Against the Great Reset: 'The Great Regression'

Continuing today, and for the next 16 weeks, The Pipeline will present excerpts from each of the essays contained in Against the Great Reset: 18 Theses Contra the New World Order, to be published on October 18 by Bombardier Books and distributed by Simon and Schuster, and available now for pre-order at the links.

PART I: THE PROBLEM

Excerpt from "The Great Regression," by Victor Davis Hanson

The Great Reset was first concocted at the World Economic Forum in Davos by its founder Klaus Schwab as a way to assemble together global success stories like himself. His idea apparently was that grandees who have done well for themselves could do even better for the rest of us—if these anointed could just be unbound and given enough power and authority to craft rules for nearly eight billion of the planet’s ignorant.

A word of caution is needed about the pretentious and supposedly benign signature title of the Great Reset project. Assume the worst when the adjective “great” appears in connection with envisioned fundamental, government-driven, or global political changes. What was similar between Lyndon Johnson’s massively expensive but failed “Great Society” and Mao’s genocidal “Great Leap Forward” was the idea of a top-down, centrally planned schema, cooked up by elites without any firsthand knowledge, or even worry, how it would affect the middle classes and poor. So often, the adjective “great” is a code word of supposed enlightened planners for radical attempts at reconstruction of a society that must be either misled or forced to accept a complete overhaul.

When “great” is applied to a proposed transnational comprehensive revolution, we should also equate it with near religious zealotry. “The Great Reset,” after all, in all its green and “woke” glory, with all of its credentialed and “expert” devotees, is still a faith-based rather than scientific effort. Its spiritual predecessor was perhaps the eighteenth-century “Great Awakening” of Protestant evangelicalism that swept the eastern seaboard of colonial America in reaction to the secularism of the Enlightenment. But this time around the frenzy is fueled more by agnostics who worship secular progressive totems such as Al Gore or Greta Thunberg.

Given the Davos elite’s cosmic ambitions, “great” also conjures up a messianic reference to God’s “Great Plan” that should from on high reorder earthly life under a few trusted religious authorities. It recalls the notion of Alexander the “Great” of a brotherhood of man, which supposedly was to fuse conquered peoples into one vast and enlightened east-west, Persian-Hellenistic empire—albeit after, rather than before, eastern tribes were conquered, and sometimes slaughtered, in efforts to achieve a common, centrally planned purpose.

To reassure a shared brighter post-Covid-19 path ahead, Schwab drops most of the familiar globalist names that resonate power, money, seriousness, and wisdom. And the Great Resetters are now quite familiar: the world’s third or fourth richest man, Bill Gates, coming off his denials of palling around with the late Jeffrey Epstein; Jack Ma, the Chinese multibillionaire and Alibaba CEO apparently now “forcibly disappeared” by the Chinese communist government for too many candid speeches; the septuagenarian Prince Charles whose long anticipated monumental accomplishments apparently must still await his ascension to the British throne; the polymath Dr. Anthony Fauci who has laced his 2020 “noble lie” assessments of wearing and not wearing masks or achieving and not achieving herd immunity in terms of climate change, race, Chinese cooperation, and global progressive expertise; John Kerry, one of the multilateralist architects of the Paris Climate Accord and Iran Deal; and the usual rotating leaders of the U.N., IMF, World Bank, and the European Central Bank.

In its post-Covid-19 global comprehensiveness, the Great Reset has ambitions to be our greatest “woke” project yet. On examination, it is a kitchen-sink mishmash of agendas that incorporate the U.N.’s long stale “Sustainable Development” plan (“Agenda 21”), the Green New Deal, tidbits of Black Lives Matter sloganeering, critical race theory, “stakeholder” capitalism that often champions ESG, or forced corporate embrace of “environmental and social governance” over shareholder profitability, open-borders rhetoric, and boutique redistributionism dumbed down from Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Reset offers us a global Fabian socialist future, repackaged as a European Union-like top-down diktat. But above all, the agenda incorporates the pop insights of various half-educated corporate billionaires. All now find themselves in a secure enough position to dabble with Trotskyite ideas—to be foisted upon others not so fortunate and lacking their own exemptions from the toxicity of the elite’s theories.

On sale Oct. 18: pre-order now at the links above.

The same linguistic suspicions hold true of the use of the noun “Reset.” It assumes a year-zero arrogance that all that came before was flawed. And all that will follow, we are assured, will not be so defective. Such absolutism is reminiscent of former President Barack Obama’s grandiose promise on the very eve of the 2008 election: “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America”—a transformation that birthed the Tea Party revolt just two years later, during the 2010 midterm elections, one of the greatest conservative political pushbacks of the past seventy years.

We remember that just four months after Obama’s promises of transformation, the romance of fundamental change went international with the idea of a foreign policy “reset” that focused on a new détente with Vladimir Putin. The idea was inaugurated in 2009 by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the assumption that Putin’s past territorial aggressions had arisen from an absence of dialogue and ecumenical outreach from the prior “unilateralist” George W. Bush administration. Bush supposedly had wrongly sanctioned Putin for his 2008 miniature war with Georgia that resulted in the Russian absorption of South Ossetia. And the go-it-alone “cowboy” Bush apparently had also unduly polarized Putin and thus wet the ex-KGB operative’s beak for additional irredentist acquisition.

The reactive makeover that followed from the Obama-Clinton “reset” was unfortunately an utter failure. Its pompous declarations and talk of “listening” and “outreach” ended in fresh Russian aggressiveness, most notably in the 2014 Russian invasions of both Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Such appeasement created the original seeds for Putin’s eventual spring 2022 catastrophic Russian invasion of most of Ukraine and attack on Kyiv. In addition, Russia earlier in 2013 had reentered the Middle East, on Secretary of State John Kerry’s 2011 invitation, after a three-decade hiatus. Then followed Russia’s informal partnerships with both Iran and China, and Moscow’s much greater and more comprehensive crackdowns on internal dissidents. In all talks of the Great Reset, we should then recall that Vladimir Putin apparently interpreted “reset” as American laxity to be leveraged rather than as magnanimity to be reciprocated. In cruder terms, Americans speaking loudly while carrying a twig was no way to “reset” Putin.

The telltale noun “Revolution,” of course, also makes its appearance frequently in Great Reset rhetoric, specifically in connection to Klaus Schwab’s 2017 bestselling book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. In it, Schwab makes the now familiar argument that the internet, computers, electronic communications, artificial intelligence, and the new global interconnectedness of the prior “Third Revolution” have at last synchronized into wonderful harmony.

The supposedly never-before-seen, never-imagined fusion of the paradigms of economic, social, cultural, and political life offers us a once-in-a-lifetime—or, rather, last—chance to exploit them—even if most of us are not sufficiently equipped to appreciate the opportunity. Yet Schwab makes the fundamental error that these new technologies act as independent drivers of the way people behave and think, rather than as accelerants that nonetheless have not changed ancient fixed and predictable human behavior.

In Schwab’s way of thinking, imagine that a modern computerized high-tech pump sends forth two thousand gallons of water a minute, and therefore its essence, “water,” is now likewise “new” and different from what emerged for millennia at a rate of a gallon a minute from preindustrial hand pumps. Again, we fools outside the Davos agenda would apparently mistakenly believe that greater volume had not much altered from antiquity water’s molecular structure, chemical properties, and use in the natural world.

A glimpse of the idea that Davos-like elites can gather to discuss reset planning in an age of paradigm-changing technology is popular at the national level. A good example is the invitation-only conference on entertainment, technology, finance, and communications held each summer in Idaho at the Sun Valley Resort, hosted by the investment bank of Allen & Company. In 2021, the usual corporate and media globalist suspects showed up, among them Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates, Netflix co-CEO Reed Hastings, ViacomCBS (now Paramount) chairwoman Shari Redstone, Disney chairman Robert Iger, New York City’s former mayor Michael Bloomberg, GM CEO Mary Barra, WarnerMedia CEO Jason Kilar, Discovery CEO David Zaslav, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, and film and television producer Brian Grazer. The premise was Platonic. A meritocracy—chosen by the metrics of either acquired or inherited wealth, influence, celebrity, or a corporation’s ability to influence millions—immune from private bias and guided by reason, should be given latitude to override the dangerous emotions of the masses.

So there are plenty of linguistic reasons alone to be suspicious of the grandiose notion of a top-down, international, and fundamental transformation of the way the world is supposed to work...

Next week: an excerpt from "China, Covid, Realpolitik, and the Great Reset," by Douglas Murray.

Bugs: They're What's for Dinner

A billowing concern of some on the left is the exhalation of CO2 and the expelling of methane by cows. The Klimate Kult is concerned by the effect of cow burps and farts on the oft-disproved “greenhouse” effect and the warming of the planet. Keep in mind that even if the planet is warming (and no uncorrupted global temperature data supports this), scientists are looking for a planet about five degrees C warmer than earth for future human habitation because a warmer planet has more food, less extreme weather and is a better home for humanity.

The solution to cow flatulence by some, including Bill Gates, the owner of more privately-owned farmland in the United States than anyone else, is for us to eat insects instead of food. Let’s say we replace food with bugs. To appease the Klimate Kult. To pretend against all evidence that Anthropogenic Global Warming exists. To signal our virtue to the universe. How many insects would we need to eat to replace beef... real food?

We would need to slaughter around 363,000 crickets to get the same number of calories that comes from one slaughtered cow. But we slaughter 1.5 billion cows every single year, meaning that to get the same number of calories that we get from all the cows we slaughter would mean around 550 trillion crickets would need to be slaughtered instead.

[I]t would be basically impossible to quantify how many insects would need to be killed to replace the other 70 billion land animals, and around 1.2 trillion marine animals, that are currently killed for animal products every single year.

But there's a problem. Something of which many are unaware, evidently, is that insects feel pain. Those same folks asking (demanding?) we reduce the human population of the planet to save it, are worried about the moral considerations of killing bugs. Oh, the humanity:

[I]n the case of crickets, they have been shown to react to receiving morphine, staying in a box that was getting progressively hotter for a longer period than the crickets who were not given morphine. After five days of being given morphine, they even started exhibiting signs of addiction when they were no longer given the opiate.

So whilst scientific knowledge on insect sentience is still in its early days, what we already know about these animals makes their lives morally valuable, and makes creating a system that would end up slaughtering an entirely incomprehensible number of them, a serious moral concern that we are ethically obligated to avoid.

Hmm… And how do we feed and water 550,000,000,000,000 crickets? And house them in such a way that they are healthy and that they successfully reproduce? And care for their pupae? And dispose of the waste of half-a-quadrillion crickets? How many concrete (which releases CO2) buildings would need to be built for housing and nurseries and abattoirs for these bugs? What would be the impact to waterways of this huge amount of concentrated waste?

Bon Appétit!

What would be the electrical cost of maintaining an insect habitat for hundreds of trillions of insects? Would the carbon footprint of these huge bugatoriums be larger than that of the food they are “replacing?” Does anyone know? It’s vanishingly rare for the left to do a cost-benefit calculation on their various emotional cults.

How would we consume these trillions of bugs?

Now, you can order insect protein bars and cricket flour on Amazon. For those with a sweet tooth, there are cricket flour chocolate chip cookies.

The beef industry in America, calf-to-table, employs about 900,000 Americans, is the 47^th-largest industry in the U.S., producing $30.2 billion of fresh beef, $4.8 billion of ground beef, $11.6 billion of sirloin steak, at a growth rate of 3.2 percent annually in 2022.

As someone who has worked in the birthing of calves, who has herded, roped, cut, thrown and branded calves and yearlings, has milked cows and slaughtered beeves, I have a bias toward steaks and burgers. The iconic American cowboy never will be replaced in the mind of a boy or girl, or on a Hollywood screen, by a cricket wrangler. And, no, that independent lifestyle that much of the world admires and which those who have tried it find hard to give up, cannot be replaced by cricket ranches. But mine will be deemed an emotional and adolescent response to a global crisis…. that does not exist.

Will Bill Gates and his pals at the WEF get their tyrannical way, destroying the beef industry? Here’s an interesting thought: Elon Musk just offered a significant portion, 16 percent, of his billions to change an industry. Makes one think of Bill Gates and his desire for us to eat insects and fake meat.

Did somebody say "fake meat"?

In America in January of 2019, we had about 94,000,000 cattle. The average price In April, 2022, for a 750-lb steer was $1,150. Assuming about one-third of those 94 million cows are three-year-old, 750-lb steers, Gates could buy the entire 2022 American beef production for $35 billion, or about 27 percent of his wealth, leaving himself a paltry $100 billion to live on. If he also bought the entire crop of yearlings and 2-year-olds at half that price, he would spend a total of $61 billion, just under half of his wealth of $132 billion.

This is a future desired by Gates and his WEF cronies. Making us eat fake meat and insects instead of food. For no reason other than they can, we’d have no more beef.

Bill Gates Says He Will Force You to Eat Fake Meat

Bill Gates states that rich countries should give up all beef in favor of synthetic fake meat, a transition that can be supported by changing people's behaviors or enacting regulations to shift demand.

Think about that.

"... or enacting regulations" to make us eat bugs....

Then ask yourself this: Who or what is going to stop him?

The Pandemic State Is Here to Stay

In a major essay for Hillsdale College’s Imprimis series, Michael Rectenwald points to the 2018 CLADE X and 2019 Event 201 pandemic simulations involving putatively benign collaborations between the World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

These exercises eerily “anticipated almost every eventuality of the actual Covid crisis, most notably the responses by governments, health agencies, the media, tech companies, and elements of the public. The responses and their effects,” he continues, “included worldwide lockdowns, the collapse of businesses and industries, the adoption of biometric surveillance technologies, an emphasis on social media censorship to combat ‘misinformation,’ the flooding of social and legacy media with ‘authoritative sources,’ widespread riots, and mass unemployment,” including the record gains enjoyed by companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google entailing a massive transfer of wealth from the lower-and-middle stratum to the top echelon.

Similarly, writing in EarthNewspaper, Gary Barnett has no doubt that an “environment of deception” has been created and an enormous boondoggle perpetrated by a global network of royals, politicians, Big Tech moguls, Big Pharma, billionaires, and other elites, including Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum and its legion of influential graduates. The evidence he assembles is damning: area-variation mortality counts, suggesting differing batches of vaccines for experimental purposes; inflation of Covid casualty numbers; promotion of the killer drug Remdesivir; hospitals monetarily incentivized to report Covid cases and deaths, leading to a statistical explosion; and the use of ventilators, which produced mortality rates varying for different age groups from 76.4 percent to 97.2 percent.

Distress signal.

Clearly, the authorities went about their business in the most unproductive and dangerous manner conceivable—but this is only to give them the benefit of the doubt. There is far more going on and far more at stake than most people realize, as former BlackRock portfolio manager and investor Edward Dowd has vividly exposed in a blockbuster interview with Naomi Wolf and a follow-up with Alex Jones. The BMJ reports that scientific progress has been “thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results [and] fails to report adverse events.” Scientific integrity has been radically compromised. The evidence of fraud is both mind-blowing and undeniable. It should be glaringly obvious by this time that a tectonic shift in medical, corporate, economic and power paradigms has occurred before our very eyes.

The new social and political structure that has come about is what law professor Bruce Pardy calls the “pandemic managerial state,” which runs roughshod over every Constitutional or legal bulwark. His conclusion is demoralising, to say the least: “The Covid-19 regime is just the tip of the iceberg. It is based upon an ideological premise: individual sovereignty must yield to the expertise, authority and discretion of officials acting in the name of public welfare and progressive causes.”

The real question is whether we will ever return to “normal,” to life as we once felt and experienced it, and the answer is: No, at least not in our lifetimes. We have Klaus Schwab’s word for it in Covid-19: The Great Reset.

“Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal,” he writes. “The short response is: never. The world as we knew it in the early months of 2020 is no more.”

He is correct.

The governing elect and their enablers—the medical colleges and the media—still have the support of a substantial portion of the public: the elite classes and the financially insulated on the one hand, the parasitical, financially-recipient classes on the other. Their authoritarian grip on power will be hard to dislodge. Even after the pandemic is officially declared over, the public will remain fearful and politically tenderized. Irrational attitudes fostered by the authorities will persist. Millions will continue wearing masks for years to come.

Public venues like restaurants will be prone to continue enforcing vaccine protocols. Many will continue to blame the unvaccinated for a failed vaccine, ensuring virulent social divisions. Meanwhile, the official and media narrative, that pervasive machinery of lies, will credit the mask/lockdown/vaccination program for having defeated the pandemic when it was the very mandate policy itself that caused incalculable harm and prolonged the disaster.

Say no more.

In many countries a majority of citizens obligingly fall for the great swindle. In his seminal essay Discours de la servitude volontaire, generally rendered in English as The Politics of Obedience, the 16th-century political philosopher Étienne de la Boétie cogently analysed the dynamic in play. “What strange affair is this?” he asks. “To see a vast multitude of people not merely obeying, but welcoming servility… deprived of the bulk of their revenues, their fields plundered, their dwellings robbed?”

His basic insight is that despotism owes its hegemony primarily to popular acceptance. There seems to be no help for it, except in those rare historical cases where a “spirited people” rises up against their ruthless leaders and expels “the villainous dross of the nation,” thus refusing “to give consent to their own woe.” [My translation.] Regrettably, in most Western nations today, there are simply not enough Trucker Convoys intent on restoring their rights and freedoms, too many people who give consent to their own servitude, too many non-truckers on the road to serfdom.

The “pandemic state” is here to stay for the indefinite future, though in different manifestations. Political authority has devolved into one or another form of totalitarian governance, characterized by disparate structures of repression as they arise across the political spectrum. In his must-read Scanned: Why Vaccine Passports and Digital IDs Will Mean the End of Privacy and Personal Freedom, Nick Corbishley exposes the technology of population control, showing that a return to normality is a mere fantasy.

Read it and weep.

No new virus need emerge. Pandemic psychology controls the public mind and pandemic policy has prepared the way for a new political order—Schwab’s “global strategic framework of governance,” that is, a fascist regime in all but name. The norms and customs we took for granted will not return. Metaphorically, it is as if someone who has been severely wounded or disfigured must still bear the scars and impediments of his trauma. The handicap is here to stay.

Moreover, far too many people seem to love their injury. There is no going back to a previous condition of comparative innocence and social flexibility. The state will continue to further corrode traditional liberties—privacy, assembly, mobility, communication, currency—towards the goal of citizen submission to a dominant citadel of power, an administrative panopticon. And as de la Boétie understood, the majority will willingly comply, the paradoxical source of their own affliction. The lockdown state has the blessing of the multitudes. When exfiltration is not possible, there is little option for the remnant but to resist inwardly and refuse to give consent to their political abusers.

The heritage of the Judeo-Christian West, based on faith in a higher power, the rule of law, and the sovereignty of the individual, has been decisively breached. We now inhabit a time of domestic menace. For those who continue to cherish their liberty, the best we can do is plan and cope.

The Constitution vs. the Oligarchs

To “save the lives” of Americans, Uncle Joe Biden’s CCCP junta (Covid-CriticalRaceTheory-Climate Party) mandated that all of us with whom they have lost patience must do what we are told. Now.

Federal Court: No.

To “save the planet,” the CCCP cancelled new exploitation of oil resources on federal lands. Because who cares about the economy, jobs, prosperity, families, the future … or the law … when in conflict with the opinion of a guy whose only domestic job is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” at which he is epically failing (immigration, anyone?).

Federal Court: No.

And not a drop for us.

As oil prices skyrocket in tune with the demands of Democrats, it’s good to know that America began storing oil in a Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the 1970s when the OPEC cartel stopped shipping the stuff to us. And now that Uncle Joe has terminated new production and has gone hat-in-hand to the cartel begging them for more (OPEC: “No”) at least we’ll have the SPR to help offset the economic hit. Well, we would have if the CCCP weren’t selling off our strategic oil reserves to Asia.

The Davos elite, led by Klaus Schwab, would have us all believe that freezing to death this winter in the absence of real energy (for which wind and solar are only imaginary substitutes) will be remembered in the coming 2-3-5-degree increase they forecast as the good old days.

In fact, quite a few real scientists are processing actual data (not long-ridiculed “Hockey stick” that started this entire hoax, or ever-re-manipulated global temperature readings). What are these scientists seeing?

Earth is also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity. That is associated with the earth's history with even lower, colder temperatures. The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by two degrees in a 20-year period.

The Maunder Minimum, 1645–1715, also preceded by fewer sunspots (and the lengthening solar cycles we may be seeing now), was both colder and longer. If you think being a bit warmer with more food and fewer deaths from extreme weather is a problem, try growing food and living beneath a mile of ice… Snowball earth will be far worse than temperate earth.

Come to think about it, if the interpretation by scientists of the real data is accurate (and history suggests that it is), a colder-than-average winter may, indeed, be the good old days. If we are approaching another mini-ice age only a century or two since exiting the last, “freezing” may be remembered as “a balmy day.” In the 18^th and 19^th centuries, Londoners were ice skating the Thames and Hans Christian Anderson was writing about Silver Skates on the Zuiderzee. And who's to say the next Ice Age will be "mini"?

O where O where have the sunspots gone?

Consider: food plants (and humans) thrive in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations, which is why those searching outer space for habitable planets are looking for warmer ones. But Bill Gates, the individual owning the largest amount of farmland in America (and who is polluting enormously while buying more, globally) wants lower temperatures and lower CO2 concentrations. Let us ask Mr. Gates about his plans to own all the farmland yet be unable to feed the global population as the earth cools, shall we?

It is important to remember that the same Davos oligarchs who gamed the pandemic in advance, demand the CCP Virus “vaccine” mandate and passports, and insist we reduce/eliminate energy usage and thereby our standard of living are not in the least negatively affected by the policies they apply -- not to themselves but only to us.

It also is important to remember that the intent of this crowd is to do away with self-rule globally and to place the planet’s population under their dictatorship. This is why their policies on Covid, Climate, CRT are destroying the middle class. They are not stupid and these are not “mistakes” resulting in “failure.” This is all part and parcel of their Great Reset.

This is not a game. With their enlistment of global media, education, healthcare, bioweapons labs (what could one call “gain of function” other than a "bioweapon"?), supply chains and manufacturing, it’s a war. But only one side is fighting.

America has the advantage of a written Constitution limiting the power and reach of its federal government. Occasionally a federal court will grasp that it means what it says, as in the two examples with which this column began. Other Western nations lack this – but are more competent at filling the streets with people, trucks and tractors in protest. We are growing tired of these parasites we feed, clothe, house, enrich, and transport deciding and acting against us, our children and our future.

In Schwab we don't trust.

The rule of law will survive – or Davos and the CCCP will destroy it. There are millions of us on the side of law. Against a few dozen oligarchs polluting the planet “to save it.” If the nascent dictators don’t pull-back and adhere to law and the traditions of Western Civilization, sooner or later a spark will ignite a conflagration.

When “disobedience” starts, it will remain civil only for so long. BLM, Antifa and the oligarchs taught that civil disobedience is punishable; but burning down cities is not. Somewhere in Switzerland, the international oligarchs are weighing their next moves.

Billionaire Barbarian at the Gates, Part Two

As noted yesterday, Bill Gates is particularly dangerous as a vaccine pusher. It is pretty well common knowledge by this time—or should be—that the vaccines are “leaky,” that the vaccinated are no less prone to viral infection and transmission than the unvaccinated, causing a virtual war between shedders and skeptics, and that an indefinite number of booster shots will be deemed necessary to fight the proliferation of novel variants, or viral mutations. There seems to be no end in sight of these variants, which now include Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Kappa, Lambda and Mu. Even the variants are spawning variants. Delta variant AY.4.2. has just appeared on the scene, 10 percent more infectious than its parent. Indeed, there are now 56 Delta offspring, one short of the Heinz number. Variants are coming thick and fast, outstripping the effort to keep up with them—in effect, making the pandemic permanent. Could that be the plan?

To put it bluntly, we are experiencing not a pandemic but a vandemic. Reputable virologists, like Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier and mRNA inventor Robert Malone, have argued that the vaccines may be responsible for the variants owing to a process called Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE). The virus is clever; it recognizes the vaccine and mutates its way around it, thus causing viral replication. Yet Gates continues to laud the potency of the vaccines and to grubstake their production.

“One way the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation secures its conducive policy environment,” the Navdanya report continues, “is through its direct influence over international research institutions.” The Foundation “stands as… a product of recent, precarity-inducing history, and will only serve to continue to corrode life in the future.” Gates and his private business partners, the report concludes, create worse problems than the one they purport to solve, “while simultaneously working to concentrate ever more power into corporate hands [via] million-dollar grants to private corporations and private market interests.” Patent lock-ins may also be an issue.

Meet the new boss, same as the old Boss.

Gates is now, Forbes writes, “pouring money into synthetic biology,” a megatrend which “involves reconfiguring the DNA of an organism to create something entirely new.” Interfering with the human genome is by no means a fail-proof program, as the profusion of adverse reactions to the vaccines attests.

The International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research warns that “manipulation of the code of life could lead to completely unanticipated negative effects, potentially long term or even permanent, [and potentially] transgenerational.” This is tempting fate. Some people feel that the laws of nature should not be tampered with, forgetting that most medical cures do in fact tamper with nature. But changing the genetic structure of the human being is changing the human being into something else, a kind of bioengineered hybrid. It is doing God’s work, so to speak. And hubris always seems to come with too high a price, which the Greek tragedians called nemesis.

Of course, conducted in the proper sphere, there are benefits to synthetic biology as well, particularly in agricultural production that can improve and prolong the lives of millions of people, an outcome that clearly works against Gates’ project of reducing world population. Contradictions abound.

Gates’ latest venture involves partnering with the U.K. in a £400 million investment package to boost the development of Green technologies, cementing the deal with Boris Johnson at a Global Investment Summit at London’s Science Museum. Henry Deedes at The Daily Mail was not impressed. Johnson told his audience, he writes, “how much money they could make out of alternative energy. Wind power, for example, was a ‘licence to print money’.” Even if, Johnson joked, we have to sacrifice a goat to the wind god, success—and profit—are assured. Much festivity all around.

This new investment scheme is foreshadowed in Gates’ recent book How To Avoid A Climate Disaster, chock full of fantasy-laden initiatives and elysian imaginings. Gates admits that his “background is in software, not climate science,” and it shows. He champions climate modelling—as Michael Crichton observes in State of Fear, a very dodgy way of charting and predicting future climate events, most likely to be wrong. A cascade of constantly revised simulations does not inspire confidence. Gates believes in the validity of the U.N.’s discredited IPCC prognostications, and assumes that Green will provide “massive amounts of reliable, affordable electricity for offices, factories and call centers.”

Call centers? Seriously? The book reads like a piece of stargazing divination and one wonders what Gates is really up to here. Does he really believe in his fantasia? Has he been seduced by his own rhetoric? Is he trapped in a state of cognitive dissonance? Or does he have other, clandestine intentions? Is he involved, as many fear, in the most significant extension of corporate and political power in historical memory? In his speeches and books, Gates sounds too good to be true—literally.

Put 'er there, partner.

Peter and Ginger Breggin arrive at the same conclusion. In their encyclopedic COVID-19 and the Global Predators, they present a summary of Gates’ ambitions, which reads like “a list of the essential elements of totalitarian globalism.” Gates’ investment in the pandemic, as they show in prodigious detail, “probably goes into the multibillions… Gates does not give money away to the people… He is making a market of them.” In fact, Gates was wargaming the pandemic in January 2017, announcing in “a series of filmed talks surrounding Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum” that he was “funding and implementing plans… to rush through vaccines for an anticipated pandemic.” Something is going on here, obviously.

Personally, I do not trust Bill Gates any further than I could throw Klaus Schwab. The goal of systematically reducing human population, even if well-intentioned, comes with disturbing historical baggage, a fact of which Gates should be aware. I cannot peer into his soul and say without any doubt what his drives, impulses, designs and objectives may actually be. But I do not trust anyone who promotes a vaccine that is really a gene-therapy drug developed without adequate safety trials, whose benefits are unknown and which may indeed be harmful, as the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research fears, “prim[ing] the immune system toward development of both auto-inflammatory and autoimmune disease.”

I do not trust environmental zealots. I do not trust a member of the Davos set, plutocrats who fly into that elite Alpine village on emission-belching private jets under the pretext of saving the world from carbon in the name of those who fly economy class—if they are permitted to fly. Can anyone who owns two Gulfstream G650s and promotes “jet zero” be taken at face value?

Bill Gates is an inordinate meddler with a Prometheus complex. His pixilated and imperial view of the world can lead to nothing good. Trust him at your peril.

Billionaire Barbarian at the Gates, Part One

In a 2020 Ted Talk, Bill Gates famously argued that world population is approaching an unsustainable level of 9 billion, a looming catastrophe that needed to be addressed by finding ways to significantly reduce population growth. The route to this end, apparently, is to make people healthier. The solution he proposed included a three-part plan, which he described as “doing a really great job on Vaccines, Health Care and Reproductive Health Services,” which could “lower [world population] by perhaps 10 to 15 percent.” Many have accused Gates of proposing genocide. In my estimation, that is plainly a bridge too far, but it usefully highlights the dark underbelly of much of his acclaimed philanthropy and his undoubted globalist intiatives.

Gates’ terms are troubling. Vaccines are the core issue, triggering a profound controversy that has polarized entire nations, yet he staunchly supports and has invested heavily in these experimental therapies. “Health care” is an abstract term that can mean anything one chooses it to mean; indeed, it has been used as a rationale for eugenics in its most criminal forms. And “reproductive health” is quite obviously code for abortion. It is clear why many people consider Gates a dangerous man. He is indescribably wealthy, influential and powerful, and also persuasively glib in furthering his various agendas. Obviously, no one can determine absolutely what his underlying motives might be. Is he philanthropist or exploiter, hero or villain, savior or eugenicist? But there is ample warrant to remain skeptical of his bona fides.

Mad scientists of Microsoft.

To be sure, his Ted Talk was framed in the context of global warming and the obligation to reduce CO2 emissions, a challenge that could be met by reducing the planetary census. According to his formula, CO2 = P x S x E x C, where P = People, S = Services per person, E = Energy per service, and C = CO2 per energy unit, fewer people in a congested world means less atmospheric carbon and the consequent decline in the rate of (ostensibly) rising global temperature.

The problem here is that a reduced population does not necessarily entail a reduction in manufacturing and industry. Major polluting countries like China and India give no indication of scaling down carbon-emitting coal plants. Moreover, Green technology—the wind farm/solar array nexus—is notoriously expensive, unreliable, landscape defiling, and fossil-fuel dependent with its inevitable and frequent outages. Similar drawbacks are true of the half-ton, non-disposable, toxic EV lithium batteries now all the rage in the plans of quantitative futurists. The Green solution is a neon green figment, largely unworkable in the long run. Energy extraction remains essential. Fracking and nuclear are the most feasible alternatives, but are ruled out by ecological enthusiasts.

Another discrepancy in Gates’ argument involves his claim that population can be reduced by making people healthier. In defending Gates, Maarten Schenk at Lead Stories points to arguments that wealthier and healthier people produce fewer children since they don’t have to adjust for massive child mortality. “So, what about the remarks about ‘new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services’?,” Schenk asks rhetorically, and answers:

That is just what specialists studying population growth are saying. As people get richer they get more access to better healthcare so they stop having lots of babies because the risk of their children dying at an early age takes a steep dive. This means the total population stabilizes and stops growing after a while.

On the surface, this looks like a strong argument, especially with respect to underdeveloped countries. The problem is that advantaged people may enjoy having more children—perhaps not in the decadent West at this time in history, but possibly in the future, and certainly as we see now in countries like Hungary and Poland, which are returning to their ancestral traditions, restoring the sanctity of marriage, re-establishing the vitality of the Christian faith and financially incentivising procreation. The result is rapidly growing families. In such countries, healthy people produce more, not fewer, children. The formula could be: H=V=C. Health equals Vitality equals Children. Gates’ X may conceivably turn out to be non-X.

Der Klaus: he's with Bill.

Apart from the question of his un-thought-through contradictions, Gates is deeply implicated in problematic enterprises. His preposterous plan to spray tons of dust into space to dim the sun’s rays would be a prelude to disaster, a telling instance of the ignorance and naiveté of the supposedly super-brilliant. And as is well known, Gates is an active proponent of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, which promises to transform the free-market democratic West into an oligarchic model of centralized social control, a sequel characterized by increased market and technological integration, corporate control of natural resources, the elimination of private property, the colossal transfer of wealth to the patrician class, and expanded state surveillance—Build Back Worse. Schwab in turn credits Gates for his input and vision. Reset or space dust, the upshot is not a welcoming blueprint for the future.

A comprehensive and damning report issue by Navdanya International spares no details about Gates’ “various initiatives, sub-organizations, development schemes and funding mechanisms… a complicated web of international power and influence.” For example, “central to the Gates Foundation’s agricultural strategy is the program to consolidate the 15 largest seed collections in the world… looking to copy all the genetic information of the seeds in storage. Effectively, this allows them to take out patents on the genetic information collected, resulting in biopiracy through seed patents.” Gates is also the largest private farmland owner in the U.S. One wonders why.

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

The essay goes on to point out that Gates provides nearly 20 percent of the funds supporting the staff of the World Health Organization, “thus serving to merge the interests of the WHO with those of the Gates Foundation.” This is not encouraging news, especially as the WHO has released contradictory information and recommendations over the course of the pandemic, operates as an arm of the CCP, and has as its Director-General Tedros Adhanon Ghebreyesus, an ardent Marxist with no medical expertise.

Continued tomorrow.

Enemies of the People: Bill Gates

It’s Not About the Environment

The admiral’s speech at the 2009 graduation of my stepson from U.S. Navy Basic Training included, “It’s not about the bed,” referring to teaching boot sailors to make their bed. The point was learning to do something because it was necessary: self-discipline. No one worried if the Boot cared about getting into an unmade bed. The bed was a tiny part of a big picture; a tactic to accomplish the strategy of creating a person disciplined to do what needed to be done by observing it. That strategy was part of a larger one: ensuring the ability to achieve a goal when confronting an opponent.

This is the self-discipline required not only of a warrior, but of every free person in a society that wants to remain free. Do we still have it? Winston Churchill once noted, “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing -- after they've tried everything else.”

The caveat is that the recognition of the usefulness of a tactic requires understanding the strategy of one’s opponent. Churchill’s meaning is that we will try multiple tactics until we hit on one that addresses the strategy of the opponent, at which point that tactic becomes the foundation of an effective strategy, and thus “the right thing.”

Vandals at the gates.

Americans so far do not grasp the strategy of the Democrats in particular, or of the bipartisan political establishment, in general. It is not an overstatement that our continuing failure to do so will be fatal to Western civilization. This is clear from their continuing, punitive fetish of "climate change."

The environment is a tactic. It is not the strategy. Blocking the Keystone pipeline (again), and joining the the Paris accords (again), are tactics within a tactic. Mask mandatess are a tactic. Open borders are a tactic. Even destroying education is a tactic.

If you think the city fathers of San Francisco, Los Angeles and Denver care about the environment, please explain tent cities, uneducated feral kids running in gangs, and streets full of discarded trash, used needles and feces. Explain killing pipelines to ship oil in (Warren Buffet’s) rail cars – which is more dangerous to the environment than pipelines.

Our rulers demand we stop the earth from warming right now or the global temperature might increase two degrees! Not only does no data support their warming hoax, not only do these same “experts” admit that hitting 100 percent of the goals of the Paris Accord will not accomplish this, the peer-reviewed journal, Astrobiology, informs us that the ideal planet temperature is five degrees C - warmer .

Paris is not about the environment, and even if it were, it wouldn’t fix anything. Why are they pursuing this tactic?

We now have denied our entire youth of an education for an entire year. Ready for seven more? The education industry insists learning can and must be done from home. That they are wrong is not the issue. Parents – who know their kids far better than teachers – from across K-12 and college know the educators are wrong, as is demonstrated by the increasing number of child and young-adult suicides, if that’s a strong-enough indicator for you. These kids know they are falling-behind and that society doesn’t care. That is the issue.

“Educators” (remember when we called them “teachers,” and they could actually teach?) are refusing to return to the classroom. The risk for those under 70 of dying from this virus is shown in the CDC Table below, updated September 10, 2020. Basically, zero un-retired educators and zero of the student population are among cohorts at-risk of dying from this virus.

What will be the consequences of years of substandard schooling? The same as those of open borders – an uneducated labor force. An uneducated labor force is not employable in First-World jobs. Why are they pursuing this tactic?

If the next generation is to be educated in this brave new world, a parent will need to both stay home and have the capability to teach their own children. Ignore the “have the capability”; skip everything after “stay home.” The percentage of married couples with two earners is 60 percent. What do you think will be the consequence on the national housing market if we take half of the married breadwinners out of the labor force? What does the middle class do with most of its money? Buys housing. And here you thought the collapse of 2008 was bad?

But – the elite have a plan for middle class housing: Destroy it. Why are they pursuing this tactic?

Open the borders, kill the schools and you have voila! an uneducated labor force doing the bidding of the apparats at the top. And no middle class demanding to raise their children as they see fit, to earn a good living, to spend their money as they decide, and to speak their minds about what once was their own government.

The ruling class isn’t wearing masks, taking commercial airlines, sequestering themselves from social activities, or worried about their children, like those at Bill Gates’ alma mater, not being educated in opened schools. This isn’t about them. It’s about the same thing that drove Stalin and Mao and the Killing Fields: Totalitarian power.

Ready for what, Bill?

It’s about destroying a middle class they see as having grown too big for its britches, wanting too much, and refusing to shut the hell up and do as we’re told. It's about millions of impoverished, uneducated, powerless workers trying to feed their families, and so doing whatever is asked by the owners of the new slave class: You and me and our kids.

This isn’t about the environment or education or housing or borders. Those are tactics.

Their strategy is destroying self-rule, human independence and all human rights gained since ancient Greece. They mean to destroy us. No other reasonable explanation exists for Paris, Open Borders, or the lockdown. No other consequences from their actions are imaginable.

The tactics to stop our opponents are not running for school boards or donating money to the red half of the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party happily and unconstitutionally impeaching our former president. We’ve tried those. We’ve “tried everything else.”

Are you prepared to contemplate a strategy to stop them from killing you? If not, why not?