John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© April 22, 2023
The Exposé – under the auspices of Rhoda Wilson (I
suspect pseudonym) – is sharing an excellent Substack post from A Lily Bit on the
development of the World Economic Forum (WEF). I subscribe to A Lily Bit
thus I am pleased to share.
Lily (yup, probably a pseudonym) has put together a
lengthy yet very informative post on the WEF. If you are a WEF agenda supporter
(God have mercy on your soul), know your friends. If you despise
the WEF agenda of ending personal Liberty in favor of a Borg-like collective
managed by an odd oligarchy of Marxist-Corporatist-Fascists; THEN KNOW YOUR
ENEMY!
I am posting The Exposé version of the A Lily Bit
post. Oddly, Rhoda did not include Lily’s first paragraph from her
post which is quoted below:
Shall we debunk Adrian Monck’s
and Klaus Schwab’s fascinating
statements and sugarcoating, that the WEF is nothing but a think tank to
benefit all? [Blog Editor: The embedded link apparently
is only for paid subscribers of A Lily Bit] Well, let’s take a tour down
memory lane and explore the history of the World Economic Forum (WEF) — and
pick it apart, tear down the charade, the masks and the “we care for
you”-talks. I have a score to settle. And I promise: This is not going to be
boring to read.
JRH 4/22/23
Thank you to those who have stepped up!
READER SUPPORTED! I
need Readers
willing to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100. PLEASE YOUR generosity
is appreciated. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
YOU CAN ALSO SUPPORT via buying women’s menstrual health, healthy collagen, vitamin supplements/products, coffee from my Online stores: My Store (please use referral discount code 2388058): https://modere.co/3SrOHzI
Big Tech Censorship is
pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
***********************
A history of Davos meetings in context of events at the
time
Featured image: Prophecies
Made in Davos Don’t Always Come True
[Posted] by RHODA WILSON
April 21, 2023
This is a tour down memory lane and explores the history
of the World Economic Forum (“WEF”). It has been shaping and shaped by
geopolitics for decades. Leaders from around the world gather at Davos to
set aside their differences and speak a common language, reaffirming their
commitment to a single, global economy.
The following is an essay written by Lily describing “a
journey in time through the WEF’s sweet talk: debunking their sugar-coated
statements and revealing the bitter truth.” Lily self-describes as an
ex-intelligence agent picking apart the WEF and everything attached to
it. She publishes articles on her Substack page ‘A Lily Bit’ which
you can subscribe to and follow HERE.
Davos
– The Met-Gala for Ugly People
By A
Lily Bit
The annual gathering of the World Economic Forum in Davos is
where the world’s elite get together to pat themselves on the back and feel
good about their power and influence. And boy, have they been successful! The
WEF has been the breeding ground for all sorts of neoliberal goodies, like the
rise of the financial sector, the spread of corporate trade agreements, and the
integration of emerging economic powers into the global economy. Because
nothing says, “improving the state of the world” like cozying up to big
corporations and ignoring the needs of everyday people, right?
But fear not, my friends. The WEF isn’t just a place for
billionaires to sip champagne and congratulate themselves on their own
awesomeness. No, they’re also committed to “public-private cooperation” and
collaborating with other influential groups and sectors to “shape global,
regional and industry agendas” and to “define challenges, solutions, and
actions.” Because who requires democratic decision-making when you can have
several rich people decide what’s best for the rest of us?
Oh, and let’s not forget the NGOs! The WEF realised it
needed to include some token non-governmental organisations to make themselves
look good, so they started inviting them to the party. And wouldn’t you know
it, according to a poll they conducted, NGOs are the only group that people
actually trust these days. Go figure.
So don’t worry, folks. Even though the WEF is mostly about
heads of state and big corporations, they’ve got everyone covered. They’ll even
try to integrate the youth into what they’re doing. Because nothing screams
“youth integration” like a bunch of old dudes in suits talking about global
economic policy, am I right?
Humble Beginnings
The origins of the World Economic Forum can be traced back
to 1971 when it was established as the European Management Forum. Its initial
purpose was to introduce American-style business management practices to
Europe’s top CEOs. The event was founded by Klaus Schwab, a German national who
had studied in the US and who continues to lead the Forum until now. In 1987,
the Forum changed its name to the World Economic Forum, and it has since become
an annual gathering of the world’s elite, with a focus on promoting and
profiting from the expansion of global markets.
