Tag Archives: wef

General

World Economic Forum 2024 Global Economic Outlook: What Are The Chief Economists Predicting For Our Future?

Leave a comment

World Economic Forum 2024 Global Economic Outlook: What Are The Chief Economists Predicting For Our Future?

2024 has been a year of elections as many countries worldwide have been gearing up for the polls. Nevertheless, as the campaigns and debates gain momentum, it's essential to remember that the popular vote has never chosen the individuals who wield the most significant impact on our daily lives. The World Economic Forum (WEF) is a prime example of this phenomenon. The WEF's ‘experts’ have been diligently crafting their newest economic prediction, which will inevitably have far-reaching implications that will affect everyone, regardless of our individual opinions.

This article analyzes the latest report from the WEF's chief economists, who express cautious optimism regarding the global economy's future. Despite their hopeful outlook, they anticipate various challenges ahead. However, a critical flaw in their analysis is the failure to recognize that the policies they promote often have adverse consequences for the general population. Ultimately, the WEF and its partners have overlooked a crucial aspect of the larger issue: their own role as a contributing factor to the problem.


Source: World Economic Forum

The Economists’ View, Full Of Surprises Or Not

This article summarizes the "Chief Economists Outlook: May 2024" paper authored by numerous leading economists worldwide. This publication, updated quarterly, presents the collective views of these experts. The document commences with a brief overview, indicating that most economists anticipate a more robust global economy than the previous edition. 

For perspective, in January, about 56% of economists thought the global economy would be weak. However, the latest data shows that only 17% share this belief. Not surprisingly, almost 100% of economists believe that geopolitics and politics will cause volatility. The elites appear to be particularly apprehensive about the possibility of a second Trump presidency.

It’s also not surprising that economists' prevailing view is that the US economy will maintain its strength while the EU's economy will weaken further. Surprisingly, they forecast that certain central banks, such as the European Central Bank, will cut interest rates, whereas others, like the Federal Reserve, will hold rates steady. 

It’s also surprising that economists predict a global economic recovery in the next few years. It’s surprising because there’s a strong correlation between GDP and energy production, and many countries are not pursuing the best energy policies. The WEF is partially responsible for this situation. 

According to the WEF's economic experts, these subpar energy policies are expected to boost economic growth miraculously. Ironically, their research reveals the actual sentiment on the ground, where numerous countries are skeptical about these policies' ability to stimulate economic growth. It's no surprise: they're unlikely to deliver.

Politics And Geopolitics

The paper's initial section reveals a prevailing consensus among WEF economists as “a mood of cautious optimism.” While many experts anticipate a thriving economy, the outlook is predicated on the assumption that political and geopolitical factors will not pose a significant threat to economic growth. The Middle East and Eastern Europe are currently the most pressing concerns regarding global hotspots. As we've witnessed, any intensification of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, along with its proxies, could have an even greater impact on oil prices.

The widespread use of oil in various industries would trigger a broad-based price surge, prompting central banks to maintain or increase interest rates to manage supply-side inflation effectively. The practical effect would make existing debts more costly and borrowing more challenging, ultimately leading to a slowdown in economic activity. It's worth noting that the economy already relies heavily on debt.

In Eastern Europe, the increasing tension is not primarily driven by economic factors as it is unlikely to cause additional disturbances to supply chains and similar aspects. Instead, the primary concern is that the situation could destabilize the region by casting doubt on the legitimacy of its institutions, both in the eyes of Europeans and other international actors. This is particularly relevant in light of the EU's consideration of releasing $300 billion in assets it seized from Russia to Ukraine.

It's worth noting that this move could have significant implications for the global financial system, potentially leading other countries to reassess their investments in Europe and European assets. To mitigate this risk, the EU has only released the profits generated by the seized assets rather than the assets themselves. However, the US is reportedly urging the EU to utilize the underlying assets to support Ukraine, and the EU is understandably cautious, given the potential for negative consequences.

In a related development, the US has been urging the EU to impose stricter measures on China. Taiwan is another potential hotspot that could trigger market instability. Notably, Taiwan is responsible for manufacturing most of the world's microchips, and any disruptions to its production or trade could have catastrophic consequences. It's intriguing that China has been escalating its hostilities towards Taiwan, suggesting it may not depend on Taiwan's unique microchip production capabilities.

Geopolitical experts speculate that China may have gained the capability to produce advanced chips independently, raising concerns about potential implications for Taiwan. Such action doesn't necessarily have to take the form of a full-scale invasion; a trade blockade would be sufficient to cause economic disruption. The fact that the US and EU are hastening to establish their own chip-making facilities suggests that such disruptions could be unavoidable.

On the political stage, a surge in nationalist parties has been unfolding globally, a trend that has been anticipated for some time. During difficult times, individuals often point fingers at the wealthy and immigrants. This sentiment seems true across various nations and challenges the globalist-focused economy because nationalist parties prioritize the interests of their citizens, for better or for worse. As highlighted in this article, globalism is failing, which will be painful in the short term. It will initially cause inflation to increase while asset prices remain high; wages will eventually follow. 

The economists surveyed by the WEF anticipate that inflation will persist, and they attribute this to housing and energy rather than nationalism. Specifically, housing prices have increased due to globalist policies restricting construction and accelerating immigration, while globalist policies concerning energy have led to increased expenses across the board. According to the WEF's experts, prices may surge by 30% if tensions in the Middle East intensify.

They also note that a significant portion of global trade, 20-40%, occurs between geopolitically unaligned countries, which poses a challenge for European and Asian economies. Hopefully, the WEF’s economists' forecast regarding the Middle East isn't an accurate prophecy.


Source: World Economic Forum

Unpredictability, Complexity, ESG

In the document's second section, economists from the WEF expand on the “challenging Global landscape.”  They highlight how international conflicts, domestic strains, technology, and high interest rates have led to an unpredictable environment for everyone. For those unaware, investors generally dislike uncertainty more than any other factor. Investors don't mind a world war so long as it's certain because they can price it in and plan. 

So far, the impact of this unpredictability has been relatively subdued, likely due to investors' assumption that the money printer will be turned back on. However, from the WEF and its economists' standpoint, the problem is not unpredictability; it’s complexity. The above factors contribute to this complexity, posing challenges for the WEF central planners' decision-making. In reality, they shouldn't be making these decisions in the first place.

WEF economists are concerned about the growing divergence between the data reported by governments and the actual experiences of individuals. In their own words, they quote, “The emergence of divergence between modestly encouraging economic data and stubbornly gloomy public sentiment.”  This disparity has been described as a "challenge" by the WEF's economists, who have refrained from advocating censorship to address the issue in the name of misinformation, disinformation, etc. If this challenge continues, though, don't be surprised to see such censorship. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the WEF's economic experts appear oblivious to the underlying reasons behind this growing disparity. They attribute it to simply being a matter of inequality and uncertainty, which barely begins to address the issue. It's becoming increasingly clear to many that the system is unfairly skewed in favor of the WEF itself. A prime example of this bias is a section in the report outlining the factors that will supposedly influence business decisions, as the WEF's economists dictated. This section of the paper outlines the factors affecting business decisions as perceived by the WEF's economists, which provides a telling example.

To clarify, businesses were not directly questioned; instead, a panel of academic experts was consulted to provide insights into businesses' perspectives. The responses were unsurprisingly disconnected from reality. For instance, WEF economists believe that typical businesses consider geopolitics in their day-to-day decision-making. In fact, most companies focus more on inflation and labor issues rather than geopolitics. 

Interestingly, the study's authors rank labor as one of the least significant factors for businesses, which contradicts many businesses' actual priorities. This disconnect may explain why ordinary individuals are pushing back on the policies of those in power.

It's intriguing that the WEF's economists discovered that corporations are increasingly issuing as many bonds as possible. They believe these companies are apprehensive about what lies ahead, which suggests that they are concerned about the future and are borrowing heavily to prepare for future challenges.

In a more optimistic light, the WEF's research revealed that a majority—75%—of top business leaders harbor doubts about ESG principles, while nearly a quarter have rejected them altogether. This finding is noteworthy, especially considering that ESG has gained widespread traction in recent years, largely thanks to the efforts of influential asset managers such as BlackRock.

The WEF's economists then pivoted to another pressing issue: fiscal and monetary policy. Fiscal policy encompasses government spending and taxation, while monetary policy involves central banks and interest rates. As previously mentioned, the WEF's economists predict that interest rates will decrease in the EU while remaining relatively stable in the US and other regions.

Previously, central banks worldwide had aligned their monetary policies to mirror the actions of the Fed. This was done to avoid potential repercussions such as Japan's significant yen depreciation when central banks implemented divergent interest rate strategies. The European Central Bank faces a similar risk with the euro, as it may not be sustainable for the ECB to maintain elevated interest rates for an extended period. Oddly enough, economists at the WEF anticipate a trend towards more constrained fiscal policies, as governments apart from the US seem restricted in their ability to increase spending. 

The projection for Europe is particularly surprising, considering the EU's strong commitment to funding ESG-related initiatives. What's most peculiar is that the paper's authors are puzzled by the expectation that the EU will reduce its spending. The discrepancy between monetary and fiscal policies in the Eurozone is believed to be a contributing factor. If not managed carefully, this could lead to the euro's collapse. That's why the ECB hastened the rollout of a digital euro to oversee the European economy.


Source: World Economic Forum

WEF Predictions, Policies  

In the third section of the report, the WEF economists offer their projections for the future of the global economy. These predictions focus on the long term, specifically the next five years, which makes sense as it aligns with the WEF's goals it’s trying to achieve by 2030. Notably, the WEF's economists observe that global growth has slowed since the turn of the century.

They are significantly concerned about the possibility of a further deterioration in this global slowdown. This anxiety stems from the fact that almost 25% of the economists at the WEF think that the world will not be able to reach its pre-pandemic annual growth rate of 4%. This pessimistic outlook could be driven by varying perspectives on how much technologies such as AI can enhance productivity, with half of them expressing doubt about its significant impact.

The realization is striking, as the WEF has been optimistic about technologies such as AI due to their implicit promise to replace the populace and preserve the world's marvels exclusively for the privileged few. They still believe AI will drive growth, but not to the extent they initially anticipated.

A notable observation is the disparate way the WEF's economists perceive the impact of advancements like AI on developed and developing nations. Their perspective suggests that developed countries will reap the most significant benefits. In contrast, developing countries will only experience limited and incremental improvements as if this disparity was intentionally designed into the system.


Source: IPSOS

In 2022, an alarming headline emerged stating that, based on a survey conducted by the WEF, individuals in developing nations have a strong affinity for the metaverse. This assertion appears counterintuitive, suggesting a concerning implication that the WEF may be aiming to keep these countries in their place. This sentiment is also reflected in the WEF economists' paper.

Consider the following quote: 

“There was a lack of consensus on the role of other industries, including mining, supply chain and transport services, manufacturing, fossil fuel energy and materials, retail and wholesale of consumer goods, and financial professional and real estate services in global growth.” 

