Commentary
The World Economic Forum (WEF) brings together world leaders and business tycoons to build a socialist, dystopian future for the rest of us.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) held its annual meeting from Jan. 15 to 19 in Davos, Switzerland, under the theme “Rebuilding Trust.” The term “rebuilding” may imply that there was once trust for the WEF. Still, conservatives have consistently viewed this gathering of global elites as a move toward imposing their global social order.
Klaus Schwab, the group’s founder and executive chairman, told Time Magazine on Jan. 11: “I would make a differentiation between ’elites’ and ‘decision-makers.' We don’t consider ourselves an organization of elites; we see ourselves as an organization that brings together decision-makers in politics, business, and civil society.”
Despite Mr. Schwab’s rejection of the term “elites,” it is undeniable that WEF attendees hold significant decision-making power. Many of them are heads of state or high-ranking government officials in democracies, leading to concerns among voters about the legitimacy of their representation at a globalist, invitation-only meeting. This raises questions about the authority these elected officials and civil servants—supported by taxpayers’ money—have to make decisions that may go against the preferences of those they represent.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, addressed the forum regarding the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, asserting that it would establish “trust by looking at high-risk cases like real-time biometric identification.” However, the push for biometric identification is precisely one of the areas where the WEF faces a trust deficit with conservatives globally—a sentiment echoed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
China’s Premier Li Qiang, a protégé of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, gave a presentation, highlighting China’s claimed economic growth of 5.2 percent in the previous year and encouraging investment in the country. His presentation complemented that of Ms. von der Leyen, who emphasized the importance of de-risking without advocating for complete decoupling from China.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg was there, seeking support for Ukraine, as was Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. U.S. national security adviser Jake Sullivan also attended, offering a “message of hope“ and collaboration while failing to confront Iran, Yemen, China, or any nation threatening the United States. During the session titled “Securing an Insecure World,” the panel predominantly focused on criticizing Israel and calling for a ceasefire in Gaza rather than questioning Qatar or Iran about their roles as state sponsors of terrorism.
Ironically, this year, the WEF invited the Heritage Foundation’s Kevin D. Roberts, who wrote, “The infamous hypocritical self-avowed Marxists want to hear from the Heritage Foundation how they can ‘rebuild trust’ with everyday Americans.” Dr. Roberts concluded there is no mystery as to why people distrust global elites. It is simply “because they hate us” and “use their power to disempower us.”
The organization supports numerous destructive policies that, if implemented, would transform the world into a socialist nightmare. The WEF perceives climate change as the greatest global risk of the next 10 years and labels inaction against climate change as a human rights violation. The term “ecocide” is employed by the WEF to describe the destruction of the environment, encompassing activities such as farming, fishing, and profit-making. Furthermore, they advocate for ecocide to be recognized as an international crime.
A reduction in farming aligns with the WEF’s climate agenda, which aims to decrease “emissions from agriculture.“ Simultaneously, the WEF contends that eating meat ”is bad for the environment,” so it is unclear what they want people to eat.
The WEF advocates for two controversial concepts: public-private partnerships and multi-stakeholder collaboration, also known as stakeholder capitalism. Opponents view these approaches as potential threats to democracy, individual liberties, and freedoms, perceiving them as steps toward socialism. Public-private partnership is similar to what happened with the vaccine mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was challenging for the federal government to pass a nationwide mask or vaccine mandate, but private companies were able to impose restrictions, supporting a government agenda.
This scenario raises concerns about potential actions in the realms of climate change or combatting disinformation—issues identified by the WEF as the greatest global risks over the next two years. This could lead to the imposition of green energy restrictions on homeowners or censorship in media and social media, even if the majority of Congress opposes passing a similar law.
In their annual Risk Report, the WEF addresses the issue of misinformation, stating: “Even as the insidious spread of misinformation and disinformation threatens the cohesion of societies, there is a risk that some governments will act too slowly, facing a trade-off between preventing misinformation and protecting free speech. Meanwhile, repressive governments could use enhanced regulatory control to erode human rights.”
The underlying assumption is that the WEF seeks a global solution by determining the right balance between freedoms and restrictions to combat misinformation, regardless of individual governments’ or their constituencies’ perspectives on the appropriate compromise between rights and protections.
The WEF commended the EU’s increased censorship efforts, stating, “The European Union, for example, this spring approved landmark legislation that would require big tech to more strictly police their platforms for hate speech, disinformation, and harmful material.” They urged other countries to follow this example.
Stakeholder capitalism contends that the owners of a company should not be free to make decisions without seeking input from the government, the community, and those who feel the company’s actions impact them. Furthermore, it asserts that “excessive profits“ contribute to inequality. The WEF would ostensibly determine the threshold for excessive profits and then decide on a more equitable distribution rather than paying dividends to the shareholders.
Stakeholder capitalism would be the death knell for entrepreneurs, as the owners would no longer be able to plan and make decisions for their own companies. Since the foundational premise of WEF’s business theory is that companies should not be focused on making profits, the outcome of stakeholder decisions would drive the company into the red.
If the WEF achieves its goals, we may find ourselves in a world of biometric ID, facing potential prosecution for breaching WEF-imposed restrictions on farming. Companies would enforce government agendas, circumventing Congress. Additionally, the WEF would dictate how much press freedom we should have and how much profit entrepreneurs should earn.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
