Connect with us

‘The Great Reset’ For Dummies

‘The Great Reset’ For Dummies

Published

on

'The Great Reset' For Dummies Tyler Durden Tue, 11/03/2020 - 00:00

Authored by Tessa Lena via 'Tessa Fights Robots' substack,

What is “the Great Reset”?

The Great Reset is a massively funded, desperately ambitious, internationally coordinated project led by some of the biggest multinational corporations and financial players on the planet and carried out by cooperating state bodies and NGOs. Its soul is a combination of early 20th century science fiction, idyllic Soviet posters, the obsessiveness of a deranged accountant with a gambling addiction—and an upgraded, digital version of “Manifest Destiny.”

The peasants are getting fat, and they are breeding! Oh no.

The mathematical reason for the Great Reset is that thanks to technology, the planet has gotten small, and the infinite expansion economic model is bust—but obviously, the super wealthy want to continue staying super wealthy, and so they need a miracle, another bubble, plus a surgically precise system for managing what they perceive as “their limited resources.” Thus, they desperately want a bubble providing new growth out of thin air—literally—while simultaneously they seek to tighten the peasants’ belts, an effort that starts with “behavioral modification,” a.k.a. resetting the western peasants’ sense of entitlement to high life standards and liberties (see awful “privilege”).

The psychological reason for the Great Reset is the fear of losing control of property, the planet. I suppose, if you own billions and move trillions, your perception of reality gets funky, and everything down below looks like an ant hill that exists for you. Just ants and numbers, your assets.

Thus, the practical aim of the Great Reset is to fundamentally restructure the world’s economy and geopolitical relations based on two assumptions:

  • one, that every element of nature and every life form is a part of the global inventory (managed by the allegedly benevolent state, which, in turn, is owned by several suddenly benevolent wealthy people, via technology), and

  • two, that all inventory needs to be strictly accounted for: be registered in a central database, be readable by a scanner and easily ID’ed, and be managed by AI, using the latest “science.”

The goal is to count and then efficiently manage and control all resources, including people, on an unprecedented scale, with unprecedented digital anxiety and precision—all while the masters keep indulging, enjoying vast patches of conserved nature, free of unnecessary sovereign peasants and their unpredictability. The king’s world feels far more predictable and relaxed when the chaos of human subjectivity is contained for good.

Plus, as a potentially lucrative aside, a bunch of these tightly managed “assets” can be also turned into new financial instruments and traded. Game on!

In other words, it’s an “efficient” global feudalism that goes much farther than its medieval brother since the scanner is all-seeing: every person, every mineral, and every berry is digitally tagged and tracked. Under that framework, every peasant has a function that is derived not from the mystery of life, and not from their inner calling—but from AI, the master of efficiency and the servant of the king. Ideally, the peasants can be convinced that it’s good for them (or necessary to be safe, see “contact tracing”) and that this is what progress and happiness are like—but if not, there are other ways, from classic violence to virtual prisons to “morality pills.”

The reform in question is meant to disrupt all areas of life, on a planetary scale: government, international relations, finance, energy, food, medicine, jobs, urban planning, real estate, law enforcement, and human interactions—and it starts with changing the way we think of ourselves and our relationship with the world. Notably, privacy is a huge thorn in the collective eye of our “great resetters”—and—as I am typing this, they are pushing their sweet talking points about how privacy is really an outdated concept—especially when it comes to people’s medical data, sheesh—and that we simply cannot move forward with the bright future if silly people keep clinging to their privacy.

I will briefly go over different elements of this slippery reform in a sec—but to sum it up, the desired end result is a giant, joyless, highly controlled global conveyor of everything and everybody where privacy is tremendously expensive, dissent is unthinkable, and spiritual submission is mandatory. It’s like a 24/7 medicated reality, except the medications are both chemical and digital, and they are reporting you back to the mothership, which can then punish you for bad behavior by, say, blocking your access to certain places or by putting a hold on your digital bank account—perhaps without any human intervention at all.

Thus, on a sensory level—as it relates to money and power—this conveyor is an attempt of the super wealthy to organize and monetize their “assets,” including people—more efficiently than ever before. On a theological level, the initiative is shaped by transhumanism, a formal belief system rooted in a pathological feeling of being repelled by all things natural—and a resulting view of biological forms as defective robots, which are made perfect, serial killer perfect, by merging with machines in a way that redefines the meaning of being alive and defies death itself.

I would like to stress that we should never underestimate the importance of subjective feelings and theology in the shaping of historical events. Our entire history is a sum of subjective choices—where the choices of the more powerful and the more driven weigh more. And religious reform, which typically stems from various powerful individuals’ subjective preference for what the big picture should be like, has been a driver of large-scale social, economic, and cultural changes on this planet for centuries. What we are looking at here is a new religion—and as much as I want to believe in the general cleanliness and rationality of the system—on the higher level, we are not dealing with a rational, scientific, honest, benevolent—or even misguided—attempt to make things better. When it comes to the masterminds of the Great Reset, we are dealing with a combination of standard greed—and the emotional pathology of restless, rotting madmen who are freaking out over the maintenance of their property in this new era, and who resent their biological nature as such and want to be gods. Sadly, the crazies are rich and well-connected, and they can hire a million underlings to put on a convincing, feel-good, rational external-facing presentation about their new religion. And to bribe the media. And politicians. And academics. And campaign organizers. And non-profits. And let’s not forget my brethren, the artists, who, out of starvation and indignity, will then create beautiful, artful, moving ads for anything that pays. And by the time the circle is complete, we have a brand new public opinion and technically, still a “democracy”! If only those conspiracy theorists went away…

So, who are the people leading this, and how coordinated is this effort?

From the looks of it, it seems to be the usual suspects: top capitalists of the world, historically wealthy dynasties from different parts of Earth, members of secular and religious royalty, billionaires, etc.—in other words, it’s the people who have enough money to feel like this world is theirs, the 0.0001%—and maybe also the people immediately under them who are seeking upward mobility. Some familiar faces, some faces we’ve never seen.

Obviously, they are not a monolithic mass, and I am sure that they don’t agree with each other on everything and probably compete over who gets to eat more peasants. There is certainly rivalry between the American and the Chinese elites, for example, or between the American and the Russian elites—as well as between different individual super sharks. But all in all, even as they compete, they have shared interests and shared messaging, and there is more strategic camaraderie and common ground between them than between any of them and any of the peasants. For example, none of them is likely to turn down the idea of creating a new class of financial assets to make money off! In addition, they also have advisers—who, in turn, are competing with each other for the highest pay, trying to push their ideas through. All subjective, yet also extensively—and expensively—coordinated in areas of their shared interests.

And currently, the “winning” concept of the day seems to be a world filled with abbreviations: AI, 5G, IoT, and so on. A world where the money is digital, the food is lab-grown, where everything is counted and controlled by giant monopolies, and the people are largely deprived of free will. A world where each element of nature and each living being is either a data host, or a source of energy—or both. A world where the flow of the peasants’ everyday is micromanaged by ever-monitoring, ever-nudging AI that registers thoughts and feelings before the people even get a chance to make those thoughts and feeling their own. A world where living itself is outsourced to the machine, and a human being is essentially a meat suit.

Now, I don’t think that this exact vision will ever come true in full. It is likely to implode before it gets half-way there—and some of what I just described is no more than daydreaming of a very broken mind. But the powerful crazies are trying their best to make this nightmare reality. Thus, the danger is not in being overtaken by suddenly self-conscious AI but in the disruption of normal life and in the utter misery that the crazies may cause to our minds and bodies as they rush to slice and dice the world, using various convenient catch phrases such as “global health crisis” or “climate change.”

And yes, there is definitely coordination and continuity, as there is continuity in dynasties and philosophical trends. Some of it is more ephemeral, and some of it is more concrete. On the ephemeral side, the vision of the “resetters” is related to the futuristic ideas that were popular in the early 20th century, to the dream of a global corporate monopoly that propped up the bolshevik revolution of 1917, and to the overall crave of controlling the world with technology, something that was attempted and failed in the Soviet Union in the 60s—using the language very similar to today’s. On the concrete side, the Great Reset (which by the way is very well coordinated, to the extent that both Biden and Johnson are using the same coded words put forward by the WEF) grows out of the post-WWII efforts to maintain a “correct” power balance in the world, with “correct” financial interests reaping the benefits.

The “sustainability” language, which is an important pillar of the Great Reset marketing kit, was initially created as a part of various United Nation’s programs—such as “Agenda 21” and “Agenda 2030,” and I am sure that during the production of those programs, both elements—conspiracy and benevolence—were present. Both are sets of extremely dry and boring documents about resource management and justice, which read like something written by a tired, square Soviet teacher with a good grasp of bureaucratic terms, written mostly to justify the paycheck of the bureaucrats and the existence of the United Nations. What’s interesting about the latter is that typically, the UN is pretty useless, meaning that people get together, talk, come up with long bureaucratic documents and non-binding resolutions—and then nothing of essence happens. But not this time. Not now. The program’s on! So it must be important to somebody who’s paying. And yes, I am cynical. In everything that happens, there is always a combination of good intentions, greed, ambition, personal relationships, financial interests, delusions, and so on. Politicians talk to financiers, generals talk to politicians, somebody is somebody else’s uncle, and this is how things get done. Unfortunately, the less straightforward the top-down messaging, and the more abundant the propaganda, the less the value of good intentions, and the easier it is for villains to pull off utter absurdities.

And of course, initiatives of such great magnitude may go through very long and quiet “planning phases,” during which the desired ideas are being planted in the heads of the desired people through private conversations, small meeting, funded research, industry conventions, and the like. So by the time the “action” button is pressed, it feels like a trend is already there. And let me repeat again, absolutely everything in history is a result of subjective choices made by subjective people. The way everything in history happens is that people get together, decide what they want to do, and do it. When important people act, the impact is more visible. So, in a way, everything is a “conspiracy,” because everything comes through human agency. And often, the important people cover up their deeds, that shouldn’t be a radical idea.

And yes, by now, the top power holders in the West have figured out that it’s more cost-effective and less labor-consuming for them to just bribe the media “of record,” the scientists, the academics, the politicians, and even the “controlled opposition”—and have them convince the peasants—than to police everything and everyone by force. And by the way, while the pinnacle of this tower is a conspiracy in earnest, in a sense of it being a coordinated effort where the masterminds are acting in general alignment with each other, without disclosing their true long-term goals to the peasants—the rest of the tower is probably the usual human stuff, multiplied by the lack of the old-fashioned, moral sense of responsibility. The usual human stuff is a medley of ambition, hustling, greed, carelessness, arrogance, and even good intentions. The closer to the bottom, the more ignorance and the better the intentions—because most people do believe that they are doing good—but it doesn’t change the tragic trajectory of the “resetting” cavalcade.

Okay but maybe hold on, there is a real crisis, and the rich have woken up because they want to live? What if there is no conspiracy per se, and they have simply realized that the planet is a mess, and now they want to address the issues of overpopulation and pollution because there really are too many people on the planet who are all over-consuming and polluting? What do you say to that?

I am glad you asked, so let’s talk about that.

It is absolutely true that the soulless, utilitarian approach to nature, to life, and to other living beings has been extremely destructive—with the most immediate, most visible destruction outsourced to “third world countries” and to the less financially fortunate people in the West. (See landfills, Cancer Alley, and unhealthy, poison-filled non-organic foods). It is true that massive consumerism and the use disposables (brought to us by more or less the same parties who are now scolding people for consumerism) have created a lot of messes. It is true that our oceans and lungs are full of plastic, that the amount of chronic disease is skyrocketing, and that many species are dying off. It is true that our soil, our food, and our bodies are tainted with highly toxic glyphosate. It is true that usually, decades pass between the time manufacturers realize the toxicity of their product and the time when saying so in a conversation stops being a conspiracy theory. All true. However, it is also true that the people who are pointing fingers at social ills and telling us that we need a Great Reset are from same camps and lineages that have caused it in the first place. It is true that underneath the language of their marketing brochures, there is toxicity and havoc that greatly exceed what we have today. Thus, they are either idiots or liars—and I am afraid it is the latter. However rich, they are not even remotely morally qualified to fix anything in this world. And whatever we choose to do to heal our relationship with nature and with each other—it definitely isn’t the technofascist, neofeudal Great Reset.

A metaphor: If the leader of the Rapists Party came up with a Platform Against Rape that didn’t stop the raping but that rebranded the very act by saying that if one uses a pink dildo made of recycled plastic to penetrate, then it’s not rape… would you think it’s a platform against rape in earnest?

So no, they are not the people to lead the way (just check out this garbage in space idea). If we go along, we will end up with a world that looks like this:

Speaking of solutions, there are plenty of activists and local leaders, such as Vandana Shiva, for example, coming up with ways to heal our relationship with nature. There are whistleblowers. There are lawyers fighting corporate giants and sometimes winning. There are doctors risking their careers to protect their patients. There are local farmers. There are artists baring their souls. There are truth tellers. There is dignity, and there is respect if we insist on them. I believe that good long-term solutions come from inner honesty and peace, and that each of us possesses the unique genius that helps us locate our piece of the puzzle, which ultimately heals the world.

As far as there being too many people on the planet, I think even that is spin. Actually, Vandana Shiva has produced analysis of industrial vs. traditional local agriculture in terms of numbers, and it looks like we’ve been lied to by Big Ag about their importance, too. Also, the biggest “demographic problem” in the West right now is the growing number of the old vs. the young. And even in the “developing world,” the trends seem to be different from what we are are taught to think. And furthermore, the planet has enough for all, and the reason we are facing scarcity is because that 0.0001% of people control a lot. Ironically, they are the same people who are worried that there is not enough, pushing the idea of overpopulation—often while breeding enthusiastically—and infecting young brains with the idea of overpopulation to the extent that now, some middle-class young people don’t want to have kids, “to save the planet.” How messed up is that?

And yes, the idea of overpopulation has been worrying the leaders for some decades. I would argue that at times, their thoughts have carried eugenics overtones (see, for example, this 1974 Kissinger Report that brags about “incentivizing” Indian men to get vasectomies). And no, it wouldn’t be completely crazy to posit that eugenics didn’t quite go away since Hitler has ruined the brand, and that whoever believes themselves to own the world, probably wouldn’t mind a little more surgical management of the demographic trends. Can I read their minds? No. I can’t say who exactly thinks what exactly, and luckily for me, I am not invited to their meetings—but every now and then, personas like Gates or Prince Charles say things that sound quite Hitleresque, and it make me wonder. On the other hand, I don’t find it particularly shocking because human nature hasn’t changed since the time when eugenics was socially acceptable in the “respectable society.” Thus, my theory is that some powerful people of the world are truly evil and probably fiddling with eugenics—and some are probably just indifferent to the desires of the peasants—but on my end, I don’t really care which one it is. Evil or indifferent, I don’t want them to destroy my world. Is that too much to ask?

My job is Poison Distributor.
My condition is
Hatred of Biological Forms.
They call me deranged
But I am the sanest of all.
They call me a merciless killer,
A sadist, a robot, a king.
But I am just a perfectionist.

My job is Poison Distributor.
My religion is
Hatred of Unpredictable Shapes.
My poison will find you
In words,
In the water you drink,
In food,
In the air your breathe,
This way or another,
It’ll find you.

My job is Poison Distributor.
A very practical job.
You are welcome.

Now, let’s quickly look at the areas that, according to the blueprint of the Great Reset, need to be disrupted and completely redesigned. That is a giant topic in itself, and I will only touch upon it lightly, with a special focus on the language used and how it overlaps with the “pandemic response.” I strongly encourage you to go to the World Economic Forum website and look around.

Statehood and Governance.

In the new world, countries still exist but they all abide by a central order. It’s “cooperative” (wink, wink). A lot of government functions are automated and delegated to AI. Decisions are based on data and algorithms, there is no privacy, and there is a lot more fluidity as far as migrations (so unfortunately, the very humane sentiment of being kind to immigrants that is being promoted in the media might not about kindness, which is a bummer to me personally). There is also a possibility of replacing human governments with AI altogether, but not immediately. The reasoning is simple: In order for the super wealthy to manage global inventory, individual governments have to act more like mid-level managers accountable to international authorities than like independent federal governments.

(Remember how “mom and pop shops” were pushed off the market and replaced by chain stores? Same thing here except in this case, the mom and pop stores are countries.)

Traditional America, now, is very much in the way of this. Its habit of generous consumption and free expression, its self-centered foreign policies, its sense of entitlement, and its big suburban houses are a no-go. A traditional, independent, strong America is an obstacle. In that light—and with a disclaimer that I don’t think that there is such a thing as a just empire, I feel like there is an active effort to “even America out,” to co-opt its government, to destroy farms and small businesses—especially the ones that are not consistent with this all-digital future—and to bring down the entitled middle class, especially in “outdated” career paths. It feels like we are currently in the middle of a “color revolution,” a soft coup. Usually, American elites do it to other nations—but now it’s happening on the domestic soil. It feels like the Great Reset agenda, through its messengers and through its money, is shaping both the schizophrenic “COVID response” and the suddenly mainstream and well-funded, super corporate “social justice / climate” movement, which are all at this point intertwined in terms of messaging. Both pretend to promote pubic good, and both skillfully weaponize real issues and get a rise out of people who have a real love of fairness in their hearts—all to clear the way for the financial goals of the “great resetters”—such as a complete erosion of privacy (see contact tracing), moving all human activities online (see, well, everything), AI-based law enforcement and precrime (see “defund the police”), and so on. And yes, America has many honest problems. But it’s not like the current structures are being replaced with a council of spiritually grounded, wise indigenous elders who are deeply connected to Earth and who will not hurt any innocent life. What’s being attempted—however fuzzy the marketing coverup—is far worse, far less humane, and far more destructive than what we have today. I don’t like it.

Finance.

It’s digital currency, crypto, and mobile payments all the way. The citizens must be totally transparent and leave a trace of everything they do, remember?

Food.

All I can say is I hope you like cockroach meat, because it’s coming.

Cynical remarks aside, the “future of food” is a disaster. The liars in high chairs have the nerve to use good words like “sustainable development” but there is nothing sustainable about this thing. It’s BigAg on steroids, very toxic. And, incidentally, it’s also energy-consuming as all these robots, sensors, and data centers ain’t free, but who’s counting that.

Also, today’s farms have to go. Not only are the pesky traditional local farmers competing with patented lab-grown food and—also patented—GMOs, and—also patented—soils—they are also taking up the space needed for royal recreational areas, as well as wind turbine and solar panel parks (which all take up a lot of space, by the way). And what do you know, maybe the kings really want to “conserve” some patches of nature by keeping it free of people. It’s their inventory, after all, it makes sense to maintain it well.

No wonder the “COVID response” is hitting the farms so hard, forcing them to go out of business…

Agriculture

Education.

Online.

Medicine.

Tele-

So far, in both medicine and education, we are very much on track, thanks to the global pandemic…

Energy.

Now, this one is interesting. Because fossil fuels, the devil of today’s marketing, are genuinely bad. It’s true that oil extraction is abusive to the planet. The spills create a lot of havoc, and they happen all the time. Oil barons are bandits. People who live close to refineries get sick. Plastic, which comes from oil, is polluting everything, from the oceans to our stomachs and lungs. However, fossil fuels are also the only energy source—besides nuclear—that is currently capable of supporting the world’s population’s consumption levels. Furthermore, if you look under the hood of “green,” it’s not that green, really, unless we are talking the color of money. Solar panels take up a ton on space (see below), they degrade quickly, and turn into toxic heaps.

Wind turbines also take up a ton of space and have their own problems. Both are highly dependent on weather and don’t provide sufficient energy. It is also noteworthy that the recent film by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans, which was exploring some of the not so green aspects of “green energy” and shedding light on some of the corruption in the environmental movement, was attacked by the leading environmentalists to viciously and so uniformly that the film was removed from major platforms and kind of disappeared from the public eye.

Anyway, what’s going to happen if fossil fuels go away? By the way—and this is an important point—I am not actually convinced that the “resetters’” intend for fossil fuels to truly go away. I think we could be looking at an act of rebranding. I did think until recently that they really wanted to “disapper” fossil fuels—but then I looked into “climate tech”—and now I am thinking that the things are more complex, that it could be a strategic geopolitical maneuver. I don’t know. There are some peculiar technological overlaps between fossil fuels and “green” energy—but time will tell. In any case, if they either go away or pretend to go away, we’ll quickly discover that wind and solar are not cutting it—and then, we’ll meet our new king of “green” energy, nuclear fusion, yay.

When that happens, our friend, the famous philantrocapitalist, will come to rescue. He is heavily invested in nuclear fusion reactors—in fact, his favorite project, according to himself. (Actually, he happens to be very deeply involved in about every bullet point on the Great Reset list, what a business genius he is.) But wait, to make the intrigue even more interesting, the WHO, which of course enjoys his generous funding, has in the past gone to great lengths to underplay the health toll of nuclear incidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Speaking of energy and finance, let’s talk about “human capital.” In the new world, “human capital” is not just a metaphor for HR or labor. Microsoft, for example, has a patent for a method of transforming human behavior into cryptocurency, which is done through an unspecified device coupled with a server that registers body activity and “mines” crypto. Since under the New Normal, digital and crypto are supposed to become mainstream, this looks suspiciously like a tool that can be used both to tightly control the behavior of the poor who may depend on this for income—and to literally mine the bodies of otherwise “useless” welfare dependents / UBI recepients for energy (which, by the way, is an actual thing, believe it or not).

Furthermore, this patent could potentially be used to create a new financial instrument because, if mined for energy, these people become “assets” that could possibly be bunched together into virtual portfolios and virtually traded. See how neat? Now, we are talking proper serfdom! And yes, this sounds very sci-fi but let’s not forget how some billionaire “visionaries” think—not like normal people, or else the workers at Amazon warehouses wouldn’t be wearing diapers to skip bathroom breaks. Also let’s not forget that today, there is trading of very theoretical items as well as betting on weather. A lot of money in this world is made on strange, arbitrary things!

Speaking of weather, the Great Reset also legitimizes the dangerous, invasive atrocity that is geoengineering, and makes it potentially “cool” and “life-saving,” just like some “climate change movement” white papers do. I noticed that and mourned that fact a couple of years ago, screaming from the rooftops about how messed up it was. Spraying toxic crap in the air is cool and “green”? What an act of linguistic trickery.

Also, a word on carbon. I am not going to get into the entire thing because the article is already long, however, it seems that whatever the story of carbon was at birth, by now the story has transformed into a tool of creating a market out of thin air, and a bunch of financial instruments to make money off, also out of thin air. For example, look at this plant, backed by Gates and some oil giants. My favorite part is that after carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere using a cocktail of chemicals, one of the ways to store the loot is to burn a bunch of trees (sorry, “biomass”). Yes, that makes perfect sense, because who can make money off simply leaving trees alone and letting them do the job, for free? What kind of idiot would allow that?

