This summer the World Economic Forum announced a  Great Reset  intending to use Covid-19 to implement economic and societal changes around the globe. With annual fees of $52,000 to $628,000 depending on your level of engagement, the WEF is a pay-to-play PR scheme for large corporations, many of whom are keen to sell us all kinds of invasive new techn ologies, what Klaus Schwab has branded the Fourth Industrial Revolution. They predict  that in 2030 we won't even own the clothes on our backs—everything will be a free service! as long as you don’t get cancelled for thoughtcrime or refusing a vaccine.  "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." (Excellent critical summary here)
​

The underlying imperative for all this, so far as I can discern, is the  end of cheap oil , and with it the entire modern way of life. Instead of admitting the situation and adapting to reality, the Davos crowd are pretending to be motivated by altruistic impulses to "save the planet," dumping ever more resources into preserving a small part of what was never sustainable in the first place.  Like it or not, it looks like we are going backward, not forward anymore, and putting an iphone in your brain is not going to help anyone.
​

Why is an academic reset necessary? The advance of civilization brings new layers of complexity, each entailing a risk of opportunistic fraud. These things usually sort themselves out; in academia, we see an endless procession of fashionable schools of thought, forgotten as soon as conceived—with the exception of indefatigable  Rothschild agent Karl Marx , who has somehow been resurrected in the West.  Some of the most important parts of history, including the origins of modern science and technology, have been falsified, a false academic consensus has been imposed . The universities have lost contact with reality, and at some time we will have to return to a reference point, the last thing we knew that was really reliable. In my view, we cannot find a better reference point than Francis Bacon, who  gave us binary code  and the scientific method, our greatest plays and our most important novel. That is the essence of the Lesser Reset—a better understanding of the past.
​

​

Bacon's Bi-Literal Cipher, the first binary code, a century before Leibniz. Were you taught this in school?

First History of the Royal Society (1667) with Bacon as
​Artium Instaurator, "restorer of the arts"
​

The material presented here was gathered over the past fifteen years; with the exception of some Shakespeare/Cervantes/Francis Bacon parallels from Francis Carr's Who Wrote Don Quixote?, it is original research. I believe it could help initiate an intellectual paradigm shift; this is an extraordinary claim, but if, after reading further, you think the supporting evidence is extraordinary, please share the information. We may not be able to stop the Great Reset, but we might augment it with valuable information, which otherwise may be memory-holed. 
​
Part one deals with a discovery from 2005 concerning the use of geometric scaffoldings in art, primarily painting. The practice is well known, however it is much more prevalent than was known, evidently continuing unabated for many centuries; Norwegian artist Odd Nerdrum confirmed the geometric analysis of two of his works. The impetus for this research was Leonardo da Vinci’s Bacchus , pointing awkwardly with both hands; a hexagon grid can be indicated with only two points, the other points being equidistant, so I tried this procedure, and while Bacchus  only marginally conforms to the resulting pattern, subsequent research revealed many works composed in this manner. Not much would change as a result of this discovery, it is included for general interest.

Part two presents several newly identified (or rather newly remarked, so far as I can determine) parallels of thought and expression between William Shakespeare, Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, and Francis Bacon. These are added to many noted by Francis Carr in Who Wrote Don Quixote?  (reproduced by permission of Philip Carr).  

Part three is about alchemy. Discussions of alchemy generally designate texts as either practical (chemical) or mystical, with considerable overlap; however the field is now dominated by a new thesis, not universally accepted, claiming that any mystical verbiage is actually secret code for real chemical operations—there was never any “spiritual” content, this was just a longstanding misreading of texts. The interpretation presented here is that alchemical language was developed by Taoists in China around 200 BCE, to write in a discrete manner about the use of plants and chemicals to induce mystical experience, a recurring theme in literature going back to the days of Homer and Gilgamesh . Chinese, Indian, Arabian, and Western alchemy texts are cited in support of this reading; further Francis Bacon parallels in the alchemical works of “Eugenius Philalethes” are noted, as well as a complicated allusion to Gargantua and Pantagruel  in Bacon’s Novum Organum .

Part four concerns the 1576 Discours contre Machiavel , for which I prepared a new edition of the 1602 English translation,  published by Wipf & Stock in 201 8 —reviewed here and here.  Numerous parallels in Francis Bacon are listed, and a new view of Bacon’s response to Machiavelli is presented. This latter question is especially important, as Machiavelli represents the break with external authority (i.e., God), and Bacon provides the tool for its achievement, the scientific method. This is an extremely important book that has been memory-holed.

Further remarks and suggestions comprise the conclusion.