In this essay, I explain in simple terms why The Great Reset concept of the WEF (which not only includes a large climate change component but is also linked to Covid-19 restrictions) is conceptually unsound but so dangerous that it sparked a Canadian uprising that is spreading around the world.
Update 19 Feb 2022: see below, from Canadian parliament when questions are asked about cabinet members ‘on board’ with WEF agenda.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) held a special virtual meeting in early June 2020 to announce the publication of a book written by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret that laid out a grand manifesto called ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’. This is what Schwab had to say:
We can emerge from this crisis a better world, if we act quickly and jointly. The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible. This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism – and here’s how it can be achieved.
Schwab and the WEF have promoted the concept of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ for decades but it appears that very early in the pandemic he saw the Covid-19 crisis as a perfect opportunity to implement his vision sooner rather than later. This was a red flag for me because it mirrored the actions of David Attenborough that I’d been documenting for my book, Fallen Icon: Sir David Attenborough and the Walrus Deception. Attenborough saw the shocking film footage of walrus falling to their deaths presented in the Netflix/WWF extravaganza Our Planet as the leverage he needed to kick-start an aggressive campaign to promote action on climate change and curb capitalism.
The topics may seem unrelated but statements made by Attenborough last year were barely distinguishable from those made by the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Charles) in his support of the WEF’s plan for a total revamping of society. While some have dismissed The Great Reset as a conspiracy theory, the concept is very real but esoteric enough to invite wide interpretation.
Worryingly, as critic Justin Honse has pointed out, the WEF has not been forthcoming about the fact that the stakeholder capitalism idea is “not exactly compatible with democracy”. In addition, it’s easy to see that their aim of having huge societal changes fully implemented by 2030 – a scant eight years from now – would cause concern.
I have read Schwab and Malleret’s book. Contrary to my expectations, I did not find it to be a totally irrational rant. However, three core concepts upon which The Great Reset rests are undeniably false, which renders the manifesto invalid and the proposed ‘solutions’ colossally inappropriate as well as unnecessary:
- That “…there is nothing new about the confinement and lockdowns imposed upon much of the world to manage Covid-19. They have been common practice for centuries.” (pg. 13)
- That all previous pandemics were followed by a total reorganization of society. (pg. 13-15, and 38)
- That future climate catastrophes – but especially ‘extreme weather’ – are inevitable unless extraordinary measures are taken to reduce emissions of CO2. (pg. 25, 141)
False: there is no plausible evidence that ‘extreme weather’ has increased in recent years, despite groundless statements to the contrary. Outputs from modelling regarding possible future conditions are not scientific facts and are based on assumptions that may not be correct.
Since these core concepts are false, The Great Reset and all the societal changes it calls for can be dismissed as ideological drivel. But the ideas are dangerous nevertheless because a large number of very rich and powerful people have bought into the plan. Attenborough and Prince Charles are only two of them: there are many others.
When Attenborough said to the WEF in January 2019, regarding his Netflix ‘Our Planet’ documentary, “If people can truly understand what is at stake, I believe they will give permission to business and governments to get on with the practical solutions,” he implied that democratic votes would be involved.
However, it is easy to see how many people would interpret ‘The Great Reset’ manifesto as a grand plan to circumvent democracy.
In part, this is because they have seen how easy it was for governments around the world to use hastily-declared public health emergency powers to enforce drastic restrictions on people’s movements and their ability to make a living, including the imposition of vaccine passports that pave the way toward more generalized digital ID systems. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that similar legislation might be enacted to deal with a perceived climate change ‘emergency’.
It is apparent that Schwab and his supporters realized by April 2020 that mandating the most rigid restrictions imaginable on people’s lives was not only possible in democratic countries but much easier than they anticipated – provided that populations were sufficiently frightened by coordinated media reports and government announcements.
When people around the world submitted with virtually no resistance to lockdowns imposed to protect their lives, it appeared that Schwab and his confederates assumed those same people would readily submit to mandated, communist-style restriction on their freedom to mitigate climate change since it would also be for their own good. However, convincing people that a climate emergency would require acquiescence with even more draconian regulations might be a more difficult challenge. Insisting on 100% compliance with vaccine passports and mask wearing now might make compliance with climate emergency measures and other social changes easier a few years down the line.
Vaccine passports have been defended by many as a necessary mitigation strategy to reduce illness while others have more honestly admitted they are simply a way to coerce the unvaccinated to submit. However, now that it’s apparent that none of the Covid-19 vaccines prevent infection or transmission, many people are interpreting continued insistence on vaccine passports as irrational and dangerous. They are starting to wonder if this is a ploy by governments to advance Great Reset ideology by stealth. Others simply see the danger in governments having so much power to restrict people’s lives.
And now, the assumption that people will continue to comply with mandates and restrictions has hit a giant roadblock – quite literally. A few weeks ago, working class people across Canada said they’d had enough of Covid-19 mandates and backed up their convictions with strategically parked big-rig trucks, farm tractors, and other vehicles. They amassed an astonishing amount of support very quickly, proving it was not a fringe minority opinion.
After three weeks of massive disruption across the country, the truckers continue to insist they will not stop their protests until all mandates and restrictions are lifted: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has steadfastly refused to do so, resorting instead to deriding and slandering the protesters. This week, he invoked Canada’s Emergencies Act to quell the peaceful protests even though the act was never intended for this purpose. Under this authority, Trudeau has threatened every Canadian who donated even $10 to support the peaceful truckers protest with freezing their bank accounts.
His rigid position and draconian actions are making many people wonder why. The pandemic is over and countries around the world are scrapping restrictions, mask mandates, and vaccine passports. Expanding them at this time, as Canada is doing, makes no sense as a public health measure but does if the end game is the adoption of WEF-style societal change. And now you see why I felt it was so critical to show how Attenborough manipulated the falling walrus tragedy to his advantage: he is one of the elites pushing for these WEF transformations.
No wonder the Canadian truckers Freedom Convoy has inspired citizens in other countries such as Australia and France to rise up and fight back against tyrannical ‘health’ restrictions: they understand now that it’s not about Covid-19 anymore.
UPDATE 19 Feb 2022. This morning in Ottawa (Canada), the Member of Parliament from Oshawa (Ontario) asked a question about the involvement of WEF among the ruling Liberal party’s cabinet: