Great Reset Or Great Erasure?

A More Sinister Brand of Collectivism

Ingenuity, resilience and self reliance are the hallmark values of the American spirit. The formation of our country, a culmination of sacrifice, taming the wilderness and surviving disease and starvation, forged a drive and a zeal to one’s develop potential presented by the adversity of life. Life was very arduous in the New World, there was no support system, no roads, nothing to ease the difficulties of building communities with nothing more than skills and mindset to tame the land.

America was unique in many ways, but one of the most compelling facets was that it was a new fledging culture that left the nest without express purpose of re-engineering the mindset of it’s people. In some ways it was a maturation: the American people did not need the constraints of monarchy in order to survive, they were stepping into the role of maximizing their freedom and their potential without remolding a captive culture.

This stands in polar opposition to the ideals of the Great Reset. The Great Reset, a phrase coined by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum, is a recasting of the ideals of technocratic supremacy. The Great Reset is a top down approach to retooling all facets of society, with one source of truth. Collective action and sacrifice is required. It means relinquishing your liberty to build a better society, as it’s proponents describe. The primary driver of the Great Reset is to combat climate change, save the planet from the destruction that humans have unleashed on the world and take the opportunity to reshape our thinking.

But there is another concept hidden within the lofty goals expressed by the Great Reset, and that is the culling of human population. It is expressed in certain moments, but never emphasized.

Striking Parallels To Collectivist Utopias

Sometimes the best way to illustrate the strength of an argument, a position or political philosophy is to contrast elements and compare the expected outcomes with the results of similar theories implemented in the past. Drawing analogies and identifying contrasts can clearly demonstrate the strength or weakness of ideas, and perhaps disaster can be adverted.

While we clearly see the Marxist roots of the Climate Change and New Green Deal rescue plans being presented, there is something much more sinister behind this movement.  At least Mao and Stalin talked about rebuilding society, the climate change groups truly want to dismantle working components of our way of life.

In the article The Great Leap Backwards: Mao-style climate cultists must be stopped Andrew Montford aptly describes the psyche of the climate change crowd as a Mao-ist cult, and their unthinking devotion to a grand plan has placed dangerous blinders on their eyes.

IN 1958, the Chinese leader Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward, a crash programme of economic modernisation that he hoped would lead the country to the promised land of communism.  

The intention was to transform the Middle Kingdom, the world’s most populous country, from a largely agrarian society into an industrial and economic superpower in just a few years. 

It was decreed that scrap metal be transformed into steel in backyard furnaces to be set up across the country. The country was denuded of trees to fuel the furnaces and workers were transferred from productive activity elsewhere in order to man them. The results were almost worthless, but dissenters were ruthlessly purged.

For those unfamiliar with Communist Chinese history, Mao lead several revolutions, treating the Chinese population as canvas with which a new utopian picture would be painted. 

To gain acceptance, a semblance of egalitarian goals were offered, and planners of the new societies always proclaimed that by moving forward, together, a better future was in store, one that would be scientifically guided yet secured by the People. 1958 was no exception, and Mao’s The Great Leap Forward had the grand designs of transforming agrarian Chinese society into an industrial power. So stop farming, find all scrap metal, smelt it in your back yards while cutting down all the trees and by working together a better society will be born. As with all Great Works led by unfiltered hubris and guarded by tyranny, it was an unmitigated disaster.

Back To The Electrification Future

It is important to recognize some parallels with our current day plans. In my state of Michigan, the regime led by Gretchen Whitmer also espouses the theme of modernization. But while this may sound good to policy wonks, for those who have an basic understanding of engineering and physics, much of the Fourth Industrial Revolution revitalization plan will destroy the good technology that we have developed which provides energy for industry and agriculture on a scale higher than the Green technology solutions can ever hope to offer. The parallel with the Electrification Program that Lenin promoted cannot be ignored. Modernization by electricity. In our Fourth Industrial Revolution quest, we merely seek to only use electricity as the primary source of power for locomotion, so our modernization quest has some ironic congruency with Stalin’s plans too.

Translation: Communism means soviets, plus the electrification of the whole country. Let us transform the USSR through socialist industrialization (1930).

All of this will be achieved by decree. Our political leaders’ pronouncements are backed by science and new technology. Decades ago the time wasn’t right, but with AI, Big Data and some very neat graphics, our leaders have the right tools at hand to know exactly what the markets of the future can bear in regards to electricity needs. And there will be no collateral damage to industry, agriculture or our current standard of living. Sound good? Sounds good.

Until we ask the question how much land will be required to support the Net-Zero, 100% Clean Energy goals for 2027, 2035 and 2040. The Michigan Public Service Commission, a state agency that is mandated to oversee the development of energy production and enforce environmental practices, estimates that to meet our energy needs with wind and solar, only 209,000 acres will be required.

So what’s the big deal? That is only 312 square miles. Michigan is 56,591 square miles. Not even 1 percent. Fair enough. I am a believer in back of the envelope calculations to give us a rough idea of what we are in for. They are not precise, but they paint a picture to start with. So consider this, the largest city Detroit covers 138 square miles. These are the top 9 largest cities in Michigan:

1. 138.75 sq mi. Detroit, MI / 695,437.

2. 49.27 sq mi. Forest Hills, MI / 27,072.

3. 44.40 sq mi. Grand Rapids, MI / 190,739.

4. 42.61 sq mi. Battle Creek, MI / 51,963.

5. 36.50 sq mi. Sterling Heights, MI / 130,604.

6. 36.05 sq mi. Lansing, MI / 114,382.

7. 35.70 sq mi. Livonia, MI / 95,888.

8. 35.61 sq mi. Romulus, MI / 23,721.

If we are to believe the Michigan Public Service Commission, we would need an area that fits Detroit, Forest Hills, Grand Rapids, Battle Creek, and Sterling Heights within it’s perimeter. Those 6 cities listed have a total area of roughly 311 square miles.

But before we can safely conclude that Michigan can just convert scrub area into miles of solar and wind farms, we have to ask ourselves what other critical factors are involved with variable rate energy sources, as wind and solar do not provide a steady state of electricity. Last year when Jason Hayes from the Mackinac Center For Public Policy was kind enough to join me on the OZFest podcast, he relayed the following about the rate of utilization that can be expected from solar panels given cloud coverage during the winter months:

So at the same time, our big plan then is to build wind and solar, which can't provide reliable electricity because the wind does not blow 24 7 and the sun does not shine 24 x 7. And so you have a situation where, for example, solar panels in the state of Michigan in January and February, December through February in Michigan, solar panels have a 6 to 7% capacity factor. And so people will scratch their head and go capacity factor. What does that mean? If you take what the solar panel is made to produce? So if it was producing at 100%, it would produce some number divide into that number, the total amount that it does produce and you get capacity factor.

So in Michigan, in December through February, solar panels are basically 94% unused. So by that I mean, if you were talking about it in time, that's not actually time bound, but it would mean that 94% of the time they effectively sit unused. Now, some people will go “hang on. That's not exactly accurate. But it's just to give you an idea, it's 94% of the capacity goes unused. They'll be 94% unused in the winter.

… If you average the capacity factor for solar in Michigan for the rest of the year, it's 18%. So that means 82% of the time they're unused.

… Because the way that you then “fix, the problem” is you build lots more solar panels, you can use more transmission lines to connect them all together. Because the only way that you do that is you carpet over farm fields.

The entire interview is on our Rumble channel.

There are clear parallels with the New Green Deal and Great Reset ethos: rebuild, abandon, follow The Science, and destroy all dissent by proclaiming climate deniers as being dangerous to the very existence of the planet. Embracing solar panel farms in northern climates where the sun becomes occluded for the winter seasons is proclaimed an advance in energy production and management, but we do not have a large enough ice scraper to clear all the miles of solar panels that will populate our countryside. There is never mention of the cost of adding variable rate energy to the existing electrical grid, there is never mention of the vast number of acres that must be made available to install solar panels to make up for the closure of a coal, natural gas or nuclear power plant. There is never mention made of the amount of foliage and loss of arable land required to support the sheer square acreage needed for the alternative energy sources. That has a cost to the environment as well, but the Cult of Climate Change will not allow that discussion to be had. Isn’t it interesting that when they refuse to hold a conversation they are never considered “deniers”.

Re-Engineering Agriculture By Destroying Rural Land and Rural Communities Rights

I used the term decree earlier, and I was not exaggerating. In 2023, Michigan passed a foolish law named Public Act 233 which yielded our local authority over the zoning laws for energy projects to the Michigan Public Service Commission. The MPSC members are appointed. We foolishly gave them ultimate authority regarding the enforcement or the granting of exceptions to local zoning ordinances. They can override the decision of County Commissions on land use for renewable energy initiatives.

Prior to passing Public Act 233 we saw several initiatives proposing to convert farmland to manufacturing centers which were opposed at the local level, delaying the launch of these state funded initiatives. These projects faced extreme opposition at the town and county commission levels. One such example my co-host Orange described in her article Michigan Farms Being Hijacked. Eagle Township, a farming community in southwestern Michigan, raised opposition to the sale of farmland that would be rezoned for industrial use and chip manufacturing. It's interesting to note that there is no infrastructure for waste disposal, large scale transportation and water services in sites like the one in Eagle Township. We have industrial regions in our state of great capability, but farmland without supporting facilities is the preferred target for these new initiatives? This makes little sense.

Under the new law, regions like Eagle Township are effectively cut off from determining what is placed in the community. This is not self determination, this is decree by experts from afar, who influence policy makers in our capital Lansing. But when I read what I just wrote, that seems a dry description. The Michigan Public Service Commission doesn’t answer to the Michigan legislature, and certainly not the citizens of Michigan. The political, wonky vocabulary doesn’t describe what’s at work here that will make people take note. Zoning, variances, easements, commissions - those terms make what is happening seem rather boring and even benign.

Jason Hayes describes the true nature of what the MPSC and the extraordinary cavalier attitude the currently exhibit.

‘We’re not experts,’ says state agency given authority over placements of wind and solar energy installations

And as you can see, the preference in other states favors the creation of renewable energy installations at the expense of farmers. And food.

Agriculture is the Next Great Reset Target

On Jun 13, 2024, the World Economic Forum published a research paper warning that our entire food system was at risk, and in order to remain true to the goals of preventing further climate change damage, agriculture needed to be re-engineered. Our diets would need to drastically altered as well. The diagram above depicts the all encompassing nature of the WEF proposal.

Renovation and reinvention are key to saving our food system. Here's why

The food transition requires comprehensive transformation.

Renovation involves incremental changes to recipes and packaging that will gradually impact public health.

Reinvention means systemic industry-level changes to production, distribution and consumption of food.

The white paper discusses the importance of renovating and reinventing the food system to address challenges such as climate change, population growth, and resource scarcity. It emphasizes the need for innovative solutions that prioritize sustainability, resilience, and equitable access to nutritious food.

For example:

Though the product-level impact is small, the overall contribution to diet can be significant. For example, if one multinational food company adds whole grain to its main product line of snacks, it could increase Americans’ fibre intake by 5% by 2030. By prioritizing nutritional reformulation, we can mitigate adverse effects on public health, including the rise of chronic diseases such as obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular conditions.

Reducing Population is the Ultimate Goal Expressed By World Economic Forum

So the parallels between Maoist and Stalinist societies are quite clear:  subordinate the individual to the group, favor the goals of the collective over the prosperity of families, and promote the ideals supporting a scientifically guided and engineered society.  All else is deemed antithetical to progress and building a better future.

But there is a very clear distinction, and one that the Climate Change Cult is quite up front about that somehow does make most people pause.  We must, at all costs, reduce the population.  Why? Because humanity’s very existence consumes resources and destroys the planet.  Ergo, all human activity must be managed more intelligently.   This is the primary justification for a complete overhaul, a grand a rapid makeover of our entire means of of energy and food production.  A Great Reset.

That phrase the Great Reset is also a misnomer.  What do you think of when you hear that phrase?  Reset, well, a start over, a redo.  A reboot?  The expectation is the same when you reboot your smart phone or your laptop.  The software that was installed and of primary importance will still be there when the power is restored.  But will it be, is that the intent or is there something more sinister that the prime movers of the Climate Change Cult want to achieve?   It is, in fact, not a Great Reset at all when you remove infrastructure, means of production and the ability to grow food.  When you do not have equivalent alternatives you have something different. When you impair the ability to grow food, and populations starve, you don’t have a bright future. It’s a Great Erasure. 

They are turning off current energy systems.   The plan is by 2030 to reduce emissions by carbon based fossil fuels by half or more depending you live.   That means no drilling, no fracking, no coal, just shutting down the current main supply of energy that supports our society.  Which means most of that which powers society will need to be vastly different.  But is there a transition plan and way to measure impact of our lives?  What thought has been put toward the effects this will have on food production, on medicine, on electricity for clinics and medical centers?  But they must have a plan, you say, the architects of the future wouldn’t shut off the very foundation of society, it would put billions of people at risk.  Simply look at the members of the World Economic Forum or the Gates Foundation and after you hear the Malthusian mantra of “the planet can only sustain 1 billion people” and you’ll have your answer.  Does that sound like the well being of the 8 billion who will suffer is at the forefront of their consideration?  Listen to the video below and consider if that gives you comfort that uber-intelligent staff at the World Economic Forum have your interests at heart?

Dennis Meadows hopes this can be achieved peacefully.  Hopes.  Doesn’t sound much like a plan.  So while the Climate Change Cult chants about a bright and shiny future better than the Starship Enterprise, yet shouts you down when you ask about how they have measured whether we will have the same output levels of electricity with less emissions and nascent technologies, remember that the architects of the Great Erasure have a darker view of population control and they don’t even mask their intent.