This is an excellent article that explains the history of the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the players and institutions that were part of its development. It was posted in 2015 by The Transnational Institute (TNI) and written by Andrew Marshall. Because the article is loaded with so much information, and it is a lengthy article, links to information on the identified players were added for this posting. It is frightening how a select group of individuals, playing with each other, can create such chaos throughout the whole world. What is worse is that we are tolerating it. As can be seen in the article many governments around the world, including the U.S. government, are heavily engaged in this agenda so there is no reason to believe the government has any intention of listening to its constituents. Every one of these individuals are traitors to their countries.
Here is the WEF version of its history. World Economic Forum: a history and analysis The annual gathering in Davos has certainly cemented the power of a tiny global elite, but its real power has been as a spawning ground for neoliberalism's major advances - the rise of the financial sector, the spread of corporate trade agreements and the integration of emerging economic powers into the global economy. This article and its accompanying infographic have been jointly published by the Transnational Institute and Occupy.com. The annual meetings of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, bring together thousands of the world’s top corporate executives, bankers and financiers with leading heads of state, finance and trade ministers, central bankers and policymakers from dozens of the world’s largest economies; the heads of all major international organizations including the IMF, World Bank, World Trade Organization, Bank for International Settlements, UN, OECD and others, as well as hundreds of academics, economists, political scientists, journalists, cultural elites and occasional celebrities. The WEF states that it is “committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation,” collaborating with corporate, political, academic and other influential groups and sectors “to shape global, regional and industry agendas” and to “define challenges, solutions and actions.” Apart from the annual forum meeting in Davos, the WEF hosts regional and sometimes even country-specific meetings multiple times a year in Asia, Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. The Forum is host to dozens of different projects bringing together academics with corporate representatives and policy-makers to promote particular issues and positions on a wide array of subjects, from investment to the environment, employment, technology and inequality. From these projects and others, the Forum publishes dozens of reports annually, identifying key issues of importance, risks, opportunities, investments and reforms. The WEF has survived by adapting to the times. Following the surge of so-called anti-globalization protests in 1999, the Forum began to invite non-governmental organizations representing constituencies that were more frequently found in the streets protesting against meetings of the WTO, IMF and Group of Seven. In the 2000 meeting at Davos, the Forum invited leaders from 15 NGOs to debate the heads of the WTO and the President of Mexico on the subject of globalization. The participation of NGOs and non-profit organizations has increased over time, and not without reason. According to a poll conducted on behalf of the WEF just prior to the 2011 meeting, while global trust in bankers, governments and business was significantly low, NGOs had the highest rate of trust among the public. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal last September, the founder and executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, was asked about the prospects of “youth frustration over high levels of underemployment and unemployment” as expressed in the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements, noting that the Forum was frequently criticized for promoting policies and ideologies that contribute to those very problems. Schwab replied that the Forum tries “to have everybody in the boat.” Davos, he explained, “is about heads of state and big corporations, but it’s also civil society – so all of the heads of the major NGOs are at the table in Davos.” In reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement, Schwab said, “We also try... to put more emphasis on integrating the youth into what we are doing.” WEF's beginnings So, what exactly has the World Economic Forum been doing, and how did it emerge in the first place? It began in 1971 as the European Management Forum, inviting roughly 400 of Europe’s top CEOs to promote American forms of business management. Created by Klaus Schwab, a Swiss national who studied in the U.S. and who still heads the event today, the Forum changed its name in 1987 to the World Economic Forum after growing into an annual get together of global elites who promoted and profited off of the expansion of "global markets." It is the gathering place for the titans of corporate and financial power. Despite the globalizing economy, politics at the Forum have remained surprisingly national. The annual meetings are a means to promote social connections between key global power players and national leaders along with the plutocratic class of corporate and financial oligarchs. The WEF has been a consistent forum for advanced “networking” and deal-making between companies, occasional geopolitical announcements and agreements, and for the promotion of "global governance" in a world governed of global markets. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s main purpose is to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s "Mafiocracy" of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own. Writing in the Financial Times, Gideon Rachman noted that more than anything else, “the true significance of the World Economic Forum lies in the realm of ideas and ideology,” noting that it was where the world’s leaders gathered “to set aside their differences and to speak a common language... they restate their commitment to a single, global economy and to the capitalist values that underpin it.” This reflected the “globalization consensus” which was embraced not simply by the powerful Group of Seven nations, but by many of the prominent emerging markets such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s main purpose is to function as a socializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalization’s "Mafiocracy" of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own. Geopolitics and Global Governance The World Economic Forum has been shaped by – and has in turn, shaped – the course and changes in geopolitics, or "world order," over the past several decades. Created amidst the rise of West Germany and Japan as prominent economic powers competing with the United States, the oil shocks of the 1970s also produced immense new powers for the Arab oil dictatorships and the large global banks that recycled that oil money, loaning it to Third World countries. New forums for "global governance" began to emerge, such as the meetings of the Group of Seven: the heads of state, finance ministers and central bank governors of the seven leading industrial powers including the U.S., West Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy and Canada, starting in 1975. When the debt crisis of the 1980s hit, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank achieved immense new powers over entire economies and regions, reshaping the structure of societies to promote “market economies” and advance the interests of domestic and international corporate and financial oligarchs. Between 1989 and 1991, the global power structure changed dramatically with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. With that came President George H.W. Bush’s announcement of a "New World Order" in which America claimed "victory" in the Cold War, and a unipolar world took shape under the hegemony of the United States. The ideological war between the West and the Soviet Union was declared victorious in favor of Western Capitalist Democracy. The "market system" was to become globalized as never before, especially under the presidency of Bill Clinton who led the U.S. during its largest ever economic expansion between 1993 and 2001. During this time, the annual meetings of the World Economic Forum became more important than ever, and the role of the WEF in establishing a "Davos Class" became widely acknowledged. At the 1990 meeting, the focus was on Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union’s transition to “market-oriented economies.” Political leaders from Eastern Europe and Western Europe met in private meetings, with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl articulating his desire to reunify Germany and cement Germany’s growing power within the European Community and NATO. Helmut Kohl laid out his strategy for shaping the “security and economic structure of Europe” within a unified Germany. Kohl’s “grand design” for Europe envisioned a unified Germany as being “firmly anchored” in the expanding European Community, the main objective of which was to establish an "internal market" by 1992 and to advance toward an economic and monetary union, with potential to expand eastward. Kohl presented this as a peaceful way for German power to grow while assuaging fears of Eastern Europeans and others about the economically resurgent country at the heart of Europe. At the 1992 WEF meeting, the United States and reunified Germany encouraged “drastic steps to insure a liberalization of world trade,” and furthered efforts to support the growth of market economies in Eastern Europe. The German Economics Minister called for the Group of Seven to meet and restart global trade talks through the 105-nation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). At that same meeting, the Chinese delegation included Prime Minister Li Peng, who was the highest-level Chinese official to travel internationally since the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Of great significance also was the attendance of Nelson Mandela, the new president of South Africa. When Mandela was released from prison in 1990, he declared the policy of the African National Congress (ANC) was to implement “the nationalization of the mines, banks and monopoly industries.” When Mandela attended the January 1992 meeting of the WEF just after becoming president, he changed his views and embraced “capitalism and globalization.” Mandela attended the meeting alongside the governor of the central bank of South Africa, Tito Mboweni, who explained that Mandela arrived with a speech written by ANC officials focusing on nationalization. As the week’s meetings continued, Mandela met with leaders from Communist Parties in China and Vietnam, who told him, “We are currently striving to privatize state enterprises and invite private enterprise into our economies. We are Communist Party governments, and you are a leader of a national liberation movement. Why are you talking about nationalization?” As a result, Mandela changed his views, telling the Davos crowd that he would open South Africa up as a market economy and encourage investment. South Africa subsequently became the continent’s fastest growing economy, though inequality today is greater than it was during apartheid. As Mandela explained to his official biographer, he came home from