So the parallels between Maoist and Stalinist societies are quite clear: subordinate the individual to the group, favor the goals of the collective to the prosperity of families, and promote the ideals supporting a scientifically guided and engineered society. All else is deemed antithetical to progress and building a better future.
But there is a very clear distinction, and one that the Climate Change Cult is quite up front about that somehow does make most people pause. We must, at all costs, reduce the population. Why? Because humanity’s very existence consumes resources and destroys the planet. Ergo, all human activity must be managed more intelligently. This is the primary justification for a complete overhaul, a grand a rapid makeover of our entire means of of energy and food production. A Great Reset.
That phrase the Great Reset is also a misnomer. What do you think of when you hear that phrase? Reset, well, a start over, a redo. A reboot? The expectation is the same when you reboot your smart phone or your laptop. The software that was installed and of importance will still be there when the power is restored. But will it be, is that the intent or is there something more sinister that the prime movers of the Climate Change Cult want to achieve? It is, in fact, not a Great Reset at all. It’s a Great Erasure.
They are turning off current energy systems. The plan is by 2030 to reduce emissions by carbon based fossil fuels by half. That means no drilling, no fracking, no coal, just shutting down the current main supply of energy that supports our society. Which means most of that which powers society will need to be vastly different. But is there a transition plan and way to measure impact of our lives? What thought has been put toward the effects this will have on food production, on medicine, on electricity for clinics and medical centers? But they must have a plan, you say, the architects of the future wouldn’t shut off the very foundation of society, it would put billions of people at risk. Simply look at the members of the World Economic Forum or the Gates Foundation and after you hear the Malthusian mantra of “the planet can only sustain 1 billion people” and you’ll have your answer. Does that sound like the well being of the 8 billion who will suffer is at the forefront of their consideration? Listen to the video below and consider if that gives you comfort that uber-intelligent staff at the World Economic Forum have your interests at heart?