Abstract This essay has three main points: (1) We need defense because otherwise we would be destroyed. And in defense, science and STEM are growing in importance. (2) You can't know ahead of time what a discovery will eventually be used for, at least not always. (3)This character Harari who is associated with the WEF is sort of a hypocrite.The plans he and his associates in the WEF have for humanity are terrible. And they plan on using the very discoveries and advances that STEM makes. But meanwhile, Harari thinks STEM people should not make any advances because they might be used for ill. But Harari and the WEF and people like them are those who want to use the advances for ill!Body I liked this essay by Washington University Junior Jonah Sachs: Between Research and Responsibility: The Invention of Dynamite https://hxstem.substack.com/p/between-research-and-responsibility It examines the history around the creation of dynamite and the establishment of the Nobel Prizes. All discoveries or innovations can be used for both good and for ill. And all the possible applications of a given advance are not always immediately apparent. For example, after the laser was discovered in 1960, for a good decade or more it was said to be a solution looking for a problem to solve. Although the laser was used in surgical experiments not long after its first appearance, widespread medical use took longer to emerge. Also, the UPC code scanner and optical disc recording and fiber optic communications took at least a decade to develop and reach the point where they could be broadly implemented. Other applications, including directed energy weaponry, took even longer to develop. New applications of the laser continue to be announced all the time even now, more than 63 years later. The idea for such a device was even older, and predated its physical implementation by substantial amounts of time. The theoretical possibilities of a laser or maser had been described many decades before they were first built in laboratories. It is certain that when the first musings about such a technology were published by Einstein in 1917 that no one could really foresee what might eventually occur and how these devices might be used. Although the Sachs essay suggests it is possible to hold back discoveries for the "good of the public" or "humanity", I am not convinced that this is reasonable over the longer term. When the time is "ripe" for an innovation or discovery, they will frequently be made by multiple people and groups almost simultaneously. The discovery of calculus and the Theory of Evolution are two such examples. The original discoverer or inventor and their close supporters and colleagues have some small measure of control over the new knowledge, at least for a limited period. But even then, espionage (as in the case of Klaus Fuchs and the Manhattan Project) can take away this advantage in short order. Many mistakenly believe that hiding or halting advances or discoveries or forbidding scientists, engineers and mathematicians from working in defense can reduce the chance of war. However, history shows us this is not true. The US demilitarized and became isolationist before both world wars, but that did not stop the US from being dragged into these conflicts. I am reminded of the famous aphorism, "He who would have peace should prepare for war." People mistakenly believe that unilateral disarmament can dissuade adversaries and opponents from pursuing military and terrorist activities. But the evidence is strong that the opposite is in fact closer to reality. Rather than forbidding STEM innovators from making progress that in retrospect might appear dangerous (something that is very difficult if not impossible to predict), perhaps it is better to consider other restrictions on new technologies. We have laws and judicial systems and treaties and international bodies and political infrastructures and public opinion that are supposedly a check on the bad inclinations of those in power. We also have various other forms of deterrence. It is a bit naive to think that the only solution is to stop STEM progress or censor science because of the weak or corrupt natures of those in power, their evident inability to rein in their dark impulses and their repeated frantic attempts to circumvent or even remove the checks and balances that are available. Surely we can develop better mechanisms of control than this. This situation is particularly ludicrous since many of those in power unceasingly lecture the rest of humanity about how much more ethical and moral and virtuous they are than everyone else, all evidence to the contrary. It quite striking that one of those who is particularly pretentious and self-righteous about his moral superiority is quoted in the Sachs essay; that is, Professor Yuval Noah Harari. I also found the content of these Yuval Noah Harari quotes particularly telling. Knowing who Harari is and who he associates with, these two Harari statements border on the astounding: (1) “𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘺.” (2) “𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦.” Harari is reportedly the "right hand man" of problematic globalist Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum (WEF). In addition, Harari has made numerous other statements which are more than slightly disturbing. Harari's occasional employer or colleague Schwab has a scandalous history and has also made a lot of outrageous comments over the years. For example, recently Harari gave a lecture saying that human rights are just words on paper, so they do not really exist; Harari even implied that they probably should not exist. In some sense, Harari is partially correct. However, there are many ways to organize societies, and those that enshrine human rights as something special differentiate themselves from the others. So human rights might be fictitious in a way, but so are all laws and all money and assets and property and contracts and other agreements. A lot of things we accept and rely on are kind of illusory, from some point of view. But we find these fictions useful. Harari also wrote that indigenous people are essentially "apes" in his 2011 book 'Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind'. As someone of indigenous extraction, I do not find this comment particularly charitable. In addition, Harari is a huge advocate of imposing a permanent lockdown on all of the world's population. We can reasonably surmise that this would exclude the "elites", like those in the World Economic Forum (presumably including Harari himself). Harari was stimulated to imagine how wonderful such a lockdown would be because of our recent experiences with the pandemic lockdown. However, the pandemic and the associated lockdown were not some innocuous events that had no effect on civilization; far from it. There were many millions killed either by the virus, which appears to have been purposely man-made and funded by the US taxpayers, or through incompetent medical care and iatrogenic disasters of various sorts, including sloppy vaccine science and bad policies. There were also many trillions of dollars of economic losses, including many failed businesses. Children's development and educations were drastically affected and suffered setbacks. Many lost their jobs because they did not want to take the vaccines, which were not near as effective or safe or tested as had been advertised, purported and promised. Some who resisted the vaccine or other pandemic measures were punished and imprisoned. Protests were violently put down. We still have not had a very accurate accounting of all the disasters associated with this event; the powers that be just want to cover it all up and hope everyone else forgets. But as previously mentioned, it is not just that Harari is a bit of an offensive and obnoxious loose cannon who seems to lack prudence and self-awareness. It is also those that Harari is closely associated with, like the World Economic forum, and in particular, its leader Klaus Schwab. For example, Schwab and his minions and colleagues at the WEF are lobbying for the abolishment of agriculture, and the imprisonment of all farmers and fisherman as "climate criminals". They also are in favor of mass surveillance and mass censorship. At the yearly WEF meeting at Davos, Switzerland, Schwab was intrigued by the idea that mass surveillance could and would enable the elites to know people better than they know themselves. In this way, the self-styled elites (such as the WEF members), who are our "wanna-be overlords", would supposedly be able to predict with complete accuracy how people would vote. Schwab offered to save the earth's entire population from the inconvenience of going to the polls to vote. Schwab said he would just vote for everyone so they would not have to be bothered with something as tedious as voting. Schwab was also excited at this year's WEF meeting in Davos by the idea of brain implants and brain-computer interfaces. Schwab was enthusiastic about the idea that he could know what everyone was thinking. This is attractive to people like Schwab who want to impose punishments for "thought crimes" or "wrong think". This also starts to sound more than slightly unsavory and even creepy. In addition, the WEF is eagerly anticipating the introduction of digital currencies world wide, to prevent people from buying the "wrong things", or from saving any money. The WEF want the ability to force all your money to "expire". After all, they want the "little people" to "own nothing, and be happy". There was even a section at this year's Davos conference on maintaining some control over science and technology, and keeping abreast of any potential and new developments. My impression is that they know that their careful and ambitious plans can easily be upset by the emergence of unanticipated developments in various spheres, including in STEM. The people in the WEF are uncreative and unproductive for the most part, but they are in positions of power and they desperately want to maintain the current status quo. John Kerry made it clear in his presentations at Davos that the entire point of these crises they anticipate or even create, is to make huge profits. Of course, if there is one thing these billionaires appear to desperately crave, aside from infinite power and control, it is even more wealth. It is up to us, the public, i.e., the polity, to put an end to this disgraceful charade that has developed. We need to send a strong signal that we are not just sheep or potential slaves, and that we are worthy of being treated with dignity and respect.Notes  For more examples, consult the web article: 13 “Stolen” Inventions-Will The Real Inventor Please Stand Up https://www.savingadvice.com/articles/2024/02/12/10129777_13-stolen-inventions-will-the-real-inventor-please-stand-up.html  In his later years, Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, who had served in the FDR, Kennedy and Johnson administrations, was a firm believer that scientists and engineers should refuse to have anything to do with the military (in spite of his own repeated involvement with the military). I heard him lecture about this at MIT in 1980. For an economist, Galbraith seemed to have no idea about what funding and positions were available for young STEM professionals in the United States, or why the US was a leader in innovation in STEM (mainly because of the substantial funding of STEM by US military and intelligence entities).  