human rights – Page 10 – The Truth Hurts News Share blog

What’s to stop this from happening again?

The ongoing Truckers for Freedom convoy in Ottawa has triggered a shockwave that is reaching all around the world. Even as our authoritarian federal regime continues to double down on measures and threatens to use brute force tactics against peaceful protesters, many provinces are nervously beginning to lay out a timeline for ending mandates.

But there is something important missing from the conversation surrounding the end of mandates. If the mandates are simply dropped today without calling out the underlying legal and ethical fallacy that was used to justify them, government overreach will have become normalized. We will be left without the legal protections to stop them from doing this to us again after the truckers go home. All it will take to put us back in a cage is for the government to point at the next wave, the next virus variant, or the next non-Covid emergency.

We will have normalized that our rights, our freedoms, our bodily autonomy, and even access to our lives are conditional privileges, subject to opinion polls and technocratic impulses and that they can be withdrawn again at any time, “for our safety.”

In March of 2020, in violation of the principles embedded in our constitutions, governments around the world convinced citizens to give their leaders and public institutions the authority to overrule individual rights in order to “flatten the curve.” That impulse went unchallenged under the false assumption that human rights violations could be justified as long as the benefits to the majority outweighed the costs to the minority. By accepting this excuse for overriding unconditional rights, we transformed ourselves into an authoritarian police state where “might makes right.” That is the moment when all the checks and balances in our scientific and democratic institutions stopped functioning.

Liberal democracy was built around the principle that individual rights must be unconditional. In other words, they are meant to supersede the authority of government. Consequently, individual rights (such as bodily autonomy) were meant to serve as checks and balances on government power. They were meant to provide a hard limit to what our government can do to us without our consent.

If the government cannot override your rights to bend you to its will, then it will be forced to try to convince you by talking with you. That forces government to be transparent and to engage in meaningful debate with critics. Your ability to say NO, and to have your choice respected, is the difference between a functioning liberal democracy and an authoritarian regime.

The natural instinct of fearful people is to control those around them. Unconditional rights force people to negotiate voluntary participation in collective solutions. Thus, unconditional rights prevent the formation of echo chambers and provide an important counter-weight to rein in uncontrolled panic. When no-one has the option to use the brute force of State power to force others to submit to what they think is “the right thing to do,” then the only path forward is to keep talking to everyone, including to “fringe minorities” with “unacceptable views.” When we allow rights to become conditional, it is virtually a certainty that during a crisis, panicked citizens and opportunistic politicians will give in to their worst impulses and trample those who disagree with them.

Unconditional individual rights prevent governments from taking unwilling citizens on crusades. They prevent scientific institutions from transforming themselves into unchallengeable “Ministries of Truth” that can double down on their mistakes to avoid accountability. They ensure that the checks and balances that make science and democracy work do not break down in the chaos of a crisis. In the heat of an emergency when policy decisions are often made on the fly, unconditional rights are often the only safeguards to protect minorities from panicked mobs and self-anointed kings.

If we allow our leaders to normalize the idea that rights can be switched off during emergencies or when political leaders decide that “the science is settled,” then we are giving the government terrifying and unlimited power over us. It gives those who control the levers of power the authority to turn off access to your life. That turns the competition for power into a zero-sum game: the winners become masters, the losers become serfs. It means you can no longer afford to allow the other side to win an election, at any cost, nor agree to a peaceful transfer of power, because if you lose the winning team becomes the master of your destiny. And so, a zero-sum game of brutal power politics is set in motion. Unconditional individual rights are the antidote to civil war. Liberal democracy collapses without them.

Withdrawing mandates because “the Omicron variant is mild” or because “the costs of continuing the measures outweigh the benefits” does not undo what has been normalized and legitimized. If the legitimacy of mandates is not overturned, you will not be going back to your normal life. It may superficially look similar to your life before Covid, but in reality you will be living in a Brave New World where governments temporarily grant privileges to those who conform with the government’s vision of how we should live. You will no longer be celebrating your differences, cultivating your individuality, or making your own free choices. Only conformity will enable you to exist. You will be living under a regime in which any new “crisis” can serve as justification to impose restrictions on those who don’t “get with the program” as long as mobs and technocrats think the restrictions are “reasonable.” You will no longer be the master of your own life. A golden cage is still a cage if someone else controls the lock on the door.