Consider that mining, manufacturing, and fossil fuel industries are the foundation for many developing nations. Notably, WEF economists hold differing views regarding these industries, even though they are essential for the advancement of developed countries. After all, artificial intelligence relies on hardware.

The paper's concluding section focuses on the crucial aspects of policy priorities that will foster economic growth in the next five years. The WEF economists emphasize the significance of these policies, which are likely to be adopted by most countries, given the significant influence the WEF wields over government decision-making processes.

It's a bitter irony that the WEF's economists claim that the global economy could have grown by an additional 50% if capital had been allocated more efficiently in recent years. What's striking is that they seem oblivious to the fact that their own policies have created an environment that encourages this misallocation of resources. This oversight raises severe concerns about the kind of misguided policies we can expect from the WEF and its political cronies. The nature of these policies will likely vary depending on whether they are aimed at developing or developed economies.

Developed countries will prioritize education, infrastructure, improved financial access, and institutional development. While this may seem positive in theory, in reality, education can lead to indoctrination, infrastructure can result in dystopian technologies such as digital IDs, access to finance can mean giving control of your money to a single entity like Black Rock, and more institutions can translate to more unaccountable and unelected organizations influencing domestic affairs.

The economic policies advocated by the WEF economists are similar for developing countries, with a minor variation: innovation. While innovation is a crucial factor in developed countries, it supposedly has less impact in developing countries. At first glance, this might seem like an anomaly, but it actually reveals a more profound truth.

The economists at the WEF emphasize that implementing trade protectionism would have adverse effects regardless of a country's economic situation. In other words, don't you dare put the well-being of your population above our profits. Observing the outcomes for countries that choose this approach will be intriguing.

Economists' Trustworthiness: A Call for Critical Thinking

It is necessary to acknowledge that economists may not always tell the truth when delivering information to different audiences. Therefore, it is wise to approach the content of this paper with caution, as economists are known to provide misleading information to the general public. Nevertheless, the statements made by the WEF economists hold some truth. The global landscape is facing growing instability due to geopolitical and political challenges. However, the underlying concern goes beyond this surface-level analysis, pointing to the inherent instability of centralization.

Visualize the process of stacking coins one on top of the other. Initially, the stack is steady, but with each additional coin, the stability decreases. Adding supports can temporarily enhance stability, but the more coins you stack, the greater the instability, leading to an inevitable collapse. This illustrates that instability is a fundamental characteristic of centralization. It's easy to overlook that centralized systems, such as those developed by organizations like the World Economic Forum, have been in development for decades.

As their rigid structures have grown increasingly fragile, those in power have tightened their grip, but the populace has reached their breaking point. The positive development is that a growing number of people recognize that the challenges they encounter are a direct result of the systems established by influential organizations like the WEF rather than being caused by scapegoats like immigrants, the wealthy, or politicians themselves. The downside is that the WEF is aware of this growing awareness and is unlikely to take it lying down.

Censorship has been on the rise, and although there are still some areas where individuals can express themselves freely and gather peacefully, these spaces are being threatened from multiple directions. Legal action, regulations, market manipulation, and infiltration by WEF-affiliated entities applying the usual totalitarian tactics contribute to this trend. The irony is that as these tactics become more brazen, they risk fueling a growing distrust of institutions, potentially leading to a breakdown in social order and widespread chaos.

Let's not be naive; the World Economic Forum would seize this opportunity, and some believe it's actively working to bring it about. The WEF has explicitly advocated for a global reset since the pandemic outbreak. Although its efforts have been unsuccessful so far, it's unlikely to give up. The only way to achieve a reset is to dismantle the current system, and we may be inadvertently playing into the hands of those planning a deliberate collapse.

Speculation aside, the answer to the current problem is establishing a new framework composed of decentralized organizations crafted for and by the average person. This is the vision that the cryptocurrency sector strives to realize, and it's why the World Economic Forum has been attempting to insert itself into the process. Thankfully, those committed to creating decentralized platforms and institutions are not the type that would ever collaborate with the WEF, no matter the reward. Countless individuals are dedicating their time and effort to this endeavor, and if you wish to effect genuine change, consider joining them.

 

 

Editor and Chief Markethive: Deb Williams. (Australia) I thrive on progress and champion freedom of speech.  I embrace "Change" with a passion, and my purpose in life is to enlighten people to accept and move forward with enthusiasm. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.

 

 

 

 

General

WEFs Cyber Attack Simulations: Klaus says a Cyber Attack will Dwarf the Pandemic by Comparison

Leave a comment

WEF’s Cyber Attack Simulations: Klaus says a Cyber Attack will Dwarf the Pandemic by Comparison. 

In late 2019, the World Economic Forum (WEF) co-hosted a global pandemic simulation known as Event 201 with the John Hopkins and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. A few months later, we were hit with an actual pandemic that began in early 2020. The WEF co-hosted a global cyber attack simulation with Sberbank, Russia's largest bank, in July 2020 called Cyber Polygon. In light of the aftermath of Event 201 has led to speculation that a cyber attack is on the horizon. 

This article explains the Cyber Polygon and summarizes what was discussed in the 2020 simulation. There was another Cyber Polygon simulation in mid-2021, which I touched on briefly in this article. However, the 2020 edition is significant because it was the first simulation involving Klaus Schwab and the WEF and the first year of the C-19 pandemic. A lot has happened since the 2021 simulation; hence, the Cyber Polygon 2022 simulation was postponed indefinitely.

What Is Cyber Polygon?

Cyber Polygon is an annual cyber security event hosted by BI.ZONE, a cyber security subsidiary of Sberbank. The first Cyber Polygon event took place in 2019, which included simulations for DDOS, web applications, and ransomware attacks. The summary reveals a limited number of participants, the only notable being IBM. The WEF was yet to be involved. 

