by Iain Davis
A study commissioned by the global poverty action charity Oxfam [2], published in January 2021, found that this government borrowing (fiat currency created by central banks) fuelled a stock market boom that saw incredible wealth funnelled to this class. They were the real beneficiaries of so-called Quantitative Easing.
The national and global debt is a debt we owe to the hoarders of capital. This is the nature of the global economy. Seen in this context, Oxfam's findings were even more disturbing:
"While the real economy faces the deepest recession in a century....Worldwide, billionaires wealth’ increased by a staggering $3.9tn (trillion) between 18 March and 31 December 2020. Their total wealth now stands at $11.95tn, which is equivalent to what G20 governments have spent in response to the pandemic. The world’s 10 richest billionaires have collectively seen their wealth increase by $540bn over this period. The greatest economic shock since the Great Depression began to bite and the pandemic saw hundreds of millions of people lose their jobs and face destitution and hunger....It is estimated that the total number of people living in poverty could have increased by between 200 million and 500 million in 2020....The coronavirus crisis has shown us that for most of humanity there has never been a permanent exit from poverty and insecurity. Instead, at best, there has been a temporary and deeply vulnerable reprieve....It simply makes no common, moral or economic sense to allow billionaires to profit from the crisis in the face of such suffering."
The class who continue to profit from human suffering, always have. This is nothing new. As we discuss the pseudopandemic the key statement in Oxfam's report is perhaps "the real economy" - faces the deepest recession in a century.
The capital hoarding class sit as a class apart, manipulating global markets, often through orchestrating events or misreporting them for their own advantage. They have long since abandoned the "real economy" and now inhabit the realms of global capital.
They own a world debt that has surpassed $281 trillion [3], more than 250% of global GDP. Meanwhile they trade their capital in a global financial products derivatives market [4] estimated to contain between $600 trillion to more than $1 quadrillion of liabilities (10 times global GDP).
Obviously these derivative liabilities (debts) and world debt can never be repaid. Having squeezed every last drop of finance fuelled authoritarian power from the global economy, the current economic system has come to an end. It cannot continue and thus it is to be transformed. As is the monetary system.
The pseudopandemic was set as the catalyst for this transformation towards a new global economic model and the creation of a global digital currency. Both designed to further empower the hoarders as they too transition to a new form of capital. The game is still rigged but the grand chessboard has evolved.
While the lives of the general population have improved, thanks to economic development, the old global economy disproportionately benefited the hoarders of capital. Now the pseudopandemic has expedited the reduction of living standards for the many while enabling a power grab by the few.
The population of the Earth will continue to feed the new global economy but will suffer for it. While COVID 19 presents no health threat to children the pseudopandemic response, transitioning us to the new normal economy, certainly does.
A recent study commissioned by the U.N [5] estimates that disruption to services has already led to the deaths of 228,000 children in South Asia. Though they call this the indirect effect of COVID 19 rather than use the appropriate term "policy."
Those enforcing this transformation upon us are not "the elite." They are the parasite class. This term more accurately describes how they acquired their wealth and, through it, their authority. The core conspirators are members of the parasite class.
The parasite class do not hoard capital by virtue of their own hard work. This is not to say that they are not highly motivated or industrious. Many undoubtedly are.
Nonetheless, they continually grow their vast fortunes by milking the global economic and monetary systems which were developed by their predecessors specifically to increase and consolidate their progeny's authority and consequent power. They capitalise upon an advantage hard baked into an unjust global economy which is nothing like a free market.
The parasite class are the preordained winners by virtue of the monopolies they control. Competition only exists within the boundaries of the regulations they define. The wrong "competitor" doesn't stand a chance.
This system of authority allows those with sufficient wealth to control more than just the flow of capital. It affords them political and social control through which they further enhance their collective authority. Thus a tiny group of individuals, each acting in their own self interests, are able to rig the systems the rest of us are forced to rely upon. They do this for their gain, not humanity's. It is a parasitic system.
All of us accept that groups come together to promote their members interests. From unions to lobbying organisations, political parties and activist movements, we understand that one of humanity’s evolutionary advantages is that we can coordinate our efforts to achieve collective goals.
Yet somehow, billions of us appear to think that the people who run some of the largest and most complex corporate structures and logistical operations on the planet are incapable of collaborating to protect and further their own agenda. Despite the mass of documented historical [6] and contemporary evidence, proving that they do, those who point out this reality are labelled "conspiracy theorists" and ignored.
"Class" is used here purely to refer to the hierarchical class structure of society. It is not used to advance any argument either for socialism or equality.
Human beings are unique and individually sovereign. We are not and cannot be equal in all things. To imagine that we can become equal, via some intervention by the State, denies our inalienable right to make the most of our abilities. The continual claim of a "more equal society" assumes that government, founded upon authoritarian power, is capable of creating the artificial social construct of equality: something its own existence renders impossible. Some will always be more equal than others in any system of authority.
To dispute the claimed authority of the parasite class is not an argument against wealth or personal property. The removal of these economic goals would deny an important human motivation: the drive to prosper. Acting in our own self interest is not "bad," it is essential. Wealth is not the issue. The issue is systemic corruption and the grossly unequal distribution of resources producing inequality of opportunity.
The parasite class fervently believe in three deleterious concepts. The Divine Right of Kings, Eugenics (Population Control) and Technocracy. These warped abstractions have festered in their imaginations creating a self serving belief system. In order to understand their motivation we need to consider their foundational beliefs.
Their belief in the Divine Right of Kings [7] is not monarchism. Unlike James I, they aren't claiming they are the anointed ones. It is just that they assume the absolutism of supreme authority and assert the alleged right to rule. They use the same old, tired rhetoric of all tyrants, just clothed in modern mores.
They do not recognise the need for any kind of democratic mandate or even popular support. As self-appointed rulers their authority springs solely from their claim, not any foolish concept of political legitimacy. They are able to rule through financial power and our acceptance of the concept of authority. We concede that some human beings have the right to tell other human beings what to do. They don't, this isn't an inalienable right and therefore is not a right that exists. It is a mythology.
The parasite class try to avoid revealing their faith and sense of entitlement, but it exudes in abundance from everything they do and say. They cloak their language with a facade of altruism but their arrogant assumptions are transparent. For example, the World Economic Forum's (WEF) mission statement [8] reads:
"The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private C
ooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.....Our activities are shaped by a unique institutional culture founded on the stakeholder theory."
No one gave the members of the WEF the authority to shape global and regional agendas. They just assumed it.
Every year the WEF hold their most prominent meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland. Elected politicians represent a minority of those in attendance, which is by invitation only. With an estimated 3000 invitees [9], 53 Heads of State were selected to attend DAVOS 2021 (which was cancelled.)
Who determines that these CEO's, tax exempt foundation philanthropists, academics, scientists, entrepreneurs, media moguls and global "celebrity" influencers are the leaders of society? Whose society? It seems the WEF are among the stakeholders who make that decision.
Which voices don't they want to hear? What economic analysis, expert opinions, political philosophies, scientific research or policy proposals hold no interest for the WEF and their stakeholder members?
The WEF have also asserted their authority over three key global policy areas which they have decided are within their remit. They say they are mastering the fourth industrial revolution, addressing global security issues and solving problems they claim to have identified with the global commons.
There has been no public debate on whether or not we agree with their definitions of any of these "problems." No one, anywhere on Earth, voted to empower the WEF to decide what we should or should not do about these alleged challenges. They have adopted and wholeheartedly embraced the Divine Right of Kings.
The WEF brings together many of the world’s most prominent corporations, investment firms, banks, hedge funds and philanthropic foundations (The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - BMGF - being one) to share their ideas with a few, hand-picked, politicians. They list many of them as WEF partners [10].
In the same way that Bill and Melinda Gates were used as talking heads to foster the pseudopandemic throughout 2020, and then as image leaders for COVID vaccines, so the WEF has been the public face of the planned economic recovery. However, like the BMGF, the WEF too are part of the wider Global Public Private Partnership (GPPP) network. They are little more than the window through which we can see the GPPP in operation.
Stakeholder theory is the quasi-intellectual label the WEF like to use to describe the GPPP's notion of Stakeholder Capitalism. They are careful to use the right "propaganda" phrases and fluffy words, such as sustainability, inclusion and diversity, but essentially stakeholder capitalism means global governance by multinational corporations. Democratic accountability is an anathema to stakeholder capitalism.
In his December 2019 article What Kind of Capitalism Do We Want [11], Klaus Schwab, co-founder and current executive chairman of the WEF, wrote:
"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."
Is it the best response? Many might argue that a significant number of today's social and environmental challenges were largely caused by private corporations. Why would anyone want them to be trustees of anything?
"Trustee" is an interesting word choice. It has a very clear legal definition [12]:
"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."
Stakeholder Capitalism claims that private corporations have an implied agreement (it certainly isn't express) to administer or exercise power over society and the environment. This is allegedly for the benefit of another. The "other" supposedly being humanity. In reality the "other" is the parasite class.
Using the WEF as a point of reference, we can see what the purpose of the pseudopandemic was. When they launched their so called Great Reset [13], the WEF described the objectives of the pseudopandemic quite succinctly:
"The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever....Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads....As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons."
The claims, inherent to the Great Reset, are nothing new. It is just a public relations rebranding exercise for an idea that is hundreds, if not thousands, of years old. The parasite class have always ruled and they have always sought to centralise and extend their authority over as much of the globe as possible.
During the pseudopandemic the WEF deliberately garnered public attention to espouse their Great Reset dreamscape. Essentially promoting a global coup d'état, the WEF have run point for the GPPP on the new global stakeholder economy.
Consequently, some WEF spokespersons, such as Klaus Schwab, have necessarily sought more media exposure. But the WEF are not the architects of a new system of global governance. Though they are certainly avid proponents.
The core conspirators are among the society of the elect who drove the pseudopandemic push towards a new monetary and economic world order. This has been packaged, for propaganda purposes, as the Great Reset. The ubiquitous "build back better" sound-bite, simultaneously regurgitated by political puppets around the world [14], is simply another catchphrase of the Great Reset marketing strategy [15]. As we shall see, it is based upon sustainable development goals.
Though they called it a crisis, COVID 19 was an opportunity as far as the GPPP were concerned. They were not in the least bit concerned about the disease itself. It presented no threat to them and they knew it.
In June 2020, in his book called the Great Reset, co-written with Thierry Malleret, Klaus Schwab said that the COVID 19 "global pandemic" was:
"One of the least deadly pandemics the world has experienced over the last 2000 years....the consequences of COVID-19 in terms of health and mortality will be mild...It does not constitute an existential threat, or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades."
Obviously this stands in stark contrast to the message given to us by the GPPP's State franchises and their mainstream media (MSM). The pseudopandemic engineered the public perception of the crisis that afforded these global leaders the opportunity to fundamentally change the traditional context for decision-making.
In many nations that traditional decision making was called representative democracy. The core conspirator's network, fronted by the WEF, considered the idea of this multiple system of numerous elected national governments, each supposedly making decisions in their own national interests, to be full of inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions.
COVID 19 was an opportunity which offered the justification to shape the recovery. Representative democracy and national sovereignty was by no means a perfect system but, as a concept, it is certainly preferable to rule by stakeholder capitalism.
The WEF are among those proposing that we "build back better" by allowing unelected global corporate leaders to seize authority over the entire Earth and all of humanity. The GPPP will determine the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons.
The WEF's use of the indefinite article for "global commons" is notable. It states that a global commons is yet to be fully defined. This has enormous significance.
The United Nations is an integral stakeholder partner within the GPPP. Through its various programs, agencies and affiliated bodi
es, such as the U.N Environment Program (UNEP), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it provides a centralised global authority hub.
GPPP think tanks like the Club of Rome, The Council on Foreign Relations, Le Cercle and Chatham House, funnel policy and strategic planning into the U.N which then distributes them as policy initiatives to GPPP State franchises (governments) around the world. For example, the U.N Agenda 2030 and Agenda 21 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's) have been translated into the sustainability plans, programs and strategies operated by local councils at the county, city and borough levels across the UK.
This mechanism is mirrored in nearly every nation on Earth, allowing the GPPP control of the policies affecting billions of lives. Hence the WEF stakeholder capitalist's impassioned support for SDG's [16].
In 2011 the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published "Global Commons The Planet We Share" [17]. They defined the global commons as:
"The shared resources that no one owns but all life relies upon."
The 2010 plenary also created the United Nation's Systems Task Team (UNSTT). In 2015 the UNSTT published "Global governance and governance of the global commons in the global partnership for development beyond 2015" [18]. They explained what they meant by "global commons:"
"International law identifies four global commons, namely the High Seas, the Atmosphere, the Antarctica and the Outer Space.....Resources of interest or value to the welfare of the community of nations – such as tropical rain forests and biodiversity - have lately been included among the traditional set of global commons."
They added:
"Stewardship of the global commons cannot be carried out without global governance."
Speaking in December 2020 [19] the United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres expanded the definition of a global commons. In addition to the oceans and everything in them, the atmosphere we breath, the continent of Antarctica and the solar system (to start with), we can add all land, water, all species, agriculture, fisheries, (global food supply), global energy production, our consumption (our behaviour), our faiths (our beliefs), our identities (who we are) and nature itself (everything).