The Covid19 New World Order and the World Economic Forum

[Grizzly]

The Atlantic Council has a CBDC Tracker

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/cbdctracker/

[Grizzly]

https://twitter.com/BGatesIsaPyscho/sta ... 9554087964
Geo-Engineering

looked for the chemtrail thread, couldn't find it...


----
Dark times ahead…

Bret Weinstein Exposes the World Health Organization’s Dark Agenda


We got six months? Happy Beltane.

[BenDhyan]

New WEF Participant Crashes 2024 Davos Meeting

[stickdog99]

EU Chief Ursula von der Leyen: "Misinformation is world's gravest problem."

uropean Commission President Ursula von der Leyen today declared that “misinformation and disinformation” are greater threats to the global business community than war and climate change.

“For the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate,” she said in her speech at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos. “It is disinformation and misinformation, followed closely by polarisation within our societies.”

The solution, according to von der Leyen, is for businesses and governments to collaborate to quash disinformation. “Many of the solutions lie not only in countries working together but, crucially, on businesses and governments, businesses and democracies working together,” she said. “While governments hold many of the levers to deal with the great challenges of our time, business have [sic] the innovation, the technology, the talents to deliver the solutions we need to fight threats like climate change or industrial-scale disinformation.”

To illustrate her point, von der Leyen mentioned the upcoming election-heavy year, calling it “the biggest electoral year in history”, and warned that bad actors may exploit the openness of democracies to influence elections with disinformation.

In the latest WEF Global Risk Report, misinformation and disinformation were ranked as a greater risk to the world than everything but extreme weather. Polarisation, the housing crisis, cyberattacks, economic downturn, supply-chain disruptions, and even nuclear war ranked beneath misinformation in the WEF risk report. Misinformation was rated more than three times higher in risk level than the erosion of free speech.

Fears about the democratisation of information have been an enduring theme at WEF conferences in recent years. Having been concerned by the threat of disinformation in the context of 2016 election interference and Covid-19, Davos attendees say they’re now focusing on the risks of AI.

“The disruptive capabilities of manipulated information are rapidly accelerating, as open access to increasingly sophisticated technologies proliferates and trust in information and institutions deteriorates,” the risk report reads. “Even as the insidious spread of misinformation and disinformation threatens the cohesion of societies, there is a risk that some governments will act too slowly, facing a trade-off between preventing misinformation and protecting free speech, while repressive governments could use enhanced regulatory control to erode human rights.”

*****

Translation: "Everyone would finally agree that their elite superiors are as totally awesome as I am if we seized total control of all information outlets. The only thing we have to fear is free speech itself."

[Grizzly]

BREAKING: Johns Hopkins Wargames Disease X Killing 150 Million People, Collapsing Government
https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=65a84948a2bca6fd62425438
https://madmaxworld.tv/watch?id=65a8494 ... fd62425438

Alex is right more than he's not....

[Elvis]

“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson

‘A tribal clique’: Lagarde denounces economists at Davos

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde launched a stinging attack on the economics profession on Wednesday (17 January), accusing analysts of having “blind faith” in their models, which often bear little connection to reality.

Speaking at an event entitled “How to Trust Economics” at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the ECB chief also suggested that economists constitute a “tribal clique” whose models largely discount the possibility of “exogenous shocks” such as pandemics, climate change-induced weather events, and sudden supply shortages – all of which have severely impacted Europe’s economy over the last few years.

Lagarde, a lawyer by training who previously served as the head of the International Monetary Fund, also noted that upon assuming her current position as ECB president in 2019 she explicitly warned its Governing Council and analysts to “beware of models”.

“Many economists are actually a tribal clique,” she said. “[They] are among the most tribal scientists that you can think of. They quote each other. They don’t go beyond that world. They feel comfortable in that world. And maybe models have something to do with it.”

“If we had more consultations with epidemiologists, if we had climate change scientists to help us with what’s coming up, if we were consulting a bit better with geologists, for instance, to properly appreciate what rare earths and resources are out there, I think we would be in a better position to actually understand these developments, project better, and be better economists.”


