A funny thing happens when corporate culture becomes indistinguishable from government culture. Shadow incorporated governments promote and grant authority to those ‘ambitious’ individuals who can best over-sell and over-promise results.
Think of unimpressive appointees like Trudeau, Ardern, Johnson, and Morrison. At first glance it doesn’t really matter that these aims are unattainable.
But it does matter, because from it we can crystalize this axiom: the more impossible the dream, the more it promotes the likes Ardern, et al.
As each 1% increase in unemployment sustained over a year creates some thirty-six thousand ‘deaths of despair’, a widely known and published fact.
The shutting down of economies several years ago was going to cause millions of such deaths as initial unemployment rates in the USA alone spiked to nearly 15% according to Pew Research.
Ambitious leaders in league with the IMF/WEF were onboard with this, knowing full well the consequences. It was the push back from popular ‘populist’ forces that prevented this early on.
And in the USA a strong case can be made that the White House itself was on the side of these populist forces at the time, as it called for an opening of the U.S. economy and fought openly with governors from Blue States.
But the eager-to-please mis-leaders in service of the IMF, for their part, would never approach any success without an entire cultural substrate.
Narratives are a type of soft power, and like all forms of power, narratives can only go so far. We are now witnessing now just how far they can go.
Narratives are just ‘stories in our heads’. But if these are shared with broader communities, real or virtual/digital, then they are reinforced and become part of fabricated reality.
The WEF and the IMF it works for have a grand plan for the future – the technocratic aims of which are by now thoroughly understood.
The WEF begins with these aims as a foregone conclusion, and so the only questions they wanted answered were ‘Who will carry it out?’, and ‘How will it be done?
The corporate culture of over-selling and over-promising investors and shareholders works in the public’s interest insofar as these catastrophically dystopian aims are far less stable or realizable than advertised.
In other words, the public has been resisting illegal legislation and shattering the narrative which justifies it, and so reset-ism itself is in danger of failure.
This much has meant the organic development of a counter-narrative, one that resonates with increasing layers in affected societies. Big tech oligarchs have done their part in trying to police, punish, and silence this counter-narrative.
Elites have fallen into a vicious cycle, as the populist counter-narrative is proven in part by that very censorship and repression. The more they push, the weaker they become.
Yet that point is so very well understood by Sorosian Color Revolutionary social engineers, planners, organizers, that one might raise some greater suspicion.
One thing the WEF does by positioning itself as some independent watch-dog critic of a rapacious globalist oligarchy, when in fact it is employed by them, is demonstrate that they are ‘tuned in’ to how mass publics think and feel.
This is meant to subvert ‘tired’, ‘dated’, and ‘slow-to-change’ constitutional institutions.
Technocrats mean to show that by simple analysis of internet user data – their hopes, dreams, proclivities, political views and biases – they can arrive at top-down solutions which somehow reflect the user data.
As a managerial class, here they show the ruling class that because they so very well understand the ‘people’, they are capable of using an entire array of social sciences to achieve the desired result which they have over-promised and over-sold.
Global elites are now more trusting of each other than ever before, but that the people they rule over – nation by nation respectively – are far less trusting of their own rulers.
One obstacle to governments’ Covid restrictions and climate measures in the coming years was that the majority of people trust their elites less.
The sheer speed, magnitude and scope of the weaponization of Covid-19 to prop up a police-state in Western democracies was a demoralizing psychological operation, an act of political warfare not of nation against nation, but of elites against mass populaces.
This was an information warfare blitzkrieg. But without a decisive vernichtungsschlacht (battle of annihilation), they only left their own line of assault riddled with holes and supply-line issues.
Nothing can hide a genuine lack of real preparedness as such displays of confidence. Of course, both their ability to succeed and their operating narrative seemed plausible enough when they launched their attack.
The rest of the thinking world understands instantly what this means: the WEF is calling for further censorship and repression of any alternative narratives.
And yet the hurried pace of the Covid-19 introduced Great Reset, and the way that a sizable portion of the populace has been able to expose it, reject it, and organize with some successes against it, also raises questions.
Was the Great Reset hurried? What events forced the elites to make this happen now, instead of later? What conditions would have been riper, and why were those conditions not fostered in advance?
As we have developed this so far in our work on the subject, it indeed appears that the Great Reset was launched with an insufficient foundation for reasons which expose the weakness of the plan.
This seems to leave sizable room for the possibility that a notable split within the plutocracy now exists. This can be understood in terms of looking at the future possible outcomes in terms of the balance of class dynamics: billionaires are themselves stratified.
The error here is to project class solidarity onto the owning class. This error is easy to make for a number of reasons, and mostly because indeed the owning class does get behind many if not most of the upwards redistribution schemes which they all benefit from.
But these moves tend to conceal or distort the real division which exist among them.
Ever since the conclusion WW II, western elites have opted for a course of historical development on the foundation of ‘gradual reforms and change’. This, as opposed to the radicalism and rapid changes saw in the first fifty years of the 20th century.
Many of the changes to the geopolitics of the world and Europe envisioned by the architects of the Third Reich are being implemented today by western elites, but these changes are delivered incrementally and slowly over a period of seven decades instead of seven years.
Through this, concerns can be addressed and cohesion in and among elites can be built.
The rapid pace of changes seen in the first half of the 20th century raised concerns, and caused divisions between western elites, and provoked a ‘histamine’ reaction from the populations in question.
The need to openly talk about ‘narratives’ and combating fake news as the WEF does, is itself a sign of the times and a sign of their own weakness. The Resestist narrative is crumbling, and lacking popular support they resort to an unstable repression.
Strategic Culture / ABC Flash Point News 2022.