Introduction
Iman Gadzhi‘s recent YouTube video "The Great Reset | Episode 1" shines a spotlight on a global initiative that aims to fundamentally transform societies in the wake of COVID-19. Led by the World Economic Forum and its founder Klaus Schwab, the Great Reset envisages massive changes to how businesses operate, how economies are structured, and even what rights and freedoms individuals can expect to enjoy.
On the surface, the Great Reset sounds altruistic – building a more sustainable, equitable world that is better prepared for future crises. But as Gadzhi explores, there may be more sinister objectives and mechanisms underneath the rhetoric. By investigating the history of financial crises, wars, pandemics and the figures behind them, unsettling parallels appear between historical events and elite groups working to accumulate power for their own benefit.
The concerns Gadzhi raises about unaccountable institutions and wealthy interests restricting freedoms are valid. As he argues, financial independence from monopolistic systems is required to avoid dystopian outcomes. This article will analyze precedents demonstrating hidden historical agendas, the mechanisms used by influential groups to assert control through central banks and debt-driven policies, and finally, potential ways citizens can resist contributing towards totalitarian technocracies.
Historical Precedents
Gadzhi scrutinizes the background of World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab not as an argument against the man’s character, but to discover his motivations. As Schwab writes in one of his books, crises provide ideal opportunities for states to expand their authority at the expense of individual rights. This belief aligns closely with the famous maxim to “never let a good crisis go to waste” – the notion that traumatic, fear-inducing events can spur rapid policy changes which would not occur under normal conditions.
The implications are unsettling: if those in positions of power share Schwab’s perspective, what incentive do they have to calm public panic? And could influential groups even have a vested interest to stoke crisis conditions?
Tellingly, Gadzhi explores Shane Harris’ book “The Watchers” which documents Edward Mandell House, a businessman and foreign policy advisor who wielded significant influence over President Woodrow Wilson. House expressed a willingness for America to enter World War 1, even if it meant allowing a passenger ship with US citizens to be attacked by Germany. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 provided the pretext for America entering the war.
This is not the only time America entered a war amidst accusations of deliberately ignored intelligence and hidden motivations unrelated to national security. But who stood to gain?
As Gadzhi recounts, historical records point to banking dynasties and wealthy business magnates surrounding Wilson who heavily profited from financing wartime efforts. JP Morgan lent billions to the Allies, and the House of Morgan made an estimated $30 million loaning to combatants during WW1. With the US handily positioned as lender and insurer to half the world, the war proved immensely profitable.
More unsettling are Gadzhi’s revelations over the founding of America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve. Under conditions comparable to Schwab’s “good crisis”, the Financial Panic of 1907 sparked a monetary meltdown so severe it became referred to as the bankers’ panic. But why did it happen? Research suggests the crisis was deliberately triggered by a small group of New York bankers to advance their wealth and control.
Mechanisms of Control
Using crisis to justify expansions of state authority is one tactic of subversive control, but this begs the question – what instruments actually facilitate that control? Central banking and debt-based monetary systems allow governments to spend well beyond their means. Without a balanced budget tied to real economic productivity, money printing transforms government debts into stealth taxes and wealth transfers from average citizens.
This pattern of crisis enrichment reemerged before and after World Wars 1 and 2. The difference, as Gadzhi analyzes, was that subsequent wars were funded by central banks like the Federal Reserve printing money, not commercial lending from banking dynasties. The outcomes enabled governments to further indebt themselves. By 1971, US debt levels precipitated President Nixon to entirely uproot the financial system from the gold standard, paving the way for unlimited money printing without even the pretext of backing assets.
With this change came explosive growth in government spending and, predictably, swelling budget deficits covered by public debt. Without incentives to spend responsibly, corrupt bureaucrats and corporations quickly lined their pockets. These perverse incentives underlie concerns that federally funded industries encourage waste for profits.
At the heart lies the Federal Reserve‘s monopoly over money creation. Now calls to remove cash and transition fully to digital CBDCs will concentrate control even further. It takes little imagination to anticipate how centralized digital currencies could impose overlaying social credit systems. Handing the most dangerous monopolies keys to global monetary systems makes the World Economic Forum’s stated goals appear orthogonal to citizens’ best interests.
As Gadzhi notes, Congressmen like Charles August Lindbergh argued a century ago that the 1913 Federal Reserve Act would open America to control by a transnational “money power” trust. Subsequent decades lent credence to these accusations. Former Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking Committee in the 1930s, blamed the Fed for orchestrating the Great Depression, stating:
“It was a carefully contrived occurrence…The international bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as rulers of us all.”
McFadden went as far as pushing for the impeachment of the Federal Reserve Board, albeit unsuccessfully.
Resisting Dystopian Outcomes
There are clearly reasonable concerns around consolidated technocratic control over societies. Understanding the history of crises as potential vehicles of manipulation and the financial levers enabling small groups to assert undue influence are important first steps. But it does little good to only point fingers or descend into despair. As Gadzhi emphasizes, maintaining individual liberties rests upon freeing oneself from dependence on monopolistic chains of manipulation. Financial freedom must be secured to prevent complete subjugation to corrupted bureaucracies.
The path forward lies in regaining self-sufficiency across the key aspects of life – food, shelter, community, security and purpose. Localizing economies, embracing decentralization of services, creating parallel structures that circumvent chokepoints of control – these approaches place power back into the hands of ordinary citizens and align incentives properly.
As the Great Reset continues garnering critique, the policies and institutions behind calls for radical upheaval must be scrutinized rationally. Blind trust in altruistic motives is as foolhardy as dismissal rooted in ignorance. By understanding historical cycles of freedom giving way to tyranny when left unchecked, free societies can self-reflect and remain vigilant against forces seeking to control important aspects of civilization.
The first step starts with individuals asking questions, thinking critically about biases, and making decisions consciously. Then, aligned collective actions emanating from diverse, independently empowered constituents can shape societies responsibly. Perhaps something good may yet emerge from the Great Reset conversation – societies realizing they must participate more, not less, to counterbalance consolidated power.