On Friday’s “Alex Marlow Show,” host and Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow said Klaus Schwab is leaving the World Economic Forum, but his successor is more evil.
Marlow said, “I’m completely confident that he is going to pass his globalist economic forum to other bad guys. So, he has a secret blueprint…for the WEF, to control every aspect of your life.”
He thinks the successor will be Yuval Harari.
If it’s Harari, he is demonic in his lack of regard for people who don’t qualify as elites.
He thinks most of us are “useless” and one day, the elites will have to find things for them to do. He wants to give us video games and universal basic income.
In the TED interview below, he said that people today resist the “big ideas” and the “big words” because they think they are not part of the story– they are “correct in thinking that.”
In the past, the stories included fascism, communism, and liberalism. He includes Trump supporters under the broad term of liberalism. Individual liberty, family values, and free trade were included in liberal thinking. He says that while they gave the best conditions of past generations, they left too many people out.
This next paragraph, is a paraphrase but it is what he is saying. In the past, we relied on farmers, soldiers, truck drivers, and factory workers, but no more. They’re not part of the story; we don’t need all these people. We don’t need all these farmers in the future– just “two tractors.’ They will be “useless,” and he doesn’t know what his fellow elites will do with them except make them happy with universal basic income (UBI). If mothers raising kids is important in the communities they establish, then maybe they can “redistribute” some of the wealth to them. Harari says that maybe we need a new social and economic model.
The elites will run it. You useless people will be stashed in communities somewhere with UBI.
Delusions of Adequacy 
How best to describe and understand the intent of the language of UN 242?
UNSC 242 shares about as much with EU neutrality and desires to restore peace in the Middle East, as EU’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in UN 242, a denial of reality, akin to pretending a nuclear Israel doesn’t exist. It infantilizes Israeli sovereignty and keeps Europe locked in a colonial-era mindset, where they think they still get to decide Middle East borders.
A diplomatic game of denial — but only one side is expected to play fair. Israel’s policy of ambiguity regarding its nuclear capability — widely understood but never officially acknowledged — mirrors the West’s refusal to acknowledge Israel’s de facto victory and the political outcomes of 1967, especially regarding Jerusalem. Just as Israel says, “We won’t confirm or deny,” so too do Britain and France say, “We won’t accept what happened, even though we all know it did.”
The omission of Jerusalem’s status from 242 is glaring. Britain and France deliberately avoided affirming Israel’s sovereignty over East Jerusalem, even after the 1967 unification of the city — again signaling a non-neutral tilt against Israeli political and historical claims.
The Infamous “Withdrawal from Territories” Clause. UN 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “territories occupied in the recent conflict,” not “all the territories.” The ambiguity was intentional, and different powers have since interpreted it differently — Britain and France used this to pressure Israel diplomatically, without actually ensuring peace from the Arab side.
Britain had exited Palestine in 1948 with a deep sense of resentment toward the Zionist movement. France, after the Algerian War, pivoted toward Arab states and saw the Middle East as a strategic chessboard to regain relevance. The resolution was shaped by Lord Caradon (UK) and French diplomats, whose countries had long-standing ties to Arab regimes, especially after the loss of colonial holdings. Supporting Arab causes post-decolonization became a way to maintain influence.
UN Resolution 242, drafted largely by Britain and France, was never a neutral document. It was a political compromise crafted in the shadow of their imperial interests, Cold War alignments, and long-standing pro-Arab policy biases — not an impartial framework for peace.
LikeLike