Klaus Schwab and the Men Who Molded Him (Part Three)

"When plunder becomes a way of life, men create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." - Frédéric Bastiat, 19th Century French Economist

Copyright by World Economic Forum/Photo by Remy Steinegger

Nestled high amid the Swiss alps, surrounded by perpetually snow-capped peaks and the droning peal of cowbells, the ultra-exclusive resort town of Davos (most easily accessed by private jet) hardly seems like the most discreet headquarters from which to launch a global corporate takeover. For those aware of the plans concocted there, such cartoon villainy might appear needlessly brazen, perhaps even flamboyantly reckless, and yet each January, hosted by the World Economic Forum and its now infamous founder Klaus Schwab, that is precisely what occurs - politicians, financiers, and celebrities gathered to discuss how manufactured “crises” such Covid and Climate Change might be leveraged to further implement their deranged vision of the future.

The reader is no doubt aware of the specifics. When once brain implants, genetically-augmented humans, and ubiquitous, inescapable surveillance were solely the domain of science fiction, these not only now exist, but exist as tangible, rapidly approaching realities. In many respects, Schwab has undergone much the same transition. With his heavily-accented English and gleeful promises of fusing man and machine, the WEF chairman embodies, right down to his questionable wardrobe choices, the image of the archetypal Hollywood antagonist. It is difficult to imagine that this is not at least somewhat intentional. After all, while the wider public are at last beginning to notice the chinks in Schwab’s boring-yet-benevolent façade, neither should it be assumed that the layer underneath is necessarily any more authentic. Yes, depictions of Klaus as the avatar of a timeless, irrepressible evil do indeed capture the essence of the anti-human agenda he is the face of, but in truth, even these only serve to further obscure the man who really lurks behind the curtain.

Over the course of this series, I have tried to piece together a profile of Klaus Schwab beyond either of these public personas. In the first installment, I examined the influence of his father Eugen, a decorated Nazi collaborator who would give his son a start within the business of geopolitical parasitism, while in part two, I turned to Schwab’s spiritual life and specifically, his relationship with Dom Hélder Câmara: a Brazilian priest and Communist firebrand who would lay the groundwork for the WEF’s infiltration of the Catholic Church. Both these figures were vital in erecting the centermost pillars of Schwab’s worldview, however, it was not until his time at Harvard that Klaus would encounter a man who saw the potential of developing this worldview into that of a bona fide political behemoth.

The video above is taken from a conversation conducted at the University, in which (some eleven minutes in) Schwab is asked (by a typically fawning interviewer), whether there was any professor who made a particularly lasting impression on him. Klaus doesn’t miss a beat: 

“Yes, there was one course, one seminar of Henry Kissinger which really opened my eyes. I wasn’t accepted to the seminar, but I sat in – I think he let me in because I was German. And it was relatively shortly after the war, there was not too many Germans here, and this created a friendship which has endured until today. And you know Henry has been several times in Davos and I think it was mainly participating in his seminars that I developed my interest for geopolitical affairs.”

There is not many who recall Kissinger so warmly.  For well over half a century, the former Secretary of State has been inextricably linked with the doctrine of “Realpolitik” - an approach to US foreign policy which was often indistinguishable from wholesale indifference to human suffering. This single-minded, often cavalier pursuit of American hegemony garnered Kissinger as much revulsion as it did veneration and yet, in more recent years (and thanks to journalists such as Seymour Hersh, Oriana Fallaci, Julian Assange, and most notably Christopher Hitchens), less and less of his dwindling prestige remains. In fact, as Kissinger approaches his hundredth year, this once towering diplomat faces the prospect of leaving behind a legacy not as a brilliant strategist or illustrious statesman, but rather as a war criminal of colossal proportions – this an apparently irreconcilable endpoint to a story which had begun with the young German immigrant eagerly conforming to the American ideal.

Born in 1923 as Heinz Alfred in Fürth, Bavaria to a conventional Jewish household, the eldest Kissinger child was only fifteen years old when his family fled to New York prior to the watershed events of Kristallnacht. This decision had been made by his mother Paula who was said to have boasted an innate political nous of her own, the Kissingers eventually settling in Washington Heights, a neighborhood known for its sizeable German population. Working part-time in an old-fashioned shave brush factory but dreaming of becoming an accountant, Henry – who had by now fully anglicized his name – enthusiastically threw himself into his adoptive culture, an integration which seemed complete when, in 1942, he was drafted into the U.S. Army.

“He was more American than I have ever seen any American,” one of his fellow soldiers recalled, and certainly, even Kissinger’s most ardent detractors would struggle to deny his outsized contribution to the war effort. He was known as a ready volunteer for especially hazardous duties, while in the latter stages of the conflict, as Allied Forces advanced through Germany, he was responsible for coordinating the assistance of the local population, a feat for which he was promoted to sergeant. Further honors were to follow for his part in the liberation of the Ahlem concentration camp as well as in the breakup of a Gestapo sleeper cell, the latter earning him a Bronze Star.

