and safe, and look at all the good grades you get when you say the right things and avoid the hard questions and agree with the teacher.
Given the sad state of science in the West these days surrounding the response to covid as well as the insane and unscientific push for forced vaccinations, I thought it would be interesting to try out this thought exercise, but from an angle that is never allowed in today’s schools:
Why don’t people trust the science and scientists anymore?
This is simple: Because many scientists have been caught lying and misrepresenting their data to fit the conclusions they want rather than the facts at hand. Science is often politicized to serve an agenda. This is not conspiracy theory, this is provable fact.
That’s not to say that all science is to be mistrusted. The point is, no science should be blindly accepted without independent examination of ALL the available facts. This is the whole point of science, after all. Yes, there are idiotic conspiracy theories out there when it comes to scientific analysis, but there are a number of scams in the world of science as well.
The usual false claim is that the average person is ignorant and that they don’t have the capacity to understand scientific data. I do find it interesting that this is the general message of the trust-science thought experiment. It fits right in line with the mainstream and government narrative that THEIR scientists, the scientists they pay for and that corporations pay for, are implicitly correct and should not be questioned. They are the high priests of the modern era, delving into great magics that we dirty peasants cannot possibly grasp. It is not for us to question “the science”, it our job to simply embrace it like a religion and bow down in reverence.
Most people have the capacity to sift through scientific data as long as it’s transparent. When the facts are obscured or spun or omitted this causes confusion, and of course only the establishment scientists can untangle the mess because they are the ones that created it. Let’s look at a couple of examples directly related to human health…
GMO Crops And The Corporate Money Train
The propaganda surrounding Genetically Modified Organisms is relentless and pervasive, with the overall thrust being that they are perfectly safe and that anyone who says otherwise is a tinfoil hat crackpot. And certainly, there a hundreds if not thousands of studies which readily confirm this conclusion. So, case closed, right?
Not quite. Here is where critical thinking is so useful and where reality escapes the indoctrinated – Who paid for these studies, and do they have a vested interest in censoring negative data on GMOs?
Well, in the vast majority of cases GMO studies are funded by two sources – GMO industry giants like Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta, or, government agencies like the FDA and EPA. Very few studies are truly independent, and this is the problem. Both the government and corporations like Monsanto have a vested interest in preventing any critical studies from being released on GMO’s.
Monsanto has been caught on numerous occasions hiding the dangerous health effects of its products, from Agent Orange to the RGBH growth hormone used in dairy cows. They have been caught compiling illegal dossiers on their critics. The industry has been caught multiple times paying off academics and scientists to produce studies on GMOs with a positive spin and even to attack other scientists that are involved in experiments that are critical of GMOs. Research shows that at least half of all GMO studies are funded by the GMO industry, while the majority of the other half are funded by governments.
There has also long been a revolving door between GMO industry insiders and the FDA and EPA; officials often work for Monsanto and then get jobs with the government, then go back to Monsanto again. The back scratching is so egregious that the government even created special legal protections for GMO companies like Monsanto under what is now known as the Monsanto Protection Act (Section 735 of Agricultural Appropriations Bill HR 993) under the Obama Administration in 2013. This essentially makes GMO companies immune to litigation over GMOs, and the same protections have been renewed in different bills ever since.
Beyond the revolving door, the government has approved many GMO products with little to no critical data to confirm their safety. Not only that, but in most cases the government has sovereign immunity from litigation, even if they’ve been negligent. Meaning, if any of these products is proven to cause long term health damage the government cannot be sued for approving them unless there are special circumstances.
If they could be held liable, you would be damn sure the FDA would be running every conceivable test imaginable to make sure GMOs are definitively safe without any bias attached, but this is not the case. Instead, the government actively propagandizes for GMO companies and uses hired hatchet men to derail any public criticism.
I, for one, would certainly like to know for sure if GMOs are harmful to the human body in the long term, and there is certainly science to suggest that this might be the case. There have been many situations in which specific GMO foods were removed from the market because of potentially harmful side effects. Endogenous toxins of plants with modified metabolites are a concern, along with “plant incorporated protectants” (plants designed to produce toxins which act as a pesticides).
There is data that tells us to be wary, but nothing conclusive. Why? Because billions of dollars are being invested by corporations into research designed to “debunk” any notion of side effects. If the same amount of funding was put into independent studies with no bias, then we might hear a different story about the risks of GMOs. All the money is in dismissing the risks of GMOs; there’s almost no money in studying them honestly.
