February 5, 2023

Learning the Future: The Megalomaniacal Goals of the WEF

The Great Reset quantities to a hybrid state-corporate woke cartel administering the global economic climate (and by extension the world’s political systems) beneath the direction of the WEF, the UN, the International Financial Fund (IMF), the Western Central Bank (ECB), as well as the World Health Organization, along with top corporate decision-makers like BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink.

The particular fifty-third annual meeting from the World Economic Forum (WEF) brought together fifty-two world leaders, seventeen hundred business executives, sundry artists, as well as other personalities to address “ Assistance in a Fragmented World. ” Fragmentation is the nemesis of the World Economic Forum and its United Nations (UN) and corporate partners. “ Fragmentation” means that segments of the world population are not adhering to the plan of  climate modify catastrophism   as well as the precepts of  the truly great Reset .

The Great Reset, meanwhile, amounts to a hybrid state-corporate woke cartel administering the global economy (and by extension the world’s political systems) under the direction of the WEF, the UN, the Global Monetary Fund (IMF), the particular European Central Bank (ECB), and the World Health Firm, as well as top corporate decision-makers like BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink.

Lest we imagine that the WEF and its meetings merely represent the grandiose delusions of some ineffectual clowns, it should be noted that the WEF’s “ stakeholder capitalism” — released in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, the WEF originator and chair, and Hein Kroos, in  Modern Enterprise Management within Mechanical Engineering — has been embraced by the UN, by most central banks, as well as by the planet’s leading corporations, commercial banks, and asset managers. Stakeholder capitalism is now considered to be the particular modus operandi of the globe economic system.

In the 1971 book, Schwab plus Kroos suggested that “ the management of a modern enterprise must serve not only shareholders but all stakeholders to achieve long-term growth plus prosperity. ” The stakeholders are the compliant and complicit corporations and governments, not really the citizenry.

BlackRock, the world’s largest asset man­ ager, holds upwards of $10 trillion within assets under management (AUM), including the pension funds of numerous US states. In 2019, BlackRock’s CEO, Larry Fink, led the  ALL OF US Business Roundtable   on stake­ holder capitalism. CEOs from 181 main corpora­ tions redefined the most popular purpose of the corpo­ ration in terms of Schwab’s brainchild, stakeholder capitalism, signaling the expected end of shareholder-driven capitalism. In his  2022 letter to CEOs , Fink made BlackRock’s own position on investment decisions quite clear. “ Environment risk is investment danger, ” Fink declared. He or she promised a “ tectonic shift in capital, ” an increased acceleration of purchases going to “ sustainability-focused” companies.

Fink cautioned CEOs: “ And because this can have such a dramatic impact on how capital is allocated,   every management team and board will need to consider how this will influence their company’s stock ” (emphasis mine). Based on Fink, stakeholder capitalism is not an aberration. Fink provides evidence of stakeholder capitalism’s woke imperative in his denial from the same: “ It is not the social or ideological agenda. It is not ‘ woke. ‘  It is capitalism . ” This definition of capitalism would certainly have come as news to Ludwig von Mises.

Finks sits on the board of trustees of the WEF, along with previous US vice president Al Gore; IMF managing director Kristalina Georgieva, the Handling Director of the IMF; ECB president Christine Lagarde, and Canadian deputy prime minister and minister of financial Chrystia Freeland, among others.

In his 2023  welcoming remarks and specific address , Schwab pointed to the multiple crises dealing with the world: “ the energy alteration, the consequences of covid, the particular reshaping of supply stores are all serving as catalytic forces for the economic alteration. ” Incidentally, these are just about all factors that the WEF has promoted and/or exacerbated. Plus together they have added to the “ high inflation, maximizing interest rates, and growing nationwide debt” that Schwab furthermore decried.

Schwab pointed to the problem of social and geopolitical fragmentation and “ a sloppy patchwork of powers, ” alluding to the war within Ukraine. But Schwab furthermore bemoaned “ large corporate and social media powers, most competing increasingly for strength and influence. As a result, the trend is again moving towards increased fragmentation and confrontation” — no doubt referring, a minimum of in part, to the recent takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk, the loss of a major system for propaganda and censorship. Naturally, Schwab referred to “ climate change” and “ viruses” as existential dangers that could lead to “ the particular extinction of large areas of our global population. ” The question is whether “ environment change” and “ viruses” or rather the responses to these supposed menaces would be the cause of mass extinctions.

But “ the most critical fragmentation” threat, Klaus argued, is posed by those who “ go into the negative” and hold a “ critical and confrontational attitude” to the Davos agenda— those with the temerity to oppose a global agenda of environment change catastrophism, with its worker control over production and usage and the virtual elimination of property and property rights for the vast majority.

A central issue that the fifty-third annual meeting tackled was “ the Current Power and Food Crises in the Context of a New Program for Energy, Climate and Nature. ” The theme accords with the WEF’s earlier and repeated claims how the agricultural supply chain is too “ fragmented” for “ sustainable” farming. “ The resilient, environmentally-friendly food system will require a shift away from our current fragmented provide chains, ”   wrote   Lindsay lohan Suddon, chief strategy officer of Proagrica, in 2020. In Suddon’s and many other WEF papers, the “ fragmentation” refrain is repeated. Lasting farming cannot be achieved underneath the “ fragmented” agricultural conditions that currently obtain.

One paper— entitled “ Can Group Action Cure What’s Ailing Our Food Systems? , ” part of the 2020 WEF annual meet­ ing— argued that fragmentation represents the particular ulti­ mate barrier in order to sustainability:

As the heads of top multilateral and com­ mercial agricultural finance institutions, we have been convinced that fragmentation inside the current food systems symbolizes the most sig­ nificant challenge to feeding a growing populace nutritiously and sustainably.

Written by Wiebe Draijer, then chairman from the managing board at Rabobank, and Gilbert Fossoun Houngbo, the director general– choose of the In­ ternational Labour Organization (ILO), the paper was quite telling. This warned that unless fragmentation is addressed, “ we are going to also have no hope associated with reaching the Sustainable Advancement Goal of net zero emis­ sions by 2050, given that today’s agricultural provide chain, from farm in order to fork, accounts for around 27% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ”

Rabobank is one of the financial sponsors of the WEF’s  Food Action Alliance   (discussed below). On its  website , Rabobank notes that it operates within the Netherlands, serving retail and corporate clients, and internationally, financing the agricultural industry. The  ILO   is a UN agency that sets labor requirements in 187 countries.

What interests could an international bank and a UN international labor agency have in common? According to their jointly authored paper, they have in keeping a resolve to eliminate fragmentation in agriculture. The banking interest in defragmentation is to gain a controlling interest in fewer and larger farms. The particular labor union management attention is to have more workers below its supervision and control. The banking and work interests combined result in big farms worked by organized farm laborers— nonowners— beneath the controlling interest of the financial institution. A bonus rationale (more probably the main one) for this “ scheme” is that the sustainable development goals (SDGs) of the UN’s Agenda 2030 can therefore more easily be implemented throughout “ agricultural value chains and farming practices. ” The authors conclude: “ Most critically,   we need to aggregate opportunities, sources and complementary expertise into large-scale projects   that can unlock investment plus deliver impact” (emphasis mine). “ Collective action” will be the “ cure. ”

In terms of agriculture, that is, “ fragmentation” means a lot of discrete and disparate facilities. The solution to this problem is combination, or the ownership of agricultural assets by fewer plus fewer entities. Enter Costs Gates in the US. The “ large-scale projects” will be owned by those who can afford to abide by the European Commission’s (EC)  Farm to Fork Strategy . “ The Farm to Fork Strategy is at the heart of the European Green Deal. ” The goal of the European Eco-friendly Deal is “ simply no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. ” (More on the Farm in order to Fork Strategy and its results on hunger and starvation below. )

The issue of food supply was resolved in a session entitled “ Sustainably Served . ” The summary caption for the session notes that will “ nearly 830 million people face food low self-esteem and more than 3 billion are unable to afford a healthy diet. Issues to human and planetary health have been further compounded by rising costs, supply chain disruptions and environment change. ”

The highlight of the “ Sustainably Served ” panel, which otherwise amounted to virtue signaling, came in the form of queries posed by an viewers member, “ Jacob, through America”:

I want to ask a question regarding food production. Last year the Dutch government announced harsh restrictions on the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Such restrictions forced many farmers to put much of their land out of creation. And these policies led to thirty, 000 Dutch farmers protesting these government policies. And this was being done at a time whenever food production was already becoming severely curtailed because of the war in Ukraine. My questions are, one, does the panel support similar insurance policies being implemented throughout the world? Is to do you support the Nederlander farmers who are protesting? Usually do not such strict policies resulting in reduced food production ultimately harm the poorest individuals of the world and exacerbate the problem of malnutrition?

The questioner was one of four, however his questions dominated the rest of the session and led the particular moderator, Tolu Oni, and panelist Hanneke Faber, the particular president of nutrition on Unilever, which is based in holland, to become quite defensive. The latter replied:

I am Dutch, and our business is based in Netherlands. It’s a very difficult situation within Holland. I have a lot of compassion for the farmers who are protesting, because it’s their livelihoods and their businesses at risk. But I also have a large amount of sympathy for what the govt is trying to do, because the nitrogen emissions are way too high.  .  .  . Therefore , something needs to be done.  .  .  .

But it’s a very Dutch problem. I don’t think that you must worry that those same solutions will have to go somewhere else.

This last statement is belied with the fact that the Netherlands is the head office of the WEF’s  Food Action Alliance   program and the site from the Global Coordinating Secretariat (GCS) of the WEF’s  Foods Innovation Hubs . Launched at the Davos Agen­ de uma meeting in 2021, the Food Innovation Hubs have as their goal alignment with the EL Food Systems Summit: “ The role of the GCS will be to coordinate the attempts of the regional Hubs in addition to align with global procedures and initiatives such as the UN Food Systems Summit. ” And the  stated goal   from the UN Food Systems Peak is to align agricultural production with Agenda 2030’s SDGs: “ The UN Foods Systems Summit, held throughout the UN General Assembly within New York on September twenty three [2021], set the particular stage for global meals systems transformation to achieve the Lasting Development Goals by 2030. ”

“ Sustainability” and “ eco friendly development” do not mean, since the words seem to suggest, the opportunity to withstand shocks of various kinds— economic cri­ ses, natural disasters, etc . They suggest development constrained by utopian, unscientific environmental­ ist imperatives, inclusive of reduced production and consumption in the developed globe and the thwart­ ing associated with development that would result in the production of additional GHGs within the developing world. In terms of agriculture, this entails a reduction in the use of nitrogen-rich fertilizers and their own eventual elimination and the phasing out of methane- and ammo­ nia-producing cattle. In the Holland, the Food Hubs initiative has led to the government’s  compulsory buyout and drawing a line under   of up to three thousand farms, that will lead to dramatically reduced plants yields from the world’s second-largest exporter of agricultural products.

The situation within the Netherlands is also part of the Western Commission’s Farm to Fork Strategy. Under the Trump administration, the United States Department of Farming (USDA),   discovered   that implementing the plan would result in a drop in agricultural production of between 7 percent and 12 percent for the Eu, depending on whether the adoption can be EU-wide or global. Along with EU-only adoption, the decrease in EU agricul­ tural production was projected to be 12 percent, as opposed to seven percent should the adoption become global. In the case of global adoption, worldwide agricultural production had been projected to drop by 11 percent. Further, the USDA  reported :

The decline in agricultural production would tighten the EU food supply, resulting in price increases that impact consumer budgets. Pric­ es and per capita food costs would increase the most for the EU, across each of the three sce­ narios [a middle scenario of adoption of Farm to Fork by the EU and neighboring nation-states was included in the study]. However , price and food cost increases would be significant for most regions if [Farm to Fork] Strategies are adopted internationally. For the United States, price and food costs would remain relatively unchanged except regarding global adoption.

