“The plan of the Great Reset is that you will die with nothing. Klaus Schwab’s ‘life by subscription’ is really serfdom. It’s slavery. Billionaire, globalist corporations will own everything — homes, factories, farms, cars, furniture — and everyday citizens will rent what they need, if their social credit score allows.”
The world’s kingpins will need to tighten all the mental thumbscrews for propertyless serfs to “be happy.” Public euphoria could be in especially short supply considering other policies championed at the WEF…
If we were to go by Dr. Harari’s worldview, then no he does not have a right to live. Fortunately, for the Professor, we do not live by his worldview. We believe in the intrinsic value of human life. For instance, if it turns out that if Professor Harari is directly involved in the global genocide that’s occurring, then he needs to face extreme accountability.
A recently unearthed video of WEF guru, Israeli Professor, Yuval Noah Harari, has made the rounds of late. As Dr. Harari asserted not only that God is a fiction, but he also asserted that human rights are a fiction, a nice fairy tale with no basis in reality. Dr. Harari apparently believes that human rights are simply a made up story. He further explains that if you dissect a human there are no rights there. Instead, there is simply a physical display of anatomy and what is left of the biological processes. Thus, he concludes that the only place human rights exist is in the imagination. A mountain is a reality, countries and legal systems, heaven, God, are not based in biological reality, they are merely artifacts of the imagination. Thus, homosapiens have no rights.
If there are no human rights, then none of us have a right to protections under the law. Neither do we have the right to possessions or relationships, or our experiences, or our body, or our mind, or to our life. If this is the case, then it begs the question, does Dr. Harari have a right to live?
First, let’s address the certainty, some might even say hubris, that Dr. Harari appears to project his opinion on human rights and even reality itself. The healthy skepticism of the ancient Greeks taught us empiricism and logic. Yet even logic and empiricism have an Achilles heal.
There is an often unspoken reality that underlies all, whether philosophical, religious, political, legal, ethical, or even scientific discussions and debates. This is the unfortunate reality that the original assumption or premise of every discussion or debate is always unproven. We accept, often unconsciously, the agreed upon unproven premise or assumption and engage in the discussion or debate.
Consider the scientific method and testing of a hypothesis or theory. Technically a hypothesis or theory can never be proven. We can only accumulate data that either supports the hypothesis or theory or does not support it. This in itself is often forgotten when the high priests of science push scientific theories as if they were scientific dogma. Still, in a perfect world science is an open ended continuous search for the truth relying upon the scientific method. Yet, the premise underlying the scientific method itself, and the view that a hypothesis can never be proven, is based on an unproven premise. Essentially, we come to an approximation for the truth and take a leap of faith on the original premise.
Humility is required.
Even Dr. Harari’s belief in material monism, which rests on the unproven premise that physical reality is all that there is, is dubious on multiple fronts. For instance, we experience the material world through our senses, which are experienced in the mind.
Can you really prove that anything exists outside of your mind?
Last Thursday afternoon, news would spread throughout Ireland of a horrific knife attack on three young schoolchildren and their teacher outside a Gaelscoil (Irish-language school) in Dublin city centre. At the time of writing, the youngest of the victims, a five year old girl, remains gravely ill in hospital.
With it soon emerging that the suspect was an immigrant who had previously been served a deportation order in 2003, tensions that had been building across the country over the past year in response to the immigration policy of Leinster House, which has seen large amounts of male migrants placed into wildly unsuitable locations such as an inner city office block and a children’s school, would come to a head. Calls for a protest in Dublin later that night would rapidly spread throughout social media.
Such protests have become a mainstay across Ireland over the past year, with the government of WEF ‘Young Global Leader’ Leo Varadkar labelling protesters as ‘’far-right’’ and carrying out surveillance of organisers in response, a strategy that has served only to exacerbate tensions even further.
Last year in Canada, under the rule of fellow WEF ‘Young Global Leader’ Justin Trudeau, a similar response would take place to the Freedom Convoy, a protest movement launched by Canadian truckers following the decision to mandate jab passports for drivers returning from the US, the largest land-border in the world and a key component of the Canadian economy.
Just as open borders policies serve the interests of the global elites that the WEF represents, via the undermining of national sovereignty and the devaluing of labour, jab passports served their interests by acting as conditioning for the introduction of an eventual mandatory digital ID, which in line with the Great Reset initiative would allow the government-corporate alliance to have an unprecedented level of control over its citizens’ finances in a cashless society.
In 2018, the WEF tweeted a video of predictions for 2030 that included, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” Five years on, we can see that there’s still a long way to go for that prediction to come true.
The resilience of property rights is perhaps best demonstrated by the lengths that totalitarian regimes have to go to undo them.
In 2016, the goofballs at the World Economic Forum (WEF) published an article of fantastical utopianism. Ida Auken, a socialist member of the Danish parliament, wrote that in the year 2030, she lived in a city where nobody owned anything and everybody was happy. Private ownership has been abolished, everything we used to pay for is now free, green energy powers everything—it’s exactly the kind of nonsense you’d expect from a Danish socialist.
In 2018, the WEF tweeted a video of predictions for 2030 that included, “You’ll own nothing. And you’ll be happy.” Five years on, we can see that there’s still a long way to go for that prediction to come true.
In 2023, Carol Roth wrote a book called You Will Own Nothing, in which she takes the WEF a little too seriously and pulls together stray facts from around the global economy to allege that “World War F” is on the horizon, “a financial world war where you are ‘F’d.’”
Roth is a hyperactive Twitter user, and her book reads like an amalgamation of Twitter threads, so it can sometimes be difficult to keep the argument straight. Right off the bat, for example, the reader is told that there are three aggressors in World War F: “government and government-related forces (think Congress and the Federal Reserve),” “bad actors and elite power-grabbers (think the World Economic Forum and big business),” and “Big Tech.” These aren’t really distinct categories, as government contains bad actors and power-grabbers, and Big Tech is part of big business.
Regardless, there’s a group of elites out there who want to prevent you from owning stuff, according to Roth. As evidence, she points to government overreach during the Covid pandemic, high levels of government and individual debt, poor monetary policy by the Federal Reserve, the potential adoption of central-bank digital currencies, and the proliferation of ESG investing, among other economic problems.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) was founded fifty years ago. It has gained more and more prominence over the decades and has become one of the leading platforms of futuristic thinking and planning. As a meeting place of the global elite, the WEF brings together the leaders in business and politics along with a few selected intellectuals. The main thrust of the forum is global control.
Free markets and individual choice do not stand as the top values, but state interventionism and collectivism. Individual liberty and private property are to disappear from this planet by 2030 according to the projections and scenarios coming from the World Economic Forum.
Eight Predictions
Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns.
According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.
If the WEF projection should come true, people would have to rent and borrow their necessities from the state, which would be the sole proprietor of all goods. The supply of goods would be rationed in line with a social credit points system. Shopping in the traditional sense would disappear along with the private purchases of goods. Every personal move would be tracked electronically, and all production would be subject to the requirements of clean energy and a sustainable environment.
In order to attain “sustainable agriculture,” the food supply will be mainly vegetarian. In the new totalitarian service economy, the government will provide basic accommodation, food, and transport, while the rest must be lent from the state. The use of natural resources will be brought down to its minimum. In cooperation with the few key countries, a global agency would set the price of CO2 emissions at an extremely high level to disincentivize its use.
In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:
The connections of Fink are incredibly telling of the power wielded by Blackrock. Blackrock effectively has control of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury, as well as banks around the world. It should be noted that Fink was appointed to the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Board on August 22, 2019, the onset of the fraudulent ‘covid pandemic,’ which was set up, solidified, and begun, the same month that Fink took his seat on the board of the WEF.
“The one thing man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by a World Government, a New World Order.”
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining supercapitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean a conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, incredibly evil in intent.”
~ Rep. Larry P. MacDonald (Note: Lawrence McDonald was killed (likely murdered) on Korean Air Lines 007, 1983, a few months after making this statement.)
To begin, I will preface my remarks by saying that this is an attempt to explain in simple terms, very complicated financial and economic crimes being used against Americans, and also against the entire world population, in order to create and sustain total control over humanity. This is meant to manifest itself in the concept of one world governance, the ‘Great Reset,’ or the New World Order. This may seem a bold statement; it is not, but once you understand that everything that has happened over many decades is linked, especially since the plotted and premeditated false flag event called ‘9/11,’ you should be able to recognize the massive number of obvious connections that are incredibly evil.
It has recently become more prevalent by mostly alternative news sites and bloggers, to put forth the notion that many are waking up, and that the people are winning the battle for freedom. In my opinion, this is just not so, and in fact is misleading, as false hope is the driving force of this thinking. It is evident that more are claiming to be against government tyranny, but absolutely nothing has been done to reduce or eliminate the power of the State at any level to date. In addition, the nefarious efforts of the State and its controllers continue to expand, and the drive toward more draconian policies is never-ending. In the current environment, it is not known what the reaction by the masses might be considering the vast and imminent array of so-called ’emergencies’ that are certain to arise as this controlling cabal seeks to advance its agendas, but if the past is any indication, compliance should be expected.
The takeover framework of these ruling psychopaths is based always on the prototype of problem-reaction-solution, of which all are fake premeditated events and false emergencies; conspiracies in fact, meant to instill fear, hatred, or confusion, so that the State can pretend to come to the rescue of its hapless slave-class. This strategy has worked most every time it has been tried to date, and the herd continues to simply go along, regardless of the erroneous rhetoric being spewed that this populace is winning. It is not, and so long as the State continues and succeeds in its push to remake and transform society, whether psychologically, financially, or economically, the power of the ruling class and its governing system, will advance its wealth transfers, its monetary monopoly, and its depopulation efforts.
Psychological manipulation and control is necessary in order for the State thugs to accomplish their mission of world takeover, but financial and economic control is mandatory. This brings us to the real question; who owns and controls this world? It is certainly the big banking cartels, including all central banks, the large corporate magnates, the government protected NGO foundations, and of course, the entire global asset industry, which by 2020 controlled well over $100 trillion dollars. But who owns and controls all of these entities? Who has controlling interest in everything on earth? That is Blackrock and The Vanguard Group, and as I explained a year ago:
“There are a few thousand institutional investment firms that own every large bank, every large corporation, every large investment firm, every ‘news’ outlet, every large communication company, every large pharmaceutical company, every large transportation company; in other words, most every large company on earth is owned by these institutional investors. In turn, the small institutional investment firms are owned by larger institutional investment firms, and the larger investment firms, are owned by even larger investment firms. The two institutional investment companies that are the major owners and controllers of all the others in the world are Vanguard Holdings and Blackrock, and Vanguard is the largest shareholder (owner) of Blackrock. What this means is that Vanguard and Blackrock own and control this planet.”
The current CEO of Vanguard is Tim Buckley, and of course, the head and founder of the powerful Blackrock institution is Larry Fink. It should be noted that Fink and Blackrock have attained a position of extreme and almost infinite power over finance and economics, and according to many are now the fourth branch of government.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations (CoA), a highly influential US Congressional body on US budget proposals, has advised cutting government funding for the World Health Organization (WHO) entirely, as part of its budget proposal for fiscal year 2024.
The CoA’s bill would also block funding to the Chinese Wuhan Institute of Virology, the EcoHealth Alliance, as well as gain-of-function research. In addition, the legislation would terminate US government involvement in the World Economic Forum (WEF).
This bombshell report was published a few days ago by RFK Jr’s Defender, based on extensive interviews with concerned US Congress people. See this full report by Michael Nevradikis, Ph.D, a regular contributor to the Children’s Health Defense Newsletter.
The proposal would enhance the US government’s attempt to ban “misinformation” and “disinformation” programs, and to retain – and even bring back – the US’s Constitutional sovereignty and citizen’s right to free speech and expression.
Cutting US funding to the WHO would amount to about US$ 700 million savings per year. With Big Pharma, Bill Gates and other interest groups funding more than 80% of WHO’s budget, the US$ 700 million – though by far the largest country contribution to the “health organization”, may not be a lot, but it has significant symbolic and political meaning.
Other nations look to the US, since many, especially from the Global South, are fed-up with WHO’s scandalous Covid imposition during the past three years, WHO’s impending health tyranny through the planned revised International Health Regulations (IHR) and the fully integrated so-called “Pandemic Treaty”. If the US dares take this drastic, but necessary step, others who feel likewise may follow suit.
As Remix News previously reported, privacy and civil rights organizations have long advocated the right to cash with the argument that privacy, civil liberties, and finical security are at stake. Abolishing cash would force citizens to conduct all transactions through a digital medium, such as mobile payments, credit cards, or digital currencies. Banks and electronic mediums remain vulnerable to hack attacks and even natural disasters, for example, if the power grid were to be knocked out. The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which is a part of the Ministry of Justice, warned in one report that a totally cashless society would be extremely vulnerable if the country were attacked or exposed to a natural disaster
A world without cash would lead to “financially incapacitated” citizens, argues the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ)…
After 530,000 Austrians signed a referendum petition calling for the right to cash payments to be enshrined in Austria’s constitution in 2022, Austria’s political class is refusing to move forward with adding this legal right, warns the Freedom Party of Austria (FPÖ).
“Nowhere else in the world is an everyday life without cash so clearly rejected as in Austria. We see this justified desire of the population, which is reflected in the popular petition ‘For unrestricted cash payment,’ as a concrete work order to the parliament!,” said Finance and Budget Spokesman of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) Hubert Fuchs during a parliamentary debate.
