Ezra Levant infiltrates Davos’ World Economic Forum, where Klaus Schwab’s private globalist hub promotes "stakeholder capitalism" as a tool to dismantle sovereignty. Yuval Noah Harari suggests tech could make masses "useless," advocating drugs and entertainment as solutions while musing on mass-produced bodies. Levant clashes with evasive insiders—Facebook dodges misinformation accountability, Meta reps flee, and CNN deflects funding transparency—while Andrew Lawton of True North Canada reveals unaccredited scrumming tactics to expose elite agendas. Contrasting Davos’ collectivism, Argentina’s Javier Milei champions private enterprise, signaling a clash between globalist control and national autonomy. Levant’s citizen journalism highlights systemic resistance to scrutiny amid WEF’s $1.4M "sanctuary" rentals and attempts to silence dissent, exposing the forum’s role in shaping undemocratic economic policies. [Automatically generated summary]
It is the annual conclave of the World Economic Forum, where people come from around the world to meet and greet with the elite.
They're here to do deals, many of them secret, some of them public.
By deals, I don't just mean economic, financial deals, I mean political deals, ideological deals, because the World Economic Forum is very much an ideological organization.
I think if I had to define that ideology, globalism would be the first one.
I think the second, unfortunately, would be socialism.
And I don't say that as an insult, but rather a description of what Klaus Schraub, the founder and owner of the World Economic Forum, believes in.
I say owner because he owns it.
It's not an international NGO.
It's not a non-profit.
It's not a public entity.
He owns it.
He started it.
It's his private organization.
But I want to tell you about his ideology besides globalism.
He talks about stakeholder capitalism.
And he talks about stakeholder decision-making for public policy.
What does he mean by that?
Because don't we already have shareholder decision-making for a company?
And don't we already have elections, democratic sovereign elections in countries to run a country?
So when he talks about stakeholder capitalism or stakeholder democracy, he's talking about other groups making the decisions besides shareholders.
And wouldn't you know it, those other groups are the people that he happens to know and like and sell access to and hobnob with and rub shoulders with every year here in Davos.
He seeks to replace private property and local sovereignty with globalist socialism.
And I think he's generally careful about how he talks, but actually he reveals his thinking all the time.
Not just his own comments, but those of those around him.
One of the most shocking is Yuval Noah Harari, sort of his futurist and muse.
I just can't get over some of the things he said, including that the future will turn many people useless.
He calls us useless eaters who will have nothing to do other than play video games and do drugs.
Remember these comments?
And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be what do we need humans for?
Or at least what do we need so many humans for?
Do you have an answer in the book?
At present, the best guess we have is keep them happy with drugs and computer games.
If you're not part of the revolution fast enough, then you probably become extinct.
Once you know how to produce bodies and brains and minds, so cheap labor in Africa or South Asia or wherever, it simply counts for nothing.
Again, I think that the biggest question maybe in economics and politics of the coming decades will be what to do with all these useless people.
I don't think we have an economic model for that.
My best guess, which is just a guess, is that food will not be a problem.
With that kind of technology, you will be able to produce food to feed everybody.
The problem is more boredom and what to do with them and how will they find some sense of meaning in life when they are basically meaningless, worthless.
My best guess at present is a combination of drugs and computer games.
Anyways, back to Davos.
I want to show you something that I think is just so symbolic.
Over there is a fairly large and impressive church.
And it's actually a real church that's really used.
In fact, you can see It has some quotes on the wall.
One of them is ripped right now.
So it's actually a church that is in use.
But according to a report I read, and I haven't been able to chase it down because my German is very weak, that church let itself be rented out for the week by Filecoin and CNBC for $1.4 million.
Now, I want to have a drop of skepticism here because I haven't been able to chase that report down all the way, but it seems to ring true.
That church is being turned into, well, look at the audacity.
They call it the Filecoin sanctuary.
Well, excuse me, I had to break away Min monologue to run and chase a VVIP for one of our interviews at WEFReports.com.
I say that to explain the darker sky.
Anyhow, it's very exciting on this promenade.
You never know who's going to walk by.
Some people walk by many times.
John Kerry, for example, we scrummed him, I think, three times.
But I want to get back to talking about that church over there.
Now, I haven't been able to do my due diligence on that story because of the language barrier.
And could that be true?
I think it could be.
But how astonishing that a church would rent itself out for a week?
I mean, I suppose $1.4 million could be enough to pay the church's bills for the entire year and maybe for, and maybe actually it only skipped one Sunday and the church met somewhere else and they thought this is a great idea financially.
It could be, as I told you the other day, the airport, the private jet airport that serves Davos, the one week of Davos, 150 private jets per day.
They told me that's the day, that's the week rather, that pays for their whole year.
So it's really incredible.
A Friendly Interview with a Former Secretary General00:04:34
The amount of wealth and power around here is quite something.
In fact, sometimes when you walk around on the streets, you hear snippets of conversation as you pass by a pedestrian on the street and you just hear a few words here and a few words there.
I want to tell you, hand of God, a couple of words that I heard on the street.
One was $400 million profit.
And another was $300 million loan or something like that.
That's the scale of things, the deals that are being done here.
And who knows?
Maybe it's just puffery.
Maybe it's just braggadocio.
Maybe it's not true.
But it is true that BlackRock has $10 trillion of assets under management and they are major sponsors here.
And so if that's true for one major sponsor, imagine the money and the power that is concentrated in this town.
And so it's a very interesting thing to camp out here and to do citizen journalism for a week because you're like a skunk at a garden party.
Everyone else is fancy or wants to be fancy.
And by being an unaccredited journalist, scrumming people on the streets, you are most definitely not fancy.
Now, some people were very friendly.
Let me show you an excerpt of a very friendly interview I had with a former Secretary General of the United Nations.
Can you imagine?
Little old me bumping into a Secretary General, the United Nations former, on the street.
And I just asked him questions that came to mind, like, which is more powerful, the UN or the World Economic Forum, which is more democratic.
Here, here's a taste of that.
Hi, it's nice to see you here.
Are you enjoying the World Economic Forum?
Of course, always.
Which is more powerful, the United Nations or the World Economic Forum?
Well, these are two different baskets.
I can't say the United Nations is less powerful than the World Economic Forum.
Who is richer?
The World Economic Forum or the United Nations?
Well, UN is here also.
I mean, UN is contributing to the world.
It's a partnership, isn't it?
Of course it is.
Here's a question for you.
Can I ask you a tough question?
Which is more democratic, the UN or the World Economic Forum?
Well, UN, I was the president of the General Assembly.
I know.
It's the, I think, the largest democratic platform in the world where every country is represented.
World Economic Forum is, of course, in its capacity for many years, is also showing this democratic and giving space to every country in the world standards.
And I think we shouldn't compare the two.
They are helping each other.
And this combination is helping the world peace and stability.
Can I challenge you on that?
Because in the last few years, we've seen more war and more death and more terrorism and there's terrible instability.
Has the United Nations been helpful or harmful or useless?
Well, unfortunately, the structure of the United Nations, because of the veto powers in the Security Council, is not allowing the United Nations to be a problem-solving mechanism.
It has education, humanitarian aid, a lot of very good health.
All these institutions adjacent to the UN is doing wonderful work, 200,000 people there.
But when it comes to politics, the Security Council is blocking all the possible peace solutions.
So the danger here is if we can't solve the Security Council problem, then countries individually are trying to find solutions to their regional or political problems.
And this is the danger.
He couldn't have been friendlier.
We had a very friendly walk and talk, and afterwards he said, we're friends.
Yeah, it could be.
But, you know, he didn't have anything to hide.
He is no longer the Secretary General of the UN.
He's just a businessman.
And I just had questions for him to compare the WEF and the UN, neither of which is a particularly democratic institution.
So I would say that was the friendliest interview I had.
Many of them were not friendly at all because they, well, in some cases, they made it not friendly.
I think a lot of the questions we had were legitimate.
People just didn't want to hear them.
We had an interesting rapport with other media who were here.
Understanding Klaus Schwab00:15:43
Here's Ben Smith of a new left of center publication called Semaphore.
Here's a clip of them on CNBC talking about rebel news right here on the street.
Take a look at that.
Join us now, Semaphore co-founder and editor-in-chief.
Ben Smith, that's a big title.
And if you are in chief, you need to decide what is happening here that you need to lead with at Semaphore, do you not?
I do.
And I mean, I think one of the things is that the people who love this place most are the populists like Malay who can use it as a backdrop to denounce.
They're the ones having the most fun.
There are some right-wing journalists, sort of right-wing populist journalists hanging out outside, buttonholing people.
I think no one's having fun.
The rebel guys.
Like, no one is having more fun.
They're like kids in a candy at this place.
They had this scene where a very polite, very diminutive woman asked them to move a bit out of a parking spot, and they're like, we will not be cowed by the globalist elite.
Like they're just having a good time.
He said we're having fun, which is true, and that we're feasting on the excesses of the globalist left.
I guess that's true.
I want to show you a scrum we had with a CNN reporter who I sort of like because he's got a bigger-than-life personality.
We scrummed him and asked him, how can you be an independent journalist if you are paying to play in Davos, if you were paying Klaus Schwab hundreds of thousands of dollars for CNN to have pride of place in the inner sanctum?
Here's how that went.
Tell me what you think of this.
This was probably the most fun interaction we had so far this week, even though there was some antagonism behind it.
Take a look.
I'd recognize that voice anywhere.
How you doing?
I'm sorry, not this morning.
What are you sorry about?
Well, I'm sorry that I can't stop to talk to you.
Let's not stop.
Let's talk and walk.
We got 60 seconds.
I've got one question for you.
I've been thinking about CNN and yourself, especially, a lot of credibility, a lot of reputation.
But how can you ask critical questions here if you're paying to be here?
Like CNN pays to be here.
So how can you critically ask questions about the WEF?
I always find it's best to be very careful when walking, talking, and doing interviews, particularly in snowy conditions, because I think- Now you're avoiding the question.
I think it's because you're embarrassed.
I think it's always very important to understand.
No, now we have two against one.
I'm not against you, mate.
We're all on the side of the truth.
At least I am.
I know you are too.
Let me ask you, do you ski?
I have a better question that's more in the public interest.
How can CNN report neutrally or objectively on the World Economic Forum if you're paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to be here?
You're part of the insiders.
When you say we are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to be here, precisely what do you mean?
Well, to get access to the inside, CNN and the other regime media pay hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Regime media.
Excuse me.
Regime, R-E-G-I-M-E.
Excuse me?
my god you know you are this is fascinating You're not doing very well as an answer.
You're good as an asker, but not as an answer.
I'm carrying more cameras to try and get me.
I'm not trying to get you, mates.
I'm trying to get an answer from you.
It's different.
Lovely weather.
Tell me, you've been here every single year.
We bumped into you last year.
This year, the theme is regaining trust.
Why do you think your lords here at WEF have lost so much?
I trust.
Stop it.
Stop it.
Rephrase the question in a neutral fashion, and you might stand a chance of getting it.
CNN does you don't like it when it's listen I think you're a great question asker I watch you.
I love your voice.
Answer my questions.
What's your purpose?
My purpose is to find out how you can be an objective journalist, but also pay to be part of the team.
But you're assuming we pay to be positive.
I know you do.
All of these organizations along here pay an enormous amount of money to Klaus Schwab.
And do you see us along here?
No, you're in the inner sanctum.
For which we pay for the facilities of studios.
If that lets you sleep at night, mate.
We pay for that in all sorts of venues.
You know what?
I assure you, the numbers you have for what we might pay for facilities, i.e. electricity, tables.
And access.
No.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars for tables.
Are they golden tables?
Yes, yes.
There is no payment for access.
Let me just say this again.
To be absolutely clear.
The access is a bonus.
The access is part of my job.
And you would never jeopardize that by asking questions that are too prickly.
Oh, you are clearly erroneous, sir.
Show me a prickly question you've asked here at this place.
You'd get booted out.
I should tell you, he saw that video and I bumped into him on the street today.
And to my surprise, he was quite sad.
I mean, I think he was genuinely sad.
I don't think he's ever been criticized in his life or embarrassed.
He's always the embarrasser and the critic.
I don't know.
Maybe he was faking it, but it sort of touched my heart that such a big shot could be, I don't know, hurt.
We just wanted to ask him some questions.
And I think he was trying to give us the high hat, but anyhow, you saw the whole video for yourself.
Sometimes our interviews didn't score.
I mean, I have to tell you, it's hard to come up with thoughtful questions in a matter of moments.
There's a lot of people here from Facebook, and I don't think my questions were particularly strong, but here's how some of those went when we saw some Facebook guys on the street.
And can I ask you a question about Facebook?
No, why not?
You're here with Facebook, and, you know, you're collegial enough to put your hand on my shoulder.
I am interviewing right now.
Okay, well, we're interviewing, and you can keep stony silence if you think that looks good.
I want to add.
I'm walking to my booth, and I need to do that.
The number one issue that Klaus Schwab says is the goal for the WEF is to combat misinformation and disinformation.
Is that important to Meta?
I'm heading to my booth.
This is not an interview.
Facebook has been one of the largest political censors in the world.
Do you think it's appropriate for Facebook to make decisions on what's true or not instead of letting Facebook users make that decision?
