The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a collective of major corporations, billionaires, politicians, academics and influence makers. That is quite a collection of power.
They push an agenda. Their mottos include “Build Back Better” and “The Great Reset” and a “New World Order.”
These mottos parroted by people like Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau and others. That’s quite a collection of supporters. Looks like it is serious.
So, what is the agenda behind it all?
The World Economic Forum is headed up by Klaus Schwab. He (along with Thierry Malleret) wrote a book about the agenda. It is called “Covid 19: The Great Reset.” I bought that book to find answers.
Now, the WEF possesses an astounding armamentarium of money and talent. So, I expected a lot.
I expected the book would be meticulously fact based, tightly reasoned and a compelling exposition. It was nothing of the sort.
I expected that it would challenge my existing beliefs to the core. It did nothing of the sort.
It was, instead, an exasperatingly shallow compendium of unproven assumptions, non sequiturs, logical contradictions and wishful thinking. For instance, consider this passage:
At the time of writing this book, COVID-19 has already unleashed a global wave of social unrest. It started in the U.S. with the Black Lives Matter protests following the killing of George Floyd at the end of May 2020, but it rapidly spread around the world.
Huh? Covid 19 caused the riots over George Floyd’s death?!? I don’t think so.
And consider this.
The book advocates a “partnership” of the elites of Government, Private Industry, Academia and other experts as the best possible way to deal with emerging global problems.
Well, okay. But isn’t that the gist of what we experienced with the USA’s handling of Covid 19? After all, that was a hand-in-glove merger of government, private industry, academia and the media to deal with Covid 19.
And what does Schwab say of the results of the United States’ public/private partnership.
He states:
Others, such as Italy, Spain, the U.S. or the UK, seemed to underperform on different counts, whether in terms of preparation, crisis management, public communication, the number of confirmed cases and deaths, and various other metrics.
So, the obvious conclusion would be this:
The USA’s “public/private partnership” on Covid was a failure when compared with other nations.
But Schwab tries to explain away the obvious conclusion by attributing that particular failure to American neoliberalism.
Huh? Isn’t the WEF the very epitome of neoliberalism?
Billionaires, like Bill Gates, with their private jets. Corporate CEOs with their Rolex watches and Gucci shoes. And, all of them, with their country-club-buddy politicos and advisors in tow to advance the goals of the corporate state. The WEF looks like neoliberalism on steroids.
So, what can one conclude?
Only one thing, Schwab’s argument – that his public/private partnerships would have worked in the U.S. except for neoliberalism – is not only wrong, it doesn’t even make any sense.
And there is more.
Schwab speaks of “nonlinearity” and “complex systems.” But he does not seem to understand what those concepts mean.
Let’s break that down.
Schwab noted the obvious. At the present time, there are many, systemic ongoing changes occurring throughout an interconnected world. Schwab mentions climate change, population pressures, emerging pathogens, the spread of pathogens by mass interconnectedness, decreasing biodiversity, ecosystem collapse, pollution, failures in governance and the unsustainable use of depleting resources such as forests, seafood, topsoil and freshwater.
He is describing systemic changes to what is known as a “complex system.” That phrase, “complex system,” has a specific meaning:
A complex system is a system composed of many components which may interact with each other. Examples of complex systems are Earth’s global climate, organisms, the human brain, infrastructure such as power grid, transportation or communication systems, complex software and electronic systems, social and economic organizations (like cities), an ecosystem, a living cell, and ultimately the entire universe.
And “complex systems” have specific characteristics:
Complex systems are systems whose behavior is intrinsically difficult to model due to the dependencies, competitions, relationships, or other types of interactions between their parts or between a given system and its environment.
Because of those characteristics, the results of significant changes to the inputs in such a system are not only impossible to predict, they are even difficult to evaluate after the fact.
Now, here is the point.
With the magnitude of changes currently occurring in this planet-wide complex system, we are probably looking at – not just change – but at epochal, cascading changes of unpredictable dimensions.
One would assume that entire nation states could fail.
And Schwab actually concedes that nations states could fail. So, how would Klaus Schwab address such epochal discontinuity? Here is one example.
The boundaries between state fragility, a failing state and a failed one are fluid and tenuous. In today’s complex and adaptive world, the principle of non-linearity means that suddenly a fragile state can turn into a failed state and that, conversely, a failed state can see its situation improve with equal celerity thanks to the intermediation of international organizations or even an infusion of foreign capital. (emphasis added)
What?
