Giving Up On Finding Out The Truth

“Flood the zone” is the name of a communications strategy that seeks to overwhelm people with information so that they give up on finding out the truth.

The following are excerpts from the Vox article “Flood the zone: How misinformation overwhelmed our democracy”.

We live in a media ecosystem that overwhelms people with information. Some of that information is accurate, some of it is bogus, and much of it is intentionally misleading. The result is a polity that has increasingly given up on finding out the truth. As Sabrina Tavernise and Aidan Gardiner put it in a New York Times piece, “people are numb and disoriented, struggling to discern what is real in a sea of slant, fake, and fact.”

The core challenge we’re facing today is information saturation and a hackable media system. If you follow politics at all, you know how exhausting the environment is. The sheer volume of content, the dizzying number of narratives and counternarratives, and the pace of the news cycle are too much for anyone to process.

One response to this situation is to walk away and tune everything out. After all, it takes real effort to comb through the b*******t, and most people have busy lives and limited bandwidth. Another reaction is to retreat into tribal allegiances. There’s Team Liberal and Team Conservative and pretty much everyone knows which side they’re on. So you stick to the places that feed you the information you most want to hear.

The foundation for shared truth… has collapsed. We’re in an age of manufactured nihilism. The issue for many people isn’t exactly a denial of truth as such. It’s more a growing weariness over the process of finding the truth at all. And that weariness leads more and more people to abandon the idea that the truth is knowable.

I call this “manufactured” because it’s the consequence of a deliberate strategy… For most of recent history, the goal of propaganda was to reinforce a consistent narrative. But zone-flooding takes a different approach: It seeks to disorient audiences with an avalanche of competing stories.

And it produces a certain nihilism in which people are so skeptical about the possibility of finding the truth that they give up the search… Putin uses the media to engineer a fog of disinformation, producing just enough distrust to ensure that the public can never mobilize around a coherent narrative… The goal, he told me, wasn’t to sell an ideology or a vision of the future; instead, it was to convince people that “the truth is unknowable” and that the only sensible choice is “to follow a strong leader.”

One consequence of pervasive confusion about what’s happening is that people feel more comfortable siding with their political tribe. If everything’s up for grabs, and it’s hard to sift through the competing narratives to find the truth, then there’s nothing left but culture war politics. There’s “us” and “them” and the possibility of persuasion is off the table.

2020 has been the year when the flood the zone communications strategy really came to fruition. This shouldn’t have come as a surprise, because it was discussed at the covid dress rehearsal in October 2019. The globalists had a plan to deal with the inevitable dissenters from the narrative they intended to promote (a deadly pandemic)… they rejected the idea of limited internet shutdowns (restricting information), boldly opting instead to flood the zone (overwhelming people with information).

Victims of the flood the zone strategy have given up on finding out the truth and therefore:

  • believe they must “stay in their lane” and “trust the experts”, and that to oppose the view of the experts presented by the state and mainstream media is irresponsible or immoral
  • make no attempts to assess arguments and evidence for themselves as the basis for their opinions and feel incapable of doing so
  • believe the only opinions that have value are those of people with the highest credentials in the relevant subfield
  • have no opinions outside the narrow politically-correct range presented in the mainstream media
  • have no interest the vast range of opinions, arguments and evidence to be found in the intellectual dark web and alternative media
  • have redefined truth as whatever the highest authority says, and may even explicitly deny the existence of truth, believing everything is a matter of “perspective” and that each of us can have our “own truth”.

Friends, don’t give up on finding out the truth!

Privatise the Armed Forces

I posted this comment in a Fb group:

The armed forces should be privatised so that the law can be applied equally to everyone.

Below are some questions I received, and my responses.

What if a private armed force decides it wants to take power for itself?

That is the current situation. We have one gang (calling itself “the state”) that is so powerful that no other gang can compete with it. The answer is to decentralise power, so that there can be checks and balances: market competition. If power was decentralised it would be so much easier to hold it in check: you wouldn’t need to wait for an election, or persuade other people of anything, you just stop paying if you don’t like the service.

The people would be safer if the armed forces were privatised, because they would be used only for defensive purposes. Economic calculation would become possible, so resources would be used more efficiently. The incentives of the military would then be aligned with the people (their customers) rather than the politicians and the military-industrial complex. While the state has a monopoly on armed forces, we are, relatively speaking, sitting ducks for anyone who wants to invade. We have all our security resting on one monopolistic structure, especially where the state has disarmed us.

Only billionaires would be able to hire their own armies, so if a force decided to invade, wouldn’t our lives then depend on their individual wealth?

Security isn’t so expensive that only billionaires can afford it. Most people would probably decide to pay by direct debit for it the same way they pay for broadband or electricity, opting for a firm and package that suits you. You’d subscribe to whichever security firm you feel offers the best value for money, and if you have any doubts, you can switch security firm as easily as you can switch broadband provider. This is what keeps the firms in check, and it’s the reason a monopoly on armed services is so dangerous. Coercion is used to attain income, and there are no competitors; this is why we see state armed forces used aggressively… because people are forced to fund it and have no choice.

How are the security firms all supposed to coordinate if our territory was invaded?

Firms cooperate and coordinate with each other all the time in the marketplace. They do so more efficiently than do departments of the state, because they are responding to market signals and incentives, rather than bureaucratic signals and incentives. Resources would be used more wisely by competing security firms than they are by the monopoly state armed forces. Coordination to repel invaders would be enhanced.

What if enough people don’t sign up to any security firm?

Your relationship with your security firm would be similar to the relationship you have today with your broadband provider. It doesn’t matter how many of your neighbours “sign up” to the same firm as you, or a different firm, or forego broadband entirely. As long as demand is above a very low minimum threshold that makes it worthwhile offering service to that area, security will be available. And I predict pretty much everybody will sign up with some security firm, because people like being secure just as much, if not more, than they like broadband. The amount of resources a society devotes to security will be determined by how much consumers are willing to pay for security.

What happens if other countries offer the security firms a better deal?

That is incredibly unlikely given the differential between how much people are willing to pay to retain their own freedom versus how much they are willing to pay to take somebody else’s freedom. And even if the security firms are bought by a foreign power, new firms will immediately spring up to replace them… can you imagine what would happen if all broadband providers bizarrely decided to stop operating in the UK because they got “a better deal” from another country? Obviously you would get new firms buying up the capital, employing the same labor, and operating the same way as the old firms, and this would happen extremely quickly due to the strength of market incentives.

If you think about it, this is a strange objection, given that it is far less likely for all the security firms to be bought out by a foreign power than it is for the state to be bought out by a foreign power. Politicians are cheap! Corruption is easier! And talk about having all your eggs in one basket! Having a monopoly on armed forces is practically begging for a wannabe dictator or foreign state to take over. If you are worried about foreign influence, or the influence of a small group of billionaires, the state is the worst possible thing to support, because it is the system that most empowers them.

If military forces were purely private businesses wouldn’t they literally fight wars over markets and resources?

States fight wars over markets and resources. Private firms would be far less likely to do so, as they have more to lose, since they can’t externalise the costs of war onto taxpayers, the way states do. States can ignore a million people marching in the streets and still go to war. A private security firm is not going to be able to start a war when it’s customers could cut off all their revenue just by canceling a direct debit. Wars would be less common if armed forces were privatised.

A private army is loyal to it’s bank balance, nothing else, and would work for the highest bidder – not necessarily a country. Many large multinationals could support a small military of their own. Imagine Shell have just attacked and captured a BP oil rig, what could be done to make them return it before BP launch a counter attack?

You have a choice to buy from Shell or BP or neither. If you don’t like what one of them did, you can literally cut off their funding, by no longer buying from them, and this removes them of all power. Consumers have so much more power over what firms do than voters have over what states do. You stop buying their product, and they can no longer pay their army. That’s consumer power!

Whereas, if your government decides to go to war, what power do you have? What power do a million people marching have? Evidently, not enough to prevent a war. The state is getting your money using coercion, you have no option to stop paying, so it doesn’t care that you don’t want your money spent on military aggression overseas. The state gets paid regardless of your disapproval.

Attacking a competitor’s oil rig would be the most monumentally stupid business decision. Shell would be out of business overnight and their leaders would be brought to justice. Whereas states endure, and can’t go bankrupt because they can always just steal a little more. Lack of competitors means leaders of states that started wars are rarely brought to justice: Blair, Bush, Obama, Cameron… why aren’t any of them in jail? Because of the monopoly. The armed forces should be privatised so that the law can be applied equally to everyone.

Arbitrary, inconsistent, petty rules: a sign of authoritarianism

A sign of an authoritarian state is many rules, contradicting each other, with arbitrary enforcement, mostly relying on voluntary compliance through brainwashing and herd mentality, with exceptions for the state and its leaders and cronies.

With so many petty rules to abide by, the people become weary, stop questioning the rules, and stop questioning the purpose of the rules. Justifications for the rules are no longer required or presented.

The men in white coats, the gods calling themselves “the science”, must be followed at all times. This is the technocratic element of the regime. The rule by men is being replaced with rule by “the science”. No contrary views are to be allowed, and anyone with unauthorised views must be shamed and ridiculed, called evil, selfish, stupid, dangerous, and dirty.

People comply with the rules out of habit and to avoid stressful conflicts with the new morality police force, the brainwashed idiots, snitches, and karens of the world, as well as the covid marshalls and covid compliance officers, the new brownshirts.

We are about to go back into full lockdown, and most people have already accepted it as necessary and inevitable, and at this point do not need any justification to be presented. A vague reference to a “second wave”, and a few scary looking projections, will at this point be enough to ensure most of the population complies. They will comply, even though the first lockdown turned out to be pointless, caused many deaths, and resulted in unprecedented economic destruction and misery.

I am impressed by just how quickly the global elites have been able implement the authoritarianism they have this year. Their agenda for global domination has taken a great leap forward.

Lockdowns Don’t Work

In the absence of global government (for now), we have the opportunity to learn from how different national governments have responded to the Covid-19 threat.

The UK vs Sweden

The UK imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe, while Sweden did not lockdown at all. Here are the charts for daily deaths per million population for these two countries:

Lockdowns were sold as a way to “flatten the curve” to “protect the NHS” in order to “save lives”. The comparison to Sweden shows that the lockdown did not flatten the curve. The two lines are the same shape: rising at the same time, peaking at the same time, and both falling to almost zero by the beginning of August. The only differences are the peak (UK 40% higher) and the slope of the line downward from the peak (UK fell slightly quicker).

The “second wave” threat

We are faced with the prospect of a second lockdown, in response to a “second wave” that the media have been fearmongering about for months. The first lockdown saved very few lives, if any, from covid. However, this evidence is apparently being dismissed and the dials of tyranny are being turned up again in the UK: meetings of groups above six are banned from this week. Lockdown is no longer to be thought of as a binary, but a sliding scale of tools the state now has in it’s toolbox to control people based on the “disease threat level”. It’s an upgrade to the old “terrorist threat level” idea, which has become stale.

Ever since the Cummings incident and the BLM protests/riots, we have been told that a second wave is right around the corner and that we citizens are to blame for it… because we were naughty and did not do as we were told. We were told that people flouting social distancing rules, gathering on beaches, going back to pubs and restaurants, refusing to wear masks, and other expressions of liberty now forbidden or frowned upon, would lead to a second wave. None of these things led to a second wave.

There is no sign of a second wave in either the UK or Sweden, according to the death rates chart. This explains the shift in propaganda messaging from focussing on deaths to focussing on cases. It is no longer about saving lives or protecting the NHS, but about “slowing the spread” of the virus, measured by case numbers.

Even if there is a second wave coming now, those imposing the lockdown can be confident that the public will continue unthinkingly accepting the pronouncements of the men in white coats. Just like in the Milgram experiment, most people will follow an order from an authority figure even when it goes against their own moral code and would be needless and cruel in normal circumstances. Most people will continue obey every command from the authorities: “keep your distance”, “small groups only”, “wear your mask”, “let us track your movements”, “take the vaccine”, and so on.

The general public must continue to believe the lie that they are too stupid to think about these subjects for themselves, and so have no choice but to slavishly follow the commands of the expert scientists the authorities have chosen to present. Most of them won’t question the rules (except to moan about inconsistencies and exceptions, as designed) and they certainly won’t question the goal.

Slowing the spread is the wrong goal

The strongest argument for trying to prevent the spread when the outbreak first occurred was the uncertainty. There was a chance the NHS might get overwhelmed. Now, there is far less uncertainty. We know that the disease is mild, along the lines of a bad seasonal flu, that it did not spread so quickly that it overwhelmed the NHS, and that lockdowns saved no lives. We also know by comparison with Sweden that trying to slow the spread of the disease turned out to be the wrong strategy. The best way to protect those at risk from covid is for the virus to spread quickly among healthy people. Once you have had the illness, you are no longer a threat to grandma.

The so-called “herd immunity” approach was taken by the UK government until the March u-turn, when social distancing and then lockdown were imposed. It was the approach used in Sweden all along. Once there is a high level of herd immunity, the vulnerable are better protected. The data show that Sweden got it right, and the UK (and most every other country) got the strategy wrong. Now, it is time to learn from the mistake and stop trying to slow the spread the virus.

(Herd immunity relies on immunity developing after having covid-19. The evidence so far suggests that those who suffer from covid-19 do indeed develop immunity to it and cannot catch it again. This immunity will probably last for many years, if not decades. See my post: How long does immunity to SARS-Cov-2 last?)

Cases are the wrong metric

Case rate charts are being used when fearmongering for a second wave in the UK. This chart compares the daily case rate for the UK and Sweden:

We can see from the Swedish line that the number of cases is not closely related to the number of deaths: deaths peaked in April and were down over 60% by June, when cases peaked. The following chart shows deaths-per-case:

In both countries, the number of deaths-per-case has fallen from a peak of around 20% to less than 1%. This could be due to better treatment or a difference in the population being diagnosed over time: more vulnerable people were hit sooner, and now most cases are in young and healthy people. It could be due to different testing policies.

Here is a chart of covid daily tests-per-thousand population in the UK and Sweden:

It is unsurprising that the number of cases has risen, given the increase in the number of tests. Case numbers can easily be manipulated by changing the number of tests, who gets tested, what type of test is used, what thresholds are used to define a positive result, and so on. When there is a divergence between the trend in cases and the trend in deaths, it should be the death chart that is considered more reliable.

There is no second wave until evidence for it appears on the deaths chart, and so far that hasn’t happened. It may happen, particularly after administration of this year’s flu shot, given the likelihood that the flu shot weakens the immune system to coronaviruses.


According to the data, the first lockdown did not save any lives from covid. We know it claimed many lives through deaths of despair, and will claim many more due to delayed medical diagnoses and postponed procedures and appointments, for example. It also wrecked the economy (although the effects have mostly been kicked down the road so far) which will cause a load more deaths, as well as poverty and reduced standards of living.

A second lockdown will be just as ineffective as the first, and even more destructive to lives and livelihoods. There are no good arguments in favour of a second lockdown, but unlike with the first lockdown, now the people do not even need to be given arguments or reasons or justifications. They will accept and support a second lockdown and do as instructed by authorities, regardless, and shame those of us who don’t. That is the power of the state’s propaganda machine.

How long does immunity to SARS-Cov-2 last?

Do people that recover from COVID-19 become immune to it? If so, how long does immunity to COVID-19 last?

COVID-19 Studies

Here are two recent studies have looked at this question:

  • Long, April 2020 showed that 100% of cases (N=47) were immune 19 days after COVID-19 symptom onset. This is based on measuring levels of IgG antibodies, with immunity, or a positive result, defined as being above a set threshold level.
Long, 2020
  • Seow, July 2020 was a longer study, widely reported (incorrectly) as showing that immunity is short-lived. It looked at 65 individuals that were admitted to hospital and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (the virus linked to COVID-19). They measured three different types of IgG, relating to three parts of the virus: the surface spike protein (S), the receptor binding domain (RBD), and the nucleocapsid protein (N). For each type of IgG, 90%-95% of subjects were above threshold after 2 months. In the few cases for which they had data beyond 2 months, it appeared that IgG levels were decreasing, but this results was not statistically significant and did not reduce the immunity level.
Seow, 2020

The evidence we have so far on SARS-CoV-2 suggests that immunity after recovery from COVID-19 is almost guaranteed for at least 3 months, but beyond that it is too soon to tell.

