“Today, we are inclined to see resurgent tribalism as the great danger of our fragmenting world. It is, but it is not the only danger… A global culture is a universal culture, and universal cultures, though they have brought about great good, have also done immense harm… It is a mistake that has been made several times in the history of the West, and we are in the process of making it again in the form of globalization…
“My argument is… that universalism is an inadequate response to tribalism, and is no less dangerous… From this flowed some of the great crimes of history, some under religious auspices, others–the French and Russian Revolutions, for example–under the banner of secular philosophies, but both under the enchantment of Plato’s ghost.”
~ Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, in his book The Dignity of Difference, published in 2003.
In November 11th, 2016, the World Economic Forum posted an article on their website, talking about what has become known as the Great Reset and making predictions for the world population in the year 2030, stating that “You will own nothing and you will be happy.” The article further went on to predict a society of high technology including AIs and zero privacy to the individual. (Source: Now is the time for a ‘great reset’ of capitalism | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)
A few years later, when the world was struck by the virus COVID-19, the World Economic Forum further issued the following statement: “There is an urgent need for global stakeholders to cooperate in simultaneously managing the COVID-19 crisis. To improve the state of the world, the World Economic Forum is starting the Great Reset initiative.”
As a conglomerate of corporate organizations among other things including policyholders and large entrepreneurs, the World Economic Forum has defined itself on it’s website as “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
In an effort of demonstrating the clout and influential muscle behind the world Economic Forum, I would like to set out a list of important agreements and partnerships, and initiatives involving the World Economic Forum:
First of all, the World Economic Forum signed the Collaboration Agreement with China on the 17th of January, 2017 in order to help move forward with and accelerate the World Economic Forum’s Fourth Industrial Revolution initiative. The World Economic Forum has defined the Fourth Industrial Revolution as “the digital revolution that has been occurring since the middle of the last century. It is characterized by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.” In another article form the World Economic Forum, it was stated that the Fourth Industrial Revolution “…Is disrupting almost every industry in every country. And the breadth and depth of these changes herald the transformation of entire systems of production, management, and governance.”(Source: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means and how to respond | World Economic Forum (weforum.org) Obviously China and the World Economic Forum seem to have believed in each others’ strengths to see through certain agendas.
Secondly, the World Economic Forum signed the Strategic Partnership Framework Agreeement with the UN on the 13th of June, 2019. “The partnership identifies six areas of focus – financing the 2030 Agenda, climate change, health, digital cooperation, gender equality and empowerment of women, education and skills – to strengthen and broaden their combined impact by building on existing and new collaborations.” UN’s Agenda 2030 is initiative of bringing about more sustainable development and to decrease the human impact on climate change around the globe.
Thirdly, once again in light of the advent of COVID-19, the World Economic Forum initiated what they called the Great Reset, which is essentially an attempt to “reset” the global economy in a more reformed, equal, and what founder and president Klaus Schwab has termed as “Stakeholder Capitalism.” In an article from December, 2020 Schwab made the following statement:
“‘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…But to uphold the principles of stakeholder capitalism, companies will need new metrics. For starters, a new measure of ‘shared value creation’ should include ‘environmental, social, and governance’ (ESG) goals as a complement to standard financial metrics…Business leaders now have an incredible opportunity. By giving stakeholder capitalism concrete meaning, they can move beyond their legal obligations and uphold their duty to society. They can bring the world closer to achieving shared goals, such as those outlined in the Paris climate agreement and the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda (UN Agenda 2030). If they really want to leave their mark on the world, there is no alternative.” (Source: What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want? by Klaus Schwab – Project Syndicate (project-syndicate.org)
While on paper the meaning tends to be somewhat vague, the implication seems to be clear–serious control from huge international corporations.
Among a vast number of other NGOs and Corporations, the World Economic Forum’s partners include Pfizer, Moderna, the British pharmaceutical Astrozeneca, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Open Society Foundations, Amazon, Google, Facebook, and a plethora of other large corporations. One thing I should wish to point out is that while some have argued that the World Economic Forum is nothing more than a meaningless “club for rich people,” it should be noted that should the World Economic Forum bring on a consolidated general agenda involving all of it’s partners, we could see an extremely powerful financial and thus influential force across the board.
It should be noted that all of the above agreements benefit and strengthen each other globally.
An economic reset would entail starting from scratch–turning the system “off and back on again” with the exception of the strongest corporations–and then shaping the future into ways in which the leading powers would wish. (With the disclaimer that surviving businesses would die out or be bought out and thus brought on board with the larger corporations on board with the above agendas).
One of the things I want to point out is that COVID-19 has been essential in accelerating each one of these global agendas, and the leaders behind these agendas are not unhappy about this. A conspiracy theorist would likely state that it was indeed, China’s intent to let the COVID virus out of the lab, to thus accelerate the above initiatives (Officially, while the virus has been traced to China, it is shrouded in mystery as to how the virus got out of hand. The Chinese government also blatantly refuses any audits or investigations into the matter).
Indeed (Without sounding like a conspiracy theorist), China has certainly made use of the crisis, as former British ambassador to China Matthew Henderson pointed out in an interview with 60 Minutes Australia.
“This is not a medical campaign to say, ‘Listen you must do as we do,’ it is a political campaign to say you are weak, your democracy doesn’t serve the right purposes. Look at America, utter horror and chaos! Look at the United Kingdom, look at some parts of Europe as well. How can you possibly say that your system is better than ours, when it is purely incapable of doing anything other than making things worse? This is a very powerful political weapon, and it’s being used very aggressively.” (Source: (30) Former diplomat to China explains the ‘weaponisation of COVID’ | 60 Minutes Australia – YouTube)
Indeed, as China continues moving forward in economic and influential gain from this situation, it will eventually come to a place to dominate politically, influencing the world to it’s own culture much like the United States has in the last several decades. While I have nothing personally against China and I would never call myself racist against Chinese culture, should Chinese political culture become a global phenomenon combined with extreme global corporate control, this would be very problematic indeed.
While each and every one of the above initiatives sounds very nice on paper, we are talking about massive changes on a global level. The one thing that each one of these initiatives have in common is that COVID-19 has accelerated their being brought into effect. The slogan, “Build Back Better” as a rallying call for the Reset has already been used by Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, and of course Justin Trudeau in his video speaking about the Reset (Source: (30) Coronavirus: Trudeau tells UN conference that pandemic provided “opportunity for a reset” – YouTube). You know the Game of Thrones saying, “Chaos is a ladder?” For the above organizations and their initiatives, COVID-19 has most definitely become a ladder.
Considering all of the initiatives that have come into play, I am beginning to believe that these initiatives are what we could very well call “global revolutions.” Such extreme changes economically, technologically and even perhaps biologically would probably end in the result that we may look back on the early 2000s as the “backwards days.” And yet, most revolutions throughout history have been extremely harmful to their participants. We might take the French, Bolchevik, and Mao’s revolutions–three revolutions full of the greatest intentions and ideals that brought so much death havoc to their populations–as examples. It is truly ironic how a revolution founded on the ideology of equality can kill so many of it’s own people. Indeed, we could even say that one of the characteristics of Hitler’s Germany was that it was built on rapid change and rebuilding itself from the ashes of World War I. In truth, the initiatives pushed by the players in this game seem to be playing a game going beyond even the very concept of imperialism. In our day and age, we tend to focus so much on imperialism coming from the nationalistic side of “my country right or wrong,” that we forget that abusive imperialism can also spring forth from the universalist ideal of “we are all one,” or “we are all in this together,” like a modern tower of Babel in which no one has a name, only an essential function to the system.
As someone with a background as a prison guard, as well as someone who has tried to apply himself to being a student of both history and current events, I believe that if things remain on their present course, that in the next few years humanity will look like inmates in a massive institutionalized structure. I remember as a guard that one particular policy was to never shake an inmate’s hand. Inmates never had any privacy, and any order from a guard that was disobeyed (No matter how worthless it might be *masks*), by policy the inmate could be written up and receive certain penalties. And of course, prisons have curfews and emergency lockdowns, as well as constant recording if not accountability of it’s population. All of this leads me to believe that this is a thinly cloaked agenda with the intent of coming to a place of complete control. And yes, a prison is a “controlled environment.”
In TED talk from March, 2015, Bill Gates spoke about what he foresaw as the “next outbreak” that was soon to be upon us. His concluding statement was, “We are running out of time.” (Source: (30) The next outbreak? We’re not ready | Bill Gates – YouTube) While in this context, given how COVID-19 has helped accelerate all of the above initiatives to these international players, there is something ominous in hearing this small concluding statement. How would he know? Research and estimation have their place in making good predictions, but truly? “We are running out of time?”
All of this and more has lead me to some questioning and skepticism about what has become known as the “cure” for COVID-19, and even skepticism about what we are told of how COVID-19 came about in the first place (Once again, Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca–the primary pharmaceutical companies who have come out with the vaccines– as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are partners of the World Economic Forum pushing the above agendas). While this implied allegation that COVID-19 could possibly have been orchestrated by the above mentioned powers may seem extreme and outlandish, in making my own personal risk assessment, I have decided not to take the vaccine, come what may, and yes, I believe that in the future we will see harsher and harsher consequences for not taking a vaccine. The Israeli government is already speaking of privileges for those who will have been vaccinated, which automatically implies certain restrictions for those who have not. (Source: Vaccinated Israelis will get ‘green passports’ waiving lockdown constraints | The Times of Israel)
Multiple doctors have proposed alternative cures for COVID-19 (Source as one example: (30) “I CAN’T KEEP DOING THIS”: Doctor pleads for review of data during COVID-19 Senate hearing – YouTube), and yet the powers that be seem to be determined to make a vaccine exclusively imperative.
I am also well aware that many rabbis are encouraging the Israeli population to take the vaccine, including Rav Shmuel Eliyahu and Rav Chaim Kanievsky. And yet, with all my respect to these great men of our generation, I cannot trust the corporate and political players who are pushing this agenda, thus I most definitely cannot trust their vaccine. Indeed, there are other rabbis in Israel and elsewhere who are very much against this vaccine Halachically.
I honestly hope and pray that I am wrong, but when I look at the overall context of events and the players involved, I believe that for anyone, alternative cures besides a vaccine are the best route.
May we all see complete healing and redemption for all of Israel and indeed, for all of the world.