I have been following with great interest the blogs and videos surrounding Randy Hillier and several organizations supporting his efforts, such as No More Lockdowns, Liberty Coalition, Police On Guard For Thee, and others. They seem genuine and authentic but I had already seen a similar script unfolding in Poland in early 1980s, (remember “Solidarity”?), so I am careful.
A couple of weeks ago, I realized that “Freedom” is not the right word to be used in this battle, as it could also mean freedom to do something that is perceived by others as being wrong or bad. Such a freedom could be interpreted by them as a threat to their security and their safety. It is actually happening, just look at all these trolls accusing Randy Hillier of numerous “illnesses and deaths” of their friends and loved ones. This campaign, as well as a campaign smearing the reputation of Randy and his family, has began about two weeks ago and is being conducted by a fixed number of trolls since.
I also realized that we are fighting against a huge, international cabal of criminals who want to achieve unlimited political power and unlimited economic position using the vast financial resources they already have to corrupt and control our politicians, our media, our judiciary, and our corporations. It became obvious that we cannot win with such a monster by gathering small groups of people shouting “Freedom, freedom, freedom”, or “No More Lockdowns”. We need an international response and a real political alternative to the New Normal and Great Reset agendas.
This is why I have posted on a few Facebook profiles (associated with Randy and his mission) my article “The People’s Great Reset“. I wanted to make them aware of potential accusations of collaborating with the WEF agenda by inciting revolutionary sentiments that are expected by Klaus Schwab to help in the implementation of the Great Reset. I suggested a program that would confront and block that agenda. Since then, I had been blocked on some of these Facebook accounts, for example, the No More Lockdowns FB group. (?)
The book has three main chapters, offering a panoramic overview of the future landscape. The first assesses what the impact of the pandemic will be on five key macro categories: the economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological factors. The second considers the effects in micro terms, on specific industries and companies. The third hypothesizes about the nature of the possible consequences at the individual level.
As the most serious and mostly feared outcome in the post-Covid world, the authors envision social unrest and resulting violence. This unrest will be amplified by various measures implemented by the governments to prevent it or to limit its scale.
Those who are left hopeless, jobless, and without assets could easily turn against those who are better off. Already, some 30% of Americans have zero or negative wealth. If more people emerge from the current crisis with neither money, nor jobs, nor access to health care, and if these people become desperate and angry, such scenes as the recent escape of prisoners in Italy or the looting that followed Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005 might become commonplace. If governments have to resort to using paramilitary or military forces to quell, for example, riots or attacks on property, societies could begin to disintegrate.
However, the mechanisms creating frustration that, in turn, leads to social unrest had begun long before the “pandemic”. The “restructuring” that followed the end of ideological competition between capitalism and communism in early 1990s, the replacement of many full time jobs with part time jobs, the disappearance of job security, the reduction of benefits and paid holidays, the reduction of government regulations, the offshoring and outsourcing, the shrinking of recreational opportunities, the housing and other “bubbles”, the reckless printing of money out of thin air that led to unprecedented inflation, the corruption and speculation, the costly wars for control over energy resources and pipeline corridors, the monopolization of markets that led to unprecedented price gouging, the end of consumer protection, the tax exemptions, safe heavens and uncontrolled international electronic money flow for corporations, the increasing taxes and invigilation for individual citizens, the cuts to education, health care, and social programs, the never-ending price increases (prices for essential goods and housing have grown 3 to 5 times since early 2000s), the privatization of public assets and public services, the demoralization, the destruction of traditional family model and religion, the imposition and promotion of neo-Marxist ideology… and the list goes on. Clearly, the “pandemic” was not responsible for this mess. The “pandemic” came later to justify the Great Reset, which will allow the Davos friends to enrich themselves and keep their loot, while everybody else is being robbed, their status reduced to that of farm animals that need to be fed and frequently checked by the vet.
The question is: where was the World Economic Forum and where were our governments when this was happening on their watch? Didn’t they know that all these changes would lead to social frustration and unrest? Or, were they deliberately allowing this to happen in order to provoke such a reaction? In order to justify the Great Reset that is supposed to fix it all? In the context of falsehoods and lies about the “pandemic”, which is being used to justify the lockdown of our economies worldwide, and in the context of measures and restrictions that destroy our herd immunity, the legend that is being created by Schwab and others does not sound very credible. It looks more like a justification for future changes rather than a necessity caused by past problems. People who caused such problems cannot be trusted to bring a solution. Especially, when these problems seemed to be created deliberately. It was not the “pandemic” that broke down our system.
All of the above failures lowered our standard of living, ended “the American Dream” and served one purpose: they allowed the investors to max up their profits at the expense of the society. They also lowered the quality of products and services, eliminated the middle class, compromised our health care, and brought us the dumbing down reforms in education.
Well before the pandemic engulfed the world, social unrest had been on the rise globally, so the risk is not new but has been amplified by COVID-19. There are different ways to define what constitutes social unrest but, over the past two years, more than 100 significant anti-government protests have taken place around the world, in rich and poor countries alike, from the yellow vests’ riots in France to demonstrations against strongmen in countries such as Bolivia, Iran and Sudan. Most (of the latter) were suppressed by brutal crackdowns, and many went into hibernation (like the global economy) when governments forced their populations into lockdowns to contain the pandemic. But after the interdiction to gather in groups and take to the streets is lifted, it is hard to imagine that old grievances and temporarily suppressed social disquiet will not erupt again, possibly with renewed strength. In the post-pandemic era, the numbers of unemployed, worried, miserable, resentful, sick and hungry will have swelled dramatically. Personal tragedies will accrue, fomenting anger, resentment and exasperation in different social groups, including the unemployed, the poor, the migrants, the prisoners, the homeless, all those left out… How could all this pressure not end in an eruption? Social phenomena often exhibit the same characteristics as pandemics and, as observed in previous pages, tipping points apply equally to both. When poverty, a sense of being disenfranchised and powerlessness reach a certain tipping point, disruptive social action often becomes the option of last resort.
Klaus is warning that the unrest is already happening but I remember a debate in social media indicating that these events were products of deliberate social engineering. Similar attempts to divide societies and create internal conflicts were also observed in Europe and other countries.
At the time of writing this book, COVID-19 has already unleashed a global wave of social unrest. It started in the US with the Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd at the end of May 2020, but it rapidly spread around the world. COVID-19 was a determining element: George Floyd’s death was the spark that lit the fire of social unrest, but the underlying conditions created by the pandemic, in particular the racial inequalities that it laid bare and the rising level of unemployment, were the fuel that amplified the protests and kept them going. /…/
The social engineering narrative continues:
Over the past six years, nearly 100 African Americans have died in police custody, but it took the killing of George Floyd to trigger a national uprising. Therefore, it is not by chance that this outburst of anger occurred during the pandemic that has disproportionately affected the US African-American community (as pointed out earlier). At the end of June 2020, the mortality rate inflicted by COVID-19 on black Americans was 2.4 times higher than for white Americans. Simultaneously, employment among black Americans was being decimated by the corona crisis. This should not come as a surprise: the economic and social divide between African Americans and white Americans is so profound that, according to almost every metric, black workers are disadvantaged compared to white workers. In May 2020, unemployment among African Americans stood at 16.8% (versus a national level of 13.3%), a very high level that feeds into a phenomenon described by sociologists as “biographical availability”: the absence of full-time employment tends to
increase the participation level in social movements. We do not know how the Black Lives Matter movement will evolve and, if it persists, what form it will take. However, indications show it is turning into something broader than race-specific issues. The protests against systemic racism have led to more general calls about economic justice and inclusiveness. This is a logical segue to the issues of inequality addressed in the previous sub-chapter, which also illustrates how risks interact with each other and amplify one another.
True to the notions of interconnectedness and complexity, outbursts of social unrest are quintessential non-linear events that can be triggered by a broad variety of political, economic, societal, technological and environmental factors. They range from things as different as economic shocks, hardship caused by extreme weather events, racial tensions, food scarcity and even
sentiments of unfairness. All these, and more, almost always interact with each other and create cascading effects. Therefore, specific situations of turmoil cannot be forecasted, but can, however, be anticipated.
To fix this frustrating situation Schwab is proposing a new role for the governments.
…in the intervening decades (in the Western world) the role of the state has shrunk considerably. This is a situation that is set to change because it is hard to imagine how an exogenous shock of such magnitude as the one inflicted by COVID-19 could be addressed with purely market-based solutions. Already and almost overnight, the coronavirus succeeded in altering perceptions about the complex and delicate balance between the private and public realms in favour of the latter. It has revealed that social insurance is efficient and that offloading an ever-greater deal of responsibilities (like health and education) to individuals and the markets may not be in the best interest of society. In a surprising and sudden turnaround, the idea, which would have been an anathema just a few years ago, that governments can further the public good while run-away economies without supervision can wreak havoc on social welfare may now become the norm. On the dial that measures the continuum between the government and the markets, the needle has decisively moved towards the left.
