Peter Myers Digest: Our politicians were trained in WEF Global Leaders program. WEF endorses Chip Implants for humans

(1) Klaus Schwab trained our politicians in WEF Global Leaders program, that’s why they follow in lockstep – F. William Engdahl

(2) WEF endorses Chip Implants under the skin of humans – a barcode, in effect

(3) If the idea of a chip in your body makes you cringe, consider all the pharmaceuticals you take without question

(4) WEF promotes “Gender Gap” Feminism

(5) WEF promotes Gay Marriage

(6) WEF’s Woke War on Business; enforced compliance with ESG targets

(7) Woke Capitalism: Companies promote ‘Social Justice’ causes, but avoid paying Tax

(1) Klaus Schwab trained our politicians in WEF Global Leaders program, that’s why they follow in lockstep – F. William Engdahl

16.02.2022 Author: F. William Engdahl

Davos and the Purloined Letter Conspiracy

The famous short story by Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter, is apt in describing the agenda of Klaus Schwab, founder some 50 years ago of what is today the globally influential Davos World Economic Forum (WEF)–Hidden in plain sight. Schwab published a book in 2020 titled The Great Reset, which calls on world leaders to use the “opportunity” of the COVID-19 pandemic to fundamentally reorganize the global economy into a dystopian top-down version of the technocratic UN Agenda 2030. For those willing to do patient research, Schwab’s WEF reveals an astonishing degree of the current globalist agenda for a technocratic totalitarianism. Even more he has been developing hand-picked cadre to implement this agenda over three decades, with a select global “cadre school” for “future global leaders.” In effect it is what we might call the Davos Conspiracy, agents promoted around the world to infiltrate top policy circles and push the sinister Davos Reset agenda.

One of the most astonishing features of the COVID pandemic fear hysteria is the degree to which politicians worldwide have followed in lockstep, along with global media and key health figures, to embrace an unprecedented agenda of economic and human destruction in the name of fighting a virus. It turns out that most all key players all have something in common. They are hand-picked graduates or “alumni” as he calls them, of Klaus Schwab’s Davos cadre school, his annual program called Young Global Leaders and pre-2004 called Global Leaders for Tomorrow.

Since the first group of Davos cadre were selected in 1993, more than 1,400 “future global leaders” have been trained in a highly secret process which is rarely ever mentioned in the bio of Davos graduates. With the patience of a spider weaving a vast web, Klaus Schwab and his wealthy backers at the World Economic Forum have created the most influential network of policy actors in modern history, or perhaps ever.

In a 2017 video with David Gergen at Harvard, Schwab boasts of being proud that, “we penetrate the cabinets” with Davos Young Global Leader cadre. Schwab states, “I have to say then I mention names like Mrs Merkel…and so on, they all have been Young Global Leaders of The World Economic Forum. But what we are really proud of now with the young generation like Prime Minister Trudeau, President of Argentina and so on, is that we penetrate the cabinets… It is true in Argentina and it is true in France now…”

Great Reset

The Great Reset, as explained by Schwab in his co-authored June 2020 book of the same title, and elaborated in full on the website of the World Economic Forum, is there for anyone curious to discover. It lays out a program to reorganize the global economy top-down, using the COVID disruptions to push among other things a green zero carbon agenda, elimination of meat protein and traditional agriculture, an elimination of fossil fuels, air travel contraction, eliminating cash for central bank digital currencies and a totalitarian medical system of mandatory vaccinations.

In the June 2020 virtual Davos summit of global leaders, aptly titled The Great Reset, Schwab declared, “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism… There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19.” The Great Reset, he continues, requires that, “governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies… The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as <> equality and sustainability.”

What Schwab does not mention is that it has been his network of Davos “global leaders” who have been at the heart of advancing the COVID draconian agenda from unnecessary lockdowns to forced vaccinations to mandatory mask. The pandemic has been the necessary first phase of the Great Reset. Without it he would not be able to talk about fundamental global changes.

Here Schwab’s agenda is global wealth redistribution for creating the infamous UN Agenda 2030 “sustainable” economy: “The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans. Rather than using these funds… to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.” He adds, “The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to <> support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges.”

Purloined Letter

The 1844 short story by American author Edgar Allen Poe, The Purloined Letter, tells of a stolen letter of the French Queen being used to blackmail her by an unscrupulous minister. When Paris police search the house of the suspected thief meticulously without result, a friend of the chief inspector is able to find the purloined document by looking for it, “hidden in plain sight.”

So it is with what is without doubt the most brazen and criminal conspiracy of modern times, the Davos Great Reset. Everything is there, open for anyone with patience to wade through the pages of WEF press releases and web pages. Notable is that the global players, the Davos “cadre” carefully chosen over the past thirty years to be groomed for positions of power to implement the Great Reset agenda, are openly named on the Davos website, found with a little patient searching. Partial lists have appeared naming a small handful of the Davos “Young Global Leaders.” A more exhaustive search of some 1400 names in the annual cadre school classes since 1992 reveals an astonishing, detailed conspiracy. The WEF website states the global leaders are “trained to be aligned with the World Economic Forum’s mission,” to “drive public-private co-operation in the global public interest.”

The following is the result of reviewing every WEF class of future global leaders since 1993.

What is most striking is that key players linked to Schwab are involved in the decisive measures that have made the COVID-19 “pandemic” the economically and physically destructive process it is. WEF alumni are in the middle of everything covid.

Davos, Gates and mRNA Vaccines

At the heart of the COVID-19 agenda is clearly the “warp speed” rollout of untested experimental mRNA gene-edited concoctions, misnamed vaccines, by two pharma companies—Pfizer (with BioNTech of Germany) and Moderna of USA.

Bill Gates (WEF 1993) and his Gates Foundation are at the heart of the mRNA gene-edited jab rollout along with Tony Fauci of the US NIAID. Gates was selected by Schwab before he had even created the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, in 1993, for the first group of WEF cadre together with Angela Merkel, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and others. Was Schwab influential in getting Gates to create the foundation?

Gates Foundation money, hundreds of millions, have in effect bought control of the corrupt UN World Health Organization, according to WHO whistleblower, Swiss epidemiologist, Astrid Stuckelberger, who in a recent interview stated, “WHO has changed since I was there…There was a change in 2016…It was special: Non-governmental organizations – such as GAVI – Global Alliance for Vaccine Immunization – led by Bill Gates – they joined the WHO in 2006 with a fund. Since then, the WHO has developed into a new type of international organization. GAVI gained more and more influence, and total immunity, more than the <—Astrid-Stuckelberger:1> diplomats in the UN.”

Gates’ foundation, along with Schwab’s WEF created the global GAVI-The Vaccine Alliance in 2000. Another infamous alumnus of the Gates WEF Global Leaders class, José Manuel Barroso (WEF 1993), – President of the European commission from 2004-2014, former head Goldman Sachs International, member of the Bilderberg Steering Committee – was named CEO of the Gates-financed GAVI vaccine alliance in January 2021, as the mRNA jabs were rolled out. Barroso now <> oversees global spending on the mRNA vaccines for Gates and WHO.

Albert Bourla chief executive officer of Pfizer, is a WEF Agenda Contributor. His Pfizer Vice President, Vasudha Vats (WEF 2021), is a WEF “global leader” recruit.

The other key mRNA jab maker is Moderna, whose CEO, Stéphane Bancel (WEF 2009) is another Davos alumnus. The very next year, 2010, Bancel was selected to be CEO of a new company, Moderna, in Massachusetts. In 2016, with no successful mRNA product yet approved, Bancel’s Moderna signed a global health project framework agreement with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases. The same year Bancel signed a global health project framework agreement with Tony Fauci and the NIAID. In a January 2018 speech to the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference, more than a year before the world heard of COVID-19 out of Wuhan China, Gates declared, “We are backing companies like CureVac and Moderna on mRNA approaches for vaccine and drug development…” Prescience?

Davos Politicians

The second key component for the Davos pandemic agenda has been an international collection of key politicians in the EU and North America especially, who have backed the most draconian lockdown and forced vaccination measures in history. Most all the key actors are Davos WEF Global Leaders.

In Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel led one of the most severe COVID lockdowns until she retired in December 2021. She was from the first 1993 WEF class. Her Health Minister, Jens Spahn (WEF 2012), was also a Davos alumnus. Spahn coerced mass mRNA jabs and pushed unnecessary lockdowns and masking. He was a former pharma lobbyist. Philipp Rösler, Minister of Health from 2009 until 2011, was appointed the WEF Managing Director by Schwab in 2014. In December a new coalition under Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who was invited to give a Special Address to the January 2022 Davos Meeting by Schwab. Germany’s new Foreign Minister, Green leader Annalena Baerbock (WEF 2020), was chosen to be a Global Leader just prior to her becoming Chancellor candidate. Baerbock’s controversial pick as State Secretary for climate change diplomacy, Greenpeace head, Jennifer Morgan, a US citizen, is a WEF Agenda Contributor and close friend of WEF Board member Al Gore. Former German Green Party head, Cem Özdemir (WEF 2002), is new Minister of Agriculture and Nutrition.