Despite the Forum’s emphasis on globalising the economy, its
politics have remained largely national. The meetings serve as a platform for
networking and deal-making between corporate and financial power players, as
well as national leaders. In addition, the WEF promotes the idea of “global
governance” in a world governed by global markets. Its primary purpose is to
function as a socialising institution for the emerging global elite, which
includes bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats, and politicians.
These individuals promote their own interests and common ideas that serve their
shared objectives.
As noted by Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times,
the World Economic Forum’s true significance lies in its ability to shape ideas
and ideology. Leaders from around the world gather at the Forum to set aside
their differences and speak a common language, reaffirming their commitment to
a single, global economy and the “capitalist” values that support it. This
reflects the “globalisation consensus” embraced not only by the powerful Group
of Seven nations, but also by prominent emerging markets such as China, Russia,
India, and Brazil.
Geopolitics and Global Governance
The World Economic Forum has been shaping and being shaped
by geopolitics for decades. It was created during a time when West Germany and
Japan were starting to challenge the United States as economic powerhouses –
and let’s not forget the oil shocks of the ’70s that made the Arab oil
dictators and global banks even more powerful by recycling that oil money and
loaning it to Third World countries. But I guess you just had to hear it from
me, huh?
In the mid-1970s, there was a rise in forums dedicated to
discussing “global governance”, such as the Group of Seven meetings. Comprised
of the leaders of the seven major industrial nations, including the US,
(former) West Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, and Canada, these meetings
aimed to address global economic issues. However, in the 1980s, the debt crisis
led to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank gaining significant
new powers over entire economies and regions. This resulted in the
restructuring of societies to promote “market economies” and prioritise the
interests of domestic and international corporate and financial elites.
Between 1989 and 1991, the global power structure decided to
mix things up a bit with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the
Soviet Union. And just like that, President George H.W. Bush announced a “New
World Order” where the United States emerged as the ultimate ruler of a
unipolar world. The West was declared victorious in its ideological war against
the Soviet Union, and Western “Capitalist Democracy” was crowned the champion.
The “market system” got to go global, baby! Bill Clinton, the superstar
president, even led the US through its biggest economic boom ever from 1993 to
2001. Excitement was in the air. Unfortunately, it was more for them than for
you.
The annual gatherings of the World Economic Forum became the
talk of the town during this time. And let’s not forget about the prestigious
“Davos Class” that the WEF helped establish – the Met Gala for boring people!
At the 1990 meeting, the spotlight was on Eastern Europe and how they could
transition into those oh-so-desirable “market-oriented economies.” Of course,
the bigwigs from both Eastern and Western Europe had their secret meetings,
with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl leading the pack. He made it pretty
clear that he wanted to bring Germany back together and make sure they
continued to dominate the European Community and NATO.
Good old Helmut Kohl – always thinking ahead! He had a
cunning strategy for shaping Europe’s “security and economic structure” by
using a unified Germany as the centrepiece. His “grand design” involved firmly
embedding a unified Germany within the rapidly expanding European Community.
The main goal was to create an “internal market” by 1992 and to push for an
economic and monetary union that could eventually extend eastward. Kohl played
it cool and presented this plan as a peaceful way for Germany to flex its
muscles without scaring the pants off Eastern Europeans and other countries
worried about Germany’s newfound economic strength. Smart move, Kohl.
It was quite the show at the 1992 WEF meeting! The United
States and newly reunified Germany teamed up to push for some serious action in
liberalising world trade and bolstering market economies in Eastern Europe. The
German Economics Minister even called for the elite Group of Seven to convene
and kickstart global trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT), which included a whopping 105 countries. And let’s not forget
about the surprise appearance from the Chinese delegation, led by none other
than Prime Minister Li Peng – the highest-ranking Chinese official to leave the
country since the infamous Tiananmen Square crackdown in 1989.
The drama was just too much to handle when Nelson Mandela
showed up as well. The new president of South Africa caused quite a stir
because he used to be all about nationalising mines, banks, and other
monopolistic industries when he was part of the African National Congress
(“ANC”). But when Mandela arrived at the WEF meeting just after taking office,
he pulled a complete 180 and announced that he was now fully on board with
capitalism and globalisation. Talk about a change of heart!
But Nelson did not come alone. No, he brought no other than
the governor of the central bank of South Africa, Tito Mboweni. Apparently,
when Mandela arrived, he had a speech in hand that was all about nationalising
stuff, which was a bit of a shock to everyone. However, as the week wore on,
Mandela had some eye-opening conversations with Communist Party leaders from
China and Vietnam. These guys were all about privatising state enterprises and
bringing in private businesses – even though they were running Communist Party
governments, but you can read more about why this makes more sense than you
think HERE.
