Klaus Schwab wants to stop the retreat of globalisation and global governance with a new form of globalisation and global governance

Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ identified “the global governance free fall” as an existential challenge and if we do not collaborate “we are doomed.”

“Nation states make global governance possible (one leads the other),” the book states.  “The more nationalism and isolationism pervade the global polity, the greater the chance that global governance loses its relevance and becomes ineffective. Sadly, we are now at this critical juncture. Put bluntly, we live in a world in which nobody is really in charge.”

The book defines “global governance” as the cooperation among transnational actors to respond to global problems and “globalisation” as a broad and vague notion that refers to the global exchange between nations of goods, services, people, capital and data.

Although global governance is defined as a different concept, they are intertwined and the reasons for its “free fall” are the same as those for the retreat of globalisation.

The solution to the retreat from globalisation, Schwab and Malleret said, was a new form of globalisation which required policies and effective global governance.

Earlier this month, the US deep state’s Council on Foreign Relations publicised what they proposed to do about the rise in anti-globalisation through two interviews.  One was with Peter Trubowitz, an associate fellow at the UK deep state’s Chatham House.  The other was with Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund.

The general outcome of both was that the plan was to counteract anti-globalisation with a different form of globalisation. Trubowitz  suggested that what needs to be done is “to re-imagine the relationship between foreign and domestic policies” while Georgieva suggested “concentrating on the areas where, without working together, we are doomed.” The examples she gave as “we are doomed” without globalisation were “climate change,” the “green transition”  and debt.

Read more: Council on Foreign Relations tries to combat rise of anti-globalisation

Not only were Trubowitz and Georgieva parroting each other in the ideas and some of the language they used, but both were parroting Klaus Schwab and his book ‘The Great Reset’.

Plans to tackle Anti-Globalisation with a New Globalisation

After having to admit that it is inevitable that “some deglobalisation will happen,” the authors of ‘The Great Reset’ attempted to instil fear about anti-globalisation.

“A hasty retreat from globalisation would entail trade and currency wars, damaging every country’s economy, provoking social havoc and triggering ethno- or clan nationalism,” the authors claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 81)

They proposed “managing” the retreat of globalisation with a new form of globalisation.  Written using the verbiage of the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda, the new globalisation, according to Schwab and Malleret, will be “a much more inclusive and equitable form that … makes it sustainable, both socially and environmentally.”

They said this requires policy solutions and some form of effective global governance.

Their policy solutions were “addressed in the concluding chapter.”  Taking these words literally, the concluding chapter is ‘Chapter 3: Individual Reset’.

Chapter 3 suggests “redefining our humanness” and “changing priorities” as “solutions.” Under the heading ‘Redefining our Humanness’ is a section titled ‘Moral Choices’.  It is a mystery why Schwab and Malleret think they have the authority to redefine our humanness and decide our moral choices.  But in doing so they have made their ideology clear.

Under “moral choices” the two discussed how to maximise the common good:

[It is] a moral choice about whether to prioritise the qualities of individualism or those that favour the destiny of the community. It is an individual as well as a collective choice (that can be expressed through elections), but the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.

 … If (but it is a big “if”) in the future we abandon the posture of self-interest that pollutes so many of our social interactions, we may be able to pay more attention to issues like inclusivity and fairness.

The Great Reset, Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, July 2020, pg. 154 and 157

As we have said before, the term “the common good” and its ugly sister “the greater good” represent collectivism which is found in socialist, communist and fascist movements.  These movements use “the common good” as a tool for social control.

The authors don’t explain why there is a need for an “individual reset,” they simply assumed it was a consequence of the covid “pandemic.”  However, as they did throughout the book, they used collectivism as a tool of social control. “If, as human beings, we do not collaborate to confront our existential challenges (the environment and the global governance free fall, among others), we are doomed,” they claimed. (See The Great Reset pg. 152)

World Economic Forum’s Solution for the Precariat Class

The threat of anti-globalisation to Globalists’ plans had been recognised long before Schwab and Malleret published their book. The Great Reset noted two “momentous markers” that demonstrated the retreat of globalisation.

“The rise of nationalism makes the retreat of globalisation inevitable in most of the world – an impulse particularly notable in the West. The vote for Brexit and the election of President Trump on a protectionist platform are two momentous markers of the Western backlash against globalisation,” the two authors wrote. (See The Great Reset pg. 78)

The EU or Brexit referendum which decided that the UK should leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA both took place in 2016.

The following year Schwab delivered the main address at the World Government Summit.  “Let me give a short rundown on where we stand in our world and what directions we should choose,” he pontificated.

First on his list was deglobalisation.  “First, we are at historical crossroads. So, there’s one post sign, which directs us into what we called – to continue the way of what some people call neoliberalism – global cooperation.  But we face a backlash of millions of people, particularly in the West, who feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage,” he said.

In a self-defeating way, later in his speech after he mentioned some arbitrary benefits of globalisation, Schwab said that “globalisation has created a new economic equation; skills, labour is less in demand, which means if we look at the pie of GDP, the rent for labour is low and those who have capital, those who have new ideas have benefited more from globalisation.”

This sort of sums up one of the reasons why billions, not millions, feel that globalisation is not working to their advantage.  Effectively, globalisation means the self-proclaimed global elite get richer and own more while the poor get poorer and own less.  Even Schwab had to admit it: “For this reason, what we have seen in the elections in the United States, in the Brexit vote, this anger of people against globalisation and against the elites, which they feel have profited from globalisation.”

The second signpost of where the world was, according to Schwab, was the “re-erecting of walls, into, probably, a world which is more anchored in yesterday, and a world which probably is characterised by fragility and hostility.”

What exactly Schwab meant when he used the term “re-erecting walls” perhaps only he knows.  But in a broad sense, this again could be taken as referring to countries turning inward and so turning against globalisation.

“I would suggest that we do not choose either of those two ways,” he declared.

He then gave a sales pitch for the Fourth Industrial Revolution. “The Fourth Industrial Revolution will change our lives, will change how we live, how we consume, and how we work,” Schwab said.  He listed drones, self-driving cars, artificial intelligence and new methods to manipulate genes as no longer being just an idea but a reality.

There is a new class of people, Schwab said, called the precariats; “people who feel in a precarious situation who do not know whether they have enough when they get older, whether they can pay the medical bills.”

In a 2016 article, the World Economic Forum accused the precariat of being “the new global class fuelling the rise of populism.”

According to the Oxford Review, modern-day “gig economy” workers, mainly freelancers without long-term or permanent contracts and people on short-term and zero-hours contacts are all considered to be precariats.  We have to ask if the new class of people Schwab refers to has been created by the activities of the so-called global elites at organisations such as the World Economic Forum.

To address the issues the precariat class are experiencing and those who don’t know what the purpose of their life is or how they fit into the world as “global citizens,” the self-styled global elite and saviour of the world Klaus Schwab proposed some paradigms.

After rejecting neoliberalism and the dismantling of the current globalist system as options, Schwab suggested that “we should prepare ourselves for the Fourth Industrial Revolution” and integrate the multi-stakeholder concept on which his World Economic Forum was built.

As another possibility, Schwab wanted the Summit’s attendees to embrace “the Eastern philosophy.”  In the West, Schwab said, there is a concept which protects the individual against the collective.  Conversely, in the East is a concept to protect the collective against the individual, he said.

The problem with the “Eastern philosophy” as Schwab calls it, is who decides what the collective needs protecting from and the protection measures that should be taken?

Elected Governments are “Old Fashioned”

A few months earlier, Schwab showcased Google founder Sergey Brin’s dystopian ideas at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting. Schwab introduced the topic of the predictive power of artificial intelligence (“AI”).

“Digital technologies [now] have an analytical power … the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict … and afterwards say: ‘Why do we need elections because we know what the result will be’.”

“You might further ask, why do we need to have elected leaders because you might as well have all the decisions made,” Brin said.

Schwab pressed the issue of the world being run by unelected decision-makers: He called the process of governments “old fashioned.”  He cited the example of governments hearing about a technological development and then involving regulatory agencies, parliamentary commissions and then finally regulations being debated in and passed by parliaments.

“This [process] is absolutely not suited anymore to our new technologies,” he said.  “We need much more agile interaction between business, regulators, civil society and so on”.

Brin added that he thinks the relationship between governments and business is often antagonistic, which, he said, is unhealthy. “Not only should we try to tackle things more quickly but also in a real collaborative way,” Brin said.

This brings us back to the quote from The Great Reset noted at the beginning of this article.  Collective choice, The Great Reset said, can be expressed through elections.  “But the example of the pandemic shows that highly individualistic societies are not very good at expressing solidarity.”

As with Schwab’s proposed use for predictive artificial intelligence, they are using jargon to accustom people to the idea of them removing our ability to make a choice and allowing self-appointed elites to make our choices – for the common good.

Schwab’s version of “Eastern philosophy” is that business and like-minded profiteers, most likely through the World Economic Forum, will decide for “the collective.” In a nutshell, this is Schwab and his cronies’ plan for a new form of globalisation with its policy solutions and effective global governance.

From the billions of us, no thanks, Schwab.