Over 40 percent of Americans believe a “secret cabal” runs the U.S. government. If we care to look in the right places, a global “open cabal” explicitly shares its agenda step-by-step.
Former President Obama’s campaign pollster, Joel Benenson, surveyed a thousand registered U.S. voters in late October to test the appeal of “QAnon’s language that the world is controlled by a secret cabal.”
To say the least, the Benenson Strategy Group’s results were surprising.
In October 2017, an anonymous or “Anon” user posted on the imageboard 4chan that Hillary Clinton or “HRC” would be arrested in two days. These messages, over time, became known as “Q drops” written cryptically with pledges and positive themes around Donald Trump.
QAnon, at its core, is based on a theory that Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles who are members of an elite class within leftist corporate media, Hollywood, big business and government. Indeed, a Pew Research Center study in September 2020 found that nearly half of Americans had heard of “QAnon,” of which around 20 percent held a positive view of the movement.
A poignant aspect of QAnon is providing its supporters with a sense of reassurance—that Trump is playing smart political moves and how We, the People should “trust the plan” by passively staying in the passenger seat, allowing Donald the Savior to cleanse the government and leading authorities of moral corruption.
Put aside the deplorable mistreatment of detainees after they protested the outcome of the 2020 election on January 6, 2021. Put aside the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate or the FBI arresting former Trump advisor Peter Navarro—how has the QAnon “trust the plan” been working out thus far?
“*” indicates required fields
Fast forward to the recent Benenson poll; a stunning 44 percent of Americans agreed with the statement that “The federal government is controlled by a secret cabal.” Among those who hold this belief, 53 percent are Republican, 41 percent are Independent and only 37 percent are Democrat.
Interestingly, the same poll shows that 59 percent of U.S. voters “agree that the U.S. is a strong democracy.” When broken down by political affiliation, 66 percent are Democrat, 55 percent are Republican and 54 percent are Independent.
Consider Professor Klaus Schwab, a past student of former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kessinger, and founder and chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF.) In 1971, Schwab established the WEF as a “not for profit” foundation headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland.
Carefully weaved into its mission statement, the WEF serves as an international lobbying organization and declares, “We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.”
The “all walks of life” refers to public-private sector cooperation, harnessing the skills of leading figures in politics, big business, academia and culture to shape global, national and industrial plans.
During a 2017 conference at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Schwab boasted that “we penetrate the cabinets,” asserting that at least half of Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were graduates of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders initiative. Indeed, so too were Argentina and France mentioned, referring to then-newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron.
“And I have to say, when I mention our names, like [former German Chancellor] Mrs. Merkel, even [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and so on,” Schwab said. “They all have been young global leaders of the World Economic Forum.”
Indeed, the U.S. government has its fair share of WEF graduates according to a list compiled by The Malone Institute, ranging from Republicans such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, Texas Rep. Daniel Crenshaw through Democrats such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.
We can infer from the chairman of the WEF that he proudly boasts and openly shares a vision for an increasingly technological world, including the exact steps taken to fulfil what he—and many of his comrades—believes should be the direction of national governments in the 21st century.
In fact, Joe Biden spoke as Vice President at the WEF annual meeting in January 2017 with a clear message:
In two days, there will be a new President of the United States [Donald Trump], but the challenges we face and the choices we must make as an international community do not hinge exclusively on Washington’s leadership.
Biden also emphasized the importance of “a liberal international order” and to “ensure that the benefits and the burdens of globalization and digitization are shared more equitably.”
By the time Trump was sworn in as the 45th U.S. President, his daughter and advisor, Ivanka Trump, was already a WEF graduate of 2015 and married to a senior advisor to the new commander-in-chief.
For many people worldwide, the “COVID-19 pandemic” resulted from the response to a “novel” coronavirus outbreak, including government-issued lockdowns, “nonessential” business closures, stay-at-home orders and separation from elderly loved ones who passed away in nursing homes.
Schwab, meanwhile, saw a “unique opportunity” for something akin to an economic revolution. In June 2020, the WEF launched “The Great Reset Initiative,” to which there are three main aspects: build an environment for a “stakeholder economy,” foster an “equitable, inclusive and sustainable” society and utilize the innovations of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
While discussing his new book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” with CNBC International, Schwab said that the “pandemic” brought forth a “unique opportunity to reset our global agenda” and to recreate a global framework “which, really, is in line with the requirements of a society in the 21st century.”
The latest “requirement” is usually published on the WEF website, and discussed during various panels and annual conferences. My concern is that any “solution” to a “problem” proposed by the WEF tends to favor extended centralization of power; a higher emphasis on personal borrowing instead of personal ownership; and greater surveillance and micromanagement through public-private sector partnerships.
Alongside the Second Amendment, the United States has two unique strengths: the First Amendment; and being a driver of cultural changes and scientific advancements.
Thus, the WEF will seek to channel and express its vision through American exceptionalism; it will simultaneously aim to control and suppress the flow of information perceived as “harmful,” “dangerous,” “misinformation,” or “disinformation.”
Any expression of thought that doesn’t align with a narrative beholden to the WEF agenda, and other ideologically compatible lobbying groups, will aim to be condemned and banished from leading social media platforms, corporate industry—and even academic institutions that are equally beholden to a progressive left worldview.
During a WEF panel on “tackling disinformation” in late September, a United Nations (U.N.) representative announced that they “own the science” in relation to a partnership with Google around “climate information.” The U.N.’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, justified the collaboration:
For example, if you Google “climate change,” you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled “climate change,” we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.
Fleming also pointed out that the U.N. collaborated with the video-sharing platform TikTok to counteract “COVID” viewpoints that didn’t bode well with their “science.”
“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” Fleming said.
Indeed, Fleming recognizes the power of social media; she reasoned that recruiting influencers to promote the U.N.’s messaging around “COVID” would be essential to counteract mistrust of international institutions:
Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers, uhm, influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.
It must be stressed that the commitment of WEF members or associates is striking; they appear dedicated to clamping down on any form of speech that opposes the organization’s narrative. For instance, a professor from Brown University weighed in on major media platforms’ responsibility to “mitigate the harms of polluted information.” In collaboration with leading figures within the U.N, media and academia, they aim to get ahead of the curve by involving Big Tech to carry the fire of burning “information leading to harm.”
To emphasize the above point, a senior physician might provide an empirical opinion about adverse reactions associated with COVID “vaccines” on Twitter. A high school biology teacher might state on TikTok that there are only two sexes, and rare genetic conditions involving an extra or absent chromosome. A disgruntled store manager might rant on Facebook about the “cleansing” of a group he finds repugnant while claiming to be a “Christian.” Chances are that all three cases are going to be treated as “harmful” information, their accounts will be terminated, and their lives may be changed forever.
While many Americans are outraged, perhaps entertained, but nonetheless distracted by growing political polarization—it is not by coincidence. The more socially and politically divided a nation leans to the point of exacerbated infighting, the easier it can be manipulated by an external lobbying force that carefully infiltrates public and private sectors responsible for driving policy, economy and culture.
Ever wondered where the Biden administration whipped up the slogan “build back better” for the name of a $1.75 trillion social spending plan that passed through Congress in November 2021?
Interestingly, in June 2020, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom (U.K.) announced a “New Deal” as part of government plans to “build back better” by investing nearly $6 billion equivalent to accelerate infrastructure projects and fuel “economic recovery.”
Moreover, the European Commission announced in May 2020 an investment under $800 billion equivalent to support European Union (E.U.) member states after the “consequences of the COVID-19 crisis.” The E.U.’s “Green Deal,” which combines public and private sector funding, is central to its economic recovery and objective of “climate neutrality.”
Interestingly, $500 billion of Biden’s “Build Back Better Act” represents investment in renewable energy tax credits, which are indirect federal subsidies to finance the production of renewable energy. Even the U.K. government published its own “Build Back Better: our plan for growth” in March 2021, with a focus on investment in “clean energy technologies” that prevents carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere, such as carbon capture, utilization and storage.
Not one to ignore nations grappling with the consequences of government-issued lockdowns, President Biden and G7 partners in June 2021 agreed to launch the “Build Back Better World” initiative described as:
[A] values-driven, high-standard, and transparent infrastructure partnership led by major democracies to help narrow the $40+ trillion infrastructure need in the developing world, which has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic…investments will be made in a manner consistent with “achieving the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.”
And by September 2021, the White House published that the “U.S. and the E.U. will expand cooperation for global action toward vaccinating the world, saving lives now, and building [back] better health security,” particularly in relatively low and lower-middle income countries.
So the phrase “build back better,” which refers to an economic revival involving a surge in “clean energy” investment after the “COVID-19 pandemic” crushed many local businesses, could have originated outside the United States—but where and why does it matter?
Perhaps the use of this phrase within the Anglosphere and E.U. around a similar timeframe, as highlighted in a 93-second video, is a coincidence and doesn’t infer a shared overarching influence—or authority. But, as much as one might suspect its source lies outside Washington D.C., leading figures in government, regardless of their political party membership, have either resigned to or accepted the ideas proposed in the Great Reset agenda to “build back better.”
During a WEF panel discussion in November 2020 entitled “The Great Reset: Building Future Resilience to Global Risks,” the former Secretary of State and current Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, expressed that the Great Reset will happen with “greater speed and with greater intensity than a lot of people might imagine.”
Although Kerry emphasized the need to tackle the “climate crisis,” he touched upon a topic that presumably reflected the popularity of Trump and said he was astounded that Americans had still voted for a “level of chaos, breach of law and order.” Kerry reasoned that “rising national populism” was the “underlying reason” that needed addressing. He went on to say:
[W]e’re moving at a digital pace, and everything is moving faster—ideas, people, goods—but not government. Government has to find a way to move faster and to address more of the real concerns of its citizens or there will be, I think, increasing backlash.
Exactly how Kerry intends to “address more of the real concerns of its citizens” is debatable. However, believing that a “secret cabal” is running the U.S. government fuels the sentiment that there is minimal power—or point—in building any infrastructure that might deviate from Washington D.C.’s accepted plan.
While many in government want to take the United States in a particular direction, it’s going to be We, the People who build communities, businesses and political institutions from the local level upwards. The stronger our moral framework and financial pillars, the more vigorous the exertion of political influence upon the direction of America, as our Founding Fathers intended.
Leave a Comment