From high atop the Swiss Alps, neo-Gauleiter Klaus Schwab, his buddies at the WEF (which has just called off its annual meeting in Davos from fear of the Dreaded Covid), Joe Biden and the Democrats, plus tech Karens and Big Brothers everywhere will soon know whether you've been naughty or nice. And so will the rest of the world. Smile!
What's in your wallet?
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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 18th and 19th 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"?
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.
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 theWHO 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.
Does Anthony Fauci Even Exist?
Dr. Anthony Fauci is likely the most celebrated, or most notorious, public figure currently claiming the lion’s share of national attention. He rose to the heights of prominence as President Trump’s ubiquitous medical advisor, preening for the camera during Trump’s press briefings detailing the progress of the COVID pandemic and the means to combat it. Fauci’s dictates and pronouncements were regarded as gospel and came to be a major determinant of the nation’s COVID preventive policies. He seemed infallible—until now.
Recently a tranche of Fauci’s emails as well as articles and letters were released via the FOIA and through open records requests calling his bona fides into question. We learn there, among other things, that masks are ineffective, that people should wear multiple masks, that the virus has a natural origin, that the virus may have come from a lab leak, that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research, that the NIH funded through EcoHealth Alliance president Peter Daszak a team of Chinese scientists who may have worked on gain-of-function experiments, and so on. (Chinese virologist Dr. Li Meng-Yan has added further weight to the lab-leak revelations.)
The bordereau of planned evasions and collusive misdirections—as witness a “spectrum of correspondence” with such influential figures as Scripps Research professor Dr. Kristian Andersen (January 1, 2020), NIH Deputy Director Dr. Hugh Auchincloss (February 1, 2020), and others—is striking. The controversy is assuming epic proportions as Fauci’s presence and calendar of activities and decisions have polarized the country.
Do I contradict myself?
In my opinion, all the fuss and bother about Anthony Fauci is nothing but a tempest in a beam-splitter. For Anthony Fauci does not exist. Rather, he is a gaseous exhalation of the Swamp, in effect a computer-generated hologram projected onto the public stage to advance the insidious project of the political left and the class of billionaire scavengers seeking to profit from the national malaise while advancing an agenda of oligarchic social control.
Why this elaborate charade or pneumatic figment should have been created is another question and invites some speculation. Tom Woods asks: “Can it be that for some in the Establishment Fauci has finally worn out his welcome? Some 64 percent of independents say it's time to resume normal life. That's a big, big chunk of people for the Democrats to alienate. So are they pushing back on Fauci?”
Was the Fauci construct, then, a defensive artifice? If things went sideways and Fauci was exposed as a false prophet speaking from both sides of his mouth, he could be made to disappear, alleging fatigue, family responsibilities, or even COVID itself. Perhaps the virus will have taken its toll or the vaccine misfired, thus provoking a trickle of memorial sympathy among his detractors? Perhaps, weary of the fray and having done his duty, the apparition will have retired to the Pitcairn Islands—0 new cases, 0 confirmed cases, 0 deaths—never to be heard of again?
“I think his credibility is entirely shot," Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya told Fox News. “And I think it's really unfortunate that we have this person who just didn't really have the expertise to lead the response, and yet we somehow venerated him.” Bhattacharya cited Fauci for a rookie mistake, conflating “the case mortality rate with the infection mortality rate.” Fauci’s 2 percent fatality number should have been 0.2 percent, an order of magnitude lower. “It wasn't the science changing,” Bhattacharya said; rather, “Something else happened where he just changed.”
I am large, I contain multitudes.
What might that “something else” have been? For all we know, it may be that the real Fauci, if he existed, was surreptitiously replaced by a chimerical substitute, a creature of light and air. Or, more likely, that the “program” was changed in medias res, once the hologram had inspired public confidence, and so could begin to implement the larger scheme of tactical disinformation. Holograms are easily manipulated and impervious to attack, at least for an interim period.
