I’m not as sanguine about the Great Reset plan as the writer seems to be. He says, “But the WEF is not at the center of some vast conspiracy. Dr. Schwab is Dr. Disturbingly Influential, not Dr. Evil.” But I have Hannah Arendt in mind when I contemplate such things. I think she would describe the Great Reset as the epitome of her famous phrase, the banality of evil.
The challenge is this. The international systems/relationships are already in place, rather like the network of treaties that made WWI all but inevitable. And the human control technology is far more advanced than most of us peasants have begun to realize (see China, the test case). The Davos crowd may be clueless, narcissistic or even…banal, but they are set up. They are prepared. And to a large extent, they are secretive. The scoffers now are only the Mad Hatters.
For the rest of us, especially the very young, the time is ripe for a Renaissance of Enlightenment thinking, particularly on the topics of liberty and freedom.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Young people, and quite a few older ones, lose interest in liberty as soon as they see it comes with personal responsibility.
LikeLike
Which is exactly why #LIBERATE is so irresponsible.
“Mask, I don’t need no stinkin’ mask. Even the president said so.”
Responsibility starts with the individual and benefits the community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
At some point, maybe years, decades or even a century or more from now, I hope we learn that tribalism and even national identity are counterproductive to the quality of life on this planet.
Historically, great warriors and military leaders were the de facto heads of state. Pointless today. Particularly with climate change that is affecting regional weathers. Fertile lands for agriculture may shift from one nation to another or disappear entirely from a region. Coastlines will change and since most of the world’s population lives near or on the oceans, seas and feeding tributaries, mass population movements will happen. And it will happen freely or with great conflict. Our choice.
The idea of countries competing like businesses is not working today and certainly not tomorrow. The reasons are multi-fold. Cost of living, wages, education, disease, shipping costs and political conflicts provide a very uneven playing field outside the realm of innovation, quality control and marketing which are the traditional dividing lines in head to head competition in a free market.
In addition to these issues, many current national borders have little bearing on cultural links and more on established lines according to wars and treaties. So if culture plays a smaller part in the recognition of a state rather than real estate holdings, might it not be time to reconsider the nation state and at least go to continental lines.
Americans sometimes believe they are exceptional, and to a degree we are at least with geography. Europe and Asia, for example, have a myriad of borders that have shifted over the centuries due to wars primarily. Our borders have been stable and peaceful since the late 1800’s to early 1900’s, more or less. However, the Latin American migrations have created issues based on race and culture and yet we cannot do without the labor, at least for now. So it is an economic conundrum for us. Nationalism want to stay the migration for cultural purity, but business needs the cheaper and more hard working labor.
We can solve this problem with a more flexible immigration policy until the wages south of our border catch up to those above the border. But that means a more accepting of different peoples in the interest of economic survival without conflict. If that is possible.
Bottom line: a reset of international relations is coming and it can be productive or destructive. Again, our choice.
LikeLiked by 1 person