The World Economic Forum & Global Elites’ Attack On Free Speech

Oct 03, 2024

In an era where information is power, the battle lines are increasingly drawn not over territory but over the control of discourse. The World Economic Forum (WEF), often erroneously cited as a beacon of global cooperation, has come under scrutiny for its active role in promoting censorship under the guise of combating disinformation. The WEF’s initiatives in its false-narrative campaign against “disinformation” present broader implications for free speech, the future of democracy, and individual liberties.

In its annual Global Risks Report, the WEF has increasingly highlighted misinformation as a significant risk (but to what?). In 2024, this concern was emphasized with disinformation topping the list of global risks (again, to what?), pointing towards a world increasingly polarized by what they have determined to be false narratives, especially around elections. While the intent to mitigate the spread of false information might seem noble, the mechanisms proposed are tantamount to outright censorship, raising alarms among free speech advocates.

Critics argue, and rightly so, that the WEF, through its influence and platform; through its elitist totalitarianiam, endorses a form of censorship that undermines the very principles of free speech. John Kerry’s recent comments at a WEF panel, lamenting the First Amendment as an “obstacle” to combating disinformation, is especially egregious and alarming.

Such sentiments suggest a willingness among global elites and the privileged classes to override guaranteed constitutional protections – outlined in the Bill of Rights – in favor of an agenda they deem beneficial for global governance, dispensing with the American idea of liberty and indivilualism.

Elitist (Read Marxist) Censorship Is On The March

The discussion extends beyond the WEF.

Hillary Clinton has suggested that there should be legal repercussions, either civil or criminal, for Americans who knowingly or unknowingly spread misinformation, especially if this misinformation is linked to foreign entities aiming to sway American politics. This proposal comes in response to actions like those indicted by the Justice Department, where foreign nationals funneled money to spread propaganda.

And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s statement on "reining in the media environment" to prevent people from simply “spewing information” is of the mindset that advocates for government-controlled censorship, where governmental entities decide what information is disseminated, stifling free speech.

The rightful concern here is that Ocasio-Cortez’s “reining in” is double-speak for giving certain bodies (governmental or private) the power to control narratives, which would be used to suppress dissenting or unpopular viewpoints under the guise of preventing misinformation.

These proposals, while disingenuously aimed at stabilizing societal discourse, would inadvertently or deliberately stifle legitimate dissent and criticism, which are vital for the health of our Republic and for the health and survival of freedom in general.

The Elitist Lawfare Censorship

In New York, State Attorney General Letitia James has become a poster child for the peril that unchecked power poses to the bedrock principles of free speech in our Republic.

During her campaign for office in 2018, James openly boasted about her disdain for the First Amendment, vowing to exploit the legal system to persecute a broad spectrum of political adversaries. These adversaries included former President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump and the National Rifle Association.

Her administration's aggressive stance against dissent was starkly evident in her pursuit of VDare, an immigration-restrictionist website. Here, James's approach was not rooted in law but in political vendetta.

Despite VDare's adherence to legal boundaries, never inciting violence or engaging in defamation, James's office relentlessly pursued them through legal means, not because they broke any laws, but because they dared to hold views contrary to her own. This relentless legal assault, cloaked under the guise of justice, effectively silenced VDare by bleeding it dry with legal fees, forcing it into operational cessation.

This predatory use of her office's power against an entity that merely exercised its right to free speech underscores James’s – and the global elite’s – dangerous willingness to undermine constitutional freedoms in favor of political and ideological retribution, setting a chilling precedent for the suppression of dissent in America.

As US District Judge John Sinatra wrote in his opening line in ruling against James' attempt to curtail the free speech of a pro-life group – and borrowing from George Orwell:

“...[O]ur Constitution and constitutional tradition stand ‘against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth…”

Globally, nations like Germany have set precedents with convictions like that of CJ Hopkins, signaling a readiness to legally enforce narrative control. Julian Assange, Douglass Mackey, Pavel Durov, and others have undergone similarly brazen persecutions that debunk the supposed safety of free speech protections in the West.

30% OFF Premium Membership

The Academy’s Marxist Censorship Endeavors

Academia, traditionally (and meant to be) a bastion of free thought, exists today as anything but. In instance after instance, we witness professors with conservative views being penalized and dispatched. One need only listen to Victor Davis Hansen’s excellent podcast and consume what he says about not only his campus at Stanford University but also campuses across the country.

The Brownstone Institute provides a perfect example of academic censorship in its coverage of Amy Wax and the University of Pennsylvania

“Last week, the University of Pennsylvania announced that it would sanction law professor Amy Wax, a critic of affirmative action, by suspending her for a year and docking her pay. Penn insisted that the sanctions did not implicate freedom of speech and instead concerned “professionalism” standards for its faculty.
“But Wax’s sanctions are explicitly based on 26 incidents of ‘wrongthink,’ including criticizing ‘anti-assimilation ideas,’ ‘rap culture,’ and cities being ‘run like third world countries’ as well as commenting on differences between the sexes and racial groups.
“As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression explains, ‘Penn’s willingness to sidestep academic freedom protections to punish Wax sets a troubling precedent. If scholars with controversial views can lose their academic freedom merely for unspecified ‘unprofessionalism’ concerns, all faculty who hold minority, dissenting, or simply unpopular views are at risk.’”

We Must Protect Free Speech At All Costs

As I wrote in a piece titled Free Speech Under Attack: The Marxist’s March To Control Through Censorship:

“Free speech is the foundation of a free society because it allows for and protects the open exchange of ideas, opinions, and beliefs without fear of censorship or punishment. We witnessed the consequences of regulated speech during COVID and the aftermath of the January 6th protests. In both cases, the censorship was used to silence the emergence of fact and truth.
“When people are able to express themselves freely, they can engage in meaningful discussions, debate contentious issues, and challenge the status quo. This leads to a more informed and engaged citizenry, which is essential for holding governments accountable and ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few. It also prevents the cultivation of an oligarchic elite, as was the case in post-Soviet Russia and communist China.
“Moreover, free speech protects minority viewpoints and prevents the tyranny of the majority. Throughout history, many groundbreaking ideas and innovations were initially met with resistance and even persecution. If these individuals had not been allowed to express their views freely, we would have missed out on countless scientific, social, and technological advancements. In fact, we would have suffered the initial fate of Galileo in his contention that the Earth was not flat!
“Furthermore, free speech is crucial for maintaining a diverse and pluralistic society. When people are exposed to a wide range of perspectives, they are more likely to develop empathy, understanding, tolerance for others, and the enlightenment that pushing thought boundaries provides. This fosters a sense of unity and shared purpose – shared experience, even in the face of disagreement.
“In contrast, societies that restrict free speech often become stagnant, authoritarian, and prone to abuse. When governments or powerful institutions control the flow of information, they can manipulate public opinion, suppress dissent, and maintain their grip on power. This leads to a climate of fear, conformity, and intellectual stagnation, a society based on the lowest common denominator and mediocrity.”

In The End, We Must Be Free

The WEF's censorship efforts, like those of similar bodies like the United Nations, and especially the elected class, when combined with lawfare-based judicial actions, paint a disturbing picture of a world where speech is policed not by the state alone but by a consortium of global elite, tech giants, and academic institutions.

This isn't merely about the right to speak but about the foundation of free and open democratic engagement, where informed dissent is crucial for societal progress.

Therefore, the battle over free speech transcends mere policy; it's about exposing who is attempting to control the narrative, the information, and, ultimately, society’s destiny.

To that end, the effort to combat disinformation and misinformation is not less free speech but more free speech. Exposing deceit is best achieved by shedding light on the truth, and exposing the deceitful is best achieved by putting them in the spotlight.

Freedom of speech is our most precious right and the ultimate prerequisite to freedom itself. The principles enshrined in the First Amendment must be fiercely defended, not just as legal protection against the tyrants of the global elite but as the bedrock of freedom and democracy.

The war on words is not just a fight for the right to be heard but for the soul of the free world.