Klaus Schwab stepping down as World Economic Forum chair after investigation, collapse of globalist dream



Klaus Schwab's days as chairman are numbered at the World Economic Forum, the technocratic globalist organization he founded in 1971 that hosts an annual conference of supposed elites in Davos, Switzerland.

Schwab told the WEF's board of trustees and staff in a letter on Tuesday seen by the Financial Times that he was beginning a year-long process of stepping down, having already stepped down as the organization's executive chairman last May.

The shake-up in Davos comes between the American-led unrealization of Schwab's proposed "great reset" of capitalism and in the wake of a probe into allegations of discrimination at the WEF.

Toxic workplace

Days after his previous title-drop, the Wall Street Journal published a damning report claiming — on the basis of internal complaints, email exchanges, and interviews with current and past WEF employees — that "under Schwab's decades-long oversight, the forum has allowed to fester an atmosphere hostile to women and black people in its own workplace."

The report noted that at least six female employees were allegedly "pushed out or otherwise saw their careers suffer" when pregnant or coming back from maternity leave. Other women claimed that senior managers had sexually harassed them.

'That was the most disappointing thing.'

"It was distressing to witness colleagues visibly withdraw from themselves with the onslaught of harassment at the hands of high-level staff, going from social and cheerful to self-isolating, avoiding eye contact, sharing nightmares for years after," said Farid Ben Amor, a former media executive who worked at the WEF before resigning in 2019.

Former staffers who worked closely with Schwab told the Journal that the problems went all the way to the top, alleging that the founder "made suggestive comments to them that made them uncomfortable."

The Journal also indicated that black employees complained about managers using racial slurs as well as about allegedly being passed over for promotions. When one employee filed a lawsuit in New York last year claiming the WEF was "hostile to women and black employees," the WEF settled the lawsuit on undisclosed terms.

Cheryl Martin, head of the Center for Global Industries at the WEF, said, "That was the most disappointing thing, to see the distance between what the Forum aspires to and what happens behind the scenes."

The WEF, which routinely lectures the world about racism, the supposed "gender gap," sexism, climate change, and other perceived moral failings, characterized the Journal's report as "inaccurate," stating, "We are an organization that upholds the highest standards of governance, while working to address the most pressing challenges of our time with our high-performance teams, our diverse and global outlook, and an environment that values innovation, inclusion, and well-being."

Tom Clare, legal counsel for the WEF, suggested that the report painting the WEF as a degenerate organization led by hypocrites was both defamatory and illustrative of the Journal's "steady decline."

Toothless investigation

In the wake of the Journal's indications that those keen to control the world were unable to control themselves, the WEF had the law firm Covington and Burling — whose members recently had their security clearances suspended by President Donald Trump — investigate the claims of workplace discrimination and harassment, reported the Financial Times.

The American firm, which conducted its review in conjunction with the Swiss firm Homburger, indicated in a summary of its assessment that it "did not find the forum had committed any legal violations" and "did not substantiate" the misconduct allegations against Schwab.

'Now after the turmoil of the last months, is to recover our sense of mission.'

While the external investigators were unable or unwilling to find proof of guilt, Børge Brende, president and CEO of the WEF, indicated that there was nevertheless an internal desire to make some minor changes.

Brende reportedly noted in an email that the board committee overseeing the law firms' investigation identified "leadership and management issues ... that do not meet our established standards." In addition to affirming the organization's alleged "commitment to a workplace where all employees feel valued and respected," the leadership promised additional training for managers.

Great reset

Schwab is apparently convinced that the WEF has yet to recover its "sense of mission," saying as much in his April 1 letter to trustee board members, including Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva, failed U.S. presidential candidate Al Gore, and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, president of Singapore.

"I am deeply convinced that in today's special context the forum is more important and relevant than ever before," wrote Schwab. "It is also financially very well equipped thanks to successful financial management since its beginning. What is essential now after the turmoil of the last months, is to recover our sense of mission."

The WEF told the Financial Times that Schwab's departure should be completed by January 2027.

Schwab reportedly suggested it was personally significant that he made his announcement on April 1, as it marked the 55th anniversary of the day he began working on the concept of a "global village" — a term coined several years earlier by Canadian intellectual Marshall McLuhan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump White House just made a crucial move to ensure it's FINALLY in control of the executive branch



The White House is taking a critical step to ensure that obstructionist deep-staters spread throughout the federal government at senior levels cannot choke essential information flows and altogether hinder agencies' execution of the president's agenda.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management sent a memo Tuesday to the heads and acting heads of all federal departments and agencies, recommending that every agency revoke the "career reserved" status for their chief information officers. By doing so and by also opening the roles to "general" employees, the establishmentarians presently occupying the increasingly politicized roles can be easily canned and replaced by individuals actually willing to carry out the president's agenda.

The stated purpose of this move is to satisfy the Trump administration's desire to "improve the government's digital policy to make government more responsive, transparent, efficient, and accessible to the public, and to make using and understanding government programs easier."

'No longer the station of impartial and apolitical technocrats, the modern agency CIO role demands policy-making and policy-determining capabilities.'

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "This is a major move for OMB. The chief information officer holds the keys to the kingdom: He controls the flow of information to the secretary or director and his deputies."

"When you're trying to make the executive branch work for you, that is absolutely crucial," added Bedford.

The U.S. Chief Information Officers Council noted in its rundown of federal CIOs' responsibilities that the senior bureaucrats have significant pull and influence within their agencies.

They are, for instance, responsible for:

  • "providing advice and other assistance to the head of the executive agency and other senior management personnel of the executive agency to ensure that information technology is acquired and information resources are managed for the executive agency in a manner that implements the priorities established by the head of the executive agency";
  • "developing, maintaining, and facilitating the implementation of a sound, secure, and integrated information technology architecture for the executive agency"; and
  • "promoting the effective and efficient design and operation of all major information resources management processes for the executive agency, including improvements to work processes of the executive agency."

A former OPM official who asked not to be named told NBC News, "The CIOs have a lot of latitude and a lot of budgetary control, because the largest spend is generally on IT and on cybersecurity."

Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell noted in the memo Tuesday that the omnipresence of the digital, especially in American's interactions with their government, means that an agency CIO "now plays a critical role in developing policies (particularly in the digital realm) that have pervasive and significant effects on the American public."

With the expectation that they will be "on the front lines of articulating and implementing" controversial and impactful policies based on the administration's priorities, the White House figures that CIOs should face accountability and forgo any pretense of the supposed impartiality that previously excused the career reserved designation for the position.

"The role of agency CIOs has changed dramatically in recent years. No longer the station of impartial and apolitical technocrats, the modern agency CIO role demands policy-making and policy-determining capabilities across a range of controversial political topics," wrote Ezell.

"In light of this new reality, OPM recommends that each agency with a CIO role classified as [senior executive service] and designated as career reserved, send a request that OPM redesignate the position to 'general' no later than Friday, February 14, 2025," continued the acting director.

The OPM notes on its website that whereas a career reserved position can be filled only by career appointees, general positions in the federal government may alternatively be filled by any type of senior executive service appointee, including career, noncareer, limited term, or limited emergency appointees.

Speculating in December, Mark Forman, the administrator of the White House Office of E-Government and IT under former President George W. Bush, told Fedscoop that the second Trump administration, like the first, would likely push a federal data strategy in order to assess the quality of government operations and its efficiency.

"The jury-rigged flow of data from how we're accounting for expenditures and what we're actually spending on creates all kinds of inaccuracies that makes it hard to do simple things," said Forman. "I think that the DOGE is trying to ... find out where there's efficiencies that can be cut without much pain. So there's a data quality issue."

With cooperative tech leaders onboard, the Trump administration could potentially make good on his desire to improve government efficiency and transparency.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Screens aren't all bad: How FaceTime helps me stay close to my kids



I recently covered the harmful effects of screen time. But like most technology, screens have also improved my life. Let’s explore some of these positives, which come with problems of their own.

When I travel for work, FaceTime connects me to my children. When I'm hundreds of miles from home, I feel impossibly far from my family. Nothing is more important to me than seeing their faces and hearing their voices. There’s a redemption to the warmth and comfort that these video calls provide.

I like to think of these apps and platforms as connective. They unite the sender and receiver despite any real-world obstacles.

Skype and WhatsApp allow me to chat with family and friends overseas, and Instagram can serve as a kind of video telegram that exists in perpetuity. Thinking back to the isolation caused by the COVID-19 lockdowns, where would we be without Zoom, Google Meet, and Microsoft Teams?

Video communication also appears throughout social media. YouTube brought cinema and documentary into our hands, fracturing visions of a bloated system of channels by transforming mass media into a network of content made by anyone and everyone. As a journalist, I rely on various video platforms to conduct interviews and gather information.

If Facebook lives up to its dreams of a metaverse, these interactions will be immersive. I’m a bit old for Snapchat, but the video messaging function adds levity to conversations. Twitch, X, Discord, and TikTok all contribute to the ongoing advancements of audiovisual two-way communication. Not to mention the luxury of our cellphone cameras. It has been a mere 60 years since Abraham Zapruder captured one of America’s darkest moments on an 8mm camera.

I like to think of these apps and platforms as connective. They unite the sender and receiver despite any real-world obstacles. After all, this is the era of the network, when the narrative of stand-alone humans no longer has legs.

Connective interfaces strengthen social bonds and provide much-needed clarity. There's none of the missing context that hinders letters, texts, and emails — even phone calls can muddle the reality of a conversation. They offer a version of telepresence, the feeling that everyone on the call is closer than possible.

Remote telepresence has caused many interesting outcomes. One is the death of geography. Distance is no longer absolute. This has led to a disintegration of the private space, which has proven disastrous.

Devotion to telepresence has disrupted a far more important experience: presence. It is truly a paradox of our time that the improvement is a fabrication that belittles the original, like meatless burgers and Marxist theory.

This muddies the distinction between the real and the virtual, a pornographization of the connective process, something as simple as small talk at the market, any interaction that slows you down.

A life of constant tele-action is bad for people. It denies us our need for a life without performance or observation. At its worst, it facilitates tele-surveillance. Like the nuclear family, the home is supposed to serve as a private institution apart from the State.

This divide between public and private life is crucial for the health of a civilization. Without this separation, we can easily collapse into a culture of deadening indulgence (“Brave New World”) or a dystopia of authoritarian stricture (“Nineteen Eighty-Four”).

Also, the speed of exchange is immediate. This worsens our servitude to a burnout society.

On the flip side, this remote transmission is nothing short of a revolution in transportation. Society is now an endless practice of live coverage. Real-time connectivity offers each of us a superhuman view of life in all of its complexity. Imagine explaining that to an 11th-century peasant.

So next time you feel overburdened by the pace of technology and the ubiquity of screens, slow down, if you can, and remember the good they can bring to you, that they allow you to meet with anyone, anywhere, in what could almost be called face-to-face.

The elites dream of turning America into China. Sadly, they're succeeding.



This week, Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, took advantage of a new meme to make an old point that is gaining new importance: “You can’t make us China if we China ourselves first.”

The idea, which goes back at least to New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman’s infamous 2010 China-for-a-day daydream, is simple enough: The Chinese seem to have figured out how to harmonize technology with unity, resulting in massive growth for the people and massive privilege for elites; can’t we take a cue from Beijing and do that too?

The solution there is to overthrow America with a new, digital-age America, one that borgs up the country and its people just as much as China and the Chinese, but in our own unique way.

The joke is that, of course, Friedman didn’t really want to become China; he wanted to have his American cake and eat it too, and so does just about everyone else who looks over the sea with envy at China’s apparent mastery of political reorganization on digital-age terms. Because the quickest way to become China is to let China remake us in its image, and well ...

The wishcast takes on a different tenor: If only our elites could “pull a China” here, all on their own! But here, the obstacles morph too. It’s sinking in that we’re not very good at becoming China, and for this, our elites are happy to blame the American people, who are proving harder to pacify than expected, and time is running out.

There’s another obstacle: China is trying to unseat the U.S. as the dominant, definitive global power. This suggests the things our elites envy about China can only be achieved by overthrowing America’s global dominance, which, in turn, threatens American elites.

For us in the West, there’s really only one path to that kind of collectivist unity. Many insist that’s communism, but communism — at least as we’ve known it — is just a halfway step.

Communism, as we’ve known it, gained power and adherents by positioning itself against not just Christianity but all religions. That proved to be reasonably effective for a time — for about as long as radio and television dominated our technologically mediated environment.

