Over the past several years, these globalist confabs have turned into what seems like monthly gatherings as the self-declared rulers of the planet continue losing their grip over humanity and the many narratives they use to justify their control. From January 16-20, the World Economic Forum hosted the first Davos Forum of 2023, with the theme of the gathering being “cooperation in a fragmented world.” According to the event page on the WEF website, “The world today is at a critical inflection point. The sheer number of ongoing crises calls for bold collective action. The annual meeting will convene leaders from government, business and civil society to address the state of the world and discuss priorities for the year ahead. It will provide a platform to engage in constructive, forward-looking dialogues and help find solutions through public-private partnership.” Yawn.
Just a few days earlier, on January 11th, the WEF published their annual “Global Risk Report.” The report identified the “cost of living crisis” as the number one global risk over the next two years, and was actually voted the number one concern by the 1,200 government and business elites who got to cast a vote. The “Global Risks 2023: Today’s Crisis” section of the report says in part, “Costs further increased in 2022, primarily due to continued disruptions in the flows of energy and food from Russia and Ukraine. To curb domestic prices, around 30 countries introduced restrictions, including export bans, in food and energy last year, further driving up global inflation.” As expected, they’re sticking to the script. And as I’ve been explaining since Russia invaded Ukraine in February of 2022, the conflict is being blamed for the systematic sabotage these globalists are engaged in. I’m pretty sure Vladimir Putin isn’t the one who destroyed over 750 food and resource production facilities worldwide over the past two years, he certainly isn’t responsible for cutting off US energy production, he never forced healthy Americans to take experimental mRNA injections, and he’s not causing trains full of hazardous waste to derail on what seems like an everyday basis throughout the US. He is, however, providing cover for the western elites who are likely responsible for some – if not all – of these ongoing disasters. The report continues, “…the persistence of a global cost-of-living crisis could result in a growing proportion of the most vulnerable parts of society being priced out of access to basic needs, fueling unrest and political instability. Continued supply-chain disruptions could lead to sticky core inflation, particularly in food and energy. This could fuel further interest rate hikes, raising the risk of debt distress, a prolonged economic downturn and a vicious cycle for fiscal planning… Last year, the increase in fuel prices alone led to protests in an estimated 92 countries, some of which resulted in political upheaval and fatalities, alongside strikes and industrial action… A combination of extreme weather events and constrained supply could lead the current cost-of-living crisis into a catastrophic scenario of hunger and distress for millions in import-dependent countries or turn the energy crisis towards a humanitarian crisis in the poorest emerging markets. Energy shortages – as a result of supplier shut-offs or natural, accidental or intentional damage to pipelines and energy grids – could cause widespread blackouts and fatalities if combined with seasonal extreme weather. There is also a material possibility of a global food supply crisis occurring in 2023, with the continuation of the war in Ukraine, the lagged effect of a price spike in fertilizer last year and the impact of extreme weather conditions on food production in key regions.” You’ve got to give it to the death cult… They know how to make a plan and stick to it. Do you think when they say “intentional damage to pipelines” they mean the US Navy blowing up the Nord Stream? Yeah, me neither. They prefer to keep the true source of their disasters nebulous – that way they can blame climate change or their political foes for all the world’s problems.
Like most of the writings published by the WEF, this long-winded report is incredibly monotonous. The non-issue known as climate change is repeated 43 times in the four main sections of the report as it is meant to serve as the main scapegoat for the death cult’s machinations (the conflict in Ukraine was also mentioned more than a few times). While I don’t necessarily disagree with all of their concerns, I’m keenly aware of how the ruling class are more than willing to exploit naturally occurring phenomena like climate change, or unnecessary elite-instigated disasters like the war in Ukraine, to manipulate the minds of the general public into accepting their deranged vision for the world. Problem-reaction-solution is being carried out on a mass scale by internationalists working in accordance with one another to achieve a common goal – a one world communist totalitarian government. Using the many national governments they undoubtedly control, the elite create problems or exploit already-existing issues and rely on people to react with uncertainty and fear, and because the problems are presented as something far outside our realm of control, they can easily present their “solutions” as the only way to save the masses from total destruction. Unfortunately, aside from these “problems” being promulgated under false pretenses, the proposed solutions always involve limiting freedom and lowering the overall living standards of common people.
