Nobody voted for it. Nobody even had the chance to cast a ballot or have a say. Its "designers" have never been elected and hardly anyone knows their names. Our "leaders" seem to think democracy is a bit of a drag to their plans for humanity's supposed greater good and there's no point in asking those who actually make up humanity. Who needs the electorate's opinion anyway when they don't know what's good for them?
Democracy (demos: people, kratos: rule) is rule by the people. Technocracy (tekhne: skill, 1919) is rule by those with specialized scientific/technological knowledge; a variation of Plato's concept of "philosopher-kings". These two things are opposites.
In 2021, we might describe it as rule by an unelected gnostic priesthood class of scientific bureaucrats.
Where Did This Come From?
In 1971, 32 year-old Geneva University business professor Klaus Schwab founded an international lobbyist NGO named the European Management Forum in Switzerland without any prior knowledge or experience, after studying with Henry Kissinger at Harvard. He invited 450 executives to a yearly conference in Davos every January, deep in the Swiss Alps. 3 years later in 1974, he started inviting political leaders and started talking about social issues.
It was kind of like Facebook, which also began as a Yellow Pages of sorts at Harvard.
His father, Eugen Schwab, managed Escher-Wyss, a company that made parts for Nazi fighter planes in the Second World War, and supplied South Africa with parts for nuclear weapons. Local historian Karl Schweizer claims Escher-Wyss maintained an interment camp for forced labourers on the factory premises. The city where it was located (Ravensburg) was also the first German city to participate in the T4 eugenics program that eventually euthanized 300,000 people.
2 years after its humble beginnings, the EMF had 1000 member companies and started shilling for China.
16 years later, in 1987, he renamed it the World Economic Forum (WEF). A year later it was brokering peace agreements between warring countries. Its admirers describe it as "partnerships between businessmen, politicians, intellectuals and other leaders of society to ‘define, discuss and advance key issues on the global agenda.”
In 1992, he created Global Leaders for Tomorrow. Its first students included Tony Blair, Angela Merkel, and Nicholas Sarkozy.
A few years after that, he created the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship. In 2001, China was admitted to the WTO.
It's now 50 or so years old, and is known as an elite country club which mainly talks about a "globalised world".
Schwab is a very, very strange man. He graduated as a mechanical engineer, earned a masters in public administration from Harvard, and then earned a doctorate in economics. He was a steering member of the Bilderberg Group. He was born in Hitler's Germany, but has never received Swiss citizenship. He's been knighted in England and France. He has gathered the largest influence network in recent history without anyone knowing who he is.
He believes "the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance". Where have we heard language like this before?
What Does Herr Schwab Believe?
83 year-old Schwab has a rather interesting take on politics, the most glaring part of which is a total absence of any stated political philosophy. He doesn't seem to be a capitalist, a conservative, a social democrat, a socialist, a libertarian, an anarchist, or a communist. It's all rather cloudy.
Schwab is an EU technocrat with a bit of a Messiah Complex. And he's a big, big fan of China. They even gave him an award. presumably during a break from building concentration camps and torturing dissidents.
He believes "a globalized world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations (CSOs)." and in a "public-private UN, in which certain specialized agencies would operate under joint State and non-State governance systems."
In essence, Schwab isn't really a supporter of democracy.
Speaking of democracy, OpenDemocracy describes the "Great Reset" thus:
The plan from which the Great Reset originated was called the Global Redesign Initiative. Drafted by the WEF after the 2008 economic crisis, the initiative contains a 600-page report on transforming global governance. In the WEF’s vision, “the government voice would be one among many, without always being the final arbiter.” Governments would be just one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder model of global governance. Harris Gleckman, senior fellow at the University of Massachusetts, describes the report as “the most comprehensive proposal for re-designing global governance since the formulation of the United Nations during World War II.”
