The Departure of a Faux Emperor

Klaus Schwab has resigned as chairman of the World Economic Forum. Does it matter? Does the WEF matter?

Nowadays it is fashionable to mock those of us, including myself, who made a fuss during COVID about the WEF and its ominous chairman. I honestly can’t remember now whether I believed that Schwab himself held actual power, or whether I realised from the start that he was just the public “face” of people who did. Either way, the significance of that time was that the events seemed to tell a new story. The old order of money, Wall Street, capitalism and Zionism seemed to have been replaced by a new order which was technocratic and, while much more Gentile, also much more autistic and, surprisingly enough, authoritarian. COVID seemed like a dress rehearsal for them, trialling techniques that would be used later under a tyranny centred around climate change. (No doubt a lot of data was collected in those awful months and years that would be useful should such a tyranny be attempted.) We seemed to be looking at a new elite, a technocratic one that was without any national or even continental identity, and disdained freedom and dignity, had no use for ordinary people, and didn’t seem very concerned about profit or, indeed, economics at all. It was as if they had transcended economics and were preparing for a post-scarcity future. For people like me this was intellectually exciting while also genuinely terrifying.

The disagreement between us and those who mocked us was their belief that globalist bodies like the WEF are ultimately funded and therefore controlled by high finance (Wall Street), therefore the Zionists must still be in charge, therefore the dreams of Klaus Schwab were meaningless. It was simply that lackeys such as him had been let off the leash to some extent, encouraged to indulge their utopian fantasies which were either never going to come to fruition, or were desired by the Zionists anyway and were therefore nothing new.

I think that is an overly dismissive summary. It is true that globalist bodies are controlled by high finance, but since Trump 2.0 it is also clear that, the White House connection between Wall Street and European globalism having been severed to some extent, the two factions flail around like halves of a worm, confused but finding ways to persist. The installed elite in Europe continue to talk about all the things they raved about during COVID: massive globalist systems to take control of things, heavy censorship powered by AI, control of a new magnitude. The ukulele has stopped tinkling but the “utopianism” persists. The building of a new order continues; they just don’t show us their infographics any more.

Born in 1938, Schwab would have been just 32 when “he” founded the WEF in 1971. It seems highly unlikely that such a large and prestigious institution would be founded by such a young man, and of course it is. Other people, names we don’t know, ordered that it be founded, provided the capital and chose Schwab as their “face”. He was a strange face to choose, to be sure, but then so is his successor, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. One might imagine that they have some proviso that their “faces” be bizarre, but I’m not sure what the reasoning would be. More likely, Brabeck-Letmathe and Schwab before him were chosen because they were competent in the requisite areas, conversant in multiple languages, and dull enough to have neither ideas of their own nor skeletons in the closet.

I had never heard of Schwab until around May 2020, when in the midst of the COVID lockdowns he was suddenly everywhere. We were expected to know and trust him. It seemed very much that globalist institutions had decided to “step out from behind the curtain”, to sidestep their puppet national governments and address the public directly. Why else were we suddenly seeing this man?

In those insane months, Schwab intoned that there would be no return to “the old normal”, that we were going to “build back better”, and that the global economy needed to be drastically redesigned in a process called “the great reset” which would bring about a new society. He was often accompanied by his goblin philosopher Yuval Noah Harari. What the two men seemed to have in common, apart from anything else, was a casual disdain for ordinary people. It wasn’t that they hated them as such, more that ordinary people were an after-thought for them, something uninteresting but which nevertheless rather irritatingly had to be considered once the grand designs were finalised. “Oh, how will this affect the plebs?” It wasn’t hatred or even contempt, but something farther along that line: ambivalence. Ordinary people arose out of biological accident, and had no purpose, no reason for existing, and, as Harari said openly, would have no jobs - no place, no raison d’etre - in the new society.

Latterly, Schwab spoke about a “Great Narrative”, which sounded like a spiritual sister-piece to his main grand vision which was exceedingly (mind-numbingly) utilitarian and unspiritual. It was the after-thought. Having come up with the grand design, and then remembered about the ordinary people and conceived of them altogether as a problem remaining to be solved, Schwab decided they needed something to believe in. What a wise man. But then we heard no more about the Great Narrative. Was the after-thought of little interest to him? Probably, but then we also heard no more about the Great Reset itself. And that definitely seemed to mean a lot to him.

I think that little era of the early 2020s was Klaus Schwab’s finest hour - the thing his entire life had been building towards. But I think it was cut short by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, being a globalist WEF graduate didn’t seem to mean so much once Putin did something for his own country. Suddenly, the rules-based international order seemed like a farce. Suddenly, the abundant energy that Europe had enjoyed for decades and which would fuel the Great Reset became scarce. It wasn’t that the plebs rose up and rejected the dystopia promised for them (really for other people, and they would just have to go along with it) but that, at the elite level, things went awry. This was then compounded by Trump’s return as POTUS, which happened (I believe) because of Israel’s invasion of Gaza, which in turn happened because of a calculation that US public support for Zionism would dwindle in a generation. I suspect that all three of these events - Ukraine, Gaza, Trump 2.0 - were undesired and unforeseen by Schwab, his EU colleagues, and those who control them. Also undesired by them was Trump’s belief that their utopian schemes were actually not post-economics or post-scarcity, but funded (if at all) by the US taxpayer who shouldn’t be funding things abroad, and also his belief that the US economy was, far from infinite or invincible, on the verge of collapse and needed drastic restructuring. Thus, another funding tap for the European dreamers (USAID) was switched off.

But still, the machine powers on. The EU, having been (meaninglessly) upstaged by the WEF and the WHO for a brief period, has taken centre-stage again, and the airhead managerialists who work there instead of at one of the other citadels of globalism are declaring the very same things five years on: digital ID, central bank digital currency, censorship, surveillance, and AI commissars distributing the resources. Klaus Schwab might have resigned, and he might have never had any power in the first place, and he might be old and even on the verge of death, but nevertheless his vision (“his” vision) lives on. Whether it will be called “the Great Reset” is immaterial; that was only ever a marketing buzzword that didn’t market very well (like the various others chosen at that time) and so would have been replaced anyway. But the vision itself remains consistent: a sort of neo-feudalism in which global bodies in conjunction with investment funds decide how private corporations will serve the base needs of the populace while extracting maximal profit from them during their puny biological terms.

The trouble with this social vision is that there is no creating going on; it is just a highly complex and predatory system for redistributing resources. Indeed it is anti innovation, just as it is anti freedom. But, in the wake of Putin’s break from the globalists, it might also be anti reality. Alternative energy sources are possible but verboten. But they are needed for the plan. If the masses without purpose cannot be tranquilised with video games and AI porn... how will they be tranquilised? And if they can’t be tranquilised, how will they be persuaded to tolerate their meaningless lives and their oppression?

The thing which was relegated to an after-thought suddenly becomes all-important: what to do with all the plebs? This is especially pressing when you have spent decades pumping European countries full of low IQ migrants who are much more impulsive and violent than Europeans. Maybe the idea was to slowly ease them off Islam and FGM by means of Pornhub, Spotify and Deliveroo. None of this seems feasible now. The military analyst David Betz has been sounding the alarm recently about how vulnerable Britain is to attacks on its infrastructure, attacks that would kill the delivery of digital porn, crap music and slop food. What to do with all the angry Black men then?

The after-thought should have been the very first thought: the human material one is working with. I think, at the highest level, the importance of this must have been known all along, and the middle managers were always being led up the garden path, to a utopia that was never going - and never intended - to materialise. The question then is what was intended? We’ll get to that.

Whatever else can be said about Klaus Schwab, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe and Ursula von der Leyen, they certainly lost sight of what mattered and became obsessed with designs and fancy ideas. Everything had to be great, grand, seminal, epochal. They never looked at a small European country and asked “is there anything we could do to help make Denmark the best version of itself, to make the Danes the best Danes the world has ever seen?” They had no interest in Denmark except as a node of something more huge and nondescript, something that didn’t need history. They had no interest in the Danes except as consumer livestock, drones that didn’t need identity. But when the electricity runs out, what is left? That question was never asked seriously; it was seen only as an opportunity for some other grand globalist arm to intervene and make the system better, stronger, more resilient. But every globalist arm needs the same energy... so if one falls it is because they have all fallen... and there is nothing left to intervene.

The alternative to luxury is brute force. The globalist dreamers never spoke of such things except to condemn them in uncivilised lands. This was feasible in the heady years of 2010-2022 when, even if the money was fake, the energy was cheap. One cannot speak of luxury today, and nobody does. Instead we are more overtly going down perhaps the same path we always were: totalitarianism. The technocrats blush at the idea of brute force, but I don’t doubt that they would approve of it if it ever became necessary to deal with the after-thought they should have put first. Does Macron ever think about the French people walking around without a hand or without an eye, because it was “necessary” to deprive them of such in the course of maintaining the rules-based order? Of course not. Likewise, his kind do not think about the European women and girls raped by the coloured hordes these people keep bringing into our lands and our lives. It was “necessary” for utopia.

And now, the imagined deadline of 2030 continues to approach. In achieving it, who knows what will become necessary.