Marxist Loser King Day 

Picture
January 15, 1929

Marxist Loser King’s Birthday

The Holy Day of St. Martin of Atlanta is observed, Monday (17th); but the actual date of his birth is January 15th. I would like today convey all due disrespect for the holiest of holy icons of the “social justice” crowd.

With the possible exception of comrade Einstein, the “Reverend” “Dr.” Martin Luther King — whom we non-affectionately like to refer to as the Irreverent Marxist Loser King — has got to be the most puffed-up charlatan of the past 100 years. We can think of no higher (or would that be “lower?”) honor to bestow upon this bellowing Bolshevik bum than to judge him according to the very standards he himself set forth in his famous “I Have a Dream” speech of August, 1963.

Preaching poetic and pious platitudes penned for him by his Communist handler / ventriloquist, Stanley Levison, the man born “Michael King”  thundered before the quarter-million-strong mob of commies, libtards, anti-Whites and other assorted well-intentioned dupes of every stripe:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Judged by the “content of character,” eh Marty? Amen to that preacher! Let us do exactly that with a bullet point review of your Red resume.

Picture
Picture
“Man of God, my ass! 
  • Plagiarized as much as 1/3 of his doctoral thesis at Boston College, including punctuation errors!
  • Attended the Highlander Folk School, a communist-front training academy in Tennessee
  • Had adulterous sex with countless women and engaged in orgies with white prostitutes whom he used to “get rough” with (First Lady Jackie Kennedy was disgusted by MLK’s sexual perversion, and referred to him as a “terrible” man.)
  • Recorded on FBI tape laughing as he looked on while a fellow pastor raped a parishioner (here)
Picture
A FAKE “scholar” — New York Times, October 11, 1991: “Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King” (here)
Picture
King attended communist training school 
Picture
The Daily Mail (UK): “Jackie Kennedy hated Martin Luther King so much she could barely look at photographs of him.” 
 In interviews taped in 1964 but only just released, she said the black civil rights leader was a ‘terrible man’ and a ‘phony.'” She claimed King bragged of being drunk at her husband John F Kennedy’s funeral and had been caught trying to set up an orgy. (here)

Continued:

  • Accused Senator Barry Goldwater, the great conservative and 1964 candidate for president, and his followers of “Hitlerism” — thus helping to elect that thoroughly vile monster, Lyndon Baines Johnson
  • Openly associated with known Communists (who incited riots while King played the role of “good cop”) even after President Kennedy had told him to cut the Reds loose
  • Agitated in favor of the power-grabbing Civil Rights Act of 1964 which, in time, essentially mandated discrimination against millions of White college applicants and job applicants and candidates for promotion — and has since been expanded to “protect” sodomites, bull-dykes and cross-dressers who demand “equality”
  • Agitated in favor of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which guaranteed penniless illiterates and morons the “right” to bloc-vote for Communist Democrats — These “rights” have since been extended to include illiterate newly-arrived aliens (legal and illegal), convicts and dead people.
Picture
The honorable patriot Barry Goldwater was slandered by the beast MLK: “We see danger signs of Hitlerism in the candidacy of Mr. Goldwater.” (King was referring to the “evil” Hitler of Marxist mythology) 
Picture
1964: LBJ signs the Civil Rights, MLK at his side 
Picture
1965: LBJ signs the Voting Rights, again, with MLK at his side
Picture
Picture
In 1964, Marxist Loser King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize AND named Time Magazine Man of the Year. Those two “honors” ALONE prove that he was an agent of the NWO Globalists.
Picture
Picture
Picture
KING’S “DREAM” COME TRUE
The  awake Whites back then warned back then that if King’s REAL “dream” was ever fully realized, the day would come when pussified  and brainwashed Whites would voluntarily kneel, crawl and kiss the feet of Black Communists

And so, boys and girls, whether one chooses to judge Marxist Loser King according to his shocking personal vices (prostitute-mongering, serial adultery, sex orgies, slander, plagiarism, devious demagoguery, conspiring with known Communist Party members, drunkenness, etc — all while pretending to be religious), or just by his critical public pressure role in helping to pass two of the absolute worst pro-Communist laws in American history, there is no reason to honor this filthy Marxist swine just because he was made a martyr by an assassin’s bullet. To the contrary, he merits the contempt of all decent Americans, of all colors and creeds.

Black lives matter? Yes — but so does truth.

Picture
Known communist Stanley Levison, was MLK’s stage manager and speech writer. He is the one who should get the “holiday” in his name!
Picture
Nasty gruesome Communist Eleanor Roosevelt presents an award to MLK.
Picture
MLK accepts an award from Red Rabbi Jacob Rothschild
  of Atlanta. 