Politicians and public health authorities MUST be forced to acknowledge that mandates are a violation of civil liberties. The public MUST be confronted by the fact that liberal democracy ceases to exist without the unconditional (inalienable) safeguards of individual rights and freedoms. The public MUST recognize that science ceases to function when mandates can be used to cut off scientific debates. Our governments and our fellow citizens MUST be made to understand that unconditional rights are especially important during a crisis.

If the legal and ethical fallacies that were used to justify mandates are not called out as inexcusable violations of our constitutional rights, we will have inadvertently normalized the illiberal idea that, as long as someone in a lab coat says it’s okay, this can be done to us again, at any time, whether to fight the next wave of Covid, to take away freedoms to fight “climate change”, to seize assets to solve a government debt crisis, or simply to socially engineer outcomes according to whatever our leaders define as a “fairer and more equitable world”.

How we navigate the end of mandates determines whether we win our freedom or whether we allow our leaders to normalize a Brave New World with conditional rights that can be turned off again during the next “emergency.”

The Coming Terror Of Social Impact Finance And Social Credit Scores

Will the social engineers of the future use social engineering tools such as social credit scores and social impact finance to co-create a more equitable and just world? Or are all of the buzzwords simply another mask for the next stage of colonialist-corporate-capitalism?

“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.” ― Theodore John Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future

Between 1978 and 1995, Theodore John Kaczynski, or simply Ted Kaczynski, launched a coordinated bombing campaign in an attempt to raise awareness about the threat digital technology poses to the planet and all life. Kaczynski’s bombs resulted in the deaths of 3 people, 23 persons injured, and him being sentenced to spend the rest of his life behind bars in the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

On September 19, 1995, The Washington Post and The New York Times co-published Kaczynski’s manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future, and quickly catapulted the terrorist to cult status among certain radical anti-technology activists and anarcho-primitivists. It was the publication of Kaczynski’s writing that ultimately led to his capture and imprisonment. Since that time, his words and ideas have been heavily debated, dissected, praised, and scorned.

For many Millennials and Gen-Z who grew up with the Internet (or in some cases “on the Internet”), the issues that Kaczynski speaks to are very real — isolation, over-socialization, disassociation. These experiences are familiar to many of the recent generations who spent their childhoods learning on computers, navigating the world filtered through memes, self-obsessed social media, and feeling the judgement or praise that comes with a life lived via the net. Numerous studies over the last decade have clearly highlighted the negative effects of spending too much time on the Internet, comparing and contrasting our lives against largely fictionalized versions of other peoples lives. This disassociation — along with mass surveillance — was exactly what Ted Kaczynski warned about.

“The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine.Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.
If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the results of its breakdown will be, so if it is to break down it had best break down sooner rather than later.” ― Theodore John Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future

The thoughts and actions of Kaczynski are likely to experience another surge in relevance and reflection with the recent release of the movie Ted K, a crime drama which represents the terrorist’s story in a factual manner. After watching the movie I began re-reading Kaczynski’s original manifesto and his 2016 book, Anti-Tech Revolution: Why and How. The difference between my previous studies of Kaczynski’s manifesto and this latest examination is that I am interested in filtering his views through the lens of The Great Reset, and the rise of Technocracy and the biosecurity state.

By understanding the concerns of Kaczynski, is it possible to better comprehend the dangers posed to us by rapidly emerging digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), biometrics, facial recognition databases, and the Technocratic philosophy which guides The Great Reset initiative? This essay is the first of several efforts to understand the coming threat of these technologies — specifically, social credit scores and social impact finance — in relation to the warnings of the brilliant but fractured mind of Ted Kaczynski.

The World Kaczynski Warned About: Social Credit Scores

Kaczynski warned about the dangers of using digital technology in a way that forces humans to mold themselves into the machine, as opposed to molding the machines to the desires and benefits of humanity. When he writes, “our society tends to regard as a “sickness” any mode of thought or behavior that is inconvenient for the system, and this is plausible because when an individual doesn’t fit into the system it causes pain to the individual as well as problems for the system. Thus the manipulation of an individual to adjust him to the system is seen as a “cure” for a “sickness” and therefore as good”, he speaks to a feeling expressed by many thinkers before him.

Perhaps most famously, Krishanmurti said, “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” However, this is exactly what most of the human population is encouraged to do. Find a way to find balance within the increasingly imbalanced, unstable world we live in. While the digital infrastructure is erected around us we are compelled to comply or be left behind. And, of course, this infrastructure also includes government agencies with rapidly increasing police and surveillance powers, distractions in the form of television, social media, and other forms of entertainment, and a culture which promotes use of mind-altering pharmaceuticals as a method of escape from the drudgery of the profoundly sick society.

