X Close

How the Davos elite took back control The WEF is insulating policy-making from democracy

At least he didn't sing (PIERRE VERDY/AFP via Getty Images)

At least he didn't sing (PIERRE VERDY/AFP via Getty Images)


January 16, 2023   6 mins

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.


Thomas Fazi is an UnHerd columnist and translator. His latest book is The Covid Consensus, co-authored with Toby Green.

battleforeurope

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

171 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Bold prediction based on nothing more than gut instinct and maybe wishful thinking: the WEF has reached peak insanity and will be weaker and less influential by the end of this week.

These clowns have made hay operating in the shadows, but people are starting to wake up and see what the WEF really is – a malignant cancer that will kill democracy if allowed to grow unchecked.

Like the author, I don’t consider it a secret cabal plotting to take over the world. It’s nothing more than a group of wealthy, entitled upper level bureaucrats so convinced of their superiority they actually believe they can plan the future utopia.

No doubt they have power and influence now. Despite this wealth and power, bureaucrats will always fail. They’re not smart enough, creative enough or humble enough to build anything – let alone take over the world. Their malignant role was exposed during Covid, but ESG will be their ultimate demise.

State governors are wise to this garbage. Many are pulling out pension funds with investment firms that support ESG. In Canada, the federal Conservative Party, and some of its provincial counterparts, have forbidden its members from joining the WEF.

The hubris of the WEF is staggering. To think for even a moment they can remake the world is mind blowing. It can only end in failure. Like every planned economy before this, bureaucrats have proved utterly inept at implementing their grandiose ideas.

But having said all this, bureaucrats are good at wrecking things and the WEF could inflict substantial damage before it is burned to the ground. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I just don’t see this happening.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Veenbaas
M. Gatt
M. Gatt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You dont see this happening? Oh my.

P Beer
P Beer
1 year ago
Reply to  M. Gatt

That’s what he said…

P Beer
P Beer
1 year ago
Reply to  M. Gatt

That’s what he said…

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“the WEF has reached peak insanity”
That seems rather hyperbolic.
In what way(s) is the WEF “insane”?  
Please list, with supporting evidence, corroboration of your position.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

ESG. This policy doesn’t help anyone and will only drag down the govts and businesses that support it. Adding an entire new level of regulation and bureaucracy will reduce profits and make business less competitive.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You are mistaken. It helps the professional managerial class, by giving them an excuse to pay each other fat bonuses for things easier to accomplish than delivering value to their shareholders. They don’t care about profits. They care about their own pay-packets, and finding a way to decouple those from actually doing the job that in theory the shareholders hired them to do, to wit turn a profit, is something they very much want (I said in theory, because in practice, they were hired by other professional managers, since most controlling shares in companies are no longer voted by the actual capitalists, but by fund managers).
Capitalism, aside from privately held firms, is quite dead, replaced by what James Burnham called “managerialism”, and the Davos set represent not capital, but the managerial class, in finance, commerce, government and the non-profit sector.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
Σταύρος Γαλανός
Σταύρος Γαλανός
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Non profit?

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

The managerial class extends into things like universities (where, at least in the U.S. the number and pay packets of administrators grow faster than inflation even as professorial salaries lag inflation), quangos, proper NGOs, charitable foundations and the like.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
1 year ago
David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

The managerial class extends into things like universities (where, at least in the U.S. the number and pay packets of administrators grow faster than inflation even as professorial salaries lag inflation), quangos, proper NGOs, charitable foundations and the like.

Σταύρος Γαλανός
Σταύρος Γαλανός
1 year ago
Reply to  David Yetter

Non profit?

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You are mistaken. It helps the professional managerial class, by giving them an excuse to pay each other fat bonuses for things easier to accomplish than delivering value to their shareholders. They don’t care about profits. They care about their own pay-packets, and finding a way to decouple those from actually doing the job that in theory the shareholders hired them to do, to wit turn a profit, is something they very much want (I said in theory, because in practice, they were hired by other professional managers, since most controlling shares in companies are no longer voted by the actual capitalists, but by fund managers).
Capitalism, aside from privately held firms, is quite dead, replaced by what James Burnham called “managerialism”, and the Davos set represent not capital, but the managerial class, in finance, commerce, government and the non-profit sector.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Mr Veenbass is not sitting an exam for you. Write your own lists, numbskull.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

ESG. This policy doesn’t help anyone and will only drag down the govts and businesses that support it. Adding an entire new level of regulation and bureaucracy will reduce profits and make business less competitive.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Mr Veenbass is not sitting an exam for you. Write your own lists, numbskull.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I would certainly agree with your general thrust, that these hubristic sociopaths are not nearly clever (or rather, wise) enough to create a utopia of any kind.

Having said that, the idea that they’ve reached the peak of their insane policy pushing, or that they’re about to unravel, sadly I don’t see any evidence of that at all.

As the article notes, they’ve become massively empowered by their formalising of a ‘partnership’ with the UN and it’s satellite organisations. The bankrupting grift called Net Zero has been signed into law, and policy is flowing in this direction no matter the public pushback or consequences. Laws (clearly cut/paste ones handed down from above) are making their way thru Parliaments from Britain to Canada stripping back basic rights, reordering policing powers, restricting speech and expression, and setting up the frameworks for CBDCs and digital enslavement. They had a major hand in the Covid response (evidenced by almost every world leader suddenly chanting Klaus’ slogan “Build Back Better” in unison), and that facilitated the largest upward transfer of wealth ever recorded.

Flush with success [and cash] they have hired a bumper 5,000 troops to protect them as they meet this week. They know the public are angry, but for psychopaths that is simply a practical issue to be resolved by fortifying the palace with more guards until all the desired laws and systems are in place, at which point the state has been fully weaponised and will subdue their populations by force if necessary, to protect and advance the WEF’s agenda (which is now the state’s agenda, by law).

If that isn’t smashing success in the realm of global coups, I don’t know what is!

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Maybe I’m being a bit optimistic, maybe the WEF will become even stronger. Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part.

I think net zero is the type of drivel that will drive this group to extinction. It might be all the rage in the west, but countries like India and China simply don’t buy into this garbage.

I’m hopeful politicians and people will push back before serious damage is done. Maybe I’m wrong, but we see it already with Republican governors in the US. And while the Trudeau govt is the poster boy for the WEF, there is some serious opposition developing in Canada as well.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’s already happening. They are dropping the ‘new boiler’ agenda. People know that as we produce but 2% of the planet’s carbon footprint if we reach net zero it will have zero impact. So they will be asking themselves why the enforced regulations?

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

“2% of the planet’s carbon footprint” Meaningless drivel.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Vici C

“2% of the planet’s carbon footprint” Meaningless drivel.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

It’s already happening. They are dropping the ‘new boiler’ agenda. People know that as we produce but 2% of the planet’s carbon footprint if we reach net zero it will have zero impact. So they will be asking themselves why the enforced regulations?

tom Ryder
tom Ryder
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Orwell’s big Brother could not have succeeded any better! But max insanity is still a ways off, North Korean Jang Jin-Sung’s Dear Leader shows where we’re headed

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  tom Ryder

I fear you are right. It’s going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. Mainly because the constant cycles of chaos (that the media generate and amplify) keep the public distracted from the quiet and thorough infiltration and reordering of the political, legal and financial systems.

Just at the point that people seemed to be surfacing from the shell-shock state of the Covid years, beginning to ask questions, then they hit us with the next proxy war and it seemed to just suck all that angst, fear and emotion into a new distraction. No time left for questioning what the hell just happened for the past 2 years, and where all our money and rights went …there’s a war going on, don’t you know! …and there’s a climate crisis, and it’s an EMERGENCY!

The power brokers long ago worked out that emergencies are very handing for scooping up power and money, so now they specialise in creating emergencies, for exactly this purpose. The public as a whole need to get much savvier about this very fast. We are on the fast track to dystopia right now and it would be nice to stop this bullet train before it drops us all off in North Korea.

Last edited 1 year ago by JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  tom Ryder

I fear you are right. It’s going to have to get a lot worse before it gets better. Mainly because the constant cycles of chaos (that the media generate and amplify) keep the public distracted from the quiet and thorough infiltration and reordering of the political, legal and financial systems.

Just at the point that people seemed to be surfacing from the shell-shock state of the Covid years, beginning to ask questions, then they hit us with the next proxy war and it seemed to just suck all that angst, fear and emotion into a new distraction. No time left for questioning what the hell just happened for the past 2 years, and where all our money and rights went …there’s a war going on, don’t you know! …and there’s a climate crisis, and it’s an EMERGENCY!

The power brokers long ago worked out that emergencies are very handing for scooping up power and money, so now they specialise in creating emergencies, for exactly this purpose. The public as a whole need to get much savvier about this very fast. We are on the fast track to dystopia right now and it would be nice to stop this bullet train before it drops us all off in North Korea.

Last edited 1 year ago by JJ Barnett
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Fear always makes things seem larger than they are, and there is plenty of evidence that they aren’t just getting their way unopposed any longer. Populist movements in Europe, Orban and Meloni. A realigned populist Republican party in the US pushing out the old guard. Trump’s victory over Clinton. Sanders almost victory over Clinton and then Biden. China and India not playing this game but instead pursuing overtly nationalist agendas. The growing Cold War between the US and China. The divergence of interests that is happening between the US military industrial complex and the DAVOS crowd. Cracks before the flood, IMHO.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I do hope you’re right Steve

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

They will not relinquish power quietly no matter how much these authoritarian technocrats go on and on about “democracy”.

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

They will not relinquish power quietly no matter how much these authoritarian technocrats go on and on about “democracy”.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Good post, Steve, and I agree. Curious about your line on ‘the divergence of interests that is happening between the US military industrial complex and the DAVOS crowd’, though. How so? They seem to be to be aligned, at least to the extent that both benefit from the post-2001 Forever Wars, not only by impoverishing the western taxpayer and increasing US-Corporate world political dominance (at least in the short term) but also, most recently, in artificially raising the cost of energy.
Is there a divergence I’m missing?

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I do hope you’re right Steve

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Good post, Steve, and I agree. Curious about your line on ‘the divergence of interests that is happening between the US military industrial complex and the DAVOS crowd’, though. How so? They seem to be to be aligned, at least to the extent that both benefit from the post-2001 Forever Wars, not only by impoverishing the western taxpayer and increasing US-Corporate world political dominance (at least in the short term) but also, most recently, in artificially raising the cost of energy.
Is there a divergence I’m missing?

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Maybe I’m being a bit optimistic, maybe the WEF will become even stronger. Maybe it’s wishful thinking on my part.

I think net zero is the type of drivel that will drive this group to extinction. It might be all the rage in the west, but countries like India and China simply don’t buy into this garbage.

I’m hopeful politicians and people will push back before serious damage is done. Maybe I’m wrong, but we see it already with Republican governors in the US. And while the Trudeau govt is the poster boy for the WEF, there is some serious opposition developing in Canada as well.

tom Ryder
tom Ryder
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Orwell’s big Brother could not have succeeded any better! But max insanity is still a ways off, North Korean Jang Jin-Sung’s Dear Leader shows where we’re headed

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Fear always makes things seem larger than they are, and there is plenty of evidence that they aren’t just getting their way unopposed any longer. Populist movements in Europe, Orban and Meloni. A realigned populist Republican party in the US pushing out the old guard. Trump’s victory over Clinton. Sanders almost victory over Clinton and then Biden. China and India not playing this game but instead pursuing overtly nationalist agendas. The growing Cold War between the US and China. The divergence of interests that is happening between the US military industrial complex and the DAVOS crowd. Cracks before the flood, IMHO.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree – as i often point out only $100 trn of the worlds c £400 trn assets are traded on the stock markets.Of that $100 trn half is real money EG Shell, Diageo, QGPC, not the “debt as asset” stuff like Musk or Fakebook. To steal and control all these assets WEF will need a lot of guns, time and money. I can’t see them winning in the Yangtse water margins, Russian forests or the Mexican Altiplano. The only ppl they can really hurt are the worlds landless por in Bangla, Yemen and Africa plus the poorest 50% of the West. They are classic Bond villains whose reach way exceeds their grasp.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree with this. The cat’s out of the bag. The populist fever has already captured one of the American parties and it’s only a matter of time and enough election losses before it also captures the other. Anti-elite sentiment is at an all time high and I don’t think they can virtue signal enough to overcome the basic human trait that people don’t like being ruled by unaccountable overlords. If they managed to bring world governments far enough down this road, they’d end up triggering violent revolutions long before they succeeded and I doubt many of them have the stomach or the skills to win that sort of conflict. They’ve lost, and just haven’t realized it yet. They lost when Trump beat Clinton. They lost when Brexit passed. They lost when Xi turned China from corporate playground into aspiring global power. They lost when Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off the gas to Europe. They’re losing elections left and right in Europe. Most of the powerful nations outside of Europe are led by fierce nationalists like Modi or Erdogan. The fact that they have to hire a small army to defend their summit should be a clue that things are not going their way, but they appear to be too thick to get the message.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Go Putin! Go Xi! Go Iran! Up the People!

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Maybe they’re not quite as black as the WEF’s agenda-mongering stooge MSM media paint them, John. Have you considered that possibility?
But clearly you’re a fan of the likes of Turdeau, Arden and Rutte. Well, whoever they represent, it isn’t the people in the ‘local’ political entities they were elected and paid to.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

Maybe they’re not quite as black as the WEF’s agenda-mongering stooge MSM media paint them, John. Have you considered that possibility?
But clearly you’re a fan of the likes of Turdeau, Arden and Rutte. Well, whoever they represent, it isn’t the people in the ‘local’ political entities they were elected and paid to.

Greta Hirschman
Greta Hirschman
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

They do not care who wins or looses an election as far as they can buy, blackmail or make the winners bleed after the elections.
They did not loose when Russia invaded Ukraine. That pushed interest rates up and increased profits for bankers, arm dealers and commodity traders. Inflation hits the low and middle classes harder than the upper ones.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

Go Putin! Go Xi! Go Iran! Up the People!

Greta Hirschman
Greta Hirschman
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

They do not care who wins or looses an election as far as they can buy, blackmail or make the winners bleed after the elections.
They did not loose when Russia invaded Ukraine. That pushed interest rates up and increased profits for bankers, arm dealers and commodity traders. Inflation hits the low and middle classes harder than the upper ones.

barbara harris
barbara harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Thanks for your comments. How far down the road to hell will we be forced to go before they are toppled? How much destruction ?

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I like Ferlinghetti’s poem about these awful people.
It ends like this
‘You’re all in the computer.We’ve got all
your numbers.Except one
Unidentified flying @@@hole.
On the radar screen.
Some dumb bird.
Every time I shoot it down
it rises’
To paraphrase a line from a famous film
‘2000 years of civilisation and what did the Swiss produce?
Davos man and Davos days.

M. Gatt
M. Gatt
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You dont see this happening? Oh my.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

“the WEF has reached peak insanity”
That seems rather hyperbolic.
In what way(s) is the WEF “insane”?  
Please list, with supporting evidence, corroboration of your position.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I would certainly agree with your general thrust, that these hubristic sociopaths are not nearly clever (or rather, wise) enough to create a utopia of any kind.

Having said that, the idea that they’ve reached the peak of their insane policy pushing, or that they’re about to unravel, sadly I don’t see any evidence of that at all.

As the article notes, they’ve become massively empowered by their formalising of a ‘partnership’ with the UN and it’s satellite organisations. The bankrupting grift called Net Zero has been signed into law, and policy is flowing in this direction no matter the public pushback or consequences. Laws (clearly cut/paste ones handed down from above) are making their way thru Parliaments from Britain to Canada stripping back basic rights, reordering policing powers, restricting speech and expression, and setting up the frameworks for CBDCs and digital enslavement. They had a major hand in the Covid response (evidenced by almost every world leader suddenly chanting Klaus’ slogan “Build Back Better” in unison), and that facilitated the largest upward transfer of wealth ever recorded.

Flush with success [and cash] they have hired a bumper 5,000 troops to protect them as they meet this week. They know the public are angry, but for psychopaths that is simply a practical issue to be resolved by fortifying the palace with more guards until all the desired laws and systems are in place, at which point the state has been fully weaponised and will subdue their populations by force if necessary, to protect and advance the WEF’s agenda (which is now the state’s agenda, by law).

If that isn’t smashing success in the realm of global coups, I don’t know what is!

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree – as i often point out only $100 trn of the worlds c £400 trn assets are traded on the stock markets.Of that $100 trn half is real money EG Shell, Diageo, QGPC, not the “debt as asset” stuff like Musk or Fakebook. To steal and control all these assets WEF will need a lot of guns, time and money. I can’t see them winning in the Yangtse water margins, Russian forests or the Mexican Altiplano. The only ppl they can really hurt are the worlds landless por in Bangla, Yemen and Africa plus the poorest 50% of the West. They are classic Bond villains whose reach way exceeds their grasp.

Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I agree with this. The cat’s out of the bag. The populist fever has already captured one of the American parties and it’s only a matter of time and enough election losses before it also captures the other. Anti-elite sentiment is at an all time high and I don’t think they can virtue signal enough to overcome the basic human trait that people don’t like being ruled by unaccountable overlords. If they managed to bring world governments far enough down this road, they’d end up triggering violent revolutions long before they succeeded and I doubt many of them have the stomach or the skills to win that sort of conflict. They’ve lost, and just haven’t realized it yet. They lost when Trump beat Clinton. They lost when Brexit passed. They lost when Xi turned China from corporate playground into aspiring global power. They lost when Russia invaded Ukraine and cut off the gas to Europe. They’re losing elections left and right in Europe. Most of the powerful nations outside of Europe are led by fierce nationalists like Modi or Erdogan. The fact that they have to hire a small army to defend their summit should be a clue that things are not going their way, but they appear to be too thick to get the message.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Jolly
barbara harris
barbara harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Thanks for your comments. How far down the road to hell will we be forced to go before they are toppled? How much destruction ?

Dave Smith
Dave Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

I like Ferlinghetti’s poem about these awful people.
It ends like this
‘You’re all in the computer.We’ve got all
your numbers.Except one
Unidentified flying @@@hole.
On the radar screen.
Some dumb bird.
Every time I shoot it down
it rises’
To paraphrase a line from a famous film
‘2000 years of civilisation and what did the Swiss produce?
Davos man and Davos days.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago

Bold prediction based on nothing more than gut instinct and maybe wishful thinking: the WEF has reached peak insanity and will be weaker and less influential by the end of this week.

These clowns have made hay operating in the shadows, but people are starting to wake up and see what the WEF really is – a malignant cancer that will kill democracy if allowed to grow unchecked.

Like the author, I don’t consider it a secret cabal plotting to take over the world. It’s nothing more than a group of wealthy, entitled upper level bureaucrats so convinced of their superiority they actually believe they can plan the future utopia.

No doubt they have power and influence now. Despite this wealth and power, bureaucrats will always fail. They’re not smart enough, creative enough or humble enough to build anything – let alone take over the world. Their malignant role was exposed during Covid, but ESG will be their ultimate demise.

State governors are wise to this garbage. Many are pulling out pension funds with investment firms that support ESG. In Canada, the federal Conservative Party, and some of its provincial counterparts, have forbidden its members from joining the WEF.

The hubris of the WEF is staggering. To think for even a moment they can remake the world is mind blowing. It can only end in failure. Like every planned economy before this, bureaucrats have proved utterly inept at implementing their grandiose ideas.

But having said all this, bureaucrats are good at wrecking things and the WEF could inflict substantial damage before it is burned to the ground. Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I just don’t see this happening.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Veenbaas
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is a WEF Board Member which helps explain why Canada is now starting an attack on our farming industry similar to the Netherlands. It also explains the seizing of bank accounts of supporters of the convoy – which is clearly a blueprint for future control of the population. Our government is, of course pushing for digital money, seizing firearms and has legislation in process to censor the internet. Of course I am a mouth breathing conspiracy theorist for making these connections – even though as the author points out all this creepy authoritarian policy is right out there on the WEF website.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Oh ya, the Liberals are true believers. Trudeau was in the global leaders program, along with a bunch of MPs. They are the elitist, upper level bureaucrats who think they have it all figured out.

The Conservative Party was the same too, until they elected what might be a populist leader. He has a very negative opinion of the WEF.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Are you talking about Boris Johnson? I’m pretty sure he was in the WEF-youth. More to the point, he’s the most nakedly self-interested ligger I can think of. You can almost smell his desperation to get into the purplest of circles, where everything is free & no one is accountable.

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

I think he means the Canadian one. As to Boris, maybe he showed signs of going rogue, as, of course, did Truss. In any case, “they” went all out, with the collusion of the media, civil service, etc., etc. to get rid of Boris and Truss and install the reliable DAVOS clone that is Sunak to ensure that Britain, at least, would not fall back into the hands of its people.
Starmer is now being lined up to replace him, apparently with the intention of altering the electoral system in the UK to preclude any possibility of a restored democratic process “taking back control” here.
I do wonder, with the Evil Emperor Swab’s open boasts about how many governments he has successfully “penetrated” (shudder), how this power grab can be reversed. It’s amazing what money can buy.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Kier and a number of Labour party folks are headed to Davos this year, but Kier has been a globalist for a long time, evidenced by his membership of the Trilateral Commission.

They’re absolutely as rotten as the WEF, just more covert about their activities.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

This article is odd. I really do not see any threat from a talking shop involving corporations and global poseurs. All of greatest threats to the stability of our society – all part of the Blairite progressive revoution – lie in the dogmas and governing structures he bequeathed. It is our own unelected national technocracy or NMIs who threaten our prosperity – not Diageo or BP who employ real workers and actually fund the ever expanding Blob (thats right – your magic money tree theory WAS bollox). Corporations do not threaten us. It is the nihilistic insanity of Skidamore and Net Zero fanatics within our Government who do; how casual he is in wishing away the livelihoods of hundreds of workers in that new coal mine today. We are threatened by a dark growing pol potty cult of degrowth; high tax gigh benefits no mobility massive regulation naked hostility to enterprise – all woven into the warped dogmas of our media and governing class. Who cares about Davos and globalists! Look what these pygmies are doing to us here!!

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Things like Net Zero and the Online Harms BS Bill did not emanate from our government. These are ‘above’ policies.

The way to tell if something is an ‘above policy’ is: Can you vote against it?
…if not, very strong chance it’s an above policy, decided way above the pay grade of our government, by a consortium much more powerful. Net Zero is a really obvious one. The global power players and banking class are heavily invested in renewables, and in shifting the economy towards a carbon-based monetary system, which would give them ultimate control over wealth creation (strangling competition with Net Zero regulation), as well as a direct connection to the fire hose of public tax money (use govts to extort huge carbon taxes on the populous; act as contractors to the govt to mop up that money, all brokered in secret at gatherings like WEF). There is currently no party in government that you could vote for to divert this agenda, all 3 are all in. Above policy.

Global minimum tax rates (and higher taxes in general) is another one. Truss was elected on a platform of cutting taxes. Setting aside how she handled the delivery of the budget, the IMF and BoE gave strong signals that she was out on her own, and someone was clearly sent to forcibly reshuffle her cabinet, replacing her Chancellor with obedient Davos-man, Hunt. The traders received the signal and shorted the heck out of various markets, until she was flattened, and Davos-man Rishi could be manoeuvred back in, where they wanted him before. He immediately reverses the policies. Within weeks, he goes to G20 and the agenda summary reveals that he committed us to global minimum tax rates, among a number of other evils. So that global level agenda had been in motion for months, and there was no way Truss would be allowed to go in another direction, because that’s above policy — above her pay grade. Rishi got things back onto the above track, and the G20 revealed a bit about why the Truss situation happened, and happened so swiftly and brutally. It had to be done before G20.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I agree there is an above politics. I just see it WITHIN our hopeless corrupted UK elite. I do not see net zero as an idea imposed by globalist/corporatists. It is a virtue signalling cult like Lomdon groupthink credo which our vain weak and hoplessly ignorant Blob & politicians have bowed to without any Davos push. It is utterly shambolic, all emanating from a Latvian ex commie schoolteacher nutcase who naturally was asked by the EU to frame the continents war on fossil fuels. Thanks to idiots like Milliband and the German Norstream appeasers, this has has led to an energy crisis which will last for 2 decades. The rogues and fools are the popularity seeking Johnsons amd Mays and this deranged twit Skidamore (Tories???) who could not effect a global conspiracy if they tried. They are failed charlatans, riding the tide of a dangerous degrowth cult they do not even recognise, running us off a cliff – not conspiring cleverly to bring about some Rollerball Great Reset.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I take your point, but I don’t think Net Zero has anything to do with the climate, it is the vehicle chosen by the Club of Rome types (who themselves cribbed off the ideas of folks like Huxley and Russell), and it’s about control and money …mainly control.

The front end presentation of this agenda certainly resembles a religion/cult, and has all the necessary elements (shibboleths and dogmas, articles of faith, a child saint, much rending of garments and public performance of virtue and sacrifice, burning/shaming/casting out of heretics, etc). These people are just useful idiots and shock troops for an agenda they do not understand, at all.

Net Zero is about creating a world where 1 group of people (self appointed) control the division and use of all resources. It’s a central administration project for one world govt by ‘experts’. The people who want this to happen have been building this framework (and making the investments) for decades, it’s a long game. Larry Fink and David Rockefeller don’t give a shit about the polar bears. There may be some genuine tree-huggers among this ‘elite’ cast, but the ones that actual hold power are not hippies, they’re technocrats and psychopaths who are implementing a very detailed, very lucrative, plan. The Swedish Doom Goblin is mere window dressing and diversion, and the Ed Milibands are similarly useful idiots.

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Well explained (and I would have multiple up-ticked both your posts were it permitted). One of the other “above” policies that is being enforced against the express wishes of the electorate is unlimited and indiscriminate immigration, without integration, with its concomitant parallel societies, laws and cultures, leading to distressing outcomes for all.
As with most failing, and failed, states, the UK now seems to have a black economy that thrives whilst the official one disintegrates and an underclass with completely different societal norms and laws, policed by private armies.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Yes, very true. It’s like normal/existing Britain and shadow/new Britain are bifurcating and operating more and more independently from one another.

Shadow Britain is growing, and is a weird alliance of the captured institutions (the heights of power, right up to the monarchy), with the illegals and welfare class (the beneficiaries/clients). Normal Britain is still left as the slice in the middle, shrinking, sucked dry by parasitism from both sides.

Very true about immigration. Over decades, no matter who we vote for or what they promise, we get higher immigration, particularly 3rd world and illegal immigration. In one administration you could call that incompetence or mischief. In every single one, despite varying tie colours and manifesto promises …that’s institutional capture. Shadow governance at work, delivering on their above policy agenda.

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I did upvote you, but someone else downvoted, so it’s cancelled out. I assume the “i” word has triggered the usual Pavlovian reaction from the usual quarters..

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Haha, thanks anyway, can’t be helped!

At least sugar gliders seem to be free thinking creatures

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Haha, thanks anyway, can’t be helped!

At least sugar gliders seem to be free thinking creatures

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

The crucial tipping point for uncontrolled immigration, as far as the UK is concerned was 2004-05. That was the point when Blair realised that the Conservstive Party was beyond saving following its electoral disaster of 1997and that Cameron would be the new leader, meaning that the two-party state kept in check by meaningful opposition was at an end

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I did upvote you, but someone else downvoted, so it’s cancelled out. I assume the “i” word has triggered the usual Pavlovian reaction from the usual quarters..

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

The crucial tipping point for uncontrolled immigration, as far as the UK is concerned was 2004-05. That was the point when Blair realised that the Conservstive Party was beyond saving following its electoral disaster of 1997and that Cameron would be the new leader, meaning that the two-party state kept in check by meaningful opposition was at an end

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Yes, very true. It’s like normal/existing Britain and shadow/new Britain are bifurcating and operating more and more independently from one another.

Shadow Britain is growing, and is a weird alliance of the captured institutions (the heights of power, right up to the monarchy), with the illegals and welfare class (the beneficiaries/clients). Normal Britain is still left as the slice in the middle, shrinking, sucked dry by parasitism from both sides.

Very true about immigration. Over decades, no matter who we vote for or what they promise, we get higher immigration, particularly 3rd world and illegal immigration. In one administration you could call that incompetence or mischief. In every single one, despite varying tie colours and manifesto promises …that’s institutional capture. Shadow governance at work, delivering on their above policy agenda.

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

Well explained (and I would have multiple up-ticked both your posts were it permitted). One of the other “above” policies that is being enforced against the express wishes of the electorate is unlimited and indiscriminate immigration, without integration, with its concomitant parallel societies, laws and cultures, leading to distressing outcomes for all.
As with most failing, and failed, states, the UK now seems to have a black economy that thrives whilst the official one disintegrates and an underclass with completely different societal norms and laws, policed by private armies.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Good comments Mr marvell.
Yes the biggest problem with this mega Corp conspiracy is it forgets that business generally, wants stability. It doesn’t want disruption, political chaos or lockdowns. (one of the old fringe type theories was centrist politics was maintained for that very reason, stop any extreme crazy kicking off) All of those things are very bad for business.
People I think need to come to terms with the fact the ‘pax Americana’ is probably over. All the benefits that came with that are under threat. Cheap goods, cheap energy, cheap food. The conflict between America and the East has been coming for a long time, they’ve all been gearing up for it. What we are living is not the result of a mega Corp conspiracy, we are living a big east west confrontation in my opinion.
Net zero may have something to do with decreasing our dependency on Russian energy. Just saying.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-we-are-focusing-these-three-key-global-transitions

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Good points. Tbh, there are deeper convulsions shaking our national body in ER that trouble me even more than the energy disaster and the Net Zero madness. Again, all stem from the Blair/Brown Revolution. Problem A – mass uncontrolled movement of peoples was buried by the media but eventually came to surface (though the media will never connect 8m unexpected new faces to the implosion of public services). Problem B – the hidden extension of welfarism via the madness of tax credits & the redistribution only tax policy. Still not unmasked. We were told it was sorted. It is not, locking the underclass in dependency. Problem C – their Soviet drive to free and mass feminize the new service workforce.
Numbers wise, a revolution and success- 1m of 1.2m NHS workers are women. But – hello – we have totally inadequate childcare… so guess what? NHS work is deemed ‘anti women’ and impossible so forget a 24/7 health service. There is a hidden gender wall. Will anyone discuss this? Na. Problem D. Another catastrophic social engineering project that has seen ypung peoples educational standards torched on the altar of the 50% at uni goal. All of this – and toxic identitarianism and the nihilistic equality cult – are the direct consequences of New Labour and their EU think. Home grown poison. No Bond globo villains in Davos could ever shatter and harm a society as much as New Labour.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

You’ve gone off on a bit of tangent on that lol. I do think very bad things happened under new Labour last time. The supreme Court and the whole Iraq debacle being the main ones for me.
Regarding the feminism stuff. As far as I’m concerned much of the trans/gender/feminist debate has been imported from America. I have to say I think the general public (myself included) are only just realising how far some of this stuff has gone, I have to say the extent to which it seems to have captured and disrupted some universities is slightly disturbing, not because I have anything against debating the issue but the way in which the debate seems to have happened, with professors getting lynched, it’s all got a bit militant etc.
However, I think when it comes down to it there will be a push back. We will see how far sturgeon gets I suppose, there’s a woman that knows how to cause a stir. She kept jumping boris on the covid restrictions too.
Tbh Mr marvell I don’t know what equality quotas the NHS has, any quota like that though I imagine is counter productive. We need to hire people on performance, capability, competence not on what a quota says. From a business perspective quotas like that would be a nightmare I imagine. And not really fair, I wouldn’t care what race/gender etc. as long as the person is the right person for the job.
Regarding the ‘underclass’. I hate that term. I normally swear at posters on here that use it. It assumes every benefit claiment is somehow below or apart from, normal society. I’m not sure on tax credits etc. I do limited company, self employed type tax, we don’t use the system for benefits so I don’t know. Or about it locking people into dependency. Life at the bottom can be very fu**ing complicated. I will say that.
Net zero like I say might have more to do with the actual global energy situation than just being kind to nature. We will see.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

You’ve gone off on a bit of tangent on that lol. I do think very bad things happened under new Labour last time. The supreme Court and the whole Iraq debacle being the main ones for me.
Regarding the feminism stuff. As far as I’m concerned much of the trans/gender/feminist debate has been imported from America. I have to say I think the general public (myself included) are only just realising how far some of this stuff has gone, I have to say the extent to which it seems to have captured and disrupted some universities is slightly disturbing, not because I have anything against debating the issue but the way in which the debate seems to have happened, with professors getting lynched, it’s all got a bit militant etc.
However, I think when it comes down to it there will be a push back. We will see how far sturgeon gets I suppose, there’s a woman that knows how to cause a stir. She kept jumping boris on the covid restrictions too.
Tbh Mr marvell I don’t know what equality quotas the NHS has, any quota like that though I imagine is counter productive. We need to hire people on performance, capability, competence not on what a quota says. From a business perspective quotas like that would be a nightmare I imagine. And not really fair, I wouldn’t care what race/gender etc. as long as the person is the right person for the job.
Regarding the ‘underclass’. I hate that term. I normally swear at posters on here that use it. It assumes every benefit claiment is somehow below or apart from, normal society. I’m not sure on tax credits etc. I do limited company, self employed type tax, we don’t use the system for benefits so I don’t know. Or about it locking people into dependency. Life at the bottom can be very fu**ing complicated. I will say that.
Net zero like I say might have more to do with the actual global energy situation than just being kind to nature. We will see.

Last edited 1 year ago by B Emery
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Good points. Tbh, there are deeper convulsions shaking our national body in ER that trouble me even more than the energy disaster and the Net Zero madness. Again, all stem from the Blair/Brown Revolution. Problem A – mass uncontrolled movement of peoples was buried by the media but eventually came to surface (though the media will never connect 8m unexpected new faces to the implosion of public services). Problem B – the hidden extension of welfarism via the madness of tax credits & the redistribution only tax policy. Still not unmasked. We were told it was sorted. It is not, locking the underclass in dependency. Problem C – their Soviet drive to free and mass feminize the new service workforce.
Numbers wise, a revolution and success- 1m of 1.2m NHS workers are women. But – hello – we have totally inadequate childcare… so guess what? NHS work is deemed ‘anti women’ and impossible so forget a 24/7 health service. There is a hidden gender wall. Will anyone discuss this? Na. Problem D. Another catastrophic social engineering project that has seen ypung peoples educational standards torched on the altar of the 50% at uni goal. All of this – and toxic identitarianism and the nihilistic equality cult – are the direct consequences of New Labour and their EU think. Home grown poison. No Bond globo villains in Davos could ever shatter and harm a society as much as New Labour.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

I take your point, but I don’t think Net Zero has anything to do with the climate, it is the vehicle chosen by the Club of Rome types (who themselves cribbed off the ideas of folks like Huxley and Russell), and it’s about control and money …mainly control.

The front end presentation of this agenda certainly resembles a religion/cult, and has all the necessary elements (shibboleths and dogmas, articles of faith, a child saint, much rending of garments and public performance of virtue and sacrifice, burning/shaming/casting out of heretics, etc). These people are just useful idiots and shock troops for an agenda they do not understand, at all.

Net Zero is about creating a world where 1 group of people (self appointed) control the division and use of all resources. It’s a central administration project for one world govt by ‘experts’. The people who want this to happen have been building this framework (and making the investments) for decades, it’s a long game. Larry Fink and David Rockefeller don’t give a shit about the polar bears. There may be some genuine tree-huggers among this ‘elite’ cast, but the ones that actual hold power are not hippies, they’re technocrats and psychopaths who are implementing a very detailed, very lucrative, plan. The Swedish Doom Goblin is mere window dressing and diversion, and the Ed Milibands are similarly useful idiots.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Good comments Mr marvell.
Yes the biggest problem with this mega Corp conspiracy is it forgets that business generally, wants stability. It doesn’t want disruption, political chaos or lockdowns. (one of the old fringe type theories was centrist politics was maintained for that very reason, stop any extreme crazy kicking off) All of those things are very bad for business.
People I think need to come to terms with the fact the ‘pax Americana’ is probably over. All the benefits that came with that are under threat. Cheap goods, cheap energy, cheap food. The conflict between America and the East has been coming for a long time, they’ve all been gearing up for it. What we are living is not the result of a mega Corp conspiracy, we are living a big east west confrontation in my opinion.
Net zero may have something to do with decreasing our dependency on Russian energy. Just saying.

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/morgan-stanley-we-are-focusing-these-three-key-global-transitions

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

I agree there is an above politics. I just see it WITHIN our hopeless corrupted UK elite. I do not see net zero as an idea imposed by globalist/corporatists. It is a virtue signalling cult like Lomdon groupthink credo which our vain weak and hoplessly ignorant Blob & politicians have bowed to without any Davos push. It is utterly shambolic, all emanating from a Latvian ex commie schoolteacher nutcase who naturally was asked by the EU to frame the continents war on fossil fuels. Thanks to idiots like Milliband and the German Norstream appeasers, this has has led to an energy crisis which will last for 2 decades. The rogues and fools are the popularity seeking Johnsons amd Mays and this deranged twit Skidamore (Tories???) who could not effect a global conspiracy if they tried. They are failed charlatans, riding the tide of a dangerous degrowth cult they do not even recognise, running us off a cliff – not conspiring cleverly to bring about some Rollerball Great Reset.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Uptick for “global poseurs”. A label that captures it perfectly and deserves to stick.

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Things like Net Zero and the Online Harms BS Bill did not emanate from our government. These are ‘above’ policies.

The way to tell if something is an ‘above policy’ is: Can you vote against it?
…if not, very strong chance it’s an above policy, decided way above the pay grade of our government, by a consortium much more powerful. Net Zero is a really obvious one. The global power players and banking class are heavily invested in renewables, and in shifting the economy towards a carbon-based monetary system, which would give them ultimate control over wealth creation (strangling competition with Net Zero regulation), as well as a direct connection to the fire hose of public tax money (use govts to extort huge carbon taxes on the populous; act as contractors to the govt to mop up that money, all brokered in secret at gatherings like WEF). There is currently no party in government that you could vote for to divert this agenda, all 3 are all in. Above policy.

Global minimum tax rates (and higher taxes in general) is another one. Truss was elected on a platform of cutting taxes. Setting aside how she handled the delivery of the budget, the IMF and BoE gave strong signals that she was out on her own, and someone was clearly sent to forcibly reshuffle her cabinet, replacing her Chancellor with obedient Davos-man, Hunt. The traders received the signal and shorted the heck out of various markets, until she was flattened, and Davos-man Rishi could be manoeuvred back in, where they wanted him before. He immediately reverses the policies. Within weeks, he goes to G20 and the agenda summary reveals that he committed us to global minimum tax rates, among a number of other evils. So that global level agenda had been in motion for months, and there was no way Truss would be allowed to go in another direction, because that’s above policy — above her pay grade. Rishi got things back onto the above track, and the G20 revealed a bit about why the Truss situation happened, and happened so swiftly and brutally. It had to be done before G20.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

Uptick for “global poseurs”. A label that captures it perfectly and deserves to stick.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  JJ Barnett

This article is odd. I really do not see any threat from a talking shop involving corporations and global poseurs. All of greatest threats to the stability of our society – all part of the Blairite progressive revoution – lie in the dogmas and governing structures he bequeathed. It is our own unelected national technocracy or NMIs who threaten our prosperity – not Diageo or BP who employ real workers and actually fund the ever expanding Blob (thats right – your magic money tree theory WAS bollox). Corporations do not threaten us. It is the nihilistic insanity of Skidamore and Net Zero fanatics within our Government who do; how casual he is in wishing away the livelihoods of hundreds of workers in that new coal mine today. We are threatened by a dark growing pol potty cult of degrowth; high tax gigh benefits no mobility massive regulation naked hostility to enterprise – all woven into the warped dogmas of our media and governing class. Who cares about Davos and globalists! Look what these pygmies are doing to us here!!

JJ Barnett
JJ Barnett
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

Kier and a number of Labour party folks are headed to Davos this year, but Kier has been a globalist for a long time, evidenced by his membership of the Trilateral Commission.

They’re absolutely as rotten as the WEF, just more covert about their activities.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

Pierre Poilievre

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Apologies. On re-reading it should’ve been obvious you were talking about Canada

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Apologies. On re-reading it should’ve been obvious you were talking about Canada

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

I think he means the Canadian one. As to Boris, maybe he showed signs of going rogue, as, of course, did Truss. In any case, “they” went all out, with the collusion of the media, civil service, etc., etc. to get rid of Boris and Truss and install the reliable DAVOS clone that is Sunak to ensure that Britain, at least, would not fall back into the hands of its people.
Starmer is now being lined up to replace him, apparently with the intention of altering the electoral system in the UK to preclude any possibility of a restored democratic process “taking back control” here.
I do wonder, with the Evil Emperor Swab’s open boasts about how many governments he has successfully “penetrated” (shudder), how this power grab can be reversed. It’s amazing what money can buy.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Farrell

Pierre Poilievre

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Trudeau has quite openly professed his admiration for the Chinese model of government, talking about how efficiently it works in getting people to behave & do what they’re told. As evidenced by his sledgehammer tactics during Covid. He embodies everything that is terrifying about the WEF & its fostering of of a class of ambitious, arrogant, elitist sociopaths.

Steve Farrell
Steve Farrell
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Are you talking about Boris Johnson? I’m pretty sure he was in the WEF-youth. More to the point, he’s the most nakedly self-interested ligger I can think of. You can almost smell his desperation to get into the purplest of circles, where everything is free & no one is accountable.

Jane Awdry
Jane Awdry
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Trudeau has quite openly professed his admiration for the Chinese model of government, talking about how efficiently it works in getting people to behave & do what they’re told. As evidenced by his sledgehammer tactics during Covid. He embodies everything that is terrifying about the WEF & its fostering of of a class of ambitious, arrogant, elitist sociopaths.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

Oh ya, the Liberals are true believers. Trudeau was in the global leaders program, along with a bunch of MPs. They are the elitist, upper level bureaucrats who think they have it all figured out.

The Conservative Party was the same too, until they elected what might be a populist leader. He has a very negative opinion of the WEF.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

Canada’s Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland is a WEF Board Member which helps explain why Canada is now starting an attack on our farming industry similar to the Netherlands. It also explains the seizing of bank accounts of supporters of the convoy – which is clearly a blueprint for future control of the population. Our government is, of course pushing for digital money, seizing firearms and has legislation in process to censor the internet. Of course I am a mouth breathing conspiracy theorist for making these connections – even though as the author points out all this creepy authoritarian policy is right out there on the WEF website.

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

Seriously, how is Davos still a thing? And who, in the name of Love, invites Bono? What is he supposed to bring to the discussion?
I wonder if there were similar inklings of fear and trepidation among the ‘superclass’ at Versailles at the start of 1789? A feeling that the future was not looking quite so rosy – but still a godlike belief in their right to rule, a messianic adherence to the agenda they’ve agreed on for the last 20 years and a total misreading of the reasons the peasants seem more revolting than usual for the time of year. 
Among the talks on Global Capitalism and the Green New Deal and how it will benefit them, there’ll no doubt be concerns raised at the rising tide of resentment among the over-taxed and multi-vaxxed plebs at being forced to live in Matrix pods and eat bugs, and our growing mistrust of the useful idiots in the media who promote this neo-liberal, dystopian agenda.
But, of course, it’s always a lot easier to muse on the foibles of the minions whilst perched on a Swiss mountain-top, in a lair full of wanna-be Bond villains. Yet never once having the self-awareness to recognise what the rest of us can see quite plainly, ‘Yes, when discussing the problems we face, it is you and your cohort of globalists who’ve brought most of this about. That your certainty about the future was unfounded and your ideas detrimental to the common-good.’
Hopefully some young entrepreneur is doing a Dragon’s Den style pitch to some of them, “I’m looking for investors into my little company, we make torches and pitchforks. I think we’re set for a big few years. You might want to get in early …”

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

We know what’s good for the world; let’s cut food production 30% and force people to drive EVs while simultaneously destroying the electrical grid. As a sweetener, we will crush small business with ESG. What could go wrong? They’re pompous fools.

Michael Webb
Michael Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Dangerously arrogant pompous fools

Michael Webb
Michael Webb
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

Dangerously arrogant pompous fools

dave hark
dave hark
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

And who, in the name of Love, invites Bono? 

I see what you did there…

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  dave hark

You too, Dave? You too?
Yes, I was just trying to elicit a cheap laugh from all and sundry, …… bloody sundry.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

And did it again, bless you!

michael harris
michael harris
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

And did it again, bless you!

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago
Reply to  dave hark

You too, Dave? You too?
Yes, I was just trying to elicit a cheap laugh from all and sundry, …… bloody sundry.

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Ah yes… Anyone have a pitchfork I can borrow? Better living through socialism. Central planning never works. Simply too many moving parts. The invisible hand is always working, and unless these NGO groups strip the entire world of the power to influence the free market, the invisible hand will eventually swipe them out of the way, or we’ll descend into total tyranny.
For those becoming better aware of this issue, good for you. Unfortunately, we can’t boycott these multi national corporations twice. Now it’s your turn. Vote with your wallet, vote with your feet.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Did you miss the piano wire and lamposts (from the Dragon’s Den pitch) ?

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Musk declined to join. Said today that the WEF gives him the willies. (Précis).

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago

A good egg. I just wish he didn’t want to enmesh the earth with satellites (so not quite a double yolker, as such).

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

But he makes EVs, which are Evil.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  opop anax

But he makes EVs, which are Evil.

opop anax
opop anax
1 year ago

A good egg. I just wish he didn’t want to enmesh the earth with satellites (so not quite a double yolker, as such).

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

We know what’s good for the world; let’s cut food production 30% and force people to drive EVs while simultaneously destroying the electrical grid. As a sweetener, we will crush small business with ESG. What could go wrong? They’re pompous fools.

dave hark
dave hark
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

And who, in the name of Love, invites Bono? 

I see what you did there…

Mr_ Yesterday
Mr_ Yesterday
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Ah yes… Anyone have a pitchfork I can borrow? Better living through socialism. Central planning never works. Simply too many moving parts. The invisible hand is always working, and unless these NGO groups strip the entire world of the power to influence the free market, the invisible hand will eventually swipe them out of the way, or we’ll descend into total tyranny.
For those becoming better aware of this issue, good for you. Unfortunately, we can’t boycott these multi national corporations twice. Now it’s your turn. Vote with your wallet, vote with your feet.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Did you miss the piano wire and lamposts (from the Dragon’s Den pitch) ?

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 year ago
Reply to  Paddy Taylor

Musk declined to join. Said today that the WEF gives him the willies. (Précis).

Paddy Taylor
Paddy Taylor
1 year ago

Seriously, how is Davos still a thing? And who, in the name of Love, invites Bono? What is he supposed to bring to the discussion?
I wonder if there were similar inklings of fear and trepidation among the ‘superclass’ at Versailles at the start of 1789? A feeling that the future was not looking quite so rosy – but still a godlike belief in their right to rule, a messianic adherence to the agenda they’ve agreed on for the last 20 years and a total misreading of the reasons the peasants seem more revolting than usual for the time of year. 
Among the talks on Global Capitalism and the Green New Deal and how it will benefit them, there’ll no doubt be concerns raised at the rising tide of resentment among the over-taxed and multi-vaxxed plebs at being forced to live in Matrix pods and eat bugs, and our growing mistrust of the useful idiots in the media who promote this neo-liberal, dystopian agenda.
But, of course, it’s always a lot easier to muse on the foibles of the minions whilst perched on a Swiss mountain-top, in a lair full of wanna-be Bond villains. Yet never once having the self-awareness to recognise what the rest of us can see quite plainly, ‘Yes, when discussing the problems we face, it is you and your cohort of globalists who’ve brought most of this about. That your certainty about the future was unfounded and your ideas detrimental to the common-good.’
Hopefully some young entrepreneur is doing a Dragon’s Den style pitch to some of them, “I’m looking for investors into my little company, we make torches and pitchforks. I think we’re set for a big few years. You might want to get in early …”

Last edited 1 year ago by Paddy Taylor
Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

The WEF is indeed not a conspiracy but reflects where much economic and social power already lies. Successful authoritarian actors are usually good explaining their plans in a way that is superficially enhancing to the lives of a sufficient portion of the population to be accepted and supported. The public/private partnership certainly produced anti-covid vaccines much quicker than was generally expected from previous vaccine rollouts.In that sense it was a success. What was less successful was the pre-vaccine measures to control the spread of covid consisting of masking and the shutting down of large sectors of the economy that had little scientific justification when all factors were taken into account.The fact that existing medicos to ameliorate the effects of the infection were never properly explored was a social policy failure.

The problem with any authoritarian system, however theoretically well-intentions is that it produces groupthink solutions with a bias to the interests of the elite class. Democracy is mediated during settled times through bureaucratic parties that are easily captured by such elite thinking. The Canadian government is perhaps the worst example of WEF ideological capture among traditional democracies. Let us hope sufficient numbers of the population cease to support the government so that its nefarious policies receive a rebuff from the electorate.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I certainly don’t dispute the point that you or the article are making – but perhaps an addition. Generally speaking I am loathe to blame the media – it’s normally just a cop out. But I do wonder at the ongoing reluctance of the media to really talk in depth about the interaction between national politicians and the various international organisations – surely this is ‘news.’ I’m not sure why it is: it may not be a conspiracy of silence, I suspect many journos simply don’t understand it or it’s too much like hard work. But the media really hasn’t kept up with the trends where governments have signed up to international deals at the expense of increasingly-severe constitutional deficits. There is social media coverage of course, but that is somewhat hit and miss.
You mention covid and all too often the media’s line on covid was, ‘that country is doing X so why aren’t you.’ This of course played very much to the agenda of minimising national governments and maximising a sense of drama that subsumed national politicians into a globalised mush.
Indeed the one recent time I can think of where there was some serious coverage of intergovernmental/supranationals was the single currency crisis where the issue was too big to ignore. But even there the coverage was pretty weak and had a ‘going through the motions’ feel about it. There was coverage of Brexit of course – but again that coverage (particularly the BBC) had an undertone of, ‘you the public are too dumb to understand this.’
I’m not entirely sure what the answer on this is. Inevitably when blaming the media one response is that we the public need to wise up. Another problem is the lack of viewpoint diversity amongst commentariat academics and journalists but undoubtedly these problems are rather easier to state than are solutions.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

The regime media is part of the professional managerial class that absolutely loves globalism and the WEF. Thankfully, the regime media is just about dead. Without the support of billionaires like Bloomberg and Bezos, and direct govt funding, the regime media would be dead already. Ultimately, these orgs need to actually make money and that ain’t happening.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

Bear in mind the media in the UK (excepting PEye) never talked about the cartel of right-wing bias that existed 1960s to late 80s and poss before though i wasn’t old enough to observe. The security apparatus, media (Today programme c 1979 anyone?) civil service, judiciary and even the UVF were hand in glove for the most part. It was a safe and stable time to be British BUT not if you chose to pick a fight with the state. I doubt the WEF will ever have that kind of power, even in Canada.

Last edited 1 year ago by mike otter
Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  mike otter

Indeed – there never was a golden age of the media and anyone who thinks there was simply asks to be deceived.
But what concerns me perhaps is not only the possibility or likelihood of the WEF (or others) having the sort of power that right or wrong should be the preserve of states it is that the media are simply not talking about it. As I say I do realise that some in the media don’t understand the current trends or that it’s just easier to churn out the same attack piece at a national minister.
But, for example, the media has been near-totally silent about central bank digital currencies. That is a level of surveillance that absolutely would give these international organisations tremendous power. The media has had extraordinarily little to say about the mechanics of the single currency and single market or ever more complex trade deals (with private court systems) that absolutely affect all our lives. To be clear here, I’m not simply blaming the ‘mainstream media.’ The more academic end of the media spectrum can not claim either ignorance or disinclination. The trade press are similarly quiet on for example the place of big tech.
Twenty years ago many people simply accepted social media in a very blase way and I see the same mistakes that were made then being made now.
Indeed one thing that covid showed up was how reliant some countries are on global charitable foundations to procure vaccines. The debate about the shrivelled role of the state in basic healthcare procurement is absolutely not some conspiracy theory.
Are we the public to blame for lapping up what the current media offers or are the media to blame for dumbing us all down. Maybe it’s a bit of both. But what ever the reality it’s not healthy for anyone.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

You’re right. There never was a golden age of journalism, but the industry has underwent fundamental restructuring over the last two decades. Bottom line. They don’t make money anymore.

So they either cater to the bias of their subscribers, or the ideology of their benefactors, like Bloomberg or Bezos. In some countries like Canada, the govt actually funds the regime media, picking outlets that are eligible for grants and those that aren’t.

Another factor is the education of journalists. Back in the day, most reporters didn’t have a post-secondary education. They often came from the working class and spoke truth to power. Journalists now come from the same universities as the politicians they report on. They are connected to the professional managerial class and have little in common with the working class.

There’s actually a lot of research out there detailing the restructuring of the news industry, and how it has impacted news coverage.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

You’re right. There never was a golden age of journalism, but the industry has underwent fundamental restructuring over the last two decades. Bottom line. They don’t make money anymore.

So they either cater to the bias of their subscribers, or the ideology of their benefactors, like Bloomberg or Bezos. In some countries like Canada, the govt actually funds the regime media, picking outlets that are eligible for grants and those that aren’t.

Another factor is the education of journalists. Back in the day, most reporters didn’t have a post-secondary education. They often came from the working class and spoke truth to power. Journalists now come from the same universities as the politicians they report on. They are connected to the professional managerial class and have little in common with the working class.

There’s actually a lot of research out there detailing the restructuring of the news industry, and how it has impacted news coverage.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  mike otter

Indeed – there never was a golden age of the media and anyone who thinks there was simply asks to be deceived.
But what concerns me perhaps is not only the possibility or likelihood of the WEF (or others) having the sort of power that right or wrong should be the preserve of states it is that the media are simply not talking about it. As I say I do realise that some in the media don’t understand the current trends or that it’s just easier to churn out the same attack piece at a national minister.
But, for example, the media has been near-totally silent about central bank digital currencies. That is a level of surveillance that absolutely would give these international organisations tremendous power. The media has had extraordinarily little to say about the mechanics of the single currency and single market or ever more complex trade deals (with private court systems) that absolutely affect all our lives. To be clear here, I’m not simply blaming the ‘mainstream media.’ The more academic end of the media spectrum can not claim either ignorance or disinclination. The trade press are similarly quiet on for example the place of big tech.
Twenty years ago many people simply accepted social media in a very blase way and I see the same mistakes that were made then being made now.
Indeed one thing that covid showed up was how reliant some countries are on global charitable foundations to procure vaccines. The debate about the shrivelled role of the state in basic healthcare procurement is absolutely not some conspiracy theory.
Are we the public to blame for lapping up what the current media offers or are the media to blame for dumbing us all down. Maybe it’s a bit of both. But what ever the reality it’s not healthy for anyone.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

The regime media is part of the professional managerial class that absolutely loves globalism and the WEF. Thankfully, the regime media is just about dead. Without the support of billionaires like Bloomberg and Bezos, and direct govt funding, the regime media would be dead already. Ultimately, these orgs need to actually make money and that ain’t happening.

mike otter
mike otter
1 year ago
Reply to  Sam Hill

Bear in mind the media in the UK (excepting PEye) never talked about the cartel of right-wing bias that existed 1960s to late 80s and poss before though i wasn’t old enough to observe. The security apparatus, media (Today programme c 1979 anyone?) civil service, judiciary and even the UVF were hand in glove for the most part. It was a safe and stable time to be British BUT not if you chose to pick a fight with the state. I doubt the WEF will ever have that kind of power, even in Canada.

Last edited 1 year ago by mike otter
Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The fact that Event 201 was perpetrated by this group a mere two months before the Covid outbreak tells us the entire exercise was a success – for them. It was a fire drill conducted by arsonists and our supposed democratic governments were all in. We’re going to need a lot more than hope to survive what they’re planning.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The WEF has been supported by the rise of the professional managerial class. Their supporters come the private and public sector bureaucracy, the NGOs, the think tanks etc., but this class is doomed IMO. They don’t directly contribute to economic growth and will crumble by their massive drag on the economy. At least I hope so. Big tech and finance is dominated by this class and massive layoffs are coming to both industries.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You could say the same of the mediaeval priesthood, but they lasted about a millennium. Breaking their power in Europe took up to 250 years (more like 450 in Ireland), and that’s not counting a couple of false starts (the Lollards, the Albigensenists…).
It might take a US President to do to that 6,000 what (the horrible) MBS did to Saudi’s elite: lock them in the Hilton, guard them with hired goons and starve them till they sign away their loot.

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Veenbaas

You could say the same of the mediaeval priesthood, but they lasted about a millennium. Breaking their power in Europe took up to 250 years (more like 450 in Ireland), and that’s not counting a couple of false starts (the Lollards, the Albigensenists…).
It might take a US President to do to that 6,000 what (the horrible) MBS did to Saudi’s elite: lock them in the Hilton, guard them with hired goons and starve them till they sign away their loot.

Sam Hill
Sam Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

I certainly don’t dispute the point that you or the article are making – but perhaps an addition. Generally speaking I am loathe to blame the media – it’s normally just a cop out. But I do wonder at the ongoing reluctance of the media to really talk in depth about the interaction between national politicians and the various international organisations – surely this is ‘news.’ I’m not sure why it is: it may not be a conspiracy of silence, I suspect many journos simply don’t understand it or it’s too much like hard work. But the media really hasn’t kept up with the trends where governments have signed up to international deals at the expense of increasingly-severe constitutional deficits. There is social media coverage of course, but that is somewhat hit and miss.
You mention covid and all too often the media’s line on covid was, ‘that country is doing X so why aren’t you.’ This of course played very much to the agenda of minimising national governments and maximising a sense of drama that subsumed national politicians into a globalised mush.
Indeed the one recent time I can think of where there was some serious coverage of intergovernmental/supranationals was the single currency crisis where the issue was too big to ignore. But even there the coverage was pretty weak and had a ‘going through the motions’ feel about it. There was coverage of Brexit of course – but again that coverage (particularly the BBC) had an undertone of, ‘you the public are too dumb to understand this.’
I’m not entirely sure what the answer on this is. Inevitably when blaming the media one response is that we the public need to wise up. Another problem is the lack of viewpoint diversity amongst commentariat academics and journalists but undoubtedly these problems are rather easier to state than are solutions.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The fact that Event 201 was perpetrated by this group a mere two months before the Covid outbreak tells us the entire exercise was a success – for them. It was a fire drill conducted by arsonists and our supposed democratic governments were all in. We’re going to need a lot more than hope to survive what they’re planning.

Jim Veenbaas
Jim Veenbaas
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Bray

The WEF has been supported by the rise of the professional managerial class. Their supporters come the private and public sector bureaucracy, the NGOs, the think tanks etc., but this class is doomed IMO. They don’t directly contribute to economic growth and will crumble by their massive drag on the economy. At least I hope so. Big tech and finance is dominated by this class and massive layoffs are coming to both industries.

Jeremy Bray
Jeremy Bray
1 year ago

The WEF is indeed not a conspiracy but reflects where much economic and social power already lies. Successful authoritarian actors are usually good explaining their plans in a way that is superficially enhancing to the lives of a sufficient portion of the population to be accepted and supported. The public/private partnership certainly produced anti-covid vaccines much quicker than was generally expected from previous vaccine rollouts.In that sense it was a success. What was less successful was the pre-vaccine measures to control the spread of covid consisting of masking and the shutting down of large sectors of the economy that had little scientific justification when all factors were taken into account.The fact that existing medicos to ameliorate the effects of the infection were never properly explored was a social policy failure.

The problem with any authoritarian system, however theoretically well-intentions is that it produces groupthink solutions with a bias to the interests of the elite class. Democracy is mediated during settled times through bureaucratic parties that are easily captured by such elite thinking. The Canadian government is perhaps the worst example of WEF ideological capture among traditional democracies. Let us hope sufficient numbers of the population cease to support the government so that its nefarious policies receive a rebuff from the electorate.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago

As many as 5,000 soldiers may be deployed for their protection.

The Davos people seem to have a keen appreciation of their popularity.

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
1 year ago

As many as 5,000 soldiers may be deployed for their protection.

The Davos people seem to have a keen appreciation of their popularity.

Peter Donnelly
Peter Donnelly
1 year ago

A better example of hubris would be hard to find. Marc Rutte dismisses fears about the sidelining of democracy as being the product of a fevered mind. As if to emphasise the , hhe and 6 other member of the cabinet will attend this years jamboree. Two of of the group will be vice-premiers one of whom will be Sigrid Kaag who is ironically leader of the Democracy 66 party but has shown little appetite for the original aims of the party to have more, not less, democracy such as elected mayors, plebiscites and people councils. Moreover they all view national policies as being subservient to the global agenda advanced by the WEF. Needless to say they are driving the voters into the camp of the radical right who are, at least, speaking up for democracy and haven so since the start of the COVID-19 crisis.

Peter Donnelly
Peter Donnelly
1 year ago

A better example of hubris would be hard to find. Marc Rutte dismisses fears about the sidelining of democracy as being the product of a fevered mind. As if to emphasise the , hhe and 6 other member of the cabinet will attend this years jamboree. Two of of the group will be vice-premiers one of whom will be Sigrid Kaag who is ironically leader of the Democracy 66 party but has shown little appetite for the original aims of the party to have more, not less, democracy such as elected mayors, plebiscites and people councils. Moreover they all view national policies as being subservient to the global agenda advanced by the WEF. Needless to say they are driving the voters into the camp of the radical right who are, at least, speaking up for democracy and haven so since the start of the COVID-19 crisis.

Gavin Thomas
Gavin Thomas
1 year ago

Any leader going against the globalist policies of the WEF, for the good of their own country, is hounded and punished by WEF lackeys – the Main Stream Media and the Financial Markets.
Liz Truss discovered this the hard way.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Gavin Thomas

What did Truss do that in any way went against the global corporate agenda? Reduce taxes on the wealthy? Reduce industrial regulation? Which of her policies went against the interests of the WEF?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

There’s loads in the press atm about China tracking our governments cars, do we think truss really had to go because of the phone hack nord stream business? Russia summoned our ambassador and said they had proof the UK did it, after that the news went dead. Truss left. Any thoughts on that anyone?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  John Holland

There’s loads in the press atm about China tracking our governments cars, do we think truss really had to go because of the phone hack nord stream business? Russia summoned our ambassador and said they had proof the UK did it, after that the news went dead. Truss left. Any thoughts on that anyone?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Gavin Thomas

I don’t know about the Tin Woman Truss, but that’s certainly true of Trump, Corbyn, Bolsonaro and Orban.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago
Reply to  Gavin Thomas

What did Truss do that in any way went against the global corporate agenda? Reduce taxes on the wealthy? Reduce industrial regulation? Which of her policies went against the interests of the WEF?

Peter Joy
Peter Joy
1 year ago
Reply to  Gavin Thomas

I don’t know about the Tin Woman Truss, but that’s certainly true of Trump, Corbyn, Bolsonaro and Orban.

Gavin Thomas
Gavin Thomas
1 year ago

Any leader going against the globalist policies of the WEF, for the good of their own country, is hounded and punished by WEF lackeys – the Main Stream Media and the Financial Markets.
Liz Truss discovered this the hard way.

Rupert Carnegie
Rupert Carnegie
1 year ago

The central enthusiasm of the WEF is globalisation which has, to be fair, spread prosperity since the 1990s to hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians and others. Unfortunately, it has been at the expense of tens of millions of workers in the West who have seen their real incomes stagnate or fall in the same period – in contrast to the growth in their incomes 1950-90.
One could argue that this is fair enough and Capitalism / Free Trade is just producing “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” as advertised but this ignores the growing political backlash in western states from the economically marginalised.
Trump was elected by the victims of globalisation and by inhibiting trade with China (i.e. protectionism in disguise) was successfully boosting incomes before Covid struck. Biden has not reversed his policies. The UK’s inability to get a trade deal with the US post Brexit is another data point in this incipient trend.
Globalisation needs to be deliberately slowed down if it is to survive. Pursuing it without modification risks ironically a slide to 1930s style trading blocs. Even if one is convinced of the long term benefits of globalisation, the WEF consensus is short sighted.
The underlying structural problem is not, however, the WEF per se but a broader growth of excessive corporate influence on government decision making since the 1980s.
Corporate lobbying has a useful place but it is too powerful at present. It is debatable if the US Congress is still a democratic institution in any meaningful sense given the priority attached to raising campaign finance. London may be less corrupt currently than Washington, but insiders are clearly alarmed by trends in the last five years and the direction of travel is all too clear: “Washington on the Thames”. Brussels has equivalent challenges.
The Anglo-Saxon legal definition of corruption is very narrow. We need a sustained attack on corporate influence peddling more broadly defined. Many of the mechanisms are well known: political contributions, mercenary think tanks, well paid retirement jobs for politicians, civil servants and generals, appointment of sympathetic individuals to regulatory posts (leading sometimes to outright agency capture), etc etc
If Corporate influence was reduced overall to sensible levels then I doubt we would continue to be exercised by any consensus at Davos since its impact would be far less.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Agree in general, with one note.
US policy towards China is actually about a lot more than protectionism. China essentially has no respect for the international rules on things like IP ownership and protection and has also been engaged in industrial scale industrial espionage and IP theft. The US is quite rightly acting against this – as should we.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

A relief to read an intelligent, rational post here.

Peter B
Peter B
1 year ago

Agree in general, with one note.
US policy towards China is actually about a lot more than protectionism. China essentially has no respect for the international rules on things like IP ownership and protection and has also been engaged in industrial scale industrial espionage and IP theft. The US is quite rightly acting against this – as should we.

John Holland
John Holland
1 year ago

A relief to read an intelligent, rational post here.

Rupert Carnegie
Rupert Carnegie
1 year ago

The central enthusiasm of the WEF is globalisation which has, to be fair, spread prosperity since the 1990s to hundreds of millions of Chinese, Indians and others. Unfortunately, it has been at the expense of tens of millions of workers in the West who have seen their real incomes stagnate or fall in the same period – in contrast to the growth in their incomes 1950-90.
One could argue that this is fair enough and Capitalism / Free Trade is just producing “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” as advertised but this ignores the growing political backlash in western states from the economically marginalised.
Trump was elected by the victims of globalisation and by inhibiting trade with China (i.e. protectionism in disguise) was successfully boosting incomes before Covid struck. Biden has not reversed his policies. The UK’s inability to get a trade deal with the US post Brexit is another data point in this incipient trend.
Globalisation needs to be deliberately slowed down if it is to survive. Pursuing it without modification risks ironically a slide to 1930s style trading blocs. Even if one is convinced of the long term benefits of globalisation, the WEF consensus is short sighted.
The underlying structural problem is not, however, the WEF per se but a broader growth of excessive corporate influence on government decision making since the 1980s.
Corporate lobbying has a useful place but it is too powerful at present. It is debatable if the US Congress is still a democratic institution in any meaningful sense given the priority attached to raising campaign finance. London may be less corrupt currently than Washington, but insiders are clearly alarmed by trends in the last five years and the direction of travel is all too clear: “Washington on the Thames”. Brussels has equivalent challenges.
The Anglo-Saxon legal definition of corruption is very narrow. We need a sustained attack on corporate influence peddling more broadly defined. Many of the mechanisms are well known: political contributions, mercenary think tanks, well paid retirement jobs for politicians, civil servants and generals, appointment of sympathetic individuals to regulatory posts (leading sometimes to outright agency capture), etc etc
If Corporate influence was reduced overall to sensible levels then I doubt we would continue to be exercised by any consensus at Davos since its impact would be far less.

David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

I seem to recall an Italian gentleman a while back liked the idea of public-private cooperation, or as he described it “the union of state and corporate power”. Now what was the name of that movement he lead to implement the idea, let me see… Oh! I remember: Fascism!

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
David Yetter
David Yetter
1 year ago

I seem to recall an Italian gentleman a while back liked the idea of public-private cooperation, or as he described it “the union of state and corporate power”. Now what was the name of that movement he lead to implement the idea, let me see… Oh! I remember: Fascism!

Last edited 1 year ago by David Yetter
Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
1 year ago

There was a time when the left had a huge problem with the WEF and what it represents. Nowadays however, a leftist who draws attention to the WEF is sometimes accused of being in bed with right-wing conspiracy nutters.

Richard Barrett
Richard Barrett
1 year ago

There was a time when the left had a huge problem with the WEF and what it represents. Nowadays however, a leftist who draws attention to the WEF is sometimes accused of being in bed with right-wing conspiracy nutters.

David Barnett
David Barnett
1 year ago

“Are you, or have you ever been, a member or associate of the WEF or WEF-YGL-Initiative?”.
What do you do about a stealth coup d’etat?

David Barnett