A few weeks ago, while watching the 54th annual meeting of the World Economic Forum (WEF) for updates on their coordinated strategy to promote Central Bank Digital Currencies and digital tyranny, something on my Twitter/X feed caught my attention.
Our funding of the WEF is the fiscal equivalent of a significant hangover—painful, regrettable, and self-inflicted. Although this story has been reported previously, I struggled to find a cohesive timeline or any detailed backstory on the efforts to halt this funding. Learning about our contributions to the WEF was like uncovering a secret society in your backyard—intriguing and unsettling.
I have been closely following the WEF, as they are one of the primary public-facing entities, along with the United Nations (U.N.), World Bank, Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and International Monetary Fund (IMF), that have been promoting and coordinating the global rollout of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). In fact, it is now estimated that there are 1.3 billion registered CBDC accounts globally, compared to 580 million for decentralized cryptocurrencies. This rapid pace of forced adoption is alarming, as it appears to be gaining even more momentum.
The World Economic Forum
The World Economic Forum (WEF), since its inception in 1971 by Klaus Schwab, has evolved from a modest consortium of European business leaders into a powerful hub for global centralization, increasingly skewing the scales in favor of the world’s elite. Nestled in the murky depths of global power networks, the WEF has been shaping the trajectory of big business, with its annual Davos summit serving as a high-profile platform for this mission.
The WEF’s advocacy consistently tilts towards the advantage of big business, often at the detriment of small businesses and entrepreneurial endeavors. Here are a few illustrative examples:
• Exclusive Membership: The WEF predominantly draws its membership from large multinational corporations, leaving small businesses out in the cold.
• Annual Meetings: The Davos summit primarily invites top executives, world leaders, and influential figures, creating a power vortex in favor of big business.
• Public-Private Partnerships: Endorsing such partnerships often leaves small businesses struggling in the shadows of their larger counterparts.
• Regulatory Influence: The WEF’s policy-shaping influence frequently results in regulations that cater to the whims of big corporations, posing barriers for smaller competitors.
• Access to Global Leaders: The WEF provides big businesses with a direct line to political leaders, creating a platform for lobbying and influence-peddling that often undermines the interests of the world’s citizens.
• Networking Opportunities: Events like Davos offer the elite a chance to build powerful alliances, often to the detriment of smaller competitors.
• Thought Leadership: The WEF’s reports and guidelines often revolve around the interests of big businesses.
• Globalization: The WEF’s push for globalization has bolstered large corporations while stifling opportunities for small businesses.
• Sustainability Initiatives: The WEF’s focus on sustainability often results in policies that disadvantage small businesses due to high compliance costs, while paving the way for big corporations to flourish.
The WEF’s commitment to centralization and its alignment with the interests of multinational corporations paint a clear picture of its elitist, technocratic nature. As the Daily Telegraph aptly stated in January 2021, “Klaus Schwab’s world view is an undemocratic, technocratic, authoritarian one, where the world is divided between the elite who run things and the rest who are managed and manipulated by the elite for their own good.” Canadian author and activist Naomi Klein adds, “Davos is the ultimate expression of the neoliberal order—a world of extreme corporate influence and extreme concentration of wealth.”
The WEF’s influence has permeated politics, with prominent politicians including Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Tulsi Gabbard from the United States, Tony Blair from the UK, Emmanuel Macron from France, and Justin Trudeau from Canada participating in their programs and/or speaking at their events. Over time, the WEF has experienced exponential growth in member companies, budget, employees, and influence, further solidifying its centralizing agenda.
The WEF’s robust endorsement of CBDCs offers a stark testament to their unwavering commitment to centralization and elite control.
Here are some key facets of their engagement with CBDCs:
• Partnership with Central Banks: The WEF collaborates closely with central banks to investigate and shape the evolution of CBDCs.
• CBDC Policy-Maker Toolkit: The WEF has fashioned a comprehensive toolkit to assist policymakers in the design and deployment of CBDCs.
• Research: The WEF consistently publishes research on the prospective benefits and challenges of CBDCs, typically leaning towards their implementation.
• Pilot Projects: The WEF lends its support and counsel to CBDC pilot projects.
• Carbon Footprint Tracking: The organization has proposed using CBDCs as an instrument to monitor individuals’ carbon footprints, thereby bolstering their drive for centralization and control.
The WEF has been repeatedly criticized for leveraging fear and uncertainty to further its global agenda. By employing hyperbolic language and prophesying catastrophic outcomes, the WEF has successfully seized global attention and incited a palpable sense of urgency surrounding its contentious “Great Reset” initiative. This ambitious plan seeks to radically transform key sectors like energy, economy, healthcare, and education through the lens of technology and centralization, in alignment with the U.N.’s Agenda 2030.
US Taxpayer Funding of the WEF Is Absurd
The WEF employs over 800 full-time staff and operates on a budget exceeding $400 million. Multinational companies, classified as “Strategic Partners,” pay an annual fee of $620,000. “Industry Partners” contribute $130,000 yearly, while members, comprising smaller companies and organizations, pay around $62,000 annually.The WEF’s flagship event, Davos, is a jet-set, champagne-soaked extravaganza generating economic activity comparable to the GDP of St. Lucia. Davos is where the world’s elite gather to solve problems they’ve created, with money they didn’t earn.
• The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an annual event in Davos, Switzerland, attracting global elites, including heads of state, CEOs, and celebrities.
• Attendance is prohibitively expensive, encompassing membership fees, admission charges, travel, and accommodation.
• A single hamburger platter can cost up to $75, and renting a studio apartment for the five-day event may reach $15,000.
• Annually, the WEF contributes about $80 million to the Swiss economy, significantly benefiting Davos’s local economy.
• The Davos ticket alone costs an additional $23,300, on top of the annual fees.
• Security is stringent, with the Swiss government spending an estimated $11.6 million on safety measures.
The WEF’s size, scope, and influence are staggering, with over 1,000 member companies. The following table highlights the top 10, based on market capitalization, employee count, and available cash.
The fact that U.S. taxpayers have contributed at least $60 million to fund these elites, ostensibly for establishing a one-world global technocracy, is astonishing.
United States Funding of the WEF
The United States government started funding the WEF in 2013. As reported by Adam Andrzejewski from Open the Books in “It’s Time That U.S. Taxpayers Defund The Davos Sponsor—World Economic Forum” the U.S. government has provided $60 million worth of funding to the WEF.We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction, and it is a bipartisan affair.
Before we delve into what these programs are, I want to point out that often these types of programs are either given names that constitute Orwellian doublespeak (meaning the opposite of what they say) or are assigned intentionally bland names to deter anyone from investigating further. I believe “Grow Africa” and “Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation” perfectly fit these naming strategies.
The WEF’s Grow Africa program was designed to “accelerate the transformation” of Africa’s agricultural sector. Its stated noble goals include increasing private sector investment, improving agricultural productivity, supporting smallholder farmers, creating jobs, and enhancing food security.
However, as might be expected, the actual results of this program have been substantially different from their stated goals. There has been a negative impact on small farmers, benefiting large agribusinesses instead. This includes massive violations of land rights, the implementation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), pesticides, and fertilizers, continued dependency of African nations on foreign investment and multinational corporations, issues of transparency for the investors and governments involved, and the destruction of indigenous knowledge and biodiversity.
In other words, the United States is sponsoring the WEF’s attempts to do to agriculture what farmers in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Belgium, Scotland, Italy, and Spain are actively protesting against: government policies and technocratic attempts to destroy their trade and livelihoods.
The WEF’s Global Alliance for Trade Facilitation (GATF) is an attempt to centralize and control international trade processes through top-down coordination by governments, international organizations, and the private sector. In their propaganda, you will hear phrases like “improvising customs procedures,” “public-private partnerships,” “capacity building,” and “economic growth and development.”
Other Ways the US Taxpayer Might Be Funding the WEF
In the complex realm of government funding, the $60 million transferred from USAID to the WEF represents just a small, visible part of a much larger picture. This transaction exemplifies how government agencies like USAID can allocate portions of their budget to international organizations such as the WEF, often without direct Congressional approval.While legal and within the executive branch’s discretion, this process highlights the opaque nature of government funding mechanisms. However, this instance is just one aspect of a broader and less transparent pattern of potential financial support from various U.S. government sources to the WEF. The full extent and nature of this support remain unclear, raising questions about the overall contribution of American taxpayer funds to the WEF and its various initiatives. Here are some other possible ways taxpayer money could be funneled to the WEF:
1. U.S. Officials at Davos Meetings: Government officials from the United States attend the WEF’s gatherings in Davos, with expenses for travel and accommodation funded by taxpayer money. Their role is to participate in global discussions, incurring costs that are ultimately covered by the public.
2. Research Funding to Universities: American universities, receiving federal funding, conduct research that aligns with the WEF’s objectives. This taxpayer-funded research influences the policies and discussions within the WEF, reflecting a synergy between academic work and the WEF’s technocratic vision.
3. Security Detail for Dignitaries: Significant security measures are required for U.S. dignitaries attending the WEF meetings in Davos. The cost of these extensive security arrangements is borne by American taxpayers.
4. Membership Fees and Partnerships: The U.S. government contributes to the WEF through membership fees and partnership contributions. These financial commitments are made using taxpayer funds, effectively subscribing to the WEF’s global governance initiatives.
5. Support for U.S. Business Participation: The U.S. government facilitates and financially supports the participation of American businesses in WEF events. This backing often involves the use of taxpayer funds to promote business engagement at these global forums.
What Has Been Done to Stop US Taxpayer Funding of the WEF
I mentioned in the opening paragraph that Representative Scott Perry recently introduced a “Defund Davos” bill last month. It turns out that this isn’t the first time Perry has introduced this bill.The original Defund Davos bill in 2022 was introduced by Perry (R-Pa.) and cosponsored by Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) and Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Col.). The bill number is H.R. 8748, also known as the “Defund Davos Act.”
While this bill sparked some initial discussion and debate about the role of the U.S. government with global organizations like the WEF, it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and didn’t make it out of the committee. In other words, Congress never voted on this bill.
What Can Be Done
At this point, I am a firm believer in boycotts. After spending 30 years close to politics and 15 years as an activist and candidate in various capacities, my view on the political process is “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” These systems seem beyond repair. However, we do have the ability to change our own thoughts, actions, and emotions. Voting with our wallets is as effective a form of activism as I’ve seen.Although I can’t be too smug about this, as I write this article on an Apple computer—a WEF partner—using Google Docs, another WEF partner company’s product, I am only at the beginning of a gradual process of boycotting WEF partner companies.
As a simple start, I have blocked all of the U.S. WEF member companies in the Big Pharma and Media sectors. Something as simple as reducing their reach and making an effort not to buy their products is a significant first step.
