Islamophobia and Islamophilia — Two Problematic Words and Their Histories

French author Pascal Bruckner explores some of the vocabulary which has been used to analyze Islam and its relation to the world. Much of this discourse arose in the context of French colonialism. Among the administrators assigned to institute and keep order in the French colonies, especially the colonies in north and northwest Africa, there were competing views about Islam among the native populations.

On the one hand, some colonial governors thought — or felt — that Islam was a threat to French rule, and should be discouraged. On the other hand, other commissioners in the government believed that Islam was not a danger to the French bureaucracy, and in fact might even be in some cases helpful, as it provided an ordering principle or influence in society.

The Oxford English Dictionary explains that the word ‘islamophobia’ did not appear in the English language until 1920, and the adjective form ‘islamophobic appeared in 1980. The noun form ‘islamophobe’ appeared as early as 1877, but remained almost entirely unused for many decades. Even in the twenty-first century, it is little-used.

The vocabulary of islamophobia appeared earlier, and was more frequently used, in French. This seems natural, given the locations of French colonies. To be sure, the British also had colonies in areas populated by Muslims, but the French territory skewed more toward Islam than the British.

The etymology of ‘islamophobia’ remains controversial. It has been pointed out that it is sometimes — perhaps often — used inappropriately, because it strictly denotes fear, as opposed to dislike or aversion. By contrast, the word ‘islamophilia,’ while less frequently used, is also less debatable in regard to its meaning and etymology.

Bruckner reports that Andre Quellian, who authored a book in French about colonial politics, was among those who argued that Islam posed no threat to the French administration. Likewise, Bruckner notes:

During the same period, Maurice Delafosse, another colonial official residing in Dakar, wrote: “Whatever may be said by those for whom Islamophobia is a principle of governing natives, France has nothing more to fear from Muslims than from non-Muslims in West Africa [...]. Thus Islamophobia has not more raison d’etre in West Africa, where, on the other hand, Islamophilia (in the sense of a preference granted to Muslims) is said to create a feeling of distrust among non-Muslim peoples, who are the most numerous.”

Shortly after the beginning of the twentieth century, then, there were at least some writers who argued that Islam was not a threat to order in French colonies, and specifically the colonies in north and northwest Africa. Whether these writers represented a majority or a minority of the colonial administration, of the French home government, or of the French citizenry are three questions which will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Given that the use of these words was documented in French in the early twentieth century, and that there are a few known appearances of them in English in the late nineteenth century, it is a reasonable conjecture to assert that they probably existed in French prior to 1900. And Pascal Bruckner makes exactly that conjecture.

This group of words has been in circulation, hence, for around 150 years. But the meanings — both denotations and connotations — attached to these words have changed.

Originally, these words were used in the context of French colonialism, and perhaps also British colonialism, when Islam posed questions for the administrators of those territories.

So, who was right? Was Islam a danger to colonial administration? Or was it a neutral or even helpful factor in organizing the colonies?

The evidence is mixed: on the one hand, Islam did not seem to play an essential role in the uprisings and rebellions which ended the colonial rule in some places, or in the more peaceful negotiations which ended that rule in other places. But Islam did make itself significantly felt in the post-colonial chaos into which these territories descended in the wake of their independence.

When these words were first invented, those who thought that Islam posed difficulties for those governing the colonies were deemed Islamophobic. Those who found Islam to be neutral or even helpful to the colonial administrators were deemed Islamophilic.

By the end of the twentieth century, ‘Islamophobic’ referred to those who had or showed “a dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force,” in the words of one dictionary. This word is often used in political conflicts — conflicts which contain more passion than reason. It is used as an insult.

Geographically far from the colonies and former colonies, the word ‘Islamophobic’ is used as a weapon in debates inside Western Civilization.

Over the course of the century, ‘islamophilia,’ never a frequently-used word, became even more rare, but continues to exist. It refers to “a generalized affection for Islam and Muslims” which is “likely to be based on wishful thinking and a politics of fear,” writes Andrew Shryock, who continues:

If we persist in portraying Islamophobia as an irrational force of misperception, we might well render ourselves oblivious to its ultimate causes and consequences. The corrective policies we develop in response to it might, in the manner of a bad diagnosis, end up reinforcing the very syndrome they were meant to counteract.

Islamophilia morphed during a century from a term relevant to colonial administration to a term used by Romanticists and Orientalists. “Romanticists” were authors of a particular phase of European literature which viewed the world through the lens of passion and emotion instead of reason and logic. “Orientalists” were researchers who explored the texts and cultures of what is called the Middle East or the Near East. The intersection of these two — Romantic Orientalists — invented fanciful accounts of the cultures of the Middle East: accounts which often painted Islam in an optimistic light, depicting the Muslims as wise sages, dashing heroes, and shrewd tacticians. These Romantic Orientalists departed from the actual data gathered by Orientalists who did linguistic and historical research; the Romantic Orientalists relied more often on folk tales and accounts of medieval travelers.

The twists and turns in the histories of these words is described by Pascal Bruckner:

Islamophobia: the term probably already existed in the nineteenth century, which explains its spontaneous use by imperial officials. As for its antonym, Islamophilia, whether erudite or popular, since the seventeenth century it has been a constant in European history, which is still massively fascinated by Islamic civilization. But after the Iranian Revolution of 1980 the expression ‘Islamophobia’ underwent a mutation that weaponized it. Between the expulsion of the American feminist Kate Millet from Teheran in 1979 for having protested against the regime’s requirement that Iranian women wear a veil, and the Rushie affair in 1988, which exploded under the influence of British Muslims, this dormant word suddenly awoke and became active in another form. A word does not belong to the person who created it but to the one who reinvented it to make its use widespread. This lexical rejuvenation makes it possible to kill two birds with one stone: stigmatizing traitors to the Muslim faith, on the one hand, and shutting up godless Westerners, on the other.

As these words changed their meanings over the course of a century, the geographical reference changed as well. At first, they were focused on the situation in the colonies. A century or more later, they are now focused both on the relations between the former colonies and Western Civilization, as well as on societal conflicts within Western Civilization.

Who Really Has Control? Who Rules Behind the Scenes?

Who is in command when it comes to global diplomacy, international politics, and the world’s economy? Not presidents, prime ministers, chancellors, and other heads of state. Not the CEOs of major corporations. Not the boards of directors of big businesses. Not the leaders of political parties. Not the opinion-makers and influencers in the new and old forms of media.

The power, and the lust for power, is held by people whose names don’t often appear in the media — people associated with organizations which are equally unknown. Klaus Schwab and Stephanie Kelton aren’t featured in headlines. The World Economic Forum (WEF) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) don’t trend on social media platforms.

Yet they may have more power than most putative powerholders.

While the media keep ordinary citizens busy with controversies like “socialist vs. capitalist” or “progressive vs. libertarian,” these shadowy figures manipulate the political and socio-economic systems from a much higher level, and are content to use the guise of socialist or capitalist from time to time, choosing whichever of the two suits their agenda. The agenda is simply power and control. In changing situations, they might benefit by promoting one political group or another — such furtherance always anonymous and from unseen sources through unseen channels — and a decade later, it might be to their advantage to support the opposing group.

At the global level, such individuals can use both Democrats and Republicans, both socialists and capitalists, both business leaders and organized labor leaders. The debates and disputes which occupy the attention of the media, the elected political leaders, and the ordinary citizens are merely distractions which the conspiracy has created to keep the average person from becoming aware of a world-wide network of controlling manipulators.

Much of this sinister power is carried out behind the facade of “The Great Reset,” a slogan unveiled in 2020 by Klaus Schwab, the WEF, and other associates.

What is “The Great Reset”? At first glance, it might seem like a list of the usual leftist political agendas: green environmentalism, “stakeholder” economies leading to more equity, and a technocracy empowered to bring these goals to fruition. The reader might wonder: what is new here? Such agendas have been the bread-and-butter of leftism for decades.

What’s different here is the exploitation and insincerity. “The Great Reset” could easily change in an instant and suddenly demand that people burn more fossil fuels and put more CO2 into the atmosphere. It could suddenly pivot from fighting racism to promoting it. For “The Great Reset,” and for the individuals and institutions which are promoting it, concepts like “environmentalism” and “social justice” are merely tools which can be used to control people.

All the causes and movements which “The Great Reset” promotes require regulations, taxes, and laws. The Great Reset uses these idealistic and noble convictions to gain power — to gain the ability to control people. The leaders who empower Green movements and “social justice” movements from behind the camouflage of “The Great Reset” have no interest in the earth’s environment, no interest in reducing CO2, no interest in reducing racism, and no interest in shrinking income inequality. They embrace these ideals temporarily, only long enough to use them to create some regulatory structure.

Neither is the other end of the political spectrum safe. Those who seek free markets and free speech are equally likely to be exploited by “The Great Reset.” At the moment, the megalomaniacs may be using leftist factions to gain power, but they can easily switch and begin exploiting rightist movements in the same way.

To perceive the hidden patterns requires rethinking. The daily media focuses on the micro-controversies of liberals and conservatives, progressives and libertarians, Democrats and Republicans. The media have been fooled by the conspiracy. The reading public must learn to take a step back and look at the big picture. The global question is this: Are the lives of individuals becoming freer and less regulated? Or are the lives of people increasingly managed and subject to rules?

Human beings are the best they can be when no other human being is controlling or ruling them. It is perhaps a good thing to be regulated by moral principles, or by God, but it is destructive to be taxed and regulated by a political power structure.

In the words of a Mercury Radio Arts report,

I want to once again stress the importance of resisting the urge to view the Great Reset as a socialist or even progressive framework.

The clue is this: Why would capitalists promote socialist programs? Why would the producers of fossil fuel promote Green energy schemes?

“There are socialist and progressive elements to the plan,” and yet the reader sees “repeatedly that corporations, bankers, and some of the world’s wealthiest people have proudly stood behind the Great Reset.” Why would an oil tycoon decide to support Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal”?

Does anyone believe that these Wall Street cutthroats and billionaire entrepreneurs have suddenly become card-carrying members of the Democratic Socialists of America? Of course they haven’t.

If some of these leaders have no faith in the movements which they have suddenly started supporting — movements which oppose the beliefs, livelihoods, and existences of these leaders — then why are they so eager to promote these ideologies? Have they suddenly become suicidal?

No. They’re simply realists. They see that they have been outmaneuvered by forces which are far more powerful than they are. Resistance would be futile. Going along with the demands of the global conspiracy is not self-destructive; it’s survival.

It is important to understand that the most corrupt — and most terrifying — elements of the Great Reset also help explain why so many business leaders and financial institutions have agreed to promote this movement. Many have gone beyond mere promotion and even helped develop some of its primary components. This includes presidents and CEOs from Microsoft, Bank of America, Mastercard, BP, and other highly influential business and investment firms.

The reader will learn to observe world events with an eye to one variable: control. Who’s in control? Who’s being controlled? Is the level of control increasing or decreasing?

In order to focus on this one variable, the reader will learn to see that the concerns and debates of low-level politics are either mere distractions, to prevent the public from perceiving the real impact of the international conspiracy, or they are actively being used by the conspiracy to obtain more power. The powerful individuals who proudly announce their deep concern about CO2 levels and the climate do not care about CO2 levels and the climate. They have simply determined that they can obtain more power by enacting climate policies. Leaders who declare their concern about social justice, income inequality, and racism do not care about the lives of individuals, or about any form of justice. They have learned that these movements can be exploited to allow these leaders to manipulate the lives of individuals — whether by legal regulation or by social trends, it makes no difference.

As the report from Mercury Radio Arts notes,

The crony corporatists running these multibillion-dollar companies have seen the writing on the wall: governments around the world are increasingly pushing for “green” mandates and sustainable development, as well as restrictions on speech — whether businesses and their customers like it or not. Plus, central banks are literally printing trillions of dollars that governments are directing toward the causes they favor, including many focused on social justice. If you were running a business, especially a large multinational corporation, it would be stupid not to do everything in your power to get your hands on some of that “free” cash, right?

On the one hand, there are people who truly believe in some cause and see it as a noble effort. They are manipulated by “The Great Reset” and they believe that “The Great Reset” shares their beliefs and values and is an ally in the noble struggle. They’ve been fooled, and they are being used.

On the other hand, there are those who may not discern the full program of this hidden conspiracy which lurks behind a variety of individuals, movements, and international organizations. They don’t fully understand the plot, but they clearly understand that they will suffer if they don’t go along with the officially sponsored trend of the moment.

In the end, both types of people are serving the purposes of a small handful of masterminds who are operating an international conspiracy. In the end, individual freedoms continue to be lost, and human beings continue to be increasingly controlled by a network of shadowy power mongers who are several layers behind the frontline bureaucrats, media personalities, and political activists who seem to be shaping the world, but who in reality are also puppets.

Klaus Schwab and the Great Reset: The WEF’s Plan to Dismantle Justice and Prosperity

Although his name is not frequently mentioned in the news media, Klaus Schwab has now, and has had for several years, a significant effect on current events around the world. From 1958 to 1972 he worked in a number of businesses in the private sector in Switzerland and Germany. From 1972 to 2003 he was a professor in Switzerland. Throughout his career, he was interested in economics and policy. After 2003 he worked as an opinion-maker and strategist for the United Nations.

But parallel to his career as outlined above, Klaus Schwab has been involved with the World Economic Forum (WEF), having founded it in 1971. The WEF does not deal with economics as a science, i.e., in the words of Investopedia: “Economics is the science that studies how societies produce goods and services and how they consume them.” A scientific approach to economics is about finding principles which are reflected in data and which can be used to predict future events from data. Economics as a science involves observing, measuring, finding patterns, etc.

Science is about gaining knowledge and understanding.

When economists recommend policies, they’ve left science behind and entered the world of politics. They are no longer engaged in a search for correlations and equations. They’ve entered a struggle for power and control.

The WEF is about control.

The WEF is a group of individuals: leaders in government, business, and academia. As their website states, their goal is “to shape global, regional and industry agendas.” They have rejected the scientific approach to economics and seek instead of influence policy.

In its own words, the WEF’s purpose is to “shape” — i.e., control and have power over — economic systems and policies. The WEF is not an organization doing research to discover lawlike regularities in economic phenomena. It is a group seeking power.

The WEF is not trying to control European economic systems, or American economic systems. The “W” in WEF means that this group wants to control the world’s economic systems.

Simply put, Klaus Schwab and the WEF would rather control events than understand them; they would rather have power than knowledge.

One example of this approach is Schwab’s introduction of what he calls “stakeholder capitalism.” Historically the two main types of capitalism have been “free market capitalism” and “crony capitalism.” Is Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism” a truly distinct third type, or is it merely one of the previous two types dressed up in new terminology? Exploring such questions includes the analysis of specialized jargon. According to Schwab, “free market capitalism” was “shareholder capitalism.” He is dismissive of “shareholder capitalism” as a system which needs to be discarded.

But, “free market capitalism,” as a report by Mercury Radio Arts explains, is “an economic system in which businesses, especially corporations, focus primarily on the desires of their customers, owners, and employees.” It’s a system of negotiation and compromise: a system in which all three parties — customers, owners, employees — engage in give-and-take. It’s a very inclusive system, because nearly everyone in society is a customer, an owner, or an employee — and some people are two of those, or even all three, at once.

So what is Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism”? It’s related to yet another phrase: it’s part of “The Great Reset.” The Mercury Radio Arts report attempts to define that term:

The reason that the Great Reset is so hard to define is because nothing quite like it has ever been tried before, at least not on this scale. The most accurate name for the Reset is probably something like “modern corporate cronyist techno socialistic international fascism,” but that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue.

Another attempt at explaining the Great Reset would be to call it “soft authoritarianism” — “soft” because it avoids the brutality of Joseph Stalin or Mao Zhedong, and “authoritarianism” because its goal is control.

It’s called “socialistic” and not “socialist” because it employs some aspects of socialism as instruments — as means to an end — without embracing the socialist goals of equity. The Great Reset uses the paternalistic role of the socialist state to buy the dependency and compliance of the average citizen.

The WEF’s Great Reset is not only for Europe, and not only for the United States. It is a truly global attempt to gain power. As extreme as it may sound, Klaus Schwab wants to control the world. But he wants to do this in a “soft” way — soft authoritarianism — he presents this as a series of initiatives, ideas, and programs which are for the global good. Everyone should want to go along with his ideas, he thinks, because he’s presented them as if they’re for everyone’s benefit.

Of course, simply because Klaus Schwab has presented these ideas as if they’re for everyone’s good, well, that doesn’t mean that they actually are for everyone’s good.

So how do the Great Reset and “stakeholder capitalism” appear in practice? What do they look like?

The WEF’s technique is to use money to control. This is a different use of wealth than the ordinary working-class person’s use of wealth.

For example, a working-class person who obtains money might use it to buy a car or a house — or take a vacation, or eat in a fancy restaurant, or save for retirement or for a college education. For working-class people, money is for buying things.

The people at the WEF have wealth measured in the billions — of dollars, euros, francs, yen, yuan, wen, pound sterling, krona, krone, etc. — and view money differently. A person who has 300 billion dollars will be able to afford the same lifestyle as the person who has 400 billion dollars. The increase of 100 billion dollars isn’t about being able to buy more things or being able to afford more luxuries. It’s about an increase in power, in the ability to control people and institutions.

Here’s how “stakeholder capitalism” works: Companies need, from time to time, to borrow money. Maybe a shoe company needs to build a new factory. Maybe a small restaurant wants to expand. Companies borrow money for these purposes. Banks or groups of investors lend the money: they’ll lend the money if they think that the company will be able to pay it back. That’s why it’s difficult to get a loan to build a factory to produce green-and-purple-striped socks, but it’s easy to get a loan to build a factory to produce navy blue socks.

So the decision about whether or not to lend money to a company is based on the perceived ability of the company to repay what it’s borrowed. The interest rate on the loan will also vary: a company might be able to borrow money at 5% if it’s building that factory to produce navy blue socks, but the company will have to pay 10% to borrow the money to build the factory making the green-and-purple-stripe socks.

Given that the decision about whether or not to lend money is based on the perceived ability of the borrower to pay it back, then it follows that the interest rate on the loan is based on the same thing.

Klaus Schwab wants to change that. He wants banks, or groups of investors, to lend money based on the political and social opinions of the company’s management. He wants the interest rate to be based on those opinions as well. Notice that he’s not lending his own money this way, but he’s interested in persuading or forcing others to lend their money this way.

In the shift from “free market capitalism” to “stakeholder capitalism,” the ability of the owners, employees, and customers of the business to negotiate and compromise has disappeared. Now, all three groups must reshape their opinions and beliefs to match the requirements of the lender. Everyone’s being controlled in a system of “stakeholder capitalism,” and nobody’s free.

If six shoe companies — Nike, Puma, New Balance, Converse, Adidas, Reebok — each wanted to borrow $100 million dollars from a bank to build new factories, then it might be the case that three of them would be allowed to borrow the money, but the other three would not. Under Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism,” it wouldn’t matter how good the shoes were, or how popular they were. The decisions would be made by asking the management of the companies how they had voted in recent presidential elections, or which political groups they supported financially, or what they’d done to fund the printing of bumper stickers about social justice.

In Schwab’s “stakeholder capitalism,” who decides the standards? If a company’s loan application will be accepted or rejected based on the political views of the company’s management, who decides which political views are the correct ones? In answering these questions, it becomes clear that “stakeholder capitalism” is “crony capitalism.” In Schwab’s “Great Reset,” the standards are set by the government, but the process of setting them is influenced by a few large corporations. The separation between the public sector and the private sector — i.e., between the government and the businesses — has been blurred or violated. No fair competition between companies is possible. The government, which is supposed to be the referee and umpire between the competing corporations, is instead intimately related to one of them, and gives disadvantages to all the others.

What happens to ordinary people? The workers in these companies might get pay raises, or they might get pay cuts, or they might even lose their jobs, based on the social and political opinions of the banks, or of the groups of investors, who will or won’t lend money to their employers. Klaus Schwab and the WEF are quite willing to throw the lower-class factory worker under the bus. They are quite willing to make the people in the middle-class and lower-class suffer. They are willing to do this because they demand the ability to control. They’re not after money: they already have so much of it that they can’t spend it all. They want control.

The irony is that “stakeholder capitalism” is willing to throw low-income workers into deeper poverty, or complete unemployment, while claiming that they’re doing all of this in the name of “social justice.” This is another instance in which it’s important to see the words as mere disguises for unseemly motives. Those who claim to work for “social justice” are actually against it. Those who claim to seek the interests of the low-class worker are actually willing to push that worker into deeper misery for their own purposes.

Such people use words to cover up their actions: actions which have the exact opposite than the meanings of those words. Those who claim to help the poor want to harm the poor. Those who claim to help the climate are the ones who destroy it. Those who claim to seek racial justice are actually racists. Whichever words Klaus Schwab and the WEF use, their actions are opposite of those words.

Their techniques and strategies are many. A variant on the loan scenario is this: companies which seek to borrow money often do so by selling bonds.

A bond is worth a small amount of money, and so, most ordinary citizens can buy one. If a company needs $100 million dollars, it can sell one million bonds at $100 each. Many lower- and middle-class people can afford to buy a bond for $100. Eventually, they’ll get their $100 back, with interest, and so they’ll be better off — having gained the interest. This is a good deal: a lower- or middle-class person can make some money in this type of investment, and the company can get the $100 million it needs.

When ordinary people buy bonds, they’ll look up the company’s reliability rating. There are economists who rate companies: they explain which companies are reliable. People rely on these ratings to decide which bonds to buy. People don't want to give $100 to a company unless they’re pretty sure that the company can pay it back.

But Klaus Schwab and WEF are changing the system. They are forcing economists to rate companies, not on their ability to repay the $100, but on their social and political opinions.

How does the “Great Reset” coerce economists to play along with its version of “crony capitalism”? Again, the key here is “soft” authoritarianism. No soldiers will show up to demand that the economists use certain rating systems. But economics departments at major universities depend on government grants and taxpayer dollars. With such money come conditions. Individual economists build careers by publishing articles in professional academic journals and giving presentations at international conferences. Whose articles get published? Who gets invited to speak at conferences? Who extends the invitations? People like Klaus Schwab and the WEF. To be clear, there are many more people like Schwab, and many more institutions like the WEF.

What are the results of this “stakeholder capitalism” and its effects on bond ratings? Some companies who are able to repay the bonds won’t be able to sell those bonds to investors; these companies lose the opportunity to expand; their workers get less pay or lose their jobs altogether; the consumers aren’t able to buy the good products they want; because low- and middle-class investors can’t buy those bonds, they lose an opportunity to earn that interest.

Meanwhile, companies who can’t repay the bonds can still sell them to investors. Therefore, low- and middle-class investors lose the $100 they invested in the bonds. These companies can’t sell their products, so their workers either get less pay or lose their jobs.

Pretty much everyone in this system suffers — except Klaus Schwab and the multi-billionaires in the WEF.

One of the mechanisms used to implement this scheme, according to the Mercury Radio Arts report, “is called the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics, and it functions as the heart of Schwab’s stakeholder-capitalism model,” and it provides “the elites with transformative authority over — well, just about everything.”

Again, the WEF vocabulary is an exercise in using words to cover up the realities which are the opposites of those words. When a bank or an investor reads about an “environmental, social, and governance” score for a company, each of those words has been twisted into a reverse meaning. The “environmental” part of an ESG score doesn’t tell the reader about a company's environmental friendliness; rather, it simply reflects whether the company has met the arbitrary demands of the economists who rate it — economists who are influenced by the WEF. Likewise, the “social” component of the ESG score doesn’t reveal anything about a company’s effectiveness in combating racism or inequities; it shows rather whether the company has complied with the symbolic but ineffectual demands of the WEF — demands spread through professional and academic networks. Likewise, the “governance” score simply reflects the degree to which the company corresponds to the WEF’s political agenda. Note that, in each of the three metrics, the WEF’s control is mediated and indirect, spread via economists, bank loan officers, and bond-rating agencies.

To be quite precise, the reader may note the following examples: BlackRock is an investment firm which invests billions of dollars on behalf of its clients. BlackRock’s CEO is Larry Fink, who also happens to be a member of the WEF. Under Fink’s leadership, BlackRock pressured many companies to do business in ways which did not maximize returns to BlackRock’s customers. In one case, BlackRock coerced Exxon Mobil into making decisions which did not maximize profits. Those profits would have gone to retirement funds for blue-collar union workers. BlackRock chose to reduce retirement benefits for factory workers in order to advance its political agenda.

Another example is FitchRatings, a company whose task it is to guide ordinary individual investors as they buy bonds. Rather than rate companies based on their ability to repay — a bond is simply a small loan made by the individual to the company — FitchRatings now rates companies on their ESG scores. Investors have little guidance when they buy bonds. Ordinary working-class people are vulnerable: they might buy bonds which will never be repaid, and they’ll buy them because FitchRatings chose to conceal the relevant financial information from the public. FitchRatings, infected by the influence of the WEF, would rather see people’s savings evaporate than see the political and social agendas of the WEF be ignored.

Thus is made manifest the net impact of Klaus Schwab, the World Economic Forum, and “stakeholder capitalism” — no concern for the economic well-being of lower- and middle-class workers, and therefore no concern for true social justice; feigned concern for the climate, cloaked in arbitrary demands; a political agenda camouflaged as concerns about “governance.”

What is true of the WEF — at least in terms of its economic views — can be said of other similar organizations: the IMF, the WTO, the CFR, the Bilderberg Meetings, etc.

What is true of Klaus Schwab — at least in terms of his economic views — can be said of Larry Randall Wray and Stephanie Kelton.

Klaus Schwab and the WEF — the “Great Reset” and “stakeholder capitalism” — are merely two of the clearest examples of a worldwide network of elite individuals and elite organizations who are seeking to consolidate power and control for themselves.

Klaus Schwab, the WEF, and “stakeholder capitalism” have one clear objective: control — control consolidated in the hands of a small group of elite multibillionaires in the WEF.