I would also like to point out the fact that when it’s stored, it’s stored deep underground in ways never done before. (What does is do the inner processes of the planet? Did anybody think this through?) It also requires building pipelines to transport carbon dioxide from one place to another, much like transporting oil. And finally, carbon capture and storage is incredibly energy intensive, and the energy comes from… fossil fuels? Nuclear? Wind turbines that then have to take up half of the planet’s surface? Oh I don’t know… And speaking of language, the goal is not “zero carbon emissions,” it’s “Net Zero Carbon Emissions,” which means that we can keep polluting, and then build a new lucrative industry on top of it, while creating a new kind of pollution. In other words, business as usual…

Also, while we are on the topic of “green sustainable development,” isn’t building a lot more surveillance tech and infrastructure—which are all extremely energy-consuming not to mention unclean—at odds with the idea of green? I thought about it a while ago when I read, with great initial excitement, the text of the Green New Deal proposed legislation. I was, like, yay justice and indigenous rights, yay…. wait… “smart” power grids? Isn’t it exactly what Big Tech wants, and doesn’t it imply a need for smart sensors that come with more infrastructure and satellites, more towers, a loss of privacy, and new kind of wireless pollution producing untested health effects? It stopped me on my tracks and compelled me to look into various “green” initiatives—and as a result, discover various skeletons in the closet. And then I stumbled into the work of Cory Morningstar, and I was like, wow. My instincts were right, it’s not exactly what it seems!!

Now, this provides a nice segue into how the “global health crisis” narrative plays into the Great Reset.

First, some housekeeping notes.

As I said before, the Great Reset is an extremely ambitious plan of restructuring both the world’s economy—and the very notion of what it means to be alive. (Is an AI-nudged zombie whose decision-making is externalized really alive?) Without a cooperating population, this ambitious economic and religious reform cannot succeed.

What is the best way of making the population cooperate with this very strange reform? It’s fear—because promises of pleasure are not enough to pull off such a massive and bizarro shift. Thus, it has to be fear and stress, whether it’s because of an external enemy, a prospect of a natural disaster, or a disease.

Let’s not forget that prior to 2020, there has already been a very expensively organized fear narrative, supported by more or less the same players who are now pushing for the Great Reset. I am of course talking about the weaponized “climate change” narrative. And while there are plenty of environmental problems that need to be addressed asap, the corporate “climate change” movement has been strangely focused on messaging that roughly coincides with the messaging of the Great Reset campaign, serving their financial goals—and the funding trajectories also overlap. So it looks like the financial interests behind the Great Reset tried out to use the “climate movement” first but it didn’t generate the desired fear levels quickly enough. Not enough people cared. I have personally sat through a training session, and am familiar with “organizing” and the neurolinguistic programming tricks that are supposed to make the audiences very worried about the climate. The messaging is very well thought-through and gives away a generous financial backing, it’s not a hippie grassroots movement—even if a lot of individual people sincerely pour their souls into that. Just like rank-and-file Jehovah witnesses knocking on your door might be extremely sincere.

As a human being, I don’t trust any entity that coldly, calculatedly, tries to make me scared and trigger a stress response. The people I listened to didn’t seem very afraid themselves. They were well-fed, middle-class, and not underemployed. They were not afraid to be arrested at a protest—and actually they sought to be arrested, without any fear for their future employment. After seeing that, I started asking questions as to why they wanted me to be afraid, and what they wanted me to do. When I started asking questions and researching, it turned out that the trajectory of “solutions” included things like smart grids, electric cars (that are not remotely green), and geoengineering. That, to me, was not acceptable. It also meant that they didn’t really respect the planet because if they did, they wouldn’t want to stick towers everywhere or spray crap in the atmosphere to block the sun. Now, it is very possible that the environmental movement was good and honest when it just started—but a lot of it has been since hijacked, in a very stealthy way where the people on the ground don’t even realize whom they are serving. And again, let me repeat: There is a tremendous need for true sustainability, it’s just that the practical measures implied by the coded marketing language are not sustainable at all!

In any case, scaring the people with the official narrative of the climate emergency definitely created a ripple in people’s consciousness and a degree of environmental anxiety, especially in Gen Z—but it didn’t do enough to either paralyze or mobilize. But when the virus came along, as if by magic, things started falling into places quickly—things that had been unthinkable before. No, I am not saying that the virus isn’t real. And I am not making any definitive statements about where it came from or how it came about. I have my theories but some things, I just won’t know, and can’t change. But what I know is that the reaction has been absurd, unprecedented, and strangely consistent with the action items that had already been on the agenda. Speaking of emergencies, Woodstock happened during a big pandemic…

So let’s see.

Did we forcefully move most activities—such as education, medicine, shopping, sex, and recreation—online for now, as we are working on “digitizing” the physical world, for easy tracking and surveillance?

Check.

Did we, despite the lockdowns for white collar peasants, continue with construction—including very robust construction of new telecom structures and cellular antennas, necessary to support the IoT?

Check.

Did we succeed at near destroying the livelihoods of many independent farmers who were competing with our new “edible” products, and also at disrupting the traditional food supply chains?

Check.

Did we also succeed at destroying a good number of small face-to-face businesses?

Well, of course!

Live music venues and theaters?

For sure.

Are we working on replacing law enforcement with AI?

You bet! Defund! Defund! Defund!

Are we trying to legitimize complete erosion of privacy and easy access to private health data?

Yes! Because health emergency.

Are we on target when it comes to tracking every movement of every person?

Contact tracing, yes! But some countries are still behind.

Is a digital health ID now required for international travel?

Yes, Common Pass is live!

Have we been able to disrupt political and legal procedures and create chaos?

Yes, Sir!

Importantly, have we succeeded at messing up human thinking and relationships to the extent that we, the robot, the abuser, are now everybody’s only friend?

Still working on it but close.

Are we well on target with prepping the people for a broad rollout of smart wearables?

Yep. Wear your mask.

Are we legally controlling people’s sex lives?

Yes!

Speaking of, state control of people’s bodies and sexuality is a classic sign of a religious reform. Whenever that happens, watch out.

Or let’s take lockdowns, for example. Lockdowns and restrictions of movement and physical contact are great tools of behavioral modification—and behavioral modification, also known as social engineering, is for sure a very respected art form among the powerful ones. A self-respecting social engineer plans ten steps ahead and creates situations in which targets beg for desired changes! I posit that currently, we are subjected to an involuntary S&M dance. We are in the middle of a ritual of designed to create a sense of confusion, insecurity, and dependence—eventually to be resolved by our Masters, for which we will be very grateful because we will just want to the unbearable tension to be resolved. Already, many have developed the Stockholm Syndrome, siding with the abuser. The measures are entirely arbitrary—but it doesn’t matter, we are expected to comply and to accept that our suffering and deprivation are for our own good. It makes us a “better person.”

In the eyes of a psychopath, there is no joy.

In the eyes of a slave, there is an acceptance of a strange feeling of numbness where the soul used to be.

Where do we go from there?

I, for one, don’t think that we should accept the darkness. I think that our best option is to insist on dignity and to find our hearts. Our hearts will tell us what to do next.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

President Biden Delivers The “Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President”

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through…

Published

on

President Biden Delivers The "Darkest, Most Un-American Speech Given By A President"

Having successfully raged, ranted, lied, and yelled through the State of The Union, President Biden can go back to his crypt now.

Whatever 'they' gave Biden, every American man, woman, and the other should be allowed to take it - though it seems the cocktail brings out 'dark Brandon'?

Tl;dw: Biden's Speech tonight ...

  • Fund Ukraine.

  • Trump is threat to democracy and America itself.

  • Abortion is good.

  • American Economy is stronger than ever.

  • Inflation wasn't Biden's fault.

  • Illegals are Americans too.

  • Republicans are responsible for the border crisis.

  • Trump is bad.

  • Biden stands with trans-children.

  • J6 was the worst insurrection since the Civil War.

(h/t @TCDMS99)

Tucker Carlson's response sums it all up perfectly:

"that was possibly the darkest, most un-American speech given by an American president. It wasn't a speech, it was a rant..."

Carlson continued: "The true measure of a nation's greatness lies within its capacity to control borders, yet Bid refuses to do it."

"In a fair election, Joe Biden cannot win"

And concluded:

“There was not a meaningful word for the entire duration about the things that actually matter to people who live here.”

Victor Davis Hanson added some excellent color, but this was probably the best line on Biden:

"he doesn't care... he lives in an alternative reality."

*  *  *

Watch SOTU Live here...

*   *   *

Mises' Connor O'Keeffe, warns: "Be on the Lookout for These Lies in Biden's State of the Union Address." 

On Thursday evening, President Joe Biden is set to give his third State of the Union address. The political press has been buzzing with speculation over what the president will say. That speculation, however, is focused more on how Biden will perform, and which issues he will prioritize. Much of the speech is expected to be familiar.

The story Biden will tell about what he has done as president and where the country finds itself as a result will be the same dishonest story he's been telling since at least the summer.

He'll cite government statistics to say the economy is growing, unemployment is low, and inflation is down.

Something that has been frustrating Biden, his team, and his allies in the media is that the American people do not feel as economically well off as the official data says they are. Despite what the White House and establishment-friendly journalists say, the problem lies with the data, not the American people's ability to perceive their own well-being.

As I wrote back in January, the reason for the discrepancy is the lack of distinction made between private economic activity and government spending in the most frequently cited economic indicators. There is an important difference between the two:

  • Government, unlike any other entity in the economy, can simply take money and resources from others to spend on things and hire people. Whether or not the spending brings people value is irrelevant

  • It's the private sector that's responsible for producing goods and services that actually meet people's needs and wants. So, the private components of the economy have the most significant effect on people's economic well-being.

Recently, government spending and hiring has accounted for a larger than normal share of both economic activity and employment. This means the government is propping up these traditional measures, making the economy appear better than it actually is. Also, many of the jobs Biden and his allies take credit for creating will quickly go away once it becomes clear that consumers don't actually want whatever the government encouraged these companies to produce.

On top of all that, the administration is dealing with the consequences of their chosen inflation rhetoric.

Since its peak in the summer of 2022, the president's team has talked about inflation "coming back down," which can easily give the impression that it's prices that will eventually come back down.

But that's not what that phrase means. It would be more honest to say that price increases are slowing down.

Americans are finally waking up to the fact that the cost of living will not return to prepandemic levels, and they're not happy about it.

The president has made some clumsy attempts at damage control, such as a Super Bowl Sunday video attacking food companies for "shrinkflation"—selling smaller portions at the same price instead of simply raising prices.

In his speech Thursday, Biden is expected to play up his desire to crack down on the "corporate greed" he's blaming for high prices.

In the name of "bringing down costs for Americans," the administration wants to implement targeted price ceilings - something anyone who has taken even a single economics class could tell you does more harm than good. Biden would never place the blame for the dramatic price increases we've experienced during his term where it actually belongs—on all the government spending that he and President Donald Trump oversaw during the pandemic, funded by the creation of $6 trillion out of thin air - because that kind of spending is precisely what he hopes to kick back up in a second term.

If reelected, the president wants to "revive" parts of his so-called Build Back Better agenda, which he tried and failed to pass in his first year. That would bring a significant expansion of domestic spending. And Biden remains committed to the idea that Americans must be forced to continue funding the war in Ukraine. That's another topic Biden is expected to highlight in the State of the Union, likely accompanied by the lie that Ukraine spending is good for the American economy. It isn't.

It's not possible to predict all the ways President Biden will exaggerate, mislead, and outright lie in his speech on Thursday. But we can be sure of two things. The "state of the Union" is not as strong as Biden will say it is. And his policy ambitions risk making it much worse.

*  *  *

The American people will be tuning in on their smartphones, laptops, and televisions on Thursday evening to see if 'sloppy joe' 81-year-old President Joe Biden can coherently put together more than two sentences (even with a teleprompter) as he gives his third State of the Union in front of a divided Congress. 

President Biden will speak on various topics to convince voters why he shouldn't be sent to a retirement home.

According to CNN sources, here are some of the topics Biden will discuss tonight:

  • Economic issues: Biden and his team have been drafting a speech heavy on economic populism, aides said, with calls for higher taxes on corporations and the wealthy – an attempt to draw a sharp contrast with Republicans and their likely presidential nominee, Donald Trump.

  • Health care expenses: Biden will also push for lowering health care costs and discuss his efforts to go after drug manufacturers to lower the cost of prescription medications — all issues his advisers believe can help buoy what have been sagging economic approval ratings.

  • Israel's war with Hamas: Also looming large over Biden's primetime address is the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, which has consumed much of the president's time and attention over the past few months. The president's top national security advisers have been working around the clock to try to finalize a ceasefire-hostages release deal by Ramadan, the Muslim holy month that begins next week.

  • An argument for reelection: Aides view Thursday's speech as a critical opportunity for the president to tout his accomplishments in office and lay out his plans for another four years in the nation's top job. Even though viewership has declined over the years, the yearly speech reliably draws tens of millions of households.

Sources provided more color on Biden's SOTU address: 

The speech is expected to be heavy on economic populism. The president will talk about raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. He'll highlight efforts to cut costs for the American people, including pushing Congress to help make prescription drugs more affordable.

Biden will talk about the need to preserve democracy and freedom, a cornerstone of his re-election bid. That includes protecting and bolstering reproductive rights, an issue Democrats believe will energize voters in November. Biden is also expected to promote his unity agenda, a key feature of each of his addresses to Congress while in office.

Biden is also expected to give remarks on border security while the invasion of illegals has become one of the most heated topics among American voters. A majority of voters are frustrated with radical progressives in the White House facilitating the illegal migrant invasion. 

It is probable that the president will attribute the failure of the Senate border bill to the Republicans, a claim many voters view as unfounded. This is because the White House has the option to issue an executive order to restore border security, yet opts not to do so

Maybe this is why? 

While Biden addresses the nation, the Biden administration will be armed with a social media team to pump propaganda to at least 100 million Americans. 

"The White House hosted about 70 creators, digital publishers, and influencers across three separate events" on Wednesday and Thursday, a White House official told CNN. 

Not a very capable social media team... 

The administration's move to ramp up social media operations comes as users on X are mostly free from government censorship with Elon Musk at the helm. This infuriates Democrats, who can no longer censor their political enemies on X. 

Meanwhile, Democratic lawmakers tell Axios that the president's SOTU performance will be critical as he tries to dispel voter concerns about his elderly age. The address reached as many as 27 million people in 2023. 

"We are all nervous," said one House Democrat, citing concerns about the president's "ability to speak without blowing things."

The SOTU address comes as Biden's polling data is in the dumps

BetOnline has created several money-making opportunities for gamblers tonight, such as betting on what word Biden mentions the most. 

As well as...

We will update you when Tucker Carlson's live feed of SOTU is published. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 07:44

Read More

Continue Reading

International

What is intersectionality and why does it make feminism more effective?

The social categories that we belong to shape our understanding of the world in different ways.

Published

on

Mary Long/Shutterstock

The way we talk about society and the people and structures in it is constantly changing. One term you may come across this International Women’s Day is “intersectionality”. And specifically, the concept of “intersectional feminism”.

Intersectionality refers to the fact that everyone is part of multiple social categories. These include gender, social class, sexuality, (dis)ability and racialisation (when people are divided into “racial” groups often based on skin colour or features).

These categories are not independent of each other, they intersect. This looks different for every person. For example, a black woman without a disability will have a different experience of society than a white woman without a disability – or a black woman with a disability.

An intersectional approach makes social policy more inclusive and just. Its value was evident in research during the pandemic, when it became clear that women from various groups, those who worked in caring jobs and who lived in crowded circumstances were much more likely to die from COVID.

A long-fought battle

American civil rights leader and scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw first introduced the term intersectionality in a 1989 paper. She argued that focusing on a single form of oppression (such as gender or race) perpetuated discrimination against black women, who are simultaneously subjected to both racism and sexism.

Crenshaw gave a name to ways of thinking and theorising that black and Latina feminists, as well as working-class and lesbian feminists, had argued for decades. The Combahee River Collective of black lesbians was groundbreaking in this work.

They called for strategic alliances with black men to oppose racism, white women to oppose sexism and lesbians to oppose homophobia. This was an example of how an intersectional understanding of identity and social power relations can create more opportunities for action.

These ideas have, through political struggle, come to be accepted in feminist thinking and women’s studies scholarship. An increasing number of feminists now use the term “intersectional feminism”.

The term has moved from academia to feminist activist and social justice circles and beyond in recent years. Its popularity and widespread use means it is subjected to much scrutiny and debate about how and when it should be employed. For example, some argue that it should always include attention to racism and racialisation.

Recognising more issues makes feminism more effective

In writing about intersectionality, Crenshaw argued that singular approaches to social categories made black women’s oppression invisible. Many black feminists have pointed out that white feminists frequently overlook how racial categories shape different women’s experiences.

One example is hair discrimination. It is only in the 2020s that many organisations in South Africa, the UK and US have recognised that it is discriminatory to regulate black women’s hairstyles in ways that render their natural hair unacceptable.

This is an intersectional approach. White women and most black men do not face the same discrimination and pressures to straighten their hair.

View from behind of a young, black woman speaking to female colleagues in an office
Intersectionality can lead to more inclusive organisations, activism and social movements. Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

“Abortion on demand” in the 1970s and 1980s in the UK and USA took no account of the fact that black women in these and many other countries needed to campaign against being given abortions against their will. The fight for reproductive justice does not look the same for all women.

Similarly, the experiences of working-class women have frequently been rendered invisible in white, middle class feminist campaigns and writings. Intersectionality means that these issues are recognised and fought for in an inclusive and more powerful way.

In the 35 years since Crenshaw coined the term, feminist scholars have analysed how women are positioned in society, for example, as black, working-class, lesbian or colonial subjects. Intersectionality reminds us that fruitful discussions about discrimination and justice must acknowledge how these different categories affect each other and their associated power relations.

This does not mean that research and policy cannot focus predominantly on one social category, such as race, gender or social class. But it does mean that we cannot, and should not, understand those categories in isolation of each other.

Ann Phoenix does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Biden defends immigration policy during State of the Union, blaming Republicans in Congress for refusing to act

A rising number of Americans say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem. Biden called for Congress to pass a bipartisan border and immigration…

Published

on

By

President Joe Biden delivers his State of the Union address on March 7, 2024. Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images

President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address on March 7, 2024, casting a wide net on a range of major themes – the economy, abortion rights, threats to democracy, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine – that are preoccupying many Americans heading into the November presidential election.

The president also addressed massive increases in immigration at the southern border and the political battle in Congress over how to manage it. “We can fight about the border, or we can fix it. I’m ready to fix it,” Biden said.

But while Biden stressed that he wants to overcome political division and take action on immigration and the border, he cautioned that he will not “demonize immigrants,” as he said his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, does.

“I will not separate families. I will not ban people from America because of their faith,” Biden said.

Biden’s speech comes as a rising number of American voters say that immigration is the country’s biggest problem.

Immigration law scholar Jean Lantz Reisz answers four questions about why immigration has become a top issue for Americans, and the limits of presidential power when it comes to immigration and border security.

President Joe Biden stands surrounded by people in formal clothing and smiles. One man holds a cell phone camera close up to his face.
President Joe Biden arrives to deliver the State of the Union address at the US Capitol on March 7, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

1. What is driving all of the attention and concern immigration is receiving?

The unprecedented number of undocumented migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border right now has drawn national concern to the U.S. immigration system and the president’s enforcement policies at the border.

Border security has always been part of the immigration debate about how to stop unlawful immigration.

But in this election, the immigration debate is also fueled by images of large groups of migrants crossing a river and crawling through barbed wire fences. There is also news of standoffs between Texas law enforcement and U.S. Border Patrol agents and cities like New York and Chicago struggling to handle the influx of arriving migrants.

Republicans blame Biden for not taking action on what they say is an “invasion” at the U.S. border. Democrats blame Republicans for refusing to pass laws that would give the president the power to stop the flow of migration at the border.

2. Are Biden’s immigration policies effective?

Confusion about immigration laws may be the reason people believe that Biden is not implementing effective policies at the border.

The U.S. passed a law in 1952 that gives any person arriving at the border or inside the U.S. the right to apply for asylum and the right to legally stay in the country, even if that person crossed the border illegally. That law has not changed.

Courts struck down many of former President Donald Trump’s policies that tried to limit immigration. Trump was able to lawfully deport migrants at the border without processing their asylum claims during the COVID-19 pandemic under a public health law called Title 42. Biden continued that policy until the legal justification for Title 42 – meaning the public health emergency – ended in 2023.

Republicans falsely attribute the surge in undocumented migration to the U.S. over the past three years to something they call Biden’s “open border” policy. There is no such policy.

Multiple factors are driving increased migration to the U.S.

More people are leaving dangerous or difficult situations in their countries, and some people have waited to migrate until after the COVID-19 pandemic ended. People who smuggle migrants are also spreading misinformation to migrants about the ability to enter and stay in the U.S.

Joe Biden wears a black blazer and a black hat as he stands next to a bald white man wearing a green uniform and a white truck that says 'Border Patrol' in green
President Joe Biden walks with Jason Owens, the chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, as he visits the U.S.-Mexico border in Brownsville, Texas, on Feb. 29, 2024. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

3. How much power does the president have over immigration?

The president’s power regarding immigration is limited to enforcing existing immigration laws. But the president has broad authority over how to enforce those laws.

For example, the president can place every single immigrant unlawfully present in the U.S. in deportation proceedings. Because there is not enough money or employees at federal agencies and courts to accomplish that, the president will usually choose to prioritize the deportation of certain immigrants, like those who have committed serious and violent crimes in the U.S.

The federal agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported more than 142,000 immigrants from October 2022 through September 2023, double the number of people it deported the previous fiscal year.

But under current law, the president does not have the power to summarily expel migrants who say they are afraid of returning to their country. The law requires the president to process their claims for asylum.

Biden’s ability to enforce immigration law also depends on a budget approved by Congress. Without congressional approval, the president cannot spend money to build a wall, increase immigration detention facilities’ capacity or send more Border Patrol agents to process undocumented migrants entering the country.

A large group of people are seen sitting and standing along a tall brown fence in an empty area of brown dirt.
Migrants arrive at the border between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, to surrender to American Border Patrol agents on March 5, 2024. Lokman Vural Elibol/Anadolu via Getty Images

4. How could Biden address the current immigration problems in this country?

In early 2024, Republicans in the Senate refused to pass a bill – developed by a bipartisan team of legislators – that would have made it harder to get asylum and given Biden the power to stop taking asylum applications when migrant crossings reached a certain number.

During his speech, Biden called this bill the “toughest set of border security reforms we’ve ever seen in this country.”

That bill would have also provided more federal money to help immigration agencies and courts quickly review more asylum claims and expedite the asylum process, which remains backlogged with millions of cases, Biden said. Biden said the bipartisan deal would also hire 1,500 more border security agents and officers, as well as 4,300 more asylum officers.

Removing this backlog in immigration courts could mean that some undocumented migrants, who now might wait six to eight years for an asylum hearing, would instead only wait six weeks, Biden said. That means it would be “highly unlikely” migrants would pay a large amount to be smuggled into the country, only to be “kicked out quickly,” Biden said.

“My Republican friends, you owe it to the American people to get this bill done. We need to act,” Biden said.

Biden’s remarks calling for Congress to pass the bill drew jeers from some in the audience. Biden quickly responded, saying that it was a bipartisan effort: “What are you against?” he asked.

Biden is now considering using section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to get more control over immigration. This sweeping law allows the president to temporarily suspend or restrict the entry of all foreigners if their arrival is detrimental to the U.S.

This obscure law gained attention when Trump used it in January 2017 to implement a travel ban on foreigners from mainly Muslim countries. The Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in 2018.

Trump again also signed an executive order in April 2020 that blocked foreigners who were seeking lawful permanent residency from entering the country for 60 days, citing this same section of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Biden did not mention any possible use of section 212(f) during his State of the Union speech. If the president uses this, it would likely be challenged in court. It is not clear that 212(f) would apply to people already in the U.S., and it conflicts with existing asylum law that gives people within the U.S. the right to seek asylum.

Jean Lantz Reisz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending