Klaus reminds us that by June 2020, the world isn’t the same.
He’s right and three years later it still isn’t.
It is a very correct observation that things won’t go back to a pre-Covid normal from a personal perspective.
Other things like:
“rising inequalities, a widespread sense of unfairness, deepening geopolitical divides, political polarization, rising public deficits and high levels of debt, ineffective and non-existent global governance, excessive financialisation, environmental degradation: these are some of the major challenges that existed before pandemic.”(243)
Are still here, and in some fashion worse than before, but none of this is new.
An argument could be made that it’s never been this bad, and I think most would be inclined to agree, but Klaus asks:
“could the covid-19 debacle be the lightning before the thunder?” (243).
I don’t know about you, but I find this odd.
What is the debacle?
Is it the worldwide response, or Covid’s lack of destruction?
Not to mention this is 6 months in and it's already a debacle?
It isn’t clear to me, but the question makes little sense to me, nor the metaphor, and isn’t lightning worse than thunder, so what is Klaus asking exactly?
Maybe I’m being hyper-critical, but considering Klaus and the WEF have the clout to implement sweeping changes with the governments of the world, you’d think he would be more clear.
Yet again Klaus alludes to the Black Death, mentioning the book Chronicle of Death Foretold where an entire village sees the coming catastrophe but does nothing to prevent it.
This is a false comparison.
Klaus tells us:
“to avoid such fate, without delay we need to set in motion the Great Reset. This is not a ‘nice-to-have’ but an absolute necessity.” (244)
Doesn’t anyone think that is a little concerning?
Change is fine and most people accept change the problem as I see it is that the change Klaus is talking about isn’t organic, but manufactured.
He wants to force that change on a world-wide population without regard for social or cultural differences painting everyone with one brush and “forcing” everyone to adopt the same norms as the elites and ultimately adopt their “solutions”.
Much like how Marx saw the proletariat — A single monolithic mass of people.
As I write this, given all the division along racial, cultural, and economic lines that seems to have increased over the last few years, I have to wonder if this is just another prong in the strategy for the world to adopt these globalist plans.
Ferment chaos and destruction and then offer the world a plan to get back to peace and harmony.
David Icke calls it Problem, Reaction, Solution.
This seems very approps.
Maybe now people will understand they are being duped when Klaus says:
“the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset the world.” (244)
Klaus acknowledges that some may not want to adopt these plans.
He basically says we all have a laissez-faire attitude towards making changes of this magnitude. In my mind, it’s more related to why is all of this necessary?
Your view of the way the world should work isn’t the same as mine, so why are you pushing it and expect me to approve of it?
Are there problems, yes, but does that mean we need to “reset” the entire way the world works for percentage changes in positivity when we aren’t looking at the negative consequences as well?
The law of unintended consequences
should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind who thinks this is something that should go forward,.
By the way, this is just another version of:
burn everything to the ground, which is also what Marx said in case you’re wondering.
A quick bow to George Floyd and the troubles of the blacks in America, Klaus states:
“would pointing out to them that on ‘average’ their lot is better today than in the past have appeased their anger? Of course not! What matters to African Americans is their situation today, not how much their condition has ‘improved’ compared to 150 years ago when many of their ancestors lived in slavery.” (246)
Before we continue, let this sink in for a minute.
We all know Klaus is a globalist, so why would a domestic incident of a police involved death garner so much interest by someone who probably has never even been to the state that death happened in?
Klaus himself said the biggest issues facing human existence are
1. Nuclear Threats 2. Climate Change 3. Income Inequality 4. Resource Consumption.
So why shoe-horn in a domestic incident that really in the grand scheme of things is inconsequential to anything they are trying to achieve, unless, of course, it isn’t?
Which means the response was orchestrated.
If it was orchestrated, how long do you think it takes to co-ordinate a global phenomenon?
I’m not saying the death of George Floyd was orchestrated.
What I am saying is someone somewhere decided long ago to build up an infrastructure of protestors and adovacy groups that could be used as a club whenever it was necessary.
In actuality, the response was more important than the event, and isn’t activism something Klaus advocates in order to get to this new utopia?
Remember when I said I get the impression this book was written well before Covid?
Well, if we do some math, you see that 150 years ago from 2020 will take you to 1870 — 5 years after the Civil War in the United States.
Why is that important? Because Klaus says:
“What matters to African Americans is their situation today, not how much their condition has improved compared to 150 years ago when many of their ancestors lived in slavery (It was abolished in 1865)…"(246)
When the Union (the north) fought and won the Confederacy (the south) slavery was abolished and was ratified via the 13th amendment to the US Constitution in 1865
Just to add a cherry on top, if we assume for the moment this book was written in 2009 but never published, you’ll see the math checks out.
2009-150=1859.
So what happened in 1859 other than slavery still being enforced?
