The Davos Forum, Prince Charles and Other Globalists Want a Post-COVID “Reset” of the Economy
“Nothing will ever be the same again”: how many times have we not heard this at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic? The “post-‘COVID” world, the political and media establishment repeated, should find a “new normal”. That is indeed what they are establishing: easy travel, warm interpersonal relationships, large gatherings, individual liberties, and even simple handshakes are supposed to give way to long-term social distancing, burdensome rules, and potentially drastic surveillance. But this is only part of the picture. The World Economic Forum – of the famous Davos globalist meetings – in collaboration with Prince Charles of England and the International Monetary Fund, has launched a telltale initiative that unveils some of the goals being implemented thanks to the fear of the Chinese coronavirus. Called “The Great Reset,” it seeks to “rebuild” the global economic and social system to make it more “sustainable.”
They present this top-to-bottom upheaval as necessary because of the collapse of the world economy, itself the result of widespread confinement.
The promoters themselves present the initiative on YouTube with a short video (here).
The idea has received the full support of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, former President of the Socialist International from 1999 to 2005.
“The Great Reset”: a fundamentally revolutionary undertaking
Technically, to reset is to set something back to an initial state: in computer language, the word refers to the action of erasing all software and data from a hard drive and reformatting it for a fresh start. Transposed to human activity, a reset means precisely a revolution: a return to the origins, a profound transformation affecting everything that until then was commonly thought and done. “From the past, let’s make a clean slate!”
For decades, the World Economic Forum, founded by Klaus Schwab in 1971, has been bringing together heads of state, billionaires and top business leaders every year to reflect on economic and so-called governance issues. The aim is to work towards a common goal: extending global free trade, establishing common global rules to replace sovereign decision-making at the national level, and promoting non-discrimination “to transform economies and societies,” as the organizers of the Davos meetings put it.
The World Economic Forum in Davos organizes globalism
For a long time, the annual meetings in Davos were held very discreetly, even secretly. That has slowly changed as the objectives of the World Economic Forum have become part of political and media mainstream. The agenda and list of participants for the main meetings – including regional ones held at other times of the year, particularly in China – are now available online, even though it is said that many discussions are held and decisions made outside the conferences and meetings broadcast on the Internet.
The 2021 edition, devoted to the “Great Reset,” promises to be quite different. While a physical meeting will be held as usual in the Swiss ski resort of Davos (no one enters Davos at the time of the Forum without an official invitation), this time there will be global online participation in a virtual forum gathering many international “stakeholders” (which we will discuss later), and especially young people. They claim that young people will have a decisive voice in the world to come. Group dynamic is very much in evidence.
Dialogues on the Great Economic and Global Reset
In the months leading up to the Davos meeting in January, preparations for the event are underway through “The Great Reset Dialogues.” They are planning to hold a series of virtual meetings that promises to be very interesting, as it will allow us to find out more precisely how the globalists of the World Economic Forum want to reshape the future.
The current promoters of the Initiative are indeed globalists because that is how they present themselves. Just one example: Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, who participated in the first public presentation of the Initiative under the aegis of the World Economic Forum. He said: “I see this painful global pandemic as a complex and evolving challenge. In a connected and interdependent world, a complex and adaptive challenge cannot be met by individual countries – it can only be met through … collective action and global cooperation.”
Green economy, de-carbonization, and the fight against inequalities: the Great Reset is ready
That corresponds perfectly with Antonio Guterres’ wish to see 10% of the world’s GDP used to respond to the economic and health repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic with “global” solutions for the rebirthing of society, as he puts it.
If we consider what we already know about the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset Initiative,” which grew out of the Forum’s COVID platform for action, it would appear that the game is already over. “Green Economy,” “decarbonization,” “fight against inequalities,” “stakeholder capitalism,” sustainable development goals (UN SDGs for 2030) are recurrent terms in the literature presenting the Initiative on the Davos Forum. None of these terms is new or original: in fact, the only thing that has changed the situation is the pandemic (and the confinement to which it has given rise), used as an engine for change. In this case, it is not the disease that is interesting as a lever, but the global economic crash that accompanied it “thanks” to confinement.
As for the Great Reset itself, it was being discussed before the Chinese virus left Wuhan. On December 30, 2019, the Financial Times published a presentation on YouTube titled “Why Capitalism Needs to be Reset in 2020.” The theme is “stakeholder capitalism,” according to which “a company’s choices about people, the planet and innovation – including how it protects and applies the added value of its data – must be given more weight in capital allocation decisions” (this is how weforum.org describes it).
But it is COVID-19 that is helping to precipitate this revolution.
Prince Charles: “A golden opportunity.”
Presenting the Great Reset Initiative, of which he is one of the leading promoters, Prince Charles seemed quite satisfied with the situation: “We have a golden opportunity to get something good out of this crisis. Its unprecedented shock waves may well make people more receptive to grand visions of change,” he said.
The shock and great global fear are indeed powerful drivers.
Many such remarks are among the key quotes from the virtual online meeting at which the President of the World Economic Forum, Professor Klaus Schwab, Prince Charles and several others presented the Great Reset Initiative.
Stating that “climate change” was a far greater danger than the coronavirus pandemic, Prince Charles called for a “green recovery”: “This is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again,” he said. Using feminine pronouns for “la Planète,” which in English means “the Planet,” Charles added, “Our activities have damaged its immune system.”
The founder of the Davos Forum wants a “new social contract.”
Schwab described the current situation as a “unique window of opportunity.” We have to “build a new social contract,” he said; “we have to change our mentalities” and our “lifestyles.”
Will it be a remake of the French Revolution? Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote that man is born naturally good but corrupted by society, and society came about from a “social contract” in which laws and moral standards owe everything to the “general will” rather than to natural or divine law. What we do know is that the worst tyrannies are imposed in the name of this skillfully maneuvered “general will.”
One of the primary goals of the “Great Reset” is the “reduction of inequalities,” which in plain language means “redistributing wealth.” This idea takes for granted that inequality is evil in itself. Speaking at the virtual meeting announcing the Great Reset, Antonio Guterres said that the COVID-19 crisis should provide a response to the “unsustainable levels of inequality and the anarchy of cyberspace.”
Carbon tax and renewable energy are high on the Great Reset agenda. Antonio Guterres cited the need to “move toward zero emissions” and to implement the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These SDGs, with their socialist assumptions of global redistribution of wealth and eco-radicalism, call for “universal access to sexual and reproductive health, and reproductive rights.” In UN jargon, this includes contraception and abortion, not least because the human population is seen as the main enemy of nature and “biodiversity.”
Kristalina Georgieva, the Bulgarian
IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva – who grew up in Communist Bulgaria – has promoted the same “green” approach. As the IMF is expected to provide $100 billion in emergency assistance during the coronavirus crisis, and “170 countries” will likely end up with a shrinking economy by the end of 2020 compared to the beginning of the year, Georgieva said: “We are seeing a massive injection of fiscal stimulus… But it is crucial that this leads to a greener, fairer, and smarter world in the future.”
In other words, financial assistance must be used and distributed in a way that favors environmentally correct enterprises. The new IMF Managing Director (who replaced Christine Lagarde at the end of 2019 thanks to the initial support of Emmanuel Macron) added that there must be “incentives to reduce carbon emissions,” taking advantage of “low oil prices” to add “a carbon price incentive.” “We need a Great Reset, not a great step backward,” she concluded.
For the Great Reset, Communist China has a front-row seat
Perhaps the most remarkable speaker at the virtual launch of the Great Reset was Ma Jun, from Communist China’s Green Finance Committee. He is also a special advisor to the Governor of the People’s Bank of China, controlled by the Chinese Communist Party, and was introduced before his speech at the virtual launch of the Great Reset as a “member of the NPC” – the National People’s Congress. Theoretically, it is the highest political authority in China. However, it is the rubber-stamp assembly that approves the wishes of President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party, omnipresent in the machinery of power.
Ma Jun insisted that the post-COVID recovery must be “greener than any previous recovery,” with funding for “green projects” that must reach a “higher proportion than it has ever been in history.”
Ma also said that, “the recovery in consumption must be green.” “Governments could draw up a list of green consumer goods, and these should be given priority on the list of subsidies and consumer coupons,” he suggested.
Noting that many migrant workers have lost their jobs in China as a result of the pandemic, he added, “Instead of paying them unemployment benefits, we should ask them to plant trees and pay them for it.”
As for projects that would not be “green” per se, Ma Jun proclaimed that they should be subject to “new regulations” requiring them to comply with “strict environmental standards,” including a new binding obligation to “publish information” on their compliance with these standards.
Note that Ma Jun made these recommendations not only for China (which is the world’s largest carbon emitter, with new coal-fired power plants planned until 2030) but for the whole world.
Ma Jun was echoing the wish of Bernard Looney, the CEO of British Petroleum, who stated during the same virtual conference that “any recovery should be accompanied by environmental conditions.” This will be equivalent to letting die many non-compliant companies severely handicapped by the confinement. By the way, Looney admires China: “China’s recovery could be the locomotive that will take us out of the crisis,” he said.
Post-COVID globalism sacrifices to gender ideology
Back to the World Economic Forum’s publications on the COVID-19 crisis and the right way out, one should not forget that gender ideology is also part of the eco-socialist package. In an article by John Miller titled “Great Reset: Why LGBT+ inclusion is the secret to cities’ post-pandemic success,” weforum.org asserts that “a strong positive correlation exists between LGBT+ inclusion and economic resilience. In particular, cities that embrace diversity may reap an ‘inclusion dividend’ as they begin to rebuild their economies,” explains the commentator.
While the crisis is “threatening to roll back decades of progress in the fight against poverty,” he argues that “the inclusion of LGBT people” will allow for a faster recovery, citing “Open for Business,” a coalition of businesses that promote “LGBT+ equality.”
“This is a significant finding: a one-point increase in social acceptance suggests a three-point increase in that economy’s economic resilience index, even when controlling for GDP per capita. Could LGBT+ inclusion be a secret ingredient for economic resilience?” summarized John Miller. He suggests that “openness” and “innovation” are linked to the acceptance of homosexual and transgender lifestyles.
“Now is the time to be embracing LGBT+ communities, not stigmatizing them. Creating inclusive societies isn’t just the right thing to do; as the evidence shows, it’s an important part of an economic strategy focused on resilience and recovery,” Miller concludes.
This is a clear example of what the COVID-19 crisis serves to promote.
Translated by the staff of Fatima Today.
© Reproduction is authorized provided the source is acknowledged.