Outrageous! Here’s a Look at the Shocking White Privilege, Gender Equity Lesson Plans Used To Indoctrinate Your Kids

Parents may not be able to vet or opt out of the social justice, ideologically skewed educational regimen being taught nationwide in K-12 classrooms.

But thousands of lesson plans designed to instill students with a gender-fluid, racist, anti-American ideology are available for review at TeachersPayTeachers.com,  a site allowing teachers to sell and share educational programs.

According to the Teachers Pay Teachers website, TpT “is the go-to place for over 85% of U.S. educators to find teacher-created, teacher-tested classroom resources” and “has grown to reach over 5 million educators.”

The site contains 5,552 lesson plans to nurture students on the tenets of Black Lives Matter, 3,712 on critical race, 166 on white privilege, and dozens of gender equity lesson plans.

A 2-week lesson plan available on TpT, titled “Social Justice and Racial Equity Unit in Kindergarten,” implores young learners in pre-K to first grade to become race-conscious and mindful of different skin tones.

“With your partner, who has lighter skin and whose is darker?” students are asked in the 10-day unit.

Gender equity is incorporated in the racial equity unit for kindergarteners in a lesson called “Pink Is For Boys- Lesson on Gender Equality.”  The lesson asks students to create pictures of objects that have different colors “to focus on color and gender equality.”

Another 2 week-long lesson plan designed for students in kindergarten to third grade called “Gender Equality Activities,” features 10 lessons that focus on “acceptance, challenging gender stereotypes, positive self-image and understanding.”

“This unit offers an extensive book list that will help teachers to gather a wide range of quality books that help to challenge gender stereotypes,” a description of the lesson plan states.

Assignments included in the unit include “Ballerino Nate,” “Household Tasks” and “Accepting Me For Me.”

An assignment titled “Be YOUnique” instructs teachers to ” read “My Princess Boy,” a story about a boy that prefers to wear a pink dress in dresses and pretend he is a princess” aloud then “ask students how this makes them feel.”

A lesson plan called “The Woke Classroom” covers topics including gender pronouns and how to use them, how to make your classroom more inclusive, guidelines for establishing a safe space, how to reduce transphobia in schools and an explanation of non-binary genders.

Another lesson plan designed to teach gender equity to young students, “Transgender Education Social Story” provides “a base knowledge of what being transgender means” and “different ways a person’s gender identity could be expressed.”

Black Lives Matter Lessons and Activities unit, designed for students in kindergarten to sixth grade, reviews BLM vocabulary words, BLM badges and “O.R.E.O writing.”

cial studies unit called “Social Justice Activities: Racism, Stereotypes, Privilege, Black Lives Matter” created to teach racial and gender  equity to middle schoolers and highschoolers contains 11 books including “What is a Microaggression,” “What is Toxic Masculinity?” and “Understanding Privilege.”

Thirteen posters for the classroom touting far left slogans on climate change and “diversity” are included in the social justice lesson plan bundle.

Teachers can find a “social justice word wall” on TpT, a resource that encourages students to use key terms for discussing social justice in the classroom.

What is White Privilege,” geared towards elementary school students with disabilities uses clipart and photography to aid children in understanding the problems with racism and explains the concept of white privilege.

White Like Me, Reflections From A Privileged Son” teaches students in grades 6-12 about George Floyd, black lives matter, white privilege, white fragility and “takes a look at the politics of race and racism through the anti-racist author’s viewpoint.”

While students are inundated with distorted views of reality in public schools across America, parents are beginning to realize the institutions they fund and entrust with their children are indoctrination centers.

The effort to use schools as political activist training camps is deeply unpopular among the majority of U.S. voters, Republicans and Democrats alike. A survey conducted in May by Competitive Edge Research found that 74 percent of respondents are “somewhat or strongly opposed” to white privilege training in schools.

Voters are similarly opposed to the gender equity curriculum. Seventy-five percent of respondents oppose communicating to students that biological sex does not exist, while just 18 percent of respondents supported such ideology.

Book Burning In The XXI’st Century: Facebook Has Removed 16 Million Pieces Of Content & Added ‘Warnings’ On 167 Million

The censorship of information is at an all time high, but do people really recognize the extent to which it has been and is being carried out? A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others.

book burning in the xxi'st century facebook has removed 16 million pieces of content & added ‘warnings’ on 167 million

YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

Being an independent media outlet, Collective Evolution has experienced this censorship first hand. We’ve also been in touch with and witnessed many doctors and world renowned scientists be subjected to the same type of treatment from these social media organizations.