The full list of this year’s attendees can be downloaded here. Despite a few “A-listers” bailing on the event, the list includes people from the highest levels of business, banking, technology, government, and media. Some of the more recognizable names and institutions that attended include Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, corrupt FBI Director Chris Wray, China Joe’s Climate Envoy John Kerry, (the now-former) US Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh (also see this), Illinois Governor “Big” JB Pritsker, Michigan’s smiley-faced tyrant of a governor Gretchen Whitmer, Georgia’s RINO Governor Brian Kemp, various Democrats and Republicans from both the House and Senate, Al Gore, Tony Blair, communist WHO Chief Dr. Tedros, the CEOs of major corporations like BlackRock, Amazon, JP Morgan and Pfizer, five top officials from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the heads of NBC Universal and the NY Slimes and Christine Lagarde, head of the EU Central Bank. To protect the globalist collaborators from the useless eaters, snipers, security personnel, and a maximum of 5,000 Swiss troops were deployed – which is customary. In addition to roadblocks preventing people from entering Davos, there were reports of people having their vehicles and fingerprints checked on the streets near the gathering – though I’m sure the prostitutes had no trouble getting where they needed to be.
Now let’s take a look at some of the lowlights from the first major elite gathering of 2023.
January 17th – One of 10 discussions that took place at the three o’clock hour was titled, “Disrupting Distrust.” The panel was moderated by Katie Kingsbury, who “oversees the opinion section” at the NY Slimes, and included Salah Goss – the Senior Vice President for Social Impact for Mastercard (she currently oversees the company’s $500M “pledge” to fight racial inequality), Helena Leurent – the Director-General for Consumers International, Angela Williams – the President and CEO of United Way Worldwide, and Richard Edelman – the CEO of Daniel J. Edelman, Inc. Kingsbury starts the discussion by asking Edelman what the latest trends are in regard to trust. Edelman responds by saying in part (with the WEF motto “committed to improving the state of the world” displayed on the wall behind him), “Long term trends: NGOs, for years, were the most trusted institution, well ahead of business, media and government. That changed in 2020 when it became government at the height of the pandemic, since then it’s been business. That’s fact one. Fact two: The growing mass class divide in opinion. It started in 2012 in the US, in France, and in the UK – it’s now metastasized… In three-quarters of the countries [there’s a] more than 10% difference in the attitudes of the top 25% and the bottom 25%. The third is the battle for truth, which you do every day (while for some reason motioning towards Kingsbury as if the Slimes is in the truth business)… but the reality is people feel as if they don’t have enough information – that’s quality – to make good decisions. And that’s really become problematic since 2016, since the US election, since Brexit, but now we’re at sort of a different level of this with disinformation because of the pandemic. And the sort of last point is that trust has gone local. Historically, [it has been] top-down, then it went horizontal about 10 or 15 years ago with the rise of Facebook… Now trust is local in my employer [sic]. In my company, my company’s newsletter is the most trusted source of information, even ahead of mainstream media, crazy as that is.” Do you notice how they consider it “problematic” when we don’t take their advice and decide for ourselves the direction of our country? Edelman continued, “Okay, so three or four trends from this year that are important: The first is we absolutely observe an imbalance between institutions. Between government and business there is now a 50-point delta on competence, 30 points on ethics. Business is the only institution seen as trusted because it’s both competent and it’s ethical – it gets things done. NGOs have moved from… being ethical and competent, to ethical but not competent (groans can be heard from the audience)… that’s a very sad fact for my colleagues… The second big finding is that we see a real dependence on business to be the savior… The third is the mass-class divide. In three-quarters of the countries we now see a 10-point delta. Not a single democracy, do we see this in a good place, and that’s because of this final statistic… the loss of economic optimism. Trust is totally tied to the performance of the economy, and to the projection of what the economy will be doing in the next five years. Not a single democracy has over 35% [of people thinking their family will be better off in five years]… So look, trust depends on the ability of institutions to deliver. And last last is the sense of inequality. If you have a deep, sort of, ‘I can’t get there’ you lose trust.” I find it funny how the leftists who participate in these forums can ponder things like this, yet never see how they are the ones responsible for wrecking the economy and sowing division among people along the lines of race and class. In my opinion, this is all just self-aggrandizing nonsense.
