WHO ARE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SHOW?

The world seems be lost in a never ending state of chaos and confusion. Division is becoming the end goal. Usually that nonsense calms down after presidential elections but it hasn’t. It has been snowballing since Trump ran for office! I knew politicians weren’t going to agree with him necessarily but for Pete’s sake! ENOUGH is enough.

The ongoing demand for control has to stem from something much deeper or someone that is directing the show from behind the red velvet curtain. Things are so out of hand, that they have forgotten who they are. FREE PEOPLE! FREE AMERICANS! FREEDOM US WHAT THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED ON! WE ARE NOT A SOCIALIST COUNTY? So what is going on?

The Great Reset

Let’s look at The Great Reset that we all keep hearing about. Here’s a little bit of information on this new agenda that is not actually very new at all come to find out.

The Great Reset is the name of the 50th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF), held in June 2020. It brought together high-profile business and political leaders, convened by Charles, Prince of Wales and the WEF, with the theme of rebuilding society and the economy following the COVID-19 pandemic.

^{WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset:}

^{International Monetary Fund director Kristalina Georgieva listed three key aspects of the sustainable response: green growth, smarter growth, and fairer growth.}

^{1. the first involves creating conditions for a “stakeholder economy”;}

^{2. the second component includes building in a more “resilient, equitable, and sustainable” way—based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics which would incorporate more green public infrastructure projects;}

^{3. the third component is to “harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” for public good. In her keynote speech opening the dialogues,}

The launch of The Great Reset

^{At the launch event for the Great Reset, Prince Charles listed key areas for action, similar to those listed in his Sustainable Markets Initiative, introduced in January 2020.}

• ^{the re-invigoration of science, technology and innovation,}

• ^{the introduction of carbon pricing,}

• ^{a move towards net zero transitions globally,}

• ^{re-inventing longstanding incentive structures,}

• ^{rebalancing investments to include more (though not all) green investments, and encouraging green public infrastructure projects.}

^{In June 2020, the theme of the January 2021 50th World Economic Forum Annual Meeting was announced as “The Great Reset”, connecting both in-person and online global leaders in Davos, Switzerland with a multi-stakeholder network in 400 cities around the world. The Great Reset was also to be the main theme of the WEF’s summit in Lucerne in May 2021, which was postponed to 2022.}

^{The World Economic Forum generally suggests that a globalised world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments and civil society organizations (CSOs). It sees periods of global instability – such as the financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic – as windows of opportunity to intensify its programmatic efforts. Some critics hence see the Great Reset as a continuation of the World Economic Forum’s strategy of focusing on connotated activist topics such as environmental protection and to disguise the organization’s true plutocratic goalssocial entrepreneurship}

By mid-April 2020, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVID-19 recession, the 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war and the resulting “collapse in oil prices”, ^{the former Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, described possible fundamental changes in an article in The Economist. Carney said that in a post-COVID world “stakeholder capitalism” will be tested as “companies will be judged by ‘what they did during the war,’ how they treated their employees, suppliers and customers, by who shared and who hoarded.” The “gulf between what markets value and what people value” will close.}

^{In a post-COVID world, it is reasonable to expect that more people will want improvements in risk management, in social and medical safety nets, and will want more attention paid to scientific experts. This new hierarchy of values will call for a reset on the way we deal with climate change, which, like the pandemic, is a global phenomenon. No one can “self-isolate” from climate change so we all need to “act in advance and in solidarity”. In his 2020 BBC Reith Lectures, Carney developed his theme of value hierarchies as related to three crises—credit, COVID and climate.}

According to a May 15, 2020 WEF article, COVID-19 offers an opportunity to “reset and reshape” the world in a way that is more aligned with the United Nations 2030

In June 2020, Klaus Schwab, who founded the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 1971 and is currently its CEO, described the three core components of the Great Reset.

Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), as climate change, inequality and poverty gained even greater urgency during the pandemic.

^{This includes resetting labour markets, as more people work remotely speeding up the process of the “future of work”. The reset will advance work already begun to prepare for the transition to the Fourth Industrial Revolution by upskilling and reskilling workers. Another post-COVID concern raised by the WEF is food security including the “risk of disruptions to food supply chains”, and the need for “global policy coordination” to prevent “food protectionism from becoming the post-pandemic new normal.”.}

In her June 3, 2020 keynote address opening the Great Reset forum, a joint initiative of the WEC and the Prince of Wales, Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said that there has been a “massive injection of fiscal stimulus to help countries deal with this crisis” and that it was of “paramount importance that this growth should lead to a greener, smarter, fairer world in the future”.

^{Georgieva listed three aspects of the Great Reset; green growth, smarter growth and fairer growth. Government investments and government incentives for private investors could “support low-carbon and climate-resilient growth” such as “planting mangroves, land restoration, reforestation or insulating buildings.” With low oil prices, the timing was right to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and introduce carbon pricing to incentivize future investments. READ THAT AGAIN… INCENTIVE FOR FUTURE INVESTMENTS.}

^{Are you getting the picture yet?}

^{The COVID-19 pandemic presents an opportunity to shape an economic recovery and the future direction of global relations, economies and priorities.}

• ^{The first includes creating conditions for a “stakeholder economy“; improving policies and agreements on taxes, regulations, fiscal policies and trade to result in “fairer outcomes”.}

• ^{The second component addresses how the large-scale pandemic spending programs with private investments and pension funds could improve on the old system by building one that is more “resilient, equitable and sustainable” over the long term by “building green urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social and governance (ESG) metrics”.}

• ^{The third component of a Great Reset agenda is to “harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” for the public good. A July 2020 non-fiction by Schwab and economist Thierry Malleret develops the plan in more detail.}

In one of the Great Reset Dialogues, John Kerry and other members of a WEF dialogue discussed how to rebuild the “social contract” in a post-COVID world.

^{According to Prince Charles, the economic recovery must put the world on a path to sustainability, which would include carbon pricing. Prince Charles emphasized that the private sector would be the main drivers of the plan. The market should adapt to the current reality by aiming for fairer results, ensuring that investments are aimed at mutual progress including accelerating ecologically friendly investments, and to start a fourth industrial revolution, creating digital economic and public infrastructure. According to Klaus Schwab, they would not change the economic system, but rather improve it to what he considers to be “responsible capitalism”. HA!}

Klaus SchwabGerman economist, founder of World Economic Forum

The Short Scoop on Klaus Martin Schwab

Schwab was born on 30 March 1938 and is a German engineer and economist best known as the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

During the earlier years of his career, he served on a number of company boards, such as The Swatch Group, The Daily Mail Group, and Vontobel Holding. He is a former member of the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group

^{The Swiss radio and television corporation SRF mentioned the salary level of Klaus in the context of ongoing public contributions to the WEF and the fact that the Forum does not pay any federal taxes. Moreover, the former Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung journalist Jürgen Dunsch made the criticism that the WEF’s financial reports were not very transparent since neither income nor expenditure were broken down. I’m certain there are very good reasons for concerns about how he maintained his wealth over the years but that’s another dig for another day.}

The Bilderberg Group Meetings are secret and by invitation only

The Bilderberg meeting (also known as the Bilderberg Group) is an annual conference established in 1954 to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. The group’s agenda, originally to prevent another world war, is now defined as bolstering a consensus around free market Western capitalism and its interests around the globe.

The conference was initiated by several people, including Polish politician-in-exile Józef Retinger who, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting Atlanticism—better understanding between the cultures of the United States and Western Europe to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues.

Participants include political leaders, experts from industry, finance, academia, and the media, numbering between 120 and 150. Attendees are entitled to use information gained at meetings, but not attribute it to a named speaker. This is to encourage candid debate, while maintaining privacy – a provision that has fed conspiracy theories from both the left and right.

In 2002 in Them: Adventures with Extremists, author Jon Ronson wrote that the group has a small central office in Holland [sic] which each year decides what country will host the forthcoming meeting. The host country then has to book an entire hotel for four days, plus arrange catering, transport and security. To fund this, the host solicits donations from sympathetic corporations such as Barclays, Fiat Automobiles, GlaxoSmithKline, Heinz, Nokia and Xerox.