Commenting on the doctor’s woefully mediocre and indeed pernicious track record, which has resisted scrutiny up to the present, Stephen Kruiser at PJM believes that Fauci has “proven himself to be a petty, small, pathetic man,” but Kruiser seems not to understand that Fauci is not a “man,” as we commonly understand the term, but a kind of wraith, an illusion, a three-dimensional photonic transmission serving to distract attention from the ulterior purposes of the real plotters. Which is why it is irrelevant to fulminate against him. There’s nothing there.
It is interesting to note that the compromising email dump came at the instigation of collaborating hard-left news organizations, BuzzFeed and The Washington Post. Tom Woods may have had a point. Once “Fauci” begins feeling the heat, he can made to simply vanish, as we have seen, on any of various excuses, including personal resentment at suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous slander. The possibility must be entertained. He was never a material Fauci but the Schwabian emanation of a shadowy cabal of political manipulators conspiring to impose a Great Reset upon an unsuspecting people.
Very well then, I contradict myself.
As Steve Deace and Todd Erzen write in their definitive Faucian Bargain, Fauci’s “name may be on the marquee, but the truth is he’s not really the main villain. Fauci is not some sinister figure who cynically manipulated… events in order to rise to power… he contradicts himself way too much, and is too easily exposed… Fauci is not the disease but the symptom [of the] federal leviathan,” a mere figurehead. And we have fallen for this meretricious fiction. “Fauci has only sold much of America what it wanted to buy. Our fear has gifted such authority to Fauci.” And not only fear, but our passion for entertainment and the marvels of medical technology.
The cabal knows this. And it knows that should the operation grow counterproductive, it could then insist it had been misled by Fauci’s ostensible credentials and suave persona, proceed to diffuse public indignation, and devise other means to carry out its intentions. Meanwhile, an “exit strategy” would be put in place, the hologram would evaporate and Fauci would just fade away, exempt from interrogation and exposure. No one would really know what happened to him or where he is. Eventually he would be forgotten. After all, the virtue of non-existence is immunity.
He determined that the world would do better if he involved himself less. So wrote Amity Shlaes of President Coolidge in her history of the Great Depression. Here was a leader broadly content with the prevailing lot of his nation and I suggest, at the time, in sync with the feelings of most Americans. We now live in more disgruntled times. Still, sane nations and sane people are not systematically malcontent.
This brings me to those leaders and powerbrokers who almost entirely live for the future. They tend to despise the present and perforce the past. The future is all. Unlike the present and past it can be moulded; and, potentially, into a shape they desire. Malcontentedly, they lust after their own version of a better future. Take a couple of well-known dictators.
Hitler aspired to a Third Reich reaching across vast swathes of Eastern Europe. Xi Jinping aspires to ever-expanding Chinese hegemony. Dictators like these operate in plain sight. There is no mystery. But we have now in our midst another ilk of autocrats. Less obvious; just as real. Not dictators but, all the same, like dictators, they want power to mould the future. Their ambitions don’t go to territory or to national power. They want to change the way people think, work and live; they want to reset the agenda.
The coming Fourth Reich?
Pretexts presage power grabs. One or more are required. Climate change, the so-called third or fourth (depending on who’s counting) industrial revolution and, most recently, the response of governments to Covid have come together to provide a once-in-a-life-time confluence of pretexts.
The prime movers? Prominent is the World Economic Forum, whose executive chairman Klaus Schwab is a proponent of ‘The Great Reset’ and ‘stakeholder capitalism’. The Council for Inclusive Capitalism is a fellow traveller. Among many of the great and good, Bill Gates, George Soros with his misnamed Open Society Foundations, and Pope Francis are clearly engaged. Again, as with autocrats generally, they are deluded. But that doesn’t make them less dangerous to our prosperity and freedom.
