Davos and Its Threat to Democracy

It appears that many members equate liberals specifically and conservatives less so with the "New World Order".

The agenda appears to be one of equal parts world domination and profit at the expensive of all other global concerns.

www.commondreams.org...

I would like you all to note that the referenced article is from a moderate left-of center news and opinion aggregate service.

We can all agree on:

The real concern about the WEF, however, is not the personal hypocrisy of its privileged delegates. It is rather that this unaccountable invitation-only gathering is increasingly where global decisions are being taken and moreover is becoming the default form of global governance. There is considerable evidence that past WEFs have stimulated free trade agreements such as NAFTA as well helped rein in regulation of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

But I found the following new and very frightening:

Less well known is the fact that WEF since 2009 has been working on an ambitious project called the Global Redesign Initiative, (GRI), which effectively proposes a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance.

In other words, by stealth, they are replacing a recognized model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’make decisions on our behalf read dictatorship .

My asides are in green...

The article continues in more details about - scarasm ahead - how this body (the World Economic Forum) is representative of the world's population:

An examination of the WEF’s board, is illustrative of the sort of elite groups that emerge as a result, given that WEF likes to see itself as a working model of this new multi-stakeholder world.

WEF says that on its website that it is “accountable to all parts of society” carefully “blend[ing] and balanc[ing] the best of many kinds of organizations, from both the public and private sectors, international organizations and academic institutions.”

But when only 6 of its 24 “exemplary” Board members are women (25%), 16 are from North America and Europe (67%), 22 of the 24 went to universities in US and Europe (10 in fact went to the same university, Harvard) and there is not one African Board member, it does raise questions about what they think accountability and representation looks like.

There is so much more to think about in this article, this "Global Redesign Initiative" alone is makes the time spent reading this article well used.

This IS -- IS an issue that Left and Right should be able to agree upon and one that needs people to see...

My question is how can the Left and Right work together on this when our respective approaches are so different?

I think focusing on the common goal of true representation and respect of all peoples is a shared approach that both sides could get behind and put the blaming, and shaming and ignoring that typically goes on between various tribes. There is one tribe that none of us here belong to and that is the tribe of the .01%. You may be a servant of that .01% but never a member.

There is limited time...one year...for Americans citizens to join Russia in a stratgic overthough of the NWO before it is too late and they win.

a reply to: FyreByrd

No decisions taken at Davos are binding on states or anyone else. Mostly they are business or private decisions, taken earlier and announced there for publicity purposes. Any democratic politician who announces a new policy at Davos still has to face the voters back home.

Davos is what it calls itself; a forum, a marketplace of ideas relating to the world economy. In other words, a talking shop.

The so-called New World Order only exists in the imaginations of a bunch of unnecessarily frightened people (please spare me the quotes from Bush, Rockerfeller, etc -- I have read them, and they don't mean what you think they do). But If all the leaders of the world really were in cahoots, wouldn't you rather have them conspiring in public rather than in secret?

The WEF may be right up there with the CFR in terms of power. They have a nice, orderly future laid for everyone if a few billion of us would just be willing to die everything would be peachy. We lower classes can't keep our hands to ourselves and consequently breed out of control like rabbits, using all the resources they'd like for themselves.

Democracy? It doesn't exist, there's a few Republics struggling to hang on but they are being leveraged in to a world system that negates basic principles and ideals of their particular Nation. For the US it boils down to a Constitutional question just how far we can and should be influenced and/or controlled by any interests from outside the US. Given the current SCOTUS makeup the loss of our Republic is a foregone conclusion.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: FyreByrd

No decisions taken at Davos are binding on states or anyone else. Mostly they are business or private decisions, taken earlier and announced there for publicity purposes. Any democratic politician who announces a new policy at Davos still has to face the voters back home.

Davos is what it calls itself; a forum, a marketplace of ideas relating to the world economy. In other words, a talking shop.