List of the Bilderberg Group Meetings Participants from the United States

• Roger Altman (2008, 2013, 2016), ^{Deputy Treasury Secretary from 1993 to 1994, Founder and Chairman of Evercore Partners}
• George W. Ball (1954, 1993), ^{Under Secretary of State 1961–1968, Ambassador to U.N. 1968 (deceased)}
• Sandy Berger (1999), ^{National Security Advisor, 1997–2001 (deceased)}
• William J. Burns (2016), ^{President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace}
• Hillary Clinton (1997), ^{First Lady of the US when attending, later 67th United States Secretary of State}
• Thomas E. Donilon (2012), ^{Executive Vice President for Law and Policy at Fannie Mae (1999–2005), National Security Advisor (2010–2013)}
• Timothy Geithner (2008, 2009), ^{Treasury Secretary}
• Dick Gephardt (2012), ^{former Congressman and House Majority Leader}
• Christian Herter, ^{(1961, 1963, 1964, 1966), 53rd United States Secretary of State (deceased)}
• Charles Douglas Jackson (1957, 1958, 1960), ^{Special Assistant to the President (deceased)}
• Joseph E. Johnson ^{(1954), President Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (deceased)}
• Henry Kissinger (1957, 1964, 1966, 1971, 1974, 1977, 1992, ^{2008,2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2019), 56th United States Secretary of State}
• Jared Cohen (2018, 2019), CEO, Jigsaw
• ^{Jared Kushner (2019), Senior Advisor to the President, The White HouseMark G. Mazzie (1986, 1987), Chief of Staff,}
• ^{The Honorable George C. Wortley, U.S. House of Representatives.H.R. McMaster (2017), U.S. National Security Advisor, 2017–2018, and lieutenant general.}
• ^{Richard Perle (2011), Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee 2001–2003, United States Assistant Secretary of Defense 1981–1987}
• ^{David H. Petraeus (2015, 2016, 2019), Chairman, KKR Global Institute; 4th Director of the Central Intelligence AgencyCondoleezza Rice (2008), 66th United States Secretary of State}
• ^{Wilbur Ross (2017), United States Secretary of Commerce,}
• ^{2017–Robert E. Rubin (2016), Co-Chair, Council on Foreign Relations}
• ^{George P. Shultz (2008), 60th United States Secretary of State}
• ^{Lawrence Summers, Director of the National Economic Council}
• ^{Paul Volcker (2010), Chair of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board and Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 (deceased)}
• ^{Bing West (2010), author and former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs}
• ^{Robert Zoellick (2008–2015), former Trade Representative, former Deputy Secretary of State and former President of the World Bank Group}

Senators

• Tom Daschle (2008), ^{Senator from South Dakota 1987–2005}
• John Edwards (2004), ^{Senator from North Carolina 1999–2005}
• Lindsey Graham (2016), ^{Senator from South Carolina 2003–present}
• Chuck Hagel (1999, 2000), ^{Senator from Nebraska 1997–2009, Secretary of Defense 2013–2015.}
• John Kerry (2012), ^{68th United States Secretary of State and Senator from Massachusetts (1985–2013)}

Governors

• Bill Clinton, then Governor of Arkansas (1991), ^{President of the United States 1993–2001}
• Mitch Daniels (2012) ^{Governor of Indiana 2004–2013}
• Jon Huntsman Jr. (2012), ^{Governor of Utah 2005–2009}
• John Hickenlooper (2018), ^{Governor of Colorado 2011–2019}
• Rick Perry (2007), ^{Governor of Texas 2000–2015}
• Mark Sanford (2008), ^{Governor of South Carolina 2003–2011}
• Kathleen Sebelius (2008), ^{Governor of Kansas 2003–2009, Secretary of Health and Human Services 2009–2014.}
• Mark Warner (2005), Governor of Virginia 2002–2006, Senator from Virginia assumed office 3 January 2009

Concerns about lobbying have arisen.

^{Ian Richardson sees Bilderberg as the transnational power elite, “an integral, and to some extent critical, part of the existing system of global governance”, that is “not acting in the interests of the whole”. An article in The Guardian in June 2017 criticized the world view expressed in an agenda published by the Bilderberg group.}

This should give you a general idea of what the Bilderberg Group is about but if you want to further your knowledge you can read more about the them, their meetings, goals and activities on their website at https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org

For a list of their FAQ’s go here

See also

• Bohemian Club
• Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs)
• Council on Foreign Relations
• Le Cercle
• List of Bilderberg participants
• Transnational capitalist class
• Trilateral Commission
• Valdai Discussion Club
• World Economic Foru

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (WEF)

George Soros speaking at the Word Economic Forum

In the view of some critics, the WEF is exercising too much influence on global systems and institutions. The picture shows George Soros during a Davos session on redesigning the international monetary system.

This brings me to the Plandemic

Since these “Globalist” seemed to be so concerned about the all of us normal folks and managed to sling trillions and trillions of money around like it grew on tree’s… Just who were the winners from lockdown nation?

And now that we have actual evidence of collateral damage from the lockdowns around the world why is almost the entire world protesting and demanding freedom? Why are we all in a bad way still and having such a difficult time getting back to normal? One would think that the current gas prices, food shortages in certain areas and the overall economic crisis would persuade even those on the far left who generally support the heavy hand of government to take a look around and question the people in power that are controlling the pathetic narrative. It would be apparent to a first grader they are all about complete control.

Big businesses scored a “$1.4 trillion payday” during the pandemic. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft increased their profits by 45% last year. “Wow, bring back more pandemics!” they must be shouting around the boardroom table.

Shutting down the economy hurt the poor the most and vastly widened the chasm between rich and poor. Lockdowns squashed small startup businesses, hurt low-income workers whose jobs were first in line to be destroyed, and devastated educational advances of children in the worst school districts.

For example, we have learned that high-achieving children did fine with remote learning. However, those who scored below average in school performance or from low-income families without computer skills tended to tune out and shut down online lessons completely. We know from teachers that as many as one-third of children rarely, if ever, even turned on a computer during the lockdowns. The long-term educational setbacks for these children as they grow to adult age could be devastating.

It’s not rocket science to figure out that the wealthy got wealthier! So, Just who were the BIG winners from lockdown nation? Let’s start with the corporate titans: Walmart, Google, Amazon, Walgreens, Apple, McDonald’s, Pfizer, Goldman Sachs, etc. THEY’ were rewarded with the designation of “essential” by the politicians. Their doors stayed open. They raked in dollars by the millions.

You can find all the information you need to confirm these facts. For instance there was is a headline from MarketWatch earlier this month: “Big Tech’s pandemic year produces mind-boggling financial results.” There was also was this nugget from the front page of The New York Times: “Wealth inequality is the highest since World War II.” George Soros, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett won the lottery.

I’m usually not a Big Tech or Big Pharma basher and actually like to see the stock market rise. It means people are making money. If these corporations make great products or can sell valuable services that people need, I am all for it! Yay for capitalism. Everyone’s happy.

But within the case of of our current situation, we see the hypocrisy of the left in the media shining big and bright. The left denounces inequality, but it embraces the policies that allow the uneven playing field. The entire situation baffles me to the core.

History lessons keep repeating Thema. They are like a skip on a vinyl record. Why on earth would anyone want to relive these deliberately concocted scenerios ridden with fear and oppression? What happened to faith in personal judgment. Big government creates economic unfairness. It never solves it.. When will people turn off the TV and stop believing the propaganda and LIVE LIFE?

World Economic Forum’s “Young Global Leaders”

Bill Gates and Justin Trudeau

By Jacob Nordangård

5 februari, 2022 Agenda 2030, Demokrati, ENGLISH, TeknokratiComments: 14

Through its Young Global Leaders program, the World Economic Forum has been instrumental in shaping a world order that undermines all democratic principles. For several decades, this program has nurtured compliant leaders acting as WEF agents in governments around the world. The consequences are far-reaching and may turn out to be devastating for humanity.

“I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin and so on… they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now…” (Klaus Schwab)

In 1992, Klaus Schwab and World Economic Forum launched a program initially called Global Leaders of Tomorrow. In 2004, this program was turned into the Forum for Young Global Leaders (which I cover in my book The Global Coup D’Etat) – a 5-year program of indoctrination into WEFs principles and goals. The aim was – and is – to find suitable future leaders for the emerging global society. The program has since its inception has included politicians, business leaders, royalty, journalists, performers and other cultural influencers who have excelled in their fields but have not yet turned 40 years of age (originally 43 in order to include Angela Merkel). It has since grown into an extensive global network of dedicated leaders with enormous resources and influence, all working to implement the technocratic plans of the World Economic Forum in their respective nations and fields.

The network creates a force for worldwide influence through the combination of the individual skills and resources of its members.

As Klaus Schwab says in the introductory quote, it has become very successful. Already in the first year, 1992, a number of highly influential candidates were elected.

Among 200 selected were global profiles such as:

• Angela Merkel
• Tony Blair
• Nicolas Sarkozy
• Bono
• Richard Branson (Virgin)
• Jorma Ollila (Shell Oil), and
• José Manuel Barroso (President of the European Commission 2004–2014).[1]
• Bill Gates (Global Leader of Tomorrow 1992)
• Justin Trudeau (Young Global Leader, unknown class)

More examples of influential Young Global Leaders [2]:

• Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden
• Crown Prince Haakon of Norway
• Crown Prince Fredrik of Denmark
• Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, Netherlands
• Princess Reema Bint Bandar Al-Saud, Ambassador for Saudi-Arabia in USA
• Jacinda Arden, Prime Minister, New Zeeland
• Alexander De Croo, Prime Minister, Belgium
• Emmanuel Macron, President, France
• Sanna Marin, Prime Minister, Finland
• Carlos Alvarado Quesada, President, Costa Rica
• Faisal Alibrahim, Minister of Economy and Planning, Saudi Arabia
• Shauna Aminath, Minister of Environment, Climate Change and Technology, Maldives
• Ida Auken, MP, former Minister of Environment, Denmark (author to the infamous article “Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better”)
• Annalena Baerbock, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Leader of Alliance 90/Die Grünen, Germany
• Kamissa Camara, Minister of the Digital Economy and Planning, Mali
• Ugyen Dorji, Minister of Domestic Affairs, Bhutan
• Chrystia Freeland, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Canada
• Martín Guzmán, Minister of Finance, Argentina
• Muhammad Hammad Azhar, Minister of Energy, Pakistan
• Paula Ingabire, Minister of Information and communications technology and Innovation, Rwanda
• Ronald Lamola, Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, South Africa
• Birgitta Ohlson, Minister for European Union Affairs 2010–2014, Sweden
• Mona Sahlin, Party Leader of the Social Democrats 2007–2011, Sweden
• Stav Shaffir, Leader of the Green Party, Israel
• Vera Daves de Sousa, Minister of Finance, Angola
• Leonardo Di Caprio, actor and Climate Activist
• Mattias Klum, photographer and Environmentalist
• Jack Ma, Founder of Alibaba
• Larry Page, Founder of Google
• Ricken Patel, Founder of Avaaz
• David de Rothschild, adventurer and Environmentalist
• Jimmy Wale, Founder of Wikipedia
• Jacob Wallenberg, Chairman of Investor
• Niklas Zennström, Founder of Skype
• Mark Zuckerberg, Founder of Facebook