Not long ago I wrote an article about Dr. Martin Kulldorff, a Harvard professor of medicine who has been having trouble with twitter.

I did the same with Dr. Carl Heneghan, a professor of evidence based medicine from Oxford and an emergency GP who wrote an article regarding the efficacy of facemasks in stopping the spread of COVID.

His article was not removed, but a label was added to it by Facebook saying it was ‘fake information.’ There are many more examples.

Clarke’s article says, with regards to posts that have been removed and labelled, that,

“while a portion of that content is likely to be wilfully wrongheaded or vindictively misleading, the pandemic is littered with examples of scientific opinion that have been caught in the dragnet.”

This is true, take for example the ‘lab origins of COVID debate.’ Early on in the pandemic you were not even allowed to mention that COVID may have originated in a lab, and if you did, you were punished for doing so.

Independent media platforms were demonetized and subjected to changes in algorithms. Now, all of a sudden, the mainstream media is discussing it as a legitimate possibility.

It makes no sense.

This underscores the difficulty of defining scientific truth, prompting the bigger question of whether social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube should be tasked with this at all…”

I think it’s quite dangerous for scientific content to be labelled as misinformation, just because of the way people might perceive that,” says Sander van der Linden, professor of social psychology in society at Cambridge University, UK.

“Even though it might fit under a definition (of misinformation) in a very technical sense, I’m not sure if that’s the right way to describe it more generally because it could lead to greater politicisation of science, which is undesirable.” – Clarke

This type of “politicization of science” is exactly what’s happened during this pandemic.

Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency — a time when it is even more important to safeguard science. – Kamran Abbas is a doctor, executive editor of the British Medical Journal, and the editor of the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (source)

An important point to get across is also the fact that these independent “fact checkers” are working with Facebook, who in turn is working with the government.

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden offered his thoughts on the censorship we’ve been seeing during this pandemic in November of last year stating the following,

In secret, these companies had all agreed to work with the U.S. Government far beyond what the law required of them, and that’s what we’re seeing with this new censorship push is really a new direction in the same dynamic.

These companies are not obligated by the law to do almost any of what they’re actually doing but they’re going above and beyond, to, in many cases, to increase the depth of their relationship (with the government) and the government’s willingness to avoid trying to regulate them in the context of their desired activities, which is ultimately to dominate the conversation and information space of global society in different ways… They’re trying to make you change your behaviour.

If you’re not comfortable letting the government determine the boundaries of appropriate political speech, why are you begging Mark Zuckerberg to do it?

I think the reality here is…it’s not really about freedom of speech, and it’s not really about protecting people from harm…I think what you see is the internet has become the de facto means of mass communication.

That represents influence which represents power, and what we see is we see a whole number of different tribes basically squabbling to try to gain control over this instrument of power.

What we see is an increasing tendency to silence journalists who say things that are in the minority.

It makes you wonder, is this “fact-checking” actually about fact checking? Or is something else going on here?

Below is a breakdown from Clarke’s article illustrating how fact checking works and what the problem is with following the science.

Since we have reported this many times over the last 5 years, we decided to let our readers hear it from someone else for a change as it’s truly quite vindicating to see more investigators coming to these conclusions.

How Fact Checking Works

The past decade has seen an arms race between users who peddle disinformation (intentionally designed to mislead) or unwittingly share misinformation (which users don’t realise is false) and the social media platforms that find themselves charged with policing it, whether they want to or not.1

When The BMJ questioned Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (which is owned by Google) they all highlighted their efforts to remove potentially harmful content and to direct users towards authoritative sources of information on covid-19 and vaccines, including the World Health Organization and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Although their moderation policies differ slightly, the platforms generally remove or reduce the circulation of content that disputes information given by health authorities such as WHO and the CDC or spreads false health claims that are considered harmful, including incorrect information about the dangers of vaccines.

But the pandemic has seen a shifting patchwork of criteria employed by these companies to define the boundaries of misinformation.

This has led to some striking U turns: at the beginning of the pandemic, posts saying that masks helped to prevent the spread of covid-19 were labelled “false”; now it’s the opposite, reflecting the changing nature of the academic debate and official recommendations.

Twitter manages its fact checking internally. But Facebook and YouTube rely on partnerships with third party fact checkers, convened under the umbrella of the International Fact-Checking Network — a non-partisan body that certifies other fact checkers, run by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies, a non-profit journalism school in St Petersburg, Florida.

Poynter’s top donors include the Charles Koch Institute (a public policy research organisation), the National Endowment for Democracy (a US government agency), and the Omidyar Network (a “philanthropic investment firm”), as well as Google and Facebook.

Poynter also owns the Tampa Bay Times newspaper and the high profile fact checker PolitiFact. The Poynter Institute declined The BMJ’s invitation to comment for this article.

For scientific and medical content the International Fact-Checking Network involves little known outfits such as SciCheck, Metafact, and Science Feedback.

Health Feedback, a subsidiary of Science Feedback, handpicks scientists to deliver its verdict.

Using this method, it labelled as “misleading” a Wall Street Journal opinion article2 predicting that the US would have herd immunity by April 2021, written by Marty Makary, professor of health policy and management at John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland.

This prompted the newspaper to issue a rebuttal headlined “Fact checking Facebook’s fact checkers,” arguing that the rating was “counter-opinion masquerading as fact checking.”3

Also read: George Soros And Bill Gates Exposed As The Force Behind Facebook’s New ‘Fake News’ Detector

Makary hadn’t presented his argument as a factual claim, the article said, but had made a projection based on his analysis of the evidence.

A spokesperson for Science Feedback tells The BMJ that, to verify claims, it selects scientists on the basis of “their expertise in the field of the claim/article.”

They explain, “Science Feedback editors usually start by searching the relevant academic literature and identifying scientists who have authored articles on related topics or have the necessary expertise to assess the content.”

The organisation then either asks the selected scientists to weigh in directly or collects claims that they’ve made in the media or on social media to reach a verdict.

In the case of Makary’s article it identified 20 relevant scientists and received feedback from three.

“Follow The Science”

The contentious nature of these decisions is partly down to how social media platforms define the slippery concepts of misinformation versus disinformation.

This decision relies on the idea of a scientific consensus. But some scientists say that this smothers heterogeneous opinions, problematically reinforcing a misconception that science is a monolith.

This is encapsulated by what’s become a pandemic slogan:

“Follow the science.” David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at Cambridge University, calls this “absolutely awful,” saying that behind closed doors scientists spend the whole time arguing and deeply disagreeing on some fairly fundamental things.

He says:

“Science is not out in front telling you what to do; it shouldn’t be. I view it much more as walking along beside you muttering to itself, making comments about what it’s seeing and making some tentative suggestions about what might happen if you take a particular path, but it’s not in charge.”

The term “misinformation” could itself contribute to a flattening of the scientific debate. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, has been criticised for his views on lockdown, which tack closely to his native Sweden’s more relaxed strategy.4

He says that scientists who voice unorthodox opinions during the pandemic are worried about facing “various forms of slander or censoring … they say certain things but not other things, because they feel that will be censored by Twitter or YouTube or Facebook.”

This worry is compounded by the fear that it may affect grant funding and the ability to publish scientific papers, he tells The BMJ.

The binary idea that scientific assertions are either correct or incorrect has fed into the divisiveness that has characterised the pandemic. Samantha Vanderslott, a health sociologist at the University of Oxford, UK, told Nature, “Calling out fake stories can raise your profile.”

In the same article Giovanni Zagni, director of the Italian fact checking website Facta, noted that “you can build a career” on the basis of becoming “a well respected voice that fights against bad information.”5

But this has fed a perverse incentive for scientists to label each other’s positions misinformation or disinformation.6 Van der Linden likens this to how the term “fake news” was weaponised by Donald Trump to silence his critics.

He says, “I think you see a bit of the same with the term ‘misinformation,’ when there’s science that you don’t agree with and you label it as misinformation.”

Health Feedback’s website says that it won’t select scientists to verify claims if they’ve undermined their credibility by “propagating misinformation, whether intentionally or not.”

In practice, this could create a Kafkaesque situation where scientists are precluded from offering their opinion as part of the fact checking process if they expressed an opinion that Facebook labelled misinformation.

Strengthening the echo chamber effect is the fact that Health Feedback sometimes verifies claims by looking at what scientists have said on Twitter or in the media.

Scientific “Truth”

Van der Linden says that it’s important for people to understand that in the scientific domain “there’s uncertainty, there’s debate, and it’s about the accumulation of insights over time and revising our opinions as we go along.”

Healthy debate helps to separate the wheat from the chaff. Jevin West, associate professor in the Information School at the University of Washington in Seattle, says that social media platforms should therefore be “extra careful when it comes to debates involving science.”