Again, I'm not doing an interview right now, so thank you for saying hi, but no.
Do you think Facebook should be held accountable for the misinformation that their partners, their fact-checking partners through COVID and consistently are getting wrong?
Do you think Meta should personally be held responsible for partnering up with such misinformation companies?
Guys, I'm not engaging.
Like, you know, I'm not engaging.
Come on.
Well, I think that's part of the problem because Facebook, I mean, Klaus Schwab says the goal of this conference is to rebuild trust.
And part of trust is transparency.
I don't think our questions are a surprise to you.
We're asking by what moral rights Facebook makes itself the arbiter of what's true or not.
We have a larger transparency center that you can go and look at that explains exactly what our community standards are.
We have the community standards enforcement report.
That tells you exactly how we follow them.
So I feel we're very transparent.
But sure as I say, like, you can always talk to our press team and organize time.
Do you think Ilan McKinley's not a good person?
You've got Mark Zuckerberg's clicksbutt, but not his money.
How come Facebook is censoring the Internet?
Is it your plan to interfere with the 2024 election?
Sorry, I'm not here to depress.
Well, I know that, but you're not very transparent.
You claim to be transparent.
I'm asking you about your plans to censor the 2024 election.
That's the key value in this year's WEF conference, isn't it?
Fighting misinformation.
Do you intend to deploy Facebook as a campaign auxiliary to Joe Biden?
Sometimes interviews were literally 10 seconds long.
I bumped into someone from McKinsey and I asked about his $100 million or more dollar contract with Christia Freeland and he just ran away right away.
I think it was 10 seconds total.
Take a look.
Hi, let's wait together.
I want to ask about McKinsey and those huge contracts you guys got from the Canadian government after meeting with Christia Freeland.
Oh, don't run away.
Don't run away.
Why don't you want to talk about your contract with Canadian taxpayers?
I mean, surely you believe in transparency.
Anyways, we're still editing videos because we're out on the street really all day.
We take a short break for lunch just to sit down and get off our feet and have a bite and get out of the cold.
Really, from the moment we get here to the moment we leave, we're on and we're on the streets and we have to be ready to run because some of these guys do not want to talk to us.
We ran the entire length of the promenade with someone who takes money from bill gates in the vaccine industry.
It's an interesting conversation.
We'll have that for you in a day or two.
So there's I don't know, there's probably 10 videos that are stacked up that we have yet to edit, and I think the important thing to do is to be on the street to get as many as we can while the VVIPs are still here, because when they're gone, they're gone and we can use that time to edit them.
But let me leave you with what I think for sure has got to be the brightest spot of Davos for a lot of people like me and you, I think, and that is the new president of Argentina, Javier Millé, who is being compared to Donald Trump, and I think he is comparable to Trump in his audacity and his unusual hair and his love for Twitter, but I think he is very deeply philosophical, very well read in economics and freedom,
and in that way he's more like Vivek Ramaswamy, I would say, or even like Milton Friedman or Stephen Harper, but he has such a charismatic personality.
He gave a 20 minute speech yesterday, introduced by Klaus Schwab, and I saw some conservative critics saying, oh, I'm disappointed that Javier Millé is going to the World Economic Forum.
I didn't know he was a go globalist.
No, understand this.
He went to bury, not to praise.
Let me leave you with an excerpt from Javier Millé's brilliant speech to the World Economic Forum.
I would like to leave a message for all business people here and for those who are not here in person but are following from around the world, do not be intimidated intimidated either by the political caste or by parasites who live off the state.
Do not surrender to a political class that only wants to stay in power and retain its privileges.
You are social benefactors, you're heroes.
You're the creators of the most extraordinary period of prosperity we've ever seen.
Let no one tell you that your ambition is immoral.
If you make money, it's because you offer a better product at a better price, thereby contributing to general well-being.
Do not surrender to the advance of the state.
The state is not the solution, the state is the problem itself.
You are the true protagonists of this story and rest assured that, as from today, Argentina is your staunch, unconditional ally.
Thank you very much, and long live freedom.
There are hundreds of journalists here at the World Economic Forum.
We scrummed one of them yesterday, Richard Quest.
Hey, did you see that?
You got to watch it again?
Even if you have, it was great.
Take a look.
Yes, a lot of what happens here is a waste of time.
A lot of it is far too expensive.
But there is real value in people coming together at the beginning of the year to see where they stand on controversial or political, with no democratic oversight, no opposition party and no independent journalists.
It is a crypto government.
It's a lobbyist festival.
It's unregistered lobbyists.
You get away with things right.
You have now transgressed.
You have followed me for the last, however many minutes.
I've made it clear I didn't particularly want to be interviewed.
I've given you some answers.
Now will you let me proceed?
Go ahead in your sex pass.
You're about to get past the guy, but what do you really?
Why do you think?
Why do you think we don't get access, but you do?
I really love the fact really love it that you will take whatever I say in.
However, I say it and manage to turn it iron.
We've learned from the master.
We've learned from the master, And either turn it against me or against CNN, or against anybody else that you deem to be unworthy of your approval.
Bold on sir.
Go with the masters of the universe.
Go with your people.
Go to your people.
Those are your people.
It'll be raw, my friend.
Uncut.
Excellent.
In which case, you will fully understand.
It's not particularly pleasant at half past nine in the morning to be ambushed by one, two, three, four, five people.
Five.
I don't even deploy that many people when I'm going to interview a president.
You've got that many people in the makeup room alone.
That was the funnest interview we've done so far.
But of these hundreds of journalists, 99% of them are what I call regime journalists.
Richard Quest asked me to repeat that three times.
He'd never heard it before.
I don't think he liked it.
What I mean by that, though, is that they have to pay to play.
They have to buy their way in.
It's one of the ways that Klaus Schwab has gotten so rich.
But there are a handful of citizen journalists on the outside, literally on the outside, as well as metaphorically.
One of my favorites is my friend Andrew Lawton of True North.
And I think this is your third time here at Davos.
Is that right?
Yes, it is my third.
The second without accreditation.
I had no papers the first time.
I snuck in apparently on the second time, but they didn't like my coverage.
So no accreditation this time, back out on the streets.
Well, isn't that interesting?
Was there anything in particular that you did that you think got them to nix your VIP status?
To be honest, no.
And I probably could have been and should have been a lot more aggressive, knowing it was going to be my one and only time.
I did go up to world leaders and ask polite and firm questions, but no one ever complained.
And one of the WEF staffers who I had corresponded with, he and I chatted in quite a friendly way when I bumped into him.
So nothing happened from a behavioral perspective.
But I think the WEF actually likes the conspiracy theories.
They don't like the reasoned critiques.
They don't like the policy-oriented critiques because those ones they can't just dismiss as conspiracy theories.
Isn't that interesting?
Now, were there certain things that tell me some of the things you could do from the inside that maybe you couldn't do from the outside?
But I also understand that there may have been some limits.
For example, there were some rooms or hallways where there was no interviews allowed.
What were the ground rules on the inside?
So you actually couldn't do all that much, which is why I still thought it was worth coming back because the main hub of everything that's on the other side of those security gates is called the Davos Congress Center.
And that's the room where when you see the videos of the speeches, most of them are in that building.
You can't go in there with a press badge unless you're on an approved list.
And even to get on that list, you have to ask for permission in advance.
They time it.
And if you scan your badge outside of that 30 minutes, which is what they gave me at one point when I said I wanted to attend a particular speech, it will just be deactivated and you're sent back.
Limits on Free Speech00:04:46
So really, all it got you was access to the media filing room, which was, you know, a nice warm place where you could sit and do some work, and access to a few press conferences.
But those things were not really with the heavy hitters that you find out on the streets here.
So really, I think you have better access with no strings on the street to do real journalism than you do on the inside.
Well, you have a bit of a different style than we do, and I admire it.
And it's successful in a way that we're not.
And we're successful in other ways too.
Can you tell me your favorite interview that you've done so far?
Maybe it was for the substance of it.
Maybe you enjoyed the personality of the person.
What was your favorite moment so far this week?
So my interview style, some people say I am too soft with it, but my approach is that I want answers.
I'm not trying to persuade the person.
I'm not trying to argue or debate with them.
I want answers.
You want to actually pull something out of their mouth.
Yeah.
And sometimes I think that, and pardon using a violent metaphor, which may get me strung up on some online charge or whatever, but I think that a lot of these people, if you let them speak, they tie the rope around their own necks, metaphorically speaking.
And by that, I mean that these people are very transparent when they get talking about what it is that they want to do.
They let their hair down a bit.
Yeah, and I actually want the public to see what that agenda is.
So, I mean, one example, I spoke to Australia's e-safety commissioner, Julian Mongrant.
Now, you may remember a couple of years ago, she talked about the need to recalibrate free speech.
And I just asked her what she meant by that.
And she gave a remarkably candid answer about all the things that she thinks need to be done to stop free speech online.