The purpose from the beginning has been to “identify and advance a future-oriented global agenda, focusing on issues at the intersection of the public and private sectors.” Public–Private Partnerships is one of the cornerstones of the World Economic Forum philosophy. That is, a merger between state and large companies (also known as corporativism) with the aim of solving global problems of in a more “effective” way. The choice of leaders clearly reflects this aspiration.

The Young Global Leaders group was initially instructed to identify the major challenges of the 21st century. These included peace, the environment, education, technology and health – areas which these upcoming leaders could exploit politically, economically, and culturally in the new millennium.

Partners for Global Leaders of Tomorrow in 2000 were large global companies such as:

• The Coca Cola Company
• Ernst & Young
• Volkswagen, and
• BP Amoco

These could contribute to the agenda by “playing an active role in developing and implementing the concept of the GLT project. The partners can therefore actively participate in the development of GLT programs; representatives of the partner companies as well as their guests are invited to GLT meetings ..

”Since the Global Leaders of Tomorrow was turned into Young Global Leaders 2004, partners such as:

• The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
• Google
• JPMorganChase (with alumni from the program) have also participated as sponsors.

The ultimate consequence of both public–private partnerships and these target areas is the creation of a largely fascist social contract in which the individual has become subordinated to these powerful interests. Noble goals of creating a better world have also been kidnapped. This is especially evident in the context of the partnership between the WEF and the UN and the implementation of the global goals (Agenda 2030) through the application of the technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

This means that the democratic principles and division of power of the 20th century have largely been completely undermined and instead replaced by a new global class that shapes our common future based on their own interests. This has led to a de facto privatisation of both  national governments and international organisations, where lobbyists are no longer kept in the lobby but have moved into the seat of power, shaping policies directly affecting our lives. What this means has become particularly evident since the pandemic was declared in March 2020. In addition, leading multinational investment management corporations such as BlackRock, led by the World Economic Forum’s own Larry Fink, have constantly moved their positions forward.

German economist and journalist Ernst Wolff believes that many of the national leaders included in the Young Global Leader program have been selected for their willingness to carry out the tough agenda of lockdowns in recent years without asking any questions, and that their impending failure (as evidenced by in a growing dissatisfaction of the masses) will be used as an excuse to create a new form of Global Government where the old nation states become largely obsolete. A new global digital currency with Universal Basic Income (UBI) can then be gradually introduced to replace our doomed monetary system.[3] This conclusion partly coincides with my own. It is also supported by Paul Raskin‘s scenarios from The Great Transition Initiative on how  a totalitarian “New Earth Order” is established, to be replaced in the long run by a global democratic government (Earth Federation) with a World Constitution.[4]

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the catastrophic failure of an every-country-for-itself approach to public health, and national economic interests, rather than global needs, continue to dominate discussions of climate policy, paving the path toward climate chaos.

Under the tricameral World Parliament come the four main agencies of the Earth Federation government: the World Supreme Court system, the World Executive, the World Enforcement System, and the World Ombudsman.[5]Glen T. Martin, The Great Transition Requires the Earth Constitution

The vision is that a peaceful and harmonious world in balance is created through the establishment of a World Federation with a World Parliament, World Government and a World Court. These are ideas that have long circulated in Club of Rome and closely connected New Age circles. The question is how such a new global system of power would escape the fate of being kidnapped by the same interests that created our current corrupt and failing system? This is in view of those who support projects such as The Great Transition (initiated with start-up capital from Steven Rockefeller). What is happening is rather a method of taking us to their ultimate solution in the form of a global technocratic control system.

