Klaus Schwab, The World Economic Forum, And The Atheists Paving The Road To Absolute Power

If you understand nothing else about Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, get this: they are godless.

That matters. From your answer to the question “Does God exist?” flows the whole of your worldview. If your government thinks you are a product of random chance and necessity, and that there is no God to judge in the next life their actions in this one, history demonstrates with chilling clarity how that plays out.

In Part 3 of this series, we saw how Schwab’s literary references in his books suggested a shallow understanding of the humanities and none whatsoever of religion.

There are, however, numerous philosophical references in which he reveals a more intimate knowledge: Friedrich Nietzsche, Antonio Gramsci, Steven Pinker, Yuval Noah Harari, and Peter Singer to name only a few. This is telling. All of them are atheists, and aggressively so.

Schwab quotes them favorably, and where the WEF has taken a little from each is obvious:

From Nietzsche, the idea of the Superman who can face the harsh reality of a world without any ultimate transcendent hope.

Gramsci, an evil little Italian communist, contributed the ideas for the overthrow of the Christian and democratic West; ideas that inform the subversive tactics of the radical Left from Black Lives Matter to the sexualization of children.

Pinker, a cognitive psychologist at Harvard, sang the siren song of perpetual human progress in his books The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now, a tune irresistible to secular scientific elites.

Harari, a historian at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has written a personal mission statement reading: “Care about suffering.” And yet, according to Ian Parker of The New Yorker, Harari nonetheless speaks of suffering with “nihilistic composure.” Adds Parker: “The subject of human suffering — even extreme suffering — doesn’t seem to agitate Harari in quite the way that industrial agriculture does.” Perhaps that’s because his original mission statement, “Embrace ambiguity,” leaves open the question of whose suffering he cares about.

And Singer.

Peter Singer, a bioethicist at Princeton University, is quite possibly the most influential philosopher of the second half of the twentieth century and beyond. In 1975 he published Animal Liberation, giving rise to the modern animal rights movement. 

Once, while dining with him in his hometown of Melbourne, Australia, I listened as he explained his animal rights philosophy. A vegetarian for obvious reasons, he ordered gnocchi. Wordlessly, I expressed my views on animals and their place within creation by ordering kangaroo.

He is the most philosophically consistent atheist I have ever met, and I’ve known more than a few. In addition to debating the late atheist journalist Christopher Hitchens, Tuft’s cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett, and Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer, I organized and chaired three of Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins’s debates. But Singer is, by far, the most dangerous of the lot, and that’s because he is willing to follow his atheism to its dark conclusions.

Journalist Kevin Toolis writes of him: “[W]hat is legitimate for Singer is just plain murder for other people.”

It is Singer’s view that man is an animal like any other and that he deserves no special status among the various species. That is, he argues, a residual of Christian thought. Worse, he has argued that parents should get twenty-eight days with a newborn child to determine if they want to keep it or euthanize it. This is where atheism, pushed to its logical outcome, takes you. And it’s where the WEF would like to take the rest of us.

This bring us to Dennis Meadows, Emeritus Professor of Systems Management at the University of New Hampshire. Meadows is an original member of the Club of Rome and one of the co-authors of Limits to Growth, a mega-bestseller that informs the WEF’s agenda. Meadows thinks we must reduce the global population by, oh, a mere 6-7 billion people. But no worries, he wants to do it “peacefully.”

These are the people from whom Schwab and the WEF take their cues. Pinker, Harari, Singer, and Meadows are WEF “agenda contributors.” (That’s a little more than what appears at the bottom of this article: The views expressed in this piece are those of the author …) 

Read their books. Watch them in smug conversation. They simply cannot resist telling you what they think and what they want to do. These are your would-be overlords.

Combine these murderous ideas with politicians who have the power to implement them — more than fifty government leaders attended this year’s WEF annual meeting — and you have a toxic combination.

Take, for example, Ursula von der Leyen. Perhaps you saw her recently in the news. She is the unelected President of the European Commission who threatened Italy with unspecified sanctions should they elect a prime minister at odds with the EU’s vision for the continent. (I’m delighted to say the Italians defied von der Leyen.) She is also a

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases