Ezra Levant teams up with Dr. James Lindsay to expose the WEF’s Davos summit, where $400K+ tickets fund elite agendas like "You’ll Own Nothing and Be Happy" and UN SDGs reshaping U.S. kindergarten curricula via UNESCO. Lindsay warns buzzwords like sustainability and global citizenship mask oligarch-driven governance, citing BlackRock’s Larry Fink and CCP ties—including Xi Jinping’s praise by Schwab—while noting Soros’ Open Society Foundation clashes with China’s authoritarian model. Ukraine’s war may disrupt WEF plans, but Canada’s internet censorship laws (echoing Coulter’s 2018 deplatforming) risk silencing dissent, forcing Levant’s team to navigate legal hurdles during their January 2023 coverage. [Automatically generated summary]
Forgive me my sore throat today, guys, but I've got a great show today.
One of my favorite people to interview, Dr. James Lindsay.
I asked him for tips on how to cover the World Economic Forum in Davos.
By the time this podcast goes to air, I will be on the plane flying to the World Economic Forum.
So I basically talked to Dr. James for 45 minutes, getting his advice on what to do and say in Davos.
You don't want to miss it.
To get the video version of this podcast, just go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
It's $8 a month.
You get the video version of it.
But more importantly, from my point of view, you support Rebel News because, you know, we don't take a dime from government.
And this is the kind of thing you will never see on a government channel.
Tough questions to ask, the World Economic Forum.
All right, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, in my last show, before I go to the World Economic Forum, I get a briefing from Dr. James Lindsay on what I should look out for in Davos.
It's January 11th, and this is the Ezra Levant show.
Shame on you, you censorious boobug.
Well, I apologize at the top of the program for my voice.
And it is my enemy's favorite curse that I may lose my voice because that would lose my power and I would be resigned to typing.
But we will work through it.
And hopefully, by the time I land in Davos tomorrow, I'll get my voice back.
I promise I won't holler too much on my way there.
But it's an important show today because this is my last show before I depart for the World Economic Forum.
Avi Yamini, our star from Australia, is already there.
We're bringing in two Brits as well, Calvin Robinson from GB News and our young reporter, Callum Smiles.
In addition to that on-air talent, we'll have three producers and cameramen for a total complement, I think, of seven or eight people.
And we're going economy class all the way, of course, including sharing one big Airbnb that's in stark contrast to the billionaire style of the oligarchs meeting there.
Our purpose is to ask inappropriate, illegal, disobedient, and contrarian questions.
I should tell you that we've seen a guest list of Davos for the World Economic Forum, and there are plenty of journalists who are officially registered.
But they're registered not as outside observers, but as insider participants.
They're part of the elites.
They will not expose what's going on inside.
The opposite.
They'll be getting their marching orders.
They'll be learning what the new narrative, the official latest thing is.
So what should we be looking out for?
What kind of questions should we be thinking of?
What do we do if we catch a VIP on the streets of Davos and have only 30 or 60 seconds to buttonhole them before they scurry away into one of their limos?
And no, I don't expect there's any electric SUVs tooting them around to ask those questions.
I can think of a handful of intellectuals in the West who I would trust to be skeptical.
Too many intellectuals want to be invited to Davos.
But one man who will never be invited, I can guarantee you, is our guest today.
His name is Dr. James Lindsay.
He joins us now at Viascape from Knoxville, Tennessee.
What a pleasure to see you again.
Doctor, thanks for taking the time from being here.
And I apologize for my voice, but, you know, we've got to talk about this show.
We've got to talk about Davos.
And this is my last show before I get on the plane.
What's your advice to a skeptical contrarian covering Davos?
I don't want to just be a bomb thrower, so to speak.
I don't want to just be a gotcha guy.
I actually want to ask questions that reveal the truth.
What should I do?
Now, frankly, you've got to ask them what words that they use mean.
They've got an army of buzzwords.
Sustainability is probably the hottest ticket item, but resilience and inclusion and these kind of words we've become familiar with having a toxic aura around them.
It'd be fun, in my opinion, to kind of catch them out and say, when you say resilience, what specifically do you mean?
And let them kind of speak to their BS.
When you say sustainable, do you mean that you expect the institutions of the West to subscribe to, actively promote the sustainable development goals of the United Nations?
What's the relationship between the World Economic Forum, the United Nations, and its so-called Agenda 2030 to transform our world?
Those kinds of questions, I think, are at the top of the list of things that we should be pressing people on right now.
You know what?
What I like about your answer to me is that that's a real information-gathering question.
It's not even an attack, it's trying to coax them out from beyond the paper-thin I mean, they have this message track: sustainability, climate action, you know, these words, and they're never asked to follow up.
They're never asked, well, what do you mean?
Or how does that work?
Or how does it contradict or complement?
So they only have this shallow message because they've never engaged in a back-and-forth debate.
So, simply asking them, What do you mean?
Which is really the basic question of all journalism.
I mean, 90% of journalism could be just done with what do you mean?
That question.
Yeah, well, I mean, for a couple of examples, the United Nations or UNESCO more specifically has put out a number of documents in the last two to three years, several last year, specifically saying that all colleges and higher education institutions and all primary and secondary education needs to be bent toward achieving the sustainable development goals.
Our schools, literally, children in kindergarten being taught what is world hunger.
This is an agenda item that's not just coming down from UNESCO, but has now been repeated by the National Education Association Foundation in the United States in official documents, and putting out a booklet of curriculum.
So, when you have the opportunity to talk to these hyper-elite stakeholder technocrats, you should ask them: do you intend to teach five-year-olds to try to meet the United Nations sustainable agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals agenda?
And why?
Why are five-year-olds necessary to get on board with this agenda to solve world problems?
Yeah.
You know, I'm thinking about some of the other buzzwords they throw around.
And these buzzwords, it's like a language of a secret society.
I mean, lawyers do it, lawyers drop Latin words all the time.
And I mean, partly because that's an ancient tradition.
I mean, the law is centuries or even millennia old.
So there's a legitimate reason for it.
But part of it is that they're a secret priesthood, a guild, and you're not in it.
And you must obey them and you must defer to their authority and you must hire them and pay them because they're better than you.
Academics are the worst at that.
They use made-up words.
They write not to explain, but to obscure.
And the more obscure, the better.
It's a buzzword.
It's like DIE, diversity, inclusion, and equity, SDG, sustainable development goals.
Just the acronyms alone.
But I don't know if any of them actually think about what those words really, really mean.
How can you be for inclusion at Davos when you don't let the public in?
When you have to have a private jet and $100,000 to get a ticket?
I've heard this year over $400,000, actually, to get a ticket.
Wow.
Now, what do you make of the journalists who are on the inside?
There must be a tacit agreement.
In fact, it's probably not even tacit.
They probably have to sign a non-disclosure agreement that they're on the inside and they're not going to blab.
The you have said it.
They are likely to be getting their marching orders.
They want to be part of the club.
They're not there to report on what's going on.
They're there to report the new narrative, the new agenda.
Within the Davos meeting, and I don't draw this from some conspiracy, I read this book that the World Economic Forum published 10 years ago or 12 years ago called World Economic Forum: the first 40 years, which they told what they do year by year by year, all 40 years of 1971 through 2010.
And they explain that they have closed-door meetings within Davos as well that subscribe to things like Chatham House Rules, where you can report on what was said, but you can't say who said it.
You can't rat them out.
And there are these kind of tacit agreements to subscribe to the Davos agenda, the Davos manifesto, or the Davos Pledge.
And so if you're on the inside, you're probably there because you've agreed to whatever set of agreements that they've put forth in those regards.
They've said so more or less explicitly.
So I think that the journalists on the inside are not there to ask legitimate questions.
And as we saw last year, Jack Posobiec, representing, I think he was for Human Events Daily last year, went over and was filming and asking questions.
And they surrounded him with guards and machine guns and demanded to confiscate his footage and all of these things.
He ended up being fine, but they weren't very happy that there were actual outside journalists asking outside questions.
So you can surmise from that that the inside journalists are not merely tolerated, but that they're agents, they're assets of what's happening inside.
You know, I live in Canada, and our analogy to the New York Times is the Globe and Mail.
It's the old gray lady, so to speak.
It's prestigious.
Every law firm, every accounting firm, every stockbroker reads it.