They looked at Mandela and said, “Hey, you’re the leader of a national
liberation movement. Why are you still talking about nationalisation?” Burn!
So, after some persuasive conversations, Mandela had a
change of heart and decided to embrace market economics and encourage
investment in South Africa. It paid off – South Africa became the
fastest-growing economy on the continent! Of course, there’s always a catch –
today, inequality in the country is worse than it was during apartheid. But
hey, you can’t have everything, right? As Mandela himself later explained to
his official biographer, he realised that the choice was simple: “We either
keep nationalisation and get no investment, or we modify our attitude and get
investment.”
The 1993 WEF meeting was all about keeping the United States
in its position of global power, both economically and militarily. Participants
agreed that the US needed to lead the charge in promoting greater cooperation
between powerful nations. The big concern at Davos was that even though
economies were becoming increasingly globalised, politics was heading in the
opposite direction, with countries becoming more insular and focused on their
own interests.
In 1993, Anthony Lake, the National Security Adviser under
Bill Clinton, presented what became known as the “Clinton Doctrine,” which
emphasised the need for the US to expand the community of market democracies
worldwide. Lake argued that the US should combine its goals of promoting
democracy and markets with its traditional geostrategic interests. This
announcement surely pleased the Davos crowd, who were all about promoting
globalisation and free markets.
During the 1994 World Economic Forum gathering, the
Director-General of GATT, Peter D. Sutherland, emphasised the need for a new
high-level forum for international economic cooperation that would be more
inclusive of major emerging market economies. Sutherland asserted that the
current system excluded the majority of the world’s population from
participating in global economic management. He proposed establishing an
organisation that would bring together the leading 20 industrial and economic
powers, and eventually, the Group of 20 was formed in 1999. However, it did not
become a major forum for global governance until the 2008 financial crisis.
In 1995, the Financial Times observed that
the hot new term for policymakers was “global governance,” signalling an
eagerness to enhance and modernise international co-operation efforts and
institutions. At the January 1995 World Economic Forum, an official UN report
on global governance was unveiled. Even President Clinton chimed in, speaking
to the Davos attendees via satellite and emphasising his commitment to
promoting a fresh “economic architecture,” particularly at Group of Seven
meetings.
The Davos Man
In 1997, the esteemed US political scientist Samuel
Huntington introduced the term “Davos Man,” referring to a clique of
high-ranking individuals who “disdain national loyalty, view national borders
as inconvenient obstacles that are happily disappearing, and consider national
governments as vestiges of the past whose sole purpose is to facilitate the
global operations of the elite.” Huntington’s thesis, as presented in the Financial
Times, envisioned a world divided into spheres of influence, where “one or
two core states” would reign supreme. Despite their influence, Huntington noted
that the “Davos culture people” represented only a minuscule fraction of the
world’s population, and their grip on power within their own societies was far
from assured.
The Financial Times suggested that the
“Davos Man” might not be a “universal civilisation,” but they could be “the
vanguard of one.” Ah, the Davos crowd – so humble and down-to-earth.
And The Economist was quick to defend these
elites, claiming that they were just replacing traditional diplomacy and
bringing people together. Of course, it had nothing to do with being paid for
by companies and run in their interests.
TNI fellow Susan George took it even further, calling the
Davos class a genuine social class with a clear agenda. But, she noted, they
were also wedded to an ideology that isn’t working and had no imagination to
come up with a solution. So, just a group of powerful, clueless people – what
could possibly go wrong?
A (Fascinating) Threat Rises in The East
To put it plainly, the WEF played a significant role in
enabling the rise of seven Russian oligarchs, who ultimately took over Russia
and steered its destiny. During the 1996 WEF meeting, the Russian delegation
was dominated by these oligarchs, who had amassed massive wealth during the
country’s transition to a market economy. Worried about the possibility of the
Communist Party staging a comeback in the upcoming election, they banded
together to fund Boris Yeltsin’s re-election campaign and strategise about
“reshaping their country’s future” in private meetings. This coalition of the
rich and powerful, led by Boris Berezovsky, proved instrumental in securing
Yeltsin’s victory later that year, as they held regular meetings with Yeltsin’s
top aide, Anatoly Chubais, the mastermind behind Russia’s privatisation program
that had enriched them all.
