Swiss Murzilka 18. 

Yesterday we recalled the common expression "History repeats itself twice: the first time in the form of tragedy, the second - in the form of farce." This deep phrase belongs, if you believe the collective unconscious Internet, whether Karl Marx, or George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; and whoever takes the trouble of her correct attribution does not forget to mention that "usually" she is "mistakenly" attributed to the wrong thinker.

In fact, it was a little more complicated. 

In 1852, karl Marx wrote in the work "The Eighteenth Brumer Louis Bonaparte": "Hegel bemerkte irgendwo, da'alle gro'en weltchichtlichen Tatsachen und Personen sich sozusagen zweimal ereignen. Er hat vergessen, hinzuzufügen: das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce. Caussidière für Danton, Louis Blanc für Robespierre, die Montagne von 1848–1851 für die Montagne von 1793–1795, der Neffe für den Onkel». He forgot to add: the first time in the form of a tragedy, the second time in the form of a farce.

This is Hegelian "somewhere" - "Lectures on the Philosophy of History" published in 1837: "... wie denn überhaupt eine Staatsumwälzung gleichsam im Dafürhalten der Menschen sanktioniert wird, wenn sie sich wiederholt. So ist Napoleon zweimal unterlegen, und zweimal vertrieb man die Bourbonen. Durch die Wiederholung wird das, was im Anfang nur als zufällig und möglich erschien, zu einem Wirklichen und Bestätigten».

... as in general, any coup d'etat is done in the minds of people as if sanctioned, in the event that it is repeated...

Let us see what role Lenin played in organizing those institutions, the creation of which was attributed for many years by Soviet propaganda to the Hitlerite Reich. We are talking about the concentration camps invented by Lenin for the citizens of Russia back in 1918.

 On August 9, 1918, Lenin wrote in a telegram to the Penza Provincial Executive Committee and Evgenia Bosch: “It is necessary to organize a reinforced guard of selected reliable people, to carry out a merciless mass terror against the kulaks, priests and White Guards; the dubious to be locked up in a concentration camp outside the city ”(50, 143-144).

 Carry out a massive merciless terror! But there has not yet been a decree on terror. And the main thing is Lenin's demand to lock the dubious in a concentration camp, not guilty of a specific act, but only dubious ones.

 This is where the idea of ​​concentration camps comes from; they are in Lenin's telegram of August 9, 1918, when Hitler, as one of the founders of the fascist party in Germany, was not even in sight.

 About a month after this telegram, on September 5, 1918, a decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the Red Terror was issued, signed by Petrovsky, Kursk and V. Bonch-Bruevich.

 In addition to instructions on mass executions, it noted: "To provide the Soviet Republic from class enemies by isolating them in concentration camps" (Collection of legalizations of the RSFSR for 1918, No. 65, article 710).

 That's when, in Lenin's telegram, and then in the decree of the Council of People's Commissars, the term "concentration camps" was found and then adopted, which had a broad future not only in Russia.

 In fact, this term was used in the First World War in relation to prisoners of war and unwanted foreigners. But now Lenin applied it to the citizens of his own country.

 These concentration camps were kept under the direct authority of the Cheka for hostages and especially hostile elements.

 The ideas of concentration camps also roamed in the heads of Lenin's entourage. For example, Trotsky, in his address to Vologda to the military commissar, wrote in August 1918: “ruthlessly eradicate counter-revolutionaries, imprison the suspicious in concentration camps - this is a necessary condition for success ... Self-seekers will be shot regardless of past merits” (TsGSA, fund 1, op. 1, delo 142, fol. 20 - Quoted from: Volkogonov Dm. Trotsky. Book. 1. M., 1992. S. 344).

 So, only for doubts, for suspicions - to a concentration camp. What kind of socialism is it that needs such coercive measures in relation to its citizens? Not! This was a direct departure from the ideas of socialist happiness in various utopian versions.

 Interesting: while Lenin was not in power, there was no need for concentration camps. But as soon as Lenin and his comrades seized power, it took a lot of concentration camps! Or maybe you shouldn't have allowed Lenin to come to power? Perhaps it would have been better for him to be imprisoned in a concentration camp?

 Lenin and his inner circle have already finally poisoned themselves with the poison of power, as evidenced by their shameful attitude to the "doubtful", "suspicious", to concentration camps, to various freedoms, including freedom of speech, to the whole sum of those natural rights of people, for the implementation of which democracy fought.

 The origins of the organized and planned Bolshevik terror can be found in abundance both in the 55-volume "complete" collection of Lenin's works, and in his previously unpublished documents kept in a closed collection. Having studied the experience of the Paris Commune and its lessons, Lenin came to the conclusion that the revolution must be able to defend itself.

 But one cannot justify the fact that he did not rule out any, the most inhuman means to achieve both strategic and tactical military goals. His main, perhaps the only, method of management was terror.

 In a note to an unknown person dated June 3, 1918, Lenin instructs "to hand over to Teru (Ter Gabrielyan - Chairman of the Central Committee of the Baku Council of People's Commissars. - ER) so that he would prepare everything for the burning of Baku in full, in the event of an invasion, so that he would announce it in print in Baku" (RCKHIDNI, fund 2, op. 2, file 109). This note was written with an expression of surprise that Ter Gabrielyan, who is waiting for the train, has not left yet.

 Burn Baku "in case of invasion", i.e. in case of danger of the capture of the city by British or Turkish troops. One can only imagine what terrible disasters the burning of the city, standing on oil beds, would turn out to be for the civilian population, if Lenin's instructions were fulfilled.

 But this was not an isolated order of this kind from the leader of Bolshevism, cruel and merciless. In a secret telegram L.D. Trotsky in cipher, demanding to return the original, Lenin on September 10, 1918 wrote:

 “I am surprised and alarmed by the slowing down of the operation against Kazan, especially if it was correctly reported to me that you have every opportunity to destroy the enemy with artillery. In my opinion, one should not pity the city and postpone it longer, for merciless extermination is necessary, since it is only true that Kazan is in an iron ring ”(50,178).

 In "The Immediate Tasks of Soviet Power" in the spring of 1918, Lenin wrote: "We have won Russia, we must now rule Russia." He conceived of this administration as a preventive terror terror among the population.

 And he began to develop this action, perhaps the most terrible in the history of mankind, because from the very beginning it was directed against millions of different segments of the population.

 Lenin's orders and telegrams, notes and letters, etc. sent to all parts of the country: "... Be exemplary ruthless." "Shoot, without asking anyone and not allowing idiotic red tape." "Hang up, certainly hang", etc.

 On June 26, 1918, Lenin reprimands his St. Petersburg governor for "softness." "Comrade. Zinoviev! We heard in the Central Committee that in St. Petersburg the workers wanted to respond to the murder of Volodarsky with mass terror and that you (not you personally, but the St. Petersburg Central Committeeists and Chekists) held back. I strongly protest.

 We compromise ourselves: we threaten even in the resolutions of the Council of Deputies with mass terror, and when it comes down to it, we inhibit the revolutionary initiative of the masses, which is quite correct. This is not-possible "(quoted from the article: Anatoly Latyshev. There is no morality in politics // Komsomolskaya Pravda. February 12, 1992.).

 As a result of the civil war and massive repression, Russia lost more than 10 million people. To this we must add more than five million - the victims of the terrible famine of 1921-1922. In total, over 15 million people died during the civil war. 10% of the total population.

 Meanwhile, the demographer is DB. Urlanis believes that the losses in the civil war among other peoples were incomparably less: in Spain in 1936-1938. - 1.8%, in the USA (during the war between the North and the South) - 1.6% in relation to the population.

 To this should be added at least one and a half to two million emigrants, the intelligentsia (the colors of the Russian people) who have left the spiritual life of the country.

 As evidenced by the documents of various movements of 1918-1921, and not just the Kronstadt uprising, it was about democratic demands for electivity, freedom, real democracy, about protest against total party terror. But the answer was an even greater intensification of mass repression.

 By order of the commissars and the Cheka, arrested officers, intellectuals, partisans were gathered on barges, which were then drowned. Thousands and thousands of workers were shot in Sevastopol, Odessa. In order to intimidate the Bolsheviks, not confining themselves to executions, they hung people from trees and left the corpses hanging for a long time.

 In Sevastopol alone, 8000 people were hanged and shot (Rul. 1921. No. 51.). This is where the origins of the Stalinist mass murders should be sought. During the menacing uprising for the Bolsheviks, thousands of sailors were shot in Kronstadt.

 In fact, Lenin forced the village and its peasants to give away the products of their labor for free. By mass suppression of peasant uprisings and workers' movements, he managed to turn the working class into a ram's horn, forcing it to work for a pittance.

Lenin and his closest associates terrorized the intelligentsia, engineers, doctors, teachers and, thus, the survivors turned into dumb executors of their will with shootings, hostages, mutual responsibility, accusations of anti-Bolshevism.

 Finally, Lenin militarized the Communist Party, enlarged its membership with new members so that with the help of persons who are not afraid of blood, who do not know pity, who are merciless and decisive in reprisals, they can commit arbitrariness. He created a huge apparatus of overseers of all over all.

 Having turned into a de facto super-dictator - autocrat, Lenin ultimately ended up with the Communist Party, which died, turning into a mass of frightened bureaucrats, crushed by an enraged leader.

 It is possible that initially Lenin viewed terror as an inevitable evil caused by the civil war, foreign intervention, violence from the classes that resisted the revolution. Maybe for some time he really thought that terror would be of a temporary nature and considered it an exceptional measure.

 But as the totalitarian Soviet regime tightened, he turned mass terror into a permanent instrument of his policy and permanently strengthened it. This terror was not an exception at all, but a Leninist norm.

 It was not short, as Lenin wrote on December 24-27, 1917 (January 6-9, 1918) in his article "Frightened by the collapse of the old and fighting for the new," but turned into a permanent means of fighting all dissidents who disagree with Bolshevism, vacillating, not supporting the new totalitarian Leninist regime.

 Its most important goal was not only the total extermination of all opponents of Bolshevism (for various reasons), but also total intimidation, the creation of an atmosphere of universal fear.

 In a telegram to V.A.Antonov-Ovseenko on December 29, 1917. (January 11, 1918) Lenin wrote: “I especially approve and welcome the arrest of millionaire saboteurs in a class I and II carriage. I advise you to send them to forced labor in the mines for six months. Once again I greet you for your decisiveness and condemn those who hesitate ”(50, 21–22).

 What kind of suppression of the "exploiters" could there be when Lenin wrote in the resolution on war and peace of the seventh emergency congress of the RCP (b) (March 1918):

 "... The congress declares that the first and main task of both our party, and the entire vanguard of the class-conscious proletariat, and the Soviet power, the congress recognizes the adoption of the most energetic, mercilessly reticent and draconian measures to increase the self-discipline and discipline of the workers and peasants of Russia ..." ( 36, 35).

 This means that it was about draconian measures not against the "exploiters", but against the workers and peasants of all of Russia "to increase the self-discipline and discipline of the workers and peasants of Russia."

 In his appeal "To fight the fuel crisis" (November 13, 1919), Lenin demanded "to punish with merciless severity those who, despite repeated insistence, demands and orders, turn out to be evading work" (39, 307). It is clear that these measures primarily concerned workers and peasants.

 Lenin's "merit", therefore, lies in the fact that he enriched the "revolutionary" vocabulary with the terms: "with merciless decisiveness," "with merciless severity," "draconian measures," "exemplary ruthless," and so on. etc.

 In connection with the new economic policy, Lenin called for a constant increase in repression. In the aforementioned letter D.I. Kurskiy "On the Tasks of the People's Commissariat of Justice in the New Economic Policy" (February 20, 1922), Lenin wrote about the need to intensify repressions against the political enemies of the soviet power and "agents of the bourgeoisie", to which he included in particular the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, the conduct of these repressions by revolutionary tribunals and popular courts in the fastest and most "revolutionary-expedient" order, with the obligatory staging of a number of exemplary processes in terms of the speed and strength of repression in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kharkov and several other important centers.

 At the same time, Lenin insisted on influencing the people's judges and members of the revolutionary tribunals through the party in the sense of increasing repression, i.e. Party interference in court cases (44, 396–397). As often happened, Lenin asked not to reproduce the letter, but only to show it against a receipt. Everything was done in secret, in the strictest secrecy. Although intimidation was the principle, Lenin tried to put on a veil of decency on terror and intensified repression.

 Even for insufficient visual agitation, Lenin demanded severe measures. In the telegram A.V. Lunacharsky on September 18, 1918, Lenin was indignant at the absence of a bust of Marx on the street, as well as at the fact that nothing had been done for communist propaganda on the streets.

 Lenin telegraphed to Lunacharsky his demand to pronounce a reprimand for "criminal and negligent attitude" to all persons responsible for propaganda, and if necessary, bring them to justice as saboteurs and rotozees.

 In a telegram to the Revolutionary Military Council of the Southern Front on November 12, 1920, Lenin again wrote about the merciless reprisal. “I just learned about your offer to surrender to Wrangel. I am extremely surprised at the exorbitant compliance with the conditions. If the enemy accepts them, then it is necessary to really ensure the capture of the fleet and the non-release of not a single vessel, if the enemy does not accept these conditions, then, in my opinion, they can no longer be repeated and must be dealt with mercilessly ”(52, 6).

 Lenin considered the uprisings of the peasants to be banditry and demanded appropriate measures in this regard. He wrote to E.M. Sklyansky on February 6, 1921:

 "T. Sklyansky!

 Send me a telegram from the Saratov Provincial Military Commissariat, the "answer" to which you sent me today from the Commander-in-Chief.

 The answer is stupid and sometimes illiterate.

 The unsubscribing is bureaucratic instead of the deed: it is necessary to eliminate banditry, and not to unsubscribe ”(52, 66).

 It was about the destruction of the insurgent peasants.

 Even for the lateness of the information sent, Lenin in a letter to A.D. Tsurupe on March 27, 1921 announced his intention to "imprison" the person in charge, who must submit information immediately (52.1 I).

 But Lenin, after all, at the very beginning after the coup (in a speech at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies, together with front-line representatives on November 4 (17), 1917, he said that the Bolsheviks did not use terror against unarmed people, and he hoped that terror was not will be used because the power is behind the Bolsheviks.

 However, already on June 26, 1918, Lenin wrote to G.E. Zinoviev on the need to encourage "the energy and mass character of terror against counter-revolutionaries." He believed that in St. Petersburg, whose example decides, this is especially important.

 In a telegram to A.D. Metelev on August 9, 1918. Lenin called for "to exert all forces for an immediate, merciless reprisal against the White Guards, who are clearly preparing treason in Vologda" (50, 143). He speaks precisely of the merciless reprisals against opponents. Violence, he said, is not only necessary but also beneficial.

 In his work "Successes and Difficulties of Soviet Power", written on April 17, 1919, he reproaches the German Communists for not being able to teach their proletariat the tactics of necessary violence, although the example of revolutionary violence used by the Soviet government against the bourgeoisie testified to brilliant successes of violence.

 According to Lenin, expressed in the draft program of the RCP (b) - (a rough draft of the draft program of the RCP (b) of February 23, 1919), the experience of the world history of all the uprisings of the oppressed classes against the "exploiters" teaches the inevitability of their desperate and prolonged resistance in order to preserving their privileges. But without suppressing this resistance, Lenin concluded, "there can be no question of a victorious communist revolution."

 Lenin agrees with the possibility of reckless repression applied to innocent people. In a report on the tasks of the trade unions in connection with the mobilization to the Eastern Front on April 11, 1919, at the plenum of the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, Lenin said:

 “I am reasoning soberly and categorically: which is better - to put in prison several tens or hundreds of instigators, guilty or innocent, conscious or unconscious, or to lose thousands of Red Army men and workers? - the first is better. And let me be accused of any mortal sins and violations of freedom - I plead guilty, and the interests of the workers will win ”(38, 295). This is the justification by the leader of the Bolsheviks of repression against the innocent and "irresponsible".

 This lack of motivation is characteristic of Lenin as the organizer of precisely state terror, terror on the scale of the entire state. At the same plenum of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions Lenin said: “We have ignited socialism in ourselves and throughout the world. Whoever interferes with this struggle in the least bit, we fight without mercy. He who is not with us is against us. "

 In other words, those who do not share the beliefs of the Bolsheviks are, in Lenin's opinion, an enemy of Bolshevism with all the ensuing consequences. It was a truly Machiavellian slogan, justifying any kind of repression. Then "the greatest", according to I.V. Stalin, the poet of our era V. Mayakovsky will say: "And the one who sings today not with us is against us."

 It is time to admit that the terror did not stem from a specific historical situation. It was inherent in the entire system of Bolshevik ideas about revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat. The myths of class struggle and class hatred, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as their consequence, had not only recognition, but also a real apology for terror.

Own nothing and be happy as a human in 2030 November 23, 2020

     The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) at the end of January in Davos, Switzerland, brings together international business and political leaders, economists and other dignitaries to discuss global issues. Driven by the vision of its influential CEO Klaus Schwab, WEF is a major driver of the dystopian Great Reboot, a tectonic shift that is set to change the way we live, work and interact with each other.

 The Great Reset entails a transformation of society, leading to permanent restrictions on fundamental freedoms and massive oversight as entire sectors are sacrificed to the monopoly and hegemony of pharmaceutical corporations, tech / big data giants, Amazon, Google, large global networks, digital payment sectors, biotech concerns, etc.

  Using the isolation and restrictions of COVID-19 to push through this transformation, the Great Reboot unfolds under the guise of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution,” in which old businesses must be driven into bankruptcy or taken over by monopolies, effectively shutting down huge sectors of the precocious economy. The economy is "restructuring" and many jobs will be occupied by AI machines.

  In the short video below, the WEF predicts that by 2030 "you will have nothing and you will be happy." A happy smiling face is shown as a drone delivers a product to a household, no doubt ordered online and packed by a robot from a giant Amazon warehouse: “No human was involved in the manufacturing, packaging or delivery of this product”; Rest assured, it is free of viruses and bacteria, because even in 2030 they will need to keep the fear narrative alive and well in order to maintain complete domination of the population.

  The unemployed (and there will be many) could be placed on some universal basic income and their debts written off (debt and bankruptcy on a massive scale are the deliberate result of locks and restrictions) in exchange for the transfer of their assets to the state or, more precisely, to financial institutions that help to carry out this Great Reboot. The WEF says the public will “rent out” whatever it needs: divestment under the guise of “sustainable consumption” and “saving the planet”. Of course, it will be owned by the tiny elite that unleashed this Great Reboot.

  Hundreds of millions of people around the world who are considered “surplus beyond what is required” must be (and are currently) deprived of their livelihoods. Our every move and purchase must be monitored, and our major transactions will be carried out online.

 A plan for individual citizens could reflect the strategy applied to nation states. For example, World Bank Group President David Malpass said that the poorest countries will be "helped" to get back on their feet after various isolations. This "aid" will be provided on the condition that more neoliberal reforms and the destruction of social services are carried out and take root.

  On April 20, The Wall Street Journal published the headline "IMF and World Bank Face a Flood of Requests for Help from Developing Countries." Dozens of countries are asking for financial assistance and loans from financial institutions up to $ 1.2 trillion. The perfect recipe to fuel addiction.

  In exchange for debt relief or "support", global conglomerates, along with the likes of Bill Gates, can continue to dictate national policies and destroy the remnants of nation-state sovereignty.

 Identity and meaning

  What will happen to our social and personal identity? Should it be eradicated in an effort to commodify and standardize human behavior and everything we do?

 The class of billionaires who are pushing this agenda think they can own nature and all people and can control both, whether through atmospheric geoengineering, for example, by genetically modifying soil microbes, or by working better than nature itself by producing biosynthesized counterfeit food in laboratories.

  They think they can complete history and reinvent the wheel by changing what it means to be human. And they think they can achieve that by 2030. It is a cold dystopian vision that wants to destroy thousands of years of culture, tradition and practice literally overnight.

 And many of these cultures, traditions and practices have to do with food and how we produce it, as well as our deeply rooted connections with nature. Consider the fact that many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our ancestors were built around stories and myths that helped them come to terms with some of the most basic questions of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These deeply rooted beliefs and practices served to sanctify their real relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

 Since agriculture has become the key to human survival, planting and harvesting crops and other seasonal activities related to food production have been central to these customs. F

  Reyfaxi (First Harvest Festival) marks the beginning of the harvest in Scandinavian paganism, for example, while Lammas or Lugnasad is the celebration of the first harvest / grain harvest in other pagan traditions.

 People glorified nature and the life that it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were filled with hope and rebirth, and people had a necessary and direct relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain, as well as the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationship with agricultural production and its associated deities had a solid practical foundation.

 Professor Robert W. Nichols explains that the Woden and Thor cults were superimposed on much more ancient and ingrained beliefs related to the sun and earth, crops and animals, the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

  Although the industrial era has weakened the link between food and the natural environment as people moved to cities, traditional “food cultures” - the practices, attitudes and beliefs associated with the production, distribution and consumption of food - still thrive and underline our constant connection with agriculture and nature.

 Imperialism "hand of God"

  If we go back to the 1950s, it is interesting to note the corporate narrative of Union Carbide, based on a series of images that portrayed the company as the “Hand of God” descending from the sky to “solve” some of the problems facing humanity. One of the most famous images is a hand pouring the company's agrochemicals onto Indian soils, as if traditional farming methods were somehow "backward".

 Despite widely publicized claims to the contrary, this chemical approach has not led to an increase in food production, according to Professor Glenn Stone's New Stories of the Green Revolution article. However, it has had long-term devastating environmental, social and economic consequences (see Vandana Shiva's book The Violence of the Green Revolution and the now famous and highly insightful open letter to Indian officials from Bhaskar Seiwa).

 In Food and Cultural Studies (Bob Ashley et al.), We see a Coca-Cola TV ad campaign several years ago selling its product to an audience that associated modernity with a sweet drink and portrayed ancient Aboriginal beliefs as harmful, ignorant, and outdated. Coca-Cola, not rain, began to give life to those in need. This type of ideology is part of a broader strategy of discrediting traditional cultures and portraying them as imperfect and in need of help from "godlike" corporations.

 What we are seeing in 2020 is the acceleration of such processes. In terms of food and agriculture, traditional agriculture in places like India will be under increasing pressure from big tech giants and agribusiness to open up access to lab-grown food, GMOs, genetically modified soil microbes, data collection tools and unmanned aerial vehicles and other "destructive" technologies.

 The Great Reboot includes farms without farmers, manned by driverless cars, controlled by drones and doused with chemicals to produce cash crops from patented GM seeds for industrial "biomatter" that will be processed and turned into something like food. What will happen to the farmers?

  After COVID, the World Bank is talking about helping countries get back on track in exchange for structural reforms. Can tens of millions of smallholder farmers be lured out of their land in exchange for individual debt relief and universal basic income? The displacement of these farmers and the subsequent destruction of rural communities and their cultures was what the Gates Foundation once called for and cynically called "land mobility."

  Euphemisms aside, and it becomes clear that Bill Gates - and the other incredibly wealthy people behind the Great Reset - is an old-fashioned colonialist who supports imperialism's time-honored strategies of mining, appropriating and commercializing farming knowledge, accelerating the transfer of research, and seed corporations or the promotion of intellectual property piracy and seed monopolies created through IP (intellectual property) laws and seed regulations.

  When the link between food production, nature, and culturally rooted beliefs that give meaning and expression to life is completely severed, we are left with a laboratory food dependent, government revenue-driven and deprived of productive fulfillment and genuine fulfillment.

  Technocratic intervention has already destroyed or undermined cultural diversity, meaningful social ties and agrarian ecosystems that rely on centuries of traditional knowledge and are increasingly recognized as viable approaches to food security (for example, see “Food Security and Traditional Knowledge in India” in the Journal South Asian Studies). The massive technocratic transformation currently underway sees humans as commodities to be monitored and tracked in the same way lifeless technology drones and AI are advancing.

But don't worry - you'll be propertyless and happy in your open prison of mass unemployment, state dependency, tracking and chipped health passports, lack of cash, mass vaccination and dehumanization.

Switzerland 🇨🇭 Davos, January 2020. 

The President of the World Economic Forum has created an influential globalist network. Now, he and his assistants are really rebooting the world.

Klaus Schwab, together with Prince Charles of Wales, is one of the main agents of this concept: the global restructuring of the world economy in favor of a supposedly more environmentally friendly and socially oriented model of development. But it's just a screen. 

Schwab is a Swiss economist and businessman. In his early years, he served on the boards of a number of companies such as The Swatch Group, The Daily Mail Group and Vontobel Holding. In recent years, his public activities have been heard more. In addition to the Davos Forum, Schwab was an active member of the UN High-Level Advisory Council on Sustainable Development and vice-chairman of the UN Development Planning Committee. Klaus was also a member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee.

Klaus Schwab was born in 1938 in Nazi Germany in the family of a factory worker. His father ran Escher Wyss, an important part of the Nazi heavy industry, creating steam turbines for industrial production. The Schwab family avoided involvement in the war, but became incredibly rich both through the war and subsequent efforts to rebuild Germany.

In 1971, Schwab founded the European Management Forum, which held annual meetings in Davos, Switzerland. Here he promoted his ideology of "steakholder" capitalism, in which enterprises had to be involved in closer cooperation with the government and generally regarded as important actors of global transformation, which can and should interfere in politics and social processes.

Schwab is the neo Marx of the new globalists and representatives of transnational capital, who in the late 1960s decided that they needed to take a direct role in globalization and the governance of states . The main idea was to free their big business from the laws of national sovereign states. 

New globalists to promote their ideas create : Trilateral Commission David Rockefeller, Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum. These business clubs have successfully co-opted members of the political elite and have shaped the energy power of politics and large capital from informal contacts and personal interests. There's nothing more here. No medicine, no ecology, nothing but power, embezzlement, profit and bribes. 

The end.

ℰ𝒹𝓂ℴ𝓃𝒹 𝒟𝒶𝓃𝓉ℯ𝓈