Dr. Klaus Schwab or: How the CFR Taught Me to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The World Economic Forum wasn’t simply the brainchild of Klaus Schwab, but was actually born out of a CIA-funded Harvard program headed by Henry Kissinger and pushed to fruition by John Kenneth Galbraith and the “real” Dr. Strangelove, Herman Kahn. This is the amazing story behind the real men who recruited Klaus Schwab, who helped him create the World Economic Forum, and who taught him to stop worrying and love the bomb.

The World Economic Forum’s recorded history has been manufactured to appear as though the organisation was a strictly European creation, but this isn’t so. In fact, Klaus Schwab had an elite American political team working in the shadows that aided him in creating the European-based globalist organisation. If you have a decent knowledge of Klaus Schwab’s history, you will know that he attended Harvard in the 1960s where he would meet then-Professor Henry A. Kissinger, a man with whom Schwab would form a lifelong friendship. But, as with most information from the annals of the World Economic Forum’s history books, what you’ve been told is not the full story. In fact, Kissinger would recruit Schwab at the International seminar at Harvard, which had been funded by the US’ Central Intelligence Agency. Although this funding was exposed the year in which Klaus Schwab left Harvard, the connection has gone largely unnoticed – until now.

My research indicates that the World Economic Forum is not a European creation. In reality, it is instead an operation which emanates from the public policy grandees of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixonian eras of American politics; all of whom had ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the associated “Round Table” Movement, with a supporting role played by the Central Intelligence Agency.

There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies. In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever present threat of global thermonuclear war. By examining these men through the wider context of the geopolitics of the period, I will show how their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s, how they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and how they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.

Henry A. Kissinger

Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born in Bavaria, Germany, on 27 May 1923 to Paula and Louis Kissinger. The family had been one of many Jewish families fleeing the persecution in Germany to arrive in America in 1938. Kissinger would change his first name to Henry at 15 years old when arriving in America by way of a brief emigration to London. His family would initially settle in Upper Manhattan with the young Henry Kissinger attending George Washington High School. In 1942, Kissinger would enroll in the City College of New York, but, in early 1943, was drafted into the US Army. On 19 June 1943, Kissinger would become a naturalised US citizen. He would soon be assigned to the 84th Infantry Division where he would be recruited by the legendary Fritz Kraemer to work in the military intelligence unit of the division. Kraemer would fight along Kissinger during the Battle of the Bulge and would later become extremely influential in American politics during the postwar era, influencing future politicians such as Donald Rumsfeld. Henry Kissinger would describe Kraemer as being “the greatest single influence on my formative years”, in a New Yorker article entitled, The Myth of Henry Kissinger, written in 2020.

The writer of that article, Thomas Meaney, describes Kraemer as:

A Nietzschean firebrand to the point of self-parody—he wore a monocle in his good eye to make his weak eye work harder—Kraemer claimed to have spent the late Weimar years fighting both Communists and Nazi Brown Shirts in the streets. He had doctorates in political science and international law, and pursued a promising career at the League of Nations before fleeing to the US in 1939. He warned Kissinger not to emulate “cleverling” intellectuals and their bloodless cost-benefit analyses. Believing Kissinger to be “musically attuned to history,” he told him, “Only if you do not ‘calculate’ will you really have the freedom which distinguishes you from the little people.””

Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab and Ted Heath at the 1980 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

During World War II, whilst Kissinger was serving in the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps, he would be promoted to the rank of sergeant and would go on to serve in the Military Intelligence Reserve for many years after peace was declared. During that period, Kissinger would take charge of a team hunting down Gestapo officers and other Nazi officials who had been labeled as “saboteurs”. After the war, in 1946, Kissinger would be reassigned to teach at the European Command Intelligence School, a position he would continue to work in as a civilian after officially leaving the army.

In 1950, Kissinger would graduate from Harvard with a degree in political science where he would study under William Yandell Elliott, who would eventually be a political advisor to six US presidents and would also serve as a mentor to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pierre Trudeau, among others. Yandell Elliott, along with many of his star pupils, would serve as the key connectors between the American national security establishment and the British “Round Table” movement, embodied by organisations such as Chatham House in the UK and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. They would also seek to impose global power structures shared by Big Business, the political elite and academia. Kissinger would continue to study at Harvard, gaining his MA and PhD degrees at the prestigious university, but he was also already trying to forge a career path in intelligence, reportedly seeking recruitment as an FBI spy during this period.

In 1951, Kissinger would be employed as a consultant for the Army’s Operations Research Office, where he would be trained in various forms of psychological warfare. This awareness of psyops was reflected in his doctoral work during the period. His work on the Congress of Vienna and its consequences invoked thermonuclear weapons as its opening gambit, which also made an otherwise dull piece of work a little more interesting. By 1954, Kissinger was hoping to become a junior professor at Harvard but, instead, the dean of Harvard at the time, McGeorge Bundy – another pupil of William Yandell Elliott, recommended Kissinger to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). At the CFR, Kissinger would start managing a study group on nuclear weapons. From 1956 to 1958, Kissinger also became the Director of Special Studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (David Rockefeller was vice-president of the CFR during this period), as well as going on to direct multiple panels to produce reports on national defense, which would gain international attention. In 1957, Kissinger would seal his place as a leading Establishment figure on thermonuclear war after publishing, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a book published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Brothers.

In December of 1966, The Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, John M Leddy, announced the formation of a 22-man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”. The five most prominent actors of this panel of advisors included: Henry A Kissinger representing Harvard, Robert Osgood of the Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research (funded by Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie money), Melvin Conant of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Warner R Schilling of Columbia University, and Raymond Vernon who was also of Harvard. The other people on the panel included four members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Shepard Stone of the Ford Foundation, with the rest being a mix of representatives from leading American universities. The forming of this panel could be considered the laying of the proverbial foundation stone marking the American branch of the “Round Table” establishment’s intent to create an organisation such as the World Economic Forum, whereby Anglo-American imperialists would mold European policies as they saw fit.

Post-war Europe was at a vital stage of its development and the powerful American Empire was beginning to see opportunities in the rebirth of Europe and the emerging identity of its younger generation. In late December of 1966, Kissinger would be one of the twenty-nine “American authorities on Germany” to sign a statement declaring that “recent state elections in West Germany do not indicate a rebirth of Nazism”. The document, also signed by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, was meant to signal that Europe was starting afresh and was meant to begin putting the horrors of European wars in the past. Some of the people involved in creating the aforementioned document were those who had already been externally influencing European policy from abroad. Notably, one of the signatures alongside Kissinger and Eisenhower was Prof. Hans J Morgenthau who was also representing the Council on Foreign Relations at the time. Morgenthau had famously written a paper entitled, Scientific Man versus Power Politics, and argued against an “overreliance on science and technology as solutions to political and social problems”.

In February 1967, Henry Kissinger would target European policy making as having been the reason for a century of war and political turmoil on the continent. In a piece entitled, Fuller Investigation, printed in the New York Times, Kissinger would state that a work by Raymond Aron, Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, had remedied some of these issues.

