Nailing Down A Forked Tongue [Pt.3]

Explaining How and Why the World Economic Forum Promotes and Attacks Individualism

[Continued from Pt.2]

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss

As I noted in my previous two articles,¹ the WEF rather openly states that it wants to take control of blockchain technology. It is seeking to do this by (1.)creating a univer

sal narrative that justifies (2.)the creation of an institutional framework constraining your access to, and use of, this technology. In a June 2017 white paper ²the WEF identifies the underlying “problems” with these technologies as “governance challenges.”³ As the paper explains, by “governance” the WEF means

…stewardship, which involves collaborating, identifying common interests and creating incentives to act on them. We do not mean government, regulation or top-down control. We explore governance needs at three levels: platform, application and the ecosystem as a whole.⁴

Superficially, such a statement seems to support individual access to, and utilization of the technologies in question. The assurance that the WEF does not “mean government, regulation or top-down control,” however, immediately vanishes into thin air when these three levels of governance are fleshed out just a little bit more. As the WEF explains —

Unlike the internet of information, which is a vast network of similar networks, this internet of value requires stewardship at not just one level but three. At the platform level, we look at bitcoin’s scalability issue and energy consumption, Ethereum’s switch to proof-of-stake and crisis management by consensus, and Hyperledger’s call for both urgency and moderation around standards. At the application level, we look at the need for oversight, skilled talent and user-friendly interfaces. At the overall ecosystem level, we look at the need for a proper legal structure, regulatory restraint, diversity of viewpoints and scientific research in tandem with business development. We introduce each of the eight stakeholders in the ecosystem: innovators, venture capitalists, banks and financial services, developers, academics, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government bodies, and users or citizens.⁵

What the WEF is proposing is full control over blockchain technology by a newly formed “governance” infrastructure.

Communitarianism — Again

Thus, the WEF claims that what is needed is not government but governance, or “self-organizing, bottom-up and multistakeholder”⁶ stewardship. It is this type of governance, claims the WEF, that is “the best protection from government interference and subjugation.”⁷ Schwab and his co-conspirators argue that

…the absence of a formalized governance structure has two possible effects: either blockchain-based communities have difficulty acting or reacting expeditiously or else informal and invisible power dynamics emerge, often more centralized than they appear. That bears repeating: without governance, invisible powers could emerge.⁸

This sounds as if the WEF's proposed “governance infrastructure” is in the best interest of individuals and individualism. However, as I’ve explained elsewhere, this appeal to the individual is merely a marketing trick.⁹

What is really being proposed by the WEF is communitarianism, the ideology which Schwab explains undergirds his version of stakeholder capitalism —

According to the stakeholder approach, the management of the enterprise acts as a trustee for all stakeholders – not just for share owners. It is based on the principle that each individual is embedded in societal communities in which the common good can only be promoted through the interaction of all participants – and business success is also embedded in this interaction. We have witnessed a gradual erosion of this communitarian spirit over recent years. This erosion of societal values has progressed particularly in the business world, and is also one of the primary reasons of the current economic crisis. The enterprise has transformed from a purposeful unit to a functional unit: the purpose of an enterprise – to create goods and services for the common good – in society has been replaced by a purely functional enterprise philosophy, aimed at maximising profits in the shortest time possible with the aim of maximising shareholder value.

[…]

Difficult times lie ahead. If we want to keep society together, a sense of community and solidarity are more important now than ever before. This communitarian spirit is the basis of the stakeholder principle.¹⁰

This presuppositional commitment to “the common good before the good of the individual,” a literal Nazi slogan,¹¹ is being utilized preemptively against the eventual rise of individualism which will drastically disrupt the traditional institutions largely comprising the WEF. It is part of the Great Narrative which the WEF seeks to establish as justification for its control of access to, and use of blockchain technology.

