This cartoon from Punch 1912... The Great Train Robbery — a movie made in 1905 — was so popular that ... you know the rest... Let's not mention Ned Kelly, the first multi-reel, feature-length film ever produced in the world...

Picture at top: People demonstrating in Victoria (Australia) on political, economic and military issues received such bad copping from the police that the press ran articles and cartoons against the police (Punch 1912).

Slavoj Zizek: Biden’s just Trump with a human face, and the two of them share the same enemy

Slavoj Zizekis a cultural philosopher. He’s a senior researcher at the Institute for Sociology and Philosophy at the University of Ljubljana, Global Distinguished Professor of German at New York University, and international director of the Birkbeck Institute for the Humanities of the University of London.

The threat of violence erupting over the US election result next week is exposing the limits of liberal democracy, and both candidates’ rejection of left-wing ‘extremists’ is liberal opportunism at its worst.

In the run up to the US presidential elections, different forms of populist resistance are gradually forming a unified field: “Armed militia groups are forging alliances in the final stages of the US presidential election with conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers who claim the coronavirus pandemic is a hoax, intensifying concerns that trouble could be brewing ahead of the election day. Leading advocates of anti-government and anti-science propaganda came together at the weekend, joined by the founder of one of the largest militia groups.”

Three dimensions are at work here: conspiracy-theories (like QAnon), Covid-deniers, and violent militias. These are often inconsistent and relatively independent: there are conspiracy theorists who don’t deny the reality of the epidemic, but see in it a (Chinese) plot to destroy the US; there can be Covid-deniers who don’t see a conspiracy behind the epidemic, but just deny the seriousness of the threat (such as the Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben), etc.

But the three dimensions are now moving together: violent militias legitimize themselves as the defenders of freedom, which they see as threatened by a deep state conspiracy against the reelection of Trump, with the pandemic as a key element of this plot; if Trump loses reelection, it will be the result of this intrigue, which means that violent resistance to Trump’s loss is legitimate.

In October 2020, the FBI revealed that a right-wing militia group planned to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and take her to a secure location in Wisconsin. There, she would undergo a kind of people’s “trial” for her “treason” for imposing tough restrictions to curb Covid infections and thereby, according to the militia group, violating the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Does this plan not recall the most famous political kidnapping in Europe? In 1978, Aldo Moro, a key figure of the Italian political establishment who evoked the possibility of the big coalition between Christian Democrats and Communists, was kidnapped by the Red Brigades, put to a trial by a people’s court and shot dead.

Angela Nagle, the academic and writer, was right here also: the new populist Right is adopting methods that were decades ago clearly identified as belonging to extreme Left “terrorist”groups. This, of course, in no way implies that the two “extremes” somehow coincide: we don’t have a stable center symmetrically flanked by two extremes.

The basic antagonism is the one between the establishment and the Left, and the rightist violent “extremism” is a panicky reaction triggered when the center is threatened. This became clear in the last presidential debate when Trump accused Biden of backing “Medicare for all,” saying “Biden agreed with Sanders”; Biden replied: “I beat Bernie Sanders.”The message of this reply was clear: Biden is Trump with a human face, in spite of their opposition they share the same enemy. This is liberal opportunism at its worst: renounce the Left “extremists” out of the fear of not scaring the center

Trump plays an ambiguous game here – when he is asked about radical rightist groups which propagate violence or conspiracy theories, he seeks to formally distantiate himself from these problematic aspects while praising the group’s general patriotic attitude. This distancing is empty, of course, a purely rhetorical device: the group is silently expected to act upon the implicit calls to violence Trump’s speeches are full of. When Trump attacks alleged leftist violence, he does it in terms that are divisive and a call to violence. Exemplary is Trump’s answer when he was asked about the violence propagated and practiced by the Proud Boys group:

“Within minutes after US President Donald Trump told the Proud Boys, a far-right group with members who espouse white supremacism, to ‘stand back and stand by’, on national television on Sept. 29, 2020, members of the men-only group took to fringe social media sites to celebrate what they considered a ‘historic’ moment for their ideological push against leftists.”

This is (if I can be pardoned for using this problematic expression) Trump at his best: he does tell them to stand back, i.e., to restrain from violence, but he adds “and stand by,” i.e., get ready – to do what? The implication is clear and unambiguous: be ready to practice violence if Trump loses the election. Even if the danger of an actual civil war exploding in the US is probably vacuous, the very fact that this possibility is widely talked about is significant.

And it’s not just the US that is moving in this direction: take a look at the stories in Europe’s media; in Poland, liberal public figures complain that they are becoming spectators at the dismantling of democracy; the same is happening in Hungary.

At an even more general level, a certain tension which is immanent to the very notion of parliamentary democracy is gaining visibility today. Democracy means two things: the “power of the people” (the substantial will of the majority should express itself in the state), and trust in the electoral mechanism: no matter how many manipulations and lies there are, once the numbers are counted the result is to be accepted by all sides.

This is what happened when Al Gore conceded defeat to Bush in the 2000 US election, although more people voted for him and the counting in Florida was very problematic – the public’s trust in the formal procedure is what gives parliamentary democracy its stability. Problems arise when these two dimensions get out of sync, and both the Left and the Right demand that the people’s substantial will should prevail over electoral formalities. And in some sense they are right: the mechanism of democratic representation is not really neutral, as the eminent French philosopher Alain Badiou has written:

“If democracy is a representation, it first of all represents the general system which sustains its form. In other words, the electoral democracy is only representative insofar as it is first the consensual representation of capitalism, which is today renamed ‘market economy.’”

One should take these lines in the strictest formal sense: at the empirical level, of course, the multi-party liberal democracy “represents” – mirrors, registers, measures – the quantitative dispersal of different opinions of the people, what they think about the proposed programs of the parties and about their candidates, etc.. However, prior to this empirical level and in a much more radical sense, the very form of multi-party liberal democracy “represents” – instantiates – a certain vision of society, politics, and the role of the individuals in it – politics is organized in parties which compete through elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive apparatus, etc. One should always be aware that this frame is never neutral, it privileges certain values and practices.

This non-neutrality becomes palpable in moments of crisis or indifference, when we experience the inability of the democratic system to register what people effectively want or think – this inability is signaled by anomalous phenomena like the UK elections of 2005: in spite of the growing unpopularity of Tony Blair (he was regularly voted the most unpopular person in the country), there was no way for this discontent with Blair to find a politically effective expression. Something was obviously very wrong here – it was not that people “did not know what they wanted,” but, rather, that cynical resignation prevented them from acting upon it, so that the result was the weird gap between what people thought and how they acted (voted).

A year or so ago, a similar gap exploded more brutally with the rise of the gilets jaunes, or yellow vests, in France: they clearly articulated an anger that it was impossible to translate or transpose into the terms of the politics of institutional representation. Which is why the moment Macron invited their representatives to a dialogue and challenged them to formulate their complaints in a clear political program, their protest evaporated. Exactly the same thing happened with Podemos in Spain: the moment they agreed to play party politics and enter the government, they became almost indistinguishable from the Socialists – yet another sign that representative democracy doesn’t fully work.

In short, the crisis of liberal democracy has lasted for more than a decade, and the Covid epidemic has only made it worse. The solution to this is certainly not to be found in some kind of more “true” democracy that will be more inclusive of all minorities – the very frame of liberal democracy will have to be left behind, which is exactly what liberals fear most. The path to true change opens only when we lose hope of change within the system. If this appears to be too “radical,” recall that today, our capitalist system is already changing, although in the opposite sense.

Direct violence is as a rule not revolutionary, but conservative, a reaction to the threat of a more basic change: when a system is in a crisis, it begins to break its own rules. Hannah Arendt, the political philosopher, said, violent outbreaks are, in general, not the cause that change a society, but rather the birth pains of a new society in a society that has already expired due to its own contradictions.

Let’s remember that Arendt said this in her polemic against Mao, who himself believed that “power grows out of the barrel of a gun” – Arendt qualifies this like an “entirely non-Marxist”conviction and claims that, for Marx, violent outbursts are like “the labor pangs that precede, but of course do not cause, the event of organic birth.” Basically, I agree with her, but I would add that there never will be a fully peaceful “democratic” transfer of power without the “birth pangs” of violence: there will always be moments of tension when the rules of democratic dialogue and changes are suspended.

Today, however, the agent of this tension is the Right, which is why, paradoxically, the task of the Left is now, as the US politician Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has pointed out, to save our “bourgeois” democracy when the liberal center is too weak and indecisive to do it. Is this in contradiction with the fact that the Left today should move beyond parliamentary democracy?

No: as Trump demonstrates, the contradiction is in this democratic form itself, so that the only way to save what is worth saving in liberal democracy is to move beyond it – and vice versa, when rightist violence is on the rise, the only way to move beyond liberal democracy is to be more faithful to it than the liberal democrats themselves. This is what the successful democratic return to power of the Morales’s party in Bolivia, one of the few bright spots in our devastated landscape, clearly signals. 

Read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/504705-slavoj-zizek-biden-trump/

Raise the Red Flag...

Donald Trump has finally contracted COVID-19, and much of the civilised world immediately broke out into spontaneous celebration. There’s one good thing about this particular global pandemic : the virus seems especially interested in right-wing political leaders, although it hasn’t managed to kill any yet. Trump joins our own Peter Dutton, Britain’s Boris Johnson, and Jair Bolsonaro, the far-right President of Brazil who has tested positive an incredible three times. 

And it’s not hard to see why this keeps happening. After a visit to a hospital treating coronavirus patients, Johnson boasted that he “shook hands with everybody”. A few weeks later he was sent to the intensive care unit. Bolsonaro’s virus denialism has led to a social catastrophe which has claimed nearly 150,000 lives.

Read more:

https://redflag.org.au/node/7397

The problem is these guys, Trump, Johnson and Bolsonaro, do not have much pre-existing life-treatening disease (apart from sharp-shooters bullets) and can become immune to the popular sentiment in favour of a populist rattle. Anyone above the age of 65 should make sure they stay as healthy as possible — and those in home-care, 80+, with a faded memory have little chance of surviving the Covid, let alone the bad food of the joint. 

See also:

https://redflag.org.au/node/7429

Read from top. Methinks we might get a surprise a couple of days before the elections — and in general, we, the plebs, will carry on plodding along, like a bunch of Candides around the world (see:

...

BY F. William Engdahl

The famous short story by Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter, is apt in describing the agenda of Klaus Schwab, founder some 50 years ago of what is today the globally influential Davos World Economic Forum (WEF)–Hidden in plain sight. Schwab published a book in 2020 titled The Great Reset, which calls on world leaders to use the “opportunity” of the COVID-19 pandemic to fundamentally reorganize the global economy into a dystopian top-down version of the technocratic UN Agenda 2030. For those willing to do patient research, Schwab’s WEF reveals an astonishing degree of the current globalist agenda for a technocratic totalitarianism. Even more he has been developing hand-picked cadre to implement this agenda over three decades, with a select global “cadre school” for “future global leaders.” In effect it is what we might call the Davos Conspiracy, agents promoted around the world to infiltrate top policy circles and push the sinister Davos Reset agenda.

One of the most astonishing features of the COVID pandemic fear hysteria is the degree to which politicians worldwide have followed in lockstep, along with global media and key health figures, to embrace an unprecedented agenda of economic and human destruction in the name of fighting a virus. It turns out that most all key players all have something in common. They are hand-picked graduates or “alumni” as he calls them, of Klaus Schwab’s Davos cadre school, his annual program called Young Global Leaders and pre-2004 called Global Leaders for Tomorrow. 

Since the first group of Davos cadre were selected in 1993, more than 1,400 “future global leaders” have been trained in a highly secret process which is rarely ever mentioned in the bio of Davos graduates. With the patience of a spider weaving a vast web, Klaus Schwab and his wealthy backers at the World Economic Forum have created the most influential network of policy actors in modern history, or perhaps ever.

In a 2017 video with David Gergen at Harvard, Schwab boasts of being proud that, “we penetrate the cabinets” with Davos Young Global Leader cadre. Schwab states, “I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel…and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now…”

Great Reset

The Great Reset, as explained by Schwab in his co-authored June 2020 book of the same title, and elaborated in full on the website of the World Economic Forum, is there for anyone curious to discover. It lays out a program to reorganize the global economy top-down, using the COVID disruptions to push among other things a green zero carbon agenda, elimination of meat protein and traditional agriculture, an elimination of fossil fuels, air travel contraction, eliminating cash for central bank digital currencies and a totalitarian medical system of mandatory vaccinations. 

In the June 2020 virtual Davos summit of global leaders, aptly titled The Great Reset, Schwab declared, “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism… There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” The Great Reset, he continues, requires that, “governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies… The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.”

What Schwab does not mention is that it has been his network of Davos “global leaders” who have been at the heart of advancing the COVID draconian agenda from unnecessary lockdowns to forced vaccinations to mandatory mask. The pandemic has been the necessary first phase of the Great Reset. Without it he would not be able to talk about fundamental global changes. 

Here Schwab’s agenda is global wealth redistribution for creating the infamous UN Agenda 2030 “sustainable” economy: “The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans. Rather than using these funds… to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.” He adds, “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges.”

Purloined Letter

The 1844 short story by American author Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter, tells of a stolen letter of the French Queen being used to blackmail her by an unscrupulous minister. When Paris police search the house of the suspected thief meticulously without result, a friend of the chief inspector is able to find the purloined document by looking for it, “hidden in plain sight.” 

So it is with what is without doubt the most brazen and criminal conspiracy of modern times, the Davos Great Reset. Everything is there, open for anyone with patience to wade through the pages of WEF press releases and web pages. Notable is that the global players, the Davos “cadre” carefully chosen over the past thirty years to be groomed for positions of power to implement the Great Reset agenda, are openly named on the Davos website, found with a little patient searching. Partial lists have appeared naming a small handful of the Davos “Young Global Leaders.” A more exhaustive search of some 1400 names in the annual cadre school classes since 1992 reveals an astonishing, detailed conspiracy. The WEF website states the global leaders are “trained to be aligned with the World Economic Forum’s mission,” to “drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest.” 

The following is the result of reviewing every WEF class of future global leaders since 1993.

What is most striking is that key players linked to Schwab are involved in the decisive measures that have made the COVID-19 “pandemic” the economically and physically destructive process it is. WEF alumni are in the middle of everything covid. 

Davos, Gates and mRNA Vaccines

At the heart of the COVID-19 agenda is clearly the “warp speed” rollout of untested experimental mRNA gene-edited concoctions, misnamed vaccines, by two pharma companies—Pfizer (with BioNTech of Germany) and Moderna of USA. 

Bill Gates (WEF 1993) and his Gates Foundation are at the heart of the mRNA gene-edited jab rollout along with Tony Fauci of the US NIAID. Gates was selected by Schwab before he had even created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in 1993, for the first group of WEF cadre together with Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and others. Was Schwab influential in getting Gates to create the foundation?

Gates Foundation money, hundreds of millions, have in effect bought control of the corrupt UN World Health Organization, according to WHO whistleblower, Swiss epidemiologist, Astrid Stuckelberger, who in a recent interview stated, “WHO has changed since I was there…There was a change in 2016…It was special: Non-governmental organizations – such as GAVI – Global Alliance for Vaccine Immunization - led by Bill Gates – they joined the WHO in 2006 with a fund. Since then, the WHO has developed into a new type of international organization. GAVI gained more and more influence, and total immunity, more than the diplomats in the UN.“

Gates’ foundation, along with Schwab’s WEF created the global GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance in 2000. Another infamous alumnus of the Gates WEF Global Leaders class, José Manuel Barroso (WEF 1993), –President of the European commission from 2004-2014, former head Goldman Sachs International, member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee–was named CEO of the Gates-financed GAVI vaccine alliance in January 2021, as the mRNA jabs were rolled out. Barroso now oversees global spending on the mRNA vaccines for Gates and WHO.

Albert Bourla chief executive officer of Pfizer, is a WEF Agenda Contributor. His Pfizer Vice President, Vasudha Vats (WEF 2021), is a WEF “global leader” recruit. 

