Peter Myers Digest: WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy “Needs A Reset”

(1) Most Tories preferred Boris Johnson; it was the Globalists & their media who got rid of him
(2) The Economist on the 2019 election: ‘unlucky Britons will wake to find one of these horrors in charge’
(3) Most Conservative Party members would much rather Boris than Truss or Sunak
(4) WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy “Needs A Reset”
(5) Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better – WEF writing at Forbes, in 2016
(6) WEF judges conservative Australian party One Nation “xenophobic, racist”

(1) Most Tories preferred Boris Johnson; it was the Globalists & their media who got rid of him
– by Peter Myers, October 8, 2022

Do you recall Boris Johnson’s instruction to ministers not to attend the World Economic Forum?

Truss & Sunak are closely connected to the WEF. Here is a photo of Liz Truss featured at a WEF session:

The WEF operates a Strategic Intelligence unit for members only. In an article about Australia, it described the conservative party “One Nation” as Xenophobic, Racist and Extremist.

The name “One Nation” was chosen to oppose Marxist (Trotskyist, Green) influence in Indigenous movements. Their campaign for indigenous “sovereignty” could break up Australia. There’s a similar Marxist influence in the Canadian indigenous movement, which caused Churches to be burned down, despite the lack of any excavated graves. Yet, there are conservative Aborigines who oppose that Marxist agenda, such as Jacinta Price, a Senator for the Northern Territory. One Nation opposes Open Borders, Gay Marriage, and Globalist economic policies.

What business is it of the WEF to judge and stigmatise anti-Globalist parties? Quite a lot, it seems. The WEF is clearly aligned with the ‘Progressive’ agenda.

In the leadup to the 2019 British election, a contest led by Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn, the Economist magazine, in an editorial, lamented that it had no horse in the race: “unlucky Britons will wake to find one of these horrors in charge.”

Well, it had the Liberal Democrats, but they did badly.

What nerve, to demean the popularly-chosen leaders in that way. It just shows the arrogant confidence of the Ruling Class, based in the City of London.

Now, less than three years later, they have got rid of both Johnson and Corbyn. And the media – THEIR media – played a big part in it.

Why not connect more dots, and see the Economist magazine and the WEF as closely in cahoots?

Liz Truss’ brazen statement that the British Economy “Needs A Reset”, when she knows that this term is closely associated with the WEF, shows her Globalist pedigree. The British people have been deceived into getting rid of two populists (Johnson and Corbyn), and installing two puppets of the City of London.

(2) The Economist on the 2019 election: ‘unlucky Britons will wake to find one of these horrors in charge’

Britain’s nightmare before Christmas

A divided country faces an election that will tear it still further apart

Print edition | Leaders

Dec 5th 2019

BRITISH VOTERS keep being called to the polls—and each time the options before them are worse. Labour and the Conservatives, once parties of the centre-left and -right, have steadily grown further apart in the three elections of the past four years. Next week voters face their starkest choice yet, between Boris Johnson, whose Tories promise a hard Brexit, and Jeremy Corbyn, whose Labour Party plans to “rewrite the rules of the economy” along radical socialist lines. Mr Johnson runs the most unpopular new government on record; Mr Corbyn is the most unpopular leader of the opposition. On Friday the 13th, unlucky Britons will wake to find one of these horrors in charge.

At the last election, two years and a political era ago, we regretted the drift to the extremes. Today’s manifestos go a lot further. In 2017 Labour was on the left of the European mainstream. Today it would seize 10% of large firms’ equity, to be held in funds paying out mostly to the exchequer rather than to the workers who are meant to be the beneficiaries. It would phase in a four-day week, supposedly with no loss of pay. The list of industries to be nationalised seems only to grow. Drug patents could be forcibly licensed. The bill for a rapid increase in spending would fall on the rich and companies, whose tax burden would go from the lowest in the G7 to the highest. It is an attempt to deal with 21st-century problems using policies that failed in the 20th.

(3) Most Conservative Party members would much rather Boris than Truss or Sunak

Wrong Move? Polls Show Boris Would Crush WEF-Linked Sunak, Truss in Vote for Tory Leadership

14 Aug 2022

Polling has revealed that Boris Johnson would annihilate his would-be World Economic Forum-linked replacements in a Conservative Party leadership race.

Despite having announced he would resign the position last month, polling released this weekend indicates that most Conservative Party members would much rather Boris Johnson remain as Prime Minister rather than hand the position over to either of the candidates vying to replace him.

While the research also revealed that Liz Truss was much more likely than Rishi Sunak to end up winning the current race for Number 10, the data also showed that both of the <> World Economic Forum adjacent alternatives would be annihilated in a head-to-head leadership race against Boris Johnson.

According to the information <> gathered by polling company Opinium, 63 per cent of Conservative Party members would opt for Boris Johnson remaining Prime Minister rather than having Liz Truss ascend to the position, with only 22 per cent of members saying that they would rather the former Liberal Democrat politician unseat him.

We are also seeing a lot of “Johnson nostalgia” among the membership.

68% would rather Johnson remains PM rather than Sunak take over.

63% would rather Johnson remains PM rather than Truss take over.

On the other hand, the wider electorate disagrees. <>

— Opinium (@OpiniumResearch) <> August 13, 2022

Johnson’s lead is even more substantial when facing off against former finance minister Rishi Sunak, with 68 per cent of Conservative voters saying that they would prefer Boris Johnson remain as Prime Minister compared to only 19 per cent who would rather see Sunak assume the role.

Both of these leads narrow considerably when all Tory voters are polled, though Johnson still maintains a plurality of support against Truss, with 44 per cent of voters saying they would rather he remain as Prime Minister, and a slim but outright majority against Sunak, with 51 per cent saying they would rather Johnson stay on.

Majority of Conservative Members Say Ousting Boris Johnson Was Wrong: Poll<>

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) <> August 3, 2022

The results of the poll mirror earlier findings <> published this month by The Times, which found that 53 per cent of Conservative Party members now think it was wrong for ministers to oust Johnson, with only 41 per cent at the time saying that they backed the ousting.

Meanwhile, 40 per cent of voters said they would back Johnson remaining in power if he was allowed to be put on the ballot in the race for party leader, compared to only 28 per cent who said they would vote for Truss and just 23 per cent for Sunak.

As things stand, however, Truss remains the most likely individual to be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom by the time September is out, with both the earlier Times poll and the more recent Opinium tally finding that the Foreign Secretary has a sizable lead over her rival.

This lead — put to be almost <> unassailable by Opinium — appears to exist despite the fact that the former Remain campaigner seemingly pushed the entire globe slightly closer to <> nuclear war earlier this year after <> openly encouraging Britons to travel to Ukraine to fight against Russia.

Russian officials cited her as having singlehandedly ratcheted up tensions between Vladimir Putin and NATO — and the call was also likely encouraging British citizens to break the country’s own laws, with those who previously travelled to fight for foreign countries and regimes being slapped with terrorism charges upon their return home.

British officials later published a <> clarification stating that anyone travelling to Ukraine to fight was indeed risking prosecution.

“If you travel to eastern Ukraine to fight, or to assist others engaged in the conflict, your activities may amount to offences against UK terrorism or other legislation and you could be prosecuted on your return to the UK,” a declaration by Truss’ own Foreign Office on the matter read.

Truss herself appeared to <> deny she had ever made the call when pressed on it over the course of the ongoing leadership race despite clear evidence to the contrary, damaging her credibility in the eyes of some observers.

Boris May Be Going, But Britain Is Years Away From Getting the Political Class It Deserves<>

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) <> July 7, 2022

Follow Peter Caddle on Twitter: <> @Peter_Caddle

Follow Breitbart London on Facebook: <> Breitbart London

(4) WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy “Needs A Reset”

Photo – Liz Truss featured at a WEF session:

WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy “Needs A Reset”

WEF Attendee Liz Truss Says British Economy “Needs A Reset” As Market Conditions Worsen


TUESDAY, OCT 04, 2022 – 06:15 PM

New British PM Elizabeth Truss has been touted by many including the mainstream media as a “far-right” politician with wide appeal to British conservatives. This is fast becoming a prerequisite ideological position to take in Europe as the open border/socialist policies of leftist political leaders are leaving the EU in economic ruins and as they approach an energy based catastrophe not seen since WWII.

Boris Johnson revealed himself to be nowhere near as conservative as many initially believed with his support of draconian covid mandates, stopping just short of enforcing vaccine passports but still requiring proof of vaccination for major venues. All this while holding lavish parties at his official residence <> during the lockdowns he helped enforce. Adding to the problem were Johnson’s tax increases in the midst of an inflationary crisis, which led to widespread public discontent and his eventual resignation.

When Truss became a potential candidate to replace Johnson some in the alternative media warned that her ongoing associations with the World Economic Forum and attendance at Davos events might be a red flag of another political pretender playing at being conservative while actually serving the interests of globalist institutions. This was, of course, called conspiracy theory by “fact checkers” in the MSM.

It is a concrete reality that the new PM has been a <> participant in the Davos meetings held by the World Economic Forum, a central hub of globalism that acts as a think tank and propaganda mill where new narratives are born. Specifically, the WEF is most known for its <> “Great Reset” mantra, which is part of founder Klaus Schwab’s “4th Industrial Revolution” concept. A key focus of the Great Reset is something called the “Shared Economy,” which is described as the complete erasure of private property and the implementation of communist-like governance over individual economic participation.

The Shared Economy is the source of the phrase “You will own nothing and be happy,” which actually comes from an article <> written by the WEF and published by Forbes Magazine titled ‘Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better.’

Far from being a “conspiracy theory,” the Great Reset is commonly presented by the WEF as the ultimate end game – An agenda, not just an idea. This has rightly caused concern among the public, because many WEF concepts that are presented at Davos end up being adopted by major governments and instituted into law. And, many Davos attendees tend to climb the political ladder rather quickly into positions of significant power.

Any legitimate conservative leader or candidate would therefore know about globalist terminology such as the term “Reset” and try to avoid using it at all costs.

No right wing leader would want to be associated with a globalist agenda that the majority of conservatives would rather go to war against.

It could be taken as a limited gaff or mistake, but Truss’ recent use of the term raises eyebrows considering her past affiliations with the WEF. <> She states that:

“We believe in making it easier for our wealth creators, doers and makers to get things done…

Britain’s economy needs a reset. We cannot continue on the current trajectory of managed decline. Instead, we must take a new direction. I will lead us down that path to a better future.”

This comment was made not long after Truss addressed the plunge of the Pound and the near bankruptcy of the UK pension system.

A key requirement built into any economic “reset” would be the collapse of the old model. Truss might simply be describing what is likely to happen rather than what she wants to happen, but she does present the concept of a reset as a solution, and not as a threat. Meaning, she should be watched carefully by conservatives.

(5) Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better – WEF at Forbes, in 2016

Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better

<> World Economic Forum

Nov 10, 2016,04:26am EST

By Ida Auken

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city – or should I say, “our city.” I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price. It made no sense for us to own cars anymore, because we could call a driverless vehicle or a flying car for longer journeys within minutes. We started transporting ourselves in a much more organized and coordinated way when public transport became easier, quicker and more convenient than the car. Now I can hardly believe that we accepted congestion and traffic jams, not to mention the air pollution from combustion engines. What were we thinking?

Sometimes I use my bike when I go to see some of my friends. I enjoy the exercise and the ride. It kind of gets the soul to come along on the journey. Funny how some things seem never seem to lose their excitement: walking, biking, cooking, drawing and growing plants. It makes perfect sense and reminds us of how our culture emerged out of a close relationship with nature.

In our city we don’t pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Once in a while, I will choose to cook for myself. It is easy – the necessary kitchen equipment is delivered at my door within minutes. Since transport became free, we stopped having all those things stuffed into our home. Why keep a pasta-maker and a crepe cooker crammed into our cupboards? We can just order them when we need them.

