In 1971, Klaus Schwab, former professor of economics, had the innovative idea of calculating a competitiveness index for a group of countries on the basis of economic measures drawn from multiple sources. For several years, he invited representatives of these countries to Davos, a village in the Swiss mountains, once a refuge for tuberculosis patients, in January to present the results of his analyzes and reveal the score and rank of each country in terms of competitiveness. . The operation was a success. Governments worried about their score and rank, sought to understand the performance of top-rated countries, and adopted policies to improve their score and rank.
For a long time, this was Davos, an unmistakable success that sparked an obsessive frenzy for the competitiveness of countries. However, over time, Schwab wanted to transcend this exclusive concern with competitiveness, a subject that was increasingly the subject of harsh criticism. From a go-between, Davos became a group of experts producing a profusion of texts for reflection, proposals for public policies while leaving some room for divergent opinions.
However, the pandemic swung Klaus Schwab and inspired him with the theme of the Great Reset with a precise program published by the World Economic Forum (WEF), a program of authoritarian, radical measures, disconcerting by the vision of the world that he betrays.
Since then, and through his fault, Klaus Schwab, the founder and chairman of the board of the WEF, has occupied a central place, along with Bill Gates and George Soros, in the imagination of conspiracy theorists of all stripes.
The annual meeting of Davos would have become the place of the consultation of the globalists and the masters of the world. It must be admitted that this forum now brings together an impressive body of people of economic, financial, political and social power.
For some years now, the themes discussed there have always revolved around the necessary transformation of the world, of leadership in a multipolar world. Here is how the WEF describes the objectives of the 2023 meeting: “The basic principle of the program is the premise that the current crises, however severe, are manifestations of larger systemic deficiencies accumulated over time. They are also the result of a narrow vision of systems as sectors rather than as truly multidisciplinary, networked and highly dynamic entities, particularly in the context of the meta-trends of the “fourth industrial revolution” and climate change. »
The style is bombastic, the content ambiguous, but the message is clear. Everywhere and in everything, we must establish (impose? By whom? How?) a “new system”: for energy, climate and nature; for investment, trade and infrastructure; to harness advanced technologies for private sector innovation and resilience; for work, skills and care.
Given the collective power of the participants in this forum, it is plausible to imagine a scenario in which sprawling forces seek to impose a new economic and political order on a population that is neither informed nor consulted.
The World Economic Forum protests against the demonization of the Forum and of the Davos meeting, whereas only yesterday we rejoiced at the fact that the WEF was perceived as an organization capable of uniting the powerful of the world around a radical program of change. The WEF is currently the victim of a disinformation campaign. In response, the WEF and Klaus Schwab now argue that their proposals are intended to be benign and respectful of democratic processes.
It would be more skilful to argue that the reality of the Davos forum is quite different. Political leaders are only in Davos for the time to make their speeches. The business and financial elite hardly participate in the various sessions. Its members join only the panels for which they are invited. A large part of their time in Davos is therefore devoted to bilateral meetings to explore business opportunities.
Having participated in this forum a few times, I have noticed that this mode of operation leaves little time and room for consultation between globalists. Unless, of course, private meetings, in particular of the Board of Trustees (where the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada sits), meetings that escape ordinary participants, are places of consultation and global coordination. But I highly doubt it.