In France President Emmanuel Macron (WEF 2016) mysteriously rose from an obscure Cabinet Minister to become President of France in 2017 with no party, just a year after being selected to join the WEF Global Leaders program. As President, Macron has instituted some of the most draconian COVID measures in the world including internal passports and mandated vaccines.

Other EU politicians from the Davos club include Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis (WEF 2003), Prime Minister, Belgium Alexander De Croo, (WEF 2015). Both have imposed severe COVID measures. Sanna Marin (WEF 2020) Prime Minister of Finland invoked a state of emergency in Finland, with severe lockdowns and other drastic measures. In the UK former Labour Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, (WEF 1993) was named by WHO in April 2021 to promote a $60 billion program for COVID vaccination in “poor countries.” Brown became WHO Ambassador for Global Health Financing in September 2021.

In North America the Canadian government of Justin Trudeau, now subject to a massive popular revolt against his severe vaccine mandates and other measures, is riddled with Davos agents. Trudeau himself is a Davos WEF Agenda Contributor and frequent speaker at Davos. Schwab introduced Trudeau in 2016 stating, “I couldn’t imagine anyone who could represent more the world that will come out of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.” The key COVID actor for Trudeau is Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland who is on the WEF Board of Trustees, and leads Trudeau’s COVID response. Other WEF agents in Ottawa are Foreign Minister, Mélanie Joly (WEF 2016), Family Minister Karina Gould (WEF 2020).

In the USA top Biden Administration appointees include Jeffrey Zients (WEF 2003), White House Coronavirus Coordinator. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (WEF 2019) who suddenly announced for President after being chosen by Davos is another. US deep state operative Samantha Power (WEF 2003) is Biden’s head of USAID, the major foreign aid agency closely tied to CIA activities abroad. Rebecca Weintraub (WEF 2014) a Harvard professor who works for total vaccination of everyone in the world with mandatory vaccines even for children, is adviser to the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Vaccine Advisory Committee.

California Governor Gavin Newsom (WEF 2005) imposed some of the nation’s most severe lockdowns and mask mandates as did Jared Polis (WEF 2013) Governor of Colorado, with a public health order that made Colorado one of the first states to require proof of full vaccination to be admitted into the large indoor events.

Australia and New Zealand have been two of the world’s most severe COVID tyranny regimes. In Australia, Health Minister Greg Hunt was WEF Director of Strategy in 2001 and WEF Global Leader in 2003. He controls the extreme government COVID-19 policies. In New Zealand, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern (WEF 2014) met with Bill Gates in New York in September 2019 as featured speaker at the Gates Foundation annual Sustainable Development Goals conference, just before the China COVID events and days before the October Event 201 “pandemic simulation” by World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. As Prime Minister, Ardern has imposed waves of lockdowns, removing most civil rights and virtually banned international travel.

Key Think Tanks and Academics

This is far from the extent of the carefully-cultivated and promoted Davos global network behind orchestrating global COVID-19 pandemic measures. Instrumental roles are played by the Rockefeller Foundation whose President, Rajiv Shah (WEF 2007) was a leading figure for the Africa Green Revolution at the Gates Foundation, as well as vaccine programs. As head of the influential Rockefeller Foundation Shah plays a key role promoting the Davos Great Reset where he is WEF Agenda Contributor. Another highly influential US policy think tank, the New York Council on Foreign Relations, has deep engagement in the COVID-19 agenda. Thomas Bollyky (WEF 2013) is Director of the CFR Global Health Program and is a former Gates Foundation as well as WHO consultant. He directed the CFR Task Force, Improving Pandemic Preparedness: Lessons from COVID-19 (2020).

Jeremy Howard (WEF 2013) is an Australian who at the start of the COVID-19 organized a worldwide campaign for mandatory face masks. Mustapha Mokass (WEF 2015) developed a vaccine passport system for the Schwab 4th Industrial Revolution agenda.

Goebbels Mainstream Media

The role of managed media has been at the heart of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic propaganda offensive. Davos and the WEF of Schwab are in the midst of this as well.

CNN is one of the most notorious propaganda outlets promoting fear and advocating the mRNA jabs while attacking any proven remedial treatment. CNN and Davos are well-connected.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta (WEF 2010), chief medical correspondent for CNN played a key role promoting the official narrative in the COVID-19 deep event. Dr. Leana Sheryle Wen (WEF 2018) is a columnist with The Washington Post and a CNN medical analyst. As a CNN ‘medical contributor’ Wen suggested that life needs to be “hard” for Americans who have not received a COVID-19 vaccine. Anderson Cooper (WEF 2008), a spooky former CIA “intern” is a major CNN host. Jeffrey Dean Zeleny (WEF 2013) is the Chief National Affairs Correspondent for CNN.

While CNN produces one-sided commentary on the mRNA jabs and COVID, highly-influential owners of social media corporations engage in unprecedented banning of any critical or contrary opinion in censorship that would make a Goebbels blush. Among them is Mark Zuckerberg (WEF 2009) the billionaire owner of CIA-backed Facebook, and Twitter board member Martha Lane Fox (WEF 2012), a member of the UK Joint Committee on National Security Strategy and on House of Lords COVID-19 Committee. Larry Page (WEF 2005) is a billionaire co-founder of Google, arguably the world’s most censored and most used search engine.

Marc Benioff (WEF Board of Trustees) billionaire owner of Time magazine and Salesforce cloud computing, is also connected to Bill Gates’s The Giving Pledge. Dawood Azami (WEF 2011) is multi-media editor at the BBC World Service, the influential UK state-owned broadcaster. Jimmy Wales (WEF 2007) is founder of Wikipedia which notoriously alters content of COVID-related entries to promote the WHO and Davos agenda. Lynn Forester de Rothschild (WEF 1995) with her third husband, Sir Evelyn Robert de Rothschild, owns The Economist magazine, which promotes the COVID Davos agenda along with the coming Green reset. She was introduced to Sir Evelyn by Henry Kissinger at the 1998 Bilderberg Conference in Scotland.

Other figures among the Davos stable of global future leaders include Jamie Dimon (WEF 1996), CEO JP Morgan Chase, Nathaniel Rothschild (WEF 2005) son and heir apparent to Baron Jacob Nathaniel “Nat” Rothschild. David Mayer de Rothschild (WEF 2007), a British billionaire green agenda advocate with a fortune of estimated 10 billion dollars.

WEF Strategic corporate “partners” helping mentor the Davos Global Leaders include Barclays Bank, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Deutsche Bank AG, General Motors Company, The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Google Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc, McKinsey & Company and UBS AG and such.

Is this concentration of global power just coincidence or part of a genuine outright conspiracy? A reading of the current World Economic Forum Board of Trustees <> might help to answer.

  1. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine <> “New Eastern Outlook”.

(2) WEF endorses Chip Implants under the skin of humans – a barcode, in effect

August 20, 2022

World Economic Forum suggests there are “rational” reasons to microchip your child

WEF suggests there are ways to “ethically make these amazing technologies a part of our lives.”

By Didi Rankovic

Posted 2:01 pm

The latest highly controversial technology/policy that the World Economic Forum (WEF) has set out to normalize is the idea of implanting tracking chips into humans.

It wasn’t that long ago that those speculating on a future where this is happening would get dismissed as conspiracy theorists, but now the world elites’ most vocal outlet is predicting that chip implants will eventually become just a commodity.

And the WEF makes a case that implanting chips into children could be viewed by parents as a “solid, rational” move. All of this crops up in a blog post on the organization’s website dedicated to the future of augmented reality (AR), and what is referred to as “an augmented society.”

Like in many of WEF’s other takes on the future of various types of technology, the emphasis is put on inserting the “right,” i.e., its own “vision” in the direction these should be developing, with the inevitable mention of undefined society stakeholders who will hold the key to the ethics issue of it all.

The WEF is talking up the allegedly broad usefulness of AR going forward in fields such as healthcare, education, and professional settings, with the underpinning notion of providing guidelines as to how to “ethically” regulate this vast potential power – and therefore, when all’s said and done, control it.

The WEF calls AR and similar tech transformative – but in need of “the right support, vision, and audacity.”

Once again it isn’t at all clear why “audacity” is thrown in, unless it is a euphemism to sell some pretty outrageous “visions” that the WEF is expressing, such as replacing drugs with brain implants that will manipulate the body with electrical pulses, and pairing all sorts of chips put into humans through surgery, with sensors one might find in a chair.

And so, with the human and the chair “seamlessly integrated,” the quality of life across the board shoots up, the Davos-based group promises.

“As scary as chip implants may sound, they form part of a natural evolution that wearables once underwent. Hearing aids or glasses no longer carry a stigma,” the blog post reads. “They are accessories and are even considered a fashion item. Likewise, implants will evolve into a commodity.”

But critics of these trends say their opposition has nothing to do with “stigmas” – rather with serious concerns about civil rights, privacy, and the very concept of human autonomy.

(3) If the idea of a chip in your body makes you cringe, consider all the pharmaceuticals you take without question

Augmented tech can change the way we live, but only with the right support and vision

Aug 16, 2022

Augmented reality technology has the ability to transform society and individual lives, particularly in health care and mobility.

Kathleen Philips, Vice President R&D, imec

Augmented reality technology has the ability to transform society and individual lives, particularly in health care and mobility.

As much as visual and hearing aids are a part of our lives today, implant technologies could become the norm in future.

Stakeholders in society will need to agree on how to ethically make these amazing technologies a part of our lives.

Superheroes have been dominating big and small screens for a while, but there’s a subtle change happening. Many children expect to develop superpowers themselves.

These expectations may sound unattainable, but we’re already making the first strides towards an “augmented society”. Trade fairs are boasting augmented reality (AR) goggles that show technicians where a particular screw should go. Your own phone gives you information about your fitness in real time or tells you about the latest fad.

Augmentation can be defined as the extension of rehabilitation where technological aids such as glasses, cochlear implants or prosthetics are designed to restore a lost or impaired function. Add it to completely healthy individuals and such technology can augment. Night goggles, exoskeletons and brain-computer interfaces build up the picture. The augmenting technology will help in all stages of life: children in a learning environment, professionals at work and ambitious senior citizens. There are many possibilities.

What augmented reality can do

Picture this scenario. You’re talking to someone in a noisy setting, at a bar, at a party. Even though your hearing is fine, the situation makes it extremely difficult to understand your companion. Imagine you could just put on glasses or earbuds that offer the same sound directionality as a hearing aid.

Or another example: many children with attention deficit struggle in school. In the best case, they get special education services or classroom accommodations. However, with extra visual and audio guidance that blocks off excess stimuli, an otherwise-enabled child can cope with a standard school environment. And when class is over and playtime begins, they can just take the aids off.

Augmented reality doesn’t end there. Your phone might feel like part of your body, but it’s not put in through surgery. Technology will become more intertwined with the body in the form of implants, but it will also seamlessly integrate with the environment – you might have sensors in a chair, for example.

Are we moving towards a ‘brave new world’? As scary as chip implants may sound, they form part of a natural evolution that wearables once underwent. Hearing aids or glasses no longer carry a stigma. They are accessories and are even considered a fashion item. Likewise, implants will evolve into a commodity. If that sounds unlikely, then consider the alternatives we currently use. Drugs often show unwanted effects because they affect multiple biological processes at the same time. Someone on long-term medication may want to try an implant that sends very precise electrical or optical pulses instead.

Getting an implant is obviously more invasive than picking up a pair of glasses. Generally, implants will be linked to medical conditions. The extent to which a particular device becomes common will depend on the technology’s functionality and how far it’s integrated into your body and daily life(style).

Carrying around the equivalent of a dog’s nose in a gadget like your phone or a wearable like a necklace can be handy to sniff out COVID-19 or food allergens. In those cases, it is usually enough that your phone pings whenever you’re in the vicinity of whatever you’re guarding against. There is no immediate reason to implant this extra sense into your body. However, a deadly peanut allergy may justify a more permanent solution.

Brain implants take us one step further and allow us to tap straight into the body’s “operating system”. We have already started interfacing with the brain using neural probes to mitigate symptoms of epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease or depression. Most applications will remain based on medical necessity rather than a mind reading tool. While it is true that companies like Neuralink have been targeting the brain from the get-go, brain implants may not be the first choice in our augmented society.

An indispensable wearable device may be implanted under the skin as a first approach or in the belly if needed. For example, for patients suffering from urine loss, a small stimulation device tucked away in the pelvic area constitutes a more elegant and comfortable solution than wearing incontinence pads. Next, there may be other implants that influence the nerves of the peripheral nervous system or the information highways that connect the spinal cord and brain to organs and limbs.

Electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve, the superhighway that originates in the brain, is rumoured to be a miracle therapy for treatment-resistant depression, an ever-growing problem. Despite all these options, some therapies will only be effective in the brain, but would you walk around with a chip in your head?

Just as with wearables, no one turns their head anymore for medical necessities like hearing aids or pulse monitors. Even in an educational and professional setting, smart goggles, phones, wristbands and the like are commonplace. Gaming is the next target. The question is whether implants will follow a similar evolution. Health? Plausible. Education and profession? Potentially.

We may wish to give dyslectic children new opportunities through implants that translate in real-time. On the other hand, dyslexia is a personal trait. Do we want to change that? As a society, we need to make a choice: do we want to accept human limitations associated with learning or ageing? The final application realms, gaming and even intelligence augmentation, may seem farfetched, but only the future can tell.

If the idea of a chip in your body makes you cringe, consider all the pharmaceuticals you take without question. The ‘Cradle to Grave’ art installation in the British museum confronts us visually with our pill-popping behaviour. It displays a 13-m long fabric interwoven with 14,000 pills, the estimated average prescribed to a British person in a lifetime. Around 65% of American children and teens with ADHD, meanwhile, are prescribed stimulant medication.

We often forget that these drugs are related to amphetamines. They affect the brain and have (long-term) side effects. We may consider ‘electroceuticals’, small implants that mitigate symptoms of various disorders by sending out small electrical pulses. One compelling argument in favour of bioelectronic medicine is that the stimuli can be stopped at a flick of a switch, while drug effects linger in the body for a longer time.

The limits on implants are going to be set by ethical arguments rather than scientific capacity. For example, should you implant a tracking chip in your child? There are solid, rational reasons for it, like safety. Would you actually do it? Is it a bridge too far? Another important element is security. Remember when Former American Vice President Dick

Cheney’s pacemaker was modified to prevent hacking? Even for lifesaving technologies, proper ethical counselling and legal framing are a must.

Ethics should not be preached from an academic ivory tower. Rather, overarching or independent institutions should guide policymakers and researchers in the augmented society on the do’s and dont’s and help build the ethical framework on societal aspects of augmented reality technology.

The Council of Europe recently launched a strategic action plan tackling issues raised by the application of neurotechnologies. Another example, Rathenau Institute founded by the Dutch government, operates as an independent institution to reflect on questions related to the impact of technology on our lives.

Chile is already a step ahead. Last year, the country pioneered a bill to amend its constitution to protect personal brain data. Several countries are now exploring how to address these issues surrounding (brain) implants. The task is daunting as ethicists will not only need to scrutinize blooming technology but also potential future applications.

Augmented reality technology and ethics

With the right support, vision, and audacity, these transformative technologies – that go beyond augmentation – become possible. When do we enter the grey zone? Ethics will advise us. The technology optimists show what is possible with augmented reality. Technology has always had the potential to transform society and improve our daily and professional lives. So does augmentation technology. It goes hand in hand with an evolution from health care to ‘well care’, where it’s not just about solving an impairment anymore. It’s about technology that supports you and improves your overall quality of life.

(4) WEF promotes “Gender Gap” Feminism

Reports, Published: 13 July 2022

Global Gender Gap Report 2022

Gender parity is not recovering, according to the Global Gender Gap Report 2022. It will take another 132 years to close the global gender gap. As crises are compounding, women’s workforce outcomes are suffering and the risk of global gender parity backsliding further intensifies.

Reports,  Published: 30 March 2021

Global Gender Gap Report 2021

Another generation of women will have to wait for gender parity, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2021. As the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to be felt, closing the global gender gap has increased by a generation from 99.5 years to 135.6 years.


15 strategies helping to close the gender gap around the world

Mar 3, 2022

The time it will take to close the gender gap grew by 36 years in just 12 months, according to the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Report 2021.

Gender equality has suffered since the pandemic began.

It will now take an estimated 135.6 years to close the worldwide gender gap between men and women.

However, progress is being made in areas including science and politics.

Improving paternity policies and representation of women will help.

There is still a huge amount of work to do to achieve gender equality around the world. …

What is the gender gap and why is it important? Measuring progress for International Women’s Day

Mar 4, 2022

[…] Why is understanding the gender gap important?

The persistence of gender bias is one of the themes in the Forum’s Gender Gap report, and bias has been shown to exist in many areas, including in STEM subjects, where women have made progress but are still less likely to pursue a career or be paid equally to their male counterparts.

Understanding that the gap is unlikely to be closed for well over a hundred years underscores the need for initiatives like International Women’s Day (IWD). Held every year on 8 March, the day raises awareness about women’s issues and lobbies for more policies to bolster equality. This year’s theme is #BreakTheBias.

(5) WEF promotes Gay Marriage


Marriage equality boosted employment of both partners in US gay and lesbian couples

May 10, 2019

Progress towards marriage equality within the U.S. could have economic benefits.

Dario Sansone

Lecturer in the department of economics, University of Exeter

Progress towards marriage equality within the U.S. has been extremely rapid in the last twenty years. In 2004, Massachusetts became the first state to legalise same-sex marriage. Following its example, more and more states approved marriage equality until the ruling in 2015 of the US Supreme Court legalised same-sex marriage at the federal level. Were these amendments to marriage law a revolution with a profound impact for gays and lesbians? Or were they just a formal statement recognising that times have changed, but without substantive consequences beyond more marriage (and divorce) licenses?

There are reasons to believe that the economic consequences of same-sex marriage legalisation could be large. Similar past reforms – such as the passage of unilateral divorce laws – have substantially increased female labour force participation (Fernández et al., 2014). On the other hand, the effect could be small. LGBT activists have achieved several successes in the last twenty years, sustaining a steady, gradual improvement in attitudes towards homosexuality, that would now be reflected in the law.

The impact of same-sex marriage legalisation on employment is also unclear ex-ante. Access to marriage may have led to increased commitment among partners (Badgett, 2009) and lower economic uncertainty, as well as shifts in taxation, health insurance benefits, and adoption laws. These changes could have discouraged some individuals in a same-sex relationship from both being employed.

Conversely, homophobic sentiments – although underreported – are still widespread (Coffman et al., 2017). Gays and lesbians commonly experience discrimination from employers, consumers and co-workers (Plug et al., 2004; Carpenter, 2007; Drydakis, 2009). Researchers have already documented improvements in attitudes and social norms following the recognition of same-sex relationships in the U.S. (Keitzer et al, 2014; Tankard et al., 2017) and in Europe (Aksoy et al., 2018). More generally, civil right legislation can affect social customs perceived by employers (Donohue et al., 1991). Therefore, it is possible that same-sex marriage legalisation led to an increase in employment among gays and lesbians since it drove a shift in social norms and a reduction in discrimination against sexual minorities. …

(6) WEF’s Woke War on Business; enforced compliance with ESG targets

The World Economic Forum’s Woke War on Business

Connor Tomlinson|

Posted: Feb 20, 2022 12:01 AM

It took some time for the authoritarian ideas of the World Economic Forum (WEF) to become excoriated in the mainstream press. But one of the most nefarious elements of Stakeholder Capitalism are Universal Environmental, Social, and Government (ESG) Scores.  But what are ESG scores, and could they be a gateway to a social credit system?

Stakeholder Capitalism is WEF founder Klaus Schwab’s model for imposing his ethical prescriptions onto free-market exchange. Businesses will no longer be beholden to “the prevailing shareholder-primacy model of profit maximization”, but instead to “more socially conscious” stakeholders: experts in fields like environmental sustainability, racial and gender equity, and increased immigration. These stakeholder criteria are determined by the UN’s seventeen Sustainable Development Goals: including the elimination of all poverty (relative and absolute), gender equality, and economic equity between nations. This is an aspect of his ““Great Reset” of capitalism.”

Schwab asks us to envision a world where these values are totalised across “every sector.” The union of monopolistic business and government policy is a core tenet of fascism. Under lockdowns, businesses and governments accrued unprecedented power and profits while we were under house arrest. Politicians have stocks and shares in many of the businesses they legislate against — and big businesses support measures like universal corporation tax rates to impair their opposition. The unification of the public and private spheres to form a national body politic — a corpus — is the etymology of the term corporation. As emissaries of the WEF’s ethic, all commerce and governing bodies become organs of an international state, which everything is for, and nothing is outside or against.

Businesses will be subjected to performance evaluations concerning compliance with ESG targets, to ensure their continued eligibility for WEF partnership perks. This involves gathering data on their employees and customers. This requires a vast digital infrastructure with algorithms tracking everything from purchasing habits to demographic trends. Your consumer behaviour will be scored on its carbon footprint, or proportion of patronage of “Black owned business”. The disparity between the targets and a business’ performance will provide an incentive for businesses to nudge their customer bases toward partaking in what they see as “ethical” and “sustainable” consumer behaviours.

To accelerate the process, businesses will form special interest lobbying groups to pressure governments into passing legislation that increases compliance with environmental and social policies. Eventually, boycotts will be done on your behalf. Dissidents to this new public-private ideology will not be able to buy from any business working with the WEF. Given the WEF’s partnerships with governments, monopolistic enterprises like Amazon and Silicon Valley social media giants, and international bodies like the WHO and WTO: that will be the majority of businesses.

Soon, there could be speakeasies for groceries — like in Lithuania, which banned those not vaccinated against COVID from supermarkets and pharmacies. Your social media posts could bar you from buying essential goods. Like store signs swearing Party support in Soviet occupied Europe, or Mom and Pop shops begging to be spared from 2020’s riots, adopting ESG scores are the new pledge of fealty to the WEF’s authoritarian international rule.

But that is only if world leaders acquiesce to this public-private corporate partnership. Why would Prime Ministers and Presidents pay patronage to an unelected Bond villain in Davos?

In many instances, the WEF’s is responsible for their rise through a Party apparatus to elected office. Their Global Leadership Fellows programme has coached many influential political figures in their doctrine of international cooperation, utilitarian policymaking, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Graduates of their related Young Global Leaders initiative include Transport Secretary Pete Buttigieg, New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, French President Emmanuel Macron, the Prime Minister of Belgium, the Prime Minister of Finland, the Crown Prince of Norway. Those not listed on the website, but cited by Schwab, include Vladimir Putin, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

It will be difficult to seek safe harbour from compliance with this digital commerce system when most world leaders attended the same political summer-school.