It’s important to understand (though they might not) that they have not invented a third way. There is capitalism and individual freedom on the one hand and socialism and collectivism on the other. They are plumping for the latter whether they admit it, or see it, or not. They will likely, hopefully, fail in undoing our way of life; though, as I will suggest, the response of governments to Covid-19 is most worrying.
I will take each of the trio of pretexts in turn.
Tackling climate change offers the alluring prospect of undermining national governance in favour of global governance, run by elites, like them. This is very far from benign but, lucky for us, they have hitched their wagon to a crock. Renewable energy in the form of wind and solar is hopeless. You can only get away with it when you have dispatchable power at the ready.
Wind and solar now account for about 3 percent of the world’s energy generation. Already blackouts have occurred from Europe to South Australia to California. Exactly what will happen if that 3 percent becomes just 10 percent? Those hot or cold still nights will cause havoc. Quite simply it’s unworkable and will collide with real life. Its supporters would know that if they were not delusional.
Second to today’s industrial revolution. Schwab identified this revolution as the fourth in an article some years ago in the magazine Foreign Affairs. According to Schwab, it is characterised by “artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, materials science, energy storage, and quantum computing.” He, along with others, sees this revolution bringing profound and pacy breakthroughs; giving rise to production outstripping needs; to dislocation and unemployment. Dependency on government will soar. Just what is wanted to reset the agenda.
Good-bye to all that, right?
Troubling for them -- and fortunately for us -- it won’t unfold as they think. After three industrial revolutions have already played out, the labour force participation rate in the United States, in the U.K. and in Australia is higher now than in the buoyant 1950s. And there is no reason to believe things will be different this time. Those machine breakers of yore got it wrong as have current pundits. Market forces and human nature tell the story.
Businesses can’t produce products (including by using robots) and sell them at profit without customers who are inclined to own them and have sufficient wherewithal to buy them. A rising stream of production and falling employment do not gel.
As for human nature, ascetics and billionaires aside, men and women always want more goods and services than they are able to afford. Classical economists such as John Stuart Mill understood this. If Keynes had understood it, he would not have based his economics around scarcity of demand. If Schwab and company understood it, they would not pin their hopes on the fourth industrial revolution creating a superabundance of products and a needy mass of the unemployed.
Third to Covid, and arguably, the most threatening of the pretexts underpinning the Great Reset agenda. The response to Covid has been unparalleled in the history of plagues. A mild disease in terms of its lethality has led nearly all governments into upturning economic and social life. Even with vaccines normal life seems a distance away. As sapping as it has already been, it would be disastrous if it were a preview of the future.
New strains, ‘double mutants’ and novel viruses will regularly arise. In recent times we’ve had Asian Flu, Hong Kong Flu, Ebola, HIV, SARS, MERS, Swine Flu. And governments and their media cheerleaders are now practised in their hypersensitive response to germs. They seem to believe they’ve absolutely done the right thing by humankind. Even Donald Trump claimed he’d saved millions of American lives. Capitalism is adaptable and fleet of foot but continual lockdowns to fight viruses are not sustainable. The uncertainty created would cripple businesses, small businesses particularly, and inexorably increase dependency on government.
Leave aside the fluff about the industrial revolution, which will unravel of its own accord. Combatting climate alarmism and the attendant ineffective and costly counter measures remains core business. However, what needs to be combatted most right now is the overwrought response to Covid setting a debilitating template for the future.
What is 'Stakeholder Capitalism'? Part Two
As we saw in Part One, Klaus Schwab, the principal architect of the "Great Reset," contends that international organizations have been “too remote and impersonal for most people,” too opaque for “individual stakeholders to relate to.” The response, therefore, “must be to implement decision-making processes to include all of their stakeholders.” How is this to be done?
Somehow or other, all stakeholders will be included in a “consultative stage,” which seems more than a little farfetched. The “paperwork” would be endless and consensus difficult to achieve. And even if agreement were possible, it could easily be ignored by a supervisory committee. Yet, “stakeholder engagement in government” and “coordination on a global level” are presented as eminently feasible propositions, though their utopian shadow is scarcely to be disguised or dismissed.
