Dr. Robert Malone's new stack "WEF: A Trade Organization on Steroids"; worth the read
by Paul Alexander
Always excellent writing, someone I admire greatly
Robert’s stack to subscribe to if you wish:
Warriors must recognize the true name and nature of their opponent
Words and their meanings are tricky things. Clever people, con artists, liars and CIA agents (which are all of the above, in my experience) are often very skilled at using language and manipulating both meaning and emotions to hide their true intent.
Wikipedia, an organization that is generally very friendly to the World Economic Forum and its agenda, defines the WEF as follows:
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an international non-governmental and lobbying organisation based in Cologny, canton of Geneva, Switzerland. It was founded on 24 January 1971 by German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab. The foundation, which is mostly funded by its 1,000 member companies – typically global enterprises with more than five trillion US dollars in turnover – as well as public subsidies, views its own mission as "improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic, and other leaders of society to shape global, regional, and industry agendas".
Simplifying that for sake of discussion, the WEF is a trade organization which is designed to advance the business interests of extremely wealthy companies and their owners (generally referred to as “Davos Man”). Global enterprises with more than five trillion US dollars in turnover is a very small and elite group. Five trillion dollars (that would be five million million dollars, or five thousand billion) in annual revenue makes for a very exclusive club, as illustrated by the latest Forbes 2000 international ranking (from 2021).
What is a trade organization? Back to Wikipedia.
“A trade association, also known as an industry trade group, business association, sector association or industry body, is an organization founded and funded by businesses that operate in a specific industry. An industry trade association participates in public relations activities such as advertising, education, publishing, lobbying, and political donations, but its focus is collaboration between companies. Associations may offer other services, such as producing conferences, holding networking or charitable events, or offering classes or educational materials.”
Yup. If the shoe fits, wear it.
Not surprisingly, in its own mission statement, the WEF defines itself as follows “The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” Which is really a carefully word-smithed way of saying that the WEF is a centralized trade organization for promoting international corporatism.
Public-private cooperation as a political and economic structure is also known by two other terms; corporatism and fascism. Benito Mussolini is often credited with a very succinct definition of corporatism in the disputed quote “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power”. Whether an accurate english translation or not, the statement reflects a fundamental political truth.
Merriam-Webster defines corporatism as:
“the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction”
Andrew Stuttaford, writing in the National Review during October 2020 (here is his personally archived version), provides an alternative definition which I think really gets to the root of the issue. In his opinion, corporatism as advocated by the WEF consists of:
[A] hydra-headed ideology with origins in the premodern, and a very mixed past — sometimes benignly (it influenced the formation of West Germany’s social market economy) and sometimes not (it was an important element in pre-war fascist theory.) The different forms corporatism has taken make it tricky to define with precision, but they share a common core: the conviction that society should be organized by and for its principal interest groups — let’s call them “stakeholders” — intermediated by, and ultimately subordinate to, the state. The individual does not get a look in.
The context for this remarkable statement is a prescient article titled “A Useful Pandemic: Davos Launches New ‘Reset,’ this Time on the Back of COVID”. In my opinion, in some future listing of COVID heroes, Mr. Stuttaford surely deserves to be in the top 10. Here are links to some other profoundly prescient articles from the same author:
The Great Reset: If Only It Were Just a Conspiracy. November 27, 2020
This one has another notable quote relevant to this current substacks’ topic:
“The 'Great Reset' masterminded by the World Economic Forum is just corporatism by another name”
And then there is this, which cuts right to the bone of the matter.
Larry Fink, ‘Emperor’? February 19, 2022
And yet another key money quote:
“As BlackRock and other large index-fund managers continue pushing stakeholder capitalism, America slouches toward corporatism.”
“Stakeholder capitalism”. There is another benign-sounding term that requires definition and understanding. Turns out that this is a phrase largely pioneered and championed by Klaus Schwab, leader of the WEF. It is at the very heart of the self-concept of the WEF. Schwab’s definition is as follows:
“Stakeholder capitalism is a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large.”
Here is Mr. Schwabs’ graphical representation of how he defines this term. This is called a “flower diagram”, for those who want to know, and this type of diagram is often attributed to the consulting company Deloitte. Notice that business is at the center of this world view, and State and Society are lumped together and relegated to the position of one of many “stakeholders” which business needs to take into account. This is the political objective that is at the center of the Uniparty globalist vision. Filed under the heading “words matter”, see here for Politicos’ take on the origins of the Uniparty term.
Under this concept, we all exist to serve and enable businesses and their economic growth objectives. Good to know. Puts things in their proper perspective. No role here for faith-based organizations!
Now, let’s see what the prophetic Andrew Stuttaford has to say about stakeholder capitalism? Once again, please read his initial article on the “Great Reset”. It is an absolute gem, and relies heavily on a preceding article by Ben Sixsmith titled “What is the Great Reset” (which is unfortunately behind a “Spectator World” paywall).
