1984: Thread

[grarpamp]

Wake Up!


You Don't Have To Be A Conspiracy Theorist To Be Worried About The
World Economic Forum

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/31/you-dont-have-to-be-a-conspiracy-theorist-to-be-worried-about-the-world-economic-forum/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-davos-man-cometh/

https://nationalinterest.org/article/dead-souls-the-denationalization-of-the-american-elite-620

https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/davos-2023-wef-shifts-into-high-gear

https://dailysceptic.org/2022/12/30/the-dangerous-new-cult-calling-for-permanent-lockdowns-in-the-name-of-equity/

Samuel Greg, a Distinguished Fellow in Political Economy at the
American Institute for Economic Research and author, most recently, of
The Next American Economy: Nation, State, and Markets in an Uncertain
World, has written a good piece for the Spectator about the WEF on the
eve of Davos 2023.

He argues that if you care about liberty, democracy and national
self-determination, it’s perfectly rational to be concerned about the
influence of Klaus Schwab and his followers. Not because they are the
puppeteers controlling politicians across the West, but because their
ideas permeate the upper echelons of the global elite. In particular,
Schwab’s belief in the top-down, technocratic form of government
exemplified by the EU.

    It wields no formal political power and can’t make anyone do
anything. Nonetheless, since its founding in 1971, the WEF has become
an organisation which embodies supreme confidence in the imperative of
a particular type of person running the world from the top-down. In
his famous 2004 essay entitled ‘Dead Souls’, the political scientist
Samuel P. Huntington called this prototype ‘Davos Man’.

    A clever moniker that neither Schwab nor the WEF have ever
succeeded in shaking off, Davos Man was Huntington’s short-hand
description of “academics, international civil servants and executives
in global companies, as well as successful high-technology
entrepreneurs” who thought alike and tended to view national loyalties
and boundaries “as residues from the past”. Davos Man also looked with
undisguised disdain, Huntington suggested, upon those who weren’t
getting with the programme – whatever the content of the programme
happened to be.

    Therein lies the deepest problem with the WEF. It’s one thing for
people to come together in international settings to discuss problems,
share insights, and network. Business leaders, politicians, and
NGO-types do this all the time.

    It’s another thing for an outfit such as the WEF to decide that
the time has come to rearrange the world from the top-down and remake
the planet in a corporatist image. The ideal for which Schwab is
aiming, judging from his speeches and writings, is something akin to a
globalised EU, with its supranational and ingrained bureaucratic ways
being transposed to an international level, and the levers of power
vested in the hands of reliable Davos men and women.

    In short, it’s easy to caricature the WEF and Schwab as something
akin to Ian Fleming’s fictious Spectre and its criminal-mastermind
Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Yet the agenda now being pursued at settings
such as Davos is sufficiently alarming that anyone who believes in
preserving things like liberty, sovereignty, and the decentralisation
of power should be concerned.

Worth reading in full...

Robert Malone has a saltier take on the WEF’s current agenda on his
Substack, particularly no. 4 on the WEF’s list of priorities:
“Preparing for the next pandemic requires ending health disparities.”

That’s uncomfortably reminiscent of the toxic new ideology I discussed
yesterday, which combines extreme risk aversion – to pandemics,
climate change, hate speech, etc. – with ‘equity’, meaning a
commitment to protecting ‘vulnerable’ groups, e.g. ethnic minorities
and the LGBTQ+ community.

So the argument for, say, keeping mask mandates in place forever would
run something like this: airborne viral diseases have a
disproportionately negative effect on marginalised people because they
have less access to healthcare, therefore governments have a moral
duty to impose masks mandates.