Moreover, as the West became increasingly fascinated with
the rise of Russia’s oligarchs, China was quietly emerging as the next major
player on the global economic stage. By the early 2000s, China’s rapid economic
growth and expanding middle class had become the new obsession of Davos
attendees, who saw it as an unprecedented opportunity for business and
investment. The rise of China also led to a shift in global power dynamics,
with many predicting that it would eventually overtake the United States as the
world’s dominant superpower.
Berezovsky laid out the obvious for his fellow oligarchs:
without cooperation, their beloved market economy would crumble like a stale
croissant. He urged his peers to unleash their combined power to ensure the
transformation of Russia’s economy. The oligarchs heeded his call and assembled
a political machine to further their own interests and entrench the market
economy. The Financial Times observed that the oligarchs
controlled half of the entire Russian economy, making them not just wealthy but
also terrifyingly powerful.
In a rather cynical tone, Anatoly Chubais, a Russian
politician, gave his two cents on the matter, saying: “Ah, those oligarchs.
They steal, steal and steal. They are a bunch of kleptomaniacs, but don’t
worry, let them steal everything. Once they’ve stolen enough, they’ll become
respectable property owners and wise administrators of their loot.”
The spread of global markets in the 1990s also brought with
it a wave of financial crises that hit countries like Mexico, Africa, East
Asia, Russia, and Latin America. In 1999, the WEF meeting focused on the
“reform of the international financial system” as the crises continued to
spread. The Davos Class and the Group of Seven nations advised the countries in
crisis to implement “radical structural reforms,” i.e., liberalisation and
deregulation of markets, in order to restore market confidence and attract
Western corporate and financial interests.
China had become especially keen to show off its high-level
delegations since the mid-80s. At the 2009 gathering, we were all graced with
the wisdom of President Putin and Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who
pointed their fingers at the United States and other centres of finance and
globalisation as the root of the crisis. They bemoaned the “blind pursuit of
profit” and the “failure of financial supervision” – how charming. But fear
not, for both Wen and Putin promised to work with the major industrial powers
to tackle these “common economic problems.” How noble of them.
In 2010, China really made a splash at Davos, didn’t they?
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, who graced the event with his presence the year
before, decided to sit this one out. Instead, he sent his handpicked successor,
Li Keqiang, to hobnob with the global elite. Meanwhile, China’s economy was
doing better than anticipated, causing major global corporations to start
breathing down their necks.
Kristin Forbes, a former White House big shot and former
attendee of the prestigious Davos bonanza, had some thoughts on China’s
emergence. She remarked that China is both the West’s greatest hope and
greatest fear. Oh, the drama! Nobody saw China’s rise coming so quickly, and
now everyone was scrambling to figure out how to deal with them. But fear not,
for China sent its largest delegation yet to the World Economic Forum, complete
with 54 fancy executives and government officials. And what were they up to,
you may ask? Oh, just a bit of shopping for clients among the world’s elite.
So, what pearls of wisdom did the charming future Chinese
prime minister Li Keqiang impart upon the Davos class? Well, apparently, China
was shifting its focus from exports to “boosting domestic demand.” How quaint.
And what’s the reasoning behind this genius move, you may ask? Oh, just to “drive
growth in China” and “provide greater markets for the world.” Of course! And
how is this grand plan going to be executed, you may ask? Well, according to
Li, they’re just going to let the market “play a primary role in the allocation
of resources.” I’m really not sure who was supposed to believe this.
The New York Times decided to call out the WEF
in 2011. I know right? The World Economic Forum was dubbed “the emergence of an
international economic elite” at the same time as inequality between the rich
and poor skyrocketed. And it was not just the powerful countries that were
experiencing this delightful phenomenon. The fast-emerging economies were
getting in on the action, too! Chrystia Freeland, of all people, wasn’t afraid
to speak up about the rise of government-connected plutocrats, stating that
this wasn’t just happening in places like Russia, India, and China. Oh no, the
major Western bailouts reflected what former IMF chief economist, Simon
Johnson, called a “quiet coup” by bankers in the United States and beyond.
Where Global Finance Elites Come to Ignore Public Outrage
and Party On
The lovely world of global finance, where banks and
oligarchs hold all the power – and it only grows stronger with each financial
crisis! The 2008 crisis was a doozy, and even the World Economic Forum felt the
impact at its January 2009 meeting. Wall Street titans took a back seat to top
politicians, and Klaus Schwab couldn’t help but note that “this is the biggest
economic crisis since Davos began.” Oh, dear. Goldman Sachs, which used to
throw one of the hottest parties at the annual Davos meeting, decided to cancel
its 2009 event. But never fear, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, was
determined to keep the party going. What a man.
In 2010, thousands of delegates gathered at Davos to
elaborate on the “important” issues of the day, even though banks and bankers
were at an all-time low in terms of reputation. Yet, top executives from the
world’s largest financial institutions showed up in full force, seemingly
oblivious to public outrage. The week before the meeting, President Obama
called for laws to deal with “too big to fail” banks and European leaders were
facing domestic anger over the massive bailouts of financial institutions
during the financial crisis. Britain and France even discussed taxing banker
bonuses, while Mervyn King, then governor of the Bank
of England, suggested breaking up the big banks. Nevertheless,
several panels at the WEF meeting were devoted to discussing the financial
system and its potential regulation, with bankers like Josef Ackermann of
Deutsche Bank offering limited support for regulation (at least when it came to
“capital requirements”).
Read more: The
Creation of War and Debt Slavery in Perpetuity | The Dark Ages, the Bank of
England and the creation of the financial long cycle, A Lily Bit, 29
March 2023
What really stole the show at the 2010 WEF meeting were the
secretive, private meetings between government representatives and bank
executives. The number of bankers attending the summit increased by 23%, with
around 235 bankers in attendance. The global bankers and corporate leaders
present were concerned about the potential financial impact of populist
policies aimed at regulating banks and financial markets. French President
Nicolas Sarkozy called for a “revolution” in global financial regulation and
reform of the international monetary system. Meanwhile, the heads of about 30
of the world’s largest banks held a private meeting to strategise on how to
reassert their influence with regulators and governments. This clandestine gathering
was followed by another meeting involving top policymakers and regulators.
Brian Moynihan, the CEO of Bank of America, revealed that
the gathered bankers were brainstorming ways to increase their involvement. He
also disclosed that much of the private discussion involved strategising about
whom to approach and when. The CEO of UBS, a major Swiss bank, praised the
meeting, calling it “positive” and stating that there was consensus. The
bankers acknowledged that some new regulations were inevitable, but they hoped
to promote coordination of these regulations through the Group of 20, which was
revived in 2009 as the premier forum for international cooperation and “global
governance.”
Josef Ackermann, the CEO of Deutsche Bank, proposed that it
was time to put an end to the “bank bashing” and emphasised the “noble role”
that banks had in the economic recovery. Similarly, Christine Lagarde, former
French Finance Minister and then Managing Director of the IMF and current
President of the European Central Bank, advocated for a “dialogue” between
governments and banks, stating that it was the only way to overcome the crisis.
Later that week, bankers met privately with finance ministers, central bankers,
and regulators from major economies. How do I know? Well, you for once have to
trust me on that.
At the time, finance ministers, regulators, and central
bankers had a clear political message for the bankers: accept more stringent
regulations or face more Draconian curbs from politicians who are responding to
an angry public. Guillermo Ortiz, the former governor of the central bank of
Mexico, remarked that “banks have misjudged the deep feelings of the public
regarding the devastating effects of the crisis.” Former French President
Sarkozy added that bankers who were awarding themselves excessive bonuses while
simultaneously “destroying jobs and wealth” were engaging in behaviour that was
“morally indefensible” and would no longer be tolerated by public opinion in
any country in the world.
As the 2011 Davos meeting kicked off, Edelman, a
communications consultancy, decided to burst the bankers’ bubble by releasing a
report on a poll conducted among 5,000 wealthy and educated individuals in 23
countries, who were apparently considered to be “well-informed.” The poll revealed
a staggering decline in trust for major institutions, and guess who took the
biggest hit? Yep, you guessed it – the banks. Before the 2007 financial crisis,
a whopping 71% of those surveyed expressed trust in banks. Fast-forward to
2011, and that number plummeted to a measly 25%. Ouch.
Après-Ski With Klaus
Despite the plummeting public trust in banks and financial
institutions, Davos continued to serve as a cozy haven for the global elite to
safeguard and expand their interests. And why wouldn’t it, when the Foundation
Board of the World Economic Forum, its top governing body, is and was heavily
populated by representatives of the financial world and global financial
governance?
Take, for instance, Mukesh Ambani, who sits on advisory
boards for Citigroup, Bank of America, and the National Bank of Kuwait, or
Herman Gref, the CEO of Sberbank, a sizable Russian bank. And let’s not forget
Ernesto Zedillo, a former President of Mexico, who also happened to be a board
member once. He’s also a director for Rolls-Royce and JPMorgan Chase, on
international advisory boards for BP and Credit Suisse, an adviser to the Bill
& Melinda Gates Foundation, a member of the Group of Thirty and the
Trilateral Commission, and he even sits on the board of one of the world’s most
influential economic think tanks, the Peterson Institute for International
Economics. Impressive, huh?
In a surprise to no one, Mark Carney, former governor of the
Bank of England, was a member of the Foundation Board of the World Economic
Forum because nothing screams “global economic elite” like a board of bankers
and corporate honchos. Carney’s resume reads like a veritable who’s who of
financial powerhouses – he spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs before moving on to
the Bank of Canada, where he was Deputy Governor. He then did a stint in
Canada’s Ministry of Finance before returning to the Bank of Canada as
Governor. And if that’s not enough, Carney has been the Chairman of the
Financial Stability Board, based out of the Bank for International Settlements
in Basel, Switzerland, because clearly one job at a time is not enough for the
global elite.
Mark Carney’s impressive resume doesn’t end with his role as
Governor of the Bank of England. He’s also a board member of the Bank for
International Settlements, which serves as the central bank for the world’s
major central banks. As if that’s not enough, he’s a member of the Group of
Thirty, a private think tank and lobby group that brings together the most
influential economists, bankers, and finance ministers. And let’s not forget
his attendance at the ultra-exclusive Bilderberg Group meetings, which are so
exclusive they make the Davos crowd look like amateurs.
The World Economic Forum is not exactly a feminist utopia.
But hey, at least they have one woman on their list of top dogs: Christine
Lagarde, who just so happens to also be, as mentioned, the president of the
ECB. Lagarde has quite the résumé, having previously served as the French
finance minister during the financial crisis, the managing director of the IMF,
and she occasionally rubs shoulders with the Bilderberg crowd too.
The World Economic Forum has yet another group of
self-important bigwigs to make us all feel inadequate: the International
Business Council. This exclusive club consists of 100 CEOs who are apparently
“highly respected and influential,” although I am not quite sure who is doing
the respecting and influencing. The council serves as an advisory body to the
WEF, providing “intellectual stewardship” – whatever that means (it’s probably
just a fancy term to make you feel dumb) – and helping to shape the agenda for
the annual meeting.
The WEF’s membership is divided into three tiers because
what’s more exclusive than categorising people into groups? The lowly Regional
Partners and Industry Partner Groups are nothing compared to the almighty
Strategic Partners, who shell out nearly $700,000 for the privilege of setting
the agenda and having private meetings with delegates. And who are these elite
companies, you ask? Only the most powerful and influential in the world,
including the likes of Big Oil (BP, Chevron, Total), Big Banks (Barclays, Citi,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, UBS), Big
Pharma (Pfizer, Moderna), Big Tech (Facebook, Google), and Big Sugar (Coca-Cola,
PepsiCo), among others. Don’t you just love how money buys you access to power
and influence?
Given that the Forum is bankrolled by these institutions and
has its leadership drawn from them, it’s hardly shocking that Davos prioritises
the interests of financial and corporate power above all else. And this bias is
made even more apparent in their stance on trade issues.
Davos: Corporate Power Meets Trade Deals and Democracy
Goes To Die
Trade, trade, trade – it’s all about the powerful corporate
and financial interests at Davos. The World Economic Forum has made it a
consistent and major issue, and as the Wall Street Journal so aptly noted, “it
is almost a tradition that trade ministers meet at Davos with an informal
meeting.” So much for promoting the interests of the little guy.
In case you missed it, the Davos meetings are essentially a
corporate and financial power-fest, so naturally trade is a major topic of
discussion. At the 2013 meeting, US Trade Representative Ron Kirk emphasised
that the Obama administration was eager to “smooth” trade with the European
Union, emphasising the importance of the “trans-Atlantic relationship.”
Surprise, surprise, progress was made toward a trade accord that week. The year
prior, at the 2012 meeting, top US and EU officials met secretly with the
Transatlantic Business Dialogue (“TABD”), a major corporate group pushing for a
US-EU “free trade” agreement. The TABD brought along 21 corporate executives, and
the meeting was attended by top technocrats, including WTO Director-General
Pascal Lamy and Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for International
Economic Affairs, Michael Froman (who used to be the US Trade Representative).
The result was a report on a “Vision for the Future of EU-US Economic
Relations,” which called for “urgent action on a visionary and ambitious
agenda.” Because who needs democracy when you can have multinational
corporations writing trade policies?
In a move that surprised no one, the US and EU elites
announced their plan to launch the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership (“TTIP”) after a cozy meeting in Davos. This “comprehensive trade
and investment agreement” was sure to benefit the powerful corporate interests
that helped finance the World Economic Forum. US Trade Representative Ron Kirk
couldn’t contain his excitement about the potential to exploit all sectors,
including agriculture, stating that “for us, everything is on the table.”
Finally, the ultra-rich can rest easy knowing that their financial interests
will be protected above all else.
“Davos Class Fascinated by Social Unrest: Protests Just
as Entertaining As Latest Market Trends” – Fact Checkers Say
The World Economic Forum seems to have a morbid fascination with
social unrest, protests, and resistance movements that challenge the interests
of corporate and financial elites. This interest peaked after the 1999 Seattle
protests against the World Trade Organisation, which Davos dubbed the
“anti-globalisation movement.” Apparently, watching people stand up for their
rights and against corporate power is just as entertaining as a panel
discussion on the latest market trends.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen! The Davos Class was anxious
about the backlash against globalisation and the protests that were ruining
their fancy little meetings. The New York Times reported that
they were desperately trying to restore confidence in their precious trade
agreements while pretending to care about inequality, environmental destruction,
and financial instability. I’m sure they shed a few crocodile tears before
heading off to enjoy their champagne and caviar.
The head of the WTO declared that “globalism is the new
‘ism’ that everyone loves to hate… There is nothing that our critics will not
blame on globalisation and, yes, it is hurting us.”
The elite guest list of the annual WEF meeting in 2000 was
truly impressive, with President Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair,
and Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo among the attendees. But let’s not forget
the other world leaders who graced the event with their presence, such as those
from South Africa, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Finland. Of course, the head of the
WTO and several trade ministers were also slated to attend, despite the looming
threat of protesters disrupting the Forum. To safeguard these precious elites
from the riff-raff, the Swiss Army was called in to protect the 2,000 members
of the Davos Class. Because who cares about the rights of the people when the
elites are in town?
As the Davos elite gathered once again in January 2001, they
were determined to ensure their exclusive event was not spoiled by any pesky
“hooligans” or voices of dissent. Meanwhile, in Porto Alegre, Brazil, a
counter-forum was taking place, providing a platform for activist groups and
those from the Third World to voice their concerns. But the Davos Class
remained oblivious, comfortably cocooned in their concrete and razor-wire
fortress, while police outside used brute force to suppress any dissenting voices.
In 2009, the WEF meeting drew a lot of attention from
protesters, who were met with tear gas and water cannons from the riot police.
Then French Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, gave a warning to the Davos
Class about the two major risks they were facing: social unrest and
protectionism. She emphasised the need to restore confidence in the system, but
the protesters outside held up signs that read, “You are the Crisis.” It seems
like the WEF attendees weren’t exactly the most popular kids on the block, but
the circus went on unbothered.
The WEF meeting in January 2012 was like a gathering of the
world’s elite amidst a backdrop of turmoil and unrest. The Arab Spring had
shaken the foundations of the Middle East, anti-austerity protests rocked Europe,
and the Occupy Wall Street movement gained momentum. But the WEF, ever on the
ball, had identified the top two risks facing the world as “severe income
disparity and chronic fiscal imbalances.” Wow, what a revelation! The Occupy
Movement even set up camp at Davos to drive the point home, and for the first
time, inequality topped the risk list. It seems the Davos Class was finally
catching up to the rest of the world. Beth Brooke of Ernst & Young warned
that countries with vanishing middle classes were at risk, as history had
shown. Well, good luck with that one, Davos.
As angry citizens rallied in city streets and public squares
from Cairo to Athens and New York, the Financial Times observed
that dissatisfaction was “pervasive,” and that “the only common message is that
leaders worldwide are failing to meet the expectations of their citizens and
that Facebook and Twitter enable crowds to unite instantly and let them know
about it.” For the 40 government leaders gathering in Davos, “this was not a
reassuring picture.”
Europe was not immune to the unrest and upheaval seen in
other parts of the world. In 2011, democratically elected leaders in Italy and
Greece were ousted and replaced by technocrats, leading to accusations of a
“technocratic coup” at the behest of Germany. Mario Draghi, former head of the
European Central Bank (“ECB”), was considered one of the most powerful leaders
in Europe at the time. However, even the ECB was not immune to the Occupy
movement, which had set up camp outside its headquarters in Frankfurt. During
the 2012 WEF meeting in Davos, Occupy protesters clashed with police outside
the event. Stephen Roach, a Yale University faculty member and chairman of
Morgan Stanley Asia, recounted his experience as a panellist at the “Open
Forum,” where citizens from the local community, students, and Occupy
protesters participated.
