For generations, political leaders have offered empty promises that were never kept. Conservative and liberal political leaders alike have consistently made a grand show of disagreeing with each other on what form of governance might serve the people best. Yet, somehow, the result, no matter which group theoretically holds the reins of power at any given time, has always been a larger, more powerful government, a wealthier corporate class, and a populace that was increasingly robbed of its freedoms – social, political, and economic. We are now at the very turning point at which much of the formerly Free World is being tempted to make the leap into the “Brave New World.”
BY JEFF THOMAS FOR INTERNATIONAL MAN AND THE INTERNATIONAL CHRONICLES
Klaus Schwab was born in Nazi Germany in 1938. Little information is available as to his upbringing – i.e., the degree to which he was educated to believe in Nazi doctrine – but whatever he was taught in his youth, he is, today, one of the most ardent believers in, and proponents of, totalitarian rule.
The term “Nazi” refers to Nationalsozialistisch, or “National Socialism,” and its overall concept was fascism – a concept that encompassed a corporatist economic system, socialist political system, and totalitarian rule.
Whilst this description may seem rather convoluted, the concept was believed by Wall Street and much of the US government in the 1930s as the way of the future. So much so that they provided considerable financial and logistical support for Nazi Germany during the 1930s and even into the 1940s.
Following the war, only a handful of Germans were prosecuted for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials. Countless others were taken on board by both US industry and the government following the war, to educate American industry in German methodology.
For many years following the war, Nazi concepts remained under the radar, but in recent years, they’ve become a major force within not only the US, but also US ally states: Canada, Australia, the UK, and, most notably, the EU.
The basic concepts are perennial in their attraction to those who seek to dominate:
- Create an uber class of those who are highly positioned in both industry and politics.
- Cripple the middle class economically, so that they no longer have the power to make their own life decisions.
- Offer dramatically increased dependency on the State as a relief from the economic hardship created by the state.
- Remove freedoms, in trade for the promise of largesse from the State.
- Institute a police state and totalitarian rule to ensure that the new paradigm will be lasting.
- Once controls are fully implemented and the populace has become dependent on the new system, begin to remove the promised entitlements.
The idea behind this final bullet point is that, once the population is thoroughly dependent upon the state, they will have lost the power to object or rebel if entitlements are removed. They are then fully dominated.
Of course, if any individual were to read the above menu, he would immediately say, “No way!” and reject the program outright. Therefore, if such an oppressive regime were to be imposed upon a people, it would need to be sold to them as a benefit, not as virtual enslavement.
Joseph Goebbels was proud of saying, “Make the lie big. Keep it simple. Keep saying it and eventually, they will believe it.”
Quite so. Fortunately, Mister Hitler and his friends were removed from the firmament before the final stages of the program could be implemented.
But today, the jurisdictions listed above are now solidly in the completion stage of bullet point #2 and have begun to provide the offer of bullet point #3: the promised solution to the populace.
And so, we return to our poster boy for totalitarianism: Klaus Schwab.
His fame has been earned through his creation and chairmanship of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Over the last half-century, the WEF has grown in influence to become one of the foremost leaders in the proposition of a New World Order.
As with Mister Hitler, in order to sell Totalitarianism 2.0 to the people of the countries in question, the technique once again is to “Make the lie big.”
Professor Schwab’s Brave New World offers an idyllic state in which people can rid themselves of all the personal debt, the political upheaval, and the social unrest that is now expanding so rapidly.
The proposed solution is that you sign over your right to own possessions on a permanent basis, in trade for a life in which there is minimal responsibility. The world government will provide you with a basic income. You will rent whatever you need – a residence, a vehicle, appliances, even your clothing.
Most importantly, as can be seen from the countenance of the citizen in the image above, you’ll be happy.
There will be no more wars. A “handful of countries” will rule the world cooperatively. There will be no waiting for medical attention. “There will be a global price on carbon” emissions. (This states that those who use fossil fuels – everyone – will be taxed for its use, although no explanation is given as to how this keeps the world from ending in twelve years due to emissions, as globalists claim.)
The government will have full control of every aspect of your life, plus the task of removing any obstacles to your happiness.
Sounds wonderful. Where do I sign up?
But if we stop and think for a moment, we might wish to ask a few questions.
For one thing, you give up all rights at the beginning of the deal. You will have lost all your possessions and all your freedoms. You will be 100% dependent upon the state. Their part of the deal is to be delivered on the back end.
But once you’re totally dependent and can no longer extricate yourself from the deal, there’s nothing to stop them from removing the punch bowl… Oh-oh.
All the things that were promised may be withdrawn one at a time until you’re both subservient and impoverished. You will lack the ability to rebel or even to complain.
For generations, political leaders have offered empty promises that were never kept. Conservative and liberal political leaders alike have consistently made a grand show of disagreeing with each other on what form of governance might serve the people best. Yet, somehow, the result, no matter which group theoretically holds the reins of power at any given time, has always been a larger, more powerful government and a populace that was increasingly robbed of its freedoms – social, political, and economic.
We are now at the very turning point at which much of the formerly Free World is being tempted to make the leap into the “Brave New World.”
All the social, political, and economic problems that presently exist have been caused by political leaders. They are now asking you to trust them to end those problems.
The promise is a simple one: You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.
But you’re not required to sign up. All you need do is sit still and accept the transformation to totalitarianism as it plays out.
Nothing could be simpler.
Is Socialism / Collectivism inevitable in America’s future?
“Whichever party gains the day, tyrants or demagogues are most sure to take the offices.”
The quote above may cause the reader to nod his head, as throughout much of the world today, we are witnessing a distinct lack of choice in “democratic” elections – a “damned if you do; damned if you don’t” choice of equally incapable and even dangerous candidates.
However, the quote is from 1841 and was made by New York Assemblyman Clinton Roosevelt, a distant cousin of Franklin Roosevelt.
The Roosevelt family occupies a recurrent and pernicious place in American political history. Other relatives of President Roosevelt include not only the obvious Theodore Roosevelt but John Adams, John Quincy Adams, and Martin Van Buren.
More interesting is that, early on, the idea of a dominant central government became the focus of the Roosevelt family.
As early as 1791, John Adams became a member of Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which sought federal diktat in preference to individual states rights.
Later, in 1841, decades prior to the publication of Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, Clinton Roosevelt proposed a scheme for central economic planning and the control of society.
The concept was for a totalitarian government in which individuality is required to give way to collectivism. It was to be run by a small elite group, of which he, not surprisingly, would be a part.
Mister Roosevelt acknowledged that, for this to be fully effective, the US Constitution would, at some point, need to be scrapped.
Years later, in 1922, socialist editor Benito Mussolini created, with the financial assistance of the J.P. Morgan company, a corporatist/collectivist state, very much in the vein of the 1841 scheme by Clinton Roosevelt.
Then, in 1933, newly-elected President Franklin Roosevelt established the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which bore an uncanny resemblance to the 1841 plan.
Two years later, the US Supreme Court voted unanimously that the NRA was unconstitutional.
Undaunted, the Roosevelt government replaced the NRA with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
The Roosevelt argument in favor of the NLRA was that the Great Depression was caused by market instability that could be corrected only by government intervention and control through a centrally planned economy.
The Coming New Order of Corporate Collectivism
For many years, a handful of people have postulated that those who control industry, finance, and governments are essentially the same people – a cabal of sorts that have, over generations, solidified their relationships in order to gain greater wealth and power, whilst systematically making things ever more difficult for the free market to exist.
But why should this be? Surely, corporate leaders are more ardently capitalist than anyone else?
Well, on the surface, that might appear to make sense, but once a significant position of power has been achieved, those who have achieved it recognize that, since they’ve already reached the top, the primary concern changes. From then on, the primary concern becomes the assurance that no others are able to climb so high as they have.
At that point, they realize that their foremost effort needs to be a push toward corporatism – the merger of power between government and business.
This is a natural marriage. The political world is a parasitic one. It relies on a continual flow of funding. The world of big business is a study in exclusivity – the ability to make it impossible for pretenders to the throne to arise. Big business provides the cash, and government provides protective legislation that ensures preference for those at the top.
In most cases, this second half of the equation does not mean a monopoly for just one corporation, but a monopoly for a cabal – an elite group of corporations.
This corporatist relationship has deep roots in the US, going back over one hundred years. To this day, those elite families who took control of oil, steel, banking, motor vehicles, and other industries a century ago, soon created a takeover of higher learning (universities), health (Big Pharma), and “Defense” (the military-industrial complex).
Through legislation, the US was then transformed to ensure that all these interests would be catered to, creating generations of both control and profit.
Of course, “profit” should not be an evil word, but under crony capitalism, it becomes an abomination – a distortion of the free market and the death of laissez-faire economics.
Certainly, this sort of collectivism is not what Karl Marx had in mind when he daydreamed about a workers’ paradise in which business leaders retained all the risk and responsibility of creating and building businesses, whilst the workers had the final word as to how the revenue would be distributed to the workers themselves.
Mister Marx failed in being objective enough to understand that if the business creator took all the risk and responsibility but gave up the ability to decide what happened to the revenue, he’d never bother to open a business. Even a shoeshine boy would reject such a notion and elect to go on the dole, rather than work.
Mister Marx sought more to bring down those who were successful than to raise up those who were not, yet he unwittingly created a new idea – corporate collectivism – in which the very people he sought to debase used the appeal of collectivist rhetoric to diminish both the freedoms and wealth of the average worker.
On the surface, this might appear to be a hard sell – to get the hoi polloi into the net – but in fact, it’s quite easy and has perennially been effective.
Hitler’s New Order was such a construct – the promise to return Germany to greatness and the German people to prosperity through increasingly draconian laws, warfare, and an economic revolving door between government and industry.
Of course, a major influx of capital was required – billions of dollars – and this was eagerly provided by US industry and banks. Heads of New York banks not only funded Nazi industry; families such as the Fords, Rockefellers, Morgans, etc., sat on the boards of German corporations.
The Nazi effort failed, as they underestimated the Russian will to fight to the death. (Eighty percent of all German Army deaths were due to the Russian campaign.)
But those in New York and Washington D.C. were able to regroup and be first in the queue for the restructuring of German industry after the war and, ultimately, profited handsomely.
But most significantly, the idea of corporatist collectivism did not die. Even before the war, the same group of families and corporations had drawn up the plan for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Mister Roosevelt was a dyed-in-the-wool Wall Street man and a director of New York banks. In the 1930s and early 1940s, he created, as president, a revolving door that favored large corporations, whilst the average American was consciously kept at the subsistence level through government entitlements.
The scam worked. Shortsighted Americans not only were grateful; they deified him for it.
Likewise, John Kennedy’s New Frontier sought to revitalize the concept, as did Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society: Give the little people entitlements that keep them little. Tax smaller businesses and create a flow of tax dollars to the elite industries, who, in turn, provide monetary favors to the political class.
The Green New Deal is merely the latest corporate collectivist scheme on the list.
Corporate collectivism can be defined as a system in which the few who hold the legal monopolies of finance and industry gain an overriding control over all others, and in so doing, systematically extract wealth from them.
Today, this system has become so refined that, although the average American has a flat-screen TV and an expensive smartphone, he cannot raise $400 to cover an emergency that occurs in his life. He is, for all practical purposes, continually bankrupt, but still functioning in a zombie-like existence of continual dependency.
This, on the surface, may not seem all that dangerous, but those who cannot buy their way out of a small emergency are easily controlled. Just create an emergency such as an uber-virus and that fact will be illuminated quickly.
In order to maximize compliance in a population, maximize their dependence.
As stated above, this effort has been in play for generations. But it is now reaching a crescendo. It’s now up to speed in most of the former Free World and those who hold the strings are ready for a major step forward in corporate collectivism.
In the coming year, we shall see dramatic changes appearing at a dizzying rate. Capital controls, migration controls, internal movement controls, tax increases, confiscation of assets, and the removal of “inalienable” rights will all be coming into effect – so quickly that before the populace can even grasp the latest restrictions, new ones will be heaped on.
As this unfolds, we shall witness the erosion of the nation-state. Controls will come from global authorities, such as the UN, the IMF, and the WEF. Organizations that have no formal authority over nations will increasingly be calling the shots and people will wonder how this is possible. Elected officials will increasingly become mere bagmen, doing the bidding of an unelected ruling class.
The changes that take place will be not unlike a blanket that is thrown over humanity.
The question then will be whether to, a) give in to this force, b) fight it and most likely fall victim to it, or c) seek a means to fall outside the perimeter of the blanket.
