The world is apparently descending into chaos. With events such as the recent collapse of SVB bank adding to the problems allegedly caused by the pseudopandemic and the war in Ukraine, it is easy to feel overwhelmed.
Only a few years ago it was widely recognised that, by nearly every measure, global life outcomes were all improving. Suddenly, we’re all haunted by the spectres of conquest, war, famine and death.
rom the cost of living, energy and food crisis, to the threat of a widening international conflict, a climate disaster and now global financial collapse, we seem to be gripped by a global polycrisis. If there is a polycrisis it is entirely man-made.
The good news is we can build something better if we have the will. We are many and we are powerful, while those who seek to exploit crisis to control us are neither.
We just need to understand the problem: our trust in their authority.
The Alleged Polycrisis
There is no doubt that international chaos is the result of the deliberate actions of policy makers. The only question is if chaos is the intended outcome of their decisions? All the evidence suggests that it is.
We can reasonably ask what purpose these so-called “leaders” serve? It seems those we mistakenly trust to make decisions for us are either useless or mendacious.
As pointed out by John Titus, there is no honesty about the true nature of the real global risks we face. The so-called World “Economic” Forum (WEF) released its farcically named Global Risks Report 2023 in which it listed every single risk it could imagine apart from the banking and financial risks—about which it is supposedly “expert”—that really does threaten to destabilise the planet. This risk too is entirely man-made and is the result of the monetary policies of private central banks, notably the Fed and the Bank For International Settlements (BIS).
The WEF, which describes itself as “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation,” is among the stalwarts of the Establishment that will never disclose the true “risks.” Prattling on about the “polycrisis” it want’s us all to fear, the WEF, acting as saviour, offers its proposed solution:
The sheer scale of humanitarian and environmental crises showcases broader paralysis and ineffectiveness of key multilateral mechanisms in addressing crises facing the global order, spiralling downwards into a self-perpetuating and compounding polycrises. [. . .] As global risks become more intertwined, preparedness also needs to become more of a shared responsibility between sectors, with local and national governments, business and civil society each playing to their strengths, rather than traditional models of governments addressing market failures when they occur. For example, private-public partnerships can help close key gaps in innovation, financing, governance and implementation of preparedness measures for emerging and well established risks. [. . .] [M]ost global risks are ‘owned’ by no one and sit outside the direct control of any one public or private sector entity – meaning many global risks are most effectively tackled through coordinated, global action. Respondents to the GRPS [the WEF’s own “risk” report] shared their views. [. . .] The majority consider national governments, multi-country efforts and international organizations to be the most relevant stakeholders for governing these global risks. [. . .]
Unsurprisingly perhaps, the WEF has concluded that the polycrisis it has made up means that “traditional models of government” are no longer of any use. Instead, multilateral mechanisms, via organisation like the UN and its various agencies, such as the WHO and the Wold Bank, must hand global governance over to a global public-private partnership (G3P). The G3P thus affords global authority to banks and other private corporations which, the WEF tells us, will “govern these global risks.”
The good news for the WEF is that every one of its government “partners” agrees. For example, as acknowledged by Presidents Putin and Xi:
The sides [Russian and Chinese governments] call on all States [. . .] to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role. [. . .] The G20 format as an important forum for discussing international economic cooperation issues and anti-crisis response measures, [. . .] in such areas as the international fight against epidemics, world economic recovery, inclusive sustainable development, improving the global economic governance system in a fair and rational manner to collectively address global challenges.
It seems the Russian and Chinese governments also believe in the polycrisis. They too assert that “international economic cooperation” is essential to combat the multifaceted, crisis of everything.
The G20’s discussion of “international economic cooperation issues and anti-crisis response measures” led to the 2022 Bali Leaders Declaration, which states:
We designated the G20 the premier forum for global economic cooperation, and today we reaffirm our commitment to cooperate as we, once again, address serious global economic challenges. [. . .] We met in Bali [. . .] at a time of unparalleled multidimensional crises. We have experienced the devastation brought by the Covid-19 pandemic, and other challenges including climate change, which has caused economic downturn, increased poverty, slowed global recovery, and hindered the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. [. . .] We will make public investments and structural reforms, promote private investments, and strengthen multilateral trade and resilience of global supply chains, to support long-term growth, sustainable and inclusive, green and just transitions [. . .] through a greater variety of innovative financing sources and instruments, including to catalyze private investment, to support the achievement of the SDGs.
The Bali Declaration notes the G20 commitment “to accelerate achievement of the SDGs [Sustainable Develoipment Goals].” The purpose of the WEF’s strategic partnership with the UN is to “accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”
A lot was made of the WEF’s decision to exclude Russian delegates from its meetings and formally cut ties with Russian corporations. This was essentially a PR exercise to convince people that there was some sort of disagreement between the WEF’s stakeholder capitalists and Russia’s. In truth, there is no practical “split.”
The G20’s Declaration, just like the WEF’s risk report, contends that “unparalleled multidimensional crises”—polycrisis—justifies transitioning the world to a system of public-private global governance. The Russian government played a key role in drawing up the Bali Declaration. There is absolute agreement between East and West in this regard.
This is not to suggest that there isn’t genuine disagreement between nations states, or between other G3P stakeholders for that matter. But the conflict arises as they jostle for position within one, proposed global governance system.
The G20’s Declaration enthusiastically promotes Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC):
We support continued implementation of the G20 Roadmap for Enhancing Cross-Border Payments. [. . .] We encourage central banks, other public authorities and the payments industry to continue to work collaboratively on these important initiatives. [. . .] We also welcome the joint report by the BIS [Bank for International Settlements] CPMI, BISIH [BIS Inovation Hubs], IMF, and World Bank on options for access to and interoperability of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) for cross-border payments. [. . .] We welcome continued exploration of how CBDCs could potentially be designed to facilitate cross-border payments, while preserving the stability and integrity of the international monetary and financial system.
Unlike the entirely fabricated “multidimensional” – “polycrisis,” CBDC presents a real risk to humanity. The solution to the concocted problem is the actual threat.
Interoperable CBDC “cross border payments” will ensure a single, centrally controlled system of programmable money. Able to determine every aspect of our use of CBDC, if we adopt it, the global network of international bankers that steers the G3P will control our lives.
Our best bet appears to be to protest, lobby or press for reform as best we can. Unfortunately, as we are seeing in France at the moment, public anger at politicians, who continue to make policy decisions in the interests of no one but the parasite class, threatens to boil over. Our only other seemingly available option is to elect another bunch of idiot puppets who will also serve the parasite class and the G3P.
Like the cave dwellers watching shadows on the wall, we are transfixed by controlled illusions leaving us blind to reality. We will never see what is in front of our eyes unless we look in the right direction.
The Real Threat
[. . .] peace and prosperity cannot be achieved without partnerships involving governments, international organizations, the business community and civil society. [. . .] The business of the United Nations involves the businesses of the world.
In 2005, the UN specialist agency, the WHO, published its Connecting For Health strategy document. It described the impact of the Millennium Development Goals—subsequently re-branded Sustainable Development Goals—on the international policy framework for public health provision:
These changes occurred in a world of revised expectations about the role of government: that the public sector has neither the financial nor the institutional resources to meet their challenges, and that a mix of public and private resources is required. [. . .] Governments can create an enabling environment, and invest in equity, access and innovation.
The revised role of governments, decreed at the global governance level by the UN, meant that they were no longer leading anything. The traditional policy-makers weren’t making policy anymore; other G3P partners were. These new policy makers were called “stakeholders.”
Stakeholder capitalism was pioneered by the current executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Klaus Schwab, in the 1970s. It was promoted as so-called responsible capitalism suggesting that multinational corporations, such as international banks, should be empowered to act as “trustees” of society.
In “What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want,” Schwab outlined the WEF’s crazy idea:
Stakeholder capitalism, a model I first proposed a half-century ago, positions private corporations as trustees of society, and is clearly the best response to today’s social and environmental challenges.
Schwab’s conspicuous use of the word “trustee” implies a specific legal interpretation:
The person appointed, or required by law, to execute a trust; one in whom an estate, interest, or power is vested, under an express or implied agreement to administer or exercise it for the benefit or to the use of another.”
While we are all distracted the never ending tripe we are force-fed about the polycrisis, global governance has firmly pivoted towards “stakeholder capitalism.” Government are merely the subservient “partners” in this model.
As evidenced by the Bali declaration—alongside numerous other documents and high profile political statements—all governments are willing to be relegated to the role of G3P “enablers.” They all embrace the new model of global governance, no matter what ludicrous claptrap we are told about the promise of a “multipolar world order.”
Faced with this problem, what are we to do? Are we destined simply to be cattle on the G3P’s tax farm?
Perhaps not: if there is one overriding fear that fills the nightmares of the parasite class, its stakeholders and political minions, it is the loss of our “trust.”
The theme of the the WEF’s 2022 Davos soirée was “Working Together, Restoring Trust.” At the gathering, the German Chancellor Olaf Sholz, speaking on behalf of the G3P rather than the German people, said that “restoring trust is our goal.”
The leading globalist thinks tanks are obsessed with the issue of our “trust.” The UK branch of the Carneigie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), which once opined that war was the best way to alter the lives of an entire people, bemoaning the loss of public trust, said:
Trust is the foundation of a functioning democratic system. [. . .] [I]n order for people to feel positive about participating in democratic processes and decision making, it is essential to have public trust at all levels.
Governments too are terrified that we will no longer “trust” them. The reason they are desperate to censor the internet is that they fear the public’s ability to openly share information. Any information that questions the state—or the ruling parasite establishment—is labelled “misinformation” or “disinformation.”
Freedom of speech has become “information pollution” as intergovernmental organisations, such as the EU, seek to shut down the free and open exchange of ideas and information. Nothing could be less “democratic,” but these dangerous toadies are perfectly willing to defy all democratic ideals while having the temerity to claim they are defending democracy.
It is a sick joke:
Democracies around the world are facing a proliferation of false information, which may have the potential to destabilise their democratic institutions, and undermine the trust of citizens. To address misinformation, disinformation and foreign interference, different policy responses are required.
These lunatics seriously want us to believe that we should allow our representative governments to define the truth. They will decree what information is false and what isn’t.
All of this bilge about “disinformation” is itself “dezinformatsiya.” Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with our trust in “democratic institutions.” Democracy has everything to do with our control of the decision making process.
Alleged “representative democracy” has always been based upon the idea that we hand that control over to those who lead these “institutions.” Representative democracy is the antithesis of “democracy.”
It’s the Trust In Authority, Stupid!
We are being farmed by a parasitic bunch of robber barons and grifters whose whole empire is built upon one underlying premise: we trust their authority.
Perhaps it is fairer to say that most of us trust our “representative’s” alleged authority. As long as we continue to labour under the illusion that we can elect “new leaders” we will remain lost. In reality we can’t. The parasite establishment of stakeholders (G3P), that actually defines policy, isn’t elected by anyone.
In 1992, the media commentator and Clinton election campaign manager, James Carville, came up with the sound-bite “the economy, stupid.” This has become the widely paraphrased saying, ‘it’s the economy, stupid.’
Carville’s truism is now used to illustrate that, regardless of other domestic and foreign policy concerns, what really matter to people—us—is the economy. It is the wellspring of our polity.
For the parasite class led G3P, the facade of their power is maintained only as long as we trust it. Without any condescension, we must equally recognise the wellspring of that power.
It’s the trust in authority, stupid!
The whole point of CBDC, Digital ID, biosecurity and censorship is to entrap us in a system that has tangible power. Should the G3P succeed then our “trust” will matter less. We will face very real limitations once the global digital surveillance state is installed.
We are not quite at that point yet, and there is no reason why we should ever be. In order to avert enslavement the change we need to make is first and foremost psychological.
We have to wake up and realise that nothing any government ever does is for our benefit. We have no reason at all to trust anything governments say and we need to stop believing their propaganda.
G3P power only exists because we imagine that it does. Based upon this misapprehension, we consequently behave as instructed by its representatives. The moment we realise, en masse, that its claimed authority is a charade, that alleged “power” evaporates in an instant.
All the G3P is left with then is violence and simple mathematics dictates that it cannot succeed. This is the real reason why the parasites are so fearful of loosing our “trust.” The G3P is frantically exploiting the fabled polycrisis in a desperate effort to lock us up before we come to see its “authority” scam.
Despite apparent animosities, all governments agree upon one, single model of global governance. And it is this which represents the greatest “risk” to humanity. No “authority” will ever provide us with a solution because “authority” is the problem.
Forget about the polycrisis. It’s a propaganda device.
Millions of us protested against the Iraq War, millions more later protested against the imposition of lockdown restrictions. The only difference between the two mass uprisings is that the Iraq War protests received relatively accurate news coverage. These protests didn’t make any difference because the parasite class don’t get killed in wars and don’t endure poverty.
While we should use all peaceable means at our disposal to maintain what pressure we can, it is hopelessly unrealistic to expect the political process or protests to deliver any real change. Whenever protests become violent all it achieves is to give the state an opportunity to claim legitimacy for its crack downs and impositions of martial law.
We don’t need to engage in bloody revolution to build a better future. We just need to realise the true nature of our immense power.
There is no single solution but if we, for example, understand the true meaning of democracy and exercise the power of jury annulment; if we grasp the real intention of our constitutions and establish our own common law courts if necessary; if we exercise consumer choice and abandon convenience in favour of actively pursuing ethical choices, such as insisting upon cash only payment, and if we consciously focus upon the decisions we make every day, consistently moving towards freedom and away from state control, we can stop G3P plans in their tracks.
To do this we will have to finally accept that obedience is not a virtue. Obedience to authority is not a new problem, but the scale of ambition and the technological capability of the parasite class is.
Approximately 500 years ago, Etienne de La Boétie explored the “Politics of Obedience” in his Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Speaking about our obedience to authority, he wrote:
To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? [. . .] They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde [. . .], but from a single little man. [. . .] Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted? [. . .] [S]uch an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? [. . .] What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?
Obedience is a truly “monstrous vice.” It allows us to indulge in the luxury of convenience and to renege on our duty to take responsibility for our own lives and actions. “obedience” prefers instead to devolve rights, and thus decision making, to others.
We are going to have to make sacrifices if we want to avoid living under the yoke of a G3P global governance tyranny. But we have long suffered the destructive rule of government. We can and we must construct a better society based upon the principles of Natural Law and spontaneous order. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Etienne de La Boétie solution was as true then as it is now: Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed.