The Global Elite’s War on Free Speech, By James Reed
The globalist elites, epitomised by the World Economic Forum (WEF), are waging a calculated war on free speech, cloaking their pursuit of social control in the guise of combating misinformation and extremism. As Susan Lawson's article in American Thinker details, the WEF's 2025 Davos summit exposed this agenda, with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's remark that "freedom of expression has its limits, especially when it's right-wing" crystallising the elite's disdain for open discourse. This push, aligned with initiatives like the European Democracy Shield (EDS), discussed in another article today at the blog in a more conversational voice, reflects a broader strategy to silence dissent and enforce a centralised vision, the "New World Order," that prioritises power over democratic principles. The stakes are immense, and while resistance from figures like Elon Musk and policies like President Trump's executive order offer hope, the elites' concerted efforts threaten the very foundation of free societies.
At Davos, Scholz's attack on platforms like X, owned by free-speech advocate Musk, revealed the elite's discomfort with unfiltered voices. His call for speech limits, particularly targeting Right-wing views, aligns with Europe's escalating censorship regime. Germany's Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG), expanded under Scholz, mandates rapid removal of "illegal" content, ostensibly to curb hate speech but effectively stifling debate on migration, race, crime, and cultural issues. Since the 2015 migrant crisis, which spiked violent crime, Germans expressing concerns about integration risk prosecution or social ostracism, as media self-censors to avoid xenophobia charges. This chilling effect, Lawson notes, exemplifies how anti-extremism rhetoric morphs into a tool to mute legitimate grievances, paving the way for broader control.
The EDS, discussed in a December 2024 European Social and Economic Committee event and critiqued by Naked Emperor, is a prime example of this agenda masquerading as democracy protection. Presented as a shield against foreign disinformation, it seeks to regulate algorithms, enforce fact-checking, and fund "independent" journalism. Yet, its vague definitions of "information manipulation" and reliance on biased NGOs, some linked to George Soros's Open Society Foundations, raise alarms. With Soros's $32 billion in grants shaping European civil society, as noted in prior blog discussions, the EDS risks becoming a vehicle for elite-aligned narratives, marginalising dissent under the pretext of security. Its push to extend influence to enlargement countries, enforcing electoral standards and banning foreign funding, threatens national sovereignty, echoing the WEF's globalist vision.
Across Europe, laws like France's Avia Law and the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) mirror this trend. The DSA, effective in 2024, imposes hefty fines, up to 6% of a platform's global revenue, for non-compliance with content moderation rules. Critics, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, report that 80% of DSA enforcement targets conservative content, suggesting a politicised crackdown. These measures, championed at Davos, frame censorship as a societal good, but their real aim is control. The WEF's AI-driven moderation tools, developed with Big Tech, prioritise establishment narratives, while its "Great Reset" rhetoric, pushing socialism, regulation, and global treaties, reveals an ambition to reshape societies under elite oversight. Klaus Schwab's boasts about penetrating national cabinets, underscore this undemocratic influence. Schwab has left the stage, but his replacement carries on the game.
The United States stands as a counterpoint, with Trump's January 2025 executive order banning social media censorship reinforcing free speech as a constitutional cornerstone. By mandating platform neutrality and rolling back Section 230 protections for editorialising platforms, the order challenges Big Tech's gatekeeping and defies the WEF's call for "harmonised" global regulations, a euphemism for censorship. Musk's X, with its restored accounts and minimal moderation, further disrupts this control, offering a haven for open discourse in countries like India and Brazil, where government censorship thrives. Yet, the U.S. faces pressure to align with globalist standards, as seen in Canada's Bill C-63, which imposes life imprisonment for hate speech, and Australia's misinformation laws, both reflecting WEF influence.
The elites' war on free speech is a battle for narrative dominance, not public safety. By labelling dissent as misinformation or extremism, they justify censorship while ignoring internal failures, like the EU's 50.66% voter turnout in 2019 or its own disinformation scandals, such as Cambridge Analytica. The WEF's initiatives, from AI moderation to the EDS's fact-checking empire, risk normalising surveillance and speech curbs, eroding democratic accountability. Soros's funding of NGOs like Alliance4Europe, amplifies this, embedding elite agendas in ostensibly neutral frameworks.
Critics of withdrawal from global institutions, like the WHO, argue it weakens collective action, but staying tethered to bodies pushing centralised control is costlier. The WHO's Covid-19 failures, as detailed in a prior House report, parallel the WEF's speech agenda: both rank elite interests over public trust. Exiting such frameworks, as the U.S. did with the WHO, allows nations to reclaim autonomy and foster transparent alternatives, like bilateral health partnerships or decentralised platforms like X.
The global stakes are clear: free speech is the bedrock of democratic governance, and its erosion under the guise of fighting misinformation threatens individual liberty. Europe's censorship slide, driven by the WEF and EDS, contrasts with the U.S.'s bold defence of open discourse. Yet, the battle is far from won. The elites' resources, Soros's billions, the WEF's influence, and Big Tech's algorithms, pose a formidable challenge. Platforms like X and policies like Trump's order offer a lifeline, but sustained resistance is crucial. If the elites succeed, their "New World Order" will replace the marketplace of ideas with a controlled echo chamber, leaving democracy a hollow shell, as is happening in Australia. The fight for free speech is a fight for freedom itself, and it must not be lost.
Will the Global Elites' War on Free Speech Succeed?By Susan Lawson
The World Economic Forum (WEF), the self-anointed vanguard of the global elite, reconvened late in January in Davos, Switzerland. The agenda this year looked at the increasingly thorny question of free speech. The rhetoric soared to new heights after German chancellor Olaf Scholz said during a panel discussion, "Freedom of expression has its limits, especially when it's right-wing."
Scholz took a jab at the role of X (previously Twitter) in amplifying some controversial voices. His remark was a direct shot at Elon Musk, the self-proclaimed free-speech absolutist and owner of X, who has become a lightning rod for unwinding content moderation policies.
Scholz's comment attracted intense blowback from free speech advocates, who contend that so-called anti-extremism rhetoric like his paves the way to censorship. In Germany, whose already stringent hate speech laws include the Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG), this position is viewed as an escalation of efforts to quell dissent. His statement is a perfect example of Europe's hardwiring of orthodoxy on speech.
Under Scholz's watch, Germany has broadened the scope of the NetzDG, a 2017 law that forces social media platforms to take down "illegal" content within 24 hours or face heavy fines. Officially styled as an instrument of combating hate speech, NetzDG has nonetheless strangled public discourse on migration, crime, and cultural integration.
Germany's experience with mass migration highlights the muting effects of censorship. Following a 2015 migrant crisis, violent crime spiked, including some high-profile sexual assaults. But media reporting is still filtered to avoid charges of xenophobia. Sensible citizens expressing legitimate (if unpopular) concerns become extremist or are prosecuted under speech laws.
All of this is representative of a wider worry among European leaders about what they see as a resurgence in far-right ideologies spreading on social media, which is tantamount to a group of conservative factions and voices that would otherwise challenge the often devastating consequences of the existing political policies across the continent.
Similar patterns emerge elsewhere in Europe. France's Avia Law seeks to remove online content considered "hateful" or damaging, but opponents say the definitions are so wide that they trap political critics as well as ordinary citizens. The E.U.'s Digital Services Act (DSA), which went into effect in 2024, solidified this trend by requiring strong content moderation throughout the continent and threatening fines of up to 6 percent of a platform's worldwide revenue if it fails to comply.
Scholz's comments echo a continuing attack across Europe against freedom of expression. All over the continent, countries have ratcheted up censorship laws dressed as fighting "misinformation" and "extremism," effectively silencing debate on topics like migration, crime, and government overreach. The United States has become the counterexample, ushering in renewed legal protections for free speech in the digital age — courtesy of President Donald Trump's executive order banning censorship by social media companies.
As the Davos elite comes together under the slogan of "rebuilding trust," critics charge that the forum is less a site of genuine collaboration than of power consolidation. The WEF's avowed influence over global tech regulation has raised serious questions about the sovereignty rights of countries globally.
In the face of Europe's crackdown, Mr. Musk's overhaul of the social media platform, now called X, has become a rallying cry for free speech advocates. He has restored previously deplatformed accounts, limited censorship measures, and taken a hands-off approach to content moderation. His flouting of European regulators has drawn intense scrutiny. X's space for open conversation appeals worldwide. In countries such as India and Brazil, where government censorship is widespread, X has emerged as a critical venue for political discourse.
Trump's Executive Order: A Beacon of Free Speech
Unlike Europe's trajectory, which increasingly is heading in the opposite direction, the United States has entered a new golden age of free expression. This month, President Trump signed an executive order banning political censorship by social media companies. The order expands on previous moves to rein in Big Tech's power, such as rolling back Section 230 protections for platforms that act like publishers.
Trump's executive order highlights a basic principle: free speech is a non-negotiable in a constitutional republic. This directive not only protects Americans from the silencing tactics of Silicon Valley, but also sends a strong signal to our allies and adversaries alike. Here's the key part: platforms that operate within the U.S. must — effective immediately — abide by strict standards of neutrality that empower users to participate in unencumbered debate.
This policy change has put the U.S. at odds with global institutions such as the WEF, which pushes for centralized content moderation. Critics of the WEF say its vision of "harmonized" regulations is a euphemism for global censorship. In standing up to these pressures, the U.S. sets a model for countries confronting similar pressures everywhere from Canada to Australia.
The WEF's True Agenda: Control Disguised as Collaboration
At this year's Davos summit, the WEF announced initiatives to fight "misinformation" via A.I.-driven moderation tools. Designed in collaboration with Big Tech juggernauts, these tools purport to encourage accuracy but have come under fire for lending voice and prominence to establishment narratives while silencing dissent.
The implications are dire. Such framing of censorship as a protection against societal harm is an attempt by the WEF to normalize the loss of individual liberties. Its demand for global standards on speech threatens to override national sovereignty, leaving democracies at the mercies of unelected technocrats.
The WEF — founded in 1971 by Klaus Schwab — portrays itself as a meeting place to discuss global challenges. But its critics argue that the group places elite interests above democratic ideals. Schwab has publicly bragged about the WEF's ability to "penetrate" national cabinets, pointing to figures such as Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau as graduates of its Young Global Leaders program.
Just before the global pandemic was declared in 2020, WEF members were strategizing for the "Great Reset," a progressive plan to reset the global economy. As a direct contradiction to traditional capitalism, the Davos group stated that the world should embrace socialistic policies, including higher taxation, more regulation, and tens of thousands of government-funded green energy projects and permanent global pandemic treaties.
The Global Stakes of Free Speech
The free speech battle is not simply a policy debate; it is a battle for the soul of democratic — world democratic — governance. Europe's slide into censorship is a cautionary tale, showing just how easy it is for governments to suppress dissent in the name of public safety. Meanwhile, the U.S. — with Trump at the helm and Musk at the wheel of X — has a different template, where the "marketplace of ideas" is a founding principle of the collective good.
From their dais, the Davos elite preach the policies they believe should be enacted by billions of citizens across the globe — but can they smother discourse, or will the critical tide of culture overcome? For the moment, platforms like X and daring policy moves in the U.S. offer a flicker of hope. But the battle — both legal and ideological — continues, and its resolution will shape the future of freedom in the digital age.
Comments