I know I'm not going to persuade her, but I think that's an incredibly revealing interview that people ought to be aware of.
Julie Andrew Lawton with True North in Canada, I'm just one wondering, when you talked about recalibrating free speech a couple of years ago, what were you referring to?
I am talking about balancing a range of rights that everyone has a right to online.
Where do you think freedom of expression online should be limited?
When it undermines other people's freedom of expression and causes significant harm.
That's all I have to say.
But that's a subjective term.
Who's to adjudicate what harm is?
Is it governments?
Well, actually, it is.
The government drew the line on what the threshold was, and an investigation is taken when somebody reports to a platform when it doesn't conform to their terms of service.
They come to us to adjudicate.
Do you believe that the First Amendment has too high a bar for the online era?
The First Amendment does not apply in Australia.
I know, but you're an American, so I thought in general, as a standard for freedom of expression, do you think that's too high of one?
No, I don't apply that.
I apply the laws of the Australian government that the parliamentarians provided and the thresholds they provided, and it's measured against those thresholds.
You're right.
And of course, if you pull things out of their mouths, you can comment about it later on your own time because you have precious few seconds or minutes with them.
I have an approach when they stonewall, which is sometimes I keep asking questions just to put them on the record and just to sort of demonstrate that they're avoiding answering.
What do you think of that approach?
No, absolutely.
You know, this year, I'll say, I mean, the Julian Mongrant one stands out in part because so few people have been willing to talk to me this year.
I've had far more instances where I'm putting questions to people that go unanswered.
But, you know, I used to, when I was starting out in media, get a little dejected about that.
But now I think, you know what, a non-answer is an answer of its own kind.
One notable example of this, I spoke twice to Queen Maxima of the Netherlands.
Oh, Your Highness.
Well, I tried, yeah, I met three monarchs and two princesses and two prime ministers this week.
Not that we're keeping score or anything on the Davos bingo card.
But I said, listen, and it wasn't a, she's not the head of government.
She's the head of state.
I said, listen, farmers in your country are suffering because of the Netherlands government's policy.
And you had a chance to put that to her?
I did.
I did.
And twice.
And I just said, what's your message to farmers who are struggling?
And she didn't have to give a political answer.
She could have given a heartfelt answer.
What did she say?
Nothing.
She kept walking.
Did she hear you?
She did.
She didn't look at me the one time.
The second time, she did look at me and then looked away.
And security very, very firmly pushed me away, not in an aggressive Menzies way, but that was something where, again, I think that's revealing that the unifying figurehead of the Netherlands government doesn't really care or care to answer a question about the plight of Dutch farmers.
You know, and this is where I would normally say, well, maybe she doesn't want to wade into politics, but she was actually here giving what I think could be called a political speech.
Yeah, she was on her way into and then out of a presentation on inclusive financing.
So when a figurehead of any kind chooses to go into politics, I feel they subject themselves to questions that straddle the political realm.
True North News00:01:40
And I just have to apologize to your viewers.
My eyes keep darting because the news is the nature of the game in Davos.
You never know who's coming by here.
So far, it's, well, my producer is saying someone, but I don't know if he's just trolling me.
No, he's just trolling me.
You know, and we'll both run in an instant if someone presents.
Well, listen, it's great to see you again.
We're very far away from home.
It's a very long journey to get here.
There's obviously no direct flight to Davos.
I mean, you come a long way.
You come from London, Ontario, to Toronto, to Zurich, and then up by train or car.
Like it's such a, such a, we'd make the journey too.
I think that the onerous journey is part of what keeps this reclusive and exclusive because it takes a real commitment to be here.
I'm happy to see a familiar face from home and you and you've got two teammates here.
Where can we see your work on the subject?
Just TNC.news?
Is that the best place?
Where would we see all your work?
Yes, TNC.news, we have it updated.
I've also been doing live editions of my show from here, kind of weaving in some of the content we collect during the day with that bigger picture analysis.
But all of it's at True North.
Right now, well, listen, I love to hang out with you just as buddies.
It's great to hang out with you professionally.
I love that you've got a young team with you.
Even though we are, I suppose, formally competitors, I have a deep admiration for True North, and I'm really glad you guys are here.
Thank you so much.
Always a pleasure.
Right on.
There you have it.
Andrew Lawton, the big boss over at TrueNorth, TNC.news.
Well, that's our show for today.
Until tomorrow, on behalf of all of us here at Davos and the meeting of the World Economic Forum and in our Canadian office and around the world, to you at home.