GOV/MIL Main "Great Reset" Thread

[marsh]

[Article referenced in prior article]

Delingpole: The Green Agenda IS the Great Reset

The green agenda IS the Great Reset. One of the few political leaders who gets this is President Donald Trump.

www.breitbart.com

Delingpole: The Green Agenda IS the Great Reset
750

Getty Images
JAMES DELINGPOLE24 Nov 2020699

The green agenda IS the Great Reset.
One of the few political leaders who gets this is President Donald Trump.
On Sunday he warned in a video statement from the White House to the Group of 20 summit hosted by Saudi Arabia that the Paris Climate Agreement was ‘not designed to save the environment. It was designed to kill the economy.’

This is fair comment for reasons I have outlined many times before (eg here, here and here).

If the U.S. had remained a signatory it would have ceded huge competitive advantage to favoured economies like India and China to no useful purpose. After all, as Bjorn Lomborg once calculated, even if every country in the world sticks to its carbon reduction targets agreed at Paris, the best-case scenario is that it might reduce global warming by the end of the century by 0.170 degrees C. This is a difference so small it will be barely measurable and certainly not noticeable – at a cost to the global economy of perhaps $1.5 trillion per year.

World Economic Forum Outlines Its ‘Great Reset’ to End Traditional Capitalism World Economic Forum Heralds 'Great Reset' of Global Economy and Society
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) October 14, 2020

Yet Joe Biden — in the event that he becomes president — has promised that he will drag the U.S. back into this frivolous, destructive, eye-waveringly expensive deal.

Why?

One might well ask the same question of the policies recently announced by the government in my own country, the United Kingdom. Here Boris Johnson’s ‘Conservative’ administration has decreed that diesel- and petrol-powered cars must be phased out from 2030, as part of a 10-point plan for a ‘green industrial revolution‘ including more wind farms, more ‘green finance’, more money spent on public transport and cycle lanes, more ‘investment’ in dubious (and so far, highly unsuccessful) technologies like ‘Carbon Capture.’

Do these sound like ‘conservative’ policies to you?

Do you think all those working-class ‘Red Wall‘ voters in the Midlands and the North who lent their votes to the Conservatives in 2019, many for the first time, did so in the hope that Johnson would drive up their heating bills or confiscate their petrol cars and force them to buy electric ones they could never hope to afford?

Does this sound like a recipe for an economic revival — higher taxes, more government subsidies — after the slump caused by the government’s draconian lockdown policies?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions than I have a magnificent range of very competitively priced bridges I’d like to sell you.

As Matt Ridley cogently argues here, there could scarcely be a more effective way of killing Britain’s post-Brexit future than implementing Boris Johnson’s green revolution.

My fear is that we will carry out Boris’s promised 10-point plan, cripple our economy, ruin our seascapes and landscapes, and then half way through the 2030s along will come cheap, small, safe fusion reactors. The offshore wind industry, by then so stuffed with subsidies they can afford to lobby politicians and journalists even more than they do to today, will suck their teeth and say: “no, no, no – ignore the fusion crowd. We’re on the brink of solving the reliability issue, and don’t worry, the cost will come down eventually. Promise!”

Boris, this is not the way to the promised land, especially when the government is borrowing £300 billion because of covid. High-cost electricity will prevent the United Kingdom making a success of Brexit. It will bankrupt us in the short run, make us less competitive in the long run and not cut emissions much anyway.

Indeed. One theory has it that it’s all down to the influence of Boris’s green activist girlfriend Carrie Symonds, her worryingly powerful chum in the House of Lords Zac Goldsmith, and to Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Michael Gove, who was memorably pictured last year with a bunch of fellow eco-loon MPs drooling over the Doom Goblin Greta Thunberg.

But it’s actually much more sinister – and global than that.

It’s not just in the U.S. and the UK that this embrace of the green agenda is taking place. It’s happening across Europe, and around the world from Australia to Canada.

In terms of saving the environment it makes no sense: why would you erect more bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco-crucifixes if you cared about wildlife and nature?
In terms of delivering a better world for voters it makes no sense either: it will just mean more restrictions, higher taxes, higher energy bills, less foreign travel, less freedom and so on.

Delingpole: Princess Nut Nut Elbows Bojo Towards the Great Reset Delingpole: Princess Nut Nut Elbows Bojo Towards the Great Reset
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 17, 2020

What you need to understand is that the supposed ‘climate crisis’ we’ve been hearing about ad nauseam since at least the 1992 Rio Earth Summit was really just a pretext for the kind of globalist takeover now being conducted by our governments in lockstep with the World Economic Forum’s The Great Reset and the United Nations’ parallel Agenda 2030 (an update of its notorious Agenda 21).

Man-made global warming was never a plausible threat (existing only in the computer modelled projections of parti-pris activist scientists. And we know all about them don’t we, Neil Ferguson?). But it was, for decades, a handy pretext for concerted action by governments all over the world, under the auspices of organisations like the UN and its various COP climate summits, artificially to raise energy prices and increase state rules and regulations, and enrich crony corporatists, under the pretence that it was being done to save the planet.

But what is these globalists’ ultimate goal? And why is environmentalism such a key part of their plan?

For this, you’ll have to wait for my next piece, when I tell you about the most extraordinary and revealing interview I conducted with Patrick M Wood, who has been studying this phenomenon since it began in the early Seventies.
It’s so bizarre that it sounds like a dystopian fantasy – like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.

Unfortunately, the crazies backing this Great Reset are all too serious. They’ve got the money, they’ve got the power and with just a bit more time they’re going to get their way…

Unless, of course, we inform ourselves what they’re up to and take preventive measures before it’s too late.

Watch this space.

Delingpole: Only Donald Trump Can Save Us from the Great Reset Delingpole: Only Donald Trump Can Save Us from the Great Reset
— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 1, 2020

 

[marsh]

[One of the articles referenced in the Delingpole: ‘Trussst Usss! Article]

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service.

www.weforum.org

Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030

"Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams."
Image: REUTERS/Nicky Loh
11 Nov 2016

1. Ida AukenMember of Parliament, Parliament of Denmark (Folketinget)

Fourth Industrial Revolution

Explore the latest strategic trends, research and analysis
For more information watch the What If: Privacy Becomes a Luxury Good? session from the World Economic Forum's Annual Meeting 2017.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city". I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city.

Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes.

We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey.

Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

"Environmental problems seem far away"
In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in awhile, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy - the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

The death of shopping
Shopping? I can't really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don't really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

"They live different kinds of lives outside of the city"
My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realised that we could do things differently.

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMR8QXRGthY
12:37 min

No, The Great Reset’s ‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ does NOT give power to the ‘people’

•Jan 27, 2021


Glenn Beck
During day two of The Davos Agenda 21 on Tuesday, the world’s biggest and most powerful business leaders, CEOs, and politicians continued to push the idea of ‘stakeholder capitalism,’ which is part of The Great Reset. They continued to lie, arguing it’s a type of economic system that benefits not only the people — but the world, too. They couldn’t be more wrong, and in this clip, Glenn explains why.

 

[marsh]

Geopolitics, Sanctions and Social Media Giants: Putin’s Davos Speech, in Quotes - The Moscow Times

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos for the first time in more than a decade Wednesday.

www.themoscowtimes.com

Geopolitics, Sanctions and Social Media Giants: Putin’s Davos Speech, in Quotes

The Russian president last spoke at the World Economic Forum in 2009.Mikhail Klimentyev / POOL / TASS

Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos for the first time in more than a decade Wednesday.

Speaking amid outcry in the West over the jailing of poisoned opposition leader Alexei Navalny, Putin addressed geopolitical tensions, sanctions and economic inequality, the growing power of tech giants and more.

Here are the highlights from Putin’s virtual address:

— On global tensions:
“There is every reason to believe that there are risks of further escalating contradictions. These trends can manifest themselves in nearly every field.”

“The situation can develop unpredictably and uncontrollably if, of course, nothing is done to prevent this from happening. Moreover, there’s a chance of a real breakdown in global development that’s fraught with a fight of all against all.”

“A global, hot conflict is principally impossible now, I hope. It would mean the end of civilization.”

— On populism:
“We’re witnessing a crisis of previous models and instruments of economic development, increased social stratification both globally and in individual countries. [...] This causes a sharp polarization of public views and provokes the growth of populism, right-wing and left-wing radicalism as well as other extremes.”

“All this inevitably affects the nature of international relations [and] doesn’t add stability and predictability to them. International institutions are weakening, regional conflicts are multiplying and global security is degrading.”

“Unresolved and growing internal social and economic problems can drive the search for someone to blame for all the troubles and divert citizens’ irritation and discontent.”

— On inequality:
“The growth of economic problems and inequality splits society, giving rise to social, racial and national intolerance. These tensions break out even in countries with seemingly well-established civil and democratic institutions.”

“It’s difficult not to notice the fundamental transformations in the global economy, politics, social life and technology. The coronavirus pandemic [...] has exacerbated the problems and imbalances that have already accumulated in the world.”

“Globalization has led to a significant increase in the profits of large multinational and, above all, American and European companies.”

“Who has inherited income? The answer is obviously 1% of the population. And what happened to the lives of other people? Over the past 30 years, the real incomes of more than half of several developed countries’ citizens have stagnated while the cost of education and health services has increased. [...] Millions of people, even in rich countries, no longer see the prospect of increasing their incomes.”

— On tech giants and social media networks:
“There is a lot of talk about this now, especially in relation to the events that took place in the [United] States during the election campaign. These are no longer just economic giants — in some areas they are already de facto competing with states.”

“Where’s the line between a successful global business with popular services that [...] try to rudely and at their own discretion control society, replace legitimate democratic institutions [and] restrict the person’s natural right to decide how to live, what to choose and what viewpoints to freely express.”

— On economic recovery:
“It’s absolutely clear that the world cannot follow the path of building an economy that works for a million people and even for the ‘golden billion’ [post-Soviet term referring to developed Western nations].”

“Considering the mentioned limitations of macroeconomic policy, further development of the economy will be more based on fiscal incentives, with the key role played by state budgets and central banks.”

“Without effective state actions, many middle class people — the foundation of any modern society — risk staying without jobs.”

“If 20-30 years ago the problem could have been solved by stimulating macroeconomic policies [...] these mechanisms have essentially exhausted themselves.”

“First, people should have a comfortable environment to live in. [...] Second, people should be confident that they’ll have a job that will give a steadily growing income. [...] Third, people should be confident they’ll receive high-quality, effective medical care when required. [...] Fourth, children should be able to receive a decent education regardless of family income.”

— On sanctions and multilateralism:
“The use of trade barriers, illegitimate sanctions, financial, technological and information restrictions is a game without rules that critically increases the risks of a unilateral use of military force. There’s the danger.”

“Multilateralism can be understood in different ways: either as pushing through own interests and giving legitimacy to unilateral actions while others can only nod approvingly, or really unifying sovereign states’ efforts to solve specific problems for the common benefit.”

“We’ll have to strengthen and develop universal institutions that have special responsibility for ensuring stability and security in the world, for developing rules of conduct in the global economy and trade. [...] It’s too early to throw them into the dustbin of history.”

— On Russian-European relations:
“Russia is part of Europe, both geographically and most importantly in a cultural sense. In fact, we’re one civilization.”

“If we can rise above the problems and get rid of phobias, then a positive phase in our relations awaits. [...] We need to return to a positive agenda, that is Russia’s interest. [...] But one-sided love is impossible.”

 

[marsh]

Macron Tells Davos — ‘Capitalism is over, the great reset is here!’

Davos 2021 — French president says modern capitalism ‘can no longer work’ French President Emmanuel Macron warned modern capitalism “can no longer work,” urging…

citizenfreepress.com

Macron Tells Davos — ‘Capitalism is over, the great reset is here!’
Posted by Kane on January 28, 2021 1:59 pm

View: https://youtu.be/OuSkuBh-Bis
1:14 min

Davos 2021 — French president says modern capitalism ‘can no longer work’

French President Emmanuel Macron warned modern capitalism “can no longer work,” urging global leaders to focus on tackling inequality and climate change.

“We will get out of this pandemic only with an economy that thinks more about fighting inequalities.” Macron made the comments at the virtual Davos Agenda 2021 Summit.

View: https://youtu.be/M7pTu3NDQ94
1:19 min

 

[marsh]

[COMMENT: Climate change is the horse that the Great Reset will ride in on.]

Pentagon declares climate change a ‘national security issue’

The Pentagon will now consider climate change when planning war games and will incorporate the issue into its future National Defense Strategy, according to a Wednesday announcement.“There is littl…

thehill.com

Pentagon declares climate change a 'national security issue'

GREG NASH
BY ELLEN MITCHELLTWEET SHARE EMAIL

The Pentagon will now consider climate change when planning war games and will incorporate the issue into its future National Defense Strategy, according to a Wednesday announcement.

"There is little about what the [Defense] Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change. It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as such," Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said in a statement.

"The Department will immediately take appropriate policy actions to prioritize climate change considerations in our activities and risk assessments, to mitigate this driver of insecurity."

Austin announced the change after President Biden earlier on Wednesday signed a series of executive orders aimed at addressing the climate crisis.

The shift means the Department of Defense (DOD) will now "include the security implications of climate change in our risk analyses, strategy development, and planning guidance," according to Austin.

"As a leader in the interagency, the Department of Defense will also support incorporating climate risk analysis into modeling, simulation, wargaming, analysis, and the next National Defense Strategy. And by changing how we approach our own carbon footprint, the Department can also be a platform for positive change, spurring the development of climate-friendly technologies at scale," he said.

The Pentagon since 2010 has acknowledged that climate change could pose a threat to where the military operates and its roles and missions.

Heavy downpours, drought, rising temperature and sea level, and repeated, raging forest fires affect the military not only at home but extending to abroad as they can have significant geopolitical impacts.

The DOD has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to help bases prevent or repair climate-related damage, including Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., which was damaged by Hurricane Michael in 2018, and Offutt Air Force Base, Neb., which flooded in 2019.

Under former President Trump, who repeatedly indicated he thought climate change is a "hoax," Pentagon officials have had to tiptoe around the issue as the president routinely dismissed the scientific consensus that the phenomenon is real and caused by human activity.

While a 2019 report called the effects of a changing climate "a national security issue," the public version of the National Defense Strategy did not mention it as a concern.