Although the referendum is not binding, in a country of 8.9 million, the fact that over half a million signed the referendum petition shows a broad level of resistance against the push for digital currencies promoted by central banks across the world and institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF). It was the 13th most popular referendum in the country’s history. However, the center-right Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), which has long been said to have backed the right to cash, is now joining the left-wing parties of Austria and blocking all attempts to add this right to the country’s constitution.
FPÖ says ‘cash is freedom’
Fuchs sees the great support for the petition as a clear mandate to the National Council, which is one of the two houses in Austria’s parliament.
“The initiators and supporters of this petition do not just want words of thanks. Rather, it is a concrete request to the National Council to ensure that the federal government finally gets its act together. But let me report from the finance committee: Our motion for the preservation of cash was once again rejected by the ÖVP. So it’s all just lip service and fine words, while these are not followed by action,” said Fuchs.
Austrian Freedom Party financial spokesman Hubert Fuchs. (Austrian Parliament)
The ÖVP is reportedly attempting to blame their coalition partners, the Greens, but the FPÖ rejects these claims. Fuchs argues that if “nothing can be brought forward in the country (through legislation), one should step soon again to the ballot box — the republic would be served thereby very much.”
The FPÖ, known for its stance against Russia sanctions and its calls to stop immigration by building “Fortress Austria,” is currently the most popular party in the country, with polls putting it at approximately 27 percent. The party, although conservative, takes a skeptical view of unbridled free market capitalism, and argues that the government must protect against real estate speculators and provide generous cash benefits to encourage Austrians to have more children.
The party has also made the right to cash payments an intrinsic part of its platform, arguing that they ensure freedom from government oversight and also protect Austrians from predatory banks and credit card institutions.
“We, the Freedom Party — in contrast to all other parties — have already been campaigning for years for the preservation of cash as well as for the anchoring of the right to cash payments in the constitution. This was also included in the ÖVP-FPÖ government program (of the previous government), but unfortunately could no longer be implemented. And I wonder why, if all parties are in favor of preserving cash, especially the Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP), they have not tabled a motion on this today?” asked Fuchs. “According to the current legal situation, there is no real obligation to accept cash. The relevant legal provisions need to be tightened up here.”
Fuchs also said in his speech that implementing a financial system where only digital currencies exist would lead to an increase in money laundering and covert financing of terrorism, as according to him, digital and cryptocurrencies are a hotbed for criminality.
“This freedom of choice must continue to exist in the future. Cash is data protection in action. Cash is printed freedom. And another aspect should not remain unmentioned: Without cash, how are children supposed to learn how to handle money and thus how to do business? Money at their fingertips is very important for children. But it is not only important for children, but also for adults in terms of their own spending control,” explained the FPÖ finance and budget spokesman.
Fuchs may be referring to the practice of many consumers reverting back to cash to better control spending, which is a trend seen in the United States this year. Experts argue that using physical cash instead of electronic payments helps people better control and track their spending.
However, the FPÖ also points to a new Marketmind study, which shows that 48 percent of women and 40 percent of men in Austria cannot get a credit card due to their low income and are therefore dependent on cash.
What if I told you that the World Economic Forum’s climate agenda is to stop economic growth, and shut down many industries, which would be accomplished by having a WEF-designed artificial intelligence systemdecide which industries are to be liquidated? And that the WEF expects working people to be paying money to the masses of economically displaced people, to induce them not to work?
You would probably laugh at me, call me a crazy person, and refuse to even consider that seriously. That story could not possibly be true! An important global organization cannot propose such an absurdity! What a stupid conspiracy theory, probably invented by some weirdo who is living under a rock!
If that is your reaction, you are a perfectly normal person, as no well-adjusted individual would ever come up with such nonsensical proposals. Even I, if I heard something like that from a random individual I just met, would probably just dismiss such things as crazy talk.
All good, but this very proposal is the central part of the WEF’s agenda, proudly featured on its homepage. I did not come up with anything it did not actually say!
I discussed their “can the economy grow forever” proposal in a separate article of mine. Check it out.
We need to liquidate entire industries to meet our climate goals
To decide which industries to shut down, we need to use WEF-selected Artificial Intelligence to make the decisions
We need to pay displaced people NOT to work
Does this sound totally bonkers? Not sure about you, but it does sound insane to me. And yet, it is all there in the WEF-endorsed video, and the article is prominently featured on the WEF home page. I did not invent anything, I just understood the article and retold its meaning in plain language.
There is no “conspiracy theory” concocted here, and everything was obtained by simply reviewing ONE WEF agenda article and its attached video.
Eugyppius was my first Substack subscription and I always love to read his writings. He, quite correctly, notes the vacuity, or emptiness, of the language used by Klaus Schwab in his book. He notes the seeming pointlessness of the endless passages in it.
These are brief statements that are so tautological, banal or bizarre that they ought to embarrass any author.
Eugyppius’ conclusion, which I respect but cannot agree with in relation to the article we are reviewing today, is that
The Davos crowd see themselves as post-ideological, technocratic problem-solvers, but it’s impossible to deny that some kind of abstruse, malformed ideological system pervades Schwab’s work. It might be too ungainly and broken to acknowledge or defend, and it’s remarkably hard to describe, but it’s there. Postwar optimism and the generations of uninterrupted technological progress that followed, encouraged some people to believe that we were on the verge of a new world, one where a utopian global order would supplant both nation states and corporations, ushering in a post-capitalist, post-nationalist era, where all our most pressing problems would be solved. Yet the nations states stayed around, for-profit businesses are still here, and technological progress has stalled. What remains is a lot of jargon and vacuity, signifying nothing.
Is themost powerful supranational organization, whose Young Leaders lead governments of many important countries, states, or territories, or collectively own and manage trillions of dollars, simply a nonsense production factory? Are their messages “signifying nothing”? Why does the WEF exist, then? To blather nonsense? Do people gather in Davos for nothing but vacuous press releases?
Or is there something important hidden behind the seeming lack of understandable intent?
Is there a possibility that important, world-changing ideas are wrapped in layers of feel-good, patronizing, virtue-signaling words, intentionally strung together into endless, hard-to-understand sentences?
My answer is: the WEF purposely makes their proposals to be difficult for ordinary people to comprehend. To a person reading without paying close attention, their writings appear to be feel-good generalities writtenwithout a purpose — and yet when understood fully, they contain radical proposals that would upend the most basic foundations of our Western societies.
When reading the “WEF Agenda” articles, such as “can the economy grow forever” article, I was struck by the verbosity, meaninglessness, empty generality, and vacuity of the language, just like eugyppius was.
For example, in addition to looking at my Twitter profile, WEF’s proposed AI would also look at my Gettr profile, and then it would make an “intelligent decision” to remove me from the Internet at once. It is somewhat of a simplification because they also want to look for ideas and not only individuals but, nevertheless, the search for wrongthink becomes globalized.
Naughty GETTR posts? Say bye-bye to your TWITTER account
The World Economic Forum is becoming a little concerned. Unapproved opinions are becoming more popular, and online censors cannot keep up with millions of people becoming more aware and more vocal. The censorship engines employed by Internet platforms, turned out to be quite stupid and incapable. People are even daring to complain about the World Economic Forum, which is obviously completely unacceptable.
So, WEF author Inbal Goldbergercame up with a solution: she proposes to collect off-platform intelligence from “millions of sources” to spy on people and new ideas, and then merge this information together for “content removal decisions” sent down to “Internet platforms”.
To overcome the barriers of traditional detection methodologies, we propose a new framework: rather than relying on AI to detect at scale and humans to review edge cases, an intelligence-based approach is crucial.
By bringing human-curated, multi-language, off-platform intelligence into learning sets, AI will then be able to detect nuanced, novel abuses at scale, before they reach mainstream platforms. Supplementing this smarter automated detection with human expertise to review edge cases and identify false positives and negatives and then feeding those findings back into training sets will allow us to create AI with human intelligence baked in. Thismore intelligent AI gets more sophisticated with each moderation decision, eventually allowing near-perfect detection, at scale.
What is this about? What’s new?
The way censorship is done these days is that each Internet platform, such as Twitter, has its own moderation team and a decision making engine. Twitter would only look at tweets by any specific twitter user, when deciding on whether to delete any tweets or suspend their authors. Twitter moderators do NOT look at Gettr or other external websites.
So, for example, user @JohnSmith12345 may have a Twitter account and narrowly abide by Twitter rules, but at the same time have a Gettr account where he would publish anti-vaccine messages. Twitter would not be able to suspend @JohnSmith12345’s account. That is no longer acceptable to the WEF because they want to silence people and ideas, not individual messages or accounts.
This explains why the WEF needs to move beyond the major Internet platforms, in order to collect intelligence about people and ideas everywhere else. Such an approach would allow them to know better what person or idea to censor — on all major platforms at once.
MCViewPoint 
