Under the mastery of a global elite, the World Economic Forum is out to remake the world. To this end, as I have previously noted, its 1973 Manifesto is a tad less ambitious than is its 2020 Manifesto. No doubt any future manifesto will be bolder still. Unnerving? Indeed. For context, though not for peace of mind, turn to a quite different manifesto: A Christian Manifesto by Francis Schaeffer. I doubt Schaeffer had Klaus Schwab in mind when writing his manifesto, first published in 1981. The Great Reset had not come of age. On the other hand, as a matter of pure speculation, I wonder whether perhaps Schwab has read Schaeffer.
As humanism supplants Christianity, Shaeffer writes, the freedoms and prosperity which Western civilization owes to Christianity are taken for granted. True enough. Among many in the increasingly secular West you’ll find a hangover of lots of Christian moral precepts, with little accompanying insight into whence they came. Needless to say, anchorless precepts are disposable as circumstances dictate. Then it’s a lottery as to what comes next.
Humanism can create any number of moral orders. It’s a bootstraps creed, susceptible to the politics of the day. Things can go badly wrong. We don’t have to go to the brutal excesses of history; say, to the French revolutionary Reign of Terror or the Holocaust or Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Not comparing, but how about the wanton killing of millions of healthy unborn babies or the (demonic) chemical and physical maiming of mentally-disturbed teenagers, confused about their sexual identity. Evidently, today’s humanist moral order finds this not just acceptable but righteous. Humanism is truly a flexible creed. Who knows where it will land tomorrow.
Shaeffer “guesses” that whatever flavor it takes, it will likely end in some form of “elite authoritarianism.” He is eerily prescient about the form such authoritarianism will take. He points particularly to the emergence of what he calls a “technocratic elite.” And approvingly quotes American physicist and science historian Gerard Holton.
More and more frequently, major decisions that profoundly affect our daily lives have a large scientific or technological content…if the laymen cannot participate in decision making, he will have to turn himself over, essentially blind, to a hermetic elite, Margaret Mead wrote about scientists elevated to the status of priests… now there’s a name for this elevation… From the point of view of John Locke, the name is slavery.
And haven’t we effectively become vassals, if not already slaves? When it’s claimed that ninety-seven percent of climate scientists say that the science is settled— a science we can’t begin to understand—then what choice do we have but to fall into line? Sure, it’s not nearly ninety-seven percent, but it is the received wisdom. And it has the unqualified support of almost all politicians; all media hacks; the majority of corporate big-wigs; and, to boot, activists of pedigree aplenty: Hollywood stars; King Charles; David Attenborough; Al Gore; Bill Gates; Klaus Schwab; Greta Thunberg; and many others. Ask your next-door neighbors about the cumulative greenhouse effect of CO2 and of its radiative forcing. Blank look. Ask them whether climate change is a serious even existential problem. Chances are they’ll be onboard.
Among laymen, it’s only an incorrigible few (of us) "deniers" who have the temerity to question "the science." The rest simply follow the script. And so be it; if that means replacing reliable and affordable sources of energy with intermittent and costly forms of energy; and, soon -- wait for it -- having smart meters compulsorily installed in our homes, giving the authorities the ability to monitor our power usage and cut us off at will. I’d say that degree of servility is close enough to slavery. However, it needed another group of scientists, in this case medical scientists, to close out the game.
A disease threatening only a relatively small cohort—those (generally aged) with multiple serious co-morbidities—became universally deadly in the mouths of public health experts. In turn, this allowed authorities to close businesses; to lock us in our homes; to prevent us visiting our sick or dying relatives; to prevent us attending church services; to pepper spray, fire rubber bullets and arrest us if we dared protest; to make us wear face masks; and to make us accept experimental vaccinations, by otherwise preventing us from travelling, participating in civil society, and from working. So extraordinary was it that it’s hard to believe it happened. But happen it did.
Would Shaeffer have been incredulous? Perhaps not. He foresaw tyrannous outcomes when societies turn away from God-given inalienable rights and adopt bespoke humanistic values in their stead.
"Scientists" called the tune for your neighbors. They aren't epidemiologists. Each day medical experts were rolled out to present the grim news of hospitalizations, deaths, and the virulent, ever-mutating, "deadly" virus. Each day they were told that disobeying senseless diktats would result in hospitals being overrun; would put themselves at grave risk and, cruelly, their friends and neighbors and their aging parents or grandparents.
The lesson that Schwab and his elite Davos co-conspirators have learnt, if they were in any doubt, is that science can be wielded to push common people around and control them. And they need to be controlled for their own good. Moreover, if indeed the elites (or some of them) have read Shaeffer then they know that the absence of Christianity serves their cause. The more humanism dominates societies, the easier it will be to impose a set of values and moral code to suit the political agenda of liege lords. Serfdom revisited. Saving the planet and warding off diseases will require fealty.
Will science play ball? These days science is for sale. Research dollars call the tune. The billions upon billions spent on researching the state of the Great Barrier Reef is an exemplar. The Reef is in rude good health. That won’t do. That won’t bring in the money. It’s threatened by climate change? Got it in one.
I do not know why I have not seen more articles addressing this perversion of our faith by our turning away from God and placing our faith in tyrannical gov't's. That so many people of faith do this seems to confuse even more Jesus edict that we should 'render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's.' Surrendering our free will to these gov'ts while praying that God will at one and the same time free us from their tyranny seems more like insanity to me. There have been lengthy expositions written on why such interpretations of this scripture passage or faulty. I for one agree. I have witnessed an associate lock himself away for a year following the mandates of the gov't while at the same time seen him bowing his head with fingers on each hand interlocked in reverence to God as he prays that 'His will be done.' As for me, I have been criticized for not doing the same. And it is not just this one man who has so fervently complied with these mandates, but most others have as well. For me, God is my refuge and first authority. I will curtsy to the gov't as needed to maintain some semblance of freedom, but bow the knee, never.