Operatives deep within Idaho are bringing division and hate to our communities. The Western States Center (WSC) is a left-wing extremist organization that wants to "create a world...free from bigotry and fear". Eric K. Ward is the Executive Director of the WSC, Senior Fellow at the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), member of Political Research Associates, and Race Forward, His other exploits include Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, The Atlantic Philanthropies, what appears to be a now defunct left-wing organization called the Center for New Community, is an aspiring singer-songwriter to "advance inclusive democracy", and is involved with many other radical, and nefarious, organizations. Mr. Ward freely goes around making accusations, labeling others, and inciting hate, for which he receives a prize, while endeavoring to preserve, or construct, an "inclusive democracy", not understanding America is a Republic. This article identifies WSC as "an affiliate of the Southern Poverty Law Center" which "counts on WSC as a core program partner" and has been funded by several foundations with questionable motives. SPLC even has ties to the World Economic Forum. Several WSC board members also have ties to concerning organizations such as two with the SPLC, Chicago Abortion Fund, Center for New Community, and Basic Rights Oregon. In its 2019 990 tax form there are board members that served with the Ford Foundation, the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR), and one co-chair with the Astraea Lesbian Foundation For Justice. Two WSC members are already planted in Idaho and through groups. Beyond this, there is this eyebrow raising look at the creation of an Idaho group with similar agendas as the WSC. Take Back Idaho (TBI) is a committee formed in late 2021, and comprised of former Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Jim Jones, former Speaker of the House Bruce Newcomb, former Idaho Secretary of State Ben Ysursa, former Idaho Senator Bob Geddes, former Idaho Republican Party Executive Director Cheryl Miller, and a few others. TBI is "determined to take Idaho back from the grip of the IFF, its partner organizations, and their acolytes in the GOP legislative ranks." Hmmm. This TBI statement, "they will focus on educating Idahoans on how to identify and fight dangerous extremism and misinformation", will make TBI the laughingstock of the state by the end of this article. While examining these WSC and TBI similarities it is important to separate out one's own opinions and thoughts on the subject matter, instead focusing on the issue that TBI appears to be aligning with a radical and far left extremist organization with ties to even more radical groups. On February 26, 2022 both the WSC and TBI called for Janice McGeachin's resignation for her participation in the America First Political Action Conference (AFPAC), the WSC accusing her of embracing "white nationalism" and both labeling the AFPAC as a "White Nationalist Convention". This in spite of the WSC claim, "Western States Center is nonpartisan and does not support or oppose any candidate for elected public office" found at the bottom of the WSC page. Another target of both organizations is the Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF). Jim Jones in particular has issues with the IFF. Again without regard to one's opinion about the IFF, it is alarming that both WSC in June, 2021 and TBI in December, 2021 released condemnation of this organization based on IFF concerns regarding Critical Race Theory being taught in the education system. However, in this Accuracy in Media video it is clear that haughty educators condone changing the name of what they are teaching in order to hide their deeds. Is this not the same as what the WSC and TBI are doing, conniving with each other behind the scenes? There is also the issue of Shahram Hadian. The affiliated WSC Southern Poverty Law Center has a particular disdain for him along with TBI leader Jim Jones. The similarities in these issues might not be good enough to warrant accusations that WSC and TBI are working together, perhaps further documentation is needed. Through a Freedom of Information Act request, Casey Whalen exposed these nefarious activities between the City of Boise and WSC. Individual names have been redacted for their protection, leaving the involved agency name, and with links to those agencies at the end of each email. Since 2019 the WSC has been in contact with Boise City Council staff that began with a rape case by four Tanzania refugees. During that time, a 2/21/19 email involving several agencies discussed strategies to manipulate media information. It was also noted that Jim Jones was in the process of writing a letter with Capital Group to discourage legislators from attending a 2/27/19 event with Shahram Hadian. With his name on the 2/26/19 email list, and several additional agencies, Jones was given praise for his column, We don't need Shahram Hadian's inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric. In an August 2, 2019 email with even more involved agencies, Mr. Jones was invited to attend a WSC conference, it is unknown whether he did. However, one can see by the agenda that the subject matter extended far beyond its claim of just confronting white nationalism. The list of speakers included the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), another WSC partner. The 12/26/21 email confirms that WSC made contact with the Boise Mayor and a document was provided as a tool for governments responding to political violence. It is important to focus strictly on the fact that a left-wing extremist organization is infiltrating a local government to impose its ideology upon the citizens, and the local government appears to buy into that idea. Out of approximately 230,510 citizens, this left-wing extremist organization is suggesting infested bigotry and hate exists throughout the Boise community. This is nothing more than a lie. WSC's created resource, Strengthening Local Government Against Bigoted and Anti-Democracy Movements, is for the purpose of infiltrating and influencing governments.
