Segue nostro Telegram.

Anticipazioni

Nell’anno 2026, qualcosa di inaspettato è accaduto al World Economi Forum di Davos. Bisogna guardare tutti i dettagli per capire le dinamiche profonde.

Cominciamo con i fondamentali. Ogni anno, verso la fine di gennaio, una piccola cittadina alpina svizzera si trasforma in un palcoscenico globale per leader politici, imprenditori, accademici e figure influenti della società civile. Il WEF è l’evento internazionale che da più di mezzo secolo catalizza l’attenzione sui nodi cruciali dell’economia e della politica mondiale, ci piaccia o no, e fa da corollario agli aspetti politici dell’ONU e a quelli sanitari della OMS.

Fondato nel 1971 dal professore universitario tedesco Klaus Schwab, con 450 dirigenti d’azienda al primo incontro nella cittadina svizzera, l’obiettivo era condividere idee manageriali e favorire un dialogo transatlantico tra imprese europee e americane. Nel 1987 l’organizzazione assunse il nome con cui la conosciamo oggi e divenne una piattaforma di discussione globale multilaterale.

Il funzionamento del WEF si basa su un modello di stakholder capitalism, promosso in particolare con il Davos Manifesto del 2020: le imprese non dovrebbero perseguire solo profitti per gli azionisti, ma creare valore per dipendenti, società e ambiente. La partecipazione è strutturata in livelli: membri, partner strategici e delegati (inclusi capi di Stato, amministratori delegati di grandi società, leader della società civile), con quote associative elevate per le aziende.

Quest’anno, 2026, sotto il titolo “A spirit of dialogue”, si sono riuniti circa 3.000 partecipanti, tra cui 65 capi di Stato, oltre 400 politici e circa 850 CEO, più numerosi innovatori e scienziati. Le discussioni del 2026 si sono concentrati su questioni chiave: la cooperazione in un mondo conteso, l’innovazione responsabile, le nuove fonti di crescita, gli investimenti nelle persone e la “prosperità entro i limiti planetari”.

Ora guardiamo alcuni fatti antecedenti all’evento. Il primo dato da osservare è che l’assetto internazionale di quest’anno è molto, molto diverso dal precedente. Il contesto geopolitico teso – con forti tensioni tra grandi potenze e questioni come la crisi climatica e l’ascesa dell’intelligenza artificiale – ha dominato i dibattiti. Meno Europa, potremmo dire, e più America. La presenza americana è stata non solo numericamente importante, ma anche imponente: Donald Trump è arrivato come un tornado, ha spazzato via tutto ed è andato via lasciando sconcerto. È arrivato ed ha inserito nel bel mezzo dell’evento la creazione del suo Board of Peace.

Il secondo dato è, appunto, la mancanza di una forza europea. L’unica voce che si è fatta sentire è stata quella di Emmanuel Macron col suo occhio nero, indossando occhiali da Top Gun, nel tentativo disperato di affermarsi come unico interlocutore degno del vecchio sistema europeo, mentre il mondo si muove verso altri equilibri. Christine Lagarde e Ursula Von der Leyen, al di là della solita retorica europeista, sono state pressoché inutili e decisamente sottotono.

Qualcosa sta cambiando

Oggettivamente, il Forum ha confermato il ruolo di Davos come nodo nevralgico di networking, influenza e scambio di idee, in salsa americana o meno. E di sicuro questa forza statunitense iniettata nel WEF ha risollevato la sua importanza ed attratto molto. C’è però da considerare se ciò sia voluto in senso costruttivo o in senso distruttivo: Trump continua la sua partita a poker mondiale e non guarda in faccia a nessuno. La sua “legittimazione” potrebbe essere solo una facciata con cui ha colonizzato un polo di influenza globalista che era squisitamente euro-centrico, e l’effetto che ha causato, di fatto, è quello di averlo scosso al punto di monopolizzare l’attenzione.

Il Board of Peace – che commenteremo in un altro articolo – è diventato l’argomento del mese, oscurando quasi del tutto i trend media. Nemmeno l’annunciato tavolo di trattative triangolari USA-Ucraina-Russia è riuscito a scalfire così tanto l’interesse della stampa e l’opinione politica.

Un episodio emblematico, se letto nella logica della guerra dell’informazione, della narrazione tra poli geopolitici e schieramenti diversi. Davos rappresenta infatti una piattaforma privilegiata di visibilità globale, in cui la compresenza di leader politici, decisori economici e media internazionali consente una rapida circolazione delle narrazioni. In tale scenario, l’iniziativa trumpiana è stata presentata attraverso un linguaggio fortemente performativo, incentrato su categorie valoriali assolute quali “pace”, “stabilità” e “leadership globale”, indipendentemente dalla definizione giuridica, istituzionale o operativa del nuovo organismo.

La copertura giornalistica, tanto nei media tradizionali quanto negli spazi digitali, ha contribuito a trasformare il Board of Peace in un evento discorsivo prima ancora che in un soggetto politico concreto. Le notizie si sono concentrate prevalentemente sulla figura del promotore, sulle adesioni selettive e sulle reazioni critiche di governi e istituzioni multilaterali, piuttosto che su una valutazione sostanziale delle competenze, delle modalità decisionali o del rapporto dell’organismo con il sistema delle Nazioni Unite. Questo slittamento dell’attenzione dal piano strutturale a quello simbolico è un elemento tipico delle operazioni di infowarfare, nelle quali l’obiettivo primario non è la produzione di risultati immediati, bensì l’occupazione dello spazio cognitivo e narrativo.

Siamo nel contesto della competizione narrativa, volto a ridefinire il ruolo degli Stati Uniti – e in particolare della leadership trumpiana – come attore centrale e alternativo ai meccanismi multilaterali tradizionali.

Nel complesso, stiamo assistendo ad una danza demenziale: gli europei sembrano sotto l’effetto di qualche stupefacente e perdono il controllo non appena un interlocutore americano o del Global South entra in scena; gli americani giocano a condurre la danza, gli altri seguono a ritmo, ritmo che assomiglia più a quello della danza macabra di fine vita dell’Europa col suo vecchio sistema. E tutto ciò avviene proprio in casa europea, in mezzo a quelle montagne che rappresentano la fortezza delle élite.

Cercate voi di comprendere il significato di questo segno dei tempi così potente.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Previews

In 2026, something unexpected happened at the World Economic Forum in Davos. One must examine every detail to grasp the deeper dynamics at work.

Let us begin with the fundamentals. Every year, toward the end of January, a small Swiss Alpine town transforms into a global stage for political leaders, business executives, academics, and influential figures from civil society. For more than half a century, the WEF has been the international event that – whether we like it or not – has focused attention on the crucial nodes of the world economy and global politics, acting as a complement to the political dimension of the United Nations and the health-related role of the WHO.

Founded in 1971 by the German university professor Klaus Schwab, with 450 business executives attending the first meeting in the Swiss town, the initial aim was to share managerial ideas and foster transatlantic dialogue between European and American companies. In 1987, the organization adopted the name by which it is known today and became a multilateral global discussion platform.

The WEF operates on a model of stakeholder capitalism, promoted in particular through the 2020 Davos Manifesto: companies should not pursue profits for shareholders alone, but create value for employees, society, and the environment. Participation is structured in tiers – members, strategic partners, and delegates (including heads of state, CEOs of major corporations, and civil society leaders) – with high membership fees for companies.

This year, 2026, under the title “A Spirit of Dialogue,” around 3,000 participants gathered, including 65 heads of state, more than 400 politicians, and approximately 850 CEOs, as well as numerous innovators and scientists. The 2026 discussions focused on key issues: cooperation in a contested world, responsible innovation, new sources of growth, investment in people, and “prosperity within planetary boundaries.”

Now let’s look at some facts preceding the event. The first point to note is that this year’s international landscape is very, very different from the previous one. A tense geopolitical context – with strong tensions among major powers and issues such as the climate crisis and the rise of artificial intelligence – dominated the debates. Less Europe, one might say, and more America. The American presence was not only numerically significant but also overwhelming: Donald Trump arrived like a tornado, swept everything away, and left behind bewilderment. He came and inserted, right in the middle of the event, the creation of his Board of Peace.

The second point is precisely the absence of a strong European force. The only voice that truly made itself heard was that of Emmanuel Macron, sporting a black eye and wearing Top Gun-style glasses, in a desperate attempt to assert himself as the sole worthy interlocutor of the old European system, while the world moves toward other balances. Christine Lagarde and Ursula von der Leyen, beyond the usual pro-European rhetoric, were virtually ineffective and decidedly subdued.

Something is changing

Objectively, the Forum has confirmed Davos’s role as a nerve center of networking, influence, and the exchange of ideas – whether in an American flavor or not. And certainly, this injection of U.S. power into the WEF has revived its importance and attracted considerable attention. Yet one must consider whether this has been done in a constructive or a destructive sense: Trump continues his global poker game and spares no one. His “legitimation” may be little more than a façade through which he has colonized a globalist center of influence that was distinctly Eurocentric; the effect, in practice, has been to shake it to the point of monopolizing attention.

