Rhetorical question: Could anything possibly sound more ominous and Orwellian than the Great Reset?
It sounds an awful lot like Mao’s Great Leap Forward, wouldn’t you say? And just in case you are not an astute student of history, the Great Leap Forward was more akin to a giant leap backwards, unless you consider wanton mass murder and other atrocities (in the name of communism, of course) a good thing.
Although you are probably not familiar with the Great Reset, it could be well on its way, if the World Economic Forum and a bunch of other powerful global organizations have their way. Trust me, the Great Reset is gaining traction faster than a middle-school fashion fad—and this is not a good thing.
In case you don’t care to take my word for it, allow me to introduce the architect of the Great Reset: World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab. “A Great Reset is necessary to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being,” Schwab recently announced.
Yes, Schwab wants out with the old social contact, and in with the new. But, what would Schwab’s new social contract look like?
According to Schwab, “The global health crisis has laid bare the unsustainability of our old system in terms of social cohesion, the lack of equal opportunities and inclusiveness. Nor can we turn our backs on the evils of racism and discrimination. We need to build into this new social contract our intergenerational responsibility to ensure that we live up to the expectations of young people.” What does any of this mean?
As if that quip wasn’t enough to make you do a double-take, consider this statement from Schwab, “This global pandemic has also demonstrated again how interconnected we are. We have to restore a functioning system of smart global cooperation structured to address the challenges of the next 50 years. The Great Reset will require us to integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action.”
I don’t know about you, but when I hear phrases like “integrate all stakeholders of global society into a community of common interest, purpose and action” my internal alarm bells ring louder than Big Ben.
In reality, the Great Reset is just another attempt at global government. And global government is a farce. There are 195 sovereign countries in the world. It is laughable, not laudable, to expect that 195 countries, accounting for more than seven billion people, would ever agree to a Great Reset.
The world is full of nations with vastly different cultures, political philosophies, and social-economic systems. Have we not learned over the past few centuries that these countries would rather govern themselves than be under the thumb of a faraway, big, unresponsive behemoth of a government?
Have we not learned that local government, which is closest to the people, and most responsive to their needs and unique circumstances, is vastly superior than a far-off, out-of-touch, bloated worldwide governing body?
The Great Reset, if ever enacted, would turn back the clock to the pre-Enlightenment era. To a time when individual freedom was more a wish than a reality and elites like Klaus Schwab were unquestioned. The Enlightenment changed the world for the better. The Great Reset would set the world back centuries and thus should be resisted at all costs.