Roach’s discussion topic at the Open Forum in Davos 2012 was
“remodelling capitalism.” He hoped to engage the public in a discussion on this
important issue. However, things quickly turned chaotic as Occupy protesters
disrupted the Forum with chants calling for more support. Roach described the
scene as “disturbing,” and he was more focused on finding an escape route than
opening comments. Clearly, the seething masses were not interested in his
proposal to fix capitalism because no one understood that capitalism has
basically been hijacked by a chaotic form of technocratic communism with the
sole goal of consolidating wealth, power, and influence with a few selected
plutocrats.
During the discussions, Roach was struck by the perspective
of the first panellist, a 24-year-old Occupy protester named Maria. She
expressed her anger at “the system” and emphasised the need to build a new one
based on equality, dignity, and respect. The other panellists from the WEF,
which included Ed Miliband from the UK, a UN Commissioner, a Czech academic,
and a minister from the Jordanian dictatorship, seemed to speak a different
language compared to Maria. But maybe Maria was the spark that fuelled Klaus
Schwab’s ambitions to sugar-coat the totalitarian Great Reset agenda with
“equality, dignity and respect”.
Read more: ‘Covid-19:
The Great Reset’ is the Perfect Manual for Tyranny | I read Klaus Schwab’s
infamous book, so you don’t have to. Here’s what I found, A Lily Bit, 2
October 2022
In a condescending tone, Roach admitted that his experience
engaging with the Occupy protesters was unsettling for someone who spent
decades as a Wall Street banker. He complained that despite his attempts to
speak as an expert economist, the crowd’s main complaint rooted in Occupy Wall
Street made it difficult for him to be heard over their hisses. According to
Roach, Maria from Occupy got the last word, stating that Occupy’s aim is to
think for yourself and change the process of finding solutions, rather than
focus on specific solutions. Roach described making a hasty exit through a
secret door in the kitchen as the crowd roared their approval. He concluded
that his experience in Davos had forever changed him and that the battle for
big ideas could not be won with retreat.
It was reported by The Economist in October
2013 that social unrest was on the rise globally, from anti-austerity movements
to middle-class rebellions, in both wealthy and impoverished countries. The
World Economic Forum released a report in November 2013, predicting a “lost
generation” that would succumb to populist politics and escalate social unrest.
Meanwhile, financial institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, UBS, HSBC, and AXA
warned of the dangers of social upheaval and rebellion in their reports
throughout 2013. In its May 2013 report, JPMorgan Chase complained about laws
that hindered its agenda, such as the “constitutional protection of labour
rights” and the “right to protest if unwelcome changes are made to the
political status quo,” as it warned of major challenges ahead in Europe’s
economic “adjustment,” which it deemed only “halfway done on average.”
The 2014 meeting of the World Economic Forum was chimed in
with over 40 heads of state in attendance! Talk about a power-packed guest
list. They had everyone from Viktor Yanukovich of Ukraine to Enrique Pena Nieto
of Mexico, and even Shinzō Abe, David Cameron, Dilma Rousseff, Hassan Rouhani,
Benjamin Netanyahu, and Goodluck Jonathan. Not to mention the top dogs of
international finance like Jacob Lew, Mario Draghi, Mark Carney, Christine
Lagarde, and Jim Yong Kim. It looks like the 1% really know how to throw a
shindig.
At the start of the meeting, the World Economic Forum
released a report stating that the “single biggest risk to the world in 2014”
was the increasing “gap between rich and poor.” Oh dear, how unexpected! Income
inequality and social unrest were identified as the most critical issues that
would have a significant impact on the world economy in the next ten years. The
report noted that youth around the world were part of a “lost generation” that
lacked jobs and opportunities and warned that such dissatisfaction could “boil
over into social upheaval,” citing recent examples in Brazil and Thailand.
The Davos Class, comprised of global elites, has only gained
more influence and control in response to the rise of worldwide social and
political upheavals and during the Covid-19 pandemic. The 2024 gathering of the
wealthy and powerful at Davos will likely serve as a reminder of the
consequences of the centralised system, as citizens across the globe continue
to demand their voices be heard and their leaders held accountable.
THE EXPOSÉ HOMEPAGE
SUPPORT
THE EXPOSÉ
SUPPORT
A LILY BIT