The full 600-page report - "under the patronage of the government of Qatar" - can be read here: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GRI_EverybodysBusiness_Report_2010.pdf
He's explained his ideas in a series of very dry books and "reports", one of which the WEF calls "The Capitalist Manifesto":
- Moderne Unternehmensführung im Maschinenbau (Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering) (1971)
- The Global Competitiveness Report (2002)
- Recreating Asia: Visions For a New Century (2002)
- The Global Competitiveness Report (2004)
- The Global Competitiveness Report (2005)
- The Global Competitiveness Report (2006)
- The Re-emergence of Europe (2012)
- The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2016)
- The Global Gender Gap Report (2017)
- Shaping The Fourth Industrial Revolution (2018)
- Covid-19: The Great Reset (2020)
- The Aftermath of the COVID-19 Pandemic (2020)
- Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress, People and Planet (2021)
The summary of "Covid-19: The Great Reset" is thus:
"COVID-19: The Great Reset" is a guide for anyone who wants to understand how COVID-19 disrupted our social and economic systems, and what changes will be needed to create a more inclusive, resilient and sustainable world going forward. Klaus Schwab, founder and executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, and Thierry Malleret, founder of the Monthly Barometer, explore what the root causes of these crisis were, and why they lead to a need for a Great Reset. Theirs is a worrying, yet hopeful analysis. COVID-19 has created a great disruptive reset of our global social, economic, and political systems. But the power of human beings lies in being foresighted and having the ingenuity, at least to a certain extent, to take their destiny into their hands and to plan for a better future. This is the purpose of this book: to shake up and to show the deficiencies which were manifest in our global system, even before COVID broke out.
Sounds a bit like an infamous book written in the late nineteenth century.
Just listen to a single minute of this suspicious character: https://soundcloud.com/world-economic-forum/the-great-reset-resetting-the?in=world-economic-forum/sets/the-great-reset
In essence, a lot of the nonsense ideas and Gnostic cult idealism is being driven by one man's country club. It's unclear where Schwab has been in the last 20 years, but the EU hasn't exactly gone too well, and if constant rioting is to be taken into account, ordinary people aren't hugely impressed with his yes-mens' plans.
He also seems to have missed a simple key element of all of this: no-one wants it.
The Country Club's Key China-Fangirl Ideas: Dystopic Techno-Fascism
At first glance, the WEF's agenda looks much like Social Democracy: free capitalist markets with public institutions. Naturally, it's all cloaked in impenetrable bureaucratic jargon. Lots of talk about capitalism and futurism, with vague abstract notion about society.
Then you realse... it's missing the "democracy" part. And the lack of clarity or specificity in the language is suspicious.
Supposedly refers to the worldwide integration of countries and markets into a single being.
"Fourth Industrial Revolution"
The first was steam/machines, the second was electric/steel, the third was nuclear/computing. The WEF claim digital/automation is the fourth. The jury is still out, because it all still sounds like computing.
Companies paying for things, and leasing it back to taxpayers. Because that went brilliantly in the UK.
Companies caring about social problems, not just money. As opposed to "shareholder capitalism" and "state capitalism".
"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Businesses created to solve social problems.
Effects of Global Warming caused by the Greenhouse Effect (excess CO2 in the atmosphere from combustion fumes).
Women not doing as much or having as much access to things as men, over their lifetime.
Eating bugs to make farming less intense.
Err? Like an asteroid?
Replacing physical cash with global Bitcoin-type money. What could go wrong?
Changing capitalism into a "stakeholder economy" which is "sustainable". From 1848.
The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.”
The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.
The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges.
- Interdependence of nations
- Directed economies
- Equality of outcome
- Proper use of the industrial revolution
- Public social good
Which century is this again?
Electronic travel Gesundheitspass containing citizenship and health data. Which of course will only ever stop there and never be misused.
"Great Narrative" (New!)
A story for the future we make up and treat like a prophetic scripture: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2021/09/28/leading-thinkers-to-meet-in-dubai-for-great-narrative-meeting/
Oops, that's China.
"Great Propaganda Plan"
Oops, that's China too.
Special Mention: Environmental & Social Governance (ESG)
Just as the beheadings of the French Reign of Terror were committed by the "Committee Of Public Safety", Marx's ideas on the Moral value of labour have sneaked their way in to international markets like a credit score. Although it is not directly linked to the WEF, it has some eerie similarities and origins.
The term ESG was first coined in 2005 in a landmark study entitled “Who Cares Wins.” Today, ESG investing is estimated at over $20 trillion in AUM or around a quarter of all professionally managed assets around the world, and its rapid growth builds on the Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) movement that has been around much longer. But unlike SRI, which is based on ethical and moral criteria and uses mostly negative screens, such as not investing in alcohol, tobacco or firearms, ESG investing is based on the assumption that ESG factors have financial relevance.
The story of ESG investing began in January 2004 when former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote to over 50 CEOs of major financial institutions, inviting them to participate in a joint initiative under the auspices of the UN Global Compact and with the support of the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and the Swiss Government. The goal of the initiative was to find ways to integrate ESG into capital markets. A year later this initiative produced a report entitled “Who Cares Wins,” with Ivo Knoepfel as the author. The report made the case that embedding environmental, social and governance factors in capital markets makes good business sense and leads to more sustainable markets and better outcomes for societies.
One wonders: where did he get that list of CEOs, and why the mention of Switzerland?
Who Are These Davos Young Global Leaders?
In 2004, Herr Schwab renamed the Global Leaders for Tomorrow to the Forum of Young Global Leaders with $1M from the Dan David Prize to groom the next in line. These people serve 6-year terms and go to the "Annual Meeting of the New Champions" in China, established in 2007 and known informally as "Summer Davos".
You might have wondered why a lot of these clueless "leaders" are rather weak and tend to talk about the same things in a coordinated way. It's not merely because they have no ideas of their own; more where they got their ideas from.
The RAIR Foundation suggests an explanation:
Another thing that the Global Leaders graduates have in common is that most of them have very sparse CVs apart from their participation in the program prior to being elevated to positions of power, which may indicate that it is their connection to Schwab’s institutions that is the decisive factor in launching their careers. This is most evident when the school’s alumni are publicly questioned about issues that they have not been instructed to talk about in advance, and their struggles to come up with answers are often quite evident. Wolff contends that their roles are only to act as mouthpieces for the talking points that those in the shadows behind them want discussed in public debate.
The full list is massive. Thousands of names. But here are some you might recognise:
- Amal Clooney
- Anderson Cooper
- Anjali Sud
- Ashton Kutcher
- Bill Gates
- Charlize Theron
- Chelsea Clinton
- Chris Martin
- Dan Crenshaw
- Ed Balls
- Ed Milliband
- Elizabeth Murdoch
- Elon Musk
- Emmanuel Macron
- Gavin Newsome
- Ivanka Trump
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jack Ma
- Jean-Claude Juncker
- Jeff Bezos
- Jimmy Wales
- Jo Cox (murdered)
- John Legend
- Juan Guaidó
- Justin Trudeau
- Larry Fink (CEO of Blackrock)
- Larry Page
- Leonardo DiCaprio
- Marc Benioff
- Marissa Mayer
- Mark Zuckerberg
- Martha Lane Fox
- Michael Schumacher
- Peter Buttigieg
- Peter Thiel
- Richard Branson
- Rio Ferdinand
- Rory Stewart
- Salman Khan
- Sergey Brin
- Sheryl Sandberg
- Steffi Graf
- Tulsi Gabbard
- Viktor Orbán
- Yvette Cooper
- Zac Goldsmith
The YGL list is a Who's Who of CEOs, politicians, charity directors, academics, and constitutes essentially the globalist country club.
2020's list includes:
- Megan Rapinoe (lunatic captain of the US female soccer team, socialist)
- Sanna Marin (prime minister of Finland, socialist)
- Alicia Garza (co-founder of Black Lives Matter, "trained Marxist")
It All Sounds A Bit Like... Communism
The trouble with all these lovely jargon-laden terms is if you have a keen eye and a surface knowledge of political science, you'll recognise most of them. The giveaway is the love affair with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
All of this nonsense about the world moving dialectically towards a Utopian end can be traced back to the German Philosopher, Hegel.
It is generally agreed that Hegel was the first philosopher to recognize and address the dimension of change, which he termed "becoming" ("Werden"), in all its fullness. He believed everything in the world was in constant motion: every individual life, nature, history, society. This results in each epoch having its own particular zeitgeist, or general spirit. One historic epoch is not randomly followed by another; instead, there is a principle of logical evolution.
As a metaphor for this, Hegel used the growth cycle of a plant, whose stages occur according to an inner principle. Hegel saw history as following a predetermined logic that repeatedly led to contradictions and revolutions. He was convinced it was dialectic processes of change that consistently brought humanity, and thus history, one step further.
The second thing we can say, is like the ideas of Hegel's admirer, Marx, it is a form of Gnosticism, and has religious elements, including concepts of "transformation", language like "knowledge economy", and an apocalyptic eschatology of "climate change".
Gnosticism is the belief that human beings contain a piece of God (the highest good or a divine spark) within themselves, which has fallen from the immaterial world into the bodies of humans. All physical matter is subject to decay, rotting, and death. Those bodies and the material world, created by an inferior being, are therefore evil. Trapped in the material world, but ignorant of its status, the pieces of God require knowledge (gnosis) to inform them of their true status. That knowledge must come from outside the material world, and the agent who brings it is the savior or redeemer.
The idea of an automated, technological future where the need for the state, and scarcity itself, have disappeared, is Marx's vague vision of advanced communism (i.e. the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth):
To Marx, the higher-stage of communist society is a free association of producers [stakeholders] which has successfully negated all remnants of capitalism, notably the concepts of states, nationality, sexism, families, alienation, social classes, money, property, commodities, the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, division of labor, cities and countryside, class struggle, religion, ideology, and markets. (Leftipedia, inclusions added)
The Atlantic highlights this pipedream as "fully-automated luxury communism" and obviously, mentions Star Trek:
Imagine a life in which all your basic needs were met, the bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs forever lopped off. No concerns about college debt ruining your ability to buy a home. No worries about where meals would come from, or whether you would have enough cash to keep gas in the car. No problems paying medical bills. Then, imagine a life in which virtually all of your needs were met. In this world, society would guarantee its members not just middle-income status, but the prospect of travel, the option of a fulfilling but nonremunerative career, time with family and friends, time spent with cats and gardens and on volunteering and road trips. Imagine that all your peers exercised regularly and watched as much Peak Television as they wanted. Imagine never retiring, because there would be no need to retire. And imagine this happening on a far greener planet.
California. Andrew Yang's "AI automation" and "universal basic income". It's merely been updated from terms like "industrialisation" to the "Fourth Industrial Revolution". Yes, imagine, like Lennon sang. Because that's the only place where the happy cuddly utopia will ever exist: in your imagination.
Global Governance is nothing new. It goes back to the Old Testament. However, in recent times, we knew "world congresses" in a different form. Even Leftipedia has it:
The Communist International (Comintern), also known as the Third International, was an international organization founded in 1919 that advocated world communism, headed by the Soviet Union.
The Comintern held seven World Congresses in Moscow between 1919 and 1935. During that period, it also conducted thirteen Enlarged Plenums of its governing Executive Committee, which had much the same function as the somewhat larger and more grandiose Congresses.
Along with Lysenko's disastrous politicisation of science, Stalin had a "Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature".
The "Great Narrative" of Marxism is the "science" of his "Stages of History" (historical materialism), and we can see its imprint on Schwab's thinking:
[Marx] argued that history goes through stages, marked by a conflict he called the "class struggle." In each stage, he maintained that a relative few were oppressors and the bulk of humanity were the oppressed. Which was which was determined by who controlled the means of production, and that determined who held the economic upper hand. This would change over time and, ultimately, lead to the establishment of communism, he wrote.
A single "world society" without nations, and capitalism needing renovation because of an "industrial revolution" is an old idea. "The Communist Manifesto" could easily have been co-titled as "The Great Reset".
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. . . . In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations.
National differences and antagonism between peoples are daily more and more vanishing, owing to the development of the bourgeoisie, to freedom of commerce, to the world market, to uniformity in the mode of production and in the conditions of life corresponding thereto. The supremacy of the proletariat will cause them to vanish still faster. United action, of the leading civilised countries at least, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to. In proportion as the antagonism between classes within the nation vanishes, the hostility of one nation to another will come to an end.
(Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto)
You might notice familiar language from France:
I. Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.
II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.
III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws.
(Code of Nature, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly)
This was another person's definitions of "automation" and "sustainability" all of those years ago:
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
(Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme)
For "stakeholder capitalism" and "social enterprise", let's take a look at the definition of a socialist command economy. As we know, socialism is believed by Marxists to be the necessary precursor (stage of history), with communism as its end goal. And let's take it from the worst, left-leaning source we can, i.e. Leftipedia.
Types of socialism include a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production and organizational self-management of enterprises as well as the political theories and movements associated with socialism. Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective or cooperative ownership, or to citizen ownership of equity in which surplus value goes to the working class and hence society as a whole. There are many varieties of socialism and no single definition encapsulates all of them, but social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.
This coupling of corporations and government ("public-private") can be found in fascism, but more recently can be found in Labour parties everywhere, and China's "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" policy. Allow Chinese media to explain:
First coined by Deng Xiaoping in 1982, the concept of socialism with Chinese characteristics aims to redefine the relations between planning and socialism, and market economy and capitalism. It has preserved institutions of socialism and public ownership while importing sophisticated management experience and advanced market mechanism from developed countries.
"Planning and market forces are not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism. A planned economy is not the definition of socialism, because there is planning under capitalism; the market economy happens under socialism, too. Planning and market forces are both ways of controlling economic activity," Deng explained.
Hmm, that sounds familiar!
Schwab and the WEF are clearly arguing for a planned economy, and they are advocating for social centering. Their terminology is of an "industrial revolution" and "resetting capitalism", involving "stakeholders" (i.e. public equity). Capitalism is private property by definition, and it does not have "stakeholders" who "share"; it has owners.
Property which is "shared" by "stakeholders" with a "social" purpose is a clear dog whistle. He is specifically calling for a change in the mode of production, but he's not using that terminology. It's being hidden behind other language.
Clearly what this politburo aristocracy wants to do is attempt to forge a Third Way between corporations and the State. His Young Global Leader, Tony Blair, loved to talk about this as "New Capitalism". However, Herr Schwab is quite a bit off when it comes to "decentralisation" part, as we can see:
The Third Way supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this. It emphasises commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity which is combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, the decentralisation of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement and promotion of public–private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, preservation of social capital and protection of the environment.
Dog Whistles & Coded Language
Eurocrats are infamous for their imperial ambitions and closed-door dumps of brain-numbing language overload. Let's take a look at Herr Schwab's press release for his sinister "Great Narrative" in that bastion of democracy, Qatar.
This original introduction was given at the 2021 conference in the UAE and is some Bond Villain-level megalomania.
The [includes] below are a speculative translation from Marx-speak.
In order to shape [centrally plan] the future you have to imagine the future, design the future, and then execute [ahem, millions of those who disagree]. Over the next two days they [unelected technocrats] will decide how we decide [instead of, say, democracy]. How we execute the great narrative [propaganda]. But the great narrative is: what is tomorrow going to look like globally [the way God sees it]? The world has gone through a very difficult time [because of us, by design]. People are now looking for transformation [ahem, Marx, Communism] but the world needs a new blueprint [manifesto]. A new narrative. Why? Because one percent own more wealth than seven billion [Marx]. Almost half the population lives in under six dollars a day [which we can't know]. Because the last 60 years were the warmest on record [we think, kinda]. We can't afford to waste more time on denial [dissent] of climate change [our religious eschatology]. Because our digital [fantasy] world will be as important as our physical world [for keeping the plebs in the Matrix, unless someone disconnects the electricity]. By 2025 there will be five times more devices than people on this planet [ahem, on $6.00/day]. Because both to inspire hope and action [enforcement], government first and foremost are in the business of installing [forcefully] hope [that communism will be achieved].
Imagine what role the government [centralised global authority] should play to install [enforce] this new narrative [religion]. A whole government approach is not enough . All of humanity [workers of the world, unite!] approach is needed [in our opinion, maybe not the other 7B's opinion]. Collectively [communally, not individually] we [not God] are the author of this new chapter. [Marxian stage of history] The future belongs to [is ruled by] those who can imagine it and implement it [not the voters in a democracy]. How can we design [centrally plan] the government to be future-citizen [communism]-ready? How to lead the world [CCP] into sustainable [socialist] and a better [communist] future? What will be the great narrative? [that we sell to the proletariat]
When we look at the world today [in God-view], difficulties [Leninist contradictions] shape the future [like, ahem, the existence of democracy]. Three obstacles. First after the pandemic people [proles] have become much more self-centered [individual and anti-communist]. What is the role of government? Looking at our current position [Marxian stage] in human history we sit at the second of the first minute of the first day of the first year [on a 4000 BN year-old planet humans where emerged in 100,000 years ago]. Human evolution, to the wheel, to today, with technology in 50 years, it will be totally different. The pace we've grown has been massive but we are putting our life onto one platform [capitalism]. The future will be based [ruled] on the platform we design now [use your platform, comrade!]. The job is to bring people and humility [humble them] together [synthesise the Absolute!]. Technology.
How do you see the global future? Collaboration [submission] hopefully in optimistic terms. We know the world isn't inclusive [socialist] or sustainable [communist] enough but we cannot forget the amount of progress [ahem, Marx] made in 50 years [since Mao in 1970]. We know the tensions like the USA and China, but we have always have common [socialist] interests. They want stronger cooperation [agreement about socialism] between the US and China, including environmental issues. Don't leave it alone to governments [the Vanguard]. Business and science need to play a part [activism] and combine the common [collective] interest; make short-term compromises [losses] for long-term change [revolution]. We are in a new transformation of humankind [advanced communism]. If you want to change [convert] humanity [ahem, Marx, class consciousness], we must change [corrupt] the world [without democratic consent]. Let us use our energy to create a great narrative for humankind [like Marx's "grand narrative" or those found in religions]. In the next two days take our own fate into our own hands [and out of God's, and the electorate].
The Sociable has an equally cynical take: https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/world-economic-forum-great-narrative-great-reset/
Note the dog whistles and linguistic deception. The text has been edited with forensic precision to remove signals towards its origins and influences.
- "Human history"
Which one is it, Klaus?
- Is the world coming to an end from climate change, or are we at the beginning?
- Is technology making government and environment problems redundant as it did to slavery, or do we need government more than ever?
- Are people living on $6.00/day, or are they buying more $100 smartphones than they need?
- Is individual behaviour the key to change, or an obstacle?
- What happens when "humanity" says a massive NO to your anti-democratic plan?
- If it's truthful, why do you need a "narrative"?
Schwab obviously is "inspired" by China and sees himself as a "Xi Jingping for the whole world" or some kind of Gnostic prophet like Marx. He's unelected, anti-democratic, and thinks in terms of "the world". Nowhere, anywhere, is there any talk of consent, democracy, or anything from the modern world of the last 300 years. It's all Franco-Germanic Rousseau nonsense growing inside the EU again. America has the disease of sociology, Asia has the disease of dictatorship, and Europe has the disease of Idealism.
Pretend Benevolence: Vanguard Governance, Without Your Involvement
"Vanguard Politics" as elucidated by Roger Scruton is the underlying theme of everything within the WEF. The idea of a "vanguard" comes directly from Lenin and the dictatorial imposition of communist rule in Russia. Frankly, it's a synonym for totalitarianism even many Marxists reject.
In the context of the theory of Leninist revolutionary struggle, vanguardism involves a strategy whereby the most class-conscious and politically "advanced" sections of the proletariat or working class, described as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations in order to draw larger sections of the working class towards revolutionary politics and serve as manifestations of proletarian political power opposed to the bourgeois. (Leftipedia)
A Vanguard is the tip of the spear who lead the charge: a political party who go ahead and organise the revolution on behalf of everyone else; a holy priesthood entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of the transformation.
The WEF's idea's aren't really coming from the proletariat though, or manifestations of proletarian power. It's a highly nebulous, syncretic, slippery autocratic technocracy which employs the Gnostic utopianism of Communism. It may not be communism in and of itself, but it certainly appears to at least be inspired by it, or be attempting to reinvent it.
Tony Benn, the legendary British Labour politician, famously declared there were five essential questions of democracy:
“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”
In Schwab's case, the answers are a) too much, b) nobody knows, c) the "future", d) no-one, and e) you can't. That doesn't bode well at all. What the WEF is proposing is the fundamental transformation of governance itself, with or without the consent of the governed. He is asking us to voluntarily submit to a dictatorship of technocrats. And he's doing it by grooming the leaders. This has a precedent in the Soviet era, divinity/theology school, and in the radical 60s idea of teaching the teachers.
The world is an evolutionary biological system. Schwab wants a directed system like the EU.
A truly European idea.
We've had a few of those the French Revolution; Franco; Mussolini's Fascist party. And of course, the Weimar Republic and the National Socialists.
Schwab's country club is proposing humankind be led by a technocratic vanguard into an inevitable, transformative, utopian future by a change in the mode of production, made possible by technology. Global citizens without any nations to be citizens of, with zero ability to remove their own leaders.
Almost a century ago on St George's day of 1933, Churchill, the Great Lion, described the same situation in vicious terms:
The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?
Democracy is the worst form of government– except for all the others that have been tried.
What power have you got?
Far too much.
Where did you get it from?
Grooming weak, idea-less leaders for 50 years with offers of prestige, wealth, and utopianism.
In whose interests do you use it?
Your own, on the pretext of being for everyone else's.
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?
We can't, because it's all done by proxy.
Klaus Schwab is a man of a previous age, and an extremely deceitful autocrat posing as a Gnostic prophet. The "World Economic Forum" of Davos has morphed into an extremely dangerous organisation holding far too much influence over our leaders and our countries, as it campaigns for supra-national governance without accountability, whilst posing an altruistic, visionary blueprint for humanity.
It's time for laws requiring politicians swear an oath renouncing any and all allegiance to any international organisation which promotes or advocates for supra-national governance, and their prohibition from public office for ever having done so. Any individual who believes it's in their people's best interests to be ruled by leaders they do not elect or cannot remove is a traitor to their own country with loyalty elsewhere than their own land.
Dictators always portray themselves as saviours and helpers. It's their telltale mark.
For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
(2 Cor 11)