Global elite Technocrats cannot fathom how there could be any blowback against their techno-totalitarian dreams of Utopia. Those who do resist are viewed as an expendable nuisance and too ignorant to know what is good for themselves. ⁃ Technocracy News & Trends Editor Patrick Wood
By: Jacob Nordangård via Factuality
The Corona crisis is the trigger for a global coup d’état of monumental dimensions. It is the beginning of a new era, with a new international economic order that risks completely destroying human freedoms. Tyrants have now taken over to forcibly steer us into a “climate smart” and “healthy” world through the World Economic Forum’s new techno-totalitarian roadmap – “The Great Reset”.
On June 13, 2019, Klaus Schwab, President of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and UN Secretary-General António Guterres signed a partnership between their two organisations. This was done without any direct media attention despite the tremendous implications this poses to humanity. By and large, this means that the power over our lives with a stroke of a pen has been transferred to the big global corporations and their owners.
The agreement includes six focus areas:
- Funding for the UN Agenda 2030
- Climate change
- Digital collaboration
- Gender equality and women’s liberation
- Education and skills development.
The aim of the partnership is to accelerate the UN Sustainability Agenda and the 17 global targets.
Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals is essential for the future of humanity. The World Economic Forum is committed to supporting this effort, and working with the United Nations to build a more prosperous and equitable future.
The agreement also states that the WEF’s fourth industrial revolution is an important component in implementing the agenda. Digitisation is seen as the key.
A few months later, during the Meeting in Davos in January 2020, this was made very clear by the launch of the Unlocking Technology for the Global Goals report compiled by PWC. This means that the world’s tech giants (which are part of the WEF working groups) will solve the world’s problems through the use of AI, satellites, robotics, drones and the Internet of Things, and with synthetic food on the menu.
By declaring Covid-19 as a pandemic on March 11, the World Health Organization (WHO) opened up an opportunity window for the WEF to quickly implement its new world order. Everything was very carefully prepared.
As early as 2006, the WEF’s first report on global risks had discussed the measures to be taken in the event of a pandemic (some of the recommendations were tested in the context of Swine Flu in 2009). After that, the working groups continued to sew their network. In 2010, the Rockefeller Foundation published Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development, which described the scenario of a future shutdown almost prophetically:
At first, the notion of a more controlled world gained wide acceptance and approval. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty – and their privacy – to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and stability. Citizens were more tolerant, and even eager, for top-down direction and oversight, and national leaders had more latitude to impose orders in the ways they saw fit.
A year before the virus began to hit the world, the WEF released the report Outbreak Readiness and Business Impact Protecting Lives and Livelihoods across the Global Economy. The great preparations were getting ready.
In October 2019, a dress rehearsal was performed through the Event 201 exercise (which involved stakeholders such as the WEF, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Johns Hopkins University). A detailed review is done among other things in my post The Corona Crisis and the Technocratic Agenda.
The Great Reset
After a few months of extreme measures in which communities were shut down and authoritarian control rules were introduced simultaneously around the world, Klaus Schwab and António Guterres, along with Prince Charles, among others, on June 3 forward and offered a solution to all problems – “The Great Reset”.
The COVID-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not adapted for the 21st century. It has exposed a fundamental lack of social cohesion, justice, inclusion and equality. Now the historic moment has arrived, not only to fight the real virus, but also to reshape the system according to the needs of corona’s legacy. We have a choice to remain passive, which would reinforce many of the trends we see today. Polarisation, nationalism, racism and ultimately increasing social unrest with conflict. But we have a different choice, we can build a new social contract, which specifically integrates the next generation, we can change our behaviors to be in harmony with nature again, and we can ensure that the technology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is best utilized to give us better lives.
On July 9, 2020, the WEF released the book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” in which the thoughts were developed by Schwab and co-author Thierry Malleret (director of the WEF’s Global Risk Network). The purpose of the book is to create an understanding of the future ahead and is divided into three main chapters.
- Macro Reset – which analyzes the impact on the economy, society, geopolitics, environment and technology.
- Micro Reset – which analyzes consequences for industries and businesses.
- Individual Reset – which discusses consequences on an individual level.
According to the authors, we are faced with a choice. One way will take us to a better world: more inclusive, more equal, and respectful to Mother Earth. The second way will take us to a world reminiscent of the one we have left – but worse and with ever-recurring unpleasant surprises. They thus threaten to harass us until we give way and accept their techno-utopian vision for the world.
Geopolitical Reset: COVID-19 has reminded the world that the main problems are global in nature (climate, pandemics, terrorism, international trade). However, global organisations have not been sufficiently equipped and lacked effective leadership. According to the authors, the current system has not been able to deal with the corona crisis, but has instead been characterised by uncoordinated national measures. According to the authors, this demonstrates the need for more effective and coordinated leadership and that nationalism only leads us wrong.
Therefore, the concern is that, without appropriate Global Governance, we will become paralysed in our attempts to address and respond to global challenges.
This has been particularly demonstrated in Africa, Latin America and Asia, where nations are even in danger of collapsing from the pressures of the crisis.
Any lockdown or health crisis caused by the coronavirus could rapidly create widespread desperation and disorder, potentially triggering massive unrest with global knock-out effects.
Violence, hunger, unemployment and chaos come in its place. Famine disasters of biblical proportions can occur. This risks creating a new wave of mass migration similar to the one that occurred in 2015-2016.
The world will become a more dangerous and poorer place if we do not create global institutions, according to Schwab and Malleret. Without these, the global economy cannot be restarted. It is not so difficult to assume that the World Economic Forum is happy to contribute this management just as their partnership with the UN indicates. In any case, the next few years look to be very tough. It is the chaos that precedes the order.
Environmental Reset: According to the authors, both pandemics and climate change/ecosystem collapse show the complex interplay between man and nature. They argue that COVID-19 has given the world a taste of what a full-fledged climate crisis and ecosystem collapse means for the economy, geopolitics, social issues and technological development. The crises also share common attributes such as that they are global in their scope and can only be resolved through global coordination.
At first glance, the pandemic and the environment seem to be only distantly related cousins, but they are much closer and more intertwined than we think.
One difference is that pandemics require immediate action where the results are rapid, while climate change does not feel as tangible and therefore not seen as as important to address. During a pandemic, the majority agree to coercive measures while opposing limitations in their life choices if it is about climate change where scientific evidence is questionable. The book relates to studies where pandemics such as COVID-19 are considered to be related to human impact on the environment. As usual, we people are to blame and it is expressed disappointing that carbon dioxide emissions have only decreased by 8% during the shutdown. The conclusion is that a radical change in energy systems and structural changes in our consumption habits are needed. However, it is doubtful that these restrictions apply to Schwab and his friends in the Politburo.
If, in the post-pandemic era, we decide to resume our lives just as before (by driving the same cars, by heating our homes the same way and so on), the COVID-19 crisis will have gone to waste as far as climate policies are concerned.
The pandemic is predicted to dominate politics for several years, thus risking making climate work less urgent – COP26, for example, was cancelled. Schwab (along with his allies) wants to avoid this and instead sees how the COVID-19 crisis can open up opportunities to implement their “sustainable” environmental policies. Governments and businesses will in this scenario be encouraged to “make the right choice” by large sections of the population developing a new social conscience that a different way of life is possible. This is driven by a fortunately crafted activism.
Since governments may be tempted to return to the old order, four key areas should be used to steer development in the “right” direction:
- Enlightened leadership – Leaders who are at the forefront of the fight against climate change (the book points out, among other things, Prince Charles).
- Risk awareness – The attention that COVID-19 has given us about interdependence and the consequences of not listening to scientific expertise has raised awareness.
- Behavioural change – The pandemic has forced us to change our travel and consumption patterns and through it embraced a “greener” way of life.
- Activism – The Corona virus has inspired change and created new strategies for social activism. Climate activists who have seen air pollution reduced during the shutdown will double their pressure on businesses and investors.
The European Commission’s massive Green Deal, with its plan to invest a trillion euros with the aim of reducing emissions and introducing a Circular Economy, is considered the most tangible example of how the authorities are not going to put the Corona crisis to waste.
Technological Reset: According to the authors, the Corona crisis has meant that digital development in a month has taken a step that would otherwise take up to two years. Everything has been largely moved online. It is the technology companies that are the winners and their merits during the crisis have been massive while all business ideas based on face-to-face meetings (such as the cultural sector and restaurants) are the losers. This is something that, according to Schwab and Malleret, will largely remain. The Corona crisis has caused a lasting impact on work, education, commerce, medicine and entertainment. In addition, it has caused a major intrusion into our privacy.
“… the pandemic will accelerate innovation even more, catalysing technological changes already under way and “turbocharging” any digital business or the digital dimension of any business.”
“We will see how contact tracing has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armoury needed to combat COVID-19, while at the same time being positioned to become an enabler of mass surveillance.”
