The War Against WEF Propaganda

The WEF Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils in Dubai is a reminder of the spiritual war at play. On the one hand, you observe people who support the narrative presented, and predominantly because they do not grasp the full scale of what is discussed euphemistically and are blinded by what is being sold to them as a panacea. On the other hand, there is a larger army of us who are adamant not to live in a world curated by the WEF and its allies or sympathisers because of the revelation of what such a world would entail, and knowledge of the fact that there is a greater reality that we ought to superimpose.
And so, with us, lies a categorical imperative to expose the WEF and the actual intent behind the message it promulgates, which is precisely what we’ll address today in light of the WEF Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils in Dubai, and the war on WEF propaganda.
MULTIPOLARITY IS NOT A PROBLEM; IT IS A RESPONSE TO A UNIPOLAR DICTATORSHIP
Exposing the propaganda at the WEF, and to start with, in his opening statement at the WEF Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils, Klaus Schwab remarked that: “we never have lived in such turbulent times”; that “There are deep transformations happening”. He proceeds to specify the so-called turbulent changes and deep transformations as:
(1) a transition from a unipolar, stable world to a multipolar, very unstable, very conflictual world.
(2) the need to move into a green world that’s not just about climate change, but about a “new relationship with nature — preserving our oceans, preserving our soil, preserving our forests”.
(3) a move from the “Industrial World” into the “Intelligent World”.
Let’s begin with refuting the problematisation of multipolarity, because we live in a world today where this is a massive contention. In essence, multipolarity is a distribution of power in which more than two states have similar amounts of power; it is the idea that there are many important global powers or actors, not just a few superpowers, or even just one. Multipolarity has had a controversial image for primarily (although not exclusively) 2 reasons: first, it was falsely presented as the driving principle of the United Nations, and secondly, people like Klaus Schwab say it leads to chaos and instability.
Let’s address these two issues, starting with multipolarity being the driving principle of the United Nations. The UN was supposed to be a forum where sovereign countries came together to discuss and form resolutions on issues that had a global impact. It was established after World War II in an attempt to maintain international peace and security and to achieve cooperation among nations on economic, social, and humanitarian problems – realising that a hindrance to this cooperation in the previous world wars resulted in the bloodiest conflicts the world had ever seen.
However, while the UN was aimed at mutual cooperation among all nations, in essence a version of multipolarity, it quickly formed a hierarchy that undermined this goal by disproportionately giving power and decision-making influence to the victors at the end of world war two, namely the US , the UK, Frace, Russia and China. This problem further persisted when the US in particular began to have a hegemonic relationship with the UN and other global organisations, like the ICC, where the US is not a signatory of the Rome Statute but could weaponise the ICC against other nations, like Russia; and simultaneously use the jurisdiction of the ICC,like with the arrest of Dominic Ongwen of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. And this disparity between the original intent of the Un and what it has become today, was incredibly highlighted by the president of Argentina at their recent gathering.
This disingenuous multipolarity in the dispensation of the UN became even more obvious following the granting of reserve currency status to the US dollar. Reserve currency status of the S dollar has enabled the US to weaponise economics; by using its currency and sanctions to aggressively manipulate the politics of countries. The sanctions on Russia have been the greatest example of this; and even the reason why BRICS has re-purposed itself as the real multipolar structure, where trade is even denominated in the members’ currencies! Hence, Putin recently correctly said that it was not Russia that devalued the dollar – in fact, they were barred and banned from using it. In fact, I would add that what simply happened, is that other nations realised the same could happen to them and decided to respond intelligently to this potential threat.
Of course, we must acknowledge that Russia benefits from a weakened Dollar, but he is not wrong – it was the US that weaponised the dollar. In any case, all of this, therefore, is to say that multipolarity is not a problem; the UN’s implementation of multipolarity, however, is a problem – and primarily because it entrenches a hegemony of the permanent 5 nations, while enabling broader disproportionate benefit for the US, that introduced a unipolar world order as well.
Then, the second critique of multipolarity – especially from Shwab – is that it causes instability. No, multipolarity simply means that countries – which are sovereign and in no way homogenous – will not always agree. This is not instability, this is a product of there being genuine differences among nations. This is why there can never be a blanket approach to policy. HOWEVER, what Klaus Schwab means by instability is that nations will exercise their sovereign right to object to what a single power can dictate in a unipolar system. A perfect example of this was the WHO pandemic accord: it wanted a single person, being the DG of the WHO, to dictate the health policy of ALL nations.
So, what does this mean? It means that multipolarity is not insatiable; it means policy proponents have to work hard to change the status quo, and do not have the ease of instituting change, especially when it would undermine sovereignty and possibly dictate a new diabolical and oppressive world order. Secondly, multipolarity represents a relative balance of power and a shift from global hegemony; and even acts as a check and balance to the genuine pursuits of any if not all nations to become a global power. It essentially guarantees that there will be relatively strong nations or group of nations that prevent the hegemonic dictates of one organisation or country.
But, perhaps the greatest proof that Klaus Schwab’s problem with multipolarity is disingenuous and really based on his opposition to the sovereignty of nations is ironically found in the WEF’s proposal of multi-stakeholderism.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso