COVID Conspiracy theories are dangerous!

All reputable journalists and scientists dealing with COVID-19 are quick to say, “I am no conspiracy theorist,” shortly before expressing sheer mystification over how things are being handled by the government, by official advisers, and by a fairly monolithic mainstream media.

It is indeed sad how wild conspiracy theories have proliferated during the hardships of this pandemic. For example, there is a conspiracy theory going about that there is no conspiracy called the Great Reset, despite the overwhelming public evidence that there is.

This irrational belief ranks in implausibility with claims like those that the moon landings were faked. But it’s worse because in the latter case skeptics try to prove a negative despite masses of positive evidence and testimony, whereas The Great Reset has been published as a book this year by its originator, Klaus Shwab, promulgated on the World Econonomic Forum website, put as the main agenda of their annual Meeting to be attended by all our good and great leaders next May in Lucerne, and even advertised on English bus shelters (“You’ll own nothing – and you will be happy”).

It’s surprising, though, how many intelligent people swallow the conspiracy theory that it doesn’t exist at all. In Australia, MPs have scornfully dismissed media reporting of it as itself a conspiracy theory, and so, frequently, has our press and social media! Can you imagine anything so kooky, on a level with dismissing an official Bank of England cut in interest rates as an “unsubtantiated rumour”! Some people are just so gullible.

Now, the worrying thing is that, given that this plan for the immediate future is so heavily in the public domain, no direct reference is being made to promote it (still less put it to the people) by governments, apart from those like Prince Charles lauding its advent from inside the WEF. I believe Justin Trudeau may have puffed it too. Conversely, no-one is condemning it. It’s just sitting there, daring us to point at it.

Yet at the same time, purely by coincidence of course, those same governments have been mysteriously flying in the face of established science all year to initiate, and maintain, anti-COVID policies that happen also to be features of the long-term programme of the Great Reset itself. How weird is that? It’s almost as if world leaders were going to be at the WEF conference and want to be on message… oh, they are, aren’t they, and they have already got it in their diaries, and have the agenda on their tablets, and the jet flights booked whatever quarantine regulations are currently in place.

Also of note is how, before Schwab’s book, right at the start of this pandemic before governments knew they were going to destroy the world economy, they were already talking about the need to “build back better,” a Great Reset phrase used as a slogan both by Boris Johnson and Joe Biden, as well as by church leaders anxious that we should not return to the previous prosperity that had reduced global poverty massively over the last generation.

Have a look at this video by an Orthodox priest who has read and reviewed Klaus Schwab’s book, published a few months ago when COVID was a new and unexpected joy (if you don’t count the conference attended by movers and shakers on handling a purely hypothetical Coronavirus pandemic, which was held last November).

Note how many of the visions for the future in the book are current realities for us: less travel, less personal contact, education by the internet, mass surveillance, the abolition of (untraceable) cash, health passports, radical “sustainable” [sic] reductions in the western economy and, indeed an entirely changed economic order … and more. It is important to note that these are not suggested by Schwab as short term, tactical, ways to “beat this virus.” They were in his mind as desirable permanent goals long before COVID emerged, since he founded the precursor of the WEF in 1971, and his ideas have helped form many of the policies of international bodies like the UN, with its buzzwords like “sustainable development,” a phrase not necessarily meaning quite what you’d think.

Indeed, it seems very much that for at least a decade the idea of trampolining the Great Reset from a suitable pandemic has been in mind. The exaggeration of swine flu in 2009, and the corruption in vaccine development by leaders at the WHO, may have constituted an early failed attempt, or a trial run. The need to use whatever bug came along next may explain the anti-scientific nature of most of the policies to deal with COVID – a more deadly plague would have been ideal.

This is rather like the Club of Rome’s decision, decades ago, that a similar, or maybe identical, change in world order could be built around some suitably fearful bogeyman, such as global warming. Climate change is still very much on the Great Reset agenda – scarcely surprising when many of the same players are involved – but a pandemic is so much more immediate and compelling, especially when people are beginning to debunk the apocalyptic climate models and even laugh at the child prophets.

I know it’s hard to fathom that there are still millions of people who believe the conspiracy theory that the Great Reset is fanciful. But as H. L. Mencken said, “No one in this world, so far as I know … has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” People will believe almost anything! But let’s turn to the question of how this relates to COVID policy, and specifically to yesterday’s thoroughly predictable UK government announcement that the 4 week lockdown is going to be replaced with three tiers of rules if anything more restrictive, to be continued until Easter (just before the WEF Meeting, as it happens).

A group of 70 almost-rebel Conservative MPs gave advance notice that they would oppose the changes unless there a clear cost-benefit analysis was provided, like the one they asked for (but didn’t get) before the lockdown. They didn’t get it again, and as far as I know most of them shrugged and said, “Oh well.” Thanks for defending us so bravely, guys.

But apart from the sheer irresponsibility of destroying jobs, businesses, health and civil rights without publishing a risk assessment, the government’s failure to do so proves that the virus itself has nothing to do with the policies. If you believe you are saving (net) lives, you will be eager to prove it. But if your aim is simply to keep lockdown in place until Easter willy-nilly, a cost-benefit analysis that is bound to show the policy to be catastrophic simply must not be done.

And here the good priest’s summary of the Great Reset reveals the logical aim. After nine months in which the British public has suffered, some with their lives, others with their livelihoods, and all with their God-given freedoms, to return them to the normal joy of living would make the subsequent imposition of the same measures as a permanent policy of the Great Reset politically impossible. There would be lynchings and burnings across the world.

No, it is necessary that the common herd be fully persuaded that their ongoing sufferings are due to the virus, that the danger is permanent (easy to do when you have suppressed the existence of PCR Casedemics), and that the Great Reset is the only Saviour that, whilst it cannot return them to their old freedoms, will mitigate their new-found poverty with State handouts (in return for property rights) and promise them a bright new SUSTAINABLE future without climate change. The necessary impoverishment of diet, restrictions on living space and private travel, mass unemployment, simpler (read “third world”) lifestyle, and so much more, are be revealed only a few years down the line.

In this way the “Build Back Better” slogan will be welcomed joyfully by the well-prepared masses. Perhaps. Or perhaps by enough of them to be able to silence the dissident voices without public objections. They may, of course, miscalculate badly, being mere humans, but their miscalculation might go beyond the human.

For the Orthodox Reviewer points to the all-important fact that Klaus Schwab’s book contains no mention whatsoever of God, or of religion. The new utopia will come into being without reference to God – indeed, its power structures will take the place of God, who has mismanaged the world throughout history, so that it needs mankind to make the world just, equal and sustainable – to build it back better than could the God who, Scripture teaches, appoints and dismisses both kings and empires according to his just government. The Great Reset is, at heart, a rejection of the government of God.

One just has to mention, and mention often, that just such a revolution is mentioned in many places in Old and New Testaments, and in every case it is associated with evil, with the oppression of the saints and the usurpation of God – and, lest we become discouraged, with the assurance that it will overreach itself as it seeks to destroy God’s people finally, and will be swept away by the return of Christ himself. We will align with one reset or the other, but not both.

How, then, should we apparently isolated fools, surrounded on all sides by the conspiracy theorists who “having eyes, see not,” act when evil appears to be triumphing unopposed? I want to close with another video, not by a Christian as far as I know, who gives the best clue to the subversion of the all-pervasive rise of the propaganda culture that I have seen. In the Christian context, one might express his conclusion as “You are the salt of the earth.”

Avatar photo

About Jon Garvey

Training in medicine (which was my career), social psychology and theology. Interests in most things, but especially the science-faith interface. The rest of my time, though, is spent writing, playing and recording music.
This entry was posted in History, Politics and sociology, Theology. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to COVID Conspiracy theories are dangerous!

  1. Avatar photo Jon Garvey says:

    PS – note in the “Great Reset” video how Schwab sadly bemoans the dire effects of the pandemic on everything from jobs to mental health, failing to mention that every one of them was caused by heeding the advice of the very international organisations he wishes to run the world, the WHO being foremost among them.

    Only countries like Sweden did better because they exercised national sovereignty against the dead hand of globalism that has devastated the rest of us.

Leave a Reply