Production declines in the EUROPEAN UNION and elsewhere would result in reduced trade, although some areas would benefit depending on chang­ es in import demand. However , if trade is re­ stricted as a result of the particular imposition of the proposed procedures,   the damaging impacts are concentrated within regions with the world’s the majority of food-insecure populations.  .  .  .

Food insecurity, measured as the number of people who lack access to a diet of at least two, 100 calories a day, improves significantly in the 76 low- and middle-income countries protected in our analysis due to improves in food commodi­ ty prices and declines within income, particularly in The african continent.   By 2030, the number of food-insecure people regarding EU-only adoption would boost by an additional 22 mil more than projected without the EC’s proposed Strate­ gies. The amount would climb to 103 million under the middle scenario and 185 million un­ der global adoption . (emphasis mine)

Thus, we see that “ sustainably served” means sustainably starved.

Another panel of notice was “ Stewarding Responsible Capitalism , ” which featured Brian To. Moynihan, CEO of Financial institution of America and seat of the WEF business authorities, among others. An arch proponent of stakeholder capitalism, Moynihan suggested that companies that do not meet environmental, interpersonal, and governance (ESG) criteria will simply be left behind. No one will do business with this kind of companies, he said.

Moynihan’s comments revealed the extent to which stakeholder capitalism and the metric with regard to measuring it, the ESG index, have penetrated commercial banking. In fact , over 300 major banks are  signatories   from the UN’s “ Principles for Responsible Banking , ” “ representing nearly half of the global banking business. ” Meanwhile, forty-seven 100 asset management firms, as­ set owners, and asset service providers have  authorized   the UN’s six “ Principles for Responsible Investment . ” These principles are entirely focused on ESG conformity and meeting the UN’s Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals. ESG indexing now per­ vades every aspect of financial and investment businesses, which includes what companies they purchase, how they adhere to ESG metrics themselves, and how they work with competitors to pro­ mote ESGs. Thus, the goal of the principles is to universalize ESG investing. ESG indexing raises the cost of doing business, starves the noncompliant of capital, and creates a woke association of preferred producers.

In the “ Philanthropy: A Catalyst regarding Protecting Our Planet ” session, US climate envoy John Kerry suggested which he and the people at Davos were “ a select group of human beings, [who], because of whatever touched take a look at some point in our lives, are able to sit in a area and come together and actually discuss saving the planet. ” Betraying the religious, cultlike personality of the Davos group, Kerry suggested that his plus others’ anointment as saviors of the planet was “ almost extraterrestrial. ” If you inform them you are interested in saving the planet, “ most people, ” Kerry carried on, “ they think you might be a tree-hugging leftie generous do-gooder. ” But We submit that “ many people” think Kerry great ilk are not do-gooders in any way but rather control freaks and megalomaniacs bent on controlling the world’s population.

On other sections, the speakers stated that will eating meat, driving cars, and living outside the range of  fifteen-minute towns   should be banned.

In short, with all the Davos agenda, we are confronted with a concerted, coordinat­ male impotence campaign to dismantle the productive capabil­ ities in energy, manufacturing, and gardening. This project, driven simply by elites and accruing to their benefit, is amounting to the largest  Great Leap Backward   in recorded history. If it is not stopped and reversed, it will lead to economic disaster, including dramatical­ ly reduced usage and living standards. But it will surely almost certainly result in more food cravings in the developed world plus famines in the developing entire world. WEF chairman Schwab might out­ do Chairman Mao. If we let him.

The Big Banks and the IMF Plan on Stealing Your Money

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *