Published on April 22, 2022
Written by conservativewoman.co.uk
George Gammon, ‘rebel capitalist’, American entrepreneur and a property investor who teaches macroeconomics, has been dissecting the roots of the World Economic Forum and the Davos global elite. The two hold responsibility for the ‘great reset’ we are experiencing.
Gammon discovered what appears to be a Bond villainesque agenda to cover up the unfolding financial catastrophe behind the Reset. Diversionary tactics include blaming global warming, scapegoats and external enemies. Just like we are doing to the unvaxxed and Vladimir Putin.
What Gammon found feels like a blueprint for the Covid response nightmare that we have endured for the last two years, and as highlighted by Wall Street executive Edward Dowd to TCW where he discussed whether the Covid crisis was a fraud to cancel global debt.
We saw the results of reckless banking when Greece faced a sovereign debt crisis after the 2008 global finance crash. Last week, Saadeh Al-Shami, the Deputy Prime Minister of Lebanon, declared his country bankrupt. More countries will follow and those who have caused this 21st century financial crisis will not want to take responsibility.
The WEF agree and make transferring the blame to third parties a clear agenda.
Gammon’s sources are solid, taken from 1970s papers written by the World Economic Forum (WEF). He breaks them down in a YouTube video that, interestingly, has not been removed or censored. Its title: ‘They’re More Evil Than You Think (Here’s Proof)’.
For background, the WEF was set up 51 years ago by Klaus Schwab, now 84, a German engineer and economist. This is the measure of the man: he declared publicly that excessively high management salaries were ‘no longer socially acceptable’, while as WEF’s executive chairman, he receives 1million Swiss Francs annually (that’s £825,000, €990,000 or $1.1million).
Gammon’s research begins in 1971 and the first 280-page WEF summary which gives a year-by-year account of WEF activity until 2010: the first 40 years. On page 25, in 1973, they talk about the first Davos meeting, ‘Shaping Your Future in Europe’, and they began discussing our limits to growth.
The lecture was delivered by Italian industrialist Aurelio Peccei, who in 1968 co-founded the Club of Rome, a global think tank.
The Limits to Growth book commissioned in 1972 by the Club of Rome, caused a sensation as it explained that the global population would continue to grow exponentially, and that we were living in a world with limited resources. In plain English, there would be too many people and not enough food.
His solution was bald and suggested reducing the population or reducing the level of consumption. He did not say how he planned to curb population growth.
This landmark publication caught people’s imagination. It was translated into 30 languages and sold 12million copies.
The idea was not new: it was first mooted in the 18th century by scholar Thomas Malthus. Malthusianism became the practice of balancing population growth and food supply by applying checks and balances to prevent food and resources running out.
The elite warmed to this at their annual conference in Davos, Switzerland.
(Davos is a snow-covered ski-resort where up to 3,000 of the world’s richest and most powerful heads of state, CEOs, corporate executives, politicians, celebrities and charitable organisation leaders, jet in for the five-day WEF exclusive annual event. Today, each pays £22,300 to attend on top of a hefty membership fee. Membership is limited to the top 1,000 corporations and can cost anywhere between £48,000 and £480,000.)
Peccei and Malthus’s idea is regurgitated year after year. Many different papers say ‘we have an exploding population but limited resources so what do we do?’ But is it true? If you have ever flown at 35,000ft above the Earth, the first thing that strikes you is how tiny even big cities look against abundant green landscape. No one seems to have noticed this and currently, predictions are that we will run out of food by 2023.
Back to the Club of Rome which has its headquarters in Switzerland, like the WEF, and the World Health Organisation, and was co-founded in Italy by Aurelio Peccei, British chemist Alexander King and American investment banker David Rockefeller, a member of one the world’s richest families.
Peccei highlighted many problems impacting humankind, including endemic ill-health, environmental deterioration, urban blight, poverty and criminality.
It was his opinion that these ‘problems were incapable of being solved in their own terms’, and that if ordinary people tried they would fail. The only way to solve these huge issues, he said, was via a centralised approach and that the global elite should control the response because they were smarter than everyone else.
Henry Kissinger, the former US National Security adviser to Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, gave a speech at the WEF saying the problems would be solved only with a single world government, which is consistent with what the WEF has been saying and consistent with the Great Reset agenda. (Kissinger is German-born like Schwab; awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1973, he taught Schwab at Harvard University.)
Last month, the World Health Organisation announced its intention to take control of global pandemic policy and explained that it could order mandatory vaccines, digital health IDs, lockdowns, isolation, testing regimes, no-jab-no-job rules, or anything else it decided as policy.
This news would have delighted the Club of Rome, who in 1991, published The First Global Revolution analysing the problems of humanity and giving them the collective name ‘problématique’.
The Club discussed identifying common enemies and if one was not obvious, it was good to make one up. They said this created motivation for social and political unity.
‘The need for enemies seems to be a common historical factor,’ they explained. ‘Some states have striven to overcome domestic failure and internal contradictions by blaming external enemies. The ploy of finding a scapegoat is as old as mankind itself – when things become too difficult at home, divert attention to adventure abroad.
Bring the divided nation together to face an outside enemy, either a real one, or else one invented for the purpose. With the disappearance of the traditional enemy, the temptation is to use religious or ethnic minorities as scapegoats, especially those whose differences from the majority are disturbing.
Every state has been so used to classifying its neighbours as friend or foe that the sudden absence of traditional adversaries has left governments and public opinion with a great void to fill. New enemies have to be identified, new strategies imagined, and new weapons devised.
See more here: conservativewoman.co.uk‘In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we [the Club of Rome] came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together.
But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.’
Editor’s note: Many ‘famous’ people advocate a large reduction in the human population, but all of them exclude themselves. The Club of Rome wrote: “the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
Noted diver Jacques Cousteau said to the UNESCO Courier in 1991: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.” – United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95 percent decline from present levels, would be ideal.“- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
Thanks to: https://principia-scientific.com