The WEF seeks to accomplish their goal by taking control of our current situation, in which the concept of a Great Narrative/Meta-Narrative has been all but abolished by postmodern theorists and their latter-day activists.¹² There is no longer a universal story that makes sense of the constitutive elements of our social lives. As Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret write in their book The Great Narrative for a Better
Future —

Currently, there seems to be little chance (and it’s diminishing) of a general agreement or global solidarity regarding the global challenges that we face. This may change as they worsen but, in the meantime, what is the best we can do?

[…]

Humanity’s immediate concern is to define and then implement a minimum cooperative framework that can address the most pressing challenges we face, most notably climate change and environmental degradation.

[…]

In practical terms, what can get us there? What cooperation narratives can instil hope about the way forward? Many tangible suggestions are being made, often evolving around the idea that centralized and hierarchical solutions will not work in today’s fragmented geopolitical landscape. Instead, they recommend systems of global governance that are polycentric (having more than one centre) and multiscale (operating over different levels), arguing that only these will be accepted and effective. …an idea expressed by two of our interviewees could serve as a prelude for a positive and hopeful narrative on cooperation. It consists in starting small and local, and emphasizes the importance of “belonging” as a conduit for effective cooperation.¹³

This, argues one of their interviewees for the book, entails “promoting the notion of ‘inclusive localism’, which consists in ‘strengthening and empowering communities’.”¹⁴ This is apparently deemed to be necessary given that

An effective framework of global cooperation won’t function without the buy-in of those who currently do not feel included in the process, meaning that global governance must coexist with local power in a way that makes it inclusive.¹⁵

Schwab and Malleret further explain —

The word “inclusivity” is key. The will to cooperate that underpins effective global governance won’t happen without the greater involvement of civil society and local actors. ¹⁶

Thus, Schwab & Co, unsurprisingly, paint individualism as a moral failure holding back the progress of society, and which, therefore, must be dealt with. As Tim Hinchliffe writes —

According to Schwab...

...People have become much more self-centered, and to a certain extent, egoistic. In such a situation it is much more difficult to create a compromise because shaping the future, designing the future usually needs a common will of the people.¹⁷

According to Schwab,

“We know the world is not inclusive enough. We know the world is not sustainable enough. And the world is not collaborative enough…”¹⁸

…it’s very important that we really work together on a global level to make sure that we use the potential of the fourth industrial revolution for the benefit of mankind because technology also has certain pitfalls and can be used to the detriment of humankind.”¹⁹

How, then, will the WEF accomplish its goal of undermining individualism? By force? By persuasion? By manipulating governments and the communities over which they govern (including their religious communities)?

[Continued in Pt.4]

1. Nailing Down A Forked Tongue [Pt.1]

Nailing Down a Forked Tongue [Pt.2]

2. “Realizing the Potential of Blockchain: A Multistakeholder Approach to the Stewardship of Blockchain and Cryptocurrencies,” World Economic Forum, https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Realizing_Potential_Blockchain.pdf.

3. ibid., 4.

4. ibid. (emphasis added)

5. ibid. (emphasis added)

6. ibid., 8.

7. ibid.

8. ibid.

9. Selling Collectivism

10. “A breakdown in our values,” The Guardian, Jan 6, 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/06/bankers-bonuses-crisis-social-risk. (emphasis added)

11. “Nazis Inaugurate Labor Code Today,” New York Times, May 1, 1934, https://archive.ph/rH5hq#selection-281.35-281.88.

12. Postmodern denies the legitimacy of metanarratives, viewing all narratives as micro/local, despite their claims to be otherwise.

13. The Great Narrative (Geneva: Forum Publishing, 2022), 79-80. https://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/Klaus%20Schwab,Thierry%20Malleret%20-%20The%20Great%20Narrative%20(The%20Great%20Reset%20Book%202).pdf. (emphasis added)

14. ibid., 80.

15. ibid. (emphasis added)

16. ibid., 81.

17. “WEF Founder Klaus Schwab calls for a ‘great narrative’ for humankind at meeting in Dubai,” The Sociable, Nov 11, 2021, https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/wef-klaus-schwab-great-narrative-humankind/.

18. ibid.

19. ibid.