This has also led governments around the world to abandon the process of lengthy investigations to regulate new technology. Instead, all inhibitions have been released. Temporary regulations that have been put in place during the crisis may, according to the authors, also continue. It is also about social distance. Societies will put emphasis on restructuring workplaces to minimise human contact. For employees in the hotel, restaurant and education sector, the future thus looks dark. The authors foresee a massive automation to manage hygiene and cleanliness, which in turn will accelerate the digital transformation. Domestic production is, however, projected to increase due to robotization.
From the onset of the lockdowns, it became apparent that robots and AI were a natural alternative when human labour was not available.
But it comes at a price. It makes people redundant and it is clear that it is simpler jobs that are at risk. It all gives a chilly and deeply anti-human taste. But it’s getting worse. According to the authors, the closures have a high economic price that makes other methods necessary. This opens up permanent technological solutions such as contact tracking where all our movements can be tracked (tracking) and analyzed (tracing) in order to be able to quarantine infected people.
A tracking app gains insight in real time by, for example determine a person’s current location through geodata via GPS coordinates or radio signals.
It is a question of keeping us apart at all costs, but also of studying all our activities back in time. Several countries, such as South Korea, China and Hong Kong, used intrusive and compelling real-time tracking methods during the pandemic. In Hong Kong, electronic bracelets were used while other countries used mobile apps to keep track of the fact that infected people did not leave their quarantine. Singapore’s TraceTogether app, which warns of infected people if they come within a two-metre radius and then sends data to the Ministry of Health, is seen as a possible intermediate route by the authors. The authors also point to the problems that arise if these monitoring systems are based on volunteerism:
No voluntary contract-tracing app will work if people are unwilling to provide their own personal data to the governmental agency that monitors the system, if any individual refuses to download the app (and therefore to withhold information about a possible infection, movements and contacts), everyone will adversely be affected.
Common standards for contact tracing may be adopted in the light of the different systems (in particular the EU is identified).
Schwab and Malleret write that contact tracking enables an “early intervention” against “super-spreading environments” such as family gatherings. It is not difficult to see that the tracking can easily also be used against anyone who opposes this diabolical system. It is we humans who are the contagion in the eyes of these tyrants.
They describe how companies all over the world (as countries start to open up) have started to introduce digital monitoring of their employees so as not to risk new infection. This, of course, goes against all ethical rules and human rights. The authors also point out that once the systems are in place, they are also unlikely to be removed (even if the risk of infection disappears).
The authors write that a host of analysts, policy makers and security officials predict that this will give rise to a dystopian future. The book gives a clear warning that a global techno-totalitarian surveillance state is being built with Coronan as an excuse. There is no doubt, however, that the authors believe that the benefits outweigh the downsides (as is also evident in Schwab’s two books on the Fourth Industrial Revolution).
It is true that in the post-pandemic era, personal health will become a much greater priority for society, which is why the genie of tech-surveillance will not be put back in the bottle.
Schwab and Malleret conclude the chapter by pointing out that “the rulers and ourselves may control and exploit the benefits of technology without sacrificing our individual and collective values and freedoms”. Schwab, which has a central role in creating and promoting the tyrannical surveillance system, thus leaves responsibility to the rest of us.
For entrepreneurs, according to the authors, there is now no return to the system that existed before. COVID-19 has changed everything.
When confronted with it, some industry leaders and senior executives may be tempted to equate reset with restart, hope to go back to the old normal and restore what worked in the past: traditions, tested procedures and familar ways of doing things – in short, a return to business as usual. This won’t happen because it can’t happen. For the most part business as usual died from (or at least was infected by) COVID-19.
What now, according to Schwab and Malleret, applies is:
- Virtual meetings
- More efficient decision-making processes
- Acceleration of digitization and digital solutions
Companies that do not follow the tyrants’ recommendations for a total digital transformation will find it difficult to survive. The winners are major e-commerce companies and streaming services such as Alibaba, Amazon, Netflix and Zoom. For example, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ already astronomical wealth is said to have increased by 60% during the crisis. The trade has in a short time been taken over by a few monopolistic parasites. The same goes for video conferencing company Zoom. Their rise in spring 2020 is exceptional. Pretty much everything is predicted to move to the cybersphere. In 2019, 1% of online consultations with doctors took place in England. During the Corona crisis, it’s been at 100%. E-commerce is also expected to grow as customers are forced online. It’s Big Tech and the health industry that are victorious.
Three industries in particular will flourish (in aggregate) in the post-pandemic era: big tech, health and wellness.