Harpers Ferry Raid an event that is considered to be the main precipitating event for the Civil War.
I have no proof obviously other than a suspicious eye, but one would think, given all the resources at Klaus’ disposal, a simple check of his math would suffice in order to catch that glaring error, but it wasn’t.
I find it hard to believe that Klaus fat-fingered that number as well.
Not to mention that his partner in crime in writing this book, Thierry Malleret, has a Master’s in History so I’d think he’d catch that error.
What I suspect is Klaus wrote a book in late 2009 but by the time it was finished, H1N1 was finished. It only lasted a year.
Instead of throwing it away, he kept it and updated it for Covid.
There is nothing wrong with this necessarily, but it goes to show this thought process and this agenda has been on the back-burner for probably 10 years or more,, just waiting for another event.
All Klaus had to do was update it with some new and specific Covid related information and now you have “Covid-19: The Great Reset”, I’m sure in 2009 it would have been called “H1N1: The Great Reset”
But let’s continue.
Feelings over Facts anyone?
Klaus states that almost unequivocally when he says:
“Two points are pertinent to the Great Reset in this: 1) our human actions and reactions are not rooted in statistical data but determined instead by emotions and sentiments — narratives drive our behaviour…” (246)
Human action, sure they are based on emotions, but decisions should be based on facts in a calm and rational a manner as possible.
When has any decision been made with feelings being paramount turned out to be a good idea? Probably never.
Moving along, Klaus tells us
“there is no denying that the Covid-19 virus has more often than not been a personal catastrophe for the millions infected by it, and for their families and communities.” (247)
Notice feelings over facts?
However, Klaus I guess in a moment of clarity actually says:
“However, at a global level, if viewed in terms of the percentage of the global population effected, the corona crisis is (so far) one of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years.” (247)
Something that is clearly the case, yet the reaction to Covid has been out of all proportion.
Klaus even tells us in terms of lethality Covid doesn’t even come close to:
1. The Black Death - Up to 3/5 of the population of Europe
2. AIDS - Around 1 million/year
3. The Plague of Justinian - Up to 1/3 of the population of Europe
Where deaths were counted in fractions of a population Covid can’t even manage 1%. So why the lock downs?
Klaus says,
“the corona pandemic is different. It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades.” (247)
Much like H1N1, I might add, but if it’s not an existential threat, why did the world have the response it did?
You can’t tell me every politician had the same thought process independently.
While we’re at it, how does Klaus know in July 2020 that Covid will not decimate the population when it wasn’t at its peak?
Klaus is convinced a reset can happen but to him an
“absolute prerequisite for a proper reset is greater collaboration and cooperation within and between countries.” (248)
Isn’t there already enough, or is it just not the right kind of collaboration and cooperation?
It’s hard to understand how Klaus is completely fine with pushing this agenda when he just said a paragraph ago that Covid isn’t a killer.
As well, Klaus seems intent on telling us that the world is in a state and covid just proved it, but if things were allowed to go on as per usual, how much of a problem would it have been?
Would people have died? Yes, but they would have died anyway.
All of the social, political, and economic unrest and now a recession of the world economy would never have happened.
Wouldn’t this kind of calculus be something politicians would have to do regardless of the situation at hand?
But Klaus seems to gloss over that and instead tells us Covid has shown us the errors of our ways which apparently according to him will now hopefully allow us to compel us to address “four existential risks that we collectively face.”(246)
Nuclear Threats
Climate Change
The unsustainable use of essential resources like forests, seafood, topsoil, and fresh water.
The consequence of the enormous differences in standards of living between the world’s people’s
Again, everything a globalist wants us to worry about, yet no one I know seriously worries about nuclear threats, and other than conversation over a coffee, climate change, resource use and other people’s welfare in other countries is nothing more than a topic of conversation.
Klaus says people around the world
“want and economic recovery from the corona crisis to prioritize climate change and to support a green recovery.” (250).
Here are the documents:
I am skeptical of this.
There are numerous reasons that Scientific American calls out in their article
“How can a poll of only 1,004 Americans represent 260 million people with only a 3 percent margin of error?”
But specificaly,
- who paid for this poll? It’s not specifically stated.
Regardless of the answer the more curious thing in this document is on slide 3 where it states
Summary: public no more willing to change their climate behaviours than they were in 2014
Doesn’t that mean we are growing tired of “the climate crisis”?
Breifly, one issue I do see with the survey is it tends to ask questions almost with a binary output - Its either strongly agree/tend to agree and tend to disagree/strongly disagree.
One would think those are potentialy four different answers, what about an “I don’t know” or “not concerned”?
Don’t you think a problem of this magnitude, ie global climate change would require a little more nuance?
Unless, I’m able to see the raw data of this survey I find the answers suspect, or at the very least compressed into a binary that I don’t think is entirely accurate.
To Klaus we are at a crossroads and the only way to get to the other side is to reset.