Davos's anointed elites know what's good for you by John Morrissey
When the world's self-proclaimed best and brightest descended on Davos, Switzerland, for the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in January 2023, it was met with a variety of responses. One was widespread indifference; another was credulous admiration, as it was to focus on issues such as climate change and population control; another was profound cynicism; and for many it was a source for sometimes crazy conspiracy theories.
A talking shop for the rich and famous from government and business, each paying $US19,000 to attend, along with the Gates Foundation and other corporates paying hundreds of millions to be "strategic partners" in pursuing some heroic goals, did not seem all that threatening. Throw in its theme of improving the state of the world by "Co-operation in a Fragmented World" and it seemed commendably benevolent.
Even when the present writer found that the opening address expressed appreciation for the contribution China had made to "fighting the COVID pandemic" (sic.), the commitment to "building a community with a shared future for mankind" displayed a worthy if lofty sentiment. But join the dots and we find what the WEF's concept of globalisation entails.
This organisation, founded by German engineer and economist Dr Klaus Schwab in 1971 and still under his leadership, shares the goals, preoccupations and priorities of the European Union, the World Bank, European Bank, the World Trade Organisation and United Nations agencies such as the World Health Organisation to an alarming degree. Globalism, that is, the operation of economic and foreign policy on a global basis, is the WEF's idol, and nowhere do traditional ideas such as God, King and Country fit in.
Alongside the worthy aspirations to end poverty and hunger and to advance health and education is an insistence on "urgent action" on climate change, as if it were a silver bullet to solve the world's problems. As at COP26, the UN's conference on climate change at Glasgow in 2021, this is a sine qua non of the WEF. Note that the WEF does not subscribe to the values of 19th-century capitalism as Karl Marx understood it, nor those of the 20th-century's free-market fundamentalists. It is not opposed to the welfare state or to government regulation of the economy and society, nor does it condemn the repressive controls exercised in Communist China. Although a U.S. congressional delegation and hundreds of American CEOs attended the Davos gathering this year, the WEF has expressed misgivings about certain Biden administration policies. These include action for climate change which would draw high-tech businesses back to the U.S., and action begun under Donald Trump for repatriating manufacturing back from China to America or its allies. The WEF seeks to reconfigure the future of global relations, making national differences and concerns irrelevant.
It is the WEF which tells the world that a Great Reset is required to meet its goals. What is actually meant by a "reset" is to largely erase national sovereignty in favour of open borders, and to eliminate outdated sentiments such as patriotism.
It would limit market competition to preserve social cohesion and enforce co-operation among the representatives of various economic and social sectors for the sake of the common good. This translates to a form of corporatism which promotes client relationships between governments and companies on a global scale. It also produces insiders (who enjoy cosy relationships with governments) and outsiders (who don't).
The disruption caused by the coronavirus pandemic was seen by this model's proponents as an opportunity to rebuild in a "modern, clean and healthy economy", as "for climate change there is no vaccine", as European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen warned.
A key concept is outlined in Schwab's 2021 book, Stakeholder Capitalism: A Global Economy that Works for Progress: it is "a form of capitalism in which companies do not only optimise 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".
This fits neatly into the unproductive investment into costly renewable energy and the elimination of affordable and reliable sources of power which are blighting industry, employment and living standards in Western countries today. It would also ordain the EU's tolerance of open borders, which are disrupting the very social cohesion to which corporatism aspires. This might explain the ambivalence of the U.S. Democrats towards protecting the nation's southern borders. The term "stakeholders" does not include the broad mass of populations, but only representatives of government, business, academia and unions.
Certainly, what the WEF and its running mates prescribe is a loss of personal freedom and an erosion of democracy, in favour of a top-down process. The emphasis is on the sectors negotiating with each other and presenting the outcome to the people as a fait accompli. One way or another, any dissent must be discouraged.
We have seen this already in the groupthink of mainstream media, as occurred in the 2020 U.S. presidential election campaign. We in Australia have recently witnessed a pile-on by government, corporations, sporting bodies, unions and even the churches to bludgeon public opinion in the "Voice" referendum on constitutional change. Could the rejection of this pressure, by a sizeable majority of Australia, be our Brexit moment and re-assert itself in the future on other vital issues?
Some of this vision is evident in an article from the World Bank published August last by the WEF, under the title, "Why a city's skyline matters for sustainable development". It argues that height and density make for more compact cities as they lower emissions of climate change pollutants by restricting car ownership, and eat up less agricultural land so that fresh food can be produced on the perimeter.
The authors call for a diverse mix of high-rise buildings, however, as luxury condos are less inclusive than the giant people-hives envisaged. Tourism would boom, however, and the low-skilled jobs created would reduce poverty. We should be relieved to learn that in a table of nations ranked according to this criterion Australia and New Zealand come in last!
The anointed elites who arrived at Glasgow (2021) and Davos (2023) in their private jets would happily see a Great Reset in Australia for the common herd, away from our dream of a home and a garden. As Rowan Dean of Sky News and editor of the Australian edition of The Spectator magazine intones with his lampoon of Klaus Schwab's German-accented edicts: "You vil own nothing and you vil be happy."
Catholic social teaching throughout the 20th century, subsequent to Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum ["The Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour"], promoted the family as the basic unit of society, with a modest stake in the economy, and above all, the decentralist vision of "subsidiarity". This latter tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organisation (e.g., the government) which can be done by a smaller and simpler organisation (e.g., the family).
However, this belief that families and individual members of society, rather than governments and international bodies, should be able to make decisions on issues that affect them is in direct conflict with everything the WEF advocates for the world.
There has been an abundance of conspiracy theories concerning the WEF, ranging from the extreme to a reflection on the dangers which it threatens to a liberal and democratic society. Consider this description: "a secret cabal of paedophiles who used the Covid19 pandemic to harvest children's blood so as to hasten in a Satanic World Order". Such language can only help the WEF to dismiss criticism of its existence as deranged. Other adverse judgements of WEF policies sound a little less extreme: for example, "a global elite's plan to instate a communist world order by using Covid19 to solve over-population and enslave what remains of humanity", an opinion The Spectator quoted from one conspiracy theorist. I would suggest that it is neither, nor should it be likened to the workings of some evil genius in a James Bond movie.
The WEF has no actual power of its own, and yet its influence on government policy-making makes it extremely powerful and dangerous. Its all-encompassing program is utopian. The English Tudor statesman and martyr, St Thomas More, coined the term from the Greek words for "no place" (ou topos) to describe an imaginary and perfect world ruled by an ideally organised state. Ever since the European so-called Enlightenment, men who liked to play God have pursued this illusion.
Pride and an underlying contempt for the teeming millions, whom they claim to champion, have given rise to the bloodiest episodes of history, notably the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions. Now, instead of fortifying Western countries against the totalitarian regimes which threaten their freedoms, the globalists would weaken us by destroying our sovereignty and our very identity.