However, it is highly unlikely that this plan will succeed. Awareness is spreading like wildfire and the panic of the elite increases as their narrative crumbles and people become more and more immune to the propaganda. Hence all the inquisitors and “fact checkers” who diligently gatekeep the narrative and help steer public opinion in the “right” direction. They are surely to be trusted since, for example, David Roy Thomson, Chairman of the Thomson Reuters Corporation, is an alumni of Global Leaders of Tomorrow, class of 1993.

It is now time to take control of our own destinies and to avoid falling into new traps.

References

Thanks to investigative journalist Cory Morningstar for the clip that inspired this blog article. Follow her blog Wrong Kind of Green.

[1] World Economic Forum, GLT Class of 1993.pdf
[2] World Economic Forum, Young Global Leaders Community (searchable list over YGL alumni)
[3] Michael Lord, “Exposed: Klaus Schwab’s School For Covid Dictators, Plan for ‘Great Reset’“, RAIR Foundation, November 10, 2021
[4] Paul Raskin, Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary Civilization.pdf, Tellus Institute, Boston, 2016
[5] Glen T. Martin, The Great Transition Requires the Earth Constitution“, Great Transition Initiative, November 2021

FBI asks people to report family, friends showing ‘extremist’ behavior

On Sunday, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) asked people to report their family members and friends who are showing “extremist” behavior in an effort to “help prevent homegrown violent extremism.”

Incidentally… They also published an Active Shooter Incidents showing that in 2020 there were 40 active shooters compared to 30 in 2019. All the other numbers were down on this report according to the FBI’s reference.

Active Shooter Comparisons

FBI’s Active Shooters Comparison Chart for 2020 and 2019

“Family members and peers are often best positioned to witness signs of mobilization to violence. Help prevent homegrown violent extremism,” the FBI said in a tweet. “Visit https://go.usa.gov/x6mjf to learn how to spot suspicious behaviors and report them to the #FBI. #NatSec.”

“Homegrown Violent Extremist Mobilization Indicators.”

The document outlines a list of 46 “observable behaviors that could help determine whether individuals or groups are preparing to engage in violent extremist activities.”

This link provided by the FBI in 2019 brings users to a document

The top three indicators on the list are:

• Preparing and disseminating a martyrdom video/statement, last will,

• seeking religious or political justification for a planned violent act,

• Attempting to mobilize others to violence, especially family members and peers.

Other indicators include:

• Encouraging or advocating violence toward individuals, military or government officials, law enforcement, or civilian targets

• Unusual purchase of military-style tactical equipment other than weapons (e.g., personal protective equipment, body armor),

• Dehumanizing people who are not in the identity group,

• Researching or discussing ways to evade law enforcement

• Lying to law enforcement officers/obstructing investigations.

The 2019 document largely focuses on Islamic extremism

More recently President Joe Biden’s administration has called white supremacy “the most lethal threat” to homeland security.

“According to the intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the most lethal threat to the homeland today,” Biden said during a speech marking the 100th anniversary of the 1921 race massacre in Tulsa, Oklahoma. “Not ISIS. Not Al Qaeda. White supremacists.”

New Announcement Last Month: National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism

Last month, the White House announced the new National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism, an effort seeking to improve how domestic terrorism is defined, identified, and combated, primarily targeting those with racist or anti-government ideology.

The strategy says that experts and evidence have shown today’s domestic terrorists include those who espouse “racial or ethnic bigotry and hatred” as well as “anti-government or anti-authority sentiment.”

However, what I noticed is that anti-law enforcement ideologies such as those espoused by Antifa and Black Lives Matter were not mentioned.

“Racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists (principally those who promote the superiority of the white race) and militia violent extremists are assessed as presenting the most persistent and lethal threats,” the strategy states.

“Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021 and in the FBI’s view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race,” Garland told lawmakers.

This is By Far, Best, Most Thoughtful Explanation For Why So Many Americans Believe 2020 Was a “Sham”

This explanation brilliantly vindicates and validates every single American who has questions and doubts about the 2020 election. Beautifully done.

So, without further ado, here’s the best explanation you’ll ever read on why so many Americans believe the 2020 election was a sham:

I think I’ve had discussions w/enough Boomer-tier Trump supporters who believe the 2020 election was fraudulent to extract a general theory about their perspective. It is also the perspective of most of the people at the Capitol on 1/6, and probably even Trump himself.

Most believe some or all of the theories involving midnight ballots, voting machines, etc, but what you find when you talk to them is that, while they’ll defend those positions w/info they got from Hannity or Breitbart or whatever, they’re not particularly attached to them.

Here are the facts – actual, confirmed facts – that shape their perspective:

The FBI/etc spied on the 2016 Trump campaign using evidence manufactured by the Clinton campaign. We now know that all involved knew it was fake from Day 1 (see: Brennan’s July 2016 memo, etc).

These are Tea Party people. The types who give their kids a pocket Constitution for their birthday and have Founding Fathers memes in their bios. The intel community spying on a presidential campaign using fake evidence including forged documents is a big deal to them.

Everyone involved lied about their involvement as long as they could. We only learned the DNC paid for the manufactured evidence because of a court order. Comey denied on TV knowing the DNC paid for it, when we have emails from a year earlier proving that he knew.

This was true with everyone, from CIA Dir Brennan & Adam Schiff – who were on TV saying they’d seen clear evidence of collusion w/Russia, while admitting under oath behind closed doors that they hadn’t – all the way down the line. In the end we learned that it was ALL fake.

At first, many Trump people were worried there must be some collusion, because every media & intel agency wouldn’t make it up out of nothing. When it was clear that they had made it up, people expected a reckoning, and shed many illusions about their gov’t when it didn’t happen.

We know as fact:

a) The Steele dossier was the sole evidence used to justify spying on the Trump campaign,

b) The FBI knew the Steele dossier was a DNC op,

c) Steele’s source told the FBI the info was unserious,

d) they did not inform the court of any of this and kept spying.

Trump supporters know the collusion case front and back. They went from worrying the collusion must be real, to suspecting it might be fake, to realizing it was a scam, then watched as every institution – agencies, the press, Congress, academia – gaslit them for another year.

Worse, collusion was used to scare people away from working in the administration. They knew their entire lives would be investigated. Many quit because they were being bankrupted by legal fees. The DoJ, press, & gov’t destroyed lives and actively subverted an elected admin.

This is where people whose political identity was largely defined by a naive belief in what they learned in Civics class began to see the outline of a Regime that crossed all institutional boundaries. Because it had stepped out of the shadows to unite against an interloper.

GOP propaganda still has many of them thinking in terms of partisan binaries, but A LOT of Trump supporters see that the Regime is not partisan. They all know that the same institutions would have taken opposite sides if it was a Tulsi Gabbard vs Jeb Bush election.

It’s hard to describe to people on the left (who are used to thinking of gov’t as a conspiracy… Watergate, COINTELPRO, WMD, etc) how shocking & disillusioning this was for people who encourage their sons to enlist in the Army, and hate people who don’t stand for the Anthem.

They could have managed the shock if it only involved the government. But the behavior of the corporate press is really what radicalized them. They hate journalists more than they hate any politician or gov’t official, because they feel most betrayed by them.

The idea that the press is driven by ratings/sensationalism became untenable. If that were true, they’d be all over the Epstein story. The corporate press is the propaganda arm of the Regime they now see in outline. Nothing anyone says will ever make them unsee that, period.

This is profoundly disorienting. Many of them don’t know for certain whether ballots were faked in November 2020, but they know for absolute certain that the press, the FBI, etc would lie to them if there was. They have every reason to believe that, and it’s probably true.

They watched the press behave like animals for four years. Tens of millions of people will always see Kavanaugh as a gang rapist, based on nothing, because of CNN. And CNN seems proud of that. They led a lynch mob against a high school kid. They cheered on a summer of riots.

They always claimed the media had liberal bias, fine, whatever. They still thought the press would admit truth if they were cornered. Now they don’t. It’s a different thing to watch them invent stories whole cloth in order to destroy regular lives and spark mass violence.

Time Mag told us that during the 2020 riots, there were weekly conference calls involving, among others, leaders of the protests, the local officials who refused to stop them, and media people who framed them for political effect. In Ukraine we call that a color revolution.

Throughout the summer, Democrat governors took advantage of COVID to change voting procedures. It wasn’t just the mail-ins (they lowered signature matching standards, etc). After the collusion scam, the fake impeachment, Trump people expected shenanigans by now.

Re: “fake impeachment”, we now know that Trump’s request for Ukraine to cooperate w/the DOJ regarding Biden’s $ activities in Ukraine was in support of an active investigation being pursued by the FBI and Ukraine AG at the time, and so a completely legitimate request.

Then you get the Hunter laptop scandal. Big Tech ran a full-on censorship campaign against a major newspaper to protect a political candidate. Period. Everyone knows it, all of the Tech companies now admit it was a “mistake” – but, ya know, the election’s over, so who cares?

Goes w/o saying, but: If the NY Times had Don Jr’s laptop, full of pics of him smoking crack and engaging in group sex, lots of lurid family drama, emails describing direct corruption and backed up by the CEO of the company they were using, the NYT wouldn’t have been banned.

Think back: Stories about Trump being pissed on by Russian prostitutes and blackmailed by Putin were promoted as fact, and the only evidence was a document paid for by his opposition and disavowed by its source. The NY Post was banned for reporting on true information.

