Your Future is Planned and You Don’t Get a Say
Your Future is Planned and You Don’t Get a Say
Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 1/14/2023
I like making plans and then seeing how well I can stick to them. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t. Overall, what I would like to do is enjoy what I do for a living and the people I do it with. I’d like that job to pay me enough so I can save a bit of my paycheck from week to week. I like to see family and friends. I like to go shopping and out to dinner and being able to drive my own car that I can park in my own garage. The World Economic Forum is about to make all of my plans impossible. All of your plans are going to become impossible to realize. The reason is that too many people cannot wrap their heads around how the WEF works to affect us and the result will not be pleasant for anyone.
Earlier this month the WEF released the eighteenth edition of The Global Risks Report of 2023. On Monday, January 16, 2023 the World Economic Forum will be hosting it’s Davos Switzerland meeting where these topics will surely be talked over. The document is, and the meeting will be, based completely on the narratives the WEF and their lackey’s have demanded all of us plebes adhere to. They know the narrative is a lie, and they know that many of us, especially those of us paying attention to Davos in the first place, know their narrative is a lie. Page 6 sets reinforces their lies and sets the tone of the entire 98 page document:
“The first years of this decade have heralded a particularly disruptive period in human history. The return to a “new normal” following the COVID-19 pandemic was quickly disrupted by the outbreak of war in Ukraine, ushering in a fresh series of crises in food and energy – triggering problems that decades of progress had sought to solve.”
The narrative is that they gained a great deal of control until millions of us were maimed and murdered by their ‘cure’ for the plandemic they designed. All of the worlds issues now are Russia’s fault because the WEF and their friends didn’t get all the control they desired and planned on. With food suddenly insecure and energy prices going through the roof, even more people are starting to wake up to reality. Yet, it is still not enough people and the WEF is counting on our collective ignorance.
On page 11 there is a chart listing 32 short-term and 32 long-term global ‘risks’ by severity. Even their risks are lies. The top ten short term risks, in order of severity, are “Cost-of-living crisis; Natural disasters and extreme weather events; Geoeconomic confrontation; Failure to mitigate climate change; Erosion of social cohesion and societal polarization; Large-scale environmental damage incidents; Failure of climate-change adaption; Widespread cybercrime and cyber insecurity; Natural resource crises; Large-scale involuntary migration.”
Long-term the risks read, “Failure to mitigate climate change; Failure of climate-change adaption; Natural disasters and extreme weather events; Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse; Large-scale involuntary migration; Natural resource crises; Erosion of social cohesion and societal polarization; Widespread cybercrime and cyber insecurity; Geoeconomic confrontation; Large-scale environmental damage incidents.”
These are color-coded in the chart. Of the top ten in each chart, five of the short-term risks are environmental and six of the long-term risks are as well. Two of the risks in each chart are societal, one is geopolitical, and only one is technological.
On the next page is another chart showing who the stakeholders are in mitigating all of these issues. The listed stakeholders are the local government, national government, bilateral, multi-country, regional, intentional organizations, businesses, and public-private cooperation. Notice, you nor I are included in the WEF’s list because individuals have no bearing whatsoever on the decisions the WEF makes. The leaders of liberal democracies, the WEF puts the number of nations with that form of government at 13% (page 24), constantly want to ‘save’ democracy while handing as much power aas they can to the WEF and the UN which are a totalitarian technocracies. The cherry on top is that the national government is, in every case, the stakeholder which will be This is how the WEF’s tyranny is made pretty as well as how they mask their genocidal intentions.
The first portion of the paper is about the current crises. On page 14, section 1.2, titled the “Path to 2025,” the document identifies several short-term risks under the headings of cost-of-living crises, economic downturn, geoeconomic warfare, climate action hiatus, and societal polarization. The cost-of-living crisis (pages 15-17) is blamed on Russia having invaded Ukraine. To further attempt to absolve themselves of responsibility for their role in purposefully causing the cost-of-living crisis, the WEF also points a finger that prices were already rising before the pandemic. The WEF sees the cost-of-living crisis as leading to issues with climate change, social unrest and the potential for that unrest to result in violence, and increased welfare. The WEF also portends, “There is also a material possibility of a global food supply crisis occurring in 2023.”
