Connect with us

Great Reset

Messiah complex? Klaus Schwab declares unelected Davos elites as ‘trustees of the future’

Published

6 months ago

6 minute read

WEF founder Klaus Schwab delivers an address at the 2024 summit in Davos, Switzerland

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

The unelected globalists’ approach to rebuilding trust is to declare themselves trustees over the future of humanity.

In an effort to rebuild trust, World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab appoints himself and the Davos crowd “trustees of the future” at the WEF annual meeting.

Kicking off the WEF annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland on Tuesday, Schwab focused on the theme of this year’s gathering, “Rebuilding Trust” while never once mentioning rebuilding the trust of private citizens.

READ: UN secretary-general calls for ‘global governance’ in ‘new multipolar order’ at 2024 Davos summit

“We have to rebuild trust – trust in our future, trust in our capacity to overcome challenges, and most importantly, trust in each other,” said Schwab, referring to the Davos crowd.

He then gave a rather peculiar definition of what “trust” means to him:

Trust is not just a feeling; trust is a commitment to action, to belief, to hope

So, in Schwab’s eyes, trust means committing to action, believing, and hoping.

Therefore, every time Klaus Schwab says, “We have to rebuild trust,” what he’s actually saying is that the unelected globalists need to rebuild their own commitments to action through hope and faith.

How does Schwab and the Davos crowd hope to achieve trust (aka blind commitments to action)?

Schwab regurgitated the need to embrace the WEF’s Great Narrative Initiative, which was launched in November, 2021 as a follow up to the launch of the Great Reset agenda a year prior, stating:

We must rediscover and embrace the narrative that has driven humanity since its inception – acting as trustees for a better future.

Here, we see Schwab’s somewhat circular logic in emphasizing the need for unelected globalists to become stewards of the world.

In order “to rebuild trust” [faith-based commitments to action], “we” [unelected globalists], must act as “trustees.”

Great! And he says this believing this has been the narrative since humanity’s inception.

“The concept of trust and trusteeship compels us to think beyond borders and beyond our lifetimes,” said Schwab, adding, “It encourages collaboration over competition, sustainability over expediency, and empathy over apathy.”

He then appointed himself and everyone else at Davos “trustees of the future.”

In some circles, this is called having a messiah complex.

As trustees of the future, we are responsible for advancing a world which is richer in possibilities, more equitable in opportunities, and more secure in its foundations. Moreover, as leaders in government, business, and society, we bear a particular responsibility to rebuild trust in how we assume our own role as trustees.

In other words, globalists are the ones responsible for rebuilding trust because they appointed themselves as trustees of our collective future.

Schwab concluded his speech by saying:

Trust is a fundamental pillar of our social, economic, and political lives. It is vital for cooperation, social cohesion, and effective, functioning institutions. To rebuild trust, there’s a fundamental need to embody trusteeship, which means to care for the greater good. Let’s use this annual meeting to rebuild trust by exercising our trusteeship individually and collectively for safeguarding the future of humanity and nature.

And with that, Schwab set the stage for the overlapping theme of rebuilding trust at this year’s WEF annual meeting in Davos.

To recap, rebuilding trust means “a commitment to action” by unelected, self-appointed trustees who act as stewards over our social, economic, and political lives.

It is the sort of elitist rhetoric that led to the people losing trust in their institutions long ago – “trust the experts, trust the science, have faith in institutions, don’t do your own research, critical thinking isn’t helping” – all of these phrases have been beaten to the point that anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear can spot the propaganda from a mile away.

Schwab’s brief speech is a continuation of the unelected globalists’ great reset agenda, coupled with the great narrative initiative meant to dictate how society and the global economy is run from the top-down by a group of unelected, self-appointed trustees who “care for the greater good” by “safeguarding the future of humanity and nature.”

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Related Topics:

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

More from this author
Economy / 9 hours ago

Federal government’s GHG reduction plan will impose massive costs on Canadians

Alberta / 10 hours ago

Alberta awash in corporate welfare

Crime / 10 hours ago

Everything you need to know about the failed assassination attempt of Donald Trump

International

Switzerland’s new portable suicide ‘pod’ set to claim its first life ‘soon’

Published on July 25, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

In what feels like a dystopian movie, Switzerland’s new portable death “pod” to allow people to kill themselves is on track to claim its first victim this year. 

In a July 16 press conference, Florian Willet, chief executive of pro-euthanasia organization The Last Resort, announced that Switzerland will “soon” use its portable suicide pod to end a life for the first time.

“Since we have people indeed queueing up, asking to use the Sarco, it’s very likely that it will take place pretty soon,” Willet said, eerily describing it as a “beautiful way” to die.   

The pod is called Sarco, short for sarcophagus, the name of the coffins in which ancient Egyptian pharaohs were buried. The futuristic-looking 3D-printed capsule was first unveiled in 2019 for assisted suicide in Switzerland but was met with controversy.  

It’s founder, Philip Nitschke, who has been nicknamed “Dr. Death” for his attempt to “glamorize” suicides, explained how the pod works in a recent interview with the South China Morning Post.  

Once a person is inside the pod, they are asked who they are, where they are and if they know what happens when they press the button. 

The death in the pod can also be activated by a button, gesture, voice control, or blink of the eye for those who cannot vocally or physically communicate due to severe illness or mobility issues.  

After they answer, a voice says, “If you want to die press this button.” Once the button is pressed, the pod is flooded with nitrogen causing the oxygen to plummet from 21 per cent to 0.05 per cent in the air in less than 30 seconds. 

“They will then stay in that state of unconsciousness for … around about five minutes before death will take place,” Nitschke explained.  

The death inside the pod is filmed, and the footage is handed to a coroner. 

The push to debut the pod this year comes after the pod was banned earlier this month after prosecutors questioned the legality and ethics of the pod, pointing out that it is unclear who is responsible for the death and who operates the pod.   

Switzerland has allowed assisted suicide since 1942, with its only requirements being that the person freely chooses death, is of sound mind, and that their decision is not motivated by selfish reasons. 

The county’s broad euthanasia policy has made it a tourist attraction from those around the world who wish to end their lives.  

In addition to the legal question of who is responsible for the death, pro-life organizations have condemned the pods for trivializing death and undermining the dignity of life.   

“Philip Nitschke’s device has been condemned by a broad range of commentators,” James Mildred, director of engagement for pro-life organization Christian Action Research and Education (CARE), said.  

“Many people feel that it trivialises, and even glamourises, suicide,” he explained.  

“We believe that suicide is a tragedy that good societies seek to prevent in every circumstance,” Mildred continued. “There are ethical ways to help human beings that don’t involve the destruction of life.” 

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

New federal legislation should remind Canadians of Orwell’s 1984

Published on July 24, 2024

By

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen

The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future.

This year marks the 75th anniversary of George Orwell’s classic novel 1984 (and it’s been 40 years since the actual year 1984). In the novel, Orwell explains the dangers of totalitarianism by exploring what happens when government exercises extreme levels of control over citizens including censoring and controlling language. While Canada is a relatively free country in 2024, there are aspects of Orwell’s world reflected in government policy today.

The Human Freedom Index, published annually by the Fraser Institute and Cato Institute, defines freedom as a social concept that recognizes the dignity of individuals by the absence of coercive constraint. In a free society, citizens are free to do, say or think almost anything they want, provided it does not infringe on the right of others to do the same.

Canada currently fares relatively well compared to other countries on the Human Freedom Index, placing 13th out of 165 countries. However, our score has dropped six spots on the index since 2008 when Canada recorded its highest ever rank.

This is not surprising given the Trudeau government’s recent efforts to control and manage the free exchange of ideas. The recent Online Streaming Act imposes various content rules on major streaming services such as Netflix, and requirements to extract funds to be redirected toward favoured groups. The Act seemingly seeks to bring the entire Internet under the regulation of a government body.

In another piece of recent legislation, the Online News Act, the government attempted to force certain social media platforms to pay other legacy news outlets for carrying content. In response, the social media platforms chose simply not to allow content from those news providers on their platforms, resulting in a dramatic reduction of Canadians’ access to news.

Now, a new piece of federal legislation—Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act—seeks to control language and grant government power to punish citizens for what the government deems to be unfavourable speech.

The government has sold Bill C-63 as a way to promote the online safety of Canadians, reduce harms, and ensure the operators of social media services are held accountable. In reality, however, the bill is Orwell’s Big Brother concept brought to life, where government controls information and limits free exchange. The legislation seeks to punish citizens not just for what the governments deems as “hate speech” but also grants the state power to bring Canadians before tribunals on suspicion that they might say something hateful in the future. Not surprisingly, many have raised concerns about the constitutionality of the Bill, which will surely be tested in court.

Put differently, the Bill dictates that citizens may not only be punished for speech crimes, but also punished when another person or group of individuals believes they are likely to commit such a crime. The legislation outlines punishment mechanisms at the government’s disposal, including electronic monitoring devices, house arrest or jail time. Frighteningly, if the government doesn’t like what you say or even suspects they won’t like what you might say, then you could face serious repercussions.

That sounds eerily similar to Orwell’s concept of the Thought Police. In 1984, a secret police force investigates and punishes “thoughtcrimes,” which are personal and political thoughts unapproved by the state. The Thought Police monitor citizens and arrest anyone who engages in such crimes, to prevent personal autonomy and freedom of thought, thus providing the state with immense power and control over the populace.

The big government approach inherent in the Online Harms Act and others is antithetical to the idea of personal freedom. Famed English philosopher J.S. Mill was particularly observant in recognizing the perils of controlling and punishing speech government officials deem “dangerous.” In his book On Liberty, Mill stated “If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of the truth; and since the general of prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.”

Orwell’s famous novel provides a guidebook for what governments should avoid doing at all costs. Unfortunately, hints of 1984 have seeped into government policy in Canada today. The erosion of personal freedom is not something we should take for granted anymore.

Authors: 

 

Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
Continue Reading

Trending

X