Claiming "bigoted and hateful groups have successfully targeted young-adults who are still developing their worldviews", it is really WSC and its minions who are targeting youth, having developed a toolkit to bring its distortions into classrooms. In fact, it was Eric Ward's wife, Jessica Acee, who co-authored the toolkit and has some alarming thoughts about education herself. First the adults are groomed, then children become the prey for indoctrination. How can adults be so obtuse? Historically tyrants have used the division of people into different classes, identifying one group as superior than another, to amass power. There seems to be a striking similarity with WSC actions, separating out those they label as white nationalists. This is a very ominous warning for those who choose to lie in bed with WSC. In spite of Rep. Rubel's claim that the legislature focused on "divisive social issues" this year, the truth is that via the WSC and its associated toady groups, they sow seeds of hate to breed division among families, friends, and neighbors. WSC is not fooling anyone. Its lack of transparency and deceit is well understood, These individuals are too cowardly to bring their lofty ideas to a community because they know the opposition they would face. Instead, they hide behind the skirts of government. WSC doesn't understand with their projection of anger, personal rage, and hate onto a community it is that hate which communities overwhelmingly reject. Many Idahoans are tired of these racist groups bringing their bigoted and hateful ideology into our state. Knowing that current and former elected officials are participating in this is an embarrassment and shameful. This information is a very light surface scratch on the deep pockets of hate being spread across our country, the money being poured into spreading that hate, and the decimation of our Republic. Representatives who focused on social issues did so rightly as Idaho is a primary target for these groups. Shame on you Jones, Geddes, Ysursa, Newcomb, and every person that supports TBI. Your group is engaged in a deep well of networks that are anti-American, intentionally dismantling our Republic, and are the ones bringing "dangerous extremism and misinformation" to our state. None of you represent Idaho citizens. Idahoans will continue to reject this ideology in spite of your advocating for more of this rhetoric.
0 Comments
In a 2/21/22 post the relationship of Vladamir Putin and the World Economic Forum (WEF) was exposed. However, now it is China's Xi Jinping who is speaking to his country's devotion to the WEF as well. With two major countries that practice dictatorship being in such alignment with each other ideologically, is it now wonder what disaster is coming our way? Is this just part of the plan to execute the Great Reset? This is an opinion piece written by Justin Haskins and published in Newsweek. In very short order he explains how the creation of a digital currency will essentially give a government control mechanism over our lives.
Biden's Plan for a Digital Dollar is a Massive Threat to Freedom. "On March 9, the Biden administration issued a sweeping executive order directing a laundry list of government agencies to develop plans to regulate cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, as well as to produce a detailed plan to study the potential creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) for the United States. If the federal government and Federal Reserve were to ultimately issue a CBDC, it would be the first time in a century that America has released an entirely new currency. Although the executive order's language leaves the door open for federal agencies to recommend against the creation of a digital dollar, the evidence strongly suggests this will not occur, and that the White House will formally propose a plan for a digital currency by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve has already studied the possibility of rolling out a digital currency. It released a detailed report about digital currencies earlier in 2022 that served as "the first step in a public discussion between the Federal Reserve and stakeholders about central bank digital currencies." There's no reason for the White House to ask for yet another report on digital currencies, unless it's to gear up for a big legislative change. Biden's executive order even lays out a timeline for when the attorney general, secretary of the Treasury, and chairman of the Federal Reserve should provide the White House with a legislative proposal for a digital currency: within 210 days of the order, about seven months. In some respects, a digital dollar would be similar to our existing print currency. The Federal Reserve would continue to set policies and interest rates tied to the currency, and people would be able to pay vendors with their existing bank accounts and credit and debit cards. There are, however, substantial differences. For starters, a digital dollar would, by definition, not exist in print form. Once the transition to a digital dollar is complete, you wouldn't be able to go to the bank or an ATM and get physical cash out of an account that contains your digital currency. More importantly, a digital currency would likely be designed in a way that would give government and/or the Federal Reserve substantial control over its use and supply. The Federal Reserve could, for example, simply create more digital dollars with a push of a button and distribute them at the drop of a hat. Similarly, it could just as easily take digital dollars away from banks through a variety of monetary tools. Digital dollars could easily be tracked by banks, federal agencies and the Federal Reserve. They could also be programmed to control the kinds of things people can buy, how much could be purchased at a single time or any number of other variables. In short, the development of a digital currency could present the most dramatic expansion of federal power in history, depending on its design. In the coming weeks and months, advocates of a digital dollar might allege that all of these concerns are highly speculative, or perhaps even "conspiracy theories." But there are good reasons to think a digital dollar like the one the White House is considering would be used to micromanage the U.S. economy—and, by extension, the whole of society. The Biden administration's recent executive order plainly states that "financial inclusion and equity" as well as limiting "climate change and pollution" must be key considerations in the development of a new central bank digital currency and digital asset regulatory schemes. Further, during a background call with the press about the executive order, a "senior administration official"—his or her name was not published in the administration's call transcript—promised that the White House will "continue to partner with all stakeholders" in the development of a new digital currency, "including industry, labor, consumer, and environmental groups, international allies and partners." Why would discussions about the use of a digital dollar involve such a wide range of "stakeholders" unless the Biden administration were planning on making that CBDC programmable? The development of a digital currency should worry Americans everywhere, regardless of their ideological and political views. Once a digital currency is in place, government and/or Federal Reserve officials would have more power than ever to control, track and coerce individuals and U.S. businesses—likely without needing new laws approved by Congress. Most Americans don't want government and the Fed to have such an immense amount of power over their lives. The only question is, will enough people find out and stand up against the digital dollar before it's too late?" Justin Haskins ([email protected]) is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and the co-author of the New York Times bestselling book The Great Reset: Joe Biden and the Rise of Twenty-First Century Fascism. Here is a copy of the Biden Executive Order. Agenda 21 was never about the environment, nor was Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset is definitely not about creating a just world. All three have been about the economy and the production and distribution of resources. Rather, control over resources. Many names have been assigned to this, the green economy, stakeholder capitalism, a nature economy...whatever name it is given the goal is destroying free market capitalism and gaining control over resources. This video provides a good picture of one name, a resource based economy. It is taking all the resources for life and controlling them so life is equal to all. Another aspect it exposes is a technocratic world where society is managed, and controlled, through technical and scientific experts. Think Dr. Fauci, how well has that gone? But he is a pure example of how a technocrat operates. The Venus Project is working on making societal changes through science and improved utilization of resources for society. Created by now deceased Jacque Fresco, he already has a shady background. However, it never identifies just exactly who will be making all of the decisions on what is produced, who goods will be distributed to, and who has the ultimate control. Just who are those "scientific and technical alliances? When referencing these decisions as being made without politics or politicians, technocracy itself is a form of government by technicians. "It" would disseminate information? That means censorship of information "they" don't want you to have, which we are seeing now. Continuing the process of "social experimentation" is exactly what it says, experimentation upon the world. To see how a technocratic society is run, just look at China. This is the website with summaries of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual Davos meetings from January 17-21, 2022, touting its multiple agendas for the world, resetting the world and transforming it into its vision of utopia. Because there are so many issues, here are a few highlights of what was discussed.
The first alliance to accelerate digital inclusion. Basically this expands access to the internet. This session, led under the Digital Economy category, discussed the creation of the Edison Alliance, prioritizing "digital inclusion as foundational to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals." 5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change. This session was another justification to go to a meatless society. While it focuses on insect sources of protein, it leaves out the multitude of other minerals and vitamins that meat provides such as iron, magnesium, B complex vitamins, etc.. 3 reasons why private equity can lead the charge on ESG strategy. This session basically supports that all business be forced into an ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) model. This in turn can lead to the requirement that consumers behave the same way. It also eliminates all businesses that don't practice ESG, thus effectively killing small ownership businesses. The Davos Agenda 2022: Global Media Engagement. This session covers the media outlets that covered the Davos 2022 agenda. Rethinking global supply chains for the energy transition. Given the current global supply chain issues, this session is curiously interesting as to how it applies to the forced transition to renewable energy. Are the current supply chain issues planned? Scrolling down on the website also shows many other sessions with different subjects. These are areas that can be tracked with a digital identity. There will be no confidentiality, no ability to prevent the globalists from tracking what you are doing, and no ability to stop the globalists from shutting off access to life necessities if one doesn't behave correctly. And how this will be used for the Internet of Bodies. Is this how we really want to live? Bear in mind, every step and action this girl took has been tracked through that phone, and collected. As if the propaganda of the Great Reset isn't enough, Klaus Schwab has once again taken to pen & pencil to write about his plans against the world, called the Great Narrative. James Corbett of the Corbett report has actually read Schwab's latest book, of course called The Great Narrative. In his Episode 412, I Read The Great Narrative (So You Don't Have To), he covers a few chapters of the book and then gives his own narrative that describes how this book is nothing more than a story book of tales. The title, The Great Narrative itself provides the clue to Schwab wanting to write the narrative of the world and how we should all live. There is no need to buy the book, Corbett provided a link to it online if the urge is there to read it. He is right, don't support Amazon in this trash. Corbett is also accurate in his ending, that we are actually the ones that control the narrative of our future and not pass it over to these despots. Klaus speaks to what he perceives Great Narrative to be and can be listened to here. It is very concerning how they talk about humans as if they were nothing more than a pawn in an economic scheme. Also concerning is their reference to using local governments in its plans. Clearly, the goal is to expand government into a world dominated force as we pawns clearly have no clue how to run our own lives. What a lot of lost souls. This is one excellent article explaining the Great Reset, written by Michael Rectenwald Chief Academic Officer, American Scholars Post and published by the Hillsdale Imprimis. It was "adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on November 7, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “The Great Reset.”
Is the Great Reset a conspiracy theory imagining a vast left-wing plot to establish a totalitarian one-world government? No. Despite the fact that some people may have spun conspiracy theories based on it—with some reason, as we will see—the Great Reset is real. Indeed, just last year, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)—a famous organization made up of the world’s political, economic, and cultural elites that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland—and Thierry Malleret, co-founder and main author of the Monthly Barometer, published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. In the book, they define the Great Reset as a means of addressing the “weaknesses of capitalism” that were purportedly exposed by the COVID pandemic. But the idea of the Great Reset goes back much further. It can be traced at least as far back as the inception of the WEF, originally founded as the European Management Forum, in 1971. In that same year, Schwab, an engineer and economist by training, published his first book, Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering. It was in this book that Schwab first introduced the concept he would later call “stakeholder capitalism,” arguing “that the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” Schwab and the WEF have promoted the idea of stakeholder capitalism ever since. They can take credit for the stakeholder and public-private partnership rhetoric and policies embraced by governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international governance bodies worldwide. The specific phrase “Great Reset” came into general circulation over a decade ago, with the publication of a 2010 book, The Great Reset, by American urban studies scholar Richard Florida. Written in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Florida’s book argued that the 2008 economic crash was the latest in a series of Great Resets—including the Long Depression of the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s—which he defined as periods of paradigm-shifting systemic innovation. Four years after Florida’s book was published, at the 2014 annual meeting of the WEF, Schwab declared: “What we want to do in Davos this year . . . is to push the reset button”—and subsequently the image of a reset button would appear on the WEF’s website. In 2018 and 2019, the WEF organized two events that became the primary inspiration for the current Great Reset project—and also, for obvious reasons, fresh fodder for conspiracy theorists. (Don’t blame me for the latter—all I’m doing is relating the historical facts.) In May 2018, the WEF collaborated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to conduct “CLADE X,” a simulation of a national pandemic response. Specifically, the exercise simulated the outbreak of a novel strain of a human parainfluenza virus, with genetic elements of the Nipah virus, called CLADE X. The simulation ended with a news report stating that in the face of CLADE X, without effective vaccines, “experts tell us that we could eventually see 30 to 40 million deaths in the U.S. and more than 900 million around the world—twelve percent of the global population.” Clearly, preparation for a global pandemic was in order. In October 2019, the WEF collaborated with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on another pandemic exercise, “Event 201,” which simulated an international response to the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. This was two months before the COVID outbreak in China became news and five months before the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, and it closely resembled the future COVID scenario, including incorporating the idea of asymptomatic spread. The CLADE X and Event 201 simulations anticipated almost every eventuality of the actual COVID crisis, most notably the responses by governments, health agencies, the media, tech companies, and elements of the public. The responses and their effects included worldwide lockdowns, the collapse of businesses and industries, the adoption of biometric surveillance technologies, an emphasis on social media censorship to combat “misinformation,” the flooding of social and legacy media with “authoritative sources,” widespread riots, and mass unemployment. In addition to being promoted as a response to COVID, the Great Reset is promoted as a response to climate change. In 2017, the WEF published a paper entitled, “We Need to Reset the Global Operating System to Achieve the [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals].” On June 13, 2019, the WEF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations to form a partnership to advance the “UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Shortly after that, the WEF published the “United Nations-World Economic Forum Strategic Partnership Framework for the 2030 Agenda,” promising to help finance the UN’s climate change agenda and committing the WEF to help the UN “meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” including providing assets and expertise for “digital governance.” In June 2020, at its 50th annual meeting, the WEF announced the Great Reset’s official launch, and a month later Schwab and Malleret published their book on COVID and the Great Reset. The book declared that COVID represents an “opportunity [that] can be seized”; that “we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world”; that “the moment must be seized to take advantage of this unique window of opportunity”; and that “[f]or those fortunate enough to find themselves in industries ‘naturally’ resilient to the pandemic”—think here of Big Tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon—“the crisis was not only more bearable, but even a source of profitable opportunities at a time of distress for the majority.” The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam—Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism—which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.” In brief, stakeholder capitalism involves the behavioral modification of corporations to benefit not shareholders, but stakeholders—individuals and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate behavior. Stakeholder capitalism requires not only corporate responses to pandemics and ecological issues such as climate change, “but also rethinking [corporations’] commitments to already-vulnerable communities within their ecosystems.” This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant. One of the WEF’s many powerful “strategic partners,” BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, is solidly behind the stakeholder model. In a 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that “climate risk is investment risk,” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” The COVID pandemic, Fink wrote, accelerated the flow of funds toward sustainable investments: We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders. . . . As more and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability-focused companies, the tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further. And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock. Fink’s letter is more than a report to CEOs. It is an implicit threat: be woke or else. In their recent book on the Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret pit “stakeholder capitalism” against “neoliberalism,” defining the latter as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare.” In other words, “neoliberalism” refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy. Proponents of the Great Reset hold “neoliberalism” responsible for our economic woes. But in truth, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries—what used to be known as corporatism or economic fascism—has been the real source of what Schwab and his allies at the WEF decry. While approved corporations are not necessarily monopolies, the tendency of the Great Reset is toward monopolization—vesting as much control over production and distribution in as few favored corporations as possible, while eliminating industries and producers deemed non-essential or inimical. To bring this reset about, Schwab writes, “[e]very country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.” Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below. Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system. Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase was meant to rationalize the CCP’s allowance of for-profit development under a socialist political system. The CCP considered the privatization of the Chinese economy to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as 100 years if necessary—on the way to a communist society. Party leaders maintain that this approach has been necessary in China because socialism was introduced too early there, when China was a backward agrarian country. China needed a capitalist booster shot. Stripped of its socialist ideological pretensions, the Chinese system amounts to a socialist or communist state increasingly funded by capitalist economic development. The difference between the former Soviet Union and contemporary China is that when it became obvious that a socialist economy had failed, the former gave up its socialist economic pretenses, while the latter has not. The Great Reset represents the development of the Chinese system in the West, but in reverse. Whereas the Chinese political class began with a socialist political system and then introduced privately held for-profit production, the West began with capitalism and is now implementing a Chinese-style political system. This Chinese-style system includes vastly increased state intervention in the economy, on the one hand, and on the other, the kind of authoritarian measures that the Chinese government uses to control its population. Schwab and Malleret write that if “the past five centuries in Europe and America” have taught us anything, it is that “acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.” The draconian lockdown measures employed by Western governments managed to accomplish goals of which corporate socialists in the WEF could only dream—above all, the destruction of small businesses, eliminating competitors for corporate monopolists favored by the state. In the U.S. alone, according to the Foundation for Economic Education, millions of small businesses closed their doors due to the lockdowns. Yelp data indicates that 60 percent of those closures are now permanent. Meanwhile companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google enjoyed record gains. Other developments that advance the Great Reset agenda have included unfettered immigration, travel restrictions for otherwise legal border crossing, the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money and the subsequent inflation, increased taxation, increased dependence on the state, broken supply chains, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances. Such policies reflect the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—fairness requires lowering the economic status of people in wealthier nations like the U.S. relative to that of people in poorer regions of the world. One of the functions of woke ideology is to make the majority in developed countries feel guilty about their wealth, which the elites aim to reset downwards—except, one notices, for the elites themselves, who need to be rich in order to fly in their private jets to Davos each year. The Great Reset’s corporate stakeholder model overlaps with its governance and geopolitical model: states and favored corporations are combined in public-private partnerships and together have control of governance. This corporate-state hybrid is largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments. Governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. As such, corporations become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise private organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky voters. Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes globalist, whether or not a one-world government is ever formalized. As if the economic and governmental resets were not dramatic enough, the technological reset reads like a dystopian science fiction novel. It is based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution—or 4-IR for short. The first, second, and third industrial revolutions were the mechanical, electrical, and digital revolutions. The 4-IR marks the convergence of existing and emerging fields, including Big Data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. The foreseen result will be the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds, which presents a challenge to the ontologies by which we understand ourselves and the world, including the definition of a human being. There is nothing original about this. Transhumanists and Singularitarians (prophets of technological singularity) such as Ray Kurzweil forecasted these and other revolutionary developments long ago. What’s different about the globalists’ vision of 4-IR is the attempt to harness it to the ends of the Great Reset. If already existing 4-IR developments are any indication of the future, then the claim that it will contribute to human happiness is false. These developments include Internet algorithms that feed users prescribed news and advertisements and downrank or exclude banned content; algorithms that censor social media content and consign “dangerous” individuals and organizations to digital gulags; “keyword warrants” based on search engine inputs; apps that track and trace COVID violations and report offenders to the police; robot police with scanners to identify and round up the unvaccinated and other dissidents; and smart cities where residents are digital entities to be monitored, surveilled, and recorded, and where data on their every move is collected, collated, stored, and attached to a digital identity and a social credit score. In short, 4-IR technologies subject human beings to a kind of technological management that makes surveillance by the NSA look like child’s play. Schwab goes so far as to cheer developments that aim to connect human brains directly to the cloud for the sake of “data mining” our thoughts and memories. If successful, this would constitute a technological mastery over decision-making that would threaten human autonomy and undermine free will. The 4-IR seeks to accelerate the merging of humans and machines, resulting in a world in which all information, including genetic information, is shared, and every action, thought, and motivation is known, predicted, and possibly precluded. Unless taken out of the hands of corporate-socialist technocrats, the 4-IR will eventually lead to a virtual and inescapable prison of body and mind. In terms of the social order, the Great Reset promises inclusion in a shared destiny. But the subordination of so-called “netizens” implies economic and political disenfranchisement, a hyper-vigilance over self and others, and social isolation—or what Hannah Arendt called “organized loneliness”—on a global scale. This organized loneliness is already manifest in lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and the social exclusion of the unvaccinated. The title of the Ad Council’s March 2020 public service announcement—“Alone Together”—perfectly captures this sense of organized loneliness. In my recent book, Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, which is on the leading edge of a nascent world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate-socialist totalitarianism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system. Just as Schwab and the WEF predicted, the COVID crisis has accelerated the Great Reset. Monopolistic corporations have consolidated their grip on the economy from above, while socialism continues to advance for the rest of us below. In partnership with Big Digital, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, national and international health agencies, and compliant populations, hitherto democratic Western states—think especially of Australia, New Zealand, and Austria—are being transformed into totalitarian regimes modeled after China. But let me end on a note of hope. Because the goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free will, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t, again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake—which is all the more reason to oppose it now and with all our might. On Friday, March 4, 2022, the Idaho House narrowly passed House Bill 701, the Idaho Workforce Housing Fund, sponsored by Rep. Blanksma. Under this bill the legislature would allocate monies to a trust fund within the state treasury, which according to this article, would be administered by the Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA). "IHFA would approve grants for nonprofit developers to create affordable housing units...". While Rep. Blanksma admonished the idea that America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds would be used to fund this, she claimed this bill is "only a path" for funding in the future. Clearly the bill's Statement of Purpose and other sources identify $50 million will originate from ARPA. It appears that "path" can be jump started with ARPA funds, why else would it be in there? What this bill also does is set up a public-private partnership between the Idaho government and private developers, it just being filtered through another organization. This bill is intended to fill the "gap" for citizens who don't qualify for housing subsidies and yet don't earn enough money for "affordable housing'. After meeting with his cronies, Governor Little made the recommendation to use ARPA funding for these purposes, although how that ARPA money could be used had not been defined. Well, now it is. The January, 2022 U.S. Department of Treasury final rule is that ARPA money can be used for "Improvements to vacant and abandoned properties, including rehabilitation or maintenance, renovation, removal and remediation of environmental contaminants, demolition or deconstruction, greening/vacant lot cleanup & conversion to affordable housing." It also references funding can go to "households that qualify for the National Housing Trust Fund" (NHTF). This is another government run housing program that targets "building, rehabilitating, preserving, and operating rental housing for extremely low-income people." No doubt this is an expansion of government housing. This really isn't about workforce housing which is just a metaphor for affordable housing. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) defines workforce housing as those who have a "moderate income, 60-120%" Area Medium Income (AMI) that includes rentals and home ownership. This map identifies who in Idaho would qualify under the 60-120% AMI threshold. H701 provides that financial assistance is given to housing "developments that include a commitment on the part of a local government to match." To develop these housing projects local governments will have to pony up as well, a fancy description for redistributing wealth. 20% of those monies must be given to rural areas. The bill becomes void at the end of 2026. Is that time allotted for the sole purpose of getting more nefarious plans in place such as through the ULI mission for workforce housing? Erik Kingston is the Housing Resources Coordinator for the Idaho Housing and Finance Association (IHFA), the association assigned to administering HB701 funds. IHFA partners include Idaho Rural Partnership (IRP), the regional Western Community Assessment Network (WeCan), and several state agencies. Mr. Kingston is on the IRP Board of Directors and is a member of WeCan. As usual the federal government is the instigator of WeCan. Mr. Kingston has devotion to several housing objectives and considers housing a "human right" as declared by Article 25 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Rights. In his Housing Basics guide he supports housing cooperatives, community housing/land trusts, and using modular and 3D printed homes. Kudos to Mr. Kingston for trying to create solutions for those individuals who are unable to afford housing. But what he is really doing is recommending and supporting a more hidden agenda, and the source is from his multiple buddies. Behind the scenes these groups are actively using their collaborators to bring their housing initiatives forward. Collaborators include the University of Idaho (U of I), the IRP program, and the ULI.
Going back to the ULI, who cares what it thinks? ULI is a global non-governmental organization, with an Idaho chapter, that supports Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), including #11, affordable housing for all, and highlights real estate alignment with the SDGs. Several globalists have held webinars for the Idaho ULI chapter, including one who is Co-Chair of the Real Estate Governors of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Coen van Oostrom. Multiple ULI executives are members of the WEF including Patrick L. Phillips, Lynn Thurber, and Peter Baccile, One can reasonably assume that these individuals pass on their SDG and WEF visions to naive ULI listeners. This presenter is really choice, Solomon Greene, previously HUD’s principal adviser on the United Nations process for setting global sustainable development goals. Mr. Kingston's support of modular homes, 3D printed houses, and housing cooperatives all come from the WEF. In this WEF document, housing issues have already been solved and are now trickling down to Idaho via these partnerships and collaborations thanks to Governor Little and Rep. Blanksma. So yes, Rep. Blanksma, there is a direct trail back to the WEF and its objectives for "workforce housing", just another term to disguise a feel good agenda, and new government housing program. It is WEF ideology that is being passed on to Idaho groups for implementation, the typical way these operatives work. You are proposing to hand over millions of dollars to an organization with a resource coordinator who is leading the effort to bring together groups for meeting common globalist housing objectives. An apology is owed to every house member that challenged you with the truth. This type of public housing ploy, government money for housing, has been tried, and failed, before. It is also another example of how Governor Little uses his cronies to devise a spending scam that benefits them, and miraculously it flows through the legislature unlike some other bills for citizens that get stuck in the drawer. While you may be ok spending money that has already "saddled us with debt", most Idahoans do not ascribe to your money management thinking. What this money really does is benefit the looters that use it to advance ideology that Idahoans directly oppose. There are many unanswered questions about how this money would be allocated, and used, especially by non-profits which often hold the same ideologies as the globalists. Regardless of how Rep. Blanksma chooses to perceive this ill-gotten idea, it is public housing because the money is coming from the government and historically that has not worked. Even the IHFA itself "functions as an agent for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development". The Senate most likely will be voting on this bill next week. Contact your legislator and let them know you are opposed to HB701. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
|