And by the way, they do some excellent journalism like the New York Times does.
But you don't truly understand the purpose of the Globe and Mail, just like you don't truly understand the purpose of the Washington Post and the New York Times, unless you know who owns it.
And in the case of the New York Times, it's Mexico's richest man, Carlos Sleem, who has tremendous interests in America and the world.
In the case of Washington Post, it's Jeffrey Bezos, one of the richest men in the world.
And in the case of Canada's Globe and Mail, the richest Canadian, the oligarch David Thompson, worth what, $23 billion, that's his.
He doesn't own it to make money.
He owns it to shape the national conversation, either to suit his own business interests or because he has an ideology that he wants to promulgate.
So when I learn that the executive, the editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail is going as an insider, I don't think, wow, they're going to blow the lid off it.
I think, oh, our oligarch is harmonizing with their oligarchs.
So all the birds can fly in the V formation so naturally.
That's what I think when I learned the Globe and Mail is sending a journalist, their top journalist.
That's really David Thompson's man.
That's who's going.
That's what I would agree with that completely.
And I think that that explains an awful lot of what we have seen from the kind of big established media outlets.
And to your point, that they do some excellent journalism, of course they must.
If they were pure, relentless, uniform propaganda, eventually people would catch on.
There would be no way to point at legitimate articles and say, but look at this.
And it takes only a small percentage of their output to be genuine narrative-shaping propaganda to do tremendous amounts of damage or to suppress certain types of stories.
There are lots of things they can do.
But I would agree with you completely that if they're going on the inside, then they are on the inside.
And one does not get on the inside of Davos without being useful to Davos.
This isn't an open public forum.
This is a very, very selective, very, very exclusive meeting.
So you must draw these conclusions.
Yeah.
You know, I was always vaguely aware of the World Economic Forum.
We have some crusading journalists in Canada like Terry Corcoran of the Financial Post who always wrote about them.
But I thought, oh, that's Terry again.
And I never looked at it until.
Justin Trudeau became prime minister.
And it was one of his first and splashiest trips.
And he brought an enormous entourage of journalists with him.
And when he went to Davos, he met with George Soros, and they gave the photo of that to the press.
They were so proud of that.
And there was all these weird celebrities like Kevin Spacey that Trudeau met with and took photos with.
And it wasn't just the grossness of Justin Trudeau's debut, showing everyone his fancy socks.
That was his big move, his conversation starter.
Look at my funny socks I'm wearing.
That was a thing.
But it was how the journalists were so gaga over this cool dude after the stodgy accountant prime minister, Stephen Harper, the Conservative.
I started really paying attention to it then.
And there's that side to it, too.
There's, you know, it's sort of like Monaco or Cannes, these cool French cities for billionaires and beautiful people.
Maybe this is like the Cannes or Monaco for ugly bond villains.
Like they've got as much money for sure.
I mean, Soros and Bill Gates are there.
There are some loser Hollywood types hanging around.
U2's Bono hangs out.
But really, this is for people.
I mean, they say showbiz, politics is showbiz for ugly people.
Well, maybe the World Economic Forum is Monaco for diabolical bond villains or something.
They're trying to be cool, but really they want to manipulate the world.
I don't know.
I'm still working on that.
No, you look at Klaus Schwab and you wonder how he came directly out of central casting, and you start wondering what Mike Myers knew when he did Austin Powers with Doctor Evil.
I mean, it's just unbelievable.
Public-Private Partnership Diplomacy00:05:23
What Davos represents, though, what the World Economic Forum meeting represents and what the World Economic Forum itself represents, and a lot of people don't understand the nuance here, is the attempt to forge what they call a public-private partnership.
The goal is to put world leaders like Trudeau or Biden or Macron or whoever in the same room under the same kind of emotional connection, collaborative experience with major industry leaders in businesses, along with major leaders in the nonprofit or non-governmental organization sector.
And so you have this meeting of think tanks, government officials, and big business, along with under that, you know, large media magnets and their representatives.
And the goal is to get them into a collaborative mode of thought about shaping the world in a particular direction.
But in particular, it's to build those relationships that define what is the public-private partnership.
Now, those of us who speak English and don't add lots of extra syllables and hyphens recognize that a public-private partnership is fascism.
It is the union of state and corporate power to achieve totalitarian ends.
And that's exactly what we see here.
It's to figure out who are going to be the young global leaders to penetrate the cabinets, to make sure that the policies that ruin nations like Canada are going to be.
It's to figure out what the agenda is going to look like and how different people are going to participate and how they can create ways to get them to participate without making it look like they are in a outright conspiracy.
This is the point of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos is to forge what they call a public-private partnership for a new economic model that they call stakeholder capitalism.
So they want to identify who those stakeholders or the stakeholder representatives will be.
And of course, we can recognize that when you create a council of technocratic elites who are going to rule the world or dictate policy for the public and private sector on a broad top-down scale, that the Russian word for that council is the best word to use.
And the Russian word for council is, of course, Soviet.
Wow.
You know, I was looking through the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum.
And I know, for example, Canada's deputy prime minister is on the board of trustees.
And I happen to know that you have to take an oath of loyalty to Canada and to the Queen to join the cabinet.
But how do you then also take an oath of loyalty and confidentiality and have a fiduciary duty to this corporate globalist entity with foreign policy and economic goals?
How do you that are obviously different than that of Canada?
Even if they're only slightly different, they are different.
How can you be loyal to like any other entity that is in the same space as a government?
And what you said earlier about getting a prime minister and a billionaire and a media magnate in the same room, that's exactly right.
And that elevates a business person, a billionaire, an oligarch, someone who paid to play.
It elevates them to the same level as the democratically elected head of a country.
And therefore, it diminishes the value of being a democratically elected head of a country.
By the way, when I say I looked at the Board of Trustees, I didn't tell you who I saw in there.
BlackRock, the head of BlackRock, Fink is his name, the head of Nestle, the head of the Carlisle Group, Al Gore.
These are billionaires.
These are fixers.
These are war profiteers.
Or in the case of BlackRock, they're war profiteers, and they're also going to be getting the contracts to rebuild after the war.
And to put them on the same level or even higher than a national prime minister is quite something.
I wonder if all the talk about sustainable development and diversity is really just whitewashing the plans of these oligarch billionaires.
I think it is, actually.
And the relationship that, of course, you've neglected here as well is that many of these are partners or servants of the CCP as well, which, of course, Klaus Schwab at the World Economic Forum has been courting since Deng Xiaoping was in office in the 1970s openly.
Again, this is not a conspiracy theory.
Go read their own book that they published out of their own press called Forum Press.
The book is called The World Economic Forum of the First 40 Years.
And they brag about their attempts to create a partnership, an ongoing partnership with Deng Xiaoping starting in the 1970s, who is the successor to Mao.
He took over in 1977 after Mao died in 1976.
And immediately they were forging a relationship with Deng Xiaoping.
And just in the past few months, if not weeks, we've heard Klaus Schwab.
We've seen videos of Klaus Schwab saying, with everything going on in China, almost unbelievably with the tyranny going on in China right now, him saying that the Chinese model is the one we should look to, that he applauds President Xi Jinping for everything that he's done, or maybe we should call him chairman.
So the relationship also to the CCP can't be ignored.
Global Citizenship vs. Sovereignty00:05:16
To your question, though, it's actually there is an answer.
How can you pledge loyalty to two entities that have divergent programs?
And the technical philosophical answer is called dialectical synthesis.
What that means is that you convince yourself through a network and series of lies and distortions that the two opposing agendas are actually capable of being seen as the same agenda that you then attempt to harmonize into one cohesive set of beliefs.
And so rather than being seen as treason, if they can get all of the countries to declare that their actual national interests are following along with the Davos agenda or the sustainable development agenda of the United Nations, then there is no necessary conflict, at least not in their minds, if we want to step away from just blatant accusations that they're duplicitous and evil.
You know, I was looking through the World Economic Forum website today, and I saw this word global citizenship, global citizenship.
And I know what national citizenship means.
I know it.
For example, when Canadian-born terrorists who went to fight with ISIS in Syria and Iraq demand to be repatriated to Canada, and they have an argument, and it's actually a centuries-old argument, maybe even longer, that a citizen is a citizen, and they have the right to return to the country their citizenship, even if upon their return they're arrested and prosecuted in jail for something.