In this article, Kissinger would write:

In the United States the national style is pragmatic; the tradition until World War II was largely isolationist; the approach to peace and war tended to be absolute and legalistic. American writing on foreign policy has generally tended to fall into three categories: analyses of specific cases or historical episodes, exhortations justifying or resisting greater participation in international affairs, and investigations of the legal bases of world order.”

It was clear that Prof Henry A Kissinger had identified American involvement in European policy creation as being vital in the future peace and stability of the world. At this time, Kissinger was based at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here, the future founder of the World Economic Forum, a young Klaus Schwab, would catch the eye of Henry A Kissinger.

Kissinger was the executive director of the International seminar, which Schwab often mentions when recollecting his time spent at Harvard. On 16 April 1967, it would be reported that various Harvard programs had been receiving funding from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This included $135,000 of funding for Henry Kissinger’s International Seminar, funding which Kissinger claimed he was unaware had come from the US intelligence agency. The CIA’s involvement in funding Kissinger’s international seminar was exposed in a report by Humphrey Doermann, the assistant to Franklin L Ford, who was dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science. Humphrey Doermann’s report, written in 1967, only centred on the CIA funding from between 1961 to 1966, but Kissinger’s International seminar, which had received the most funding out of all the CIA-funded Harvard programs, would still run through 1967. Klaus Schwab arrived at Harvard in 1965.

On 15 April 1967, The Harvard Crimson would publish an article, attributed to no author, concerning Doermann’s report that stated, “There were no strings attached to the aid, so the government could not directly influence research or prevent its results from being published.” The dismissive article, entitled, CIA Financial Links, nonchalantly closes out by stating,”In any case, were the University to refuse to accept CIA research grants, the shadowy agency would have little trouble channeling its offers through another agrecy.” (agrecy being a pun meaning a form of intelligence).

The evidence points to Klaus Schwab having been recruited by Kissinger into his circle of “Round Table” imperialists via a CIA funded program at Harvard University. In addition, the year he graduated would also be the year in which it was revealed to have been a CIA-funded program. This CIA-funded seminar would introduce Schwab to the extremely well-connected American policy-makers who would help him create what would become the most powerful European public policy institute, the World Economic Forum.

By 1969, Kissinger would be sitting as the head of the US National Security Council, of which the sitting president, Richard Nixon would “enhance the importance of” during his administration. Kissinger was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs between 2 December 1968 to 3 November 1975, serving concurrently as Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State from 22 September 1973. Kissinger would dominate the making of US foreign policy during the Nixon era and the system he would bring to the National Security Council would seek to combine features of the systems previously implemented by Eisenhower and Johnson.

Henry Kissinger, who had been one of the people to manufacture tensions between thermonuclear powers over the previous two decades, was now to act as “peacemaker” during the Nixon period. He would turn his focus to the European stand-off and would seek to relax the tensions between the West and Russia. He negotiated the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (culminating in the SALT I treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Kissinger was attempting to rebrand himself as a trusted statesman and diplomat.

In the second term of President Richard Nixon’s administration, their attention would turn to relations with Western Europe. Richard Nixon would describe 1973 as being the “Year of Europe”. The United States’ focus would be on supporting the states of the European Economic Community (EEC) which had become economic rivals to the US by the early 1970s. Kissinger grasped the “Year of Europe” concept and pushed an agenda, not only of economic reform, but also arguing to strengthen and revitalise what he considered to be the “decaying force”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Throughout this period, Kissinger would also promote global governance.

Years later, Henry Kissinger would make the opening address of the World Economic Forum’s 1980 conference, telling the elites at Davos: “For the first time in history, foreign policy is truly global”.

John K. Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith (often referred to as Ken Galbraith) was a Canadian-American economist, diplomat, public policy maker, and Harvard intellectual. His impact on American history is extraordinary and the consequences of his actions in the late 1960s alone are still being felt around the world today. In September 1934, Galbraith would initially join the faculty at Harvard University as an instructor with a salary of $2,400 per year. In 1935, he would be appointed a tutor at John Winthrop House (commonly known as Winthrop House) which is one of twelve undergraduate residential houses at Harvard University. In that same year, one of his first students would be Joseph P. Kennedy Jr, with John F. Kennedy arriving two years later, in 1937. Soon after, the Canadian Galbraith would become naturalised as a US citizen on 14 September 1937. Three days later, he would marry his partner, Catherine Merriam Atwater, a woman who, a few years before, had been studying at the University of Munich. There, she had lived in the same rooming house-dormitory as Unity Mitford, whose boyfriend was Adolf Hitler. After marrying, Galbraith would travel extensively in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Italy, France, but also Germany. Galbraith had been due to spend a year as a research fellow at the University of Cambridge under famed economist John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes’ sudden heart attack would see Galbraith’s new wife persuade him to study in Germany instead. During the summer of 1938, Galbraith would study German land policies under Hitler’s government.

The following year, Galbraith found himself involved in what was termed at the time, “the Walsh-Sweezy affair” – a US national scandal involving two radical instructors who had been terminated from Harvard. Galbraith’s connections with the affair would result in his appointment at Harvard not being renewed.

Still from Galbraith’s interview with Charlie Rose

Galbraith would take a demotion to work at Princeton, where he would soon after accept an invitation from the National Resource Planning Board to be part of a review panel into New Deal spending and employment programs. It is this project which would see him first meet Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940, as France fell to Nazi forces, Galbraith would join the staff of the National Defense Advisory Committee, at the request of FDR’s economic advisor, Lauchlin Curry. Although that committee would be swiftly dissolved, Galbraith soon found himself appointed to the Office of Price Administration (OPA), heading up the division tasked with price control. He would be dismissed from the OPA on 31 May 1943. Fortune Magazine had already been trying to headhunt Galbraith since as early as 1941, and would soon scoop him up to join their staff as a writer.

The biggest shift in focus for Galbraith happened in 1945, the day after the death of Roosevelt. Galbraith would leave New York for Washington, where he would be duly sent to London to assume a division directorship of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, tasked with evaluating the overall economic effects of the wartime bombing. By the time he had arrived at Flensburg, Germany had already formally surrendered to the Allied forces and Galbraith’s initial task would change. He would accompany George Ball and be part of the interrogation of Albert Speer. In this one move, Galbraith had gone from being a policy advisor dealing with statistics and projections concerned with pricing, to the co-interrogator of a high-ranking Nazi war criminal. Speer had been in various important positions during the war, including as the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, one of the key men behind the organisation, maintenance and arming of every part of the Nazi Wermacht.

Soon after, Galbraith would be sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to evaluate the effects of the bombing. In January 1946, John Kenneth Galbraith was involved in one of the defining moments of American economic history. He would take part in the American Economic Association meetings in Cleveland, where, alongside Edward Chamberlin of Harvard and Clarence Ayres of Texas, he would debate Frank Knight and other leading proponents of classical economics. This event marked the coming-out of Keynesian economics, which would come to dominate post-war America.

In February 1946, Galbraith would return to Washington, where he would be appointed director of the Office of Economic Security Policy. It is here, in September of 1946, where Galbraith was tasked with drafting a speech for the Secretary of State, William Byrnes, outlining American policy towards German reconstruction, democratisation, and eventual admission into the United Nations. Galbraith, who opposed the group of politicians at the time referred to as “the Cold Warriors”, would resign from his position in October of 1946, returning to Fortune Magazine. He would also be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom that same year. In 1947, Galbraith would co-found the organisation, Americans for Democratic Action, alongside others including Eleanor Roosevelt, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Ronald Reagan. In 1948, Galbraith would return to Harvard as a lecturer in Agricultural Forestry and Land-Use Policy. Soon after, he would be installed as a Professor at Harvard.

By 1957, Galbraith was beginning to form a closer relationship with his former student John F. Kennedy, who was by then junior senator for Massachusetts. The following year, JFK would publicly declare Galbraith as the “Phileas Fogg of the academic world” after receiving a copy of Galbraith’s book, A Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, where he examined socialist planning up close. It is also in 1958 where Galbraith published “The Affluent Society” to critical acclaim, where he coined terms such as “conventional wisdom” and the “dependence effect”. It is around this time when Galbraith became the Paul M. Warburg Chair in economics at Harvard. This is the same position he would hold when he would first be introduced to a young Klaus Schwab.

By 1960, John Kenneth Galbraith had become an economic advisor to the Kennedy campaign. After Kennedy was elected President, Galbraith began staffing the new administration, famously being the man who recommended Robert S. McNamara for Secretary of Defense. In 1961, Kennedy would name Galbraith as ambassador to India and, later in the year, Galbraith would travel to Vietnam, at the behest of the President, to give a second opinion on the Taylor-Rostow report. On Galbraith’s advice, Kennedy would begin to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

In 1963, Galbraith would return to the United States, refusing an offer from Kennedy to take up an ambassadorship in Moscow, so as to return to Harvard. On the day Kennedy was assassinated, Galbraith was in New York with the publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham. Galbraith would go straight to Washington and would be the man who drafted the original version of the new President’s speech to the joint session of congress. The year following JFK’s assassination, Galbraith would return to Harvard to develop a famous and highly popular course in Social Science that he would go on to teach for the following decade. He would still retain his position as an advisor to President Johnson, but would spend the rest of the year writing his final academic journals exclusively in economics.

By 1965, Galbraith had become increasingly louder in his opposition to the war in Vietnam, writing speeches and letters to the President. This rift would persist between Galbraith and Johnson, with Galbraith finally assuming the presidency of Americans for Democratic Action and going on to launch a national campaign against the Vietnam War entitled, Negotiations Now!” In 1967, the rift between Galbraith and Johnson would only become wider when Senator Eugene McCarthy was persuaded by Galbraith to run against Johnson in the coming primary elections. Robert F. Kennedy was also hoping to recruit Galbraith to his own campaign but, although Galbraith had formed a close bond with the late JFK, he had not been so keen on Robert F. Kennedy’s distinctive style.

By the late 1960s, John K. Galbraith and Henry A. Kissinger were both considered to be two of the foremost lecturers, authors and educators in America. They were also both grandees at Harvard, Galbraith as the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, and Kissinger as a Professor of Government, and the two men were focused on the creation of foreign policy for both America and the emerging new Europe. It was announced on 20 March 1968 that Kissinger and Galbraith would be the first speakers of the spring session of what was referred to as the Mandeville Lectures series”, due to take place at the University of California, San Diego. Galbraith’s speech would be entitled, “Foreign Policy: The Cool Dissent”, whilst Kissinger’s speech was called “America and Europe: A New Relationship”.

Kissinger would introduce Klaus Schwab to John Kenneth Galbraith at Harvard and, as the 1960’s came to a close, Galbraith would help Schwab make the World Economic Forum a reality. Galbraith would fly over to Europe, along with Herman Kahn, to help Schwab convince the European elite to back the project. At the first European Management Symposium/Forum (the original name/s of the WEF), John Kenneth Galbraith would be the keynote speaker.

Herman Kahn

Herman Kahn was born in Bayonne, New Jersey on 15 February 1922 to Yetta and Abraham Kahn. He was brought up in the Bronx with a Jewish upbringing, but would later become atheistic in his beliefs. Throughout the 1950s, Khan would write various reports at the Hudson Institute on the concept and practicality of nuclear deterrence, which would subsequently become official military policy. He would also compile reports for official hearings, such as the Subcommittee on Radiation. It is in the primordial hysteria of the earliest years of the Cold War where Kahn would be given the intellectual, and some may say ethical and moral, space to “think the unthinkable”. Khan would apply game theory – the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents – to wargame potential scenarios and outcomes concerning thermonuclear war.

In 1960, Kahn would publish, The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence, which studied the risks and subsequent impact of a thermonuclear war. The Rand Corporation sums up the kinds of deterrents discussed in Kahn’s work as: the deterrence of a direct attack, the use of strategic threats to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts other than a direct attack on the United States, and, lastly, the acts that are deterred because the potential aggressor is afraid that the defender or others will take limited actions, military or non-military, to make the aggression unprofitable.

Herman Kahn (left) with Gerald Ford and Donald Rumsfeld

The following year, Princeton University Press would first publish Herman Kahn’s seminal work, On Thermonuclear War. This book would have an enormous impact on the near and distant future of global politics and would drive American Establishment politicians to create foreign policy specifically designed to counter the potential worst case thermonuclear scenario. On the release of Kahn’s terrifying work, the Israeli-American sociologist and “communitarian”, Amitai Etzioni, would be quoted as saying, “Kahn does for nuclear arms what free-love advocates did for sex: he speaks candidly of acts about which others whisper behind closed doors”.

Khan’s complex theories have often been erroneously paraphrased, with most of his work being impossible to sum up in just a sentence or two, and this is emblematic of his ideas concerning thermonuclear war. Kahn’s research team were studying a multitude of different scenarios, a constantly evolving, dynamic, multipolar world, and many unknowns.

On Thermonuclear War had an instant and lasting impact, not only on geopolitics, but also on culture, expressed within a few years by a very famous movie. 1964 saw the release of the Stanley Kubrick classic, Dr Strangelove, and from the moment of its release, and ever since, Khan has been referred to as the real Dr. Strangelove. When quizzed about the comparison, Khan would tell Newsweek, “Kubrick is a friend of mine. He told me Dr. Strangelove wasn’t supposed to be me.” But others would point out the many affinities between Stanley Kubrick’s classic character and the real life Herman Kahn.

In an essay written for the Council on Foreign Relations in July 1966, entitled, Our Alternatives in Europe, Kahn states:

Existing U.S. policy has generally been directed to the political and economic as well as the military integration or unification of Western Europe as a means to European security. Some have seen unification as a step toward the political unity of the West as a whole, or even of the world. Thus, the achievement of some more qualified form of integration or federation of Europe, and of Europe with America, has also been held to be an intrinsically desirable goal, especially as national rivalries in Europe have been seen as a fundamentally disruptive force in modern history; hence their suppression, or accommodation in a larger political framework, is indispensable to the future stability of the world.”

This statement suggests that the preferred solution for future European/American relations would be the creation of a European union. Even more preferable to Kahn was the idea of creating a unified American and European superstate.

In 1967, Herman Kahn would write one of the most important futurist works of the 20th century, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years. In this book, co-authored by Anthony J Wiener, Khan and company predicted where we would be technologically at the end of the millennium. But there was another document released soon after Kahn’s The Year 2000, which had been written simultaneously. That document entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, was to map out how to achieve the future society Kahn’s work in The Year 2000 had envisaged.

Under a section titled “Special Educational Needs of Decision-Makers”, the paper states: “The desirability of explicitly educated decision-makers so that they are better able, in effect, to plan the destiny of the nation, or to carry out the plans formulated through a more democratic process, should be very seriously considered. One facet of this procedure would be the creation of a shared set of concepts, shared language, shared analogies, shared references…” He goes on to state in the same section that: “Universal re-teaching in the spirit of the humanistic tradition of Europe – at least for its comprehensive leadership group – might be useful in many ways.”

When you study the previously mentioned rhetoric and decipher what it means, in this document Herman Kahn suggests subverting democracy by training only a certain group in society as potential leaders, with those pre-selected few who are groomed for power being able to define what our shared values as a society should be. Maybe Herman Kahn would agree with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader scheme, which is the exact manifestation of his original suggestion.

In 1968, Herman Kahn would be asked by a reporter what they do at the Hudson Institute. He would say, “We take God’s view. The President’s view. Big. Aerial. Global. Galactic. Ethereal. Spatial. Overall. Megalomania is the standard occupational hazard.” This was reportedly followed by Herman Kahn rising out of his chair, pointing his finger towards the sky and suddenly shouting out: ‘Megalomania, zoom!'”

In 1970, Kahn would travel to Europe with Galbraith to support Klaus Schwab’s recruitment drive for the first European Management Symposium. In 1971, Kahn would be sitting centre stage to watch John Kenneth Galbraith’s keynote speech at the historic first session of the policy making organisation which would eventually become the World Economic Forum.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth”, which cautioned that the needs of the global population would exceed available resources by the year 2000. Kahn spent much of his final decade arguing against this idea. In 1976, Khan would publish a more optimistic view of the future, The Next 200 Years, which claimed that the potentials of capitalism, science, technology, human reason, and self-discipline were boundless. The Next 200 Years would also dismiss pernicious Malthusian ideology by predicting that the planet’s resources set no limits to economic growth, but rather, human beings would “create such societies everywhere in the solar system and perhaps to the stars as well.”

Schwab’s Three Mentors

Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith had become three of the most influential people in America with regards to thermonuclear deterrence, foreign policy creation, and public policy making, respectively. Most of the focus throughout these men’s career had been on Europe and the Cold War. However, their varying roles in other important events of the period all have the potential to easily distract researchers from other more subversive and well hidden events.

These three powerful Americans were all linked with each other in various ways, but one interesting and notable thread in particular ties these men together during the period between 1966, with the creation of the Kissinger-led 22 man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”, through to 1971, and the founding of the World Economic Forum. All three men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American branch of the Anglo-American imperialist “Round Table” movement. Kissinger already had deep ties to the CFR, having been recruited by them straight after graduation. Galbraith had reportedly resigned his membership of the CFR in a “highly public way” in 1972, stating that the CFR was boring and telling a journalist, “Most of the proceedings involve a level of banality so deep that the only question they raise is whether one should sit through them.” Although there is no public date of when Galbraith became a member of the CFR, he had written for their publications from as early as July 1958 with “Rival Economic Theories in India,” being printed in Foreign Affairs, the official CFR journal/magazine. Khan could also be found publishing some of his essays through the CFR, writing the piece “Our Alternatives in Europe” in July 1966, and “If Negotiations Fail” in July 1968, both whilst working as an official advisor to the State Department.

Before the 1960s, these three extremely influential American intellectuals had each been deeply involved in trying to understand the problems of a postwar Europe, and mapping out the future of the war-stricken continent. Galbraith had traveled extensively throughout Europe, including studying policies in Germany during the Third Reich, and, after the collapse of Hitler’s Germany, Galbraith would go on to study the Soviet systems in much the same way. Galbraith’s influence over the future president, John F. Kennedy, from a very early age cannot be understated, and Galbraith was powerful enough to see JFK begin withdrawing troops from Vietnam on his recommendation. When Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Galbraith would be the man to draft the incoming president’s initial address to the nation, but Galbraith was soon to be pushed off to the sidelines. During the turmoil of the 1960s, Galbraith would be close with Henry Kissinger, both men being Harvard Professors, members of the CFR, and both men having the same goal of making Europe stable so that the Continent was well defended against any potential Soviet aggression.

To Galbraith and Kissinger, and also to the wider American political Establishment, Europe was the main threat to not only global stability, but also to the prevailing American hegemony in general. The relative stability in Europe during the postwar period was perceived as being due to the thermonuclear stand-off, and, from very early-on, Kissinger identified this dynamic and began to manipulate the situation for the benefit of American supremacy. Henry Kissinger was not alone in trying to understand the complex dynamics at play in relation to thermonuclear deterrence and how it affected policy making. Herman Kahn was the leading figure on thermonuclear strategic planning during the same period and Kissinger’s work concerning the same subject matter from the mid-50s onwards would see him cross paths with Kahn on many occasions.

Kahn offered Kissinger something which all politicians and policy makers crave, the ability to predict future events with relative accuracy. Kahn was a veritable prophet concerning the technological advancements of the not-so-distant future, and his work, although often stoic and bereft of human emotion, has stood up very well to the test of time. Kahn and Kissinger’s goals would overlap during the mid and late 1960s, and as the threat assessments Kahn made during this period became more optimistic, Kissinger would see Kahn’s work as being fundamental in offering a new future to the people of the world.

However, Henry Kissinger’s vision of the future was not of a free and fair society advancing into a “brave new world” together, but rather, Kissinger intended to create an image of the world which had been skewed by his own CFR-driven Establishment perspective. Although he would attempt to rebrand himself as a true statesman, Kissinger would continue to subvert not only foreign democratic processes, but also to undermine the American system for the eventual benefit of a globalist agenda. When Schwab was first recognised by Kissinger as a potential future globalist leader, the relatively young German would soon be introduced to Galbraith and Kahn. This would coincide with Kahn’s work identifying the need to specifically train individuals with leadership potential separately from those who attend the prevailing standard educational models.

Klaus Schwab speaking at the inaugural meeting of the World Economic Forum, 1971

In the year Klaus Schwab left Harvard, he was approached by Peter Schmidheiny, who had just sold Escher Wyss to the Sulzer Group. Escher Wyss’ Ravensberg factory during World War II had been managed by Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, and had been involved in making heavy water turbines for the secretive Nazi atomic bomb effort. Schwab speaks in one interview about the moment Schmidheiny called him up, saying, “You come from Harvard now and know modern management methods, help to make the integration a success”. What Klaus wouldn’t mention in that interview is that he would help Sulzer and Escher Wyss to merge, resulting in a new company called Sulzer AG. That company, where Schwab would serve as director, which would go on to break international law by aiding the South African apartheid regime in its illegal thermonuclear bomb program.

Klaus Schwab had only just left the sphere of influence of some of the most significant experts in thermonuclear war, and within the same year as leaving Harvard, he would head up the merger of a company dealing in the propagation thermonuclear bomb technology to despotic regimes.

For many of us who don’t map out terrifying extinction scenarios, we may be left believing that apartheid South Africa gaining the nuke at this point in history would be one of the worst things that could’ve happened. But, Herman Kahn’s thermonuclear disaster scenarios had led the rotund genius to believe that, barring a disaster, sabotage, or an accident, no major nuclear power would dare fire a thermonuclear weapon as an act of aggression for the foreseeable future. In fact, the Establishment thinking had changed significantly, to the point where Herman Kahn and others were advising that, in certain scenarios, making a country such as France a nuclear power could have significant benefits to security both regionally and globally, whilst also helping to reduce US defence spending.

Thermonuclear war was no longer the be all and end all of strategic defence policy, and it was in the dying embers of the 1960s where the same people who had caused all of the fear of a thermonuclear apocalypse, really did stop worrying and learnt to love the bomb.

Caution: Fallible Humans Ahead

Is Klaus Schwab the real brains behind the formation of the World Economic Forum? What are we to make of the CIA involvement in the seminar Kissinger used to recruit Schwab? Were the powers that lurk behind organisations like the CFR the real founders of the globalist policy making organisation? Was the World Economic Forum meant to simply unite Europe? Or was it then actually meant to go on to unite Europe with America, followed by the remaining superstates, into a New World Order designed by powerful CFR grandees like Kissinger, Khan and Galbraith?

These three powerful men each saw in Schwab a reflection of their own intellectual desires. Klaus had been born in the latter half of the same decade in which the technocratic movement had begun and he would come from the first generation to have their formative years in a post-war world. Khan’s predictions for the future had not only been an exercise in human wonder, it had also been a project to make these predictions a reality as quickly as possible and regardless of the consequences.

In 1964, Klaus Schwab would be trying to decide what he was going to do with his career. He was 26 years old and looking for direction and he would find that direction from a familial source. His father, Eugen Schwab, had been on the wrong side of history during World War II, and had been involved in the Nazi atomic bomb effort. Eugen Schwab would tell his son that it will only be at Harvard where he’d truly be able to flourish. In a divided postwar Germany, the intense fear which came from the ever impending and well dramatised threat of thermonuclear war had become an everyday part of people’s psyche. Harvard was well known at the time for playing a central role in Cold War policy-making targeting European affairs and Klaus Schwab would put himself right in amongst the main movers and shakers on the thermonuclear disaster scene.

Whilst at Harvard, Schwab would attend Kissinger’s “International seminar” which was funded by the CIA via a known conduit. Through this process, Klaus Schwab would be introduced to a group of men who were actively trying to influence European public policy by any and all methods, including using the fear of impending nuclear doom. They would recognise his potential straight away, so much so that they would be there for Schwab all through the founding of the World Economic Forum, with Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith bringing perceived credibility to the project. It was not easy for Schwab alone to explain to European elites what he intended to do, so he would bring Kahn and Galbraith to Europe to persuade other important players to become part of the project. Galbraith would be the first Keynote Speaker at the forum, with Kahn’s presence also drawing significant interest, but the second World Economic Forum would stall without the presence of the bigger names and Klaus Schwab knew he would need something to draw in the crowds for the third installment of his forum’s annual meeting.

In 1972, the Club of Rome’s founder Aurelio Peccei had published his controversial book “The Limits to Growth”, a book that had been commissioned by the Club of Rome and which took a Malthusian approach to overpopulation. The book would call into question the sustainability of global economic growth and Peccei would be invited by Schwab to make the keynote speech at the 1973 World Economic Forum. This risqué public relations strategy paid dividends for Schwab and his organisation. From that point on, the forum would grow in size, scale and power. But it all began with a CIA-funded course run by Henry Kissinger at Harvard.

Aurelio Peccei (far right) at a 1975 Club of Rome meeting in Paris

Schwab has become more than just a technocrat. He has been very vocal on his intention to fuse his physical and biological identities with future technology. He has become a living caricature of an evil bond-like villain, conducting secretive meetings with the elites, high up in the mountain-top chalets of Switzerland. I do not think that the image we have of Schwab is an accident. In the postwar years, something very unique happened in Western culture, when the government began using mainstream media as a tool to target the public with military grade psychological operations. The ruling Establishment would discover that marrying the drama of conflict scenarios with media such as film would be extremely useful, almost akin to creating self-propagating propaganda in some cases. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove were fantastic vehicles for people to understand the absurdity of thermonuclear disaster scenario planning.

If people perceive you as an all powerful evil villain then you may not gain the support of the common man, but you will gain the attention from those who seek power and wealth, or, how Klaus Schwab would refer to them, the “stakeholders” in society. This is very important to understand – the projection of extreme wealth and power will attract and bring the “stakeholders” of society to the World Economic Forum’s table. With those “stakeholders” on board, Klaus Schwab’s main ideological product, “stakeholder capitalism”, will see the transfer of power away from true democratic processes and onto a system of governance by a small preselected leadership group, who will be trained to continue the agenda set for them by the previous generation, as predicted by Herman Kahn. They will hold all the cards, whilst the common people will be left with just illusory pseudo-democratic processes, poverty, and constant absurd psychological operations to distract us all constantly. Klaus Schwab would soon become everything Herman Kahn had feared during his most pessimistic predictions. When the Club of Rome produced “The Limits to Growth” report, Herman Kahn would refute its findings and rally against its pessimism, whilst, at the same time, Klaus Schwab would make it central to his machinations and have their founder be the keynote speaker at his forum in Davos.

Our current geopolitical situation is seemingly regressing back towards the East vs West dynamic of the Cold War era. Again, with recent events in Ukraine, the mainstream media is regurgitating nuclear talking points which are completely paralleled to those of 60 to 70 years ago. I believe that there is a very obvious reason for our return to Cold War rhetoric – it’s a very obvious sign that Klaus Schwab and his backers are out of ideas. They appear to be returning to a geopolitical paradigm in which they feel safer and, most importantly, which will cause mass fear of thermonuclear war. This rinse and repeat cycle will always happen once an ideological movement is running out of original ideas. Since the late 1960s, Klaus Schwab has been trying to create the world which Herman Kahn predicted. But Kahn’s vision of the future, even though pretty accurate, is over half a century old. Schwab’s technocratic movement depends on the successful development of innovative technologies which will advance us towards a vision largely manufactured in 1967. Just by studying a more refined list of Kahn’s predictions, you can see every idea which Schwab promotes is almost entirely based on Kahn’s “Year 2000” and that documents vision of what our future may look like, predictions dating back to the late 60’s. But, what Schwab appears to ignore, whilst forcing this futuristic agenda on us all, is that many of Kahn’s predictions were also combined with warnings of the dangers which will be created from future technological advancements.

As Schwab reaches the end of his life, he appears to be desperate to push forward a radical futurist agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually those people who love their own national identities will stand up against the immediate threat to their specific cultures and they will fight back against the globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible.

As a very pertinent final thought, Herman Kahn would write something extremely significant during the same year in which Schwab would leave Harvard. In the aforementioned Hudson Institute document of 1967 entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, Khan writes:

It has become increasingly clear that our technological and even our economic achievements are mixed blessings. Through progress issues arise such as the accumulation, augmentation, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the loss of privacy and solitude; the Increase of governmental and/or private power over individuals; the loss of human scale and perspective and the dehumanization of social life or even of the psychobiological self; the growth of dangerously, vulnerable, deceptive, or degradable centralizations of administrative or technological systems; the creation of other new capabilities, so inherently dangerous as to seriously risk disastrous abuse; and the acceleration of changes that are too rapid or cataclysmic to permit successful adjustment. Perhaps most crucial, choices are posed that are too large, complex, important, uncertain, or comprehensive to be safely left to fallible humans.”

  1. Very well researched, Johnny. This is valuable because it draws out the implcit connections between what we’re seeing today from the WEF, and the capture of those societies newly freed either from the ‘communist menace’ after WW2 or colonialism (1950s). Well done.

  2. Dear Johnny
    Carroll Quigleys The Anglo American Establishment is a detailed scholatly account of the who’s who of the Round Table Movement going back to Cecil Rhodes whose wealth provided the initial backing.

  3. Under the FIVE EYES domestic propaganda was outsourced to the other FOUR EYES, but the modification of the SMITH MUNDT Act of 2012 has left US eating domestically produced agit prop,no?

  4. “If people perceive you as an all powerful evil villain then you may not gain the support of the common man, but you will gain the attention from those who seek power and wealth, or, how Klaus Schwab would refer to them, the “stakeholders” in society. This is very important to understand – the projection of extreme wealth and power will attract and bring the “stakeholders” of society to the World Economic Forum’s table.”

    What “is very important to understand” and Vedmore omits is that the “stakeholders” the “all powerful evil villains” are actual PSYCHOPATHS which means the ONLY real dichotomy is between the ruling class of psychopaths and the non-ruling underclass — https://www.rolf-hefti.com/covid-19-coronavirus.html

    As psychopaths the leading authorities keep the blissfully ignorant herd effectively focused on bogus dichotomies such as the US vs. Russia, communists vs. capitalists, the Left vs the Right, Democrats vs Republicans, and on and on which ONLY serves them to keep the herd splintered up and divided amongst each other.

  5. Thank you so much for the in-depth and pertinent research plus book, report and movie mentions that tie together many of my own loose threads. Great overview from an inspired publication by someone who appears to be an excellent investigative journo on the rise.

  6. A really good starter piece that could (should?) go towards something meatier (book? article series?), about the WEF and Schwab.

    Lot of repetition and some narrative ambling, a competent editor wasn’t around. Needs some clean up. A stronger stronger structure. Kissinger is introduced and disappears. Galbraith was probably a good man. I’m not so sure about Kissinger. And what about today?

    How can we make sure the WEF genuinely works for the greater good?

    Still and again: a good article that spends time looking at this all.

    1. “How can we make sure the WEF genuinely works for the greater good?”
      You don’t. The WEF is a clear and present threat to humanity. It should be called out as the evil that it truly is, and humankind would be wise to keep a watchful eye for the next iteration of it lest it rear its ugly head once again under new branding.

      1. And given that the WEF has recently signed a memorandum of understanding the the WHO (in which they agree that “public private partnerships” are a grand idea) the WHO is also a clear and present threat to humanity. Every nation that values its national sovereignty should EXIT THE WHO as soon as possible.

    2. Why don’t you write the perfection you speak of, as for the WEF blow it up would be best. Tri Them for crimes against humanity

    3. Policy makers and policy promulgators, and their made men — which includes the ignorant as well as the venal and the wicked, i.e., most of us — are subservient to behemoth. Behemoth is evil! Behemoth seeks always to maintain power. Money and its handmaiden usury, are real. Behemoth is not a straw man. Behemoth has vulnerabilities. One, is complexity. The second, is unintended consequences. The third, is light. The Internet is complex in ways old media; books, magazines, TV, and newspapers was not. Unintended consequences, principally, fewer and fewer people believe anything, and can easily seek out informed and articulate counterpoint views. They can verify! Controlling the Internet would shut down the world — all of it. The Internet is light. Collectively we are shining the light into every corner. Lies, and evil, hate the light.

  7. No comments? Holy S__t! I’ll give you my impression of this after a quick first reading. Galbraith doesn’t seem to have been such a bad egg. Against further involvement in Vietnam? That’s huge. I was in the streets in those days. It was a terrible war. Kahn as Dr. Strangelove? I always thought it was Kissinger that the movie was parodying–the oily half-smile, the German accent. Ok, I can be educated. I carry so much distaste of Kissinger from his “work” in Chile and Cambodia, and anecdotes I have heard about his predator nature. I was kind of shocked by the interview in the youtube video. He is totally collected and almost sounded sane. I guess he fooled Nixon, too.

  8. Very informative and a fascinating read. Following every link and sub-story was worth the extra time it took to get through it. Well done.

  9. Extraordinarily informative analysis filled with details that one cannot find elsewhere in such an encyclopedic compendium. The lesson seems to be the unintended consequences of a disciple turning into the monster feared by his mentors.

  10. Thank you for this insightful overview and historical development. Actually, it seems that the WEF and Schwab have in a sense taken heed of the warnings of Kahn… which is possibly why they are building huge pools of information for AI to reach the Singularity so that it will in fact not be “left to fallible humans”.

  11. Brilliant. “… subverting democracy by training only a certain group in society as potential leaders, with those pre-selected few who are groomed for power being able to define what our shared values as a society should be.”
    This is a precise statement of the WEF and the people in it, who see democracy as an irritant to their elitist goals. These people are anti-social, anti-human, and have no understanding of their connection to their own divinity (and they would contemptuously scoff at the very idea)

    1. It’s also the *exact* view of Russian Dugin, as spelt out in his book Great Awakening vs Great Reset, where he posits a caste system whereby the plebs return to agricultural peasantry and let the intellectual elites run the show. Also a view espoused by Lord Rees Moggs. ie. neo-feudalism. AKA communitariansm under Noahide Law? Johnny won’t talk about that, or explain the identical plan for a Eurasian supercontinent dominated by Israel/Russia. Or that the BRICS plan, propagandised by Putin lovers as a rebuke to ‘evil America’, or ‘the globalists’ was in fact conceived *by American globalists* ie. Kissinger/Rockefeller. Are Russia and the US really rivals, or are they working together towards the same neo-feudalist NWO goal while playing East vs West, multipolar vs unipolar theatre for the public? I think so.


      1. An extremely good point. I’m new here so I don’t know the biases of the author but Russai and the “Global South” and the splintering of the World in 2 (again) is no accident. All these globalist want to enslave their people, they just want to enslave them on their own and do not want to be mere managers of the One World Order.
        We are possibly in a window of opportunity to splinter it all to pieces instead of living through the “Cold War” again(but now much poorer and more enslaved as a bonus)

  12. This looks so intriguing, that I’ve printed this out to read more thoroughly. I sensed Schwab couldn’t be doing this all by himself, so this helps to fill in the missing pieces to the puzzle. Meanwhile, I see the article was published in March 2022. but can you tell me the date it was finished please? Thank you so much for all you’re doing! Sincerely, K. Lindner, March 12, 2022

  13. Great breakdown of how the New World leader Klaus Shwab formed his thinking. Circles within circles within circles, all by design ( Cecil Rhodes) we will never eliminate then all.

    1. We don’t have to eliminate them ALL — just the ringleaders (who are already dying off of their own accord) and the Young Global Leaders they trained to continue their evil plans after they’re gone. And, as the original author of this excellent piece pointed out, those Young Global Leaders are actually not very bright — selected not to be, lest they start thinking for themselves — and hence already running out of ideas.

  14. I enjoyed the presentation and history. It is a shame if true that Schwab’s goal in his twilight years is to return to a Cold War era. With the current unimpressive politicians in power that could very well lead to a hot war vs Cold War. Then what? The spoils of war go to globalist? And at what potential cost? Sounds like the livelihoods or lives of how many millions is worth the cost to them.

  15. An amazing article with so many valuable insights…so enlightening…thank you.

    In addition to this, it is my assessment, that these insights and their associated timeline would be greatly enhanced when and if viewed within a broader esoteric, alchemical, spiritual and occult framework and would add so much to the conversation.

    As with the interbreeding royal lines of the old world European houses, when the more isolated island/new world based Anglo/American Rhodes Round Tables of a century ago are understood as having their root source within the context of continental secret societies, namely from Western European generally and Barvian specifically, dare we mention the forbidden word Iluminatism and/or Luciferianism, then more true light is shed upon the true nature of not only the more recent manifestation of these 4 alchemical horsemen (Kissinger, Galbraith, Khan and Schwab) but of a centuries old, dare we say millennia old to place it squarely within biblical Babylonian parlance, plan that they as wise Masonic builders have built upon reaching back to the pre-modern alchemical supernaturalism of Dee and Bacon with their New World scheme, aka secret destiny of American as opined upon by MP Hall, and on in to the Masonic American and French revolutions and finally into Jekyll Island, WW1, Chatham and Pratt houses, the funding/founding of Soviet Russia, the funding/founding of Hitler, WW2, the funding/founding of Moa and communist China and on into the manufactured dare we say Cold War era where you focus.

    A mouthful for sure, but I’m convinced the last 500 years for sure and undoubtedly reaching back in the ancient world cannot be fully understood without factoring in the secret societies and their priesthoods populated by the ruling classes of the day acting out at best or carrying out at worse the directives of a higher and more powerful power from the real metaverse just beyond the veil, from the serpent in Eden, to Tubal Cain, to Nimrod, to the Persian Magi, to the Greco Roman cults, to the true inner sanctum of the Papel See and Magisterium (which brought it from the ancient to the modern world), to the Templars, to the Rosicrucians, to the Masons, to Weishaupt in Bavaria to these 4 horseman…as hard as it may be to believe is there a unbroken line and seed of the serpent that seethes and pulsates toward a resurrection of Nimrods first world order and a fulfilling of the first lie that ye shall be as gods all with the help of the coming alchemical technocratic transhumanist world order? As the wisest man who ever lived said, there is nothing new under the sun…they have no new tricks only the repackaging of old one’s and so we should expect a redux of the genetic Armageddon of Genesis 6 with the soon coming transhuman revolution…Nimrod cometh.

    Jesus is Lord and Savior and is coming soon…Blessings!

    1. Spectacular research, thank you! If that’s not enough. In Rounding out the full truth you must read Eric’s comment! It’s all Biblical!

    2. This was a thoughtful and well worded comment Eric, and I am aware of all the connections you propose. However I would like some more background on your reported role of “The Papal See and Magisterium (which brought it from the ancient to the modern world)”.

      Could you kindly provide some additional published resources and/or citations that support this argument and that pinpoint the moment in history when the Papacy and Magisterium might be considered in league with the other organizations you listed? I am interested in knowing how you arrived at this conclusion and what published works you have read that support this conclusion.

      Jesus Christ is King
      Kind Regards

  16. This is an amazing piece. It’s very well written and has sound documentation and research attached.
    My hair stood on end! I may not sleep for a week.

  17. The only goal of these old elites now is how to live forever.
    Hence CRISPR, experimental drugs called vaccines on mass populations worldwide.

  18. Masterful writing. More proof that the days of groundless conspiracy theories is long over. All that’s missing in this work of NON-fiction is a “beast with ten heads and seven horns.”

  19. The origin story of the “Bastards of the Universe”. The West’s answer to Soviet Central Planning has always been Global Governance. The faces and names have changed over the years as has the thing they’re trying to save us from (Nuclear War, Famine, Climate Cataatrophe, Pestilence). Fascinating history, bravo.

  20. Thank you for your efforts and time to research and assemble this article. The multimedia presentation was an excellent idea. The information was quite useful in bringing those readers not familiar with the agenda up to speed in record time.
    Recorded primary sources are fast disappearing down the memory. The other links to additional information to validate a point was informative and worth the extra time to absorb the article.
    More please. Thank you again.

  21. PhD. thesis indeed. I read this from an off-grid existence and planning to increase my orchard and gardening operation so as to weather the storm so to speak. Interesting take on the “Dr. Evil” persona luring in the “stakeholders”. I’m increasing my tangible assets, aka, “outside money” instead of the “inside money” Ponzi scheme that I’m reducing more and more. Thanks for the extensive research and putting it all together so well. I’ve shared with a couple of my fellow community members who are in the same train of thought. I pray for some of my family still living deep in the concrete jungles and very deep in denial. Interesting times.
    Having just finished reading a fiction novel “Fever” by Deon Meyer, I kept comparing some of the story line in that book to what is transpiring currently. I rarely read fiction but it came highly recommended. It didn’t disappoint for thought provoking entertainment.

  22. An interesting an informative article but the unnecessary and excessive use of the past future tense was very distracting.

  23. Remarkable clarity that spans more than a half century of western thought leaders. Your focus on the 3 main influencers on Shwab helped illuminate the murky intellectual and policy landscape of the post war and make intelligible the apparent chaos without resorting to tireworn conspiracy theories. Thank you

  24. Well done. Even for long-time deep divers, this served to fill in a few pieces of the puzzle. Thank you for your work.

  25. This presentation admirably coalesces into coherent form a myriad of of my part conceived impressions regarding the evolution of Schwab and the WEF. Many thanks.

  26. Thank you for your hard work . I hope more people wake up to this manipulation for Christ sake the way governments around the world have been acting like Nazis to protest against mandates even setting up quasi lepper camps . These people ARE tyrants it’s cruel and inhumane what they’ll do for power. What’s really saddening is to think of how good people could have it without the corruption and wasteful policies that come with it.