The Board of Peace – which will be discussed in another article – has become the topic of the month, almost completely eclipsing media trends. Not even the announced triangular negotiation table among the United States, Ukraine, and Russia managed to undermine press interest and political attention to the same extent.

This episode is emblematic when read through the lens of information warfare and narrative competition among geopolitical poles and opposing alignments. Davos represents a privileged platform of global visibility, where the simultaneous presence of political leaders, economic decision-makers, and international media enables the rapid circulation of narratives. In this scenario, the Trumpian initiative was presented through a strongly performative language, centered on absolute value categories such as “peace,” “stability,” and “global leadership,” regardless of the legal, institutional, or operational definition of the new body.

Journalistic coverage, both in traditional media and digital spaces, contributed to transforming the Board of Peace into a discursive event even before it became a concrete political actor. News reports focused primarily on the figure of its promoter, on selective endorsements, and on critical reactions from governments and multilateral institutions, rather than on a substantive assessment of its competencies, decision-making mechanisms, or its relationship with the United Nations system. This shift of attention from the structural to the symbolic plane is typical of infowarfare operations, in which the primary objective is not the production of immediate results, but the occupation of cognitive and narrative space.

We are therefore in a context of narrative competition, aimed at redefining the role of the United States – and in particular Trumpian leadership – as a central actor and an alternative to traditional multilateral mechanisms.

Overall, we are witnessing a demented dance: Europeans appear to be under the influence of some intoxicant and lose control as soon as an American or Global South interlocutor enters the scene; Americans play at leading the dance, while the others follow the rhythm – a rhythm that more closely resembles the macabre dance marking the end of Europe’s old system. And all of this unfolds precisely on European soil, amid those mountains that symbolize the fortress of the elites.

You may try to grasp the meaning of this powerful sign of the times yourselves.

Whether through ideological soft power or financial manipulation, the core agenda remains intact, albeit masked in new forms.

Follow Joaquin Flores as XF on Telegram @NewResistance

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The question of the relationship between the overall collective Western failure of the ‘Great Reset’, failures in numerous past and current military conflicts, and subsequent signs that they are attenuating their messaging, is of critical significance which offers multiply-connected analytics vectors for development. This is because of the relationship between Hollywood messaging and the messaging approved globally by the Western elites writ large. Those reflect a phenomenon known as ‘Human Rights Imperialism’, as well as the ‘Pink Washing’ more novel to the 21^st century. Here, we will develop upon ‘Why this Anti-Democratic Anti-Populism in the Age of Big Data Analytics?’

It is beyond a doubt that what is often termed ‘The Message’, as discussed in ‘Why this Anti-Democratic Anti-Populism’, has been placed at the center of the West’s raison d’etre. Yet Hollywood apparently had to back-off after ‘The Message’ failed to make the numbers happen at the box office and merch sales. Will the WEF, and the political class at large, have to back-off after it failed to make the reset happen?

‘The Message’, as it is known, is a type of indoctrination inserted into mainstream Hollywood film and episodic series which, under the guise of inclusivity, encourages the population to conceptualize social problems as those arising from the thoughts and activities of every-day regular people who are ignorant, and so need to be educated in a top-down manner. With this approach comes much less a focus on the role that structures of power (like banks, corporations) and institutions themselves have in determining power relations between asymmetrically represented and empowered segments of society. The consequence is that rather than punching upward at those actually in power, people are encouraged to punch at each other, and also punch ever downward. But it isn’t necessary to present the origins of ‘The Message’ in conspiratorial form, even though it would be accurate.

The power establishment embarked upon this cultural revolution in the collective West (that’s the conspiratorial part) which we can conceptualize as being something like the most cynical exploits that grifters made out of the Civil Rights movement after the 1960’s, combined with a perpetual 1990’s era post Cold War triumphalism. Finally, transgender and even pro-pedophilia discursive framings have permeated into this motif. Having done so, they had succeeded not so much in convincing many people that this was so much important or even true as they did in convincing other elites that people were embracing this. A strange virtual economy emerged, that would eventually require a correction.

Many Hollywood executives believed they could thrive economically by aligning themselves with grass-roots activist movements (which were actually AstroTurf NGOs) that claimed to represent the future of cultural engagement—asserting that they held the keys to audiences and were on “The Right Side of History.” However, this strategy has revealed itself to be a niche market, often limiting audience reach and profitability. The realization is dawning that politically neutral films—those freed from the constraints of having to promote ‘The Message’—can resonate with a broader audience than those catering exclusively to one ideological side.

One critical lesson that Hollywood and entertainment companies are learning is that taking a definitive stand on culture war issues often alienates one side more significantly than it attracts supporters from the other. A pertinent example can be seen in the case of Bud Light, who infamously placed a male Audrey Hepburn impersonator on their cans, which sought to engage a new demographic but ended up losing a considerable number of its long-time customers. The attempt to appeal to one faction resulted in a backlash from another, illustrating a lose-lose situation. This pattern holds implications for the film industry as well. By attempting to appease either side of the political spectrum, studios risk inciting further alienation, thus compounding their challenges.

For studios, the notion of publicly dismissing their activist-oriented content creators presents its own set of complications. Such a move could trigger a backlash from a significant segment of society, particularly among cultural elites and film critics who perceive such actions as a capitulation to opposing views. This could foster a narrative that the studios have shifted their allegiance, pushing away audiences that feel betrayed. The lesson emerging from this dynamic is that oscillating between ideological extremes is less effective than adopting a more neutral stance altogether.

Consequently, the trend appears to be moving toward a more subtle, yet definitive shift away from overtly politicized content. The aim is to release films that prioritize storytelling over ideology, thereby allowing for a wider appeal without the inherent risks associated with political polarization. The increasing success of films that emphasize narrative over ‘The Message’ suggests a growing audience appetite for this type of content.

However, the road to rebuilding trust among formerly alienated audiences may be long and fraught with challenges. Many viewers who felt burned by past productions might be reluctant to engage with new releases from studios that previously prioritized ideological messaging. This indicates that loyalty to long-established franchises may be irrevocably damaged, as previous fans move on without a new generation of enthusiasts to replace them.

The film industry may be gradually recognizing the limitations of a strategy that revolves around catering to polarized political factions. The trend toward more politically neutral storytelling not only holds the potential for broader financial success but also allows for a return to the core of what makes for good cinema: compelling storytelling. As studios strive to regain their footing, the hope is that they will embrace this shift away from ‘The Message’ and focus on delivering engaging narratives that resonate with audiences across the spectrum.

Viability of ‘The Message’ – It’s not about the money

In the age of big data analytics, it is highly unlikely that Hollywood is unaware of where it points. Backing off ‘The Message’ be the process afoot now, but it raises questions about the market research into the viability of ‘The Message’. While it was important to work through a more ‘perfect storm’ narrative of ‘The Message’ and why Hollywood is backing off of it a bit, as we did in the above, it is important to understand that Hollywood places profitability behind, not above, other concerns. One reason is because of Hollywood accounting, it is not really necessary for a film to succeed in order for it to succeed for its investors, as is well known and long established – even parodied in productions like ‘The Producers’.

More importantly Hollywood is a center of Western hegemonic soft power, and should really be considered as a part of the intelligence and/or military industrial complex. In many ways, the profit motive is just a facade. Typically, some ideological adventure is a facade for a profit motive – here it is the opposite. At the center of everything is fiat and control, not paper bills called ‘money’. Control people’s ideas, and the question of money evaporates.

Projects like Gawker Media went belly-up in 2016 because of their obsession with ‘The Message’, and yet it was subsidized for years since 2003 like this. In reality, it served as a type of ‘issues based political advertising’ that quietly aligned with the campaign talking points of various ‘progressive’ politicians, typically of the DNC.

But Hollywood would continue to promote ‘The Message’ for another eight years, despite big data analytics(!), where only now are we seeing some signs that this trend is waning.

It is, however, about Power

Managerial revolutions, such as that described by post-Trotskyist writer and thinker James Burnham, were a phenomenon of the 20^th century – but these were novel developments which were hinged to certain technological advances in the productive forces, but also in particular with communication technologies such as radio. Yet a significant feature of early to mid century managerial revolutions was the expansive phenomenon of a populism which was then transformed into a mobilization of society.

For decades, experts in the field of IPE (international political economy) and Global Politics (GP) – which together can be considered part of a triad with IR, tried to work through this ‘problem’: how to walk a thin line between manufactured, top-down ‘social change’ (or conversely, a top-down approach to preserving ‘the status quo) on the one hand, and not ‘over-stimulating’ (or conversely, not provoking) the citizenry into some Hitleresque populist pogrom on the other.

The strange connotation in texts of these kinds was that something got ‘out of control’ within the German population that exceeded itself – in essence that the disaster of the Nazi experiment was driven from the bottom-up by a mood of unquenchable fanaticism, leading to the holocaust and war. Here, ‘people power’ is problematized, which has been a consistent theme of elite-driven academic literature. In other words, they maintain that staying true to a ‘progressive’ agenda is not something which populism can do.