That environment made human imagination the most powerful force in the world — a world where, of course, the soft atheist communist song “Imagine” became the most popular, echoing John Lennon’s earlier contention that “Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now. I don't know which will go first — rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right, but his disciples were thick and ordinary."

America’s imagineering elite built digital technology to consummate post-religious America’s capitalist-powered communism around the world. Yet alarmingly, that project failed, and China’s post-religious capitalist-powered communist project started to really take off.

This is because digital collectivism vibes very well with the religious frameworks established at the origin of the Chinese civilization-state. After the end of the Cold War, Chinese elites began putting effort into demonstrating to themselves and their people that, basically, Western communism suffered from certain internal problems that China didn’t have to deal with because of its deep civilizational anthropology and cosmology.

America certainly does not share this deep origin, to say the least. The spiritual origins of American civilization are Protestant, and since the beginning, the anarchistic tendencies of the Southern colonists and the theocratic tendencies of the Northern colonists have created a complex and conflicted identity that only leaves one absolute path toward authentic “native” collectivism at the national scale: that of the established church.

Of course, that’s squarely at odds with our Constitution. So the real challenge faced by American elites trying to beat China at its own game of usurping American global dominance in the digital age is to answer the riddle, “When is a church not a church?”

It is deeply sensed, if rarely ever articulated, that the answer to this question will unlock the ultimate cheat code — imposing a theocracy on Americans that will allow the elite to digitally collectivize quickly and powerfully enough to replace the old America’s global dominance with that of the new, boxing out China before it can win the world.

And for the elite, this approach had better work, because no other alternative seems to exist. It’s an all-or-nothing gamble.

And so, in the struggle among different elite factions for control over deciding which theocracy is established through the church that is not a church, two candidates for institutionalized worship, drawn from the deep religious substrate of the West, have swiftly risen to the top of the pack.

The first is Justice, the god of the woke, a queered version of Zeus who’s all about bringing infinitely prideful yet interoperable identities under one perfect arbiter to rule them all. The second is Enlightenment, the god of tech, which increasingly worships the convergence of all interoperable things into a single, infinitely illuminating intellect.

You can see that interoperability and infinity dominate both these creeds, and as we all see, most techies are willing to worship the god of Justice so long as the god of Enlightenment (and its priests) has pride of place, and most wokies are willing to worship the god of Enlightenment so long as the god of Justice (and its priests) has pride of place.

After all, true absolute justice on Earth requires a superhuman intelligence capable of constantly computing, adjudicating, and ruling on all micro-injustices. Only the merger of the human and the machine into a cyborg collective allows this. The outlines of a church unlike any other begin to emerge. Woke and tech harmoniously combine into one big cyborg theocracy ... one big enough even to ingest China itself.

That’s the plan! And that’s why, without being able to turn to a church that is a church yet does not establish a theocracy, Americans trying to rescue their country and their humanity will find themselves falling back darkly on only what weapons they manage to cling to.

Transhumanism is coming to destroy the human soul



Progressivism is a multipronged deviation from the straight and narrow that talks — or takes — people off the path to the New Jerusalem and toward false secular utopias. In this loose coalition, these otherwise unreconcilable strays are drawn in by a lack of gratitude and the sense that "better" must be anywhere other than here and anyone besides those present. And they're kept together by a Procrustean vibe – and what they've turned their backs on.

The arch-conservative Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn emphasized in both “Leftism” and “The Menace of the Herd, or Procrustes at Large” how the left – a term that encompasses the progressive movement – takes after Procrustes, the legendary highwayman of Attica.

This Luciferean movement appears eager to take the whole of our species away from the straight and narrow, presuming the raw material made in the image of God needs to change.

In Greek mythology, Procrustes, also known as Damastes, "tied his victims upon an iron bed, and, as the case required, either stretched or cut off their legs to adapt them to its length.”

Like Procrustes, progressives have a habit of socially, legally, or literally hacking away at those parts or wholes of human beings that fail to fit into their preconceived systems. The 20th century is full of atrocities in which millions of innocents were cut up because progressives in the Soviet Union, Germany, Cambodia, and elsewhere, with an eye to purportedly better futures, desired that all bodies and minds fit the lengths of their Procrustean beds.