Of course, it all sounds benevolent, commiserative and enlightened; we are assured that “companies, governments, international organizations and civil society can reinvent themselves” to the advantage of all. What could go wrong?
I've got yours, Jack.
In some respects, the stakeholder blueprint reads like an update of Tommaso Campanella’s 17th century visionary treatiseCity of the Sun (predicated on Thomas More’s Utopia) in which private property and wealth disparities are expunged, citizens have no possessions, advanced technology is on display, and a cenacle of officials presides over just distribution of goods and chattels.
Ernest Callenbach’s Green pastoral Ecotopia lurks behind Schwab’s bucolic program as well. There is also more than a whiff of Plato’s ideal city-state as developed in The Republic, with its three social classes comprising the Commons (craftsmen, merchants, etc.), the Auxiliaries (police), and the Guardians (rulers, from which the Philosopher-King is selected). One remembers that these are all fictions with almost no purchase on reality.
Indeed, to my mind, the project resembles an elevated, mandarin version of Portland’s CHAZ—Capital Hill Administration Zone—ruled not by gun-toting thugs but by a platoon of sophisticated oligarchs who think—or pretend—they can fence out the world of practical politics, high finance, competitive passion, the profit motive and, in brief, unreconstructed human nature. The fallen world will be replaced by an Arcadian substitute governed by a council of prebendary sages. Once the fictive paradigm is transferred to the world of practical affairs, we have a recipe for unintended consequences of the worst sort.
For the system Schwab is proposing, as should be obvious, can neither be created nor maintained in the absence of rigid and authoritarian control by the helmers of a global fiefdom, as Joel Kotkin warns in The Coming of Neo-Feudalism. One recalls the Juvenalian maxim: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? As for the “stakeholders” among the common people, they will irrevocably find themselves occupying serf-like status, dependent on Big Government, subject to constant surveillance, rendered largely sedentary, and generally deprived of agency.
"Stakeholder Capitalism" ultimately favors neither labor, small business, the middle class nor an open, free market economy. Politically, it is Karl Marx redivivus, whose “dictatorship of the proletariat,” elaborated in his seminal The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, leads inevitably to the dictatorship of a privileged elite, as history has decisively shown. Milovan Djilas’ The New Class and Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies are essential reading here. Culturally, it is Antonio Gramsci released from his cell to sherpa the long march through the institutions. Herbert Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” is the name of the game. Clearly, the only stakeholder who will benefit from the Reset is the manorial elect of politicians, technocrats and the super-wealthy.
To give Schwab his due, he writes well. The prose is clean, his facts, though selective, are cleverly arrayed, and his claims, though outrageous, appear to attest to a modest and empathetic sensibility. He is a formidable adversary.
The reader must remain alert to Schwab’s sources and the historical context from which his argument arises: the mix of Fascist practice, that is, the intimate alliance between business and government, or syndical corporatism—as Cardiff University historian Kevin Passmore points out, the word “totalitarianism” was invented by Italian fascists—and Communist theory, the putative erasure of class distinctions and the emergence of an egalitarian society in which the state controls all property, resources and wealth.
Democratic capitalism is a deeply flawed system which nevertheless yields better social and economic results than any other. Moreover, it is always subject to improvement over the historical continuum. What Churchill said of democracy applies to its economic offspring, free-market capitalism. In a speech on Nov. 11, 1947, he reminded the U.K.’s House of Commons that “many forms of Government have beentried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” This is vintage Churchillian wisdom, which is sorely lacking in all world-utopian schemes like Schwab’s.
Those who suspect that “stakeholder capitalism” is a euphemism for a nefarious plot using climate change and COVID as pretexts to capture the levers of power, shut down the functional energy sector and replace it with a futuristic iteration of techno-primitivism, kill small business, reduce the population to a condition of civil subservience, eliminate the free market, crash the economy and Reset to Zero may not be wide of the mark. Caveat emptor.
What Is 'Stakeholder Capitalism'? Part One
The concept of “stakeholder capitalism,” proposed by Klaus Schwab in his various books on the subject—in particular COVID 19: The Great Reset, co-authored with Thierry Malleret, and his latest foray in the field Stakeholder Capitalism, which faithfully reprises the points and principles of the earlier volume—is far more insidious than it sounds. From the perspective of the Left, the progressivist, the woke, “Capitalism” is, of course, a loaded word, but it remains the engine of the world’s most advanced economies, and its kinetics cannot be dispensed with. Market-dominated societies are perforce competitive and revenue-driven.
“Stakeholder,” however, is a detergent term, bleaching the semantic grime from its verbal companion, which is why it functions as a remedial descriptor. It comes across as friendly, compassionate and inviting. In its current usage, the word derives from the education industry, where it has become ubiquitous, highlighting the educators’ presumably favonian sympathies toward their students, fawningly regarded as “stakeholders.”
Originating in John Dewey’s child-centered, student-oriented educational theory, which he called “progressivist,” the idea has proliferated to the present day when students are empowered to issue demands, decide whom they want to be taught by and whom they want to be fired. It explains why we should be wary when it is used to qualify a social and economic program as vast and disruptive as the Great Reset.
Trust me, I'm German.
Placed under the loupe, stakeholder capitalism reveals itself as a sobriquet for international socialism. The corporate impetus is no longer exclusively directed toward profits but will be supervised, guided and restrained by government intervention. Or so we are led to believe.
In the wake of the pandemic, Schwab writes in The Great Reset, “Societies could be poised to become either more egalitarian or more authoritarian…[ E]conomies, when they recover, could take the path of more inclusivity and more attuned to the needs of our global commons.” Ironically, as history has proven time and again, in order to become more egalitarian, society will of necessity become more authoritarian. It’s a dynamic that approximates to a historical law.
Schwab assesses the social and political impact of the pandemic in the five domains of Society, Economy, Environment, Technology and Geopolitics. This is what he calls the Macro Reset (of which the Micro Reset—industry and business—and the Individual Reset are specifications), a transformation which involves a “redefinition of the social contract” in the direction of “stakeholder capitalism and environmental, social and governance (ESG) considerations.”
The result will be a “better world,” portrayed as “more inclusive, more equitable, and more respectful of Mother Nature.” He envisions a tectonic shift from capital to labor, of wealth distribution from the affluent to the needy, and of greater government interventions in the functioning of the economic system, customary arrangements, social architectures and cultural dynamics in order to ensure “global sustainability.”
It's easy, too!
A proper management of the economy and social life will entail a number of salient factors. Companies, for example, will have to reconceive their “fundamental purpose” from unbridled financial profit to that of “serving all their stakeholders, not only those who hold shares.” Wages will be raised and substantial health benefits guaranteed, regardless of the bottom line. The massive expansion of stimulus funding will create “37 million nature-positive jobs” and a Green economy will be resolutely promoted to fight climate change, generating employment and profits along the way. There exists, plainly, not a shred of empirical evidence to justify Schwab’s prognostics.
It is hard to say whether Schwab’s arguments—or some of them—are cleverly devious or childishly naïve. For example, he urges us not to fear the dystopian fatality of entrenched tech-and-government surveillance following recovery, since it is “for those who govern and each of us personally to control and harness the benefits of technology without sacrificing our individual and collective values and freedom.” This analysis seems a colossal oxymoron. Surveillance will be pervasive but our values and freedoms can somehow be preserved.
When he argues that governments must do “whatever it takes and whatever it costs” to ensure our wellbeing, otherwise people afraid of the virus will not shop, travel or dine out, thus hindering economic recovery, he appears oblivious to the fact that it was intense government panic-mongering that led precisely to the adverse consequences he wishes to avoid—probably the greatest political error of a generation. Is Schwab deceiving us or deceiving himself? Such instances of double-think can be multiplied throughout his text.