The lesson we are instructed to receive? While elites need to be responsive and understanding of the demands of a population to an extent, leadership means that the ‘patients cannot ever be allowed to run the sanatorium’. So, how can they deal with economic changes, changes to the balance of power between regions or nation-states of the world, and problematic social changes which arise in a waning global hegemon such as the U.S?

Time to Rebrand: The WEF is Failing at the Institutional Level

What are these changes all about? On February 24^th, 2022, my piece on how the self-declared ‘Great Reset’ was failing was published (Is the Great Reset Failing? When Great Narratives Fall Apart). By pure coincidence, this was the same day that the Russian SMO began in Ukraine. What is not simply coincidence is the relationship between the plandemic/reset and the war in Ukraine and Israel/Palestine.

But for the Davos crowd to admit to ‘set backs’ (defeats) was something that was hard for the powers that be to do. And as a humorous aside, we can include that this realization was more than just hard but actually impossible for a number of anti-reset black-pilled blogger types. Recall it was these who had become little more than zealous peddlers of doom – in other words, unpaid publicists for the very elites these writers are quite rightly opposed to. To wit, their entire identity was based around some trope that the powers that be were getting everything they wanted and their plan was going accordingly.

Schwab, Malleret, and the Davos people as a group, are closer to the story (as close as one can get!) and their recounting is quite different: they faced frustration and set-backs and are displeased with the results so far.

That was an analysis of the 2022 book from Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, in “The Great Narrative,” which highlighted the West’s fixation on “fake news,” information war, and malign actors, revealing both an admission of guilt and a recognition of failure.

The focus on narratives – information warfare as an offshoot of political warfare – is critical. As corporate and governmental cultures merged, we saw leaders like Trudeau and Johnson thrive on unattainable resetist promises, underscoring a dangerous reality: the more grandiose the ambition, the more it emboldened such figures.

This state of affairs foreshadowed the role of an equally emboldened Zelensky in fomenting the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the irresponsible roles that various Western leaders would, in virtual unanimity, take in ‘backing Ukraine until the end’. This carried forward the very same operation ‘lockstep’ which was their approach to Covid, only now the ‘virus’ it seems is Russia itself.

The WEF’s push for narratives serves as a form of soft power, aiming to reshape reality while repressing dissenting voices under the rubric of ‘foreign’ and ‘malign’ actors. This dissenting counter-narrative, however, is gaining traction as the elite’s attempts to control information become evident, revealing their vulnerability.

Finally, we found that the rushed implementation of the “Great Reset” lacked the groundwork necessary for widespread acceptance, hinting at internal fractures within the West’s elite class, and an even greater gulf between the elites and the populations they ‘govern’. As the public increasingly voiced its skepticism, the stability of this reset agenda was called into question. The WEF’s fixation on policing narratives was, paradoxically, a sign of its weakening grip on power.

The solution for the WEF has been to roll out a slow burn of a rebrand. Accordingly, they are transforming “from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private cooperation”. In practical terms, they are shifting some of their messaging and focus away from globalization as a panacea. Increasingly from the WEF we see a more nuanced approach which implicitly acknowledges that the very trends which they used to justify the theory of globalization (as inevitable and good) are now showing a trend back toward the nation state. Part of this is a still-born attempt to recognize a larger picture which is that globalization (in their model) was always one which privileged and took for granted that the traditional centers of capital accumulation inherited from the colonial and imperial era in Western Europe would also be leading, directing, and likely profiting the most, from ‘globalization’.

In other words, while the WEF and academia have attempted to paint globalization as a kind of ‘internationalism’ (in the sense used by the historical/Marxian left), in reality it has been more like a white-washed (or pink-washed, rather) neo-imperialism. For them, globalization was just like a force of nature, the gravity of its inevitability could not be resisted. The ‘nation-state’ was becoming, in their view, a thing of the past – the trans-national and multi-national corporation was the future. The world could rejoice in unity, hold hands, and proceed to nuclear and conventional disarmament – except the U.S., Team America, as this would be the world’s police force. Only dreamers, dangerous reactionaries, populist demagogues, and nationalist-authoritarian movements and its leaders could be crazy enough to believe otherwise.

Well, not so fast, they are now admitting that globalization is not an iron-law process. While the WEF is not completely backing off globalization, it is acknowledging the complexities and challenges associated with it. There’s a growing recognition of the need to appear more reasonable and less imperialistic, and for a more balanced approach that addresses issues like supply chain vulnerabilities, economic inequality, and national security concerns.

Schwab, for his part, is expected to clarify both the role and the leadership structure, along with new appointments at the executive level, as Schwab has been in a process of transitioning his role. The WEF Executive Board includes BlackRock’s Fink and former ECB chair Lagarde – and there is also the possibility that in terms of Executive Board leadership moving forward, someone like Tony Blair (and we would say also, Barack Obama) could be seen as one of several public figures, leaders, or spokesmen for the organization given that Borge Brende is considered ‘low key’ – a polite way to say ‘uninspiring’ and lacking any public charisma, you know, the kind that Schwab so excels at.

In truth the messaging that the WEF is trying to quietly back-away from is in all actuality indistinguishable from the U.S.’ and EU’s ideology from the 90’s onward. This is a very big sign that cannot be ignored. This ideology which involves smuggling in a neo-imperialism within the discursive framework of a ‘business friendly’ leftish internationalism (known as ‘globalization), also used pink washing and other forms of human rights imperialism. Repressing one’s own population – even abstractly in the arena of minority culture and sexuality – was a legitimate casus belli to overthrow that state.

This would seem to mean that the U.S. and EU are also backing away from this, at least from hammering on it so hard. But is this a change in their overall approach, or simply giving the fishing line some slack?

Towards further research

To what extent is the apparent retreat from ideological messaging in Hollywood and global elite institutions like the WEF a genuine shift in strategy, and how might this rebranding be used to maintain their control over cultural and political narratives in a more subtle form?

We find ourselves at a critical juncture where the failures of both Hollywood’s ‘The Message’ and the broader ‘Great Reset’ raise pressing questions about the future of Western hegemony and its strategies. The realization that politically neutral content may have broader appeal than overtly ideological films signifies a deeper shift away from the heavy-handed social engineering that dominated the last decade. Hollywood’s retreat from ‘The Message,’ even as data analytics clearly exposed its flaws, points to a broader cultural reappraisal—yet, crucially, not merely in pursuit of profit. The real driving force behind this shift is power—control over narratives, perceptions, and ultimately, people’s minds.

This is why the West’s ruling elites, embodied by institutions like the WEF, are recalibrating their strategies. Their initial confidence in globalization as an inevitable force has been shattered by internal fractures, public skepticism, and geopolitical upheavals like the war in Ukraine. The elites’ retreat from once-unquestionable narratives, including their push for a globalist agenda, signals not merely a pragmatic adjustment, but a recognition of their waning control. As the WEF shifts its focus from globalization’s triumphalism to a more cautious approach, it reflects the larger unraveling of Western ideological dominance.

Yet, we must ask: Is this truly a retraction, or simply a rebranding—an attempt to maintain control while adjusting tactics? As Hollywood and global elites scale back, they do not relinquish their pursuit of power. Whether through ideological soft power or financial manipulation, the core agenda remains intact, albeit masked in new forms. The question is not whether these institutions will abandon their quest for dominance but how they will adapt to maintain it in a world increasingly skeptical of their motives and methods.

– Assassinos em série psicopatas, utilizando os seus vastos recursos financeiros, políticos e mediáticos, estão inexoravelmente a pôr em prática uma agenda homicida de despovoamento global.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter  e VK .

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Yuval Harari, o porta-voz de Klaus Schwab, fez recentemente uma declaração que deveria causar arrepios na espinha de toda a gente. “Se o pior acontecer e o dilúvio chegar”, disse Harari, ele e a cabala de mestres mundiais obscuros com ideias semelhantes “construirão uma Arca e deixarão o resto afogar-se“.

Noutra parte, Harari explica as razões da indiferença fria dos seus colegas elitistas em relação ao destino da grande maioria dos habitantes da Terra:

“Se voltarmos a meados do século XX… e pensarmos em construir o futuro, então os nossos materiais de construção são aqueles milhões de pessoas que estão a trabalhar arduamente nas fábricas, nas explorações agrícolas, os soldados. Precisamos deles. Não há futuro sem eles”.

O que ele quer dizer é que vocês – referindo-se às elites sociais e financeiras dominantes dessa época – ainda “precisavam” do trabalho de milhões de pessoas nos vários campos da atividade económica para obterem lucro. Desde então, como é que as coisas mudaram, segundo o “futurologista” Harari?

“Agora, avançamos para o início do século XXI, quando já não precisamos da grande maioria da população, porque o futuro é o desenvolvimento de tecnologia cada vez mais sofisticada, como a inteligência artificial [e] a bioengenharia, a maioria das pessoas não contribui para isso, exceto talvez pelos seus dados, e as pessoas que ainda estão a fazer algo de útil, estas tecnologias vão torná-las cada vez mais redundantes e permitirão que sejam substituída”.

O porta-voz elitista Harari merece crédito pela sua honestidade de gelar o sangue, se não pela moralidade das suas “visões” e das dos seus mestres. Ele mostra claramente a sua opinião de que este escritor, os editores deste portal, os seus leitores e o resto da humanidade são dispensáveis e, para além de qualquer utilidade económica que ainda possam possuir, são desprovidos de qualquer dignidade ou valor inerente.

Harari e o seu superior direto na nomenklatura elitista, Klaus Schwab, são tecnicamente indivíduos privados. O seu veículo organizativo, o Fórum Económico Mundial, é uma ONG privada registada na Suíça. Formalmente, não representam nem falam em nome de qualquer governo ou estrutura oficial com a devida legitimidade. Não têm qualquer licença para planear ou organizar o futuro da humanidade, para além da auto-autorização para o fazer que eles próprios e os centros de poder oligárquicos globalistas com quem comungam e se misturam se arrogaram. Ninguém os elegeu nem lhes deu poderes para planear o futuro de ninguém, a não ser o seu próprio futuro, e mesmo assim estritamente a título privado.

No entanto, dispor do futuro da humanidade é precisamente o que eles presumem fazer, em Davos, em sessão plenária, uma vez por ano, e o resto do tempo em confabulações conspiratórias entre si.

A natureza do “planeamento” em que se envolvem deveria interessar profundamente e preocupar seriamente toda a gente. Não só pela arrogância desenfreada que revela, mas sobretudo pelo desígnio homicida que lhe está subjacente, a uma escala vasta e até agora inimaginável, que Raphael Lemkin era incapaz de conceber quando cunhou o termo “genocídio”.

Quando e se o “tsunami” destinado a afogar a humanidade ocorrer, e podemos estar confiantes de que Harari e os seus correligionários têm a capacidade de o fazer acontecer no momento e da forma que escolherem, como o evento de saúde recentemente fabricado demonstrou, eles não ficarão de luto pelas vítimas. Pelo contrário, ficarão encantados com o êxito da sua obra. Enquanto a maior parte da humanidade se “afoga”, eles regozijar-se-ão.

É indiscutível que Harari não fala apenas em seu próprio nome ou em nome de Schwab. Ele está a articular publicamente a visão ideológica de uma Terra despovoada, limpa da presença humana e tingida de misantropia ocultista. Essa visão é amplamente partilhada pelos luminares do seu grupo elitista. Um membro de alto nível desse conjunto, Bill Gates, tem insistido na necessidade de se livrar das multidões inúteis por todos os meios, justos ou sujos. Uma das elocuções alarmantemente explícitas de Gates sobre este assunto foi removida pelo YouTube, alegadamente por “violar as directrizes da comunidade”. A verdadeira razão para a eliminação das suas observações da Internet foi o perigo de que pudessem lançar o alarme entre as “vítimas da inundação” visadas, provocando-lhes uma reação de raiva incontrolável quando descobrissem o que os “visionários” elitistas lhes tinham reservado.

Estes psicopatas assassinos em série (não devemos medir palavras), usando os seus vastos recursos financeiros, políticos e mediáticos (lavagem cerebral), estão inexoravelmente a pôr em prática uma agenda homicida de despovoamento global. O despovoamento, como Harari admitiu honestamente, significa eliminar fisicamente tantos seres humanos quantos eles considerem supérfluos ou inúteis para os seus objectivos. O conceito de controlo da população, mais uma vez para não usar palavras falsas, é o seu código para o genocídio global.

O Clube de Roma, um dos componentes institucionais da rede de despovoamento, num documento programático publicado em 1974, não poderia ter colocado o princípio principal da sua filosofia genocida de forma mais clara:  “A Terra tem cancro e o cancro é o Homem”. Será necessário esclarecer que os cancros não são alimentados e cultivados? Os cancros devem ser extirpados.

F. William Engdahl lançou recentemente uma luz intensa sobre as raízes profundas deste plano nefasto, discutido e implementado abertamente pelos seus promotores malévolos, à vista das vítimas pretendidas. Engdahl mostrou que pervertidos como Schwab e Harari são apenas rostos públicos de um esquema transgeracional malévolo.

Engdahl cita um relatório publicado pelo Clube de Roma, “A Primeira Revolução Global”. Aí se admite que as alegações de aquecimento global por CO2, que servem de justificação conveniente para impor à força à humanidade uma série interminável de mudanças estruturais destrutivas, não passam de um ardil inventado.

Isto porque “…o inimigo comum da humanidade é o homem. Na procura de um novo inimigo que nos unisse, surgiu-nos a ideia de que a poluição, a ameaça do aquecimento global, a escassez de água, a fome e outras coisas do género serviriam para isso. Todos estes perigos são causados pela intervenção humana e só através da mudança de atitudes e comportamentos é que podem ser ultrapassados. O verdadeiro inimigo é, portanto, a própria humanidade”.

“A agenda”, conclui Engdahl sombriamente, “é sombria, distópica e destina-se a eliminar milhares de milhões de nós, ‘humanos comuns'”.

Há que fazer um esclarecimento importante. A humanidade não é o inimigo, mas é, pelo contrário, a coroa da criação de Deus. E é a própria humanidade que está agora a enfrentar um inimigo implacável, neste caso uma encarnação colectiva da caraterística definidora que Edward Gibbon atribuiu aos imperadores depravados Commodus e Caracalla:   “inimigo comum da espécie humana”.

Desta vez, porém, a humanidade já não está a enfrentar as excentricidades perversas de um indivíduo desviante. Hoje, tem de enfrentar a personificação colectiva de Commodus e Caracalla, sob a forma de uma oligarquia global depravada, imbuída de perigosos delírios de omnipotência e impunidade.

Por que razão optámos por nos debruçar sobre este tema sombrio? Em primeiro lugar, porque as pretendidas vítimas de genocídio em todo o mundo têm o direito de ser informadas e, naturalmente, têm também o direito à auto-defesa, a fim de preservar a sua própria vida e a das suas famílias, bem como de assegurar a integridade das suas sociedades, culturas, memória histórica e modo de vida.

Mas há também uma outra razão importante, para expor o cinismo e a total amoralidade dos fanáticos genocidas que continuam a dirigir o destino de uma parte considerável da humanidade e a exercer continuamente as suas energias para recuperar o controlo total sobre os restantes.

Agindo por intermédio dos seus mandatários, a Alemanha e o Ruanda, a que se juntaram recentemente a França e alguns outros governos fantoches, tiveram a ousadia de apresentar na Assembleia Geral das Nações Unidas uma resolução para condenar e recordar o falsificado “genocídio” de Srebrenica, censurando por genocídio uma nação que, ao longo do século XX, foi ela própria alvo de uma efectiva extinção.

É esse mesmo crime que eles próprios conspiram descaradamente para cometer, não num qualquer remoto município dos Balcãs, mas contra toda a humanidade.

Publicado originalmente por strategic-culture.su
Traducción: resistir.info

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Yuval Hariri, Klaus Schwab’s spokesman, recently made a statement that should send chills up everyone’s spine. “If bad comes to worse and the Flood comes,” Harari said, he and the likeminded cabal of shadowy world masters will “build an Ark and leave the rest to drown.”

Elsewhere, Harari elaborates on the reasons for his fellow elitists’ cold-hearted indifference to the fate of the vast majority of Earth’s inhabitants:

“If you go back to the middle of the 20th century …and you think about building the future, then your building materials are those millions of people who are working hard in the factories, in the farms, the soldiers. You need them. You don’t have any kind of future without them.”

What he means is that you – referring to the dominant social and financial elites of that era – still “needed” the labour of millions in the various fields of economic endeavour in order to turn a profit. Since then, how have things changed according to “futurologist” Harari?

“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population, because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering, most people don’t contribute anything to that, except perhaps for their data, and whatever people are still doing something useful, these technologies increasingly will make them redundant and will make it possible to replace those people.”

Elitist mouthpiece Harari deserves credit for blood-curdling honesty, if not for the morality of his and his masters’ “visions.” He is plainly signalling the view that this writer, the editors of this portal, its readers and the rest of mankind are expendable and apart from whatever economic utility they still might possess are bereft of any inherent dignity or value.

Harari and his immediate superior in the elitist nomenklatura, Klaus Schwab, technically are private individuals. Their organisational vehicle, the World Economic Forum, is a private NGO registered in Switzerland. Formally, they neither represent nor do they speak for any government or official structure with a proper claim to legitimacy. They have no licence to plan or arrange the future of humanity, beside the self-authorisation to do so which they and the oligarchical globalist power centres they commune and mingle with have arrogated to themselves. No one elected or empowered them to plan anybody’s future, other than their own, and even that strictly in their private capacity.

Yet disposing of the future of mankind is precisely what they presume to do, in Davos in plenary session once a year and the rest of the time in conspiratorial confabulation amongst themselves.

The nature of the “planning” in which they engage should be of deep interest and grave concern to everyone. Not just for the unbridled hubris it displays but more pointedly for the homicidal design that underlies it, on a vast and hitherto unimaginable scale which Raphael Lemkin was incapable of conceiving when he coined the term “genocide.”

When and if the predicted “tsunami” to drown mankind occurs, and we may be confident that Harari and his cohorts have the capacity to make it happen at a time and in the manner of their choosing, as the recently fabricated health event has shown, they will not be mourning the victims. On the contrary, they will be delighted at the success of their handiwork. As the bulk of mankind “drowns,” they will gloat.

It is indisputable that Harari speaks not just in his own or Schwab’s name. He is publicly articulating the ideological vision of a depopulated Earth, cleansed of human presence and tinged with occultist misanthropy. That vision is widely shared by the luminaries of his elitist set. A high profile member of that set, Bill Gates, has been insistently stressing the need to dispose of the useless multitudes by any means, fair or foul. One of Gates’ alarmingly explicit elocutions on this subject was removed by YouTube, allegedly for “violating community guidelines.” The real reason for expunging his remarks from the internet was the danger that they could raise an alarm amongst the targeted “flood victims,” provoking them to react with uncontrollable rage once they discovered what the elitist “visionaries” have in store for them.

These psychopathic serial killers (we should not mince words) using their vast financial, political and media (brainwashing) resources are inexorably putting into effect a homicidal global depopulation agenda. Depopulation, as Harari has honestly admitted, means physically eliminating as many human beings as they deem superfluous or useless for their purposes. The concept of population control, again not to mince words, is their code for global genocide.

The Club of Rome, one of the institutional components of the depopulation network, in a programmatic document published in 1974 could not have put the main principle of their genocidal philosophy more starkly: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.” Is it necessary to clarify that cancers are not nurtured and cultivated? Cancers are to be extirpated.

F. William Engdahl recently shined extraordinary light on the deep roots of the nefarious plan, discussed and implemented openly by its malevolent promoters in plain view of the intended victims. Engdahl has shown that perverts like Schwab and Harari are but public faces of a malevolent trans-generational scheme.

Engdahl quotes from a report issued by the Club of Rome, “The First Global Revolution.” It is admitted there that the CO2 global warming claims, serving as the convenient rationale to forcefully impose upon humanity an endless array of destructive structural changes, are merely an invented ruse.

That is because “…the common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

“The agenda,” Engdahl sombrely concludes, “is dark, dystopian and meant to eliminate billions of us ‘ordinary humans.’”

An important clarification needs to be made. Humanity is not the enemy, but is on the contrary the crown of God’s creation. And it is humanity itself that now is facing an implacable enemy, in this case a collective incarnation of the defining characteristic Edward Gibbon attributed to the depraved emperors Commodus and Caracalla: “common enemy of mankind.”

This time round, however, humanity is no longer facing the perverse eccentricities of an individual deviant. Today, it must confront Commodus’ and Caracalla’s collective personification, in the form of a depraved global oligarchy, imbued with dangerous delusions of omnipotence and impunity.

Why have we chosen to dwell on this dark subject? In the first place, because the intended genocide victims world-wide are entitled to be informed and naturally they also have the right to self-defence, in order to preserve their own and their families’ lives, as well as to ensure the integrity of their societies, cultures, historical memory, and way of life.

But there is also another important reason, to expose the cynicism and utter amorality of the genocidal fanatics who still are directing the destiny of a considerable portion of mankind and exert their energies continuously to regain complete control over the remainder.

Acting through their proxies Germany and Rwanda, recently joined by France and a few other puppet governments, they had the impudence to submit in the General Assembly of the United Nations a resolution to condemn and memorialise the fabricated “genocide” in Srebrenica, censuring for genocide a nation that throughout the twentieth century has itself been the target for effective extinction.

That is the very crime that they themselves are brazenly plotting to commit, not in some remote Balkan municipality but upon humanity as a whole.

❗️Join us on Telegram, Twitter , and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The World Economic Forum gives us the exceptional privilege of a study that only living fossils can give. Representative of an era that we can assume is in the process of being overcome, if not materially, at least in terms of the trend observed, in Davos we find everything that is paramount of neoliberal and Western supremacist ideology, its potential, its limitations and the very causes of its destruction. Like a living fossil, in every word, every expression, theme or conclusion, we find the fundamental reasons why the species did not and could not win.

Davos tells us, above all, about a problem of adapting to the real world. At every moment, the World Economic Forum revealed the full extent of resentment, bitterness and disillusionment towards a world that has revealed, and insists on revealing, ever more stubbornly, that it does not accept the premises that would make neoliberalism a lasting and universal hegemonic system.

In this sense, the Davos Forum is a moral lesson. A moral lesson from the West to the global majority, in a kind of recriminatory cry, for the latter in not accepting the solutions that it had so “wisely and rationally” to convey; but also, a moral lesson from the global majority to the West, which took advantage of every opportunity, in every scarce moment of attention given, to convey the reasons why the proposed contract would never be acceptable.

The themes chosen reveal, above all, the great concerns and disappointments of the West, as well as what it considers to be the building blocks of an attempt to return to a lost paradigm. A paradigm that, today, the West feels is slipping through its fingers.

The first theme is emblematic and says a lot about the level of disillusionment: “Achieving Security and Cooperation in a Fractured World”. If, on the one hand, it reveals that the West feels insecure, by choosing “security” as one of the starting points of its analysis, on the other hand, it also reveals the difficulties the West is facing in imposing its model of “cooperation”, which is increasingly reluctantly accepted by the countries of the global majority. The result and the cause were well reflected in the topic itself, when he classified the current geopolitical state as a “fragmented world”.

In this “fragmented world” we find the alpha and omega of the hegemonic discourse. The increasingly explicit refusal of the global majority to accept the dictates of the “indispensable nation”, “the leading nation”, results, in their eyes, in fragmentation, a power vacuum. The sign is clear: the U.S. is still struggling to find its place in the world, and this difficulty constitutes an immense danger. A nervous U.S., with an identity crisis and in a state of denial, is a danger to itself, but it is also a danger to others, especially considering all the destructive potential at its disposal. By choosing “security”, we can almost say that, deep down, and without ever admitting it, the U.S. knows where the problem really comes from.

The conditions of “security” defined by the U.S. are also omnipresent at Davos, as an “absent spectator”. A safe world is a world without Russia, the country removed, authoritatively and discretionarily, from the event. It says a lot about a so-called “world” event that removes the largest nuclear power and one of the two largest military powers on the planet. It’s also the largest country in the world in terms of territory, with the greatest diversity/number of natural resources, a strategic partner for important countries that represent more than half of the world’s population, such as China, India and Iran; a technological leader in the space, aerospace, nuclear, naval and military fields; and one of the largest producers of food and cereals in the world. Talking about “security”, “cooperation”, “energy”, “nature” and “climate” without involving Russia can only be a bad joke. But for the U.S., and therefore for Davos, a “secure” world is a world without contradictions of any kind, which is why we don’t see any of the usual renegades like Cuba, Nicaragua or the People’s Republic of Korea. It’s U.S. foreign policy that tells us all who is or isn’t part of the “world forum”.

But this concept of “security” is deepened by a spectacular event, never seen in the history of diplomacy: talking about peace between two countries, involving only one of them. It wouldn’t remind even to the greatest dictators in history, even if it were for show. With the U.S., the luminaries of “liberal democracy”, not even for show. Indeed, in order to send a clear signal to the world that, for the World Economic Forum — sorry, for the U.S. — “security” means “accepting the unilateral conditions imposed without blinking”, the event opens with a press conference reporting on a meeting between the National Security Advisors (the 4th) to achieve a “just and lasting peace in Ukraine”.

A “just peace” that isn’t negotiated, but imposed; a peace with “justice” that doesn’t involve negotiations with one of the countries involved in the conflict; a “lasting” peace that has been built in absentia by the main, and strongest, of those involved. Welcome to what we can call a “I want, I can and I command” policy, which is responsible for the defeat of the West, as Emmanuel Todd wrote so well in his latest book “La Défaite de l’óccident”.

Of course, anyone remotely serious would have to question the credibility of all this. How are you supposed to enforce a peace plan that is not negotiated, but imposed, moreover, by those who have no capacity to do so? And here we immediately come to the WEF’s fundamental objective: to continue selling the illusion of an impossible world, dominated to the fullest extent by the West, and especially by the USA.

Reminiscent of an era of “cooperation” in which nations either accepted or were immediately sanctioned, excluded from diplomatic, political, financial, military and even cultural trade, the whole discourse on “security”, “cooperation” is framed in another concept: “rebuilding trust”.

For the U.S. and the collective West, it’s all very clear: cooperation is in danger because “there is no trust between the parties”. But as with everything involving hegemonic doctrine and commissioned narratives, the analysis never goes so far as its needed. After all, if it did, the WEF would quickly lose its propagandistic and indoctrinating effect. Perhaps it couldn’t even exist.

So, it’s not surprising that one of the theoretical pillars of this year’s Davos Forum is the “Global Cooperation Barometer 2024” in collaboration with the always prompt, competent and well-managed Mackinsey. According to this “Barometer” — and especially considering the words of Jane Harman (Freedom House, “pro-free trade”, “pro-free market” and “progressive” (it remains to be seen on what) and former congresswoman) — global cooperation is in dire straits. Of course, looking at the data, we can see that in 2012 the cooperation index would be at 0.87, in 2020 (the period defined as a reference) it would be at 0.97 and in 2022 it would be at 0.96. In other words, in 2012, when the U.S. was still wallowing in its hegemonic power with impunity, the cooperation index was lower. So why is it bad now?

The truth is that, looking at the various forms of cooperation defined (trade and capital; climate and nature; innovation and technology; health and well-being; peace and security), there are only two that are below 2020 levels: health and well-being (little) and peace and security (much lower). And from here, we immediately understand the great concern and what lies behind this year’s WEF agenda, and the reason for the “problem” of Cooperation.

Once again, the U.S. is giving us a lesson in its proverbial shamelessness: what could have happened to cause security cooperation to drop so much, especially since 2015? What motivated such a lack of trust? Which country suddenly tore up all the nuclear non-proliferation treaties it had with Russia? Which country formed QUAD, Aukus, expanded NATO into Eastern Europe, undermining trust with two of the world’s main centers of military cooperation: China and Russia? What country whose leaders constantly spoke of “the strategic defeat of Russia”; “the containment of China” and “the annihilation of Iran”? What does this have to do with the deterioration in confidence levels?

What about health and well-being? Who used Covid-19 as a weapon against China? Who is proliferating and has proliferated secret biological research laboratories, especially around Russia and China? As I said, the reports and analyses of the World Economic Forum have a fantastic virtue: we all see who is to blame, but they insist on never pointing it out.

In the only real example of cooperation between equals, with respect for each other’s diversity and the ability to look at what unites, rather than what separates, without impositions, authoritarianism, tantrums and discretion; in a concrete example of the emancipation of developing countries and revealing their ability to cooperate, unite and take their own future into their own hands; the WEF saw fit to only give it a very secondary panel, in which the journalist was more concerned with digging up differences and divergences, rather than points of real cooperation. I’m talking about the BRICS. Here we draw two immediate conclusions: the model of cooperation between equals that the BRICS represent is not valued, but ostracized, by the U.S.; the U.S. and its vassals are still trying to “sell” a neo-colonial model of cooperation. For the U.S., cooperation is a game in which only one person wins, which is why the concept of “coopetition” that has been introduced is perfect: it reveals the whole intention behind such “cooperation”, which is to “compete” and annihilate the opponent, making them believe that they are “cooperating”. I think it’s too much for China to have bought the thing, but knowing that the Chinese play for the long term… we’ll wait and see.

So, why did BRICS get a panel? Whether it was because the U.S. wanted to demonstrate that they are not afraid of “smaller” cooperation projects, or because they succumbed to some pressure from China and India to prove it, the fact is that they had to accept it. However, it clearly demonstrates the space they assign to it on the global political relations stage. Let’s see how much longer they can sideline this bloc of converging interests.

However, on the other side, reality insists on imposing itself and demonstrating that nothing has changed, no matter how many narratives are created. A concrete example? The negotiation of the EU-Mercosur agreement. After agreeing on a provisional version of the agreement, the EU sent Brazil a final proposal, containing an annex that provides for sanctions to be applied to Amazonian countries in the event of non-compliance with Amazonian Forest protection targets. All done unilaterally, without listening to the stakeholders. This is what “rebuilding trust” means for the West.

While the Cooperation Barometer tells us a lot about what the World Economic Forum wants, the “Global Risks Report 2024” is no less explicit. There we find the raison d’être for much of the pseudo-scientific discourse that swarms around the Davos Forum. This year’s report points to “disinformation and misinformation” as the main risk. The recent Western defeat of the Zionist narrative must have set off all the sirens. Add to that the fact that the global majority hasn’t bought into the Ukrainian narrative… There’s no doubt that, these days, the environment isn’t very conducive to fallacious U.S. narratives. On how to combat this “disinformation”, we are also presented: at the forum there was talk of “education”, in practice, social networks are censored; google searches are omitted, the media is controlled, Russia’s media is censored and journalists like Julien Assange are persecuted.

The World Economic Forum is proving to be embarrassingly useful for critics of the U.S.: the solutions it suggests for the future can be observed in real time, completely in reverse, by the U.S. and its vassals. It’s almost as if they’re trying to tell us indirectly: “Do you see this measure? The U.S. and its vassals are doing it the other way around”!

But the rest of the themes are themselves indicative of Western concerns: the labor shortage in “creating growth and jobs for the new era”, at the same time as the European Union and the U.S. are preventing the dignification of the working conditions of IT platform workers and the scandal is uncovered, through which Uber bought the favor of European governments and in which digital technologies are used to suppress jobs and degrade wages; the dominance of artificial intelligence in “artificial intelligence as a driving force in the economy and society”, while at the same time waging the semiconductor war against China to prevent it and its allies from reaching the technological frontier, especially in the military field; the domination of energy in “a long-term climate strategy, nature and energy”, while at the same time waging war for oil in the Middle East, attempting the internationalization (or is it “westernization”) of the Amazonia Forest and imposing climate conditions that prevent impoverished countries from developing and asserting their sovereignty. A veritable menu of malicious intentions.

For someone who wants to teach the world a lesson about the future, the Davos globalist elite commits too many sins, which can only be explained by their proverbial superiority complex. First of all, arrogance, in assuming that the Western elite has something to teach anyone. The supremacism, which is very present when we see Klaus Shwab praising the mad Milei for bringing “Argentina back to Western values”, demonstrates what Davos is, a propaganda hub for the idea of Western civilization, even at the cost of a destroyed country and a people in the most abject misery. Here, Klaus Shwab tells us: it doesn’t matter if they’re all in misery, as long as they move towards “Western values”.

Cynicism is another characteristic of the globalist, neoliberal or neoconservative elites. Davos is a festival of indoctrination of the rest of the world, at the cost of erasing, silencing and conditioning the critical debate of problems, only giving voice to the Western narrative. Finally, the elitism of those who think they are superior to others is also very present in the make-up of the panels, which are overwhelmingly Western, mostly American, with the occasional mention of someone from the global South, just to give an idea of diversity.

Open debate, criticism, confrontation of ideas, argumentation and counter-argumentation, real cooperation, in the true sense of the word, bringing together what unites and pushing apart what separates, making decisions together rather than against someone, respect for ethnic, cultural and ideological diversity, as a truly democratic vision presupposes, respect for the beliefs, traditions and characteristics of each people, as a universalist vision should… We saw none of this in Davos.

In Davos we witness an empire struggling with itself (with “disinformation”) and with others (“security”), unable to find a place in a world that refuses to see it as superior… Hence the attempt to clothe the monster in attractive costumes, but which is nevertheless revealed by its latent brutality…

As with everything… Davos sells what nobody wants to buy…. Hence all the marketing!

Shadows are falling / And I’ve been here all day / It’s too hot to sleep / And time is running away / Feel like my soul / has turned into steel /I’ve still got the scars / That the sun didn’t heal / There’s not even room enough / To be anywhere / Lord it’s not dark yet, / but it’s getting there

Bob Dylan, Not Dark Yet

Lights! Action! Reset!

The World Economic Forum (WEF)’s Davos Freak Show

is back in business on Monday.

The mainstream media of the collective West, in unison, will be spinning non-stop, for a week, all the “news” that are fit to print to extol new declinations of The Great Reset, re-baptized The Great Narrative, but actually framed as a benign offer by “stakeholder capitalism”. These are the main planks of the shady platform of a shady NGO registered in Cologny, a tony Geneva suburb.

The list of Davos attendees was duly leaked. Proverbially, it’s an Anglo-American Exceptionalist fun fest, complete with intel honchos such as the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, Avril “Madam Torture” Haines; the head of MI6 Richard Moore; and FBI director Christopher Wray.

Remixed Diderot and D’Alembert Encyclopedias could be written about the Davos pathology – where a hefty list of multibillionaires, heads of state and corporate darlings (owned by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and co.) “engage” in selling Demented Dystopia packages to the unsuspecting masses.

But let’s cut to the chase and focus on a few panels this week – which could easily be mistaken for Straight to Hell sessions.

The Tuesday, January 17 list is particularly engaging. It features a “De-Globalization or Re-Globalization?” panel with speakers Ian Bremmer, Adam Tooze, Niall Ferguson, Péter Szijjártó and Ngaire Woods. Three Atlanticists/Exceptionalists stand out, especially the ultra-toxic Ferguson.

After “In Defense of Europe”, featuring a bunch of nullities including Poland’s Andrjez Duda, attendees will be greeted with a Special Season in Hell (sorry, Rimbaud) featuring none other than EC dominatrix Ursula von der Leyen, known by a vast majority of Germans as Ursula von der Leichen (“Ursula of Cadavers”) in a tag team with WEF mastermind, Third Reich emulator Klaus “Nosferatu” Schwab.

Rumors are that Lucifer, in his privileged underground abode, is green with envy.

There’s also “Ukraine: What Next?” with another bunch of nullities, and “War in Europe: Year 2” featuring Moldova woke chick Maia Sandu and Finnish party girl Sanna Marin.

In the War Criminal section, pride of place goes to

“A Conversation with Henry Kissinger: Historical Perspectives on War”, where Dr. K. will sell all his trademark Divide and Rule permutations. Added sulphur will be provided by Thucydides strangler Graham Allison.

In his Special Address, “Liver Sausage” Chancellor Olaf Scholz will be side by side with Nosferatu, hoping he won’t be – literally – grilled.

Then, on Wednesday, January 18, comes the apotheosis: “Restoring Security and Peace” with speakers Fareed Zakaria – the U.S. establishment’s pet brown man; NATO’s Jens “War is Peace” Stoltenberg; Andrzej Duda – again; and Canadian warmonger Chrystia Freeland – widely rumored to become the next NATO Secretary-General.

And it gets juicier: the coke comedian posing as warlord may join via zoom from Kiev.

The notion that this panel is entitled to emit judgments about “peace” deserves nothing less than its own Nobel Peace Prize.

How to monetize the whole world

Cynics of all persuasions may be excused for lamenting Mr. Zircon – currently on oceanic patrol encompassing the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and of course “Mare Nostrum” Mediterranean – won’t be presenting his business card at Davos.

Analyst Peter Koenig has developed a convincing thesis that the WEF, the WHO and NATO may be running some sort of sophisticated death cult. The Great Reset does mingle merrily with NATO’s agenda as agent provocateur, financer and weaponizer of the proxy Empire vs. Russia war in black hole Ukraine. NAKO – an acronym for North Atlantic Killing Organization – would be more appropriate in this case.

As Koenig summarizes it, “NATO enters any territory where the ‘conventional’ media lie-machine, and social engineering are failing or not completing their people-ordaining goals fast enough.”

In parallel, very few people are aware that on June 13, 2019 in New York, a secret deal was clinched between the UN, the WEF, an array of oligarch-weaponized NGOs – with the WHO in the front line – and last but not least, the world’s top corporations, which are all owned by an interlinked maze with Vanguard and BlackRock at the center.

The practical result of the deal is the UN Agenda 2030.

Virtually every government in the NATOstan area and the “Western Hemisphere” (U.S. establishment definition) has been hijacked by Agenda 2030 – which translates, essentially, as

hoarding, privatizing and financializing all the earth’s assets, under the pretext of “protecting” them.

Translation: the marketization and monetization of the entire natural world (see, for instance, here, here and here.)

Davos superstar shills such as insufferable bore Niall Ferguson are just well rewarded vassals: western intellectuals of the Harvard, Yale and Princeton mould that would never dare bite the hand that feeds them.

Ferguson just wrote a column on Bloomberg titled “All is Not Quiet on the Eastern Front” – basically to peddle the risk of WWIII, on behalf of his masters, blaming of course “China as the arsenal of autocracy”.

Among serial high-handed inanities, this one stands out. Ferguson writes, “There are two obvious problems with U.S. strategy (…) The first is that if algorithmic weapons systems are the equivalent of tactical nuclear weapons, Putin may eventually be driven to using the latter, as he clearly lacks the former.”

Cluelessness here is a euphemism. Ferguson clearly has no idea “algorithmic weapons” mean; if he’s referring to electronic warfare, the U.S. may have been able to maintain superiority for a while in Ukraine, but that’s over.

Well, that’s typical Ferguson – who wrote a whole Rothschild hagiography just like his column, drinking from the Rothschild archives that appeared to have been sanitized as he knows next to nothing meaningful about their history.

Ferguson has “deduced” that Russia is weak and China is strong. Nonsense. Both are strong – and Russia is more advanced technologically than China in their advanced offensive and defensive missile development, and can beat the U.S. in a nuclear war as Russian air space is sealed by layered defenses such as the S-400 all the way to the already tested S-500s and designed S-600s.

As far as semiconductor chips, the advantage that Taiwan has in chip manufacture is in mass production of the most advanced chips; but China and Russia can fabricate the chips necessary for military use, though not engage in mass commercial production. The U.S. has an important advantage here commercially with Taiwan, but that’s not a military advantage.

Ferguson gives away his game when he carps about the need to “deter a nascent Axis-like combination of Russia, Iran and China from risking simultaneous conflict in three theaters: Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Far East.”

Here we have trademark Atlanticist demonization of the top three vectors of Eurasia integration mixed with a toxic cocktail of ignorance and arrogance: it’s NATO that is stoking “conflict” in Eastern Europe; and it’s the Empire that is being expelled from the “Far East” (oh, that’s so colonial) and soon from the Middle East (actually West Asia).

An AMGOT tale

Nobody with an IQ over room temperature will expect Davos this week to discuss any aspect of the NATO vs. Eurasia existential war seriously – not to mention propose diplomacy. So I’ll leave you with yet another typical tawdry story about how the Empire – who rules over Davos – deals in practice with its vassals.

While in Sicily earlier this year I learned that an ultra high-value Pentagon asset had landed in Rome, in haste, as part of an unscheduled visit. A few days later the reason for the visit was printed in La Repubblica, one of the papers of the toxic Agnelli clan.

That was a Mafia scam: a face-to-face “suggestion” for the Meloni government to imperatively provide Kiev, as soon as possible, with the costly anti-Samp-T missile system, developed by an European consortium, Eurosam, uniting MBDA Italy, MBDA France and Thales.

Italy possesses only 5 batteries of this system, not exactly brilliant against ballistic missiles but efficient against cruise missiles.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan had already called Palazzo Chigi to announce the “offer you can’t refuse”. Apparently that was not enough, thus the hasty envoy trip. Rome will have to toe the line. Or else. After all, never forget the terminology employed by U.S. generals to designate Sicily, and Italy as a whole: AMGOT.

American government occupied territory.

Have fun with the Davos freak show.

Klaus Schwab, passionate for Ukraine, essentially configured the World Economic Forum (WEF) to showcase Zelensky and to leverage the argument that Russia should be kicked out of the civilised world. Schwab’s target was the assembled crème de la crème of the world’s business leaders assembled there. Zelensky pitched big: “We want more sanctions and more weapons”; “All trade with the aggressor should be stopped”; “All foreign business should leave Russia so that your brands are not associated with war crimes”, he said. Sanctions must be all encompassing; values must matter.

Disquiet ran through the Davos set: The WEF is high-octane globalist, right? Yet this Schwab line suggests a de-coupling ‘on stilts’. It precisely reverses interconnectedness. Plus, the western generals in charge are saying that this conflict may last not just years, but decades. What will this signify for their markets in parts of the world that refuse action against Russia, the moneymen were wondering?

It is unlikely that this whiff of disorientation is what Schwab had intended. Perhaps the latter was more aligned with Soros’ later intervention that a quick victory over Russia was needed to save the ‘Open Society’ and civilisation itself – and that this was intended as the WEF 2022 message.

The Davos ‘greater disquiet’ emerged however, from an unexpected quarter. Just before the WEF began, the NY Times had run a piece from the editorial team urging Zelensky to negotiate with Russia. It argued that such engagement implied making painful territorial sacrifices. The piece attracted indignant and angry push-back in Europe and the West, possibly because – albeit couched as advice to Kiev – its target was evidently Washington and London (the arch belligerents).

Eric Cantor, a former whip in the U.S. House of Representatives (a legislator well versed on Iran sanctions), also at Davos, questioned whether the West would be able to maintain a united front in pursuit of such maximalist aims as Zelensky and his Military Intelligence Chief have demanded. “We may not get the next vote”, Cantor opined (in wake of the $40 bn vote ostensibly earmarked for Ukraine).

Cantor said excluding Russia entirely would require secondary sanctions against other countries. This would place the West into a head on clash with China, India, and the almost 60 states which had refused to back a UN resolution denouncing Russia’s invasion. He warned that the U.S. may be in danger of overplaying its hand.

Then spoke the redoubtable Henry Kissinger, also at Davos. He warned the West to stop trying to inflict a crushing defeat on Russian forces in Ukraine, saying that such would have disastrous consequences for the long-term stability of Europe. He said it would be fatal for the West to get swept along in the mood of the moment and forget the proper place of Russia in the European balance of power.

Dr Kissinger said the war must not be allowed to drag on and came close to calling on the West to instruct Ukraine to accept terms that fall very far short of its current war aims: “Negotiations need to begin in the next two months, before it creates upheavals and tensions that will not be easily overcome”.

What is going on here? In a nutshell, we are seeing the first inklings of fractures appearing in the U.S. stance on Ukraine. The fissures in Europe are already very plain, both on sanctions and mission aims. But Cantor’s comment that “we may not get the next vote” needs further unpacking.

In an earlier piece, I argued that Senator JD Vance’s win in the Ohio primaries for a Senate seat could be telling. His candidature was backed by Trump, who later issued an ‘End the war’ call. Now the key tell-tale is Republican Senator Josh Hawley – ambitious and known to have leadership aspirations.

Early in the Ukraine war, Senator Hawley was calling Zelensky, lauding him highly and egging him on. But then he pivoted. Hawley subsequently blasted the $40 billion in proposed aid to Ukraine, after voting ‘no’ on the procedural vote to move forward with the aid package “as not being in America’s interests”.

At first, as some may recall, there were 6 House votes against the bill – then 60. And in the Senate, first there were zero then there were 11 votes. The Bill was rushed through as vote managers were concerned that the vote could crumble further.