the 1992 WEF meeting and told other top officials that they had to choose: “We either keep nationalization and get no investment, or we modify our own attitude and get investment.” At the 1993 meeting, the main consensus that had emerged called for the U.S. to maintain its position as a global economic and military power, and for it to take the lead encouraging greater “co-operation” between powerful nations. The major fear among Davos participants was that while economies were becoming globalized, politics was turning inward and becoming “renationalized.” Later that year, Anthony Lake, Bill Clinton’s National Security Adviser, articulated the “Clinton Doctrine” for the world, explaining: “The successor to a doctrine of containment must be a strategy of enlargement – enlargement of the world’s free community of market democracies.” Lake explained that the United States “must combine our broad goals of fostering democracy and markets with our more traditional geostrategic interests.” No doubt, the Davos crowd welcomed such news. At the 1994 meeting, the director-general of GATT, Peter D. Sutherland, declared that world leaders needed to establish “a new high-level forum for international economic co-operation,” moving beyond the Group of Seven to become more inclusive of the major "emerging market" economies. Sutherland told the assembled plutocrats that “we cannot continue with the majority of the world’s people excluded from participation in global economic management.” Eventually, the organization Sutherland described was formed, as the Group of 20, bringing the leading 20 industrial and economic powers together in one setting. Formed in 1999, the G20 didn't become a major forum for global governance until the 2008 financial crisis. In 1995, the Financial Times noted that the new “buzzword” for international policymakers was “global governance,” articulating a desire and strategy for updating and expanding the institutions and efforts of international co-operation. The January 1995 World Economic Forum meeting was the venue for the presentation of an official UN report on global governance. President Clinton addressed the Davos crowd by satellite, stressing that he would continue to push for the construction of a new “economic architecture,” notably at meetings of the Group of Seven. The arrival of the Davos Class "[The Davos Men] “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that are thankfully vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations." (Samuel Huntington) In 1997, the highly influential U.S. political scientist Samuel Huntington coined the term "Davos Man," which he described as a group of elite individuals who “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that are thankfully vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations.” Samuel Huntington's thesis, summarized in the Financial Times article, outlined a world that “would be divided into spheres of influence,” within which “one or two core states would rule the roost.” Huntington noted that the “Davos culture people,” while extremely powerful, were only a tiny fraction of the world’s population, and the leaders of this faction “do not necessarily have a secure grip on power in their own societies.” The Financial Times, however, noted that while the "Davos culture people" did not constitute a “universal civilization” being such a tiny minority of the world’s population, “they could be the vanguard of one.” An article that year in The Economist came to the defense of the "Davos Man," declaring that he was replacing traditional diplomacy which was “more likely to bring peoples together than to force them apart,” noting that the WEF was “paid for by companies and run in their interests.” TNI fellow, Susan George in her book, Whose Crisis, whose future, went further than Huntington arguing that we were not just facing a group of elites, but a genuine social class who "run our major institutions, know exactly what they want, and are well organized." But she also noted that "they have weaknesses too. For they are wedded to an ideology that isn't working and they have virtually no ideas nor imagination to resolve this." Russian Oligarchs and the Rise of China In fact, at the previous year’s meeting in Davos, the World Economic Forum functioned precisely as the vanguard for seven Russian oligarchs to take control of Russia and shape its future. At the 1996 meeting of the WEF, the Russian delegation was made up largely of the country’s new oligarchs who had amassed great fortunes in the transition to a market economy. Their great worry was that Russian President Boris Yeltsin would lose his re-election later that year to the resurgence of the Communists. At the WEF meeting, seven Russian oligarchs, led by Boris Berezovsky, formed an alliance during private meetings, where they decided to fund Yeltsin’s re-election and work together to “reshape their country’s future.” This alliance (or cartel, as some may refer to it), was the key to Yeltsin’s re-election victory later that year, as they held weekly meetings with Yeltsin’s chief of staff, Anatoly Chubais, the architect of Russia’s privatization program that made them all so rich. Berezovsky explained that if the oligarchs did not work together to promote common ends, it would be impossible to have a transition to a market economy “automatically.” Instead, he explained, “We need to use all our power to realize this transformation.” As the Financial Times noted, the oligarchs “assembled a remarkable political machine to entrench and promote the market economy – as well as their own financial interests,” as the seven men collectively controlled roughly half the entire Russian economy. Russian politician Anatoly Chubais commented on this development and the role of the oligarchs, saying: “They steal and steal and steal. They are stealing absolutely everything and it is impossible to stop them... But let them steal and take their property. They will then become owners and decent administrators of this property.” In the 1990s, with the spread of global markets came the spread of major financial crises: in Mexico, across Africa, East Asia, Russia and then back to Latin America. At the WEF meeting in 1999, the key issue was “reform of the international financial system.” As the economic crises spread, the Group of Seven nations, and the Davos Class, told the countries in crisis that in order “to restore confidence [of the markets], they should adopt politically unpopular policies of radical structural reform,” promoting further liberalization and deregulation of markets to open themselves up to Western corporate and financial interests and 'investment.' The major emerging markets have been frequent participants in annual Davos meetings, providing a forum in which national elites may become acquainted with the global ruling class, with whom they then cooperate and do business. China started sending more high-level delegations to the WEF in the mid-1980s. During the 2009 meeting, two prominent speakers were President Putin of Russia and the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao. Both leaders painted a picture of the crisis as emanating from the centers of finance and globalization in the United States and elsewhere, with the “blind pursuit of profit” and “the failure of financial supervision” – in Wen’s words – and bringing about what Putin described as a “perfect storm.” Both Wen and Putin, however, declared their intentions to work with the major industrial powers “on solving common economic problems.” In 2010, China’s presence at Davos was a significant one. Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who attended the previous year, was not to return. In his stead, his chosen successor, Li Keqiang, attended. China’s economy was performing better than expected as its government was coming under increased pressure from major global corporations. Kristin Forbes, a former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and an attendee at Davos, commented, “China is the West’s greatest hope and greatest fear... No one was quite ready for how fast China has emerged... Now everyone is trying to understand what sort of China they will be dealing with.” China sent its largest delegation to date to the World Economic Forum, with a total of 54 executives and government officials, many of whom were intending to “go shopping” for clients among the world’s elite. Li Keqiang, the future Chinese prime minister, told the Davos audience that China was going to shift from its previous focus on exports and turn to “boosting domestic demand,” which would “not only drive growth in China but also provide greater markets for the world.” Li explained that China would “allow the market to play a primary role in the allocation of resources.” In 2011, The New York Times declared that the World Economic Forum represented “the emergence of an international economic elite” that took place at the same time as unprecedented increases in inequality between the rich and poor, particularly in the powerful countries but also in the fast-emerging economies. Chrystia Freeland wrote that “the rise of government-connected plutocrats is not just a phenomenon in places like Russia, India and China,” but that the major Western bailouts reflected what the former chief economist at the IMF, Simon Johnson, referred to as a “quiet coup” by bankers in the United States and elsewhere. Davos and the Financial Oligarchy The power of global finance – and in particular, banks and oligarchs – has grown with each successive financial crisis. As the financial crisis tore through the world in 2008, the January 2009 meeting of the World Economic Forum featured less of the Wall Street titans and more top politicians. Klaus Schwab declared, “The pendulum has swung and power has moved back to governments,” adding that “this is the biggest economic crisis since Davos began.” Goldman Sachs, which in past years was “renowned for hosting one of the hottest parties at the World Economic Forum’s glittering annual meeting in Davos,” had cancelled its 2009 party. Nonetheless, Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, decided to continue with his plans to host a Davos party. Goldman Sachs.. was “renowned for hosting one of the hottest parties at the World Economic Forum’s glittering annual meeting in Davos" In 2010, thousands of delegates assembled to discuss the "important’ issues of the day. And despite the reputation of banks and bankers being at all-time lows, top executives of the world’s largest financial institutions showed up in full force. The week before the meeting, President Obama called for the establishment of laws to deal with the "too big to fail" banks, and European leaders were responding to the anger of their domestic populations for having to pay for the massive bailouts of financial institutions during the financial crisis. Britain and France were discussing the prospect of taxing banker bonuses, and Mervyn King, then governor of the Bank of England, suggested the possibility of breaking up the big banks. Several panels at the WEF meeting were devoted to discussing the financial system and its possible regulation, as bankers like Josef Ackermann of Deutsche Bank suggested that they would agree to limited regulations (at least on "capital requirements"). More important, however, were plans for a series of private meetings of government representatives and bank chiefs, who would meet separately, and then together, in Davos. Roughly 235 bankers were to attend the summit – a 23% increase from the previous year. Global bankers and other corporate leaders were worried, and warned the major governments in attendance against the financial repercussions of pursuing “a populist crackdown” against banks and financial markets. French President Nicolas Sarkozy spoke to the Forum’s guests about a need for a “revolution” in global financial regulation, and for “reform of the international monetary system.” The heads of roughly 30 of the world’s largest banks held a private meeting at Davos “to plot how to reassert their influence with regulators and governments,” noted a report on Bloomberg. The “private meeting” was a precursor to a later meeting at Davos involving top policymakers and regulators. Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, said of the assembled bankers, “We’re trying to figure out ways that we can be more engaged.” According to Moynihan, a good deal of the closed-door discussion “was about tactics, such as who the executives should approach and when.” The CEO of UBS, a major Swiss bank, commented that “it was a positive meeting, we’re in consensus.” The bankers said they were aware that some new rules were inevitable, but they wanted to encourage regulators and countries to coordinate the rules through the Group of 20, revived in 2009 as the premier forum for international cooperation and "global governance." Josef Ackermann, CEO of Deutsche Bank, suggested that “we should stop the bank bashing,” and affirmed that banks had a “noble role” to play in managing the economic recovery. Christine Lagarde, France's Finance Minister and current Managing Director of the IMF, encouraged a “dialogue” between governments and banks, saying, “That’s the only way we’re going to get out of it.” Later that week, the bankers met “behind closed doors with finance ministers, central bankers and regulators from major economies.” The key message at the time from finance ministers, regulators and central bankers was a political one: “They [the banks] should accept more stringent regulation, or face more draconian curbs from politicians responding to an angry public.” Guillermo Ortiz, who had just left his post as governor of the central bank of Mexico, said, “I think banks have misjudged the deep feelings of the public regarding the devastating effects of the crisis.” French President Sarkozy stated that “there is indecent behavior that will no longer be tolerated by public opinion in any country of the world,” and that bankers giving themselves excessive bonuses as they were “destroying jobs and wealth” was “morally indefensible.” As the 2011 Davos meeting began, Edelman, a major communications consultancy, released a report that revealed a poll conducted among 5,000 wealthy and educated individuals in 23 countries, considered to be “well-informed.” The results of the poll showed there to be a massive decline in trust for major institutions, with banks taking the biggest hit. Prior to the financial crisis in 2007, 71% of those polled expressed trust in banks compared with a new low of 25 percent in 2011. A home for a global elite Despite the lack of public trust in banks and financial institutions, Davos remains devoted to protecting and expanding the interests of the financial elite. In fact, the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum (its top governing body) includes many representatives of the world of finance and global financial governance. Among them, (as this infographic makes clear) are Mukesh Ambani, who sits on advisory boards to Citigroup, Bank of America and the National Bank of Kuwait; and Herman Gref, the CEO of Sberbank, a large Russian bank. Ernesto Zedillo, the former President of Mexico who is also a member of the board, currently serves as a director on the boards of Rolls Royce and JPMorgan Chase, international advisory boards to BP and Credit Suisse, an adviser to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and is a member of the Group of Thirty and the Trilateral Commission as well as sitting on the board of one of the world's most influential economic think tanks, the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Also notable, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, is a member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic Forum. Carney started his career working for Goldman Sachs for 13 years, after which he was appointed as Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada. After a subsequent stint in Canada’s Ministry of Finance, Carney returned to the Bank of Canada as governor from 2008 to 2013, when he became the first non-Briton to be appointed as head of the Bank of England in its 330-year history. From 2011 to present, Carney has also been the Chairman of the Financial Stability Board, run out of the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland. Apart from heading the FSB, Mark Carney is also a board member of the BIS, which serves as the central bank for the world’s major central banks. He is also a member of the Group of Thirty, a private and highly influential think tank and lobby group that brings together dozens of the most influential economists, central bankers, commercial bankers and finance ministers. Carney has also been a regular attendee at annual meetings of the Bilderberg Group, an even more-exclusive "invite only" global conference than the WEF. Though there are few women among the WEF’s membership – let alone its leadership – Christine Lagarde has made the list, while simultaneously serving as the managing director of the IMF. She previously served as the French finance minister throughout the course of the financial crisis. Lagarde also attends occasional Bilderberg meetings, and is one of the most powerful technocrats in the world. Min Zhu, the deputy managing director of the IMF, also sits on the WEF’s board. Further, the World Economic Forum has another governing body, the International Business Council, first established in 2002 and composed of 100 “highly respected and influential chief executives from all industries,” which “acts as an advisory body providing intellectual stewardship to the World Economic Forum and makes active contributions to the Annual Meeting agenda.” The membership of the WEF is divided into three categories: Regional Partners, Industry Partner Groups, and the most esteemed, the Strategic Partners. Membership fees paid by corporations and industry groups finance the Forum and its activities and provide the member company with extra access to meet delegates, hold private meetings and set the agenda. In 2015, the cost of an annual Strategic Partner status with the WEF had increased to nearly $700,000. Among the WEF’s current strategic partners are Bank of America, Barclays, BlackRock, BP, Chevron, Citi, Coca-Cola, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, Dow Chemical, Facebook, GE, Goldman Sachs, Google, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, PepsiCo, Siemens, Total, and UBS, among others. Depending on its finances from these sources, as well as being governed by individuals from these and others institutions, it is no surprise that Davos promotes the interests of financial and corporate power above all else. This is further evident on matters related to trade. Davos and "Trade" Trade has been another consistent, major issue at Davos meetings – which is to say, the promotion of powerful corporate and financial interests has been central to the functions of the WEF. As the Wall Street Journal noted, “it is pretty much a tradition that trade ministers meet at Davos with an informal meeting.” At the 2013 meeting, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk explained at Davos that the Obama administration was “committed to reaching an agreement to smooth trade with the European Union,” saying in an interview that “we greatly value the trans-Atlantic relationship.” The week’s meetings suggested that there “were signs of progress toward a trade accord.” Thomas J. Donohue, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who was present at Davos, commented that “half a dozen senior leaders in Europe are ready to move forward.” In fact, at the previous Davos meeting in January 2012, high level U.S. and EU officials met behind closed doors with the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), a major corporate grouping that promotes a U.S.-E.U. “free trade” agreement. The TABD was represented at the meeting by 21 top corporate executives, and was attended by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, the European Commissioner for Trade, Karel De Gucht, other top technocrats, and Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for International Economic Affairs, Michael Froman (who is now the U.S. Trade Representative). The result of the meeting was the release of a report on a "Vision for the Future of EU-US Economic Relations," which called “to press for urgent action on a visionary and ambitious agenda.” The meeting also recommended the establishment of a "CEO Task Force" to work directly with the "High Level Working Group" of trade ministers and technocrats to chart a way forward. Just prior to the 2013 meeting in Davos, the TABD corporate group merged with another corporate network to form the Transatlantic Business Council (TBC), a group of top CEOs and chairmen of major corporations, representing roughly 70 major corporations. The purpose of the TBC was to hold “semi-annual meetings with U.S. Cabinet Secretaries and European Commissioners (in Davos and elsewhere).” At the Davos 2013 meeting, the TBC met behind closed doors with high level officials from the U.S. and EU. Michael Froman, who would replace Ron Kirk as the U.S. Trade Rep, spoke at the meeting, declaring that “the transatlantic economy is to become the global benchmark for standards in a globalized world.” The following month, the U.S. and EU "High Level Working Group" released its final report in which it recommended “a comprehensive trade and investment agreement” between the two regions. Two days after the publication of this report, President Obama issued a joint statement with European Council President Herman Van Rompuy and European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, in which they announced that “the United States and the European Union will each initiate the internal procedures necessary to launch negotiations on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,” or TTIP. At the announcement, Kirk declared the sectors that will fall under the proposed agreement, stating that, “for us, everything is on the table, across all sectors, including the agricultural sector.” The World Economic Forum in a World of Unrest Perhaps most interestingly, the World Economic Forum has been consistently interested in the prospects of social unrest, protests and resistance movements, particularly those that directly confront the interests of corporate and financial power. This became particularly true following the mass protests in 1999 against the World Trade Organization, which disrupted the major trade talks taking place in Seattle and marked the ascendency of what Davos called the “anti-globalization movement.” These issues were foremost on the minds of the Davos Class as they met less than two months later in Switzerland for the annual WEF meeting in 2000. The New York Times noted that as President Clinton attempted to address the issue of restoring “confidence in trade and globalization” at the WEF, global leaders – particularly those assembled at Davos – were increasingly aware of the new reality that “popular impressions of globalization seem to have shifted” with growing numbers of people, including the protesters in Seattle, voicing criticism of the growing inequality between rich and poor, environmental degradation and financial instability. The head of the WTO declared that “globalism is the new ‘ism’ that everyone loves to hate... There is nothing that our critics will not blame on globalization and, yes, it is hurting us.” The guests included President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, along with the leaders of South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia and Finland, among others. The head of the WTO and many of the world’s trade ministers were also set to attend, hoping to try to re-start negotiations, though protesters were also declaring their intention to disrupt the Forum’s meeting. With these worries in mind, the Swiss Army was deployed to protect the 2,000 members of the Davos Class from being confronted by protesters. As the World Economic Forum met again in January of 2001 in Davos, “unprecedented security measures” were taken to prevent “hooligans” from disrupting the meeting. On the other side of the world, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, roughly 10,000 activists were expected to converge for the newly-formed World Social Forum, a counter-forum to Davos that represented the interests of activist groups and the Third World. As the Davos Class met quietly behind closed doors, comforted by the concrete blocks and razor wire that surrounded the small town, police on the other side of the fence beat back protesters. In the wake of the financial crisis, the WEF meeting in 2009 drew hundreds of protesters to Davos and Geneva where they were met by riot police using tear gas and water cannons. Inside the Forum meeting, French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde warned the assembled leaders, “We’re facing two major risks: one is social unrest and the second is protectionism.” She noted that the task before the Davos Class was “to restore confidence in the systems and confidence at large.” Protesters assembled outside held signs reading, “You are the Crisis.” The January 2012 WEF meeting took place following a year of tumultuous and violent upheavals across the Arab world, large anti-austerity movements across much of Europe, notably with the Indignados in Spain, and the Occupy Wall Street movement just months prior in the United States and across much of the world. As the meeting approached, the WEF announced in a report that the top two risks facing business leaders and policy makers were “severe income disparity and chronic fiscal imbalances.” The report warned that if these issues were not addressed it could result in a “dystopian future for much of humanity.” The Occupy Movement had taken the issue of inequality directly to Davos, and there was even a small Occupy protest camp constructed at Davos. As the Financial Times noted, “Until this year [2012] the issue of inequality never appeared on the risk list at all, let alone topped it.” At the heart of it was “the question of social stability,” with many Davos attendees wondering “where else unrest might appear.” Beth Brooke, the global vice chair of Ernst & Young, noted that “countries which have disappearing middle classes face risks – history shows that.” With citizens taking to city streets and protesting in public squares from Cairo to Athens and New York, the Financial Times noted that discontent was “rampant,” and that “the only consistent messages seem to be that leaders around the world are failing to deliver on their citizens’ expectations and that Facebook and Twitter allows crowds to coalesce in an instant to let them know it.” For the 40 government leaders assembling in Davos, “this is not a comforting picture.” In Europe, democratically elected leaders in Italy and Greece had been removed and replaced with economists and central bankers in a technocratic coup only months earlier, largely at the behest of Germany. Mario Draghi, the head of the European Central Bank (ECB), was perhaps “the most powerful leader in Europe,” though an Occupy movement had sprung up at the headquarters of the ECB in Frankfurt as well. During the Forum, Occupy protesters outside clashed with police. Stephen Roach, a member of the faculty at Yale University and a chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, wrote an article in the Financial Times describing his experiences as a panelist at the "Open Forum," held on the last day of the Davos gathering, in which citizens from the local community could participate along with students and Occupy protesters. The topic he discussed was “remodeling capitalism,” which, Roach wrote, “was a chance to open up this debate to the seething masses.” But the results were “disturbing” as “chaos erupted immediately” with chants from Occupy protesters denouncing the forum and calling for more to join them. Roach wrote that it was “unruly and unsettling” and he “started thinking more about an escape route than opening comments.” Once the discussions began, Roach found himself listening to the first panelist, a 24-year-old Occupy protester named Maria who expressed anger at “the system” and that there was a “need to construct a new one based on equality, dignity and respect.” Other panelists from the WEF included Ed Miliband from the UK, a UN Commissioner, a Czech academic and a minister from the Jordanian dictatorship. Roach noted that compared to Maria from Occupy, “the rest of us on the panel spoke a different language.” Having spent decades as a banker on Wall Street, Roach confessed that “it as unsettling to engage a hostile crowd whose main complaint is rooted in Occupy Wall Street,” explaining that he attempted to focus on his expertise as an economist, “speaking over hisses.” He explained that all of his "expert" insights on economics “hardly moved this crowd.” Maria from Occupy, Roach wrote, got the last word as she stated, “The aim of Occupy is to think for yourself. We don’t focus on solutions. We want to change the process of finding solutions.” As “the crowd roared its approval,” Roach “made a hasty exit through a secret door in the kitchen and out into the night.” Davos, he wrote, “will never again be the same for me. There can be no retreat in the battle for big ideas.” In October of 2013, The Economist reported that “from anti-austerity movements to middle-class revolts, in rich countries and in poor, social unrest has been on the rise around the world.” A World Economic Forum report from November 2013 warned of the dangers of a “lost generation” that would “be more prone to populist politics,” and that “we will see an escalation in social unrest.” Over the course of 2013, major financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, UBS, HSBC, AXA and others were issuing reports warning of the dangers of social unrest and rebellion. JPMorgan Chase, in its May 2013 report, stated that Europe’s “adjustment” to its new economic order was only “halfway done on average,” warning of major challenges ahead. The report complained about laws hindering the advancement of its agenda, such as “constitutional protection of labor rights... and the right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the political status quo.” The 2014 meeting of the World Economic Forum drew more than 40 heads of state, including then-president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, as well as Mexico’s Enrique Pena Nieto, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, British Prime Minister David Cameron, Brazilian Presient Dilma Rousseff, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Nigeria’s Goodluck Jonathan. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew and prominent central bankers such as Mario Draghi and Mark Carney also attended alongside IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde and World Bank president Jim Yong Kim. As the meeting began, a major report by the World Economic Forum was published, declaring that the “single biggest risk to the world in 2014” was the widening “gap between rich and poor.” Thus, income inequality and “social unrest are the issue[s] most likely to have a big impact on the world economy in the next decade.” The report warned that the world was witnessing the “lost generation” of youth around the world who lack jobs and opportunities, which “could easily boil over into social upheaval,” citing recent examples in Brazil and Thailand. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is due to attend the annual Davos meeting this week. But just prior to that meeting, violent protests erupted in the streets of Brazil in opposition to austerity measures imposed by President Rousseff, recalling “the beginnings of the mass street demonstrations that rocked Brazil in June 2013.” One wonders whether Rousseff will be attending next year’s meeting of the WEF, or whether she will still even be president. Indeed, the growth and power of the Davos Class has grown with – and spurred – the development of global unrest, protests, resistance movements and revolution. As Davos welcomes the global plutocrats to 2015, no doubt they'll be reminded of the repercussions of the "market system" as populations around the world remind their leaders of the power of people.
0 Comments
"The World Government Summit Organization is a global, neutral, non-profit organization dedicated to shaping the future of governments" exploring "the agenda of the next generation of governments". That's right, the agenda is to bring together all governments and package them into one global outfit, and shape it to makes decisions for the world...us. At the end of March, 2022 a World Government Summit was held. On the agenda were several topics including Global Moral Strategic Leadership, Shaping Resilient Economics, several themes on youth and women, cities, and energy. Day two topics included a New World Order, energy, the economy, Cross-Border Government, New Rising Powers, education, international tax, eliminating bureaucracy, ESG, Digital Currency, and Local Goals for a Global Agenda. On the last day topics included Global Health Issues, AI Powering Child Safety, Investing in Children, the Future of Education, Urban Design, and 6G. Partners in this event included several United Nations (UN) organizations, corporations, and several media organizations. It doesn't seem videos of the event are available on the website itself, however here is Day One and Day Two. One interesting segment was posted by Gary Franchi at Next News Network. Pippa Malmgren is a former assistant to G.W. Bush and member of the Council on Foreign Relations who spoke at the conference. As Mr. Franchi suggests, she and others had some frightening words. Topics included a Central Banking Digital Currency (CBDC) which Joe Biden submitted as an Executive Order to explore on March 9, 2022. As Ms. Malmgren explained in the video, "what underpins a world order is always the financial system" and "we are about to abandon the traditional system of money and accounting and introduce a new one", that new one being "blockchain" that will provide a record of every transaction, requiring a "digital constitution of human rights." No doubt this agenda is rapidly underway. This is the website with summaries of the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual Davos meetings from January 17-21, 2022, touting its multiple agendas for the world, resetting the world and transforming it into its vision of utopia. Because there are so many issues, here are a few highlights of what was discussed.
