The World Economic Forum is now (January 25-29, 2021) enjoying its 51^st session.

It is about to change our world forever. Or hopes to. If we let it.

Its main purpose this year is to promote the implementation of the Great Reset.

The Great Reset is, according to its admirers:

A project to bring the world’s best minds together to seek a better, fairer, greener, healthier planet as we rebuild from the pandemic.

The first thing to know about the World Economic Forum, which meets annually at Davos in Switzerland, is that it is a voluntary luxury parliament of billionaires and politicians and billionaire-politicians.

The next thing to know is: what is it for, what do these people aim at, what do they want? And the answer, with no exaggeration, is: they want to rule the world.

The Covid-19 world-wide epidemic provides the would-be world rulers with their best opportunity yet for claiming that “world solutions” are needed.

So now again an arrogance of theorists [collective noun; singular verb] wants to organize the rest of us, or as many of the rest of us as can be raked in and arranged into a pattern of existence they know to be beautiful. Their aim is only to do us good. Theirs is a kindly plan for putting human affairs right and making the whole world nice, and they alone can do it. That is their conviction, their unshakable belief.

They call their plan the “Great Reset”. They will gather into their own hands all the wealth of the world (now don’t go asking what that is or how such a thing can be done!) and redistribute it equally so each gets the same share as everyone else. (No, shush, don’t ask whether they will put their own wealth in the pool for redistribution. That’s another inappropriate question. Please try not to be hostile. Please be co-operative, neighborly, communitarian, declare that you are concerned above all else for the wretched of the earth, and you will already be helping to accomplish the Great Reset.)

This economic equalizing of all – leading, they say, inevitably to the social equalizing of all (though not of course making us all equal in power with them, the rulers themselves) – is NOT to be called or thought of as Communism, or Marxism, or neo-Marxism, or even Socialism. It is “a better form of capitalism”, aka “stake-holder’s capitalism”. It is the gift to humanity of Big Business.

The Great Reset has been made gloriously implementable right now by the Covid pandemic. Universal lockdown has forced people everywhere to change the pattern of their lives. The old ways have had to go. What an opportunity this is for shaping the new ways as they ideally ought to be! For directing the arc of history the way it ought to bend!

The World Economic Forum will turn a nasty disease into a boon for humankind.

There might have been difficulties put in the way by the United States of America if Donald Trump had been re-elected president in November 2020. He was a nuisance to the would-be world rulers for three years, and would have gone on holding them back for a while yet had not Covid-19 burst upon the political scene and forced even him to accept unprecedented change.

A billionaire himself but like no other, he is a man incapable of formulating a grand theory of any sort; one who personally knows people who build things with mortar and metal, actually standing among them and listening to them, sometimes wearing a hard hat himself! That man wants each of those workers to have a say in how he [generic masculine pronoun] is ruled! He wants each of them to keep the money he earns for himself and his dependents! That man would acknowledge no world crisis needing a “world solution” (not even global warming) – until he was confronted by Covid-19. That one man could have stood in the way of the Davos plan for years to come, and perhaps even destroyed it forever!

They did their best to traduce him in the eyes of the millions of deplorable Americans who voted for him. They accused him of all the worst sins they could think of, calling him racist, xenophobe, Islamophobe, homophobe, transgenderphobe, misogynist, narcissist, climate change denier, liar, Nazi, Hitler. They tried to impress on the electorate that his face was orange, his hands too small, his hair too … too … They said he had two scoops of ice-cream when everyone else had only one. They explained why his wife and children were beneath their contempt. They did all that, and did everything they could think of to relieve the country of his leadership – and it made no difference. The deplorables continued to cheer him on, fanatically. Tens of millions of them. They said the accusations were not true. And then he actually got more votes in that November 2020 election than any other Republican candidate for the presidency had ever got before him!

Fortunately, somehow, even more votes were cast for his opponent Joe Biden, a man who loves the plan of Davos.

How can the visionaries of Davos not be grateful to the Covid virus for falling upon the world; grateful to China from where it emanated; grateful to the United Nation’s World Health Organization for promoting the great change in everyday life that nothing else could have accomplished?

You too must learn to love the vision and the plan.

Here is the face and the message of Davos. See it, hear it, learn it, obey it.

The face is that of Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum. He is introduced by Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission (the EU).

And here’s CNN, at highest sycophantic pitch, interviewing Klaus Schwab in 2020, when he and his like-thinkers were still trying to use “climate change” as the urgent disaster from which the world needed saving by them, before the happy advent of the Covid pandemic.

And here is Klaus Schwab talking about what he calls the fourth industrial revolution – the digital revolution – and how it requires globalization and social equalization.

And here he explains his “new definition of capitalism”.

And here is an appreciative article about the World Economic Forum put out for the occasion of this 51st. session. It is by Jonathan Michie, Professor of Innovation & Knowledge Exchange, University of Oxford, He writes at The Conversation:  

The 51st World Economic Forum starts on January 25 …

Inevitably, the event … aims to respond to the apocalyptic events of the past 12 months. “A crucial year to rebuild trust” is the theme, built around the “great reset” that World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles launched last year.

The event will be accompanied by virtual events in 430 cities across the world, to emphasise the fact that we face global challenges that require global solutions and action.

This recognises that the effects of the pandemic are likely to be increasingly compounded by other major global threats, including the climate crisis, financial crises, and social and economic inequality. To give just one example, the COVID-19 mortality rate in England in December was over twice as high in the most deprived areas than the least deprived.

See? Pure philanthropy drives the WEF.

So how successful is the WEF’s mission likely to be?

This is not the first time that global crises have required global action, but there have been mixed results in the past. After the first world war, the UK played a pivotal role in forming the League of Nations on the international stage. But this ultimately failed to deliver, with the UK’s insistence on post-war reparations undermining Germany’s economic recovery and political stability.

So the failure of the League of Nations – and therefore the outbreak of the second world war? – was Britain’s fault.

Professor Michie does his best to make the idea of an international forum managing the world’s economy nothing to be feared; rather something already tried and tested:

When the world next sought to prevent future conflicts towards the end of the second world war, the lessons were to some extent learned from last time around. The allies met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, in the US in 1944 to develop policies for economic stability.

This led to a new system of interlinked exchange rates organised around a gold-backed US dollar, as well as new institutions to help manage it, including the International Monetary Fund and what later became the World Bank. This was followed in the next couple of years by the United Nations and the forerunner to the World Trade Organization. The Bretton Woods system endured until the early 1970s when the US came off the gold standard, but much of the system created in the 1940s survives in one form or another today.

And who dares say that the creation of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization was a bad thing?

The 2007-09 financial crisis, which involved the first global recession since the 1930s, led to many calls for action to prevent similar crises in future. There was some tightening of regulation, but the threat of instability remains due to excessive debts and too much speculation.

With only the 1940s seeing a really adequate response to global crises, what will make the difference this time?

The WEF’s vision of a “great reset” recognises that what is needed to tackle these crises goes far beyond economic reforms, or climate measures, or tackling a pandemic – it is all of these combined, and more. It is the idea that global action needs to be underpinned by a mission to change society, to make it more inclusive and cohesive; to match environmental sustainability with social sustainability. It follows their call to “build back better” – one echoed by many around the world.

The WEF seeks action across seven key themes: environmental sustainability; fairer economies; “tech for good”; the future of work and the need for reskilling; better business; healthy futures with fair access for all; and “beyond geopolitics” – national governments collaborating globally.

The WEF says the key is reestablishing public trust, which is “being eroded, in part due to the perceived mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic”. But this may prove difficult, given there is little change in corporate or government leadership.

The big hope is 78-year-old Joe Biden, who was US vice president for eight years during which many of these problems were mounting, not being solved.

