|
�
�
by Steven Guinness
September
03, 2020
from
StevenGuinness2 Website
Spanish version
�
�
�
�
�
This important book review by Steven Guinness (UK)
reveals the same old language of 'interdependence',
collaboration and cooperation that was heard from
the Trilateral Commission in 1973.
�
The then-and-now goal is 'Sustainable Development,'
aka 'Technocracy,' and will result in the biggest
resource grab in the history of the world.
Source
�
Thoughts on
Covid-19 - The Great Reset
�
A few weeks after the
World Economic Forum launched their 'Great Reset' initiative, it
was followed up with the release of a new book titled, 'Covid-19 -
The Great Reset', authored by the executive chairman of the WEF,
Klaus Schwab, and Senior Director of the Global Risk Network at
the institution,
Thierry Malleret.
Having read the book I wanted to share with you some initial
thoughts on the potential significance of the publication.
As touched upon in my last article, there are 5 planks to the Great
Reset:
-
economic
-
societal
-
geopolitical
-
environmental
-
technological,
...all of which the book covers in detail.
�
But I want to focus
largely on the conclusion, as it is here where the author's
motivations and rationale for championing a Great Reset, in the wake
of Covid-19, become clearer.
Schwab and Malleret characterize the future direction of the world
as 'The Post Pandemic Era', a phrase that is repeated ad nauseam
throughout.
Rather than define it
to a particular outcome, the authors opt instead to ask whether
this new era will be marked by more or less cooperation between
nations.
�
Will countries turn
inward resulting in the growth of nationalism and protectionism,
or will they sacrifice their own interests for greater
interdependence?
No firm prediction is made either way, but we do manage to gain
a degree of insight into the authors' way of thinking when they
discuss what they call 'the direction of the trend.'
They write that concerns
over the environment (primarily through the prism of climate change)
and the advancement of technology (integral to the
Fourth Industrial
Revolution) were pervasive long before
Covid-19 entered the picture.
�
With the economic and
health implications of the lockdowns now ingrained within society,
Schwab and Malleret contend that long established worries amongst
citizens,
'have been laid bare for all to see' and 'amplified'
because of the pandemic.
In other words, if minds were not
concentrated on the problems and threats the world faced before
Covid-19, then they certainly are now.
And whilst the direction of these trends on the environment and
technology may not have changed, with the onset of Covid-19 it 'got
a lot faster.'
�
It is why Schwab and
Malleret believe that these two issues in particular 'will force
their way onto the political agenda' due to increasing public
pressure.
A movement such as
Extinction Rebellion is one example.
�
Another is the rapid growth of
the
Fintech community which is leading people to question what
constitutes money 'in the digital age.'
As for where they see things going in the future, the suggestion is
that current trends are pointing towards a world that will be 'less
open and less cooperative than before the pandemic.'
Effectively, the WEF have presented the world with two potential
outcomes.
The first is that the
Great Reset can be achieved relatively peacefully with nations
acquiescing to the objectives being pushed by global planners.
�
The second outcome,
they warn, would be far more disruptive and damaging.
�
It would come about
through countries failing to address the,
'deep rooted ills of
economies and societies', which could see a reset being 'imposed
by violent shocks like conflicts and even revolutions.'
And, apparently, we do
not have much time to decide our fate...
�
What we have now,
according to the authors, is,
'a rare and narrow window of
opportunity to reflect, re-imagine and reset our world'.
If a
'proper reset' is to be realized, it can only occur through an
increased level of collaboration and cooperation between nations.
�
As Schwab and Malleret
see it, the alternative is a world entrenched in perpetual crisis
which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the post World
War Two 'rules based global order' and a global power vacuum.
There is, therefore, a very real risk of the world becoming,
'more divided,
nationalistic and prone to conflicts than it is today.'
One thing the authors do
write on from a position of clarity is that never can the world
return to normal. Or more to the point, be allowed to return to
normal.
�
Their view is that before
Covid-19 took hold, a,
'broken sense of
normalcy prevailed'.
The situation now is that
the virus,
'marks a fundamental
inflection point in our global trajectory.'
In a very short space of
time it,
'magnified the fault
lines that beset our economies and societies'.
If it was not already
obvious, then the authors confirm over the last few pages
of the
book that the United Nations'
Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development
program is intertwined with the Great Reset.
�
This is evident when
studying the WEF's Strategic Intelligence unit.
Sustainable
Development and the Great Reset go hand in hand.
For Agenda 2030 to be implemented successfully, Schwab and Malleret
offer an alternative to the possibility of countries failing to come
together.
�
As you might expect, it revolves around collaboration and
cooperation. In their eyes no progress can otherwise be made.
�
Covid-19 offers the
opportunity to,
'embed greater
societal equality and sustainability into the recovery'.
And, crucially, this
would,
'accelerate rather than delay progress towards 2030
Sustainable Development Goals'.
But it does not end simply with the full implementation of Agenda
2030.
�
Schwab and Malleret want
to go further.
�
Their aim is that the open exposure of weaknesses
within existing global infrastructure,
'may compel us to act faster
by replacing failed institutions, processes and rules with new ones
that are better suited to current and future needs.'
To convey the importance
of this statement, the authors state that this alone is 'the essence
of the Great Reset'.�
�
What they appear to be
seeking is global transformation where systems and the age of the
algorithm take precedent over political institutions.
�
We are already beginning
to see moves by major global institutions like,
...to
'reform' and 'rejuvenate' both their work and membership.
�
Covid-19 has undoubtedly
straightened the hand of global planners and their quest for
reformation.
As 'Covid-19
- The Great Reset' was published, it was accompanied by
an article written by Schwab and Malleret, called, 'COVID-19's
legacy - This is how to get the Great Reset right', they stated
plainly that not only will a lot of things change forever, 'the
worst of the pandemic is yet to come':
Indeed, no industry
or business will be able to avoid the impact of the changes
ahead.
�
Either they adapt to
fit in with the Great Reset agenda (assuming they have the
resources to do so), or they will not survive.
�
According to
Schwab and Malleret, 'millions of companies risk disappearing',
whilst only 'a few' e.g. corporate monoliths, will be strong
enough to withstand the disruption.
�
It is your smaller
companies and independent run businesses that are faced with
ruin, opening the door to a new era of mergers and acquisitions
that will further erode consumer choice and competition.
Schwab and Malleret tell
us that the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, and from an
economic standpoint I would not doubt them.
�
But let's look at the
health aspect for a moment.
Global media coverage of Covid-19 has
characterized it as a deadly virus that kills with impunity, and
without the antidote of
a vaccine could devour communities whole.
�
�
�
Perhaps surprisingly, the authors offer up a little fact based
logic.
�
They admit that Covid-19,
�'one of the
least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years', and barring
something unforeseen 'the consequences of the virus will be mild
compared to previous pandemics.'
At the time the book was
published, 0.006% of the global population were reported to have
died from Covid-19. But even this low figure is not altogether
accurate...
In the UK for instance the way
the death rate has been calculated
has meant that people who have been diagnosed with the virus and
then succumbed to an accident within 28 days of being tested will
have their cause of death marked as Covid-19.
To quote Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia,
and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University:
Anyone who has tested
COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any
cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures...
Schwab and Malleret could
not be clearer when they write that Covid-19,
'does not constitute an
existential threat or a shock that will leave its imprint on the
world's population for decades'.
As it stands
the Spanish Flu and
HIV/AIDS have a larger mortality rate.
It was not an uncontrollable spread of Covid-19 that caused
governments around the world to shut down their national economies,
but the data modeling of unaccountable technocrats like
Neil
Ferguson of Imperial College London that predicted,
hundreds of
thousands of people were at immediate risk of dying without the
imposition of social restrictions,
...which we now know to be a
combination of
social distancing and lockdown measures.
When Schwab and Malleret talk about 'Covid-19 leaving it's imprint on
the world,' the truth of the matter is that it is the measures
imposed in the name of Covid-19 that have caused widespread economic
destruction, not the virus itself...
�
That distinction is one
that mainstream outlets in particular refuse to engage with.
In summary, if we are to take the authors at their word, then they
see a rise in nationalism and protectionism off the back of Covid-19
as a detriment to the quest for a Great Reset.
�
The much coveted
Sustainable Development Goals could even be at risk should nations
turn inward.
�
IMF Managing Director has
said the world has a choice between
the Great Reset or the Great
Reversal�(the Great Reversal being 'more poverty, more
fragmentation, and less trade')
�
I would argue that there is another
way of looking at it.
In
the book Schwab and Malleret describe how in an interdependent
world - which is precisely the kind of world that global planners
have been championing since at least the end of World War Two,
'risks conflate with each other, amplifying their reciprocal effects
and magnifying their consequences'.
When nations are
interdependent,
'the systemic connectivity between risks, issues,
challenges determines the future.'
It is the old clich� of
dominoes
falling.
�
Once one falters it sets
off a chain reaction, which was
evidenced back in 2008 when Lehman
Brothers collapsed.
The scale of change that globalists are calling for through the
vehicle of a Great Reset, which by definition is global in nature,
will in my view require the implosion of the current world order to
lay the foundations for a new world order.
�
The old must make way for
the new. And the one method for how that could be achieved is
through increased kickback against interdependence. Sustained crises
offer many opportunities for global planners.
�
The potential for,
-
a
contested U.S. election
-
an upcoming no deal Brexit
-
warnings of
'vaccine nationalism',
...are three eventualities that if brought to
bear could be exploited and used to advance the cause for a Great
Reset.
�
I would say that the
further the world appears from collaboration and cooperation, the
more people are going to call for those very same things if they
become increasingly desperate.
The authors say that there is only a narrow window of opportunity
for the Great Reset. Let's keep in mind though that so far it is
only global institutions like the WEF that are promoting the
initiative, not national administrations.
�
When it starts to
permeate politics is when you know the agenda is advancing.
�
But,
What exactly will the
economic and societal conditions be when the Great Reset becomes
part of the global conversation?
�
Has what we have seen
up to now been enough to compel people to call for change on a
global scale?
�
Has there yet been
enough degradation and material change to living standards for
citizens to implore global institutions to take action?
I would argue not...
Already 'solutions' like Universal Basic Income have been touted.
But as yet there is not a widespread clamoring for change. But that
time is coming.
�
Whether it be in the name
of,
Agenda 2030 (aka
Sustainable Development), The Green New Deal or The Great Reset,
...it would amount to
largely the same outcome:
the subjugation once and for all of
national sovereignty where the nation-state is subordinate to global governance...
� |