The reaction of Trump people to all this was not, “no fair!” That’s how they felt about Romney’s “binders of women” in 2012. This is different. Now they see, correctly, that every institution is captured by people who will use any means to exclude them from the political process.

And yet they showed up in record numbers to vote. He got 13m more votes than in 2016, 10m more than Clinton got! As election night dragged on, they allowed themselves some hope. But when the four critical swing states (and only those states) went dark at midnight, they knew.

Over the ensuing weeks, they got shuffled around by grifters and media scam artists selling them conspiracy theories. They latched onto one, then another increasingly absurd theory as they tried to put a concrete name on something very real.

Media & Tech did everything to make things worse. Everything about the election was strange – the changes to procedure, unprecedented mail-in voting, the delays, etc – but rather than admit that and make everything transparent, they banned discussion of it (even in DMs!).

Everyone knows that, just as Don Jr’s laptop would’ve been the story of the century, if everything about the election dispute was the same, except the parties were reversed, suspicions about the outcome would’ve been taken very seriously. See 2016 for proof.

Even the courts’ refusal of the case gets nowhere w/them, because of how the opposition embraced mass political violence. They’ll say, w/good reason: What judge will stick his neck out for Trump knowing he’ll be destroyed in the media as a violent mob burns down his house?

It’s a fact, according to Time Magazine, that mass riots were planned in cities across the country if Trump won. Sure, they were “protests”, but they were planned by the same people as during the summer, and everyone knows what it would have meant. Judges have families, too.

Forget the ballot conspiracies. It’s a fact that governors used COVID to unconstitutionally alter election procedures (the Constitution states that only legislatures can do so) to help Biden to make up for a massive enthusiasm gap by gaming the mail-in ballot system.

They knew it was unconstitutional, it’s right there in plain English. But they knew the cases wouldn’t see court until after the election. And what judge will toss millions of ballots because a governor broke the rules? The threat of mass riots wasn’t implied, it was direct.

a) The entrenched bureaucracy & security state subverted Trump from Day 1,

b) The press is part of the operation,

c) Election rules were changed,

d) Big Tech censors opposition,

e) Political violence is legitimized & encouraged,

f) Trump is banned from social media.

They were led down some rabbit holes, but they are absolutely right that their gov’t is monopolized by a Regime that believes they are beneath representation, and will observe no limits to keep them getting it.

Trump fans should be happy he lost; it might’ve kept him alive

— Read on www.redvoicemedia.com/2021/07/this-is-by-far-best-most-thoughtful-explanation-for-why-so-many-americans-believe-2020-was-a-sham/

North Korea dismisses ‘spurious’ US diplomacy: Report

AFPSeoul Published: May 02, 2021, 07:29 AM(IST)

File photo: North Korean leader Kim Jong Un Photograph:( Reuters )FOLLOW US

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Diplomacy was a “spurious signboard” for the United States to “cover up its hostile acts,” the North Korean foreign ministry said in a statement run by the KCNA news agency. 

North Korea branded US diplomacy “spurious” on Sunday, dismissing the idea of talks with Washington a day after the Biden administration said it was open to diplomatic negotiations on denuclearization, state media reported.

Diplomacy was a “spurious signboard” for the United States to “cover up its hostile acts,” the North Korean foreign ministry said in a statement run by the KCNA news agency.

https://09c372ce791d94ce4e74f16bcedc19a3.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-38/html/container.html

It also warned President Joe Biden that he had made a “big blunder” with his “outdated” stance towards the country.

In a separate statement also run by KCNA, the foreign ministry accused Biden of insulting Kim Jong-Un, and added: “We have warned the US sufficiently enough to understand that it will get hurt if it provokes us.

Biden had said in his first address as president to Congress on Wednesday that he would use “diplomacy as well as stern deterrence” to contain North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

The White House said Friday that its goal remains “the complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”

US policy will see “a calibrated, practical approach that is open to and will explore diplomacy” with North Korea, Biden’s press secretary Jen Pskai told reporters.

Psaki gave little indication of what kind of diplomatic initiative this could entail, but suggested that Biden had learned from the experience of previous administrations, who have struggled for decades to deal with the dictatorship in North Korea or, in recent years, its growing nuclear arsenal.

She said Washington would not “focus on achieving a grand bargain,” apparently referring to the kind of dramatic over-arching deal that former president Donald Trump initially suggested was possible when he met with North Korea’s leader.

Neither would the White House follow the more standoff approach called “strategic patience,” espoused by Barack Obama, Psaki said.

In April, South Korean President Moon Jae-in, who is due to visit the White House on May 21, urged Biden to engage directly with Kim on denuclearization.

Moon told the newspaper he favoured “top-down diplomacy.”