The results of significant changes to the inputs in a complex, non-linear system are completely impossible to predict. But Schwab – dealing with epochal changes causing the failure of a nation state – believes that he:
“… can see its situation improve with equal celerity thanks to the intermediation of international organizations or even an infusion of foreign capital.”
Evidently Schwab doesn’t understand the very concepts he expounds upon in the book.
And passages like those cited above were typical.
Put bluntly, this is neither a deep nor a well-reasoned book. There were logical flaws, shallowness of discourse and – most annoying of all – a pretense of great wisdom. Reading it was often exasperating.
It simply drained the will of the reader. Time after time, the book had to be put down so that the reader could recharge.
But I got through it. So, what is its core?
First of all, the book is not about facts. The book is about assumptions. Many of the premises of the book are simply assumed to be true. And all reasoning starts from those assumed premises.
Here are some examples.
It was assumed that Covid-19 jumped from animal species to humans.
That is probably not true. Covid-19 was probably a genetically engineered virus. But, due to the assumption it came from nature, the necessity of shutting down biowarfare/gain of function research was never discussed.
It was also assumed that Covid 19 suggests the consideration of individualized bio-surveillance as a part of our life going forward.
Bio-Surveillance? Why? Early on in the pandemic physicians discovered that healthy Vitamin D levels dramatically improved outcomes in Covid-19. Subsequent studies confirmed that this was true. But Vitamin D supplementation – and other viable treatments – were routinely attacked by the media and by public health agencies.
Obviously, major changes in both media and public health institutions are desperately needed. And bio-surveillance – if it is to be considered at all – should not be considered before systemic reforms occur in both the media and health care institutions. But such reform was not even discussed in the book.
It was also assumed that “stakeholder capitalism and environmental, social and governance (ESG)” – through boardroom and worker initiative – will support needed social changes which will benefit both the individual and society.
Stakeholder capitalism is a form of capitalism wherein companies do not only optimize short-term profits for shareholders, but seek long term value creation, by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders and society at large.
How could such a program succeed? History is replete with examples of corporate irresponsibility as well as often brutal corporate suppression of worker’s initiatives.
But, again, the known problems inherent in corporatism were not even discussed in the book.
It was also assumed that globalism (rather than localism) is an unmitigatedly beneficial and indispensable feature of modern life. It was assumed that global governance was necessary to manage global supply chains and deal with global challenges. Finally, it was assumed that democracy is consistent with global government.
The assumption of “democracy being consistent with global governance” is certainly not true. There was simply no discussion about the regulatory/plutocratic capture of large political entities like the United States and the European Union. And there was no explanation why a gigantic, distant apparatus of global governance would not follow that very same course. Logically, it would be even worse!
Amazingly, one of the things that was assumed was a continuing access to energy. Although the book talked about resource depletion, fossil fuels depletion was not mentioned. The only reference to fossil fuels was in reference to climate change.21 And that led to another assumption.
It was assumed that automobile production could be easily switched to “greener” electric vehicles, powered by renewables with no problem at all.
But there was no discussion of the feasibility of renewables whatsoever.
And, finally, it was also assumed that the energy-consuming internet of things would increasingly become a feature of daily life.
But there was no discussion of the increased rejection of the internet of things by individuals rightly concerned by the intrusiveness of that technology.
There were all those assumptions and more.
It seemed that assumption after assumption cried out for debate, cried out for factual support and cried out for critiques as to both desirability and feasibility. There was little or none.
But then, with these assumptions portrayed as facts, the book went on to predict how people would or should naturally choose to change their lives based upon these “facts.”
For instance, the book suggests that we should understand the benefits of increased “global governance” to protect “crucial supply chains” and deal with global challenges while being confident that this will cause democracy to thrive.
In another vein, bio-surveillance of individuals will seem quite logical to many due to the threat of more “naturally occurring” pathogens. Individuals and democratic governments would work together to minimize the risks to human freedoms.
And that individualized surveillance was taken even further. It was stated that in:
“the post-COVID-19 world, precise information on our carbon footprints, our impact on biodiversity, on the toxicity of all the ingredients we consume and the environments or spatial contexts in which we evolve will generate significant progress in terms of our awareness of collective and individual well- being.”
We would, in essence, be tracked in every single thing we do.
Additionally, we would also go to restaurants less but “rediscover the pleasure of cooking at home.” Movies, theater and opera would often be replaced by watching from home. And the “combination of AI, the IoT and sensors and wearable technology will produce new insights into personal well-being.”
We would also travel less to international destinations, we would consume less, engage in more virtual interactions and, conversely, personal interactions would decline.
As to those folks having difficulties accepting all this, this answer is provided:
If health considerations become paramount, we may decide, for example, that a cycling class in front of a screen at home doesn’t match the conviviality and fun of doing it with a group in a live class but is in fact safer and cheaper. The same reasoning applies to many different domains like flying to a meeting (Zoom is safer, cheaper, greener and much more convenient), driving to a distant family gathering for the weekend (the WhatsApp family group is not as fun but, again, safer, cheaper and greener) or even attending an academic course (not as fulfilling, but cheaper and more convenient).
Safer, cheaper, greener is the mantra for a proposed better world. But will it be a better world? Realistically, most would see such a world as an Orwellian dystopia of which they want no part.
Now, to be fair, Schwab does say some good things.
Schwab wants to end the economic exploitation of employees and gig workers. He wants to end the destruction of the natural world. He understands that a “consumerist culture” is not only shallow and meaningless – it is unsustainable. He sees the value in online education as a well to help students avoid ruinous debt. And he understands the value of real human contact is far greater than virtual contact.
These are all good and well-meaning intentions. But, despite good intentions, the plan outlined in this book is neither workable nor beneficial.
There are reasons for that.
First, as pointed out above, many of the assumed “facts” underlying this book are simply false. For instance, “stakeholder capitalism” has zero chance of benefitting anyone but the very wealthy. Here is an example.
The WEF claims that Stakeholder Capitalism will restore the types of gains secured by workers in the post-World War II era.
But can one trust an organization run by the wealthy to voluntarily protect the middle and working class?
The answer is no.
Emmanuel Macron, the French prime minister, is a featured member of the WEF. In France, Macron is proposing “labor reforms.” Macron’s proposals actually gut the very same social safety nets built for French workers in the post-war era. Accordingly, he has called for cuts to such social spending.
But such cuts will not cut spending for the privileged. As one writer noted, “Meanwhile, Macron’s lackeys announced his plan to build a new private swimming pool in Brégançon, the presidential holiday resort on the French Riviera — at taxpayers’ expense. And that the presidential couple has decided to replace the China dishware at the Elysée Palace (the presidential residence) for 500,000 euros, or close to $600,000!”
Would you expect any better from Bill Gates or any of the rest of them? Of course not. Trusting the wealthy to protect the right of the middle and working class is simply foolish.
Second, intrusive surveillance is an invitation to abuse. Consider this, Yanis Varoufakis’s book, “Adults in the Room.” Varoufakis talks of his attempts as Greek Minister of Finance to re-negotiate Greece’s debts with European Authorities and the International Monetary Fund (IMF.) Varoufakis recounts a private phone call to one of his confidential advisors, Jeff Sachs, about a sensitive issue, to wit, potential Greek default to the IMF. But that call had been eavesdropped upon by the National Security Council. After the call was finished Varoufakis relates that this happened:
“Half an hour later my phone rang again. It was Jeff, laughing uncontrollably. ‘You will not believe this, Yanis,’ he said. ‘Five minutes after we hung up, I received a call from the [U.S.] National Security Council. They asked me if I thought you meant what you’d said! I told them that you did mean it and that, if they want to avert a default to the IMF, they’d better knock some sense into the Europeans.’”
That anecdote says it all. One simply cannot “trust” that the “authorities” will not abuse surveillance powers. They will definitely abuse such powers. And it is naive to expect anything else.
Third, Schwab does not address the two elephants in the room – overpopulation and fossil fuel depletion. These problems are obvious. They have been obvious for a long time. These problems should have been addressed decades ago. They weren’t. And they aren’t realistically discussed in this book.
Either the WEF doesn’t know about these problems, in which case their advice is not worth listening to, or they do know about it and are not discussing it, in which case the non-discussion is suspicious.
Regardless, the failure of the book to discuss these issues is damning, because these two problems mean that civilization as we know it – or as Schwab envisions it – is simply no longer tenable.
Fourth, and finally, despite touch-feely descriptors like “democracy” and “social justice,” the WEF plan doesn’t look like “democracy.” It doesn’t look like “social justice.”
It looks like tyranny – all dolled up in its age-old garb of benevolence.
The world indeed does need change. It is crying out for change. It needs dramatic change. But trusting that change to plans like these can only be described in one way: foolhardy in the extreme.
from Peak Prosperity https://ift.tt/1turUCR