That is one of the rights of being a citizen.
You have other rights, as enumerated in your country's constitution, perhaps the right to vote, the right to, there's a number of rights.
But what does a global citizenship mean?
What does that mean if you can't, what does it mean for your rulers?
Because I think to me, one of the most important things about citizenship is you get to kick out the bosses of your country if they get offside.
But how do you ever kick out the bosses of an unelected, unaccountable, secretive group like the World Economic Forum?
Isn't global citizenship just key code words for we're replacing your national governments with King Klaus Schwab and he'll use the language of global citizenship, but really it's a global dictatorship and he's been there for 40 years and he'll be there till he dies and then he'll be taken over by other oligarchs.
It's just a fake.
It's not citizenship at all.
It's a kind of servitude.
You're a subject, not a citizen.
I am so grateful that you brought that up, Ezra, because you asked me what kinds of questions.
There is no, let me impress upon you that there is no more important question to ask anybody that you can get a hold of.
What do you mean by global citizenship?
What do you think that means?
Because we all know, if we spend a few minutes thinking about it or look it up, what the word citizenship means or what's it's a relationship, right?
So what does it mean to be a citizen?
It means that you're in a relationship with a sovereign.
But currently we realize there is no global sovereign.
Most of us that understand a thing or two realize we do not want a global sovereign, as you just articulated.
We should not want a global sovereign.
But if you can convince enough people that being a global citizen is something that means something to them and that it can confer privileges and rights without necessarily getting them too far into the weeds of those in exchange and the relationship come with duties, then you have people ready to accept to make good on that agreement by creating a global government.
And so this is a very strategic narrative that's being woven and it's being delivered to our children.
Virtually all of the forward-looking education documentation of the past two to three years talks about global citizenship education and bringing global citizenship into education.
And they tell you actually in those documents what it means.
So you will be able to know and press further that what a global citizen means is somebody who has subscribed to, guess what, the sustainable development goals and achieving them by 2030, at least for the present.
So global citizenship is something that does not exist.
There's no such thing as a global citizen.
And they are trying to conjure this concept into reality.
And then on the other end, they will make good on it by establishing the global sovereign that exchanges privileges, rights, and duties to the so-called citizens, which are, as you said, subjects or in fact slaves of the world, with these unaccountable oligarchs operating as a council of stakeholders as their rulers.
And it's so very important to press on the global citizenship narrative, to make the global citizenship narrative visible to normal people, to get people to understand what the purpose of this and the Davos agenda and the UN Agenda 2030 is and how they're working in concert.
And I think 2023 is a year in which that must happen very widely, very broadly, and very quickly.
So I thank you so much for bringing up that topic.
That's so important.
Well, I'm glad to hear you think it's important.
And I'll keep that in mind when I'm off to Davos, which I will be.
By the time this goes to air, I'll be on the plane.
You know, when you have these social development goals, when you have diversity, inclusion, and equity goals, that's really a kind of foreign policy.
Moment Of Revelation00:02:51
But it's not a foreign policy of any government.
It's not even a foreign policy of the UN, although it is, but it's a foreign policy of BlackRock.
It's a foreign policy of Nestle.
And so they're showing you who the boss is in a global citizenship world.
It's the companies.
And the crazy thing is, I'm old enough, I'm 50.
And I remember when I was a teenager and in my 20s, transnational corporation was a swear word from the left.
Oh, you're in league with these transnational corporations.
It was an insult.
They used to hate them.
Big pharma, military-industrial complex.
The left used to hate all these things.
They used to hate the repatriation of funds out of foreign countries to these fat cat international executives.
I haven't seen that other than Bernie Sanders, who twice they've robbed.
I haven't seen, like Alexandra Ocasia-Cortez, once in a while she grumbles about Amazon or something, but the entire left, including the progressive left, is absolutely cool, not just with Larry, with, I think his first name is Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, but they're cool with the head of the CIA now.
They're cool with the head of the FBI.
They love hiring them on their left-wing cable channels, CNN, MSNBC.
Every CIA and FBI hack is on a left-wing TV channel just shaping the narrative.
When I was a kid, there was nothing more evil in the eyes of a leftist than the CIA.
And you'd talk to a leftist about the CIA, and they'd go on for hours about, you know, revolutions and banana republics.