However, the WEF’s cyber security initiatives predate Cyber Polygon by over a year. The WEF announced the Global Center for Cyber Security at its annual Davos conference in January 2018. At some stage in 2019/20, the WEF partnered with Sberbank to organize Cyber Polygon 2020. Not surprisingly, Cyber Polygon 2020 was much larger than the 2019 edition. Over 120 organizations from 29 countries were involved, and the online event had over five million viewers from 57 countries. 


Image source: Cyber Polygon 2020 Report.pdf

The website for Cyber Polygon 2020 explains that many of these 120 organizations chose to remain anonymous, but it reveals that many big names were involved. Besides Deutsche Bank and Ernst & Young, ICANN is noted as being one of the key partners, and it provides global internet infrastructure. Whereas the focus of the 2019 edition was DDOS, web applications, and ransomware attacks, the focus of Cyber Polygon 2020 was a so-called digital pandemic. This digital pandemic would affect everything from financial infrastructure to healthcare and have a global impact. 

The full Cyber Polygon 2020 stream is still available on the BI.ZONE’s YouTube channel, however, is almost 5 hours long. This article from Unlimited Hangout provides a detailed background on some speakers. 

 
Image source: Cyber Polygon 2020 Report.pdf

Cyber Polygon 2020

So Cyber Polygon 2020 began with opening remarks from Sberbank CEO Herman Gref. Herman explained that the speakers will discuss “the next pressing issue after the pandemic,” a global cyber attack. He revealed that Interpol is also a key partner of Cyber Polygon. Herman also announced that WEF founder and chairman Klaus Schwab is personally involved with Cyber Polygon. 

For context, the WEF is an organization consisting of the world's most influential individuals and institutions, which come together each year to decide the future of the world without our input basically. The first speaker was Mikhail Mishustin, the Prime Minister of Russia, the second most powerful person in the country after President Vladimir Putin. Mikhail revealed that the post-pandemic recovery will focus on digitization, a process accelerated by pandemic restrictions. 

The second speaker was Klaus Schwab; he revealed that he'd been working closely with Herman, the CEO of Sberbank. Klaus also said that he was pleased to have recently met with Putin, a meeting which apparently took place in Saint Petersburg in November 2019. On that note, Putin was a so-called young global leader of the WEF. Although the WEF removed Putin's profile from its website when the Russia/Ukraine war started, the association has led to speculation that the war is being used as a pretext for a cyber attack. 

In any case, Klaus explained that they need a “great reset to bring everything together,” AKA to centralize control. He said that all WEF stakeholders must be mobilized, and everything must be digitized. He added that the cyber attack will make the pandemic look like a small disturbance by comparison. 


Image Source: Unlimited Hangout

BI.ZONE Simulation

The presenter of the 2020 event was Alexander Tushkanov, head of sales at BI.ZONE. He explained that a cyber attack simulation would take place in real-time at the Sberbank headquarters during the event where BI.ZONE employees are the hackers, and participants are the cyber defenders. Alexander also said it's been many years since the WEF announced the Fourth Industrial Revolution. He explained that the WEF’s initiative has resulted in two groups: those who support it and those who oppose it. He asked whether trust or fear would be the motivator for future cooperation. 

Alexander also asked whether it would take another crisis to unite the world after the pandemic. As this article about resisting the great reset illustrates, the WEF is keen to create crises for this exact purpose: Centralized control. 

This ties into what was said by the third speaker, Tony Blair, the former prime minister of the UK and a frequent contributor to the WEF’s global agenda. He noted that digitization would continue after the pandemic and that rolling out a digital ID is the key to successful digitization. Tony went on to complain the governments weren’t doing enough to crack down on privacy-preserving technologies and then warned that a “globally impactful scandal is inevitable soon.” He also said that the lack of cooperation in the pandemic response makes him concerned that digitization will fail. 

On that note, Klaus saw the pandemic as an opportunity to test the great reset philosophy. Still, in hindsight, he acknowledged that the WEF’s top-down approach failed, so they are now focusing on young global leaders for a bottom-up approach. 

The fourth speaker was Jeremy Jurgens, chief business officer at the WEF. Jeremy explained that the speed of digitization will drive the kind of intimate public and private cooperation the WEF is looking for. Note that private and public integration are common in authoritarian regimes. Jeremy went on to explain that there will be another global crisis that will be worse and happen fast. He then revealed that the WEF has been working closely with intelligence agencies on cyber security related to energy infrastructure. He not-so-subtly asked what would happen if the energy grid went down.

The following speakers were Sebastian Tolstoy, head of Erikson's Russian operations, and Alexei Kornya, CEO of MTS, Russia's largest telecom company. The pair talked about the rollout of 5G and how its purpose is primarily for the operation of smart cities, not for civilian use.

Fake News: The Real Pandemic? 

Nik Gowing, a former BBC News journalist, and Vladimir Pozner, a Russian journalist, were up next. They discussed whether fake news is the real digital pandemic. Nick began slamming then-US President Donald Trump for calling the mainstream media fake news. Vladimir continued by questioning whether it's good that people have more access to information in the modern day. He said that journalists used to be soldiers under the Soviet Union. 

Funnily enough, there was much disagreement, and Vladimir said he wasn't enjoying the conversation. Vladimir won the argument, though, because governments worldwide are in the process of passing online censorship laws, some of which will go into force in the next few months.  