The area where Kaczynski might be most prescient is his prediction is that society would compel people to change their behaviors and actions to suit the needs of the technological system. This can be seen most clearly with the introduction of social engineering programs such as social credit scores.

Most TLAV readers are familiar with the ongoing roll out of a nationwide social credit system in China. Starting in 2009, the Chinese government began testing a national reputation system based on a citizen’s economic and social reputation, or “social credit.” This social credit score can be used to reward or punish certain behaviors. The idea is that the state can give or takeaway points from a social credit score in order to engineer good behavior from the people.

One need not imagine the potential negative outcomes, or even look to science fiction novels for inspiration. To gain a clearer understanding of the implications of this Technocratic machine just look the digital dystopia of China.

By late 2019, Chinese citizens were losing points on their score for dishonest and fraudulent financial behavior, playing loud music, eating on public transportation, jaywalking, running red lights, failing to appear at doctor appointments, missing job interviews or hotel reservations without canceling, and incorrectly sorting waste. To raise one’s social credit score a Chinese citizen can donate blood, donate to an approved charity, volunteer for community service, and other activities approved by the government. The Chinese government has begun to deny millions of people the ability to purchase plane and high-speed rail tickets due to low social credit scores and being labeled “untrustworthy.”

While most people are likely familiar with this concept because of the popular show Black Mirror, the truth is this practice is much more reality than fiction. According to a 2020 report from cybersecurity experts Kaspersky, 32 percent of adults between 25 to 34 have had issues getting a mortgage or loan due to their social media activity. The denial of loans comes as part of “social scoring systems” which are being used at an alarming rate by government and businesses to determine customers or citizens “trustworthiness.” Kaspersky surveyed more than 10,000 people from 21 countries and found that 18 percent of those polled had issues accessing financial services because of assessments of their social media data.

“Based on these scores, systems make decisions for us or about us, from travel destinations and the associated costs, to whether we are allowed to access the service itself,” the report states.

When understood in the context of COVID1984, it’s fairly easy to see how concepts like social credit scores can be used to punish those who reject vaccines and similar therapies. For example, let’s say you are one of the people who refuse to wear masks in public. Once one of the thousands of facial recognition cameras scan your face, they will send the faceprint to the local data analysis center and immediately identify you while deducting points from your social credit score. The government and partnered corporations might also broadcast your photo and identity to your local surroundings, individual phones and digital billboards, to alert the people they are in the presence of an anti-social, anti-science, anti-mask idiot.

These types of actions have the effect of taking away state-sanctioned privileges (travel in China, for example) and stigmatizing the individual amongst their local community. This is because associating with an individual with a low social credit score can also cause one’s own score to drop. This means family and friends might choose to change their relationships with those who display so-called anti-social behaviors for fear of losing points on their social credit score and suffering the consequences.

It’s worth noting that in a different world — a sane world — there might be a multitude of positive use cases for something similar to a social credit score that provides accurate and useful data about the people and companies around us. In many ways humans already accumulate and spend “social credit” in our current relationships. For example, when a person develops a reputation as a liar or a thief, word spreads. Community members become aware of the anti-social habit and begin to spread the word to other community members who associate with this person. From there, each individual can decide how they want to use the new data and whether or not they want to continue to associate with the anti-social individual. When participation in social credit score schemes is voluntary, consensual, and private, it could help individuals make better decisions in their daily lives.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where men and women in positions of authority exercise their power by attempting to control the lives of the masses using digital technology and propaganda. This means that governments with a track record of authoritarianism and deception, and corporations with less than trustworthy histories are the likely architects of the social credit schemes of the near future. It would be a mistake (and a simplistic analysis) to assume that every single company, government, or individual expressing interest in some element of social credit is a tool for The Great Reset.

The reality is that certain individuals believe they can use the concept of social credit scores to encourage positive, empowering behavior. However, we must always ask, who is the judge of what behavior constitutes positive and negative?

European Parliament Press Conference.

The European Parliament has held an important press conference over the pandemic with fingers pointing at senior figures and asking for their resignation.

I’ve added a YouTube link below to watch.

https://youtu.be/qhe20QRG_Rw

How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations?