And all of a sudden, all these powerful, extra-democratic entities, the left loves them.
Why is that?
Well, you know, there's an old saying is if you scratch a hippie, you find a fascist.
And it's sort of like that, but there's another test, apparently, which is that if you give one of these leftists, if you give them an avenue to achieve through kind of raw power the agendas that they value, you will also discover very quickly which ones were there by principle and which ones were there because they wished to gain power to enforce their agenda.
And it's a quite clarify, I mean, we get very frustrated by it and we get confused by it, but it's a very clarifying moment when you understand.
And what we want to understand with it is that many of these people want their values and their views and their, frankly, cult religion forced upon the world.
And they are willing to sell out everything they ever fought for.
The very moment that they believed that those institutions, large corporations, large banks, intelligence agencies, and so on, were no longer repressing the left, repressing communism, but rather supporting it.
Putin's Counterweight00:10:29
They all fell in line.
They all, or nearly all, fell in line.
You have a handful of holdouts.
And so what you actually see is that the agenda for many of these people was not principled or quickly became not principled and was actually just a desire to obtain power and affect their power through whatever means necessary, as their theory suggests is the case.
So what we have is a moment of actual revelation, of clarity on the fact that we have a power-hungry movement that has a agenda it wishes to enforce on people, and they're finally confessing to that, not necessarily in word, but certainly in deed.
You know, I was talking about my life 35 years ago, but 20 years ago, when George W. Bush was president and when America, for better or for worse, was going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were so many movies against war.
I remember going to the Toronto International Film Festival.
Half the movies were anti-war.
Like it was like I was back in the 60s in Vietnam again.
There were groups like, I think Code Pink was the name.
They were always protesting against war at every event.
Those groups are no, they don't exist anymore.
In fact, the movies are pro-war.
I don't know if they make pro-war movies, but there is no anti-war left anymore.
And watching a significant number of Republicans, but my God, the war in Ukraine, which, by the way, I'm opposed to Putin's invasion, just let me say it for the 17th time.
But to treat Zelensky as a saint who must be given unlimited funds and arms, even while he talks about attacking Russia's own heartland despite their nuclear arsenal, I've just never seen such a thing.
Even Canada, Justin Trudeau, who's an anti-military pacifist who used to brag about peacekeeping, he sounds so butched, he's like he's ready to land on Normandy Beach himself.
I just don't, like, what is it about that war?
Is there something about that war that is intrinsically globalist?
Or like, why is that war so holy in the media political establishment?
I just don't get it.
I only can speculate.
My speculations are that Ukraine, which we know is extraordinarily corrupt, has extraordinary corrupt ties to the Bidens and so on, and probably others before him, is somehow extraordinarily relevant to their program, the World Economic Forum Global Display Grant Program.
We see the disruptions with energy, et cetera, as being something very significant.
They see that Putin is no longer somebody that they're merely controlling.
And again, I don't necessarily endorse his invasion, or at least I certainly feel for the citizens of Ukraine.
I don't feel at all for their government, which I believe is quite fake and proxy.
And of course, being fakely celebrated, what do we see?
You see, right now there's a resolution in our United States House of Representatives to build a bust of Zelensky to place into the United States Capitol on the House side, which is preposterous.
I mean, he's a foreign leader.
And then we have him being brought into the World Economic Forum very explicitly.
And then we have, we just had the Miss Universe pageant.
And how did Miss Ukraine come out dressed as a battle angel with a sword?
So you do have this celebration of war and Belakos behavior now.
And again, I just bring you back when the left believed that the intelligence agencies, the corporations, the military and military-industrial complex and the government were opposed to their agenda.
They hated those things.
And when they believed when they could never capture those institutions, they hated those things and they went after them.
And now that those things are fighting on their side, they love them.
And so what it was always about was a power grab from so many of the people on the left who claim to be arguing in good faith.
It was always about power.
It was about hating that which they could not get control of.
And now that they have control of it, using it in an abusive way on people.
This particular war, I said on the day that it started to great trouble for myself.
And I meant it in a very technical academic sense, as people who know me know.
I was referring to something by John Baudrillard, a postmodern philosopher, but I called it fake war immediately.
He wrote a book in the 90s, if you don't know, called The Gulf War Did Not Take Place and said that what we believed was a Gulf War was a media and political construction.
It's not truly what happened.
And that's what the intention behind my words were.
But this is, I think, the case.
I think that there's something about this war that is a proxy for something else.
I think that Putin has, for all of his animus against the West, has also disrupted some of the World Economic Forum and globalist plans.
Maybe he's making agreements with China that are outside of their wheelhouse, their sphere of control, I should say.
And for whatever reason, it has tremendously upset them.
And you see, like with Trudeau in Canada, with Biden here in the United States, with our House of Representatives here in the United States, all across Europe, that this is the biggest thing in the whole world that must be treated like the most important thing in the whole world.
And since we have literally no reason to trust any of these people anymore, that itself becomes the best evidence that there's something very fishy going on and that what we're being told about is not accurate.
I think you're right that Putin is a counterweight to the ideas of the World Economic Forum just because he's not complying with the narrative, with the plan, with join the team.
That's not necessarily a reason to support Putin, by the way.
No, I think he's killing two birds with one stone in his mind, both this Davos globalist whatever and the West, the United States, Canada, Western Europe.
He's not a fan of any of these as well.
And if he can kill two birds with one stone, you can picture him with his short little stature sitting back and laughing his KGB laugh while he schemes out killing two birds with one stone in this regard.
So I don't think he's a friend of ours, but at the same time, I also do think he's disrupting their agenda rather tremendously.
There's a bit of a fissure in the World Economic Forum.
As you correctly say, they are so pro-China, it's shocking.
They produce all these little video shorts, like a very famous one was, You'll Own Nothing and You'll Be Happy.
They really are emphasizing eating bugs, which is so gross, I gag every time I see it.
Most of their little video shorts promote China in some way.
Obviously, most of them promote getting off fossil fuel in some way, just not for the private jets.
But there is a divide, I think, between China and some other forces within the World Economic Forum.
George Soros.
Certainly, George Soros.
Who is really the ultimate World Economic Forum man?
And his son is going, his son and heir.
And Mini Me, really, you mentioned Austin Powers, I think, or Dr. Evil.
Well, Mini Me, Alex Soros, is going to the World Economic Forum.
He has become a China skeptic, I think, and he denounced Xi Jinping, if I recall, at a World Economic Forum meeting a couple of years ago.
But let me ask you this: who would be the counterweights?
I'd say Vladimir Putin is a counterweight.
Is there another counterweight to the World Economic Forum?
I'm not so, I don't know about OPEC.
I don't know if the Middle Eastern wealth is joining the team, joining the BlackRock team.
Is there some other power center in the world that's not Klaus Schwab and his oligarchs?
Not of scale.
George Soros is in his Open Society Foundation and the network of foundations under it is the largest one.
For those of your viewers who don't know, China state actors on Twitter, for example, labeled George Soros a terrorist of the Chinese state.
So that's probably bad if you were to go to China for him.
They also literally use the, they said George Soros is a demon.
So I don't think that the Chinese and George Soros are getting along unless this is some very elaborate theater.
But from what I understand of Soros, having listened to some amount of his lectures and read some of his writing, is that he does not want the China model.
He wants an open society, hence the name of his foundation.
And the Chinese model is a pitfall he sees on the way.
So that is a gigantic rift within the World Economic Forum.
Other than Vladimir Putin, I think the next largest center that is actually resisting it is that what we call MAGA or ultra-mAGA in the United States, kind of clustered in a small center of power in what's called the Freedom Caucus of the kind of whether it's the federal government or the state governments in the United States, the various states.
There's not a gigantic counterweight.
OPEC could be kind of a wild card in this regard.
Currently, their objective is aligned, which is break the West.
And so they have no particular reason to disrupt a system that is designed to break the West.
And so they are not exactly a counterweight to it.
I don't think that they are likely to go too far along, but it's difficult to say.
The Saudis are building Niam, which is that gigantic line, 70-watt-kilometer line-based city, one giant building skyscraper, 70 kilometers long that's supposed to be where everybody in the desert lives.
And it's a super smart city, and eat the bugs and live in your little pod and all of this nonsense.
The city of the future, the highly connected internet city that looks like something out of the Fifth Element movie, some dystopia.
So it's difficult to make a guess about them.
The only true power centers that seem to be disrupting them are, again, Putin, who is not West-friendly, though, and increasingly the so-called Make America Great Again conservative populist contingent in the United States.
Though I just saw some things this morning that I haven't fully digested and don't fully comprehend that the French have moved on into the kind of conservative populist French have moved into quite an aggressive stance on many of these issues.
Ann Coulter Invites Critics00:04:37
So what you're seeing is more of a revolt against the people or by the people against the elites.
And that's what Davos warned about last year going into the meeting.
They were on video saying, you know, the elites trust each other more and more.
And the problem is the people trust the elites less and less.
And I think that that has not recovered, but has in fact accelerated in the months since they said that last year.
Yeah.
Well, that's their focus on misinformation and online harms.
And in Canada, there are no less than four pieces of legislation either in the parliament or on their way to parliament to censor the internet because those little people, they just keep thinking the wrong things and saying the wrong things.
Well, Jim.
I'll confess to you, Ezra, real quickly.
I keep getting invited or asked if I will come to Canada and speak.
And I will confess that I am genuinely afraid to commit to coming to Canada now.
This is something that would have been unthinkable, you know, 40 plus years of life.
I've been to Canada many times, and now people say, Would you come to Canada?
And my answer is the same level of hesitation on I don't know as if I were asked to come, will you come to China?
So I don't know if I will come to Canada.
And that's kind of how dire the situation is becoming.
So just to put that out there.
Well, I think you should come to Canada because it wouldn't likely be the police who would arrest you in an imminent way.
It would be more sort of like what they're doing to Jordan Peterson, like a slow administrative thing that you would easily escape by going back down to the First Amendment jurisdiction.
I think you should come to Canada.
I remember when I was a young man when Ann Coulter went on a three-city Canadian speaking tour.
And imagine that.
Now, this was before Wokeness really dug in.
We took Ann Coulter to one conservative-oriented university, the University of Calgary.
And then I think the others were Queens or Western, and then one in the heart of Ottawa.
And the police that came out and they shut it down.
It was so illustrative.
And they actually canceled that one out of the three.
But the national discussion Ann Coulter sparked about cancel culture and deplatforming and free speech was such a welcome change for the country.
I don't know if you would provoke the same outrage that Ann Coulter did because she generates a certain kind of hate that I don't quite think you've achieved yet.
But if my opinion means anything, I think you should come to Canada and test the system and see what you can do and document it.
And I don't think that you would be jailed.
I think that you might be ticketed or they might send you some whiny complaint later, but I think you would easily elude them.
That's just my own two bits.
Well, it's worth hearing and I'll consider it.
Well, listen, James, it's great to catch up with you.
Thanks.
You've really given me some good ideas for the cover.
I'm going to be out there for a week.
Our friend Avi Yamini from Australia, he really did a great job last year.
We got a couple of Brits coming too.
It's going to be tough because last time we were there was May and it was easier for people to mill around outside.
Now it's January.
It's about minus five, minus 10 Celsius.
So it'll be tougher to buttonhole people outside.
It'll be tougher to identify them if they're wearing big coats or whatever.
But we will do our best.
And I'm sure, even with those problems and restrictions, we will do more journalism than anyone else because no one else there is going to do journalism.
They're all going to be on the inside.
Dr. James Lindsay, pleasure to see you.
Give us a quick update just before we go of what you're up to and the best place to watch you.
You're at newdiscourses.com, right?
That's right.
Yeah.
And my podcast can be found there.
It's called the New Discourses Podcast.
I'll just hold this up quickly.
I just recently published a new book called The Marxification of Education that explains how they've stolen education from our children and our societies.
You can get that at marksification.com or on the thing that Jeff Bezos owns if you want.
And so you can find me there.
You can find me on social media at Conceptual James.
And it was great to catch up again.
Have a safe trip and ask hard questions.
Thanks very much.
We sure will.
And folks, if you want to see all our coverage from Davos, you can find it at WEFREPORTS.com.
All right.
Good night, everybody.
Thanks again.
Have a great weekend.
Next week, I will be doing my daily show from Davos.
So I'll be recording the show in Switzerland and we'll be sending it here.