Ep. 233 Behind Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and the Great Reset: Part 4
Bob continues his series, this time focusing on the creepy worldview of WEF speaker Yuval Harari, and further reviews Schwab’s book on Covid-19 and the Great Reset.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series.
- The WEF’s bio for its founder, Klaus Schwab.
- Schwab’s books The Fourth Industrial Revolution and Covid-19 and the Great Reset. #Commissions Earned (As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.)
- Yuval Harari’s website.
- “Awaken With JP”‘s episode on Schwab and Harari.
- Harari’s talk on the future of humanity at the 2018 World Economic Forum conference.
- Bob’s article on the socialist calculation debate. Joe Salerno’s lecture on it.
- Forbes’ article on Schwab the power broker.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
Thank you, Bob, for this episode. I also didn’t pay much attention to this Harari person so far. But I see now more clearly why is he in the same evil club with Schwab. Even though I do not understand why you describe them as non-marxists. The whole idea of the improved man is brought back again and again. This time through the genetic editing. During the Soviets era it was through the better education, but they never give up. They want a person that privileges someone else’s good before their own good. They want pions that sacrifice for the collective good, and obviously the rulers decide what that good is.
But I got confused about your socialist calculation problem description and your, in my opinion, too mild critique of the socialists. You said that if Soviet Politburo had today’s computers, this would have certainly helped them, but it would have been even better to leave the calculation to the market and free those computers to do other, more useful tasks. True, but isn’t a much better critique a fact that market being subjective, the powerful computers would have improved the estimates of the prices, but would have failed anyway? And then, when the ‘socialist angels’ noticed a difference between the achieved outcome and the calculated one, they would have decided the consumers and producers were capricious, so they would have imposed their plans to both of them, hence the non-removable evil of socialism. It can not exist without the coercion.
Also the technocrats do not only know the prices, they don’t know even the recipes. Technocrats may know one or few recipes, but the vast market knows many more and they try several ones and some fail, some not, and no one knows which recipe will win. And again, when technocrats’ recipe fails, they would increase the brute force to cover their mistake.
Bob, Thanks for sharing your research. Are we being duped by Trump and family? I’m concerned that we are being caught in a “pincer move” by different faces of the same enemy.
Please investigate this further:
Ivanka Trump was “was honored as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum (2015).”
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/people/ivanka-trump/
Tulsi Gabbard was also a Young Global Leader, but I don’t think she is on board with it. I’m not sure how much of it Ivanka identifies with Schwab’s vision; but she has never been a populist. Her private school peers are all privileged Lefties. Definitely not an asset in the Trump administration and big mistake to bring her on board in such a capacity. Jury still out on Jared. He may prove to be a great talent and bridge builder. Trump is no way on board with the NWO.
FWIW on that “solving the calculation problem with supercomputers,” I think those dudes are completely wrong.
The silicone computing growth model has been over for a decade or so now. We’re at the physical limits and can’t make the same CPUs but faster. You’ve probably noticed that instead of increasing clock speed (“3GHz!”) they’re now cramming more and more chips in there (2,4,8.. cores).
The problem with parallelization is, of course, that many computing problems can’t be parallelized. Some things really lend themselves to it, if they are easily divisible into independent parts. E.g. if you’re transcoding a movie file. Each frame is an independent picture, so you can just chop it into arbitrarily small pieces and have one core transcode that particular picture.
But coordinating a world economy means, practically by definition, that every single node depends on every other node, or at least hundreds to thousands of other nodes. In fact, constantly discovering new nodes is part of the “computing process.”
Problems where one part depends on many or all other parts are extremely difficult or impossible to parallelize.
They keep pushing this into the fantasy-optimist corner by throwing around buzzwords like “AI” or “quantum computing” but there’s no there there. It’s “you can’t prove these crystals aren’t healing me” territory. (By the way, ever notice how China’s allegedly amazing IT sector is always ahead in those vague, non-provable areas like AI and quantum computing? Never in anything you could prove with cold, hard facts? Name a piece of software from China that others use because it’s superior. Windows? Us. Apple? Us. Unix? Us. Linux? A Finn copied us, then moved here. Android? That’s just Linux, rest was us again.)
Just as a comparison of compute power, we can’t simulate a single human brain yet. They’ve done “part” of a mouse brain. And the gravy train of Moore’s law, that gave us faster and faster computers every year, is gone. So we’re not going to get many orders of magnitude in computing improvement simply by waiting.
Anyone who’s proposing anything revolutionary or amazing in that direction with “muh supercomputers” is full of shit.
I couldn’t understand a word you said; but I know these nerds believe in their models that never pan out.
I’m not clear that faster computers can dispense with the knowledge problem. My understanding of the knowledge problem is it includes that new information is always being created, thus it is impossible to possess all knowledge so the problem will always exist.
I think a core concept in computing is to recognize that somehow a decision is being made regarding what is to be computed. No matter how powerful the computer, something has decided its results at creation.
I haven’t been following people in the liberty space these past few years because I saw how wrong everyone I followed was with where and who the bad guys are, so it’s nice to see you covering this here and I think the presentation is solid.
Patrick Wood’s perspective is the one I have found most compelling, as the goes in detail through Technocracy, Inc. publications, influences on its founders, where they ended up and who picked up the reins and funded the continuation of that movement. It is clearly not Marxism or Communism and it is not Socialism or Fascism. It has many similar traits, but if it is not properly understood as something else, and then learn those something else’s, you cannot get rid of it.
Wood also discusses that current Technocrats are really a blending of Technocracy, Eugenics (/Malthusian), Humanism, and transhumansim.
Ryan Cristian frequently discusses in his videos the following paper, which argues that it is morally necessary to give “bioenhancements” covertly. Whether this is an actually influential paper I think doesn’t matter because it communicates very much what so many people like Schwab are hinting at (as Murphy discussed in a previous episode).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326848699_Compulsory_Moral_Bioenhancement_Should_be_Covert
Hey Bob, you should check out the book “The Rise Of America” By Marin Katusa. It will explain the mechanism for how ESG and carbon credits will be used to kick the can down the road for the ponzi economy.
Keep these coming Bob! You’re meticulous, level-headed, and thorough (a rarity among conspiracy theorists). I wish I could get all conspiracies combed through by Murphy