How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculation? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population(Working Paper)

This paper examines potential fatalities and injuries from the Covid-19 inoculation using an online “Covid-19 Health Experiences Survey” administered to a representative sample of the US population. The sample is composed of 3,000 respondents balanced on age, gender, and income to the extent possible. The survey was administered in December 2021, collecting information regarding respondents’ experiences with the Covid-19 illness and the Covid-19 inoculations as well as Covid-19 health experiences within respondents’ social circles. The survey also collected respondent economic and demographic information. Using these data, I find the following:

Covid-19 inoculation-related fatalities:

Assuming that all the respondents who know somebody who they believe died from the inoculation actually died from the inoculation, estimated fatalities are about 308,000.
Subtracting out those who may have died regardless of inoculation yields an estimated 260,000 inoculation-induced fatalities. This is an initial first pass estimate—more evaluation is needed.

Factors associated with being inoculated:

The likelihood of being inoculated is significantly less for those who identify themselves as African American, Hispanic, and Asian, and Republican or Independent. Democrats, Caucasians, and more the highly educated are more likely to be inoculated.
Those who indicated that they obtain information about Covid-19 from alterative news sources were less likely to be inoculated. Those who obtain information from mainstream news and official government source are more likely to be inoculated.
Knowing someone who experienced a significant health problem from the Covid-19 illness increased the likelihood of being inoculated.
Knowing someone who had been injured by the Covid-19 inoculation substantially reduced the likelihood of being inoculated.

The official position of the US government is that the Covid-19 inoculations have resulted in nine fatalities (CDC, 2022). The experiences shared by hundreds of respondents in this survey suggests that many people died or were injured following inoculation. Which data are more believable—nine fatalities or as many as 200,000 to 300,000 fatalities? Surveys have limitations in assessing the impacts of health interventions. However, this type of evaluation offers an important point of triangulation. The experiences of people captured in surveys generally should be consistent with official government data. In the case of Covid-19 inoculations, there is a tremendous divergence which should be cause for further inquiry. My hope is that this research will motivate a full and transparent examination by independent health and medical scholars to ascertain the degree of harm being caused by the Covid-19 inoculations.

The full paper can be accessed at: How Many People Died from the Covid-19 Inoculations? An Estimate Based on a Survey of the United States Population

In the UK it’s estimated only 1% of adverse effects are reported. With 1.4 million in severe adverse effects and 1,900 deaths on my last check 3 weeks ago this could be enormous. I know personally 6 that have died from the vaccine and one of those was my daughter’s 23-year-old best friend. A beautiful and fun-loving working young woman taken with a brain haemorrhage.

I know endless with many severe adverse effects, 2 on chemo, two with thrombosis, 2 with thyroid and 3 with heart problems and one who was in such a mess he thought it was the end. All these people are between 23 and 50. All fit and healthy.

I would rather be locked up for life than take their poison.

Police confirm use of controversial LRAD device at Canberra protest

What started out at the beginning of the week as the ‘stuff of conspiracy theories’ was eventually confirmed by Police.

Australian Capital Territory Policing admitted that they did use a Long Range Acoustic Device (also known as a LRAD) during the Canberra Convoy Freedom rallies outside Parliament House.

A number of wild theories and have emerged online about how the LRAD device was used in Canberra and claims of injury, but the actual effects are well documented.

Reports are still coming in on various injuries at the protest – most relating to what looks like sunburn and heat stroke. There are also clear allergic reactions from what some speculate might be contact with chemicals.

The LRAD device has two modes. One setting turns it into a crowd control tool – also referred to as a ‘sound canon’, ‘acoustic hailing device’, or a ‘sonic weapon’ – and the other mode, which is what was used in Canberra, makes the LRAD a loudspeaker or amplification device to relay messages to the crowd.

A spokesperson for police released a statement to The Epoch Timesconfirming, “ACT Policing has deployed several types of loudspeakers and amplification devices to quickly and effectively convey voice messages to large, and often loud, crowds of people during the recent protest activity in Canberra.”

However, this confirmation came only after One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and Liberal Senator Alex Antic brought up the issue in Senate estimates on February 14.

Malcolm Roberts’ office was inundated with complaints from protesters all week wanting to know what had happened during the rally – prompting him to pass on these public concerns.

“That would be something that is with our police methodology which we would have to look at some type of public interest immunity claim, Senator,” said the Australia Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw, when questioned by Senator Roberts.
“Surely it’s in the public interest to know whether or not they [LRADs] were there without delving too much into it?”
“I’d have to […] If I could take that on notice, I’d have to get advice.”