The economic downturn (pages 17-19), something the WEF heavily participated in creating, is also mostly Russia’s fault. They wrote (page 18), “The complexity of inflationary dynamics is creating a challenging policy environment for both the public sector and central banks, given the mix of demand and supply-side drivers, including a prolonged war in Ukraine and associated energy-supply crunch, potential for escalating sanctions, and continued bottlenecks from a lingering pandemic or new sources of supply-side controls.” They don’t think the debt crisis will reach the levels needed to destabilize the entire world but think the creditor nations will gain influence over debtor nations. The debtor nations will face serious challenges according to the WEF.
Pages 19-21 detail geoeconomic warfare. The authors bewail that sovereign nations are looking to shorten their supply chains and impose import export controls. What they ware seeking is a globalized free-trade regime dictated by the World Trade Organization. Since there are small claw-backs of sovereignty from the WTO initiated by sovereign nations the authors offered the idea that these claw-backs represent geeconomic war. “While intended to lower risks associated with geopolitical and economic disruption, shortened supply chains may also unintentionally heighten exposure to geographically concentrated risks, including labour shortages, civil unrest, pandemics and natural weather events. Geopolitical risks posed by geographic hotspots that are critical to the effective functioning of the global financial and economic system, in particular in the Asia-Pacific, also pose a growing concern.”
The World Economic Forum has a very gloomy outlook on achieving the their climate goals (pages 21-23) by their desired dates, namely 2030. Their prognosis reads, “Despite 30 years of global climate advocacy and diplomacy, the international system has struggled to make the required progress on climate change. The potential failure to address this existential global risk first entered the top rankings of the Global Risks Report over a decade ago, in 2011. Today, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have all reached record highs. Emission trajectories make it very unlikely that global ambitions to limit warming to 1.5°C will be achieved.”
As with all ecoterrorists, climate is incorrectly seen as being interchangeable with weather events. The report laments that coal-fired power plants have began to come back on-line in the middle of the man-made energy crisis. They point out that not enough funding has been given to different aspects of ecoterrorist plans to combat human-caused climate change and urge nations to address mitigation efforts more than adopting to changes. The evidence they present includes man-made climate change resulting in humanitarian problems, food insecurity, extra expenditures, terrorist uprisings, floods, heatwaves, and droughts.
Societal polarization is covered on pages 23-24. The report stresses the importance of not allowing misinformation and disinformation to continue to proliferate. It also notes that ‘far-right’ groups (they don’t mention the far-left groups) take sentrist rule out of the equation which may lead to violence and potentially civil wars. The reasons for this, according to the WEF, is on pages 23-4:
“A widening gap in values and equality is posing an existential challenge to both autocratic and democratic systems, as economic and social divides are translated into political ones. Polarization on issues such as immigration, gender, reproductive rights, ethnicity, religion, climate and even secession and anarchism have characterized recent elections, referendums and protests around the world – from the United States of America and China to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mounting citizen frustration at perceived gaps in direct governmental action, human development and social mobility manifested in frequently divisive and unruly civil protests last year. More protests were observed between January and October than in all of 2021.”
The second section is the WEF’s attempt to define the problems arising by the year 2033. The first main issue they chose was, no surprise here, the threat the WEF sees humans as to biodiversity (pages 31-34). A key feature of biodiversity efforts is disallowing human beings to use land and, even when they are permitted to use land, to regulate it severely. This creates problems with food security (page 32-33).
To combat the parasitic nature of human beings upon the earth (this is how humans are described by these ecoterrorists) we can take action today to mitigate the damage. The report’s authors suggest, “Averting tipping points requires a combination of conservation efforts, interventions to transform the food system, accelerated and nature-positive climate mitigation strategies, and changes to consumption and production patterns. This involves realigning incentives and upgrading governance structures, fueled by better data and tools to capture the interdependencies of food, climate, energy and ecosystems.”
Human health (pages 35-38) is an area the WEF and the global government they represent would love to become more entrenched in. Even under the ruse of human health, the WEF’s real concern is man-made climate change. To prepare for health needs, the authors write, “It is essential that we embed hard-earned lessons in preparedness for the next iteration of health crises. A continued focus on public health policy and interventions can have outsized impacts at national and regional levels, as a great deal of chronic disease burden is, in fact, preventable.48 Realizing public health gains will require governments and business to promote the conditions that underpin wellbeing and encourage healthy lifestyles, such as good food, clean air, secure housing and social cohesion.” This is followed by demands that global health institutions be given more money and power, leverage technological advances, and a closer alignment of multiple sectors of health industries.
New times calls for new ways to fight wars (pages 38-42). All of this tells the reader that humans will increasingly be made obsolete. The way we fight wars will reduce human deaths on the battle field but will also yield capabilities make humanity unnecessary to populate the earth. Pages 39-40 contains, “Military-driven innovations in relevant fields will have knock-on benefits for economic productivity and societal resilience, including personalized and preventative medicine, climate modelling and material science development.” This is not identified as a risk however, the inequality these dual-use security systems may give rise to is the risk – notably the global south may not be able to get cost-effective access to them. The WEF lays out a policy of strengthening global governance to prevent illegal proliferation, unauthorized uses, and including academia and businesses in making the decisions in general in relation to using dual-use autonomous robots for anything.
Digital rights: privacy in peril (pages 42-45). One sentence sums up all of the arguments nicely, showing that data security doen’t really matter as long as that data is able to be used by the global government (page 45), “Developing a more globally consistent taxonomy, data standards, and legal definition of personal and sensitive information is a key enabler. These frameworks should recognize that sensitivity can rise from data-driven inferences that are enabled by large data sets, the proliferation of online social networks, and the blurring of personal and industrial data in the roll-out of the IOT and implementation of “smarter” cities.”
In order to avoid nation-wide debt defaults between now and 2033, the WEF advocates for debt-reductions through write-downs (pages 46-49). These write-downs should be based on the debtor nation’s commitment to the United Nations Sustainability Goals, environmental infrastructure investment, and can (have) even be tied to healthcare, education, and small and medium size business investments and expenditures. Future loans should be based on the emergency status of the debtor county. Loans should also give way to grants which don’t have to be repaid at all.
The third section of the document looks at the WEF’s projection of the world in 2030 and the simultaneous crises which exist by that time. The WEF’s usage of polycrises refers to these simultaneous crises. Because of their demands to radically alter the way everyone lives their lives, the WEF sees resource shortages caused by the artificially-created demand to achieve their ‘sustainability’ goals as the primary motivating factor in how the world may look in 2030. Key fields in this area include water, food, metals, and minerals (page 57).
The WEF report developed four likely outcomes about the way the world will look because of resources shortages and used two variables to arrive at their conclusions. “In the 2030 time frame, two critical factors will determine the trajectory of our ability to match supply and demand for these resources as well as the scale of the associated polycrisis: 1) the degree of global cooperation that allows the flow of resources across national borders, and 2) the impact of climate change on the supply of natural resources and speed of the low-carbon transition,” (page 58). Those four outcomes are summarized in pages 58-59:
“Resource collaboration – the danger of natural scarcity: effective climate action measures and flexible supply chains enabled by global cooperation largely absorb the impacts of climate change on food production. However, shortages in water and metals and minerals cannot be avoided. Persistently high commodity prices slow climate mitigation – despite ambitions – and add to inflationary pressures in broader value chains, while water stress leads to a growing, but comparatively contained, health and humanitarian crisis in developing nations.
“Resource constraints – the danger of divergent distress: current crises draw focus and slow climate action, exposing the most vulnerable countries to hunger and energy shocks, even as countries cooperate to partially address constraints. In the absence of intervention, the water and mineral shortages experienced in the Resource collaboration scenario act as a multiplier to broader risks. A multi-resource, humanitarian crisis emerges in developing markets as food and water resources are impacted by the physical consequences of climate change, alongside global disruptions to trade, political stability and economic growth.
“Resource competition – the danger of resource autarkies: distrust drives a push for self-sufficiency in high-income countries, limiting the need for rivalry over food and water to a degree, but widening divides between countries. State intervention is centred on the resource most exposed to a concentration in supply – critical metals and minerals – leading to shortages, price wars and the transformation of business models across industries. Resource power shifts, driving the formation of new blocs as well as wedges in existing alliances between mineral-rich and -poor countries, while the potential for accidental or intentional conflict escalates.
“Resource control – the danger of resource wars: alongside the weaponization of metals and minerals explored in Resource competition, geopolitical dynamics exacerbate climateinduced shortages in food and water. This results in a truly global, multi-resource crisis, with widespread socioeconomic impacts that exceed those faced in other futures in both scope and scale, including famine and water scarcity refugees. Geoeconomic warfare is widespread, but more aggressive clashes between states become one of the few means to ensure supply of basic necessities for populations.”
These synopses are followed by “Given the nature of the polycrisis in each scenario, we face various environmental and socioeconomic upsides and downsides. The following section outlines an illustrative, but non-exhaustive set of midterm futures to help support business leaders and policy-makers in preparing for – and preventing – the progression of the crises we are facing today.” [italics mine]
From page 69 to page 72 the WEF offers their conclusion by asking if preparedness even possible for this new dark age they are plunging the world into. The report’s authors posit that we can prepare for the terrible times global government has created by “1) strengthening risk identification and foresight, 2) recalibrating the present value of “future” risks, 3) investing in multi-domain risk preparedness, and 4) strengthening preparedness and response cooperation.” In other words, double down in global government’s ideas and we can avoid the most hazardous outcomes of the global government’s decrees.
The first of these objectives is to greatly increase surveillance of everything including humans and any activity they conduct. With this data, the Satan-worshipping ‘secularists’ in the global government will be better equipped to prophesy the future for all of us.
The second revolves around the idea that long term ‘solutions’ take a backseat to immediate problems. This should be balanced out by always including long-term planning even in short-term solutions. The example they used to demonstrate this is ludicrous and reinforced their approved narrative once more. They write (page 71), “. For example, in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments will not only need to target resources to stabilize distressed healthcare systems, but at the same time work to ensure that environments conducive to zoonotic disease spread are adequately monitored, gain-of-function research is regulated, and that synthesis requests to biolaboratories are screened to prevent future outbreaks from natural spillovers, accidents and threat actors.”
They are gaslighting everyone and making recommendations based on their own lies. COVID-19 was not caused by a zoonotic disease spread. Based on that lie they advocate for wildlife corridors and biodiversity refuges. Even more oddly and absolutely contradictory to their own narrative they address the actual reason the world has been gripped by covidiocy for the last 3 years - gain-of-function was regulated out of existence (certain genocidal globalists decided to redefine the term) and biolaboratories were and are already supposed to be following the regulations imposed upon them to mitigate the chances that leaks occur.
The third way the WEF advises the world to begin operating, investing in multi-domain, cross sector resilience, is to just create global fascism. Page 71-72 reads, “As global risks become more intertwined, preparedness also needs to become more of a shared responsibility between sectors, with local and national governments, business and civil society each playing to their strengths, rather than traditional models of governments addressing market failures when they occur. For example, private-public partnerships can help close key gaps in innovation, financing, governance and implementation of preparedness measures for emerging and well-established risks, such as food and water insecurity, weakened education and healthcare systems, and insufficient regulation of dual-use technologies, or addressing the looming insurance gap relating to cyberwarfare.”
Private public partnerships are already fascist arrangement between government and business. Having business intervening into the governance of anything is always a 100% slam dunk that the people needing that industry are going to be screwed over and that the industry which exists is going to gain power and financial strength. These relationships exist to bar competition and to enforce the industry’s will against other entities by using the ‘authority’ of the state. “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” said the most notorious mass-murder of all time, Mao Zedong, and unfortunately he wasn’t wrong – these fascist businesses would love to gain some political power and the WEF’s suggestions advocate for that development.
In true globalist babble, the final recommendation suggests that no one be left behind. Not only that no one should be left behind, that in order for all of this to work, no one can be left behind. No one can opt out, no one can refuse, and no one can sit this one out – the entire world must act as one. “In a complex risks outlook, there must be a better balance between national preparedness and global cooperation. We need to act together, to shape a pathway out of cascading crises and build collective preparedness to the next global shock, whatever form it might take. Leaders must embrace complexity and act on a balanced vision to create a stronger, prosperous shared future,” (page 72).
The tiles of this article, as discovered throughout the WEF document examined, should make it very clear what the WEF thinks of you and anyone you know. They not only hate you, they don’t even acknowledge your existence. The governments, businesses, academia, and civil society organizations which have pledged allegiance to the global government operate in exactly the same fashion. Normal, everyday, people are not included in their future as a positive. The entire report cast the masses of humanity which exist on the earth as production units, carbon dioxide emitter, transgressors of biological diversity, rioters, and terrorists. As such, the global government has decided they have a mandate to decide what we will all be doing, how we will be doing it, where we can do it, when we will be doing it, and perceive themselves to hold a right to track, monitor, and surveil us in any way they deem fit to achieve their goals.
What are their goals? Their goal is the completion of the Great Reset, the realization of the goals laid out in Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 and the SDG goals, and the complete enslavement of all surviving humanity. A key metric is a reduction of 95% of the human beings on earth. As an example of this, they don’t care one bit about the number of lives that gang shootings claim – they only care about making sure no one is able to kinetically refuse their will. They use gun-violence statistics and events to achieve banning all effective kinetic devices used for self-defense. Governor Pritzker and the Illinois legislature recently displayed their disregard for human life and recognition of God-given rights in order to show their allegiance to the global government. Pritzker thinks that his obeisance to these Satan-worshipping scumbags in the global government will result in rewards from them. They will slit his throat just as surely as they will continue demanding the rest of us commit suicide through adherence to medical tyranny resulting from their covidiocy narrative.
We can have a say. There is a huge meeting of thousands of adherents to global government meeting on Monday, January 16-20, 2023. The meeting is called Davos and they will be talking about all of these topics a lot. At Davos, the name of the meeting, they are going to decide how to solve these issues concretely through legislation, laws, policies, edicts, recommendations, business practices, media coverage, and narrative control based, in part, on this particular WEF report. There is a way to follow these events – they are listed in an article from the WEF. Also on this website are many other topics which will be decided for us by Davos attendees.
Each of us have free will. God wired all of us to have free will. We do not have to go quietly into the night accepting this kind of crap. God is accessible to all of us. The salvation of Christ is available for all of us. These globalists and their world government manifestation seek to destroy those connections even more than they seek to destroy our lives. Yes, they want us all dead but they want us to die without hope, without salvation, without peace of mind. That is their real ploy – their satanically-aligned deception. To pull that off they need to make sure we believe we have no free will and, thus, they can make all of our decisions for us. Their first decision is always that there is no God, there is only rational thought and they have monopolized rational thought. Be not deceived. Read your Bible and repent; pray, and accept the salvation of Christ and the Law of God.
Bless God and God bless.