The Davos Revolution And The Re-Making Of Civilization

Carl Teichrib takes us inside the 2021 meeting of the World Economic Forum featuring the Great Reset. The priesthood of techno-totalitarianism is guiding the global transformation into an other-worldly existence barren of human choice and dignity.TN Editor

(The Reset Agenda) The Great Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the self-anointed prophets of international finance… all watched over by the priests of digital technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”

“A crisis is a productive event.” – Guy Parmelin, President of the Swiss Confederation.

Since the 1970s, the ski-resort community of Davos, Switzerland, has frequently been a gathering place for global elites during the month of January. Hosted by the World Economic Forum, an organization granted special status by the Swiss government, the Davos conference brings together an array of selected power-brokers; governors of central banks, international financiers, heads-of-state, UN leaders, CEOs from the largest corporations, and well-placed media personalities. To be a “Davos Man” typically means you’ve embraced an international perspective, and have the ability to influence long-term shifts in political and economic culture. You’re part of an elite club with the self-anointed task of directing global change.

Because of Covid complications, this year’s WEF annual meeting was postponed, and has since been re-scheduled with the hope of gathering in Singapore later this August. Nevertheless, the last week of January 2021 still witnessed a significant WEF event; a virtual conference titled the Davos Agenda, which could be live-monitored by anyone willing to take the time.

What was front-and-center of this online meeting? The Great Reset.

Before we go further, it’s important to note that this article only scratches the surface of what transpired. And how could it do anything but? The Davos Agenda ran five days, each being 10-to-12 hours long, and with most time slots holding multiple and simultaneous panel discussions. To give you an idea of the schedule, the first day – Monday, January 25 – had a total of 29 individual sessions. It was information overload.

It also must be stated that not everybody who officially participated was on the same page as the World Economic Forum. For example, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a talk outlining how he purposefully cut through the red tape to secure Covid vaccinations, making sure his nation had the supplies it needed. His approach didn’t fit with the WEF consensus of “vaccine solidarity,” to act globally before your national interests – after all, as another speaker explained, “the vaccine needs to be a public good.” The phrase “vaccine nationalism” was used throughout the week, a disparaging term for those who sought national health goals above global collaboration.

Another example was Brazil’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ernesto Araujo, who publicly encouraged the United States to stay the course as the “superpower of freedom.” Araujo went on to say that Brazil desired an open economy based on liberty, noting that this would challenge the global emergence of a rising “techno-totalitarianism.”

“I’m not a great fan of the concept of the Great Reset,” Araujo stated, explaining that while he generally supported ideas like sustainable development, there was a problem. The Great Reset was missing “freedom and democracy.”

Most others, however, were either on-board or otherwise playing the game.

President of China, Xi Jinping – introduced by Klaus Schwab, founder of the WEF – stressed collaborative action; we must create a new and global economic model, we must “abandon ideological prejudice and jointly follow a path of peaceful coexistence,” and we must bring “prosperity for all.” A “shared future for mankind,” he explained, is necessary. This would include strengthening global economic governance, committing to the UN system of world law, and supporting the World Health Organization as they build “a global community of health for all.” But who will lead the way?

The rest of his speech focused on how China, as a “modern socialist country,” is blazing the trail, including the Belt and Road initiative, and the promotion of a “new type of international relations.” His speech wrapped up with words of solidarity,

“There is only one Earth and one shared future for humanity. As we cope with the current crisis and endeavor to make a better day for everyone, we need to stand united and work together. We have been shown time and again that to beggar thy neighbor, to go it alone, and to slip into arrogant isolation will always fail. Let us all join hands and let multilateralism light our way toward a community with a shared future for mankind.”

Klaus responded by thanking Xi Jinping for “such an important speech, which at this crucial movement in history, provides us with a truly comprehensive framework for shaping the future.”

China was often applauded during the Davos Agenda, being admired for its digital leap forward. But there were some concerns, albeit framed through a globalist worldview.

For example, a few hours after the Chinese leader spoke, the UN Secretary General pointed to the growing rift between China and the United States, noting that both countries were dividing the world with their separate agendas. What was needed, he said, was “one global economy with universal respect for international law.”

Another star performance was from Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission. It only took a few minutes before she slapped the former Trump administration, saying, “democracy itself might have been permanently damaged in the last four years.” And like others throughout the week, she linked Covid with climate change. Ursula was clear; “We must learn from this crisis. We have to change the way we live and do business.”

Her speech pointed to Europe’s very own Green New Deal, the EU’s push for carbon neutrality by 2050, and how private companies will face stronger regulatory diligence. Regarding digital governance – for it’s vital that online platforms curb fake news while affirming democracy – Ursula called for the United States to join the EU and, together, create a worldwide digital rulebook “based on our values.”