‘Not helping the fight’

Lagarde’s fiery comments echo remarks she made in an interview with Bloomberg TV earlier on Wednesday, where she criticised money markets for “not helping the fight against inflation” by being too optimistic about rate cuts being introduced earlier than expected this year.

Money markets are currently pricing in six rate cuts of 25 basis points (0.25 percentage points) each over the course of 2024, with the first cut coming as early as March.

However, Lagarde warned that, although rate cuts will “likely” be introduced by the summer, crucial wage bargaining data used by the ECB to determine monetary policy will only be available in “late spring”.

“We will know a lot more probably in April, May, because the bargaining agreements are being negotiated in the first quarter of every year and the results come in after the agreements have been closed,” she explained.

Eric Dor, the director of economic studies at the IESEG School of Management, told Euractiv that markets were indeed “a bit overoptimistic in December [by] implicitly forecasting a cut of policy rates early in the year”.

However, he noted that more recent ECB data on bond yield curves shows that “since then, markets have become more realistic”.

Maria Demertzis, a Senior Fellow at Bruegel think tank, stressed that the fact that the head of the ECB told markets their predictions were amiss is “brave” but refused to be drawn on the issue of forecasting.

“Who knows who’s right?” Demertzis told Euractiv. “If the whole market is thinking that way, are they all wrong? I don’t know… Given the uncertainties that we see, I wouldn’t put my money on anybody.”

The ECB hiked interest rates on ten consecutive occasions to curb soaring prices between July 2022 and September 2023, bringing its benchmark deposit facility from -0.5% to a record high of 4.0%. It paused rate hikes at its two previous rate-setting meetings in October and December.


‘The track record of forecasting is abysmal’

Lagarde’s comments also came on the same day that Eurostat, the EU’s official statistics office, confirmed a previous flash estimate that year-on-year eurozone inflation increased from 2.4% in November to 2.9% in December – down from a peak of 10.6% in October 2022 but still well above the ECB’s 2% target rate.

The ECB’s own forecasts see inflation dropping to 2.7% this year before falling below 2% in 2026.

IESEG’s Dor stressed that one current “major source of uncertainty” surrounding contemporary inflation predictions is the attacks on shipping vessels by Houthi forces off the coast of Yemen, causing a spike in shipping costs that could eventually be passed onto consumers.

“If this situation lasts for a long time, the surge in shipping rates could imply a rebound of inflation in the euro area,” he said.

Asked about the ECB’s own inflation forecasts, Demertzis was scathing.

“If you look at the track record of forecasting, it’s abysmal,” she said. “The fact that inflation returns to [below 2%] in two years’ time is by construction. The models that they use force it to return to equilibrium and inflation to 2% in two years’ time.”

“I think forecasting right now is much more an art than a science,” she added. “Forecasting at this point is just not reliable.”

Lagarde is right about that, of course. Look at ECB inflation forecasts of recent years—

ECB inflation forecasts g.jpg

How can economists & central bankers get it so wrong?

Galbraith Belmont Syndrome.jpg

[Grizzly]

David Icke's Gingerbread Cottage
Icke has been right on so much. But here is why I don't trust him...

There’s a moment in my live show with David Icke where I completely lose it.

“I know why you haven’t been killed for saying the stuff you say,” I yell at him. “It’s because you are one of them! You are part of the Trap!”

It was something like that, anyway. You’ll have to check out the podcast yourself (I’ve now depaywalled it) :
https://delingpole.substack.com/p/david ... medium=web

[Grizzly]

https://generalmcnews.substack.com/p/ho ... 7d0c813ee2
Hospitals Injecting Staff With Live Ebola Vaccine That Sheds In Colorado, Warns Doctor

Hospitals in Denver, Colorado have been vaccinating their staff with live Ebola, with a shed rate of up to 31%, according to whistleblower Doctor.

I don't know. I don't trust Doctors anymore. Never did, really...

[Grizzly]

https://open.spotify.com/episode/19FCYpNJSwFsd92mT7UClv
https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/sta ... 4424976559

[stickdog99]

[stickdog99]

Headline Translation: No deal on the global pandemic treaty. Half the world rejects the WHO’s yoke.

[BenDhyan]

Report: Klaus Schwab to Step Down as World Economic Forum Executive Chairman

Arch-globalist and head of the World Economic Forum Klaus Schwab has reportedly informed staff that he will be stepping down as WEF executive chairman.

A WEF spokesman told the website that the Forum will be changing its governance structure and that as a result, Schwab “will transition from Executive Chairman to Chairman of the Board of Trustees” by the start of next year.

Although Schwab has not officially named a successor, the Financial Times reported that former Norwegian Foreign Minister and current WEF President Børge Brende will take over the top job in Davos.

The final decision will reportedly need to be cleared by the government of Switzerland, which hosts the group’s annual Davos meeting. The reported move by Schwab to step down from his leadership role in the group comes despite his previous claims that he wanted to stay in power and run the WEF for decades to come.

A German-born economist, Schwab started the World Economic Forum in 1971 with $6,000 in startup funds. Now a $390 million per year business, the Forum sees world leaders, top-flight businessmen, and alleged thought leaders descend — often by private jet, ironically, given the frequent focus on climate change — to the Swiss ski resort town of Davos where they bend the metaphorical knee to Schwab every year.

[stickdog99]

Beyond a naive economics to a political economy of how things actually are

Violence has been the basis of our economy for 500 years

It seems to me that we’ve been doing political economy wrong for the last two hundred and fifty years. Any honest political economy of how things actually are would start by focusing on the following aspects of society:

1. The disproportionate impact of violence. A single bullet changes the course of history for hundreds of years, dynamite can move mountains, and now a single bomb can erase a city.

2. The willingness to use violence. This is a small subset of the population.

3. The ability to organize people to commit violence on a mass scale through the use of persuasion, fear, and legitimation. This is an even smaller subset of the population.

4. The stuff that you can get with the mastery of 1, 2, and 3 — oil fields that power the world economy, literal gold (silver, copper, platinum, and cobalt) mines, and control of entire countries and their citizenry.

So, putting this all together — there is a small subset of the population that is willing to use mass violence, this has a disproportionate impact on the world, and these people control the resources that everyone needs. These are first principles that nobody wants to talk about.

The reason that the people in government, banking, and management consulting are so absolutely horrible is because they are the interface between the monsters who have mastered 1 through 4 and the rest of the economy. They launder the violence at the top, take a cut, and then translate and normalize it into everyday life.

The peasants (that’s anyone who isn’t a billionaire) are not allowed to talk about any of this. Indeed, they are not allowed to even think about any of this. The closest they can come to this topic is to watch Hollywood movies that glamorize and celebrate the monsters who have mastered 1 through 4 above. The peasants are only allowed to study peace and non-violence and sing Kumbaya anytime there is a dispute between those with power and the rest of us. Marx wasn’t even capable of having this conversation, focusing instead on the falling rate of profit and assuming that it would lead to collapse that would usher in a workers’ paradise (see my nota bene below).

The paradox of classical economics over the last two hundred and fifty years is that it has legitimated, normalized, and distracted us from the violence at the top while simultaneously trying to expand the scope of the normal (non-violent) economy in hopes that the normal economy might one day crowd out the violent economy to become the whole economy. So classical economics gaslights us and also tries to act as a force for good.

What’s happened in the last four years is that Capital got tired of playing grab-ass (small rates of return in liberal democracies for the past 50 years), took off its mask, and regressed back into the naked brutality of conquest. With Covid, the biowarfare industrial complex just said, ‘F*ck you peasants, we’re more than willing to use violence on a massive scale to take your bodies, your DNA, your savings, and your lives and there is nothing you can do about it.’ Government, banking, and management consulting were more than happy to help them do that. And they proceeded to murder 17 million people and take all of their wealth and are planning to keep doing this for as long as possible (with the help of the WHO, WEF, World Bank, IMF, and other institutions).

There is a small wrinkle in all of this which is that Capital is not monolithic (it would like to be, it’s heading in that direction, but there are still some internal contradictions and conflicts). I believe that we are witnessing a leadership fight between the military industrial complex that has run the world since at least World War II and the biowarfare industrial complex that wants to be in charge now instead.

The traditional military industrial complex is nationalistic; led by macho generals; uses planes, tanks, bombs, armies, and propaganda to accomplish its goals; and focuses on control of markets and natural resources (primarily oil and precious metals but also food and shipping lanes). The biowarfare industrial complex is globalist; led by psychopaths in white coats; uses intellectual property, gain-of-function viruses, disease, and propaganda to accomplish its goals; and focuses on control of minds, bodies, genetic material, and data. There’s some overlap of course.

It seems that the military industrial complex got pissed off that most wars stopped during Covid and they are eager to reassert their right to run the planet via conflicts in Europe, the Middle East, and Taiwan. The biowarfare industrial complex want to take over the world without firing a single bullet but is happy to kill people in other ways. Capital hedges its bets by investing in both the old guard and the new upstarts.

Where does that leave the rest of us? I don’t know. My point in writing this is to shine a light on the obvious and abundant violence in the system. Violence has been the basis of our economy for 500 years, the rest of the economy was mostly just to keep people busy until the next war, and that violence has accelerated over the last four years as the biowarfare industrial complex has attempted to take over the world. Covid had nothing to do with health, it was the ruling class doing what it has always done — using mass violence to increase its wealth, power, and control.

*****

Nota bene: What Marx missed is that unfettered capitalism does not lead to collapse and communism but instead to fascism and one world government. (The revolutions in Russia and China were in pre-industrial agrarian economies and, as I’ve written before, they ironically facilitated those countries’ transition to industrial capitalism.) Marx was right that overproduction leads to falling rates of profit but what comes next (that he failed to anticipate) is consolidation, monopolies, corporate capture of government, and world war between the major industrial powers in order to become the last Mega Corporate State standing (in a global game of Survivor that costs millions of lives). That’s what happened in 1914, 1940, and 2020.

As I pointed out a few weeks ago, what’s different and truly terrifying this time is that Capital has gotten wise and formed a cartel to resolve conflicts and divide up the spoils. But as I said, the traditional military industrial complex is feeling raw about being left out of the negotiations and is trying to reassert itself via hot wars wherever it can. That’s why everyone is on edge and it feels like the end of the world — because the twin Leviathans of the military industrial complex and the biowarfare industrial complex are engaged in a battle for control of the entire world and they are trampling the rest of us in the process.

So the revolution we seek is to stop the violence at the top while building an economy based on actual innovation and respect for the rule of law. How we get from here to there is what we must urgently figure out.

[stickdog99]

Here's Why the World is Falling Apart (and What You Can Do About It!)

Do you ever get the feeling that everything is breaking down all at once?

Forget about starting a family or buying a house. It's becoming harder and harder for young men and women just to put food on the table.

And those lucky ones who defy the odds and manage to start a family sure aren't spending their time at neighbourhood barbecues while the kids play a game of pick-up street hockey. Today, they'd be lucky to pry the kids away from their device long enough for them to notice that there are other kids in their neighbourhood. Not that the parents are any better at living life.

What's everyone doing on those devices? Scrolling through their never-ending social media feeds of doom porn and ragebait, of course! They're busy watching Israel holocaust Palestine and NATO inch closer to nuclear war with Russia and people at home engaging in public freakouts as society disintegrates and the world devolves into madness.

That faith in the ability of hard work and determination to help us all improve the planet and leave a better place for our children? Gone. Replaced by a sinking feeling that the world is heading to hell in a handbasket and that maybe it isn't worth saving anyway.

Yes, from the macrocosm of geopolitical crises and financial trickery to the microcosm of economic disintegration and spiritual malaise, it seems like everything that could go wrong is going wrong. Increasingly, it feels like we're just bystanders watching the messy spectacle play out on our screens, digital drivers rubbernecking at the car crash of chaos unfolding on the information superhighway.

But did you know that there's a name for this phenomenon? And that it's part of a years-long plan by the powers-that-shouldn't-be to destabilize the world and move their agenda forward? And did you also know that by merely watching this disaster taking place, we're actually helping that plan along?

No? Well, you're about to learn all about it! Let's dig in.

The Precariat

Back in 2011, Guy Standing—a Marxist economist and a professor of development studies at the University of London—published The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class, in which he defined a new type of social class that has arisen in the labour market of the 21st century:

The precariat was not part of the ‘working class’ or the ‘proletariat.’ The latter terms suggest a society consisting mostly of workers in long-term, stable, fixed-hour jobs with job titles their fathers and mothers would have understood, facing local employers whose names and features they were familiar with.

Many entering the precariat would not know their employer or how many fellow employees they had or were likely to have in the future. They were also not ‘middle class,' as they did not have a stable or predictable salary or the status and benefits that middle-class people were supposed to possess.

In other words, in Standing's estimation, the "gig economy" of recent years has created an entirely new class of workers whose very economic existence is defined by its precarious nature.

Coming from a Marxist worldview, this concept of "the precariat" portrays these workers as just another unindividuated mass of laborers in the Great Class Struggle and insists that they are the helpless victims of vast economic forces beyond their control. It insists that these masses of asses' only hope is to lobby governments to give gig workers more rights . . . or to overthrow the government and institute a dictatorship of the precariat . . . or whatever it is that Marxist economists believe.

Naturally, this worldview appeals to the greatest collectivists of them all: the globalists. It's no surprise, then, that within a few short years Standing was being invited to speak at Bilderberg 2016 on "Precariat and middle class [sic]," or that his work was then promoted by the World Economic Forum, who invited him to speak at Davos 2017 [sick!].

But that raises the question: why are the arch-globalists at Bilderberg and Davos so interested in promoting this "precariat" idea?

In order to answer that, first we have to look at another term the powers-that-shouldn't-be have attempted to implant in the public consciousness in recent years.

The Polycrisis

The only thing the kakistocrats at the top of the global pathocracy love more than a Marxist economist is a "post-Marxist" French sociologist. That explains why the works of Edgar Morin—a 103-year-old French theorist who has been writing since the 1940s—have been drudged up, dusted off, and pored over by establishment mouthpieces and globalist gophers in recent years. Their treasure hunt has resulted in a valuable find indeed: the word "polycrisis."

Specifically, former European Commission president (and longtime Bilderberg stalwart) Jean-Claude Juncker used a 2016 speech about the European Union's woes to reintroduce the term—first coined by Morin in the 1990s—to modern political discourse:

This European Union has faced its worst economic, financial and social crisis since World War II. And it is still struggling with the consequences. I have often used the Greek word 'polycrisis' to describe the current situation. Our various challenges—from the security threats in our neighbourhood and at home, to the refugee crisis, and to the UK referendum—have not only arrived at the same time. They also feed each other, creating a sense of doubt and uncertainty in the minds of our people.

While that passing remark about "polycrisis" may not seem like much to normal people with their heads screwed on straight, the Machiavellian schemers in the globalist jet set demonstrably do not have their heads screwed on straight.

Accordingly, Juncker's fleeting reference to the term was picked up and elaborated by mainstream historian (and Davos attendee) Adam Tooze in the pages of the City of London's mouthpiece, Financial Times, in 2022. From there, it became the "buzzword" at Davos last year, and the World Economic Forum then conducted a feature interview with Tooze about the term and why it so perfectly describes the world of chaos that the would-be global rulers are bringing to pass.

Citing the Club of Rome's Malthusian propaganda on the Limits to Growth in the 1970s as one of the "first forecasts" of the modern polycrisis, Tooze then positively gushes about how the grand plan for bringing (technocratic) order ab chao is culminating in the total disintegration of the global economy and civil society in the post-COVID world.

As the Club of Rome report and various types of epidemiological expertise was saying at the time, the dawning awareness that the miracle of economic growth, which had really taken off in a dramatic scale after World War Two, has a downside [sic]. So a series of really very dramatic risks are being generated by the very success of our economic growth story—on the resource environmental envelope side, but also on the pandemic disease zoonotic mutation side. Edgar Morin, the French theorist who first coined the term, is a classic 1970s environmental alarmist analyst. So there's a tightness to that chronology.

But it's one thing seeing the shape of something, it's another seeing its reality. And that's where the pandemic experience of 2020, 2021, is just the showstopper because we stop the world economy in its tracks. We've never done anything remotely like that before—a 15-20% hit to global GDP in a matter of weeks.

The polycrisis, in other words, is defined not by any of the individual crises that comprise it—the (phoney) climate crisis or the (phoney) COVID crisis or the (generated) economic crisis, etc.—but by the way all of these crises interact and play off each other. This is why the chaos of recent years seems so overwhelming to all of us watching the disaster unfold in our newsfeed. It's not a series of problems that each admit of individual solutions, but a compounding snowball of problems in which every individual crisis feeds into every other crisis.

Now, here's the real question: why are these presumed potentates of the planet so excited by these ideas of "the precariat" and "the polycrisis"?

Why? Because it's part of their grand plan, of course.

Up Next: The Polycrisis of the Precariat? . . .

It's not hard to understand why the Bilderbergers and their minions in the academy and the establishment media are trying to insert "the precariat" and "polycrisis" into the public consciousness. These terms play into their long-term plan to bring (New World) order out of (generated) chaos perfectly.

Don't take my word for it. Look, for example, at what Bilderberg's favourite Marxist, the aforementioned Guy Standing, argued in his World Economic Forum-hosted screed on the precariat back in 2016. After proposing that governments worldwide collect more money from their tax cattle by way of "a special levy on income generated by patents, copyright and other forms of intellectual property" and a levy "on income taken by digital platform companies from app-driven labour transactions," he then proposes a bold new idea for what the bloodsucking political parasites should do with all that stolen wealth: Universal Basic Enslavement Income, of course!

In sum, a basic income must be part of a new income distribution system. It may take time to build up the funding base. That is why policy-makers must prepare the ground carefully and offer an evolutionary approach, one that gradually dismantles the old welfare system, built in bits and pieces in another era, while constructing a new one suited to our times. The task for the rest of us should be to strengthen the backbones of politicians and the institutions behind them. Basic income is, indeed, a political imperative.

What?! A Marxist economist is proposing that the answer to the great class struggle is to steal money from the people and give some of it back in the form of a monthly, strings-attached stipend? And this "radical" idea is being promoted by the World Economic Forum? Colour me shocked. (<--SARCASM)

What about the polycrisis? Is it a Trojan Horse for the globalist plan, too?

Well, just take a look at what establishment mouthpiece Adam Tooze concludes in his World Economic Forum-hosted screed on the polycrisis. After noting the benefits that polycrisis can bring in helping to strengthen the various arms of the Deep State—he actually delights in how COVID propagandists, for example, can share what they learned about how to manipulate the public with German government agencies seeking to sell the public on the green neofeudal agenda—he then tells us to relax. At least we have a name for the chaos taking place around us!

The purpose, the idea of the concept is simply to open up the threads through which you can begin to see the connections. If you just read a newspaper or watch the news, you are presented with this collage that begins to just look incoherent and crazy to the point where you begin to wonder whether you will actually be able to trust your own senses.

What the polycrisis concept says is, 'Relax, this is actually the condition of our current moment.' I think that's useful, giving the sense a name. It's therapeutic. 'Here is your fear, here is something that fundamentally distresses you. This is what it might be called.'

"Yes!" say the globalists. "You workers are a precariat class and you are part of the Great Dialectic! Now, listen carefully: your salvation lies in Universal Basic Income and other government interventions in the economy that just so happen to give us greater control over your lives!"

And "Yes!" say the globalists. "The world is in polycrisis! Look at your newsfeeds! You know it to be true. Just give us more control and relax in the knowledge that we'll fix it all for you!"

This is how the public has been led along by the nose for generations. Ideas and phrases are inserted into the public discourse—"Making the world safe for democracy" or "Responsibility to Protect" or "the Global War on Terror" or "Social distancing" or a million other carefully packaged slogans—and suddenly the discussion is framed in those terms.

Even those who oppose these ideas can never truly escape them. The ideas can only be argued against from within the framework of the world that they presume—a world where democracy is warring with autocracy or where genocides are preventable by UN action or where global terrorism is a pervasive threat or where social contact is inherently dangerous.

And now that "the precariat" and "polycrisis" have entered the dialectic, the globalists are yet one step closer to achieving their world conquest.

How can we possibly escape this vile plan?

. . . Or the Polycrisitunity of Free Humanity?

It isn't hard to understand what the globalists want: they want control.

And it doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out how they plan to consolidate their control over the globe: by imposing their New World Order on the chaos.

And, finally, you don't have to be a genius to figure out how they plan on creating order out of chaos: they're going to generate the chaos.

This is a point I made in my article Chaos Out of Order that I wrote in 2017:

Of course, we have to understand that we have been brought to this point for a reason. In order to get their new order, the powers-that-shouldn’t-be had to generate this current chaos. The unprecedented levels of social, political and economic tension we are experiencing right now are part of a game plan. To reset the chess pieces, the board has to be knocked over first.

And now that we are all staring into the black mirror of our fondleslab every waking moment of our lives, we are feeling the pressure of the polycrisis all the more acutely. Just look at all the chaos in the world. I can refresh my newsfeed every minute of every day and find a new story to be outraged at or horrified by! Won't someone come along and save us.

Meanwhile, the Bilderbergers and Davos elitists are waiting in the wings, readying their pre-planned "solutions" to these problems.

But what if instead of pushing back on Standing's and Tooze's and the other WEF stooges' presentation of these problems, we reject their framing entirely?

What if we don't argue that the precariat's class interest would be better served by implementing this or that government policy, or even by anarchy? What if, instead, we completely eschew the Marxist class struggle concept itself?

Indeed, I am someone who fits all of Standing's criteria for being a member of the precariat: I'm not a full-time employee of a major corporation. I don't have a job title my mother or father's generation would have understood. I don't have traditional employee benefits or fixed hours or "established routes of advancement, subject to unionisation and collective agreements." But I am not a "precariat." I am a free human being, forging my own destiny by providing something of value to my fellow free human beings. I am not dependent on a government to provide labour laws that somehow protect me from the universe. I can choose to work in solidarity with my fellow human beings. I can choose to work for a corporation or unionize or enter collective agreements or demand employee benefits . . . or not. I am not dependent on mommy or daddy government to do these things for me and I don't want them to.

Similarly, what if we reject the polycrisis that Tooze and his cohorts want us to focus on? The "climate crisis" is no crisis at all, and neither was the "COVID crisis" or the "global terrorism" crisis or the "Russian disinformation" crisis or any of a million other ooga-booga scare stories that the powers-that-shouldn't-be and their media mouthpieces are constantly trying to frighten us with.

And to the extent that some crises are real crises that do threaten our livelihoods or our very existence—the real economic crisis that many are facing today or the ever-present threat of war or the disruption of the global food supply—these crises are all either crises that are caused by government or that at the very least will only be exacerbated by government. There is no "polycrisis" that requires us to give more control over to politicians and their globalist paymasters and no "polycrisis" that requires us to live like slaves on the neofeudal plantation, eating bugs and lab-made synthetic meat burgers in order to save the planet.

Framed that way, our task seems much more straightforward: to work with our fellow human beings to establish communities of support that have nothing to do with the consolidation of more and more control in the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is not to say the task will be an easy one, but, once the World Economic Forum-promoted nonsense about "precariat" and "polycrisis" are banished from our thinking, we will be able to focus on the real task before us much more effectively.

So, how do we go about doing that? Well, for starters, we can stop living our lives in the dark shadow of our glowing smartphone screens. In case you hadn't realized it by now, the Media Matrix is the way the They/Them/Those at the top of the global power pyramid are keeping us divided and conquered, focused on the train wreck of societal chaos and disintegration so that we never see the world around us. A world where families do have neighbourhood barbecues and playing pick-up street hockey rather than ignoring each other to spend time with our tablets and phones would be an infinitely better world and we all know it, so why don't we put down the devices and try the alternative for a little while?

Of course, then we'll have to confront another problem: the problem of The Third Most Effective Piece of Enemy Propaganda.

What's The Third Most Effective Piece of Enemy Propaganda, you ask? Good question. But that's a topic for another day.

In the meantime, maybe it’s time for us to stop letting the technocrats shape our discourse—time to stop letting them insert words like “precariat” and phrases like “own nothing and be happy” and slogans like “Trust The Science” into our discussions. If the limits of our language really are the limits of our reality, as Wittgenstein had it, then we can start taking back control of our reality by taking back control of our language.

There is no polycrisis of the precariat. There is only the polycrisitunity of free humanity.