INTL COVID-19: The 4 building blocks of the Great Reset

[xtreme_right]

Power hungry demons

COVID-19: The 4 building blocks of the Great Reset

The coronavirus pandemic has given us an opportunity to rethink how we see success, as well as our relationship with those who lead us.

www.weforum.org

COVID-19: The 4 building blocks of the Great Reset

A missed opportunity … a centenary re-enactment of the football match between the German and Allied troops during the Christmas Truce of 1914.
Image: Reuters/Eric Vidal
11 Aug 2020

1. Hilary SutcliffeDirector, SocietyInside

• New ideas are needed to catalyze the Great Reset after COVID-19.
• Change can be as simple as adjusting our mindsets.
• Greater connection between leaders and the people, and between people, has the potential to effect the most change.
The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset initiative seeks new ideas in order to use this unique moment in history provided by the disruption to economics, politics and our everyday life to catalyze a new approach to how our societies are run.
Here are four important building blocks needed to make this happen: Mindset, Metrics, Incentives and Connection.
Have you read?

• How COVID-19 can be the Great Reset toward global sustainability
• The great reset must place social justice at its centre
• COVID-19's legacy: This is how to get the Great Reset right

1. Change our mindset – if we made it up once, we can make it up again
The first change will have to be to our mindset. Two powerful new books, Thomas Piketty’s Capital and Ideologyand Rutger Bregman’s Humankind, show how our current outlook is based on fundamentally wrong assumptions and that dramatic transformation is possible with a change of mindset.
Piketty challenges a basic assumption of capitalism – that inequality is just an unfortunate by-product of progress. Inequality, he argues, is a political choice based on a flawed ideology – the market will provide – and not the inevitable result of technology and globalization. He demonstrates it is neither true, nor irreversible.
Rutger Bregman explodes an even more deep-seated myth: that humans are intrinsically selfish, uncooperative and aggressive, and without the civilizing influence of governments and leaders, order would soon break down and chaos reign. His research over 200,000 years of human history shows that we are in reality hardwired to be kind, cooperative and caring. But we run our countries, civic institutions, companies, schools, often even our families based on this deeply negative and incorrect assumption about human behaviour. He shows that when this assumption changes, everything changes – with real-world examples from the Norwegian prison system to a real world Lord of the Flies.
What both these books show is that our view of the world was simply made up. And made up by a surprisingly small but depressingly influential number of individuals – from Machiavelli and Adam Smith, to Milton Friedman and William Golding. But if we made it up once, we can make it up again, and there are plenty of people out there with great new ideas to work with if we started to take them seriously.
COVID-19 has shown the truth on both of these counts. What is important, to quote Henry Ford is to realize, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can’t – you’re right.”
2. Create new metrics – measuring what matters will change everything
GDP measures the wrong things. Measuring the right things will give governments, business and citizens the knowledge they need to take the brave and challenging steps required to move to a more people- and planet-centred way of living.
GDP fails on so many levels – it measures wealth and ignores its distribution. It fails to even register the human and financial costs of capitalism, “externalities” such as social welfare, environmental degradation and the social, mental and physical health costs of innovations.
Dissatisfaction with GDP is widespread, and there are many alternatives being trialled that focus on the well-being of people and planet: for example the UN’s Human Development and Social Development Indexes, WellBeing metrics, Genuine Progress Indicators, a Happy Planet Index and an initiative to use Gross National Happiness.
“What gets measured gets managed” is the old adage. The Great Reset needs to take that lesson firmly to its heart and start the transformation by refocusing on what really matters.

3. Design new incentives – you get what you pay for
Inextricably linked to metrics are incentives. In 1996, the Tomorrow’s Company inquiry from the UK’s Royal Society of Arts (which I was involved in) showed that shareholder value as the only indicator of company success was damaging both the companies and to society, and didn’t even do a good job for shareholders. About every five years, there is another big initiative somewhere saying much the same, the most recent being the damascene conversion of the US Business Roundtable to a point of view that sees a changed purpose for companies “To promote an economy that serves all Americans.”
But in the real world, it has been business as usual on incentives all this time. Venture capital companies - and even mainstream institutional investors - rarely include even the most basic questions about social and environmental risks in their investment criteria when piling cash into digital wonder companies.
Those sorts of tricky questions are left to environmental and social governance (ESG) funds, which, though growing, are a sideline to the main event – making as much money as possible in the shortest possible time.
So until these incentives change and those with money really put it where their mouth is, or at least where the words in their investment brochures and Davos speeches are, things will stay exactly the same.
4. Build genuine connection – distance is the danger
In Humankind, Rutger Bregman shows the heartbreaking consequence of the distance between leaders and the lives of the rest of us, and how that is the biggest problem of all. He finishes his book with a look at the 1914 Christmas Day truce at the start of the First World War. Over 100,000 troops laid down their arms on the front line to play football, share stories, photos, food and drinks. But it wasn’t just a Christmas Day thing; in some places, this lasted a number of weeks, with many servicemen remembering it as the highlight of their lives. It could easily have escalated into full-scale peace as both sides were reluctant to restart. Only the dogged perseverance of generals far away who used propaganda to stir hate and instilled obedience through orders to court-martial anyone for “friendly gestures” towards the enemy managed to kickstart the war again. These leaders’ distance from the people was the critical factor.
Digital technologies have given many of us a lifeline during lockdown, but also provide an illusion of connection. Anonymity provides cover for trolling, fuels polarization and allows all to feel superior to others from the comfort of our own little bubble. Our disconnection from nature helps us airbrush the effects of climate change, environmental degradation and animal suffering from our minds. The ultimate distance provided by autonomous weapons will allow detachment from the death and destruction (of ‘them’) at the press of a button.
Meanwhile, back at all our homes, as COVID-19 has shown most clearly, we are blithely trusting total strangers, helping our neighbours and communities, giving time and money to charities near and far and providing billions of large and small kindnesses to each other every single hour of every single day. Which of course goes unremarked.
What is the World Economic Forum doing to champion social innovation?

Show
Finding ways for technologies to harmonize, not polarize, and for us all to make deeper, more meaningful connections with each other and with the natural world will reduce the distance that allows us to see our fellow human as we truly are: not “other”, but just like us.
This is probably the most important building block of all to make the Great Reset the transformation our generation can look back on with pride – and probably amazement.

 

[xtreme_right]

Now That I’m aware of the term “The Great Reset”, there’s lots of articles about it.

The great reset must place social justice at its centre

New institutions need to actively intervene to build a future where people of all racial, social, gender and economic backgrounds can excel.

www.weforum.org

The great reset must place social justice at its centre

Mass protests around the world demonstrate the growing discontent among the 99%.
Image: REUTERS/ Zohra Bensemra
29 Jul 2020

1. Mark DoumbaManaging Director, Enovate Capital

• Wealth needs to be more broadly redistributed.
• Governments will need to intervene more to ensure better and fairer outcomes from private sector investments.
• New institutions need to incorporate profound reforms to ensure better racial integration.

Capitalism as we know it needs to be reformed. The growing discontent at the ideology that has created so much wealth and progress on the one hand, and yet so much inequality and instability on the other hand, is causing increasingly frequent social disruptions across the world. The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare most of these dysfunctions, ranging from uneven access to healthcare, education, economic opportunities, and social progress, to growing inequality among and within nations and racial and ethnic groups. At the centre of these multiple crises lies the tension between privilege and meritocracy.
Have you read?

• Klaus Schwab's vision of a post-COVID world, and how the economy can work with nature - this week's Great Reset podcast
• Collective action could fuel a post-pandemic renaissance for social justice. Here's how

From a global economic perspective, capitalism, as the dominant economic system since the end of World War II, has played a substantial part in fueling inequalities within and across nations.
After decades of austerity policy imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Latin American, African and other lower-income economies as a false cure for recessionary cycles, rich countries’ responses to the macro-economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis have spectacularly rejected the public sector restraint sold to developing countries as foundational to post-war capitalism.
Indeed, advanced economies have resorted to unprecedented unconventional and counter-cyclical policies to boost economic growth through public spending, leaving the balanced budget approach as an afterthought.
According to the IMF, G20 countries have collectively spent $9 trillion on stimulus in the first half of 2020 – more than 10% of the world’s GDP. Government leaders argue that this approach was essential in maintaining economic and social stability and yet, not all countries had the privilege of fiscal and monetary policy space required to emulate this response.

In hindsight, there is evidence that the widespread use of austerity plans on developing countries has cost them billions of dollars of output, millions of jobs, and years of stagnant growth that have contributed to the great divergence between the rich countries and the rest that we observe today.
Given the compounding effect of past investments, the poor policy prescriptions of the 20th century have contributed to widening the gap between high and low-income economies so vastly that only proactive and broad based interventions can help narrow it again. Forget laissez-faire and the invisible hand.
From a global social perspective, there is growing discontent from the 99%. The need for social justice is taking centre stage as wages have grown only marginally when compared to the income and wealth of the 1%.
Growing unemployment and job instability have created resistance against immigration, globalization and labour-replacing automation. Education has not only remained static and become unfit to train workers towards upward social mobility, but it has also done poorly at preparing workers to face the wide ranging challenges that stem from profound and rapid change in just about everything.
Years of under-investment in public infrastructure have eroded the quality of public services. That is not to forget long-standing issues that relate to climate change, food security, geopolitical tensions and systemic racial injustice. Over the past two months, the death of George Floyd has spurred mass protests in the United States, France, Great Britain and Australia among many other countries. Countries with a colonial past that have failed to ensure full racial integration and to actively combat systemic racism will suffer from sustained social unrest and national identity crises.
With all that said, there is an urgent need to design institutions that can address the wide ranging imperfections of the world as we know it. A new social contract that accounts for the specific challenges and histories of each country but that also aims to ensure that “a rising tide lifts all boats” is needed to lay the past to rest and pave the way to a better future.
In the post-COVID-19 world, there are three features that will need to be fully institutionalized as part of the new local and global social contract.
1. Capitalism and socialism will need to merge
Firstly, the slow death of capitalism does not equate to a resurgence of communism. However, rethinking capitalism, or giving capitalism a “Great Reset” as World Economic Forum Chairman Klaus Schwab has suggested, means that capitalism and socialism will need to merge to create a productive and inclusive economic and social model.
Wealth has become abundant, thanks to capitalism, but it now needs to be more broadly redistributed, as socialists have long called for. In particular, there is an urgent need to recouple the wealth of financial markets with the real economy.
The great divergence of the recent decades, both among and within nations is, in large part, due to the rise of intangible assets (tradable securities and intellectual property) and to income from privilege (inheritance, income from accumulated capital, and pre-existing social conditions such as networks of wealth and power associated with race, gender, religion, and culture) compared to the stagnant productivity growth observed in the real economy.
If Jeff Bezos was a country, his net worth of $172 billion as of 5 July 2020would rank as the third wealthiest nation in Africa after Nigeria and South Africa, but ahead of Kenya; controlling more money than the majority of a region of 54 countries and 1.2 billion people. The introduction of a tax on passive income and wealth is essential in a world where individuals are more wealthy than nations.
Above a certain level of wealth, more income in the pockets of ultra-high net worth individuals becomes less productive and less fair for the economy as a whole than if it were to land in the pockets of workers.
Indeed, a number of economists have argued that inequality leads to economic instability. One mechanism by which this happens is that the rich consume a smaller proportion of their income than the poor. They save money which people on lower incomes would spend. This leads to a reduction in aggregate demand, which in turn leads to unemployment. Therefore, wealth creation and income redistribution can reinforce each other. Both need to be equally important in the post-COVID institutional context to ensure economic justice.
2. We must improve coordination between the public and private sector
On social justice, there is a fundamental need to improve coordination between the public and private sector in order to ensure both equity and efficiency. Despite long-standing fear of an “efficiency-equity tradeoff,” in reality both features can coexist, and we can do better on both measures than we are doing now.
The push to support market-based incentives to accelerate the privatization of everything has enabled governments to cut public spending in favour of private investments. In advanced countries, this has led to an increase in the costs of many essential goods and services that have traditionally been free to citizens, through mechanisms such as toll roads, tuition hikes, and ballooning medical fees. This trend also led to the erosion and exclusion of public service quality to those most in need.
In the new institutional context, governments will need to intervene more to ensure better and fairer outcomes from private sector investments. One way this can be done is by introducing a universal basic income (UBI) funded by taxing wealth and passive income, and by making better use of public savings.
High-income countries have the resources to make this possible. In developing countries however, resources are scarce, and both unemployment and informality rates are high. Too much of the economic activity falls within the domain of the public sector and it results in inefficient and insufficient public spending on infrastructure, employment, education, and health; which often crowd out private sector investments.
Governments in low-income countries can do better if they pull in private investment to finance profitable projects and push public finances to fund projects that have low economic but high social value to ensure that services are always accessible to the most vulnerable groups.
Furthermore, there is a need for more decentralization to allow municipalities to intervene more effectively at a local level, and for the central government to invite the private sector to invest and manage select infrastructure projects as public-private partnerships. Ultimately, the best way to optimize social investments on public finances in developing countries is by ensuring that governments provide an enabling environment for entrepreneurship and private investment activity to flourish and create wealth that is fairly distributed among investors, workers and the state.
3. We must improve access to equal opportunities
On systemic racism, new institutions need to incorporate profound reforms to ensure better racial integration and to rectify centuries of accumulated prejudice to colonized countries and to minority groups, especially black and brown communities. It is important to acknowledge “white privilege” and to break the myth of pure meritocracy that has persisted for too long as an explanation for not only the divergence in outcomes between rich and poor countries, but between rich and poor people along all dimensions of society.
Centuries of prejudice cannot be reversed within one or two generations. Leaders of the new institutional order must proactively design mechanisms to improve access to equal opportunities and to social and economic accelerator programmes. These initiatives need to be macro in scale. Programmes such as affirmative action are well-intended, but they remain defensive and tactical interventions to improve the odds for black and brown communities. The work at hand is not about the 3-5% of students in elite colleges of the world who are black; it is about making growth, progress and social upward mobility systemic within the black and brown community.
This can be done by shifting the focus from “giving a hand” to these communities to empowering them with large-scale public investments to level up access to conditions on a par with those of more privileged communities. For example, public investments directed at improving the infrastructure in black neighbourhoods would increase the value of real estate for black owners, improve the quality of education and healthcare and help build a community of more affluent residents who would have a vested interest in perpetuating generational progress.
With some exceptions, such as South Africa, and India (given its caste systems and particularly the exclusion of Dalits), the rationale for such demographically motivated investments in developing countries is not as necessary since the population is overwhelmingly composed of disadvantaged groups. Nonetheless, the need for more social investment and for more socially-conscious policies, such as local content and indigenization rules, is equally important to expand access to racial justice. These initiatives, such as the Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa (BEE) program, have helped empower previously the marginalized, but they have also been criticized for distorting markets and for concentrating wealth, power and influence in the hands of a small group of people. New programmes in this vein must not replicate these mistakes.
Systemic injustice is the defining challenge of our era of capitalism, and COVID-19 has brought it to the surface. Underneath the abundance of the few lies a high degree of inequity. Meritocracy does exist, but it is important to distinguish outcomes driven by privilege from those resulting from meritocracy and to diagnose contexts where privilege hinders meritocracy.
It has been in the interests of capitalists to promote the virtues of meritocracy and to downplay the extent of injustice and prejudice. Poor countries and poor people aren’t poor because they don’t work or try hard. In many instances, poverty and exclusion comes from working in a system where the weight of privilege outweighs the possibility for hard work to translate into social mobility.
CORONAVIRUS, HEALTH, COVID19, PANDEMICWhat is the World Economic Forum doing to manage emerging risks from COVID-19?

New institutions need to level the playing field and to actively intervene not to reverse the past (as what is done is done) – but to build a future where people of all racial, social, gender and economic backgrounds can excel and be judged “not by the circumstances in which they were born, but by the content of their character” to paraphrase the famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The spirit of his words continues to echo in our era, and we must let them guide our actions – especially our investments and policies – now more than ever.

 

[xtreme_right]

COVID-19 lockdowns are in lockstep with the ‘Great Reset’
INTELLIGENCE
COVID-19 lockdowns are in lockstep with the ‘Great Reset’
October 23, 2020
By
Mathew Maavak
In October 2019, a pandemic simulation exercise called Event 201 – a collaborative effort between Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation – concluded that a hypothetical new coronavirus may end up killing at least 65 million people worldwide within 18 months of an outbreak.
When COVID-19 coincidentally emerged from Wuhan two months later, scientists were rushing to generate similar alarmist forecasts using a variety of questionable scientific models. Researchers from the Imperial College London, for instance, approximated death tolls of 500,000 (UK) and two million (USA) by October this year. To those following the metastasis of the global vaccine mania, the Imperial model was predictably “tidied up” with the help of Microsoft.
While scientific models are admittedly fallible, one would nonetheless be hard-pressed to justify the endless string of contradictions, discrepancies and wilful amnesia in the global pandemic narrative. In fact, one should question whether COVID-19 even deserves the tag of a “pandemic”. According to the United States’ Centre for Disease Control (CDC), the updated age-group survival rates for COVID-19 happen to be: Ages 0-19 (99.997%); 20-49 (99.98%); 50-69 (99.5%); and 70+ (94.6%). The mortality rates are only slightly higher than the human toll from seasonal flu and are, in fact, lower than many ailments for the same age cohorts.
If the CDC statistics don’t lie, what kind of “science” have we been subjected to? Was it the science of mass-mediated hysteria? There are other troubling questions yet unanswered. Whatever happened to the theory of bats or pangolins being the source of COVID-19? Who was Patient Zero? Why was there a concerted media agitprop against the prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine that was backed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) no less? And why did Prof Neil Ferguson, who had led Imperial’s contagion modelling, repeatedly breach lockdown measures to meet his paramour – right after his recommendations were used to justify draconian lockdowns worldwide which continue till today?
Most damning yet, why are Western media and scientific establishments dismissive of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine? After all, Moscow’s credibility, both scientific and otherwise, is on the line here. In a real pandemic, nobody would care where an effective remedy comes from. The virus does not care about borders and geopolitics; so why should we politicize the origins of an antidote?
Perhaps what we are really dealing with here is a case of mass “coronapsychosis” as Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko aptly called it. Who benefits from global lockdowns that are destabilizing all facets of our society? The following four “great” undercurrents may provide a clue.
The Great Deflection
As the author had warned for more than a decade, the world is staring at a confluence of risk overloads, socioeconomic meltdowns1 and a Second Great Depression. For the ruling classes, COVID-19 is fortuitously deflecting public attention away from the disastrous consequences of decades of economic mismanagement and wealth fractionation. The consolidation of Big Tech with Big Media2has created an Orwellian world where collective hysteria is shifting loci from bogeymen like Russia to those who disagree with the pandemic narrative.
We have entered a “new normal” where Pyongyang, North Korea, affords more ambulatory freedom than Melbourne, Australia. While rioting and mass demonstrations by assorted radicals are given a free pass – even encouraged by leaders in the West –Facebook posts questioning lockdowns are deemed subversive. This is a world where Australian Blueshirts beat up women, manhandle a pregnant woman in her own home, and perform wolf pack policing on an elderly lady in a park. Yet, the premier of the Australian state of Victoria remains unfazed by the unflattering moniker of Kim Jong Dan.
The corona-totalitarianism is unsurprisingly most pronounced in the Anglosphere and its dependencies. After all, these nations are staring at socioeconomic bankruptcies of unprecedented proportions vis-à-vis their counterparts. Even their own governments are being systematically undermined from within. The US Department of Homeland Security, created in the aftermath of 9/11 to combat terrorism, is now providing$10 million in grants to organizations which supposedly combat “far-right extremism and white supremacy”. This will further radicalize leftist malcontents who are razing down US cities and its economies in the name of social justice. There is however a curious rationale behind this inane policy as the following section illustrates.
The Great Wealth Transfer
While the circus continues, the bread is thinning out, except for the Top 0.001%. Instead of bankruptcy as recent trends indicated, Silicon Valley and affiliated monopolies are notching up record profits along with record social media censorships. US billionaires raked in $434 billion in the first two months of the lockdown alone. The more the lockdowns, the more the wealth accrued to the techno-elite. As tens of millions of individuals and small businesses face bankruptcy by Christmas, the remote work revolution is gifting multibillion dollar jackpots to the likes of Jeff Bezos (Amazon) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook). Azure (Microsoft) and AWS (Amazon) cloud eco-systems, among others, have expanded by 50% since the beginning of the pandemic.
In the face of such runaway wealth fractionation, panoptic contact tracing tools from Big Tech are increasingly employed to pacify restive populations. And of course, to prevent a second, third or Nth wave of COVID-19 for our collective good!
In the meantime, Big Banks, Big Pharma, Big Tech and other monopolies are getting lavish central bank bailouts or “stimulus packages” to gobble up struggling smaller enterprises. COVID-19 is a gift that never stops giving to a select few. But how will the techno-oligarchy maintain a degree of social credibility and control in an impoverished and tumultuous world?
The Great Philanthropy
Oligarchic philanthropy will be a dominant feature of this VUCA decade3. According to a recent Guardian report, philanthropic foundations have multiplied exponentially in the past two decades, controlling a war chest worth more than $1.5 trillion. That is sufficient to bankroll a horde of experts, NGOs, industry lobbies, media and fact-checkers worldwide. Large sums can also be distributed rapidly to undermine governments. The laws governing scientific empiricism are no longer static and immutable; they must dance in tandem with the funding. Those who scream fake news are usually its foremost peddlers. This is yet another “new normal” which had actually predated COVID-19 by decades.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) is a prime example of how oligarchic philanthropy works. Since 2000, it has donated more than $45 billion to “charitable causes” and a chunk of thisis designed to control the global media narrative. The Guardian, rather tellingly, credits the BMGF for helping eradicate polio despite contrary reports of wanton procedural abuses, child death tolls and poverty exploitations which routinely mar the foundation’s vaccination programs. Bill Gates even interprets vaccine philanthropy in terms of a 20-to-1return on investments, as he effused to CNBC last year.
As for the BMGF’s alleged polio success, officials now fear that a dangerous new strain could soon “jump continents”. After spending $16 billion over 30 years to eradicate polio, international health bodies – which work closely with BMGF – have “accidentally” reintroduced the disease to Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran.
Poverty, hunger and desperation will spawn a tangible degree of public gratitude despite elite philanthropy’s entrenched bias towards elite institutions and causes. By the Guardian’s own admission, “British millionaires gave £1.04bn to the arts, and just £222m to alleviating poverty” in the 10-year period to 2017. Contrast this with the annual $10 billion earmarked by the philanthropic pool for “ideological persuasion” in the US alone. The rabble is worth their weight only for the potential havoc they can wreak.
There is enough money floating around to reduce our cities into bedlams of anarchy as seen in the United States today. (It will only get worse after the Nov 3 US presidential elections).The crumbs left over can be delegated to threadbare charities. One only needs to reflect on soup kitchens in the post-1929 Weimar Republic. The most popular ones were organized by the Nazi party and funded by wealthy patrons. The march towards a new order has a familiar historical meme. The new Brownshirts are those who terrorise citizens for not wearing masks, for not being locked down in their pens, and for simply supporting a political candidate of choice. Even children who do not follow the oligarchic narrative are not spared!
The Great Reset
A great pruning will inevitably occur in the mega-billionaire club as whatever remains of the global corona-economy is systematically cannibalized. The club will get smaller but wealthier and will attempt to sway our collective destiny. Control over education, healthcare, means of communications and basic social provisions is being increasingly ceded by governments to the global elite. Governments colluding in the “new normal” will sooner or later face the ire of distressed masses. Politicians and assorted “social justice warriors” will be scapegoated once they have outlived their usefulness.
In this cauldron, the century-old technocratic dream of replacing politicians, electoral processes and businesses with societies run by scientists and technical experts4may emerge – thanks to advances in panoptic technologies. It will be an age for the “rational science of production” and “scientific collectivism”. The latter is eerily redolent of the Soviet sharaska(prison labs) system.
The production and supply of goods will be coordinated by a central directorate5, led not by elected representatives (whose roles, where they exist, will be nominal anyway) but by technocrat factotums. Perhaps this is what the World Economic Forum refers to as the Great Reset. In reality though, this idea smacks of a global Gosplan minus the Doctor Sausagesfor the innumerable many.
(Some emerging economies like Malaysia and India casually refer to technocracy as an infusion of greater technical expertise into bureaucracy. This is a misinterpretation of technocracy’s longstanding means and goals).
One intractable problem remains: will the emerging global oligarchy tolerate the existence of various deep states worldwide? Initially, both groupings may cooperate to their mutual benefit but their respective raisons d’être are too contradictory to be reconciled One thrives on an “open society” run by obedient hirelings who will administer a global Ministry of Truth while the other depends on secrecy and a degree of national sovereignty to justify its existence. Surveillance technologies ushered in by the ongoing “coronapsychosis” may end up being the deciding factor in this struggle.
After all, if social media posts by the President of the United States and the White House can be blatantly censoredtoday, think of the repercussions for billions of people worldwide tomorrow?

 

[Faroe]

#2: The great reset must place social justice at its centre
What a load of bullshit.

 

[Dozdoats]

But that's the bullshit which is supposed to run your world, like it or not.

Wanna fight about it?

 

[xtreme_right]

What a load of bullshit.

The fact there’s a concerted effort is disturbing.

 

[Faroe]

Yes, it is disturbing. No, I don't want to fight about it.
Didn't get to the second article, was only commenting on the first - that was enough. So much journalism is a wall of drivel, followed by the summary final paragraph that gives the SJW agenda.

 

[blackjeep]

The "elites" (a nice term for rich criminals) are always thinking of ways to enslave the non-rich.
They want to play God with our lives, but in the end, they lose!

 

[raven]

we have 2000 years of written history from every culture.
and another 2000 years of unwritten history.
at the end of it, this is who we are.
there are the poor. there are the free loaders. there are the producers. there are those that build capital. and there are leaders.
the roles have always been there.
But, but, but . . .
we can simply change out minds and not be that . . .
say the leaders and the freeloaders
(once you understand that leaders are merely overachieving freeloaders) . . .
and will work out just fine provided the producers give the freeloaders a bigger piece of the pie,
. . . then we would have no poor.

 

[Jonas Parker]

"The Great Reset" will be met and overcome by "The Greater Reject"!