All of the above – like the early pandemic collaboration between the EU, the WEF and the Gates Foundation – represents how “Europe is determined to contribute to this global common good.” At the end of her prepared talk, she affirmed to Schwab that new alliances will be necessary: “This is what we will work for – and I know I can count on you and the World Economic Forum to help us build it.”

Schwab was excited, afterwards saying that this speech represented the practical meaning of the Great Reset. He paraphrased a take-away; what we need is a “values based, social governance system” connected through a digital web.

With the Reset in mind, the Davos Agenda focused on seven interlocking subjects: “How to Save the Planet,” “Fairer Economies,” “Tech for Good,” “Society & Future of Work,” “Better Business,” “Healthy Futures,” and “Beyond Geopolitics.” A mountain of talking points emerged from these encompassing themes. However, we will only highlight a few:

1. Covid: Speaking on the pandemic, Li Xin of China-based Caixin Media, told us this “crisis should not be wasted.” Nor was it. We were constantly reminded that Covid revealed our interdependence while pointing to the problem of nationalism. Old values and conventions no longer work; the global supply chain needs to be digitized, the World Health Organization must be empowered, we need a universal healthcare system, there must be a centralizing program to pool national health data, and economic recovery should be tied to vaccination criteria.

“You’re going to need the vaccine year-after-year-after-year,” we were told.

2. Climate: If Covid was our existential crisis, climate is our planetary emergency. And in order to meet this supposed planetary challenge, the world must pursue a significant reduction in carbon emissions, all the way to net zero by 2050 at the latest. This requires nothing less than a complete overhaul of energy production, the transportation sector, all industry and especially agriculture, and our personal behavior.

Net-zero isn’t an abstract exercise. New Zealand and the United Kingdom have already passed legislation binding them to net-zero by 2050, and similar proposals are on the table in Canada, South Korea, and the European Union. Moreover, the Group of Thirty – a high-level consultative body comprised of the most influential figures in central banking and international financing, many with WEF connections – is pushing for net-zero across the spectrum of global economic activity. [1] In the United States, just a few days after Davos, the National Academies released their decarbonization report – “a technical blueprint and policy manual” – thus creating a roadmap for net-zero by mid-century. [2] And yes, there are working links between the Academies and the WEF.

So it was no surprise that on January 27 – day three of the Davos Agenda – John Kerry, President Biden’s Special Envoy for Climate, reminded the WEF audience how his government is “making climate central to foreign policy planning and national security preparedness.” Kerry explained that “a zero emissions future” will bring new opportunities for green growth: “To use the President’s words, to ‘build back better’ from the global economic crisis.”

Kerry reinforced that climate is everybody’s responsibility: “The whole world has to come to this table to solve the problem.”

3. Social Justice: An inclusive world for all was the mantra – unless, of course, you’re not in agreement with the global consensus. Nevertheless, social justice themes are directly bolted to the framework of the Great Reset. From racial issues to gender claims, social justice leaves its mark. However, a range of other justices needs to be considered, such as eco-justice, climate justice, and vaccine justice. Each of these justice-issues were attached, in some measure, to the Reset structure that was unfolding.

In the panel on creating a New Social Contract, economic justice was front-and-center. A Global Social Protection Fund must come into play, pairing international debt relief to a universal social-economy of “Living Wages and Living Communities.” On the same panel, James Quincey, CEO of Coca-Cola, described how his company is addressing social justice by fashioning an internal, racial/social economic ecosystem. More than that, industry-leading corporations must influence smaller companies to follow suit, especially those in their supply chains. Entire sectors need to re-align their economic models to social justice priorities, and that’s the essence of Stakeholder Capitalism.

4. Stakeholder Capitalism: Unlike shareholder capitalism shaped by company owners and direct market forces, stakeholder capitalism takes a social approach. Since the early 1970s, Schwab has been an advocate of the stakeholder model. Back then it was mainly geared to incorporating labor, union, and government interests in corporate decision-making. Today, Schwab is aggressively pushing a grander vision – capitalism in service to the planet while supporting social causes.

In a WEF article released a few days before the Davos Agenda, Schwab wrote,

  “The planet is thus the center of the global economic system, and its health should be optimized in the decisions made by all other stakeholders.

   The same interconnectedness can be observed for the people who live on the planet… it is incumbent on all of us as global citizens to optimize the well-being of all.”

In other words, capitalism bends to the demands of special interest groups and “green government.” Corporations, industries and sectors – including financial institutions – must shift their business models to appreciate and accelerate these new global norms.

How will this be ascertained?

In September 2020, the WEF released its White Paper, Measuring Stakeholder Capitalism, which envisioned a common standard for “sustainable value creation.”[3] What emerged was a set of principles and benchmarks coalescing around three headings: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). As a whole, the ESG framework is to dovetail with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. To put it in acronym parlance, the ESG process is the WEF mechanism to achieve the SDGs.

Upholding the ESG are four pillars: Governance, Planet, People, and Prosperity. Supporting these four categories are 21 core metrics, along with 34 expanded metrics to enable a deeper audit – for that is essentially what’s happening, an audit to ensure compliance and cooperation. Hence, each metric acts as an information node in a detailed review process, and in using this tool, businesses and institutions can measure their purpose and behavior, taking into account environmental issues and social expectations.

Does the board have gender and minority representation? Has it taken climate risk into consideration, and what internal policies are being implemented to achieve net-zero? How much land does the company own, and what is its relationship to key biodiversity areas? Wage and age and gender employment categories, healthcare support, collective agreements, water consumption, community investment and taxation levels; the list is long, incorporating financial details, energy usage, supply chain relationships, waste disposal, lobbying efforts, social ethics and diversity indicators, and on and on.

The trajectory of corporate governance, therefore, will no longer be “business as usual.” Governance, rather, will need to solicit and incorporate input from approving stakeholders, including special interest groups, unions and labor associations, government departments, and international agencies. In other words, stakeholder capitalism is a planetary public-private partnership that hinges on social license.

After the ESG process is complete and satisfactory, your “purpose driven company” will be certified within a global ecosystem of regulators and industry associations. This status will be the key to unlocking investment funds, favorable insurance pricing, and positive consumer recognition. Without achieving ESG benchmarks, however, your business may be cut off from licensing, funding sources, supply chains, government contracts, or marketplace access. Presently, ESG exists as screening criteria used by some investors, but the WEF agenda extends into a wider and more permanent realm.

So long as your business is complying with the global narrative, your company can make money. Those who don’t play ball will be pushed out of the game.

Welcome to “corporate cancel culture.”

5. Digitization: Nothing short of a total, global commitment will suffice if we want to save the planet, or so the narrative goes. Therefore, we need powerful new tools to manage our way forward. Digitization becomes the tie that binds, and data the lifeblood of our new technocratic era.

In this not-too futuristic vision, the information collected from our lifestyle choices will be aggregated, analyzed, and used to modify behaviors for planetary outcomes. One of the Davos themes was “Smart Cities,” noting that urban zones are rich information ecosystems. Here’s an emerging possibility: In our “smart cities,” street-based sensors will talk to smart cars, and payment apps will be notified of your movement, automatically deducting carbon taxes or travel credits from your account. It’s hardly far-fetched.

The overall trajectory is deeper integration with Artificial Intelligence, Central Bank Digital Currencies, universal healthcare data networks, smart supply chains, and more automation. Even greater feats are before us: through blockchain technologies, everything that can be cataloged has the potential to become a numerically assigned asset. Therefore, the life-cycle of anything can be theoretically traced, from raw resource to manufacturer to point-of-consumption. You, too, can become a number in the age of “managed harmony.”

What is not harmonious, however, is contrary thinking and behavior – anything unaligned with approved global narratives. Conservative values, national determination and traditional notions of sovereignty, personal rights attached to private property: If such concepts and beliefs are antithetical to the Great Reset, then they are part of the great problem.

On the last day, US Senator Gillibrand called for accountability regarding right-wing news outlets. More than that, she stressed the need for oversight of social media platforms, holding them to account for allowing right-wing messages to proliferate. She then affirmed these positions by appealing to her faith; that we need to love one another.

For conservative Christians, the idea of the Great Reset strikes at something deeper than talking points. The real question becomes one of salvation. Who ultimately saves the world? Is Jesus Christ our messiah, or does collective humanity redeem itself by saving the planet? It appears we are at a Romans 1 crossroad, faced with the question of worshiping and serving the creation, or the Creator.

And thus, the Reset dangles before us: a global public-private partnership that follows the mystic path of social feelings, the holy writ of consensus politics, and the prophets of international finance… all watched over, and guided by, the priests of technology. It’s the operating system of the collective New Age, an algorithmic-technocratic revolution – maximum efficiency for managed harmony – and of course, it’s all for the “greater good.”

Maybe the concerns expressed by Brazil’s Foreign Minister – the looming dangers of a rising techno-totalitarianism – are worth considering.

Read More @ Source