The World Economic Forum 2023
The fascistic concept of unelected and unaccountable corporate figures shaping government policy should be viewed with disdain rather than deference.
Last week, from Monday, January 16 to Friday, January 20, the World Economic Forum (WEF) held its annual meeting at the Davos ski resort in Switzerland. The theme of this year’s meeting — which, as usual, included many prominent world and business leaders — was “Cooperation in a Fragmented World”. According to the organization’s website, “the World Economic Forum has provided space for leaders to engage in peer-to-peer deliberations in the spirit of improving the state of the world” since its founding in 1971.
The WEF, as well as its yearly meeting at Davos, has existed for decades, but it has attracted much more attention from the general public in recent years. This has largely been due to the organization’s founder and executive chairman, Klaus Schwab, who published a book called COVID-19: The Great Reset during the Covid-19 pandemic. The book argues that Covid-19 set the stage for a “great reset” of the global system, and given Schwab’s connection to and influence over the global elite, many people understandably feel uneasy about this shady character’s call to “reset” society.
The WEF’s annual meeting always consists of high-profile attendees, but this year’s gathering saw a record amount of prominent figures.
Fifty-two heads of state and government will show up next to 56 finance ministers, 19 central bank governors, 30 trade ministers and 35 foreign ministers. Heads of the United Nations, International Monetary Fund and World Trade Organisation will be among 39 leaders of international agencies.
The upmarket ski resort will host its biggest ever business participation, with 600-plus CEOs among 1,500 business leaders that include the highest ever number of female executives
Global elites, including heads of state as well as central bankers and CEOs of major corporations, getting together to discuss and craft policies that affect us all is a reasonable cause for concern. Many of the government officials that regularly attend the forum are democratically elected, but the business and financial leaders exerting influence over those officials are not. Considering how often “democracy” is exalted by our politicians, you’d think the fascistic concept of unelected and unaccountable corporate figures shaping government policy for countries all over the world would be viewed with disdain rather than deference.
Accompanying this large group of global elites were 5,000 troops from the Swiss Armed Forces. Those soldiers were deployed to police the event and protect the attendees. It’s reasonable that such an affair would have some sort of security, but a large and somewhat secretive gathering of many of the world’s most powerful people — where they discuss how to organize the society the rest of us have to live in — practically having a small army at their disposal can understandably come off as dystopian.
This annual summit typically involves panels and speeches that cover a variety of topics, and this year was no different. During those events, discussions were had and statements were made that should ring alarm bells for anyone who values individual freedom and is skeptical of centralized power. I’ve chosen several of those worrisome statements to discuss here, but there are undoubtedly many more examples.
Here are some of the most concerning statements from a few of the topics that were discussed over this last week in no particular order:
Free Speech and Disinformation
On Monday, the Vice President of the European Commission, Vera Jourová, casually mentioned that hate speech laws will eventually make their way to the U.S. during a panel called “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation” which was presented by former CNN host, Brian Stelter. Jourová was suggesting that laws similar to the hate speech regulations that have been enacted in the E.U. will soon be able to get passed in the U.S. despite those types of laws being a blatant violation of the free speech rights enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
You could argue that a passive statement made by an E.U. official at an event many Americans aren’t even aware of is not a guarantee of what the future holds, but the fact that global elites discussed that possibility so casually should still be seen as disconcerting.
It’s also ironic that the panel was presented by Brian Stelter, whose former job was hosting CNN’s “Reliable Sources”, a show in which Stelter would analyze media coverage. That show was canceled due to failing to attract viewers, and I would argue that was at least partially because of Stelter’s inability to even feign objectivity. The overall tone of the panel suggested that the panelists see the average person as incapable of discerning the truth from disinformation, but it’s (former) corporate media hacks and other “authoritative sources” like Stelter who more often than not ignore the facts in order to push a narrative.
During a separate panel that centered around national security, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Chris Wray, also made a statement that implies a desire to control speech. “The sophistication of the private sector is improving,” Wray said, “and particularly important, the level of collaboration between the private sector and the government. Especially the FBI has I think made significant strides.” [Emphasis added]
Wray and his fellow panelists weren’t necessarily discussing free speech or disinformation, but his statement comes just months after the release of the Twitter Files — internal documents that Twitter’s new owner, Elon Musk, has been releasing to a handful of journalists. Those documents have revealed that the FBI, as well as other government agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), have been interfering with Twitter’s (and likely other Big Tech companies’) content moderation policies. Wray’s statement highlights how comfortable federal agents have become when it comes to manipulating and censoring our speech online, despite the fact that doing so is blatantly unconstitutional and carries with it dangerous implications.
Vaccines and Future Pandemics
During a panel called “100 Days to Outrace the Next Pandemic” former U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, advocated for the implementation of a “digital infrastructure” in order for governments to keep track of who has and has not been vaccinated. Several years ago, such an idea would have seemed preposterous. However, after the rollout of the Covid vaccines and the subsequent mandates and vaccine passport systems — which were set up in many “liberal democracies” all over the world — what Blair is suggesting is no longer a radical idea but rather an expansion of the infrastructure that has already been put in place.
Sitting on that same panel was the CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla. While Bourla was casually strolling around the luxury ski resort last week, he was confronted by two journalists from Rebel News, who asked him a stream of questions about the Covid vaccine. Bourla refused to answer even one of them. Regardless of how you feel about that specific vaccine, the fact of the matter is it does not prevent infection or transmission even though that was the initial claim; that alone should be enough of a reason to question the other claims that still persist about that vaccine.
Pfizer, the company which Bourla currently heads, has raked in billions of dollars since the release of its Covid vaccine. Many people who took the shot did so out of coercion, and Bourla’s refusal to answer even a single critical question about his company’s product shows his contempt for the people who were more or less forced to be injected with it.
Climate Change
Climate change has been a regular discussion at the WEF’s annual summit over the last few years. This year, one of the people who addressed the issue was former Secretary of State, John Kerry. He said he’s “convinced we will get to a low-carbon, no-carbon economy,” but that he’s “not convinced” that we will be able to do that in time to “avoid the worst consequences of the crisis.” Kerry’s very nuanced and insightful solution to climate change was “money, money, money.” He didn’t specify whose money he was talking about, but we can safely assume he most likely meant yours and mine.
If “money” is really all that is needed to address climate change, you’d think many of the world’s wealthiest people in attendance at Davos last week could’ve solved that problem in an afternoon. It’s difficult to believe that any of the elites who went to the WEF summit truly care about the climate when nearly all of them arrived there by private jets, one of the least environmentally-friendly means of transit. Make no mistake though, if you drive an SUV to your day job, you’re the problem.
Another moment of climate alarmism from Davos was when former Vice President of the U.S., Al Gore, went on a rant that has been described as “unhinged”. The rant included Gore yelling about “boiling oceans” and “rain bombs”. He then went on to claim that climate change is to blame for the recent rise in authoritarianism, pointing to the way governments have reacted to what he called “climate refugees”. The irony of condemning authoritarianism while simultaneously advocating for governments to enact authoritarian policies in response to climate change was completely lost on Gore and his fellow panelists.
The Global Economy
The WEF has long supported something called “stakeholder capitalism” as opposed to “shareholder capitalism”. The difference between the two is that “shareholder capitalism” encourages companies to prioritize profit for their shareholders, while “stakeholder capitalism” suggests that companies have an obligation to consider everyone who has a “stake” in how the company functions, which is essentially everyone on Earth.
That may sound like a more altruistic business model, but the question is: who gets to decide what’s best for billions of “stakeholders”? (Hint: it definitely won’t be any of us in the peasant class.) The global elite who gathered in Davos last week seems to believe they know what's best for the rest of us. Even if that belief is out of genuine concern for the planet, however, it should still be wholly and completely rejected, as centralized power always results in authoritarianism and tyranny.
Something that falls under the concept of “stakeholder capitalism” is Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) initiatives, which have become increasingly popular in recent years. During a panel on “Responsible Capitalism”, Bank of America CEO, Brian Moynihan, advocated for “official” and “global” ESG standards, in order to “reboot capitalism”. Again, it may sound nice to have major corporations be more aware of their impacts on the environment and social issues, but the underlying theme of “stakeholder capitalism” is the centralization of authority, which should always be viewed with skepticism.
Another notable statement made during the WEF’s summit last week was when Mohammed al-Jadaan, the finance minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), stated that the monarchy is open to the idea of pricing its oil in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. For decades now, Saudi Arabia has priced its oil in USD, which has been a major factor in the dollar being the world’s reserve currency. This wasn’t the first time that Saudi Arabia has floated the idea of pricing its oil in different currencies, specifically the Chinese yuan, but al-Jadaan’s statement last week shows that it’s an ever-increasing possibility.
The War in Ukraine
Naturally, the ongoing war in Ukraine was a major focus of the WEF’s summit this year, as we’re nearing the first anniversary of the start of that war. In a video address to the gathering of global elites last week, Henry Kissinger, a mentor to Klaus Schwab who also served in both the Nixon and Ford administrations, suggested that Ukraine should join NATO.
As Dave Decamp reported for Antiwar.com:
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in a video address to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Tuesday that Ukraine joining NATO would be an “appropriate outcome” of the war, reversing his previous position that Kyiv shouldn’t join the Western military alliance.
“Before this war, I was opposed to membership of Ukraine in NATO because I feared that it would start exactly the process that we have seen now,” Kissinger said. “Now that this process has reached this level, the idea of a neutral Ukraine under these conditions is no longer meaningful.”
(…)
The former secretary of state angered Ukrainian officials the last time he addressed the WEF back in May 2022. In those remarks, Kissinger suggested Ukraine should cede Crimea and the territory separatists controlled in the Donbas before Russia’s invasion.
While known as a hawk for his infamous role in leading the secret US bombing of Cambodia as President Nixon’s national security advisor, Kissinger has long called for a more friendly posture toward Russia since the end of the Cold War. In 2014, shortly after the US-backed ousting of former Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, Kissinger warned that if Ukraine were to “survive and thrive,” it must function as a “bridge” between Russia and the West.
Speaking of NATO, the military alliance’s Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, called for western nations to supply more military support for Ukraine while in Davos last week. While making his argument during a panel called “Restoring Security and Peace”, Stoltenberg almost literally took a phrase out of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984 and stated that “Weapons are the way to peace.” In response to statements made during the WEF summit — and likely Stoltenberg’s remarks in particular — the deputy chair of the Russian Security Council, Dmitry Medvedev, said “None of them gets it that a nuclear power’s loss of a conventional war can lead to a nuclear one.” This is yet another example of western leaders flirting with the potential for nuclear war.
In a separate video address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky also called for more military aid to the country. Zelensky criticized western governments for being too slow to send weapons, most likely referring to Germany’s recent hesitancy to send tanks to Ukraine. During the address, Zelensky also stated that “We routinely defend values which some of the allies take for granted,” repeating the factually incorrect line of propaganda that Ukraine is a beacon of democracy.
Conspiracy Theories and the Truth
Obviously, these are just some of the worrisome statements and conversations that occurred at Davos last week, and this is just one year out of over 50 that this summit of global elites has taken place. The World Economic Forum, especially in the last few years, has become the center of controversy and conspiracy theories. As is usually the case, many of those theories are probably an exaggeration of reality if not entirely baseless.
However, it’s completely true that these elites do in fact gather together at least once a year and discuss how to shape government policy, the global economy, and much more. Not only that but Klaus Schwab has actually admitted that the WEF has, in his own words, “penetrated” the cabinets of governments all over the world through the use of its Young Global Leaders program. That alone is concerning enough, and it shouldn’t be overlooked simply because some people take their suspicions of this organization a little too far.
Clearly, the World Economic Forum is a very powerful and influential organization, and it exerts that influence over governments, corporations, and financial institutions all over the world. The WEF’s annual summit at Davos is an opportunity for the average person to peer into the machinations of this group of global elites, and it is absolutely worth paying attention to. The decisions these world and business leaders make affect us all, and the idea that they have good intentions or are even capable of knowing what’s best for the planet or the global population is improbable at best, and extremely dangerous at worst. It’s long past time we let these global elites know that we won’t let them tell us how to live our lives.
Thanks for reading! If you enjoy my writing, feel free to subscribe to my Substack, or you can follow me on Twitter, Minds, or MeWe.