Other Coronavirus Studies

SARS-CoV-2 is one of seven coronaviruses. The others are:

  • SARS-CoV-1 (2002) – 8096 cases, 774 deaths (~10% CFR), mostly in China and Hong Kong, all in a single outbreak in 2003
  • MERS-CoV (2012) – 2506 cases, 862 deaths (~35% CFR), mostly in Saudi Arabia (2014) and South Korea (2015), with minor sporadic outbreaks continuing up to 2020
  • HCoV-229E, HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43, and HCoV-HKU1, four viruses that are found in about 15% of cases of common cold (the majority of colds are caused by rhinoviruses), with mild symptoms and no deaths.

Studies of these other coronaviruses can give us clues about COVID-19 immunity duration:

  • Wu, 2007 showed that IgG antibody levels for SARS-CoV-1 were above the immunity threshold within 3 weeks in >90% of cases that had recovered from SARS, and after 3 months, 100% were immune. At 7 months it started decreasing, dropping below 90% after 2 years, and 55% after three years.
Wu, 2007
  • Payne, 2016 showed that 7 out of 7 patients that recovered from MERS were still immune after 34 months, based on their antibody levels, with 5 of them seeing no decrease in antibody level.
Payne, 2016
  • Callow, 1990 gave 10 volunteers a nasal spray of HCoV-229E, giving them an infection and a cold, triggering an adaptive immune response and the development of antibodies. 1 year later, the volunteers still had a high level of antibodies, and when given the same spray again did not get any cold symptoms.
Callow, 1990

Immunity is more than Antibody Levels

All the above studies measure antibody levels and then compare the measurements to a set threshold level, to determine immunity. This is a convenient but flawed way of defining and determining immunity. Merriam-Webster defines immunity as “a condition of being able to resist a particular disease especially through preventing development of a pathogenic microorganism or by counteracting the effects of its products” and immune as “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”. This definition is the common usage.

Then there is the more specific medical definition of immune, which is “having or producing antibodies or lymphocytes capable of reacting with a specific antigen”. This narrower definition is easy to measure, but it can be misleading when the two definitions are conflated, because antibodies are only a small part of our arsenal of resistance against pathogens.

The Innate Immune System

Our first line of resistance against pathogens, besides physical barriers like the lungs, gut and skin, is the innate immune system, which involves:

  • Complement: proteins synthesised to identify pathogens and tag them, attack pathogen cell membranes, induce inflammation, and attract phagocytes to the infection site.
  • Inflammation: changes in the blood vessels to allow phagocytes to enter tissue in the infected area more easily, and to try to prevent the infection from spreading to the rest of the body.
  • Phagocytosis: innate immune system cells – macrophages, neutrophils, and dendritic cells – engulf and break down pathogens or particles. Natural Killer cells, a type of lymphocyte, target and destroy compromised host cells.

The innate immune system alone is enough to defeat most pathogens. Small infections can be cleared quickly and with only mild symptoms, if any. If we take immune to mean “having a high degree of resistance to a disease”, then having a strong innate immune system is the most important way of being immune.

The Adaptive Immune System

The adaptive immune system evolved much later than the innate immune system. Only vertebrates have an adaptive immune system. It is an add-on that exists to target specific pathogens that are causing a particularly bad infection. It involves two new types of lymphocyte, called T cells (because they mature in the thymus) and B cells (bone marrow):

  • T cells become specific through the process of antigen-presentation from a dentritic cell or macrophage, and then target and destroy that pathogen, in a similar way to Natural Killer cells.
  • B cells become specific through direct activation by a pathogen, and then produce antibodies to tag that pathogen, to assist the innate immune system in clearing the infection.

The adaptive immune system can take days to be activated due to the clonal selection process used to develop lymphocytes that can target the specific invading pathogen, never before encountered. After an infection has been cleared, some T cells and B cells become memory cells, adding to the immunological memory bank. Should the same pathogen return, the memory cells are activated, skipping the clonal selection process, so the adaptive immune system gets activated hours, instead of days.

