from Alison Ryan
The globalists of the World Health Assembly and the World Economic Forum met in Switzerland in May this year in their attempts to shore up the world that they want. This year the theme for the WEF Annual Meeting was History at a Turning Point: Government Policies and Business Strategies. Here is an inside look at the WEF from Steven Guinness.
The WEF dates back to 1971 when it was originally founded as the European Management Forum. At the time the conflict in Vietnam was raging, social protest movements were building and the United States was about to relinquish the gold standard. By 1973 when the post-World War Two Bretton Woods system collapsed and the Trilateral Commission was formed, the Forum had widened its interest beyond just management to include economic and social issues. From here onwards political leaders from around the world began to receive invitations to the institution’s annual meeting in Davos.
The World Economic Forum is classified today as the ‘International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation’, and is the only global institution recognised as such. It is in this capacity that the forum ‘engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas’.
Like how the Bank for International Settlements acts as a forum to bring central banks together under one umbrella, the WEF plays the same role by uniting business, government and civil society.
The WEF declare themselves as being a ‘catalyst for global initiatives’, which is accurate considering ‘The Great Reset’ agenda originates at the WEF level. And it is initiatives like ‘The Great Reset’ and the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ which the WEF say are distinguished by ‘the active participation of government, business and civil society figures’.
On (re)examining the make-up of Event 201, we find that the three institutions at the forefront of the simulation were the World Economic Forum, the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Event 201 consisted of fifteen ‘players’ that represented, amongst others, airlines and medical corporations. Out of these fifteen, six are direct partners of the World Economic Forum. One is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with the other five being Marriott International (hospitality), Henry Schein (medical distribution), Edelman (communications), NBCUniversal Media and Johnson & Johnson.
To be clear, these organisations do not all operate at the same level within the WEF. For instance, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Johnson and Johnson are ‘Strategic Partners’, the highest stage for a participant. Only 100 global companies are Strategic Partners, and to qualify for an invitation they must all have ‘alignment with forum values’. Not only that, but Strategic Partners‘shape the future through extensive contribution to developing and implementing Forum projects and championing public-private dialogue.’
Beneath the Strategic Partners are the ‘Strategic Partner Associates’, which is the category that NBCUniversal Media fall under. Strategic Partner Associates include some of the largest businesses in the world, who are ‘actively involved in shaping the future of industries, regions and systemic issues’. According to the WEF, associates also believe in ‘corporate global citizenship’.
Next come the ‘Partners’ which comprise of Marriott International, Henry Schein and Edelman. Partners are described by the WEF as ‘world class companies’ who possess a ‘strong interest in developing systemic solutions to key challenges’.
Finally, there are the ‘Associate Partners’. Whilst they participate in ‘forum communities’ and have a ‘strong interest in addressing challenges affecting operations and society at large’, none were present at Event 201. Every major industry in the world, be it banking, agriculture, healthcare, media, retail, travel and tourism, is directly connected to the World Economic Forum through corporate membership.
What is evident is that the deeper a corporation’s ties with the WEF, the greater its ability to ‘shape’ the group’s agenda. Which brings us to what the WEF call their Strategic Intelligence platform – the mechanism which brings all the interests that the WEF concentrate on together.
They describe the platform as ‘a dynamic system of contextual intelligence that enables users to trace relationships and interdependencies between issues, supporting more informed decision-making’.
As for why the WEF developed Strategic Intelligence, they say it was to ‘help you (businesses) understand the global forces at play and make more informed decisions’.
Growing the platform is an ever-present goal. The WEF are always looking for new members to become part of Strategic Intelligence by joining the ‘New Champions Community’. But they will only allow a new organisation on board if they ‘align with the values and aspirations of the World Economic Forum in general’. A 12 month ‘New Champions Membership’ comes in at €24,000.
In arguing for the relevance of Strategic Intelligence, the WEF ask:
How can you decipher the potential impact of rapidly unfolding changes when you’re flooded with information—some of it misleading or unreliable? How do you continuously adapt your vision and strategy within a fast-evolving global context?
In other words, Strategic Intelligence is both an antidote to ‘fake news’ and an assembly for corporations to position themselves as global pioneers in a rapidly changing political and technological environment. That’s the image they attempt to convey at least.
We can find more involvement from global institutions via Strategic Intelligence. The platform is ‘co-curated with leading topic experts from academia, think tanks, and international organizations’.
‘Co-curators’ are perhaps the most important aspect to consider here, given that they have the ability to ‘share their expertise with the Forum’s extensive network of members, partners and constituents, as well as a growing public audience’.
It is safe to assume then that when co-curators speak, members and partners of the World Economic Forum listen. This in part is how the WEF’s agenda takes shape.
Who are the co-curators? At present, they include Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Imperial College London, Oxford University, Yale and the European Council on Foreign Relations.
