Connect with us

Great Reset

Dr. Robert Malone reacts to Klaus Schwab’s resignation: ‘Resistance is not futile’

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Robert Malone M.D.

They will try to become a behind-the-scenes power player once again after Schwab’s rule has ended. It is our job to not let that happen.

The leader and founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, is leaving his executive role and transitioning to a “non-executive chairman role” in 2025.

The truth is that Børge Brende, president of the World Economic Forum, already leads the day-to-day operations. Mr. Brende is a smart, sophisticated Norwegian negotiator with a proven track record, and he is primed to take on an even bigger role in the organization. His involvement in the Bilderberg meetings, including service on their steering committee and various roles within the United Nations, including Chairman of the U.N. Commission of Sustainable Development (2003-04), attest to his ability to build power and influence. He is the natural successor to Klaus’s vaulted title of executive chairman.

Schwab is an excellent cut-out villain cartoon character with his Germanic, authoritarian, and overbearing demeanor. He comes across as a two-dimensional figure, driven by corporatism and power, which makes him an easy target to hate. But the truth is that he has been co-opting and coercing national leaders for decades.

The Malone Institute put together a list of all the WEF Young Leaders Graduates and a list of U.S. politicians who are graduates of the five-year long young leaders program, which can be found here.

Without Schwab at the helm, it will be harder to hold the WEF accountable for its corporatist agenda, that is, a corporate governance of world affairs driven by its globalist mindset.

I predict that under Brende, the WEF will try to garner more power and influence among the “middle powers” (smaller nation-states), as the ability for more regulatory capture within the superpowers is already maxed out. As the middle powers crave a bigger and more important role on the world stage, they are an easy target for the WEF transnational corporations.

Already, the WEF website is courting these players as the next wave of world leaders. The WEF website states: “middle powers and regional groupings are emerging as alternative axes in today’s multipolar world.” By aligning these middle powers with the WEF, the corporatists will increase their wealth and power.

Some of the recent WEF articles on “middle powers” include:

Furthermore, I believe that in the future, the WEF will work to downplay the Davos-man opulent parties, opting instead for more exclusive and private venues – where the press isn’t invited, as is the case with the Bilderberg meetings. The WEF leadership knows that they have a PR problem with the populist (center-right, libertarian, and conservative parties) throughout the world, and Brende will act quickly to try to fix this. It will require a public relations overhaul of Klaus Schwab’s flagship policy agenda, which the WEF calls stakeholder capitalism. This, of course, is just another word for corporatism, whereby there is a fusion of the unelected global leadership and transnational corporations in order for the largest corporations in the world access to enough power to rule the world. For our own good, of course!

The World Economic Forum is a tool for corporate globalists to rule the world through inverse totalitarianism. In effect, our nation, as well as many other nation-states, have been turned upside down while being captured by corporate interests that endorse authoritarian policies – hence “inverted totalitarianism.”

Here we are today. In many ways, the hidden head of this unelected corporatist government structure is now the leadership of the World Economic Forum. This is where the heads of corporations, politicians, and other wealthy elites meet to decide the governing decisions of the world. A trade union of the thousand largest corporations in the world.

Resistance has begun, which is what makes the WEF so scared and defensive. That is why the WEF will have a facelift as soon as Schwab’s rule has ended. The WEF will try to become a behind-the-scenes power player once again. The hand inside the glove. It is our job to not let that happen.

This is why government, corporate interests, and “mainstream” media find alternate social media platforms that they can’t control to be so threatening. They know social media, and the populist parties associated with it, are a threat to the corporatist globalist structure they have built over decades. They are worried that it is in danger of crumbling.

Resistance is not futile.

Reprinted with permission from Robert Malone.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Censorship Industrial Complex

New WEF report suggests leveraging ESG scoring to enforce globalist ideas on online platforms

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Unelected globalists like those at the World Economic Forum are attempting to associate ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ with human rights abuses to empower themselves and silence dissent online.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says that environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) can prove valuable for evaluating platforms on their handling of disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, in a new report.

Published on June 6, 2024, the WEF white paper, “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online,” says that, “In an increasingly interconnected world, it is essential to measure digital safety in order to understand risks, allocate resources and demonstrate compliance with regulations.”

If measuring digital safety is considered to be essential, what then are the actual online harms that would necessitate measuring digital safety?

The latest white paper only gives three examples: disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material – as if they were all equal under the banner of online harm.

“ESG metrics present another valuable perspective for evaluating online safety” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

One method for evaluating online safety described in the latest WEF white paper is to leverage ESG scoring, which is basically a social credit for companies to make them fall in line with unelected globalist ideologies, even when these ESG policies are detrimental to their bottom line.

“Within ESG investing, companies are assessed based on their environmental impact, social responsibility and corporate governance practices,” the report reads.

Similarly, online platforms could be evaluated based on their efforts to promote a safe and inclusive online environment, and the transparency of content moderation policies.

Online platforms can also be evaluated based on their processes, tools and rules designed to promote the ‘safe use’ of their services in a manner that mitigates harm to vulnerable non-user groups.

And who will be evaluating online platforms in this Orwellian dystopia? Why, the unelected globalists themselves, of course!

Best to leave these decisions and all the power to bureaucrats that have our best interests at heart for the greater, collectivist good.

“An increase in the speed of content removals may reflect proactive moderation efforts, but it could also hint at overzealous censorship that stifles free expression” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

The WEF considers disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material as all being online harms that need to be measured and rectified.

But why do they lump everything together under this vague, blanket term of digital safety?

It is so that unelected globalist NGOs like the WEF can have more power and influence over government regulators concerning what type of information people are allowed to access through their service providers.

According to the report:

Digital safety metrics reinforce accountability, empowering NGOs and regulators to oversee service providers effectively.

They also serve as benchmarks for compliance monitoring, enhancing user trust in platforms, provided they are balanced with privacy considerations and take into account differentiation among services.

For the unelected globalist bureaucrats, measuring digital safety is about empowering themselves and forcing people into compliance with unelected globalist ideologies (with the help of regulators), all while balancing privacy considerations that are antithetical to everything they’re trying to achieve with the great reset and the fourth industrial revolution.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has stated on numerous occasions that the so-called fourth industrial revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, biological, and digital identities.

Schwab openly talks about a future where we will decode people’s brain activity to know how they’re feeling and what they are thinking and that people’s digital avatars will live on after death and their brains will be replicated using artificial intelligence.

How’s that for balancing privacy considerations in the digital world?

“Digital safety decisions must be rooted in international human rights frameworks” — Typology of Online Harms, WEF, August 2023

While the latest WEF white paper only lists disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, it builds upon an August 2023 insight report entitled “Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms,” which expands the scope of what constitutes online harm into various categories:

  • Threats to personal and community safety,
  • Harm to health and well-being,
  • Hate and discrimination,
  • Violation of dignity,
  • Invasion of privacy,
  • Deception and manipulation.

Many of the harms listed in last year’s report have to do with heinous acts against people of all ages and identities, but there too in that list of online harms, the WEF highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving a single, solitary example of either one.

With misinformation and disinformation, the typology report states that “[b]oth can be used to manipulate public opinion, interfere with democratic processes such as elections or cause harm to individuals, particularly when it involves misleading health information.”

In the same report, the unelected globalists admit that it’s almost impossible “to define or categorize common types of harm.”

The authors say that “there are regional differences in how specific harms are defined in different jurisdictions and that there is no international consensus on how to define or categorize common types of harm.

“Considering the contextual nature of online harm, the typology does not aim to offer precise definitions that are universally applicable in all contexts.”

By not offering precise definitions, they are deliberately making “online harm” a vague concept that can be left wide open to just about any interpretation, which makes quashing dissent and obfuscating the truth even easier because these “online harms,” in their eyes, must be seen as human rights abuses:

By framing online harms through a human rights lens, this typology emphasizes the impacts on individual users and aims to provide a broad categorization of harms to support global policy development

Once again, the authors are deliberately putting misinformation, disinformation, and so-called hate speech in the same category as abuse, harassment, doxing, and criminal acts of violence under this “broad categorization of harms.”

That way, they can treat anyone they deem as a threat for speaking truth to power in the same manner as they would for people who commit the most egregious crimes known to humanity.

The title of the latest white paper suggests that it’s all about measuring digital safety, but the title can be misleading.

It’s like what lawmakers do when they introduce bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with advancing the green agenda, decarbonization, and net-zero policies.

Similarly, the WEF’s latest white paper may have little or nothing to do with reducing risks online, as the title suggests.

But it does have a lot to do with making sure that misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are associated with human rights abuses and other acts of real criminality.

In doing so, the ESG proponents can swoop in and consolidate more power for their public-private partnerships – the fusion of corporation and state.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Economy

ESG rankings have no significant effect on investment performance of Canadian public companies

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Despite claims to the contrary, the ESG rankings of publicly-traded Canadian companies have no significant effect on investment returns, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian
public policy think-tank.

“While government regulators and some industry executives promote the benefits of ESG investing, there’s no evidence of significant advantages for investors,” said Steven Globerman, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of ESG Investing and Financial Returns in Canada.

Environmental, social and governance (ESG) is a movement designed to pressure businesses and investors to pursue larger social goals. In Canada, due to government securities regulation, publicly-traded companies must disclose ESG-related
information on a range of issues including environmental impact, human rights, and equity and inclusion.

ESG advocates claim that government-mandated ESG disclosures improve the financial performance of companies.
However, the study—the first empirical analysis of the relationship between changes in the ESG rankings of Canadian publicly-traded companies and equity returns— tracked 310 companies on the Toronto Stock Exchange from 2013 to 2022 and found no significant relationship between changes in ESG ranking (upgrades or downgrades) and financial returns, as measured by the price of shares and dividend income.

In other words, advocates for greater ESG disclosures cannot accurately claim—based on Canadian evidence—that requiring companies to provide more information for ESG rankings will significantly affect the financial performance of Canadian
investors.

“Better performance on ESG rankings simply does not translate into better financial performance for Canadian firms,” Globerman said.

  • ESG investing incorporates environmental (E), social (S), and governance (G) considerations into investment decisions. Until recently, ESG-themed investing comprised an increasing share of investments made by professional money managers and retail investors.
  • Financial industry executives and regulators who have promoted ESG-themed investing argue that it will enhance investment performance either by increasing asset returns and/or by reducing investment risk.
  • However, empirical studies, on balance, find no consistent and statistically significant evidence of a positive relationship between the ESG rankings of individual companies or portfolios of companies and the financial performances of those companies or investment portfolios.
  • Most empirical studies have focused on US-based publicly traded companies. To our knowledge, this study is the first to focus on returns to ESG-themed investing for Canadian-based public companies.
  • Using data from MSCI, a leading ESG ratings provider, we estimate the statistical relationship between changes in ESG rankings of companies and changes in equity returns for those companies using a sample of 310 companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange between 2013 and 2022.
  • Our study finds that neither upgrades nor downgrades in ESG ratings significantly affect stock market returns.

Adobe PDF Read the Full Report

Continue Reading

Trending

X