For example, before posing a question to the panel about “how transparency and accuracy play into [their] work,” Kingsbury laughably described (19:43) the NY Slimes as expressing “independent” viewpoints, while at the same time being committed to “factual accuracy.” Wasn’t a senior editor at the Slimes forced to resign back in 2020 for publishing an op-ed piece by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR)? Doesn’t seem very “independent” to me… What about the Russiagate conspiracy theory they pushed for three years? This was proven to be a complete lie and nothing more than political dirty tricks, but has anyone at the Slimes apologized for their factually inaccurate “reporting”? What about all the other outrageous claims they make with no evidence, citing only “unnamed” sources? How many times has the Slimes accused President Trump of being a racist or a criminal? It’s been too many to count. What about that dishonest sleazebag Maggie Haberman who wins awards for lying, or the divisive hack Charles Blow? When I say self-aggrandizing, I truly mean self-aggrandizing. It’s the only way to describe delusional leftists who try to make you believe they’re doing good work.
While answering the question about transparency and accuracy mentioned above, Williams spoke about “vaccine equity” and how distrust of the medical establishment in the black community led to low uptake of the COVID clot shots. Williams said in part (20:05), “…black and brown communities did not trust vaccines. And what it took was partnership – not only with pharmaceuticals, but health care systems – to come to us who are the nonprofits, who are in community [sic], who are the neighbors, to explain the efficacies of the vaccine, how important it was – that it’s no longer the Tuskegee Experiments – and you could trust and to educate, and so I see in so many of these pressing issues that are facing communities today that you do need someone who is in the community who could have a kitchen-style seat at the table and have a conversation, to make sure people have a fair chance.” She’s definitely right about the COVID jabs not being the same as the Tuskegee Experiment… The death cult was/is intent on hurting everyone with the mRNA jabs, not just black people. Edelman then jumps back into the discussion, saying, “So, can I piggy-back this? To me, one of the sadnesses [sic] of the last five years is the deterioration of trust in NGOs. And my hypothesis on this is that right wing groups have done a really good job of disenfranchising NGOs. They’ve challenged the funding sources. They’ve associated you with Bill Gates and George Soros. They’ve said that you’re world people, as opposed to actually what you are, which is local. I mean, I just wrote down – pandemic, climate crisis, racial equity. My God, the sweet spot of the civil society should be right now, but what’s happened is splintering of groups, disappearance of the leaders, and also – frankly – advocacy towards the extremes. And that enables you to be pinned by the right. And also you guys are great at punching but terrible at taking a punch, and you have to learn to do two things: One is preempt. When they’re gonna punch you, you gotta know they’re gonna punch you and say ‘why are they punching us?’ and sort of – what we call it pre-bunking [this means the left doing a better job brainwashing], it’s my new word… And the other is when they hit you, and they’re inaccurate, hit back. Don’t take it. Because if it’s taken you’re put into a box…” When Kingsbury jumps in by asking for an example of when the right time might be to do that as some would see this as breathing life into something they want people on the left to believe is false (that’s a Slimes tactic – they mainly ignore what they don’t agree with), Edelman said, “I’ve heard this a lot… If it’s a definite inaccuracy, you must correct the record. You don’t have to go Defcon 3, but you must say ‘this is not so’ and then have three other people say ‘this isn’t so.’ Not just you.” What Edelman is describing is how propaganda works. It’s not enough for one leftist outlet to say it, they all have to say it. Otherwise, their messaging might not stick. Moreover, was Edelman saying Gates and Soros are not the loving philanthropists they’re portrayed to be? If they are, why wouldn’t NGOs want to be associated with them?
The Q&A then starts and Edelman is asked a question by Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the horribly bigoted and dishonest Anti-Defamation League, about what businesses can do to combat the right wing now that they’ve been able to make people wake up to the fact that ESG (environmental, social, and governance) is a corporate version of CRT (critical race theory). Edelman says in response, “Business needs to stand its ground. More than two-thirds of employees say that they want to work for companies whose values are equivalent to their own. Two-thirds of consumers are belief-driven buyers… business has to be very clear about this is good business not, ya know, some kind of woke delusion.” No, it’s a woke delusion, Dick. Just ask Anheuser-Busch. Not long ago, Bud Light drinkers just wanted to enjoy the beer. But when Anheuser-Busch felt it was suddenly important for Bud Light drinkers to celebrate Dylan Mulvaney’s “girlhood” (if you don’t already know, Dylan Mulvaney is a biological male), people decided Bud Light was no longer for them, and Anheuser-Busch has been hemorrhaging customers and money ever since. Corporate values should be about offering quality products and making money on the up-and-up, not trying to convince their customers to support the gender transition of a confused young man. Sadly, this has been a long time coming for Anheuser-Busch, and customers probably should have turned on them a while ago.
Finally, towards the end of the discussion, an audience member asks about whether it’s possible to remove the trust component from corporate models as this is something that will always be challenged. I believe he was asking in terms of using a block chain system where the system itself is considered trustworthy, but the question was not answered in that context. Instead, Edelman answers first by saying (39:50), “So the first thing… I think business needs to do is deprive platforms that spread disinformation of oxygen. Stop advertising. Pull your promotion money. Make sure that they understand that they have a consequential impact on society, and the boycott of Twitter for several months has had a modest impact, but I think the Facebook one failed. But the necessity of getting it right in the platforms that are probably primary source information for a third to forty percent of people is urgent…” But you claim trust is important to you though, huh? So if I don’t believe in what you say I should believe in you will deprive me of oxygen? That doesn’t sound like the kind of system I want to trust in. In fact, it’s exactly that kind of woke corporate bullying that needs to be destroyed. Dick Edelman is just another delusional leftist piece of garbage.
January 17th – What would a meeting of the world’s elite minds be without getting lectured by a talking potato? Democrat party propagandist Brian Stelter – formerly of XiNN – leads a discussion (backup) titled… wait for it… “The Clear and Present Danger of Disinformation.” Once you’ve stopped laughing, please continue on as I point out some of the more outlandish and unsettling moments of the panel discussion.
The participants included Vera Jourová – the Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency, Seth Moulton – a Democrat congressman from Maskachussetts, Jeanne Bourgault – the President and CEO of far-left Internews, and Arthur Gregg Sulzberger – the chicken-necked Chairman and Publisher of the far-left New York Slimes. To kick things off, the potato asked Sulzberger to explain how disinformation connects to everything else going on at Davos. Sulzberger replies by saying in part (1:32), “So disinformation – and the broader set of misinformation, conspiracy, propaganda, clickbait – ya know, the broader mix of bad information that’s corrupting the information ecosystem. What it attacks is trust. And once you see trust decline, what you then see is society start to fracture. And so you see people fracture along tribal lines and that immediately undermines pluralism. And the undermining of pluralism is probably the most dangerous thing that could happen to democracy.” I’m going to have to stop here and point out how what “AG” just said was the complete inversion of reality. For starters, the Slimes is one of the biggest spreaders of both misinformation and disinformation in the entire world. They spread the false Russiagate conspiracy theory for more than three years with no inkling of integrity or shame – which was also being done across all leftist media outlets as a form of propaganda (and clickbait). And because the Slimes has been one of the biggest corrupters of the information ecosystem, only the most ignorant, braindead leftists still listen to anything they have to say. The NY Slimes itself is responsible for destroying the trust people once had in them. They have been purposely fracturing people along political lines for decades, and to boot, they care nothing about democracy. In fact, I would go so far as to say they hate it… AG even went on to compare Trump’s use of the terms “fake news” and “enemy of the people” with the Nazi and Stalinist regimes of the past (2:50) – which sounds kind of weird coming out of the mouth of a wanna-be Bolshevik dipshit like Sulzberger – and conflated the lies and propaganda spread by the Slimes with “free expression.” If you’re keeping score, you can go ahead and check the “delusional” box next to Sulzberger’s name.
Moments later, Seth Moulton – after trying to come off as reasonable and moderate by claiming the two main parties in the US need to do a better job working with one another – said (6:40) “…If you can’t have that honest conversation with your colleagues, it’s a real problem. And I noticed in the congress a marked change after Donald Trump came to power and proved that lying works.” It’s not like the panel was biased or anything… In fact, the entire “solutions” portion of the potato-led discussion was just Moulton bitching about Republicans. Do people on the left really believe they are the only ones who know and tell the truth? That they are the only ones with worthy ideas? Sorry, but I don’t consider that an adequate jumping-off point. You can definitely check the “delusional” box for him, too.
