Projection 101: WEF's Global Risks Report 2024

Foreshadows more election meddling

Jan 25, 2024

Published: 2024-01-25

Dystopian Risks

In the "Key Findings" version of the WEF's "Global Risk Report 2024", the first substantive paragraph begins:

Underlying geopolitical tensions combined with the eruption of active hostilities in multiple regions is [are] contributing to an unstable global order characterized by polarizing narratives, eroding trust and insecurity.

It is so pleasing to work on a document from my area of self study, geopolitics. 🥳Let's parse the opening substantive sentence.

It is plainly obvious that there are geopolitical tensions, the core topic of this newsletter. By 'active' hostilities one assumes the WEFers mean 'war', and yes, tragically this is also occurring. So far, so good.

Is there a 'global order', and does one even want one? Let's for the sake of argument accept that there is one and that having one is useful or sensible. We can now being our quibbling.

Quibbles

One could reverse the attributions and describe the 'tensions' and war as contributing to the instability rather than characterizing it. But, that is quibbling and the topics of this essay are those three properties which the WEFers state 'characterizes' the unstable global order: 'polarizing narratives', 'eroding trust' and 'insecurity'.

Before we address those, lets be orderly and define terms. The current structures which define the international 'order' were created post WWII largely by the victors, and among those, mostly by the United States of America (US). The institutions were discussed and designed and are hosted in the US. The structures are, the United Nations based on its Charter and the UN's associated institutions: the General Assembly and Security Council, the International Court of Justice and the International Monetary Fund and World Bank Group along with other associated institutions.

A Triumvirate of Troubles

Are these institutions suffering 'polarizing narratives', 'eroding trust' and 'insecurity'? No.

The UN does not suffer 'polarizing narratives' but enjoys diplomacy which is its natural state. Trust in the UN is not eroding, though trust in its ability to meet its purpose may be. The upcoming ruling of the International Court of Justice may generate some distrust in that component of the 'international order'. Does the 'UN' or the Security Council, or the IMF or WB feel 'insecure'? No.

These are properties which the WEFers are projecting on the world, but are largely limited to the West. Are the populations of Russia or China beset by 'polarizing narratives'? No.

The same is true for India. With these three nations we have almost included half of the world's population. Actually, all of this triumvirate of troubles does not apply there. These afflictions beset the peoples of the West, or at least the WEFers would like us to share this belief with them.

In some senses they are correct. There is a sense of financial 'insecurity' in the majority of the West, its working class. The West has been undermining the financial security of its citizenry for decades via continued attacks on organized labour which is tragi-comically signified by the introduction of the 'gig economy'. Stable manufacturing jobs have been offshored, the replacement of human contact in government service provision continues. The financial insecurity felt by the working classes of the nations of the West exists and is the direct result of policies of the West and choices made by its largest corporations which the governments have tolerated, encouraged or facilitated.

The other phrases of 'polarizing narrative' and 'eroding trust' are far more interesting. Again, they are being projected onto the 'world' by the WEFers though predominantly exist in the West. Aside from climate instability, the WEF "Global Risks" report labels these as the maladies of society, which are dominantly felt in the West, as the risks warranting attention and redress.

The 'polarizing' narratives in the West exist because its media are still lying to the populations they are theoretically meant to be serving. It is this which has eroded trust.

Frankly, the 'insecurity' of which they speak seems far more likely to be a projection felt by them as they acknowledge these 'polarized' narratives and the near complete destruction of trust in the old media institutions which controlled discourse.

Lying is a Reliable Way to Destroy Trust

In the West, the media does not serve the population but the Establishment (political, financial, donor). A new independent media has grown rapidly because of the provision of easy publishing services over the internet and because of the lack of trust held in the 'old media', the MSM. Through this explosion of new publishing, 'alternative' narratives, often based on good research and insightful opinion, have emerged. The 'old media' are offended by this because they can no longer control either the topic of discussion or the nature of the discussion within their topics. Their world has changed and it will never return to their golden age of 'defining the facts' and controlling the narratives. Their 'insecurity' is a product of this 'eroding trust'.

People have stopped trusting the old media institutions because the MSM keep lying to them. I know you know all this, but it bears repeating. Post the "WMD" and "Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda" lies which facilitated the US' illegal and brutal invasion of Iraq in 2003, the guilty media institutions swore to learn from this and never do it again. They have not. They continue.

The MSM still carry water for the failing empire in all of its evil, continuing to promote agendas which expand the wealth divide, funnel profits into the groups behind the Establishment including the Banks, the MIC, the transnational near-taxless corporations, the oligarchs, and the think tanks feeding from the troughs of these beneficiaries. Take Libya, the Dirty War on Syria, the support for the surges in Iraq and Afghanistan as clear cases of failures by the MSM to actually report on what was happening, and standing up to the war narratives. Why not add the near universal suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story as plain political influence? They lie. They cheat. And they are disappointed that they can no longer steal your attention.

This is why anybody who is not an amnesiac has no trust in the MSM, and has not trusted them for years and years. The MSM also justify reporting the lies of politicians because this is 'news', without pointing out that the statements are lies. This is the definition of 'carrying water'.

Sanctimonious Agenda Setting

The first substantive paragraph of the WEF report concludes with:

Together, this leaves ample room for accelerating risks – like misinformation and disinformation – to propagate in societies that have already been politically and economically weakened in recent years.

Here, the WEFers get to their point, the action which they are trying to convince you they need to take on your behalf, to safeguard your democracy.

Firstly, lets just deal with core concepts here. The WEF 'report' is a product by a bunch of influencers attempting to define what people should worry about. They define the 'risks' and to emphasize just how worried for you they claim to be, they use 'accelerating risks'. They are sanctimoniously adopting the role of a 'concerned parent'.

The vast majority of the world's population will give this report the treatment it deserves by not reading it. Frankly, people have more important things to do, like dealing with the actual threats they already feel without listening to these insufferable, opinionated influencers stuffing other stupid ideas into their heads.

But, drawing on principle's written by great scholars like Sun Tsu, it is worthy to study one's enemy. So please excuse this small effort to analyze the drivel being spouted.

The key, concluding sentence emphasizes "misinformation and disinformation", typographically, by using the hyphens which surround the phrase. They reinforce the sense of threat by completing the sentence with 'societies [...] already [...] politically and economically weakened'.

This report is self-serving BS, but useful BS. The Influencer Industry ideologues are telling us their fears, for which we should thank them. To understand these fears, lets begin by channeling the best, independent reader of the zeitgeist I know: Caitlin Johnstone.

As played on the most recent podcast, the following statement was made at the WEF meeting by a leading member of the British media:

If you go back not really that long ago [...] we kinda, we owned the news. We were the gatekeepers and we very much owned the facts, as well. If you said it in the Wall St Journal or the New York Times then that was a fact. Nowadays, people can go to all sorts of different sources for the news and they're much more questioning about what we're saying.

I thank Alex Christoforou for bringing this utterance to my attention, for this is the WEFers' "problem statement".

At first analysis, the mis/dis-information is that which does not fit their narratives. These are not defined to be true because they are not published in the WSJ or NYT. These ideas are dangerous to forces which the WEFers represent because they really are concerned about what you think, else why would they spend so much time trying to infest your thoughts with their narratives?

The deeper analysis, as Caitlin Johnstone has repeatedly stated, is to realise that there is an issue of far more importance to this clique than mis/dis-information. Narratives they dont like they label as mis/dis-information. This capability has been established and they are quite happy to use it. Their real concern is who controls the narrative, which people or organizations are able to speak to the populace.

This is Caitlin's point. Mis/dis-information is irrelevant. The issue is who is issuing it. This battle is over information control, not over information itself.

US Election "Meddling"

Election meddling in the US is a fine art. It has been honed over centuries. So complete is both the election meddling and influence over the elected members of congress that an extensive, detailed academic report was issued which shows that the laws which are passed only address the concerns of the population which donates to the political parties. Constitutional law Professor Lawrence Lessig titled a presentation "Lester-land" because this percentage of the population who fund parties corresponds to the number of people in the US with the first name "Lester".

The rigging process begins at the primary stage. The core understanding is that the best possible outcome for the Lesters is that the two candidates, one from each party, are both susceptible to influence so that it does not matter who wins. This is the fundamental concept behind the phrase 'Uniparty'. Or, one could use the phrase promoted by Judge Napolitano, "It doesn't matter who you vote for you always get John McCain."

Given this understanding, it is only in election 'contests' where there is a difference in whether the two candidates are susceptible to influence where 'meddling' is required. This service is predominantly provided by the media, the MSM. They set the agendas on which they wish the electorate to focus. They also skew coverage and opinion to advantage the more pliable candidate.

The situation is not absolute. There are some differences in the MSM landscape, with Murdoch's Fox standing in one corner and the rest lined up on a spectrum. But, these media continuously harp on about topics which will almost never be addressed with legislation in a meaningful way or are of little concern to the "Lesters". The whole thing is a show.

The big prize is the US Presidential election for winning that allows the victor to chose who heads of an array of influential government positions which guide policy. Additionally, the president can issue Executive Orders which guide or constrain the executive.

The amount of time devoted to foreign policy in Presidential debates or other fora is very small, which is rather strange. The Congress has the ability to write and modify law, which the judiciary is meant to enforce. So, the President can write all of the Executive Orders they want, but if these are illegal they only work until some goody-two-shoes brings the issue before the courts.

What the President can do is heavily influence foreign policy, about which the legislature (Congress) has limited influence (excepting declarations of war) and the judiciary has almost none (*).

This presidential election will almost certainly pit Donald Trump against whichever candidate the Establishment believes will best be able to defeat him, unless by some miracle they manage to have Nikki warmonger Haley win the Republican nomination.

I mention this because this is where the Influencers who just declared their fears at the WEF meeting in Davos and in their "Global Threats" report will be using their mis/dis-information labeling tools to meddle in US politics. It happened last time, and the time before that, and it'll happen again.

What I think about Trump is irrelevant as I'm not a US citizen and I do not believe that what I say should have any influence whatsoever over how people choose to vote. Secondly, the US is a sovereign nation and its president should be able to act with whatever power is conferred to the position by the nation. Failure to comply with international treaties will invoke Newton's law for geopolitics: geopolitical action generates geopolitical reaction.

But, I'll throw this in. Trump seems to be a person who wanted to be a part of the Establishment but was never allowed in because he's too crass or for some other reason. Anyone in the US can stand for President, and Trump is doing so for at least two reasons. One is to thumb his nose at the Establishment which denied him entry into their club. The other is that he likes power and he'd like to use that to achieve various ends, some of which may benefit sections of US society and many of which will benefit him. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. It comes with the job.

On a foreign policy front, Trump's first term was far less belligerent than his predecessor or successor. Trump did not start one war, which marks him as a rare, modern US President. This is not the only reason that the MSM and Democratic machines will come after him, ably supported by the military intelligence infested Disinformation Industry, but it is one.

The MIC and other industries which eat at the Federal trough must be fed, and Trump's rhetoric and record show that he'd like less of that. So, one can expect all the usual mis/dis-information ploys to be aimed at him.

or you can support this work via Buy Me A Coffee or Patreon.

[*] The case before a Federal Magistrate for 4 plaintiffs alleging that the CIA abused their 4th amendment rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure raises one area in which the courts can influence foreign policy. The legal point is that the rights confered on US citizens by the US constitution know no geographic bounds. It does not matter that the plaintiffs' electronic devices were searched while visiting Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, if the seaching was done at the behest of the CIA, then that is government overreach.

Appendix

Here is a piece of rubbish which ABC News considers are report on Nikki Haley's performance in New Hampshire. I see this as symbolic of the sort of low quality left leaning rubbish which one can expect. [BTW, I'm left leaning myself, on many issues, but I'll call crap when I see it.]

Donald Trump's anger in New Hampshire followed a primary win that exposed some weakness, Carrington Clarke, ABC News, 2024-01-25

ABC News did actually provide the numbers.

Alternatively, here is Larry Johnson calling it as he sees it in clear language.

Trump wins in Blow Out Victory Over Neo-Con Nikki, Larry Johnson, A Son of the New American Revolution, 2024-01-24

Lesterland

Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, TEDxMidAtlantic, 2015-10-20