What is going on? Well, the Republican ‘populist’ current, never enamoured at foreign aid, was shocked at the $ 40 billion for Ukraine when the U.S. lacked baby milk, (and itself had to rely on foreign baby milk aid). This political current is becoming more significant and having more impact as a result of a structural shift. Political candidates, and now even some U.S. think-tanks are turning to crowd-funding as a principal source of finance – moving away from the ‘established’ donors. Thus, the broad ‘anti-foreign entanglement’ sentiment is gaining heft.

Of course, the $40 billion is not all going to Ukraine. Not at all. According to the details of the Bill, the bulk will go to the Pentagon (for equipment already supplied by the U.S. and its allies). And a big chunk will go to the State Department, to fund all sorts of ‘helpful’ non-state actors and NGOs – i.e. it is a deep state budget with Ukraine packaging. The six billion allocated directly for new arms to Ukraine in fact comprises both training and weapons, so much of that will end in the pockets of states such as UK and Germany, giving ‘out of theatre’ training to Ukrainians in their own, or in neighbouring countries’ territory.

Eric Cantor, and other Americans at WEF may frame their disquiet over western objectives in ‘polite company’ as simply articulating their uncertainties over America’s grand strategy – whether the U.S. is trying to punish Russia for its aggression, or whether the goal is a subtler use of policy that gives the Kremlin a ‘route out of sanctions’, were it to changes course. But behind the narrative lies a darker fear. The unsaid fear of failure.

What does this mean? It means that the West’s ultimate war aims in Ukraine have so far been able to stay opaque and undefined, the details swept aside in the mood of the moment.

Paradoxically, this opacity has been preserved despite the public failure of the West’s first statement of aims – which was that the seizure of Russia’ offshore foreign reserves; the Russian bank expulsions from SWIFT; the sanctioning of the Central Bank; and the broadside of sanctions would, in and of itself alone, turn the rouble to rubble; cause a run on the domestic banking system; collapse the Russian economy; and provoke a political crisis that Putin might not survive.

In short, ‘victory’ would be quick – if not immediate. We know this, because U.S. officials and the French Finance Minister, Bruno Le Maire bragged about it publicly.

So confident in a quick financial-war success were these western officials that there seemed little need to invest deep strategic reflection on the aims or the course of the secondary Ukrainian military thrust. After all, a Russia already economically collapsed, with its currency ruined and its morale broken, would likely put up little or no fight as the Ukrainian army swept across Donbas and into Crimea.

Well, the sanctions have proved a bust and Russia’s currency and oil revenues are bountiful.

And now, western politicians are being warned in the media, and by their own military, that Russia is ‘close to a major victory’ in Donbas.

This is the unspoken fear disquieting Davos attendees – fear of another débacle, following that of Afghanistan. One made all the worse as the ‘war’ on Russia boomerangs into an economic collapse in Europe, and with NATO’s eight-year investment in building-up a successful proxy-army to NATO standards turning to dust.

This is what Kissinger’s comments – decoded – urge: ‘Don’t procrastinate’; get a quick deal (even an unfavourable one), but one that can be dressed up, and somehow spun as a ‘win’. But don’t wait, and let events lead the U.S. into yet another unmistakeable, undeniable débacle.

This is still ‘under the kitchen table talk’ in the U.S. for now, as the power of a narrative, invested with so much emotion, and bolstered by unprecedented info-war peer-pressure has masked such thoughts from public expression. Fractures nonetheless are beginning to be apparent. Something stirs – and Europe inevitably will follow wherever America leads. But for now, the hawks remain firmly in ‘the chair’ (in the U.S., in London, Poland, the EU Commission and in Kiev).

The big question, however, is why Moscow would take such a ‘way out’ (even if it was offered it). A compromise deal would be seen there as simply Kiev given the chance to regroup, and to try again.

The green economy, de-industrialisation, digital health passports, Central Bank digital currencies, these are all core components of the Globalists’ plan for the Great reset. The WEF has painted a picture of their proposed future via Klaus Schwab and his acolytes. “We will have nothing, own nothing and be happy”. The main obstacle to this grand vision is that not surprisingly very few countries wish to go along with it. The Globalists know their game is coming to an end and the Great Reset is their way of ensuring that the same financial cabal that has brought the world to its current lamentable state will continue to rule over all in the next world order. The most prominent objectors to this insidious plan are of course Russia and China. Unlike their western counterparts both have strong leaders who enjoy popular support, have strong economies and are optimistic about future prospects for growth. Neither intends to sacrifice their countries so that Western elites can maintain their control over the Global economic system and impose their self-serving will on weaker nations. Which in its simplest terms is why both countries need to be destroyed, at least economically before the Great Reset can be imposed on the world. Time, however, is not on the Globalists’ side, recent events have demonstrated that they are aware of this and are accelerating their timelines.

The Great Reset and its stated objectives have been in the planning for several years, those plans however are now seriously behind schedule. The election of Trump in 2016 wasn’t supposed to happen. He was to Washington the ultimate “Black Swan” event. An outsider without the backing of a political party and with seemingly the entire mainstream media against him, his victory was considered all but impossible. Yet win he did, and it seemed he spent the entire four years of his presidency battling against the Globalist faction, both internationally and within America. Washington felt cheated, not only was Trump an “outsider” he was also a disrupter. Opinions on the divisive Trump aside, he was indisputably an “America First Nationalist”, he was anti-NATO. and a vocal anti-Globalist. There would be no Great Reset under Trump, he was an obstacle to the agenda and had to be removed. Which in 2020 in a blatantly fraudulent election he was. Should Trump run again in 2024 and all indications are that he will, he would likely win an honest election in a landslide. The return of Trump would provide another major obstacle to the Globalist agenda. Expect that all efforts will be expended to prevent another Trump presidency. With an angry populace and increased electoral scrutiny next time around, they may have to turn to other measures to foil a Trump return. Should Trump re-enter the White House in 2024, the notoriously vindictive Trump is expected to seek accountability against those who he believes robbed him of his rightful election. Nerves are frayed in Washington and they know the clock is ticking.

Trump set the agenda back four years and they are now playing against the clock to make up for lost time, all evidence suggests that they are getting increasingly desperate. The recent invitations issued to Sweden and Finland to “fast track” NATO membership is yet another provocation to Russia. Putin wants to end the Ukraine conflict on his own terms and withdraw, he doesn’t not get bogged down in a quagmire that would drag on for years. NATO wants exactly that. Wooing Sweden and Finland is their attempt to ensure years of conflict and tension. Putin understands this all too well. As they lurch from one bad idea to another, attention should be paid to the indecent haste in which they are moving. It appears they are making things up as they go along, all without any obvious sense of consequence.

The prospect of Trump 2.0 is not the only time sensitive issue facing the Globalists. The global economy is on the brink of implosion. Sri Lanka has recently defaulted on its international debts. This will immediately create at least a $500 billion hole in the global economy. Alarmingly, according to the World Bank more than 70 other countries are in a similarly perilous economic condition. For most their debts are un-payable, and the IMF solution of structural adjustment (austerity) privatisations, and cuts to government services, would consign these countries to generations of deprivation and social unrest. Or, they could repudiate the debt completely and abandon the Western banking model. Both China and Russia have alternatives to SWIFT and welcome countries who want to escape the neo-liberal financial plantation. Both offer investment for development, non-interference and respect for countries’ sovereignty. All things valued by every country, but unachievable under Western domination. Decisions will very soon be made by countries throughout the Global south about who they want to align their futures with.

A new proposal being put before the UN on May 22nd essentially requires all nations to surrender their sovereignty to the WHO in the event of another pandemic. That they would even think that post-Covid the WHO enjoys that level of confidence, is delusional. This transparent power grab is easily recognised for what it is, in the unlikely event that it gains enough traction, expect another pandemic to follow shortly after. The cabal still has the tools to cajole, bribe and threaten countries to submit, and doubtless it will try, but outside of the captured western countries, such a desperate move will garner scant support. Covid failed to usher in the Great Reset but it unleashed a wave of destruction on the global economy that may take generations to repair. Many questions on the criminal mismanagement of Covid remain unanswered. There are few nations that don’t harbour deep resentment towards the notoriously corrupt and inept WHO and its genocidal Sugar Daddy Bill Gates. The sheer audacity of the proposal stinks of desperation. The upcoming vote is likely to give the Globalists another stark reminder of its waning power and influence.

A Great Reset will happen, just not the one intended by the Globalists. They may have to settle for the Great Decoupling instead. As Western influence continues to diminish at a rapid pace the trend of countries flocking to the China/Russia orbit is bound to increase. The NWO that they have been lusting after for generations is likely to be restricted to Western Europe and North America, or about 15% of the World’s population. The effects of the disastrous Ukraine provocation and the failed sanctions will soon become undeniable. Food and energy shortages together with uncontrollable inflation, will make even this smaller NWO harder to control. The Emperor has no clothes, as all can now see, their game is old, tired and predictable, and they have no new ideas. The Globalists may not have to worry about a Trump return in 2024. It is highly likely that the clock will have run out on them by then. It could happen any day.