Vera Jourová got involved around the 10-minute mark when the potato asked a fawning question about the role of government in silencing people combating misinformation. Jourová – who is from the Czech Republic (and seemingly quite deranged) – said in part (10:15), “When I come to United States I was in Congress many times, and I also spoke to American think tanks – also with the journalist (motioning towards Sulzberger), I was in New York Times. The basic question I hear from Americans on how we are going to deal with the disinformation online is ‘will you order removals?’ – removing of content from online. It’s, it’s so simplified and… I’m almost shouting ‘of course not’ because this is not the way how to do that. We try to do, in fact, three things to make sure that the disinformers do not find the feeding ground, the society which is willing to get brainwashed – and here again – different traditions, different instincts, different sensitivities. So for instance, the Russian propaganda was so bloody strong in the center and your Eastern European countries because there were some sentiments in the society already before the invasion to Ukraine. So the feeding ground – which means that our society, our people should get more resilient. It should be done through education, through the work of professional media (again motions toward Sulzberger). I had the New York Times when I was there three years ago (and again) the question ‘how did you increase your readership?’ I heard from some of your colleagues because the people became more hungry for the truth… But this is a long distance goal. The second – maybe I will surprise you: a better strategic communication from us who are the representatives of democratic governments. Aren’t we lazy? Aren’t we just too self-confident that the people will find the truth somehow? We should be more intensive in delivering trustworthy facts and information for the people. They are not stupid and they have the right for transparency and reliable information from those who voted for [them]. And also do the pre-bunking [which I take to mean brainwashing]. When you look back at the disinformation campaigns, they are primitive – as for the content. It was possible to predict, so why didn’t we do more to prepare the people for that? …the third thing is the regulation, and indeed Europe started to regulate. First of all, the digital services act says – the content which is illegal offline has to be treated as illegal online. So here comes terrorism, extra-political violent extremism, hate speech, child pornography – what’s the rest? (Bourgault chimes in with “incitement to violence”)… Disinformation, well, in most of the cases it’s not illegal content, so should we suddenly say for online space this information is illegal? And this is exactly what I mentioned at the beginning, that we must come with the rules which will not be abused. So what I heard from the people working for Facebook in the board – getting complaints and the requests for removals – 90% of the requests are coming from governments. So the elected politicians are make for disinformation something which is uncomfortable. Let’s be aware of that. So that’s why we created pretty difficult, complicated system, the code of practice against disinformation where nobody is the arbiter of the truth… sorry I was long, but you see how full I am of it.” If she’s talking about shit, I would completely agree.
Please take note how the parts I highlighted in red come off as quite reasonable… On the one hand she is saying individuals should not be censored online, but on the other says those spreading what she considers mis- or disinformation should be prevented from reaching the “feeding ground.” Jourová is really saying that it’s the content creators who should be targeted – not individuals who share their work – because I guess in her mind it will be less noticeable this way. Whatever the case may be, this is still censorship. She described voters as “not stupid” and having the right to “reliable” information, but then claims it’s the government’s job to provide it to us. This is very Orwellian language to say the least. Since when is the government known for providing honest information? And since when do they come clean about their wrongdoing? When you stop and realize that has never been the case, what she is saying is quite insulting. Jourová also said Facebook executives told her 90% of the censorship requests come from governments, and that this was due to people potentially gaining access to information that made said governments “uncomfortable” in some way, adding no one person or entity should be the “arbiter of truth.” While this again sounds reasonable, she’s really talking about imposing a set of rules that would become the arbiter of truth. In other words, she is promoting the creation of a regulatory system that is so far-reaching, individuals and governments will no longer have to make such requests because everything they would want censored to begin with is already baked into this new set of rules… that, of course, they created. Please take notice, too, of how Jourová conflates hate speech with child pornography and terrorism, which indubitably are crimes. Globalists like those at the WEF are always doing things like that… (Update (5/18/23): This house subcommittee hearing is a great example of how corrupt our government has become, and how they will do whatever they need to in order to protect their fictitious narratives.)
The potato then throws it over to Moulton by asking what the balance is between things that are provably true and provably false. He says, rightfully so, that Americans are leery of any rules or regulations that might limit their right to free speech in some way, and that politicians share this sentiment – which is a ridiculous claim when it comes to most people in government, especially on the left. Surprisingly, the potato follows up (17:53) by asking him about why it has been Democrats then trying to impose these limits over the past six years, and his answer is about as weaselly as can be. Moulton claims the goal of requesting stronger “content moderation” is… wait for it… “some measure of public safety.” After dismissing the “mean” attacks politicians face online as something that will never change, he described his virtuous longing for public safety by saying, “The difference is when I have a constituency that I’m trying to keep healthy and I can’t get them to take a COVID vaccine because of misinformation that’s propagated on the internet, and that’s where this becomes a much… bigger concern.” So would the fact that the COVID jabs aren’t actually “vaccines” be considered “misinformation”? I’d bet dollars to donuts Mr. Moulton would say it is. What about the fact the shots are ineffective and unsafe? I’m sure Mr. Moulton would disagree… And herein lies the problem. If Big Pharma (and other big industries) control the media and the politicians, then only information they deem to be “trustworthy” will ever reach the public. And by trustworthy I don’t necessarily mean accurate, I mean the information can be trusted to not harm their bottom line. For example, if the COVID jab injures me and I share my story on Facebook, the platform will censor me by claiming I am sharing misinformation that could lead to “vaccine hesitancy” – even though being harmed by the shot is a true statement. Because they claim – sincerely or not – the COVID “vaccines” are helping people, they can also claim anyone saying anything bad about the shots could potentially get other people sick or killed by preventing them from taking it. This is a very slippery slope, and an arrangement that would only help the media, big business, and controlled politicians protect their own interests at the expense of the general public.
Perhaps the most telling comments made occurred during the Q&A portion of the discussion when the panel was asked (28:40) if “we’ve done enough to make the truth as attractive as the lies.” Jourová answers the question by saying in part, “Uh, no. I think we have sufficient data which show that the lie sells much better than the truth, and if we do not stop that then the algorithms will simply work in the direction of better business [in this case “the lie”]… and that’s behind our rules in Europe, that we wanted to stop this trend. After having the data showing that [the lie] sells so well and it flies seven times quicker than the… boring truth, we started to discuss this under the concept of the code of practice against disinformation. And here we have the biggest representatives of the European advertising industry which confirmed they will not monetize… those who spread disinformation, and in other words… together we might make the business of spreading and producing disinformation much less successful financially… We have a long lasting discussion with the platforms [on] how to use the artificial intelligence in detecting illegal and harmful content, and we were never very much fond of seeing that to be for the detection when it comes to images. When it comes to texts, which is much more sophisticated, well they have to work with the language. So I don’t think the AI is… mature enough to be able to disclose, but this is just a matter of time. For hate speech? Well, we need the people who understand the language and the case law in the country because what qualifies as hate speech – illegal hate speech – which you will have soon also in the US (as she laughs and reaches over to touch Moulton’s arm). I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law, we need the platforms to simply work with special language and to identify such cases. The AI would be too dangerous to do that.” Jourová literally laughed at the American concept of free speech when she suggested how in the very near future a universally-accepted criteria will be used to define what “hate speech” is before arbitrarily banning its use. Go right ahead and check that “delusional” box for her, too.
The biggest takeaway for me from this discussion was the participants’ belief that supposedly “trusted brands” like the NY Slimes should be relied upon for information simply for who they are, without question, and those who say otherwise should be silenced. People with good arguments and policy positions can easily win over other people, but tyrants rely on force to cram what they think is best down the throats of others, no matter the cost to their own moral standing or credibility. They pretend to have principles, but in reality they serve a larger agenda, an agenda that wears the mask of compassion to camouflage the deep hatred they have for those who reject their cult, and really humanity as a whole.