The other key mRNA jab maker is Moderna, whose CEO, Stéphane Bancel (WEF 2009) is another Davos alumnus. The very next year, 2010, Bancel was selected to be CEO of a new company, Moderna, in Massachusetts. In 2016, with no successful mRNA product yet approved, Bancel’s Moderna signed a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases. The same year Bancel signed a global health project framework agreement with Tony Fauci and the NIAID. In a January 2018 speech to the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, more than a year before the world heard of COVID-19 out of Wuhan China, Gates declared, “We are backing companies like CureVac and Moderna on mRNA approaches for vaccine and drug development…” Prescience?

Davos Politicians

The second key component for the Davos pandemic agenda has been an international collection of key politicians in the EU and North America especially, who have backed the most draconian lockdown and forced vaccination measures in history. Most all the key actors are Davos WEF Global Leaders.

In Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel led one of the most severe COVID lockdowns until she retired in December 2021. She was from the first 1993 WEF class. Her Health Minister, Jens Spahn (WEF 2012), was also a Davos alumnus. Spahn coerced mass mRNA jabs and pushed unnecessary lockdowns and masking. He was a former pharma lobbyist. Philipp Rösler, Minister of Health from 2009 until 2011, was appointed the WEF Managing Director by Schwab in 2014. In December a new coalition under Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was invited to give a Special Address to the January 2022 Davos Meeting by Schwab. Germany’s new Foreign Minister, Green leader Annalena Baerbock (WEF 2020), was chosen to be a Global Leader just prior to her becoming Chancellor candidate. Baerbock’s controversial pick as State Secretary for climate change diplomacy, Greenpeace head, Jennifer Morgan, a US citizen, is a WEF Agenda Contributor and close friend of WEF Board member Al Gore. Former German Green Party head, Cem Özdemir (WEF 2002), is new Minister of Agriculture and Nutrition. 

In France President Emmanuel Macron (WEF 2016) mysteriously rose from an obscure Cabinet Minister to become President of France in 2017 with no party, just a year after being selected to join the WEF Global Leaders program. As President, Macron has instituted some of the most draconian COVID measures in the world including internal passports and mandated vaccines.

Other EU politicians from the Davos club include Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (WEF 2003), Prime Minister, Belgium Alexander De Croo, (WEF 2015). Both have imposed severe COVID measures. Sanna Marin (WEF 2020) Prime Minister of Finland invoked a state of emergency in Finland, with severe lockdowns and other drastic measures. In the UK former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, (WEF 1993) was named by WHO in April 2021 to promote a $60 billion program for COVID vaccination in “poor countries.” Brown became WHO Ambassador for Global Health Financing in September 2021.

In North America the Canadian government of Justin Trudeau, now subject to a massive popular revolt against his severe vaccine mandates and other measures, is riddled with Davos agents. Trudeau himself is a Davos WEF Agenda Contributor and frequent speaker at Davos. Schwab introduced Trudeau in 2016 stating, “I couldn’t imagine anyone who could represent more the world that will come out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The key COVID actor for Trudeau is Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland who is on the WEF Board of Trustees, and leads Trudeau’s COVID response. Other WEF agents in Ottawa are Foreign Minister, Mélanie Joly (WEF 2016), Family Minister Karina Gould (WEF 2020).

In the USA top Biden Administration appointees include Jeffrey Zients (WEF 2003), White House Coronavirus Coordinator. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (WEF 2019) who suddenly announced for President after being chosen by Davos is another. US deep state operative Samantha Power (WEF 2003) is Biden’s head of USAID, the major foreign aid agency closely tied to CIA activities abroad. Rebecca Weintraub (WEF 2014) a Harvard professor who works for total vaccination of everyone in the world with mandatory vaccines even for children, is adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Advisory Committee.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (WEF 2005) imposed some of the nation’s most severe lockdowns and mask mandates as did Jared Polis (WEF 2013) Governor of Colorado, with a public health order that made Colorado one of the first states to require proof of full vaccination to be admitted into the large indoor events. 

Australia and New Zealand have been two of the world’s most severe COVID tyranny regimes. In Australia, Health Minister Greg Hunt was WEF Director of Strategy in 2001 and WEF Global Leader in 2003. He controls the extreme government COVID-19 policies. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (WEF 2014) met with Bill Gates in New York in September 2019 as featured speaker at the Gates Foundation annual Sustainable Development Goals conference, just before the China COVID events and days before the October Event 201 “pandemic simulation” by World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Prime Minister, Ardern has imposed waves of lockdowns, removing most civil rights and virtually banned international travel. 

