The Idiot’s Guide To A Class Analysis of The Great Reset – Part II: United We Stand…

After Skool screenshot YouTube – Divide and Rule

In Part I, I looked at the Great Reset through the lens of class, focusing quite a bit on my disappointment with the middle class who, in Orson Welles’ words, is the enemy of society. In Part II, I’ll talk a little more about how the working and middle class are subjected to divide-and-rule tactics under the following headings:

- Identity politics

- Economic conflicts

- The enemy of my enemy

Identity politics

Stirrings from Below rightly points out that the working class, as a heterogenous group, cannot possibly be free of internal conflict. Certain subsets will inevitably experience oppression differently. To what extent can people who see themselves as part of this group validate each other’s different experiences, learn from them, and still remain united when confronted with attempts to divide?

A source of division that the owning class is milking at the moment is immigration. This debate between a coherent and rational OffGuardian editor and Simon Elmer highlights how the Great Replacement has been insinuated into the Great Reset. First, in the interests of full disclosure, I must report that there is no love lost between me and Elmer. However, the reason I am highlighting this exchange is to use it as a platform to discuss how the irrational pursuit of ethno-religious agendas is a boon for the ruling class in their war against humanity. I have no agenda or ulterior motive. At all. Really. Trust me.

The Great Replacement theory proponent Simon Elmer has apparently replaced himself to Hong Kong where, as a White English immigrant impervious to irony, he moans bitterly about how the UK is sinking under the weight of Islamic culture and uncontrolled immigration. I have had my debate with Elmer, which was also published on Real Left. His response was to summarily order Real Left to remove all his articles from their website[i]. Seeing the abysmal quality of his responses to Off Guardian caused me to experience immense relief that he has not responded to my arguments. In theory, it ought to be easy to respond to someone’s irrationality on the grounds that they have done you a favour by setting a low bar to begin with. In practice, however, it can be tricky. But I have to say, OffGuardian handled Elmer superbly.

I try very hard not to sully myself in the mud of the culture wars. I rebutted Elmer’s invective because it was extraordinary for three main reasons. First, there was the shock of seeing someone I had thought was compos mentis suddenly engaging in irrational demonising and scapegoating. (Is there a rational form?) Second, it was gaining traction in major independent outlets. It looked like Tommy Robinson had just got a PhD in the History and Theory of Art, and was showing off. Third, there was also an eerie silence surrounding what was effectively the intellectual equivalent of someone pulling their pants down in the middle of a crowded Covent Garden on a sunny spring day and defecating.

The surreal quality to it all induced a feeling of being the test subject in the middle of one of those weird and wonderful 1960s Milgram or Zimbardo social conformity experiments where paid stooges do the most outrageous things in the presence of one poor sod who doesn’t know he/she is being had, and then act like it’s the most normal thing in the world. How do you react? Do you go along with it, or do you say, “Hang on, this is weird…get me out of here. Now.”

So I ended up saying something mainly to preserve my sanity, and partly out of a sense of civic duty. I’m actually not civic-minded normally, but on this occasion I felt it was my duty to put traffic cones around a steaming pile of poo masquerading as spicy chilli con carne.

Anyway, back to the core issue of how identity issues and culture end up dividing us. If you’re going to attribute the behaviour of a population to culture, you have to do at least three things: accurately define the cultural components; prove they have a causative effect; prove that the population is under the influence of those components. I’ve never seen that done, but the supply of sweeping statements made about culture in relation to population groups is limitless. That’s how the criminal activity of individuals in a defined population group gets used to demonise or scapegoat the whole group.

In the words of Martin Luther King, I prefer to judge a person by the content of their character, which is about values. Values have very little to do with culture since they’re universal, and culture is obviously not.

So debating with someone over whether people who wear green hats have inferior cultures to people who wear red coats is like wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, but only the pig likes it. It is, by design, a divide-and-rule distraction. I’ve made my position clear: I’m not aware of a single population in the world that wouldn’t object to uncontrolled immigration, except possibly London itself, because London is the world’s capital. Sorry Britain, but it’s a small price to pay for winning the world’s-most-successful-global-empire award. Londoners en masse might start raising serious objections when the aliens land, which could apparently be any day now. Parking the imminent alien landing issue for a moment, it is not very clever to use opposition to immigration in a way guaranteed to alienate (no pun intended but satisfactory all the same) 18% of the country’s population in one fell swoop.

This is important because there are a great many people in this 18% who would ally with an anti-establishment and pro-freedom movement. However, when they see themselves being demonised and scapegoated for the sins of our overlords, and the source of the invective appears to be a ‘freedom’ movement, they won’t want to feel like turkeys voting for Christmas. This is classic divide-and-rule, and destroys the solidarity we need to beat the psychopaths. It is quite possible to discuss replacement theory rationally without scapegoating. I believe I have done that here.

The inclusion of minorities in government is a universal phenomenon and a political imperative to widen the base of support, thereby increasing the stability of the government by fostering greater national cohesion. A government ruling over a country with a sizeable minority has two options available to it: get rid of the minority (bad), or include them (sensible). So the establishment is now a rainbow nation. By simply following the rules of normal political engagement, it has succeeded in diverting attention away from its Agenda 2030 goals by getting people to throw stones at it because it’s Diversity & Inclusion compliant, and it’s being mean and horrible to us. And according to some clever clogs in the freedom movement, there has to be a link!

Minority representation in parliament and in cabinet stands at 13.8% and 2% respectively. When Elmer did his rant, it was 10% and 12.5%. The 2021 census data shows the minority proportion in the total population to be 18%. Annoying facts don’t stop Elmer from screaming that the Great Reset wouldn’t be happening if we didn’t have “such a high proportion of senior politicians of another ethnicity and religion in [our] government”. It’s “colonialism”, for Chrissake!!

Right. If you were a fly on the wall of the Bank for International Settlements’ monthly get-together, do you really think you’d catch them arguing over whether Islam is compatible with Western values, and finding that issue to be a stumbling block to our planned enslavement? Or do you think they’d just be calmly and cooly discussing the results of the latest CBDC pilot test? And yet here we are, further down the class structure…arguing over whether Islam…

Whatever challenges immigration presents, there’s no excuse for scoring an own goal.

The obsession with culture and cultural homogeneity is an extension of identity politics and therefore a form of oppositional wokeism. The fight for freedom can be boiled down to the fight for universal rights and values. The central issue that you are being distracted from by the likes of Elmer is crystallised by Brett Scott in a single sentence:

“if workers could form a sense of themselves as a single class with a single set of interests, they might band together and threaten the overall structure.” [emphasis added]

For anyone who prefers to argue in favour of the relative superiority of Western culture rather than focus on the pearl of wisdom expressed by Scott, a veritable mic drop, please see footnote (ii) at the end of this article listing a small sample of the cultural gifts Western values have delivered so far[ii].

The economic conflict between and within

Scott explains why we now fight ourselves in a system that’s too big to see. The 19^th century economic battle lines were clearly drawn. It was much clearer then who the working class was – dispossessed peasants forced into factories, selling their labour to eat. It was just as clear who the ruling class was – the factory owners cracking the whip.

Trade union membership in the UK actually peaked in 1979 at 13.2 million and is now half that, with only 1 in 5 members of the workforce in a union. There are two very important historical facts to remember about the end of the 1970s in the UK. The all-time peak of union membership, and the lowest level of income inequality since records began. The end of that decade is also the period in which China opened up to the West, and global capital agreed to offshore manufacturing to China. One interpretation of this is that the 1970s was the period that the working class posed the biggest threat to the rulers since WW2. And global capital responded by playing a blinder: it pitted Western workers, who were earning the most they ever had, against Chinese workers. And the rest is neo-liberal economic history.

By 1987, this US Congress technology assessment titled Technology Transfer to China essentially shows that technology transfer to China had become part of US policy. All of these developments, far from being coincidental, are linked.

The shift in the UK economy that began in the 1980s from real work to service and bureaucratic jobs occupied by a growing PMC has coincided with a blurring of the lines between the middle and working class. Whereas previously, people struggled in real jobs, they now struggle economically in the service or bureaucratic sectors, but are encouraged to aspire to and identify as middle class. That blurring is exacerbated by the injection of middle class identity politics into working class politics.

We see structural economic changes creating greater conflict not only between class members but within the individual as well. Remember that buffer zone that protects the owners from getting their heads put on spikes by the working class? You know – the one in which most of the members have to work but don’t like to call themselves working class. That’s right, I’m talking to you, Middle Class. You also fancy yourself as a bit of an owning capitalist because no-one wants to see the price of their house fall. If you’ve got a house or two and getting rental income, rising prices and rents can’t be such a bad thing, can they?

And you might be dabbling in some stocks and shares too. Indeed, your pension depends on stock market performance. You really do care about the welfare of retail workers, but if the share price of your investments hinges on layoffs and ‘restructures’ to cut costs…well, tough decisions must be made to keep those large corporations – your investments – profitable. Maybe you’re a senior manager in a transnational company. The more you are paid, the more you’ll be incentivised to ensure that workers’ unions are non-functional or non-existent and that, wherever your employer operates in the world, conditions for the company’s survival are favourable. Of course there’ll always be a reason why your job will always be safe…or will there?

So here we are, stabbing each other in the back, and ourselves in the front. In March 2020, the upper echelons of the owning class declared a new phase of war on the working class. This is war on a much grander scale than before. There will be far more collateral damage, and because the class lines are more blurred now, the customary order-following by the middle class is going to lead to self-harm for that class.

There is a way for the middle and PMC class to win this war against the owners who have declared it. But, as Scott points out, that “might involve the destruction of some element of yourself. Whether or not you experience that destruction as liberation, really depends on who you are”. I think here he is referring to the conflict within and choosing a path of action that aligns with your true values as opposed to the interests of the ruling class, which are devoid of values.

The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend

In this piece, John Spritzler warns us not to fall into the trap of believing that a person or entity purporting to fight an enemy of the working class is on your side. The biggest trap in this regard is the travelling BRICS Punch and Judy Show. Not only are China and Russia completely committed to the Agenda 2030 programme of a financial digital gulag girded by the ‘decarbonisation’ scam, they are well ahead of the West in building and implementing the imprisoning technocratic architecture. Their mission is to pied pipe the Global South masses into the jaws of the New World Order, premised on the flaky logic that Chinese and Russian slave owners will be kinder than NATO slave owners.

In that mission they are being ably assisted, knowingly or not, by an army of BRICS cheerleaders tapping into the rage felt by ordinary people everywhere at the genocidal NATO killing machine. Here is a piece by a weapons fanboy mansplaining all the ways Russia is going to vanquish its NATO enemies with sword and fire. And treat anything with a Pepe Escobar byline as a joint communique from Xi and Putin.

The evidence for the BRICS servitude to the Global Financial Agenda 2030 programme is out there. The work has been done by those less susceptible to a need for heroes. I recognise that I might need to do more to convince my own readers of this so I will attempt that in separate pieces.

Why it matters

World War III is a class war, and it’s being waged by the ruling class as represented by the ultimate global hegemon, Global Capital – the money powers. It began in earnest in March 2020 with global lockdowns, and all the crises we’ve witnessed since then, real, manufactured and everything in between, are connected to the collapse of the debt Ponzi scheme. All the ‘solutions’, which must be resisted, are designed to lead us into the jaws of irreversible financial enslavement. The fact that they have managed to keep us all distracted while the monetary system smoulders does not change the reality that it is happening. All the crises since 2020 are signposts to the New World Order, dateline 2030.

A massive change to the financial architecture and the entire control grid is in the beta phase of production. But a BIG change requires a BIG reason for the change. And the big reason coming towards us like a freight train is war.

War has always been the preferred weapon against the working class. The weakest financially are the first in line as cannon fodder. But it should also go without saying that the flames will be designed to lick all of us in order to eliminate the resistance to change.

The programme of change has been broadcast by System mouthpieces. They are preparing you. They have told you that AI will make humans superfluous. From ramped up stratospheric aerosol injection, inexplicable persistent fog lasting days, to self-replicating mRNA vaccines, the assaults on human health and the food supply are accelerating. The pandemic planners are now desperately clamouring for a bird-flu plandemic. Lifespans will continue to shorten as annual excess deaths become the norm. To help you shuffle off this mortal coil, they are passing legislation to make it easier to kill yourself. The psychopaths’ polite way of saying, “Resistance is futile, so go on, do us a favour and leave.”

Different classes have been affected in different ways by each wave of attack, but in the end they are coming for all of us. A sizeable minority within the middle class joined the resistance to lockdowns and mandated injections because it affected them. Once the wars and killing in foreign lands began, many of them reverted to their role as the trusty owning-class buffer, cleaving to their selfish maxim of “Do unto others, just don’t do it to us.”

This is short-sighted because ‘they’ will eventually be doing it to you. Another type of shortsightedness is to focus on what the system says and not what it is doing or what the eventual outcome of its actions will be. Understanding and predicting the eventual outcome is what is required to understand the System’s intention and purpose. Mike Driver reminds us that the purpose of a system is what it does, or put slightly differently, the side effect is the intention.

Hence, we locked down to stop the virus, but whoops, we’ve transferred trillions from the poorest to the billionaire class. We injected the planet to save lives, but whoops, there’s all this excess death now. We’ve sent billions to Ukraine to fight the Russians, but whoops, nearly all the fighting age Ukrainian men are dead now, and BlackRock are swooping in on the country’s assets.

The whoops is the whole plan.

Alex Krainer reports that the direct cost of EU support for the Ukraine war is €60 billion. Once you factor in the funds that EU governments have forked out to support individuals and businesses to face the consequences of the war – electricity and other subsidies – the cost rises to €700 billion. The US Congress has voted through five bills granting Ukraine $175 billion in direct aid. The total NATO sums are approaching the trillion dollar mark. Meanwhile, back in Blighty, it is estimated that the total cost of completely eradicating homelessness in the UK would be £1.9 billion. Recall what I said in Part I about The System’s priorities.

And remember, it’s the banking system that effectively approves war because it finances it. The banking system controls the supply of money and debt. It therefore controls the allocation of resources, including resources for war. If the banksters thought they could not gain from issuing war debt, they wouldn’t issue it. And the generals wouldn’t have spilt all the blood they’ve spilt because they wouldn’t have the money to buy the bombs and all the other accoutrements of killing. And no matter which bunch of generals lose, the banks always win. That’s why all wars are bankers’ wars. That’s why they are ‘they’ – the ruling class. (Refer to definitions in Part I.)

The endgame is in the climate alarmist small print. Some 90% of us have been deemed a threat to the survival of the planet and therefore surplus to requirements. The aim is to create a false rescue by inflicting immense pain and suffering with hot wars and using what David Hughes describes as “the novel methods of Omniwar…, i.e. war waged across every domain, but clandestinely, so that the public does not recognise it as such. It amounts to a global counterinsurgency campaign, with dissidents replacing ‘terrorists’ as the enemy using the infrastructure established through the ‘War on Terror’.”[iii]

When this latest phase of the class war draws to a close, we will be told that we can’t go back to the way things were. ‘The way things were’ will be presented as the cause of the wars: the ‘pandemics’, the debt bubble, the online ‘misinformation’, the hate, the climate change, everything. The solutions will be as endless as the crises themselves. They will entail the end of the nation state as we know it and a transfer of more power to the UN. ‘Vaccines’ for everything. There’ll be a cancer ‘vaccine’ to cure the turbo cancers caused by covid ‘vaccines’. Digital IDs to end online hate and ignorance. A programmable digital blockchain currency. ‘Smart’ surveillance cities. Carbon and energy rationing. The entire spectrum of nature commoditised and tradeable on an exchange. Guess which class will own it all and decide how nature is used?

I’m no fan of ideological isms, but many perfectly sensible slogans have been spawned by some of them. There is nothing wrong, and in fact everything right, with the slogan: “Workers of the world unite”. All workers, not just some of us. ‘They’ believe they have the technology to make 90% of us redundant. No need for retail shops if driverless cars and drones can deliver stuff. The AI god is set to replace bureaucracy and administer instant digital justice. That slogan has never been more important for all of us than it is now, but it’s impossible to be true to it unless you know exactly who you are uniting against. And it’s not whoever the ruling class is telling you to fight from one crisis to the next, be it a virus, domestic terrorist, or some religious-ethno-nationalist grouping. It’s the ruling class – the owners and controllers of global financial capital.

If workers of the world really united, Ukrainian and Russians soldiers wouldn’t fire at each other. Israeli soldiers wouldn’t be committing genocide. Imagine, war breaks out and nobody turns up[iv]. That should be our motto. Whatever crisis they throw at us, we’re not turning up to play the part they’ve assigned to us – panicking, getting angry with each other, and then dutifully dying.

You may find the utility of being middle class decreasing as World War III hots up, so if you haven’t already, stop being middle class and join the Resistance.

---

[i] I don’t play chess but I imagine that’s the equivalent of swiping all the pieces off the board and storming off. Or at least swiping all of your own pieces off the board, leaving the opposing player’s pieces, and storming off?

[ii] Some of the ‘fruits’ of Western culture: the World Economic Forum; the World Health Organization; the Bank for International Settlements; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the United Nations; North Atlantic Treaty Organization; World Bank; International Monetary Fund; BlackRock; Vanguard; Quantitative Easing; Pfizer; Moderna; GAVI The Vaccine Alliance; Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI); Central Bank Digital Currencies; Digital ID, smart phones; the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); 15-minute cities; Agenda 2030; technocracy; mRNA vaccines; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (that effectively owns the WHO); the Bilderberg Group; the Council on Foreign Relations; Nazism; the Holocaust of WW2; Zionism; the Palestinian Holocaust.

[iii] David A. Hughes, “Covid-19”, Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy (Vol 1), Palgrave Macmillan, 2024, Ch 1, pg. 3

[iv] Frankie Goes To Hollywood anti-war hit, Two Tribes.