After the war and with the aid of the G.I Bill, Kissinger enrolled at Harvard in order to study political science and English literature. It was here that he was to meet William Yandell Elliott, a history professor and former advisor to several US presidents under whose mentorship a young Kissinger would greatly refine his thinking. Informed as much by the writings of Emmanuel Kant as it was by the statecraft of Metternich, this most intellectually transformative period of Henry’s life is deserving of far more space that I can justify giving it, and so, while some readers will no doubt find Niall Ferguson’s 2015 biography unduly charitable (the subject himself encouraged the author to write it, after all), it is this which provides arguably the most comprehensive account of the brilliant, divisive minds which helped shape Kissinger’s.

Guided by the belief that history was nothing more than “a series of meaningless events”, its trajectory dictated by those with the resolve to do so (“the philosophy of the deed”, as another, less favorable biographer, Greg Grandin put it), Kissinger would, in 1951, take up employment as a consultant for the Army’s Operations Research Office. Here, he was to become acquainted with a swiftly evolving yet seldom-mentioned area of American military prowess – psychological warfare. Once more, Kissinger proved a natural, and just three years later, while still hoping to become a junior professor at Harvard, he instead received a recommendation to join the Council on Foreign Relations.

His tenure at the think tank further bolstered his reputation. Heading discussions on the atomic bomb and war-gaming scenarios on their most effective application, Kissinger would soon cement his place as the world’s leading authority with the 1957 publication of his Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, still today a blueprint for American tacticians. Through connections made at the CFR, he went on to become a Director of Special Studies for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund as well the co-founder of the Center for International Affairs, these just two in a litany of academic panels, government research forums, non-profit organizations, and obscure advisory boards through which Kissinger helped maneuver the pieces atop the Grand Geopolitical Chessboard.

But while his star was quickly rising, it was not until 1969 that Henry would find himself catapulted into genuine notoriety.

According to the man himself, Kissinger’s first meeting with Richard Nixon did not occur until after the newly elected president had appointed him National Security Advisor. Other sources beg to differ. These contend that Nixon, a longtime admirer of Kissinger’s work, had sought his counsel after learning of their shared opinion that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable. Regardless of the specifics, however, what even his most sympathetic observers now acknowledge, is that during the 1968 Paris Peace Talks – talks Kissinger was attending as a consultant to President Johnson – the mercenary strategist secretly relayed information to a rival Nixon campaign concerned that a Democrat-led peace deal would hurt their chances at the ballot box.

By convincing the South Vietnamese to abandon negotiations, Republicans took their single biggest stride toward election victory. This was all but ensured by Nixon’s promise to bring about a speedy yet respectable end to America’s entanglements in Indochina, the President’s first few months in office spent assuring the public of his administration’s desire to bring combatants back to the bargaining table while at the same time, pursuing a policy of wanton devastation in the hope of securing more favorable terms.

The scale and intensity of the US bombing campaign into neighboring, neutral Cambodia is virtually unfathomable. In the course of just four years, the American military dropped nearly twice the amount of bombs as they did in the Pacific throughout all of World War II, with little apparent regard shown for the civilian population. Although the number of casualties is impossible to ascertain, a figure of 100,000 appears the most commonly cited by official sources while more independent outlets suggest that as many as six million people, a vast majority civilians, were maimed, killed or otherwise displaced as a direct consequence of Nixon’s order. More significant still, at least politically speaking, was the assault’s invigoration of the Khmer Rouge. Still a fringe guerrilla movement, the group deftly exploited the resulting anti-US sentiment as a means of attaining a foothold to power, this just the first step toward their own barbarous reign of terror.

What this episode displayed, even relatively early on in his career, was that Kissinger possessed the requisite stomach for the most unpalatable aspects of geopolitical strategy. These credentials would be further exhibited in 1971 when he and Nixon, by now a murderous double-act, backed the Pakistani President Yahya Khan’s incursion into East Pakistan. This, many historians contend, was intended primarily as means of sending a bloody and uncompromising message to the Soviets, while four years later, Kissinger signed off on similarly symbolic atrocities by lending support (and to a degree, perceived moral legitimacy), to Indonesia’s genocidal occupation of East Timor.

More of Kissinger’s fingerprints can be found on coups, conflicts, tyrannies, and revolutions everywhere from China to Cyprus, but with the exception of Cambodia, it is his involvement in the 1973 overthrow of the democratically elected Chilean government for which he remains most bitterly remembered. Accused of fomenting unrest against leftist president Salvador Allende, Kissinger asserted then as he continues to assert now, that such a move was necessary to ward against the country forming closer allegiances with either Cuba or the USSR. In the eyes of his critics, however, Kissinger’s real motivation came from lobbyists at ITT. Among the biggest financial backers of Nixon’s presidential bid, the manufacturing megacorporation were concerned that their business interests in Chile might be jeopardized by Allende’s policies of nationalization, the subsequent upheaval laying the groundwork for the seventeen year rule of General Augusto Pinochet.

When examining Kissinger’s most contentious of résumés, it can seem as though nowhere on earth has been spared the horror of his genius. With time, it is likely that his legacy will be measured not in awards or ghostwritten books but in corpses too numerous and mutilated to calculate, and yet today - in large part due to the assistance of Klaus Schwab - it is Europe where his name echoes most resonantly.

As stated in the video at the beginning of this article, the two men first met at the Harvard Kennedy School where Schwab, studying a Masters in Public Administration, would catch the much sought-after attentions of Professor Kissinger. This was nothing short of life-changing for the future WEF chairman. Naturally, being ushered under such an illustrious wing constituted an immense boost to the career ambitions of this fiercely ambitious young business mind, even if the motivations of his mentor remain rather more difficult to define. After all, given Kissinger’s wealth of obligations within government – obligations of vast and immediate geopolitical importance – it seems perhaps surprising that he had any time to devote to the comparatively abstract world of academia, much less to any one student. Needless to say, details of the pair’s relationship has been all but purged from the mainline internet, yet what remains nonetheless clear, is that just two years after Schwab’s arrival at Harvard, documents would surface suggesting that Kissinger’s interest in his compatriot was not purely educational. Written by American economist Humphrey Doermann, the report claimed that the CIA had been funneling substantial sums of money into various university programs – Kissinger adamant of his ignorance despite the fact his seminar was the most generously compensated.

As with every juncture of the Klaus Schwab story, the rest is guesswork. What exactly were the CIA seeking to achieve with these cash injections? What was Kissinger’s actual function at Harvard? How did his guidance inform the thinking of his protégé, and maybe more troubling still, what qualities did the youthful Schwab exhibit that set him apart from his peers?

These and many other questions endure, and yet it does not seem to require an excessively conspiratorial mind to suspect that Schwab was being earmarked for a position within the globalist elite, specifically on a group of advisers which Kissinger was heading at the time. This 22-man panel, appointed by the American government and funded by the American taxpayer, had been created with to a view to helping “shape European policy,” its members comprised of Rockefellers, university professors, representatives of oil companies, as well as figures from within the Council on Foreign Relations. These meetings would grant Schwab his first access to America’s most instrumental policy-makers while in turn, these policy-makers recognized within their young German associate, the opportunity to extend their influence across the Atlantic.

What emerged from these meetings, it hardly seems necessary to clarify, was an embryonic version of the World Economic Forum. Ever since its inception, the “International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation” has managed to operate outside the glare of public scrutiny, its true nature concealed behind benign-sounding progressivisms and terms such as “fairness” and “sustainability.” Indeed, had it not been for the events of 2020, its objectives might remain ambiguous even now – Schwab’s brazenness once more on full display when, just a couple months after the outbreak of an alleged pandemic, he published a manifesto outlining how he intended to use this pandemic to completely overhaul both society and the economy.

Of course, this admission has not deterred the MSM from deriding The Great Reset as a “conspiracy theory”, even as its contours take shape around us. However, with the genie out of the bottle and the internet far more unwieldy than its censors might acknowledge, more and more independent investigators have begun tracing the tentacles of Schwab’s influence back through its shadowy beginnings. What they have discovered is that, quite at odds with its original moniker of the European Management Symposium, the WEF is far from European at all. Despite Kissinger’s involvement, neither is it strictly American. Rather, what this network of globalist sleeper agents represent is the latest and most dangerous iteration of a parasitic class which has long been endemic to western political structures. These people have no national loyalties. They possess nothing which could reasonably be termed a morality. As encapsulated by Kissinger and emulated by Schwab, these individuals are driven by nothing but the raw lust for power, piloted by no conviction but the conviction in their divine right to rule, and yet more terrifying still, they regard no amount of human suffering to be too great a sacrifice on the road to the establishment of their one-world government.

***As stated in the first part of this series, a special note should be made to investigative journalists Michael McKibbon and Johnny Vedmore. It really is no exaggeration to say that a majority of what the world knows about Klaus Schwab they know because of these men - a body of work I hope to add to during part four, when I will look at the life of a man who would help put the World Economic Forum into motion.***

Crypto Donations:

Bitcoin: 1MHzr38VAc3g5cucBGiT8axXkiamSAkEkZ

Ethereum: 0x9c79B04e56Ef1B85f148CaD9F4dBD4285b2f9E69