In the post-coronaera, governments are also expected to have greater control over entrepreneurship. The stimulus packages come with conditions for the conduct of the business. What, according to the authors, will be Stakeholder Capitalism with Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance (ESG). This means that companies should take their social responsibility and invest “sustainably”. Through activism from NGO’s like Greenpeace, companies are under pressure to make the right choice. This is strongly reminiscent of Pieter Winsemius’ sustainability formula for large companies described in his book “A Thousand Shades of Green: sustainable strategies for competitive advantage” and the Trilateral Commission’s report “Beyond Interdependence”.
In the last chapter, the authors examine the individual consequences of the pandemic. They write that unlike other disasters such as earthquakes and floods, which bring sympathy and bring people closer together, the pandemic has had the opposite effect. It has been devastating for us humans. The pandemic is a protracted process that combines a strong fear of dying with uncertainty about when the danger is over. The pandemic can keep coming back. It has also been accompanied by authoritarian and erratic measures by the authorities. This results in anxiety.
The pandemic also gives rise to selfish acts because everyone around is perceived as a potential carrier. We’re not helping others because of the fear of death. It also creates guilt and shame. It is impossible to act “right”. This is also evident in the macro scale through countries that closed their borders and severely restricted travel. These measures have also given rise to racism and trigger patriotism and nationalism. The authors see this as a “toxic mixture”.
Humans are inherently social beings. Companionship and social interactions are a vital component of our humanness. If deprived of them, we find our lives upside down. Social relations are to a significant extent, obliberated by confinement measures and physical and social distancing, and in the case of the COVID-19 lockdowns, this occured at a time of heightened anxiety when we needed them most.
The authors show the awareness that disaster makers have about the psychological effects that social isolation has on humans. We have not been able to seek support among friends and family in the same way. We have been deprived of the closeness that we need to function. It becomes like a prolonged torture where we slowly degrade. This means that mental illness has increased dramatically during the year. They point out that:
- Individuals with previous mental problems will have worse anxiety attacks.
- Social distance will increase mental problems even after the measures have been withdrawn.
- Loss of income and jobs will increase the number of deaths through suicide, overdoses and alcoholism etc.
- Domestic violence will increase as the pandemic continues.
- ‘Vulnerable’ people and children, carers, socially disadvantaged and disabled people, will have increased mental ill-health.
The authors point out that this will reflect the need for mental health care in the years following to deal with the trauma. The area will thus have a major priority for decision-makers in the aftermath of the Corona crisis.
This shows how chilly and ruthless these tyrants are. They know very well what they have caused. This is the effect they sought and that will make us make the “right” choice. As a flock of sheep, we shall be driven into their technological dictatorship.
The chapter on entrepreneurship presents how future care will take shape:
Like for any other industry, digital will play a significant role in shaping the future of wellness. The combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being. They will monitor how we are and feel, and will progressively blur the boundaries between public healthcare systems and personalized health creation systems…
The technology should also be able to measure our carbon footprint, our impact on biodiversity and toxicity in everything that we put in us! The control needs of the technocrats seem to be insatiable.
According to the authors, the pandemic has also given us time to reflect on what we value in life, the time in isolation provides insight into our previously unsustainable lifestyle as neglected climate and environment. According to Schwab, this can now be corrected:
“The pandemic gives us this chance: it represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.”
The conclusions discuss the somewhat surprising death rate of the pandemic. It is pointed out that COVID-19 until the end of June only killed 0.006% of the world’s population. It should be put in relation to the Black Death (30-40% of the population) and Spanish Disease (2.7% of the population). Corona’s death toll is thus not exactly something that justifies the total shutdown of the world.
We have paid and will have to pay a high price for something that has been exaggerated beyond all proportions and which has been used as a trigger to introduce a new techno-totalitarian order. The tyrants have operated according to the principle of ‘crises open up to business opportunities’ and have been able to effectively capitalise on the suffering they have caused us humans. They also threaten us to come back with their terror if we do not accept their plans to govern and regulate our lives in detail. These are purely mafia-like methods. None of us have chosen Schwab and his friends within the billionaire club to dictate our lives. It is high time to depose the tyrants. Their rightful place is behind bars.
Sourced from: Technocracy News & Trends
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Send resources to the front lines of peace and freedom HERE! Follow us on SoMee, HIVE, Parler, Flote, Minds, and Twitter.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
Be the first to comment on "World Economic Forum’s Techno-Totalitarian Roadmap"