He explains:

“The institution of science has developed these norms and behaviour to be self-corrective. So, for [social media platforms] to step into that conversation, I think it’s problematic.”

Experts who spoke to The BMJ emphasised the near impossibility of distinguishing between a minority scientific opinion and an opinion that’s objectively incorrect (misinformation).

Spiegelhalter says that this would constitute a difficult “legalistic judgment about what a reasonable scientific opinion would be … I’ve got my own criteria that I use to decide whether I think something is misleading, but I find it very difficult to codify.”

Other scientists worry that, if this approach to scientific misinformation outlives the pandemic, the scientific debate could become worryingly subject to commercial imperatives.

Vinay Prasad, associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, argued on the MedPage Today website:

“The risk is that the myriad players in biomedicine, from large to small biopharmaceutical and [medical] device firms, will take their concerns to social media and journal companies. On a topic like cancer drugs, a tiny handful of folks critical of a new drug approval may be outnumbered 10:1 by key opinion leaders who work with the company.”7

Thus the majority who speak loudest, most visibly, and with the largest number online, may be judged “correct” by the public—and, as the saying goes, history is written by the victors.

Social media companies are still experimenting with the new raft of measures introduced since last year and may adapt their approach.

Van der Linden says that the talks he’s had with Facebook have focused on how the platform could help foster an appreciation of how science works, “to actually direct people to content that educates them about the scientific process, rather than labelling something as true or false.”

This debate is playing out against a wider ideological struggle, where the ideal of “truth” is increasingly placed above “healthy debate.”

Kulldorff says:

“To remove things in general, I think is a bad idea. Because even if something is wrong, if you remove it there’s no opportunity to discuss it.” For instance, although he favors vaccination in general, people with fears or doubts about the vaccines used should not be silenced in online spaces, he says.

“If we don’t have an open debate within science, then that will have enormous consequences for science and society.”

There are concerns that this approach could ultimately undermine trust in public health. In the US, says West, trust in the government and media is falling.

He explains, “Science is still one of the more trusted institutions, but if you start tagging and shutting down conversation within science, to me that’s even worse than the actual posting of these individual articles.”

10 Things We Have Learned During The Covid Coup

One potential positive from the whole Covid-19 debacle is that we have learned an incredible amount about the society in which we live. This will be crucial if we manage to stave off a descent into a nightmare future of techno-fascist slavery.

10 things we have learned during the covid coup

We will have a new understanding of what our world has become and what we would like it to be in the decades and centuries to come. And “we” means we. While the majority have, apparently, learnt nothing at all from what has happened, they will eventually catch up.

There is no way that knowledge gained by a wide-awake 15% or 20% of the population will not end up being shared by almost everyone. Once the truth is out, it tends to stay out. As H.R. Haldeman so wisely put it, “you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube”.

Here Are Ten Things We Have Learned During The Covid Coup:

1. Our political system is hopelessly corrupt. Virtually all politicians are hopelessly corrupt. No political party can be trusted. They all can be, and have been, bought.

2. Democracy is a sham. It has been a sham for a very long time. There will never be any real democracy when money and power amount to the same thing.

3. The system will stop at nothing to hold on to its power and, if possible, increase its levels of control and exploitation. It has no scruples. No lie is too outrageous, no hypocrisy too nauseating, no human sacrifice too great.

4. So-called radical movements are usually nothing of the sort. From whatever direction they claim to attack the system, they are just pretending to do so, and serve to channel discontent in directions which are harmless to the power clique and even useful to its agendas.

5. Any “dissident” voice you have ever heard of through corporate media is probably a fake. The system does not hand out free publicity to its actual enemies.

6. Most people in our society are cowards. They will jettison all the fine values and principles which they have been loudly boasting about all their lives merely to avoid the slightest chance of public criticism, inconvenience or even minor financial loss.

7. The mainstream media is nothing but a propaganda machine for the system and those journalists who work for it have sold their sorry souls, placing their (often minimal) writing skills entirely at the disposition of Power.

8. Police are not servants of the public but servants of a powerful and extremely wealthy minority which seeks to control and exploit the public for its own narrow and greedy interests.

9. Scientists cannot be trusted. They will use the hypnotic power of their white coats and authoritative status for the benefit of whoever funds their work and lifestyle. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

10. Progress is a misleading illusion. The “progress” of increasing automisation and industrialisation does not go hand in hand with a progress in the quality of human life, but in fact will “progressively” reduce it to the point of complete extinction.

The Davos Revolution And The Re-Making Of Civilization

The Great Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the self-anointed prophets of international finance… all watched over by the priests of digital technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”

the davos revolution and the re making of civilization

“A crisis is a productive event.” – Guy Parmelin, President of the Swiss Confederation.

Since the 1970’s, the ski-resort community of Davos, Switzerland, has frequently been a gathering place for global elites during the month of January. Hosted by the World Economic Forum, an organization granted special status by the Swiss government, the Davos conference brings together an array of selected power-brokers; governors of central banks, international financiers, heads-of-state, UN leaders, CEOs from the largest corporations, and well-placed media personalities. To be a “Davos Man” typically means you’ve embraced an international perspective, and have the ability to influence long-term shifts in political and economic culture. You’re part of an elite club with the self-anointed task of directing global change.

Because of Covid complications, this year’s WEF annual meeting was postponed, and has since been re-scheduled with the hope of gathering in Singapore later this August. Nevertheless, the last week of January 2021 still witnessed a significant WEF event; a virtual conference titled the Davos Agenda, which could be live-monitored by anyone willing to take the time.

What was front-and-center of this online meeting? The Great Reset.

Before we go further, it’s important to note that this article only scratches the surface of what transpired. And how could it do anything but? The Davos Agenda ran five days, each being 10-to-12 hours long, and with most time slots holding multiple and simultaneous panel discussions. To give you an idea of the schedule, the first day – Monday, January 25 – had a total of 29 individual sessions. It was information overload.

It also must be stated that not everybody who officially participated was on the same page as the World Economic Forum. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a talk outlining how he purposefully cut through the red tape to secure Covid vaccinations, making sure his nation had the supplies it needed. His approach didn’t fit with the WEF consensus of “vaccine solidarity,” to act globally before your national interests – after all, as another speaker explained, “the vaccine needs to be a public good.” The phrase “vaccine nationalism” was used throughout the week, a disparaging term for those who sought national health goals above global collaboration.

Another example was Brazil’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ernesto Araujo, who publicly encouraged the United States to stay the course as the “superpower of freedom.” Araujo went on to say that Brazil desired an open economy based on liberty, noting that this would challenge the global emergence of a rising “techno-totalitarianism.”

“I’m not a great fan of the concept of the Great Reset,” Araujo stated, explaining that while he generally supported ideas like sustainable development, there was a problem. The Great Reset was missing “freedom and democracy.”

Most others, however, were either on-board or otherwise playing the game.

President of China, Xi Jinping – introduced by Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF – stressed collaborative action; we must create a new and global economic model, we must “abandon ideological prejudice and jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence,” and we must bring “prosperity for all.” A “shared future for mankind,” he explained, is necessary. This would include strengthening global economic governance, committing to the UN system of world law, and supporting the World Health Organization as they build “a global community of health for all.” But who will lead the way?

The rest of his speech focused on how China, as a “modern socialist country,” is blazing the trail, including the Belt and Road initiative, and the promotion of a “new type of international relations.” His speech wrapped up with words of solidarity,

“There is only one Earth and one shared future for humanity. As we cope with the current crisis and endeavor to make a better day for everyone, we need to stand united and work together. We have been shown time and again that to beggar thy neighbor, to go it alone, and to slip into arrogant isolation will always fail. Let us all join hands and let multilateralism light our way toward a community with a shared future for mankind.”

Klaus responded by thanking Xi Jinping for “such an important speech, which at this crucial movement in history, provides us with a truly comprehensive framework for shaping the future.”

China was often applauded during the Davos Agenda, being admired for its digital leap forward. But there were some concerns, albeit framed through a globalist worldview.

For example, a few hours after the Chinese leader spoke, the UN Secretary General pointed to the growing rift between China and the United States, noting that both countries were dividing the world with their separate agendas. What was needed, he said, was “one global economy with universal respect for international law.”

Another star performance was from Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. It only took a few minutes before she slapped the former Trump administration, saying, “democracy itself might have been permanently damaged in the last four years.” And like others throughout the week, she linked Covid with climate change. Ursula was clear; “We must learn from this crisis. We have to change the way we live and do business.”

Her speech pointed to Europe’s very own Green New Deal, the EU’s push for carbon neutrality by 2050, and how private companies will face stronger regulatory diligence. Regarding digital governance – for it’s vital that online platforms curb fake news while affirming democracy – Ursula called for the United States to join the EU and, together, create a worldwide digital rulebook “based on our values.”

All of the above – like the early pandemic collaboration between the EU, the WEF and the Gates Foundation – represents how “Europe is determined to contribute to this global common good.” At the end of her prepared talk, she affirmed to Schwab that new alliances will be necessary: “This is what we will work for – and I know I can count on you and the World Economic Forum to help us build it.”

Schwab was excited, afterwards saying that this speech represented the practical meaning of the Great Reset. He paraphrased a take-away; what we need is a “values based, social governance system” connected through a digital web.

With the Reset in mind, the Davos Agenda focused on seven interlocking subjects: “How to Save the Planet,” “Fairer Economies,” “Tech for Good,” “Society & Future of Work,” “Better Business,” “Healthy Futures,” and “Beyond Geopolitics.” A mountain of talking points emerged from these encompassing themes. However, we will only highlight a few:

1. Covid: Speaking on the pandemic, Li Xin of China-based Caixin Media, told us this “crisis should not be wasted.” Nor was it. We were constantly reminded that Covid revealed our interdependence while pointing to the problem of nationalism. Old values and conventions no longer work; the global supply chain needs to be digitized, the World Health Organization must be empowered, we need a universal healthcare system, there must be a centralizing program to pool national health data, and economic recovery should be tied to vaccination criteria.

“You’re going to need the vaccine year-after-year-after-year,” we were told.

2. Climate: If Covid was our existential crisis, climate is our planetary emergency. And in order to meet this supposed planetary challenge, the world must pursue a significant reduction in carbon emissions, all the way to net zero by 2050 at the latest. This requires nothing less than a complete overhaul of energy production, the transportation sector, all industry and especially agriculture, and our personal behavior.

Net-zero isn’t an abstract exercise. New Zealand and the United Kingdom have already passed legislation binding them to net-zero by 2050, and similar proposals are on the table in Canada, South Korea, and the European Union. Moreover, the Group of Thirty – a high-level consultative body comprised of the most influential figures in central banking and international financing, many with WEF connections – is pushing for net-zero across the spectrum of global economic activity. [1] In the United States, just a few days after Davos, the National Academies released their decarbonization report – “a technical blueprint and policy manual” – thus creating a roadmap for net-zero by mid-century. [2] And yes, there are working links between the Academies and the WEF.

So it was no surprise that on January 27 – day three of the Davos Agenda – John Kerry, President Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate, reminded the WEF audience how his government is “making climate central to foreign policy planning and national security preparedness.” Kerry explained that “a zero emissions future” will bring new opportunities for green growth: “To use the President’s words, to ‘build back better’ from the global economic crisis.”

Kerry reinforced that climate is everybody’s responsibility: “The whole world has to come to this table to solve the problem.”

3. Social Justice: An inclusive world for all was the mantra – unless, of course, you’re not in agreement with the global consensus. Nevertheless, social justice themes are directly bolted to the framework of the Great Reset. From racial issues to gender claims, social justice leaves its mark. However, a range of other justices needs to be considered, such as eco-justice, climate justice, and vaccine justice. Each of these justice-issues were attached, in some measure, to the Reset structure that was unfolding.

In the panel on creating a New Social Contract, economic justice was front-and-center. A Global Social Protection Fund must come into play, pairing international debt relief to a universal social-economy of “Living Wages and Living Communities.” On the same panel, James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola, described how his company is addressing social justice by fashioning an internal, racial/social economic ecosystem. More than that, industry-leading corporations must influence smaller companies to follow suit, especially those in their supply chains. Entire sectors need to re-align their economic models to social justice priorities, and that’s the essence of Stakeholder Capitalism.

4. Stakeholder Capitalism: Unlike shareholder capitalism shaped by company owners and direct market forces, stakeholder capitalism takes a social approach. Since the early 1970s, Schwab has been an advocate of the stakeholder model. Back then it was mainly geared to incorporating labor, union, and government interests in corporate decision-making. Today, Schwab is aggressively pushing a grander vision – capitalism in service to the planet while supporting social causes.

In a WEF article released a few days before the Davos Agenda, Schwab wrote,

   “The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.

   The same interconnectedness can be observed for the people who live on the planet… it is incumbent on all of us as global citizens to optimize the well-being of all.”

In other words, capitalism bends to the demands of special interest groups and “green government.” Corporations, industries and sectors – including financial institutions – must shift their business models to appreciate and accelerate these new global norms.

How will this be ascertained?

In September 2020, the WEF released its White Paper, Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism, which envisioned a common standard for “sustainable value creation.”[3] What emerged was a set of principles and benchmarks coalescing around three headings: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). As a whole, the ESG framework is to dovetail with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To put it in acronym parlance, the ESG process is the WEF mechanism to achieve the SDGs.

Upholding the ESG are four pillars: Governance, Planet, People, and Prosperity. Supporting these four categories are 21 core metrics, along with 34 expanded metrics to enable a deeper audit – for that is essentially what’s happening, an audit to ensure compliance and cooperation. Hence, each metric acts as an information node in a detailed review process, and in using this tool, businesses and institutions can measure their purpose and behavior, taking into account environmental issues and social expectations.

Does the board have gender and minority representation? Has it taken climate risk into consideration, and what internal policies are being implemented to achieve net-zero? How much land does the company own, and what is its relationship to key biodiversity areas? Wage and age and gender employment categories, healthcare support, collective agreements, water consumption, community investment and taxation levels; the list is long, incorporating financial details, energy usage, supply chain relationships, waste disposal, lobbying efforts, social ethics and diversity indicators, and on and on.

The trajectory of corporate governance, therefore, will no longer be “business as usual.” Governance, rather, will need to solicit and incorporate input from approving stakeholders, including special interest groups, unions and labor associations, government departments, and international agencies. In other words, stakeholder capitalism is a planetary public-private partnership that hinges on social license.

After the ESG process is complete and satisfactory, your “purpose driven company” will be certified within a global ecosystem of regulators and industry associations. This status will be the key to unlocking investment funds, favorable insurance pricing, and positive consumer recognition. Without achieving ESG benchmarks, however, your business may be cut off from licensing, funding sources, supply chains, government contracts, or marketplace access. Presently, ESG exists as screening criteria used by some investors, but the WEF agenda extends into a wider and more permanent realm.

So long as your business is complying with the global narrative, your company can make money. Those who don’t play ball will be pushed out of the game.

Welcome to “corporate cancel culture.”

5. Digitization: Nothing short of a total, global commitment will suffice if we want to save the planet, or so the narrative goes. Therefore, we need powerful new tools to manage our way forward. Digitization becomes the tie that binds, and data the lifeblood of our new technocratic era.

In this not-too futuristic vision, the information collected from our lifestyle choices will be aggregated, analyzed, and used to modify behaviors for planetary outcomes. One of the Davos themes was “Smart Cities,” noting that urban zones are rich information ecosystems. Here’s an emerging possibility: In our “smart cities,” street-based sensors will talk to smart cars, and payment apps will be notified of your movement, automatically deducting carbon taxes or travel credits from your account. It’s hardly far-fetched.

The overall trajectory is deeper integration with Artificial Intelligence, Central Bank Digital Currencies, universal healthcare data networks, smart supply chains, and more automation. Even greater feats are before us: through blockchain technologies, everything that can be cataloged has the potential to become a numerically assigned asset. Therefore, the life-cycle of anything can be theoretically traced, from raw resource to manufacturer to point-of-consumption. You, too, can become a number in the age of “managed harmony.”

What is not harmonious, however, is contrary thinking and behavior – anything unaligned with approved global narratives. Conservative values, national determination and traditional notions of sovereignty, personal rights attached to private property: If such concepts and beliefs are antithetical to the Great Reset, then they are part of the great problem.

On the last day, US Senator Gillibrand called for accountability regarding right-wing news outlets. More than that, she stressed the need for oversight of social media platforms, holding them to account for allowing right-wing messages to proliferate. She then affirmed these positions by appealing to her faith; that we need to love one another.

For conservative Christians, the idea of the Great Reset strikes at something deeper than talking points. The real question becomes one of salvation. Who ultimately saves the world? Is Jesus Christ our messiah, or does collective humanity redeem itself by saving the planet? It appears we are at a Romans 1 crossroad, faced with the question of worshiping and serving the creation, or the Creator.

And thus, the Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the prophets of international finance… all watched over, and guided by, the priests of technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”

Maybe the concerns expressed by Brazil’s Foreign Minister – the looming dangers of a rising techno-totalitarianism – are worth considering.

—————-

Carl Teichrib is the author of Game of Gods: The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment. Excerpts of his book may be read at www.gameofgods.ca, and his research reports can be found at www.forcingchange.org.Audrey Vanderkley is the admin at Remnant Online Fellowship, www.remnantonlinefellowship.org, which exists to connect people to relevant Christian resources on Bible prophecy and worldview issues.

Endnotes:

1. Mainstreaming the Transition to a Net-Zero Economy (Group of Thirty, 2020).

2. Accelerating Decarbonization of the U.S. Energy System (National Academies of Sciences, Engineers, and Medicine, 2021).

3. Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism: Towards Common Metrics and Consistent Reporting of Sustainable Value Creation (World Economic Forum, 2020).