Hinter den Kulissen der Davoser WEF-Puppet-Show

Das sind nicht Herman Kahn oder Henry Kissinger und Klaus Schwab auf der Fahrt nach Davos. Herman Kahn trug Kinnbart und Kissinger keinen Schnauzer. Das sind Waldorf und Statler, die bei der Muppet-Show immer in der VIP-Loge sitzen oder saßen: Alte weiße Polit-Finanz-Wirtschaftsführer

Nach dem englischen Original folgt die deutsche Übersetzung des britischen investigativen Journalisten Johnny Vedmore

Dr. Klaus Schwab or: How the CFR Taught Me to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

The World Economic Forum wasn’t simply the brainchild of Klaus Schwab, but was actually born out of a CIA-funded Harvard program headed by Henry Kissinger and pushed to fruition by John Kenneth Galbraith and the “real” Dr. Strangelove, Herman Kahn. This is the amazing story behind the real men who recruited Klaus Schwab, who helped him create the World Economic Forum, and who taught him to stop worrying and love the bomb.BYJOHNNY VEDMOREMARCH 10, 202230 MINUTE READ

The World Economic Forum’s recorded history has been manufactured to appear as though the organisation was a strictly European creation, but this isn’t so. In fact, Klaus Schwab had an elite American political team working in the shadows that aided him in creating the European-based globalist organisation. If you have a decent knowledge of Klaus Schwab’s history, you will know that he attended Harvard in the 1960s where he would meet then-Professor Henry A. Kissinger, a man with whom Schwab would form a lifelong friendship. But, as with most information from the annals of the World Economic Forum’s history books, what you’ve been told is not the full story. In fact, Kissinger would recruit Schwab at the International seminar at Harvard, which had been funded by the US’ Central Intelligence Agency. Although this funding was exposed the year in which Klaus Schwab left Harvard, the connection has gone largely unnoticed – until now.

My research indicates that the World Economic Forum is not a European creation. In reality, it is instead an operation which emanates from the public policy grandees of the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixonian eras of American politics; all of whom had ties to the Council on Foreign Relations and the associated “Round Table” Movement, with a supporting role played by the Central Intelligence Agency.

There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies. In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever present threat of global thermonuclear war. By examining these men through the wider context of the geopolitics of the period, I will show how their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s, how they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and how they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.

Henry A. Kissinger

Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born in Bavaria, Germany, on 27 May 1923 to Paula and Louis Kissinger. The family had been one of many Jewish families fleeing the persecution in Germany to arrive in America in 1938. Kissinger would change his first name to Henry at 15 years old when arriving in America by way of a brief emigration to London. His family would initially settle in Upper Manhattan with the young Henry Kissinger attending George Washington High School. In 1942, Kissinger would enroll in the City College of New York, but, in early 1943, was drafted into the US Army. On 19 June 1943, Kissinger would become a naturalised US citizen. He would soon be assigned to the 84th Infantry Division where he would be recruited by the legendary Fritz Kraemer to work in the military intelligence unit of the division. Kraemer would fight along Kissinger during the Battle of the Bulge and would later become extremely influential in American politics during the postwar era, influencing future politicians such as Donald Rumsfeld. Henry Kissinger would describe Kraemer as being “the greatest single influence on my formative years”, in a New Yorker article entitled, The Myth of Henry Kissinger, written in 2020.

The writer of that article, Thomas Meaney, describes Kraemer as:

A Nietzschean firebrand to the point of self-parody—he wore a monocle in his good eye to make his weak eye work harder—Kraemer claimed to have spent the late Weimar years fighting both Communists and Nazi Brown Shirts in the streets. He had doctorates in political science and international law, and pursued a promising career at the League of Nations before fleeing to the US in 1939. He warned Kissinger not to emulate “cleverling” intellectuals and their bloodless cost-benefit analyses. Believing Kissinger to be “musically attuned to history,” he told him, “Only if you do not ‘calculate’ will you really have the freedom which distinguishes you from the little people.””

Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab and Ted Heath at the 1980 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

During World War II, whilst Kissinger was serving in the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps, he would be promoted to the rank of sergeant and would go on to serve in the Military Intelligence Reserve for many years after peace was declared. During that period, Kissinger would take charge of a team hunting down Gestapo officers and other Nazi officials who had been labeled as “saboteurs”. After the war, in 1946, Kissinger would be reassigned to teach at the European Command Intelligence School, a position he would continue to work in as a civilian after officially leaving the army.

In 1950, Kissinger would graduate from Harvard with a degree in political science where he would study under William Yandell Elliott, who would eventually be a political advisor to six US presidents and would also serve as a mentor to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pierre Trudeau, among others. Yandell Elliott, along with many of his star pupils, would serve as the key connectors between the American national security establishment and the British “Round Table” movement, embodied by organisations such as Chatham House in the UK and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. They would also seek to impose global power structures shared by Big Business, the political elite and academia. Kissinger would continue to study at Harvard, gaining his MA and PhD degrees at the prestigious university, but he was also already trying to forge a career path in intelligence, reportedly seeking recruitment as an FBI spy during this period.

In 1951, Kissinger would be employed as a consultant for the Army’s Operations Research Office, where he would be trained in various forms of psychological warfare. This awareness of psyops was reflected in his doctoral work during the period. His work on the Congress of Vienna and its consequences invoked thermonuclear weapons as its opening gambit, which also made an otherwise dull piece of work a little more interesting. By 1954, Kissinger was hoping to become a junior professor at Harvard but, instead, the dean of Harvard at the time, McGeorge Bundy – another pupil of William Yandell Elliott, recommended Kissinger to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). At the CFR, Kissinger would start managing a study group on nuclear weapons. From 1956 to 1958, Kissinger also became the Director of Special Studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (David Rockefeller was vice-president of the CFR during this period), as well as going on to direct multiple panels to produce reports on national defense, which would gain international attention. In 1957, Kissinger would seal his place as a leading Establishment figure on thermonuclear war after publishing, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a book published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Brothers.

In December of 1966, The Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, John M Leddy, announced the formation of a 22-man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”. The five most prominent actors of this panel of advisors included: Henry A Kissinger representing Harvard, Robert Osgood of the Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research (funded by Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie money), Melvin Conant of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Warner R Schilling of Columbia University, and Raymond Vernon who was also of Harvard. The other people on the panel included four members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Shepard Stone of the Ford Foundation, with the rest being a mix of representatives from leading American universities. The forming of this panel could be considered the laying of the proverbial foundation stone marking the American branch of the “Round Table” establishment’s intent to create an organisation such as the World Economic Forum, whereby Anglo-American imperialists would mold European policies as they saw fit.https://www.youtube.com/embed/k9BG7ZX6RHg?feature=oembed

Post-war Europe was at a vital stage of its development and the powerful American Empire was beginning to see opportunities in the rebirth of Europe and the emerging identity of its younger generation. In late December of 1966, Kissinger would be one of the twenty-nine “American authorities on Germany” to sign a statement declaring that “recent state elections in West Germany do not indicate a rebirth of Nazism”. The document, also signed by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, was meant to signal that Europe was starting afresh and was meant to begin putting the horrors of European wars in the past. Some of the people involved in creating the aforementioned document were those who had already been externally influencing European policy from abroad. Notably, one of the signatures alongside Kissinger and Eisenhower was Prof. Hans J Morgenthau who was also representing the Council on Foreign Relations at the time. Morgenthau had famously written a paper entitled, Scientific Man versus Power Politics, and argued against an “overreliance on science and technology as solutions to political and social problems”.

In February 1967, Henry Kissinger would target European policy making as having been the reason for a century of war and political turmoil on the continent. In a piece entitled, Fuller Investigation, printed in the New York Times, Kissinger would state that a work by Raymond Aron, Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, had remedied some of these issues.

In this article, Kissinger would write:

In the United States the national style is pragmatic; the tradition until World War II was largely isolationist; the approach to peace and war tended to be absolute and legalistic. American writing on foreign policy has generally tended to fall into three categories: analyses of specific cases or historical episodes, exhortations justifying or resisting greater participation in international affairs, and investigations of the legal bases of world order.”

It was clear that Prof Henry A Kissinger had identified American involvement in European policy creation as being vital in the future peace and stability of the world. At this time, Kissinger was based at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here, the future founder of the World Economic Forum, a young Klaus Schwab, would catch the eye of Henry A Kissinger.

Kissinger was the executive director of the International seminar, which Schwab often mentions when recollecting his time spent at Harvard. On 16 April 1967, it would be reported that various Harvard programs had been receiving funding from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This included $135,000 of funding for Henry Kissinger’s International Seminar, funding which Kissinger claimed he was unaware had come from the US intelligence agency. The CIA’s involvement in funding Kissinger’s international seminar was exposed in a report by Humphrey Doermann, the assistant to Franklin L Ford, who was dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science. Humphrey Doermann’s report, written in 1967, only centred on the CIA funding from between 1961 to 1966, but Kissinger’s International seminar, which had received the most funding out of all the CIA-funded Harvard programs, would still run through 1967. Klaus Schwab arrived at Harvard in 1965.

On 15 April 1967, The Harvard Crimson would publish an article, attributed to no author, concerning Doermann’s report that stated, “There were no strings attached to the aid, so the government could not directly influence research or prevent its results from being published.” The dismissive article, entitled, CIA Financial Links, nonchalantly closes out by stating,”In any case, were the University to refuse to accept CIA research grants, the shadowy agency would have little trouble channeling its offers through another agrecy.” (agrecy being a pun meaning a form of intelligence).

The evidence points to Klaus Schwab having been recruited by Kissinger into his circle of “Round Table” imperialists via a CIA funded program at Harvard University. In addition, the year he graduated would also be the year in which it was revealed to have been a CIA-funded program. This CIA-funded seminar would introduce Schwab to the extremely well-connected American policy-makers who would help him create what would become the most powerful European public policy institute, the World Economic Forum.

By 1969, Kissinger would be sitting as the head of the US National Security Council, of which the sitting president, Richard Nixon would “enhance the importance of” during his administration. Kissinger was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs between 2 December 1968 to 3 November 1975, serving concurrently as Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State from 22 September 1973. Kissinger would dominate the making of US foreign policy during the Nixon era and the system he would bring to the National Security Council would seek to combine features of the systems previously implemented by Eisenhower and Johnson.

Henry Kissinger, who had been one of the people to manufacture tensions between thermonuclear powers over the previous two decades, was now to act as “peacemaker” during the Nixon period. He would turn his focus to the European stand-off and would seek to relax the tensions between the West and Russia. He negotiated the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (culminating in the SALT I treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Kissinger was attempting to rebrand himself as a trusted statesman and diplomat.

In the second term of President Richard Nixon’s administration, their attention would turn to relations with Western Europe. Richard Nixon would describe 1973 as being the “Year of Europe”. The United States’ focus would be on supporting the states of the European Economic Community (EEC) which had become economic rivals to the US by the early 1970s. Kissinger grasped the “Year of Europe” concept and pushed an agenda, not only of economic reform, but also arguing to strengthen and revitalise what he considered to be the “decaying force”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Throughout this period, Kissinger would also promote global governance.

Years later, Henry Kissinger would make the opening address of the World Economic Forum’s 1980 conference, telling the elites at Davos: “For the first time in history, foreign policy is truly global”.

John K. Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith (often referred to as Ken Galbraith) was a Canadian-American economist, diplomat, public policy maker, and Harvard intellectual. His impact on American history is extraordinary and the consequences of his actions in the late 1960s alone are still being felt around the world today. In September 1934, Galbraith would initially join the faculty at Harvard University as an instructor with a salary of $2,400 per year. In 1935, he would be appointed a tutor at John Winthrop House (commonly known as Winthrop House) which is one of twelve undergraduate residential houses at Harvard University. In that same year, one of his first students would be Joseph P. Kennedy Jr, with John F. Kennedy arriving two years later, in 1937. Soon after, the Canadian Galbraith would become naturalised as a US citizen on 14 September 1937. Three days later, he would marry his partner, Catherine Merriam Atwater, a woman who, a few years before, had been studying at the University of Munich. There, she had lived in the same rooming house-dormitory as Unity Mitford, whose boyfriend was Adolf Hitler. After marrying, Galbraith would travel extensively in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Italy, France, but also Germany. Galbraith had been due to spend a year as a research fellow at the University of Cambridge under famed economist John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes’ sudden heart attack would see Galbraith’s new wife persuade him to study in Germany instead. During the summer of 1938, Galbraith would study German land policies under Hitler’s government.

The following year, Galbraith found himself involved in what was termed at the time, “the Walsh-Sweezy affair” – a US national scandal involving two radical instructors who had been terminated from Harvard. Galbraith’s connections with the affair would result in his appointment at Harvard not being renewed.

Still from Galbraith’s interview with Charlie Rose

Galbraith would take a demotion to work at Princeton, where he would soon after accept an invitation from the National Resource Planning Board to be part of a review panel into New Deal spending and employment programs. It is this project which would see him first meet Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940, as France fell to Nazi forces, Galbraith would join the staff of the National Defense Advisory Committee, at the request of FDR’s economic advisor, Lauchlin Curry. Although that committee would be swiftly dissolved, Galbraith soon found himself appointed to the Office of Price Administration (OPA), heading up the division tasked with price control. He would be dismissed from the OPA on 31 May 1943. Fortune Magazine had already been trying to headhunt Galbraith since as early as 1941, and would soon scoop him up to join their staff as a writer.

The biggest shift in focus for Galbraith happened in 1945, the day after the death of Roosevelt. Galbraith would leave New York for Washington, where he would be duly sent to London to assume a division directorship of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, tasked with evaluating the overall economic effects of the wartime bombing. By the time he had arrived at Flensburg, Germany had already formally surrendered to the Allied forces and Galbraith’s initial task would change. He would accompany George Ball and be part of the interrogation of Albert Speer. In this one move, Galbraith had gone from being a policy advisor dealing with statistics and projections concerned with pricing, to the co-interrogator of a high-ranking Nazi war criminal. Speer had been in various important positions during the war, including as the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, one of the key men behind the organisation, maintenance and arming of every part of the Nazi Wermacht.

Soon after, Galbraith would be sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to evaluate the effects of the bombing. In January 1946, John Kenneth Galbraith was involved in one of the defining moments of American economic history. He would take part in the American Economic Association meetings in Cleveland, where, alongside Edward Chamberlin of Harvard and Clarence Ayres of Texas, he would debate Frank Knight and other leading proponents of classical economics. This event marked the coming-out of Keynesian economics, which would come to dominate post-war America.

In February 1946, Galbraith would return to Washington, where he would be appointed director of the Office of Economic Security Policy. It is here, in September of 1946, where Galbraith was tasked with drafting a speech for the Secretary of State, William Byrnes, outlining American policy towards German reconstruction, democratisation, and eventual admission into the United Nations. Galbraith, who opposed the group of politicians at the time referred to as “the Cold Warriors”, would resign from his position in October of 1946, returning to Fortune Magazine. He would also be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom that same year. In 1947, Galbraith would co-found the organisation, Americans for Democratic Action, alongside others including Eleanor Roosevelt, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Ronald Reagan. In 1948, Galbraith would return to Harvard as a lecturer in Agricultural Forestry and Land-Use Policy. Soon after, he would be installed as a Professor at Harvard.

By 1957, Galbraith was beginning to form a closer relationship with his former student John F. Kennedy, who was by then junior senator for Massachusetts. The following year, JFK would publicly declare Galbraith as the “Phileas Fogg of the academic world” after receiving a copy of Galbraith’s book, A Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, where he examined socialist planning up close. It is also in 1958 where Galbraith published “The Affluent Society” to critical acclaim, where he coined terms such as “conventional wisdom” and the “dependence effect”. It is around this time when Galbraith became the Paul M. Warburg Chair in economics at Harvard. This is the same position he would hold when he would first be introduced to a young Klaus Schwab.https://www.youtube.com/embed/hN8yPLaBVm8?list=PL8745268A4975524F

By 1960, John Kenneth Galbraith had become an economic advisor to the Kennedy campaign. After Kennedy was elected President, Galbraith began staffing the new administration, famously being the man who recommended Robert S. McNamara for Secretary of Defense. In 1961, Kennedy would name Galbraith as ambassador to India and, later in the year, Galbraith would travel to Vietnam, at the behest of the President, to give a second opinion on the Taylor-Rostow report. On Galbraith’s advice, Kennedy would begin to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

In 1963, Galbraith would return to the United States, refusing an offer from Kennedy to take up an ambassadorship in Moscow, so as to return to Harvard. On the day Kennedy was assassinated, Galbraith was in New York with the publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham. Galbraith would go straight to Washington and would be the man who drafted the original version of the new President’s speech to the joint session of congress. The year following JFK’s assassination, Galbraith would return to Harvard to develop a famous and highly popular course in Social Science that he would go on to teach for the following decade. He would still retain his position as an advisor to President Johnson, but would spend the rest of the year writing his final academic journals exclusively in economics.

By 1965, Galbraith had become increasingly louder in his opposition to the war in Vietnam, writing speeches and letters to the President. This rift would persist between Galbraith and Johnson, with Galbraith finally assuming the presidency of Americans for Democratic Action and going on to launch a national campaign against the Vietnam War entitled, Negotiations Now!” In 1967, the rift between Galbraith and Johnson would only become wider when Senator Eugene McCarthy was persuaded by Galbraith to run against Johnson in the coming primary elections. Robert F. Kennedy was also hoping to recruit Galbraith to his own campaign but, although Galbraith had formed a close bond with the late JFK, he had not been so keen on Robert F. Kennedy’s distinctive style.

By the late 1960s, John K. Galbraith and Henry A. Kissinger were both considered to be two of the foremost lecturers, authors and educators in America. They were also both grandees at Harvard, Galbraith as the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, and Kissinger as a Professor of Government, and the two men were focused on the creation of foreign policy for both America and the emerging new Europe. It was announced on 20 March 1968 that Kissinger and Galbraith would be the first speakers of the spring session of what was referred to as the Mandeville Lectures series”, due to take place at the University of California, San Diego. Galbraith’s speech would be entitled, “Foreign Policy: The Cool Dissent”, whilst Kissinger’s speech was called “America and Europe: A New Relationship”.

Kissinger would introduce Klaus Schwab to John Kenneth Galbraith at Harvard and, as the 1960’s came to a close, Galbraith would help Schwab make the World Economic Forum a reality. Galbraith would fly over to Europe, along with Herman Kahn, to help Schwab convince the European elite to back the project. At the first European Management Symposium/Forum (the original name/s of the WEF), John Kenneth Galbraith would be the keynote speaker.

Herman Kahn

Herman Kahn was born in Bayonne, New Jersey on 15 February 1922 to Yetta and Abraham Kahn. He was brought up in the Bronx with a Jewish upbringing, but would later become atheistic in his beliefs. Throughout the 1950s, Khan would write various reports at the Hudson Institute on the concept and practicality of nuclear deterrence, which would subsequently become official military policy. He would also compile reports for official hearings, such as the Subcommittee on Radiation. It is in the primordial hysteria of the earliest years of the Cold War where Kahn would be given the intellectual, and some may say ethical and moral, space to “think the unthinkable”. Khan would apply game theory – the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents – to wargame potential scenarios and outcomes concerning thermonuclear war.

In 1960, Kahn would publish, The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence, which studied the risks and subsequent impact of a thermonuclear war. The Rand Corporation sums up the kinds of deterrents discussed in Kahn’s work as: the deterrence of a direct attack, the use of strategic threats to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts other than a direct attack on the United States, and, lastly, the acts that are deterred because the potential aggressor is afraid that the defender or others will take limited actions, military or non-military, to make the aggression unprofitable.

Herman Kahn (left) with Gerald Ford and Donald Rumsfeld

The following year, Princeton University Press would first publish Herman Kahn’s seminal work, On Thermonuclear War. This book would have an enormous impact on the near and distant future of global politics and would drive American Establishment politicians to create foreign policy specifically designed to counter the potential worst case thermonuclear scenario. On the release of Kahn’s terrifying work, the Israeli-American sociologist and “communitarian”, Amitai Etzioni, would be quoted as saying, “Kahn does for nuclear arms what free-love advocates did for sex: he speaks candidly of acts about which others whisper behind closed doors”.

Khan’s complex theories have often been erroneously paraphrased, with most of his work being impossible to sum up in just a sentence or two, and this is emblematic of his ideas concerning thermonuclear war. Kahn’s research team were studying a multitude of different scenarios, a constantly evolving, dynamic, multipolar world, and many unknowns.

On Thermonuclear War had an instant and lasting impact, not only on geopolitics, but also on culture, expressed within a few years by a very famous movie. 1964 saw the release of the Stanley Kubrick classic, Dr Strangelove, and from the moment of its release, and ever since, Khan has been referred to as the real Dr. Strangelove. When quizzed about the comparison, Khan would tell Newsweek, “Kubrick is a friend of mine. He told me Dr. Strangelove wasn’t supposed to be me.” But others would point out the many affinities between Stanley Kubrick’s classic character and the real life Herman Kahn.

In an essay written for the Council on Foreign Relations in July 1966, entitled, Our Alternatives in Europe, Kahn states:

Existing U.S. policy has generally been directed to the political and economic as well as the military integration or unification of Western Europe as a means to European security. Some have seen unification as a step toward the political unity of the West as a whole, or even of the world. Thus, the achievement of some more qualified form of integration or federation of Europe, and of Europe with America, has also been held to be an intrinsically desirable goal, especially as national rivalries in Europe have been seen as a fundamentally disruptive force in modern history; hence their suppression, or accommodation in a larger political framework, is indispensable to the future stability of the world.”

This statement suggests that the preferred solution for future European/American relations would be the creation of a European union. Even more preferable to Kahn was the idea of creating a unified American and European superstate.

In 1967, Herman Kahn would write one of the most important futurist works of the 20th century, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years. In this book, co-authored by Anthony J Wiener, Khan and company predicted where we would be technologically at the end of the millennium. But there was another document released soon after Kahn’s The Year 2000, which had been written simultaneously. That document entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, was to map out how to achieve the future society Kahn’s work in The Year 2000 had envisaged.

Under a section titled “Special Educational Needs of Decision-Makers”, the paper states: “The desirability of explicitly educated decision-makers so that they are better able, in effect, to plan the destiny of the nation, or to carry out the plans formulated through a more democratic process, should be very seriously considered. One facet of this procedure would be the creation of a shared set of concepts, shared language, shared analogies, shared references…” He goes on to state in the same section that: “Universal re-teaching in the spirit of the humanistic tradition of Europe – at least for its comprehensive leadership group – might be useful in many ways.”

When you study the previously mentioned rhetoric and decipher what it means, in this document Herman Kahn suggests subverting democracy by training only a certain group in society as potential leaders, with those pre-selected few who are groomed for power being able to define what our shared values as a society should be. Maybe Herman Kahn would agree with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader scheme, which is the exact manifestation of his original suggestion.

In 1968, Herman Kahn would be asked by a reporter what they do at the Hudson Institute. He would say, “We take God’s view. The President’s view. Big. Aerial. Global. Galactic. Ethereal. Spatial. Overall. Megalomania is the standard occupational hazard.” This was reportedly followed by Herman Kahn rising out of his chair, pointing his finger towards the sky and suddenly shouting out: ‘Megalomania, zoom!’”https://www.youtube.com/embed/x-hFUeGiuOk?feature=oembed

In 1970, Kahn would travel to Europe with Galbraith to support Klaus Schwab’s recruitment drive for the first European Management Symposium. In 1971, Kahn would be sitting centre stage to watch John Kenneth Galbraith’s keynote speech at the historic first session of the policy making organisation which would eventually become the World Economic Forum.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth”, which cautioned that the needs of the global population would exceed available resources by the year 2000. Kahn spent much of his final decade arguing against this idea. In 1976, Khan would publish a more optimistic view of the future, The Next 200 Years, which claimed that the potentials of capitalism, science, technology, human reason, and self-discipline were boundless. The Next 200 Years would also dismiss pernicious Malthusian ideology by predicting that the planet’s resources set no limits to economic growth, but rather, human beings would “create such societies everywhere in the solar system and perhaps to the stars as well.”

Schwab’s Three Mentors

Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith had become three of the most influential people in America with regards to thermonuclear deterrence, foreign policy creation, and public policy making, respectively. Most of the focus throughout these men’s career had been on Europe and the Cold War. However, their varying roles in other important events of the period all have the potential to easily distract researchers from other more subversive and well hidden events.

These three powerful Americans were all linked with each other in various ways, but one interesting and notable thread in particular ties these men together during the period between 1966, with the creation of the Kissinger-led 22 man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”, through to 1971, and the founding of the World Economic Forum. All three men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American branch of the Anglo-American imperialist “Round Table” movement. Kissinger already had deep ties to the CFR, having been recruited by them straight after graduation. Galbraith had reportedly resigned his membership of the CFR in a “highly public way” in 1972, stating that the CFR was boring and telling a journalist, “Most of the proceedings involve a level of banality so deep that the only question they raise is whether one should sit through them.” Although there is no public date of when Galbraith became a member of the CFR, he had written for their publications from as early as July 1958 with “Rival Economic Theories in India,” being printed in Foreign Affairs, the official CFR journal/magazine. Khan could also be found publishing some of his essays through the CFR, writing the piece “Our Alternatives in Europe” in July 1966, and “If Negotiations Fail” in July 1968, both whilst working as an official advisor to the State Department.

Before the 1960s, these three extremely influential American intellectuals had each been deeply involved in trying to understand the problems of a postwar Europe, and mapping out the future of the war-stricken continent. Galbraith had traveled extensively throughout Europe, including studying policies in Germany during the Third Reich, and, after the collapse of Hitler’s Germany, Galbraith would go on to study the Soviet systems in much the same way. Galbraith’s influence over the future president, John F. Kennedy, from a very early age cannot be understated, and Galbraith was powerful enough to see JFK begin withdrawing troops from Vietnam on his recommendation. When Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Galbraith would be the man to draft the incoming president’s initial address to the nation, but Galbraith was soon to be pushed off to the sidelines. During the turmoil of the 1960s, Galbraith would be close with Henry Kissinger, both men being Harvard Professors, members of the CFR, and both men having the same goal of making Europe stable so that the Continent was well defended against any potential Soviet aggression.

To Galbraith and Kissinger, and also to the wider American political Establishment, Europe was the main threat to not only global stability, but also to the prevailing American hegemony in general. The relative stability in Europe during the postwar period was perceived as being due to the thermonuclear stand-off, and, from very early-on, Kissinger identified this dynamic and began to manipulate the situation for the benefit of American supremacy. Henry Kissinger was not alone in trying to understand the complex dynamics at play in relation to thermonuclear deterrence and how it affected policy making. Herman Kahn was the leading figure on thermonuclear strategic planning during the same period and Kissinger’s work concerning the same subject matter from the mid-50s onwards would see him cross paths with Kahn on many occasions.

Kahn offered Kissinger something which all politicians and policy makers crave, the ability to predict future events with relative accuracy. Kahn was a veritable prophet concerning the technological advancements of the not-so-distant future, and his work, although often stoic and bereft of human emotion, has stood up very well to the test of time. Kahn and Kissinger’s goals would overlap during the mid and late 1960s, and as the threat assessments Kahn made during this period became more optimistic, Kissinger would see Kahn’s work as being fundamental in offering a new future to the people of the world.

However, Henry Kissinger’s vision of the future was not of a free and fair society advancing into a “brave new world” together, but rather, Kissinger intended to create an image of the world which had been skewed by his own CFR-driven Establishment perspective. Although he would attempt to rebrand himself as a true statesman, Kissinger would continue to subvert not only foreign democratic processes, but also to undermine the American system for the eventual benefit of a globalist agenda. When Schwab was first recognised by Kissinger as a potential future globalist leader, the relatively young German would soon be introduced to Galbraith and Kahn. This would coincide with Kahn’s work identifying the need to specifically train individuals with leadership potential separately from those who attend the prevailing standard educational models.

Klaus Schwab speaking at the inaugural meeting of the World Economic Forum, 1971

In the year Klaus Schwab left Harvard, he was approached by Peter Schmidheiny, who had just sold Escher Wyss to the Sulzer Group. Escher Wyss’ Ravensberg factory during World War II had been managed by Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, and had been involved in making heavy water turbines for the secretive Nazi atomic bomb effort. Schwab speaks in one interview about the moment Schmidheiny called him up, saying, “You come from Harvard now and know modern management methods, help to make the integration a success”. What Klaus wouldn’t mention in that interview is that he would help Sulzer and Escher Wyss to merge, resulting in a new company called Sulzer AG. That company, where Schwab would serve as director, which would go on to break international law by aiding the South African apartheid regime in its illegal thermonuclear bomb program.

Klaus Schwab had only just left the sphere of influence of some of the most significant experts in thermonuclear war, and within the same year as leaving Harvard, he would head up the merger of a company dealing in the propagation thermonuclear bomb technology to despotic regimes.

For many of us who don’t map out terrifying extinction scenarios, we may be left believing that apartheid South Africa gaining the nuke at this point in history would be one of the worst things that could’ve happened. But, Herman Kahn’s thermonuclear disaster scenarios had led the rotund genius to believe that, barring a disaster, sabotage, or an accident, no major nuclear power would dare fire a thermonuclear weapon as an act of aggression for the foreseeable future. In fact, the Establishment thinking had changed significantly, to the point where Herman Kahn and others were advising that, in certain scenarios, making a country such as France a nuclear power could have significant benefits to security both regionally and globally, whilst also helping to reduce US defence spending.

Thermonuclear war was no longer the be all and end all of strategic defence policy, and it was in the dying embers of the 1960s where the same people who had caused all of the fear of a thermonuclear apocalypse, really did stop worrying and learnt to love the bomb.

Caution: Fallible Humans Ahead

Is Klaus Schwab the real brains behind the formation of the World Economic Forum? What are we to make of the CIA involvement in the seminar Kissinger used to recruit Schwab? Were the powers that lurk behind organisations like the CFR the real founders of the globalist policy making organisation? Was the World Economic Forum meant to simply unite Europe? Or was it then actually meant to go on to unite Europe with America, followed by the remaining superstates, into a New World Order designed by powerful CFR grandees like Kissinger, Khan and Galbraith?

These three powerful men each saw in Schwab a reflection of their own intellectual desires. Klaus had been born in the latter half of the same decade in which the technocratic movement had begun and he would come from the first generation to have their formative years in a post-war world. Khan’s predictions for the future had not only been an exercise in human wonder, it had also been a project to make these predictions a reality as quickly as possible and regardless of the consequences.

In 1964, Klaus Schwab would be trying to decide what he was going to do with his career. He was 26 years old and looking for direction and he would find that direction from a familial source. His father, Eugen Schwab, had been on the wrong side of history during World War II, and had been involved in the Nazi atomic bomb effort. Eugen Schwab would tell his son that it will only be at Harvard where he’d truly be able to flourish. In a divided postwar Germany, the intense fear which came from the ever impending and well dramatised threat of thermonuclear war had become an everyday part of people’s psyche. Harvard was well known at the time for playing a central role in Cold War policy-making targeting European affairs and Klaus Schwab would put himself right in amongst the main movers and shakers on the thermonuclear disaster scene.

Whilst at Harvard, Schwab would attend Kissinger’s “International seminar” which was funded by the CIA via a known conduit. Through this process, Klaus Schwab would be introduced to a group of men who were actively trying to influence European public policy by any and all methods, including using the fear of impending nuclear doom. They would recognise his potential straight away, so much so that they would be there for Schwab all through the founding of the World Economic Forum, with Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith bringing perceived credibility to the project. It was not easy for Schwab alone to explain to European elites what he intended to do, so he would bring Kahn and Galbraith to Europe to persuade other important players to become part of the project. Galbraith would be the first Keynote Speaker at the forum, with Kahn’s presence also drawing significant interest, but the second World Economic Forum would stall without the presence of the bigger names and Klaus Schwab knew he would need something to draw in the crowds for the third installment of his forum’s annual meeting.

In 1972, the Club of Rome’s founder Aurelio Peccei had published his controversial book “The Limits to Growth”, a book that had been commissioned by the Club of Rome and which took a Malthusian approach to overpopulation. The book would call into question the sustainability of global economic growth and Peccei would be invited by Schwab to make the keynote speech at the 1973 World Economic Forum. This risqué public relations strategy paid dividends for Schwab and his organisation. From that point on, the forum would grow in size, scale and power. But it all began with a CIA-funded course run by Henry Kissinger at Harvard.

Aurelio Peccei (far right) at a 1975 Club of Rome meeting in Paris

Schwab has become more than just a technocrat. He has been very vocal on his intention to fuse his physical and biological identities with future technology. He has become a living caricature of an evil bond-like villain, conducting secretive meetings with the elites, high up in the mountain-top chalets of Switzerland. I do not think that the image we have of Schwab is an accident. In the postwar years, something very unique happened in Western culture, when the government began using mainstream media as a tool to target the public with military grade psychological operations. The ruling Establishment would discover that marrying the drama of conflict scenarios with media such as film would be extremely useful, almost akin to creating self-propagating propaganda in some cases. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove were fantastic vehicles for people to understand the absurdity of thermonuclear disaster scenario planning.

If people perceive you as an all powerful evil villain then you may not gain the support of the common man, but you will gain the attention from those who seek power and wealth, or, how Klaus Schwab would refer to them, the “stakeholders” in society. This is very important to understand – the projection of extreme wealth and power will attract and bring the “stakeholders” of society to the World Economic Forum’s table. With those “stakeholders” on board, Klaus Schwab’s main ideological product, “stakeholder capitalism”, will see the transfer of power away from true democratic processes and onto a system of governance by a small preselected leadership group, who will be trained to continue the agenda set for them by the previous generation, as predicted by Herman Kahn. They will hold all the cards, whilst the common people will be left with just illusory pseudo-democratic processes, poverty, and constant absurd psychological operations to distract us all constantly. Klaus Schwab would soon become everything Herman Kahn had feared during his most pessimistic predictions. When the Club of Rome produced “The Limits to Growth” report, Herman Kahn would refute its findings and rally against its pessimism, whilst, at the same time, Klaus Schwab would make it central to his machinations and have their founder be the keynote speaker at his forum in Davos.

Our current geopolitical situation is seemingly regressing back towards the East vs West dynamic of the Cold War era. Again, with recent events in Ukraine, the mainstream media is regurgitating nuclear talking points which are completely paralleled to those of 60 to 70 years ago. I believe that there is a very obvious reason for our return to Cold War rhetoric – it’s a very obvious sign that Klaus Schwab and his backers are out of ideas. They appear to be returning to a geopolitical paradigm in which they feel safer and, most importantly, which will cause mass fear of thermonuclear war. This rinse and repeat cycle will always happen once an ideological movement is running out of original ideas. Since the late 1960s, Klaus Schwab has been trying to create the world which Herman Kahn predicted. But Kahn’s vision of the future, even though pretty accurate, is over half a century old. Schwab’s technocratic movement depends on the successful development of innovative technologies which will advance us towards a vision largely manufactured in 1967. Just by studying a more refined list of Kahn’s predictions, you can see every idea which Schwab promotes is almost entirely based on Kahn’s “Year 2000” and that documents vision of what our future may look like, predictions dating back to the late 60’s. But, what Schwab appears to ignore, whilst forcing this futuristic agenda on us all, is that many of Kahn’s predictions were also combined with warnings of the dangers which will be created from future technological advancements.

As Schwab reaches the end of his life, he appears to be desperate to push forward a radical futurist agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually those people who love their own national identities will stand up against the immediate threat to their specific cultures and they will fight back against the globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible.

As a very pertinent final thought, Herman Kahn would write something extremely significant during the same year in which Schwab would leave Harvard. In the aforementioned Hudson Institute document of 1967 entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, Khan writes:

It has become increasingly clear that our technological and even our economic achievements are mixed blessings. Through progress issues arise such as the accumulation, augmentation, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the loss of privacy and solitude; the Increase of governmental and/or private power over individuals; the loss of human scale and perspective and the dehumanization of social life or even of the psychobiological self; the growth of dangerously, vulnerable, deceptive, or degradable centralizations of administrative or technological systems; the creation of other new capabilities, so inherently dangerous as to seriously risk disastrous abuse; and the acceleration of changes that are too rapid or cataclysmic to permit successful adjustment. Perhaps most crucial, choices are posed that are too large, complex, important, uncertain, or comprehensive to be safely left to fallible humans.”

AuthorJohnny VedmoreJohnny Vedmore is a completely independent investigative journalist and musician from Cardiff, Wales. His work aims to expose the powerful people who are overlooked by other journalists and bring new information to his readers. If you require help, or have a tip for Johnny, then get in touch via johnnyvedmore.com or by reaching out to johnnyvedmore@gmail.com

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Und beim Fahnenapell beim “Auslandseinsatz”: “wenigstens Maskenfrei zum Gebet!” Wenn jetzt Steinmeier sich für die Steigerung der Impfquote im Senegal einsetzt (Bisher unter 6%) und die Errichtung von entsprechenden Produktionsanlagen in Afrika fordert, könnte man die Lanzen oben durch Spritzen ersetzen Vielleicht ändere ich meine Fotocollage aus dem Jahr 1991 noch Mal entsprechend und ergänze das Bush-Zitat mit dem Marschbefehl des Bill Gates: “Not Missiles! Microbes!” Und dann ist die Collage auch so interpretierbar: es handelt sich um einen humanitären Einsatz der NATO zur Rettung COVID-19-erkrankter Menschen. Oder wie es Muammar Gaddafi vor der UN-Vollversammlung 2009 gesagt hat: “Sie schaffen ein Virus und verkaufen uns dann den Impfstoff dagegen!”

Den “Neuen Krefelder Appell” gegen die Kriege an der “Heimatfront” und die als “Auslandseinsätze” schöngeredeten Angriffskriege an der NATO-Ostfront, in Afrika, in Fernost, im Jemen, in Syrien usw… unterzeichnen! Das geht sehr einfach hier: Den Kriegstreibern in den Arm fallen, online unterzeichnen – barth-engelbart.de
https://peaceappeal21.de/ 

Deutsche Übersetzung:der folgende Übersetzungsversuch ist gescheitert. Ich werde die deutsche Version als eigenständigen Artikel veröffentlichen:

Deutsche Übersetzung: Hinter den Kulissen der WEF-Davoser Puppet-Show – barth-engelbart.de

Dr. Klaus Schwab oder: Wie der CFR mich lehrte, mir keine Sorgen mehr zu machen und die Bombe zu lieben

Das Weltwirtschaftsforum war nicht nur die Idee von Klaus Schwab, sondern entstand aus einem von der CIA finanzierten Harvard-Programm unter der Leitung von Henry Kissinger und wurde von John Kenneth Galbraith und dem „echten“ Dr. Strangelove Herman Kahn verwirklicht. Dies ist die erstaunliche Geschichte hinter den echten Männern, die Klaus Schwab rekrutierten, der ihm half, das Weltwirtschaftsforum zu gründen, und der ihm beibrachte, sich keine Sorgen mehr zu machen und die Bombe zu lieben.BISJOHNNY VEDMORE10. MÄRZ 202230 MINUTEN LESEZEIT

Die aufgezeichnete Geschichte des Weltwirtschaftsforums wurde so konstruiert, dass sie so aussieht, als wäre die Organisation eine rein europäische Schöpfung, aber das ist nicht so. Tatsächlich hatte Klaus Schwab ein elitäres amerikanisches politisches Team, das im Schatten arbeitete, was ihm bei der Gründung der in Europa ansässigen globalistischen Organisation half. Wenn Sie ein anständiges Wissen über Klaus Schwabs Geschichte haben, werden Sie wissen, dass er in den 1960er Jahren Harvard besuchte, wo er den damaligen Professor Henry A. Kissinger traf, einen Mann, mit dem Schwab eine lebenslange Freundschaft eingehen würde. Aber wie bei den meisten Informationen aus den Annalen der Geschichtsbücher des Weltwirtschaftsforums ist das, was Ihnen gesagt wurde, nicht die ganze Geschichte. Tatsächlich rekrutierte Kissinger Schwab auf dem Internationalen Seminar in Harvard, das von der US-amerikanischen Central Intelligence Agency finanziert worden war. Obwohl diese Finanzierung in dem Jahr aufgedeckt wurde, in dem Klaus Schwab Harvard verließ, ist der Zusammenhang weitgehend unbemerkt geblieben – bis jetzt.

Meine Recherchen deuten darauf hin, dass das Weltwirtschaftsforum keine europäische Schöpfung ist. In Wirklichkeit ist es stattdessen eine Operation, die von den Granden der öffentlichen Ordnung der Kennedy-, Johnson- und Nixon-Ära der amerikanischen Politik ausgeht; Sie alle hatten Verbindungen zum Council on Foreign Relations und der damit verbundenen „Round Table“ -Bewegung, wobei eine unterstützende Rolle von der Central Intelligence Agency gespielt wurde.

There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies. In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever present threat of global thermonuclear war. By examining these men through the wider context of the geopolitics of the period, I will show how their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s, how they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and how they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.

Henry A. Kissinger

Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born in Bavaria, Germany, on 27 May 1923 to Paula and Louis Kissinger. The family had been one of many Jewish families fleeing the persecution in Germany to arrive in America in 1938. Kissinger would change his first name to Henry at 15 years old when arriving in America by way of a brief emigration to London. His family would initially settle in Upper Manhattan with the young Henry Kissinger attending George Washington High School. In 1942, Kissinger would enroll in the City College of New York, but, in early 1943, was drafted into the US Army. On 19 June 1943, Kissinger would become a naturalised US citizen. He would soon be assigned to the 84th Infantry Division where he would be recruited by the legendary Fritz Kraemer to work in the military intelligence unit of the division. Kraemer would fight along Kissinger during the Battle of the Bulge and would later become extremely influential in American politics during the postwar era, influencing future politicians such as Donald Rumsfeld. Henry Kissinger would describe Kraemer as being “the greatest single influence on my formative years”, in a New Yorker article entitled, The Myth of Henry Kissinger, written in 2020.

The writer of that article, Thomas Meaney, describes Kraemer as:

A Nietzschean firebrand to the point of self-parody—he wore a monocle in his good eye to make his weak eye work harder—Kraemer claimed to have spent the late Weimar years fighting both Communists and Nazi Brown Shirts in the streets. He had doctorates in political science and international law, and pursued a promising career at the League of Nations before fleeing to the US in 1939. He warned Kissinger not to emulate “cleverling” intellectuals and their bloodless cost-benefit analyses. Believing Kissinger to be “musically attuned to history,” he told him, “Only if you do not ‘calculate’ will you really have the freedom which distinguishes you from the little people.””

Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab and Ted Heath at the 1980 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

During World War II, whilst Kissinger was serving in the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps, he would be promoted to the rank of sergeant and would go on to serve in the Military Intelligence Reserve for many years after peace was declared. During that period, Kissinger would take charge of a team hunting down Gestapo officers and other Nazi officials who had been labeled as “saboteurs”. After the war, in 1946, Kissinger would be reassigned to teach at the European Command Intelligence School, a position he would continue to work in as a civilian after officially leaving the army.

In 1950, Kissinger would graduate from Harvard with a degree in political science where he would study under William Yandell Elliott, who would eventually be a political advisor to six US presidents and would also serve as a mentor to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pierre Trudeau, among others. Yandell Elliott, along with many of his star pupils, would serve as the key connectors between the American national security establishment and the British “Round Table” movement, embodied by organisations such as Chatham House in the UK and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. They would also seek to impose global power structures shared by Big Business, the political elite and academia. Kissinger would continue to study at Harvard, gaining his MA and PhD degrees at the prestigious university, but he was also already trying to forge a career path in intelligence, reportedly seeking recruitment as an FBI spy during this period.

In 1951, Kissinger would be employed as a consultant for the Army’s Operations Research Office, where he would be trained in various forms of psychological warfare. This awareness of psyops was reflected in his doctoral work during the period. His work on the Congress of Vienna and its consequences invoked thermonuclear weapons as its opening gambit, which also made an otherwise dull piece of work a little more interesting. By 1954, Kissinger was hoping to become a junior professor at Harvard but, instead, the dean of Harvard at the time, McGeorge Bundy – another pupil of William Yandell Elliott, recommended Kissinger to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). At the CFR, Kissinger would start managing a study group on nuclear weapons. From 1956 to 1958, Kissinger also became the Director of Special Studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (David Rockefeller was vice-president of the CFR during this period), as well as going on to direct multiple panels to produce reports on national defense, which would gain international attention. In 1957, Kissinger would seal his place as a leading Establishment figure on thermonuclear war after publishing, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a book published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Brothers.

Im Dezember 1966 kündigte der stellvertretende Staatssekretär für europäische Angelegenheiten, John M. Leddy, die Bildung eines 22-köpfigen Beratergremiums an, um „die europäische Politik mitzugestalten“. Zu den fünf prominentesten Akteuren dieses Beratergremiums gehörten: Henry A. Kissinger, der Harvard vertritt, Robert Osgood vom Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research (finanziert von Ford, Rockefeller und Carnegie), Melvin Conant von Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Warner R Schilling von der Columbia University und Raymond Vernon der auch von Harvard war. Zu den anderen Personen auf dem Podium gehörten vier Mitglieder des Council on Foreign Relations, Shepard Stone von der Ford Foundation, der Rest war eine Mischung aus Vertretern führender amerikanischer Universitäten. Die Bildung dieses Gremiums könnte als die Verlegung des sprichwörtlichen Grundsteins betrachtet werden, der die Absicht des amerikanischen Zweigs des „Round Table“-Establishments markiert, eine Organisation wie das Weltwirtschaftsforum zu schaffen, in der anglo-amerikanische Imperialisten die europäische Politik nach eigenem Ermessen gestalten würden.https://www.youtube.com/embed/k9BG7ZX6RHg?feature=oembed

Das Nachkriegseuropa befand sich in einer entscheidenden Phase seiner Entwicklung, und das mächtige amerikanische Imperium begann, Chancen in der Wiedergeburt Europas und der aufstrebenden Identität seiner jüngeren Generation zu sehen. Ende Dezember 1966 war Kissinger eine der neunundzwanzig „amerikanischen Autoritäten in Deutschland„, die eine Erklärung unterzeichneten, in der sie erklärten, dass „die jüngsten Landtagswahlen in Westdeutschland keine Wiedergeburt des Nationalsozialismus bedeuten“. Das Dokument, das auch von Leuten wie Dwight Eisenhower unterzeichnet wurde, sollte signalisieren, dass Europa neu beginnt und beginnen sollte, die Schrecken europäischer Kriege in die Vergangenheit zu versetzen. Einige der Personen, die an der Erstellung des oben genannten Dokuments beteiligt waren, waren diejenigen, die die europäische Politik bereits von außen von außen beeinflusst hatten. Bemerkenswerterweise war einer der Unterschriften neben Kissinger und Eisenhower Prof. Hans J. Morgenthau, der zu dieser Zeit auch den Council on Foreign Relations vertrat. Morgenthau hatte ein berühmtes Papier mit dem Titel Scientific Man versus Power Politics geschrieben und argumentierte gegen eine „übermäßige Abhängigkeit von Wissenschaft und Technologie als Lösung für politische und soziale Probleme“.

Im Februar 1967 zielte Henry Kissinger darauf ab, dass die europäische Politik der Grund für ein Jahrhundert des Krieges und der politischen Unruhen auf dem Kontinent gewesen sei. In einem Artikel mit dem Titel Fuller Investigation, der in der New York Times abgedruckt wurde, erklärte Kissinger, dass ein Werk von Raymond Aron, Frieden und Krieg. Eine Theorie der Internationalen Beziehungen hatte einige dieser Probleme behoben.

In diesem Artikel würde Kissinger schreiben:

In den Vereinigten Staaten ist der nationale Stil pragmatisch; die Tradition bis zum Zweiten Weltkrieg war weitgehend isolationistisch; die Herangehensweise an Frieden und Krieg war tendenziell absolut und legalistisch. Die amerikanische Literatur über Außenpolitik hat sich im Allgemeinen in drei Kategorien eingeteilt: Analysen spezifischer Fälle oder historischer Episoden, Ermahnungen, die eine stärkere Beteiligung an internationalen Angelegenheiten rechtfertigen oder sich ihr widersetzen, und Untersuchungen der Rechtlichen Grundlagen der Weltordnung.

Es war klar, dass Prof. Henry A. Kissinger die amerikanische Beteiligung an der Gestaltung der europäischen Politik als entscheidend für den zukünftigen Frieden und die Stabilität der Welt identifiziert hatte. Zu dieser Zeit war Kissinger an der Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts tätig. Hier würde der zukünftige Gründer des Weltwirtschaftsforums, ein junger Klaus Schwab, die Aufmerksamkeit von Henry A. Kissinger auf sich ziehen.

Kissinger war der Exekutivdirektor des Internationalen Seminars, das Schwab oft erwähnt, wenn er sich an seine Zeit in Harvard erinnert. Am 16. April 1967 wurde berichtet, dass verschiedene Harvard-Programme von der Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) finanziert wurden. Dazu gehörten 135.000 US-Dollar für Henry Kissingers Internationales Seminar, eine Finanzierung, von der Kissinger behauptete, er habe nicht gewusst, dass sie vom US-Geheimdienst stammte. Die Beteiligung der CIA an der Finanzierung von Kissingers internationalem Seminar wurde in einem Bericht von Humphrey Doermann, dem Assistenten von Franklin L. Ford, dem Dekan der Fakultät für Kunst und Wissenschaft, aufgedeckt. Humphrey Doermanns Bericht, der 1967 geschrieben wurde, konzentrierte sich nur auf die CIA-Finanzierung zwischen 1961 und 1966, aber Kissingers Internationales Seminar, das die meisten Mittel von allen CIA-finanzierten Harvard-Programmen erhalten hatte, würde noch bis 1967 laufen. Klaus Schwab kam 1965 nach Harvard.

Am 15. April 1967 veröffentlichte The Harvard Crimson einen Artikel über Doermanns Bericht, der keinem Autor zugeschrieben wurde und in dem es hieß: „Es gab keine Bedingungen für die Hilfe, so dass die Regierung die Forschung nicht direkt beeinflussen oder die Veröffentlichung ihrer Ergebnisse verhindern konnte.“ Der abweisende Artikel mit dem Titel CIA Financial Links schließt nonchalant mit der Feststellung: „Auf jeden Fall, wenn die Universität sich weigern würde, CIA-Forschungsstipendien anzunehmen, hätte die schattenhafte Agentur wenig Mühe, ihre Angebote durch eine weitere Agrecy zu kanalisieren.“ (agrecy ist ein Wortspiel, das eine Form von Intelligenz bedeutet).

Die Beweise deuten darauf hin, dass Klaus Schwab von Kissinger über ein von der CIA finanziertes Programm an der Harvard University in seinen Kreis der „Round Table“-Imperialisten rekrutiert wurde. Darüber hinaus wäre das Jahr, in dem er seinen Abschluss machte, auch das Jahr, in dem sich herausstellte, dass es sich um ein von der CIA finanziertes Programm handelte. Dieses von der CIA finanzierte Seminar würde Schwab den extrem gut vernetzten amerikanischen Politikern vorstellen, die ihm helfen würden, das mächtigste europäische Politische Institut, das Weltwirtschaftsforum, zu gründen.

Bis 1969 würde Kissinger als Leiter des Nationalen Sicherheitsrates der USA sitzen, dessen Bedeutung der amtierende Präsident Richard Nixon während seiner Amtszeit „erhöhen“ würde. Kissinger war vom 2. Dezember 1968 bis zum 3. November 1975 Assistent des Präsidenten für nationale Sicherheitsangelegenheiten und ab dem 22. September 1973 gleichzeitig Außenminister von Richard Nixon. Kissinger würde die Gestaltung der US-Außenpolitik während der Nixon-Ära dominieren, und das System, das er in den Nationalen Sicherheitsrat einbringen würde, würde versuchen, Merkmale der zuvor von Eisenhower und Johnson implementierten Systeme zu kombinieren.

Henry Kissinger, who had been one of the people to manufacture tensions between thermonuclear powers over the previous two decades, was now to act as “peacemaker” during the Nixon period. He would turn his focus to the European stand-off and would seek to relax the tensions between the West and Russia. He negotiated the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (culminating in the SALT I treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Kissinger was attempting to rebrand himself as a trusted statesman and diplomat.

In the second term of President Richard Nixon’s administration, their attention would turn to relations with Western Europe. Richard Nixon would describe 1973 as being the “Year of Europe”. The United States’ focus would be on supporting the states of the European Economic Community (EEC) which had become economic rivals to the US by the early 1970s. Kissinger grasped the “Year of Europe” concept and pushed an agenda, not only of economic reform, but also arguing to strengthen and revitalise what he considered to be the “decaying force”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Throughout this period, Kissinger would also promote global governance.

Years later, Henry Kissinger would make the opening address of the World Economic Forum’s 1980 conference, telling the elites at Davos: “For the first time in history, foreign policy is truly global”.

John K. Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith (often referred to as Ken Galbraith) was a Canadian-American economist, diplomat, public policy maker, and Harvard intellectual. His impact on American history is extraordinary and the consequences of his actions in the late 1960s alone are still being felt around the world today. In September 1934, Galbraith would initially join the faculty at Harvard University as an instructor with a salary of $2,400 per year. In 1935, he would be appointed a tutor at John Winthrop House (commonly known as Winthrop House) which is one of twelve undergraduate residential houses at Harvard University. In that same year, one of his first students would be Joseph P. Kennedy Jr, with John F. Kennedy arriving two years later, in 1937. Soon after, the Canadian Galbraith would become naturalised as a US citizen on 14 September 1937. Three days later, he would marry his partner, Catherine Merriam Atwater, a woman who, a few years before, had been studying at the University of Munich. There, she had lived in the same rooming house-dormitory as Unity Mitford, whose boyfriend was Adolf Hitler. After marrying, Galbraith would travel extensively in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Italy, France, but also Germany. Galbraith had been due to spend a year as a research fellow at the University of Cambridge under famed economist John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes’ sudden heart attack would see Galbraith’s new wife persuade him to study in Germany instead. During the summer of 1938, Galbraith would study German land policies under Hitler’s government.

The following year, Galbraith found himself involved in what was termed at the time, “the Walsh-Sweezy affair” – a US national scandal involving two radical instructors who had been terminated from Harvard. Galbraith’s connections with the affair would result in his appointment at Harvard not being renewed.

Still from Galbraith’s interview with Charlie Rose

Galbraith would take a demotion to work at Princeton, where he would soon after accept an invitation from the National Resource Planning Board to be part of a review panel into New Deal spending and employment programs. It is this project which would see him first meet Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940, as France fell to Nazi forces, Galbraith would join the staff of the National Defense Advisory Committee, at the request of FDR’s economic advisor, Lauchlin Curry. Although that committee would be swiftly dissolved, Galbraith soon found himself appointed to the Office of Price Administration (OPA), heading up the division tasked with price control. He would be dismissed from the OPA on 31 May 1943. Fortune Magazine had already been trying to headhunt Galbraith since as early as 1941, and would soon scoop him up to join their staff as a writer.

The biggest shift in focus for Galbraith happened in 1945, the day after the death of Roosevelt. Galbraith would leave New York for Washington, where he would be duly sent to London to assume a division directorship of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, tasked with evaluating the overall economic effects of the wartime bombing. By the time he had arrived at Flensburg, Germany had already formally surrendered to the Allied forces and Galbraith’s initial task would change. He would accompany George Ball and be part of the interrogation of Albert Speer. In this one move, Galbraith had gone from being a policy advisor dealing with statistics and projections concerned with pricing, to the co-interrogator of a high-ranking Nazi war criminal. Speer had been in various important positions during the war, including as the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, one of the key men behind the organisation, maintenance and arming of every part of the Nazi Wermacht.

Soon after, Galbraith would be sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to evaluate the effects of the bombing. In January 1946, John Kenneth Galbraith was involved in one of the defining moments of American economic history. He would take part in the American Economic Association meetings in Cleveland, where, alongside Edward Chamberlin of Harvard and Clarence Ayres of Texas, he would debate Frank Knight and other leading proponents of classical economics. This event marked the coming-out of Keynesian economics, which would come to dominate post-war America.

In February 1946, Galbraith would return to Washington, where he would be appointed director of the Office of Economic Security Policy. It is here, in September of 1946, where Galbraith was tasked with drafting a speech for the Secretary of State, William Byrnes, outlining American policy towards German reconstruction, democratisation, and eventual admission into the United Nations. Galbraith, who opposed the group of politicians at the time referred to as “the Cold Warriors”, would resign from his position in October of 1946, returning to Fortune Magazine. He would also be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom that same year. In 1947, Galbraith would co-found the organisation, Americans for Democratic Action, alongside others including Eleanor Roosevelt, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Ronald Reagan. In 1948, Galbraith would return to Harvard as a lecturer in Agricultural Forestry and Land-Use Policy. Soon after, he would be installed as a Professor at Harvard.

1957 begann Galbraith eine engere Beziehung zu seinem ehemaligen Schüler John F. Kennedy aufzubauen, der zu diesem Zeitpunkt Junior-Senator für Massachusetts war. Im folgenden Jahr erklärte JFK Galbraith öffentlich zum „Phileas Fogg der akademischen Welt“, nachdem er ein Exemplar von Galbraiths Buch Eine Reise nach Polen und Jugoslawien erhalten hatte, in dem er die sozialistische Planung aus nächster Nähe untersuchte. Ebenfalls 1958 veröffentlichte Galbraith unter kritischem Beifall „The Affluent Society“, in dem er Begriffe wie „konventionelle Weisheit“ und den „Abhängigkeitseffekt“ prägte. Um diese Zeit became Galbraith den Paul M. Warburg Lehrstuhl für Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Harvard. Das ist die gleiche Position, die er einnehmen würde, wenn er zum ersten Mal einem jungen Klaus Schwab vorgestellt würde.https://www.youtube.com/embed/hN8yPLaBVm8?list=PL8745268A4975524F

Bis 1960 war John Kenneth Galbraith ein Wirtschaftsberater der Kennedy-Kampagne geworden. Nachdem Kennedy zum Präsidenten gewählt worden war, begann Galbraith, die neue Regierung zu besetzen, und war bekanntlich der Mann, der Robert S. McNamara als Verteidigungsminister empfahl. 1961 ernannte Kennedy Galbraith zum Botschafter in Indien und später im Jahr reiste Galbraith auf Geheiß des Präsidenten nach Vietnam, um eine zweite Meinung zum Taylor-Rostow-Bericht abzugeben. Auf Galbraiths Rat hin würde Kennedy beginnen, Truppen aus Vietnam abzuziehen.

1963 kehrte Galbraith in die Vereinigten Staaten zurück und lehnte ein Angebot Kennedys ab, einen Botschafterposten in Moskau zu übernehmen, um nach Harvard zurückzukehren. An dem Tag, an dem Kennedy ermordet wurde, war Galbraith mit der Herausgeberin der Washington Post, Katharine Graham, in New York. Galbraith würde direkt nach Washington gehen und der Mann sein, der die ursprüngliche Version der Rede des neuen Präsidenten vor der gemeinsamen Sitzung des Kongresses entworfen hat. Im Jahr nach JFKs Ermordung kehrte Galbraith nach Harvard zurück, um einen berühmten und sehr beliebten Kurs in Sozialwissenschaften zu entwickeln, den er im folgenden Jahrzehnt unterrichten sollte. Er würde immer noch seine Position als Berater von Präsident Johnson behalten, aber den Rest des Jahres damit verbringen, seine letzten akademischen Zeitschriften ausschließlich in Wirtschaftswissenschaften zu schreiben.

Bis 1965 war Galbraith in seiner Opposition gegen den Krieg in Vietnam immer lauter geworden, indem er Reden und Briefe an den Präsidenten schrieb. Diese Kluft zwischen Galbraith und Johnson würde fortbestehen, wobei Galbraith schließlich die Präsidentschaft von Americans for Democratic Action übernahm und eine nationale Kampagne gegen den Vietnamkrieg mit dem Titel Negotiations Now!“ startete. 1967 wurde die Kluft zwischen Galbraith und Johnson nur noch größer, als Senator Eugene McCarthy von Galbraith überredet wurde, bei den kommenden Vorwahlen gegen Johnson anzutreten. Robert F. Kennedy hoffte auch, Galbraith für seine eigene Kampagne zu rekrutieren, aber obwohl Galbraith eine enge Bindung zum verstorbenen JFK aufgebaut hatte, war er nicht so begeistert von Robert F. Kennedys unverwechselbarem Stil.

In den späten 1960er Jahren galten John K. Galbraith und Henry A. Kissinger als zwei der führenden Dozenten, Autoren und Pädagogen in Amerika. Sie waren auch beide Granden in Harvard, Galbraith als Paul M. Warburg Professor für Wirtschaftswissenschaften und Kissinger als Professor für Regierung, und die beiden Männer konzentrierten sich auf die Schaffung einer Außenpolitik sowohl für Amerika als auch für das aufstrebende neue Europa. Am 20. März 1968 wurde bekannt gegeben, dass Kissinger und Galbraith die ersten Redner der Frühjahrssitzung der sogenannten „Mandeville Lectures Series“ sein würden, die an der University of California, San Diego, stattfinden sollte. Galbraiths Rede trug den Titel „Foreign Policy: The Cool Dissent“, während Kissingers Rede „Amerika und Europa: Eine neue Beziehung“ hieß.

Kissinger stellte Klaus Schwab John Kenneth Galbraith in Harvard vor, und als die 1960er Jahre zu Ende gingen, half Galbraith Schwab, das Weltwirtschaftsforum Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen. Galbraith würde zusammen mit Herman Kahn nach Europa fliegen, um Schwab zu helfen, die europäische Elite davon zu überzeugen, das Projekt zu unterstützen. Auf dem ersten European Management Symposium/Forum (der ursprüngliche Name des WEF) war John Kenneth Galbraith der Hauptredner.

Herman Kahn

Herman Kahn wurde am 15. Februar 1922 in Bayonne, New Jersey, als Sohn von Yetta und Abraham Kahn geboren. Er wuchs in der Bronx mit einer jüdischen Erziehung auf, wurde aber später in seinem Glauben atheistisch. In den 1950er Jahren schrieb Khan am Hudson Institute verschiedene Berichte über das Konzept und die Praktikabilität der nuklearen Abschreckung, die später zur offiziellen Militärpolitik wurden. Er würde auch Berichte für offizielle Anhörungen wie den Unterausschuss für Strahlung erstellen. In der Urhysterie der ersten Jahre des Kalten Krieges würde Kahn der intellektuelle, und manche mögen sagen, ethische und moralische Raum erhalten, um „das Undenkbare zu denken“. Khan würde die Spieltheorie – das Studium mathematischer Modelle strategischer Interaktionen zwischen rationalen Agenten – auf mögliche Kriegsszenarien und -ergebnisse in Bezug auf einen thermonuklearen Krieg anwenden.

1960 veröffentlichte Kahn The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence, in dem er die Risiken und die anschließenden Auswirkungen eines thermonuklearen Krieges untersuchte. Die Rand Corporation fasst die Arten von Abschreckungsmitteln, die in Kahns Arbeit diskutiert werden, wie folgt zusammen: die Abschreckung eines direkten Angriffs, die Verwendung strategischer Bedrohungen, um einen Feind davon abzuhalten, sich an sehr provokativen Handlungen zu beteiligen, die nicht ein direkter Angriff auf die Vereinigten Staaten sind, und schließlich die Handlungen, die abgeschreckt werden, weil der potenzielle Aggressor Angst hat, dass der Verteidiger oder andere begrenzte Maßnahmen ergreifen werden. militärisch oder nicht-militärisch, um die Aggression unrentabel zu machen.

Herman Kahn (links) mit Gerald Ford und Donald Rumsfeld

Im folgenden Jahr veröffentlichte die Princeton University Press erstmals Herman Kahns bahnbrechendes Werk On Thermonuclear War. Dieses Buch hätte einen enormen Einfluss auf die nahe und ferne Zukunft der Weltpolitik und würde die Politiker des amerikanischen Establishments dazu bringen, eine Außenpolitik zu entwickeln, die speziell darauf ausgelegt ist, dem potenziellen thermonuklearen Worst-Case-Szenario entgegenzuwirken. Bei der Veröffentlichung von Kahns erschreckendem Werk wurde der israelisch-amerikanische Soziologe und „Kommunitarist“ Amitai Etzioni mit den Worten zitiert: „Kahn tut für Atomwaffen, was Befürworter der freien Liebe für Sex getan haben: Er spricht offen von Handlungen, über die andere hinter verschlossenen Türen flüstern“.

Khans komplexe Theorien wurden oft fälschlicherweise paraphrasiert, wobei der größte Teil seiner Arbeit unmöglich in nur ein oder zwei Sätzen zusammengefasst werden kann, und dies ist emblematisch für seine Ideen über den thermonuklearen Krieg. Kahns Forschungsteam untersuchte eine Vielzahl verschiedener Szenarien, eine sich ständig weiterentwickelnde, dynamische, multipolare Welt und viele Unbekannte.

On Thermonuclear War hatte einen sofortigen und dauerhaften Einfluss, nicht nur auf die Geopolitik, sondern auch auf die Kultur, die innerhalb weniger Jahre durch einen sehr berühmten Film zum Ausdruck gebracht wurde. 1964 erschien der Stanley Kubrick-Klassiker Dr. Strangelove, und seitdem wird Khan als der echte Dr. Strangelove bezeichnet. Auf die Frage nach dem Vergleich sagte Khan zu Newsweek: „Kubrick ist ein Freund von mir. Er sagte mir, dass Dr. Strangelove nicht ich sein sollte.“ Aber andere würden auf die vielen Affinitäten zwischen Stanley Kubricks klassischem Charakter und dem realen Herman Kahn hinweisen.

In einem Essay, der im Juli 1966 für den Council on Foreign Relations mit dem Titel Our Alternatives in Europe geschrieben wurde, erklärt Kahn:

Die bestehende US-Politik war im Allgemeinen auf die politische und wirtschaftliche sowie die militärische Integration oder Vereinigung Westeuropas als Mittel zur europäischen Sicherheit ausgerichtet. Einige haben die Vereinigung als einen Schritt zur politischen Einheit des Westens als Ganzes oder sogar der Welt gesehen. So wurde auch das Erreichen einer qualifizierteren Form der Integration oder Föderation Europas und Europas mit Amerika als ein an sich wünschenswertes Ziel angesehen, zumal nationale Rivalitäten in Europa als grundlegend störende Kraft in der modernen Geschichte angesehen wurden; daher ist ihre Unterdrückung oder Anpassung an einen größeren politischen Rahmen für die zukünftige Stabilität der Welt unerlässlich.“

Diese Aussage legt nahe, dass die bevorzugte Lösung für die künftigen europäisch-amerikanischen Beziehungen die Schaffung einer Europäischen Union wäre. Noch besser als Kahn war die Idee, einen vereinten amerikanischen und europäischen Superstaat zu schaffen.

1967 schrieb Herman Kahn eines der wichtigsten futuristischen Werke des 20. Jahrhunderts, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years. In diesem Buch, das von Anthony J. Wiener mitverfasst wurde, haben Khan und Co. vorhergesagt, wo wir am Ende des Jahrtausends technologisch stehen würden. Aber es gab ein anderes Dokument, das kurz nach Kahns The Year 2000 veröffentlicht wurde, das gleichzeitig geschrieben worden war. Dieses Dokument mit dem Titel Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report sollte darlegen, wie die zukünftige Gesellschaft erreicht werden kann, die Kahns Arbeit im Jahr 2000 vorgesehen hatte.

In einem Abschnitt mit dem Titel „Special Educational Needs of Decision-Makers“ heißt es in dem Papier: „Die Erwünschtheit explizit gebildeter Entscheidungsträger, damit sie tatsächlich besser in der Lage sind, das Schicksal der Nation zu planen oder die durch einen demokratischeren Prozess formulierten Pläne umzusetzen, sollte sehr ernsthaft in Betracht gezogen werden. Eine Facette dieses Verfahrens wäre die Schaffung eines gemeinsamen Satzes von Konzepten, einer gemeinsamen Sprache, gemeinsamer Analogien, gemeinsamer Referenzen …“ Er fährt fort, im selben Abschnitt zu erklären: „Die universelle Umerziehung im Geiste der humanistischen Tradition Europas – zumindest für seine umfassende Führungsgruppe – könnte in vielerlei Hinsicht nützlich sein.“

Wenn Sie die zuvor erwähnte Rhetorik studieren und entschlüsseln, was sie bedeutet, schlägt Herman Kahn in diesem Dokument vor, die Demokratie zu untergraben, indem nur eine bestimmte Gruppe in der Gesellschaft als potenzielle Führer ausgebildet wird, wobei die wenigen vorausgewählten, die auf die Macht vorbereitet sind, in der Lage sind, zu definieren, was unsere gemeinsamen Werte als Gesellschaft sein sollten. Vielleicht würde Herman Kahn dem Young Global Leader-Programm des Weltwirtschaftsforums zustimmen, das genau die Manifestation seines ursprünglichen Vorschlags ist.

1968 wurde Herman Kahn von einem Reporter gefragt, was sie am Hudson Institute machen. Er würde sagen: „Wir nehmen Gottes Sichtweise ein. Die Ansicht des Präsidenten. Groß. Antenne. Global. Galaktisch. Ätherisch. Räumlich. Insgesamt. Größenwahn ist das übliche Berufsrisiko.“ Berichten zufolge erhob sich Herman Kahn von seinem Stuhl, zeigte mit dem Finger in Richtung Himmel und rief plötzlich: ‚Größenwahn, Zoom!'“https://www.youtube.com/embed/x-hFUeGiuOk?feature=oembed

In 1970, Kahn would travel to Europe with Galbraith to support Klaus Schwab’s recruitment drive for the first European Management Symposium. In 1971, Kahn would be sitting centre stage to watch John Kenneth Galbraith’s keynote speech at the historic first session of the policy making organisation which would eventually become the World Economic Forum.

1972 veröffentlichte der Club of Rome „The Limits to Growth“, in dem davor gewarnt wurde, dass die Bedürfnisse der Weltbevölkerung die verfügbaren Ressourcen bis zum Jahr 2000 übersteigen würden. Kahn verbrachte einen Großteil seines letzten Jahrzehnts damit, gegen diese Idee zu argumentieren. 1976 veröffentlichte Khan eine optimistischere Sicht auf die Zukunft, The Next 200 Years, in der behauptet wurde, dass die Potenziale von Kapitalismus, Wissenschaft, Technologie, menschlicher Vernunft und Selbstdisziplin grenzenlos seien. Die nächsten 200 Jahre würden auch die schädliche malthusianische Ideologie abtun, indem sie vorhersagen, dass die Ressourcen des Planeten dem Wirtschaftswachstum keine Grenzen setzen, sondern dass die Menschen „solche Gesellschaften überall im Sonnensystem und vielleicht auch zu den Sternen schaffen würden“.

Schwabs drei Mentoren

Kahn, Kissinger und Galbraith waren zu drei der einflussreichsten Menschen in Amerika geworden, was die thermonukleare Abschreckung, die Gestaltung der Außenpolitik und die Gestaltung der öffentlichen Politik betrifft. Der Schwerpunkt während der gesamten Karriere dieser Männer lag auf Europa und dem Kalten Krieg. Ihre unterschiedlichen Rollen in anderen wichtigen Ereignissen dieser Zeit haben jedoch alle das Potenzial, Forscher leicht von anderen subversiveren und gut versteckten Ereignissen abzulenken.

Diese drei mächtigen Amerikaner waren alle auf unterschiedliche Weise miteinander verbunden, aber ein interessanter und bemerkenswerter Faden verbindet diese Männer insbesondere in der Zeit von 1966 mit der Schaffung des von Kissinger geführten 22-köpfigen Beratergremiums zur „Gestaltung der europäischen Politik“ bis 1971 und der Gründung des Weltwirtschaftsforums. Alle drei Männer waren Mitglieder des Council on Foreign Relations, dem amerikanischen Zweig der anglo-amerikanischen imperialistischen „Round Table“-Bewegung. Kissinger war dem CFR bereits tief verbunden, nachdem er direkt nach seinem Abschluss von ihnen rekrutiert worden war. Galbraith hatte Berichten zufolge 1972 seine Mitgliedschaft im CFR auf „sehr öffentliche Weise“ niedergelegt und erklärt, dass der CFR langweilig sei und einem Journalisten sagte: „Die meisten Verfahren beinhalten ein Maß an Banalität, das so tief ist, dass die einzige Frage, die sie aufwerfen, ist, ob man sie durchstehen sollte.“ Obwohl es kein öffentliches Datum gibt, wann Galbraith Mitglied des CFR wurde, hatte er bereits im Juli 1958 für deren Veröffentlichungen mit „Rival Economic Theories in India“ geschrieben, das in Foreign Affairs, der offiziellen CFR-Zeitschrift, gedruckt wurde. Khan veröffentlichte auch einige seiner Essays über den CFR und schrieb das Stück „Our Alternatives in Europe“ im Juli 1966 und „If Negotiations Fail“ im Juli 1968, beide während er als offizieller Berater des Außenministeriums arbeitete.

Vor den 1960er Jahren waren diese drei äußerst einflussreichen amerikanischen Intellektuellen jeweils tief in den Versuch verwickelt, die Probleme eines Nachkriegseuropas zu verstehen und die Zukunft des vom Krieg heimgesuchten Kontinents zu planen. Galbraith war ausgiebig durch Europa gereist, einschließlich des Studiums der Politik in Deutschland während des Dritten Reiches, und nach dem Zusammenbruch von Hitlerdeutschland studierte Galbraith die sowjetischen Systeme auf die gleiche Weise. Galbraiths Einfluss auf den zukünftigen Präsidenten John F. Kennedy von klein auf kann nicht unterschätzt werden, und Galbraith war mächtig genug, um zu sehen, wie JFK auf seine Empfehlung hin mit dem Truppenabzug aus Vietnam begann. Als Kennedy in Dallas ermordet wurde, war Galbraith der Mann, der die erste Ansprache des neuen Präsidenten an die Nation entwarf, aber Galbraith sollte bald an die Seitenlinie gedrängt werden. Während der Wirren der 1960er Jahre stand Galbraith Henry Kissinger nahe, beide Männer waren Harvard-Professoren, Mitglieder des CFR, und beide Männer hatten das gleiche Ziel, Europa stabil zu machen, damit der Kontinent gegen jede mögliche sowjetische Aggression gut verteidigt wurde.

Für Galbraith und Kissinger und auch für das breitere amerikanische politische Establishment war Europa die Hauptbedrohung nicht nur für die globale Stabilität, sondern auch für die vorherrschende amerikanische Hegemonie im Allgemeinen. Die relative Stabilität in Europa in der Nachkriegszeit wurde als Folge der thermonuklearen Pattsituation wahrgenommen, und Kissinger erkannte diese Dynamik sehr früh und begann, die Situation zugunsten der amerikanischen Vorherrschaft zu manipulieren. Henry Kissinger war nicht der Einzige, der versuchte, die komplexe Dynamik in Bezug auf die thermonukleare Abschreckung und deren Auswirkungen auf die Politikgestaltung zu verstehen. Herman Kahn war im gleichen Zeitraum die führende Figur in der thermonuklearen strategischen Planung, und Kissingers Arbeit zum gleichen Thema ab Mitte der 50er Jahre führte dazu, dass sich seine Wege bei vielen Gelegenheiten mit Kahn kreuzten.

Kahn bot Kissinger etwas, wonach sich alle Politiker und politischen Entscheidungsträger sehnen, die Fähigkeit, zukünftige Ereignisse mit relativer Genauigkeit vorherzusagen. Kahn war ein wahrer Prophet in Bezug auf die technologischen Fortschritte der nicht allzu fernen Zukunft, und seine Arbeit, obwohl oft stoisch und ohne menschliche Emotionen, hat sich dem Test der Zeit sehr gut gestellt. Die Ziele von Kahn und Kissinger überschnitten sich Mitte und Ende der 1960er Jahre, und als die Bedrohungseinschätzungen, die Kahn in dieser Zeit machte, optimistischer wurden, würde Kissinger Kahns Arbeit als grundlegend ansehen, um den Menschen der Welt eine neue Zukunft zu bieten.

Henry Kissingers Vision der Zukunft war jedoch nicht von einer freien und fairen Gesellschaft, die gemeinsam in eine „schöne neue Welt“ vordringt, sondern Kissinger beabsichtigte, ein Bild der Welt zu schaffen, das durch seine eigene CFR-getriebene Establishment-Perspektive verzerrt worden war. Obwohl er versuchen würde, sich als wahrer Staatsmann neu zu positionieren, würde Kissinger weiterhin nicht nur ausländische demokratische Prozesse untergraben, sondern auch das amerikanische System zum Nutzen einer globalistischen Agenda untergraben. Als Schwab von Kissinger zum ersten Mal als potenzieller zukünftiger globalistischer Führer erkannt wurde, wurde der relativ junge Deutsche bald Galbraith und Kahn vorgestellt. Dies würde mit Kahns Arbeit zusammenfallen, die die Notwendigkeit identifiziert, Personen mit Führungspotenzial speziell von denen auszubilden, die die vorherrschenden Standardbildungsmodelle besuchen.

Klaus Schwab spricht auf der Eröffnungssitzung des Weltwirtschaftsforums, 1971

In dem Jahr, in dem Klaus Schwab Harvard verließ, wurde er von Peter Schmidheiny angesprochen, der gerade Escher Wyss an den Sulzer-Konzern verkauft hatte. Escher Wyss‘ Ravensberg-Fabrik während des Zweiten Weltkriegs war von Schwabs Vater Eugen Schwab geleitet worden und war an der Herstellung von Schwerwasserturbinen für die geheimen Nazi-Atombombenbemühungen beteiligt gewesen. Schwab spricht in einem Interview über den Moment, als Schmidheiny ihn anrief: „Sie kommen jetzt aus Harvard und kennen moderne Managementmethoden, tragen dazu bei, dass die Integration gelingt.“ Was Klaus in diesem Interview nicht erwähnen würde, ist, dass er Sulzer und Escher Wyss bei der Fusion helfen würde, was zu einer neuen Firma namens Sulzer AG führen würde. Diese Firma, der Schwab als Direktor dienen würde, die später das Völkerrecht brechen würde, indem sie dem südafrikanischen Apartheidregime bei seinem illegalen thermonuklearen Bombenprogramm half.

Klaus Schwab hatte gerade erst den Einflussbereich einiger der bedeutendsten Experten für thermonukleare Kriege verlassen, und noch im selben Jahr, in dem er Harvard verließ, leitete er die Fusion eines Unternehmens, das sich mit der Verbreitung thermonuklearer Bombentechnologie befasste, zu despotischen Regimen.

Für viele von uns, die keine erschreckenden Aussterbeszenarien entwerfen, könnten wir glauben, dass das Apartheid-Südafrika, das zu diesem Zeitpunkt in der Geschichte die Atombombe erhält, eines der schlimmsten Dinge wäre, die hätten passieren können. Aber Herman Kahns thermonukleare Katastrophenszenarien hatten das rundliche Genie zu der Annahme veranlasst, dass, abgesehen von einer Katastrophe, Sabotage oder einem Unfall, keine große Atommacht es wagen würde, eine thermonukleare Waffe als Akt der Aggression für die absehbare Zukunft abzufeuern. Tatsächlich hatte sich das Denken des Establishments erheblich verändert, bis zu dem Punkt, an dem Herman Kahn und andere darauf hinwiesen, dass in bestimmten Szenarien die Umwandlung eines Landes wie Frankreich in eine Atommacht erhebliche Vorteile für die Sicherheit sowohl regional als auch global haben und gleichzeitig dazu beitragen könnte, die US-Verteidigungsausgaben zu senken.

Thermonuklearer Krieg war nicht mehr das A und O der strategischen Verteidigungspolitik, und es war in der sterbenden Glut der 1960er Jahre, wo die gleichen Leute, die die ganze Angst vor einer thermonuklearen Apokalypse verursacht hatten, wirklich aufhörten, sich Sorgen zu machen und lernten, die Bombe zu lieben.

Vorsicht: Fehlbare Menschen voraus

Ist Klaus Schwab der wahre Kopf hinter der Gründung des Weltwirtschaftsforums? Was sollen wir von der Beteiligung der CIA an dem Seminar halten, mit dem Kissinger Schwab rekrutierte? Waren die Kräfte, die hinter Organisationen wie dem CFR lauern, die wahren Gründer der globalistischen politischen Organisation? War das Weltwirtschaftsforum einfach dazu gedacht, Europa zu einen? Oder war es dann tatsächlich beabsichtigt, Europa mit Amerika, gefolgt von den verbleibenden Superstaaten, zu einer Neuen Weltordnung zu vereinen, die von mächtigen CFR-Granden wie Kissinger, Khan und Galbraith entworfen wurde?

Diese drei mächtigen Männer sahen in Schwab jeweils ein Spiegelbild ihrer eigenen intellektuellen Wünsche. Klaus war in der zweiten Hälfte desselben Jahrzehnts geboren worden, in dem die technokratische Bewegung begonnen hatte, und er würde aus der ersten Generation stammen, die ihre prägenden Jahre in einer Nachkriegswelt hatte. Khans Vorhersagen für die Zukunft waren nicht nur eine Übung in menschlichem Staunen gewesen, es war auch ein Projekt gewesen, um diese Vorhersagen so schnell wie möglich und unabhängig von den Konsequenzen Wirklichkeit werden zu lassen.

1964 versuchte Klaus Schwab zu entscheiden, was er mit seiner Karriere anfangen würde. Er war 26 Jahre alt und suchte nach einer Richtung und er würde diese Richtung aus einer familiären Quelle finden. Sein Vater, Eugen Schwab, war während des Zweiten Weltkriegs auf der falschen Seite der Geschichte gestanden und an den Atombombenanschlägen der Nazis beteiligt gewesen. Eugen Schwab würde seinem Sohn sagen, dass es nur in Harvard sein wird, wo er wirklich gedeihen kann. In einem geteilten Nachkriegsdeutschland war die intensive Angst, die von der immer drohenden und gut dramatisierten Bedrohung durch einen thermonuklearen Krieg ausging, zu einem alltäglichen Bestandteil der Psyche der Menschen geworden. Harvard war zu dieser Zeit dafür bekannt, eine zentrale Rolle in der Politikgestaltung des Kalten Krieges zu spielen, die auf europäische Angelegenheiten abzielte, und Klaus Schwab würde sich direkt in einen der Hauptakteure der thermonuklearen Katastrophenszene versetzen.

Während seiner Zeit in Harvard nahm Schwab an Kissingers „Internationalem Seminar“ teil, das von der CIA über einen bekannten Kanal finanziert wurde. Durch diesen Prozess würde Klaus Schwab einer Gruppe von Männern vorgestellt werden, die aktiv versuchten, die europäische öffentliche Ordnung mit allen Methoden zu beeinflussen, einschließlich der Angst vor dem bevorstehenden nuklearen Untergang. Sie würden sein Potenzial sofort erkennen, so sehr, dass sie während der gesamten Gründung des Weltwirtschaftsforums für Schwab da sein würden, wobei Kahn, Kissinger und Galbraith dem Projekt glaubwürdigkeitsgefährlich verliehen würden. Es war nicht einfach für Schwab allein, den europäischen Eliten zu erklären, was er zu tun beabsichtigte, also würde er Kahn und Galbraith nach Europa bringen, um andere wichtige Akteure davon zu überzeugen, Teil des Projekts zu werden. Galbraith wäre der erste Hauptredner auf dem Forum, wobei Kahns Anwesenheit auch großes Interesse weckte, aber das zweite Weltwirtschaftsforum würde ohne die Anwesenheit der größeren Namen ins Stocken geraten und Klaus Schwab wusste, dass er etwas brauchen würde, um die Massen für die dritte Ausgabe der Jahrestagung seines Forums anzuziehen.

1972 hatte der Gründer des Club of Rome, Aurelio Peccei, sein umstrittenes Buch „Die Grenzen des Wachstums“ veröffentlicht, ein Buch, das vom Club of Rome in Auftrag gegeben worden war und einen malthusianischen Ansatz gegen die Überbevölkerung verfolgte. Das Buch würde die Nachhaltigkeit des globalen Wirtschaftswachstums in Frage stellen und Peccei wurde von Schwab eingeladen, die Grundsatzrede auf dem Weltwirtschaftsforum 1973 zu halten. Diese gewagte PR-Strategie zahlte sich für Schwab und seine Organisation aus. Von diesem Zeitpunkt an würde das Forum an Größe, Umfang und Macht wachsen. Aber alles begann mit einem CIA-finanzierten Kurs, der von Henry Kissinger in Harvard geleitet wurde.

Aurelio Peccei (ganz rechts) bei einem Treffen des Club of Rome 1975 in Paris

Schwab ist mehr als nur ein Technokrat geworden. Er hat sich sehr lautstark zu seiner Absicht geäußert, seine physischen und biologischen Identitäten mit zukünftigen Technologien zu verschmelzen. Er ist zu einer lebendigen Karikatur eines bösen bandartigen Bösewichts geworden, der hoch oben in den Berghütten der Schweiz geheime Treffen mit den Eliten führt. Ich glaube nicht, dass das Bild, das wir von Schwab haben, ein Zufall ist. In den Nachkriegsjahren geschah etwas sehr Einzigartiges in der westlichen Kultur, als die Regierung begann, die Mainstream-Medien als Werkzeug zu nutzen, um die Öffentlichkeit mit militärischen psychologischen Operationen ins Visier zu nehmen. Das herrschende Establishment würde entdecken, dass die Vermählung des Dramas von Konfliktszenarien mit Medien wie Film äußerst nützlich wäre, fast vergleichbar mit der Schaffung von sich selbst verbreitender Propaganda in einigen Fällen. Filme wie Stanley Kubricks Dr. Strangelove waren fantastische Vehikel für menschen, um die Absurdität der thermonuklearen Katastrophenszenarioplanung zu verstehen.

Wenn die Leute dich als einen allmächtigen bösen Bösewicht wahrnehmen, dann gewinnst du vielleicht nicht die Unterstützung des einfachen Mannes, aber du wirst die Aufmerksamkeit derer gewinnen, die nach Macht und Reichtum streben, oder, wie Klaus Schwab sie nennen würde, den „Stakeholdern“ in der Gesellschaft. Dies ist sehr wichtig zu verstehen – die Projektion von extremem Reichtum und Macht wird die „Stakeholder“ der Gesellschaft anziehen und an den Tisch des Weltwirtschaftsforums bringen. Mit diesen „Stakeholdern“ an Bord wird Klaus Schwabs ideologisches Hauptprodukt, der „Stakeholder-Kapitalismus„, die Machtübertragung weg von echten demokratischen Prozessen und hin zu einem Regierungssystem durch eine kleine vorausgewählte Führungsgruppe sehen, die geschult wird, um die von der vorherigen Generation für sie festgelegte Agenda fortzusetzen, wie von Herman Kahn vorhergesagt. Sie werden alle Karten in der Hand halten, während das einfache Volk nur mit illusorischen pseudodemokratischen Prozessen, Armut und ständigen absurden psychologischen Operationen zurückbleiben wird, um uns alle ständig abzulenken. Klaus Schwab würde bald alles werden, was Herman Kahn bei seinen pessimistischsten Vorhersagen befürchtet hatte. Wenn der Club of Rome den Bericht „The Limits to Growth“ veröffentlichte, widerlegte Herman Kahn seine Ergebnisse und sammelte sich gegen seinen Pessimismus, während Klaus Schwab ihn gleichzeitig in den Mittelpunkt seiner Machenschaften stellte und ihren Gründer zum Hauptredner seines Forums in Davos machte.

Unsere aktuelle geopolitische Situation scheint sich in Richtung der Ost-West-Dynamik der Ära des Kalten Krieges zurückzuentwickeln. Angesichts der jüngsten Ereignisse in der Ukraine stoßen die Mainstream-Medien wieder auf nukleare Diskussionspunkte, die völlig parallel zu denen von vor 60 bis 70 Jahren sind. Ich glaube, dass es einen sehr offensichtlichen Grund für unsere Rückkehr zur Rhetorik des Kalten Krieges gibt – es ist ein sehr offensichtliches Zeichen dafür, dass Klaus Schwab und seine Unterstützer keine Ideen mehr haben. Sie scheinen zu einem geopolitischen Paradigma zurückzukehren, in dem sie sich sicherer fühlen und vor allem Massenangst vor einem thermonuklearen Krieg auslösen werden. Dieser Spül- und Wiederholungszyklus wird immer stattfinden, sobald einer ideologischen Bewegung die ursprünglichen Ideen ausgehen. Seit den späten 1960er Jahren versucht Klaus Schwab, die Welt zu erschaffen, die Herman Kahn vorhergesagt hat. Aber Kahns Vision der Zukunft, obwohl ziemlich genau, ist über ein halbes Jahrhundert alt. Schwabs technokratische Bewegung hängt von der erfolgreichen Entwicklung innovativer Technologien ab, die uns zu einer Vision führen werden, die weitgehend 1967 hergestellt wurde. Wenn man nur eine verfeinerte Liste von Kahns Vorhersagen studiert, kann man sehen, dass jede Idee, die Schwab fördert, fast ausschließlich auf Kahns „Jahr 2000“ basiert und die Vision dokumentiert, wie unsere Zukunft aussehen könnte, Vorhersagen aus den späten 60er Jahren. Aber was Schwab zu ignorieren scheint, während er uns allen diese futuristische Agenda aufzwingt, ist, dass viele von Kahns Vorhersagen auch mit Warnungen vor den Gefahren kombiniert wurden, die durch zukünftige technologische Fortschritte entstehen werden.

Als Schwab das Ende seines Lebens erreicht, scheint er verzweifelt zu sein, eine radikale futuristische Agenda mit dem offensichtlichen Potenzial für eine globale Katastrophe voranzutreiben. Ich glaube, dass das Weltwirtschaftsforum sein maximales Expansionsniveau vor seinem unvermeidlichen Zusammenbruch erreicht, denn schließlich werden die Menschen, die ihre eigene nationale Identität lieben, gegen die unmittelbare Bedrohung ihrer spezifischen Kulturen aufstehen und sich gegen die globalistische Herrschaft wehren. Ganz einfach, man kann nicht jeden zum Globalisten machen, egal wie viel Gehirnwäsche angewendet wird. Es gibt einen natürlichen Widerspruch zwischen nationaler Freiheit und globalistischer Herrschaft, die beide völlig unvereinbar machen.

Als sehr relevanter letzter Gedanke schrieb Herman Kahn im selben Jahr, in dem Schwab Harvard verlassen würde, etwas äußerst Bedeutendes. In dem bereits erwähnten Dokument des Hudson Institute von 1967 mit dem Titel Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report schreibt Khan:

Es ist immer deutlicher geworden, dass unsere technologischen und sogar unsere wirtschaftlichen Errungenschaften gemischte Segnungen sind. Durch den Fortschritt entstehen Fragen wie die Anhäufung, Verschärfung und Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen; der Verlust von Privatsphäre und Einsamkeit; die Zunahme der staatlichen und/oder privaten Macht über Einzelpersonen; der Verlust des menschlichen Maßstabs und der menschlichen Perspektive und die Entmenschlichung des sozialen Lebens oder sogar des psychobiologischen Selbst; das Anwachsen gefährlicher, verletzlicher, irreführender oder abbaubarer Zentralisierungen von Verwaltungs- oder Technologiesystemen; die Schaffung anderer neuer Fähigkeiten, die von Natur aus so gefährlich sind, dass sie ernsthaft einen katastrophalen Missbrauch riskieren; und die Beschleunigung von Veränderungen, die zu schnell oder katastrophal sind, um eine erfolgreiche Anpassung zu ermöglichen. Am wichtigsten ist vielleicht, dass Entscheidungen getroffen werden, die zu groß, komplex, wichtig, unsicher oder umfassend sind, um sie sicher fehlbaren Menschen zu überlassen. „

VerfasserJohnny VedmoreJohnny Vedmore ist ein völlig unabhängiger investigativer Journalist und Musiker aus Cardiff, Wales. Seine Arbeit zielt darauf ab, die mächtigen Menschen zu entlarven, die von anderen Journalisten übersehen werden, und seinen Lesern neue Informationen zu bringen. Wenn Sie Hilfe benötigen oder einen Tipp für Johnny haben, dann kontaktieren Sie uns über johnnyvedmore.com oder indem Sie sich an johnnyvedmore@gmail.com

Dr. Klaus Schwab oder: Wie der CFR mich lehrte, mir keine Sorgen mehr zu machen und die Bombe zu lieben

Das Weltwirtschaftsforum war nicht nur die Idee von Klaus Schwab, sondern entstand aus einem von der CIA finanzierten Harvard-Programm unter der Leitung von Henry Kissinger und wurde von John Kenneth Galbraith und dem „echten“ Dr. Strangelove Herman Kahn verwirklicht. Dies ist die erstaunliche Geschichte hinter den echten Männern, die Klaus Schwab rekrutierten, der ihm half, das Weltwirtschaftsforum zu gründen, und der ihm beibrachte, sich keine Sorgen mehr zu machen und die Bombe zu lieben.BISJOHNNY VEDMORE10. MÄRZ 202230 MINUTEN LESEZEIT

Die aufgezeichnete Geschichte des Weltwirtschaftsforums wurde so konstruiert, dass sie so aussieht, als wäre die Organisation eine rein europäische Schöpfung, aber das ist nicht so. Tatsächlich hatte Klaus Schwab ein elitäres amerikanisches politisches Team, das im Schatten arbeitete, was ihm bei der Gründung der in Europa ansässigen globalistischen Organisation half. Wenn Sie ein anständiges Wissen über Klaus Schwabs Geschichte haben, werden Sie wissen, dass er in den 1960er Jahren Harvard besuchte, wo er den damaligen Professor Henry A. Kissinger traf, einen Mann, mit dem Schwab eine lebenslange Freundschaft eingehen würde. Aber wie bei den meisten Informationen aus den Annalen der Geschichtsbücher des Weltwirtschaftsforums ist das, was Ihnen gesagt wurde, nicht die ganze Geschichte. Tatsächlich rekrutierte Kissinger Schwab auf dem Internationalen Seminar in Harvard, das von der US-amerikanischen Central Intelligence Agency finanziert worden war. Obwohl diese Finanzierung in dem Jahr aufgedeckt wurde, in dem Klaus Schwab Harvard verließ, ist der Zusammenhang weitgehend unbemerkt geblieben – bis jetzt.

Meine Recherchen deuten darauf hin, dass das Weltwirtschaftsforum keine europäische Schöpfung ist. In Wirklichkeit ist es stattdessen eine Operation, die von den Granden der öffentlichen Ordnung der Kennedy-, Johnson- und Nixon-Ära der amerikanischen Politik ausgeht; Sie alle hatten Verbindungen zum Council on Foreign Relations und der damit verbundenen „Round Table“ -Bewegung, wobei eine unterstützende Rolle von der Central Intelligence Agency gespielt wurde.

There were three extremely powerful and influential men, Kissinger among them, who would lead Klaus Schwab towards their ultimate goal of complete American Empire-aligned global domination via the creation of social and economic policies. In addition, two of the men were at the core of manufacturing the ever present threat of global thermonuclear war. By examining these men through the wider context of the geopolitics of the period, I will show how their paths would cross and coalesce during the 1960s, how they recruited Klaus Schwab through a CIA-funded program, and how they were the real driving force behind the creation of the World Economic Forum.

Henry A. Kissinger

Heinz Alfred Kissinger was born in Bavaria, Germany, on 27 May 1923 to Paula and Louis Kissinger. The family had been one of many Jewish families fleeing the persecution in Germany to arrive in America in 1938. Kissinger would change his first name to Henry at 15 years old when arriving in America by way of a brief emigration to London. His family would initially settle in Upper Manhattan with the young Henry Kissinger attending George Washington High School. In 1942, Kissinger would enroll in the City College of New York, but, in early 1943, was drafted into the US Army. On 19 June 1943, Kissinger would become a naturalised US citizen. He would soon be assigned to the 84th Infantry Division where he would be recruited by the legendary Fritz Kraemer to work in the military intelligence unit of the division. Kraemer would fight along Kissinger during the Battle of the Bulge and would later become extremely influential in American politics during the postwar era, influencing future politicians such as Donald Rumsfeld. Henry Kissinger would describe Kraemer as being “the greatest single influence on my formative years”, in a New Yorker article entitled, The Myth of Henry Kissinger, written in 2020.

The writer of that article, Thomas Meaney, describes Kraemer as:

A Nietzschean firebrand to the point of self-parody—he wore a monocle in his good eye to make his weak eye work harder—Kraemer claimed to have spent the late Weimar years fighting both Communists and Nazi Brown Shirts in the streets. He had doctorates in political science and international law, and pursued a promising career at the League of Nations before fleeing to the US in 1939. He warned Kissinger not to emulate “cleverling” intellectuals and their bloodless cost-benefit analyses. Believing Kissinger to be “musically attuned to history,” he told him, “Only if you do not ‘calculate’ will you really have the freedom which distinguishes you from the little people.””

Henry Kissinger, Klaus Schwab and Ted Heath at the 1980 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

During World War II, whilst Kissinger was serving in the U.S. Counter-Intelligence Corps, he would be promoted to the rank of sergeant and would go on to serve in the Military Intelligence Reserve for many years after peace was declared. During that period, Kissinger would take charge of a team hunting down Gestapo officers and other Nazi officials who had been labeled as “saboteurs”. After the war, in 1946, Kissinger would be reassigned to teach at the European Command Intelligence School, a position he would continue to work in as a civilian after officially leaving the army.

In 1950, Kissinger would graduate from Harvard with a degree in political science where he would study under William Yandell Elliott, who would eventually be a political advisor to six US presidents and would also serve as a mentor to Zbigniew Brzezinski and Pierre Trudeau, among others. Yandell Elliott, along with many of his star pupils, would serve as the key connectors between the American national security establishment and the British “Round Table” movement, embodied by organisations such as Chatham House in the UK and the Council on Foreign Relations in the United States. They would also seek to impose global power structures shared by Big Business, the political elite and academia. Kissinger would continue to study at Harvard, gaining his MA and PhD degrees at the prestigious university, but he was also already trying to forge a career path in intelligence, reportedly seeking recruitment as an FBI spy during this period.

In 1951, Kissinger would be employed as a consultant for the Army’s Operations Research Office, where he would be trained in various forms of psychological warfare. This awareness of psyops was reflected in his doctoral work during the period. His work on the Congress of Vienna and its consequences invoked thermonuclear weapons as its opening gambit, which also made an otherwise dull piece of work a little more interesting. By 1954, Kissinger was hoping to become a junior professor at Harvard but, instead, the dean of Harvard at the time, McGeorge Bundy – another pupil of William Yandell Elliott, recommended Kissinger to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). At the CFR, Kissinger would start managing a study group on nuclear weapons. From 1956 to 1958, Kissinger also became the Director of Special Studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (David Rockefeller was vice-president of the CFR during this period), as well as going on to direct multiple panels to produce reports on national defense, which would gain international attention. In 1957, Kissinger would seal his place as a leading Establishment figure on thermonuclear war after publishing, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, a book published for the Council on Foreign Relations by Harper & Brothers.

In December of 1966, The Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, John M Leddy, announced the formation of a 22-man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”. The five most prominent actors of this panel of advisors included: Henry A Kissinger representing Harvard, Robert Osgood of the Washington Center of Foreign Policy Research (funded by Ford, Rockefeller and Carnegie money), Melvin Conant of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, Warner R Schilling of Columbia University, and Raymond Vernon who was also of Harvard. The other people on the panel included four members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Shepard Stone of the Ford Foundation, with the rest being a mix of representatives from leading American universities. The forming of this panel could be considered the laying of the proverbial foundation stone marking the American branch of the “Round Table” establishment’s intent to create an organisation such as the World Economic Forum, whereby Anglo-American imperialists would mold European policies as they saw fit.https://www.youtube.com/embed/k9BG7ZX6RHg?feature=oembed

Post-war Europe was at a vital stage of its development and the powerful American Empire was beginning to see opportunities in the rebirth of Europe and the emerging identity of its younger generation. In late December of 1966, Kissinger would be one of the twenty-nine “American authorities on Germany” to sign a statement declaring that “recent state elections in West Germany do not indicate a rebirth of Nazism”. The document, also signed by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, was meant to signal that Europe was starting afresh and was meant to begin putting the horrors of European wars in the past. Some of the people involved in creating the aforementioned document were those who had already been externally influencing European policy from abroad. Notably, one of the signatures alongside Kissinger and Eisenhower was Prof. Hans J Morgenthau who was also representing the Council on Foreign Relations at the time. Morgenthau had famously written a paper entitled, Scientific Man versus Power Politics, and argued against an “overreliance on science and technology as solutions to political and social problems”.

In February 1967, Henry Kissinger would target European policy making as having been the reason for a century of war and political turmoil on the continent. In a piece entitled, Fuller Investigation, printed in the New York Times, Kissinger would state that a work by Raymond Aron, Peace and War. A Theory of International Relations, had remedied some of these issues.

In this article, Kissinger would write:

In the United States the national style is pragmatic; the tradition until World War II was largely isolationist; the approach to peace and war tended to be absolute and legalistic. American writing on foreign policy has generally tended to fall into three categories: analyses of specific cases or historical episodes, exhortations justifying or resisting greater participation in international affairs, and investigations of the legal bases of world order.”

It was clear that Prof Henry A Kissinger had identified American involvement in European policy creation as being vital in the future peace and stability of the world. At this time, Kissinger was based at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Here, the future founder of the World Economic Forum, a young Klaus Schwab, would catch the eye of Henry A Kissinger.

Kissinger was the executive director of the International seminar, which Schwab often mentions when recollecting his time spent at Harvard. On 16 April 1967, it would be reported that various Harvard programs had been receiving funding from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). This included $135,000 of funding for Henry Kissinger’s International Seminar, funding which Kissinger claimed he was unaware had come from the US intelligence agency. The CIA’s involvement in funding Kissinger’s international seminar was exposed in a report by Humphrey Doermann, the assistant to Franklin L Ford, who was dean of the Faculty of Arts and Science. Humphrey Doermann’s report, written in 1967, only centred on the CIA funding from between 1961 to 1966, but Kissinger’s International seminar, which had received the most funding out of all the CIA-funded Harvard programs, would still run through 1967. Klaus Schwab arrived at Harvard in 1965.

On 15 April 1967, The Harvard Crimson would publish an article, attributed to no author, concerning Doermann’s report that stated, “There were no strings attached to the aid, so the government could not directly influence research or prevent its results from being published.” The dismissive article, entitled, CIA Financial Links, nonchalantly closes out by stating,”In any case, were the University to refuse to accept CIA research grants, the shadowy agency would have little trouble channeling its offers through another agrecy.” (agrecy being a pun meaning a form of intelligence).

The evidence points to Klaus Schwab having been recruited by Kissinger into his circle of “Round Table” imperialists via a CIA funded program at Harvard University. In addition, the year he graduated would also be the year in which it was revealed to have been a CIA-funded program. This CIA-funded seminar would introduce Schwab to the extremely well-connected American policy-makers who would help him create what would become the most powerful European public policy institute, the World Economic Forum.

By 1969, Kissinger would be sitting as the head of the US National Security Council, of which the sitting president, Richard Nixon would “enhance the importance of” during his administration. Kissinger was Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs between 2 December 1968 to 3 November 1975, serving concurrently as Richard Nixon’s Secretary of State from 22 September 1973. Kissinger would dominate the making of US foreign policy during the Nixon era and the system he would bring to the National Security Council would seek to combine features of the systems previously implemented by Eisenhower and Johnson.

Henry Kissinger, who had been one of the people to manufacture tensions between thermonuclear powers over the previous two decades, was now to act as “peacemaker” during the Nixon period. He would turn his focus to the European stand-off and would seek to relax the tensions between the West and Russia. He negotiated the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (culminating in the SALT I treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Kissinger was attempting to rebrand himself as a trusted statesman and diplomat.

In the second term of President Richard Nixon’s administration, their attention would turn to relations with Western Europe. Richard Nixon would describe 1973 as being the “Year of Europe”. The United States’ focus would be on supporting the states of the European Economic Community (EEC) which had become economic rivals to the US by the early 1970s. Kissinger grasped the “Year of Europe” concept and pushed an agenda, not only of economic reform, but also arguing to strengthen and revitalise what he considered to be the “decaying force”, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Throughout this period, Kissinger would also promote global governance.

Years later, Henry Kissinger would make the opening address of the World Economic Forum’s 1980 conference, telling the elites at Davos: “For the first time in history, foreign policy is truly global”.

John K. Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith (often referred to as Ken Galbraith) was a Canadian-American economist, diplomat, public policy maker, and Harvard intellectual. His impact on American history is extraordinary and the consequences of his actions in the late 1960s alone are still being felt around the world today. In September 1934, Galbraith would initially join the faculty at Harvard University as an instructor with a salary of $2,400 per year. In 1935, he would be appointed a tutor at John Winthrop House (commonly known as Winthrop House) which is one of twelve undergraduate residential houses at Harvard University. In that same year, one of his first students would be Joseph P. Kennedy Jr, with John F. Kennedy arriving two years later, in 1937. Soon after, the Canadian Galbraith would become naturalised as a US citizen on 14 September 1937. Three days later, he would marry his partner, Catherine Merriam Atwater, a woman who, a few years before, had been studying at the University of Munich. There, she had lived in the same rooming house-dormitory as Unity Mitford, whose boyfriend was Adolf Hitler. After marrying, Galbraith would travel extensively in Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, Italy, France, but also Germany. Galbraith had been due to spend a year as a research fellow at the University of Cambridge under famed economist John Maynard Keynes, but Keynes’ sudden heart attack would see Galbraith’s new wife persuade him to study in Germany instead. During the summer of 1938, Galbraith would study German land policies under Hitler’s government.

The following year, Galbraith found himself involved in what was termed at the time, “the Walsh-Sweezy affair” – a US national scandal involving two radical instructors who had been terminated from Harvard. Galbraith’s connections with the affair would result in his appointment at Harvard not being renewed.

Still from Galbraith’s interview with Charlie Rose

Galbraith would take a demotion to work at Princeton, where he would soon after accept an invitation from the National Resource Planning Board to be part of a review panel into New Deal spending and employment programs. It is this project which would see him first meet Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940, as France fell to Nazi forces, Galbraith would join the staff of the National Defense Advisory Committee, at the request of FDR’s economic advisor, Lauchlin Curry. Although that committee would be swiftly dissolved, Galbraith soon found himself appointed to the Office of Price Administration (OPA), heading up the division tasked with price control. He would be dismissed from the OPA on 31 May 1943. Fortune Magazine had already been trying to headhunt Galbraith since as early as 1941, and would soon scoop him up to join their staff as a writer.

The biggest shift in focus for Galbraith happened in 1945, the day after the death of Roosevelt. Galbraith would leave New York for Washington, where he would be duly sent to London to assume a division directorship of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, tasked with evaluating the overall economic effects of the wartime bombing. By the time he had arrived at Flensburg, Germany had already formally surrendered to the Allied forces and Galbraith’s initial task would change. He would accompany George Ball and be part of the interrogation of Albert Speer. In this one move, Galbraith had gone from being a policy advisor dealing with statistics and projections concerned with pricing, to the co-interrogator of a high-ranking Nazi war criminal. Speer had been in various important positions during the war, including as the Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, one of the key men behind the organisation, maintenance and arming of every part of the Nazi Wermacht.

Soon after, Galbraith would be sent to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to evaluate the effects of the bombing. In January 1946, John Kenneth Galbraith was involved in one of the defining moments of American economic history. He would take part in the American Economic Association meetings in Cleveland, where, alongside Edward Chamberlin of Harvard and Clarence Ayres of Texas, he would debate Frank Knight and other leading proponents of classical economics. This event marked the coming-out of Keynesian economics, which would come to dominate post-war America.

In February 1946, Galbraith would return to Washington, where he would be appointed director of the Office of Economic Security Policy. It is here, in September of 1946, where Galbraith was tasked with drafting a speech for the Secretary of State, William Byrnes, outlining American policy towards German reconstruction, democratisation, and eventual admission into the United Nations. Galbraith, who opposed the group of politicians at the time referred to as “the Cold Warriors”, would resign from his position in October of 1946, returning to Fortune Magazine. He would also be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom that same year. In 1947, Galbraith would co-found the organisation, Americans for Democratic Action, alongside others including Eleanor Roosevelt, Arthur Schlesinger Jr., and Ronald Reagan. In 1948, Galbraith would return to Harvard as a lecturer in Agricultural Forestry and Land-Use Policy. Soon after, he would be installed as a Professor at Harvard.

By 1957, Galbraith was beginning to form a closer relationship with his former student John F. Kennedy, who was by then junior senator for Massachusetts. The following year, JFK would publicly declare Galbraith as the “Phileas Fogg of the academic world” after receiving a copy of Galbraith’s book, A Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, where he examined socialist planning up close. It is also in 1958 where Galbraith published “The Affluent Society” to critical acclaim, where he coined terms such as “conventional wisdom” and the “dependence effect”. It is around this time when Galbraith became the Paul M. Warburg Chair in economics at Harvard. This is the same position he would hold when he would first be introduced to a young Klaus Schwab.https://www.youtube.com/embed/hN8yPLaBVm8?list=PL8745268A4975524F

By 1960, John Kenneth Galbraith had become an economic advisor to the Kennedy campaign. After Kennedy was elected President, Galbraith began staffing the new administration, famously being the man who recommended Robert S. McNamara for Secretary of Defense. In 1961, Kennedy would name Galbraith as ambassador to India and, later in the year, Galbraith would travel to Vietnam, at the behest of the President, to give a second opinion on the Taylor-Rostow report. On Galbraith’s advice, Kennedy would begin to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

In 1963, Galbraith would return to the United States, refusing an offer from Kennedy to take up an ambassadorship in Moscow, so as to return to Harvard. On the day Kennedy was assassinated, Galbraith was in New York with the publisher of the Washington Post, Katharine Graham. Galbraith would go straight to Washington and would be the man who drafted the original version of the new President’s speech to the joint session of congress. The year following JFK’s assassination, Galbraith would return to Harvard to develop a famous and highly popular course in Social Science that he would go on to teach for the following decade. He would still retain his position as an advisor to President Johnson, but would spend the rest of the year writing his final academic journals exclusively in economics.

By 1965, Galbraith had become increasingly louder in his opposition to the war in Vietnam, writing speeches and letters to the President. This rift would persist between Galbraith and Johnson, with Galbraith finally assuming the presidency of Americans for Democratic Action and going on to launch a national campaign against the Vietnam War entitled, Negotiations Now!” In 1967, the rift between Galbraith and Johnson would only become wider when Senator Eugene McCarthy was persuaded by Galbraith to run against Johnson in the coming primary elections. Robert F. Kennedy was also hoping to recruit Galbraith to his own campaign but, although Galbraith had formed a close bond with the late JFK, he had not been so keen on Robert F. Kennedy’s distinctive style.

By the late 1960s, John K. Galbraith and Henry A. Kissinger were both considered to be two of the foremost lecturers, authors and educators in America. They were also both grandees at Harvard, Galbraith as the Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, and Kissinger as a Professor of Government, and the two men were focused on the creation of foreign policy for both America and the emerging new Europe. It was announced on 20 March 1968 that Kissinger and Galbraith would be the first speakers of the spring session of what was referred to as the Mandeville Lectures series”, due to take place at the University of California, San Diego. Galbraith’s speech would be entitled, “Foreign Policy: The Cool Dissent”, whilst Kissinger’s speech was called “America and Europe: A New Relationship”.

Kissinger would introduce Klaus Schwab to John Kenneth Galbraith at Harvard and, as the 1960’s came to a close, Galbraith would help Schwab make the World Economic Forum a reality. Galbraith would fly over to Europe, along with Herman Kahn, to help Schwab convince the European elite to back the project. At the first European Management Symposium/Forum (the original name/s of the WEF), John Kenneth Galbraith would be the keynote speaker.

Herman Kahn

Herman Kahn was born in Bayonne, New Jersey on 15 February 1922 to Yetta and Abraham Kahn. He was brought up in the Bronx with a Jewish upbringing, but would later become atheistic in his beliefs. Throughout the 1950s, Khan would write various reports at the Hudson Institute on the concept and practicality of nuclear deterrence, which would subsequently become official military policy. He would also compile reports for official hearings, such as the Subcommittee on Radiation. It is in the primordial hysteria of the earliest years of the Cold War where Kahn would be given the intellectual, and some may say ethical and moral, space to “think the unthinkable”. Khan would apply game theory – the study of mathematical models of strategic interactions among rational agents – to wargame potential scenarios and outcomes concerning thermonuclear war.

In 1960, Kahn would publish, The Nature and Feasibility of War and Deterrence, which studied the risks and subsequent impact of a thermonuclear war. The Rand Corporation sums up the kinds of deterrents discussed in Kahn’s work as: the deterrence of a direct attack, the use of strategic threats to deter an enemy from engaging in very provocative acts other than a direct attack on the United States, and, lastly, the acts that are deterred because the potential aggressor is afraid that the defender or others will take limited actions, military or non-military, to make the aggression unprofitable.

Herman Kahn (left) with Gerald Ford and Donald Rumsfeld

The following year, Princeton University Press would first publish Herman Kahn’s seminal work, On Thermonuclear War. This book would have an enormous impact on the near and distant future of global politics and would drive American Establishment politicians to create foreign policy specifically designed to counter the potential worst case thermonuclear scenario. On the release of Kahn’s terrifying work, the Israeli-American sociologist and “communitarian”, Amitai Etzioni, would be quoted as saying, “Kahn does for nuclear arms what free-love advocates did for sex: he speaks candidly of acts about which others whisper behind closed doors”.

Khan’s complex theories have often been erroneously paraphrased, with most of his work being impossible to sum up in just a sentence or two, and this is emblematic of his ideas concerning thermonuclear war. Kahn’s research team were studying a multitude of different scenarios, a constantly evolving, dynamic, multipolar world, and many unknowns.

On Thermonuclear War had an instant and lasting impact, not only on geopolitics, but also on culture, expressed within a few years by a very famous movie. 1964 saw the release of the Stanley Kubrick classic, Dr Strangelove, and from the moment of its release, and ever since, Khan has been referred to as the real Dr. Strangelove. When quizzed about the comparison, Khan would tell Newsweek, “Kubrick is a friend of mine. He told me Dr. Strangelove wasn’t supposed to be me.” But others would point out the many affinities between Stanley Kubrick’s classic character and the real life Herman Kahn.

In an essay written for the Council on Foreign Relations in July 1966, entitled, Our Alternatives in Europe, Kahn states:

Existing U.S. policy has generally been directed to the political and economic as well as the military integration or unification of Western Europe as a means to European security. Some have seen unification as a step toward the political unity of the West as a whole, or even of the world. Thus, the achievement of some more qualified form of integration or federation of Europe, and of Europe with America, has also been held to be an intrinsically desirable goal, especially as national rivalries in Europe have been seen as a fundamentally disruptive force in modern history; hence their suppression, or accommodation in a larger political framework, is indispensable to the future stability of the world.”

This statement suggests that the preferred solution for future European/American relations would be the creation of a European union. Even more preferable to Kahn was the idea of creating a unified American and European superstate.

In 1967, Herman Kahn would write one of the most important futurist works of the 20th century, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years. In this book, co-authored by Anthony J Wiener, Khan and company predicted where we would be technologically at the end of the millennium. But there was another document released soon after Kahn’s The Year 2000, which had been written simultaneously. That document entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, was to map out how to achieve the future society Kahn’s work in The Year 2000 had envisaged.

Under a section titled “Special Educational Needs of Decision-Makers”, the paper states: “The desirability of explicitly educated decision-makers so that they are better able, in effect, to plan the destiny of the nation, or to carry out the plans formulated through a more democratic process, should be very seriously considered. One facet of this procedure would be the creation of a shared set of concepts, shared language, shared analogies, shared references…” He goes on to state in the same section that: “Universal re-teaching in the spirit of the humanistic tradition of Europe – at least for its comprehensive leadership group – might be useful in many ways.”