Memory Cell Studies

It is the presence or absence of memory cells that determines whether the adaptive immune response will take hours or days to be activated. Antibodies may continue to circulate for months or years after an infection is cleared, but they decline if their target pathogen does not return. A person can have no antibodies, but still have memory cells, so an antibody-level test would declare them non-immune. Thus, antibody-testing does not even accurately test for the medical definition of immune.

A more direct way of assessing whether a specific pathogen is in the immunological memory bank is to test for a response from memory T cells. The following studies of are based on testing for SARS-CoV-1 memory T cells in survivors of SARS:

  • Ng, 2016 demonstrated that SARS-specific memory T cells persist in three SARS-recovered individuals at 9 and 11 years post-SARS in the absence of antigen
  • Le Bert, 2020 showed that memory T cells for SARS-Cov-1 remained in blood 17 years . These subjects can therefore still mount an quick adaptive immune system response to SARS-Cov-1, even if there are no measurable antibodies after so many years. The same study showed that SARS-Cov-2 is sufficiently similar to SARS-Cov-1 that an adaptive immune response even takes place in individuals that recovered from SARS 17 years ago.


SARS and MERS had very high Case Fatality Rates (10% and 35% respectively) and appear to confer immunity lasting at least a few years, if not decades. Common cold coronaviruses may confer immunity of a year or more, but not for as long as the more serious coronaviruses.

Covid-19 was initially said to have a CFR of 5% but this has been revised down to 0.26%, and is likely to be revised down again to <0.1%. Thus, it seems likely that SARS-Cov-2 will fall in the middle of the coronavirus duration-of-immunity spectrum.

These studies combine to show that the length of immunity following an infection is closely related to how severe the infection was, which makes sense given the evolved design of the immune system.

On an individual level, as shown by the Seow 2020 study, SARS-Cov-2 antibody levels are related to the severity of Covid-19 symptoms; the more severe the case, the stronger the immune response, the higher the antibody levels, and presumably the longer immunity lasts.

Thus, Covid-19 immunity probably lasts for years, rather than months, and longer in those that had severe symptoms. It will be shorter in those that had mild or no symptoms, whose innate immune systems were sufficient to end the infection.

Beware of The Great Reset

The global elites have just announced that they are about to take complete control of the planet and all of humanity – for our benefit.  

They are calling it “The Great Reset”. 

Here is the full 80-minute video of the globalists announcing the plan, with Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles leading the sales pitch.

This 22-minute video by Spiro Skouras contains the key parts of the announcement, then breaks down what is really going on.

The Great Reset is the name of a planned transformation of the global economy, society, and humanity itself, to increase the power of the global elites. The globalists never let a crisis go to waste, and the COVID-19 pandemic has created the perfect opportunity for this global transformation to take place.

This is no mere tinkering around the edges of the existing socioeconomic system; it is the replacement of one socioeconomic system by another. It will happen in the 2020s. It represents a giant leap forward in the globalists’ long-term agenda for world domination.

The Great Reset plan has 7 sections:

  1. Shaping the Economic Recovery
  2. Redesigning Social Contracts, Skills and Jobs
  3. Restoring the Health of the Environment
  4. Developing Sustainable Business Models
  5. Revitalizing Global Cooperation
  6. Strengthening Regional Development
  7. Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution

Details will be announced in January 2021, but it is not hard to guess what the plan will contain. By “Shaping the Economic Recovery”, I expect the following power-centralising economic policies to be rolled out within the next decade, in most developed nations (and all to thunderous applause):

  • expanded state welfare, e.g. subsidised loan payments, furlough payments, childcare credits, income guarantees, state pension increase
  • cancellation of debt, e.g. student debt, third-world debt, high-interest debt, sovereign debt
  • bailouts and/or nationalisations of selected “too big to fail” firms and entire industries, e.g. banks, retailers, media, energy, farming, transport
  • price controls, e.g. rent freezes, maximum price controls on essential goods, minimum wage increases, maximum quantities of items that can be bought, profit and bonus caps
  • new forms of tax, e.g. automation tax, land value tax, wealth tax
  • public works projects, e.g. new transport, energy and communication infrastructure, house building, green cities
  • universal basic income, the most dangerous economic development, since it can so easily be dialled up to become universal dependency on the state

All this state expansion will require unprecedented levels of fiat money to be created in order to fund it, and some national currencies may be destroyed by hyperinflation, intentional or not. The globalists will use a currency crisis (such as in the dollar or euro) as an opportunity to transition to a one world currency that they control. They may not even need a hyperinflation to get the masses to support the idea.

The new global currency will be fully electronic; there will be a global digital central bank, with unlimited capability to create money. Control of monetary systems and central banks is a cornerstone of globalist power today, as it has been for over a century. Currency competition is the last remaining check on central banks’ capability to create money, so a one world currency would amplify that power.

The Great Reset plan is far more than just a change to the economic system. It covers these 50 domains:

  1. Inclusive Design
  2. Taxation
  3. Civic Participation
  4. Justice and Law
  5. LGBTI Inclusion
  6. Gender Parity
  7. Human Rights
  8. Systemic Racism
  9. Future of Energy
  10. Future of Mobility
  11. Forests
  12. Corporate Governance
  13. Batteries
  14. 3D Printing
  15. Circular Economy
  16. Plastics and the Environment
  17. Environment and Natural Resource Security
  18. Advancing Manufacturing and Production
  19. Future of Food
  20. Air Pollution
  21. Leadership in the Fourth Industrial Revolution
  22. Global Risks
  23. Global Health
  24. Geo-economics
  25. Future of Economic Progress
  26. Geopolitics
  27. Workforce and Employment
  28. International Security
  29. Agile Governance
  30. Sustainable Development
  31. Climate Change
  32. COVID-19
  33. Biodiversity
  34. Aviation, Travel and Tourism
  35. Public Finance and Social Protection
  36. Development Finance
  37. International Trade and Investment
  38. Global Governance
  39. Banking and Capital Markets
  40. Future of Health and Healthcare
  41. Cities and Urbanization
  42. Drones
  43. Future of Computing
  44. Digital Economy and New Value Creation
  45. Digital Identity
  46. Internet Governance
  47. Artificial Intelligence and Robotics
  48. Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture
  49. The Ocean
  50. Fourth Industrial Revolution

Again, it is not hard to guess what The Great Reset plan will contain in these 50 domains, considering who is behind this plan and that they are trying to enslave the world. I expect the following power-centralising economic policies to be rolled out within the next decade, in most developed nations (again, all to thunderous applause):

  • mandatory vaccinations for children and all adults, and more vaccinations on the schedule, despite growing evidence that vaccines have subtle adverse neurological and immunological effects
  • expansion of the pharmacological state, promoting mass drug addiction and dependency on prescription or illegal drugs, and probably new soma-like wonder drugs sold as cures for mental illnesses
  • expanded climate change mitigation activity, e.g. carbon trading and taxes, land grabs for conservation, natural resource grabs
  • a permanent “disease threat level” control system for instructing the masses and maintaining fear (an upgrade to the familiar “terrorism threat level” ruse, but instead of being a war on terrorism it is a war on selected microorganisms, the perfect invisible enemy for a permanent war)
  • a social behaviour control system for easily adjusting local prevailing rules/norms on social distancing, sport and entertainment events, social gatherings, mask-wearing, business operating rules, mandatory tracking app requirements, curfews, local quarantines, etc, all based on disease threat level.
  • travel and access restrictions for individuals designated “dangerous” and “dirty” enemies of the state, e.g. vaccine refusers, mask refusers, those who ignore social distancing norms, requirements to prove health and vaccination status
  • social credit scoring, i.e. a reputation system which can be used to isolate any enemies of the state, or anyone belonging to the wrong identity group, or anyone who has broken social norms or engaged in hate speech or wrongthink.
  • transhumanism, i.e. bringing together digital, physical, and biological systems, e.g. identity chips, body health monitoring, body enhancements, augmented and virtual reality, direct connections between the brain and digital devices

As always, these things are not going to be imposed on the people. That would be impossible. The people are going to demand these things. It is problem-reaction-solution yet again.

  • Problem: a socioeconomic system that results in mass injustice, inequality, exploitation and environmental destruction
  • Reaction: overthrow the existing socioeconomic system
  • Solution: The Great Reset

The Great Reset has a dangerously appealing name. It is not what it seems. It is a great leap forward toward the dystopia of Brave New World. It is a blueprint for global enslavement.