Key Think Tanks and Academics

This is far from the extent of the carefully-cultivated and promoted Davos global network behind orchestrating global COVID-19 pandemic measures. Instrumental roles are played by the Rockefeller Foundation whose President, Rajiv Shah (WEF 2007) was a leading figure for the Africa Green Revolution at the Gates Foundation, as well as vaccine programs. As head of the influential Rockefeller Foundation Shah plays a key role promoting the Davos Great Reset where he is WEF Agenda Contributor. Another highly influential US policy think tank, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, has deep engagement in the COVID-19 agenda. Thomas Bollyky (WEF 2013) is Director of the CFR Global Health Program and is a former Gates Foundation as well as WHO consultant. He directed the CFR Task Force, Improving Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons from COVID-19 (2020). 

Jeremy Howard (WEF 2013) is an Australian who at the start of the COVID-19 organized a worldwide campaign for mandatory face masks. Mustapha Mokass (WEF 2015) developed a vaccine passport system for the Schwab 4th Industrial Revolution agenda.

Goebbels Mainstream Media

The role of managed media has been at the heart of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic propaganda offensive. Davos and the WEF of Schwab are in the midst of this as well. 

CNN is one of the most notorious propaganda outlets promoting fear and advocating the mRNA jabs while attacking any proven remedial treatment. CNN and Davos are well-connected. 

Dr. Sanjay Gupta (WEF 2010), chief medical correspondent for CNN played a key role promoting the official narrative in the COVID-19 deep event. Dr. Leana Sheryle Wen (WEF 2018) is a columnist with The Washington Post and a CNN medical analyst. As a CNN ‘medical contributor’ Wen suggested that life needs to be “hard” for Americans who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. Anderson Cooper (WEF 2008), a spooky former CIA “intern” is a major CNN host. Jeffrey Dean Zeleny (WEF 2013) is the Chief National Affairs Correspondent for CNN.

While CNN produces one-sided commentary on the mRNA jabs and COVID, highly-influential owners of social media corporations engage in unprecedented banning of any critical or contrary opinion in censorship that would make a Goebbels blush. Among them is Mark Zuckerberg (WEF 2009) the billionaire owner of CIA-backed Facebook, and Twitter board member Martha Lane Fox (WEF 2012), a member of the UK Joint Committee on National Security Strategy and on House of Lords COVID-19 Committee. Larry Page (WEF 2005) is a billionaire co-founder of Google, arguably the world’s most censored and most used search engine.

Marc Benioff (WEF Board of Trustees) billionaire owner of Time magazine and Salesforce cloud computing, is also connected to Bill Gates’s The Giving Pledge. Dawood Azami (WEF 2011) is multi-media editor at the BBC World Service, the influential UK state-owned broadcaster. Jimmy Wales (WEF 2007) is founder of Wikipedia which notoriously alters content of COVID-related entries to promote the WHO and Davos agenda. Lynn Forester de Rothschild (WEF 1995) with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, owns The Economist magazine, which promotes the COVID Davos agenda along with the coming Green reset. She was introduced to Sir Evelyn by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg Conference in Scotland. 

Other figures among the Davos stable of global future leaders include Jamie Dimon (WEF 1996), CEO JP Morgan Chase, Nathaniel Rothschild (WEF 2005) son and heir apparent to Baron Jacob Nathaniel “Nat” Rothschild. David Mayer de Rothschild (WEF 2007), a British billionaire green agenda advocate with a fortune of estimated 10 billion dollars. 

WEF Strategic corporate “partners” helping mentor the Davos Global Leaders include Barclays Bank, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Deutsche Bank AG, General Motors Company, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc, McKinsey & Company and UBS AG and such.

Is this concentration of global power just coincidence or part of a genuine outright conspiracy? A reading of the current World Economic Forum Board of Trustees might help to answer. 

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Read more:

https://journal-neo.org/2022/02/16/davos-and-the-purloined-letter-conspiracy/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW...

Note: The Great Reset cannot happen. GREED WILL BE IN THE WAY...