The science appears to be rigged to a particular outcome or narrative, and that is lying. Science is supposed to remain as objective as possible, but how can it be objective when it is being paid for by people with an agenda? The temptation to sell out is extreme.
Covid Vaccines And The Death Of Science
I bring up the example of GMO’s because I think it is representative of how science can be controlled to produce only one message while excluding all other analysis. We don’t really know for sure how dangerous GMOs are because the majority of data is dictated by the people that profit from them and by their friends in government. The lack of knowing is upheld as proof of safety – But this is not scientific. Science and medicine would demand that we err on the side of caution until we know for sure.
The same dynamic exists in the world of covid vaccines. Big Pharma has a vested interest in ensuring NO negative information is released about the mRNA vaccines because there is a perpetual river of money to be made as long as the vax remains approved for emergency use by the FDA. It may be important to note that the FDA has said it will take at least 55 YEARS to release all the data it has on the Pfizer covid vaccines, which suggests again that there is a beneficial collusion between the government and corporate behemoths.
In the meantime, anyone that questions the efficacy or safety of the vax is immediately set upon by attack dogs in the media, most of them paid with advertising dollars from Big Pharma. These attacks are not limited to the alternative media; the establishment has also gone after any scientist or doctor with questions about vaccine safety.
There are clear and openly admitted ideological agendas surrounding covid science which have nothing to do with public health safety and everything to do with political control. When you have the head of the World Economic Forum applauding the covid pandemic as a perfect “opportunity” to push forward global socialist centralization and erase the last vestiges of free markets and individual liberty, any rational person would have to question if the covid science is also being rigged to support special interests.
Luckily, the covid issue is so massive that it is impossible for them to control every study. Instead, the establishment ignores the studies and data they don’t like.
The virus is being hyped as a threat to the majority of the public and as a rationale for 100% vaccination rates, by force if needed. Yet, the median Infection Fatality Rate of covid is only 0.27%. This means that on average 99.7% of the population at any given time has nothing to fear from the virus. This is confirmed by dozens of independent medical studies, but when was the last time you heard that number discussed by mainstream government scientists like Anthony Fauci?
I’ve never heard them talk about it. But how is it scientific to ignore data just because it doesn’t fit your political aims? Again, deliberate omission of data is a form of lying.
What about the multiple studies indicating that natural immunity is far superior in protection to the mRNA vaccines? What about the fact that the countries with the highest vaccination rates also have the highest rates of infections and their hospitalizations have actually increased? What about the fact that the states and countries with the harshest lockdown and mask mandates also have the highest infection rates? What about the fact that the average vaccine is tested for 10-15 years before being approved for human use, while the covid mRNA vaccines were put into production within months? That is to say, there is NO long term data to prove the safety of the covid vax.
These are easily observable scientific facts, but we never hear about them from corporate scientists or government scientists like Fauci? Instead, Fauci argues that criticism of his policies is an attack on him, and attacking him is the same as “attacking science.” In other words, Fauci believes HE IS the science.
And doesn’t that just illustrate how far science has fallen in the new millennium. Real scientists like Kary Mullis, the inventor of the PCR test, call Fauci a fraud, but they are ignored while Fauci is worshiped. I can’t even get into climate change “science” here, I would have to write an entire separate article about the fallacies perpetrated by global warming academics (did you know that global temperatures have only increased by 1 degree Celsius in the past century? Yep, just 1 degree according to the NOAA’s own data, yet, institutions like the NOAA continue to claim the end of the world is nigh because of global warming).
The stringent bottleneck on science today reminds me of the Catholic church under Pope Innocent III when church authorities forbade common people from owning or reading a bible. These laws remained in effect well into the 13th century. Instead, the peasants were to go to church and have the texts read to them by specific clergy. Often the bible readings were done in Latin which most people did not speak, and interpreted however the church wished.
It was only the invention of the printing press in the 1400s that changed the power dynamic and allowed bibles to be widely distributed and information to spread without church oversight. Much like the creation of the internet allows the public to access mountains of scientific data and methodologies at their fingertips. The free flow of information is an anathema according to the establishment; they argue that only they have the right to process information for public consumption.
Cultism requires excessive control of data and the complete restriction of outside interpretations. As information becomes openly available the public is then able to learn the whole truth, not just approved establishment narratives.
Science is quickly becoming a political religion rather than a bastion of critical thought. Conflicting data is ignored as “non-science” or even censored as “dangerous.” Government and corporate paid studies are treated as sacrosanct. Is it any wonder that so many people now distrust the science? Any reasonable person would have questions and suspicions. Those who do not have been indoctrinated into a cult they don’t even know they are a part of.
After the Crash 