“Recently, one expression of corporatism, “stakeholder capitalism,” has won strong support on both sides of the Atlantic. This might be expected in Europe, but that it has been taken up by the Business Roundtable and many leading firms in the U.S. — allegedly a bastion of both free enterprise and democracy — is depressing. Looked at optimistically, the BRT and its C-suite cheerleaders are useful idiots. Looked at realistically, they are part of a managerial class grubbing for the power that flows from other people’s money.
Stakeholder capitalism rests on the notion that a company’s management owes a duty to more than its shareholders. It’s something that Klaus Schwab, the WEF’s founder and executive chairman, has been advocating for a long time. A key feature of the Great Reset is the idea that stakeholder capitalism should, one way or another, be adopted.
That would reduce a company’s shareholders to just another category of “stakeholder,” effectively transferring the power that capital should confer away from its owners and into the hands of those who administer it. They are then accountable to, well, it’s not quite clear whom. It’s not difficult to grasp why so many corporate bosses are enthused by stakeholder capitalism.
But stakeholder capitalism is a betrayal of democracy as well as of shareholders. The power it gives to managers is increasingly being used to support an agenda influenced by a cabal of activists, NGOs, representatives of the “international community,” and politicians too arrogant to go through the usual legislative process.”
And there we have it. The logic of “stakeholder capitalism”, as developed by Klaus Schwab, is at the root of the whole shitshow that we can now see in the gross mismanagement of the global public health response to COVID-19 and the Coronacrisis. This is where the rot took hold.
Turning back to Andrew Stuttaford, here is more on his analysis of “stakeholder capitalism”:
‘Stakeholder Capitalism’ A Sham? Unfortunately Not. August 30, 2021
Once again, please read the entire article. Another absolute gem.
“Stakeholder capitalism is an expression of corporatism. Some of these rogues, cynics, if you like, of the “wrong” sort, have their eyes on an even bigger prize, securing for themselves an important — and, one way or another, well-rewarded — role in the corporatist society that is now under construction in this country. Such a society is not, regardless of the sound of that adjective, one dominated by big business, but one, run, in theory anyway, by and for various interest groups, players in an orchestra, with the state acting as a conductor. Corporatism can be relatively benign — its traces are visible in, say, post-war West Germany — it is also the socioeconomic model (again, in theory) underlying fascist and fascist-adjacent regimes in mid-century Europe and Argentina. The U.S. is not headed the whole way down that path, but our current iteration of corporatism will end up as considerably more assertive than anything seen during the years of the Wirtschaftswunder — and it is more likely to lead to economic decline than an economic miracle. It won’t be great for democracy either.
Cynics of the right sort, on the other hand, were presumably gambling that a bit of fancy talk — that they were fully in favor of the BRT’s “transformative statement” and so on, might be enough to keep the enemies of shareholder primacy at bay.”
And seen through this lens, what just transpired between Elon Musk and the Twitter Board of Directors is a huge blow to the logic of stakeholder capitalism as implemented over at corporate Twitter, prompting cries of anguish concerning the need to “protect” the Twitterati by the BBC (a bastion of stakeholder capitalism logic including “nudging” and the Trusted News Initiative), as well as from Thierry Breton, the EU’s “commissioner for the internal market”.
This is the same logic which has lead Barack Obama to promote censorship. But in reality, the true primary agenda is to protect the interests of corporate elites (“Davos Man”) who apparently often have a child-like need to be venerated for their social contributions. Or maybe it is all just a convenient smoke shield to obscure their real agenda - to own everything. Which ties into my prior observations concerning over-protective parenting and the personality profiles associated with cancel and woke cultural warriors.
It is time to wake up and recognize that the levers of global power are being taken over by a commercial trade organization which represents the interests of the 1,000 member companies – typically global enterprises with more than five trillion US dollars in turnover which are its primary contributors.
All of the other smokescreens, wordplay/lobbying, coordinated censorship and propaganda, trappings and training programs which the WEF has implemented are merely tools designed to achieve the business objectives of those 1,000 companies and their wealthy owners. And it is being hidden behind a curtain called “stakeholder capitalism”. This is corporatism or fascism (choose your favorite term) deployed on a global scale, financed by the global titans of industry, “Davos Man”.
One of the key questions which Andrew Stuttaford leaves unanswered in the essays cited above is the “Big Why” for the WEF “Global Reset”. This question was addressed previously in this substack titled “Uncovering the Corona Narrative” (the short answer is to maintain global financial control by WEF members as we move through the upcoming next financial crisis), and in general the feedback on that one from the financial/Wall Street analysts that I trust has pretty much been “spot on!”.