This tendency is clear also in other progressive subgroups, such as the eugenicists and transsexual activists, who both seek to cut away at biological realities they find undesirable.

This Procrustean verve is, however, becoming especially pronounced among the transhumanists of our day.

Before noting some of the ways the transhumanist movement is working to carve up a new mankind, it is important first to note the other tendency that unites progressives.

Progressives share in common a prideful rejection of the primacy of God, the goodness of His creation, and the worth of the humanity Christ endured and elevated with his suffering, death, and resurrection. Simply put: Progressivism is Luciferian.

In the garden, the serpent — who cannot create but can only distort and destroy — told Eve of eating the forbidden fruit, “Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods.”

Eve was enticed not to emulate or follow the one true God, but to follow Satan’s example and seek divinity besides and without God, contrary to His will.

This lack of humility and the desire to be independent of God not only resulted in the fall of mankind, but has ever since stained progressive efforts to achieve immortality and to escape the humanity that was evidently valued enough by God for Christ to take on and save.

C.S. Lewis wrote in “Mere Christianity," “People often ask when the next step in evolution – the step to something beyond man – will happen. But in the Christian view, it has happened already.”

He went on to write, “In Christ a new kind of man appeared: and the new kind of life which began in Him is to be put into us.”

Technological and political innovations aside, the apex of humanity and the superlative by which the comparative “progress” should be measured was nailed to a tree two millennia ago.

The Christian understanding is that the pursuit of God and true progress means trying to follow Christ and fit the cross. After all, on the cross are perfection and immortality, which entail the very suffering and death the transhumanist seeks to eliminate.

The transhumanist endeavor, ultimately, is to pursue godhood by rejecting the cross and setting oneself down on Procrustes’ bed, cutting off anything resembling the Son of Man. In this sense, transhumanism is the epitome of regression.

Artificial wombs, brain implants, virtualization of everything in the anti-sacramental Metaverse, transsexuality – these transhumanist drives away from our humanity each substitute parts of what makes us human and human life worth living. What’s more, they amount to sterile shortcuts off the path to the New Jerusalem that cut away at the travelers who take them.

A video from Yemeni “science communicator” Hashem Al-Ghaili entitled “EctoLife: The World’s First Artificial Womb Facility” recently went viral, discussing the so-called “bioreactors” that may soon supplant mothers and enable investors to “genetically engineer” prospective children, reported the Christian Post.

The mother and the bond she enjoys with her baby, unborn and newborn, appear not to fit the transhumanists' Procrustean bed.

EctoLife: The World’s First Artificial Womb Facilityyoutu.be

Rather than improve the ways we teach or understand, the transhumanists appear keen to change the raw material that is taught or comprehended. The brain implants that may one day soon help the blind to see and the lame to walk will in short order be also used – along with some version of OpenAI's ChatGPT – as stand-ins for the common man’s common sense.

The promise of Zuckerberg’s Metaverse is that we can skip the messy, real interactions between human beings that we have long enjoyed, at least up until the pandemic, and instead stream into false realities remotely. The new humanity need not risk adventure or moral consequence in the world of flesh and bone that God deemed good. These experiences will join our common sense and the other cuttings at the foot of Procrustes' bed.

G.K. Chesterton reminds us in “Orthodoxy” — the book that helped set the militant atheist and World War I infantryman C.S. Lewis on his way to Christian conversion — “You may, if you like, free a tiger from his bars; but do not free him from his stripes. Do not free a camel of the burden of his hump: you may be freeing him from being a camel.”

The transhumanist prong of the progressive movement is doing precisely that: freeing us camels of our humps.

This Luciferean movement appears eager to take the whole of our species away from the straight and narrow, presuming the raw material made in the image of God needs to change, as opposed to the will and moral reflexes of the immortal, albeit imperfect, persons animating it.

“If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive,” wrote Lewis.

The progressive coalition and all its Procrustean subgroups, transhumanism in particular, appear to have taken a wrong turning and are desperate for us to go with them, bereaving us of our proverbial humps along the way. For all their hacking and dreaming, their efforts to go forward have not brought them anywhere nearer the place where we all ought to be: not like gods, apart from God, but with God in Christ.