January 19 – One of the presentations offered in the 4:00 hour was titled “Ready for Brain Transparency?” The discussion was moderated by Nicholas Thompson, CEO of the leftist rag known as The Atlantic. Before bringing out Nita Farahany, “a futurist and legal ethicist at Duke” (and the only other participant), Thompson plays a short video titled “The Battle for Your Brain” to help the audience “see the future… where we can use brain waves to fight crime, be more productive, and find love.” If you think that sounds creepy, wait until you watch the video… When the 2-minute video finishes, Farahany comes waltzing out onto the stage looking hot and bothered and asks, “What do you think? Is it a future you’re ready for?” After some audible groans and a few nos, Farahany responds by saying, “You may be surprised to learn that it’s a future that has already arrived. Everything in that video that you just saw is based on technology that is already here today. Artificial intelligence has enabled advances in decoding brain activity in ways that we never before thought possible… What you think, what you feel, it’s all just data. Data that in large patterns can be decoded using artificial intelligence…” Moments later she reveals to the audience that the screen behind her is actually displaying her brain activity in real time using a “simple” wearable device – “a Fitbit for your brain.” Farahany continues, “It’s not just your brain activity here that we can pick up (motioning towards her head), we can also pick up your brain activity in different places like as your neurons fire from your brain down your arm and send signals to your hand to tell you how to type [or] move. All of that could be decoded through electromagnetic myography.” Farahany then shows a wearable device on the screen and tells the audience about one of the “pivotal acquisitions of the field” in which Meta purchased a company called CTRL-Labs back in 2019 with the hope of this type of technology “universally applicable as the way in which we interact with the rest of our technology.” She continues, “In fact, the coming future – and I mean near-term future – is these devices being the primary way in which we interact with all of the rest of our technology. Rather than a mouse or a keyboard, you can simply swipe with your mind… Use your brain as the way in which you interact with all of the rest of your technology.” (No, my brain is not glitching. She keeps repeating that point over and over.) Farahany describes this coming future as an “exciting and promising future, but also a potentially scary one. A transformative one, one that will change the way we interact with other people and even how we understand ourselves.”
Farahany goes on to describe some of the sensible ways in which businesses could apply this technology to their employees, and some of it actually made sense. For example, truckers wearing hats that could determine their level of alertness before they get into an accident. She points out that while driver-assist technology is already being used now, this type of technology could sense a potential problem much sooner. It’s really the potential for a “scary” future that concerns me, which segways nicely into the next topic she discusses – using this technology in the workplace. Farahany says “while we can’t decode complex thoughts just yet, there’s a lot we can already decode” – like if someone is programming, writing a report, or surfing the web. While she suggests the use of this technology should be left to employees to decide on, I can easily envision a world in which this type of brain-tracking technology becomes ubiquitous in just a few short years. Do you really want a computer to give you a “little buzz” if your mind wanders off for a few minutes? I sure don’t, though I would hesitate to completely dismiss this technology out of hand. The problem is, considering who is running the world, I don’t think I could trust this type of technology to be applied with good intentions – at least beyond the initial stages. Before the Q&A begins, Farahany wraps up by saying in part, “In some ways and in some contexts, surveillance of the human brain can be powerful, helpful, useful, transform the workplace and make our lives better. It also has a dystopian possibility of being used to exploit and bring to the surface our most secret self. It threatens fundamentally what our own self-identity is in some ways, and threatens to become a tool of oppression. But we can make a choice. We can make a choice to use it well. We can make a choice to make it something that empowers individuals, that helps them gain insights into their own mental health and well-being, improve their own productivity and wellness, and sets them on a pathway where like quantifying your heart rate or other kinds of health, it can be something that unlocks potential for humanity.” To be clear, when she says “us” she means them. Most regular people don’t watch presentations like this.
The first question asked by Thompson to kick off the Q&A is whether this can be done remotely (not having a device touching the skin), to which Farahany replies no. She does, however, go into how brain activity can be disrupted remotely and briefly discusses Havana Syndrome, acknowledging how there is already a lot of “investment in figuring out whether you could target the brain remotely.” When asked about her one, five, and 10-year forecasts for the technology, Farahany says in about a year we’ll basically be where we are now, but as the technology becomes more integrated into our daily lives (through earbuds, for example) it will lead to “increased insights through pattern recognition” and the ability to decode brain activity will take off exponentially. She also fielded a couple of questions about how governments should regulate this type of technology, and the worry that private tech companies can and will abuse it. Farahany says establishing “cognitive liberty” will have to be the place to start, as it will define and protect what it means to be human. I hope she’s right. The entire presentation and Q&A is only 30 minutes (at least what they put online), so I’d recommend checking it out.
Also of note: I’m not sure exactly what day this occurred on, but check out who the WEF brought in for entertainment… Then ask yourself if people who enjoy whatever that was should be running the world.
I’m sure there were at least a few other interesting presentations that took place at Davos, but I don’t have nearly enough time to watch all of them. I will certainly add to this page if I am able to get to more in the future. Thanks for reading.