By Rhoda Wilson

This article was originally published by Rhoda Wilson at The Daily Exposé.

It’s important to understand is that there is not one single new or original idea in Klaus Schwab’s so-called Great Reset agenda for the world. Nor is his Fourth Industrial Revolution agenda his. Nor is his claim to having invented the notion of Stakeholder Capitalism a product of Schwab.

Klaus Schwab is little more than a slick public relations agent for a global technocratic agenda, a corporatist unity of corporate power with government, including the UN, an agenda whose origins go back to the beginning of the 1970s, and even earlier.

The Davos Great Reset is merely an updated blueprint for a global dystopian dictatorship under UN control that has been decades in development. The key actors were David Rockefeller and his protégé, Maurice Strong.
The Dark Origins of the Davos Great Reset

By F. William Engdahl, 22 October 2022

In the beginning of the 1970s, there was arguably no one person more influential in world politics than the late David Rockefeller, then largely known as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank.
Creating The New Paradigm

At the end of the 1960s and into the early 1970s, the international circles directly tied to David Rockefeller launched a dazzling array of elite organizations and think tanks. These included The Club of Rome; the 1001: A Nature Trust, tied to the World Wildlife Fund (“WWF”); the Stockholm United Nations Earth Day conference; the MIT-authored study, Limits to Growth; and David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission.

Club of Rome

In 1968 David Rockefeller founded a neo-Malthusian think tank, The Club of Rome, along with Aurelio Peccei and Alexander King. Aurelio Peccei, was a senior manager of the Fiat car company, owned by the powerful Italian Agnelli family. Fiat’s Gianni Agnelli was an intimate friend of David Rockefeller and a member of the International Advisory Committee of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank. Agnelli and David Rockefeller had been close friends since 1957. Agnelli became a founding member of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission in 1973. Alexander King, head of the OECD Science Program was also a consultant to NATO. That was the beginning of what would become the neo-Malthusian “people pollute” movement.

In 1971 the Club of Rome published a deeply flawed report, ‘Limits to Growth’, which predicted an end to civilization as we knew it because of rapid population growth, combined with fixed resources such as oil. The report concluded that without substantial changes in resource consumption, “the most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” It was based on bogus computer simulations by a group of MIT computer scientists. It stated the bold prediction, “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years.” That was 1971. In 1973 Klaus Schwab in his third annual Davos business leader meeting invited Peccei to Davos to present Limits to Growth to assembled corporate CEOs.

In 1974, the Club of Rome declared boldly, “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Then: “The world is facing an unprecedented set of interlocking global problems, such as, overpopulation, food shortages, non-renewable resource [oil-w.e.] depletion, environmental degradation, and poor governance.” They argued that,

‘horizontal’ restructuring of the world system is needed…drastic changes in the norm stratum – that is, in the value system and the goals of man – are necessary in order to solve energy, food, and other crises, i.e., social changes and changes in individual attitudes are needed if the transition to organic growth is to take place.

In their 1974 report, Mankind at the Turning Point, The Club of Rome further argued:

Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for organic sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all finite resources and a new global economic system.

That was the early formulation of the UN Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the 2020 Davos Great Reset.
David Rockefeller and Maurice Strong

By far the most influential organizer of Rockefeller’s “zero growth” agenda in the early 1970s was David Rockefeller’s longtime friend, a billionaire oilman named Maurice Strong. Canadian Maurice Strong was one of the key early propagators of the scientifically fraudulent theory that man-made CO2 emissions from transportation vehicles, coal plants, and agriculture caused a dramatic and accelerating global temperature rise that threatens “the planet,” so-called Global Warming.

As chairman of the 1972 Earth Day UN Stockholm Conference, Strong promoted an agenda of population reduction and lowering of living standards around the world to “save the environment.” Strong stated his radical ecologist agenda: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” This is what is now taking place under cover of a hyped global pandemic.

Strong was a curious choice to head a major UN initiative to mobilize action on the environment, as his career and his considerable fortune had been built on the exploitation of oil, like an unusual number of the new advocates of “ecological purity,” such as David Rockefeller or Robert O. Anderson of Aspen Institute or Shell’s John Loudon.

Strong had met David Rockefeller in 1947 as a young Canadian high school dropout of eighteen and from that point, his career became tied to the network of the Rockefeller family. Through his new friendship with David Rockefeller, Strong, at age 18, was given a key UN position under UN Treasurer, Noah Monod. The UN’s funds were conveniently enough handled by Rockefeller’s Chase Bank. This was typical of the model of “public-private partnership” to be deployed by Strong – private gain from public government.

President Clinton’s delegate to Rio, Tim Wirth, admitted the same, stating, “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Elaine Dewar, Cloak of Green: The Links between key environmental groups, government and big business, Toronto, James Lorimer & Co., 1995, pp. 259-265. )

At Rio, Strong first introduced the manipulative idea of “sustainable society” defined in relation to this arbitrary goal of eliminating CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases. Agenda 21 became Agenda 2030 in Sept 2015 in Rome, with the Pope’s blessing, with 17 “sustainable” goals. It declared among other items:

“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlement, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership also is a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice … Social justice, urban renewal, and development, the provision of decent dwellings and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.”

In short private land ownership must become socialized for “society as a whole,” an idea well-known in Soviet Union days, and a key part of the Davos Great Reset.

Much more on link