Naomi Klein Resets The Global Trap

Naomi Klein's article in The Intercept, The Great Reset Conspiracy, should be seen in context. On Nov 17, 2020, the New York Times declared “The Baseless Great Reset Conspiracy theory rises again.”

As we shall see, The Great Reset is the project of the World Economic Forum, a body directly connected to the Club of Rome, an organization whose fundamental objective is population reduction, and thus there is every reason to explore its motivations with an open mind. First, however, the context.

The year 2020, more than any in memory, has shown the Corporatist Media acting in unison, taking an identical line on specific stories at the same moment, in the same manner, and often in the very same words. There is no need to suspect collusion: it is self-evident. 

The journal for which Klein writes her article is the same Intercept from which the journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned after its editors decided to censor his article on Hunter Biden's international fund raising, in which the former vice president's son accepted money from persons close to the Chinese Communist Party and Russia's richest woman, Elena Baturina. 

At the very moment The Intercept's editors were censoring Greenwald's report, the press, in unison, was declaring the discovery of Hunter Biden's laptop and the separate corroboration of emails by his former business partner Anthony Bobulinski to be "a Russian disinformation campaign". 

Now, after the presidential election, Hunter Biden himself has admitted he is the subject of an FBI tax probe, as is Joe Biden's brother, James. Too bad there are polls suggesting that roughly one-fifth of Democratic Party supporters would not have voted for Joe Biden if the media had told them at the time about the family's financial shenanigans, questionable ties and possible collusion with Chinese communists.

The media is no longer denying that The Great Reset (TGR) is a thing. Now, with Klein's article, it has shifted the goalposts: people are creating a "viral conspiracy theory purporting to expose something no one ever attempted to hide."

NAOMI DEALS SOMA AT TIME OF CRISIS

 

Naomi Klein as photographed by Mariusz Kubik

Like Soma, the mind-numbing drug in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, Klein deals in calm, calling TGR just another attempt to "rebrand capitalism as a slightly buggy poverty alleviation and ecological restoration program." It's just some do-gooding as cover for the World Economic Forum's members' unprogressive attempts to evade regulations and taxes. 

She slams those who accuse Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab of "using the state of shock created by the coronavirus... to turn the world into a high-tech dictatorship that will take away your freedom forever."

"... a green/socialist/Venezuela/Soros/forced vaccine dictatorship... a Big Pharma/GMO/biometric implants/5G/robot dog/forced vaccine dictatorship..." 

[The Intercept's editors should try editing rather than censorship.]

"Less a conspiracy theory than a conspiracy smoothie, the Great Reset has managed to mash up every freakout happening on the internet."

Our self-annointed guru then goes on to diminish "researchers" in bunny quotes... and then admits she's not looked much at TGR. 

"I’ve been doing my best to ignore it for months, even when various Reset “researchers” have insisted that all of this is an example of the shock doctrine, a term I coined a decade and a half ago to describe the many ways that elites try to harness deep disasters to push through policies that further enrich the already wealthy and restrict democratic liberties."

HOW NAOMI CONFUSED US

The crux of her argument is that TGR is a cover for doing nothing about the real crises in capitalism. "It is, first and foremost, about blocking a real Green New Deal, which most assuredly would not have the support of BP, Mastercard, the Prince of Wales, and all of the other Great Reset partners."

Here Klein is perpetuating some myths that I will explore in detail below. 

• The false dichotomy of Big Oil vs. Big Environmentalism
• The role of the Prince of Wales and Big Oil's owners in launching Big Environmentalism with the World Wildlife Fund and The Club of Rome.
• Rockefeller fronter Maurice Strong (himself an oil man) founding the United Nations Environment Programme and convening the first international meeting on climate change.

Now, consider this sentence from Klein: "Do these people honestly think that Schwab is in cahoots with AOC and using the pandemic to put BP out of business — with the full cooperation of BP?"

No doubt Klein would consider the following a "conspiracy theory": Is it a coincidence that the families that are most prominent in the World Wildlife Fund, Club of Rome, and promotion of Agenda 21 and the Great Reset — the British and Dutch royal families, the Rockefellers and Rothschilds — are the very same families that are among the wealthiest owners of the Earth’s mineral resources through Corporations like BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron and Exxon? 

As the environmentalist Vandana Shiva said: "We are talking about the old oil economy trying to maintain itself with another raw material: the green planet. The only reason that corn and soya is being planted for biofuel is that subsidies make it profitable."