Everything that comes in the post-pandemic era will lead us to rethink governments’ role. Rather than simply fixing market failures when they arise, they should, as suggested by the economist Mariana Mazzucato: “move towards actively shaping and creating markets that deliver sustainable and inclusive growth. They should also ensure that partnerships with business involving government funds are driven by public interest, not profit”
As you can see, the “solution” involves a reversal in traditional Western values: collectivism instead of individual rights and freedoms as well as centrally managed economy. In short, we are heading towards communism revisited.
Klaus Schwab is telling us that the Great Reset will fix all the problems in the Universe but the governments have to pacify their citizens, first. Then, they have to implement a new “social contract”, which means a new set of policies shaping new relationship between the citizens, the state, and the corporations
It is almost inevitable that the pandemic will prompt many societies around the world to reconsider and redefine the terms of their social contract. We have already alluded to the fact that COVID-19 has acted as an amplifier of pre-existing conditions, bringing to the fore long-standing issues that resulted from deep structural frailties that had never been properly addressed.
Broadly defined, the “social contract” refers to the (often implicit) set of arrangements and expectations that govern the relations between individuals and institutions. Put simply, it is the “glue” that binds societies together; without it, the social fabric unravels. For decades, it has slowly and almost imperceptibly evolved in a direction that forced individuals to assume greater responsibility for their individual lives and economic outcomes, leading large parts of the population (most evidently in the low income brackets) to conclude that the social contract was at best being eroded, if not in some cases breaking down entirely.
Today, the fundamental reasons underpinning the loss of faith in our social contracts coalesce around issues of inequality, the ineffectiveness of most redistribution policies, a sense of exclusion and marginalization, and a general sentiment of unfairness. This is why many citizens have begun to denounce a breakdown of the social contract, expressing more and more forcefully a general loss of trust in institutions and leaders.
Although they are complex, the policy solutions do exist and broadly consist in adapting the welfare state to today’s world by empowering people and by responding to the demands for a fairer social contract. Over the past few years, several international organizations and think tanks have adjusted to this new
reality and outlined proposals on how to make it happen. The pandemic will mark a turning point by accelerating this transition. It has crystallized the issue and made a return to the pre-pandemic status quo impossible.
To make this transition easier, Schwab is hoping for a controlled revolution that will allow young people to take ownership in the changes and therefore, to support these changes.
Collectively redefining the terms of our social contracts is an epochal task that binds the substantial challenges of the present moment to the hopes of the future. /…/
While reflecting on the contours we think a future social contract might follow, we ignore at our peril the opinion of the younger generation who will be asked to live with it. Their adherence is decisive and thus to better understand what they want, we must not forget to listen. This is made all the more significant by the fact that the younger generation is likely to be more radical than the older one in refashioning our social contract. The pandemic has upended their lives, and a whole generation across the globe will be defined by economic and often social insecurity, with millions due to enter the work force in the midst of a profound recession. They will bear these scars forever. Also, starting off in a deficit – many students have educational debts – is likely to have long-term effects. Already the millennials (at least in the Western world) are worse off than their parents in terms of earnings, assets and wealth. They are less likely to own a home or have children than their parents were. Now, another generation (Gen Z) is entering a system that it sees as failing and that will be beset by long-standing problems revealed and exacerbated by the pandemic. As a college junior, quoted in The New York Times, put it: “Young people have a deep desire for radical change because we see the broken path ahead.”
How will this generation respond? By proposing radical solutions (and often radical action) in an attempt to prevent the next disaster from striking – whether it’s climate change or social inequalities. It will most likely demand a radical alternative to the present course because its members are frustrated and dogged by a nagging belief that the current system is fractured beyond repair.
Youth activism is increasing worldwide, being revolutionized by social media that increases mobilization to an extent that would have been impossible before. It takes many different forms, ranging from non-institutionalized political participation to demonstrations and protests, and addresses issues as
diverse as climate change, economic reforms, gender equality and LGBTQ rights. The young generation is firmly at the vanguard of social change. There is little doubt that it will be the catalyst for change and a source of critical momentum for the Great Reset.
The big question is: How much of this crisis is real and how much is man-made to justify other agendas? I know what I am thinking but the opinions on this topic are divided.
Here you have it. In addition to communism, we now propose to limit the huge range of human rights and freedoms [ 1 ], [ 2 ], [ 3 ], [ 4 ] to climate, income, gender theory, and LGBTQ. The New Normal. No problem, as long as the new generation is properly conditioned to help in implementing the Great Reset. This is the real goal of this “pandemic”.