The first alliance to accelerate digital inclusion. Basically this expands access to the internet. This session, led under the Digital Economy category, discussed the creation of the Edison Alliance, prioritizing "digital inclusion as foundational to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals." 5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change. This session was another justification to go to a meatless society. While it focuses on insect sources of protein, it leaves out the multitude of other minerals and vitamins that meat provides such as iron, magnesium, B complex vitamins, etc.. 3 reasons why private equity can lead the charge on ESG strategy. This session basically supports that all business be forced into an ESG (Environment, Social, Governance) model. This in turn can lead to the requirement that consumers behave the same way. It also eliminates all businesses that don't practice ESG, thus effectively killing small ownership businesses. The Davos Agenda 2022: Global Media Engagement. This session covers the media outlets that covered the Davos 2022 agenda. Rethinking global supply chains for the energy transition. Given the current global supply chain issues, this session is curiously interesting as to how it applies to the forced transition to renewable energy. Are the current supply chain issues planned? Scrolling down on the website also shows many other sessions with different subjects. This is probably the best article out there explaining the Great Reset. Written by Michael Rectenwald Chief Academic
Officer, American Scholars and published in the Hillsdale College Imprimis. The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on November 7, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “The Great Reset.” Is the Great Reset a conspiracy theory imagining a vast left-wing plot to establish a totalitarian one-world government? No. Despite the fact that some people may have spun conspiracy theories based on it—with some reason, as we will see—the Great Reset is real. Indeed, just last year, Klaus Schwab, founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF)—a famous organization made up of the world’s political, economic, and cultural elites that meets annually in Davos, Switzerland—and Thierry Malleret, co-founder and main author of the Monthly Barometer, published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset. In the book, they define the Great Reset as a means of addressing the “weaknesses of capitalism” that were purportedly exposed by the COVID pandemic. But the idea of the Great Reset goes back much further. It can be traced at least as far back as the inception of the WEF, originally founded as the European Management Forum, in 1971. In that same year, Schwab, an engineer and economist by training, published his first book, Modern Enterprise Management in Mechanical Engineering. It was in this book that Schwab first introduced the concept he would later call “stakeholder capitalism,” arguing “that the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth and prosperity.” Schwab and the WEF have promoted the idea of stakeholder capitalism ever since. They can take credit for the stakeholder and public-private partnership rhetoric and policies embraced by governments, corporations, non-governmental organizations, and international governance bodies worldwide. The specific phrase “Great Reset” came into general circulation over a decade ago, with the publication of a 2010 book, The Great Reset, by American urban studies scholar Richard Florida. Written in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, Florida’s book argued that the 2008 economic crash was the latest in a series of Great Resets—including the Long Depression of the 1870s and the Great Depression of the 1930s—which he defined as periods of paradigm-shifting systemic innovation. Four years after Florida’s book was published, at the 2014 annual meeting of the WEF, Schwab declared: “What we want to do in Davos this year . . . is to push the reset button”—and subsequently the image of a reset button would appear on the WEF’s website. In 2018 and 2019, the WEF organized two events that became the primary inspiration for the current Great Reset project—and also, for obvious reasons, fresh fodder for conspiracy theorists. (Don’t blame me for the latter—all I’m doing is relating the historical facts.) In May 2018, the WEF collaborated with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security to conduct “CLADE X,” a simulation of a national pandemic response. Specifically, the exercise simulated the outbreak of a novel strain of a human parainfluenza virus, with genetic elements of the Nipah virus, called CLADE X. The simulation ended with a news report stating that in the face of CLADE X, without effective vaccines, “experts tell us that we could eventually see 30 to 40 million deaths in the U.S. and more than 900 million around the world—twelve percent of the global population.” Clearly, preparation for a global pandemic was in order. In October 2019, the WEF collaborated with Johns Hopkins and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on another pandemic exercise, “Event 201,” which simulated an international response to the outbreak of a novel coronavirus. This was two months before the COVID outbreak in China became news and five months before the World Health Organization declared it a pandemic, and it closely resembled the future COVID scenario, including incorporating the idea of asymptomatic spread. The CLADE X and Event 201 simulations anticipated almost every eventuality of the actual COVID crisis, most notably the responses by governments, health agencies, the media, tech companies, and elements of the public. The responses and their effects included worldwide lockdowns, the collapse of businesses and industries, the adoption of biometric surveillance technologies, an emphasis on social media censorship to combat “misinformation,” the flooding of social and legacy media with “authoritative sources,” widespread riots, and mass unemployment. In addition to being promoted as a response to COVID, the Great Reset is promoted as a response to climate change. In 2017, the WEF published a paper entitled, “We Need to Reset the Global Operating System to Achieve the [United Nations Sustainable Development Goals].” On June 13, 2019, the WEF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the United Nations to form a partnership to advance the “UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Shortly after that, the WEF published the “United Nations-World Economic Forum Strategic Partnership Framework for the 2030 Agenda,” promising to help finance the UN’s climate change agenda and committing the WEF to help the UN “meet the needs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” including providing assets and expertise for “digital governance.” In June 2020, at its 50th annual meeting, the WEF announced the Great Reset’s official launch, and a month later Schwab and Malleret published their book on COVID and the Great Reset. The book declared that COVID represents an “opportunity [that] can be seized”; that “we should take advantage of this unprecedented opportunity to reimagine our world”; that “the moment must be seized to take advantage of this unique window of opportunity”; and that “[f]or those fortunate enough to find themselves in industries ‘naturally’ resilient to the pandemic”—think here of Big Tech companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Amazon—“the crisis was not only more bearable, but even a source of profitable opportunities at a time of distress for the majority.” The Great Reset aims to usher in a bewildering economic amalgam—Schwab’s stakeholder capitalism—which I have called “corporate socialism” and Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben has called “communist capitalism.” In brief, stakeholder capitalism involves the behavioral modification of corporations to benefit not shareholders, but stakeholders—individuals and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate behavior. Stakeholder capitalism requires not only corporate responses to pandemics and ecological issues such as climate change, “but also rethinking [corporations’] commitments to already-vulnerable communities within their ecosystems.” This is the “social justice” aspect of the Great Reset. To comply with that, governments, banks, and asset managers use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index to squeeze non-woke corporations and businesses out of the market. The ESG index is essentially a social credit score that is used to drive ownership and control of production away from the non-woke or non-compliant. One of the WEF’s many powerful “strategic partners,” BlackRock, Inc., the world’s largest asset manager, is solidly behind the stakeholder model. In a 2021 letter to CEOs, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared that “climate risk is investment risk,” and “the creation of sustainable index investments has enabled a massive acceleration of capital towards companies better prepared to address climate risk.” The COVID pandemic, Fink wrote, accelerated the flow of funds toward sustainable investments: We have long believed that our clients, as shareholders in your company, will benefit if you can create enduring, sustainable value for all of your stakeholders. . . . As more and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability-focused companies, the tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further. And because this will have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated, every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company’s stock. Fink’s letter is more than a report to CEOs. It is an implicit threat: be woke or else. In their recent book on the Great Reset, Schwab and Malleret pit “stakeholder capitalism” against “neoliberalism,” defining the latter as “a corpus of ideas and policies . . . favouring competition over solidarity, creative destruction over government intervention, and economic growth over social welfare.” In other words, “neoliberalism” refers to the free enterprise system. In opposing that system, stakeholder capitalism entails corporate cooperation with the state and vastly increased government intervention in the economy. Proponents of the Great Reset hold “neoliberalism” responsible for our economic woes. But in truth, the governmental favoring of industries and players within industries—what used to be known as corporatism or economic fascism—has been the real source of what Schwab and his allies at the WEF decry. While approved corporations are not necessarily monopolies, the tendency of the Great Reset is toward monopolization—vesting as much control over production and distribution in as few favored corporations as possible, while eliminating industries and producers deemed non-essential or inimical. To bring this reset about, Schwab writes, “[e]very country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.” Another way of describing the goal of the Great Reset is “capitalism with Chinese characteristics”—a two-tiered economy, with profitable monopolies and the state on top and socialism for the majority below. Several decades ago, as China’s growing reliance on the for-profit sectors of its economy could no longer be credibly denied by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), its leadership approved the slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to describe its economic system. Formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the phrase was meant to rationalize the CCP’s allowance of for-profit development under a socialist political system. The CCP considered the privatization of the Chinese economy to be a temporary phase—lasting as long as 100 years if necessary—on the way to a communist society. Party leaders maintain that this approach has been necessary in China because socialism was introduced too early there, when China was a backward agrarian country. China needed a capitalist booster shot. Stripped of its socialist ideological pretensions, the Chinese system amounts to a socialist or communist state increasingly funded by capitalist economic development. The difference between the former Soviet Union and contemporary China is that when it became obvious that a socialist economy had failed, the former gave up its socialist economic pretenses, while the latter has not. The Great Reset represents the development of the Chinese system in the West, but in reverse. Whereas the Chinese political class began with a socialist political system and then introduced privately held for-profit production, the West began with capitalism and is now implementing a Chinese-style political system. This Chinese-style system includes vastly increased state intervention in the economy, on the one hand, and on the other, the kind of authoritarian measures that the Chinese government uses to control its population. Schwab and Malleret write that if “the past five centuries in Europe and America” have taught us anything, it is that “acute crises contribute to boosting the power of the state. It’s always been the case and there is no reason it should be different with the COVID-19 pandemic.” The draconian lockdown measures employed by Western governments managed to accomplish goals of which corporate socialists in the WEF could only dream—above all, the destruction of small businesses, eliminating competitors for corporate monopolists favored by the state. In the U.S. alone, according to the Foundation for Economic Education, millions of small businesses closed their doors due to the lockdowns. Yelp data indicates that 60 percent of those closures are now permanent. Meanwhile companies like Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google enjoyed record gains. Other developments that advance the Great Reset agenda have included unfettered immigration, travel restrictions for otherwise legal border crossing, the Federal Reserve’s unrestrained printing of money and the subsequent inflation, increased taxation, increased dependence on the state, broken supply chains, the restrictions and job losses due to vaccine mandates, and the prospect of personal carbon allowances. Such policies reflect the “fairness” aspect of the Great Reset—fairness requires lowering the economic status of people in wealthier nations like the U.S. relative to that of people in poorer regions of the world. One of the functions of woke ideology is to make the majority in developed countries feel guilty about their wealth, which the elites aim to reset downwards—except, one notices, for the elites themselves, who need to be rich in order to fly in their private jets to Davos each year. The Great Reset’s corporate stakeholder model overlaps with its governance and geopolitical model: states and favored corporations are combined in public-private partnerships and together have control of governance. This corporate-state hybrid is largely unaccountable to the constituents of national governments. Governance is not only increasingly privatized, but also and more importantly, corporations are deputized as major additions to governments and intergovernmental bodies. The state is thereby extended, enhanced, and augmented by the addition of enormous corporate assets. As such, corporations become what I have called “governmentalities”—otherwise private organizations wielded as state apparatuses, with no obligation to answer to pesky voters. Since these corporations are multinational, the state essentially becomes globalist, whether or not a one-world government is ever formalized. As if the economic and governmental resets were not dramatic enough, the technological reset reads like a dystopian science fiction novel. It is based on the Fourth Industrial Revolution—or 4-IR for short. The first, second, and third industrial revolutions were the mechanical, electrical, and digital revolutions. The 4-IR marks the convergence of existing and emerging fields, including Big Data, artificial intelligence, machine learning, quantum computing, genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics. The foreseen result will be the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds, which presents a challenge to the ontologies by which we understand ourselves and the world, including the definition of a human being. There is nothing original about this. Transhumanists and Singularitarians (prophets of technological singularity) such as Ray Kurzweil forecasted these and other revolutionary developments long ago. What’s different about the globalists’ vision of 4-IR is the attempt to harness it to the ends of the Great Reset. If already existing 4-IR developments are any indication of the future, then the claim that it will contribute to human happiness is false. These developments include Internet algorithms that feed users prescribed news and advertisements and downrank or exclude banned content; algorithms that censor social media content and consign “dangerous” individuals and organizations to digital gulags; “keyword warrants” based on search engine inputs; apps that track and trace COVID violations and report offenders to the police; robot police with scanners to identify and round up the unvaccinated and other dissidents; and smart cities where residents are digital entities to be monitored, surveilled, and recorded, and where data on their every move is collected, collated, stored, and attached to a digital identity and a social credit score. In short, 4-IR technologies subject human beings to a kind of technological management that makes surveillance by the NSA look like child’s play. Schwab goes so far as to cheer developments that aim to connect human brains directly to the cloud for the sake of “data mining” our thoughts and memories. If successful, this would constitute a technological mastery over decision-making that would threaten human autonomy and undermine free will. The 4-IR seeks to accelerate the merging of humans and machines, resulting in a world in which all information, including genetic information, is shared, and every action, thought, and motivation is known, predicted, and possibly precluded. Unless taken out of the hands of corporate-socialist technocrats, the 4-IR will eventually lead to a virtual and inescapable prison of body and mind. In terms of the social order, the Great Reset promises inclusion in a shared destiny. But the subordination of so-called “netizens” implies economic and political disenfranchisement, a hyper-vigilance over self and others, and social isolation—or what Hannah Arendt called “organized loneliness”—on a global scale. This organized loneliness is already manifest in lockdowns, masking, social distancing, and the social exclusion of the unvaccinated. The title of the Ad Council’s March 2020 public service announcement—“Alone Together”—perfectly captures this sense of organized loneliness. In my recent book, Google Archipelago, I argued that leftist authoritarianism is the political ideology and modus operandi of what I call Big Digital, which is on the leading edge of a nascent world system. Big Digital is the communications, ideological, and technological arm of an emerging corporate-socialist totalitarianism. The Great Reset is the name that has since been given to the project of establishing this world system. Just as Schwab and the WEF predicted, the COVID crisis has accelerated the Great Reset. Monopolistic corporations have consolidated their grip on the economy from above, while socialism continues to advance for the rest of us below. In partnership with Big Digital, Big Pharma, the mainstream media, national and international health agencies, and compliant populations, hitherto democratic Western states—think especially of Australia, New Zealand, and Austria—are being transformed into totalitarian regimes modeled after China. But let me end on a note of hope. Because the goals of the Great Reset depend on the obliteration not only of free markets, but of individual liberty and free will, it is, perhaps ironically, unsustainable. Like earlier attempts at totalitarianism, the Great Reset is doomed to ultimate failure. That doesn’t mean, however, that it won’t, again like those earlier attempts, leave a lot of destruction in its wake—which is all the more reason to oppose it now and with all our might. The World Economic Forum (WEF) Davos Agenda, where wealthy, elite know it all's come together and plot their vision of what the world should be, was virtually held January 17-21, 2022. Curious since they could have worn masks in person and have been tripled vaccinated for their protection. Heads of state, government, and CEO's collectively participated in this event. Following a brief introduction by Klaus Schwab other tyrannical leaders from across the globe gave their short pitch for globalization. Fauci even provided an almost hour long speech on his predictions. There are many links provided to articles and sessions that were held, but under the Economic Recovery section there is one session in particular that is ominous. Sharon Burrow, General Secretary, International Trade Union Confederation, spoke on 'renewing a global social contract". The concept of a global social contract has existed for quite awhile with many pseudo-intellectuals cooking up the details of what it means. Years back the United Nations (UN) defined the social contract idea which is why it is now calling for a "new" global social contract", again using Covid-19 as the excuse. Doesn't matter what they call it, it is all garbage. What is ominous about this particular session is the laying out of the control over everything, not only humans, but production and consumption as well. It is akin to being in a forced labor camp where individuals are told what to do and in return this is what will be given to them. If not complying, that spigot of what will be given to them will be turned off. This control is already being seen with medical treatment and monetary exchanges. Session participants included Alessandra Galloni, Nadia Calvino, Nicolas Schmit, Jonas Prising, Svein Tore Holsether, and Saadra Zahidi. While the claim is made for more inclusiveness in this new contract, this panel is a clear representation that there will be no inclusiveness beyond WEF participants and members. Gag. Moving on to highlights of what was discussed will hopefully prompt listening to the video, it is only about 45" long. The first erroneous claim is that inequality was caused by the pandemic. This really sets the stage for the rest of the conversation for justifying the need for control over everyone and everything to ensure equality for all. "Covid created inequalities". How does a virus create anything other than illness? "Scars" from this pandemic are estimated to range for years, again due to the inequalities for developing countries, its integration with climate change, and inequalities in the labor market. Policy makers were asked to comment on needed policies. Schmit reports the pandemic revealed and exacerbated issues, providing some vague language on what that meant, then proclaiming "societies have to be rebuilt". He claims the bigger challenge is climate change, societal divisions (which they created with lockdowns and mandatory vaccines), and new policies are needed to "invest" in social and people to reduce inequalities. That means only one thing, a corporate takeover of all resources with control over how those resources are distributed. This is the only way to achieve their version of equality. Calvino proclaimed the public (government) sector is "essential" because there is a "social infrastructure" needing protection such as education and healthcare. She identified "we" as putting into place some massive investment programs for investment and structural reform which is building "a new global orthodoxy". Those "we" players are financial institutions, government, and academia. Holsether supported moving from shareholder capitalism to stakeholder capitalism, which is not free-market, but a corporate control over all production and equal distribution to all. It is one giant socialism scheme that is run by corporations in partnerships with governments rather than fully by governments, full blown corporatism. Prising addressed the issue of "reskilling a population that needs to emerge from the old ways of working". That's right, these corporate cabals plan to force you out of a job you love and learn a new job skill regardless of whether or not it is something you don't want to do or hate. In referencing ESG, he also spoke the truth, that there is a strong "belief in stakeholder capitalism by corporations "because we will allocate resources in a way that makes us more successful". "We will allocate resources". Yes, corporations will decide and be in control of what is divvied out, where and to whom. Corporations will be making decisions on societal needs. If ten buck two is short on something someone else will be on the short end of the stick for equality. Burrow focused on 40% of the world having "social protection". Does she mean those surviving only under a government's determination of what it deems as necessary? She actually outlined worker rights and how companies need to address what workers deserve, there must be climate jobs, global social protection, universal rights, equality, more women working, all accomplished with investment in "public" services. More government is clearly the solution. Those not working are deserving of social protection, which is actually the new word for welfare, with an income. Alarmingly, Calvino stressed the importance of investing in "social skills, reskilling, and training for the whole society in order to cope with the structural changes taking place". Part of this scam is manipulating a society to behave in a certain manner and that framework is now in schools with social emotional learning (SEL), assessing children for future workforce placement and teaching kids to not be individuals in thinking and behavior. While it may appear these people live in la-la land, take notice of several of them stating these changes are taking place, it is being executed upon the world right now. Wording such as transition and reform is exactly what it means, these corporate cabals are taking everyone in the world down a path of change, right now.
Corporatism is defined as "the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction". This is probably the most accurate description of our current circumstances with the federal, and state government. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently announced its Small Business Innovation Research Pre-Solicitation to "give small businesses the opportunity to partner with DHS". Eleven topics for consideration were given including Artificial Intelligence (AI) Distress Alerts and Monitoring, Deployable countermeasures at protected perimeters and structures, Streamlined Airport Checkpoint Screening for Limited Mobility Passengers, and most curiously Mass Fatality Tracking System (MFTS). Apparently, DHS needs private sector help with technology for its "research and development initiatives". Covid is one of those areas. As it turns out DHS has already been busy with one business for providing the technology called In-Q-Tel Engagement, and includes the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In-Q-Tel (IQT) has three business efforts, IQT Emerge to support U.S. national security, IQT Labs to solve problems, and B.Next using biotechnology for national security threats of pandemics. Primarily it helps the federal government advance in the technological world, as well as globally. In the IQT portfolio there are pages and pages of corporations and businesses working with IQT, only enhancing the ability for us to be surveilled in every possible area and have data collected on us, both of which can then be easily used to control us. Or is that being paranoid?
Included in the IQT Executive team and Board of Trustees are several previous federal employees. IQT informs and advises "government partners with technical insights and resources" and advises "our portfolio companies on best practices to collaborate and provide a voice and platform to connect them with our government partners." The massive agenda to drive our Republic into corporatism marches forward. Some of the focus areas to help the government, and other businesses do the same, include digital intelligence, intelligent connectivity, data analytics, AI and machine learning, and IT platforms. All under the guise of "national security". But, the most frightening business efforts of IQT is its B.Next venture, converging the digital world with biology for "biodefense". IQT is "building a trusted network linking government, academia, society, and private sector innovators." There is a frightening video where B.Next describes how it is working with the government to save us from what sounds like ongoing pandemics that will require vaccinations forever. Its work also includes re-engineering plants; reading, writing, and editing DNA that will be a driving force of the global economy and contribute to national security; and developing and manufacturing new vaccines. There are also a series of podcasts on just Covid-19 alone. Mitigating these biological threats is a focus of IQT and it appears plans are underway for more threats and more vaccines. IQT is a formidable source for the federal government to expand its corporatism state, bringing in countless businesses to expand the surveillance state. Now it is understood how the Covid-19 "pandemic" is playing a role in advancing this state and why the vaccine mandate is so critical to the agenda. It just makes one ponder what exactly is in those vaccines and how they are being used on the masses in reality. Klaus Schwab, founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF), gave this talk on "Global Leadership needed in the Era of Fourth Industrial Revolution at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy in 2016. He doesn't actually start speaking until the 6:55" mark so all the admiration by the host can be skipped. Schwab announced his three biggest influences in were Nelson Mandela, a Marxist and Communist; Henry Kissinger, a globalist; and oddly Lee Kuan Yew, viewed by some as a Nationalist. He describes how he came up with the corporate stakeholder concept, that businesses should not answer to just to shareholders but also to employees and government. While he professes at that time that global government won't occur for "many years to come", and he doesn't "wish to have such a government", he might just be ahead of schedule. As such, he sees the WEF as "having to prepare the world for the future". He later describes "global governance" as having two major deficiencies. One is governments being involved in "crisis management', using the Brexit chaos as an example, which the concept of a country taking its sovereignty which he later stated depressed him. Two is the need to look at these problems from a systemic approach. This systemic approach will be "shaping the future" of digital industries, financial and monetary systems, health systems, socially inclusive countries, and education, he could go on but stopped there. Sounds like just five years later he has been very successful in disrupting just the few he mentioned. We are a world "that must work together". Claiming to have fifteen initiatives a the time, the WEF now has twenty platforms that literally invade upon every aspect of life. Mr. pseudo-psychologist Schwab has decided that we poor souls are "unable to cope with all the changes" with the vast amounts of information, considering himself "one of the most informed people". Us poor souls develop a "bunker mentality", one of which is "nationalism" and wanting "to go back to the old world". He attributes President Trump's success in winning to people being afraid of losing their jobs to robotics and other technology. You have no clue do you Schwab? He has broken us poor souls down into the proletariat and the middle class which is in constant fear of falling down to the proletariat level. Why were the wealthy and elite left out of this labeling? In discussing Brexit again later he describes Boris Johnson's problem with immigration as "emotional" and that most "elections are based on emotions" rather than on "rational ground". Thanks for the further insults Schwab. The remaining few minutes of the video is just as nauseating. It sounds like, from his early youth (1938) growing up under the Nazi regime, he has substituted the corporate world for the new dictatorship that enforces control over how humans live, and the corporate world has become his SS. Vaccine technology has dramatically shifted from the manipulation of a virus to foster immunity, to now what is called gene therapy. Much concern has been expressed about this new technology, does it change one's genetic code, what are the long term effects given no long term studies have been done, and since a vaccinated individual can become infected with Covid-19, what is the purpose of getting one? Even though this is new technology we are assured it is safe and can be given repeatedly. Are technocrats and scientists just messing with God's creation of humans?
While there are claims that the Covid-19 vaccine is not gene therapy, in looking at the scientific literature it is described as just that. Even this article describes one vaccine as using "double-stranded DNA inserted into a common, but inert virus called an adenovirus. This DNA also contains the instructions for building the spike protein. Once inside the cell, these instructions are read and translated into mRNA (messenger RNA)." It goes on, "The mRNA chains are basically work orders that spell out the instructions for making the spike proteins that stud the outside of the coronavirus that causes COVID-19." Ok, both genetic materials, DNA and mRNA, are being used. In the case of one Covid-19 vaccine, the spike protein of the Covid-19 virus is used to drive "into the host cell the genetic information needed to express the recombinant antigen" which evokes an immune response. It just leaves out one detail, that mRNA genetic material is synthetic. Being a highly technical and very complicated process, most of the nuances are not discussed here. The focus will be just on the issue of this vaccine actually being an engineered and synthetically produced product. Links to the scientific information discussing this are provided for those who want to do a deeper dive. Historically, it takes years to create a vaccine with many stages in the process. In the case of the Covid-19 vaccine it took less than one year. The virus is inactivated or weakened in traditional vaccines, and is called an antigen because it evokes an immune response. However, the Covid-19 mRNA vaccine is a Nucleic acid vaccine where a strand of a corona virus DNA is used to make a template that is engineered for the mRNA, which does the same, evokes an immune response. The complete process in this is far more complicated than what is explained here but through an engineering technique called a reverse genetic system, it is "genetically engineering specific nucleic acid sequences (within DNA or RNA)." More simply, a DNA sequence from a Covid-19 virus strand is used. DNA sequence information is readily available to technocrats through GenBank among many other available genome data sources. As of May, 2020 "more than 200 complete and partial genome sequences of SARS-CoV-2" were decoded and deposited in the Global Initiative on Sharing All Influenza Data. Scientists can easily pick and choose from these sources for vaccine experimentation. Through a process called In vitro transcription (IVT), encoded information in the spike protein DNA is taken and encoded into mRNA, synthetically creating the spike protein, which produces the viral antigen. Using IVT to make the genetic copy for a Nucleic acid vaccine, mRNA "can be manufactured rapidly at large scale" using a "synthetic mRNA format". "Synthetic mRNA" vaccines are considered "safer" than the more traditional attenuated virus vaccines while even claiming it will "bring a halt to the coronavirus pandemic." Because it is synthetic it is easy to design, and can be manufactured at great speed for vaccine development. In these engineered vaccines the SARS-CoV-2 S protein, called the "spike protein" and found in corona viruses, is targeted as the one which causes Covid-19. It "is an important target site for neutralizing antibodies and a key target for vaccine design." 1286 amino acids make up the spike protein sequence while genomic data of the virus is shared worldwide. This amino acid sequence was aligned with other coronavirus structural proteins, with concern about how this would work in future mutations. There continues to be controversy as to whether or not an actual Covid-19 virus has been isolated, however the SARS-CoV-2 proteins share high similarity to SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV which contributed to the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine design. Interestingly, through Covid-19 DNA protein manipulation several vaccines were tested. Once the DNA or RNA sequence of a virus is known it becomes a rapid way in which to engineer a synthetic vaccine. Being a messenger RNA, this engineered vaccine alerts our immune system to produce a specific antibody to the virus, just as the virus itself would do. Post injection the mRNA material itself hangs around long enough to evoke an immune response then disintegrates. By all reports this occurs within just a few days. These "computer-driven strategies" create "a synthetic vaccine...consisting mainly of synthetic peptides". These vaccines produced by "chemical synthesis" are considered safer "because they do not involve cell-derived material or biological processes for production. Their purity can be controlled". "Creating vaccines synthetically...has the ability to increase the speed of production and to retune and fine tune the solution to combat new variations in pathogens." "Synthetic vaccines also have the advantage that they can be seen as cartridge vaccines, meaning that they contain bits and pieces that can readily be replaced by others to update the vaccine in order to combat new strains of pathogen." In other words, DNA strands can easily be manipulated with different protein structures, an advantage to created vaccines for future mutations. Without going into the specifics on vectors, Johnson & Johnson and Oxford-AstraZeneca are DNA/Viral-vector vaccines which deliver the spike protein DNA material into the cells. Pfizer and Moderna are mRNA vaccines. The introduction of these genetic materials causes the cell to create the viral antigen. Regardless, both are gene therapy in that engineered, synthetic genetic viral material is introduced into the human cell to make the viral spike protein. This video is short, explains the immune system, traditional vaccines, and this new gene therapy. Rather than the virus injecting its RNA into a cell to make copies of it, through mRNA vaccines this viral process is replaced synthetically to create an immune response as explained in this video. The synthetically created Covid-19 RNA is telling the cell genetically to produce the spike protein, clearly a form of gene therapy. Up to this point, it is now understood that selected DNA from the virus is used to make synthetic mRNA that is carried into the cell, evoking an immune response. But the beauty in all of this, since the viral genetic component can be picked over, copied, and manufactured, it is possible to "tweak' the genetic sequence in any new mutation. As a result, new vaccines can be made just as rapidly by altering the protein sequence to match the mutated variant. Regardless, these technocrats conclude that vaccine development will continue until more clinical trials are completed and that "the first round of vaccines will have waning immunity and require boosting using improved second-generation COVID-19 vaccines"...with those who have recovered from COVID-19 with poor or waning immunity may also require vaccination". As the second concerning mutation has emerged, Omicron, the reality is that there are "thousands of mutations" that have accumulated. Even a local doctor predicts this virus will continue with mutations. Is this the cart before the horse or the other way around? Are these mRNA vaccines created because of the ability to manipulate them for any virus thus creating more experimentation and unending profit, or are the viruses being used to create more vaccines that come to the same end? The major pharmaceutical companies making these vaccines, Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson are all World Economic Forum (WEF) members. WEF is thrilled to see this new technology as part of its 4th Industrial Revolution to change our healthcare but doesn't see it replacing other vaccines, yet, in its ongoing move towards genomics. After all, the "ability to manipulate genes is in its infancy." Even the WEF recognizes "These instructions teach our cells to become their own vaccine manufacturing plants." Does that not imply this is a genetic restructuring of our cells? As part of its corporatism plan, one could conjecture that someday the only option for vaccination provided to the masses will be these gene therapy experiments, whether wanted or not. As explained in the video in this WEF article within the first ten minutes, synthetic biology, which includes mRNA vaccines, is bringing together individuals with expertise in biology, engineering, computer science, social sciences, and humanities to collectively trying to make biology easier to engineer, enabling the design and re-design of systems using the building blocks (DNA) of life. It is also programming functions in DNA and using new engineering tools in learning to engineer life. And mRNA vaccines are part of that engineering. The WEF has put together a Global Future Council on Synthetic Biology just for the purpose of engineering life. If it is too unbelievable, keep in mind it is currently being done through vaccines and will soon invade other aspects of life. Corporations are entering a dangerous area here, using humans and nature as lab rats, perhaps falsely believing help is on the way for mankind. As the old saying goes, It's not nice to fool Mother Nature, she is smarter than you think. As a society based on the foundation of Christian principles attention needs to be paid to the direction we are being taken, starting with these vaccines. As part of its New Narrative for globalization, this video, The Great Narrative: A call to action, that can only be viewed on the World Economic Forum (WEF) website, is a panel discussion sharing takeaways of a meeting with a global audience. Mr. Cockwomble himself, Klaus Schwab, spoke of this new world we will be living in, but wasn't able to exactly describe what that new world would look like, so he asked his panel members about their impression. Why has Klaus surrounded himself with women?
Freeke Heijman, Founding director, Quantum Delta Netherlands spoke first. She saw three technological trends for the future world. First is digitalization, using artificial intelligence to solve problems, and metaverse for virtual reality. Second is an energy transition to fusion power and green hydrogen which will need smart grids, and lastly engineered biology, including engineering DNA and personalized medicines. How about we start with re-engineering her DNA? Next to speak was Dambisa Moyo, Co-Principal, Versaca Investments. She provided her insights into our economic future. In a nutshell she claimed that in order to sustain human progress there must be economic progress. Her three predicted trends include one, that economic growth will be slowing, at least according to the world bank and financial institutions; secondly, monetary and fiscal policies created by policy makers are impotent now; and of course she has to include the "economic headwinds" such as inequality, climate change, natural resource scarcity, The next speaker, Ilona Szabó de Carvalho, President, Igarape Institute, first cited how Covid has identified our world interdependence. Her top trend is redefining the relationship between people, progress, and planet, with people being at the center of all policies. Ngaire Woods, Dean, Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, responded next. She felt "investing in human capital" was most important. According to her, work conditions and pay make people's lives "worthwhile" and keeps them coming to work. Government giving tax incentives for investments in human beings is needed and giving youth a path towards skills, while being mentally healthy and positive contributors. Investments should also be made in social capital, Her examples of how people shared the world in the past completely excluded the foundation of communities, and that was one of faith. That is what bonded people together. She presented her theory of bringing fragmented people back together with politics, and building those politics from the local level up. Aside from Klaus, she has to be the most mentally sick of the whole panel. The last speaker who wasn't identified clearly, talked about a collision course between the economy and the natural world. She was difficult to understand but most of what she said had to do with creating harmony with the natural system. After hearing all that Klaus had to admit the acceleration of society and the economy is occurring. The rest of the discussion centered around the biggest opportunities including energy transition, technology in education and healthcare, public goods delivery, and better engagement with China. These fools actually believe technology will improve life. Klaus was befuddled at the current level of pessimism and anger in society. Well Klaus, it is because of you thinking you are God and have set into motion a plan to strip us of our freedom, individualism, culture, supporting the breakdown and removal of nationalism, in addition to making your own determination as to how we should be living. How obtuse can you be? Ms. Heijman even went so far as to suggest that everyone should leave behind their personal interests or interest in one's country and engage in building a better world. The Netherlands, her home, was taken over by Klaus's political party in 1940 for the same illogical reason, for a better world that that political party had designed for everyone worthy to have it. Is that what you really want Ms. Heijman? She thinks there is "too much self-interest" when it should be the "world first". Put her on the list of the third sickest individual on this panel. The world is at mercy with these types of zealots, and there are only six here. Imagine how many others are at the corporate helm holding the power to make all of this happen. This is an article by Iain Davis titled, "What is the "Global Public-Private Partnership?" For convenience there is an audio version that can be listened to. The article discusses how public-private partnerships have altered the way in which our government is supposed to work through representation, basically government has taken on the role of representing corporations. This article is an excellent explanation of our current circumstances.
In the second article, Seizing Everything: The Theft of the Global Commons – Part 2, the discussion ends with how our economy is currently in the process of being transformed. Transforming the economy has always been the goal and now the Great Reset is achieving this goal of destroying capitalism to bring in stakeholder capitalism,which is basically centralized control over all production and consumption for equal distribution. For those not familiar, ESG stands for Environmental and Social Governance (ESG) that these large corporations adhere to. There are other corporate terms referenced and are discussed here. Meeting all of these these criteria and standards would be impossible for small businesses and will most likely put them out of business or force them into partnerships with global corporations. Also mentioned are the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures that judges corporate performance in meeting ESG criteria; International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) that approves ESG ratings for businesses; International Financial Reporting Standards Foundation (IFRS) that develop accounting and sustainability disclosure standards; and the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) that is responsible for financial reporting-related technical matters of the IFRS Foundation. All corporate members and associated organizations are committed to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) which does require the taking of and control over all resources with some managed through Natural Asset Companies (NAC). As this is a long article with an audio version and much information it may take some extra time to get through all of it. But what is stunning is how these characters have already taken financial control over the world. Below is an example in the article of how these partnerships work. |
Concerned Idahoans:This website is non-partisan and is solely dedicated to removing the harmful controls placed on our state and nation through associated programs of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, and the Great Reset. We invite all Idahoans to join us in this fight for freedom! Categories
All
Archives
April 2024
|