It was the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that in March published an article titled, ‘We’re not going back to normal’, just as Covid-19 lockdowns were being implemented world-wide. Citing a report by fellow co-curator Imperial College London that endorsed the imposition of tougher social distancing measures if hospital admissions begin to spike, MIT proclaimed that ‘social distancing is here to stay for much more than a few weeks. It will upend our way of life, in some ways forever.’
As well as co-curators there are what’s known as ‘Content Partners’, who the WEF say are ‘amplified by machine analysis of more than 1,000 articles per day from carefully selected global think tanks, research institutes and publishers’.
Content partners include Harvard University, Cambridge University, the Rand Corporation, Chatham House (aka the Royal Institute of International Affairs), the European Council on Foreign Relations and the Brookings Institute.
Getting into specifics, the way Strategic Intelligence is structured means that the higher your position in the corporate fold, the more ‘platforms’ you can be part of. Whereas Strategic Partners must be part of a minimum of five platforms, Associate Partners only have access to a single platform of their choice.
Here is a list of some of the platforms hosted by the World Economic Forum:
- COVID Action Platform
- Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies
- Shaping the Future of the New Economy and Society
- Shaping the Future of Consumption
- Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation
- Shaping the Future of Financial and Monetary Systems
- Shaping the Future of Technology Governance: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
- Shaping the Future of Trade and Global Economic Interdependence
- Shaping the Future of Cities, Infrastructure and Urban Services
- Shaping the Future of Energy and Materials
- Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture
Corporate membership is essential for the World Economic Forum to spread its influence, but in the end every single member is in compliance with the agenda, objectives, projects and values of the WEF. These take precedent over all else.
Also, in concurrence with the WEF are the organisation’s Board of Trustees. Three of these include the current Managing Director of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde and former Bank of England governor Mark Carney. The Trilateral Commission are also represented amongst the trustees through Larry Fink and David Rubenstein.
Source: World Economic Forum: The Institution Behind ‘The Great Reset’ – Steven Guinness (wordpress.com)
The WEF consists of a bunch of low intelligence people born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They mostly went to so called “Elite Schools” and were given degrees and higher degrees because of their pedigree. I doubt you’ll find any that have had to actually clean their own bedrooms nor put out the garbage, never had clean up anything. They openly talk about reducing the general population and smirk while doing so, such as Bill Gates does, well the clone of him does. 1500 private business jets took them to Davos, so much for their take on CO2. How do they get away with their dirty deeds? Psychopaths, that’s real psychopaths, never reveal themselves for fear of being found out therefore those Davos crowd are actually acting out the personalities controlling them. Just have to follow them around and record who they meet, see their mood before and after whom ever they meet, likely alone and late nights.
Thanks Alison, keep up the good work, keep your info & links coming.
tonyryan43: “Some day, this is all going to come crashing down; which may well have been the plan from the outset.”
Every Ponzi scheme eventually collapses. The current one has had its day and the guvernors are now implementing a new one for us which will make us all “happy”.
In the meantime, we can bust our nut explaining the facts of life to the sheep. But it appears that most would rather not see, they seem to prefer having the wool over their eyes.
HEAR HEAR, I’m In…
It has already started Tony. Ed
Confuscious never mentioned little man brainwashed by government school system and media
Confucious say…. When government and big business get in bed little guy ALWAYS ends up skrewed.
WEF, UN, NATO etc etc are all jew world order in disguise! Don’t be fooled
That’s a pretty neat summation. Well done, Alison Ryan.
I hope nobody will mind if I add a couple of personal observations, not evident in any publication that I am aware of. So feel free to reject.
‘Public-Private Cooperation’ is a euphemism for what we in the old Commonwealth Public Service referred to as CORRUPTION. It is a breach of Treasury Regulations to put public money (ie Consolidated Revenue) into private hands (unless oversighted through the Grants Commissions). This is why in 1983, the various governments in Australia corporatised the public service. This enabled open corruption.
Now to corporatisation.
Prior to the corporatisation era, companies were run by a Managing Director and a Board of Directors.
There were various models of Board makeup, ranging from Krupp’s “50% management and 50% union” representation; through to pure investment representatives. More commonly, most of the board were section managers (productivity, advertising, industrial relations, infrastructure, etc). But the Managing Director was essentially a Chairman, who used a casting vote only when forced to by a 50/50 split on decision-making. Generally, companies refused to proceed on this basis because 50/50 actually reflects massive division and disunity, which provokes warning bells.
There were other differences. About 99% of Board Members and Managing Directors came up through the ranks. Many boasted their genesis as office-boy or trade apprentice, rising through superior productivity, integrity, efficiency, and team-spiritedness,
Today’s industrial management consists primarily of people who sport a business degree, the content of which, to anybody who has actually created and run a successful business, is a concoction of hypotheticals, economic and marketing theories, free trade ideology, and comprehensively re-created history.
Some day, this is all going to come crashing down; which may well have been the plan from the outset.