DAVOS AND THE CLUB OF ROME

Klein remains willfully blind to the fact that the main movers behind carbon trading AKA climate change are Big Oil and banks. That the same people are the main investors in biomass energy generation - which burns forests for almost half its "sustainable" fuel and air-polluting garbage for much of the rest: including old car tires which are, of course, a product essential to Big Oil that it is keen to get rid of for free (in fact, it even gets subsidized to burn tires). The biggest investors in biomass energy? Klein's supposed anti-Green mafia, the Koch brothers.

If Klein was to pay more attention she would read about the Davos Manifesto of 1973, revealed in the WEF's own book, The World Economic Forum: A Partner In Shaping History — The First 40 Years. 

It explains how Prince Bernhard of The Netherlands chaired the third European Management Symposium of the WEF which considered the topic, 'shaping your future', with a special presentation on the Club of Rome-commissioned publication, The Limits To Growth. This is the usual Malthusian, millenarian warning that the world's population is heading for imminent disaster in no more than a couple of decades.

Yes, that Prince Bernhard. Former SS officer, founder with Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, of the World Wildlife Fund, founder of the Bilderburg Group, who married into the Dutch royal family, whose huge ownership of colonial acquisitions include stakes in Royal Dutch Shell. 

There is clearly more to this agenda than "the old oil economy trying to maintain itself." There is a confluence of powerful economic interests who have financed and harnessed academic theories to justify and buttress their own desire to control the Earth, its resources and its human and animal populations. The media and publishers, of which Klein is part, take these academic rationales and normalize them within the boundaries of public discourse. 

Who are these economic interests?  Advances in technology have made the Military Industrial Complex a quaint simplification. The warfare industry is no longer directed outward in competition for global resources but also inwards at propagandizing, reframing and repurposing domestic populations. The biggest and most powerful industries remain warfare, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals derived from petrochemicals, narcotics legal and illicit, and human trafficking. 

It's easy to corroborate the activities of these industries in recent years. They include resource grabs, from Iraqi and Libyan oil to Bolivian lithium. We have seen Afghan heroin production steadily increase under British and U.S. military protection. In The Cartels Do Not Exist, the academic Oswaldo Zavala argues that the war on drugs is being used as an excuse to depopulate areas of Mexico for the benefit of international mining companies. The line between licit an illicit drugs has vanished as pharmaceutical companies have become the biggest pushers of opiates and opioids, creating a new crisis that exceeds the crack cocaine explosion exposed by journalist Gary Webb R.I.P. and former Los Angeles Police detective Michael Ruppert R.I.P and laid at the door of military intelligence. To those who exposed the pharmaceuticals business, licit and illicit, we can add, this month, the name of Brandy Vaughan R.I.P.

Drug abuse promoted by corporations and government agencies is a very real, man-made epidemic. Yet over the past decade the World Health Organization has blatantly promoted its own man-made epidemics by declaring scare after scare, exposed as such after the event - and after the profits have been made and billions of dollars in unused drugs (see Tamiflu) have been thrown away. This has never happened before on such a regular basis. We are asked to believe that death-dealing viral epidemics have suddenly begun to appear several times a decade with the threat of catastrophe if we don't take vaccine after vaccine. Can you see a parallel with the threat of imminent disaster from population, from climate change, always just a decade or so away?

The petrochemical-pharmaceutical complex is active on other fronts. Having contaminated much of the food supply with pesticides, hormones and antibiotics, it is extending its bid for control of everything we eat with genetically modified organisms or GMO crops that alone can survive pesticides so that farmers will have to buy their seeds from the same companies. Monsanto has just merged with Bayer,  largely reconstituting the IG Farben combine. The industrial complex is conspiracy fact. 

Yet Klein is able to present this as "conspiracy theory" because the Corporatist Media is silent.  It did not take long for the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 to turn the domestic media into a Megaphone for the warfare, big tech, petrochemical-pharmaceutical complex.

THIS IS WHERE IT GOES

The technocratic, transhuman project is openly discussed by the likes of Bill Gates and the cohort of "mad" scientists financed by Gates' former friends, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the world's biggest scientific publisher. A useful shortcut to many of the prominent figures involved is John Brockman's Edge Foundation. Proposals for cybernetic systems to control the population date from Plato but technology today makes this possible on a global scale. 

Klein uses the banal logic that necessity is the mother of invention to imply there is no "secret globalist cabal," in her words, seeking to "take away your freedom forever." Aphorisms are no substitute for evidence. Technology has always pursued what is possible. It has no causal connection with necessity and technology can be used for good and bad. "Why would they do that," is a weak question that already contains the answer, "because they can." It is a lack of imagination in the face of people whose imagination is running wild. 

If the WEF and the elite are merely posing as Green to buy karma for their tax-evading, polluting sins the evidence should point in the same direction.

• Are they really trying to reduce energy consumption? That should be a simple calculation. 
• Do the proposed smart cities require less or more energy? 
• Can wind and solar power, along with "low-carbon" hydrogen provide anything like enough energy?
• As renewable energy is interruptible and requires back up from conventional energy sources, can that reduce spending on energy or increase it? 
• Can it even realistically reduce the need for "fossil" fuels?
• Are the masses correct to assume they'll share in the futuristic cars, gizmos and space flight?
• Why is the plan for the plebeians to foot the bill in higher taxes and lower consumption? Who gets the goodies?

Basta! Enough! The technocratic proposals from Gates and others clearly require a massive increase in energy consumption. Smart cities and the Internet of Things require unimaginably huge data centers gorging on power 24/7. Big Oil and Big Tech need more energy for their own projects and that means less for you. The proposals in TGR bear this out: you will own nothing but rent everything. 

The media paints a fiction in which petrol and diesel vehicles will be banned and everything will run on electricity or hydrogen. Britain's prime minister recently foresaw entire cities lit and heated by windmills and "low-carbon" hydrogen (hydrogen comes comes from "fossil" fuels, specifically natural gas. It can be made from biomass gasification and electrolysis of water but that in turn requires energy). If windmills and solar currently supply about one-tenth of our electricity, where is the extra power for cars, let alone entire cities?

Klein should have smelled a smoldering pork pie (Cockney rhyming slang for lie). What the WEF and its allies are claiming does not add up. Is she ready to consider that their words may be a misdirection, a cover for something else? (Of course not. See whose board she sits on, below).

Smart cities and the UN Agenda 21 need huge quantities of energy beyond anything we currently use.  The greater use of advanced technologies require minerals and rare earths that are currently owned by sovereign nations. After the coup in Bolivia, which owns huge deposits of lithium essential to the batteries of Tesla cars, Elon Musk stated: "We Will Coup Whoever We Want." Like Joe Biden, Musk has an endearing habit whereby the truth will out. 

Could sovereign ownership of increasingly vital and valuable deposits of minerals be one reason the corporations and leading countries controlling the United Nations are so keen to tell us the nation state is past its sell-by date — that we should all live as one and no-one should own anything? Mebe?

Herding people into smart cities while clearing the land of populations is entirely consistent which what has already been done in Mexico, with the managed genocide in Rwanda and with the current military competition to control Africa's Sahel region. Huge areas of land would be needed just to grow trees for biomass furnaces. To power the U.S. for a year would require every tree that currently grows in the country. A 30-to-1 biomass stock to gross growth ratio leaves considerably less room for people! Yet if there's plenty of room for such a magnificent forest, why the panic about population?

NAOMI AS MISDIRECTION

I will show you that Klein's Shock Doctrine was not new or revelatory, and that the central part of the book was at least pre-dated by a ground-breaking work of 2001. But first, her motives.

What she wrote in Shock Doctrine in 2007, was really a sanitized version for the public, a re-knitting of well-worn threads that had been explored by revisionist historians like Antony Sutton and by a culture of grassroots research inspired by the Kennedy assassination: its luminaries included Mark Lane, Mae Brussell in Paul Krassner's magazine The Realist (financed by John Lennon), Stanley Monteith, G. Edward Griffin, Jim Marrs, Bill Cooper, Dave Emory, David Ray Griffin and many more. Of a younger generation, one must mention the late Dave McGowan.

One example: without Stanley Monteith's interview of Earl T. Smith, former U.S. ambassador to Cuba, the world would have no inkling that the State Department (dominated by the CIA) financed and armed Fidel Castro and denied arms to the man Castro was seeking to oust, President Fulgencio Batista. You didn't know that? Contrary to everything you were told at high school? Opposite to everything the universities teach? Contrary to the media narrative on Cuba? Sit up. That's how they roll.

Klein shows herself in a bad light when she bunny-ears "researchers" given that they did much of her work for her. It was not the court historians nor many among her new-found academic colleagues on state salaries and pensions who rocked the boat and capsized the official narratives.

Yet there was a time! Even Hollywood, in the late 1960s-1970s, took to social and political criticism after JFK's execution and Watergate. The press was straining at the reins in the U.S., Latin America and Europe. Two decades later, in the 1990s, public television saw another wave of revelatory journalism, notably in European collaborations like the BBC's Operation Gladio and Granada TV's many exposés. 

Then came the Internet. By the time Klein wrote Shock Doctrine, the net had enabled the crowdsourcing of research and the truth movement was born. No longer would a Mae Brussell negotiate with a radio station to broadcast her findings and painstakingly post her Xeroxed show notes in stamped, addressed envelopes to listeners each week. What was about to go viral was nothing less than a shockwave to the establishment. 

Just one example: while environmental groups in the Corporatist Media attacked their opponents as the stooges of Big Oil, the reality that I described above was now common currency in Internet chat rooms: Big Oil had founded the environmental movement. It was plain for anyone with the critical faculties to see. Blown wide open was the neat ruse based on deception and pedestrian psychology: anticipate your enemy — indeed, create him; disguise your stratagem by painting yourself as the mortal enemy of the opposition you control. 

NAOMI AS DERIVATIVE

The launch of YouTube in 2005 would soon allow access to historic documentaries that content creators would repurpose and update, providing a rolling-commentary on our world; and neither the academic publishers nor the traditionalist press could keep up. The publishers have long formed part of the establishment — Frances Stonor Saunders and later Joel Whitney, in Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers, have shown that the great press houses are often in cahoots with intelligence services and the tax-exempt foundations. At a moment when the printed press was wailing about its loss of influence to the Internet, the establishment press was about to reassert its influence. 

Parachuting into the middle of these Internet badlands came Naomi Klein. Shock Doctrine knits together the CIA's attempts to wipe and repattern the brain by financing the Canadian psychiatrist Ewen Cameron, the use of "shock doctrine" to transform South American economies in the 1970s, the repatriation of that doctrine to Margaret Thatcher's Britain, the role of the IMF in buttressing Western financial interests, first among the Asian Tigers and later in the attempt to grab Russian mining and mineral assets in 1998. She extended her analysis to the resource wars in the Middle East and the 21'st Century imperialism evident from South Africa to Palestine. 

Academics and more volubly the establishment press rose to their feet at Klein's achievement but it was not really that new. Economists in developing countries had long made the same arguments, from both a classical liberal perspective and a Marxist one, such as C.L.R. James among many.

In 2001 the economist Richard Werner had published Princes of the Yen, directly anticipating Klein's thesis by six years. Werner's work is also accessible through documentary of the same name, in which he makes the case that the international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were used as a Trojan horse in a calculated strategy to seize control of public assets, local banks and corporations around the globe — and ultimately to subvert political systems, democracy and to put entire regions under the Western elite's financial ownership and control.  

 NAOMI AS REGULATED ACADEMIC THOUGHT SYSTEM

Shock Doctrine is a tour de force, an attempt to condense even further such world-encompassing tomes as those written by the historian Niall Ferguson. It's a good book and Klein triumphed at a convenient moment as a fashionable young thing, admittedly with huge support from academia and the establishment press which allowed her, for a while, to dominate the conversation.

The rewards of fame brought her into that establishment. She now sits on the board of climate-action group 350.org which is a poster child for those environmental groups financed, even created, by Big Oil. Supposedly the grassroots brainchild of Bill McKibben, 350 Org's original and biggest funders are the Rockefellers to the tune of almost $6 million.

As Catholics and even non-Catholics watch in open-mouthed shock at the Woke Pope's hurry to sign up to everything UN and globalist, it's no surprise to read that in 2015 it was Klein who helped launch Pope Francis’s historic encyclical on ecology. Pope Benedict had held the job until 2013 when he became the first in 600 years to resign. Can't imagine how or why that could have been made to happen, or by whom, in favor of a replacement who just happened to be compliant with the current globalist agenda at a moment of Global Reset. Hmm. Not suggesting nothing. Just, hmm. Back to the secular.

What are we to make of Naomi Klein's new role as university chaperone to the next generation of students to follow the elite down the Yellow Brick Road? Did she become a Pied Piper — or was she created for the role?