But Biden's new push creates a shift in how the White House has traditionally thought of climate change, expanding the call from environmental agencies to those dealing with national security.

His new orders establish "climate considerations as an essential element of U.S. foreign policy and national security," the White House said.

 

[marsh]

Xi Twists Biden’s Arm at Davos - The American Spectator | USA News and PoliticsThe American Spectator | USA News and Politics

Xi wants the world to believe that it is now China, not the U.S., that forms the linchpin of the international order.

spectator.org

Xi Twists Biden’s Arm at Davos
The Chinese president pitches his vision of globalism to the world.
by JOHN JIANG

January 27, 2021, 11:21 AM

Xi Jinping speaks at Davos, January 25, 2021 (YouTube screenshot)

Xi Jinping’s kick-off appearance at the winter Davos week this Monday had a simple message for newly inaugurated President Joe Biden: bring America back into the fold, or suffer the consequences.

The speech, which opened and closed with World Economic Forum (WEF) Chairman Klaus Schwab heaping praise on Xi, was the Chinese president’s first appearance at Davos since he spoke there in 2017.

The atmosphere this time around was no less surreal, at least at first glance. What is the strongman leader of the largest communist nation in the world doing headlining the premier event for the world’s free-trading liberal internationalist elite?

Xi wants the world to believe that it is now China, not the U.S., that forms the linchpin of the international order.

Of course, there is no real mystery here. China’s use of global organizations to its advantage has been evident as far back as its entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO’s kowtowing to China throughout the coronavirus pandemic was an embarrassment observed by the entire world.

​

In light of the past year, Xi’s speech had the tone of a victory lap crossed with a warning directed at the United States. The overarching theme was globalization and transnational integration — the more of it, the better, and no need to read the small print.

Building an “open world economy,” according to Xi, means keeping “the global industrial and supply chains stable and open” and upholding “the multilateral trading regime,” a thinly veiled dig at the hawkish trade policy pursued by the Trump administration in the past four years.

Such openness would also require taking down “barriers to … technological exchanges.” Technology transfers, both illegal and voluntary (in exchange for business deals) constitute perhaps the single greatest method of wealth extraction by China against the United States.

Xi was keen to push China’s interests on other fronts as well. A substantial, and perhaps unexpected, portion of the speech was dedicated to the worldwide “North–South gap,” which can be remedied only by giving developing countries “stronger representation and voice in global economic governance.”

Needless to say, China’s interests and assets in the global South — particularly Africa — are vast and growing, both as part of the Belt and Road Initiative and through other projects. No doubt Xi wishes to maintain elite approval of China’s international economic agenda. But Xi’s push for greater representation for developing countries could come from a place of much greater ambition. China’s outsize importance for many African countries means that it has many of them in its pocket when it comes to votes at the UN and WTO and political allegiance on the world stage. Giving “stronger representation” to the global South, as altruistic as it sounds, is Xi’s way of pushing for further strengthening of the Chinese international coalition.

At times, the speech veered into parody, such as when Xi implored that “the strong should not bully the weak” — another dig at the U.S., no doubt, but baldly hypocritical given China’s recent escalation of tensions with nearly every single one of its neighbors over territorial disputes.

​

All in all, the script was thin on policy specifics and thick on textbook platitudes about globalization, as is often the case with WEF speeches. What will prove more important than what was said will be the message sent by Xi’s appearance. Davos has always been a primarily European event, and the Chinese premier was flanked this year by heavyweights such as French President Emmanuel Macron and outgoing Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, as if symbolic of the growing ties between the EU and China.

In short, Xi wants the world to believe that it is now China, not the U.S., that forms the linchpin of the international order. He is warning Joe Biden to keep well away from Donald Trump’s belligerence, lest the Biden administration be discredited in the eyes of the kinds of people who would attend Davos

What might a Chinese-led international order look like? According to Xi, it is one free of “ideological prejudice.” In other words: worry less about tyranny or totalitarianism and focus on keeping the gravy train running. That line surely got an extra round of applause out of Klaus Schwab.

 

[marsh]

Conservatives Must Now Draw A Line In The Sand And Stop The “Great Reset” - Alt-Market.us

By Brandon Smith There are many millions of Americans today in the post-election environment that feel uneasy about the fate...

alt-market.us

ALT-MARKET.US

Conservatives Must Now Draw A Line In The Sand And Stop The “Great Reset”

January 27, 2021 51 Comments

By Brandon Smith
There are many millions of Americans today in the post-election environment that feel uneasy about the fate of the country given the rise of a Biden presidency. And though I understand why this tension exists, I want to offer a possible “silver lining”; a different way of looking at the situation:

With Biden in the White House, there is no longer any ambiguity about what conservatives (and some of the more courageous moderates) need to do and need to accomplish. Now we know where we stand, and now the stakes are clear.

With Trump in office, a lot of liberty minded people became a little too comfortable, to the point that they were inactive. They actually believed the system could be repaired and corruption ended from within, and without much effort on our part beyond our votes. Trump made many conservatives lazy.

Then there was the Q-anon-sense floating around on the web which also misled some freedom activists into thinking that people much higher placed or “smarter” than us were fighting the good fight behind the scenes and that the globalists would be swept up in a grand 4D chess maneuver. This was a fantasy; it was never going to happen. Finally, everyone knows this and we can get on with the business of fighting the real battles ahead.

I think we are reaching a stage in the conflict between freedom advocates and collectivist tyrants when many illusions are going to melt away, and all we will be left with is cold hard reality. Now is the time when we find out who is going to stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, and who is going to cower and submit just to save their own skin. Now is the time when we find out who has balls.

The last four years plus the election of 2020 have revealed that political solutions are out the window. A lot of conservatives should have known better, but maybe it takes a perceived disaster to shock some people out of their waking dreams. Elections, voting, potential third parties; it’s all Kabuki theater. It’s all a facade to keep us docile and under control.

The liberty movement cannot revolve around a single political figure. We cannot bottleneck our efforts into the hands of one man or one political party. The fight is up to us – each of us as individuals. It was ALWAYS up to us.

A different form of organization needs to happen if Americans are going to protect our freedoms; a grassroots approach from the ground up rather than the top down. There will of course be people who stand out as teachers and pioneers, those that lead by example. But overall, the movement will not be acting on orders from on high. Rather, it will be acting according to self motivation. The liberty movement is not driven by personalities, but by shared principles which take on a life of their own.

I’m not worried about Biden. In fact, his presence may be the best thing to happen to conservative unity in well over a decade. The only thing I worry about, as noted, is who is going to stand their ground, and who is going to give in?

Biden may also be a wake up call for any moderate democrats out there who thought that by voting for a hair-sniffing corporate puppet they might put an end to the division and civil unrest in the nation. I think they will discover that Joe will attract even MORE civil unrest. He might trigger more looting and rioting by Antifa and BLM than Trump did, by the simple fact these insane people will assume that Biden will be malleable and easier to exploit.

Biden himself is not all that important; he is nothing more than a foil for bigger events and a proxy for more nefarious people. His presence signals that the “Great Reset” agenda is fully greenlit. This agenda has a pretty obvious set of goals, many of them openly admitted to by the World Economic Forum, and some of them strongly implied by the extreme political left and the media. They include:

1) Perpetual pandemic lockdowns and economic controls until the population submits to medical tyranny.
2) Medical passports and contact tracing as a part of everyday life.
3) The censorship and de-platforming of all voices that oppose the agenda.
4) Greatly reduced economic activity in the name of stopping “climate change”.
5) Greatly increased poverty and the loss of private property.
6) The introduction of “Universal Basic Income” in which the government becomes the all-powerful welfare provider and nursemaid for a generation of dependent and desperate people.
7) A cashless society and digital currency system where privacy in trade is completely erased.
8) The creation of a “shared economy” in which no one will own anything and independent production is outlawed.
9) The deletion of national borders and the end of sovereignty and self-determination.
10) The centralization of global political power into the hands of a select few elitists.

Now, you would think that most sensible people would be opposed to such a dystopian agenda. It would inevitably lead to mass death in economic terms, as well as war. Unless you are a psychopath that gets a vicarious thrill from the brutal oppression of millions of people, or you are a globalist that stands to gain immense power, there is nothing about the Reset that benefits you.

That said, there will still be millions of useful idiots that support totalitarian policies, and they will act to enforce them. Some of them will be convinced that they are serving the “greater good”, and others will think that they can “earn a place at the table” if they lick the boots of tyrants long enough. Bottom line? It’s not just the globalists we need to worry about, it is also the contingent of zombies they have duped or bribed into serving the Reset.

The information war is about to take a backseat and a new fight is about to begin. But how will it start?

I believe the first test for conservatives will be Biden’s pandemic response. The Reset agenda and the pandemic are closely intertwined. Do not be misled by calls from Democrats to reopen the economy; there are strings attached.

When New York Governor Andrew Cuomo said that the state needed to reopen, or there would be “nothing left”, he also consistently hinted that vaccination numbers needed to improve. There are two big lies involved in this narrative – The first is that the vaccination rollout has failed on a technical level.

They want us to believe that only around 60% of the first 2 million vaccine doses have been administered because the state and hospitals failed to get them to citizens fast enough. The truth is, as we’ve seen in numerous polls of Americans and medical staff, millions of people DO NOT WANT to take the vaccine. The situation in New York must be shocking to establishment elites; it’s one of the most leftists states in the US and yet they can’t seem to trick enough people into taking the shot.

The same is true across the country, and it’s not because of bureaucratic failure, it is a propaganda failure.

Second, Cuomo’s statements hint that though lockdowns are destroying the economy, vaccine saturation is paramount. The message is this – “Take the vaccine, or the economy will crash.” The pandemic response is a carrot and stick approach: The lockdowns are the stick, and the reopenings are the carrot.

Of course, even if most people get vaccinated and submit to medical passports and contact tracing like good little slaves, this does not mean life will go back to normal. On the contrary, things will get much worse.

As I have noted in past articles like ‘Waves Of Mutilation: Medical Tyranny And The Cashless Society’, the globalists have admitted that the covid mandates and controls are going to be in place for many years, perhaps forever. Elites at MIT and the Imperial College Of London have written extensively about a strategy I call “Wave Theory”, in which governments constantly batter the public with waves of lockdowns followed by brief windows of partial openings and limited freedom.

The reopenings are a trick, a way to release public tension like a steam valve and make everyone think that the crisis is almost over. Then, the draconian mandates are brought back once again. This will never end. The only way to stop it is to remove the globalists from power and crush the Reset agenda.

A new narrative is already being injected into the mainstream media hinting that even vaccinations will not lead to freedom.

Anthony Fauci and others have argued that those who are vaccinated still need to follow lockdown mandates and wear masks. This policy completely ignores the scientific FACT that the death rate of covid is only 0.26% for anyone outside of a nursing home. It ignores the fact that masks have been consistently proven to do nothing to stop the spread of the virus. It ignores the fact that hospitals across the US have remained mostly empty, with only 15% of capacity in use during Covid . And, it ignores the fact that the vaccines are barely tested experimental cocktails that even the former VP of Pfizer has warned might cause dangerous autoimmune reactions and infertility.

On top of this, more and more stories about “covid mutations” are hitting the news wire. They are supposedly more infectious and more deadly than the original (which runs contrary to the natural evolution of the vast majority of viruses), and the mutation in South Africa is also “possibly” unaffected by existing vaccines. There is no concrete proof to support any of the claims, but I think you see where all of this is headed, right?

My guess is that in about two months the CDC and WHO will announce a new global outbreak of a more deadly strain of Covid. They will say the current vaccines are ineffective, and that lockdowns must continue. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are savvy to the old covid-19 scheme, so the elites are going to introduce covid-20, and covid-21, and covid-22, etc.

Biden will call for Level 4 lockdowns similar to those implemented in Europe and Australia, and this is where conservatives must draw a line in the sand and announce that we are not subject to unconstitutional restrictions, that we are breaking free. This will be our first major test.

It’s not enough to simply say “I won’t submit” when the consequences are minimal. One must be willing to fight back even when the consequences are dire. Being willing to lose everything for what you believe, being willing to possibly die for your values and principles means you are no longer a spectator in history, but an actor that can affect the future. Anything less is not enough to win the war that is coming.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Avoid The "Great Reset" In Three Easy Steps

MONDAY, FEB 01, 2021 - 5:00
Authored by David James via Off-Guardian.org,
There are two things that should be understood about the global financial markets as the world faces what is being called the Great Reset, or Bretton Woods 2.

• The first is that the US dollar rules the world (as distinct from the US nation).
• The second is that the system is insane.

Sure, it may look rational with all those numbers, charts, ratios, algorithms and impressive-sounding technical terms. But collectively the whole thing is mad. As the great British writer GK Chesterton said:

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

That nicely describes the global capital markets and it does not bode well either for an effective reset or the survival of the monetary system itself.

The US dollar has dominated the global financial markets since 1945, when Franklin D Roosevelt did a deal with King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia to denominate oil trade in the American currency, leading to the creation of the ‘petrodollar’ which then became the world’s reserve currency.

The petrodollar has long since faded; more oil is actually denominated in Chinese yuan now than American dollars (although the yuan is fixed to the US dollar so it is not really separate). But the bulk of international trade and asset buying is still denominated in US dollars out of habit and the US dollar has been further entrenched because of the emergence of the global derivatives market. Derivatives are transactions derived from, or rather are gambles on, conventional financial assets such as currencies, interest rates and shares.

The ‘value’ (whatever that means exactly) of these derivatives is $US500-1000 trillion, give or take the odd $US100 trillion.

This intense financial activity, most of which occurs in microseconds, is like having a massive roulette wheel spinning above the earth. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the daily cross border trades with the US dollar on one side equates with almost $US6 trillion.

To give some idea of how big that notional ‘money’ is, the entire US Federal debt, built up over decades, is about $US27 trillion, or the equivalent of less than five days trading. It has entrenched the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency and allows America to do whatever it likes on its Federal budget, its military spending or whatever other financial excesses it can devise, such as a $US21 trillion hole in the defence budget.

Whatever debt the US issues is swallowed up by the massive demand for dollars in the foreign exchange markets. No other country has that freedom.

It has recently become popular to criticise so-called ‘fiat money’, money that is determined by government edict. The contention is that when President Richard Nixon took America off the gold standard in 1971, because the nation could not pay for the Vietnam War, it ushered in an era of government-created money whose value has been progressively degraded.

Though superficially persuasive the argument is entirely misleading. The repeated crises in the financial markets over the last four decades have not been because of too much government intrusion but the opposite: a refusal by governments to govern properly, which allowed private players to run amok.

It was a cleverly engineered scam.

In the 1980s and 1990s there was a world-wide push, prosecuted by well-funded think tanks and lobbyists, to ‘deregulate’ the financial markets. What nobody seemed to notice, or if they did notice they conveniently chose to ignore it, is that this argument is, literally, nonsense. It is impossible to deregulate financial markets because they consist of regulations. Deregulating financial markets is like trying to take the hydrogen, oxygen and wetness out of water. Other types of markets can be deregulated because regulations are external to the economic activity, but in finance they are the same.

Enter insanity.
By convincing Western governments that deregulation was a fine thing (usually using water metaphors to make it seem that regulations somehow got in the way of monetary ‘flows’) private actors were able to make up their own rules, triggering ‘financialisation’, or wealth extraction by the finance sector at the expense of everyone else.

The ridiculous invention of rules has been most obvious in the derivatives markets, which are a complete free-for-all – think of a bet, any bet. It also occurred in the real economy, where unshackled banks and financial institutions invented different ways to create ludicrous levels of global debt that are now, in aggregate, unpayable. The only option for central banks in developed countries has been to drop interest rates to almost zero in the hope of kicking the can down the street and printing money, known as ‘quantitative easing’, on what is laughably called their ‘balance sheets’.

There were plenty of warnings that ‘deregulation’ was dangerous. In 1998, a derivatives company, Long Term Capital Management nearly brought down the Western banking system. Bizarrely, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, responded by aggressively increasing the number of derivatives traders in the belief that it would all, sort of, balance itself out.

It didn’t.

The 2007-2008 financial crisis revealed the insanity of allowing private players to invent their own rules when there was a near collapse of the entire system. It was only saved because the US Treasury head, Henry Paulson, decided to re-regulate instead of standing back and allowing ‘market forces’ to work.

It was a close run thing, though. On September 18, 2008, $US550 billion went out of the US money markets in a couple of hours. Paulson responded by closing down all America’s money accounts and announcing a guarantee of $250,000 for all bank deposits. That is, he issued a fiat. The Treasury later estimated that had he not done so $US6 trillion would have exited the US financial system by the end of the day. Given that banks lend out roughly 20 times their capital base this would have spelt the end of the monetary system of the world.

Like all good madmen, banks and financial traders, incapable of taking any responsibility for their own actions and faithfully adhering to their smug anti-government rhetoric, outrageously blamed governments for a crisis that they had caused. They got away with it. Almost no financiers went to jail and they continued their debauch of the system, exploiting lower interest rates to increase debt to its current unsustainable levels.

Can a genuine reset be achieved? Not with the current finance technocrats, who have probably never scrutinised an assumption in their lives. Compare these superficial thinkers with John Maynard Keynes, the person who led the British delegation to Bretton Woods 1 in 1944. A member of the Bloomsbury Group Keynes thought deeply both about what money is and how it should function (he is associated with the economics of government spending but that is only a cartoonish version of his thought). Almost none of the current crop of central bankers, heads of global institutions or schemers in the World Economic Forum are capable of such reflection. Most did not even notice that ‘financial deregulation’ is a flat contradiction.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

First:
Remove the central assumption behind the madness and recognise that money is a system of rules in which government has to be a central player, an umpire.

The demonization of ‘fiat money’ is rubbish. So is the idea of freeing up market forces by deregulating the finance system. The question is not whether governments should be involved, but how they should be involved – what constitutes good governance of the system.

Second:
Find ways – it will require a jettisoning of the circular arguments of neo-classical economics – to reimpose some sort of control over the quantity of money.

Because of financial deregulation, authorities ceded any control over the amount of credit in the system. They can only control the cost of money, the interest rate. With interest rates at close to zero that remaining tool has been rendered useless.

Critics of fiat money get starry-eyed about reintroducing the gold standard or buying Bitcoin. This is because both are finite; in theory they introduce some control over the quantity of money and raise the prospect that it might once again function as a means of exchange rather than something to be debauched in an endless regress. But it is a blind alley. Neither Bitcoin nor gold can be realistically used as a means of exchange, and in any case they are both valued in fiat currency: US dollars. They are just another type of financial asset for investors to play with.

Third:
The financial schemers should, even for their own sakes, shelve any ideas about a global central bank digital currency for cross-border transactions, no matter how seductive it might seem as a power grab. It would be a genuine threat to US dollar dominance, imperilling the US military’s ability to spend what it wants. The centralisation of power it implies also poses a threat to Chinese and Russian military autonomy.

Financiers like to think that soldiers are just guns for hire, that money rules everything. A glance at history suggests otherwise. If the financiers go head to head with military interests they will get some nasty surprises and we will be no closer to a solution to the monetary debauch.

 

[marsh]

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

cnsnews.com

Kerry on a Carbon Tax: 'We Could Do It'
By Susan Jones | February 1, 2021 | 5:39am EST

Former Secretary of State John Kerry is President Biden's special envoy for climate. (Photo by LUDOVIC MARIN/AFP via Getty Images)

(CNSNews.com) - "This is the year" to make "key decisions" on climate change, and that includes a possible carbon tax, John Kerry, the special presidential envoy for climate, told CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday.

Kerry said a carbon tax is "one option of many things we're going to have to consider and may wind up doing."

https://cdn.mrctv.org/videos/49404/49404-480p.mp4 5:05 min

Zakaria noted that "to send a signal to the world, most experts believe the important thing is that the United States get its house in order, and to really tackle the climate crisis...you need a carbon tax. Do you think that the United States could do that? It's the simplest price signal that will...slowly but surely change the economy. Can we do it?" Zakaria asked Kerry.

"Well, we could do it, I think," Kerry responded.

I mean, theoretically, yes, it is one option of many things we're going to have to consider and may wind up doing. There are many people who make the point that -- and I personally accept it, that that is one of the most significant, bold steps you can take to actually have an impact in a rapid way.

And I believe there are ways to do that and make it very progressive to protect people who have to drive long distances, to get to work, do things like that. There are ways to cushion any negative impacts on it.

But -- here's the 'but' -- we really need to do a great deal more than that. General Motors just announced that they are going to be moving to pure electric cars, nothing but electric in 15 years. A lot of European motor manufacturers have made the similar kind of announcement, and I think that is the trend.

People are going to move to electric cars, which means you're going to have to produce more electricity, ultimately, but there are ways to do that clean.

So this is all achievable and I think the important point, Fareed, for people to really focus on is, it's a very exciting economic transition. It's a job creating transition. There are just going to be millions of jobs created with new products coming online, innovation that takes place, technology advances that will help us do things that we may not be able to do today, but it will happen because the demand is there, and that demand is going to have a huge change in the kinds of things, the kind of work that is available to people.

Nobody is going to be told they have to go do that. They're not going to be ordered to go do it. But the marketplace itself is going to work in a way that makes it inviting and profitable. And frankly, cleaner, and healthier and more secure.

Zakaria noted that some of President Biden's climate actions, such as canceling the Keystone XL pipeline and barring new oil and gas leases on public lands, will put people out of work, some immediately. "What do you say to those people," Zakaria asked Kerry.

"Well, we're a great nation at creating jobs," Kerry responded:

We've historically, constantly been creating jobs when our economy is growing. Obviously, the first objective to do that is to be able to deal with COVID. COVID has knocked economies all around the world for a loop, so that has to happen.

But as the president has said, as President Biden has said many times, that COVID actually offers us the opportunity to build back better. Because the economy has been rocked, as we come back, we will be putting major investments into various sectors of the economy to get it moving again.

And if those investments are done in a way, Fareed, that...are looking to develop hydrogen fuel, for instance, or the making of those electric cars, I mean, people don't lose a job in the transition to electric cars because the car still has to be built, the wheels have to be put on it, the electric -- the batteries have to be put in it and people are going to work at doing those things.

So we've already seen remarkable growth. There are 55,000 new jobs in Texas, all in wind. In Texas, the home of the fossil fuel industry. I mean, this is a transition with the fossil fuel companies themselves. I mean, look at BP or Shell or other large fossil fuel companies, they're diversifying. They're engaged in the creation of these renewable jobs now and doing research in carbon capture and storage and so forth.

So they're going to be massive, literally millions of jobs created over these next years. And there will be a transition in our economy just the way there was in the 1990s when computers and cell phones and other things started to be created and AT&T changed.

Kerry, a true believer in human-caused climate change, said "huge fortunes" stand to be made through innovation in the private sector:

"The person who discovers how to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and store it adequately, the person who comes up with battery storage that is 25 or 30 days of storage, those are game changers. And there's going to be a huge amount of money made in that because the demand is there to do this and the alternative is that the planet changes so profoundly negatively, that life itself is not supportable in many parts of the planet and will be changed forever in others."

The alternative, Kerry said, is to spend "billions of dollars cleaning up after storms and natural disasters that he believes are exacerbated by a changing climate:
"Citizens are going to spend this money," Kerry said. "They're either going to spend it cleaning up or building barriers or moving homes or whatever it's going to be.

“But there's a way to do this productively that actually moves our economies forward and allows the United States to push the curve of technology, which we're really good at, and begin to invent the new products of the future, create the economy of the future, make the air cleaner, life healthier and make the United States of America more secure."

 

[marsh]

Trickery: Fake animal 'tragedy' boosted globalist 'Great Reset'

Trickery: Fake animal 'tragedy' boosted globalist 'Great Reset'
Davos billionaires in tears over natural behavior blamed on 'climate change'

By Art Moore
Published January 31, 2021 at 2:55pm

Scene from episode of Netflix documentary series "Our Planet" (Video screenshot)

One of the most emotionally powerful drivers behind the World Economic Forum's claim that the world faces a "climate emergency" turns out to be something quite different than advertised.

At WEF's prestigious gathering of global elites in Davos, Switzerland, two years ago, a clip from the Netflix documentary series "Our Planet" was premiered by the narrator, Sir David Attenborough. It featured the heartbreaking scene of walruses falling off a cliff in Siberia to their deaths "because of climate change," bringing many of the billionaires and political leaders to tears.

Attenborough said global warming caused by mankind had melted the walruses' natural hunting grounds. However, polar bear expert Susan Crockford investigated and discovered there was a natural reason for the walruses' behavior. It had nothing to do with a loss of summer sea ice, which has fluctuated over many years.

Crockford learned that the Russian scientific adviser to the film, Anatoli Kochnev, had written a report in 2002 on walrus deaths at two regularly used beach haulouts on Wrangel Island from 1989-1996. At that time the walrus population numbers were much lower than today and the extent of the summer sea ice was much greater.

Kochnev, Crockford wrote, "concluded that stampedes initiated by polar bears were responsible for most of the walruses found trampled to death."

"This means Kochnev knew that polar bears nearby were a huge risk factor for walrus stampedes over the cliff but went along with the official 'Our Planet' narrative that no polar bears were involved and only lack of sea ice and poor eyesight were to blame for the carnage presented in the Netflix film," she wrote.
In fact, as Crockford demonstrates in a video, a Russian videographer released independent footage of the event in the Netflix documentary. His video shows a polar bear above the panicking walruses on the cliff.

See Susan Crockford's video with the independent footage:

Attenborough later acknowledged in a BBC documentary that the walrus deaths were due to hungry polar bears.

See another video by Susan Crockford presenting an overview of the controversy:

Last week, attendees of WEF's "Davos Agenda" virtual meeting were reminded that addressing climate change requires a change in the economic "system" of nations around the globe rather than "mere reform."

WEF founder Klaus Schwab last year called for a "Great Reset of capitalism" in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

The "Davos Agenda" conference opened last week with a speech by China's president and general secretary of the Communist Party, Xi Jinping.

Schwab introduced Xi by commending China for its "many initiatives" undertaken "in the spirit of creating a world where all actors assume a responsible and responsive role."

"Mr. President, I believe this is the time to reset our policies and to work jointly for a peaceful and prosperous world," Schwab said.

Last year, WEF's annual Global Risks Perception Survey of 750 top business leaders ranked extreme weather events, climate action failure, natural disasters, biodiversity loss and human-made environmental disasters the top five most likely risks for the global economy in 2020.

'Problematic' polar bear campaign
Crockford is known for her research showing polar bear populations are stable and even thriving, contrary to the claims of climate activists that their numbers are plummeting due to shrinking Arctic sea ice.

It's now been acknowledged by the World Wide Fund for Nature and other environmental groups that featuring the plight of the polar bear in their climate-change message has become "problematic."

In 2019, Crockford was fired without explanation by the University of Victoria in Canada after 15 years as an adjunct professor while her profile grew as a speaker and author due to her polar bear research and expertise in mammal bone identification.

Crockford, who earned a Ph.D. in biology and anthropology in 2004, described her expulsion as "an academic hanging without a trial, conducted behind closed doors."

Her popular Polar Bear Science website was denounced as a "denier blog" in a 2017 study in the journal BioScience by 14 academics, including Penn State climatologist Michael E. Mann.

Mann is known for producing the "hockey stick graph" popularized by Al Gore claiming world temperatures were flat or slightly declining for more than 900 years before rising sharply in the 20th century era of human carbon dioxide emissions. Critics have pointed out, however, that Mann's graph doesn't show the Medieval Warm period between about 1000 and 1300 in which temperatures were warmer than the present.

Georgia Tech professor emeritus Judith Curry, the Times noted, called the Mann paper slamming Crockford "absolutely the stupidest paper I have ever seen published."

 

[marsh]

Democrats' Climate Agenda Will Mimic Their COVID Tyranny

If you've enjoyed the last 10 months of foolish, science-denying lockdowns and mask mandates, the widespread destruction of businesses and economies, and the government telling you what jobs are

www.americanthinker.com

February 1, 2021
Democrats' Climate Agenda Will Mimic Their COVID Tyranny
By Trevor Thomas

If you've enjoyed the last 10 months of foolish, science-denying lockdowns and mask mandates, the widespread destruction of businesses and economies, and the government telling you what jobs are "essential" and how you are to conduct yourself in your own home, then you must absolutely love the Democrats' climate agenda.

