WTF Is Build Back Better? Part I

Bill Clinton is quite familiar with the disaster-recovery effort known as “Build Back Better,” or, as it was formerly known, “Building Back Better.”

Aly Alexandra
12 min readOct 25, 2021

When I first saw that Biden’s campaign slogan, “Build Back Better,” was actually a thing — I knew we had big problems on our hands. It’s not to say that I didn’t know we had problems prior to that — but I knew I’d heard of “Build Back Better” — and in the words of Alex Jones, “It’s the globalists.” I don’t care if you blame it on Bill Gates, Jeffrey Epstein, The Clinton’s, the lizard people, Michael Bloomberg (seriously though, Bloomberg is NOT criticized enough and I promise you, he’s WORSE than Bill Gates) — my point is — it’s the whole structure of the system, silly. We know the global currency is set to change with the newly-implemented regulations on crypto combined with the very intentional efforts from governments to get all of us on a Digital ID. Build Back Better — in Joe Biden’s America, is simply the framework for how to codify all of the ways we’ll get to that “better” place Biden’s been babbling about for months.

I’ve spent many hours parsing through documents and whitepapers from the United Nations and various global foundations who have all referenced this idea of “Build Back Better” long before the 2020 election. Simply put, Build Back Better (aka BBB), is simply a marketing slogan of Agenda 2030 — it’s a fully-globalized economy and society built on pre-determined metrics of success. Those pre-determined metrics of success are defined by the people funding, facilitating, and legislating the entire programs. Agenda 2030, on its’ own, isn’t legally binding — just as the Paris Climate Accord is not legally binding — but it determines who will and will not be successful in this “New World Order.” I’ve found that many attribute these types of things as conspiracies, because it’s impossible to think that one or two people would want to blow up the entire system in order to make a new system — but that’s just it. The way our society is structured sets us up for these blow-ups. The people in charge — and the structure of the systems they work within, allow the people at the top to design what is determined as a successful outcome, prior to the blowup. We live in a society built around CAPITAL. Don’t let the words trick you into thinking these people “leading the world” have had a change of heart.

Governments are simply ONE stakeholder in this multi-stakeholder version of capitalism, also known as “Stakeholder Capitalism,” which many of you have heard about via Klaus Schwab and The World Economic Forum. This type of capitalism is cloaked in lots of feel-good language, but it’s really nothing more than a restructuring of the global economy in terms of how these companies measure “value” in their own companies. That means WE are also part of this investment. Why? Well, it’s sold to us as a change of heart by these corporate oligarchs, but in reality, it’s an updated business model that’s expanded to a global level — the size of which we’ve never seen before. Stakeholder capitalism means that government is just “one part” of a larger investment. The Fourth Industrial Revolution and The Great Reset, among many other global initiatives and investments, are just different facets of what this global economic reset looks like. Build Back Better, then, is just a way to codify much of what’s already BEEN happening into law. But — let’s be serious here — do the people in Washington DC really follow the law like good little citizens? Get real.

The Origins of Build Back Better: Tsunami Recovery

Build Back Better…or “Building Back Better,” is a framework for disaster-recovery programs that encompass the societal and economical programs implemented after a large-scale disaster-event. The EXACT origins of Build Back Better are a bit murky, but through my research, I’ve found that — you guessed it, it started to appear during the Clinton Foundation Era. Fun fact: Bill Clinton served as the United Nations Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery. Before I get any further, it’s important to address that while you’ll notice an attempt to differentiate “Build Back Better” from “Building Back Better,” make no mistake — they come from the same places, people, and ideologies. Find (or create) a problem, determine the metrics of success in the outcome, bring in the stakeholders (typically governments, private financing, and NGO’s/non-profit organizations), and address the problem within the framework of that predetermined success. Now, back to the OG days of the Build Back Better framework — let’s look at the report by the man himself — Slick Willy aka Bill Clinton.

“About the UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery: In February 2005, UN Secretary Kofi Annan appointed former US President William J. Clinton as the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery to help sustain global political will in the recovery effort. President Clinton’s role has included keeping the world’s attention on tsunami recovery, supporting coordination efforts at the country and global levels, and promoting transparency and accountability measures. The Special Envoy has also championed a new kind of recovery that not only restores what existed previously, but goes beyond, seizing the moral, political, managerial, and financial opportunities the crisis has offered governments to set communities on a better and safer development path.”

While this particular disaster-recovery program was tailored for tsunamis, given what we know now, this framework has been used to address multiple disaster-recovery efforts over the years. It’s clear that this is an early model of impact investing — defining the problem, defining the measures of success, gathering the various organizations to help finance and execute while making sure the future costs are offset — and boom! It’s off to the races. Let’s go through some of Clinton’s propositions in order to better understand what this multi-stakeholder recovery program really means, shall we? Keep an eye out for the big three: governments, nonprofits/NGO’s, and financial institutions. The idea is that by splitting up the work via the different groups involved, there’s less likelihood for greed among one person or group of people. It doesn’t actually address the root of the problem — it just splits the difference in terms of who makes money at what stage in the recovery process.

Proposition 1: Governments, donors, and aid agencies must recognize that families and communities drive their own recovery

Clinton calls for groups to be more “inclusive” of locals — by utilizing a more systematic approach to recovery via polls and surveys conducted by global groups. Makes sense, right? Ha.

Proposition 2: Recovery must promote fairness and equity.

Have you noticed how these people are obsessed with the word “equity” in terms of using it as if it actually means fairness or justice? I promise you — it’s not about that. What this all really means is that when you can define a specific type of person to invest in — or set up a program to help out in terms of addressing problems that are attached to that specific community, you can invest in that outcome — ensuring a measure of success that might not otherwise exist if the initial investment weren’t specific to that type of person.

Proposition 3: Governments must enhance preparedness for future disasters.

Another question for all of you — have you noticed how these people, like the Clintons and the Gates’ of the world — always let us know that more disasters are ahead? Why in the hell are these people so eager for another disaster?!

The gaps in planning and preparedness became even more evident as the effort transitioned to longer term recovery. Preparedness is not just about relief responses, but also requires predetermined ways of working together with a range of STAKEHOLDERS in rebuilding houses and schools, restoring income streams, training workers to participate in reconstruction…it means recognizing and supporting the central role that the private sector and local civil society organizations play in rebuilding communities and restarting economic activity.”

His emphasis on this aspect is not so much to repeat what we already know (they keep telling us this) — governments, alone, are typically not ready for large-scale disasters. Clinton’s suggesting that having some kind of plan that is involved in a program with financiers and NGO’s will, in their world, create better outcomes for countries in future disasters. *Sigh*

Proposition 4: Local governments must be empowered to manage recovery efforts, and donors must devote greater resources to strengthening government recovery institutions, especially at the local level.

Do you see how tricky they are? Clinton emphasizes the need for “local governments” — yet this entire document establishes a framework to be utilized across the world. Under the guise of “empowering” local communities through emphasizing their “role” as a local government, the external stakeholders are able to swoop in and completely control the recovery process — all while cashing in.

Proposition 5: Good recovery planning and effective coordination depend on good information.

Notice the emphasis on “measuring” outputs in terms of programs implemented to alleviate the consequences of the disasters at-hand — as well as measuring the “underlying quality of the recovery effort.” Why? Because in order for stakeholders to see any type of “return” on their investment, they need to monitor the short and long-term progress of the pre-determined outcome. Are we meeting the metrics of success? Can anything be done to accelerate the means in which we’ll attain that success? With the use of “common standards, approaches, and methodologies” for a single-source information structure — all of the stakeholders on a micro and macro level can monitor their data streams in real-time to make sure everything’s going along just fine. Again — why are we seeing so much language about standardization when just a few paragraphs back, we saw an emphasis on programs being tailored to the needs of the local population? Because — this framework is designed to fit into any type of disaster recovery plan. It doesn’t matter where in the world it is — as long as this type of framework is used, it ensures profitable outcomes for those running the show.

Proposition 6: The UN, World Bank, and other multilateral agencies must clarify their roles and relationships, especially in addressing the early stage of a recovery process.

Clinton highlights the needs for clarity in terms of determining the “appropriate institutional and financial arrangements for the multilateral community” — citing the difficulty between emergency to recovery and reconstruction efforts in terms of finance and execution. In other words, this framework allows groups like the United Nations ease of access in terms of providing capital in the short and long-term efforts to recovery. Does this money and assistance just appear for no other reason than pure good-will? Think about all of the scandals with the Clinton Foundation, and let me know what you think.

Proposition 7: The expanding role of NGOs and the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement carries greater responsibilities for quality in recover efforts.

Clinton doubles-down on the “NGO call for improved quality assurance measures, including the promotion of optimal standards of professional conduct in their humanitarian response.” When quality measures and “effective engagement” programs are standardized, investors can be assured that they’ll get a return on their efforts, one disaster after another. These types of programs, as Clinton outlines, must be communicated to the public in a way that showcases the “sustainability” and “resiliency” of the program. We’re hearing VERY similar language in terms of what the current Build Back Better Act, spearheaded by Joe Biden, provides for the American people.

Proposition 8: From the start of the recovery operations, governments and aid agencies must create the conditions for entrepreneurs to flourish.

With all due respect, Bill, I don’t think anyone coming out of a tsunami is interested in hearing your ideas on how locals should “build upon the spirit of enterprise” — at least not in your standards. Ugh. You get my point though — it’s clear that these groups of people are just waiting in the wings for any type of disaster so they can swoop in and help the recovery. I feel like I’m repeating myself at this point, but it’s fascinating to see how the model really hasn’t changed much after all this time. Problem — solution — repeat. They never tell you about the reasons as to why the disasters might have affected populations in such a difficult way in the first place. They’ll say that the standard of living was previously “terrible’ — but they won’t talk about the fact that they were part of the reasons as to why people were living in such terrible conditions in the first place! You see language surrounding the idea of accountability — but I’m not hearing it from the people who seem to be pretty damn accountable for the financial and social conditions people in places like Sri Lanka have had to deal with over the years.

Proposition 9: Beneficiaries deserve the kind of agency partnerships that move beyond rivalry and unhealthy competition.

Clinton notes that “The scale of a recovery process can require harnessing efforts across an extraordinary array of organizations — local and international. How well they work together can determine the quality and outcome of the recovery process.” Quality and outcomes are very common words you’ll see in disaster-recovery programs, because those determine the financial returns for various groups invested in these programs.

Again — sigh. Clinton’s own words are so descriptive in how this all plays out to the larger, global response to all disasters, including Covid-19, really tell you all you need to know about what’s inside the Build Back Better Agenda — including the Build Back Better Act itself. I’ll elaborate on that in another article, but understanding the roots of something can be just as important as understanding what it ultimately becomes in the future.

Proposition 10: Good recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risks and building resilience.

Well, we’ve reached the last of the propositions. I’ll admit, as I’ve gone down the list, I was amazed at how repetitive some of these might seem. Even for Bill Clinton, I found this to be quite lengthy in terms of laying out their lofty ideas for the world as they’d like to see it. But alas — here we are. Just as Covid-19 revealed the “social and economic inequities” blah blah blah (as if these people didn’t already know about the problems that exist within our global community) — we know those are just various measures they’re able to capitalize on through disaster-recovery investments. The main metric for success in disaster recovery programs is whether or not “lives are saved” or whether survivors are “less vulnerable.” Who is determining the number of lives saved as a metric of success? How can that be measured? What about communities being “less vulnerable?” Who decides that?

Note the emphasis on risk reduction and the financial aspects that come along with such programs that are needed in order to fully-implement these approaches. It’s the exact same thing with Build Back Better circa 2021. There’s a problem — multiple stakeholders are needed in order to fix said problem, and legislation is simply the means to codifying what needs to be done in the short and long-term. Build Back Better — version Joe Biden — is simply laying out the funding mechanisms via public-private partnerships and the help of academia, foundations, financial institutions — for the 21st century globalized economy. We’re witnessing the intentional breakdown of many long-standing institutions and groups in real-time — and I guarantee you that the same groups of people — the “elites’ — are cashing in, big time.

In Part II, we’ll go over the current Build Back Better Act in terms of this type of disaster-recovery framework, and what that means in the long run. With this perspective, it’s important to understand how little influence politicians really have over any type of legislation — they’re simply the face of the corporation, financial institution, NGO, or think tank that funnels this entire machine. In closing, I’ll remind you of this: it’s the STRUCTURE of the system, silly!

Til next time…