Disaster Capitalism or Disaster Cronyism?
Whether from left, right, Uniparty or globalists, creating and exploiting disasters for profit and abrupt change is not capitalism
“Only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around.”
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1982)
Generating Profit and Change from Crises
The term “Disaster Capitalism,” coined and developed by progressive journalist Naomi Klein in her seminal 2007 work “The Shock Doctrine,” refers to the phenomenon where corporations, governments, and financial institutions exploit crises, such as natural disasters, wars, or economic downturns, to further their own interests and profits. In some cases, these events are naturally occurring; in others, they are intentionally created or may involve a combination of both natural and artificial causes. During the first two years of the COVIDcrisis, many speculated that this series of events was another example of Disaster Capitalism in progress. In retrospect, it is hard to deny that the ensuing cascade of events, documented lies, apparently intentional mismanagement, and massive upward wealth transfer represented a classic case of “Disaster Capitalism” as defined by Klein.
This exploitation often involves:
Privatization: Transferring public assets and services to private companies, which can lead to increased costs and reduced access for affected communities.
Deregulation: Relaxing or eliminating regulations to allow companies to operate with minimal oversight, enabling them to take advantage of the crisis for financial gain.
Austerity measures: Implementing budget cuts and reduced social spending, which disproportionately affect vulnerable populations, such as the poor, workers, and marginalized communities.
Increased policing and surveillance: Deploying security forces to maintain order and control, often leading to human rights abuses and further marginalization of affected communities.
Typically Cited Examples of Disaster Capitalism
Hurricane Katrina (2005): The response to the devastating hurricane in New Orleans saw private contractors being awarded lucrative contracts to provide relief services, while public infrastructure and services were neglected or dismantled. This led to widespread suffering and displacement.
Iraq War (2003): The US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq created opportunities for private military contractors, such as Blackwater (now Academi), to profit from the chaos and instability.
COVID-19 pandemic (2020): Governments and corporations have used the pandemic to push for deregulation, privatization, and austerity measures, often benefiting large corporations and wealthy individuals at the expense of workers and vulnerable populations. The Klaus Schwab/World Economic Forum book “The Great Reset” is a celebration of the opportunity and specific plan to exploit the COVID-19 pandemic to foster change, and clearly documents the intention of Schwab and his cohort to exploit this event to advance a number of agenda items which the WEF seeks to promote.
Key Features of Disaster Capitalism
Exploitation of crisis: Disaster capitalism thrives on the chaos and uncertainty created by crises, allowing profiteers to capitalize on the desperation and vulnerability of affected communities.
Power imbalance: Disaster capitalism often involves a significant power imbalance between those who benefit from the crisis (corporations, governments, and wealthy individuals) and those who are harmed (affected communities, small businesses, and communities of faith).
Long-term consequences: The exploitation and profiteering associated with disaster capitalism can have lasting, devastating impacts on affected communities, including erosion of public services, increased inequality, and reduced social cohesion.
Malcom Tatum provides further clarification, an examination of pros and cons, and practical examples of how “disaster capitalism” operates in an essay titled “What is Disaster Capitalism?”.
In many instances, disaster capitalism comes about due to marketing efforts to prey on insecurities or fears that consumers hold. For example, an insurance company may use graphic displays of the aftereffects of a tornado or flood as a means of encouraging potential customers to purchase insurance coverage that would protect them in the event that those types of disasters occurred in their areas. In like manner, a company selling camping equipment and supplies may go with a marketing campaign that stresses preparedness in the event that access to water, electricity, and other utilities is cut off after a hurricane or even some type of man-made disaster. With each scenario, the idea is to conjure up images in the minds of consumers that are alarming, creating worry and tension, then offer the solution in the form of a product or particular line of products.
Proponents of disaster capitalism often point to the fact that while the techniques used to attract the attention of consumers may be somewhat intense, they do represent events that have happened in the past and could happen again, given the right circumstances. With this in mind, promoting the purchase and proper use of the goods and services is seen as no different from promoting any type of consumable products. From this perspective, this approach to generating revenue within a free market situation is nothing more than identifying a need and offering the means to meet that need.
Detractors of the concept of disaster capitalism sometimes note that there is more at work than simply enjoying the benefits of a free market. At times, the motivation may be as much political as economic. This unique hybrid of political economics relies on creating the illusion that if a given approach is not taken, the consequences will often be dire for the generations to come. By generating fear, the hope is that consumers will make snap decisions rather than weigh the evidence for themselves and determine if a given product or approach is really the answer, or if another solution would produce results that are just as effective. This approach may be used to justify the creation of a government initiative or even to support the idea of abolishing a given initiative, depending on the goals of the individual or group supporting the action.
Common Criticisms of Deployment of Disaster Capitalism
Disaster capitalism has been criticized for its role in exacerbating social and economic inequalities, perpetuating systems of oppression, and undermining democratic governance. Critics argue that it prioritizes profits over people and that it is a form of exploitation that disproportionately affects marginalized communities.
These criticisms overlook the obvious fact that fostering and exploitation of disasters as a means of fostering change is profoundly unethical and clearly manipulative.
I argue that the term “Disaster Capitalism” as coined by Klein, who self-identifies as a progressive and actively defends progressive/socialist ideology, is intrinsically biased. What Klein and others describe is not "Disaster Capitalism,” but rather is better characterized as “Disaster Cronyism.”
Disaster Cronyism only works over the short term
Setting aside the gross ethical breaches inherent in this strategy for a moment, from a Machiavellian or “Realpolitik” frame of reference, the core problem with deploying Disaster Cronyism to effect change is that this methodology is not sustainable. Eventually, the lies are revealed, the contrived systems and solutions fail, and inevitably some form of “blowback” (a term emerging from the “intelligence” community) or unintended consequences develops. And then some version of Hegelian dialectic coupled manipulation is required (thesis, antithesis, synthesis). It seems that the current go-to is just to repeat the disaster cronyism (or increasingly, psychological bioterrorism) strategy and tactics.
A recent essay published by the Daily Wire provides an excellent example of the difference between short and long-term consequences of deploying disaster cronyism to advance political and economic agendas, under the awkward but descriptive title “Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna Have Lost a Combined Market Capitalization of $418,887,461,200”.
Shockingly, the combined loss in market capitalization since late 2021 of Pfizer, Moderna, and BioNTech now exceeds the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Malaysia, South Africa, Denmark, the Philippines, Hong Song SAR, Columbia, Chile, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Kuwait, Puerto Rico, Luxembourg, and most other countries. That combined loss is even approaching Singapore’s robust GDP. (Countries by GDP (Nominal) 2022 – StatisticsTimes.com)
Those three Big Pharma companies, the ones manufacturing the mRNA COVID “vaccines,” have lost a combined market capitalization of around $418,887,461,200 since each reached its highest price in late 2021. Almost $419 billion! Singapore, as previously mentioned, is one of the greatest economic stories in the world; and it has a GDP of $466.7 billion.
What triggered huge selloffs and rapid loss drops in their market capitalizations starting in 2021? Pfizer alone lost $164.1 billion in market cap in under three years. This is somewhat surprising since the company had locked in contracts to sell their “franchise” mRNA “vaccine” products.
The initial “vaccine” was available under an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) starting on December 11, 2020. Immediately following the FDA’s issuance of the EUA, 1.2 billion doses shipped. The EUA was based upon, in Pfizer’s words, “initial data from the pivotal Phase 3 clinical trial.” By the end of December 2020, Pfizer delivered over 1.2 billion doses globally.
COMIRNATY®, the Pfizer-BioNTech’s COVID-19 “vaccine” product, was the first to receive U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, which Pfizer touted on its website. As stated in Pfizer’s April 1, 2021, press release titled, “Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study,” Pfizer andBioNTech “submitted a comprehensive data package that included longer-term follow-up data from the Phase 3 trial, where the vaccine’s high efficacy and favorable safety profile were observed up to six months after the second dose” to secure FDA approval. [Emphasis added.] In the press release, Pfizer claims:
“Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing COVID-19 cases in South Africa, where the B.1.351 lineage is prevalent
Vaccine safety now evaluated in more than 44,000 participants 16 years of age and older, with more than 12,000 vaccinated participants having at least six months follow-up after their second dose”
Note that the stock prices of Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna all begin to drop rapidly within a few months of this press release. What happened? It seems that many consumers of the mRNA products and Wall Street investors lost faith respectively in need for the products and in their effectiveness, as well as their long-term ability to produce favorable financial results.
We are now seeing increased reporting on post-mRNA vaccination deaths and serious adverse events, including turbo cancers, both of which began appearing in 2021. Despite the doubt consumers and Wall Street appear to be expressing in relation to mRNA vaccines, the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to encourage their use and ignore or downplay the associated adverse events, many of which are life-altering or life-threatening.
Despite the almost $419 billion in lost market capitalization in about three years among the primary mRNA COVID vaccine companies, there’s a marked lack of general interest regarding why that may be the case. Perhaps it is time for shareholders to start asking tough questions about Pfizer, BioNTech, and Moderna’s fiduciary responsibilities to their shareholders, since it is the “responsibility of the directors and officers of a corporation to act in the best interests of the shareholders”? (https://bergplummer.com/blog/commercial-litigation/fiduciary-duty-shareholders/)
Of course, the recent admission from Dr. Anthony Fauci that he has yet again been infected with SARS-CoV-2 and developed COVID disease (third time?) despite receiving six doses of the claimed “safe and effective” mRNA vaccine products clearly demonstrates that these products, which masquerade as vaccines, are ineffective at achieving the purpose for which they were granted emergency use authorization - prevention of infection and spread of the virus. Whether or not they reduce disease severity, this was not an indication claimed in their authorization and eventual licensure.
Over the short term, the deployment of the Disaster Cronyism strategy during the COVIDcrisis has worked quite well to achieve a range of objectives. Widespread unwitting acceptance of gene therapy technology by uninformed and scared patients. Acceptance of a range of social control measures including “vaccine passports” and various forms of biometric monitoring and tracking which were previously considered unacceptable in a free society. Widespread destruction of small businesses and enhancement of large corporate markets and portfolios. The most massive upwards transfer of wealth in over a century. Damage and fragmentation of community including communities of faith. Consolidation of power in centralized global organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, and, of course, the World Economic Forum. And, possibly, intentional reduction in the economic burdens associated with maintaining populations of elderly persons, which have become a major cost center for virtually all Western nations.
However, there have also been long-term consequences to deploying the COVIDcrisis lies and falsehoods that were and continue to be promoted by Western governments. These lies involved the pervasive promotion of fear of mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection/COVID-19 disease, the actively weaponized neurolinguistic programming propaganda of the “Safe and Effective” vaccine narrative, the grossly counterproductive public policies of quarantine lockdowns, social distancing, promotion of ineffective particle mask barriers, “vaccine” mandates, and the wide range of associated totalitarian measures. These lies have primarily acted to create a population that is much more skeptical of the State, the Pharmaceutical Industry, Physicians, and the medical-industrial complex, and has driven growing skepticism of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines in general.
Abusive use of Disaster Cronyism to facilitate change and enable political and economic objectives is intrinsically evil. Any objective observer can clearly see that. The fact that organizations such as the FVEY intelligence community and the World Economic Forum overlook that fact clearly demonstrate that current leadership of these organizations have completely lost their moral bearings and should be considered rogue and anti-human. With their actions, they have forfeited any legitimate role in determining the future of the human race, and should be shunned. But setting aside the dark triad nature of the personality profile that characterizes those willing to deploy such tactics on their fellow man in a quest for ever more power and wealth, on a pragmatic basis, Disaster Cronyism just does not work over the long term.
Humankind has bequeathed millennia of experience to the present that demonstrates what does and does not work for organizing productive and sustainable societies. Much of this wisdom is captured in classical “religious” texts and teachings concerning morality. For some reason, people like Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, Karl Marx, and their many acolytes think that they can come up with better solutions than those that have quite literally evolved from the collective experiences of thousands of preceding civilizations and millennia of human experiences.
They think this is modernism. I think it is hubris. Reject their fantasies of power, glory, and immortality. Their belief is that they can become God. I say let them have their fantasies and shun and compartmentalize them so that they can live with the consequences and the blowback. Treat them like Napoleon Bonaparte in his sunset years. Banishment to Elba seems like a reasonably humane way to manage this ilk.
For the rest of us, let’s just get back to basics and to working in the garden—as we were created to do.
Restating the closing wisdom of Voltaire in his seminal work “Candide”:
“That good old man seems to me to have made a very sensible remark. Let us cultivate our garden.”
Timeless insight, encouraging individuals to prioritize their own personal growth, happiness, and well-being, rather than getting bogged down in the troubles and uncertainties of the world. Voltaire advocates for a sense of self-sufficiency, contentment, and inner peace, achieved through the simple yet meaningful act of cultivating one’s own life, much like tending to a garden.
Be like Voltaire. Create your own Eden.
