Sometimes hours of debate or hundreds of pages of reports
aren't necessary. Sometimes a single minute on television is enough to say,
bluntly, what many prefer to ignore. That's exactly what Ned Ryan did on Fox
News. No circumlocutions, no diplomatic language, no technocratic veneer.
He said it clearly and directly:
The World Economic Forum is not an innocent discussion club
or a well-intentioned NGO.
It's a political organization with its own agenda.
According to Ryan, its method is as old as it is effective:
fear.
Amplified fear, managed fear, fear transformed into a tool
of governance.
“The COVID hysteria and the global warming discourse weren't
just crises,” he essentially said. “They were instruments. Levers to push
people in the direction they want.”
In his analysis, the World Economic Forum (WEF) doesn't act
as a forum for reflection, but rather as a center of ideological power that
uses grand narratives of emergency to justify radical transformations in the
way societies are organized.
But the strongest point of his intervention wasn't the
critique of the method, but of the ultimate goal.
Ryan described it bluntly:
What is really being built is a global, fascist-type
movement in a public-private version.
Not the classic fascism of shirts and parades, but a much
more modern, cleaner, more efficient one:
the fusion of governments, large corporations, technology,
and money into a single power bloc.
A system where:
Political power is no longer limited to the state.
Economic power no longer responds to markets.
Technological power is no longer a tool, but a mechanism of
control.
All integrated into a single structure.
The result?
A technocratic elite that doesn't need to win elections to
govern.
That doesn't need to convince: managing crises is enough.
And that doesn't need to impose by force when it can do so
through dependency, surveillance, and constant regulation.
In Ryan's words, it's not about "improving the
world," but about reorganizing it from the top down.
It's not about empowering people, but about managing them.
His conclusion was as uncomfortable as it was forceful:
The "Great Reset" is not an economic plan.
It's a power project.
A project that aspires to decide:
What you consume.
How you move around.
What you can say.
What you're allowed to think.
All in the name of security, health, the climate, or
stability.
And perhaps that's why his intervention was so unsettling:
because in barely a minute he broke the spell of the beautiful language and
left the essential question hanging in the air:
Are we facing an agenda to save the world… or a plan to
manage it from above, without asking permission?
Post a Comment
We want to know your comments and concerns. Remember: Respect distinguishes us, education makes us different...