Segue nostro Telegram.

Il presidente Trump vuole che la questione ucraina sia risolta, punto. Questo gli permetterà di andare avanti rapidamente, normalizzare i rapporti con la Russia e iniziare il progetto “grande quadro” di definizione di un nuovo ordine mondiale, che metterà fine alle guerre e faciliterà i legami commerciali.

Il punto qui, che l’Europa finge di non capire, è che la fine del conflitto in Ucraina è semplicemente la “porta d’accesso” di Trump all’intera logica e piattaforma su cui si è basato: il grande riassetto del panorama geopolitico. L’Ucraina, in parole povere, è l’ostacolo al perseguimento dell’obiettivo primordiale di Trump: il riassetto globale.

Starmer, Macron e l’ala orientale delle élite europee sono ciechi di fronte alla portata del cambiamento globale di tendenza verso la politica e l’etica tradizionaliste statunitensi. Non colgono nemmeno la rabbia a malapena celata nel mondo di Trump che si cela dietro questa rivoluzione nascente. “La destra maga non ha nessuna delle inibizioni dei suoi predecessori. Sta progettando di sfruttare il potere di uno stato riconquistato per annientare i suoi nemici”, scrive Allister Heath.

La classe dirigente europea è in difficoltà e sempre più isolata, in un mondo che si sta spostando a destra a una velocità vertiginosa. “Gli Stati Uniti sono ora il nemico dell’Occidente”, afferma il Financial Times. I leader europei non lo capiranno mai.

La realtà è che gli Stati Uniti sono ora impegnati a mettere in ginocchio la politica estera europea. E stanno per iniziare a esportare i tradizionali valori repubblicani statunitensi per mettere in ginocchio il sistema di credenze wokeist europeo. Gli strati dirigenti europei, lontani dalla base, non sono riusciti a cogliere la minaccia ai propri interessi (uno scenario delineato qui.).

L’amministrazione Trump sta cercando di ricostruire la Repubblica in difficoltà e gli americani in questa nuova era non si curano dell’ossessione europea per le antiche faide e le guerre che ne derivano.

Secondo quanto riferito, Trump guarda con totale disprezzo al vanto britannico ed europeo che se gli Stati Uniti non lo faranno, lo farà l’Europa. La classe di Bruxelles sostiene di essere ancora in grado, dopo tre anni di sconfitte in Ucraina, di infliggere una sconfitta umiliante al presidente Putin.

Più profondamente, tuttavia, il Team Trump, impegnato nel compito di abbattere il Deep State americano come “nemico inesorabile”, percepisce (giustamente) lo stato di sicurezza britannico come unito alla sua controparte americana, come parte della sua meta-struttura globale. E la sua componente più antica e profonda è sempre stata la distruzione della Russia e il suo smembramento.

Quindi, quando Macron, in un discorso alla nazione questa settimana, ha respinto un cessate il fuoco in Ucraina e ha dichiarato che “la pace in Europa è possibile solo con una Russia indebolita”, definendo il paese una minaccia diretta per la Francia e il continente, molti nel “mondo Trump” interpreteranno questa dichiarazione di sfida (che “la sconfitta della Russia da parte dell’Ucraina è preferibile alla ‘pace’”) come nulla più che Macron e Starmer che fanno da ventriloqui agli obiettivi del Meta Deep State.

Questa idea è stata rafforzata dall’improvvisa pletora di articoli apparsi sui mass media europei (gestiti) secondo cui l’economia russa è molto più debole di quanto sembri e potrebbe crollare nel prossimo anno. Naturalmente è una sciocchezza. Si tratta di convincere l’opinione pubblica europea che continuare la guerra in Ucraina sia una “buona idea”.

L’assurdità della posizione europea è stata forse meglio colta, come osserva Wolfgang Münchau, nella sua piena arroganza l’anno scorso dalla storica e scrittrice Anne Applebaum quando ha vinto un prestigioso premio tedesco per la pace. Durante il suo discorso di accettazione, ha sostenuto che la vittoria era più importante della pace, affermando che l’obiettivo finale dell’Occidente dovrebbe essere il cambiamento di regime in Russia: “Dobbiamo aiutare gli ucraini a raggiungere la vittoria, e non solo per il bene dell’Ucraina”, ha detto.

Zelensky e i suoi sostenitori europei vogliono “negoziare”, ma più tardi, piuttosto che prima (forse tra un anno, come un ministro degli Esteri europeo avrebbe detto in privato a Marco Rubio).

“Questo”, scrive Münchau, ”è il motivo del disaccordo pubblico nello Studio Ovale [la scorsa settimana]. La pace attraverso una vittoria senza ostacoli – essenzialmente il modello della Seconda Guerra Mondiale – è la lente attraverso la quale praticamente tutti i leader europei e la maggior parte dei commentatori vedono il conflitto Russia-Ucraina”.

L’America vede le cose in modo diverso: ritiene quasi certamente che lo Stato Profondo europeo stia mettendo i bastoni tra le ruote alla ‘normalizzazione con la Russia’ di Trump, una normalizzazione a cui si oppongono visceralmente. O, per lo meno, come gli europei che inseguono un “miraggio che non esiste più, ostinatamente a favore di tasse e spesa, mentre raddoppiano l’immigrazione di massa e l’energia troppo cara, ignari delle luci rosse lampeggianti nei [mercati finanziari] mentre i rendimenti del debito pubblico salgono ai massimi livelli dal 1998”, come sottolinea Allister Heath.

In altre parole, si suggerisce che Friedrich Merz, Macron e Starmer stiano discutendo su come trasformare i loro paesi in superstati della difesa, attraverso un massiccio aumento del debito. Tuttavia, a un certo livello di consapevolezza, devono rendersi conto che non è fattibile, quindi si accontentano di presentarsi come “leader mondiali sulla scena internazionale”.

Le élite europee sono “leader” profondamente instabili che stanno mettendo a rischio la prosperità e la stabilità del continente. È chiaro che questi paesi non hanno la capacità militare per intervenire in modo concertato. Più di ogni altra cosa, è l’economia europea che sta andando in malora che è la realtà alle porte.

Zelensky è complice dell’insistenza europea che la sconfitta della Russia abbia la priorità sul raggiungimento della pace in Ucraina, nonostante la mancanza di qualsiasi logica strategica su come possa essere raggiunta dopo tre anni di un peggioramento della situazione militare. Entrambi i piani – schiacciare l’economia russa con sanzioni e logorare l’esercito russo fino al collasso – sono falliti. Perché allora Zelensky resiste alle proposte di pace di Trump? In apparenza non ha senso.

La spiegazione risale probabilmente all’era post-Maidan, quando il “Meta Security State” occidentale (principalmente britannici e americani) ha radicato i banderisti della linea dura (allora una piccola minoranza) nella polizia, nei servizi segreti e nella sicurezza ucraini. Ancora oggi sono la forza di controllo. Anche se questa fazione dovesse riconoscere che la loro guerra non può essere vinta, capiscono cosa succede se perdono:

La Russia non tratterà con loro. Li considera estremisti (se non criminali di guerra) che non sono in alcun modo “in grado di raggiungere un accordo” e devono essere sostituiti da una leadership effettivamente capace di compromessi. La Russia probabilmente li perseguirebbe e li processerebbe. Zelenskyj deve essere spaventato da ciò che i banderiti potrebbero fargli (nonostante la sua squadra britannica di guardie del corpo).

Ebbene, Trump non si diverte a questi “giochi” europei: sta dando una lezione a Zelensky e ai leader europei, forse mettendo Zelensky in riga; o forse no… Il Team Trump, riporta il Politico, è ora entrato in trattative dirette con l’opposizione ucraina per indire elezioni anticipate per spodestare Zelensky, che sta per essere rimosso, dicono i membri del Team Trump.

Zelensky potrebbe essere finito, ma è interessante notare che neanche Zaluzhniy è stato preso in considerazione. Gli inglesi lo stanno preparando come sostituto, ma sembra che anche gli americani prenderanno questa decisione indipendentemente dagli inglesi.

Il presidente Trump ha ordinato di interrompere la condivisione di informazioni con l’Ucraina. Tecnicamente, ciò che ha fatto è stato impedire all’Ucraina di utilizzare i sistemi di puntamento esclusivi statunitensi controllati dall’intelligence statunitense, dalla CIA, dal National Reconnaissance Office e dalla National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. Ciò che è stato sospeso è lo scambio dei cosiddetti dati “letali”, comprese le informazioni per il puntamento HIMARS. Tuttavia, le informazioni difensive necessarie per la protezione vengono ancora fornite all’Ucraina.

“L’entità del congelamento della condivisione di informazioni, che sembra essere stata imposta insieme alla sospensione degli aiuti militari annunciata lunedì da Trump, inizialmente sembrava essere piuttosto limitata… Ma mercoledì pomeriggio è diventato chiaro che l’amministrazione Trump, ignorando le aperture di Poroshenko della sera precedente, si era spinta molto oltre. Un ufficiale dell’intelligence militare a Kiev ha dichiarato al Telegraph che il congelamento equivaleva a ‘un blackout più o meno totale’.

In parole povere, il precedente congelamento delle munizioni avrà senza dubbio un impatto sulle capacità militari dell’Ucraina nel tempo, anche se l’impatto potrebbe non farsi sentire per alcune settimane. La perdita di informazioni vitali, tuttavia, avrà un impatto immediato. In parole povere, accecherà l’Ucraina. Nei posti di comando ucraini, il monitoraggio delle battaglie e i feed satellitari online su tablet e schermi TV sono stati effettivamente scollegati.

Quello che la schiaffo di Trump ha fatto è stato sfatare la finzione che l’Ucraina sia in grado di difendersi con un piccolo sostituto del sostegno europeo. Questa è sempre stata una spavalderia senza senso. La NATO, la CIA e la comunità di intelligence globale hanno avuto il controllo della guerra fin dall’inizio. E questo, per ora, è stato spento.

Quindi l’Europa vuole farsi carico del peso degli Stati Uniti? Il sito Bloomberg riferisce che i mercati obbligazionari europei sono in crisi. Se l’Europa pretende di sostituire gli Stati Uniti, sarà estremamente costoso, molto costoso dal punto di vista politico, e fallirà.

If Europe pretends to replace the U.S., it is going to be extremely expensive, very politically costly, and it will fail.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

President Trump wants Ukraine settled, full stop. This is so that he can move ahead quickly – to normalise with Russia, and begin the ‘big picture’ project of setting a new World Order, one that will end wars and facilitate business ties.

The point here – which Europe feigns to not understand – is that the end to the Ukraine conflict simply is Trump’s ‘gateway’ to the entire rationale and platform on which he stood: The Great Reset of the Geo-Political landscape. Ukraine, simply said, is the obstacle to Trump’s pursuit of his primordial objective: The Global Reset.

Starmer, Macron and the eastern wing of the Euro-élites are blind to the sheer scale of the global vibe-shift towards traditionalist U.S. politics and ethics. They miss too, the barely concealed fury in the Trump world that exists behind this nascent revolution. “The Maga Right has none of the inhibitions of its predecessors. It is planning to leverage the power of a recaptured state to annihilate its enemies”, Allister Heath writes.

The European Ruling Class is in desperate trouble and increasingly isolated, in a world shifting ‘Rightward’ at breakneck speed. “The U.S. is now the enemy of the West”, the FT proclaims. European leaders wantonly won’t understand.

The reality is that the U.S. is engaged now in rolling up Europe’s foreign policy. And, is about to start exporting U.S. traditional Republican values to roll up the European wokeist belief-system. The European Ruling strata – far removed from its base – has failed to grasp the threat to its own interests (a scenario outlined here).

The Trump administration is trying to rebuild the ailing Republic, and Americans in this new era do not care for the European obsession with ancient feuds and their entailing wars.

Trump reportedly views with utter disdain the UK and European boast that should the U.S. not do it, then Europe will. The Brussels class claims to be able still – after three years of losing in Ukraine – to be able to inflict a humiliating defeat on President Putin.

More profoundly, however, Team Trump – committed to the task of taking down the American Deep State as the ‘inexorable enemy’ – perceives (rightly) the British security state to be co-joined at the hip with their American counterparts, as a part of its global meta-structure. And its oldest and deepest component has always been the destruction of Russia, and its dismemberment.

So when Macron, in an address to the nation this week, rejected a ceasefire in Ukraine and declared that “peace in Europe is only possible with a weakened Russia”, calling the country a direct threat to France and the continent, many in ‘Trump world’ will interpret this defiant declaration (that ‘Ukraine defeating Russia is preferable to ‘peace’’) is nothing more than Macron and Starmer ventriloquising the aims of the Meta Deep State.

This notion is lent substance by the sudden plethora of articles appearing in the European-(managed) MSM to the effect that Russia’s economy is much weaker than it appears and might collapse in the next year. Of course it is nonsense. This is about managing the European public to believe that keeping the war going in Ukraine is a ‘good idea’.

The absurdity of the European position was perhaps best captured, as Wolfgang Münchau notes, in its full hubris last year by the historian and writer Anne Applebaum when she won a prestigious German peace prize. During her acceptance speech, she maintained that victory was more important than peace, asserting that the West’s ultimate goal should be regime change in Russia: “We must help Ukrainians achieve victory, and not only for the sake of Ukraine,” she said.

Zelensky and his European fans want ‘to negotiate’ – though later, rather than sooner (perhaps in a year, as one European Foreign Minister reportedly told Marco Rubio privately).

“This”, Münchau writes, “is what the very public disagreement in the Oval Office [last week] was all about. Peace through untrammelled victory — essentially the Second World War model — as the lens through which virtually all European leaders, and most commentators view the Russia-Ukraine conflict”.

America sees things differently: It views almost certainly the European Deep State to be putting a spoke into Trump’s ‘normalisation with Russia’ wheel – a normalisation to which they are viscerally opposed. Or, at the very least, as the Europeans chasing a “mirage that no longer exists, stubbornly hiking ‘tax and spend’, whilst doubling down on mass immigration and overpriced energy, oblivious to the flashing red lights in the [financial markets] as government debt yields rocket to their highest levels since 1998”, as Allister Heath outlines.

In other words, the suggestion is that Friedrich Merz, Macron and Starmer are talking about how they are going to turn around their countries – via a massive infusion of debt – into defence superstates. Yet, at some level of consciousness, they must realise that it is not doable, so they settle instead for presenting themselves as ‘world leaders on the international stage’.

The European élites are deeply unstable ‘leaders’ who are risking the prosperity and stability of the continent. It is clear these countries do not have the military capacity to intervene in any concerted manner. More than anything, it is the European economy circling the drain that is the reality at the gates.

Zelensky is accomplice to the European insistence that defeating Russia takes priority over achieving peace in Ukraine, in spite of lacking any strategic rationale as to how it may be achieved after three years of a worsening military situation. Both plans – crushing the Russian economy with sanctions and attrition of the Russian military to the point of collapse – have failed. Why then does Zelensky resist Trump’s peace proposals? On the surface, it makes no sense.

The explanation likely goes back to the post-Maidan era when the western ‘Meta Security State’ (principally, the British and the Americans) entrenched hardline Banderites (then a tiny minority) into the Ukrainian Police, Intelligence and Security State. They are still today the controlling force. Even were this faction to acknowledge that their war cannot be won, they understand what happens if they lose:

Russia will not deal with them. They view them as extremists (if not war criminals) who are in no way ‘agreement capable’ and must be replaced by a leadership who is actually capable of compromise. Russia would likely pursue and bring these men to trial. Zelensky has to be frightened at what the Banderites might do to him (despite his British team of bodyguards).

Well, Trump is not entertaining these European ‘games’: He is administering a slap-down to Zelensky and European leaders, perhaps bringing Zelensky into line; or perhaps not … Team Trump, Politico reports, has now entered into direct talks with the Ukrainian opposition on holding early elections to unseat Zelensky – who is on his way to being removed, members of Team Trump say.

Zelensky may be finished, but interestingly Zaluzhniy wasn’t discussed either. He is being groomed by the British as a replacement – it looks like the Americans are going to make this decision independently of the British, too.

President Trump has ordered intelligence sharing with Ukraine stopped. What he technically did was to stop allowing Ukraine to use exclusive U.S. targeting systems controlled by U.S. Intelligence, the CIA, the National Reconnaissance Office and the U.S. National Geospatial Intelligence Agency. What has been suspended is the exchange of so-called ‘lethal’ data, including information for HIMARS targeting. However, the defensive information needed for protection is still being provided to Ukraine.

“The extent of the intelligence-sharing freeze, which appears to have been imposed alongside the halt in military aid Mr Trump announced on Monday, initially appeared to be somewhat limited … But by Wednesday afternoon it became clear that the Trump administration, ignoring overtures from Mr Zelensky the previous evening, had gone much further. A military intelligence officer in Kyiv told The Telegraph that the freeze amounted to “more or less a total blackout””.

Put bluntly, the earlier munitions freeze will undoubtedly affect Ukraine’s military abilities over time, however the impact might not be felt for some weeks. The loss of vital intelligence, however, will make its mark immediately. It will – simply put – blind Ukraine. In Ukrainian command posts, the battle tracking and satellite online feeds on tablets and TV screens have indeed been disconnected.

What Trump’s slap-down has done is to puncture the fiction that Ukraine is able to defend itself with a little substitute of European support. That has always been nonsensical bravado. NATO, the CIA and the global Intelligence Community have been in control of the war fighting from the outset. And that, for now, has been switched off.

So, Europe wants to shoulder the U.S. burden? Bloomberg reports that European bond markets are in meltdown. If Europe pretends to replace the U.S., it is going to be extremely expensive, very politically costly, and it will fail.

Whether through ideological soft power or financial manipulation, the core agenda remains intact, albeit masked in new forms.

Follow Joaquin Flores as XF on Telegram @NewResistance

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The question of the relationship between the overall collective Western failure of the ‘Great Reset’, failures in numerous past and current military conflicts, and subsequent signs that they are attenuating their messaging, is of critical significance which offers multiply-connected analytics vectors for development. This is because of the relationship between Hollywood messaging and the messaging approved globally by the Western elites writ large. Those reflect a phenomenon known as ‘Human Rights Imperialism’, as well as the ‘Pink Washing’ more novel to the 21^st century. Here, we will develop upon ‘Why this Anti-Democratic Anti-Populism in the Age of Big Data Analytics?’

It is beyond a doubt that what is often termed ‘The Message’, as discussed in ‘Why this Anti-Democratic Anti-Populism’, has been placed at the center of the West’s raison d’etre. Yet Hollywood apparently had to back-off after ‘The Message’ failed to make the numbers happen at the box office and merch sales. Will the WEF, and the political class at large, have to back-off after it failed to make the reset happen?

‘The Message’, as it is known, is a type of indoctrination inserted into mainstream Hollywood film and episodic series which, under the guise of inclusivity, encourages the population to conceptualize social problems as those arising from the thoughts and activities of every-day regular people who are ignorant, and so need to be educated in a top-down manner. With this approach comes much less a focus on the role that structures of power (like banks, corporations) and institutions themselves have in determining power relations between asymmetrically represented and empowered segments of society. The consequence is that rather than punching upward at those actually in power, people are encouraged to punch at each other, and also punch ever downward. But it isn’t necessary to present the origins of ‘The Message’ in conspiratorial form, even though it would be accurate.

The power establishment embarked upon this cultural revolution in the collective West (that’s the conspiratorial part) which we can conceptualize as being something like the most cynical exploits that grifters made out of the Civil Rights movement after the 1960’s, combined with a perpetual 1990’s era post Cold War triumphalism. Finally, transgender and even pro-pedophilia discursive framings have permeated into this motif. Having done so, they had succeeded not so much in convincing many people that this was so much important or even true as they did in convincing other elites that people were embracing this. A strange virtual economy emerged, that would eventually require a correction.

Many Hollywood executives believed they could thrive economically by aligning themselves with grass-roots activist movements (which were actually AstroTurf NGOs) that claimed to represent the future of cultural engagement—asserting that they held the keys to audiences and were on “The Right Side of History.” However, this strategy has revealed itself to be a niche market, often limiting audience reach and profitability. The realization is dawning that politically neutral films—those freed from the constraints of having to promote ‘The Message’—can resonate with a broader audience than those catering exclusively to one ideological side.

One critical lesson that Hollywood and entertainment companies are learning is that taking a definitive stand on culture war issues often alienates one side more significantly than it attracts supporters from the other. A pertinent example can be seen in the case of Bud Light, who infamously placed a male Audrey Hepburn impersonator on their cans, which sought to engage a new demographic but ended up losing a considerable number of its long-time customers. The attempt to appeal to one faction resulted in a backlash from another, illustrating a lose-lose situation. This pattern holds implications for the film industry as well. By attempting to appease either side of the political spectrum, studios risk inciting further alienation, thus compounding their challenges.

For studios, the notion of publicly dismissing their activist-oriented content creators presents its own set of complications. Such a move could trigger a backlash from a significant segment of society, particularly among cultural elites and film critics who perceive such actions as a capitulation to opposing views. This could foster a narrative that the studios have shifted their allegiance, pushing away audiences that feel betrayed. The lesson emerging from this dynamic is that oscillating between ideological extremes is less effective than adopting a more neutral stance altogether.

Consequently, the trend appears to be moving toward a more subtle, yet definitive shift away from overtly politicized content. The aim is to release films that prioritize storytelling over ideology, thereby allowing for a wider appeal without the inherent risks associated with political polarization. The increasing success of films that emphasize narrative over ‘The Message’ suggests a growing audience appetite for this type of content.

However, the road to rebuilding trust among formerly alienated audiences may be long and fraught with challenges. Many viewers who felt burned by past productions might be reluctant to engage with new releases from studios that previously prioritized ideological messaging. This indicates that loyalty to long-established franchises may be irrevocably damaged, as previous fans move on without a new generation of enthusiasts to replace them.

The film industry may be gradually recognizing the limitations of a strategy that revolves around catering to polarized political factions. The trend toward more politically neutral storytelling not only holds the potential for broader financial success but also allows for a return to the core of what makes for good cinema: compelling storytelling. As studios strive to regain their footing, the hope is that they will embrace this shift away from ‘The Message’ and focus on delivering engaging narratives that resonate with audiences across the spectrum.

Viability of ‘The Message’ – It’s not about the money

In the age of big data analytics, it is highly unlikely that Hollywood is unaware of where it points. Backing off ‘The Message’ be the process afoot now, but it raises questions about the market research into the viability of ‘The Message’. While it was important to work through a more ‘perfect storm’ narrative of ‘The Message’ and why Hollywood is backing off of it a bit, as we did in the above, it is important to understand that Hollywood places profitability behind, not above, other concerns. One reason is because of Hollywood accounting, it is not really necessary for a film to succeed in order for it to succeed for its investors, as is well known and long established – even parodied in productions like ‘The Producers’.

More importantly Hollywood is a center of Western hegemonic soft power, and should really be considered as a part of the intelligence and/or military industrial complex. In many ways, the profit motive is just a facade. Typically, some ideological adventure is a facade for a profit motive – here it is the opposite. At the center of everything is fiat and control, not paper bills called ‘money’. Control people’s ideas, and the question of money evaporates.

Projects like Gawker Media went belly-up in 2016 because of their obsession with ‘The Message’, and yet it was subsidized for years since 2003 like this. In reality, it served as a type of ‘issues based political advertising’ that quietly aligned with the campaign talking points of various ‘progressive’ politicians, typically of the DNC.

But Hollywood would continue to promote ‘The Message’ for another eight years, despite big data analytics(!), where only now are we seeing some signs that this trend is waning.

It is, however, about Power

Managerial revolutions, such as that described by post-Trotskyist writer and thinker James Burnham, were a phenomenon of the 20^th century – but these were novel developments which were hinged to certain technological advances in the productive forces, but also in particular with communication technologies such as radio. Yet a significant feature of early to mid century managerial revolutions was the expansive phenomenon of a populism which was then transformed into a mobilization of society.

For decades, experts in the field of IPE (international political economy) and Global Politics (GP) – which together can be considered part of a triad with IR, tried to work through this ‘problem’: how to walk a thin line between manufactured, top-down ‘social change’ (or conversely, a top-down approach to preserving ‘the status quo) on the one hand, and not ‘over-stimulating’ (or conversely, not provoking) the citizenry into some Hitleresque populist pogrom on the other.

The strange connotation in texts of these kinds was that something got ‘out of control’ within the German population that exceeded itself – in essence that the disaster of the Nazi experiment was driven from the bottom-up by a mood of unquenchable fanaticism, leading to the holocaust and war. Here, ‘people power’ is problematized, which has been a consistent theme of elite-driven academic literature. In other words, they maintain that staying true to a ‘progressive’ agenda is not something which populism can do.

The lesson we are instructed to receive? While elites need to be responsive and understanding of the demands of a population to an extent, leadership means that the ‘patients cannot ever be allowed to run the sanatorium’. So, how can they deal with economic changes, changes to the balance of power between regions or nation-states of the world, and problematic social changes which arise in a waning global hegemon such as the U.S?

Time to Rebrand: The WEF is Failing at the Institutional Level

What are these changes all about? On February 24^th, 2022, my piece on how the self-declared ‘Great Reset’ was failing was published (Is the Great Reset Failing? When Great Narratives Fall Apart). By pure coincidence, this was the same day that the Russian SMO began in Ukraine. What is not simply coincidence is the relationship between the plandemic/reset and the war in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

But for the Davos crowd to admit to ‘set backs’ (defeats) was something that was hard for the powers that be to do. And as a humorous aside, we can include that this realization was more than just hard but actually impossible for a number of anti-reset black-pilled blogger types. Recall it was these who had become little more than zealous peddlers of doom – in other words, unpaid publicists for the very elites these writers are quite rightly opposed to. To wit, their entire identity was based around some trope that the powers that be were getting everything they wanted and their plan was going accordingly.

Schwab, Malleret, and the Davos people as a group, are closer to the story (as close as one can get!) and their recounting is quite different: they faced frustration and set-backs and are displeased with the results so far.

That was an analysis of the 2022 book from Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, in “The Great Narrative,” which highlighted the West’s fixation on “fake news,” information war, and malign actors, revealing both an admission of guilt and a recognition of failure.

The focus on narratives – information warfare as an offshoot of political warfare – is critical. As corporate and governmental cultures merged, we saw leaders like Trudeau and Johnson thrive on unattainable resetist promises, underscoring a dangerous reality: the more grandiose the ambition, the more it emboldened such figures.

This state of affairs foreshadowed the role of an equally emboldened Zelensky in fomenting the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the irresponsible roles that various Western leaders would, in virtual unanimity, take in ‘backing Ukraine until the end’. This carried forward the very same operation ‘lockstep’ which was their approach to Covid, only now the ‘virus’ it seems is Russia itself.

The WEF’s push for narratives serves as a form of soft power, aiming to reshape reality while repressing dissenting voices under the rubric of ‘foreign’ and ‘malign’ actors. This dissenting counter-narrative, however, is gaining traction as the elite’s attempts to control information become evident, revealing their vulnerability.

Finally, we found that the rushed implementation of the “Great Reset” lacked the groundwork necessary for widespread acceptance, hinting at internal fractures within the West’s elite class, and an even greater gulf between the elites and the populations they ‘govern’. As the public increasingly voiced its skepticism, the stability of this reset agenda was called into question. The WEF’s fixation on policing narratives was, paradoxically, a sign of its weakening grip on power.

The solution for the WEF has been to roll out a slow burn of a rebrand. Accordingly, they are transforming “from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation”. In practical terms, they are shifting some of their messaging and focus away from globalization as a panacea. Increasingly from the WEF we see a more nuanced approach which implicitly acknowledges that the very trends which they used to justify the theory of globalization (as inevitable and good) are now showing a trend back toward the nation state. Part of this is a still-born attempt to recognize a larger picture which is that globalization (in their model) was always one which privileged and took for granted that the traditional centers of capital accumulation inherited from the colonial and imperial era in Western Europe would also be leading, directing, and likely profiting the most, from ‘globalization’.

In other words, while the WEF and academia have attempted to paint globalization as a kind of ‘internationalism’ (in the sense used by the historical/Marxian left), in reality it has been more like a white-washed (or pink-washed, rather) neo-imperialism. For them, globalization was just like a force of nature, the gravity of its inevitability could not be resisted. The ‘nation-state’ was becoming, in their view, a thing of the past – the trans-national and multi-national corporation was the future. The world could rejoice in unity, hold hands, and proceed to nuclear and conventional disarmament – except the U.S., Team America, as this would be the world’s police force. Only dreamers, dangerous reactionaries, populist demagogues, and nationalist-authoritarian movements and its leaders could be crazy enough to believe otherwise.

Well, not so fast, they are now admitting that globalization is not an iron-law process. While the WEF is not completely backing off globalization, it is acknowledging the complexities and challenges associated with it. There’s a growing recognition of the need to appear more reasonable and less imperialistic, and for a more balanced approach that addresses issues like supply chain vulnerabilities, economic inequality, and national security concerns.

Schwab, for his part, is expected to clarify both the role and the leadership structure, along with new appointments at the executive level, as Schwab has been in a process of transitioning his role. The WEF Executive Board includes BlackRock’s Fink and former ECB chair Lagarde – and there is also the possibility that in terms of Executive Board leadership moving forward, someone like Tony Blair (and we would say also, Barack Obama) could be seen as one of several public figures, leaders, or spokesmen for the organization given that Borge Brende is considered ‘low key’ – a polite way to say ‘uninspiring’ and lacking any public charisma, you know, the kind that Schwab so excels at.

In truth the messaging that the WEF is trying to quietly back-away from is in all actuality indistinguishable from the U.S.’ and EU’s ideology from the 90’s onward. This is a very big sign that cannot be ignored. This ideology which involves smuggling in a neo-imperialism within the discursive framework of a ‘business friendly’ leftish internationalism (known as ‘globalization), also used pink washing and other forms of human rights imperialism. Repressing one’s own population – even abstractly in the arena of minority culture and sexuality – was a legitimate casus belli to overthrow that state.

This would seem to mean that the U.S. and EU are also backing away from this, at least from hammering on it so hard. But is this a change in their overall approach, or simply giving the fishing line some slack?

Towards further research

To what extent is the apparent retreat from ideological messaging in Hollywood and global elite institutions like the WEF a genuine shift in strategy, and how might this rebranding be used to maintain their control over cultural and political narratives in a more subtle form?

We find ourselves at a critical juncture where the failures of both Hollywood’s ‘The Message’ and the broader ‘Great Reset’ raise pressing questions about the future of Western hegemony and its strategies. The realization that politically neutral content may have broader appeal than overtly ideological films signifies a deeper shift away from the heavy-handed social engineering that dominated the last decade. Hollywood’s retreat from ‘The Message,’ even as data analytics clearly exposed its flaws, points to a broader cultural reappraisal—yet, crucially, not merely in pursuit of profit. The real driving force behind this shift is power—control over narratives, perceptions, and ultimately, people’s minds.

This is why the West’s ruling elites, embodied by institutions like the WEF, are recalibrating their strategies. Their initial confidence in globalization as an inevitable force has been shattered by internal fractures, public skepticism, and geopolitical upheavals like the war in Ukraine. The elites’ retreat from once-unquestionable narratives, including their push for a globalist agenda, signals not merely a pragmatic adjustment, but a recognition of their waning control. As the WEF shifts its focus from globalization’s triumphalism to a more cautious approach, it reflects the larger unraveling of Western ideological dominance.

Yet, we must ask: Is this truly a retraction, or simply a rebranding—an attempt to maintain control while adjusting tactics? As Hollywood and global elites scale back, they do not relinquish their pursuit of power. Whether through ideological soft power or financial manipulation, the core agenda remains intact, albeit masked in new forms. The question is not whether these institutions will abandon their quest for dominance but how they will adapt to maintain it in a world increasingly skeptical of their motives and methods.

The government-corporate alliance is presented with a ready-made pretext to implement solutions that align with their agenda.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

On Monday morning, Ireland would awake to reports of unrest in the Dublin suburb of Coolock, when after months of peaceful protest by local residents over plans to move upwards of 500 male migrants into a disused paint factory in the working-class neighborhood, tensions would come to a head when Irish riot police cleared the on-site protest camp in a heavy-handed early morning raid. In response, work vehicles intended to convert the site would be set ablaze, leading to scenes reminiscent of the north of Ireland in the late 60s or early 70s.

As the day progressed, the parallels between Coolock and the Ireland of half a century ago would grow. Heavily-militarised police, under the direction of Garda commissioner and former RUC Deputy Constable Drew Harris, would soon arrive in the North Dublin suburb, resulting in scenes akin to Belfast or Derry in 1969. Local residents, including women, children, and the elderly, would be brutalised, a popular video streamer and citizen journalist would be arrested, and a number of elected representatives, who had arrived on the scene in a bid to calm tensions, would be pepper sprayed by police. By the end of the day, 15 people would be arrested and charged, with their names and addresses highly-publicised by the Irish media, an effective warning to others to not protest against the current immigration policies being imposed by Leinster House, which has seen large numbers of male migrants being placed into wildly unsuitable locations such as an inner city office block and childrens primary school, with no prior consultation being held with local communities beforehand.

Indeed, similar scenes would erupt in the small rural village of Newtownmountkennedy in late April, when again, after weeks of peaceful protest by local residents in opposition to plans to house male migrants in a disused hospital in the locality, police would once again carry out a heavy-handed early-morning raid on an on-site protest camp. In the ensuing hours, local residents would again be brutalised, a female journalist would be pepper sprayed, and martial law would effectively be imposed on the sleepy town.

In a grim irony, less than a week later, the southern Irish state would issue a statement condemning the response of the Georgian government to protests against its Transparency of Foreign Influence law, the previous week’s scenes in Newtownmountkennedy being wilfully ignored by Leinster House.

The current tensions surrounding immigration in Ireland began in November 2022, when, using the Russian intervention in Ukraine as a pretext, upwards of 300 migrants were moved into a disused office block in East Wall, a working-class neighbourhood in inner city Dublin. Protests would begin immediately amongst local residents, citing the unsuitability of the location and the lack of consultation with community representatives beforehand. Similar protests would take place at other sites in Dublin and throughout Ireland.

One year later, the tensions regarding immigration policy in Ireland would explode in their most notable manner so far. On the 23rd of November 2023, three children and their teacher were stabbed outside their Gaelscoil (Irish-language school) in central Dublin. With it soon emerging that the attacker was an immigrant previously subject to a deportation order, matters would come to a head. Calls for a protest in Dublin later that night would quickly spread throughout social media, seemingly attracting an opportunistic element who would engage in looting and the burning of vehicles. The Dublin riots would gain worldwide attention, with the focus seemingly more on the damage done to outlets such as McDonald’s and Footlocker, than the attack on the children and their teacher.

In the days following the riots, Security Minister for the southern Irish state, Helen McEntee, announced that facial recognition technology laws would be introduced in response, thus revealing the true intent behind current immigration policy in Ireland.

In addition to the devaluing of labour and the lowering of wages on behalf of industrialists, the mixing of vast amounts of people from different cultural, religious and ethnic backgrounds that mass-immigration entails, ultimately leads to tensions. Tensions that, in tight-knit areas such as working-class neighbourhoods and small rural villages, will inevitably spill over.

As a result, the government-corporate alliance is presented with a ready-made pretext to implement solutions that align with their agenda. In this case, the same facial recognition technologies that are outlined in the Great Reset, the initiative launched by the World Economic Forum in 2020, using ‘Covid’ as a pretext, intended to create even further integration between the public and private sector worldwide.

With the issue of migrants arriving into Ireland without proper identification also receiving mainstream media attention, it is likely this is being done with the intention of directing the narrative towards the introduction of mandatory digital ID; which, combined with facial recognition technology, will lay the groundwork for the dystopian digital surveillance state that the Great Reset envisages.

Indeed, upon the recent election of WEF aficionado Keir Starmer as British Prime Minister, Taoiseach Simon Harris announced that it marked a ‘great reset’ in relations between both countries. A deliberate choice of words, indicating that like his predecessor Leo Varadkar, he is also a World Economic Forum ‘Young Global Leader’, fully intending to continue the Davos agenda in Ireland.

Shadows are falling / And I’ve been here all day / It’s too hot to sleep / And time is running away / Feel like my soul / has turned into steel /I’ve still got the scars / That the sun didn’t heal / There’s not even room enough / To be anywhere / Lord it’s not dark yet, / but it’s getting there

Bob Dylan, Not Dark Yet

Lights! Action! Reset!

The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Davos Freak Show

is back in business on Monday.

The mainstream media of the collective West, in unison, will be spinning non-stop, for a week, all the “news” that are fit to print to extol new declinations of The Great Reset, re-baptized The Great Narrative, but actually framed as a benign offer by “stakeholder capitalism”. These are the main planks of the shady platform of a shady NGO registered in Cologny, a tony Geneva suburb.

The list of Davos attendees was duly leaked. Proverbially, it’s an Anglo-American Exceptionalist fun fest, complete with intel honchos such as the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Avril “Madam Torture” Haines; the head of MI6 Richard Moore; and FBI director Christopher Wray.

Remixed Diderot and D’Alembert Encyclopedias could be written about the Davos pathology – where a hefty list of multibillionaires, heads of state and corporate darlings (owned by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and co.) “engage” in selling Demented Dystopia packages to the unsuspecting masses.

But let’s cut to the chase and focus on a few panels this week – which could easily be mistaken for Straight to Hell sessions.

The Tuesday, January 17 list is particularly engaging. It features a “De-Globalization or Re-Globalization?” panel with speakers Ian Bremmer, Adam Tooze, Niall Ferguson, Péter Szijjártó and Ngaire Woods. Three Atlanticists/Exceptionalists stand out, especially the ultra-toxic Ferguson.

After “In Defense of Europe”, featuring a bunch of nullities including Poland’s Andrjez Duda, attendees will be greeted with a Special Season in Hell (sorry, Rimbaud) featuring none other than EC dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen, known by a vast majority of Germans as Ursula von der Leichen (“Ursula of Cadavers”) in a tag team with WEF mastermind, Third Reich emulator Klaus “Nosferatu” Schwab.

Rumors are that Lucifer, in his privileged underground abode, is green with envy.

There’s also “Ukraine: What Next?” with another bunch of nullities, and “War in Europe: Year 2” featuring Moldova woke chick Maia Sandu and Finnish party girl Sanna Marin.

In the War Criminal section, pride of place goes to

“A Conversation with Henry Kissinger: Historical Perspectives on War”, where Dr. K. will sell all his trademark Divide and Rule permutations. Added sulphur will be provided by Thucydides strangler Graham Allison.

In his Special Address, “Liver Sausage” Chancellor Olaf Scholz will be side by side with Nosferatu, hoping he won’t be – literally – grilled.

Then, on Wednesday, January 18, comes the apotheosis: “Restoring Security and Peace” with speakers Fareed Zakaria – the U.S. establishment’s pet brown man; NATO’s Jens “War is Peace” Stoltenberg; Andrzej Duda – again; and Canadian warmonger Chrystia Freeland – widely rumored to become the next NATO Secretary-General.

And it gets juicier: the coke comedian posing as warlord may join via zoom from Kiev.

The notion that this panel is entitled to emit judgments about “peace” deserves nothing less than its own Nobel Peace Prize.

How to monetize the whole world

Cynics of all persuasions may be excused for lamenting Mr. Zircon – currently on oceanic patrol encompassing the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and of course “Mare Nostrum” Mediterranean – won’t be presenting his business card at Davos.

Analyst Peter Koenig has developed a convincing thesis that the WEF, the WHO and NATO may be running some sort of sophisticated death cult. The Great Reset does mingle merrily with NATO’s agenda as agent provocateur, financer and weaponizer of the proxy Empire vs. Russia war in black hole Ukraine. NAKO – an acronym for North Atlantic Killing Organization – would be more appropriate in this case.

As Koenig summarizes it, “NATO enters any territory where the ‘conventional’ media lie-machine, and social engineering are failing or not completing their people-ordaining goals fast enough.”

In parallel, very few people are aware that on June 13, 2019 in New York, a secret deal was clinched between the UN, the WEF, an array of oligarch-weaponized NGOs – with the WHO in the front line – and last but not least, the world’s top corporations, which are all owned by an interlinked maze with Vanguard and BlackRock at the center.

The practical result of the deal is the UN Agenda 2030.

Virtually every government in the NATOstan area and the “Western Hemisphere” (U.S. establishment definition) has been hijacked by Agenda 2030 – which translates, essentially, as

hoarding, privatizing and financializing all the earth’s assets, under the pretext of “protecting” them.

Translation: the marketization and monetization of the entire natural world (see, for instance, here, here and here.)

Davos superstar shills such as insufferable bore Niall Ferguson are just well rewarded vassals: western intellectuals of the Harvard, Yale and Princeton mould that would never dare bite the hand that feeds them.

Ferguson just wrote a column on Bloomberg titled “All is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front” – basically to peddle the risk of WWIII, on behalf of his masters, blaming of course “China as the arsenal of autocracy”.

Among serial high-handed inanities, this one stands out. Ferguson writes, “There are two obvious problems with U.S. strategy (…) The first is that if algorithmic weapons systems are the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin may eventually be driven to using the latter, as he clearly lacks the former.”

Cluelessness here is a euphemism. Ferguson clearly has no idea “algorithmic weapons” mean; if he’s referring to electronic warfare, the U.S. may have been able to maintain superiority for a while in Ukraine, but that’s over.

Well, that’s typical Ferguson – who wrote a whole Rothschild hagiography just like his column, drinking from the Rothschild archives that appeared to have been sanitized as he knows next to nothing meaningful about their history.

Ferguson has “deduced” that Russia is weak and China is strong. Nonsense. Both are strong – and Russia is more advanced technologically than China in their advanced offensive and defensive missile development, and can beat the U.S. in a nuclear war as Russian air space is sealed by layered defenses such as the S-400 all the way to the already tested S-500s and designed S-600s.

As far as semiconductor chips, the advantage that Taiwan has in chip manufacture is in mass production of the most advanced chips; but China and Russia can fabricate the chips necessary for military use, though not engage in mass commercial production. The U.S. has an important advantage here commercially with Taiwan, but that’s not a military advantage.

Ferguson gives away his game when he carps about the need to “deter a nascent Axis-like combination of Russia, Iran and China from risking simultaneous conflict in three theaters: Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.”

Here we have trademark Atlanticist demonization of the top three vectors of Eurasia integration mixed with a toxic cocktail of ignorance and arrogance: it’s NATO that is stoking “conflict” in Eastern Europe; and it’s the Empire that is being expelled from the “Far East” (oh, that’s so colonial) and soon from the Middle East (actually West Asia).

An AMGOT tale

Nobody with an IQ over room temperature will expect Davos this week to discuss any aspect of the NATO vs. Eurasia existential war seriously – not to mention propose diplomacy. So I’ll leave you with yet another typical tawdry story about how the Empire – who rules over Davos – deals in practice with its vassals.

While in Sicily earlier this year I learned that an ultra high-value Pentagon asset had landed in Rome, in haste, as part of an unscheduled visit. A few days later the reason for the visit was printed in La Repubblica, one of the papers of the toxic Agnelli clan.

That was a Mafia scam: a face-to-face “suggestion” for the Meloni government to imperatively provide Kiev, as soon as possible, with the costly anti-Samp-T missile system, developed by an European consortium, Eurosam, uniting MBDA Italy, MBDA France and Thales.

Italy possesses only 5 batteries of this system, not exactly brilliant against ballistic missiles but efficient against cruise missiles.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had already called Palazzo Chigi to announce the “offer you can’t refuse”. Apparently that was not enough, thus the hasty envoy trip. Rome will have to toe the line. Or else. After all, never forget the terminology employed by U.S. generals to designate Sicily, and Italy as a whole: AMGOT.

American government occupied territory.

Have fun with the Davos freak show.

We have often heard World War II described as “the war to end all wars”.

Many in the west have even been led to believe that the ideology of Nazi fascism was simply so evil that nothing of the sort could possibly arise ever again.

The 1935 novel “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis attempted to warn Americans that the greatest danger of fascism’s success resided not in its cartoonish goosestepping portrayed in the media, but rather in the mass psychological delusion that such a system could possibly arise in the freedom-loving land of America.

Sadly, as we have seen in the course of the nearly eight decades after the allied victory of 1945, fascism has indeed arisen once more in a more virulent expression than anyone had imagined.

As today’s financial system careens towards an inevitable collapse not entirely different from the controlled demolition of the casino economy bubbles of 1929, geopolitical forces are again being brought into play that are also evoking once more the very real possibility of a new world war.

Instead of efforts to avoid such a disastrous nuclear confrontation by honest attempts to accept diplomatic pathways offered by Russian and Chinese statesmen, only antagonistic sabre rattling can be heard across the self-flattering corridors of Davos and NATO.

Instead of seeing efforts to remedy the annihilation of viable forms of energy, food production, and industrial capacity needed to support life among western nations, the opposite trend has been seen to occur in lockstep. Across nearly every nation caught within the NATO cage, we find only puppet leaders devoid of anything approximating substance and who appear unwilling to reverse the self-induced crisis of scarcity threatening to destroy countless lives.

Some even appear to think this age of scarcity to be a good thing.

Unipolarists and transhumanists slithering around the corridors of power proclaim time and again that today’s crisis is actually an “opportunity” in disguise.

Changing Definitions: When “suicide” Became “opportunity”

Whether it is Mark Carney championing this civilizational crisis as a wonderful opportunity to break humanity off ifs addiction to cheap hydrocarbon-based fuels and embrace a new order of green energy, or whether it is Anthony Blinken’s uncomfortable celebration that Nordstream’s sabotage as a “tremendous opportunity” to liberate Europe from cheap Russian gas, the effect is always the same.

These detached elites all seem to believe that the collective behavior of the trans-Atlantic west can finally be transformed by this unfortunate crisis so that we learn to live with less, owning nothing while still being happy, eating bugs instead of ‘dirty’ meat and reducing our impact on the environment by “going green”. French President Emmanuel Macron stated this technocratic view most coldly in September when he proclaimed “the age of abundance is over”.

Amidst this new ethos emerging under the guise of a “Great Reset”, the U.S. Government has found itself allocating millions of dollars in taxpayer funds to explore techniques to block the sun’s light reaching the earth in order to stop global warming. Even the carbon dioxide molecule, once appreciated as a plant food (along with the also-demonized sunlight) has become enemy #1 targeted for banishment from the human kingdom under a post-reset age.

This is the same freedom-loving government that has poured trillions of dollars into bailing out zombie banks and pouring weapons mass destruction onto once-viable nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Ukraine in recent years while spending next to nothing to rebuild the vital infrastructure and industries which citizens desperately require as a matter of basic survival.

Across the NATO countries, euthanasia laws are extended far beyond the limits of reason to include, the depressed, and “mature minors” who want a taxpayer funded suicide pill. Mind-altering drugs are sold by government propagandists as forms of liberation to be decriminalized while the City of London/Wall Street financiers who launder such drugs via off-shore accounts go unpunished.

Even “science magazines” like Live Science publish propaganda pieces that justify the absurd notion that a “small nuclear war” may actually be good for the environment by reversing global warming which IPCC computer models tell us has been happening despite any empirical evidence to the contrary.

While everything outlined above are symptoms, the particular essence of fascism’s modern expression has been difficult for many to identify for a variety of reasons.

Perhaps the most important of those reasons resides in the fact that the minds of anyone too well adapted to modern academia are crippled by design. It sounds harsh, but the truth often is.

Educated to Stupidity

Where education was once premised on encouraging students to make discoveries and learning how to think for oneself as the foundation of becoming both good workers and also good citizens, today’s educational norms have sunk into depths of mediocrity not thought possible by our grandparents’ generation.

Instead of reproducing the discoveries of truthful ideas, students processed through modern institutions of higher education instead learn how to memorize formulas required to pass tests without understanding how or why those formulae are true. Across the STEM programs, science-oriented students are taught to repeat commonly held beliefs promoted by consensuses of experts who control the reigns of peer-review journals rather than use their own sovereign powers of reason.

The brilliant agronomist Allan Savory who performed miracles in terraforming desert regions of the earth through elementary holistic practices outlined the fraud of modern peer-review brainwashing in the following short video:

Although students of history are taught explanatory models which emphasize sanitized readings of our past that gloss over the reality of intentions (aka: conspiracies) and science students are trained to think in terms of “statistical probability” instead of causal principles, the truth of our own crisis goes even deeper.

The Subjective Side to Fascism’s Success

While it is comfortable for some people to think that the cause of our problems is found in the corruption and manipulation of a conspiratorial elite, the truth is, as Shakespeare noted in his play Julius Caesar far more subjective.

In that play, Shakespeare’s Cassius warned his co-conspirator Brutus that “our fate… is not in our stars, but in ourselves that we are underlings”.

In other words: It takes two to tango.

In that sense, one of the most important reasons for the success of fascism’s post-WWII rise has less to do with the conspiratorial planning of oligarchical forces which infiltrated our governments since the untimely death of Franklin Roosevelt, and much more to do with the subtle corruption of the people themselves who make up the citizens of the so-called “free world”.

With few exceptions, the citizens of the “free and democratic rules based west” judged themselves to be free simply because they enjoyed high levels of comfort and abundance while much of the world did not.

If World War II had not been fully won by “the good guys”, we were told, then how could our personal freedom to consume whatever we wished, vote for whom we wish and speak what we wish be possible?

Sexual liberation, and freedom “to do what we willed” became the new standards of liberty and the idea that such freedom was contingent upon moral principles or the weight of conscience became synonymous with “authoritarianism” and “the obsolete wisdom of dead white European males”.

The new generation of baby boomers that learned to “not trust anyone over 30”, “live in the moment” and just “let it be” as new words of wisdom soaked in a post-truth ethic that was relatively alien to western civilization. While it appeared to many who lived through that age, to be an innocent shifting of values towards a more “emotionally”-driven relationship to truth based upon “empathy”, making love not war, and embracing relativism, something much darker was let in.

And as the flower power generation that turned on, tuned in and dropped out became the me-generation of the 1980s corporate world, the myth that fascism was forever defeated became ever more deeply enshrined into the zeitgeist. The ever more fluid definitions of truth and value slid into relativism as speculative financial instruments like derivatives that carried little connection to reality became treated as legitimate forms of value within the new market-driven society. Culturally, younger generations lost access to older non-liberal role models that exhibited truthfulness and dignity resulting in ever deeper slides into nihilism among Generation X, Y and millennials.

During the Cold War and especially after 1991’s disintegration of the Soviet Union, too few asked the question: Upon whose blood did such abundance and “freedom” arise? Why did nationalist leaders of Africa, Latin America or even our own trans Atlantic west die gruesome deaths or suffer coups under the careful coordination and financing of intelligence agencies connected to governments of England and the USA? If we, in the west ceased producing our own industrial goods for our own consumption, then who was filling the void? Where were the slave labor colonies that Hitler and his financial backers envisioned in our modern age? Is it possible that the intention behind the global plague of war, radicalism and famine plaguing the third world since 1945 has something to do with those forces managing the economic systems to which former colonial people have been expected to adapt by those same colonial powers we have been told had granted their independence over the past 80 years?

To restate the essential point: The real reason why fascism’s ugly grip is being felt once more, has much to do with the fact that too many of us enjoyed the fruits it provided to those “first world” subjects who benefited by its existence after WWII, and thus simply wished not to see it.

We may bemoan the criminal incompetence and malevolent agendas pushing our society towards a new dark age, but it is only once we realize that a people will get the political leaders they deserve, that we may begin to properly start healing from the self-inflicted wounds which we did to ourselves over the course of several generations.

Currently, nations of Eurasia have demonstrated that they do not wish to erase their histories, ancient systems of cultural heritage or traditional values in the face of a Great Reset. They don’t want war, and would much rather have win-win cooperation with nations of the west.

The concept of “adapting to scarcity” has been rejected in favor of creating abundance via the embrace of scientific and technological progress across nations of the multipolar alliance and not a single statesman across Russia, China or India has demonstrated an intention to either go to war or sacrifice their people on an altar of Gaia. With so many nations representing so many people and diverse cultures of the world wishing to reject fascism (aka: Transhuman neo-feudalism) amidst our current crisis-ridden age, why would we not do everything in our power to redeem the sins of the west by fighting to join this anti-fascist movement today?

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

“London Bridge is Down” were the code words delivered by the Queen’s Private Secretary Edward Young to high ranking officials upon the death of Queen Elisabeth II.

This code was selected as part of a larger protocol dubbed strangely enough “operation Unicorn” for reasons beyond the wildest imagination of this author and which sets into motion a set of actions culminating in the anointing of Prince Charles as the new King of Britain and the Commonwealth.

For Canadians who had thought they would no longer be forced to endure watching their Prime Minister slavishly declare his oaths of fealty (and oaths of secrecy) to an inbred monarch sitting on the other side of the ocean as had occurred in 2017 they will be very disappointed. Canada’s Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 demands that both houses of Parliament are required to take pledges of allegiance after the deaths of all sitting monarchs. That’s right, every single member of the supposedly “elected and democratic” government of Canada must declare their oaths of fealty not to the people or non-existent constitution, but to some inbred family bloodline on the other side of the world.

Similar oaths will be read by elected officials across every other Commonwealth Five Eyes member state.

It is thus worth asking, is this institution of hereditary powers which Charles has inherited just a ceremonial gig with no real substance or influence behind it?

Although the majority of citizens including British subjects believe this to be the case, the facts point to a very different reality. And while I addressed this matter here, here and here, a few additional remarks must be added to this important matter below.

Prince Charles Just Became the World’s Largest Property Owner

This may surprise you, but the British Crown happens to be the world’s largest property owner clocking in possessions amounting to 6.6 billion acres across Australia, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Canada, Great Britain and the Falkland Islands.

On top of the “Crown Lands” and “Crown Corporations” which are legally owned by the monarch of Britain, an organization called ‘The Crown Estate’ is one of the world’s largest property groups. Describing the institution which sends 25% of its earnings directly into the Monarch’s purse every year, Die Welt Business had this to say:

“The Crown Estate owns property all across the UK, from castles and cottages to agricultural land and forests plus retail parks and shopping centers. It owns more than half the UK’s entire seashore, giving it hugely valuable auction rights for offshore commercial activity, such as wind farms.”

The Crown controls nearly the entire seabed (and half the seashore) around the UK with any business wishing to build offshore windmills as part of the Green New Deal forced to rent their sea beds from the Crown Estate. It was noted by Byline Times that the Crown will stand to become “the biggest beneficiary of UK’s Green Agenda” which recently unveiled a 10 point plan for a “green revolution” and full decarbonization by 2050. For anyone confused about the exploding prices of inefficient energy sources across England, they wouldn’t get far without appreciating the tax-payer subsidized boondoggle of windmill farms.

Prince Charles himself has demonstrated that he certainly doesn’t see the Crown as a symbolic entity and was accused of “incontinent lobbying” in 2013 when dozens of personal letters (dubbed the “Black Spider Memos”) to MPs and the Prime Minister were made public after an intense legal fight to keep them secret. Charles’ official biographer Jonathan Dimbleby even wrote in 2013 that upon Charles’ succession to the Crown that things would become much more hands on, and “that a quiet constitutional revolution is afoot.”

Prince Charles and the Great Reset

Charles demonstrated this “more hands on” approach to governance on June 3, 2020 when he became the official patron of the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and even officially launched the project Tweeting out #TheGreatReset. 

On his official website, the Prince launched the project saying “Today, through HRH’s Sustainable Markets Initiative and the World Economic Forum, The Prince of Wales launched a new global initiative, The Great Reset”.

Some of the Prince’s remarks delivered at the June 3, 2020 Great Reset address to Davos can be heard here:

Eco Warrior King of a New Crusade

Charles has demonstrated the sort of enthusiasm for decarbonization of the world which one tends to only find in a religious fanatic setting himself up as the eco-warrior of monarchs, a Crusader King of a new religion, except instead of Muslims in the Holy Land, our new Davos-connected eco-crusaders have targeted carbon dioxide and the industrial civilization, farming and useless eaters who cause it, to be the poisonous threat that must be destroyed. Charles appears to see himself walking in the footsteps of his WWF-founding father (who famously wished to be reincarnated as a virus to solve overpopulation) as the new leading spokesman for a total transformation of society under a WEF-green governance priesthood.

A July 2022 edition of Australia’s Spectator aptly characterized the Prince’s misanthropic activism in the following terms:

“The environmentalism that the Prince has decided to occupy himself with while he awaits to ascend the throne is not a harmless sort of apolitical tree-planting or rainforest-saving activity. He’s not hugging pandas or funding wildlife sanctuaries. Instead, he has engaged himself in a hybrid business and political uprising that threatens the survival of the political system which he is meant to oversee. In addition to being a betrayal of the ordinary citizen, his actions represent a failure to his sole duty as future king – to protect the constitutional monarchy from rising climate fascism and globalism.”

Of course, it would be silly to believe that Charles were his own man, while ignoring the armada of handlers, courtiers and deeper Byzantine grand strategists who revolve around the Crown as an institution sometimes dubbed “the Fount of All Honors”. The Fount of All Honors is an official term which denotes the legal idea that all authority for the public and private affairs emanates from the single source of the Crown and its unbroken bloodline.

Continuity is everything for empire, and the importance of maintaining institutions that transcend individual lifetimes has always been a point of high concern.

In a post-1776 world that began to get a taste for self-government, freedom and democracy as a new mode of self-organization, the “stability” of hereditary institutions came under grave threat. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the past 250 years has been shaped by the clash of these two opposing paradigms of organizing society. Where one paradigm assumes as self-evident the existence of inalienable rights of all people, the other system presumes that the only inalienable rights are those held by an oligarchical master class who wish to rule over subjects (aka: useless eaters) whose population levels must be periodically culled for easier management.

The supposition that rights cannot be granted or withheld by a superior bloodline is truly anathema to any system of oligarchism even if it masquerades behind the costume of a species of democracy designed to placate plebs but not allow them or their representatives the means of influencing anything truly meaningful about their reality.

It is evident that the new incoming King of England has taken on the worst traits and dispositions of oligarchism and probably won’t willfully make any positive changes (or learn any useful real world skills) without being pulled by the scruff of the neck.

Perhaps British citizens who have been fed generations of royal propaganda will finally get sick of their new green warrior king before mass famines and death-by freezing sweep across the Commonwealth and decide to catch up with the 21^st century and become a real nation.

The author can be reached at matthewehret.substack.com

At a recent World Government forum in Dubai, WEF president and Dr Evil lookalike Klaus Schwab made a big deal about systemic changes that were currently underway across the globe and despite the dangers posed by the breakdown, Klaus believed that great opportunities were to be found for those hungry to shape a new system. In his speech Klaus said:

“History is truly at a turning point. We do not yet know the full extent and the systemic and structural changes which will happen. However, we do know that global energy systems, food systems, and supply chains will be deeply affected.”

Meanwhile in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, a central bankers conference is underway where discussion of the systemic crisis and new system of central banking digital currencies and “green finance” will pave the way to a supposed green New Deal economic recovery.

At the other side of the iron curtain, a recent forum took titled ‘Strong Ideas for a New Time, where President Putin also spoke of the new systemic changes that are shaping all facets of life contrasting the multipolar outlook with the obsession on an “international rules based order” animating the west. In his speech Putin said:

“These enormous changes are irreversible, of course. National and global processes are underway to develop the fundamentals and principles of a harmonious, fairer and more community-focused and safe world order as an alternative to the existing world order, or the unipolar world order in which we lived, and which, because of its nature, is definitely becoming a brake on the development of our civilisation.”

No matter where one looks within those discussions occurring in the corridors of power in Eurasia or the western unipolar bloc, the idea that a new system will replace the current order is an unquestioned reality.

But as much as similar words may be found to overlap, the core concepts associated of the two systems (unipolar vs multipolar) are in fact diametrically opposed. Unless one takes a bit of time to appreciate not only the nature of closed system thinking animating western technocrats or the opposing healthier paradigm of open system thinking animating the grand strategic planning of the leaders of the Eurasian partnership, then it were impossible to properly navigate through our current storm.

While both paradigms feature concepts of a “natural order”, one assumes a system whose natural state is unipolar, demands vast population reduction, decarbonization, energy use contraction, and food production reduction. The other system, however is profoundly open, multipolar and premised on the idea of ongoing scientific and technological growth.

The Nature of Systems Analysis and You

The concept of “systems” is integral to all human mentation whether we know it or not, and has occupied the minds of great thinkers for thousands of years.

Although a mind absorbed by a naïve belief in sensory impressions will often assume the existence of self evident “things” in nature floating in empty space without due regard for contexts known and unknown shaping said object of sense impression, the reality is that no simple “thing” exists as an island unto itself.

No atom on Mendeleyev’s periodic table can be said to have any self-contained existence outside of the whole spectrum of elements and isotopes which shape its behavior, purpose and nature within a whole.

Similarly, no cell exists outside of the living system which shapes its behavior and whose behavior it in turn shapes.

No single plant or species of plant life exists outside of a biosphere which itself is shaped by long evolutionary forces with each plant playing a direct role in supporting and in turn being supported by, the entire bio-geochemical system in which it exists.

Just like an element, or cell, this biospheric activity is itself shaped by atomic, astrophysical and even galactic forces which carry both material and energetic properties stretching to the largest expanse of our galaxy’s field of influence and the broader cluster of galaxies which our modest Milky Way is but a part. Of these forces in the very large, and very small, our knowledge is scant, although increasing with small leaps of progress.

Each system one chooses to direct the mind’s attention to- from the lithosphere, biosphere, body of an organism, or even of a galaxy, certain fundamental invariant characteristics can be observed.

Four Properties of Open Systems

1) Each system can be understood as both a “One”, a “Many” and an “infinite”… simultaneously. In this way, the Aristotelian modes of logic which assert a priori that “something must be A or Not A, but never both A and Not A” break down. Instead, the preferable mode of reasoning demonstrated by Plato in the Philebus dialogue proves infinitely more useful at analysing the world as it actually is. (1)

2) A system is either understood as organized by reason or arbitrariness. If arbitrary, then we might as well stop trying to wrap the mind (reason) around the unreasonable, and give up immediately. Since we are continuing our journey, I am assuming that you agree with me that reason governs natural systems. If this be so, then the parts of each system under analysis must be found to demonstrate both purpose and design within the whole of which they are parts. This takes us directly into an awareness of the coherence that must exist between the subjective properties of creative thought and the discoverable properties of the objective universe.

3) Any broader system shaping smaller systems cannot be bounded by the exact same properties and principles. In this sense, we find that the daily cycles of planetary rotation do not find 100% reconciliation in the higher geometries of annual revolutions of planets around the sun, nor do the sun’s revolution around the galactic center find an exact commensurability with the lower cycles of the solar system. There will of course be common traits expressed throughout lower and higher cycles, but there will also be unique properties with each newly discovered cycle as well. Kurt Gödel’s 1931 refutation of the Russell-Whitehead Principia Mathematica provides one of many interesting proofs of this fact. Leibniz’s dispute with Locke, Descartes and Newton provide additional fuel to this line of Platonic reasoning.

4) Each system under investigation must be understood to be more than its sum of parts. The reductionist biologist attempting to isolate the life principle in a rabbit finds themselves confused by the fact that the dead rabbit is not quantifiably different from the living rabbit- being made up of the same molecules and gases. Yet there is something beyond the simple “material expression” of living matter which said reductionist cannot fathom which again is where the Aristotelian logic of materialists will tend to break down.

The principal dispute which has shaped the entirety of world history is based on the two-fold issue of mind’s relationship to nature and its corollary: are systems fundamentally open or closed?

The Case of Vladimir Vernadsky’s Understanding of open systems

A great biogeochemist who shaped in many ways the flow of some of the most exciting leaps in creative scientific progress in the first half of the 20th century was named Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky (1863-1945). Throughout his career, Vernadsky served as a leading light in Russian science, acting both as founder and first President of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and leader of the Russian Academy of Science. Vernadsky founded the Radium Institute of Russia after collaborating extensively with Madame Marie Curie in France, oversaw the development of nuclear science in Russia, was among the earliest proponents for nuclear power generation and as such, is considered the father of Russian nuclear science.

Throughout his years of productive scientific work, Vernadsky internalized the methods outlined by his mentor Dimitry Mendeleyev and applied his creative powers to finding unifying principles that shape the behavior of systems not only as they are “found” in space, but also in time.

While not ignoring the forests for the trees, Vernadsky demonstrated an extreme quality of rigor while mastering the mechanics of the fields of biology, geology and chemistry pushing himself to the limits of humanity’s knowledge of all three fields. Recognizing that needed discoveries in any one domain required moving out of narrow specializations into the other two domains of knowledge, Vernadsky pioneered a new field of research called “Biogeochemistry” by the early 1920s.

Throughout his work on Geochemistry (1924), The Biosphere (1926), On the Principles of Biogeochemistry (1938), and The States of Physical Space (1938), Vernadsky made a point to locate as many unifying principles of nature as possible insofar as they could be found by looking holistically upon the behavior of living matter as distinct from non-living matter.

Several of these principles which he dubbed “empirical generalizations” can be here listed:

1) The Huygen’s Principle. Although calcium, carbon, nitrogen etc are expressions of non-living matter, their behavior, purpose and form when animated by life are entirely different due to the incommensurable difference of life and non-living domains. Vernadksy wrote of this principle in 1943: “[Christian] Huygens established the scientific generalization that “life is a cosmic phenomenon, in some way sharply distinct from nonliving matter.” I recently named this generalization “the Huygens principle”.

2) The non-existence of abiogenesis. Just as existence cannot be said with good reason to arise from non-existence, the impossibility for life to arise from non-life was explored by Louis Pasteur in the 19^th century and was embraced by Vernadsky as a foundational empirical generalization. Vernadsky writes: “The connection between the living and the inert substance of the biosphere is indissoluble and material within the geological time… Abiogenesis is not known in any form of its manifestation. Practically, the naturalist cannot overlook in his work this empirically precise deduction from a scientific observation of nature, even if he does not agree with it due to his religious or philosophically religious premises.”

3) The Golden Section. Five-fold symmetries and the golden section which are inherently united in the the construction of the pentagon, permeate living systems both in form as well as in population growth patterns in time. These attributes are nearly entirely absent from the non-living world of abiotic matter and was first explored Leonardo Da Vinci in the late 15^th Comparing the configuration and behavior of atoms contained in non-living crystals compared to living organisms, Vernadsky writes: “Living organisms exhibit five-fold or higher than sixfold axes of symmetry. This indicates that we are not dealing here with the symmetry, or the atomic structure, of a homogeneous solid. The homogeneity of internal structure, which is so characteristic of crystals, is absent here. The inside of a living organism is distinctly heterogeneous, its atoms being in continuous motion, never returning to the same points where they were, unlike crystals, where the atoms do not shift for billions of years, unless external forces cause that to happen.”

4) Light Rotation. Life rotates planes of polarized light which does not occur when the same polarised light passes through liquid solutions devoid of any presence of organic material. Vernadsky writes: “All proteins exhibit a left rotation of the plane of light, both in animals and in plants. This means that, in the complex matter of living bodies, only left isomers in protein bodies—the principle component of protoplasm—are stable. Right isomers are absent”

5) Handedness/Chirality. This property, investigated deeply by the young Louis Pasteur in the 1850s, extends into isomers/chirality of molecular biology that was beginning to open up new doors of discovery in Vernadsky’s lifetime. Just as living systems demonstrate “handedness” regarding harmonic disequilibrium preferring left handed spirals in sea shells over the inverse, so too do molecules with identical atoms and bonding properties demonstrate different qualitative properties when formed in the mirror image of themselves. Here again the logic of an Aristotelian (or other syllogistic machine thinking) breaks down. Vernadsky wrote of this early discovery saying: “The molecular dissymmetry, discovered by Pasteur, showed, that the presence of living matter is reflected in the chemical formula, including in solutions, and that right- and left-handed atomic structures are found to be non-equivalent in chemical reactions. They are chemically distinct in living matter, but chemically identical in inert chemical media”

A simple example of chiral molecules of a generic amino acid. Among the many interesting examples of chiral molecules (enantiomers) is carvone which results in a spearmint aroma in one configuration and caraway in its mirror image

6) The Ubiquity of Life. In Vernadsky’s analysis, the tension found in the biosphere which is connected to the rise of new living properties among species is NOT located in scarcity or vacuum as British Darwinians had asserted for decades, but rather in a positive yearning of life to express its potential to the fullest possible measure, and in so doing, leap beyond the limits of nature through the advent of new biological “technologies”. This yearning of each species towards expressing itself to the fullest was seen by Vernadsky as a colonization process, and the new “technologies” which nature generated (whether the chlorophyll molecule that allowed early life to begin using sunlight to increase its power to thrive and create) giving living matter the attribute of moving from lower to higher states of organization and complexity. Vernadsky writes: “The creation resulting from this evolution of new living forms, adapts itself to new forms of existence, augments the ubiquity of life, and enlarges its domain. Life penetrates, thus, the regions of the biosphere where it had not earlier had access.”

7) Top Down Systemic Change as Primary. Vernadsky emphasizes that each upshift from one lower system to a higher system in evolutionary time, occurs as a change within the system as a whole and never within the bottom-up accumulation of units of particular species or individuals fighting for survival in a closed system of diminishing returns as we find in the Darwinist worldview.

8) Increasing Biogeochemical energy. From a material standpoint, each advanced new species and organism processes molecules and atoms from the ambient environment in a process akin to that of a whirlpool. Unlike the whirlpool however, each living organism does not merely move the elements through it unchanged, but rather change the molecular and even isotopic properties of elements via acts of respiration, nutrition, and reproduction. From an energetic standpoint, organisms tended to advance in such a manner that the metabolic power (the ratio of matter converted into energy) in the form of nutrition increased as greater means of doing work was achieved. The orientation of this entire process is not a mathematical homeostasis as a closed system interpretation of nature must presume, but rather an increase of free energy such that a system as a whole is “tuned” to generate not only enough energy to sustain itself, but increased free energy to feed back into the system that allows for the support of newer, more productive and diverse species. Vernadsky writes in his Problems of Biogeochemistry II: “The basic distinctive feature of biogeochemical energy is clearly and forcefully demonstrated in the increase of the free energy of the biosphere over the course of geological time”

9) Biogenic Migration of Atoms: As a corollary of point 8), advanced living systems tend to increase the throughput of the biogenic migration of atoms much like more increasingly efficient whirlpools moving carbon, calcium, potassium and other elements more forcefully through organisms and back into the biosphere resulting in long term changes in the entire biosphere and even geology, atmosphere and even ozone layer of the planet as a whole. Vernadsky states: “Biogenic migration not only depends on the quantity of atoms caught by it at every moment in the biosphere, but also on the rapidity of their movement, the number of atoms passing through living matter in a unit of time, or on the displacement, in this same unit of time, provoked by an intervention of a technological order by living matter within the ambient environment… The biogenic migration of chemical elements in the biosphere tends towards its most complete manifestation.”

10) Cephalization. Taking aim at the Darwinian interpretation of natural selection which rejects any notion of directionality in the flow of evolution, Vernadksy instead embraced the empirical generalizations of Dana and Joseph Le Conte. To these two men, Vernadsky wrote: “The younger contemporaries of Darwin, J[ames] D[wight] Dana (1813-1895) and Joseph Le Conte (1823-1901), both great American geologists (and Dana, a mineralogist and biologist as well) expounded, even prior to 1859, the empirical generalization that the evolution of living matter is proceeding in a definite direction. This phenomenon was called by Dana “cephalization,” and by Le Conte the “Psychozoic era.”

In Dana’s work, “cephalization” represented the tendency of life to organize itself increasingly around an ever more centralized nervous systems which provided an important guide post for the flow of living systems in evolutionary time while in Le Conte, the notion of the “psychozoic era” defined the age of mankind that teleologically directed the flow of changes in all preceding ages in evolutionary time.

Beyond the atomic and molecular properties of forces and matter which are shaped by either life or its absence. Vernadsky was always careful to distinguish the concepts of “living matter” as opposed to “life” which he understood to be a principle of space time itself writing in 1943: “Instead of the concept of ‘life,’ I introduced that of ‘living matter,’ which now seems to be firmly established in science. ‘Living matter’ is the totality of living organisms.” Vernadsky added that life must be understood as “a planetary phenomenon that is cosmic in nature.”

The Noosphere

Living matter was merely one particular expression of life in Vernadsky’s mind, and all the same can be said of the Noosphere (properties of mind) which we can examine through forms of noetic fossils in the form of matter shaped by human thought.

Examples of the latter did not only include tools, or infrastructure, but also species of domestic fruits, vegetation, and animals whose existence was only made possible by the slow selective breeding by human beings across generations. With each leap of mind’s power over nature, discovery and transmission of concepts from one mind to other minds is vital. Among the earliest such discoveries that give humanity a power over nature, Vernadsky zeroes in on the discovery and use of fire:

“The discovery of fire presents the first instance in which a living organism takes possession of, and masters, one of the forces of nature. Undoubtedly this discovery lies, as we now see, at the foundation of mankind’s subsequent future increase and of our present powers.”

While these noetic fossils can be seen, measured and weighed, they are but shadows of something more fundamentally causal. It is this deeper cause which cannot be seen, tasted, heard or felt by the senses and yet which is necessarily existent. The transcendental “light” of mind’s fruitful activity which casts the “shadows” of material changes in the lithosphere, biosphere and human society itself brings us into a science of mind as a geological force and cause of all changes. Vernadsky writes: “The noösphere is a new geological phenomenon on our planet. In it, for the first time, man becomes a large-scale geological force.”

It is here that Vernadsky reveals that he recognizes in creative mental activity a new form of causal energy that has not yet been properly considered or absorbed into modern science or economic thinking. He writes of this paradoxical property of mind in the following terms:

“A new riddle has arisen before us. Thought is not a form of energy. How then can it change material processes?”

This does not mean that the transformational character of human creative mentation as a geological force is “un-natural” as many modern ecologists suppose, but is rather inextricably connected to both the biosphere and the broader astrophysical environment.

“Man is elementally indivisible from the biosphere. And this inseparability is only now beginning to become precisely clear to us. In reality, no living organism exists in a free state on Earth. All of these organisms are inseparably and continuously connected—first and foremost by feeding and breathing—with their material-energetic environment.”

The difference between Vernadsky’s open system worldview in contrast to the closed system Darwinians, Oparinians, and neo-Malthusians of his time, is that he understands all three phase spaces of nature to be governed by purpose, design and creative growth- albeit on vastly different time scales.

Where it would take nature untold billions of years to generate evolutions in the periodic table of elements, the same process of evolution when applied to living systems occurs incommensurably quicker. The physical space time of human noetic activity acts to “bend” in a natural manner the flow of the already existent changing impulse in the space time of biotic and abiotic systems, although a caveat exists due to factors of free will and morality. In this sense, when we are acting in accordance with understanding and in obedience with natural law, humanity can make a desert blossom in decades while the same process if left to itself may otherwise take millennia. New elements and isotopes finding lawful positioning on Mendeleyev’s table can be created through human creativity in the form of trans-uranic elements that are not found anywhere in or around Earth’s environment.

Vernadsky writes: “With Man… the form of biogeochemical energy connected to reason grows and expands with time, rapidly moving to the fore. This increase is possibly related to the growth of reason itself—a process which seems to occur very slowly (if at all) but is chiefly connected to its honing and deepening in using it to consciously transform the social environment, and is especially due to the growth of scientific knowledge.”

Unfortunately, Vernadsky’s world did not see the advent of the positive age of coordinated self-development of the human species as the great scientist had seen so clearly in his mind’s eye. Despite his efforts to transmit his ideas to his fellow scientists, the world slipped ever more deeply into the mire of war, and by June 1941 Germany invaded Russia and an age of chaos reached a climax of barbarism. Yet amidst the war and blood, Vernadsky continued to work and write, never losing hold of the age of reason (the age of the noosphere) which he saw inevitably awakening in the future.

In his 1945 Some Words About the Noosphere, Vernadsky writes: “Now we live in the period of a new geological evolutionary change in the biosphere. We are entering the noösphere. This new elemental geological process is taking place at a stormy time, in the epoch of a destructive world war. But the important fact is that our democratic ideals are in tune with the elemental geological processes, with the law of nature, and with the noösphere. Therefore we may face the future with confidence. It is in our hands. We will not let it go.”

Notes

(1) In the Philebus dialogue, Plato uses the two examples of harmony and speech when analyzing the trifold nature of reality and specifically the structure of good vs evil. This investigation introduces the continuous and discrete properties of harmony and speech by first analyzing the infinite and oneness of each. A string can generate an infinitely divisible continuum of possible sounds just as a voice can generate an infinite spectrum of vowels. However, the one (harmony) and one (language) cannot be treated as infinite divisibles, since the mind can recognize quantized states of harmonic intervals and punctuated (discrete) consonant letters and specific vowels. This analysis of the “3 in 1” property of reality is then extended to an investigation of whether or not pleasure and pain are valid foundations upon which moral principles of Good and Evil should be judged. The fact that Plato never leaves the mind with a crystalized finished answer but rather tunes the mind to the paradoxes contained in naïve assumptions, demonstrates one of the earliest rigorously defined expressions of open system analysis on record

By Stavroula PABST

Ingrid de Sain is a Dutch farmer who lives in the Northern Holland town of Schellinkhout, where she and her family tend to a 62 acre farm with about 100 dairy cows. Like thousands of fellow citizens in her industry, she now finds herself locked in an existential conflict with her government.

“Farming is in your heart,” de Sain told The Grayzone. “And you don’t want to do something else. You’re a farmer or you’re not.” She says she will oppose any efforts requiring her to give up a farm that guarantees prosperity for future generations of her family.

The Dutch government announced plans to slash nitrogen oxide and ammonia emissions in June 2022, enforcing an ambitious agenda in the name of protecting the climate. The imposed reductions could spell devastating consequences for the country’s farming industry and add enormous stress to already chaotic global food supply chains.

Today, the Netherlands is Europe’s top exporter of meat and the second largest agricultural exporter overall in the world, right behind the US. The tiny nation’s agricultural success is the product of its traditional dependence on generously sized farms that use nitrogen-rich fertilizer to produce heavy yields. Such methods were encouraged by the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, which prioritized the growth of cattle lots, incentivized the use of chemical fertilizers, and pushed many smaller family farmers out of operation.

In 2019, a Dutch court order declared that nitrogen-compound fertilizer was a top threat to the climate and biodiversity, and mandated a 70-80% decrease in its use. If implemented in the country, the proposed reductions could destroy a full third of its farming output and eliminate somewhere between 30 and 50% of Dutch livestock. The stage was set for open conflict.

Once the pro-EU coalition government of Dutch PM Mark Rutte took steps to implement the restrictions in June 2022, local farmers responded immediately with ferocious mass protests that have blocked roads, airports, and grocery distribution centers. Since the outbreak of demonstrations, supermarkets shelves have gone empty as the farmers’ cry of “No farms, no food” reverberated nationwide.

Empty shelves in Dutch supermarkets because of protesting farmers. pic.twitter.com/E8WDafA37K

— NewsBlog (@newsblogmedia) July 6, 2022

The farmers were not only angry with the sweeping emissions mandates, but with the less-than-democratic process through which the policy was handed down. They insist they support efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and complain that bureaucrats have ignored an alternative proposal by the main farmer’s lobby, the Netherlands Agricultural and Horticultural Association, known as the LTO, to reduce nitrogen-oxide output by 40% over the next decade.

Firemen and fishermen are now joining the farmers’ protests, forcing ferry services to shut down. When farmers blockaded streets and highways with their tractors, tow truck drivers showed solidarity by refusing orders to remove them. In a flagrant show of contempt for the ruling establishment, farmers have even dumped manure on government buildings.

State repression of the protests has similarly intensified. Dutch police shot a 16 year old farmer during one demonstration and opened fire on a tractor at another. When not deploying live fire, Dutch security forces have promiscuously teargassed demonstrators, unleashed dogs on crowds, and pummeled demonstrators with truncheons.

?? Disproportionate force from Dutch police to farmers

Farmers, fed up with the government’s agricultural policy, continue to protest.

? The police brutally beat the demonstrators with batons. pic.twitter.com/7XA0tNCccg

— Crackdown Chronicles (@CrackdownReport) August 3, 2022

A first round of negotiations between the farmers and the government took place on August 5, but the session disappointed farmers’ lobby group, the LTO. According to LTO chairman Sjaak van der Tak, the government in Amsterdam offered “too little” concessions to the farmers during those talks.

As long as the government refuses to budge from its sweeping goals, the crisis shows little sign of abetting. For those facing the loss of family farms and the traditions they represent, there is little to lose by taking to the streets.

But there is more at stake than just the future of agriculture within one nation. When thousands of protestors stormed Sri Lanka’s presidential palace in July and forced the resignation of their leader, the event seemed unrelated to the popular uprising sweeping the Netherlands. Yet as we will see, Sri Lanka’s revolt was partly a response to the same force that sparked the Dutch farmers protests: a corporatized “sustainability” agenda crafted by a billionaire-backed “green” elite with no popular constituency.

From their position within institutions such as the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and a bevy of transnational corporations considered “stakeholders” in this closely-knit network, unelected figures have influenced government policy in supposedly sovereign states across the globe.

While these organizations claim to act in the interest of the planet, they are almost entirely unaccountable to the popular masses who will be most severely impacted by their planned “reset” of the international food system. Having already upended the global supply chains and informal industries that once sustained the developing world with their internationally-prescribed response to the COVID-19 outbreak, the next item on their agenda threatens to exacerbate the economic pain of working people from Amsterdam to Colombo and beyond.

“Everyone in Holland has his flag outside, upside down”

Ingrid De Sain, a Dutch farmer, has seen the protest movement she participates in gather support from the Dutch public. Though she recognizes less enthusiasm for the demonstrations among the metropolitan middle class, she takes heart in the multitude of citizens who have adorned their homes and vehicles with upside-down Dutch flags to show support for the farmers.

Supporters of the farmers begin their march through Amsterdam, waving the Dutch flag upside down.

MORE: https://t.co/AgMVWCWretpic.twitter.com/HiQK3ABfG2

— Lewis Brackpool (@Lewis_Brackpool) July 23, 2022

“Everyone in Holland has his flag outside, upside down,” de Sain explained. “So everyone [on the outside] can see that things are not good in Holland and that we need help.”

The farmers boast the support of 77 percent of Dutch citizens, according to a national poll taken this June. However, the Dutch broadcaster BNR reported that most respondents expressed displeasure with more extreme tactics like felling trees and protesting outside government officials’ homes.

Wow! Dutch farmers in Moerdijk with 400 tractors positioned on the lawn to make the inscription visible from above: “No farmers, no food! Help!” pic.twitter.com/30mK8FgXTu

— RadioGenova (@RadioGenova) July 7, 2022

Meanwhile, public support for the farmers’ protests has translated into growing enthusiasm for the farmer’s party, Boer Burger Beweging (BBB). A poll this June indicated that BBB, which currently only holds one seat in parliament, would have gained 18 in an election at the time. (A rumored new party by independent Dutch MP Pieter Omtzigt, a popular Euroskeptic and top opponent of Rutte, could slow the BBB’s momentum.)

At a music festival today, Dutch citizens cheered on the farmers. This isn’t a niche uprising, it has the legs to throw Rutte out of office. pic.twitter.com/YZ2xaf8VsG

— Keean Bexte ?? (@TheRealKeean) July 19, 2022

In another sign of public support for the farmers, police officers assigned to repress the strikers eagerly participated in a farmer blockade-turned BBQ, even handing out cookies.

Like Canadian Freedom Trucker convoy that protested vaccine mandates, the Dutch farmers have invited a mix of leftist indifference and scorn, while high-profile right-wing politicians celebrated the protests as a point of nationalist unity. The Farmers Defense Force – the most militant faction of the movement – has welcomed the right-wing support. For their part, the farmers hold views spanning the political spectrum.

And while a wealthy local family has reportedly injected resources into the protests to protect its cattle feed business, the farmers on the front lines insist they are fighting merely to preserve their livelihoods against powerful interests often based outside Dutch borders.

Farmers fear buyouts are a Trojan Horse for land seizures

Like many of her fellow farmers in the Netherlands, Ingrid de Sain sees hypocrisy in her government’s attack on the agricultural sector.

“They know about [the emissions impacts of] planes and industry, yet they only look at the farms” when it comes to new emissions restrictions, says de Sain. She also emphasizes that the targets Amsterdam proposed are simply impossible to reach, and won’t be met “even if all the farmers go away.”

Dutch Farmers Union Spokesman Erik Luiten echoed de Sain when he told GBN News, “Farmers are not convinced emissions cuts will help nature.”

De Sain believes an ulterior motive lies behind the government’s contradictory policy: it wants the farmers’ land to address the country’s severe housing shortage, as the government needs to build 845,000 homes by 2030 to meet expected population needs. There are “17 million people in Holland. They say that we will have in 2040, 30 million people in Holland. So then, the farmers are in their way [of building] houses and industry,” de Sain stated.

The Netherlands’ housing shortage is severe indeed, and Dutch farmers own a significant portion of the country’s land, with about 54 percent as of 2018. Yet these figures do not fully explain the government’s move towards expropriation.

Further, the Dutch government’s stringent regulation of nitrogen emissions has driven housing shortages by forcing residential construction projects to meet difficult environmental standards before building, even shelving 18,000 prospective housing developments in 2019 as nitrogen mitigation expectations tightened. Buying out farmers, therefore, would not necessarily alleviate the housing shortage even if it did free up land.

And as the Irish Farmers Journal illustrated, the land the Dutch government obtains from farmers through buyouts may instead be transformed into nature reserves where building is forbidden.

Suspicions are growing among Dutch farmers that their land could be used for something more novel. A 2021 DutchNews.nl report about the now-proposed cuts stated that farmlands bought out by the government would then be used for “sustainable agriculture” – apparent code for lab-grown meats and other scientifically confected foods.

Dutch government defends plans for “replacing farmers”

Rudy Buis, a spokesperson for the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature, and Food Quality, emphasized to The Grayzone that the buy-outs of farmland would be voluntary “for now,” but stated explicitly that “replacing farmers” was an ultimate objective.

Buis explained that plans for land acquired were up in the air, but that a combination of uses, including nature reserves, housing, and sustainable farming, were all under consideration.

“If the government has the [farmers’] ground it can be used for an extra nature area, or maybe a project for energy, or building houses,” said Buis, who insisted 25 billion euros allotted by the government for the buyout scheme would also establish and normalize sustainable farming practices and reduce the country’s nitrogen emissions via “green investments in innovation.”

“The money is going to buyout voluntary farmers,” the spokesperson explained. “Also for innovation for agriculture, for replacing farmers to make [the farming sector] a more natural way, a more sustainable way.”

When asked what “sustainability” would look like in practice, Buis described the government’s vision as follows: “A farmer… often has 200 or 300 cows, and it’s our ambition to have the farmer making enough money for himself and his family with, well, shall I say, 60 or 70 cows. What that means: we have to pay more for biological food. That means we have to help [farmers] and give them money for sustainable agriculture. So, that’s a process [involving] a lot of parties and organizations and the government. We are working on it now.”

Before agreeing to speak to The Grayzone, the government spokesman Buis demanded to know, “Is this for an alt-right medium or not?”

Regardless of how the Dutch government plans to use the farmland, fears are growing that as one of the world’s largest food exporters, and Europe’s largest meat exporter, such a sudden reduction of the country’s agricultural output could wreak havoc on food supply chains at a time of global economic crisis.

The Hague’s policy has left many local farmers suspicious that elite ideology has trumped more prosaic concerns like the social welfare of Dutch citizens.

Dutch farmer protests confront a billionaire-backed “green” elite

The Dutch farmers’ protest has erupted at the juncture of a global resource crisis and an environmental movement increasingly fueled by the passions – and payments – of the “Davos man.”

Leveraging their influence over elite foundations, multilateral institutions and NGOs, the world’s most powerful financiers have proposed a series of top-down transformations of the global food system that will consolidate and centralize their power, limit agricultural independence, and override millennia of traditional farming practices, all in the name of “sustainability” and protecting the climate.

The Dutch government’s emissions proposals are a perfect example of the trend. While proposed in The Hague, the proposal to cut nitrogen was actually mandated by Brussels, where European bureaucrats largely unknown to the general public declared the farmers’ emissions levels a violation of EU law.

Along with the EU, a web of foreign governments, international governing bodies and global capitalist policy hubs such as the World Economic Forum, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Rockefeller Foundation, have lobbied to define the concept of “sustainability” on their own terms.

The perspective put forward by these billionaire-backed outfits is increasingly advanced by global institutions upholding an almost obsessive focus on an impending climate disaster that can only be averted through a radical transformation of industrial society’s processes.

The World Health Organization (WHO), for example, declared climate change the world’s “single biggest health threat” in 2021. Meanwhile, the United Nations opened an entire webpage dedicated to the #NetZero movement, which “calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, consume, and move about” to prevent climate change. The UN’s  2021 World Economic Forum report called, “Aligning to net zero: How CEOs can get on board with the transition,” declared that “Net zero means collectively cutting net CO2 emissions by 50% by 2030 and getting to zero by 2050.”

By declaring that meat must be substantially reduced in human diets, these proposals placed farmers squarely in the crosshairs. In 2018, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), for example, tweeted that reducing meat consumption by 50 percent by 2050 “will lead to a healthier life and a healthier planet.”

Reducing our global meat and dairy consumption by 50% by the year 2050 will lead to a healthier life and a healthier planet. Read more from @Greenpeace here: https://t.co/UbrEEiD4Eg #SustainableLifestyles pic.twitter.com/8G3KBrcEIu

— UN Environment Programme (@UNEP) March 6, 2018

The plan to transform food systems and communities has been infused with massive loads of cash. The World Bank’s 2021-2025 Climate Change Action Plan, for example, dictates that 35 percent of the bank’s financing during the program years will go towards investing in clients and stakeholders, particularly in developing countries, and to support “catalyzing and mobilizing private capital for climate action” through developing carbon credit markets and “green bonds and loan markets.” The plan dictates that food systems, like other “key systems,” “must be transformed to address climate change.”

Notably, many reports and proposals cite COVID-19 as an inflection point which justified the implementation of their proposed revolution in food production and consumption, while avoiding any public discussion of the destructive impact of long-term restrictions.

For example, a 2020 Rockefeller Foundation report titled “Reset the table” called to exploit the shock of the COVID-19 pandemic to “transform the U.S. food system.” The paper emphasized the following:

“While Covid-19 and the resulting economic downturn made the negative consequences of the food system worse and more obvious, the pandemic did not create them and its end will not solve them. Covid-19 has, however, increased both the imperative and the opportunity to address these flaws and limitations once and for all. Now is the moment to transform the U.S. food system.”

Established by the oligarchic founders of Standard Oil, John D. Rockefeller Jr. and Sr., the Rockefeller Foundation is one of the most influential non-governmental policy hubs of the trans-Atlantic elite. With assets totaling $7.7 billion, the foundation serves as the Rockefeller family’s front-facing philanthropic arm. Notorious for its role in 1940s US government-run medical experiments that saw Guatemalan peasants injected with syphilis, the Rockefeller Foundation is now headed by Rajiv Shah, the former head of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), a US government soft power cutout which in recent years attempted to topple governments in Venezuela and Cuba.

As reporter Michael Nevradakis revealed, some of the contributors to the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Reset the Table” enjoy close ties with the World Economic Forum (WEF).

Known for its advocacy of a transformative global “Great Reset,” the WEF markets itself as a policy nexus guiding the future of global capitalism. Each year, hedge fund managers, bankers, CEOs, media representatives, and government officials gather in Davos under the auspices of the WEF to “shape global, regional and industry agendas.” As Foreign Affairs put it, “the WEF has no formal authority, but it has become the major forum for elites to discuss policy ideas and priorities.”

Notably, the WEF and the UN signed a Strategic Partnership Framework in 2019 to accelerate the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, an agreement which signaled an entrenched relationship that will shape sustainability efforts in the years to come.

As The Grayzone reported, the partnership framework was signed without previous discussion in any UN Assembly or intergovernmental process, effectively overriding the UN’s established decision-making frameworks.

2019 – The WEF & the UN signed a ‘Strategic Partnership Framework’ to “deepen institutional engagement & jointly accelerate the implementation of the 2030”

A corporate capture of the UN to speed up less democratic global governance.

No one voted for this. pic.twitter.com/QLIo1SJB08

— Bernie’s Tweets (@BernieSpofforth) June 22, 2022

“Davos for food” partners with multinational corporations to push “a standard diet for the whole planet”

An influential commission describing itself as the “Davos for food,” the EAT-Lancet Commission, exists at the heart of the elite network lobbying to impose major dietary changes on the global population.

EAT-Lancet is pushing a flexitarian “Planetary Health Diet” in a gimmicky move to link human health choices with the supposed health of the planet. The World Economic Forum heartily endorsed EAT’s proposal in a 2019 blog post entitled, “Why we all need to go on the ‘planetary health diet’ to save the world.”

Though the World Health Organization initially approved EAT-Lancet’s Planetary Health Diet, it later withdrew support after Italian diplomat Gian Lorenzo Cornado questioned the diet’s scientific and nutritional basis.

In a letter to other high-level diplomats and institutions, Cornado declared that “a standard diet for the whole planet…has no scientific justification at all,” and “would mean the destruction of millenary healthy traditional diets which are a full part of the cultural heritage and social harmony in many nations.” Cornado added the initiative would amount to “the total elimination of consumers’ freedom of choice.”

“The idea that you would have one diet for an [entire] planet, it just doesn’t make sense. It only makes sense from a very-much globalist view that everything can come from one solution, that they will impose top-down,” academic and food scientist Dr. Frédéric Leroy commented to The Grayzone. “It’s ignoring all differences, cultural differences, practical differences.”

Indeed, EAT-Lancet appears far more attuned to the needs of the corporate world than local cultures. Its FReSH (Food Reform for Sustainability and Health) initiative, described as a campaign for the “transformation of the food system,” is co-sponsored by multinational corporations including the mega-polluting agricultural giant, Cargill; chemical producers BASF and DuPont; Google, a major defense contractor; and the pharmaceutical firm Bayer, among others.

Several of these companies, including Cargill, are heavily invested in lab-grown meats.

EAT’s advisory board, meanwhile, contains figures like Mark Wilson of BlackRock Inc., an investment company notorious for mass housing purchases that have made home ownership virtually unattainable for a broad slice of the American middle class.

EAT-Lancet’s founder and executive chair, Gunhild Stordalen, was granted a leading role at the UN Food Systems Summit in 2021, where she served as chair of the summit’s Action Track 2 “shift to sustainable consumption patterns.”

Stordalen is a physician who has leveraged the fortune of her husband, the billionaire property developer and airline owner Petter Stordalen, to place herself at the forefront of the global lobby for food system transformation. The private luxury jet in which she and her husband often junket to environmental confabs has inspired reams of negative press from European tabloids.

Stordalen’s EAT-Lancet is closely affiliated with the World Resources Institute (WRI), a non-profit whose board of directors is composed of corporate executives and hedge fund managers involved in the highly profitable rush for “sustainable” environmental solutions and renewable energy. WRI’s directors include David Blood, a former Goldman Sachs executive who teamed up with failed Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore to found the green-branded Generation Investment Management firm. According to Blood, by encouraging fellow billionaires to invest in renewable energy, his firm was “making the case for long-term greed.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the corporate-influenced WRI is closely aligned with the World Economic Forum, which promotes the group’s content on its website and hosts WRI board member and World Bank manager Mari Elka Pangestu as a WEF Agenda Contributor.

Elite groups like EAT seek “to impose whatever they can to get more control over the food system, whether that be higher profits for their corporate allies, or whether that be more centralized resources, implementation of ideological or technocratic design, or anything along those lines,” Frédéric Leroy, the food scientist, remarked to The Grayzone.

“And within [this] grab for power,” Leroy explained, “you typically have public-private partnerships. You’ll always find very similar partners and players within those setups.”

Oh look who’s also part of this larger network (cf. red box in the previous picture). The winner of the highest environmental distinction of the United Nations: Impossible Foods. Is the UN now officially marketing junk food? https://t.co/cgyU5JFIHQ

— Frédéric Leroy (@fleroy1974) October 25, 2020

Stakeholder capitalism captures the UN Food Systems Summit

The global “green” billionaire network has put forward ambitious goals for transforming the world’s food systems at venues like the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. Yet this bonanza of stakeholder capitalism quickly became the target of boycotts and protests by farmers and human rights groups alike.

As The Grayzone reported, the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit represented one of the most aggressive attempts to date by corporate forces and the billionaire elite to overrun the UN’s multilateralist tradition, in which states determine solutions through respect for one another’s sovereignty, with stakeholder capitalism.

Large corporations and the Gates Foundation took over the United Nations Food Systems Summit.

This video by @Via_Campesina/@PrensaCamila shows how @FoodSystems abandoned small farmers on behalf of Big Ag companies, endangering food sovereignty#UNFSS2021https://t.co/qyoEJoJTNC

— The Grayzone (@TheGrayzoneNews) September 23, 2021

UN officials and hundreds of academics complained that the UN Food Systems Summit’s proposals lacked accountability and subverted well-established mechanisms for determining food policy. The academics slammed the summit for “favoring science that reflects and reinforces the economic and political interests of an elite network of governments, researchers, and foundations with strong business ties.” Even the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, acknowledged the summit did “nothing” to help feed families.

La Vía Campesina, a global movement of small farmers, indigenous peasants and agricultural workers, staged an angry boycott of the UN summit. “Why did the [UN] Secretary-General initiate this food summit in partnership with the World Economic Forum – a private sector body?” the social movement asked in a statement condemning the event. “The entire process lacks transparency and legitimacy. Who is making decisions?”

La Via Campesina’s Press Statement: The #UNFSS2021 is a threat to peoples’ food sovereignty. https://t.co/SJQNjzZ7iF#NotInOurNames #BoycottUNFoodSummit #FoodSystems4People pic.twitter.com/qyvju2Kg5Z

— La Via Campesina (@via_campesina) September 22, 2021

While the UN Food Summit concluded without accomplishing anything of substance, the billionaire-backed network of “green” NGOs, foundations, and operatives continued its push to influence governments across the West.

Among the network’s apparent accomplishments is an EU proposal for sweeping meat taxes to incentivize plant-based diets, which tracks closely with a call published on the World Economic Forum website to “tax meat-eaters like smokers.” The WEF has also celebrated the EU’s plan to outlaw fuel-based cars by 2035.

The EU’s food systems transformation push is taking place under the banner of its so-called Farm To Fork strategy, which Brussels calls the “heart of [its] Green Deal.” The strategy proposes a “just transition” to a sustainable food system in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, which itself calls for a massive overhaul of the world’s food systems by 2030. Marketed in cheery, utterly anodyne terms such as a “transformative vision for a better world,” the UN Sustainable Development Goals were adopted unanimously by the UN’s 193 member states in 2015.

Seven years later, however, as populations around the world experience the pain of a cost of living crisis and economic decline, the billionaire-backed institutions behind the initiative remain largely unaccountable to those being impacted by it.

As the food scientist Frédéric Leroy commented to The Grayzone, the proposed food system transformation “is rather scary because it’s coming fast and strong. It has huge resources behind it. And it’s shortcutting the normal community democratic processes because it passes on a transnational level and trickles down from above.”

To make their voices heard, some Dutch citizens may have begun targeting the business ventures of “green” billionaires with direct action.

Bill Gates-backed lab meats burning in Holland

Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a legal philosopher and vocal supporter of the Dutch farmers’ protests, noted that many of the Dutch and EU officials presiding over emissions cuts are also affiliated with the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Like many in the protest ranks, Vlaardingerbroek believes the emissions cuts are just the opening salvo in a billionaire-directed war for control over land, food, and ultimately, the essential components of human biology.

As their struggle intensifies, the Dutch protesters appear to have targeted the Gates empire directly. While circumstances surrounding the incident remain unclear, a manufacturing plant of Gates-funded delivery-only supermarket Picnic, known for its vegan alternatives and fake meat products, burned down during an evening of farmer protests.

The incident drew attention to the Dutch government’s increasingly intimate – and evidently corrupt – relationship with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

BREAKING: A Bill Gates Foundation supermarket in the Netherlands that focuses on new-age foods like plant protein meat has spontaneously caught fire in the middle of the night. https://t.co/363xQ3IVwh pic.twitter.com/IpAgYsrGmA

— Keean Bexte ?? (@TheRealKeean) July 11, 2022

A successful startup, Picnic doubled its revenue in 2020 and will soon expand to other European countries, including France and Germany. Since its 2015 launch, Picnic has raked in 604 million euros in investments, with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation providing a majority of the funding.

Dutch Minister for Nature and Nitrogen Policy Christianne van der Wal-Zeggelink, who pushed for the nitrogen emissions cuts the government is now imposing, is married to Piet van der Wal, an heir to the wealth of the family-owned Dutch supermarket chain Boni. And Van der Wal happens to be a major investor in Picnic, which has contracted Boni as a supplier.

In other words, the Dutch Minister who called for the nitrogen cuts is profiting from the Gates-backed Picnic chain, a company which likely stands to financially benefit if her efforts succeed.

Indeed, the Dutch policy would cause a drop in meat production, thus ensuring an increase in consumer demand for the meat-free, lab-grown products offered by Picnic – and a windfall profit for the billionaire investors behind it.

The Dutch government imposes the “green” billionaire elite’s agenda

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab has boasted that his organization “penetrate[s] the cabinets” of governments across the West by cultivating leaders before they take power.

The current Dutch administration is a perfect example: Prime Minister Mark Rutte is a WEF Agenda Contributor who has zealously campaigned for a food system overhaul. The PM has also lauded the World Economic Forum’s food innovation hubs, described as “a market-based partnership program” meant “to sustainably scale innovative solutions for food systems transformation.” The WEF-funded hubs are operating from the Dutch city of Wageningen.

The destruction of agriculture!

Holland’s Prime Minister Mark Rutte is a WEF talking doll, parroting exactly what is written in Klaus Schwab’s book “COVID-19: The Great Reset”.

This is why farmers in Holland are taking to the streets.#WEF #KlausSchwab #COVID19 #GreatReset pic.twitter.com/HU24KAR3cU

— Vince (@vince8004) July 25, 2022

In a news release promoting its food hubs, the WEF placed the onus not only on governments and institutions, but on small farmers and average people across the planet to adjust their lives in accordance to the UN goals:

“With 10 years to achieve the [UN] Sustainable Development Goals, we need to fundamentally change the way food is produced and consumed. This includes changing the practices of more than 500 million smallholder farmers and the consumption patterns of 7.7 billion individuals.”

The Dutch government has committed to several years of public funding to support the hubs.

Other examples of significant Dutch government ties to the WEF include Dutch Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Sigrid Kaag, a WEF agenda contributor; and Dutch Minister of Social Affairs and Employment Karien van Gennip, who was elected as a WEF Young Global Leader in 2008.

Many involved with the European Union and the European Commission are also deeply embedded in the WEF: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, for example, is an Agenda Contributor, as are many European Parliament members.

For institutions like the WEF and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, advancing “sustainability” is paramount. But these elite organizations’ interpretation of the concept contrasts strongly with the way the millions of people who will be impacted by the agenda seem to understand it.

Critically, the “green” billionaires’ food transformation is intensifying alongside a global food and resource shortage – a disaster driven by policies many of these same elites advanced.

Global resistance builds to cost of living crisis, elites double-down

In recent months rising food prices, fuel shortages, and soaring living costs have triggered working class revolts across the globe. Yet the critical moment has been met with relative media silence, or in some cases explanations which sought to depict various uprisings as isolated events rather than an international response to the growing calamities of global capitalism.

The response from the Western left has also been muted, clearing space for the right to redirect the rage of millions disenfranchised by transnational capitalism into support for its agenda.

This year, national demonstrations driven by the global food and energy shortage have cropped up from Panama to Ecuador to Albania to Puerto Rico to Peru. As the crisis deepened, Italian Prime Minister and former banker Mario Draghi stepped down and Estonian PM Kaja Kallas, a key voice of NATO hostility against Russia, was forced to form a new coalition after resigning.

Sri Lanka was the site of 2022’s most ferocious revolt so far, and offers a preview of what may lie ahead if the Dutch government follows through with plans to gut its agricultural sector.

In July, angry crowds in the capital city of Colombo stormed the country’s Central Bank and president’s house, driving the disgraced Gotabaya Rajapaksa out of the country.

Colombo, Sri Lanka right now. The Presidential Palace has been stormed, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa is said to have fled. Unbelievable scenes. Live reports on @IndiaToday: https://t.co/p6JV6FzCub pic.twitter.com/8zlJdBfN2P

— Shiv Aroor (@ShivAroor) July 9, 2022

Among the protesters’ grievances was a failed scheme by Rajapaska to make Sri Lanka the world’s first 100% organic farming nation. As part of the initiative, Sri Lanka temporarily banned chemical fertilizers in April 2021. The restrictions swiftly devastated nearly 2 million Sri Lankan farmers who account for a full 10% of the country’s economy, turning the country’s food sovereign economy upside down.

Now, instead of producing enough rice to feed its citizens and export around the world, Sri Lanka must import the staple. Meanwhile, a staggering drop-off in tea production has cost its economy around $425 million in export revenue. Rajapaska’s artificially engineered food shortage has plunged over half-a-million Sri Lankans into poverty.

While Sri Lankans suffered, Rajapaska’s fertilizer ban won plaudits from supposed socially responsible investor groups; one praised his government for “taking up sustainability and ESG (environmental, social and corporate governance) issues as its top priority.”

The World Health Organization’s demand for Covid-19 lockdowns further decimated Sri Lanka’s economy. By closing its borders to outside travel and restricting the movement of its domestic population throughout 2020 and 2021, Sri Lanka’s government wiped out some 200,000 jobs provided by its tourism sector. (The lockdowns were game-planned months before the pandemic began, during an October 2019 tabletop simulation called Event 201 that counted the Gates Foundation and World Economic Forum among its sponsors).

Covid lockdowns are among most overlooked factor in Sri Lanka’s collapse: “The World Bank estimates 500,000 people have fallen below the poverty line since the beginning of the pandemic, the equivalent of five years’ progress in fighting poverty…” https://t.co/e75jpQv7Ci https://t.co/tKFNQFFxL9

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) July 11, 2022

Now that Rajapaska is out of office, Sri Lankan protesters have turned their attention to new interim President Ranil Wickremesinghe, a World Economic Forum (WEF) Agenda Contributor who authored a widely ridiculed article for the group in 2018: “This is How I Will Make My Country Rich by 2025.”

US-European sanctions on Russia accelerate cost of living crisis

The US and EU-led economic sanctioning of Russia, one of the world’s top exporters of grain, fertilizer, oil, and gas, has only worsened the economic crisis unfolding around the world. In the face of the harsh new reality, the billionaire-backed “green” network has refused to shift from its plan for a rapid transformation of food systems.

Ursula von der Leyen, the World Economic Forum agenda contributor who heads the European Commission, used her appearance at the WEF’s May 2022 gathering to proclaim that “we must accelerate our green energy transition” as supplies of Russian oil and gas dry up.

RT @wef: .@vonderleyen says that Russia cutting off energy supplies to countries such as Bulgaria, Poland and Finland, has only accelerated the need for the transition to greener methods of power. Watch live: https://t.co/NL8nR33Rro @EU_Commission #wef22 pic.twitter.com/aqk3UUjXRR

— Ashirvad Lobo (@AshirvadLobo) May 24, 2022

Back in von der Leyen’s home country of Germany, however, the government has been forced to bring coal-fired power plants back online to make up for the lack of Russian fuel, severely undercutting its climate agenda.

Germany’s sanctioning of Russia has also played a major role in turning the country from a net exporter of grains to a net importer in just a few years.

“Not only is Germany not feeding the rest of the world,” Christian Westbrook, a farmer and host of the popular Ice Age Farmer broadcast, told The Grayzone, “they are competing to get the grains that should be coming out of other net exporters. Some countries for example, such as Kazakhstan, Moldova see that there are these problems with the natural gas supply, they get into protectionist mode and say, ‘Okay, we’re gonna stop exporting our grains. We’re holding on to what we have created.’ This is why grain prices have shot up to record levels.”

The looming shortages have prompted German Interior Minister Nancy Faesser to warn that “radical protests” could sweep the country this Winter. Similarly, the neoliberal Economist magazine predicted that “a wave of unrest is coming” due to “soaring food and fuel prices.”

Though the EU temporarily paused its “Farm to Fork” sustainability effort in response to the acute resource crisis, Germany’s Social Democratic-Green governing coalition has insisted on maintaining a handful of the program’s restrictions.

In Canada, meanwhile, the Liberal government of Prime Minister and World Economic Forum Agenda Contributor Justin Trudeau has proposed nitrogen emissions reduction targets almost identical to those that provoked the Dutch farmers’ revolt. As food shortages intensify on a global scale, Trudeau’s proposal has led Canadian farmers to publicly ponder whether their government is deliberately worsening the crisis.

“The fact that this is going on around the world gives us the sort of idea that this isn’t an organic process,” Westbrook observed. “It’s just like COVID, when all the nations around the world went exactly the same route. Sri Lanka did the same thing and now they’re collapsing completely… So these are bad decisions that are being made around the world, almost in unison right now.”

The latest phase of a “Great Reset”?

The elite and corporate-backed “transformation” of food systems contains unmistakable echoes of the agenda Klaus Schwab favorably described as a “Great Reset,” and whose goals, according to his World Economic Forum, include building a “new social contract.”

The WEF formalized its concept of a Great Reset at the dawn of the Covid-19 pandemic, issuing a call “for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the direct consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.”

In turn, governments around the globe imposed sweeping restrictions that accelerated the digitalization of social life, education, work, and access to society. Tech and pharmaceutical industry “stakeholders” raked in previously unimaginable riches as a result, while pandemic restrictions ruined the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions, particularly in the global South.

If COVID-19 was the springboard for a so-called Great Reset, the planned transformation of global food systems appears to be its next phase. And those with the power to affect such radical changes are explicit in their aims.

As Schwab stated at the World Food Day Ceremony at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in October 2021, “As we get back on our feet after the COVID crisis, we need to rebuild in a way that is healthier, more sustainable. The pandemic has underscored the need to retool the entire food system.”

“This pandemic has provided the opportunity for a reset,” Canadian PM and WEF contributor Justin Trudeau told a UN conference in September 2020. “This is our chance to accelerate our pre-pandemic efforts to reimagine economic systems that actually address global challenges like inequality, poverty and climate change.”

“[COVID-19] is certainly a major crisis, but it also offers us a unique opportunity,” none other than Dutch PM Mark Rutte emphasized. “Now is the time to make the changes we need to build a climate resilient world… and to achieve progress towards the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.” Rutte subsequently linked sustainable food security to climate action when pledging money to CGIAR, a Bill Gates-backed agricultural hub.

But the ruling elite are not the only ones making the connection between Covid and food systems. As the “reset” shifts into higher gear, Dutch farmers cite the Canadian Freedom Trucker Convoy as an inspiration for their movement. Outside the Dutch Embassy in Ottawa this July, many Canadian convoy participants gathered to show solidarity with the farmers.

As a billionaire-backed network advances its blueprint for a “transformation” of food systems across the globe, an anti-“new normal” populism is rising alongside it.

“Protesting is the only way,” said Dutch farmer Ingrid de Sain. “We have to hope that with protesting, we can save our own lives. Yes, we want to take care of nature. Yes, we want to take care of the climate. But we also want to be farmers. And no one, not even our government, can take that away from us.”

thegrayzone.com

International Man: Last year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and more than 130 countries agreed to set a minimum global corporate tax rate of 15%.

What’s your take on this push for global taxation?

Doug Casey: They say only two things in the world are inevitable: death and taxes. Both evils, to be avoided. With technology developing at its current pace, let’s discuss the inevitability of death another time. But, unlike death, taxes aren’t part of the cosmic firmament. They’re neither necessary nor desirable.

Let’s go back to the basics, define the word in question, and look at the moral concepts that surround the subject.

What is taxation? It’s actually theft. Why do I say that?

If you look up the dictionary definition of theft, it says, “the act of stealing, specifically the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.”

There is no clause that says, “unless you’re the government, then it’s taxation and not theft anymore.” Theft is theft, even if you and a few associates set yourselves up as the government and decide to call it something else. It’s still destructive, criminal, and immoral, even if you decide the theft is for a “good” purpose.

The ideal in a moral society is voluntarism. Coercion is kept to a minimum. It certainly isn’t institutionalized and made part of the cultural fabric. If funds are needed or wanted, no one has a right to hold a gun to someone else’s head and steal them.

How you think and feel about the subject of taxation is a reflection of your worldview, your ethical makeup, and your essential character. Do you prefer voluntary exchange or coercion? Of course, coercion is the essence of government. That’s why government should be limited to the greatest degree possible.

In that light, it’s very disturbing that 130 national governments have already endorsed the notion of a 15% minimum tax. Why aren’t they, instead, talking about a 15% maximum tax?

If this destructive idea is implemented, at best, we’re going to wind up another layer of bureaucracy to administer worldwide pork barrel spending. Those who are already rich, the politically connected, and the apparatchiks will be huge beneficiaries. Society at large will suffer a big drop in the standard of living.

This trend is evil, destructive, and unnecessary. It should be fought against, not just because it will slow, distort, or even destroy the world economy. Taxes degrade everything, as does any form of theft. But taxes shouldn’t be fought with practical or economic arguments; they should be fought primarily on an ethical and a moral basis.

International Man: So far, the US government hasn’t signed on to the OECD deal even though Secretary of Treasury Janet Yellen has strongly supported the creation of a minimum global corporate tax rate.

Do you think American companies and citizens will eventually be under the yoke of a global taxation regime?

Doug Casey: Yes. There’s always been a move towards world government on the part of a certain type of person—the kind who thinks they know what’s best for everyone else. Busybodies who are willing to use force to ensure you do what they think is right. It’s a disastrous idea. These people are the enemies of individualism, liberty, free markets, and Western values in general. They’re actually antihuman.

The ideal isn’t one world government but the opposite. Something as close as we can get to seven billion individual governments where everyone is self-governing. Or at least a world with thousands of small and relatively powerless states—Monacos, Lichtensteins, Dubais, and Hong Kongs. The problem is that government is about coercion, and in a peaceful civil society, you want to limit coercion as much as possible. You don’t want to elevate a local bully’s coercion up to a national level and then, God forbid, a world level.

The people we now have in Washington, the Bidenistas, don’t want just a national stage; they want a world stage for themselves. People who want to control other people often start out as nobodies running for school council. Then they move up to becoming aldermen, then county commissioners, and state representatives. They’re little people with grandiose ambitions, interested in power and telling other people what to do.

It’s natural that the most power-grabbing and venal types are most supportive of international tax initiatives and world government. Janet Yellen? An incompetent nothing/nobody, living proof of the Peter principle and affirmative action. In a depoliticized world, she wouldn’t have risen beyond slicing mortadella behind a deli counter.

International Man: It may start as a global minimum corporate tax. However, what do you think the chances are that it will expand to a worldwide minimum income tax for individuals? Perhaps a global VAT (Value Added Tax) and wealth tax are in the cards too.

Doug Casey: We have to remember that, long ago, when the US was actually an exceptional country, it had no tax. There was no national tax of any type, only import duties, and some excise taxes. Then, as the US mutated into a multicultural domestic empire, hundreds of taxes were imposed to finance it. The income tax is the biggest, of course, followed by Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. With annual Federal deficits now over a trillion and going to two or three trillion as the Greater Depression deepens, you can count on both a national VAT and a wealth tax in the US.

The international agency that they’ll have to set up to monitor the proposed 15% minimum tax will be in a perfect position to push for an international income, VAT, and wealth taxes as well. The UN has been plumping for them for years.

As I’ve often said, there are two types of people in the world: People who like to control physical reality and build things. And people who like to control other people. They’re the kind who go into government and push these ideas.

International Man: Historically, certain jurisdictions have always been willing to accept people and companies looking to escape confiscatory taxation in their home countries.

With most of the world turning into a “tax hell,” what are your thoughts on the future of tax havens?

Doug Casey: It’s absolutely true that the whole world is going in the wrong direction from the point of view of individual liberty and personal freedom.

There are very few places where you can hide. All the great tax havens have rolled over. Although Switzerland withstood being surrounded by Nazi Germany, it’s now little better than any other country in the world when it comes to privacy or avoiding taxes. Europe has been totally conquered by socialist and fascist ideologies.

Uruguay has transformed from being the Switzerland of South America to just another little country bullied by globalists. That happened largely because of pressure from the US, Argentina, and supranational organizations like the OECD, the IMF, and the UN.

The Orient is probably the healthiest horse on the way to the fiscal slaughterhouse because people there have a long-standing cultural tradition of putting their families way before their governments and viewing their governments as dangerous predators.

The power grab that materialized with the COVID hysteria is very disturbing. It’s allowed the World Health Organization, the CDC, and similar bureaucracies to catapult themselves into prominence and power. There’s definitely a trend for NGOs—there are now hundreds of them—to be taken seriously and compete with governments in playing big shot.

At the moment, the US is the only country in the world that taxes its citizens based on nationality, not residence. Even if an American leaves the country and never comes back, he has to file and pay income tax. It’s a huge disadvantage to be a US citizen in today’s world. But other countries—like France, Germany, and Canada seem to be moving in the same direction. The trend is not good.

International Man: Ironically enough, even while the “elite” and top-level politicians promote a regime of global taxation for the plebs, they’re known to use offshore accounts to take advantage of tax havens.

What do you think about this?

Doug Casey: I think you’re referring to the Panama Papers scandal from about 2016. Officials from various countries were using what little remains of international privacy to shield themselves from their own governments.

A word on government employees and politicians—even if they’re charming and sometimes say things that you like. They’re people who like to control other people and, as such, they are basically criminal personalities. They’re not the best and the brightest, as they portray themselves and as their lapdog media show them. They’re simply parasites who would much rather tax other people than produce real wealth themselves. They’re not your friends.

We saw it most graphically in the Soviet Union. On top, you had what were known as the nomenklatura. They got all the privileges, lived in the mansions, and were, in effect, royalty. Surrounding and supporting them were the apparatchiks, who crunched the numbers, implemented the laws, and did what they were told. Nameless and soulless middle managers. In Nazi Germany, Adolf Eichmann is a perfect example—better known than a Soviet equivalent because Hannah Arendt used him to explain the banality of evil after he was hung by the Israelis. 95% of the people everywhere, however, just remain cogs in the wheel, what Marxist/Leninists like to call the “masses.”

The world is moving in the direction of the old Soviet Union, although the Soviet Union itself is dead.

Some of us are more independent than others, but the fact is that none of us can really survive on our own. We’re essentially herd animals, and there’s no way around it. And although technology has always been the friend of the individual in the long run—early on, any new technology tends to work against free agents. Why? Because the State gets hold of it and uses it first. Gunpowder eventually worked to liberate the individual—but not at first.

So far, the issue is in doubt with the computer. On the plus side, there are things like Bitcoin. On the minus side, the computer has enabled the social credit system in China. We’re likely to see a worldwide social credit system. Maybe there will be no place to hide.

On the other hand, the whole system worldwide is becoming unsustainable because of all the distortions, misallocations of capital, and antagonisms that these people and the system have created. Resentment is seething just under the surface with large numbers of people.

I don’t doubt that the world is heading to a Great Reset, as those horrible people at the WEF like to term it. Maybe Covid 2.0 will set it off. Maybe the Greater Depression will. Perhaps climate change hysteria will get out of control. Maybe something resembling World War III will. Maybe mass migrations will. Maybe some population control movement will. Perhaps all these things at once. But we’re likely to have a genuine global Great Reset.

Though, I don’t think the Great Reset will work out as neatly as Klaus Schwab and the Elite hope. Because if we keep moving in the current direction, civilization itself could collapse. Hopefully, it will just be a rough patch towards the continued Ascent of Man.

internationalman.com