The so-called New World Order only exists in the imaginations of a bunch of unnecessarily frightened people (please spare me the quotes from Bush, Rockerfeller, etc -- I have read them, and they don't mean what you think they do). But If all the leaders of the world really were in cahoots, wouldn't you rather have them conspiring in public rather than in secret?

Not sure what your reading that you can easily dismiss what people say. Sticking your head in the sand doesn't mean this stuff doesn't exist.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese revolution [an indirect reference to millions killed] , it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose… The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history,” Rockefeller wrote for the New York Times on August 10, 1973.

Pretty sure I know what that means....
Over the past 100 years GOVERNMENTS are responsible for 250 million deaths, we have an obligation to be "unnecessarily frightened people". Its naïve to think these people who can kill and destroy with ease don't meet and form agendas. We do it every day with groups and clubs with basic similarities.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

You're probably quite correct. You can read more about the Global Redesign Initiative here:qatarconferences.org...

But.....I posit that the changes won't be easy and the transition will be quite rocky. If you read the 11 page PDF, what you'll find is that what's really being discussed is a way to make the Agenda 2020 and the Paris Climate Accords enforceable. The problem as addressed by the WEF and the GRI focus groups is their belief that there needs be a better way, a more efficient way, to make the changes they envision actuable and enforceable, something which they have recognized as sorely lacking. The "Heads of State" can agree to anything in Paris, but then they go home and nothing much is done to make the changes happen. What we see coming out of these groups, i.e. the WEF and the GRI focus groups is a world view that is really rather radical in that they've taken up the idea that the only way to achieve something like planetary eco-balance is to raise the third world out of poverty and technological (medical) backwardness while at the same time retarding to some extent, the economic growth of the first world countries such as to reduce their carbon footprint and to switch their economies from "consumer" based economies to service economies. And by "service" economies, they don't mean people working as Baristas at Starbucks, they really mean Social Services type economies. (That's a pretty difficult concept to wrap one's mind around).

There are several problems that have arisen of late that have the "Elites" truly stumped. As I observed Sunday on the Fareed Zakaria Global Public Square program, the Bright minds in the field of Macro-Economics are stumped at the fact that in the US for example, the "people" (by which they mean the consumer) has embarked upon an alarmingly high "savings" rate which they take to mean that the public is responding to growing uncertainty about its future economic well being by paying down consumer debt and pounding money into savings accounts at an unprecedented rate. So, oddly enough, they've succeeded somehow to begin to achieve one of their goals, i.e. a switch away from the consumer model of economic growth, but at the same time......they're alarmed by it because they didn't anticipate that the switch would be to a "savings" and debt reduction economy.

To really understand what's making the transition to the Global Governance model so rocky I think we need keep our eye on a new undercurrent which I've only recently begun to notice and observe. That is, that the "public", or "General Population", if you will, in the "free world" or "first world countries" of advanced societies, has or is slowly becoming aware of the fact that the rate of change, (change rate) is accelerating at a rate that they can't cope with. That has led to growing discomfort brought on by the slow realization that "they", i.e. the people at large, are no longer in control of the "change" or changes happening around them. I get from this that people are also slowly becoming aware of the fact that they are no longer in control of governmental processes and as one expert on the GPS panel noted, this 2016 election will truly be earth shattering, not because of his conclusions, but, I think because when the result of the election turns out to be precisely what was forecast by the MSM, people are going to realize that the entire system is rigged against them.

Yesterday I saw a headline to the effect that the US government is going to turn the refugee vetting process over to the UN. This is yet another example of a new and peculiar change that is going on in that in a sense, the world is being turned somewhat upside down. The "Have Nots" of nations, i.e. "have not or little" economic and geo-political power are dictating to the "Haves" via the UN and with help from types like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the Clinton foundation, etc. along with the WEF types who typically represent Globalized Business Interests, the Swiss Banking groups, etc. And this has all been facilitated by the back step and step away from Global Leadership by the current US Administration. The unintended consequence of all this is growing unease in First World countries and increasing economic dislocation.

Cheers

originally posted by: Granite
There is limited time...one year...for Americans citizens to join Russia in a stratgic overthough of the NWO before it is too late and they win.

Could you provide specifics on how you think such a thing would be possible?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: FyreByrd

No decisions taken at Davos are binding on states or anyone else. Mostly they are business or private decisions, taken earlier and announced there for publicity purposes. Any democratic politician who announces a new policy at Davos still has to face the voters back home.

I will reply with a quote from the article:

This model is even having a growing impact on existing intergovernmental forums. The recent agreement at Paris COP21, so celebrated worldwide, is typical. Gone was any reference of binding agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, or any attempt to tie actions to scientific advice let alone historic responsibility. Instead we got voluntary ‘promises’ of action (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), a call for greater private sector involvement, and a commitment to try and do better in five years time.

a reply to: pyramid head

Not sure what your reading that you can easily dismiss what people say.

History, current affairs, political science, psychology and a few other relevant subjects. But the clincher is real-world experience.

An ostrich, eh? At least I don't have my ears stuffed with cotton. Didn't I tell you not to bother posting silly 'NWO quotes'? Yet you posted one anyway. What a waste of time and effort.

Do you know the historical context of that quote? It is Nixon's visit to China the previous year. A huge milestone in international détente and the beginning of a trade relationship worth over $500m to the people of China and the US. But of course conspiracy theorists never think of the obvious. It's all dastardly tortuous plans with you lot, isn't it?

Over the past 100 years GOVERNMENTS are responsible for 250 million deaths

Citation needed.

We have an obligation to be "unnecessarily frightened people".

Nobody is obliged to be a coward.

a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks. Your quote proves my point: these are not meetings of international conspirators but talking-shops.

Davos doesn't threaten democracy. It reinforces democratic process.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: FyreByrd

Thanks. Your quote proves my point: these are not meetings of international conspirators but talking-shops.

Davos doesn't threaten democracy. It reinforces democratic process.

No it does not - it 'over-rides' democratice process.

I didn't finish my post, let me extend the quote (didn't read it did ya):

This model is even having a growing impact on existing intergovernmental forums. The recent agreement at Paris COP21, so celebrated worldwide, is typical. Gone was any reference of binding agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, or any attempt to tie actions to scientific advice let alone historic responsibility. Instead we got voluntary ‘promises’ of action (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), a call for greater private sector involvement, and a commitment to try and do better in five years time.

No binding agreements mean no mechanisms of enforcement for 'agreements'. We are just to trust in the Multi-National Organizations good will and honesty.

And thier 'recommendations' only benefit PROFIT.:

The groups’ proposals all followed a similar very template - advocating for policies that liberalize trade, increase production, encourage corporate investment and help expand agroindustries control of food. They pointedly ignore issues of distribution and waste or the need for democratic access and control of land and food. Moreover these groups systematically sought to close down multilateral spaces, such as the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN), that actually examined these issues. No wonder, long-time food sovereignty activist, Flavio Vicente calls this corporate capture a “life grab” which “threatens the achievement of food sovereignty and the full emancipation of women.”

Their proposals are all about un-regulated profit at the expense of citizens everywhere.

The result is that we are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are not laughable billionaire playgrounds, but rather the future of global governance. It is nothing less than a silent global coup d’etat.

Quotes from the OP.

a reply to: FyreByrd

What do you expect from a forum based on liberal capitalist and internationalist values?

Davos is not a meeting of governments; it is a nexus: an interface between the public and private sectors, between representatives of government and civic society, between thought leaders and the media. Of course its resolutions cannot be binding in the way resolutions taken at a summit of nations can be binding.

If it's resolutions were binding that really would mean that the rich had taken over the world.

Do you really need to have these things explained to you as though you were a child?