This also made the breakthrough of the circular economy easier. When products are turned into services, no one has an interest in things with a short life span. Everything is designed for durability, repairability and recyclability. The materials are flowing more quickly in our economy and can be transformed to new products pretty easily. Environmental problems seem far away, since we only use clean energy and clean production methods. The air is clean, the water is clean and nobody would dare to touch the protected areas of nature because they constitute such value to our well-being. In the cities we have plenty of green space and plants and trees all over. I still do not understand why in the past we filled all free spots in the city with concrete.

Shopping? I can’t really remember what that is. For most of us, it has been turned into choosing things to use. Sometimes I find this fun, and sometimes I just want the algorithm to do it for me. It knows my taste better than I do by now.

When AI and robots took over so much of our work, we suddenly had time to eat well, sleep well and spend time with other people. The concept of rush hour makes no sense anymore, since the work that we do can be done at any time. I don’t really know if I would call it work anymore. It is more like thinking-time, creation-time and development-time.

For a while, everything was turned into entertainment and people did not want to bother themselves with difficult issues. It was only at the last minute that we found out how to use all these new technologies for better purposes than just killing time.

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th century villages.

Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.

All in all, it is a good life. Much better than the path we were on, where it became so clear that we could not continue with the same model of growth. We had all these terrible things happening: lifestyle diseases, climate change, the refugee crisis, environmental degradation, completely congested cities, water pollution, air pollution, social unrest and unemployment. We lost way too many people before we realized that we could do things differently.

This blog was written ahead of the World Economic Forum <> Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils.

Ida Auken is a Young Global Leader and Member of the <> Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization of the World Economic Forum

(6) WEF judges conservative Australian party One Nation “xenophobic, racist”

Foreign Interference: One Nation gets under the World Economic Forum’s Skin


“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

The World Economic Forum has described One Nation as Xenophobic, Racist and Extremist on it’s “Strategic Intelligence” hub, a member only service.

The Strategic Intelligence hub aims to provide talking points to some of the world’s most elite corporate and government officers. One of the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence partners is the Center for China and Globalisation.

One Nation’s policies do not contain one reference to skin colour. Our goal has always been the equal treatment of all based on content of character, not differential treatment on skin colour as Albanese’s Voice to Parliament would do.

As for extreme, our policies are simply conservative, all of which were accepted in the mainstream media only ten years ago before politicians accelerated their sellout of our country.

International, globalist, unelected organisations that seek to control our country from the top down must be rejected.

This false labelling of One Nation must be called out for what it is, foreign interference in our democracy.

World Economic Forum
Strategic Intelligence

… have historically been looked to as emblematic of an open, stable culture. Only about 8% of the population attends church weekly amid findings of institutional corruption and paedophilia, and trade unions and banks are widely perceived as vulnerable to corruption and the abuse of power. All have been the subject of Royal Commission inquiries in recent years.

The mainstream media, which must increasingly compete for attention with social media, is widely regarded as self-interested. Meanwhile universities are often deemed out of touch and preoccupied by revenue demands.

Overall, there is a perception that contemporary Australia is more fragmented, and thus vulnerable to the xenophobic, racist views of extremist political parties such as One Nation.

Progressive Australians tend to see conservative nostalgia for a secure past that never was as nonsense; they see democracy as a dynamic process of backsliding and advances. Like other countries, Australia has a long history of racism, sexism, and homophobia, which have been addressed by anti-discrimination legislation. In 2017, a plebiscite on legalizing same sex marriage saw about two-thirds vote in favour. There has also been widespread condemnation of Australia’s offshore detention of asylum seekers. While many Australians may share a perception that their country is often poorly governed, this does not necessarily indicate they are alienated from democracy – though it does call for more imaginative policies. After all, Australians have proven more or less capable of successfully navigating the sort of economic and political upheaval that has racked other parts of the world in the past quarter century.


To get an idea of what One Nation is about, read the website of Senator Malcolm Roberts: