Klaus Schwab the Humanist versus Klaus Schwab the Terrorist

The rising technocratic dystopia may appear to carry forward the legacy of social-democracy, though perversely, and therefore the utilization of Green parties and social-democratic parties in Europe to implement these is both predicted and rational.

There are two men named Klaus Schwab, no doubt.

One man named Klaus Schwab is seen by the true-believers, fachidiots, the liberal intelligentsia, the institutionally refined population, as a man who deeply cares about humanity. It seems they believe his warnings to be earnest even if uncannily and strikingly prescient. The World Economic Forum after all, must have been established out of great concern for humanity since it is propped up chiefly by the most humane institution in human history, the International Monetary Fund. This Klaus Schwab is a humanist.

So perhaps this is precisely the case for the true-believers; those who accept at face value the new Schwabian ‘distinction’ we are asked to appreciate between a shareholder capitalism and a capitalism 2.0, a stakeholder capitalism.

Then there is a second man named Klaus Schwab, who is seen by the rest of the world and the thinking people within it, for the monster that he is. A grimacing Klaus Schwab who appears on smartphone and tablet screens to warn of impending doom, no going back to normal, new pandemics which will strike very soon, and a wave of cyber-attacks. This Klaus Schwab is a terrorist at large, a character who like Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates appear like a central casting dispatch of Bond villains.

For people who haven’t traded in basic social intelligence for social credit realize that if the person who is issuing warnings of catastrophes is best friends with the very same people who will go on to create those catastrophes, those aren’t warnings. Just like for Fauci who said in 2017 that a massive pandemic would strike within Trump’s term. Those are not warnings, they are threats. Schwab is the one delivering the threats; Schwab is the terrorist.

Why is it so hard to understand that the WEF only does what’s in the interest of the IMF?

How are we to understand shareholder capitalism from stakeholder capitalism?

The idea of ‘socially responsible’ capitalism isn’t a new one. It represented the centrist wing of fascism some 90 years ago; it is to wit the embodiment of the last century’s corporatist and technocratic ideal until about the 1970’s with the introduction of Friedmanism. In that sense, we can say that the U.S. and EU existed on two separate trajectories, with more of the underpinnings of the EU based in the idea of social responsibility in the board room.

In our past work in the section on corporate ideology and the state in The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials , we discussed the bifurcation of the corporatist idea of social good, a type of stakeholder capitalism that existed alongside progressivist ideas. These were trumpeted as reasons that socialism was not necessary, since what was good for corporations was also good for society because these industrialists needed strong communities to create stable conditions, well paid workers to buy the products they produced. This was the era of capitalism before globalization. We also had believers in this ideal, like Henry Ford.

Then came a new idea, increasingly prominent in the American discourse into the 1980’s – where only the bottom line mattered. We can say that the Friedman period that had crept into culture in the 70’s had finally hit mainstream.

But ultimately, the old idea of social capitalism has come back in a new incarnation, a new branding, from the WEF – stakeholder capitalism and capitalism 2.0.

A critical difference that cannot be underscored enough, however, is that there is no long-term plan for the ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) of stakeholder capitalism. They simply use the term ‘capitalism’ to maintain social and ideological continuity from the present incarnation of monopoly capitalism. But the aim is to manage a strictly post-capitalist society. This is however not the one envisaged by the left, but rather one which develops new coercive and depopulating technologies along a misanthropic path towards the transition of the plutocracy into a technocracy.

Its true believers who assume that people are good when they say good things and make good promises, and entirely ignores centuries of peoples’ history or any insights into political and social theory: as Lord Acton, the British historian said: “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

There is a reason we are seeing a resurgence of this old type of corporate ideal. As sovereign governments and democracies cease to exist, then the Friedmanian concept of externalizing costs which is unshakably a part of the present paradigm, can no longer be the official ideology of the ruling class.

In truth, they must maintain this cost-externalizing view, which is the foundation of and explanation for their misanthropic scheme. Paradigms are not shaken this way, they tend to crash and burn along with their adherents. This gives rise to what Pareto has called the rotation of elites. So, we can see that the present ruling class does not really embrace any change of tact. Rather, they see it as a new demagoguery.

And so we superficially see ‘stakeholder society’ embraced by a new ruling technocracy especially in light of automation and the fact that most of the human population will be a surplus and redundant one. Naturally, a shareholder society must give way to talking points about a stakeholder society.

And so we are asked to imagine that there is a revolutionary difference between the ‘old’ Friedmanian concept of the shareholder run society, is the new stakeholder run society. This happy talk began a few decades ago, when we were asked to embrace a ‘Capitalism 2.0’, capitalism with a friendly face, and so on. That has been the official ideology of social democracy in the post-war era, and for these reasons we see the European moderate left (what in the U.S. would be misframed as ‘far left’) can get behind the Great Reset agenda provided they ignore the actual needs or labor, whether organized or not.

The Great Hypocrisy of the Great Reset

The two men named Klaus Schwab are both voices in his reader. Any apparent focus on humanity, inclusion, improving living conditions, controlling the power of corporations in Schwab’s book ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’, is cant lip-service to curry to the liberal-idealist segment of the institutionally refined population.

The WEF hosts forums on ‘Combatting Global Poverty’, and publishes reports like ‘Poverty: the past, present and future’.  As the primary think-tank of the IMF, it should come as no surprise that the actual aims of the WEF are to provide progressive cover for the upwards redistribution of capital to the same lending institutions which they serve, while disguising this through the reversal and bifurcation of the language in the Orwellian sense of ‘doublespeak’.  And it has been the concentration of capital along upwards distribution vertices – real capital flight – that is chiefly responsible for global poverty…..


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.