World Economic Forum Thinks Disinformation Greater Threat than Total Thermo-Nuclear Extinction of Humanity! By Richard Miller (London)
The globalist, World Economic Forum, has just released its Global Risks Report. With Russian threats of unleashing a nuclear holocaust upon the West, one would think that such a threat would be of number one concern. But, no, the World Economic Forum sees disinformation to be the greatest threat. Yes, they have in mind websites like this one, which attack their core ideologies. They are concerned about Covid vaccine critics, and those who are exposing the global warming scam.
In a sense, the proclamation of the World Economic Forum is a good thing. If they had made a common-sense observation, it would credit them. But by saying that messages that oppose their ideology are the greatest dangers, they are thinking out loud and exposing their true agenda, which is global social control and the creation of a world-wide dystopian technocracy of the New World Order.
"The World Economic Forum has surveyed the world's experts and issued its 2024 "Global Risks Report." The international elite of experts have declared that the number one threat to humanity is not terrorism or pandemic or even climate change (which is second), but "misinformation and disinformation." Of course, that means that the only hope for humanity is censorship and speech controls. The report shows just how engrained this anti-free speech movement has become among the world elite from media to business to politics.
The absurd finding is consistent with the warning of other international figures and groups. We previously discussed how WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has supported censorship to combat what he calls the "infodemic."
So "1,490 experts across academia, business, government, the international community and civil society" looked at all of the world's military, economic, and environmental threats and concluded that the greatest threat to humanity is too much free speech. A "global risk" is defined as "the possibility of the occurrence of an event or condition which, if it occurs, would negatively impact a significant proportion of global GDP, population or natural resources."
We have seen how during the Covid crisis "experts" supported censorship and blacklisting when their views were challenged by colleagues and the public. Earlier positions treated as gospel in the press have been discredited. For example, a recent scientific review by 12 researchers from leading universities found little support for the claims that masks reduced Covid exposures.
The Centers for Disease and Control Prevention (CDC) initially rejected the use of a mask mandate. However, the issue became a political weapon as politicians and the press claimed that questioning masks was anti-science and even unhinged. In April 2020, the CDC reversed its position and called for the masking of the entire population, including children as young as 2 years old. The mask mandate and other pandemic measures like the closing of schools are now cited as fueling emotional and developmental problems in children.
The closing of schools and businesses was also challenged by some critics as unnecessary. Many of those critics were also censored. It now appears that they may have been right. Many countries did not close schools and did not experience increases in Covid. However, we are now facing alarming drops in testing scores and alarming rises in medical illness among the young.
Masks became a major social and political dividing line in politics and the media. Maskless people were chased from stores and denounced in Congress. Then-CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield said during a Senate hearing that "face masks are the most important powerful health tool we have."
For years, scientists faced censorship for even raising the lab theory as a possible explanation for the virus. Their reputations and careers were shredded by a media flash mob. The Washington Post declared this a "debunked" coronavirus "conspiracy theory." The New York Times' Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory "racist."
When a Chinese researcher told Fox News that this was man-made, the network was attacked and the left-leaning PolitiFact slammed her with a "pants on fire rating."
The extensive censorship and blacklisting that has occurred over the last four years protected such experts from scrutiny and criticism. Many of those same experts are now listing what they deem disinformation to be the world's greatest threat. The obvious solution to this existential threat is, of course, to allow "experts" to control or regulate what people read or hear to eliminate harmful disinformation. The question is whether the public can be, again, spooked into surrendering this core human right by world elite.
Comments