Bishop Klaus and the Reset Religion

Under the mastery of a global elite, the World Economic Forum is out to remake the world. To this end, as I have previously noted, its 1973 Manifesto is a tad less ambitious than is its 2020 Manifesto. No doubt any future manifesto will be bolder still. Unnerving? Indeed. For context, though not for peace of mind, turn to a quite different manifesto: A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer. I doubt Schaeffer had Klaus Schwab in mind when writing his manifesto, first published in 1981. The Great Reset had not come of age. On the other hand, as a matter of pure speculation, I wonder whether perhaps Schwab has read Schaeffer.

As humanism supplants Christianity, Shaeffer writes, the freedoms and prosperity which Western civilization owes to Christianity are taken for granted. True enough. Among many in the increasingly secular West you’ll find a hangover of lots of Christian moral precepts, with little accompanying insight into whence they came. Needless to say, anchorless precepts are disposable as circumstances dictate. Then it’s a lottery as to what comes next.

Humanism can create any number of moral orders. It’s a bootstraps creed, susceptible to the politics of the day. Things can go badly wrong. We don’t have to go to the brutal excesses of history; say, to the French revolutionary Reign of Terror or the Holocaust or Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Not comparing, but how about the wanton killing of millions of healthy unborn babies or the (demonic) chemical and physical maiming of mentally-disturbed teenagers, confused about their sexual identity. Evidently, today’s humanist moral order finds this not just acceptable but righteous. Humanism is truly a flexible creed. Who knows where it will land tomorrow.

What would Erasmus do?

Shaeffer “guesses” that whatever flavor it takes, it will likely end in some form of “elite authoritarianism.” He is eerily prescient about the form such authoritarianism will take. He points particularly to the emergence of what he calls a “technocratic elite.” And approvingly quotes American physicist and science historian Gerard Holton.

More and more frequently, major decisions that profoundly affect our daily lives have a large scientific or technological content…if the laymen cannot participate in decision making, he will have to turn himself over, essentially blind, to a hermetic elite, Margaret Mead wrote about scientists elevated to the status of priests… now there’s a name for this elevation… From the point of view of John Locke, the name is slavery.

And haven’t we effectively become vassals, if not already slaves? When it’s claimed that ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that the science is settled— a science we can’t begin to understand—then what choice do we have but to fall into line? Sure, it’s not nearly ninety-seven percent, but it is the received wisdom. And it has the unqualified support of almost all politicians; all media hacks; the majority of corporate big-wigs; and, to boot, activists of pedigree aplenty: Hollywood stars; King Charles; David Attenborough; Al Gore; Bill Gates; Klaus Schwab; Greta Thunberg; and many others. Ask your next-door neighbors about the cumulative greenhouse effect of CO2 and of its radiative forcing. Blank look. Ask them whether climate change is a serious even existential problem. Chances are they’ll be onboard.

Among laymen, it’s only an incorrigible few (of us) "deniers" who have the temerity to question "the science." The rest simply follow the script. And so be it; if that means replacing reliable and affordable sources of energy with intermittent and costly forms of energy; and, soon -- wait for it -- having smart meters compulsorily installed in our homes, giving the authorities the ability to monitor our power usage and cut us off at will. I’d say that degree of servility is close enough to slavery. However, it needed another group of scientists, in this case medical scientists, to close out the game.

A disease threatening only a relatively small cohort—those (generally aged) with multiple serious co-morbidities—became universally deadly in the mouths of public health experts. In turn, this allowed authorities to close businesses; to lock us in our homes; to prevent us visiting our sick or dying relatives; to prevent us attending church services; to pepper spray, fire rubber bullets and arrest us if we dared protest; to make us wear face masks; and to make us accept experimental vaccinations, by otherwise preventing us from travelling, participating in civil society, and from working. So extraordinary was it that it’s hard to believe it happened. But happen it did.

Hail, victory!

Would Shaeffer have been incredulous? Perhaps not. He foresaw tyrannous outcomes when societies turn away from God-given inalienable rights and adopt bespoke humanistic values in their stead.

"Scientists" called the tune for your neighbors. They aren't epidemiologists. Each day medical experts were rolled out to present the grim news of hospitalizations, deaths, and the virulent, ever-mutating, "deadly" virus. Each day they were told that disobeying senseless diktats would result in hospitals being overrun; would put themselves at grave risk and, cruelly, their friends and neighbors and their aging parents or grandparents.

The lesson that Schwab and his elite Davos co-conspirators have learnt, if they were in any doubt, is that science can be wielded to push common people around and control them. And they need to be controlled for their own good. Moreover, if indeed the elites (or some of them) have read Shaeffer then they know that the absence of Christianity serves their cause. The more humanism dominates societies, the easier it will be to impose a set of values and moral code to suit the political agenda of liege lords. Serfdom revisited. Saving the planet and warding off diseases will require fealty.

Will science play ball? These days science is for sale. Research dollars call the tune. The billions upon billions spent on researching the state of the Great Barrier Reef is an exemplar. The Reef is in rude good health. That won’t do. That won’t bring in the money. It’s threatened by climate change? Got it in one.

Abundant Coral on the Great Barrier Reef? Sound the Alarm!

Despite assuring us in his 2009 inauguration speech that “this was the moment when the rise of oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal,” President Obama expressed concern about the health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) when visiting Australia in November 2014. Later, in May 2015, he sat down for a televised meeting at the White House with British naturalist and climate scaremonger David Attenborough. They shared each other’s mutual concern.

How then can it possibly be? Coral cover on the Reef has hit a new record measured over two-thirds of its 2,300 km length, according to the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). And, incidentally, remains at a relatively high level over the other (southern) third. What to say to spare Barack’s and Sir David’s blushes? Phew! Bullet dodged for the zillionth time. Relief all round? Well, not quite all round.

“We are in uncharted territory and still trying to understand what this means,” whined AIMS program leader Mike Emslie. The institute's CEO, Dr Paul Hardisty, knew what to do. Focus on the part of the Reef that had fallen short of a record. “A third of the gain in the coral cover recorded in the south in 2020/21 was lost last year due to ongoing crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks,” he said. And, risibly, with no sense of the ridiculous, added: “This shows how vulnerable the Reef is to continued acute and severe disturbances that are occurring more often, and are longer-lasting.”

Come on is, the water's fine.

A healthy GBR does not spell success? Not if you want to continue to attract multi-millions of government research dollars it doesn’t. And not if you want to use the state of the Reef to further the apocalyptic climate-change agenda. Never mind, Emslie and Hardisty can look forward to better days ahead. The coral cover is almost bound to decline next year from its record level and their tendentious dire warnings can resume unhindered by an ill-behaved Reef. Though, to be clear, the actual state of the Reef is incidental to its perpetual imminent demise.

"Climate change" is not about physics or facts. Never has been. It’s about politics. The GBR will always be on the brink of destruction. Equally, on a broader canvass, climate change is a gift designed to be forever giving. No one would seriously support renewable energy in its prevailing forms if they really wanted to reduce CO2 emissions. No one who was serious would preach about Australia’s miniscule emissions while studiously ignoring the clear intent of China and India to expand their economies on the back of fossil-fuels.

I looked it up. The world’s oldest operating wind turbine (assuming it’s still whirling as we speak) was commissioned in Denmark in 1978. Forty-four years and 837GW of wind capacity later, CO2 yearly emissions continue to climb. Not a success, I’d venture to say. But, to reiterate, that depends upon what's meant by success.

The elite among climate-obsessed people don’t want success. They want failure. That’s success to them. And seeing CO2 emissions plummeting would be a much bigger and evident failure than a healthy GBR. It would be the very last thing they would want. They want our world to be in a constant state of trepidation. Starting with young school children, they want populations fearful that great floods and inundations, extreme forest fires, unparalleled droughts and cyclones, and millions of climate refugees, are always just around the corner; unless we mend our ways. And, naturally, unless we give them more power to help us mend our ways.

Give us more money or the penguins get it.

Keep populations scared and there's no end of so-called improvements, not to mention sacrifices, that can be foisted on them. That's the point. To build back better. To reset. Reset how? The big boys have the answer. Here’s Deloitte, in May 2022, as part of a self-serving report ("The turning point") on the end of the world as we know it unless we embrace de-carbonisation and, needless to say, Deloitte.

A coordinated transition [to a decarbonised future] would require governments, along with the financial services and technology sectors, to catalyze, facilitate, and accelerate progress; foster information flows across systems; and align individual incentives with collective goals.

Collectivism is given a whole new guise. Not so much workers of the world unite, but governments and Fortune 500 companies unite. And, verbiage aside, notice the unity among the big boys, best exemplified in the Davos Manifesto (latest 2020 version).

A company is more than an economic unit generating wealth. It fulfills human and societal aspirations as part of the broader social system... Corporate global citizenship requires a company to harness its core competencies, its entrepreneurship, skills and relevant resources in collaborative efforts with other companies and stakeholders to improve the state of the world.

Company men (and women) working collaboratively with their rivals? Mark Antony’s aside seems apropos. “Mischief, thou art afoot.” Compare past giants of industry, striving for ascendancy over their rivals. Seeking profits aplenty. Samuel Johnson provides an instructive perspective. “There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money.”

We're all right, mate.

Allowing governments and companies in some collaborative global order to oversee an ‘improvement’ in the state of the world betrays a pitiable knowledge of human nature. The thing about free-market capitalism is that it produces prosperity while allowing the worst excesses of human nature to find expression in unseemly piles of money.

The alternative, collectivist system, in whatever guise it presents itself, produces relative poverty while allowing the worst excesses of human nature to find expression in despotism. In the persecution and cancellation of political opponents. In unequal justice. Already evident, you might say, in the United States. It is, but the surface has been only scratched. There is much more unequal justice to be divvied out in the new world order.

Stretch a point. Assume Deloitte and the World Economic Forum and their corporate and elite fellow travelers have benign intentions in seeking to improve the world. Then they’re naïve fools. It’s as simple as that. If, on the other hand, they are out to lord it over lesser beings, which seems more likely, then they’re sinister scoundrels. Whichever it is, unresolved apocalyptic climate change is their ticket to power. A dream come true, ever rising CO2.