For decades, the climate cultists from the "New Religion of First World Elites" have attempted to use fear — the destruction of the planet — and a fake cause — saving the planet — to convince Americans to vote for Democrats and enact the perverse science-denying climate agenda of the modern left. For a primer on how this would work, look no farther than 2020.

As soon as the Wuhan virus entered the U.S. in early 2020, Democrats across the U.S. saw it as a means to a political end. Consumed with hatred and obsessed with the removal of President Trump, the 2020 presidential election was their primary political target. To help accomplish this, Democrats in politics and the media rampantly spread Wuhan virus fear porn. Subsequently, Democrat mayors and governors across the U.S. — encouraged and enabled by their like-minded allies in D.C. and the media — enacted widespread and economically devastating lockdowns and accompanying measures.

In spite of the fact that most of these measures were unproven and unnecessary — time again has proven this true — the Democrats persisted because "orange man bad." They also persisted because, to paraphrase David Horowitz, inside every leftist is a totalitarian screaming to get out. Because of their lust for political power — because they have made a god of government — leftists are always looking for the next problem that their government elites (supposedly) alone can "solve." Again, the Wuhan virus provided an excellent opportunity for this.

If you can convince people that they're going to die if they don't do as you say, those in power hold great sway. As C.S. Lewis cautioned lovers of liberty in the mid-twentieth century, "a hungry man thinks about food, not freedom." Today, a corollary to this would be "a man living in a pandemic thinks about remaining healthy and alive, not about his liberties."

Likewise, if you think the planet is doomed if we don't do away with fossil fuels or stop eating beef, then you are probably willing to give power to those who promise to take such things away — by force if necessary. After all, if the planet is doomed otherwise, what force to do such things could be unjustified?

Whether a virus "emergency" or a climate "crisis," in an attempt to justify their totalitarian agenda, leftists the world over tell us we must heed their so-called "experts" along with their computer models. Most often, the main role for these "experts" is to give Big Government, which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis, whether the crisis is real or manufactured.

Sadly, as 2020 well demonstrated, in such times, many of us are far too eager to become what Lewis called in 1958 "Willing Slaves of the Welfare State." Typically, in order for any oligarchy to rise and rule effectively, it needs some "extreme peril," something to cure, some desperate need that the rulers promise to fulfill.

As Lewis asked, is this not "the ideal opportunity for enslavement?"

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the things that it supposedly cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the totalitarian tyrants they are?

Today's totalitarian left is devoted to scientism, and their government can well be described as a technocracy. Thus, when the American left is in power, the motto of the technocrats prevails: "only science can save us now" or "science is the way out." Whether it is a global pandemic; global warming — excuse me, "climate change" — stem cell research; the beginning of life; health care; crime; homosexuality and marriage; or even gun control, racism, or economic policies, the technocrats claim to have the answers.

Scientism almost always leads to a technocracy. "I dread government in the name of science," said Lewis. "That is how tyrannies come in." What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of "science"? How many of us cower and yield — or "shelter at home" — because, well, if the "scientists" (and then the politicians) tell us to do so, then we must do so?

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We become children, or pupils of the State (like "Julia"). We continue to elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the "welfare state," based significantly on the lies of scientism. Like their agenda to fight the Wuhan virus, the left's climate agenda reeks of scientism and technocracy.

There is hardly a cause in the universe that has gotten more wrong than the climate cultists who, for decades, have proffered a wide array of climate catastrophes that require immediate, or near-immediate, actions. Time and again these doomsday scenarios have been proven wrong. These climate cultists have long relied on the deceptive use of data to push their totalitarian agenda.

Daily it seems we are subjected to "another global warming fraud." I suppose everybody needs an Apocalypse — especially totalitarians lusting for power.
Climate science has become such a joke that the "faithful" for years now have been led by a child. However, their dangerous and destructive climate policies are no joke. Leftists have shown us what they will do when governing in a "crisis." I fear that lockdowns and mask mandates will pale in comparison to what will be called for if the American left's climate agenda gets the force of U.S. law. We've seen how many businesses the left can destroy in the name of controlling a virus; imagine the destruction it can wreak if it controls America's energy policy.

 

[marsh]

Biden pushes green energy agenda after campaign donations from green industry

President Biden has made it clear that climate is driving much of his agenda early in his administration, providing his green industry campaign donors with reason to celebrate.

www.foxnews.com

Published 1 day ago
Biden pushes green energy agenda after campaign donations from green industry

Industry that heavily supported Biden's campaign is in a position to see significant results
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News


Video 8:30 min

Biden administration questioned about climate agenda's impact on jobs | Fox News Video

The 'Special Report' All-Star Panel weigh in on new president's climate agenda

video.foxnews.com

The 'Special Report' All-Star Panel weigh in on new president's climate agenda
President Biden has made it clear that climate is driving much of his agenda early in his administration, providing his green industry campaign donors with reason to celebrate.

Less than a month into his presidency, Biden has shut down work on the Keystone XL pipeline and banned future gas and oil leases on federal lands, pointing to a shift in energy policy that administration officials and Cabinet nominees have said are meant to yield significant economic impacts.

"Today is 'Climate Day' at the White House and – which means that today is ‘Jobs Day’ at the White House," Biden said Wednesday before signing climate-related executive actions. "We're talking about American innovation, American products, American labor."

The green industry heavily relies on government-awarded funds, and with Biden promising to lean heavily in their direction, the industry as a whole contributed more than $11 million in political donations in 2020, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center noted that while this amount pales in comparison to the $1 billion Biden's campaign raised in total, it is still more than double what the industry had given in the past.

Biden’s campaign, in particular, received more than $3 million that had been raised by Clean Energy for Biden, which describes itself as "a network of clean economy business leaders and advocates" that looked to get Biden elected and "advance policies, technologies and investment to address the climate challenge." The group says it plans to remain active under the name Clean Energy for America. The organization’s executive council includes more than 50 green industry leaders.

According to the Washington Post, another group, known as Climate Leaders for Biden, raised close to $15 million in support of Biden through GiveGreen, a platform geared toward helping donors give toward candidates who support climate change action.

Those contributions appear likely to have a significant return on investment. Biden’s climate plan, unveiled during his campaign, is expected to cost $2 trillion, which would go toward infrastructure, agriculture, the auto industry, environmental justice, housing and more.

The president had no qualms about making a seismic shift in the energy landscape by halting the Keystone XL pipeline, a move that has been estimated to result in 11,000 lost jobs. The moratorium on federal gas and oil leases is also expected to have drastic impacts on the economies of states that rely on the oil and gas industry. In defense of the moves, administration officials and Cabinet picks such as Energy Secretary nominee Jennifer Granholm and Transportation Secretary nominee Pete Buttigieg claimed that it will ultimately result in a net positive of millions of new jobs, albeit different types of jobs than those lost.

Granholm acknowledged during her confirmation hearing that jobs may be "sacrificed" as a result of Biden’s actions, but was optimistic that the new policies "would create more jobs in energy, clean energy, than the jobs that might be sacrificed."

Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., responded to Granholm by recalling that, according to Buttigieg, it could take years for these new jobs to become available. He said that for a worker who just lost their job it is "cold comfort" to know that years from now there could be a job in a different location requiring different training.

As for the states that would be affected by the moratorium on gas and oil leases, Granholm said this is "something we’re going to have to work on together to ensure that people remain employed."

 

[marsh]

The Great Reset, Part IV: "Stakeholder Capitalism" vs. "Neoliberalism" | Mises Institute

If anything, stakeholder capitalism represents a consumptive worm set to burrow into and hollow out corporations from within, to the degree that the ideology

mises.org

The Great Reset, Part IV: "Stakeholder Capitalism" vs. "Neoliberalism"

• 

02/01/2021Michael Rectenwald

Any discussion of “stakeholder capitalism” must begin by noting a paradox: like “neoliberalism,” its nemesis, “stakeholder capitalism” does not exist as such. There is no such economic system as “stakeholder capitalism,” just as there is no such economic system as “neoliberalism.” The two antipathetic twins are imaginary ghosts forever pitted against each other in a seemingly endless and frenzied tussle.

Instead of stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism, there are authors who write about stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism and companies that more or less subscribe to the view that companies have obligations to stakeholders in addition to shareholders. But if Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have their way, there will be governments that induce, by regulations and the threat of burdensome taxation, companies to subscribe to stakeholder redistribution.

Stakeholders consist of “customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities”1 in addition to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any corporate behavior—other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations that do not “serve” their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must be abandoned. Racial “equity,” the promotion of transgender agendas, and other such identity policies and politics, will also be injected into corporate sharing schemes.

If anything, stakeholder capitalism represents a consumptive worm set to burrow into and hollow out corporations from within, to the degree that the ideology and practice find hosts in corporate bodies. It represents a means of socialist wealth liquidation from within capitalist organizations themselves, using any number of criteria for redistribution of benefits and “externalities.”

But don’t take my word for it. Take one David Campbell, a British socialist (although non-Marxist) and author of The Failure of Marxism (1996). After declaring that Marxism had failed, Campbell began advocating stakeholder capitalism as a means to the same ends. His argument with the British orthodox Marxist Paddy Ireland represents an internecine squabble over the best means of achieving socialism, while also providing a looking glass into the minds of socialists determined to try other, presumably nonviolent tacks.2

Campbell castigated Ireland for his rejection of stakeholder capitalism. Ireland held—wrongly, Campbell asserted—that stakeholder capitalism is ultimately impossible. Nothing can interfere, for very long, with the inexorable market demand for profit. Market forces will inevitably overwhelm any such ethical considerations as stakeholders’ interests.

Ireland’s more-radical-than-thou Marxism left Campbell flummoxed. Didn’t Ireland realize that his market determinism was exactly what the defenders of “neoliberalism” asserted as the inevitable and only sure means for the distribution of social welfare? “Marxism,” Campbell rightly noted, “can be identified with the deriding of ‘social reform’ as not representing, or even as obstructing, ‘the revolution.’” Like so many antireformist Marxists, Ireland failed to recognize that “the social reforms that [he] derided are the revolution.”3

Socialism is nothing if not a movement whereby “the purported natural necessity represented by ‘economic’ imperatives is replaced by conscious political decisions about the allocation of resources” (emphasis mine).4 This political socialism, as against Marx’s orthodox epigones, is what Marx really meant by socialism, Campbell suggests. Stakeholder capitalism is just that: socialism.

Ireland and Campbell agreed that the very idea of stakeholder capitalism derived from companies having become relatively autonomous from their shareholders.

The idea of managerial independence and thus company or corporate autonomy was first treated by Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) and after them in James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1962). In “Corporate Governance, Stakeholding, and the Company: Towards a Less Degenerate Capitalism?,” Ireland writes of this putative autonomy: “[T]he idea of the stakeholding company is rooted in the autonomy of ‘the company’ from its shareholders; its claim being that this autonomy…can be exploited to ensure that companies do not operate exclusively with the interests of their shareholders in mind.”5

This apparent autonomy of the company, Ireland argues, came about not with incorporation or legal changes to the structure of the corporation, but with the growth of large-scale industrial capitalism. The growth in the sheer number of shares and with it the advent of the stock market made for the ready salability of the of the share. Shares became “money capital,” readily exchangeable titles to a percentage of profit, and not claims on the company’s assets. It was at this point that shares gained apparent autonomy from the company and the company from its shareholders.

Moreover, with the emergence of this market, shares developed an autonomous value of their own quite independent of, and often different from, the value of the company's assets. Emerging as what Marx called fictitious capital, they were redefined in law as an autonomous form of property independent of the assets of the company. They were no longer conceptualized as equitable interests in the property of the company but as rights to profit with a value of their own, rights which could be freely and easily bought and sold in the marketplace….

On gaining their independence from the assets of companies, shares emerged as legal objects in their own right, seemingly doubling the capital of joint stock companies. The assets were now owned by the company and by the company alone, either through a corporation or, in the case of unincorporated companies, through trustees. The intangible share capital of the company, on the other hand, had become the sole property of the shareholder. They were now two quite separate forms of property. Moreover, with the legal constitution of the share as an entirely autonomous form of property, the externalization of the shareholder from the company had been completed in a way not previously possible.6

Thus, according to Ireland, a difference in interests emerged between the holders of the industrial capital and the holders of the money capital, or between the company and the shareholder.

Nevertheless, Ireland maintains, the autonomy of the company is limited by the necessity for industrial capital to produce profit. The value of shares is ultimately determined by the profitability of the company’s assets in use. “The company is, and will always be, the personification of industrial capital and, as such, subject to the imperatives of profitability and accumulation. These are not imposed from the outside on an otherwise neutral and directionless entity, but are, rather, intrinsic to it, lying at the very heart of its existence.” This necessity, Paddy argues, defines the limits of stakeholder capitalism and its inability to sustain itself. “The nature of the company is such, therefore, as to suggest that [there] are strict limits to the extent to which its autonomy from shareholders can be exploited for the benefit of workers or, indeed, other stakeholders.”7

Here is a point on which the “neoliberal” Milton Friedman and the Marxist Paddy Ireland would have agreed, despite Ireland’s insistence that the extraction of “surplus value” at the point of production is the cause. And this agreement between Friedman and Ireland is exactly why Campbell rejected Ireland’s argument. Such market determinism is only necessary under capitalism, Campbell asserted. Predictions about how companies will behave in the context of markets are only valid under current market conditions. Changing company rules such that profitability is endangered, albeit, or even especially, from the inside out, is the very definition of socialism. Changing the way companies behave in the direction of stakeholder capitalism is revolutionary en se.

Despite this insurmountable “neoliberal”/Marxist impasse, the notion of stakeholder capitalism is at least fifty years old. Debates about the efficacy of stakeholder capitalism date to the 1980s. They were stirred up by Friedman’s rejection of the “soulful corporation,” which reached its peak with Carl Kaysen’s “The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation” in 1957. Kaysen viewed the corporation as a social institution that must weigh profitability against a broad and growing array of social responsibilities: “there is no display of greed or graspingness; there is no attempt to push off onto the workers or the community at large part of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation.”8 Thus, in Kaysen, we see hints of the later notion of stakeholder capitalism.

Likely, stakeholder capitalism can be traced, although not in an unbroken line of succession, to the “commercial idealism”9 of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Edward Bellamy and King Camp Gillette, among others, envisioned corporate socialist utopias via incorporation.10 For such corporate socialists, the main means for establishing socialism was through the continuous incorporation of all the factors of production. With incorporation, a series of mergers and acquisitions would occur until the formation of a singular global monopoly, in which all “the People” had equal shares, was complete. In his “World Corporation,” Gillette declared that “the trained mind of business and finance sees no stopping-place to corporate absorption and growth, except final absorption of all the World's material assets into one corporate body, under the directing control of one corporate mind.”11 Such a singular world monopoly would become socialist upon the equal distribution of shares among the population. Stakeholder capitalism falls short of this equal distribution of shares but gets around it by distributing value on the basis of social and political pressure.

Interestingly, Campbell ends his argument, rather undogmatically, by stating unequivocally that if Friedman was right and “if these comparisons [between shareholder and stakeholder capitalism] tend to show exclusive maximization of shareholder value to be the optimal way of maximizing welfare,” then “one should give up being a socialist.”12 If, after all, the maximization of human welfare is really the object, and “shareholder capitalism” (or “neoliberalism”) proves to be the best way to achieve it, then socialism itself, including stakeholder capitalism, must necessarily be abandoned.


(bibliography on website)

 

[marsh]

Rockefellers Bankroll China-Based Nonprofits with Ties to Communist Government

A Rockefeller family nonprofit is sending millions in cash to China-based entities, many of which have strong ties to China's communist government.

freebeacon.com

Rockefellers Bankroll China-Based Nonprofits with Ties to Communist Government

• 
  Reuters

Joe Schoffstall and Yuichiro Kakutani - JANUARY 15, 2021 5:00 AM

A Rockefeller family nonprofit is sending millions in cash to China-based entities, many of which have strong ties to China's communist government.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) identifies China as a "pivotal place" for grantmaking opportunities. As part of their investments, the Rockefellers fund numerous environmental groups in the region that are linked to Chinese Communist Party members or bolster multibillion-dollar government initiatives that critics say are trapping countries in debt spirals.

"With innovative government policy, a vibrant marketplace, and growing public participation, China has the potential to lead the world in sustainable approaches to development," the group's 2019 tax forms state. The RBF established its China-focused grantmaking program in 2005 to assist efforts "by engaging with and fostering collaborations among the government, business, civil society, and academia."

According to a review of the group’s most recent tax forms, RBF devoted $750,000 to the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, which has a "direct channel" to China's State Council, the highest administrative authority of the Chinese government. It is chaired by high-ranking CCP official Han Zheng, the vice-premier of the State Council. In addition, the foundation donated $100,000 each to the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Lancang-Mekong Environmental Cooperation Center, both of which are controlled by the Chinese government.

The RBF has also awarded thousands of dollars to nonprofit groups that are led by Chinese Communist Party members and ex-government officials. Nearly $400,000 went to the China Environmental Protection Foundation, a nominally independent nonprofit that is spearheaded by senior Chinese Communist Party members. The foundation also gave $600,000 to the Guangdong Harmony Foundation, another CCP-linked nonprofit.

Other grant recipients carry water for the Chinese Communist Party even if they are not directly controlled by the government. China Youth Climate Action Network, which received $200,000 from the RBF, hosts its flagship youth conference under the guidance of the Ministry of Ecology and the local Communist Youth League.

Still other recipients support the Chinese government's Belt and Road Initiative, a multibillion-dollar infrastructure project in developing countries. China Global Philanthropy Institute, Greenovation Hub, and China Dialogue Trust are all linked to the project and collectively received more than $800,000 in RBF funds.

The Belt and Road Initiative has faced its fair share of controversy, including accusations that the infrastructure projects saddle developing countries with huge debts that leave them beholden to Chinese creditors. Sri Lanka had to give up a port on its island to China after the former defaulted on its debt, giving China a crucial maritime base in the Indo-Pacific. Belt and Road projects have also caused environmental destruction that should be anathema to the green-minded Rockefeller Brothers Fund: Analysts said the projects have led to an "environmental disaster" in South East Asia, the region that receives the bulk of Belt and Road funding.

RBF did not respond to a request for comment on the China-based entities.

 

[raven]

I appreciate this thread
Thank you Marsh

 

[marsh]

Most voters either believe climate change isn't real or don't want climate policies harming economy

Fewer than half believe climate policies should come at the expense of U.S. jobs

justthenews.com

Most voters either believe climate change isn't real or don't want climate policies harming economy

Fewer than half believe climate policies should come at the expense of U.S. jobs
Image

Solar panes in the Mojave Desert
(George Rose/Getty)
By Daniel Payne
Updated: February 4, 2021 - 2:07pm

A majority of U.S. voters either think climate change is not occurring or that climate-related policies should not be implemented at the expense of the economy, according to a new Just the News Daily Poll with Scott Rasmussen.

Forty-one percent of respondents think "climate change is real but efforts to combat it should not come at the cost of U.S. jobs or economic well being," while 13% simply think climate change "is not real."

The polls comes amid President Biden's first two weeks in office – in which he's announced an agenda that would move the U.S. away from fossil fuel toward reusable energy, perhaps costing the U.S. economy millions of jobs.

Meanwhile, 47% of voters believe that climate change is a real phenomenon and that "policies to protect against it should be strengthened even if it costs jobs or economic hardship."
Image

Just the News Daily Poll
RMG Research

Notably, Democrats were the only political demographic in which a majority of voters (66%) endorsed climate policies that would come at the expense of jobs. Just 25% of Republicans and 45% of Independents felt that way.

The survey of 1,200 Registered Voters was conducted by Scott Rasmussen using a mixed mode approach from Jan. 28-30, 2021.

Click here to see the poll's cross-demographic tabulations.
Click here to see the poll's methodology and sample demographics.

 

[raven]

the great reset is, in my estimation, the greatest threat to the planet

 

[marsh]

Biden Administration Climate Change Rules Only Apply to You

While the Left celebrates Joe Biden and his administration's "commitment" to climate change, their actions tell a different story. A story that seems to look a lot like communism.

thelibertyloft.com

Biden Administration Climate Change Rules Only Apply to You
So far it's been a show of killing jobs and elitist mindsets.
by Jared Dyson
February 4, 2021




Charlotte, NC — When President Joe Biden was elected, everyone on the Left rejoiced. Finally, they had someone in the White House who could reverse those horrible decisions by President Trump that would force our world to end in just 12 years as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had shared with us. Until she admitted that it really wasn’t twelve years, but just a figure of speech.

Biden immediately set out on his “climate change agenda” and revoked the Keystone XL Pipeline. He destroyed thousands of jobs, billions in income, and never batted an eye. He claimed he was going to work on unity and “Building Back Better” but instead focused on destroying.

Environmental groups were celebrating the act. Emily Zanotti from The Daily Wire has an article on how the Left celebrated the job-destroying move and asked that Biden shut down all oil pipelines. Yes, they want to completely destroy the economy and make it impossible for Americans to survive.

Well, not all Americans.

See if you are one of the elite Americans, you are eligible to violate any and all suggestions because you are special. By elite, I mean a Democrat in power. They seem to be exempt from all the rules that they set for everyday Americans.

So is the story of John Kerry, who took a private jet to receive an environmental award. He said it was the only choice for someone like him to travel the world in order to combat climate change. Yet, the very act of him taking that private jet is more detrimental to the environment than other methods of travel.

According to the same Fox News article, private jets emit up to 40 times the carbon per passenger as commercial flights. Based on flight logs, Kerry’s travel on his private jet emitted nearly 30 times the carbon emissions of an average American’s passenger vehicle.

But he wants you to believe that he is fighting for the environment. He wants you to believe that by receiving his special exemption, he is simply fighting for you, the little guy.

Leftists want you to believe that we must act immediately to save our world from harmful emissions and to protect our planet for generations. While I believe in being responsible, I also do not believe in the elitist lifestyle of the Left that they display.

It does not matter whether it is coronavirus restrictions, environmental activism, or simply using social media, the Democrats believe that they are better than everyone. They believe they deserve what they have and that you should simply comply.

They want you to believe that you should be forced into a specific car, to retrofit your house under the Green New Deal, and to change the way you live your life.

All the while, we should blindly trust their leadership because, after all, Democrats know best.

This is not unity or bipartisanship. This is straight-up communism and it cannot be tolerated.

 

[marsh]

Build Back Better: Catchphrase of the Great Reset

The globalist elites say that they want to "build back better." What does that really mean? It's their attempt to radically transform American and the world!

genzconservative.com

Gen Z Conservative
The thoughts of a young conservative on political issues relevant to all ages

Build Back Better: Catchphrase of the Great Reset
5 min read

The Elite Is Saying It Wants to “Build Back Better.” It Really Wants to Transform America

If you read books like How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps or Fools, Frauds, and Firebrands, it should be easy to see that the left hates the America that currently exists, namely this great nation’s (former) focus on individual liberty and natural rights, and, because of that hatred, wants to fundamentally transform our nation.

They want to turn it into some totalitarian hellhole where they are always the ones in charge. That’s why the Biden Administration is treading on you, regimenting our lives, why they want you to bend the knee, and why the government’s response to the Chinese Flu has been so tyrannical. And, perhaps most crucially, that’s why they keep saying that they’re going to “build back better.”

Words like “build back better” matter. Words have meaning. In this age of clickbait and half-truths, most people have forgotten that. We’re okay with fake news as long as it supports our prior convictions, rarely do the hard work that comes with leading and/or learning, and almost never take the time to actually think about what our leaders are saying and thinking.

That’s a mistake. What matters most is what the people we call our “leaders” are actually saying. When they use euphemisms, especially jargonistic ones like “build back better,” try to think and learn about what those phrases actually mean.

In this case, “build back better” actually means “radically transform.” It’s the catchphrase and cornerstone of the great reset. Just watch this video of radical leftists all say that their goal is to, after the Covid “crisis” passes, “build back better.”

View: https://youtu.be/8BSeEMz5fIk
1:53 min

They’re telling us what they intend to do and we’re not listening. Make no mistake, the Great Reset isn’t a conspiracy. It’s their plan. What they want to do is, according to the World Economic Forum, is fundamentally change near everything about society. Here’s what that globalist organization had to say:

“The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.”

Additionally, for yet more context, here’s the video that organization released that details their horrendous plans:

View: https://youtu.be/lBBxWtKKQiA
1:30 min

Want to know what “build back better” means? It means that “you’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” “Whatever you want you’ll rent and it’ll be delivered by drone.” “The US won’t be the world’s leading superpower.” “You’ll eat much less meat.” You’ll “have to pay to emit carbon dioxide.” “Western values will have been tested to the breaking point.”

They want to change everything about society. They want to get rid of the concept of ownership, extinguish Western values, limit America’s power, and tax carbon. The oligarchy wants to destroy the world as we know it, governed by a system that has delivered a level of prosperity unimaginable in past human society.

Why? Because it serves their interests, of course. If you don’t own anything, you’ll be dependent on the people who do. If carbon is taxed at high levels, we’ll be forced into “green alternatives.” Without the US as the world’s major power, China will be free to force many nations into authoritarian systems; it will be free to continue its genocidal policies.

Covid has given them the opportunity to implement that system and they’re not wasting any time in starting it. The lockdowns have devastated small businesses, transferring ownership of resources from hardworking individuals to crony capitalists and Big Business. When the populist revolt was starting against the Wall Street elites, the oligarchy shut down trading of GME and AMC to protect its own. When it looked like Trump might win, they flooded the system with “votes” for Biden.

Covid was an opening for tyranny. The elites saw that some of us were scared, perhaps rightly so at first, and used that fear to force mandates on us. Mandates that told us what we had to wear, where we could go, and who we could see.

Those are mandates that would have been unthinkable just a short time ago.

Americans used to prize their liberty above all else, now we’re walking down a dark path to tyranny, a path Hayek called the road to serfdom. This is the inflection point. Will we follow this miserable path to suffering and slavery, or will we stand up and be free?

“Build back better” is just a euphemism, but it’s an instructive and illuminating one. The elites at the World Economic Forum have no intention of in any way building back in a way that is better for the average person. They lie and say they will, the video says “you’ll be happy,” but that’s just a misdirection or a lie. You’ll be miserable. Your rights will vanish with your property.

They’re going to build back in a way that advances their ownership. More property will settle into the hands of the oligarchy. More of their policies will be implemented. Less freedom will exist.

Don’t be fooled. That’s what “build back better” means. It’s an attempt to change the world and pull it back into the clutches of tyranny and collectivism.
By: Gen Z Conservative

 

[raven]

so, you won't own anything.
taken to its logical conclusion,
you will not be allowed to own property
you will not be allowed to own a home.

how would you do this?
start by telling everyone they do not have to pay rent
or their mortgage
while simultaneously banning all evictions.
and you could get rid of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions

 

[raven]

wonder if they will have grandfathering.
HA!

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Great Reset, Part IV: "Stakeholder Capitalism" Vs. "Neoliberalism"

THURSDAY, FEB 04, 2021 - 23:20
Authored by Michael Rectenwald via The Mises Institute,
Read Part I: Reduced Expectations And Bio-Techno-Feudalism here...
Read Part II: Corporate Socialism here...

Read Part III: Capitalism With Chinese Characteristics here...
Any discussion of “stakeholder capitalism” must begin by noting a paradox: like “neoliberalism,” its nemesis, “stakeholder capitalism” does not exist as such.

There is no such economic system as “stakeholder capitalism,” just as there is no such economic system as “neoliberalism.” The two antipathetic twins are imaginary ghosts forever pitted against each other in a seemingly endless and frenzied tussle.

Instead of stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism, there are authors who write about stakeholder capitalism and neoliberalism and companies that more or less subscribe to the view that companies have obligations to stakeholders in addition to shareholders. But if Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF) have their way, there will be governments that induce, by regulations and the threat of burdensome taxation, companies to subscribe to stakeholder redistribution.

Stakeholders consist of “customers, suppliers, employees, and local communities” in addition to shareholders. But for Klaus Schwab and the WEF, the framework of stakeholder capitalism must be globalized. A stakeholder is anyone or any group that stands to benefit or lose from any corporate behavior—other than competitors, we may presume. Since the primary pretext for the Great Reset is global climate change, anyone in the world can be considered a stakeholder in the corporate governance of any major corporation. And federal partnerships with corporations that do not “serve” their stakeholders, like the Keystone Pipeline project, for example, must be abandoned. Racial “equity,” the promotion of transgender agendas, and other such identity policies and politics, will also be injected into corporate sharing schemes.

If anything, stakeholder capitalism represents a consumptive worm set to burrow into and hollow out corporations from within, to the degree that the ideology and practice find hosts in corporate bodies. It represents a means of socialist wealth liquidation from within capitalist organizations themselves, using any number of criteria for redistribution of benefits and “externalities.”

But don’t take my word for it. Take one David Campbell, a British socialist (although non-Marxist) and author of The Failure of Marxism (1996). After declaring that Marxism had failed, Campbell began advocating stakeholder capitalism as a means to the same ends. His argument with the British orthodox Marxist Paddy Ireland represents an internecine squabble over the best means of achieving socialism, while also providing a looking glass into the minds of socialists determined to try other, presumably nonviolent tacks.

Campbell castigated Ireland for his rejection of stakeholder capitalism. Ireland held—wrongly, Campbell asserted—that stakeholder capitalism is ultimately impossible. Nothing can interfere, for very long, with the inexorable market demand for profit. Market forces will inevitably overwhelm any such ethical considerations as stakeholders’ interests.

Ireland’s more-radical-than-thou Marxism left Campbell flummoxed. Didn’t Ireland realize that his market determinism was exactly what the defenders of “neoliberalism” asserted as the inevitable and only sure means for the distribution of social welfare? “Marxism,” Campbell rightly noted, “can be identified with the deriding of ‘social reform’ as not representing, or even as obstructing, ‘the revolution.’” Like so many antireformist Marxists, Ireland failed to recognize that “the social reforms that [he] derided are the revolution.”

Socialism is nothing if not a movement whereby “the purported natural necessity represented by ‘economic’ imperatives is replaced by conscious political decisions about the allocation of resources” (emphasis mine). This political socialism, as against Marx’s orthodox epigones, is what Marx really meant by socialism, Campbell suggests. Stakeholder capitalism is just that: socialism.

Ireland and Campbell agreed that the very idea of stakeholder capitalism derived from companies having become relatively autonomous from their shareholders.

The idea of managerial independence and thus company or corporate autonomy was first treated by Adolf A. Berle and Gardiner C. Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property (1932) and after them in James Burnham’s The Managerial Revolution (1962). In “Corporate Governance, Stakeholding, and the Company: Towards a Less Degenerate Capitalism?,” Ireland writes of this putative autonomy: “[T]he idea of the stakeholding company is rooted in the autonomy of ‘the company’ from its shareholders; its claim being that this autonomy…can be exploited to ensure that companies do not operate exclusively with the interests of their shareholders in mind.”

This apparent autonomy of the company, Ireland argues, came about not with incorporation or legal changes to the structure of the corporation, but with the growth of large-scale industrial capitalism. The growth in the sheer number of shares and with it the advent of the stock market made for the ready salability of the of the share. Shares became “money capital,” readily exchangeable titles to a percentage of profit, and not claims on the company’s assets. It was at this point that shares gained apparent autonomy from the company and the company from its shareholders.

Moreover, with the emergence of this market, shares developed an autonomous value of their own quite independent of, and often different from, the value of the company's assets. Emerging as what Marx called fictitious capital, they were redefined in law as an autonomous form of property independent of the assets of the company. They were no longer conceptualized as equitable interests in the property of the company but as rights to profit with a value of their own, rights which could be freely and easily bought and sold in the marketplace….

On gaining their independence from the assets of companies, shares emerged as legal objects in their own right, seemingly doubling the capital of joint stock companies. The assets were now owned by the company and by the company alone, either through a corporation or, in the case of unincorporated companies, through trustees. The intangible share capital of the company, on the other hand, had become the sole property of the shareholder. They were now two quite separate forms of property. Moreover, with the legal constitution of the share as an entirely autonomous form of property, the externalization of the shareholder from the company had been completed in a way not previously possible.

Thus, according to Ireland, a difference in interests emerged between the holders of the industrial capital and the holders of the money capital, or between the company and the shareholder.

Nevertheless, Ireland maintains, the autonomy of the company is limited by the necessity for industrial capital to produce profit. The value of shares is ultimately determined by the profitability of the company’s assets in use. “The company is, and will always be, the personification of industrial capital and, as such, subject to the imperatives of profitability and accumulation. These are not imposed from the outside on an otherwise neutral and directionless entity, but are, rather, intrinsic to it, lying at the very heart of its existence.” This necessity, Paddy argues, defines the limits of stakeholder capitalism and its inability to sustain itself. “The nature of the company is such, therefore, as to suggest that [there] are strict limits to the extent to which its autonomy from shareholders can be exploited for the benefit of workers or, indeed, other stakeholders.”

Here is a point on which the “neoliberal” Milton Friedman and the Marxist Paddy Ireland would have agreed, despite Ireland’s insistence that the extraction of “surplus value” at the point of production is the cause. And this agreement between Friedman and Ireland is exactly why Campbell rejected Ireland’s argument. Such market determinism is only necessary under capitalism, Campbell asserted. Predictions about how companies will behave in the context of markets are only valid under current market conditions. Changing company rules such that profitability is endangered, albeit, or even especially, from the inside out, is the very definition of socialism. Changing the way companies behave in the direction of stakeholder capitalism is revolutionary en se.

Despite this insurmountable “neoliberal”/Marxist impasse, the notion of stakeholder capitalism is at least fifty years old. Debates about the efficacy of stakeholder capitalism date to the 1980s. They were stirred up by Friedman’s rejection of the “soulful corporation,” which reached its peak with Carl Kaysen’s “The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation” in 1957. Kaysen viewed the corporation as a social institution that must weigh profitability against a broad and growing array of social responsibilities: “there is no display of greed or graspingness; there is no attempt to push off onto the workers or the community at large part of the social costs of the enterprise. The modern corporation is a soulful corporation.” Thus, in Kaysen, we see hints of the later notion of stakeholder capitalism.

Likely, stakeholder capitalism can be traced, although not in an unbroken line of succession, to the “commercial idealism” of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when Edward Bellamy and King Camp Gillette, among others, envisioned corporate socialist utopias via incorporation. For such corporate socialists, the main means for establishing socialism was through the continuous incorporation of all the factors of production. With incorporation, a series of mergers and acquisitions would occur until the formation of a singular global monopoly, in which all “the People” had equal shares, was complete. In his “World Corporation,” Gillette declared that “the trained mind of business and finance sees no stopping-place to corporate absorption and growth, except final absorption of all the World's material assets into one corporate body, under the directing control of one corporate mind.” Such a singular world monopoly would become socialist upon the equal distribution of shares among the population.

Stakeholder capitalism falls short of this equal distribution of shares but gets around it by distributing value on the basis of social and political pressure.

Interestingly, Campbell ends his argument, rather undogmatically, by stating unequivocally that if Friedman was right and “if these comparisons [between shareholder and stakeholder capitalism] tend to show exclusive maximization of shareholder value to be the optimal way of maximizing welfare,” then “one should give up being a socialist.” If, after all, the maximization of human welfare is really the object, and “shareholder capitalism” (or “neoliberalism”) proves to be the best way to achieve it, then socialism itself, including stakeholder capitalism, must necessarily be abandoned.

 

[glennb6]

this is the stuff of nightmares. one day perhaps sooner than I can imagine, anyone not in sync with the reset will be a witch and be told to either submit or burn. my opinion, is the very sad thing is that the majority of people will believe the same and want the same.
Ironically this whole movement is so anti-human I would call it a death cult in the guise of sweet corporate sounding marketing doublespeak.
How do you fight the borg?

 

[marsh]

MA Climate Official Says 60% of Emissions Come from Average People

MA undersecretary for climate change said there is "no bad guy left ... to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will" in reducing emissions.

www.breitbart.com

MA Climate Official Says 60% of State Emissions Come from Average People: ‘We Have to Break Your Will’
35

Getty Images/aoldman
HANNAH BLEAU5 Feb 202159

David Ismay, the undersecretary for climate change under Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker’s (R) administration, explained during a Vermont Climate Council meeting last month the majority of the Bay State’s emissions come from average people and there is “no bad guy left … to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, to break their will.” Rather, he told his fellow climate advocates, “We have to break your will,” a remark he admitted would not bode well publicly.

“You know one thing we found through our analysis is that 60 percent of our emissions come from, as I have been starting to say, you and me — except you guys are in Vermont,” he told the climate advocates at the January 25 meeting.
“60 percent of our emissions come from residential heating and passenger vehicles,” he said, repeating the percentage and emphasizing the majority of emissions that need to be reduced come from average people.

“So let me say that again, 60 percent of our emissions that need to be reduced come from you, the person across the street, the senior on fixed income, right?” he said, acknowledging there is “no bad guy left, at least in Massachusetts, to point the finger at, to turn the screws on, and you know, break their will, so they stop emitting.”

“That’s you,” he declared. “We have to break your will. Right? I can’t even say that publicly,” he said as the clip ended. It remains unclear if he added further context to his remarks on the purported need to break the will of average Americans to reach his lofty climate goals.

WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/muxVGmgykA4
.42 min

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance released a statement responding to Ismay’s remarks, calling them “reprehensible.”

“He describes his target as ordinary people in Massachusetts like the elderly on fixed incomes and the person across the street. They’re his target simply because they cannot change their lifestyles enough to be acceptable to his climate agenda,” Paul Diego Craney, a spokesperson for Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, said.

“The weapon he intends to use to ‘turn the screws’ on them is the new climate legislation and administrative tax increases like the Transportation and Climate Initiative, which seek to drive up costs in order to ‘break their will’ and force decreases in consumption,” he continued, calling Ismay’s mentality “frightening” and demanding he be dismissed as he “does not have the best interests of the residents of Massachusetts at heart.”

The clip coincides with the Biden administration’s broader agenda, putting climate change at the forefront. One of President Biden’s first actions involved rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement while further outlining his pursuit of “environmental justice.” He also signed executive orders halting new oil and gas leases on federal land.

“We see with our own eyes. We know it in our bones. It is time to act,” Biden said at the time.

Biden climate envoy John Kerry, who flew to Iceland on a private jet to receive a climate award in 2019, recently suggested that people have nine years to “try to do what science is telling us we need to do” and save the world from so-called manmade climate change.

The climate hawk has continued to defend his private jet usage, describing the mode of transportation as “the only choice for somebody like me who is traveling the world to win this battle.”

 

[LoupGarou]

so, you won't own anything.
taken to its logical conclusion,
you will not be allowed to own property
you will not be allowed to own a home.

how would you do this?
start by telling everyone they do not have to pay rent
or their mortgage
while simultaneously banning all evictions.
and you could get rid of the mortgage interest and property tax deductions

You will notice that they highlighted the "nothing" in the "you will own nothing and you will like it."

Ponder and extrapolate on that a bit. Take it to as far and wide as a Commie would.

You will own nothing.
No land
No home
No vehicles
No property
No livestock
No tools
No physical assets
No tangible items or any physical devices
No food, or means to make it

Now, extrapolate FURTHER.

You will own nothing.
No pets or rights to have them
No rights to have a wife
No rights to have a family
No rights to have children
No rights to your own person...

You agree to their $#!t Sandwich and you will be signing your life away and the lives of all of your family away.

The great reset is the reset back to enslavement and the genocide of 85-95% of mankind.

They want the planet, and they don't want you or I on it. They want everything done by robots and a MINIMALIST human workforce to keep them rolling till they can design robots to maintain all of the other robots and systems.

 

[raven]

You will notice that they highlighted the "nothing" in the "you will own nothing and you will like it."

Ponder and extrapolate on that a bit. Take it to as far and wide as a Commie would.

You will own nothing.
No land
No home
No vehicles
No property
No livestock
No tools
No physical assets
No tangible items or any physical devices
No food, or means to make it

Now, extrapolate FURTHER.

You will own nothing.
No pets or rights to have them
No rights to have a wife
No rights to have a family
No rights to have children
No rights to your own person...

You agree to their $#!t Sandwich and you will be signing your life away and the lives of all of your family away.

The great reset is the reset back to enslavement and the genocide of 85-95% of mankind.

They want the planet, and they don't want you or I on it. They want everything done by robots and a MINIMALIST human workforce to keep them rolling till they can design robots to maintain all of the other robots and systems.

that about covers it . . . except for the part where

most of the people are already in that position. they owe more on their house than it is worth, do not have the money to pay it off, and are too stupid to do so if they have the money. In effect, they are renting their house from the bank.
Their house, their car, their boat, their kids, their wife.
Most do not own anything to start with.
And when they tell them they can't own it but can rent it . . . there will be a stampede of people fighting tooth and nail to take advantage.

the few that own their homes and get "disadvantaged" because of their thrift and planning will be collateral damage and no one will care . . . because obviously, you did not earn that.

 

[marsh]

Here Come the 'Climate Lockdowns'

pjmedia.com

Here Come the 'Climate Lockdowns'
BY RICK MORAN FEB 06, 2021 12:43 PM ET

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
PJM’s Jeff Reynolds reported on the proposed “climate emergency” legislation that would declare climate change a “national emergency.” If passed, it would give Biden sweeping powers and unlock billions in spending.

Since there is no “climate emergency” at the moment, the radical greens have to create one. And the more dire and frightening they can make it, the more powerful they will become. AOC and her cohorts in Congress will do their best but it’s likely that the worst of the “Green New Deal” will never be enacted even with the declaration that climate change is a national emergency.

But suppose President Biden and other western leaders were to declare a “climate lockdown”? In a climate lockdown, “governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban the consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling.”

As preposterous as that sounds it’s actually being seriously considered in some circles.

The Spectator:

Karl Lauterbach, an MP for the German Social Democratic party wrote in Die Welt last December that ‘we need measures to deal with climate change that are similar to the restrictions on personal freedom [imposed] to combat the pandemic.’ How long before this theory makes its way into news outlets and politicians’ speeches here?

Of course this idea will be explained away as simply ‘following the science’. The lockdowns which began in spring 2020 contributed to what scientists are calling the largest drop in CO2 emissions in years.