As to be expected, Schwab has bought wholesale into many contemporary shibboleths and intellectual sedatives. He enthusiastically accepts the dodgy hypothesis of "global warming" and is indifferent to both the uselessness and devastation wrought by the costly scam of Green energy as a replacement for reliable fossil fuels. “The climate risk is unfolding more slowly than the pandemic did, but it will have even more severe consequences”—a premise that has been robustly challenged by some of the most reputable and knowledgeable researchers in the field.
Money for nothing, and stuff for free.
In The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Schwab supports the accelerating “innovation in genetics, with synthetic biology now on the horizon,” involving “biotechnology techniques using RNA and DNA platforms… to develop vaccines faster than ever”—except that these substances are not vaccines but computer-like “operating systems” that alter “the unique mRNA sequence that codes for a protein,” and rely on pathogenic priming that can make people sicker than the disease would have.
In Stakeholder Capitalism, we learn that Schwab is all for “contact tracing” which “has an unequalled capacity and a quasi-essential place in the armoury needed to combat COVID-19”—the “quasi” is a bet hedger, just in case things go sideways. He is an avid supporter of Mark Zuckerberg, whose Facebook is a censuring giant, and regurgitates Zuckerberg’s deceptive and self-serving pitch that greater regulation is needed to hold companies accountable.
Schwab regards COVID-panic-stricken, shut-down countries like New Zealand as “trailblazers.” He is a Net-Zero Telamon for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030 with their animus against individual property rights. He has proposed a scheme of “non-financial metrics” to chart a company’s progress toward virtue, and affirms that “such virtuous instincts can become a feature of our economic systems,” assuring us they will continue “creating prosperity for all their citizens and businesses.” John O’Sullivan correctly notes that “the hairshirt economic policy of Net Zero [is] a dystopian delusion.”
[Part two tomorrow]
Diary of an Acclimatised Beauty: Caring
With all the excitement of coming to Davos for the World Economic Forum, I completely forgot I can ski here!Skiing was obviously the last thing on my mind when a new friend from Lyford Cay mentioned they’d be able to smuggle me in among the climate gurus and environmental titans but here I am.
Landing was a bit of crush and I could see why some opt to take the train from Zurich-it’s not only because the trip is so majestic and reminds us of what we are fighting for… but Davos can’t possibly accommodate that many jumbo jets all arriving within hours of one another.Rows and rows from heads of state made it look like the U.N. roll call of jets. And that doesn’t count the larger number of climate-minded oligarchs who selflessly give of their time and money.
But as I came in from Copenhagen, (chartered but shared) I landed right in the heart of things.I did wonder if they even have traffic controllers here, it felt like that six-way stop in Beverly Hills just below Sunset where one car goes and then another and miraculously no one collides. Add to that the people who took helicopters from wherever they landed their jets and you have a very crowded airfield!
It was on this airfield that I saw bellmen hauling skis and boots and I remembered it was originally a ski town.Alas… I’ll have to rent.
What better place for a Great Reset?
The conference is by invitation only (obvi!) but this year proved a bit tougher as the event has moved underground.Daddy had been several years back (work stuff) and advised me to fill my dance card before I arrived, and boy he wasn’t kidding!
With the arrival of the dreaded Covid, the conference technically moved to next May in Singapore. So they just re-titled the January event as “The Davos Agenda” and made it fully virtual.And who can blame them? If things go as we hope, The Great Reset is going to re-shape our entire world! And by extension my beloved planet.
I feel as though I had a bit of a jump on everyone… having gone to so many underground parties in London during lockdown.Who knew that the iceberg homes would prove to be the police-proof solution to a party. As things got more sophisticated in the London parties, we were asked to submit to a ten-minute coronavirus test before being allowed entry and obviously had to pay in cash under threat of having to split any fines incurred should we get busted.
But there were no such tests here in Davos, owing—I assume—to the fact that the leaders of the free world and the gilt-edged would have managed to run by a vaccine.And I can tell you my poor over-swabbed nostrils were grateful. We were however, sworn to no mobiles, no texting, tweeting, posting, or sharing under penalty of some mandate I couldn’t quite understand, but am sure was all for the betterment of our poor planet.
When I checked in they gave me a folder which I hoped would contain a schedule of everything but it only listed the conference schedule and a list of “starred must-watch sessions”, how to submit questions… blah, blah… whatever!All virtual computer stuff. Luckily I had a host of WhatsApp invites with detailed instructions, and one even said to delete the invite itself.
I was looking a bit tired from travel, and the week with Daddy in Copenhagen,so I slathered on a deep moisturising masque and opened my computer to watch the conference going on in some adjacent building.
The first video was “the welcome” and showed four masked, and distanced speakers… “live from the studio in Geneva”, which might have been true when they taped it but I’d just seen one of the very distinctive looking ladies stepping out of a helicopter. In the next screen was Klaus (Schwab) who was probably, admittedly, in Davos, and a stern un-masked woman who seemed to be sitting on a toadstool. Turns out I was wrong and she was not going to talk about mycology-it was just an unfortunate choice of chairs for a video conference.
Klaus began saying, “2021 will be a crucial…it will be a pivotal year for the future of humankind”.
Not really going out on a limb there but OK…I agree.
Then he went on to say, “It will be crucial because we have to continue to fight the virus—BUT we have to move out of the pandemic".
Which is it??? Stay and fight or move out?
Then he continued, "BUT…
“…above all we have to restore trust in our world… in order to overcome the Kaisers.”
WHAAT?The Kaisers?I needed a cup of tea. I rewound: "hin orduh zu overcome ze Kreisiz." The crisis! Dr. Strangelove has nothing on this guy.
A knock on the door signalled my tea had arrived and so I answered with my white masque on.That’s the great thing about a place like this… they pretend not to notice.
I watched another few videos and they all had one thing in common. Super-fast talking and a limited lexicon. They all seemed to use the words “sustainable”,“unprecedented”, “massive”, and “inclusive”— no matter what they were discussing. It was a good thing this wasn’t a drinking game!
And more absurd… “coronavirus” a word that infected every single sentence. It was the reason to be, the reason not to be, the reason to remember, to forget, to change, to remain…and yet they sat two feet apart, pulling off and donning masks like it was some musical chairs game at a children’s party.
I looked at my phone to decide whether I would go to the Urban Transformation or Energy Infrastructure receptions.I decided on Energy because someone might know my father and I just couldn’t listen to how coronavirus affected the poor disproportionately. Everything affects the poor disproportionately but it was the response to coronavirus that was more likely to affect the poor than anything else.
Day Two and I am not drinking or eating anything. I had more champagne, wagyu beef, truffled lobster mac and cheese, and fatty tuna belly to get me to spring. I called Daddy to ask a few questions but he didn’t pick up. I opened up my computer to see what was on and if it should pre-empt a spa visit. Now playing was the session on how the forum is shaping media and entertainment. Well I can tell you… different actor, same script. Here’s what she said verbatim:
“Media was the first to go through massive digital disruption. Without a strong ecosystem you cannot sustain that kind of change.”
Yes, believe it or not, that is what she said.“Massive”, “ecosystem”, “sustain.”Same words, new topic, making zero sense. And who wants to ‘sustain media disruption’ ?It’s what she actually said.But if you just listen to the buzz words instead of what she actually says… it seems sympathetic. And important.
How I wish Daddy would pick up.I’m so lost and I can’t believe the point of this was to confuse. If I did reach him he’d likely ask me what did I expect. And then he’d tell me to go skiing. I think I shall. It will be massive, but not unprecedented.