However, as the Canadian truckers’ protest goes to show, the best laid plans of this globalist Internationale aren’t going over as well as they had hoped. In their ivory-tower elitism, they forgot the working man and woman have more conscience than they do. The internet has liberalised access to information like the printing press did the Good Word from the clutches of corrupt Churches. All it takes is for goods distributors, businesses, and everyday consumers to conscientiously object, and their great narrative comes undone.

The only fear is that this grassroots uprising will be the excuse to expedite automation, and put the heavy-goods haulers out of business. It may take a few luddites to resist the algorithmic determination of our lives, and expropriation of our property, lest we end up nihilistic and immiserated.

Reject their tenets of the new institutional religion. Buy and make American. Follow the example of the freedom convoy, and don’t allow any political figure — elected or otherwise — to tell you what to put in your body or thoughts to have in your head.

Connor Tomlinson is the Head of Research at the British Conservation Alliance, and a political commentator with Young Voices UK. He appears regularly in C3 Magazine, AIER, and on talkRadio.

(7) Woke Capitalism: Companies promote ‘Social Justice’ causes, but avoid paying Tax

Book Review: Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy by Carl Rhodes

In Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy, Carl Rhodes explores how the corporate world’s calculated embrace of social justice poses a significant societal threat. This book not only unveils the hypocrisies and self-serving nature of ‘woke capitalism’, but also its pernicious effect on democracy, finds Andrew McCracken.  Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy. Carl Rhodes. Bristol University Press. 2021.

Book Review: Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy by Carl Rhodes

In Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy, Carl Rhodes explores how the corporate world’s calculated embrace of social justice poses a significant societal threat. This book not only unveils the hypocrisies and self-serving nature of ‘woke capitalism’, but also its pernicious effect on democracy, finds Andrew McCracken.

Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy. Carl Rhodes. Bristol University Press. 2021.

In the 2016 NFL season, Colin Kaepernick – a quarterback playing for the San Francisco 49ers – took a stand by not standing. Kaepernick chose to sit down, later opting to take a knee, during the traditional playing of the US national anthem before each game, in a protest against racial injustice.

This silent protest struck a nerve at a time when much of the world was fixated on the lurid presidential campaign of Donald Trump and his open flirtation with white nationalism. While lauded by many on the left, Kaepernick was accused of disrespecting the US and its troops and was verbally abused at games. He was described by a prominent African American analyst as not being truly ‘black’ (Kaepernick is biracial and was adopted by white parents), while Trump himself suggested that Kaepernick ‘should find a country that works better for him’. The protest also cost Kaepernick his career; after the conclusion of the 2016 season, his contract with the 49ers was terminated and no other NFL team moved to sign him.

Jettisoned by his sport, Kaepernick was given a new platform. He became the central figure in Nike’s ‘Dream Crazy’ advertising campaign, which launched in September 2018 with the slogan: ‘Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.’ Building a major marketing campaign around such a divisive figure seemed to represent a significant risk for Nike. Initial reaction suggested that the firm had miscalculated: hysterical sportswear fans upset at the endorsement burned the company’s products, Nike’s share price dipped and Trump – now president – claimed the ad was sending ‘a terrible message’. But Nike knew what it was doing. The company’s stock price rallied after it reported a significant sales boost, while the campaign itself won an Emmy.

Two years later, The New York Times reported that Nike was one of several companies lobbying to dilute US government measures targeting forced labour in Xinjiang, the region in China that produces 20 per cent of the world’s cotton. On social media, the New York Times story was mockingly posted alongside Nike’s slogan: ‘Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.’

Nike is far from the only global brand whose attempts to co-opt ‘woke’ causes have left it open to allegations of hypocrisy, but does the corporate world’s calculated embrace of social justice pose a more significant societal threat? In his engaging book, Woke Capitalism: How Corporate Morality is Sabotaging Democracy, Carl Rhodes – a professor at the University of Technology Sydney – argues that it does. […]

The self-interest at the heart of woke capitalism is revealed by corporations’ approach to taxation. Noting that paying tax ‘is the corporate social responsibility’, Rhodes highlights the contradictions of corporations supporting leftist causes such as LGBTQ rights and Black Lives Matter, while simultaneously engaging in ‘aggressive tax avoidance’. Companies are depriving countries around the world of billions of dollars of tax revenue that could be invested in government welfare programmes, while casting themselves as heroes in the fight for social justice. …