The largest reason for this was a decrease of approximately 40 percent in automobile and airplane transport. The World Economic Forum praised this figure in a blog post titled ‘Emissions fell during lockdown. Let’s keep it that way.’

John Kerry is telling us that the conditions of the Paris agreement are ‘”inadequate.” This begs the question; what would be “adequate”?

As the global climate elite push eating bugs and staying home to save the Earth on the masses, it’s worth posing the question: what will be adequate? With the Global Economic Forum in Davos approaching in April, we’re going to start hearing terms such ‘Climate Equity’ and ‘Climate Reset’ (a play on the WEF’s Great Reset) more frequently. We’ll probably also start to hear calls for climate lockdowns.

In truth, the real agenda of the global elites in Davos and the ivory tower of academia is to destroy capitalism. This would happen not by government takeovers of industry, such as nationalizing rust belt companies like steel, auto, and rubber, but by simply making their products obsolete.

And the best way to do that is by locking down the economy. Presidents have used the national emergency declaration 70 times since the legislation was enacted in 1976 and the lockdowns due to the COVID crisis could very well be used to justify a climate lockdown.

“This was always the risk with the mass implementation of lockdowns. Once your leaders enforce one under the guise of public health, they will not simply set aside their power to do so again,” writes Stephen Miller in The Spectator.

I’d start stockpiling gasoline if I were you.

 

[vestige]

BS

 

[raven]

I believe the Great Reset IS upon us.
Everything being done is laying the groundwork for it.
What is being done is not the foundation for the reset
what is being done is the demolition work.
Clearing the trees. Leveling the ridges. Filling the crevices, preparing the ground for the foundations.

So they will be eliminating familiar institution through lock down and essential workers and non essential workers.
Probably will see great retail wars pitting the likes of WalMart with Amazon. It'll be like Idiocracy with one winner like costco or something.

And then they will build it all back . . . better

But I guarantee it has begun - never let a crisis go to waste

 

[marsh]

[Video] Absolute Control: "Screw Turning" Sociopath REPUBLICAN Climate Czar Admits Goal of Climate Policies... "We Will Break You" * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Ulysses S. Tennysson

In a shockingly casual and honest video (below) that was leaked from a Zoom conference, Massachusetts climate ‘czar’ under anti-Trump […]

100percentfedup.com

[Video] Absolute Control: “Screw Turning” Sociopath REPUBLICAN Climate Czar Admits Goal of Climate Policies... “We Will Break You”

By Ulysses S. Tennyson | Feb 10, 2021

In a shockingly casual and honest video (below) that was leaked from a Zoom conference, Massachusetts climate ‘czar’ under anti-Trump pro-voter fraud mail-in voting RINO Republican Charlie Baker, David Ismay admitted what climate policy is truly designed to do.

Massachusetts’ David Ismay, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s under secretary for climate change, telling Vermont climate advocates that it’s time to “Turn The Screw” on homeowners and motorists to “Break Them.”

America has faced continual gas tax increases for decades under the guise of climate change prevention. Massachusetts is currently facing another 7 cent raise. But, climate change has always been a cover for what big-government operatives really want: control. David Ismay, the ‘climate czar’ of Massachusetts explained:

“60% of our emissions come from you and me…residential heating and passenger vehicles…”

Ismay is openly threatening the ability of citizens to legally heat their own homes or drive their own vehicles. So, he plans to intentionally regulate taxes so much that they cannot afford to own and heat a home of their own. They will have to rent some kind of government efficiency dwelling as part of The Great Reset, which openly states that citizens will “own nothing and be happy.”

To meet those ends, he makes it clear that after years of demonizing or destroying businesses, oil companies, and cows as ‘bad guys’ for decades by forcing them to follow progressively tighter totalitarian climate rules, the government has tapped them dry. So, it is now time to ‘turn the screw’ on vulnerable senior citizens, who are just moveable and disposable chess pieces to him:

“You…the senior on fixed income…There is no bad guy left–at least in Massachusetts–to point the finger at to turn the screws on and, you know, break their will so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.” (Emphasis not added)

America is designed specifically to enshrine the will of the people. This man–who represents all of the climate movement–does not see America that way. He is unapologetically and inarguably unamerican.

He sees it as his duty as a government official not to promote and protect your individual freedoms and rights, but to break their will.

So sociopathic is he that he specifically singles out senior citizens among his targets. He is so excited to destroy their lives by “breaking their will” that he stumbles over his words and laughs when he speaks. Then, he feels a bit of cathartic relief at the end of the statement. He knows he has said something truly evil that he truly believes and intends to do. He has had to bottle it up inside, publicly, but now the weight is off his shoulders:

“I can’t even say that publicly” he finally admits, with relief and indignation.

If you notice, in the video, nobody on the call appears shocked at all by his statements. They sit and listen, as though this is a very common belief within their circle of influence.

Does any of this sound like it reflects American values, culture, or rule of law in any way at all? It breaks the very essence and fundamental social compact of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is the definition of tyranny. And, government officials like David Ismay (of which there are many) are purely Tyrants. They want to control every aspect of your life because they always know best, in their twisted minds. You are just a resource–like cattle, to them to do produce labor until the AI takes over.

Then what use will they have for you?

This is the indisputably the road to Serfdom…or perhaps much worse.
See the video, below:

View: https://youtu.be/muxVGmgykA4
.42 min

 

[marsh]

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Take On Biden Over Climate Change Executive Orders - ThePalmieriReport

Over 100 members of Congress are taking on Joe Biden over his radical executive order on Climate Change.

thepalmierireport.com

More Than 100 Members Of Congress Take On Biden Over Climate Change Executive Orders

Published on : February 10, 2021 Published by : Jacob Palmieri

Here we go.
Over 100 members of Congress are taking on Joe Biden over his radical executive orders on Climate Change.

From The Daily Wire:

More than 100 members of Congress sent a letter to President Joe Biden on Tuesday asking him to reverse his executive order on climate change, calling it “ill-conceived” and “devastat[ing]” to large parts of the economy.

Not only did the order include the United States’ re-entry into the Paris Agreement, but it also addressed domestic efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Included in the group of 105 members who signed the letter were Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA), Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) and House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Bruce Westerman (R-AR).

This is the only way to slow down Joe Biden.

The Republican Party must be unified in their opposition to Biden’s governing through executive order.

The bottom line is that Joe Biden’s energy policies make American much weaker and will hurt nearly everyone in the country in some way.

Rising gas prices.
Rising energy prices.
Lost jobs.
Higher business expenses.

These are just a few of the things that Biden’s Climate Change policies will do.
More:

Their response argues that Biden’s environmental strategy will damage the American economy further, noting how millions of Americans are already unemployed because of the harmful effects of COVID-19 on the workforce.

The letter also details how Biden’s plan will “handicap” environmental restoration programs by cutting off one of their main sources of funding for conservation: “revenues from conventional energy production.”

Biden’s plan places “an indefinite moratorium on new oil and natural gas leases on federal lands and water,” which Republicans explain includes energy and mineral development, both of which are “the largest source of revenues to the federal government after taxes.” The letter adds that a large portion of the money that the federal government receives on these areas comes from “bonus bids from lease sales.” They claim that halting the ability to create new leases will increase the country’s debt and “create an opportunity cost in the billions.”

14 State Attorneys General Warn Biden Over Keystone Pipeline Decision - ThePalmieriReport

14 state attorneys general have sent a letter to Joe Biden warning him over his decision to cancel the Keystone pipeline.

thepalmierireport.com

Remember the theme of Joe Biden’s policies.
The elites win and you lose.

 

[Hfcomms]

[Video] Absolute Control: "Screw Turning" Sociopath REPUBLICAN Climate Czar Admits Goal of Climate Policies... "We Will Break You" * 100PercentFedUp.com * by Ulysses S. Tennysson

In a shockingly casual and honest video (below) that was leaked from a Zoom conference, Massachusetts climate ‘czar’ under anti-Trump […]

100percentfedup.com

[Video] Absolute Control: “Screw Turning” Sociopath REPUBLICAN Climate Czar Admits Goal of Climate Policies... “We Will Break You”

By Ulysses S. Tennyson | Feb 10, 2021

In a shockingly casual and honest video (below) that was leaked from a Zoom conference, Massachusetts climate ‘czar’ under anti-Trump pro-voter fraud mail-in voting RINO Republican Charlie Baker, David Ismay admitted what climate policy is truly designed to do.

Massachusetts’ David Ismay, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s under secretary for climate change, telling Vermont climate advocates that it’s time to “Turn The Screw” on homeowners and motorists to “Break Them.”

America has faced continual gas tax increases for decades under the guise of climate change prevention. Massachusetts is currently facing another 7 cent raise. But, climate change has always been a cover for what big-government operatives really want: control. David Ismay, the ‘climate czar’ of Massachusetts explained:

“60% of our emissions come from you and me…residential heating and passenger vehicles…”

Ismay is openly threatening the ability of citizens to legally heat their own homes or drive their own vehicles. So, he plans to intentionally regulate taxes so much that they cannot afford to own and heat a home of their own. They will have to rent some kind of government efficiency dwelling as part of The Great Reset, which openly states that citizens will “own nothing and be happy.”

To meet those ends, he makes it clear that after years of demonizing or destroying businesses, oil companies, and cows as ‘bad guys’ for decades by forcing them to follow progressively tighter totalitarian climate rules, the government has tapped them dry. So, it is now time to ‘turn the screw’ on vulnerable senior citizens, who are just moveable and disposable chess pieces to him:

“You…the senior on fixed income…There is no bad guy left–at least in Massachusetts–to point the finger at to turn the screws on and, you know, break their will so they stop emitting. That’s you. We have to break your will.” (Emphasis not added)

America is designed specifically to enshrine the will of the people. This man–who represents all of the climate movement–does not see America that way. He is unapologetically and inarguably unamerican.

He sees it as his duty as a government official not to promote and protect your individual freedoms and rights, but to break their will.

So sociopathic is he that he specifically singles out senior citizens among his targets. He is so excited to destroy their lives by “breaking their will” that he stumbles over his words and laughs when he speaks. Then, he feels a bit of cathartic relief at the end of the statement. He knows he has said something truly evil that he truly believes and intends to do. He has had to bottle it up inside, publicly, but now the weight is off his shoulders:

“I can’t even say that publicly” he finally admits, with relief and indignation.

If you notice, in the video, nobody on the call appears shocked at all by his statements. They sit and listen, as though this is a very common belief within their circle of influence.

Does any of this sound like it reflects American values, culture, or rule of law in any way at all? It breaks the very essence and fundamental social compact of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. This is the definition of tyranny. And, government officials like David Ismay (of which there are many) are purely Tyrants. They want to control every aspect of your life because they always know best, in their twisted minds. You are just a resource–like cattle, to them to do produce labor until the AI takes over.

Then what use will they have for you?

This is the indisputably the road to Serfdom…or perhaps much worse.
See the video, below:

View: https://youtu.be/muxVGmgykA4
.42 min

What an arrogant little femboy. Go ahead and break my will you limp wrist little twit.

 

[marsh]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qusSmz4iQw8
10:03 min

Bank of America is moving towards the Great Reset & stakeholder capitalism

•Feb 12, 2021


Glenn Beck

Bank of America recently released their new plan to transition to ‘net zero green gas emission financing.’ What does that mean?! Glenn explains how their new policies are another example of America’s coming oligarchy, and he exposes Brian Moynihan’s, Bank of America's CEO, close connections to the World Economic Forum and the push for stakeholder capitalism. The Great Reset strikes again…

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Great Reset? Putin Says, "Not So Fast"

THURSDAY, FEB 11, 2021 - 23:50
Authored by Tom Luongo via Gold, Goats, 'n Guns blog,

Did you happen to catch the most important political speech of the last six years?


It would have been easy to miss given everything going on. In fact, I almost did, and this speech sits at the intersection of nearly all of my areas of intense study.

The annual World Economic Forum took place last week via teleconference, what I’m calling Virtual Davos, and at this year’s event, of course, the signature topic was their project called the Great Reset.

But if the WEF was so intent on presenting the best face for the Great Reset to the world it wouldn’t have invited either Chinese Premier Xi Jinping or, more importantly, Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And it was Putin’s speech that brought down the house of cards that is the agenda of the WEF.

The last time someone walked into a major international forum and issued such a scathing critique of the current geopolitical landscape was Putin’s speech to the United Nations on September 29th, 2015, two days before he sent a small contingency of Russian air support to Syria.

There he excoriated not only the U.N. by name but most importantly the U.S. and its NATO allies by inference asking the most salient question, “Do you understand what you have done?” having unleashed chaos in an already chaotic part of the world?

As important as that speech was it was Putin’s actions after that which defined the current era of geopolitical chess across the Eurasian continent. Syria became the nexus around which the resistance to the “ISIS is invincible” narrative unraveled

And the mystery of who was behind ISIS, namely the Obama administration, was revealed to anyone paying attention.

President Trump may have taken credit for beating ISIS, but it was mostly Putin and Russia’s forces retaking the Western part of Syria which allowed that to happen, while our globalist generals, like James Mattis, did as much damage to Syria itself and as little to ISIS as possible, hoping to use them again another day.

And regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the U.S.’s policy in Syria, which I most definitely do not, it is hard to argue that Russia’s intervention there fundamentally changed the regional politics and conflicts for the foreseeable future.

It was the beginning of the voluntary disconnection of China, Russia and Iran from the West.

For standing athwart U.S. and European designs on consolidating power in the Middle East, Russia has been vilified in the West in ways that make the indoctrination I received as a kid growing up in the Cold War look like vacation advertisements for spending the summer in Crimea.

But it is that strength of purpose and character that has defined Putin’s two decades in power. He’s done wonders in rebuilding Russia.

He’s made many mistakes, mostly by first trusting American Presidents and second by underestimating just how arrogant and rapacious the leadership in Europe is.

That said, he’s now reached his limit, especially with Europe, and he’s set a firmly independent path for Russia regardless of the short-term costs.

And that’s why his speech at the World Economic Forum was so important.

Putin hadn’t spoken there for nearly a decade. In a time when WEF-controlled puppets dominate positions of power in Europe, the U.K., Canada and now the U.S., Putin walked into Virtual Davos and dumped his coffee on the carpet.


In terms I can only describe as unfailingly polite, Putin told Klaus Schwab and the WEF that their entire idea of the Great Reset is not only doomed to failure but runs counter to everything modern leadership should be pursuing.

Putin literally laughed at the idea of the Fourth Industrial Revolution – Schwab’s idea of a planned society through AI, robots and the merging of man and machine.

He flat-out told them their policies driving the middle class to the brink of extinction over the COVID-19 pandemic will further increase social and political unrest while also ensuring wealth inequality gets worse.

Putin’s no flower-throwing libertarian or anything, but his critique of the hyper-financialized post-Soviet era is accurate.

The era dominated by central banking and the continued merging of state and corporate powers has increased wealth inequality across the U.S. and Europe, benefiting millions while extracting the wealth of billions.

Listening to Putin was like listening to a cross between Pat Buchanan and the late Walter Williams. According to him the neoliberal ideal of “invite the world/invade the world” has destroyed the cultural ties within countries while hollowing out their economic prospects. Putin criticized zero-bound interest rates, QE, tariffs and sanctions as political weapons.

But the targets of those weapons, while nominally pointed at his Russia, were really the West’s own engines of vitality, as the middle classes have seen their wages stagnate, and access to education, medical care, and the courts to redress grievances fall dramatically.

Russia is a country on the rise, so is China. Once their ties are embedded deeply enough to stabilize its economy, so too will Iran rise.

Together they will lead the central Asian landmass out of the nineteenth-century quagmire that exists thanks to British and American intervention in the region. Putin’s speech made it clear that Russia is committed to the process of finding solutions to all people benefiting from the future, not just a few thousand holier-than-thou oligarchs in Europe.

In a less confrontational address, Chairman Xi said the same thing.

He gave lip service, like Putin, to climate change and carbon neutrality, focusing instead on pollution and sustainability.

Together they basically told the WEF to stuff the Great Reset back into the hole in which it was conceived.

I’ve followed Putin closely for nearly a decade now. I got the feeling that if he was speaking to a college-level political science class and not a convocation of some of the most powerful people in the world he would been laughed in their faces.

But, unfortunately, he understands better than any of us having been the object of their aggression for so long, he had to treat them seriously as their grasp of reality and connectedness to the people they ruled was nearly severed.

At the end of his planned remarks, Klaus Schwab asked Putin about Russia’s troubled relationship with Europe and could it be fixed. Putin pulled no punches.

If we can rise above these problems of the past and get rid of these phobias, then we will certainly enjoy a positive stage in our relations.

We are ready for this, we want this, and we will strive to make this happen. But love is impossible if it is declared only by one side. It must be mutual.

I don’t get the sense from anything I’ve seen from the Biden Administration or the European Commission in Brussels that anyone heard a word he said.

 

[marsh]

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

The Globalist Dilemma: How To Implement A 4th Industrial Revolution Without Losing Power

FRIDAY, FEB 12, 2021 - 22:20
Authored by Joaquin Flores via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

The changes underway are a revolutionary change from one historic epoch to another...

Ephesians 6: 10 – 12 – 10Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

The sci-fi horror film we are now living in, being presented as the 4th Industrial Revolution, is only one possible outcome, and not a necessary one. However, the one being put forward in Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, is what we see being implemented across the Western world in the aftermath of the collapse of NATO and the winding down of the globalists’ Trans-Atlantic banking establishment.

As we have previously established, the declining rate of profit has created an impasse in the logic of the speculative based finance economy, one which is in fact undermined by the rise of robotics, AI, and automation. Therefore, the ruling class as moved to transform itself from a financialist plutocracy into a technocratic oligarchy.

There inherent problem for these globalist elites is the fact that in history, massive changes to the organization of society have also been accompanied by big changes in who holds power, known also as Pareto’s “circulation of elites”, (but we will term ‘rotation’ for clarity).

Their version of the 4IR is based on a fallacious understanding of humanity and consciousness; premised within a demiurgic conception of power. Moreover, their efforts will fail for any number of practical reasons.

The 4th Industrial Revolution of home garage production is around the corner, it is really only a matter of a few short years before it is practicable to be entirely realized. And this is why there has been such a tremendous effort to subvert this back into some attempt to reconstruct a single-mind centralized model dependent upon ID2020.

With ID2020 we see the beginning of a freedom-pass and a subscription to ‘anti-virus’ and ‘anti-malware’ shots for the human body, in order for citizens to stay alive, having already been infected with some ostensibly communicable illness created by the creators of the vaccines themselves.

The shots will not be ‘mandatory’, rather the enslaved people will clamor for them, and their qualification to receive these in a timely way will be based upon their social-credit score. A lower social-credit score will see longer periods of real illness and forced quarantine at-home, in “eco-friendly” 15 meter square apartments. Suburban populations will have their mortgages foreclosed, assets will be seized, and people will be forced to live in ‘smart cities’ and rely on UBI payments, in order to ‘save energy’ through eliminating trucking and supply-lines to rural parts.

A Paradigm in Collapse – Avoiding a Rotation of Elites
Are we transitioning to a new phase in a series of industrial revolutions within modernity, or are we on the precipice of a post-industrial phase in the development of human civilization? These are starkly differing conceptions of the changes underway, and provide two very different ways of approaching the problem and any possible solutions.

The very same failing paradigm which has brought about both the need and the possibility of a genuine 4th Industrial Revolution based in liberatory concepts of the 4th Great Awakening, is trying to get ahead of the curve to control and contain it. Towards that end, they have possessed the very name ‘4IR’.

The real problem with technology and the coming 4th Industrial Revolution appears to be two-fold. There has been a scientific attempt to manage the changes that technology brings, which are historically destabilizing to elites. This means that now, through the science of sociology and social-psychology as well as other social-engineering technologies (as seen through big tech and big pharma), the effort is one of intentionally directing the development of certain technologies towards the end of continued control by our present financial elites. All this, as we move towards a post-financial order.


In effect this has meant the holding back the development of other technologies which they rightly see as destabilizing for them, until new coercive control-technologies can be better produced and applied. This is why we see the focus on neuralink and cybernetics involved in a discussion of the 4IR, even though it is not very much related.

The process of a rotation of elites is, again, what the elites want to avoid. But there has never been a successful revolution in the productive forces without a rotation of elites.

That is why they are trying to ‘downscale’ the historical perspective, and speak in terms of industrial revolutions plural, instead of the fact that the 4th industrial revolution is a post-industrial revolution.

The dying-out elites want to frame things in terms of the phases of the industrial revolution on a small scale within the span of hundreds of years, instead of looking at broad socio-economic transformations over the span of thousands of years.

By framing it in this limited way, they can try to insert themselves as an ongoing elite. The problem, however, is in their theory. It is true that the banking dynasties from the 1700’s have remained in power throughout the series of ‘industrial revolutions’ – three of them before as we have it – but in fact this past three-hundred years as all been the singular ‘industrial revolution’, or the epoch of modernity.

Therefore, they are trying to promote a future vision where they simply carry-on in the ‘next’ of a series of industrial revolutions, when in fact this is not the case. The three prior paradigmatic revolutions in the productive forces have been much larger in scope (slavocratic, feudalist, capitalist) and were carried out over much longer periods of time. In short, we are on the brink of a paradigm shift, not simply an innovation resting atop the old order with the old elites. We are on the precipice, if we stand and make it ours, of a post-modern, post-industrial order.

That is our 4th Industrial Revolution. That is the 4th Great Awakening.

One the one hand is the fact that the present elites wish to avoid their displacement that comes with a rotations of elites, a rotation which historically arises from new modes of production. The rise of early medieval Europe saw the descendants of Roman slavocratic elites replaced by feudal elites. Some eight centuries later, after the Inclosure Acts in England and in the period of the Reformation, saw the early origins of industrial elites who first built small workshops that in the coming centuries became large factories. It is they who replaced the feudal elites.

With this revolutionary change in the entire organization of society, came an entire shift in consciousness, from medieval into modern thinking and being, and the entrance of a consciousness commensurate with modernity, onto the world-historical stage.

Therefore, less paradigmatic changes that then the rise of scientific management in the early 20th centuries saw the rise of technocratic and financial elites who replaced the industrial. But this did not include a shift in consciousness, as this change took place within the rubric of modernity.

Changes of epochs were signaled by a true rotation of elites, which came with tremendous social turmoil, and was accompanied by political chaos and often times great wars between classes and nations, which were also ruinous to many of the old elites. Each rotation of elites came with a revolution in the mode of production.

We can see that these broad historical developments take shape over the course of many centuries, and not merely decades. They are larger than what any secular conspiracy or intrigue could ever possibly account for. The rise and development of ever-more complex social relations has given society itself its own artificial intelligence of sorts, its own internal logic which drives society towards its own ends, entirely divorced from the real needs of humanity.

The scientific management revolution of the 1920’s and 30’s, fueled by sciences like sociology, a type of soulless Marxism – presented a new possibility, now being implemented. This was to manage the implementation of new technologies while minimizing any chaos associated with the rotation of elites, by avoiding any rotation of elites at all.

For the first time, society is conscious of itself as an entity towards its own end, as an Artificial Intelligence (AI), and is alienated from humanity which in Heidegger’s distant pre-Socratic past was an end in itself and for itself. A golem of sorts. A Frankenstein’s monster.

For the first time, the changes which historically overthrew societies and transformed them, could theoretically by managed by a self-conscious AI, as a technocratic leviathan, as ‘society’ in itself and for itself, and introduce revolutionary changes without overturning itself.

By minimizing the rotation of elites, it is believed that the turmoil experienced by elites can be minimized, and the costs can be externalized entirely onto the relatively disempowered social classes below. The elites have used the ‘magic’ of the machine-age – technology – to create a synthetic god of sorts, which they believe can preserve their place in a type of hierarchy, in perpetuity.

In the past, because of demagogic mechanisms and the historic power of numbers, (increased many-fold with the invention of firearms and the relative decrease in the relative power of the warrior caste), a group of elites representative of the new technology and unfolding new means of production could work in tandem with relatively disempowered classes who had numerical superiority. Socio-political ends of the disempowered could piggy-back onto the program of new elites who overthrew the old. The American, French, Mexican, Russian, and Chinese revolutions are well-known examples of this process.

Today, elites wish to implement new technology based upon the self-awareness of their machine wherein new technologies – if not managed from alpha to omega – will result in a problematic and self-defeating rotation of elites. Part of their solution is not only to create a homogeneous and highly regimented anti-intellectual culture for the masses, but to also reify and reproduce this singular homogenous worldview in and between themselves. In short, if they are all on board with the same program and for the same reasons, they can avoid the inter-elite conflicts which hitherto characterize transformations that come with new means of production.

But this is pure folly. The changes underway cannot be managed by the science of sociology, and these changes are not merely one in a series of revolutionary changes within modernity, but rather a revolutionary change from one historic epoch to another.

Hence, what is being presented as the 4IR is an attempt to prevent that change into post-modernity, post-industrialism (going past the old the global supply chain, the age of the industrial wage-worker, etc. towards a liberatory rubric). In this critical sense, it is not a 4IR at all, but takes more from Orwell’s conception of 1984 of a system based on the freezing of technological development in terms of the productive forces. Instead, the science of social-psychology and other coercive mechanisms are further perfected in order to ‘freeze time’.

Looking at our next installment, we will take from this point and move to demonstrating that in addition to a rotation of elites, what was historically essential and missing from the elite plan, was a paradigm shift in consciousness not only among the people, but also among the elites. That shift in consciousness is today called the ‘Great Awakening’.

 

[Ragnarok]

wonder if they will have grandfathering.
HA!

Grandfather was euthanized...

 

[raven]

Grandfather was euthanized...

and grandmother was coronized

 

[marsh]

Treasury Department To Create New Climate Czar Role, Expand Climate Change Efforts

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is making climate change a top priority for the Treasury Department and reportedly plans to create a new climate czar position.

dailycaller.com

Treasury Department To Create New Climate Czar Role, Expand Climate Change Efforts

(Stefani Reynolds-Pool/Getty Images)

VARUN HUKERIREPORTER
February 12, 20216:19 PM ET

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is making climate change a top priority for the Treasury Department and reportedly plans to create a new senior position at the department to coordinate its climate efforts.

Yellen is looking to Sarah Bloom Raskin — wife of Democratic Maryland Rep. Jamie Raskin — as a leading candidate for the new climate czar role, The Wall Street Journal first reported Friday. Raskin served as Deputy Treasury Secretary under former President Barack Obama and also worked alongside Yellen at the Federal Reserve.

Sarah Bloom Raskin and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) listen to a group of residents sing at their home (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Both women have stated in remarks that climate change poses a risk to the financial system and that federal regulators must do more to protect the economy against climate risks, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The Treasury Department’s new focus on climate issues is part of the Biden administration’s effort to make addressing climate change a priority for the federal government. President Joe Biden signed an executive order on his first day in office requiring federal agencies to assess the environmental impact of their operations.

Yellen called climate change an “existential threat” to the economy during her Senate confirmation hearing in January.

“Both the impact of climate change itself and policies to address it could have major impacts, creating stranded assets, generating large changes in asset prices, credit risks and so forth that could affect the financial system,” Yellen told senators. “These are very real risks.”

WATCH:

View: https://youtu.be/ABDRk1OGp3U
1:45 min

The Treasury Department does not directly regulate banks or financial markets, but it does have broad powers to implement a climate-focused regulatory agenda and monitor climate risks to the financial system, according to The Wall Street Journal.

One of the climate risks Yellen and other economists are worried about is the frequency of severe weather events such as flooding and wildfires, which can endanger assets underpinning bank loans.

A Sept. 2019 research paper from economists Amine Ouazad and Matthew Kahn found that new mortgages for homes in coastal areas — which are vulnerable to hurricanes and rising sea levels — have exceeded $60 billion annually.

The Treasury Department could also implement its climate agenda through international financial diplomacy. Yellen participated in a meeting Friday with G7 finance ministers and central bank governors that largely focused on climate change.

The secretary said that U.S. engagement on climate issues would be changing dramatically relative to the last four years, according to a statement from the Treasury Department.
“We understand the crucial role that the United States must play in the global climate effort,” she told her G7 counterparts.

 

[von Koehler]

Yet more proof that only ONE term and they are out.