When you study the previously mentioned rhetoric and decipher what it means, in this document Herman Kahn suggests subverting democracy by training only a certain group in society as potential leaders, with those pre-selected few who are groomed for power being able to define what our shared values as a society should be. Maybe Herman Kahn would agree with the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader scheme, which is the exact manifestation of his original suggestion.

In 1968, Herman Kahn would be asked by a reporter what they do at the Hudson Institute. He would say, “We take God’s view. The President’s view. Big. Aerial. Global. Galactic. Ethereal. Spatial. Overall. Megalomania is the standard occupational hazard.” This was reportedly followed by Herman Kahn rising out of his chair, pointing his finger towards the sky and suddenly shouting out: ‘Megalomania, zoom!’”https://www.youtube.com/embed/x-hFUeGiuOk?feature=oembed

In 1970, Kahn would travel to Europe with Galbraith to support Klaus Schwab’s recruitment drive for the first European Management Symposium. In 1971, Kahn would be sitting centre stage to watch John Kenneth Galbraith’s keynote speech at the historic first session of the policy making organisation which would eventually become the World Economic Forum.

In 1972, the Club of Rome published “The Limits to Growth”, which cautioned that the needs of the global population would exceed available resources by the year 2000. Kahn spent much of his final decade arguing against this idea. In 1976, Khan would publish a more optimistic view of the future, The Next 200 Years, which claimed that the potentials of capitalism, science, technology, human reason, and self-discipline were boundless. The Next 200 Years would also dismiss pernicious Malthusian ideology by predicting that the planet’s resources set no limits to economic growth, but rather, human beings would “create such societies everywhere in the solar system and perhaps to the stars as well.”

Schwab’s Three Mentors

Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith had become three of the most influential people in America with regards to thermonuclear deterrence, foreign policy creation, and public policy making, respectively. Most of the focus throughout these men’s career had been on Europe and the Cold War. However, their varying roles in other important events of the period all have the potential to easily distract researchers from other more subversive and well hidden events.

These three powerful Americans were all linked with each other in various ways, but one interesting and notable thread in particular ties these men together during the period between 1966, with the creation of the Kissinger-led 22 man panel of advisors to help “shape European policy”, through to 1971, and the founding of the World Economic Forum. All three men were members of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American branch of the Anglo-American imperialist “Round Table” movement. Kissinger already had deep ties to the CFR, having been recruited by them straight after graduation. Galbraith had reportedly resigned his membership of the CFR in a “highly public way” in 1972, stating that the CFR was boring and telling a journalist, “Most of the proceedings involve a level of banality so deep that the only question they raise is whether one should sit through them.” Although there is no public date of when Galbraith became a member of the CFR, he had written for their publications from as early as July 1958 with “Rival Economic Theories in India,” being printed in Foreign Affairs, the official CFR journal/magazine. Khan could also be found publishing some of his essays through the CFR, writing the piece “Our Alternatives in Europe” in July 1966, and “If Negotiations Fail” in July 1968, both whilst working as an official advisor to the State Department.

Before the 1960s, these three extremely influential American intellectuals had each been deeply involved in trying to understand the problems of a postwar Europe, and mapping out the future of the war-stricken continent. Galbraith had traveled extensively throughout Europe, including studying policies in Germany during the Third Reich, and, after the collapse of Hitler’s Germany, Galbraith would go on to study the Soviet systems in much the same way. Galbraith’s influence over the future president, John F. Kennedy, from a very early age cannot be understated, and Galbraith was powerful enough to see JFK begin withdrawing troops from Vietnam on his recommendation. When Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Galbraith would be the man to draft the incoming president’s initial address to the nation, but Galbraith was soon to be pushed off to the sidelines. During the turmoil of the 1960s, Galbraith would be close with Henry Kissinger, both men being Harvard Professors, members of the CFR, and both men having the same goal of making Europe stable so that the Continent was well defended against any potential Soviet aggression.

To Galbraith and Kissinger, and also to the wider American political Establishment, Europe was the main threat to not only global stability, but also to the prevailing American hegemony in general. The relative stability in Europe during the postwar period was perceived as being due to the thermonuclear stand-off, and, from very early-on, Kissinger identified this dynamic and began to manipulate the situation for the benefit of American supremacy. Henry Kissinger was not alone in trying to understand the complex dynamics at play in relation to thermonuclear deterrence and how it affected policy making. Herman Kahn was the leading figure on thermonuclear strategic planning during the same period and Kissinger’s work concerning the same subject matter from the mid-50s onwards would see him cross paths with Kahn on many occasions.

Kahn offered Kissinger something which all politicians and policy makers crave, the ability to predict future events with relative accuracy. Kahn was a veritable prophet concerning the technological advancements of the not-so-distant future, and his work, although often stoic and bereft of human emotion, has stood up very well to the test of time. Kahn and Kissinger’s goals would overlap during the mid and late 1960s, and as the threat assessments Kahn made during this period became more optimistic, Kissinger would see Kahn’s work as being fundamental in offering a new future to the people of the world.

However, Henry Kissinger’s vision of the future was not of a free and fair society advancing into a “brave new world” together, but rather, Kissinger intended to create an image of the world which had been skewed by his own CFR-driven Establishment perspective. Although he would attempt to rebrand himself as a true statesman, Kissinger would continue to subvert not only foreign democratic processes, but also to undermine the American system for the eventual benefit of a globalist agenda. When Schwab was first recognised by Kissinger as a potential future globalist leader, the relatively young German would soon be introduced to Galbraith and Kahn. This would coincide with Kahn’s work identifying the need to specifically train individuals with leadership potential separately from those who attend the prevailing standard educational models.

Klaus Schwab speaking at the inaugural meeting of the World Economic Forum, 1971

In the year Klaus Schwab left Harvard, he was approached by Peter Schmidheiny, who had just sold Escher Wyss to the Sulzer Group. Escher Wyss’ Ravensberg factory during World War II had been managed by Schwab’s father, Eugen Schwab, and had been involved in making heavy water turbines for the secretive Nazi atomic bomb effort. Schwab speaks in one interview about the moment Schmidheiny called him up, saying, “You come from Harvard now and know modern management methods, help to make the integration a success”. What Klaus wouldn’t mention in that interview is that he would help Sulzer and Escher Wyss to merge, resulting in a new company called Sulzer AG. That company, where Schwab would serve as director, which would go on to break international law by aiding the South African apartheid regime in its illegal thermonuclear bomb program.

Klaus Schwab had only just left the sphere of influence of some of the most significant experts in thermonuclear war, and within the same year as leaving Harvard, he would head up the merger of a company dealing in the propagation thermonuclear bomb technology to despotic regimes.

For many of us who don’t map out terrifying extinction scenarios, we may be left believing that apartheid South Africa gaining the nuke at this point in history would be one of the worst things that could’ve happened. But, Herman Kahn’s thermonuclear disaster scenarios had led the rotund genius to believe that, barring a disaster, sabotage, or an accident, no major nuclear power would dare fire a thermonuclear weapon as an act of aggression for the foreseeable future. In fact, the Establishment thinking had changed significantly, to the point where Herman Kahn and others were advising that, in certain scenarios, making a country such as France a nuclear power could have significant benefits to security both regionally and globally, whilst also helping to reduce US defence spending.

Thermonuclear war was no longer the be all and end all of strategic defence policy, and it was in the dying embers of the 1960s where the same people who had caused all of the fear of a thermonuclear apocalypse, really did stop worrying and learnt to love the bomb.

Caution: Fallible Humans Ahead

Is Klaus Schwab the real brains behind the formation of the World Economic Forum? What are we to make of the CIA involvement in the seminar Kissinger used to recruit Schwab? Were the powers that lurk behind organisations like the CFR the real founders of the globalist policy making organisation? Was the World Economic Forum meant to simply unite Europe? Or was it then actually meant to go on to unite Europe with America, followed by the remaining superstates, into a New World Order designed by powerful CFR grandees like Kissinger, Khan and Galbraith?

These three powerful men each saw in Schwab a reflection of their own intellectual desires. Klaus had been born in the latter half of the same decade in which the technocratic movement had begun and he would come from the first generation to have their formative years in a post-war world. Khan’s predictions for the future had not only been an exercise in human wonder, it had also been a project to make these predictions a reality as quickly as possible and regardless of the consequences.

In 1964, Klaus Schwab would be trying to decide what he was going to do with his career. He was 26 years old and looking for direction and he would find that direction from a familial source. His father, Eugen Schwab, had been on the wrong side of history during World War II, and had been involved in the Nazi atomic bomb effort. Eugen Schwab would tell his son that it will only be at Harvard where he’d truly be able to flourish. In a divided postwar Germany, the intense fear which came from the ever impending and well dramatised threat of thermonuclear war had become an everyday part of people’s psyche. Harvard was well known at the time for playing a central role in Cold War policy-making targeting European affairs and Klaus Schwab would put himself right in amongst the main movers and shakers on the thermonuclear disaster scene.

Whilst at Harvard, Schwab would attend Kissinger’s “International seminar” which was funded by the CIA via a known conduit. Through this process, Klaus Schwab would be introduced to a group of men who were actively trying to influence European public policy by any and all methods, including using the fear of impending nuclear doom. They would recognise his potential straight away, so much so that they would be there for Schwab all through the founding of the World Economic Forum, with Kahn, Kissinger and Galbraith bringing perceived credibility to the project. It was not easy for Schwab alone to explain to European elites what he intended to do, so he would bring Kahn and Galbraith to Europe to persuade other important players to become part of the project. Galbraith would be the first Keynote Speaker at the forum, with Kahn’s presence also drawing significant interest, but the second World Economic Forum would stall without the presence of the bigger names and Klaus Schwab knew he would need something to draw in the crowds for the third installment of his forum’s annual meeting.

In 1972, the Club of Rome’s founder Aurelio Peccei had published his controversial book “The Limits to Growth”, a book that had been commissioned by the Club of Rome and which took a Malthusian approach to overpopulation. The book would call into question the sustainability of global economic growth and Peccei would be invited by Schwab to make the keynote speech at the 1973 World Economic Forum. This risqué public relations strategy paid dividends for Schwab and his organisation. From that point on, the forum would grow in size, scale and power. But it all began with a CIA-funded course run by Henry Kissinger at Harvard.

Aurelio Peccei (far right) at a 1975 Club of Rome meeting in Paris

Schwab has become more than just a technocrat. He has been very vocal on his intention to fuse his physical and biological identities with future technology. He has become a living caricature of an evil bond-like villain, conducting secretive meetings with the elites, high up in the mountain-top chalets of Switzerland. I do not think that the image we have of Schwab is an accident. In the postwar years, something very unique happened in Western culture, when the government began using mainstream media as a tool to target the public with military grade psychological operations. The ruling Establishment would discover that marrying the drama of conflict scenarios with media such as film would be extremely useful, almost akin to creating self-propagating propaganda in some cases. Films like Stanley Kubrick’s Dr Strangelove were fantastic vehicles for people to understand the absurdity of thermonuclear disaster scenario planning.

If people perceive you as an all powerful evil villain then you may not gain the support of the common man, but you will gain the attention from those who seek power and wealth, or, how Klaus Schwab would refer to them, the “stakeholders” in society. This is very important to understand – the projection of extreme wealth and power will attract and bring the “stakeholders” of society to the World Economic Forum’s table. With those “stakeholders” on board, Klaus Schwab’s main ideological product, “stakeholder capitalism”, will see the transfer of power away from true democratic processes and onto a system of governance by a small preselected leadership group, who will be trained to continue the agenda set for them by the previous generation, as predicted by Herman Kahn. They will hold all the cards, whilst the common people will be left with just illusory pseudo-democratic processes, poverty, and constant absurd psychological operations to distract us all constantly. Klaus Schwab would soon become everything Herman Kahn had feared during his most pessimistic predictions. When the Club of Rome produced “The Limits to Growth” report, Herman Kahn would refute its findings and rally against its pessimism, whilst, at the same time, Klaus Schwab would make it central to his machinations and have their founder be the keynote speaker at his forum in Davos.

Our current geopolitical situation is seemingly regressing back towards the East vs West dynamic of the Cold War era. Again, with recent events in Ukraine, the mainstream media is regurgitating nuclear talking points which are completely paralleled to those of 60 to 70 years ago. I believe that there is a very obvious reason for our return to Cold War rhetoric – it’s a very obvious sign that Klaus Schwab and his backers are out of ideas. They appear to be returning to a geopolitical paradigm in which they feel safer and, most importantly, which will cause mass fear of thermonuclear war. This rinse and repeat cycle will always happen once an ideological movement is running out of original ideas. Since the late 1960s, Klaus Schwab has been trying to create the world which Herman Kahn predicted. But Kahn’s vision of the future, even though pretty accurate, is over half a century old. Schwab’s technocratic movement depends on the successful development of innovative technologies which will advance us towards a vision largely manufactured in 1967. Just by studying a more refined list of Kahn’s predictions, you can see every idea which Schwab promotes is almost entirely based on Kahn’s “Year 2000” and that documents vision of what our future may look like, predictions dating back to the late 60’s. But, what Schwab appears to ignore, whilst forcing this futuristic agenda on us all, is that many of Kahn’s predictions were also combined with warnings of the dangers which will be created from future technological advancements.

As Schwab reaches the end of his life, he appears to be desperate to push forward a radical futurist agenda with the obvious potential for global disaster. I believe that the World Economic Forum is reaching its maximum level of expansion before its inevitable collapse, because eventually those people who love their own national identities will stand up against the immediate threat to their specific cultures and they will fight back against the globalist rule. Quite simply, you cannot make everyone a globalist, no matter how much brainwashing is applied. There is a natural contradiction between national freedom and globalist rule, which make the two completely incompatible.

As a very pertinent final thought, Herman Kahn would write something extremely significant during the same year in which Schwab would leave Harvard. In the aforementioned Hudson Institute document of 1967 entitled, Ancillary Pilot Study for the Educational Policy Research Program: Final Report, Khan writes:

Es ist immer deutlicher geworden, dass unsere technologischen und sogar unsere wirtschaftlichen Errungenschaften gemischte Segnungen sind. Durch den Fortschritt entstehen Fragen wie die Anhäufung, Verschärfung und Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen; der Verlust von Privatsphäre und Einsamkeit; die Zunahme der staatlichen und/oder privaten Macht über Einzelpersonen; der Verlust des menschlichen Maßstabs und der menschlichen Perspektive und die Entmenschlichung des sozialen Lebens oder sogar des psychobiologischen Selbst; das Anwachsen gefährlicher, verletzlicher, irreführender oder abbaubarer Zentralisierungen von Verwaltungs- oder Technologiesystemen; die Schaffung anderer neuer Fähigkeiten, die von Natur aus so gefährlich sind, dass sie ernsthaft einen katastrophalen Missbrauch riskieren; und die Beschleunigung von Veränderungen, die zu schnell oder katastrophal sind, um eine erfolgreiche Anpassung zu ermöglichen. Am wichtigsten ist vielleicht, dass Entscheidungen getroffen werden, die zu groß, komplex, wichtig, unsicher oder umfassend sind, um sie sicher fehlbaren Menschen zu überlassen. „

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Und beim Fahnenapell beim “Auslandseinsatz”: “wenigstens Maskenfrei zum Gebet!” Wenn jetzt Steinmeier sich für die Steigerung der Impfquote im Senegal einsetzt (Bisher unter 6%) und die Errichtung von entsprechenden Produktionsanlagen in Afrika fordert, könnte man die Lanzen oben durch Spritzen ersetzen Vielleicht ändere ich meine Fotocollage aus dem Jahr 1991 noch Mal entsprechend und ergänze das Bush-Zitat mit dem Marschbefehl des Bill Gates: “Not Missiles! Microbes!” Und dann ist die Collage auch so interpretierbar: es handelt sich um einen humanitären Einsatz der NATO zur Rettung COVID-19-erkrankter Menschen. Oder wie es Muammar Gaddafi vor der UN-Vollversammlung 2009 gesagt hat: “Sie schaffen ein Virus und verkaufen uns dann den Impfstoff dagegen!”

Den “Neuen Krefelder Appell” gegen die Kriege an der “Heimatfront” und die als “Auslandseinsätze” schöngeredeten Angriffskriege an der NATO-Ostfront, in Afrika, in Fernost, im Jemen, in Syrien usw… unterzeichnen! Das geht sehr einfach hier: Den Kriegstreibern in den Arm fallen, online unterzeichnen – barth-engelbart.de
https://peaceappeal21.de/ 

Autor: Hartmut Barth-Engelbart

Autor von barth-engelbart.de

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert