The World Economic Forum is an alarming organization at the best of times. In a world dominated by (allegedly) ‘progressive’ thought that insists on kindness, tolerance, human rights, liberty, equality (or is that equity?), and diversity – there has never been an unelected bureaucracy more opposed to its preaching’s.
It is often joked that the World Economic Forum’s over-praised annual ‘Davos’ convention in Geneva is a meeting of Bond villains. This isn’t solely on account of white guy in chief, Klaus Schwab – whose cartoon accent gets heavier with each meme – or that its attendees choose to take private jets to a ski resort nestled in the Swiss Alps. The alliance of the ultra-rich, privileged, and powerful convene with the express purpose of ‘curating’ the direction of human civilization – as if their riches give them some godly right to dictate evolution.
One of the World Economic Forum’s popular personalities and bestselling author, Yuval Noah Harari, spells this policy out for those in the mainstream press who insist on running the ‘it’s a conspiracy theory’ line.
At a Davos conference in 2018, Harari told his adoring audience that ‘pretty soon’ him and his mates at the World Economic Forum would usurp the role of god and/or nature by engaging in the mass collection of biological data.
‘We are probably one of the last generations of Homo Sapiens, because in the coming generations we will learn how to engineer bodies and brains and minds. Now, what exactly will the future masters of the planet look like? This will be decided by the people who own the data.’
Harari says this as if we should praise global organizations seeking to manipulate the genetic and social future of humanity.
…because without a digital surveillance state – how could we ever be safe?
There is no debate about whether or not the World Economic Forum is using its corporate partners in Big Tech, Big Pharma, and government departments to gather the necessary information – the only question is how far they intend to take this little experiment before the general public catches on and freaks out.
In Harari’s words:
‘Why is data so important? It is important because we have reached the point when we can hack – not just computers – we can hack human beings and other organisms.
Now, what do you need in order to hack a human being? You need two things: you need a lot of computer power and you need a lot of – especially biometric – data. But control of data might enable human elites to do something even more radical than just build digital dictatorships. By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself.
Once you can hack something, you can also engineer it. Science is replacing evolution by Natural Selection with evolution by Intelligent Design. Not the Intelligent Design of some god above the clouds, but our Intelligent Design and the Intelligent Design of our clouds. The IBM cloud. The Microsoft cloud.
These are the new driving forces of evolution.’
Klaus might sound like the villain, but Harari does a pretty good job of spelling out the World Economic Forum’s evil plans. You would think manipulating DNA to create a new type of ‘acceptable’ human would be enough to keep the scary people running the world busy. Not so.
The professional ‘bleeding hearts’ at the center have been offended to discover that not everyone is keen on their undisputed right to govern our future. As rebel billionaire and richest man on Earth (for the moment) Elon Musk closes in on the censorial overlords of Twitter and threatens to unleash free speech online, this year’s Davos meeting has decided that ‘free speech’ might need a little tweaking to make it – uh – less ‘free’.
Australian’s eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, has despicably come out and said:
‘We are finding ourselves in a place where we have increasing polarization everywhere and everything feels binary when it doesn’t doesn’t need to be so I think we’re going to have to think about a ‘re-calibration’ of a whole range of human rights that are playing out online – you know – from freedom of speech to the freedom to be free from online violence.’ [Online violence of any kind is already prohibited, but often wrongly conflated by those trying to initiate censorial legislation.]
What should worry us is her fixation on ‘erasing the binary’.
Politics is binary by its very nature. It is the eternal struggle between left and right that keeps civilization near the center. The conflict of ideas is what leads us to better ones, but that is not what these born-to-rule demi-gods want.
A ‘binary’ world means that there is room for opposition to their terrifying thought bubbles. A free market of ideas doesn’t sit well with them, so they would much prefer to quash pesky opposition by silencing the plebians and marketing their censorship as an act of ‘peace, safety, and harmony’.
Our silence is for the greater good. They know best…
‘Julie leads the world’s first government regulatory agency committed to keeping its citizens safer online.’
She holds a lot of other sinister-sounding roles, including being a Board Member for the WePROTECT Global Alliance and serving with the World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition for Digital Safety – also sitting on their XR Ecosystem Governance Steering Committee on Building and Defining the Metaverse.
Opening up the Global Coalition for Digital Safety website – which sells itself on ‘child protection’ – it takes a few clicks to get to the real point of these censorial projects headed by the World Economic Forum.
When discussing the need for a ‘safer internet for all’, the primary reason given is in relation to what they call ‘health misinformation’.
‘One main challenge to online safety is the proliferation of health misinformation, particularly when it comes to vaccines. Research has shown that a small number of influential people are responsible for the bulk of anti-vaccination content on social platforms. This content seems to be reaching a wide audience. For example, research by King’s College London has found that one in three people in the UK (34%) say they’ve seen or heard messages discouraging the public from getting a coronavirus vaccine. The real-world impact of this is becoming clearer.’
Should a bureaucracy with nearly a trillion-dollar interest in the sale of vaccines be allowed to call the shots on the public debate surrounding the safety and efficacy of their product? In a sane, free, fair, and democratic world – of course not. Who made the World Economic Forum the body in charge of deciding what constitutes truth and what is defined as misinformation? Was there a global vote on this – or did they simply elect themselves to protect the financial interests of their partners in Big Pharma? Either way, no business, government, bureaucracy, or unelected lunatic has the right to police public thought.
The document goes on:
‘Research has also shown that exposure to misinformation was associated with a decline in intent to be vaccinated. In fact, scientific-sounding misinformation is more strongly associated with declines in vaccination intent.’
It’s so weird that when people share real-world data about adults and children being harmed by state-coerced medical procedures that other citizens are less likely to sign up. If we want to talk about ‘truth’ – the truth is that vaccine manufacturers and governments should have been open about collateral harm. When people in positions of power misuse their authority to hurt citizens, free speech becomes the only safeguard of the truth.
‘How far should they [social media companies] go in moderating content on their sites, including anti-vaccination narratives? […] This past year, Facebook and other platforms made a call to place an outright ban on misinformation about vaccines and has been racing to keep up with enforcing its policies, as is YouTube. Cases like that of Robert F Kennedy Junior, a prominent anti-vaccine campaigner, who has been banned from Instagram but is still allowed to remain on Facebook and Twitter highlight the continued issue. Particularly troubling for some critics is his targeting of ethnic minority communities to sew [sic] distrust in health authorities. Protection of vulnerable groups, including minorities and children, must be top of mind when considering balancing fee expression and safety.’
Imagine for a moment that a regime notorious for abuses in human rights and considered to be the number one upcoming global threat plays around with illegal gain of function research on a virus and that virus escapes into the world. The global health bureaucracy charged with ‘keeping people safe’ protects that nation from investigation and calls anyone who tries to keep their nation safe from the outbreak ‘racist. Then pretend the head of that health organization was involved in a violent socialist government whose ethnic civil war was funded by the same government that created the virus. In come vaccine manufacturers with a rushed technology that skips normal safety trials and whose product is bought at full price by the world’s governments who then mandate, coerce, and threaten billions of people into taking that drug – not once – but four times. When it becomes obvious that the drug is neither as safe nor as effective as advertised, the victims are erased from social media so that no one else can hear their stories in case it makes the government look bad or – worse – harms the profits of the manufacturers.
Does it sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘safe’ to pursue laws that globally silence victims of this cabal to protect profits?