  27. Brilliant piece of investigative and analytical journalism, thank you! May this information spread far and wide for the current situation fits this last paragraph like a glove so we can come to the overwhelming conclusion that the situation was most definitely created by design by a handful of reptilian psychopaths who have usurped the reigns of our civilisation in order to deceive, degrade and murder humanity and destroy all life on earth. Why? Because some human beings have made a pact with the devil, as in the Faustian bargain. Remember, only Jesus Christ can save and protect us from the great evil that is currently pervading the world. And we should not love our lives so much that we deny Jesus Christ and if we do not He will not deny us and will provide salvation and protection for our eternal souls.

  28. The elites, as they now openly call themselves, are frustrated at the recalcitrance of the populace. They may well see it as easier to build their world order in the aftermath of a nuclear war. How many post-apocalyptic movies have happy endings?

    1. There will be no nuclear war. Biowar is in progress. In order to accomodate the mass die-off of the “vaccinated,” they are now working on an ecologically feasible method of disposing of the bodies. Soylent Green, anyone?

  29. Perfect summary – but as “coitus interruptus”… why didn’t you focus more on the connection between the nuclear threat and the disarmament process in connection with biological weapons? There are 11 laboratories invested by the Pentagon in Ukraine in the vicinity of which epidemics of hepatitis, swine flu and cholera have recurred. Under the same politic you are writing about. And now 6 – 8 million people blowing in the Europe. Man as a weapon. another wave of the pandemic that Gates talked about… Thanks anyway – it was a good trip int bibliotece. One likes to look at those videos and the names. Adam Smith and his “I’m only beautiful in my work”…. many clever boys, 50 years of coordination – and so stupid daily life as the resulte… salute from Prague S

  30. This has been going on far longer than the 60s… Have you read Colonel Houses book called “Philip Dru; Administrator”? He wasn’t a real colonel and the story laid out there is like a precursor to the one brought to light in the above article. It does point to First Regionalism and THEN Globalism… while the WEF and its shenanigans went straight for Globalism, probably to allow the fallback to REGIONALISM as the next step in the From that To this state of affairs. Its a book from the 40s if I recall correctly and worth the read to get a feel for how the hidden hand makes use of the pieces of positional authority on the board of world politics.

  31. Brilliant article, thank you for your efforts to break down the efforts and game plan of those that suppose themselves chosen. To be a non-stakeholder and being acted upon by these chosen few is quite scary.

  32. This is a really excellent historical view, one which I appreciate very much because most of my research on the World economic forum doesn’t go before the 1970s. The one thing I would suggest here is that Klaus Schwab is hoping to get around Kahn’s last quote in your essay by the incorporation of artificial intelligence into his plans.

  33. Eric’s comment is spot on.
    William “Bill” Cooper has a Mystery Babylon Series on the connections of the ancients and the events unfolding around the world. What Eric wrote is close to exactly the type of information that is revealed in the Mystery Babylon Series and I would venture to say that he is in fact a listener of Bill Cooper’s The Hour of the Time radio show that aired from 1993-2001. The ancient connections are not to be taken likely because those who are in power are very much taking them serious.

  34. Great article, thank you!
    I believe with this information one can conclude they are ready to expose the lies government has always given us relatively soon. That the majority of the alternative media is controlled opposition and they are ready for us to tear everything down and have their reset. Watch Oliver Stones JFK Revisited 2021 after reading this article and it will be hard to disagree. Watch anything Stones done, putin interviews, Ukraine on fire. Read/listen to most alternative media, it will start to slowing come out in the mainstream as well. They want everyone to know how corrupt everything is. The dark powers are ready for the total chaos. The predators have finally stolen it all and will go sit on their islands(slither into the under world) while we destroy everything. The question is what do we do? I think it’s time for the second coming.
    Story old as time. Bill Cooper, Eustace Mullins, esoteric Eddie. The battle is real…maybe

  35. We have been lied to about everything. Research about the nuclear weapon hoax… Things will make even more sense.

  36. Interesting read… parallels a lot of my own work. But it goes quite a bit deeper.

    This line drew my interest…
    “There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible.” -Johnny Vedmore

    This struck a chord and had me thinking for while, It has inspired a possible piece of writing. In the end when thought out clearly. We are as perennial as our surroundings and in order to be home loving bodies — which I would say for the most-part is our preferred habitat, we adapt to the provincial.
    Yes, we vacation, and travel for work or business or exploration but, we have our home and our homeland and never so more understood than the present i.e. the Ukraine and Russia. Which is, when understood is a fight about homeland. And Ukraine has always been, Russian homeland.

    WEF is trying to control the future, that is why the need to control who enters politics, as you have said… The technocratic managers have to be educated under the ‘Kahn’ directive.

    But people are waking, as the Trucker protest and the cruel put down of such in Canada has shown, that their politicians are not representing the office they were voted into. Those concerns are outside of home, outside their primary national interests.
    Interesting point: I saw yesterday as a YGL in Alberta, Michelle Rempel Garner chastising the post child of world YGL’s Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. But Garner was chastised by neoliberal legacy media a while back for…” Rempel Garner made headlines for working from home in Oklahoma as a Canadian MP during Covid”.

    There are flies in their ointment, and now they are more than willing to ravage each other.
    The left is eating its young and cancelling their old, its turning on itself.

  37. This talk of an “American empire”, is a fundamentally incorrect conclusion. It is an international system and elite, which currently is working on removing the USA from its unipolar position for the benefit of a multipolar order.
    This is described in the 1961 book Prospect for America: the Rockefeller Panel reports, based on the 1956 Special Studies Project, under the leadership of Henry Kissinger on the initiative from Rockefeller Brothers Fund.
    Putin friend Kissinger is one of those Americans explaining that USA must accept these new conditions.

  38. Gen 6:5
    And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

    Nothing new under the sun. Thank you for the article.

  39. Extremely good work, very interesting and accurate.
    Merci beaucoup, j’ai transposé quelques passages en Français, vu sur Twitter grâce à SonguelSunny Songül.

  40. Last Saturday, 12/9/23, David Webb and Vera Sharav aired via chd.tv, The Great Taking. That shattering docu led me to this article, which is deeply appreciated in these darkest of times. Thank you Johnny Vedmore! 🙏
    Before KS dies, he may very well be instrumental in initiating what this details that the Central Banking System has crafted as the next financial collapse. It may be later than we think.

  41. Good work Johhny, as usual.
    A useful infill document was wriiten by Kissinger in 1974, the NSSM Memo enititled
    National Security Study Memorandum
    NSSM 200
    Implications of Worldwide Population Growth For U.S. Security and Overseas Interests
    Download at https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pcaab500.pdf

    Written at a time when many people would have been happy to listen to the issue of Global Population and act on sound information….The Madmen took control and they have been “Offing ” People ever since by one means or another…and making a bundle of loot for themselves in the process

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts
Read More

Technocracy: The Operating System For The New International Rules-Based Order

The International Rules-Based Order (IRBO) is under threat and global power is shifting. As East and West rekindle old enmities we are led to believe that this struggle will determine the future of international relations and the direction of nation states. However, the global transformation is not led by national governments but by a global network of stakeholders and global technocracy is their goal.