This sentiment has been repeated many times over the centuries. For a couple of noteworthy examples, consider: Si vis pacem, para bellum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum 𝘚ī 𝘷ī𝘴 𝘱ā𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘢𝘳ā 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮 (𝘊𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯: [𝘴𝘪ː 𝘸𝘪ː𝘴 ˈ𝘱𝘢ː𝘬ẽː ˈ𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢ː ˈ𝘣ɛ𝘭𝘭ũː]) 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘴 "𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦, 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳". 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 '𝘚𝘪 𝘷𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮' 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘓𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘗𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘍𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘝𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘶𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘴'𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘋ē 𝘙ē 𝘔ī𝘭𝘪𝘵ā𝘳ī (𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘪𝘧𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘺 𝘈𝘋), 𝘪𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘐𝘨𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘳 𝘲𝘶ī 𝘥ē𝘴ī𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵 𝘱ā𝘤𝘦𝘮, 𝘱𝘳æ𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘮 ("𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘳."). 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘰'𝘴 𝘕𝘰𝘮𝘰𝘪 (𝘓𝘢𝘸𝘴) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘪 𝘑𝘪. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥. "To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." -- George Washington https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/quotes/article/to-be-prepared-for-war-is-one-of-the-most-effectual-means-of-preserving-peace/ FIRST ANNUAL ADDRESS, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS | FRIDAY, JANUARY 08, 1790  The US disarmed, declared itself neutral and was strongly noninterventionist leading up to both World War I and World War II. In both cases, the US was essentially dragged into the conflicts to save Western Civilization. Trying to step back from conflict did not protect the US particularly. Also, it is extremely dangerous if one's adversary is able to make an advance in some destructive technology first. This has happened in the case of the jet fighter and the ICBM, for example. In both cases, the US and the West were flirting with disaster. And this came very close to happening in the case of the atomic bomb. The Japanese were only a month or so away from dropping a nuclear device on San Francisco, when the Japanese surrendered. Even some of the refined nuclear material that found its way into the American atomic devices was stolen from a shipment that was being sent from Germany to Japan. The US stopped work on hypersonic missiles, only to find themselves playing catch-up to the Russians and the Chinese who had leapfrogged the US in this technology. If you stop work on some weapons technology, and even if a treaty to supposedly stop development of this technology is in place (as in the case of biological weapons), that does not mean that your adversaries will necessarily stop. And it is even worse if your enemies reach dominance in a particular type of destructive weaponry first.  Many draw parallels between Harari and Jordan Peterson. Both have written books for the public that sold quite well. Both command large fees for speaking to the public. Both are academics. However, upon closer inspection, it is apparent that Peterson and Harari are not that similar at all. In fact, Peterson and Harari are closer to complete opposites. Harari is the son of an arms manufacturer in Israel. Although Harari managed to dodge mandatory military service in Israel through exploiting a series of loopholes, Harari seems fascinated with the military and has written extensively about it. Peterson is the son of a school teacher. Peterson seems to be quite well-respected in his field of research. Harari's work, on the other hand, appears to approach plagiarism; Harari is at least very sloppy in his scholarship and attribution practices. Peterson is careful and exacting in his publications. Harari's publications are full of errors and he is not particularly respected by his peers. Peterson's work is heavily cited by others in his profession and he has contributed substantially to the scholarly literature in his field. Harari is more of a popularizer, a polemicist and a gadfly. Also, if you look at who Peterson and Harari associate with, and their views on society and culture, they are like mirror images of each other. Peterson fears the encroachment of the 'woke mind virus', weaponized compassion and creeping totalitarianism. Peterson is a defender of Western civilization. Harari promotes woke views and gives the impression that he sides with those trying desperately to destroy Western civilization. Peterson has created the Association for Responsible Citizenship (ARC) in an attempt to oppose the efforts of the World Economic Forum (WEF). Harari on the other hand is in bed with the World Economic Forum and wants to support and encourage the efforts of the WEF. Peterson has gone to court to defend his right to free speech. Harari is disdainful of free speech (at least for the public, not for "elites" like himself and the WEF; they are just dictating to us, the ignorant masses who are beneath them, the so-called "deplorables"). Harari is distinguished by his tremendous vanity and icy arrogance. Peterson comes off as the exact opposite, as someone who wants to do well, but admits he often comes up short. And Peterson is quite emotional; he is famous for crying over various issues in public.  For details, consult, for example, the article: The Dangerous Populist Science of Yuval Noah Harari https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/07/the-dangerous-populist-science-of-yuval-noah-harari/ This is an article by Darshana Narayanan, Current Affairs, July 6th, 2022, who writes, "The best-selling author is a gifted storyteller and popular speaker. But he sacrifices science for sensationalism, and his work is riddled with errors."  These two statements by Harari are incredible in the extreme, and are at the very least hypocritical. This is particularly true considering what Harari and his close associates propose, advocate and lobby for, encourage and demand. Harari and his colleagues at the World Economic Forum push for the abandonment of human rights, to make privacy illegal, for mass censorship and surveillance, for total control of the media, for worldwide slavery and a global totalitarian authoritarian government with infinite power and authority over the world's population. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. They also are desperate for the world's population to shrink by 95% or more, immediately if not sooner, by "any means necessary". These elites and the WEF in particular, make every effort to circumvent and subvert all controls and laws over their activity, if not according to the precise letter, at least in spirit. In the face of this sort of recalcitrance, are the technical innovators really those at fault? Harari attempts to chastise the technical community for its supposed dangerous creations. This is an obscene fantasy. He blames STEM and its practitioners while the wealthy elites that Harari is apparently part of, represents and advises, are more than willing to seize any and all technical tools and apply them to destroying Western Civilization and enslaving most of the world's population. The comparison between these two groups is stark. Why cast aspersions on the technical community when the leadership and political class (of which Harari prides himself on being a member in good standing) are those who are pushing frantically to create a dystopian hellscape?   It is increasingly clear that the media in the West has become less and less trustworthy over recent years. The idea that a free press still currently exists has become almost risible. Outside public scrutiny, through a free and independent media or from new internet venues, is critical for the functioning of a free society. I am reminded of a famous quote of Thomas Jefferson on this issue: "The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1787  Harari lectures everyone else about morality, but his own values are more than slightly suspect. Harari seems to place all the responsibility for bad behavior on STEM professionals who invent technology that others misuse. However, the technical people are almost never those who misuse technology or the tools they create. This abuse is almost exclusively the province the politicians and other decision makers, and influencers like the WEF, Harari's peers. It is like trying to blame the people who make axes for the actions of a serial axe-murderer. Axes are useful tools, but they can also be weapons. And blaming those responsible for the technology instead of those who use it to produce a disaster is the wrong approach. For example, Obama tried desperately to create a situation where Iran would acquire ICBMs and nuclear weapons. The Clintons created the environment where Russia could and did develop hypersonic weapons and sold Russia a large fraction of the American uranium ore stockpile. Klaus Schwab devoted a large part of his career to trying to spread nuclear weapons technology. The Biden administration has steadfastly pursued internet and media censorship on a variety of topics, such as the pandemic and vaccines and global climate change and election fraud and assorted wars they wanted to encourage (going so far as to fund both sides by various means). The Biden administration has continued this even when ordered by the courts to cease this activity.  Schwab's father was a famous German Nazi and owned weapons factories. His father's company even won awards for being the most outstanding Nazi corporation in Germany. Therefore, Schwab was raised in a Nazi household, in a similar way to his close friend and fellow World Economic Forum supporter George Soros. Fascist ideas profoundly shaped both of these influential men. Schwab was an enthusiastic supporter of the Apartheid Regime in South Africa and even worked diligently (for substantial fees, of course), to help them acquire nuclear weapons to attack or at least threaten their black African neighbors.  Soros is quite proud of personally causing the deaths of many thousands of Jews. Soros says the period when he was ruining Jewish lives were the happiest days of his life. Remember, he was helping to slaughter his fellow Jews by cooperating and working with the German SS. Soros is a staunch WEF member and has many times expressed his loathing of Western civilization and his determination to eliminate it. I would suggest that Soros probably resents the fact that the Nazis lost World War II. Therefore, Soros seems to want to get revenge, in some way, by being as disruptive and destructive as he can.  In light of these problems and issues, Harari is the last person I would want to take advice from or trust with the future plans of civilization, let alone endow with any power.  Harari shares this view with Klaus Schwab's daughter Nicole Schwab, as she has confirmed in numerous public statements.  In all likelihood, none of the restrictions and policies the WEF proposes would apply to the WEF members, i.e., the "elites". They are "our betters" and we are just the "hoi polloi". So the WEF fly in to Davos, Switzerland every year en masse in substantial numbers of private jets that spew more pollution in just a trip or two than most people create in years or even their entire lives. But it is ok, you see, because these elites supposedly "care" about the planet and therefore the pollution they produce is "necessary". However, the pollution caused by everyone else is "gratuitous" and "unneeded" and should be terribly punished, according to these elites. These elites are "greener" than someone who just rides a bicycle because they have declared themselves to be "greener", and they "care more"; according to them, anyway.  There are some disturbing indications that some connected to the WEF had some forewarning of the pandemic. If you look at Schwab's emails and Bill Gates' emails, one certainly gets that impression. The same is true of Bill Gates' investments. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel joked at the WEF that he told his staff a year before the pandemic broke out that they would have to ramp up vaccine production by more than a factor of 1000 because he was confident a pandemic would occur in a year. He related that his staff thought he was crazy, but he was uncannily completely accurate. Also there are suspicious reports about the CEO of Pfizer and his senior staff not getting vaccinated themselves (apparently the Pfizer CEO could not visit certain foreign countries because of his own personal lack of vaccination). There also seems to be some desperation to hide all the records of this event. Pharmaceutical companies that are being sued in various jurisdictions are just producing totally redacted, blacked-out pages in discovery. Now the WEF is gleefully predicting another imminent pandemic from a "disease X" that will supposedly be 20 times more lethal than the covid19 (i.e., SARS-CoV-2) virus. What makes this all more disturbing is that Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates and others have made repeated statements about the supposedly desperate need to reduce the world's population by at least a factor of 20 or even 100 as soon as possible. And they have even suggested that the best way to do this is through a manufactured virus and/or deadly vaccinations.  This makes a statement Harari published in his 2017 best-selling book 'Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow' somewhat concerning: “𝘚𝘰 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘨𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘈𝘐𝘋𝘚 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘢, 𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳. … 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘱𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘧 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺.”  Jojo Mehta, speaking at the WEF in Davos, wants "ecocide" to be a serious crime that she can brutally punish. She wants to make farmers and fishermen "climate criminals". The Dutch government and the Sri Lankan government were following the plans and demands of the World Economic Forum when they effectively declared war on farming in their countries. Sri Lanka suffered an economic collapse and riots, and the Dutch government, after many farmer protests, was eventually voted out of power. Several other countries have governments that have at least partially acquiesced to these desires, leading to farmer protests. Even Stacey Abrams, the perennial failed gubernatorial candidate in Georgia (who has maintained for years that she really won at least 2 of the Georgia state elections for Governor), has opined, "why do we need farms? I get all my food from the grocery store like normal people." As comical as this statement is, there have been numerous rumblings in the US about plans to drastically alter agriculture in the US. The WEF has also proposed the forced inoculation of most of the world's population to make them allergic to the consumption of meat. The elites will not be required to take this injection, of course.  The problem with mass censorship is that the current ruling elites want to forbid all discussions of things they find uncomfortable, inconvenient or embarrassing. This would include things like an honest discussion of climate science and related policies, or evidence of voter fraud, or government corruption, or unbridled immigration policies, or details about the pandemic, and so on. The pandemic was an entire series of scandals and cover-ups and government lies for the benefit of some supermassive pharmaceutical companies and their investors. It would be a great topic for an international review to examine what we learned and how our responses failed us. However, many of those who do not want to be held accountable for assorted acts of fraud and mismanagement have been calling for a permanent amnesty on anything associated with this calamity. I am not sure that ignoring this massive event and allowing those who engaged in negligent or even criminal behavior to suffer no consequences, not even public shame or being the subject of a transparent inquiry, is a particularly good idea. This disaster was like a huge war in its impact. So why should those who caused it get a pass, exactly?  "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" is a phrase that originated in a video from the 2016 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. This video was based on an essay authored by Danish politician Ida Auken, who is associated with the WEF.  At Davos this year, there were pointed comments about Elon Musk no longer being welcome in their ranks. And the WEF organizers also made sure to emphasize that Argentina's new president Javier Milei would not be invited back to Davos. Musk and Milei (as well as Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation) clearly have the "wrong attitudes" to fit in with the Davos crowd. They seem to be too interested in the well-being of the world's population as a whole, instead of being just greedy and selfish. The WEF has a very inviting and glossy website advertising their "good works". Although the WEF pays lip service to environmentalism and the flourishing of liberal democracy, that seems to be only a surface disguise. That is not what the WEF is really about; not even close.