Communism has gone through several rebranding efforts, a necessary adjustment for any movement that has countless deaths and astronomical failures associated with its name. Somehow, though, it just won't permanently retire. Instead, it gets resurrected under a new label every handful of years. First, with the Bernie Sanders crowd, it was socialism - the gateway philosophy to communism. Then, the far leftists pushing the agenda realized that it was a bit too forward and putting off moderates, so they started using democratic socialism, assuming that'd be a more digestible term. Now, yet again, thanks to Klaus Schwab and his partners at the World Economic Forum, we need to get familiar with a new disguise – stakeholder capitalism.
Now that socialism has made it to the bad word list, they've incorporated the word capitalism into their new branding strategy (think: the People's Republic of China, it's in the name, but it doesn't mean a thing). At first glance or to headline-only-readers, it might momentarily convince them that stakeholder capitalism must have something to do with our traditional idea of capitalism. In actuality, it's anything but.
If you haven't been paying attention to Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum, it's time to get familiar if we're going to have any hope of saving America. Joe Biden's campaign slogan, Build Back Better, is often used by partners of the WEF and the slogan dates back to 2014 and the Clinton Foundation.
Another term you might be hearing lately, the Great Reset, also comes from the World Economic Forum. From their words, the reasoning behind the Great Reset is as follows:
"The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties."
And their mission as an organization, which expands the globe:
"As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum's communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being."
In 2020, it seems that for true communism and dictatorship to be labeled appropriately, one must speak to the people bluntly since semantics have become vital in a world where up is down and down is up. Unfortunately, actual dictatorships, communism, and the like come hidden behind a veil of phrases such as 'the greater good' or for 'the health of the public.' Otherwise, they would never succeed in their efforts to become so powerful and oppressive, to begin with.
The World Economic Forum is doing everything but coming onto national television and telling the public that they are global communists. Dissecting their mission, it's clear:
"The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems… are more exposed than ever amidst a global context," and, "future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons."
These are globalists. Need they make it any more obvious?
But, they're not that influential, though – right? On the contrary, here is a list of all of their partnerships – you might be surprised just how far and wide their tentacles reach. Some of the key players include:
"...Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP."
The World Economic Forum was:
"...established in 1971 as a not-for-profit foundation... It is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests. The Forum strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance."
Independent and impartial is a far stretch when their objective is more progressive than the Green New Deal; their founder and CEO, Klaus Schwab, expresses the need for heavily monitored entrepreneurship.
However, it's actually not entirely clear what WEF's step-by-step plan is, as they have not released that information to the public. (Similar to how Biden refused to tell the Americans, before the election, where he landed on packing the Supreme Court. Convenient, isn't it?)
We'll likely have to wait to hear the detailed plan of the Great Reset until well after inauguration day. The Forum stated that they would roll out their strategy during the January 2021 Davos annual meeting; however, as pure coincidence would have it, they have decided to push back the date until some time in the summer.
What we do currently know about the Great Reset and what it entails is that there are "three main components," which include:
- steer the market toward fairer outcomes
- ensure that investments advance shared goals
- harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution
This concept of ‘fairer outcomes,’ has become a trend with the new socialist wave. It’s no longer a push for a equal starting line; no, an equal finish as well. We’ve seen Kamala Harris promoting this with her recent post on social media:
The World Economic Forum admits that, because of the public's compliant reaction to the tight restrictions of COVID around the globe, they're optimistic the general population can quickly adapt to radical changes. They admit to seeing this window of time as an opportunity to become more radical when it otherwise might not have been possible. Although the window is short:
"The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible… This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism… To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a 'Great Reset' of capitalism."
(Yikes – that final sentence!)
Basically, in their eyes, the public's COVID-19 response was a test performed all over the world. A test we collectively failed. We rolled over and accepted massive, unjustified, oppressive changes under the guise of health. They then go on to say:
"...one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office."
Sure, few are complaining about not having to go back to the office and, instead, working from home with their families, but certainly, no one is happy about putting their life on hold and shutting down their small businesses. Even if
it's just until we can guarantee that we don't overwhelm the hospitals;
flatten the curve and stay home;
stay 6-feet away and wear a mask, unless you spot someone not wearing a mask, then absolutely get within inches of their face to yell at them about it;
when the daily deaths decrease;
when the daily cases decrease, regardless of symptoms or faulty PCR tests;
when the vaccine gets released;
when everyone takes the vaccines, and there will be multiple a year, then it'll go back to normal;
you won't be able to travel unless you get the vaccines each year, even though we've never used mRNA vaccines in mass, nor tested on animals. Oh, and the man funding these vaccines believes in population control; etc…
The forever moving goalpost – the epitome of 2020 – has taught these global elitists that, if there's ever been a time to implement a one-world government, the time is now. While we have managed to drag out COVID restrictions and robbed the entire world of nearly a year of their lives', it will eventually come to an end. And the WEF does anticipate this. Which is why, to keep the fear, hysteria, and submission ongoing, their plan is to shift that panic to a climate change initiative:
"The Global Shapers program was involved in the widespread 'climate strikes' of 2019, and more than 1,300 have already been trained by the Climate Reality Project, the highly influential, well-funded climate activist organization run by former Vice President Al Gore, who serves on the World Economic Forum's Board of Trustees."
This is where phase two of their vague plan comes in.
From Schwab's perspective, the problem with shareholder capitalism – which is how he labels the current system we have in the United States – only incentivizes businesses to make a profit. Stakeholder capitalism, which he proposes we replace it with – would incentivize companies to create sustainable business models.
Again, to translate this nonsense, businesses would receive financial incentives to create infrastructures that fit into the new global government's idea of green and sustainable. On the contrary, companies that do not comply would be heavily fined.
If these COVID lockdowns have taught us anything, it's that our governments do not care if they force small businesses to close their doors while the giant chains are allowed to thrive. The Walmarts and Amazons of the world are not hurting during this time – they are flourishing because now any smaller fish competition is being wiped out in mass.
This same philosophy would also spill over in a stakeholder "capitalism" world. Large businesses would have the funds, resources, and the government's backing to comply with whatever ridiculous, unfounded restrictions are necessary to keep their doors open to the public. The mom-and-pop stores would not be trusted to implement this properly, just as they've not been entrusted with implementing 6-feet of separation or mask mandates. Small businesses have not even been given a reasonable chance to try to comply with rules and restrictions. And when (or if) they reopened, they were only allowed to fill their stores to half capacity.
Well, a restaurant does not fill their space with seating for 100 if they only need to seat 50 to turn a profit. No, they have that many seats because that's the number required for them to outweigh any operation costs.
Now onto phase three, "harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution."
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, in short, is the wave of AI we've witnessed picking up pace within the last decade; the marriage of humans to artificial intelligence. The World Economic Forum defines this as well:
"...the Fourth Industrial Revolution represents entirely new ways in which technology becomes embedded within societies and even our human bodies. Examples include genome editing, new forms of machine intelligence, breakthrough materials and approaches to governance that rely on cryptographic methods such as the blockchain."
In this article, the WEF explains the wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of the population. This is quite comical, considering most of the wealthiest elites are behind this globalist movement. A Fourth Industrial Revolution would actually cut labor costs and be beneficial for this group. And, no matter which way the economic tides turn, it'll never bring down the businesses of those at the very top of the pyramid. But, hey, don't they seem generous by saying they're concerned for the rest of us?
The World Economic Forum also featured an article titled, "Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030," which is told from the perspective of a person living in a post-Fourth Industrial Revolution smart city. The author has received a lot of negative feedback from writing this piece and explains that this article outlines both the negatives and positives of this modern society.
But, let's keep in mind that the Forum has chosen to host and feature this article, meaning they must stand by it to some extent:
"Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, 'our city'. I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes... In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there… Once in awhile I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. No where I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me."
The idea of this lifestyle would have seemed absolutely absurd just a year ago. However, now people worldwide are waking up to the reality that we're only one global disaster away from totalitarianism at our front door.
As grim as this all might seem, there's still hope we can avoid this future. If enough people become aware of the vision the World Economic Forum has for the world, we can stand up and resist.