Senator Antic, who attended Senate estimates virtually, held up a photo of the LRAD device beside members of the police force. Despite the visual evidence in front of Kershaw, he still chose to defer the answer.

“With the benefit of having that photograph which tends to confirm it [the claims that there was an LRAD present], we still can’t confirm that that device was there on the day?” asked Senator Antic, still holding the photograph.

Kershaw insisted that the question had already been taken on notice.

The LRAD was used in Canberra only as a means of communicating with the crowd.

Its use has, however, alarmed many public observers as the LRAD is technically a sonic crowd control weapon that, if used in its other setting, projects extremely loud sounds over long distances to cripple a crowd. The ‘alert setting’ on the device is particularly dangerous and has been known to cause permanent hearing damage, dizziness, disorientation, and brain damage.

Essentially the device ‘chirps’ at the crowd causing pain and potentially permanent hearing damage. Its use on crowds remains highly controversial, with the NYPD ending up in federal court where it was recommended that their use against protesters on the alert setting be suspended.

LRADs have been employed in military settings, such as by the United States in 2004, as a form of non-lethal combat. An LRAD was used against crowds at the 2009 G20 summit in its weaponised mode, causing serious and permanent injuries. It was also reported to have been used against the Occupy Oakland crowd in 2011.

Like a water canon pushes the crowd back with the force of a liquid, sound canons use waves of noise to bombard people. These can be targeted onto specific parts of the crowd.

In the US, it is frequently used on crowds in its loudspeaker mode, as was done in Canberra. Many other countries also employ LRADs for crowd communication purposes.

The Australian Federal Police, Queensland Police, South Australian Police, Western Australian Police, and Australia Victorian Police have all confirmed that they have purchased one of these devices. The Northern Territory and New South Wales police forces did not comment.

LRADs are used in a wide range of settings and by various government departments, usually on its loudspeaker mode. It is also used at runways, solar and wind farms and agricultural operations to frighten animals away from equipment.

The ABC ran a report concerned about the purchase of these devices back in 2016.

‘They can break up protests with loud, piercing sound, but Long Range Acoustic Devices can also cause permanent hearing damage. Australian law enforcement agencies are now investing in the technology, but sound and law experts say their potential use is extremely concerning.’

At the time, Melbourne University expert James Parker told the ABC, “The secrecy of the state around the tools, the weapons that it has and is capable of using on its population is something to be really, really concerned about. It expands the nature of police/state/military authority in a certain kind of way. It makes sound itself part of the arsenal that police and military and state institutions use.”

While there is no evidence that LRADs were used in their alert capacity in Canberra, there is a genuine question about whether or not police would have done so if the crowd was not as well behaved as they were.

The Canberra Convoy – created in sympathy with the Canadian Freedom Convoy in Ottawa – turned into one of the largest protests in Canberra’s history, culminating in a huge gathering in front of Parliament House.

During the day’s events, livestreamers and members of the independent press reported that they had a lot of trouble with their feeds. Attendees also reported poor or no reception for large parts of the day.

This is considered highly unusual, as the area around Parliament House has additional infrastructure particularly to deal with increased loads caused by protests and other political operations – given that it is the heart of Australia’s political landscape.

There are as-yet unconfirmed reports that two Telstra towers went down during the day, explaining why the other towers ended up overloaded resulting in what became a black spot for phones.

At least the Police Commissioner agreed with Senator Antic that – with only three arrests for a very large crowd – the protesters in Canberra were well behaved.
‘Mostly peaceful’ Kershaw agreed, but added that he did not like their attitudes. “Pretty well behaved. A lot of poor attitudes though, but there’s no offence for that. So police did cop a fair bit of abuse, but again, it didn’t cross into the criminal threshold.”

Compared to Black Lives Matter protesters in previous years calling ‘all cops bastards’, displaying artwork featuring burning police cars with the word ‘pigs’ written across them, and demanding the complete dismantling of the police force – the Canberra Convoy was very well behaved during the weeks it spent gathering size in Canberra.

Still, it would be of significant public interest to have a definitive answer on whether or not police had been authorised to use the LRAD in its other capacity.

Scary, Shocking Covid Stuff

Here are three things I read today that made me feel quite ill.

The governments in England, Wales and Scotland have all approved child murder and are now offering toxic, experimental jabs to children aged 5-11 years old. Having murdered thousands of elderly folk they’re now moving onto the little children. The drug they have approved for small children has been shown to be unnecessary and deadly when given to older children and adults. Any doctor giving one of these jabs to a small child, more vulnerable and developing, should be struck off, defrocked and hung, drawn and quartered before being arrested and thrown into prison for life. The same goes for any parent allowing their small child to be jabbed with this experimental poison. (Factcheckers might like to know that a poison is defined as a substance that, when introduced into a living body, causes illness or death. The covid jabs are known to cause illness or death and are, therefore, poisons.)
A court in New Zealand sent out a demand from the Ministry of Health for the sum of $330 for non-compliance with (utterly pointless) covid-19 testing. The recipient of the court order was warned that if they didn’t pay the court could issue a warrant for their arrest, suspend their driving licence, seize their property or take money from their income or bank account, report the overdue fine as part of a credit reference check (so that they couldn’t get a credit card or a loan), restrict their ability to sell a property and stop them travelling overseas. Anyone who thinks social credit is something dreamt up by conspiracy theorists clearly needs their head examined.
Devi Sridhar, who is apparently a chair at the University of Edinburgh, says she thought the British people would accept more intrusive surveillance. ‘I think I underplayed the societal differences between South Korea and the UK,’ she apparently said, ‘including the willingness of publics to be under different levels of surveillance and scrutiny.’ I firmly believe that the chair on which the Old Man sits has more brains than Ms Sridhar. (My video describing her views on covid jabs and children is still available to view on this website. The video is entitled ‘How many children will die because of this woman?’)

By Dr Vernon Coleman

Why do 190 countries operate in lockstep?

The WEF agenda is set and driven by Mr. Klaus Schwab. Per the WEF website, Professor Schwab is the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.

Public-private cooperation is basically a euphemism for the joining of the power of the state with corporate power. The statement

“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”

has been attributed to Benito Mussolini, and whether or not the attribution is correct, there is merit to the logic, in my opinion.

Just to document that the WEF leadership is literally infiltrating WEF alumni all over the world to do the work of their agenda. Listen to him speak on this in this video clip:

“I have to say when I mention names like Mrs Merkel, even Vladimir Putin 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…” (Klaus Schwab)

WEF, by Howard | Jan 6, 2022 (the quote below is from this article):

Ever wonder how 190 Governments could operate in “Lockstep” enforcing Lockdowns, Social Distancing, Mask Mandates, Vaccine Mandates over a 99.9% survivable “Virus”?

Their leaders may be one of 1600 who graduated from Klaus Schwab’s Young Global Leaders School. Schwab was mentored by Henry Kissinger. Famous grads: Bill Gates (Microsoft), Rockefeller Foundation CEO Rajiv Shah, Angela Merkel, Rhodes Scholars Tony Blair (Knight Noble Order of the Garter) and Pete Buttigieg, Nicolas Sarkozy, Emanuel Macron, Viktor Orban (Hungarian PM), Sebastian Kurz (Austrian Chancellor), Jeff “Burning Man” Bezos (Amazon), Jack Ma (Alibaba; CCP Alipay), Richard Branson (Virgin), Peter Thiel (PayPal, Palantir), Leonardo DiCaprio, Anderson Cooper, Bono, Steffi Graf, Tony Hawk, Meghan Rapino, Mark Zuckerberg (Meta), Sergei Brin and Larry Page (Google), Elon Musk (Tesla, Space X, StarLink), Jimmy Wales (Wikipedia), Ashton Kucher, Charlize Theron, Maria Bartiromo (Money Honey), Jacinda (Jason) Ardern, Kirill Dmitriev (Russian Direct Investment Funding of Gamaleya Sputnik V) Gavin Newsome, Chelsea Clinton, Bobby Jindal (Hurricane Katrina), Tulsi Gabbard. Mentors: Christine Lagarde, Edomite Queen Rania of Jordan, BlackRock Group CEO Larry Fink, Carlyle Group David Rubenstein, Al Gore, Bain & Company’s Orit Gadeish (took over from Mitt Romney), Turkish Sultan for life Reccip Tayyip Erdogan.

Purpose: “Shape the Future” by collapsing global economies and “Building Back Better” to effect the “Great Reset” through GESARA (Global Economic Security and Recovery Act)

Note that some records indicate that the number is more like 4,500 Klaus Schwab program graduates- rather than 1,600 listed for just theYoung Global Leaders School