The Great Reset sounds so good. It's obvious the system is fubar, so it must be "reset".

Building Back Better sounds so good. Who wouldn't want to take the fubar system and rebuild it better?

Sustainability sounds so good. Who doesn't want to stop using depletable resources that cause pollution and climate change?

Of course when you read the fine print, its not so good.

People can't be trusted to do what's best for society or the world so people must lose their freedoms. The ones at the top on the other hand do know what's best for society. They will tell us what's best. They are the only ones allowed to have the freedom to choose. Those that disagree will be removed, for the good of all. Once you start down the path of "for the good of all" at the expense of "for the good of the individual" it has only one inevitable conclusion. Complete and total loss of liberty for We The People.

There is a reason the Declaration of Independence stated clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

We are created equal. We are born with equal opportunity to shine, thrive, pursue our desires, as long as we don't directly (this word is so important) infringe on another's right to do so. That doesn't mean we need to end up equal. The idea that we need to remain equal all the way through life goes directly against the next statement.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This says that Life and Liberty are rights that cannot be taken away (inalienable). To even attempt to do so is a violation of these rights. Of course there are caveats to this; notably when one person directly infringes upon another's inalienable rights then they forfeit their own. But again, that word "directly" is essential. It's removal is the cause of all the larger evils in history. As for Pursuit of Happiness, you can't pursue your own happiness if you must follow a list of "allowed pursuits".

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The government must serve We The People, not the other way around. If the government owns everything (and more specifically those people at the top of it), and they allow only certain actions, only "socially responsible" freedoms, who is really serving who?

So lets talk about the word "directly". A direct infringement of another's inalienable rights is something like thievery, rape, murder, or any other violation where an immediate action causes direct, actual physical harm to another.

So what's an indirect "harm"?

A common narrative today is, "your speech is hurting me, therefore your speech should be illegal." The problem with that is, a person can always just walk away. Now if someone restricts you, and keep you from walking away, that would be harmful action. So its not the speech that's the problem, but the physical restriction.

Perhaps a better "indirect" harm is driving a car. My car has an exhaust, therefore whenever I drive it I am doing harm to the environment. Therefore I am doing harm to all the rest of the people who also use the environment. Therefore I should not be allowed to drive my car.

That of course is part of the Great Reset. We aren't allowed to talk about whether or not any of that is true. We aren't allowed to debate it. We have been taught that since infancy, so it must be true. Sometimes we can see exhaust, so it must be true. As a scientist, having studied it quite a bit, I believe it is true that exhaust is pollution. But how true is it? How much of an impact does it really have? Are there systems in place in nature that make it truly irrelevant? That is a subject for debate.

The Great Reset forces compliance. No debate is allowed, "the experts" will decide for us all. No choice can be made by the individual. Any non-compliance is illegal; "obviously harmful to society." I will no longer be allowed to drive my car because it might hurt someone decades or centuries in the future.

But do we really need to micromanage all such actions? Does anyone honestly believe that most people will willingly do things knowing it will destroy the world? People make choices for today to be sure, sometimes at the expense of tomorrow, but given the choice of two equal economic decisions, the one with the most social benefit will be chosen more often than not. That is our nature.

That is the entire purpose of the concept of the free market. If the market is controlled such as it is now (and has been for a lot longer than most realize) and as a Great Reset would be (100% by their own admission), then a free market does not decide our fate, but those in charge do. Within that system any debate of what is best is not allowed.

For example: am I really harming others with the CO2 produced while driving my car? Does the Earth have any means of sequestering CO2? What are plants? Doesn't an increase in CO2 increase plant life? Isn't it true that CO2 heat retention is a logarithmic function and not linear or exponential as many climate models proclaim? Why don't any climate models take into consideration these fundamental findings in regard to CO2?

And why was it changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Is it because global warming models haven't produced a single true prediction in decades of trying? Is it because Climate Change is undeniable (the climate is, and has always changed) thus allowing for any debate to be immediately dismissed because the opposing side must immediately concede the basic premise, "Yes, the climate is changing but..." The opposition is already conceding defeat in the eyes of any uninformed listener and for any hungry media looking to find soundbites to push the narrative with half truths.

Is any of the larger picture I am painting here debatable? Sure, but only if debate is allowed. The Great Reset, done by those who own all the world already, will not be allowing any debate, because that would question their authority.

The Great Reset sounds so good. It's obvious the system is fubar, so it must be "reset".

Building Back Better sounds so good. Who wouldn't want to take the fubar system and rebuild it better?

Sustainability sounds so good. Who doesn't want to stop using depletable resources that cause pollution and climate change?

Of course when you read the fine print, its not so good.

People can't be trusted to do what's best for society or the world so people must lose their freedoms. The ones at the top on the other hand do know what's best for society. They will tell us what's best. They are the only ones allowed to have the freedom to choose. Those that disagree will be removed, for the good of all. Once you start down the path of "for the good of all" at the expense of "for the good of the individual" it has only one inevitable conclusion. Complete and total loss of liberty for We The People.

There is a reason the Declaration of Independence stated clearly:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

We are created equal. We are born with equal opportunity to shine, thrive, pursue our desires, as long as they don't directly (this word is so important) infringe on another's right to do so. That doesn't mean we need to end up equal. The idea that we need to remain equal all the way through life goes directly against the next statement.

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This says that Life and Liberty are rights that cannot be taken away (inalienable). To even attempt to do so is a violation of these rights. Of course there are caveats to this; notably when one person directly infringes upon another's inalienable rights then they forfeit their own. But again, that word "directly" is essential. It's removal is the cause of all the larger evils in history. As for Pursuit of Happiness, you can't pursue your own happiness if you must follow a list of "allowed pursuits".

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

The government must serve We The People, not the other way around. If the government owns everything (and more specifically those people at the top of it), and they allow only certain actions, only "socially responsible" freedoms, who is really serving who?

So lets talk about the word "directly". A direct infringement of another's inalienable rights is something like thievery, rape, murder, or any other violation where an immediate action causes direct, actual physical harm to another.

So what's an indirect "harm"?

A common narrative today is, "your speech is hurting me, therefore your speech should be illegal." The problem with that is, a person can always just walk away. Now if someone restricts you, and keep you from walking away, that would be harmful action. So its not the speech that's the problem, but the physical restriction.

Perhaps a better "indirect" harm is driving a car. My car has an exhaust, therefore whenever I drive it I am doing harm to the environment. Therefore I am doing harm to all the rest of the people who also use the environment. Therefore I should not be allowed to drive my car.

That of course is part of the Great Reset. We aren't allowed to talk about whether or not any of that is true. We aren't allowed to debate it. We have been taught that since infancy, so it must be true. Sometimes we can see exhaust, so it must be true. As a scientist, having studied it quite a bit, I believe it is true that exhaust is pollution. But how true is it? How much of an impact does it really have? Are there systems in place in nature that make it truly irrelevant? That is a subject for debate.

The Great Reset forces compliance. No debate is allowed, "the experts" will decide for us all. No choice can be made by the individual. Any non-compliance is illegal; "obviously harmful to society." I will no longer be allowed to drive my car because it might hurt someone decades or centuries in the future.

But do we really need to micromanage all such actions? Does anyone honestly believe that most people will willingly do things knowing it will destroy the world? People make choices for today to be sure, sometimes at the expense of tomorrow, but given the choice of two equal economic decisions, the one with the most social benefit will be chosen more often than not. That is our nature.

That is the entire purpose of the concept of the free market. If the market is controlled such as it is now (and has been for a lot longer than most realize) and as a Great Reset would be (100% by their own admission), then a free market does not decide our fate, but those in charge do. Within that system any debate of what is best is not allowed.

For example: am I really harming others with the CO2 produced while driving my car? Does the Earth have any means of sequestering CO2? What are plants? Doesn't an increase in CO2 increase plant life? Isn't it true that CO2 heat retention is a logarithmic function and not linear or exponential as many climate models proclaim? Why don't any climate models take into consideration these fundamental findings in regard to CO2?

And why was it changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"? Is it because global warming models haven't produced a single true prediction in decades of trying? Is it because Climate Change is undeniable (the climate is, and has always changed) thus allowing for any debate to be immediately dismissed because the opposing side must immediately concede the basic premise, "Yes, the climate is changing but..." The opposition is already conceding defeat in the eyes of any uninformed listener and for any hungry media looking to find soundbites to push the narrative with half truths.

Is any of the larger picture I am painting here debatable? Sure, but only if debate is allowed. The Great Reset, done by those who own all the world already, will not be allowing any debate, because that would question their authority.