Sadly, the main cause for optimism is the fact that today’s crises are so great that they may provoke action. Future financial crises look likely. The climate crisis is increasingly accepted to be an existential threat. And now the pandemic is a huge economic and human disaster, with further such pandemics recognised as likely because of everything from the explosion in global travel to the effects of climate change.

A key question for this year’s conference … is whether a new form of globalisation will be developed. …

A new era is required, building on the Paris Agreement to limit climate change now that the Americans are joining again – with more support of a Green New Deal geared towards achieving net zero emissions and making the global economy truly sustainable.

We need bold initiatives to tackle the threat of future pandemics; financial speculation, tax evasion and avoidance, and the threat of financial crises; and to reduce the unsustainable inequalities of wealth, income and power across the globe.

So tax avoidance is now considered morally wrong or possibly criminal. We must arrange our financial affairs so that we pay the greatest amount of tax that we possibly can.

Will corporate and political decision-makers rise to the challenge? There needs to be sufficient popular pressure – from citizens, voters, consumers, workers, educators and activists – to push governments and business to change course fundamentally.

The professor names the forerunners of this new globalist movement:

These past few years have witnessed the Occupy movement, the Me Too Movement, Black Lives Matter and countless climate crisis groups.

Who could have predicted  that all those billionaires, many of them from Wall Street, would find reason to honor and adopt the agenda of the Occupy Wall Street movement?

Yes. And BLM – a self-declared Marxist movement – will work in perfect harmony with the new capitalism and Big Business.

Calls for action have been coming from business leaders at Davos and elsewhere for years.

The hope is that this time, the scale of the emergency will finally make radical change unavoidable.

Unavoidable, the radical change that Klaus Schwab, and Prince Charles, and Bill Gates, and George Soros, and Joe Biden will manage. We have no choice but to let it happen.

And why should we not be happy about it? It will improve the world forever. Guaranteed.

The muzzle policy is all about power and fear. The muzzle is a badge of subservience and submission. What is happening to us is the final closing down of centuries of human liberty and the transformation of one of the freest countries on Earth into a regimented, conformist society, under perpetual surveillance, in which a subservient people scurries about beneath the stern gaze of authority.

So Peter Hitchens writes at the Daily Mail.

We strongly agree with him.

Here’s more of his article:

England’s chief medical officer, Chris Whitty, … said that wearing face masks would do little to combat the outbreak [of the Coronavirus]. While noting that if someone was infected, they might reduce the danger of spreading the disease by covering their faces, Prof. Whitty said wearing a face mask had almost no effect on reducing the risk of contracting the illness.

He stated: “In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear: that wearing a mask if you don’t have an infection reduces the risk almost not at all. So we do not advise that.”

Also in March, the Advertising Standards Authority banned two firms’ advertisements for masks, saying that the adverts were “misleading, irresponsible and likely to cause fear without justifiable reason”.

At about the same time, Dr Jenny Harries, a Deputy Chief Medical Officer, warned that people could be putting themselves more at risk from contracting Covid by wearing muzzles. She said masks could “actually trap the virus”, and cause the person wearing it to breathe it in. She explained: “For the average member of the public walking down a street, it is not a good idea.”

On April 3, the other Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, said he did not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK.

The British Government has also zig-zagged. As recently as June 24, in a series of official pamphlets for reopening shops and services, the Department for Business and Enterprise said repeatedly: “The evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small.”

This was true at the time and it is still true. The evidence is indeed weak. There is plenty of research showing that the case for muzzles is poor, especially a survey done for the dental profession four years ago, which quietly vanished from the internet after mask opponents began to cite it.

The scientific papers in favor of muzzling are full of weak, hesitant words such as “probably”, “could” and “may” – which can equally well be expressed as “probably not”, “could not” or “may not”.

There has not been any great discovery in the past few days.

Generally, the main way of discovering if something works is the Randomised Control Trial (RCT), in which the proposed treatment or method is tested directly and thoroughly.

This hasn’t been done with muzzles, probably because it would be a bit difficult and possibly because muzzle zealots fear the results would not help their case.

Amazingly, the chief spokesman for science in this country, who should surely support proper rigor, has dismissed such RCTs. Venki Ramakrishnan, president of the Royal Society, sneered at “inappropriate” RCTs as “methodological fetishism”. He did this while advocating more compulsory muzzle-wearing when he appeared on Radio 4’s Today program on July 7 – as the political lobbying for muzzles intensified.

All that has changed is the politics. Why are they changing? Interestingly, Health Secretary Matt Hancock’s muzzle edict was the first action by the London Government which actually copied a move made by Nicola Sturgeon’s extremely Left-wing Edinburgh administration.

There are many signs that it has not been thought through, at least by scientists.

Why are we more likely to spread Covid in a shop than we are to do so in a pub or restaurant? The question cannot be answered.

What evidence there is certainly suggests that the risk of transmission is greater if we linger longer, but the Government does not dare close down the catering trade again, because it would be wildly unpopular and because these businesses are on the point of bankruptcy – and such an action would shut them.

The truth is that the muzzle policy is all about power and fear.

The Government began its wild, disproportionate shutdown of the country by spreading fear of a devastating plague that would destroy the NHS and kill untold thousands.
Now, as many people find that Covid-19 is, in fact, nothing of the kind, new ways have to be found to keep up the alarm levels.

One was exposed on Friday by the superb scientists of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Puzzled by the way that Covid death figures in England continued to pour in, while they had all but ceased in Scotland, they looked at the figures from Public Health England (PHE). And they found, in their own devastating words:

It seems that PHE regularly looks for people on the NHS database who have ever tested positive, and simply checks to see if they are still alive or not. PHE does not appear to consider how long ago the Covid test result was, nor whether the person has been successfully treated in hospital and discharged to the community. Anyone who has tested Covid positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE Covid death figures. By this PHE definition, no one with Covid in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness. A patient who has tested positive, but been successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a Covid death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later.

This problem would be avoided by having a simple cut-off, where those who tested positive more than 28 days ago were no longer counted as Covid deaths. Scotland does this. That is why its figures are lower.

Findings are now also pouring in which suggest that a horribly high number of the excess deaths during the last few months were not caused by Covid, but by people failing to seek treatment for heart attacks, strokes and cancer.

Despite the propagandists of the BBC, which has tried as hard as it can never to mention the legions of dissenting scientists who dispute the Government’s policy, people are beginning to wonder, in increasing numbers, if they might have been taken for a ride.

This Government has no great authority. It is a Cabinet of undistinguished, inexperienced unknowns, headed by an exhausted and empty Prime Minister whose sparkle, such as it was, is fast fading.

In a few weeks’ time, the Government faces the onset of what may be the worst economic crisis since 1929. It needs to keep the fear levels up to maintain its authority.

One way of doing this is the ceaseless promotion of an alleged “second wave” of Covid, for which there is no evidence.

Another is to undertake a ferocious testing policy. This is now happening in Leicester where testers go from door to door to discover people who are “infected” with Covid, even if they have no symptoms (which is usually the case) and are perfectly healthy. Then they can raise the alarm and close down the city.

But muzzling the populace is even better. People such as me, who think Ministers’ response to the virus is wildly out of proportion, have until now been able to live amid the propaganda, trying to stay sane.

But the muzzle is a badge of subservience and submission. Anyone who dons it publicly is agreeing to the Government’s crazy assessment of the level of danger.

Societies in which citizens are discouraged from speaking out against the regime, as this has become, are pretty disgraceful. But countries where the citizens are compelled to endorse the opinion of the state are a serious step further down the path to totalitarianism.

It is even worse than that.

Look at the muzzled multitudes, their wide eyes peering out anxiously from above the hideous gag which obscures half their faces and turns them from normal human beings into mouthless, obedient submissives.

The psychological effect of these garments, on those who wear them, is huge.

And it also has another nasty result for society as a whole.

Dissenters, who prefer not to muzzle themselves, are made to stand out from the surrendered majority, who then become quite keen on pressuring the non-conformists to do as they are told, and on informing against them.

I predicted the same outcome during the House Arrest period in April, and was mocked for it, but it came true.

When all this began, I felt fear. But it was not fear of the disease, which was clearly overstated from the start.

It was fear of exactly what is happening to us, the final closing down of centuries of human liberty and the transformation of one of the freest countries on Earth into a regimented, conformist society, under perpetual surveillance, in which a subservient people scurries about beneath the stern gaze of authority.

It is my view that, if you don that muzzle, you are giving your assent to that change.

Why does Joe Biden, the senile Democrat nominee for the US presidency, insist that masking should be compulsory?

Rush Limbaugh has an answer:

Rush Limbaugh believes that Biden’s support for forced masking is really all about the candidate’s basement strategy. The Biden team has mostly confined Joe to the basement of his Delaware home in an effort to preserve his poll numbers. It’s a good strategy for a 77-year-old gaffe-prone candidate who a majority of likely voters believe has dementia …

According to Limbaugh, Biden’s calls for mandatory masking represents Biden’s doubling down on his basement strategy. …

“This is how Plugs intends to keep himself unavailable,” Limbaugh told [his radio] listeners on Friday. “Plugs” is Limbaugh’s nickname for Joe Biden, due to the obvious hair plugs on Biden’s head. “It’s just too dangerous, folks, to go out there. Everybody must wear the mask for three months because they can’t afford for Joe Biden to leave the basement.”

For the Left in general, anywhere and everywhere, the pandemic is a gift of an excuse to compel obedience. They tried it on with global warming, but that didn’t work. This time it’s different. People everywhere, all over the globe, are covering their faces on the orders of their masters.

This forced masking is grooming for totalitarianism.

We are being groomed for totalitarianism. 

From Swiss Propaganda Research:

Overview

1. 1. According to data from the best-studied countries and regions, the lethality of Covid19 is on average about 0.2%, which is in the range of a severe influenza (flu) and about twenty times lower than originally assumed by the WHO.
   2. Even in the global “hotspots”, the risk of death for the general population of school and working age is typically in the range of a daily car ride to work. The risk was initially overestimated because many people with only mild or no symptoms were not taken into account.
   3. Up to 80% of all test-positive persons remain symptom-free. Even among 70-79 year olds, about 60% remain symptom-free. Over 95% of all persons show mild symptoms at most.
   4. Up to one third of all persons already have a certain background immunity to Covid19 due to contact with previous coronaviruses (i.e. common cold viruses).
   5. The median or average age of the deceased in most countries (including Italy) is over 80 years and only about 1% of the deceased had no serious preconditions. The age and risk profile of deaths thus essentially corresponds to normal mortality.
   6. In most Western countries, 50 to 70% of all extra deaths occurred in nursing homes, which do not benefit from a general lockdown. Moreover, in many cases it is not clear whether these people really died from Covid19 or from extreme stress, fear and loneliness.
   7. Up to 50% of all additional deaths may have been caused not by Covid19, but by the effects of the lockdown, panic and fear. For example, the treatment of heart attacks and strokes decreased by up to 60% because many patients no longer dared to go to hospital.
   8. Even in so-called “Covid19 deaths” it is often not clear whether they died from or with coronavirus (i.e. from underlying diseases) or if they were counted as “presumed cases” and not tested at all. However, official figures usually do not reflect this distinction.
   9. Many media reports of young and healthy people dying from Covid19 turned out to be false: many of these young people either did not die from Covid19, they had already been seriously ill (e.g. from undiagnosed leukaemia), or they were in fact 109 instead of 9 years old.
   10. The normal overall mortality per day is about 8000 people in the US, about 2600 in Germany and about 1800 in Italy. Influenza mortality per season is up to 80,000 in the US and up to 25,000 in Germany and Italy. In several countries Covid19 deaths remained below strong flu seasons.
   11. Regional increases in mortality may be influenced by additional risk factors such as high levels of air pollution and microbial contamination, as well as a collapse in the care for the elderly and sick due to infections, mass panic and lockdown. Special regulations for dealing with the deceased sometimes led to additional bottlenecks in funeral or cremation services.
   12. In countries such as Italy and Spain, and to some extent the UK and the US, hospital overloads due to strong flu waves are not unusual. In addition, up to 15% of doctors and health workers were put into quarantine, even if they developed no symptoms.
   13. The often shown exponential curves of “corona cases” are misleading, as the number of tests also increased exponentially. In most countries, the ratio of positive tests to tests overall (i.e. the positive rate) remained constant at 5% to 25% or increased only slightly. In many countries, the peak of the spread was already reached well before the lockdown.
   14. Countries without curfews and contact bans, such as Japan, South Korea or Sweden, have not experienced a more negative course of events than other countries. Sweden was even praised by the WHO and now benefits from higher immunity compared to lockdown countries.
   15. The fear of a shortage of ventilators was unjustified. According to lung specialists, the invasive ventilation (intubation) of Covid19 patients, which is partly done out of fear of spreading the virus, is in fact often counterproductive and damaging to the lungs.
   16. Contrary to original assumptions, various studies have shown that there is no evidence of the virus spreading through aerosols (i.e. particles floating in the air) or through smear infections (e.g. on door handles, smartphones or at the hairdresser).
   17. There is also no scientific evidence for the effectiveness of face masks in healthy or asymptomatic individuals. On the contrary, experts warn that such masks interfere with normal breathing and may become “germ carriers”. Leading doctors called them a “media hype” and “ridiculous”.
   18. Many clinics in Europe and the US remained strongly underutilized or almost empty during the Covid19 peak and in some cases had to send staff home. Numerous operations and therapies were cancelled, including some organ transplants and cancer screenings.
   19. Several media were caught trying to dramatize the situation in hospitals, sometimes even with manipulative images and videos. In general, the unprofessional reporting of many media maximized fear and panic in the population.
   20. The virus test kits used internationally are prone to errors and can produce false positive and false negative results. Moreover, the official virus test was not clinically validated due to time pressure and may sometimes react to other coronaviruses.
   21. Numerous internationally renowned experts in the fields of virology, immunology and epidemiology consider the measures taken to be counterproductive and recommend rapid natural immunisation of the general population and protection of risk groups. The risks for children are virtually zero and closing schools was never medically warranted.
   22. Several medical experts described vaccines against coronaviruses as unnecessary or even dangerous. Indeed, the vaccine against the so-called swine flu of 2009, for example, led to sometimes severe neurological damage and lawsuits in the millions.
   23. The number of people suffering from unemployment, psychological problems and domestic violence as a result of the measures has skyrocketed worldwide. Several experts believe that the measures may claim more lives than the virus itself. According to the UN millions of people around the world may fall into absolute poverty and famine.
   24. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden warned that the “corona crisis” will be used for the massive and permanent expansion of global surveillance. The renowned virologist Pablo Goldschmidt spoke of a “global media terror” and “totalitarian measures“. Leading British virologist professor John Oxford spoke of a “media epidemic”.
   25. More than 500 scientists have warned against an “unprecedented surveillance of society” through problematic apps for “contact tracing”. In some countries, such “contact tracing” is already carried out directly by the secret service. In several parts of the world, the population is already being monitored by drones and facing serious police overreach.

 

(We thank Cogito for the link)

What we must do to keep ourselves safe from the coronavirus: