The World Economic Forum: Value Analysis

What is the psychological profile of The World Economic Forum? Is it dangerous? Is it honest?
The World Economic Forum: Value Analysis

A common belief online is that a totalitarian New World Order is ascending to a global throne. There may be some truth to this belief.

In "Manufacturing Support", I tracked down a conglomerate of corporations, firms, think tanks and government agencies that work together to control information by censoring, disseminating propaganda, and controlling networks. The conglomerate has led the world to believe that man is dangerous and needs to be governed by producing highly flawed reports on "hate", "extremism", "terrorism", "racism", and claiming that there is a correlation between crime rate and inequality (there is not).

Before building a psychological profile of The WEF, let us examine its correlation with The Conglomerate.

Members of The Conglomerate that were cited, acclaimed, members, or agenda contributors on the World Economic Forum's site:

  • Anti-Defamation League
  • Bing
  • Microsoft (member)
  • Facebook
  • Financial Times (agenda contributor)
  • Galop
  • Google (member)
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • Institute for Strategic Dialogue
  • Life After Hate, ExitAustralia, ExitUSA
  • YouTube
  • White House Summit on Countering Violent Extremism
  • International Organization for Migration
  • Jigsaw
  • Le Monde
  • Moonshot
  • New York Times
  • reddit
  • USAID
  • Wall Street Journal
  • Washington Post
  • Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Before we determine the strategy of the World Economic Forum, we have to discover their goals (value analysis). Before we conduct a value analysis to determine what the World Economic Forum (WEF) believes in, we have to first establish if the WEF is a sincere actor.

In "The False Agenda", I analyzed the global narratives over hate, extremism, and terrorism. I showed that these threats are miniscule and greatly exaggerated in North America and MENA. In many cases, these narratives are outright lies, such as the not-so-subtle substitution of selective opinion polls for actual crime data (ConnectFutures, Media Diversity Institute, NPR, and others). These narratives are clearly being used to justify network control among other authoritarian measures.

The World Economic Forum fancies these narratives that lack proper data sets, that lack empirical analysis, and that exclude legitimate data such as the UCRP (2020). Yet the WEF and The Conglomerate incessantly force such nonsense on their readers (and in many cases, their non-readers). 4 While the WEF may lie about other topics, these narratives are basis for much of the WEF's work and more than enough to classify them as dishonest or goal-oriented actor. The only assumption required to reach this conclusion is that the WEF is not incompetent. If the WEF is incompetent, then they may very well believe these narratives, but is seems like a reasonable assumption that the WEF is more aware than that.

You can see that with goal-oriented political agents, the desired material outcome is assumed.

With value-oriented political agents, the desired material outcome is not assumed; rather, it is assumed that knowledgeable political agents will discover the correct material outcome if they are free to pursue knowledge.

What of the WEF's other values and politics?

Equality & Corruption

Systemic racism is a topic covered by the WEF. Systemic racism, the belief that broader society or corporate elites have conspired to suppress a certain group is by definition, a conspiracy theory. If we believe that systemic racism exists, and we believe that superficial qualities (skin color, gender, etc.) do not determine a person's worth, then we necessarily have to restructure society so that systemic racism does not exist. This is perfectly sensible if systemic racism exists. This is an important debate because it is highly consequential.

We have already established that the WEC is not an honest political agent, and we have at least established that if any racism existed in North America, Europe, and MENA, it does not show up in crime data, extremism data, or terrorism data.. This hypothetical systemic racism also does not show up in interethnic and interracial marriage and cohabitation rates. It doesn't show up in our colorblind legislation. Is it fair to conclude that the WEC is lying about this as well? Systemic racism theories rely on narratives that the WEF and The Conglomerate do lie about after all, so my second assumption of this article is that the WEF realizes that systemic racism is probably not true in North America, MENA, and Europe yet propagates these theories regardless.

Similar topics in the WEF include Social Justice, Inequality, LGBTI Inclusion, Gender Equality, Reduced Inequalities, Social Innovation, Inclusion Growth Framework, etc. There is a prevalent theme here.

Affirmative action, which is mandatory equality of outcome, is a prevalent theme throughout each of these theories of race Marxism, sex Marxism, and every other neo-Marxism.

See Ryan Chaplan on YouTube for further breakdown

As I mentioned when psychoanalyzing an entity, it's values can also be deduced by the topics that it excludes. The WEF focuses on equality of outcome (which they shorten to "equality") and excludes liberty. Political agents that completely neglect the value of liberty in favor of a one-sided emphasis on the value of equality tend to be either unhealthy subordinates to a material outcome or the material outcome theorists themselves.

Of all major topics in the Forum's website, freedom and liberty do not come up, except in rare cases where the Forum uses an antithetical definition of the words. Indeed, the measures that the Forum calls for would greatly limit liberty, so campaigning on that principle would attract the wrong political agents for the cause.

We now know that the World Economic Forum does not believe in liberty and is a goal-oriented political agent – freedom is undesirable, and deception is necessary.

Taxation is another broad category of the WEF. Where taxes could be allocated is the underlying question of every WEF publication and citation; but never how to decrease or limit tax rates.

Vaccination is just as big of a category, which should be of no surprise in an organization whose membership includes all major pharmaceuticals. Medical freedom arguments are not presented, and vaccination mandates are heavily implied.

Governance, particularly Internet governance is a major WEF topic.

Cryptocurrencies are talked about solely in the context of criminal enterprises.2 The cryptocurrency market is also characterized as trackable, which is not necessarily true. The WEF makes no attempt to teach their readers on how to safely use cryptocurrencies and which wallets and exchanges to use. Could it be that the WEF does not want people to be autonomous and have private, secure lives outside of state or institutional scrutiny? It would certainly be logically consistent with the Forum's unilateral emphasis on control and order.

If a reader is still suspicious of my motives and has not read "The False Agenda" article, then click on this link "320 per cent increase in right-wing terrorism globally" from the WEF's article concerning the "grave" threat of right-wing extremism.1 The link has been removed. The WEF published an article on their site that makes certain claims about right-wing extremism and the citation the WEF uses to prove those claims does not work. The WEF has either failed to change the citation to an existing article or removed it in hopes of readers not checking their citations.

The Psychological Profile

Order or a Higher Purpose?

Whatever the Forum's goal is, it requires totalitarian governing to the extent that equality of outcome is enforceable; network control online exists to the same degree or greater than it currently exists; vaccine mandates are applied internationally; and much more.

Either the World Economic Forum members believe in (1) order as a fundamental value to be emphasized over all other values (the true Authoritarian Personality), or the Forum members believe (2) that they have discovered the most important goals in the modern world and that those goals necessitate ultimate global control. Either case, recall that the Forum is a deceptive goal-oriented political agent.

If the latter is true, why does the Forum deceive their readers? If their goal is noble and true, then they would not have to rely on deception...unless of course, the WEF members are so thoroughly misanthropic that they believe people are incapable of learning of these goals, so they must be deceived instead. If this latter option is the case, then the World Economic Forum are self-righteous misanthropes that have deep disdain (and likely disgust) for humanity and only view their fellow humans as tools to be wielded in whatever way they please – as long as the noble goal is achieved.

If the former is true, the World Economic Forum is an authoritarian organization that deceives people in order to become a global totalitarian regime. It deeply believes that humanity is meant to be ruled and that freedom is a fairy tale notion. If this is true, knowledge will be suppressed as it will incite rebellion.

Ultimately, the Forum either suffers from feelings of near-divine levels of superiority or deep psychological needs to control others.

This is the extent to which a psychological profile can be fit on a non-individual basis, but I don't believe we need to know the rest of the World Economic Forum's psyche. We have more important questions coming up. All of this is for naught if we can establish that the World Economic Forum is not influential or won't be in the near future. Conversely, this value analysis is crucial to understand if the Forum is capable of turning its goals into a reality.

The Man-is-Dangerous-and-Needs-to-be-Controlled Myths Debunked:

Crime decreases as liberty increases, though that ought to be obvious to most people.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than attacked by a far-right group in N. America.

The arbitrary definitions and flawed techniques used to collect data on "extremists"; also, the monitoring of the internet during the 2020 election (by a state-funded CVE)

Enormous data, little results - the flaw of the "white supremacy" narrative

That's what we are calling "misogyny"? That's what we are calling "significant"? (a state-funded CVE)

Interethnic and interracial marriages/cohabitations in America

[1] Sean Spence. "Right-wing extremism: The new wave of global terrorism". The World Economic Forum.

[2] Richard Clark. Sarah Kreps. Adi Rao. "Shifting Crypto Landscape Threatens Crime Investigations and Sanctions". The Brookings Institute.