Other speakers were Jacqueline Kurnot, who works in cyber security consulting at Ernst & Young, and Hector Rodriguez, a senior vice president at Visa. The topic of discussion was how to prepare for a cyber crisis, and what the panelists said was eye-opening. Jacqueline insisted that the next global crisis is imminent and said that the only solution is government regulation. Thankfully, Hector was not as convinced that there would be another global crisis but revealed that Visa already had a plan for dealing with the pandemic shortly before it began. Coincidence? 


Image source: X Interpol

Interpol And WEF Aligned

Troels Ørting Jørgensen, the West Center for Cyber Security chairman, and Jürgen Stock, the secretary general of Interpol, then had their say. For those unfamiliar, Interpol fights international crime with the help of law enforcement agencies from 195 countries and counting. While the Interpol Charter states that the organization is supposed to be politically neutral, it appears to be very closely aligned with the WEF. Troels revealed that he and Jürgen have been close friends for 30 years.

Jürgen also said that Interpol and the WEF are aligned. Jürgen is particularly passionate about the WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution, which essentially involves the digitization of everything so that it can be closely monitored and controlled. To that end, Jürgen believes that software and hardware should have security by design features that allow this control. 

Craig Jones, who also works at Interpol, specifically as the organization's cybercrime director, was next. Craig's answers were less revealing than the questions from Alexander, who asked about cyber attacks being executed in waves across multiple countries. Notably, Alexander asked the last few speakers if cybercrime groups collaborate better than countries. The answers were mixed, but the consensus is that cybercrime groups collaborate better than countries, which makes sense, given the tense political climate. 


Image source: Transforming our World 4 IR

Petr Goradov, head of international legal cooperation at Russia's General Prosecutor's Office, watched the simulation at Sberbank headquarters. Alexander asked him why cyber crime was rising in Russia and why only 8% of cases were solved. Petr dodged the question and called on the United Nations to create a new convention focused on cybercrime. 

John Crain, chief security officer of ICANN, was asked by Alexander about the collaboration comparison between countries and cybercrime groups. John was the only speaker who claimed that the pandemic had increased the collaboration between countries. John also revealed that ICANN is keeping track of the registration of internet domain names worldwide and their correlation to crime. As an international organization, ICANN cannot pursue any enforcement action, but it has forwarded this information to the appropriate authorities. 

The final speaker was Stanislav Kuznetsov, chairman of Sberbank. He thanked the WEF, Interpol, and others for helping put together Cyber Polygon 2020. He explained that the outcome of the ongoing cyber attack simulation would be published in a subsequent report. As mentioned earlier, the attackers in the simulation were BI.ZONE employees and the defenders were the participants in the event. The identities of the defenders are not revealed in the simulation results. 

The simulation results seem to suggest that the participants are unprepared for a cyber attack regardless of their industry. The results also specify that more than 20% of participants could not identify cyber threats before they occur. Not surprisingly, financial institutions and IT companies performed the best across the three cyber attack scenarios. 


Image source: The Last American Vagabond

Cyber Polygon 2021 Highlights

As stated in the introduction, the Cyber Polygon 2020 gave rise to speculation that a global cyber attack was imminent. This speculation rose higher in mid-2021 when the WEF and Sberbank co-hosted a second cyber attack simulation. Like Cyber Polygon 2020, Cyber Polygon 2021’s key partners were the WEF, IBM, and Interpol, and the 2021 edition was almost twice as large as the 2020 edition, with 200 participants from 48 countries and 7 million viewers from 78 countries. Most participants again chose to remain anonymous. 

Whereas the theme of Cyber Polygon 2020 was a so-called digital pandemic, the focus of Cyber Polygon 2021 was a supply-chain cyber attack simulation similar to the SolarWinds hack that would “assess the cyber resilience” of the exercise’s participants. The website for the 2021 event ominously warns that, given the digitalization trends primarily spurred by the COVID-19 crisis, “a single vulnerable link is enough to bring down the entire system, just like the domino effect,” adding that “a secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.”

In addition to the same globalists and bureaucrats of the 2020 edition, Steve Wozniak, the co-founder of Apple, was present at the 2021 event. It’s worth mentioning that Steve seemed surprised by the event because of Alexander's questions. Alexander asked Steve about data, and Steve boasted that he's proud that Apple doesn't share user data like other big tech companies. Alexander asked Steve about AI, and he said he was not all that impressed by it. Alexander also asks Steve about digital ID. Steve expressed that he doesn't like it at all but knows it's inevitable and hopes it's done in a way that protects user privacy. Steve went on to say that he hates authoritarianism and loves freedom.

The results of the 2021 cyber attack simulation can be found here. The difference is that the 2021 report did not contain a detailed breakdown of how the participants did. It only provided a paragraph, suggesting the participants did even worse than the previous year. A third simulation was set to occur in mid-2022 but was postponed. BI.ZONE announced on Twitter [X] that Cyber Polygon had been delayed indefinitely, and many would argue it was because of the war in Ukraine. 

According to this website, no official reason was given for the postponement, and there was no mention of sanctions or Ukraine.  It’s interesting to note that BI.ZONE has since been posting about cyberattack scenarios with the hashtag “You may be next,” often tagging Interpol in the tweets. 


Image Source: X [Twitter]

Global Cooperation Waning

So, is the WEF, in fact, planning a global cyber attack to achieve even more control? Executing a global cyber attack would also require the same kind of cooperation the WEF is trying to push with cyber defense simulations just like Cyber Polygon. 

The catch is that the cooperation the WEF requires for a global cyber attack has been breaking down ever since the pandemic began. The conflicts over the distribution of things like medical equipment and medicine have led to a decline in trust between countries. This is probably why Alexander, the presenter of Cyber Polygon, felt compelled to ask whether trust or fear would motivate cooperation during the next crisis. 

Interestingly, the only person Alexander asked this question to was WEF chief business officer Jeremy Jurgens. Jeremy admitted that fear achieves compliance but cautioned that compliance is not the same as cooperation. Jeremy also acknowledged there is serious competition between countries. It brings into question how the WEF will achieve cooperation without using fear in a way that won't be affected by the competition between countries. 

Answer To The Perfect Global Crisis

The answer is a global crisis where no individual or institution is to blame, a crisis some speakers alluded to. The only problem with this kind of crisis is that the WEF wouldn't have nearly the same degree of control over its emergence and response as it did with the pandemic. Ideally, the WEF would have a way of secretly creating or exacerbating a crisis where it's impossible to detect their influence. 

It raises the issue of what kind of a global crisis meets this criterion, and the answer is a climate crisis. The WEF and its allies have been talking a lot about this lately. It is also a crisis that they could secretly create or exacerbate. 

If you know anything about weather modification, you'll see that it is a very real technology that's been around for almost 100 years. Today’s weather modification technologies are more sophisticated and highly potent, and it's reportedly impossible to detect when they're being used. A climate crisis made or made worse by this undetectable weather modification would be the perfect path to total control for the WEF. They would only need to manage the online flow of information, which they're currently addressing with those online safety laws.
 
Food For Thought

Could the elites in power be using a series of successive crises to get everyone on the same internet? An internet where everyone is registered, and everything is monitored. Consider that every time there's been a disruption to the internet due to some crisis, Elon Musk has stepped in by offering internet via Spacex's Starlink service. If some cyber attack takes down the internet, Starlink is an alternative. 

The good news about this situation is that people will always be able to recreate new internet using peer-to-peer networks. This will be easier said than done, but it is possible and will be done if this is the path that the people in power decide to take.

The silver lining to all of the WEF’s plans is that the WEF doesn't only require the collective trust of countries to make this master plan work; it requires the trust of the average person. This trust has been broken beyond repair, and what's left of it is being pounded into dust by the WEF’s ever-more dystopian plans. 

There are more of us than there are of them. If we work together to fight for freedom, we will always achieve it because our collective consciousness and energy will always be greater than theirs. And though it may take some time for the equation to play out, the outcome is inevitable. 

 

 

Editor and Chief Markethive: Deb Williams. (Australia) I thrive on progress and champion freedom of speech. I embrace "Change" with a passion, and my purpose in life is to enlighten people to accept and move forward with enthusiasm. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.

 

 

 

 

General

Smart Cities Equal Total Control Of Civilization Don’t Take The Bait

Leave a comment

Smart Cities Equal Total Control Of Civilization. Don’t Take The Bait. 

As mentioned in a previous article, power companies in Texas automatically raised the temperature of so-called smart thermostats in thousands of homes to help save energy during a heat wave in June 2021. Most people had no idea that their home temperature had been raised nor that the power company's ability to do this was outlined in the fine print of their contracts. 

If what the Texas citizens experienced sounds ominous, it’s just the tip of the iceberg of what the World Economic Forum (WEF) has planned with its smart cities. In this article, we’ll explore smart cities, including who invented them, where they're being rolled out, when they will be complete, and whether or not the WEF’s plans will succeed. 

What Is A Smart City?

The best definition comes from Wikipedia. It's lengthy but needs to be cited because it captures the full scope of smart cities.

 “A smart city is a technologically modern urban area that uses different types of electronic methods and sensors to collect specific data. The information gained from that data is used to manage assets, resources, and services efficiently; in return, that data is used to improve operations across the city. This includes data collected from citizens, devices, buildings, and assets that are processed and analyzed to monitor and manage traffic and transportation systems, power plants, utilities, water supply networks, waste, criminal investigations, information systems, schools, libraries, hospitals, and other community services. Smart cities are defined as smart both in the ways in which their governments harness technology as well as how they monitor, analyze, plan, and govern the city. In smart cities, the sharing of data is not limited to the city itself but also includes businesses, citizens, and other third parties.”

In short,  a smart city is where everything you do is tracked and managed by the government, including what you do at home. This is possible because almost every modern home appliance has internet connectivity, not just thermostats, but fridges, microwaves, TVs, cars, and even home entry systems are all connected these days. In other words, smart cities are the dictionary definition of a digital dystopia. 

Now it's important to note that smart cities and 15-minute cities are different. Although the two terms are used interchangeably, they're not the same, albeit related. Whereas smart cities involve tracking and managing everything you do, 15-minute cities explicitly limit where you can go. Moreover, the primary unelected and unaccountable entity pushing 15-minute cities is the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, whereas the primary unelected and unaccountable entity driving smart cities is the WEF. 

Who Brought Smart Cities To Light

The term smart cities had its roots in a marketing initiative called Smarter Cities by Tech Giant IBM in 2008. The enterprise has its roots in a 2008 speech by former IBM CEO Sam Palmisano titled “A Smarter Planet, The Next Leadership Agenda.” Sam's discourse on this topic can still be viewed on YouTube. 

Sam says a lot of the same stuff you hear today. There's turmoil in markets, supply chain issues, accelerating climate change, political tensions arising, an energy crisis, etc. Like today's elites, Sam saw these crises as a “unique opportunity to transform the world.” He talked about how digital and physical spaces are converging, how people demand change, and how this demand should be exploited to “change the game.” 

It sounds like the new normal and the great reset narratives we've heard from almost every government official worldwide since 2020. Today's difference is that the elites have the technology required to impose their will on the average person. The absence of such technology is why smart cities initially had difficulty getting off the ground. 

Amsterdam was the first to pursue a smart city initiative, and it quickly became a reference point for how smart cities should be set up worldwide. Interest in smart cities started to accelerate in the following years, with the European Union announcing a smart cities initiative in 2012 and Singapore following suit in 2014. 


Image source: Google Trends

The search trends for smart cities peaked when the United Kingdom and India announced their initiatives in 2015. 2015 was also the year when Google incorporated a company called Sidewalk Labs, whose purpose was to facilitate the development of smart cities worldwide. There was little coordination around the creation or governance of smart cities until that point.

It all changed on January 1st, 2016, when the United Nations announced its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For context, the SDGs are 17 goals that are supposed to be met by all UN members, basically the whole world, by 2030. This is why you see the date 2030 everywhere. 


Image Source: un.org

The development of smart cities is part of the 11th SDG, which is to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable.” The Smart City Index was developed by the Singaporean University and a Swiss University in 2017 to measure how well smart cities meet these arbitrary goals. Not surprisingly, Singapore has replaced Amsterdam as the gold standard for smart cities.

Whereas Amsterdam's approach to smart cities was traffic management, Singapore's approach includes tracking whether people are littering or smoking in places they're not supposed to. Then in 2018, consulting firm McKinsey & Company published a lengthy report about smart cities. The firm found that “Cities can use Smart Technologies to improve some essential quality of life indicators by 10% – 30%. Numbers that translate into lives saved, fewer crime incidents, shorter commutes, a reduced health burden, and carbon emissions averted." 

The WEF’s G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance

Most institutions that were interested in smart cities after the SDGs were announced came from the public sector. This changed in 2019 when the World Economic Forum announced the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance. As per the WEF’s initiatives website, 

“The G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance unites municipal, regional, and national governments together with private-sector partners and urban residents to focus on a shared set of core guiding principles for the responsible use of smart city technologies.”

Moreover, 

“The Alliance partners with international organizations and city networks to source tried-and-tested policy approaches to these technologies. Our institutional partners represent more than 200,000 cities and local governments, companies, startups, research institutions, and civil society communities. The World Economic Forum serves as the Alliance's secretariat.”

In other words, the WEF will govern smart cities being developed. Did we vote for this? It’s important to note that this announcement came within two weeks after the WEF had announced a strategic partnership with the UN to ensure the SDGs were met. The WEF and its affiliates would provide the private sector coordination and funding as part of this partnership. 

The SDGs also include the development of digital IDs. Furthermore, the WEF and its affiliates used the pandemic to test digital IDs. Alongside this initiative, the WEF also began testing smart cities with the G20 Global Smart City Alliance. In November 2020, the alliance announced 36 so-called pioneer cities from 22 countries worldwide that would participate in a study to understand how the WEF can best govern smart cities. 

That same year, the WEF announced it would begin developing smart cities in Japan, Latin America, and India. If you're wondering why Japan is on the list, it’s because the G20 WEF Alliance was formed during Japan's G20 presidency. Japan's interest in smart cities comes from its own Society 5.0 initiative, which was announced in 2017. 

For many, the Society 5.0 initiative is a terrifying concept; as UNESCO describes it, “Japan’s new blueprint for a super-smart society, Society 5.0, is a more far-reaching concept than the Fourth Industrial Revolution, for it envisions completely transforming the Japanese way of life by blurring the frontier between cyberspace and the physical space.” Note that the Fourth Industrial Revolution is another initiative by the WEF.

The Pioneer City study concluded in July 2021, and the key findings were everything you'd expect. Almost no government accountability, almost no cybersecurity standards, and virtually no privacy. Very little accommodation for people who aren't plugged in and almost no transparency about data use. 

Despite these disastrous results, the WEF continues to work on the “governance” of over 80 smart cities being developed in Japan, Latin America, and India. In May 2022, the WEF announced, "The alliance is planning to launch more networks in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.” 

One can even argue that the WEF used the pandemic to develop smart cities because the May update specifies that “The Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance is led by the Forum’s platform for Shaping the Future of Urban Transformation, established during the pandemic. 

Which Cities Will Convert?

Now, if you're wondering which cities will be converted into smart cities and controlled by the WEF, the short answer is all of them. This is simply because the UN's SDGs require all 193 member countries to introduce smart cities by 2030. As such, the only question is when cities will be under the WEF’s control. The goal is to turn every city into a smart city by 2030, but it looks like the WEF and its UN affiliates are rolling out smart cities, one region at a time. 

So right now, the WEF is working on Japan, Latin America, and India and will soon be working on Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. More to the point, except for Japan, the WEF is currently focused on building smart cities in developing countries. This is probably because populations in poorer countries are easier to control and because these populations are begging for some usable infrastructure. 

The most prominent smart cities initiative in a developing country appears to be the one from India mentioned earlier. The smart cities mission of 2015 sought to turn 100 cities across India into smart cities. An August 2021 update notes that Delhi and Nagaland have completed over 70% of their projects, making them the smartest cities to date. While another seven states – Rajasthan, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Tripura, and Andhra Pradesh – have finished 50-60%. However, many other states/UTs are not performing well. Meghalaya has not completed even a single project.

It makes one wonder when the WEF will shift its smart cities focus to developed countries in places like North America and Europe. It will probably happen once the WEF has experimented enough on developing countries to know how to roll out smart cities without causing a full-scale revolution. That said, some countries in developed regions are not so subtly working with the WEF already. 

The largest smart cities initiative in a developed country comes from the European Union (EU). In September 2021, the EU announced its 100 climate-neutral and smart cities by 2013 mission. In April 2022, the complete list of participating cities was revealed. It’s worth mentioning that the EU’s list doesn't only include major cities; it also includes smaller towns and regions of only 100,000 people. It raises the argument that many may have only signed on because the EU will give €360 million to participants. 

According to the McKinsey report, the smartest cities in Europe in 2018 were Stockholm, Amsterdam, and Copenhagen. The same report notes that New York City, San Francisco, and Chicago were the smartest cities in the United States in 2018. 


Screenshot source: McKinsey report

According to the Smart Cities Index, the smartest cities in 2021 were Singapore, Oslo, and Zurich. The only issue they had was housing. However, this is not the only issue associated with smart cities, and the evidence so far suggests the WEF’s mission will fail. 

A WEF Victory Hangs In The Balance

Believe it or not, the most significant pushback to the WEF smart cities has come from individuals and institutions aligned with the WEF on most other issues. This is because of the use of smart city data for criminal investigations, which you'll recall was highlighted in the Wikipedia definition above. 

These critics have pointed out that smart city data tends to result in the over-policing of specific groups, which goes against the equitable principles of the smart cities concept. This is a bigger deal than you think because the primary benefit of smart cities is crime reduction, at least according to McKinsey. The 2018 smart cities report states, “Incidents of assault, robbery, burglary, and auto theft could be lowered by 30% to 40%.” 

On top of these metrics are the invaluable benefits of giving residents freedom of movement and peace of mind. This is the largest chunk of the overall benefit. Otherwise, pro-WEF critics are also concerned about sharing personally identifiable data. Remember Google's smart city subsidiary, Sidewalk Labs? Their first project was a smart city in Toronto, Canada. The project was shut down in early 2020 after the privacy commissioner resigned in protest. It happened around the time that the average Indian citizen started to become skeptical of the country's smart cities mission. 

By 2020 all the 100 cities selected were supposed to be smart cities. However, only a handful have met the necessary criteria, and there continued to be headlines about delays and corruption. In 2021, some public sector institutions started to oppose smart cities, with Yale University publishing an article titled “Why the Luster on Once Vaunted Smart Cities Is Fading.” The article explains how cities built from scratch to be smart have failed and have been a waste of time and money.  

At the same time, other public sector institutions started to study why smart cities were failing so miserably. Lo and behold, most of these studies focused on the fact that smart cities are at odds with the ambitious social justice goals many smart city types support even more. 

It's not just the public sector either; institutions in the private sector are starting to realize that the cost of rolling out the surveillance infrastructure required is not worth the estimated gains, especially if personally identifiable data can't be sold. Without the private sector on board, smart cities will fail. 


Source: Youtube

One of the best articles yet about the failure of smart cities is titled “Why smart cities aren't the future.” It was published in December 2022 by journalist David Sax, who wrote a book about why smart cities suck, citing, “As many smart city solutions fail to live up to the hype, here’s why the future could rest in analog innovations, not technological ones.”

David refers to Burcu Baykurt, who teaches urban futures and communications at the University of Massachusetts and is the author of the forthcoming book titled  “The City as Data Machine,” which is currently under embargo till April 2024. 

She looks at the legacy of a smart city project Google and Cisco attempted in Kansas City, starting back in 2016, stating that the plan was to attempt a test bed downtown, using sensors, advanced cameras, public Wi-Fi networks, and digital kiosks to connect all sorts of city services and improve them for the mostly poorer Black and Latino residents of the area. The data would reveal gaps in parking, transportation, and policing, which would lead to quicker and better solutions by city staff.

In other words, it was supposed to be the textbook smart city, but here's what actually happened; Burku Baykurt concluded,

”To be honest, it doesn't change much. The hype mobilizes a lot of people. There seems to be change going on. Breathless proclamations are made. Articles are written. Politicians take photos with executives. But in the end, the data is just that: lots of data. And in the Kansas City case, the solutions proposed from that data were so impractical and disconnected from reality (driverless cars and drones rather than buses and more police patrols) that the project quietly died after a few years.”

David ends his article with a fantastic quote, which just so happens to touch on the primary issues that continue to plague the smartest of smart cities, 

“The future of cities lies not in making cities obsolete by upending them through digital utopianism but in doubling down on the analog things that have always made cities great: housing opportunities, economic and cultural diversity, vibrant public spaces, a mishmash of humanity.”

Why Smart Cities Will Fail

In sum, the WEF’s smart cities will fail because they can't appease their ideological allies and cannot coordinate the creation of smart cities from the top down. Never mind that the average person doesn't want to live in a dystopian smart city that the WEF governs. However, this doesn't mean that the folk at the WEF aren't going to try. 

This article about how to resist the great reset explains that the WEF is trying to take control of cities, states, and governments using its network of 10,000 young global leaders and shapers who are being maneuvered into positions of power. 

So be on the lookout for these individuals, as well as any institutions they are associated with. They'll be easy to spot because they will be the ones pushing for digital ID, CBDCs, online censorship, carbon credit scores, smart cities, and all the other UN SDGs the WEF is trying to implement. Also, note that ESG criteria are synonymous with SDG criteria. 

All this information can be overwhelming, so here’s a short video to lighten the mood and have a bit of a laugh. 

As the old saying goes, “Don't be scared, be prepared.” What prepared means varies from person to person, but an excellent first step is being informed. A good second step is telling others who are willing to listen. After that, the rest is up to you. 

 

 

Editor and Chief Markethive: Deb Williams. (Australia) I thrive on progress and champion freedom of speech. I embrace "Change" with a passion, and my purpose in life is to enlighten people to accept and move forward with enthusiasm. Find me at my Markethive Profile Page | My Twitter Account | and my LinkedIn Profile.