Thomas Fazi, "How the Davos elite took back control: The WEF is insulating policy-making from democracy"
Thousands of the world’s global elite are convening in Davos this morning for their most important annual get-together: the meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Alongside heads of state from all over the world, the CEOs of Amazon, BlackRock, JPMorgan Chase, Pfizer and Moderna will gather, as will the President of the European Commission, the IMF’s Managing Director, the secretary general of Nato, the chiefs of the FBI and MI6, the publisher of The New York Times, and, of course, the event’s infamous host — founder and chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab. As many as 5,000 soldiers may be deployed for their protection.
Given the almost cartoonishly elitist nature of this jamboree, it seems only natural that the organisation has become the subject of all sorts of conspiracy theories regarding its supposed malicious intent and secret agendas connected to the notion of the “Great Reset”. In truth, there is nothing conspiratorial about the WEF, to the extent that conspiracies imply secrecy. On the contrary, the WEF — unlike, say, the Bilderberg — is very open about its agenda: you can even follow the live-streamed sessions online.
Founded in 1971 by Schwab himself, the WEF is “committed to improving the state of the world through public-private cooperation”, also known as multistakeholder governance. The idea is that global decision-making should not be left to governments and nation-states — as in the post-war multilateralist framework enshrined in the United Nations — but should involve a whole range of non-government stakeholders: civil society bodies, academic experts, media personalities and, most important, multinational corporations. In its own words, the WEF’s project is “to redefine the international system as constituting a wider, multifaceted system of global cooperation in which intergovernmental legal frameworks and institutions are embedded as a core, but not the sole and sometimes not the most crucial, component”.
While this may sound fairly benign, it neatly encapsulates the basic philosophy of globalism: insulating policy from democracy by transferring the decision-making process from the national and international level, where citizens theoretically are able to exercise some degree of influence over policy, to the supranational level, by placing a self-selected group of unelected, unaccountable “stakeholders” — mainly corporations — in charge of global decisions concerning everything from energy and food production to the media and public health. The underlying undemocratic philosophy is the same one underpinning the philanthrocapitalist approach of people such Bill Gates, himself a long-time partner of the WEF: that non-governmental social and business organisations are best suited to solve the world’s problems than governments and multilateral institutions.
Even though the WEF has increasingly focused its agenda on fashionable topics such as environmental protection and social entrepreneurship, there is little doubt as to which interests Schwab’s brainchild is actually promoting and empowering: the WEF is itself mostly funded by around 1,000 member companies — typically global enterprises with multi-billion dollar turnovers, which include some of the world’s biggest corporations in oil (Saudi Aramco, Shell, Chevron, BP), food (Unilever, The Coca-Cola Company, Nestlé), technology (Facebook, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple) and pharmaceuticals (AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Moderna). The composition of the WEF’s board is also very revealing, including Laurence D. Fink, CEO of Blackrock, David M. Rubenstein, co-chairman of the Carlyle Group, and Mark Schneider, CEO of Nestlé. There’s no need to resort to conspiracy theories to posit that the WEF’s agenda is much more likely to be tailored to suit the interests of its funders and board members — the world’s ultra-wealthy and corporate elites — rather than to “improving the state of the world”, as the organisation claims.
Perhaps the most symbolic example of the WEF’s globalist push is the controversial strategic partnership agreement the organisation signed with the UN in 2019, which many view as having drawn the UN into the WEF’s logic of public-private cooperation. According to an open letter signed by more than 400 civil society organisations and 40 international networks, the agreement represents a “disturbing corporate capture of the UN, which moved the world dangerously towards a privatised global governance”. The provisions of the strategic partnership, they note, “effectively provide that corporate leaders will become ‘whisper advisors’ to the heads of UN system departments, using their private access to advocate market-based profit-making ‘solutions’ to global problems while undermining real solutions embedded in public interest and transparent democratic procedures”.
This corporate takeover of the global agenda, aided and abetted by the WEF, became particularly apparent during the Covid-19 pandemic. Global health policy and “epidemic preparedness” have long been a focus of the WEF. In 2017, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) — an initiative aimed at securing vaccine supplies for global emergencies and pandemics, funded by government and private donors, including Gates — was launched in Davos. Then, in October 2019, just two months before the official start of the outbreak in Wuhan, the WEF co-sponsored an exercise called Event 201, which simulated “an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic”. In the event of a pandemic, the organisers noted, national governments, international organisations and the private sector should provide ample resources for the manufacturing and distribution of large quantities of vaccines through “robust forms of public-private cooperation”.
So, it is safe to say that when the Covid pandemic broke out, the WEF was well-positioned to take a central role in the pandemic response. It was at the 2020 gathering in Davos, on January 21-24 — a few weeks after the novel coronavirus had been identified in China — that CEPI met with the CEO of Moderna, Stéphane Bancel, to establish plans for a Covid-19 vaccine, in collaboration with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the US. Later in the year, CEPI was instrumental in setting up Covid-19 Vaccines Global Access (Covax), in partnership with the WHO, and in providing funding for several Covid vaccines.
These public-private and corporate-centred coalitions — all with ties to the WEF, and beyond the reach of democratic accountability — played a crucial role in promoting a vaccine-centric and profit-driven response to the pandemic, and then in overseeing the vaccine rollout. In other words, the pandemic brought into stark relief the consequences of the WEF’s decades-long globalist push. Again, it would be wrong to view this as a conspiracy, since the WEF has always been very candid about its objectives: this is simply the inevitable result of a “multistakeholderist” approach in which private and “philanthropic” interests are given greater voice in global affairs than most governments.
What is troubling, however, is that the WEF is now promoting the same top-down corporate-driven approach in a wide range of other domains, from energy to food to global surveillance policies — with equally dramatic consequences. There is a reason governments often seem so willing to go along with these policies, even in the face of widespread societal opposition: which is that the WEF’s strategy, over the years, hasn’t just been to shift power away from governments — but also to infiltrate the latter.
The WEF has largely achieved this through a programme known as the Young Global Leaders (YGL) initiative, aimed at training future global leaders. Launched in 1992 (when it was called Global Leaders for Tomorrow), the initiative has spawned many globalist-aligned heads of states, cabinet ministers and business leaders. Tony Blair, for instance, was a participant in the first event, while Gordon Brown attended in 1993. In fact, its early intake was packed with other future leaders, including Angela Merkel, Victor Orbán, Nicholas Sarkozy, Guy Verhofstadt and José Maria Aznar.
In 2017, Schwab admitted to having used the Young Global Leaders to “penetrate the cabinets” of several governments, adding that as of 2017, “more than half” of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet had been members of the programme. More recently, following Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s proposal to drastically cut nitrogen emissions in line with WEF-inspired “green” policies, sparking large protests in the country, critics drew attention to the fact that, in addition to Rutte himself having close ties to the WEF, his Minister of Social Affairs and Employment was elected WEF Young Global Leader in 2008, while his Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Sigrid Kaag is a contributor to the WEF’s agenda. In December 2021, the Dutch government published its past correspondence with representatives of the World Economic Forum, showing extensive interaction between the WEF and the Dutch government.
Elsewhere, the former Sri Lankan Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe — who last year was forced to resign following a popular uprising against his decision to ban fertilisers and pesticides in favour of organic, “climate-friendly” alternatives — was also a devoted member and Agenda Contributor of the WEF. In 2018, he published an article on the organisation’s website titled: “This is How I Will Make My Country Rich by 2025”. (Following the protests, the WEF swiftly removed the article from its website.) Once again, it seems clear that the WEF’s role in forming and selecting members of the world’s political elites is not a conspiracy, but rather a very public policy — and one which Schwab is happy to boast about.
Ultimately, there is no denying that the WEF wields immense power, which has cemented the rule of the transnational capitalist class to a degree never before seen in history. But it is important to recognise that its power is simply a manifestation of the power of the “superclass” it represents — a tiny group amounting, according to researchers, to no more than 6,000 or 7,000 people, or 0.0001% of the world’s population, and yet more powerful than any social class the world has ever known. Samuel Huntington, who is credited with inventing the term “Davos man”, argued that members of this global elite “have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite’s global operations”. It was only a matter of time before these aspiring cosmocrats developed a tool through which to fully exercise their dominion over the lower classes — and the WEF proved to be the perfect vehicle to do so.
donald tRump attended. Told a bunch of lies.
ReplyDeleteDid Sleepy Joe go this year, or did he stay in his basement playing SuperMarioKarts?
ReplyDeleteThat was at Camp David with his granddaughter. Not in the White House basement. One story and Minus thinks he plays it ALL THE TIME.
ReplyDeleteHe plays it to stave off the increasingly obvious symptoms of Alzheimers.
ReplyDeleteHe doesn't. Joe Biden doesn't have Alzheimer's. Mario Kart isn't an Alzheimer's treatment.
ReplyDeleteYes, Donald Trump Definitely Has Dementia [11/4/2022].
ReplyDelete...and the Covid 19 vaccine isn't a preventative for Covid-19 either.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe White House doctor (Kevin O'Connor) prescribed Mario Kart for Joe Biden's (non-existent) Alzheimer's? Aside from you, who is making this claim? Ronny Jackson? F*ck him, he's a liar.
ReplyDeleteSo are you. What's your point?
ReplyDeleteYou're the liar. Joe Biden does not have "increasingly obvious symptoms of Alzheimer's". Our fantastic president Joe Biden continues to exhibit increasingly obvious signs of mental sharpness.
ReplyDeleteAha... and that is EXACTLY the reason why he NOT want to resign, to give place for younger and obviously more agile and flexible.
ReplyDeleteAnd even thinks about second term.
Because he's sharp. :-))) Like that razor... handle. :-)))))
"Young in the heart", my ass.
lol!
ReplyDelete...someone should notify TotUS about Biden's mental sharpness.
ReplyDeleteThe reason Joe Biden will run again is because incumbency gives an advantage. donald tRump blew it by bigly mishandling the pandemic. Why would Democrats give up this advantage? Resign? F*ck off.
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden is Michelle Obama's "stalking horse' for 2024.
ReplyDeleteNo.
ReplyDeletelol!
ReplyDeleteYes She Can!
She won't.
ReplyDeleteBet? Name your terms.
ReplyDelete\\The reason Joe Biden will run again is because incumbency gives an advantage. donald tRump blew it by bigly mishandling the pandemic. Why would Democrats give up this advantage? Resign? F*ck off.
ReplyDeleteWhere is "sharpness of Biden" in this equation?
Only "sharpness" of all Dem-party Politburo. ;-P See I in it.
I'll state it more apparent, more subtle. As I know that thin irony is lost on you.
They are so "sharp" and so "smart", that cannot percive any other "sharp" move, other than beting on the same old horse... ehm, sorry, old merin. ;-P
His sharpness lies in being Michelle Obama's stalking horse for the 2024 presidential election.
ReplyDeleteQtard: Where is "sharpness of Biden" in this equation?
ReplyDeleteJoe Biden won. He is doing a fantastic job as president.
donald tRump is 76 years old, yet he declared that he is running for president again. Why does tRump not step aside so a younger and obviously more agile and flexible candidate can run on the republican side?
Qtard believes that donald tRump is sharp? LOL :P
I have heard Michelle Obama say (multiple times) that she does not like politics. Is she a liar? Is she going to be convinced to run (in 2024) "for the good of the nation"? Against Joe Biden? Why would she do that? To weaken Joe Biden and help the republiturd nominee? Michelle Obama won't run for president in 2024. I seriously doubt she will ever run for political office.
:)
ReplyDelete\\Joe Biden won. He is doing a fantastic job as president.
ReplyDeleteYep.
Like surrendering to afganistani.
And seeking hard ways to surrender to Russia and China in Ukraine and Taiwan.
\\Why does tRump not step aside so a younger and obviously more agile and flexible candidate can run on the republican side?
Derpy.
You cannot play it BOTH way.
Either old prez is bad, or it good.
Logic.
Law of excluded middle
"Actual Audio Of Biden Getting Lost At The White House" = it isn't.
ReplyDeleteEveryone ages differently. Joe Biden has the increased experience that comes with age. tRump has always been an idiot. dotard donald's father had Alzheimer's and he has exhibited symptoms.
Also, YOU were the one claiming "old prez bad". Qtard says it is ONLY bad when talking about Joe Biden because he is a hypocrite.
fyi, donald trump surrendered to the Taliban. And it is the Putin-republitruds who desire surrender in Ukraine, not Democrats or Joe Biden. Your comment about surrendering re Taiwan is false as well.
Oooops just found more classified documents from Joe's Senate days. He must forgot where he put them.
ReplyDelete\\Also, YOU were the one claiming "old prez bad".
ReplyDeleteSo uncrafty. :-)))
That is you are one who started this thread about "sharpness of Biden".
*I* only pointed out to you -- that biggest "sharpness" in such an old age...
also called "wisdom" -- is in ability to know one's limitations, stemming from age, and give younger open road... while helping em with conscious thoughtful advices.
\\Qtard says it is ONLY bad when talking about Joe Biden because he is a hypocrite.
I just do not think that DD have any chanse to resurface.
And well, NMP, remember?
They say that there OVER BILLION of "secret documents" in USA.
ReplyDeleteEasy to lose track of couple or more.
Do you keep detailed count of microbes live in you, Joe?
That's why I keep say -- only way to catch ALL worms is to place em in bigger box.
Only way to fix problems with contemporary Techs -- make new ones.
You will not workaround it, Joe.
\\And it is the Putin-republitruds who desire surrender in Ukraine, not Democrats or Joe Biden.
ReplyDeleteSo??? Where's my Abramses? Where's my Apaches? Where's my F-16?
Easy to lose track of couple or more.
ReplyDeleteI worked in basement SCIFs for years and never lost one. But then again, if I didn't follow the rules they would have put me in Ft. Leavenworth and thrown away the key.
Where's my Abramses? Where's my Apaches? Where's my F-16?
ReplyDeleteCan you due minor repair if Abrahms loses a track? Change the oil on an Apache? Change an engine on a Falcon? Do you have the logistics needed (airfields, hangers etc) to host such systems? Supply them with fuel (JP-5)? Load bombs and missiles?
We could rent you a CVBG, but even if you could fly the planes you be out of ammo/expendable stores in a week and I'd have to send 2-3 URGs to keep you in supplies.
ReplyDeleteWell... that's because you worked with REALLY secret documents. ;-P
ReplyDeleteAnd not some bureaucratic spuffing of that idea. ;-P
\\Can you due minor repair if Abrahms loses a track?
ReplyDeleteSo. They was made in 70th? To fight in WW3 on Russia's plains (Captain Obvious to you, more like swamp)
But was designed the way to need lifting in a premium spa salon???
Way BEFORE idea of such even emerged???
Or... they was REMODELED, why I was not looked.
And now they need manicure and pedicure and a higienic tampons??? :-)))))))))))
\\Change the oil on an Apache? Change an engine on a Falcon?
At first... they need to survive for such a long time. ;-)
\\Do you have the logistics needed (airfields, hangers etc) to host such systems? Supply them with fuel (JP-5)? Load bombs and missiles?
Go re-read what and HOW MUCH you delivered into USSR in ww2.
You didn't gave even 0.01% of it. Yet.
Land-Lease, my ass.
\\Can you due minor repair if Abrahms loses a track?
ReplyDelete/So. They was made in 70th? To fight in WW3 on Russia's plains (Captain Obvious to you, more like swamp)
But was designed the way to need lifting in a premium spa salon???
Way BEFORE idea of such even emerged???
Or... they was REMODELED, why I was not looked.
And now they need manicure and pedicure and a higienic tampons??? :-)))))))))))
No, they still run on LM-2500's the same jet engine of American non-nuclear surface ships (FFG's, DDG's, CGs). And they were designed to be replaced in the field by US Forces (not untrained Ukrainians). Much of the American combat supply system runs on JP-5, not Diesel (as most Euros do).
\\Change the oil on an Apache? Change an engine on a Falcon?
/At first... they need to survive for such a long time. ;-)
They were meant for use in conjunction with overwhelming air superiority, not to be throw at Russia by themsleves like so many rocks. We had a policy in the 80's of what we called a Hi-Low mix of weapons. The M1A's were on the "high" side. The CVBG's got the Hi-end ships (DDGs/ CGs). The URG's mainatining the supply chains got the Lo-end ships (FFGs).
\\Do you have the logistics needed (airfields, hangers etc) to host such systems? Supply them with fuel (JP-5)? Load bombs and missiles?
/Go re-read what and HOW MUCH you delivered into USSR in ww2.
You didn't gave even 0.01% of it. Yet.
Land-Lease, my ass.
Yes, we supplied Russia in WWII with weapons that they could use, not weapons custom designed to fight under limited ideal conditions (air superiority and w/US logistics trains). And yes, 142 of my classmates died getting it there.
\\They were meant for use in conjunction with overwhelming air superiority
ReplyDeleteYap-yap-yap... like in Korea... and Vietnam. :-))
But your precious AUGs is beyond useless in little pond-like Baltic and Black seas
\\Yes, we supplied Russia in WWII with weapons that they could use, not weapons custom designed to fight under limited ideal conditions (air superiority and w/US logistics trains). And yes, 142 of my classmates died getting it there.
Sorry if I unwillingly overstepped.
That wasn't my intention to start talk about old wounds...
But your precious AUGs is beyond useless in little pond-like Baltic and Black seas
ReplyDelete...and invaluable everywhere else.
That wasn't my intention to start talk about old wounds...
Our complaint is mainly with the US and British Navy's who abandoned us on the way to Murmansk.
One of my professors was sunk twice on that run.
\\...and invaluable everywhere else.
ReplyDeleteEverywhere else they just becoming outdated and obsolete.
But not in principle.
New designs must be tryed and used. Like for example stealthy submerging drone launcher. ;-)
But... for that you'd need NEW techs. ;-)
\\Our complaint is mainly with the US and British Navy's who abandoned us on the way to Murmansk.
History records say that they had their reasons.
But I am not specialist to discuss it...
History records say that they had their reasons.
ReplyDeleteYes, the excuses of cowards.
But... for that you'd need NEW techs.
Think Ukraine can return of the $100 billion for use in R&D?
\\\Yes, the excuses of cowards.
ReplyDeleteWell.....
\\Think Ukraine can return of the $100 billion for use in R&D?
Ehm???
Just remember what happened to the last town that failed to pay the piper for cleaning out all the rats.
ReplyDelete:P
ReplyDeleteI know what happened with Japan and South Korea.
ReplyDeleteAnd Western Europe.
And I am certain... that part of a plan of RFia... in it's hiden part.
Is about that exactly too. ;-P
Well... why hiden? That is pretty straightforward and on the surface.
Part of Great Bargane of Putin was: to propose to be USA's ally, against China. ;-P
Trying to out-Nixon the country of Nixon?
ReplyDeleteWhose zat Nick Son? :-)))
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFormer president who using Henry Kissinger's expertise created the opening to China which divided Russia-China. George HW Bush was CIA Director at the time, and he duped the Taiwanese into surrendering their UN seat and allowing for the seating of the mainland Chinese UN delegation's seating.
ReplyDeleteThey called him Tricky Dick and he resigned the presidency because of the Watergate scandal (how media now works.. (by national security "leaks").
Remember? Highschooler level.
ReplyDeleteExaqvtly that I would know from my ciriculum.
But... would I care about it, much? Even if I'd be interest in history/politics nerd, or political activist wannabe politicain???
Your curriculum would be a bunch of woke lies. I don't do "woke".
ReplyDeleteNixon... the evil source of the white-racist "Southern Strategy". Let Dervy fill you in on all those details. He turned the Republican Party into a den of racism when ONE Dixie-crat joined the Republican Party and all the rest remained Democrats...
ReplyDeleteStrom Thurmond.
ReplyDeleteWhen he finishes telling you about Nixon's Southern Stragy, ask him who Robert Byrd was...
ReplyDeleteMy friend and MENTOR, former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan.
Everything with Democrats today is pretending to no longer be racists... and that "systemic racism" (like their old/repealed Jim Crow laws) keeps minorities down even today... after 60 years of Affirmative Action.
ReplyDeleteAll they'll teach you about Nixon in High School is the myth of the "Southern Strategy" that elected him, and his dastardly deeds resulting in/from the Watergate scandal.
ReplyDelete:P
ReplyDeleteMinus: ONE Dixie-crat joined the Republican Party and all the rest remained Democrats.
ReplyDeleteStill? Or are they all dead? Minus always points to the past to prove Democrats are racist. While ignoring the fact (not myth) that the gop welcomed white racists into their party with open arms. Why most Black voters and politicians are Democrats.
Most Blacks voted for Democrats LONG before the so-called nefarious "Southern Strategy" was supposed to have been implemented. They left the Republican party for the Democratic party back in the 1930s. They didn't all of a sudden start voting in large numbers for Democrats in the late 60's. Blacks also voted for racist Democrats back when the Jim Crow laws were in force throughout the South. This is all a red herring to throw off their own racist stink.
ReplyDelete...and his dastardly deeds resulting in/from the Watergate scandal.
ReplyDeleteWell, isn't that bare fact?
Ither than that, why I/highschooler should care???
Minus: This is all a red herring to throw off their own racist stink.
ReplyDeleteBlack people are racist against themselves? I think they'd vote republican if that were the case. The orange White Supremacist remains the head of the party. Yet Biden won in large part due to the Black vote.
Well, isn't that bare fact?
ReplyDeleteWatergate doesn't even come close to what they did to Trump. Nixon used the National Security State to try and take down McGovern and failed. The Neocons allied with the Democratic Party in 2017 and SUCCEEDED in taking down Trump in 2020.
The truth got buried. When the Legend becomes fact, print the legend.
NMP.
ReplyDeleteAnd I bet, that highschooler would think the same...
well, if not for some circumstances of his upbringing. (like being from family of Dem or Rep-alaigned)
But well, I am not subceptable to such.
Minus: The Neocons allied with the Democratic Party in 2017 and SUCCEEDED in taking down Trump in 2020.
ReplyDeleteThey choose an elaborate and complex conspiracy when they could have voted to impeach and convict? What utter bullplop.