"You will own nothing and you will be ..." a slave
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a nonprofit organization founded in 1971 by German economist Klaus Schwab. Its purpose, according to its mission statement, is to “engage the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” Furthermore, “It is independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.” Who funds the World Economic Forum? It is “… mostly funded by its 1,000 member companies – typically global enterprises with more than five billion US dollars in turnover – as well as public subsidies.” So much for being “independent, impartial and not tied to any special interests.”
As with any organization (with the notable exception of governments), the World Economic Forum works to advance its members’ agendas. What are those agendas? There is one overriding agenda that permeates the World Economic Forum, its policies and its approach to every crisis, perceived or real. This agenda is repeated at every opportunity by Schwab and others speaking on behalf of the WEF. It is the basis of every article and policy of the WEF. That agenda is global governance. Global governance is the World Economic Forum’s panacea for every issue and challenge that we face. Without it, we are in for hard times. According to the WEF, global governance is needed if we are to overcome the challenges that face us. The Word Economic Forum website paints a glowing picture of a world in which global governance is also called global cooperation. In a recent interview, Klaus Schwab mentioned how proud he was of various heads of countries who were at one time members of Young Global Leaders of the WEF. He mentioned specifically Angela Merkel the former chancellor of Germany and Vladimir Putin, the current president of Russia.
The World Economic Forum through its members are working to create a world in which individual freedom is sacrificed to the god of technocracy. The world can be better managed by technocrats than by elected governments. They know what’s best for you and what will make you happy. They are the enlightened ones.
In 2019 the Network of Global Future Councils of the WEF convened in Dubai for their annual meeting. There are councils on every conceivable aspect of life. There is a Global Future Council on climate change, on Russia, on China, on cities and urbanization, on cybersecurity, on agile governance and more. Here are some of their visions describing our future.
“All products have become services. ‘I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes,’ writes Danish MP Ida Auken. It sounds utopian, until she mentions that her every move is tracked and outside the city live swathes of discontents, the ultimate depiction of a society split in two.” That last sentence, incredibly, is a quote from the WEF article. The editor apparently missed that. Apparently, to enjoy WEF utopia, you must toe the line or else you are out. Ms Auken continues, “In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.” There will be no privacy but you will be happy opines the good MP from Denmark.
Is anybody doing any critical thinking? Let’s unpack this for a moment. If I don’t own anything, who owns everything? Can the owner decide not to rent to me? Do we really want to live in a world in which we own nothing and are totally dependent for our needs upon some amorphous entity run by people we did not elect and who are not accountable to us for their decisions? Does this description remind you of anything? Does it sound like a modern version of Marx’s manifesto? Does it sound like the USSR under Lenin and Stalin? We all know how that turned out. The article paints a picture of utopia but when you actually envision what it means, it’s the most dystopian vision you could think of.
“Green” electricity
“The air you breathe in the city is cleaner because there are far fewer cars on the streets and the rest are electric – all electricity is green in fact.” “Green” electricity is manufactured through the development of renewable energy sources. To date, this has proven to be very expensive, very inefficient and very unreliable.
The article’s tag is, “The world's progress on transitioning to sustainable energy has stalled. Here’s how to fix it.” Firstly, why are they referring to renewable energy as sustainable energy. The only energy source that has proven to be cheap, efficient and reliable is energy based on fossil fuels. Calling renewable energy sustainable is pure propaganda. To the point, there is good reason why the transition to renewable energy has stalled. It is expensive and unreliable.
The switch to solar and other forms of renewable energy is touted as the answer to the “disaster” of climate change. The assumption is that climate change is man-made. Since we made it, we can fix it. Although the mainstream media pushes this view as being the scientific consensus, it is far from a consensus among climatologists, as Prof. Nir Shaviv and Dr. Henrik Svensmark’s research has shown.
It is important also to note that solar energy is not an environmental panacea. Production of photo voltaic cells (and in fact all forms of renewable energy) has its own pollution problems.
We should of course develop renewable energy. Even scientists who maintain that global warming is not manmade agree that there are good reasons to develop renewable energy. But should it be at the expense of reliable, cheap energy from fossil fuels? The situation is sub-Saharan Africa is one result of such misguided policies. Energy companies are not developing fossil fuel sources of energy in Africa even though Africa is a treasure house of natural resources. So, because access to electricity is unreliable in most of sub-Saharan Africa, people there use indoor wood burning stoves. As a result, life expectancy at birth in this area is 62, one of the lowest in the world.
Policies for dealing with climate change should not be made in a global institution whose members we did not elect but whose policies are foisted upon us.
My body my choice?
Omicron is not one of the topics of the Global Future Councils' meeting. It appears elsewhere on the WEF website. However, it is prime example of, “we know what’s best for you”. “Omicron’s surge was accompanied by a new wave of misinformation as people across the world learned new lessons in how to live with COVID-19 and make decisions in their daily lives. What are the dangers of this misinformation and how can we combat it?”
Who decides the proper approach to battling Omicron, or any health issue, for that matter? Isn’t personal health a matter for each of us to decide with our health care professionals? According to the WEF, the answer is a resounding, “No!” The WEF decides the correct approach to our health. Anyone who is not in line with their answer is peddling “misinformation” and needs to be combatted. There was a period in history when there was one narrative for science and anyone who veered from that narrative was condemned as a heretic. It was during the time of the great astronomer Galileo Galilei.
“The current global governance system is in flux as the centrality of global institutions is weakened, and nation states are reasserting their powers.” This is the first sentence of an article entitled “We need a new framework for global governance. Here’s how we could build one.” The message is clear. Nation states are bad. Global institutions are good. Here’s the problem. Global institutions are accountable to no one but their funders. Nation states, at least in theory if not in practice are accountable to their citizens. The few examples I mentioned in this article have one thing in common. Decisions are being made and policies are being instituted over which we have no say, but which will affect our lives dramatically. Sounds a lot like creeping totalitarianism.
