reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I prefer Davos over Westminster because Westminster is too limited and lacks meaningful engagement. Once you step outside of Westminster, like in Davos or elsewhere, you can connect with people whom you can potentially collaborate with in the future. Westminster, on the other hand, is characterized by tribal shouting.

You refused to congratulate the president. I refuse to talk to you because you're being obnoxious. I'm just asking a simple question. What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? I'm good. Are you optimistic he'll be a good president? I'm good. You seem resentful of the president. You're putting words in my mouth. Why not commend him for his victory? I need a QR code to get in. It seems stingy not to congratulate him. Go watch my Bloomberg interview. I think you're jealous of Trump. I'm just trying to navigate my emails. What are you doing at the World Economic Forum? There are reasons a Republican could be here. My questions weren’t obnoxious; they were straightforward. His refusal to congratulate Trump suggests bitterness. For more reports from the World Economic Forum, visit wefreports.com. If you want to help fund our coverage, I’d appreciate it. Unlike Paul Ryan, we don’t have lobbyist support.

At Davos, the speaker expresses their bewilderment at the hypocrisy of the event. Despite discussions on justice, equality, and transparency, no one addresses the issue of tax avoidance by the wealthy. The speaker suggests that instead of focusing on philanthropy, the conversation should revolve around taxes. They mention the success of a 70% top marginal tax rate in the United States during the 1950s. The speaker emphasizes the importance of discussing taxes and dismisses other topics as irrelevant.

I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2013 and realized that everyone there represented corporations, governments, or NGOs - no individuals. This lack of personal representation made me reject the idea of a future without individuality, where people can't think for themselves or challenge the status quo.

We outlined our green prosperity plan for clean power by 2030 at a conference. We aim to partner with businesses for this transition to renewable energy. It's crucial for the UK to be present on the global stage, especially in addressing the climate crisis. We believe in an active state that collaborates with the private sector to seize opportunities for the future. The absence of the UK at Davos was disappointing, and we hope for a change in government to lead in this area.

The conversation centers on the 72nd Bilderberg meeting, held in Washington DC from April 9 to 12, at the Salamander Hotel. Reporters attempted to get footage and comments; Dan Dix is noted filming outside, and a large green press fence was set up to keep the press away, though wind kept blowing it down. High-profile attendees mentioned include Peter Thiel (Palantir) and the head of MI6, with footage of her leaving the venue. The discussion covers the gathering’s official topics—AI, China, Russia, the Middle East, the transatlantic defense-industrial relationship, and the future of warfare—as well as the broader significance of the meeting. Andrew Goff, a researcher and presenter, joins to discuss what the Bilderberg Group is and why it matters. He explains that the group originated at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands in 1954, founded by Prince Bernhard. He notes Bernhard was a card-carrying Nazi and was involved in bribes with Lockheed, aligning with David Rockefeller, which he presents as early red flags. The group is described as an elite gathering of politicians, media executives, high-tech leaders, and other international figures, alternating meetings between Europe and North America, with this edition in Washington DC. Journalists have faced debanking, illustrating constraints on coverage; a reference is made to a journalist who was debanked for coverage of the war in Ukraine. The conversation includes a promotional aside about Rumble Wallet, which is not relevant to the Bilderberg discussion and is omitted from the summary per instruction. Speaker 2 asks for a comparison with the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos. Andrew responds that Davos involves about 2,500 people, publishes its agenda, and streams information, whereas Bilderberg has 100–150 members, invitation-only, with the location announced only weeks before the meeting, and it does not publish formal agendas or resolutions. The Chartum House rules (originating from the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London in 1927) are cited as key to understanding how Bilderberg operates: private meetings where participants can discuss publicly but cannot reveal who said what or to whom. Topics discussed at Bilderberg are described as cutting-edge, including AI and the future of warfare. Andrew notes that the attendance can include high-level figures from Greenland and a Polish politician, indicating some international presence, though the forum is primarily Western leaders and Western media. He likens NATO to the transatlantic arm and Bilderberg to the brains, with MI6 as the “arms and legs” disseminating the agenda. He adds a literary reference, suggesting a probable esoteric undercurrent, mentioning James Bond (MI6) and Ian Fleming, and alluding to connections between the Epstein circle and such organizations. The dialogue moves toward implications for real-world policy, arguing that there is no voting or formal policy statements at Bilderberg; instead, influence and access are the mechanisms by which agendas are shaped. Andrew and the host discuss the Arctic as a potential flashpoint, noting geopolitical maneuvering around Greenland, Alaska, and adjacent regions, and suggesting that Arctic security and related interests are a focal point of concern within Bilderberg’s conversations. The exchange ends with gratitude toward Andrew for his insights and acknowledgment of the head of MI6’s attendance.

The speaker recalls a past policy from when they were deputy leader of another party, stating that they would denounce the World Economic Forum, and asserts that there can be no good arising from the richest people in the world meeting the most powerful people in the world behind closed doors, without an agenda, without minutes, and without public scrutiny. They emphasize that such a gathering lacks transparency and accountability. The speaker then shifts to a critique of a specific political figure, Mandelson, claiming that what has been seen with Mandelson is “the tip of the iceberg.” They argue that the reason Mandelson isn’t already in jail, and the reason he twice came back from political obscurity, was put back into office, ennobled, and made an ambassador, is because “the establishment is rotten to the core,” and that “the world’s gonna be a problem.” Further, the speaker claims that someone takes money from a billionaire who is foreign-born in order to attend the World Economic Forum so he can speak on a program with Bloomberg, and states that such a person is “someone we should not be electing as prime minister of this country.” The speech then transitions to prompting or signaling that there is a question to be addressed next, as indicated by the final remark, “We now have a question.”

During a g7 meeting in the south of England, I confidently declared that America is back. The chancellor of Germany then asked me how long we would be back for. This made me realize that I hadn't considered the perspective of other democracies. He posed a scenario where a thousand people broke into the House of Commons, resulting in the death of two police officers, all in an attempt to prevent the election of the prime minister. It made me question how we would react if such a situation occurred in another country.

Sky News interviews Mr. Johnson at Davos and asks about his future in the ministry. They inquire why he is at Davos and if it is important to be there. Mr. Johnson briefly mentions his earlier statement. They also discuss the significance of forums like Davos for global awareness of Ukraine. Mr. Johnson agrees that they do matter.

Our country needs a bigger reset, a great reset. Choosing between Davos and Westminster, Davos is preferred for its openness and meaningful engagement. It's disappointing that the UK Prime Minister didn't attend Davos. It's crucial for the UK to be present on the global stage. The younger generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau and the President of Argentina, are making positive changes. My government prioritizes serving the country over party politics. Davos over Westminster. Translation: Our country needs a significant reset, a great reset. Choosing between Davos and Westminster, Davos is preferred for its openness and meaningful engagement. It's disappointing that the UK Prime Minister didn't attend Davos. It's crucial for the UK to be present on the global stage. The younger generation, like Prime Minister Trudeau and the President of Argentina, are making positive changes. My government prioritizes serving the country over party politics. Davos over Westminster.

Speaker 0: We are proud to have penetrated the cabinet. Speaker 1: A constituent asked about outside interference in our democracy. Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum, boasted about infiltrating governments worldwide, including over half of Canada's cabinet. Can the member disclose which cabinet ministers support the WEF agenda for transparency? Speaker 2: Sorry for the poor audio and video quality. I'm unsure if the member...

Speaker 0 introduces Desiree as an outspoken whistleblower who has challenged the Davos elite, asserts that old systems are not fit for the twenty-first century, and asks how Desiree helped build the WEF’s great reset. Speaker 1, Desiree, recounts that in 2020 she obtained her dream job as chief sustainability officer at Deutsche Bank. She states that while in that role she witnessed fraud and describes the annual report as a “legal living document” filled with lies. She says that a couple of weeks after she spoke out, she was fired, and shortly after, the annual report was released with “all the lies.” She describes a subsequent “horrific smear campaign” and notes that within two days, U.S. authorities contacted her, including the SEC, the FBI, and the Department of Justice. She mentions that they asked her questions, implying inquiry or investigation directed at her claims. Speaker 0 questions whether Desiree is advancing the view that “they’re controlling the world.” Speaker 1 asserts that the WEF is vast and that its tentacles affect every part of life. She claims that this situation is not stakeholder capitalism but socialism, accusing the WEF of lying to the public. She contends that the Davos agenda involves more than net zero and asserts that it is connected to a “climate crisis” manufactured by a “multi trillion dollar industrial complex.” She reiterates that the Davos agenda is about more than climate goals and frames it as a broad, powerful economic and political enterprise. Speaker 0 asks Desiree whether she ever met Claus Schwab and whether she has anything to say about the encounter. Speaker 1 responds with a brief affirmative, saying “Yes,” to having met Schwab, and adds “Truthfully” when asked for further remarks about the meeting. Summary of key points: - Desiree’s career move to Deutsche Bank in 2020 as chief sustainability officer and her claim of discovering fraud and a lies-filled annual report. - Her claim of being fired and subjected to a smear campaign, followed by inquiries from U.S. authorities (SEC, FBI, DOJ). - The assertion that the WEF’s influence extends across life, characterizing the Davos agenda as socialism rather than stakeholder capitalism, and alleging a manufactured climate crisis tied to a multi-trillion-dollar industrial complex. - The claim that the Davos agenda encompasses more than net zero and entails broader power and influence. - Desiree confirms she met Claus Schwab, with a brief, candid acknowledgment.

We are proud of our influence in government. A constituent asked about outside interference in democracy, specifically regarding Klaus Schwab, head of the World Economic Forum. He claimed that the WEF has infiltrated over half of Canada's cabinet. In the interest of transparency, could you name the cabinet ministers aligned with the WEF's agenda? Order, please. The question is important, but the audio and video quality are poor. I apologize for that. The younger generation, including Prime Minister Trudeau, is involved.

I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2013 and realized that everyone there represents corporations, governments, or NGOs - no individuals. This future where people have no personal ideas or the freedom to think differently is something I oppose.

I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2013 and realized that everyone there represented corporations, governments, or NGOs, with no individuals present. This lack of individuality in shaping the future is concerning to me. I reject a future where people have no independent thoughts or the ability to challenge the status quo.

I attended the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2013 and realized that everyone there represented corporations, governments, or NGOs - no individuals. This lack of personal representation made me reject the future where people have no independent thoughts or ideas. It's a world where no one questions or thinks for themselves.

Welcome to the annual meeting 2020 at Davos, where the elite gather. Tonight, I want to focus on a significant shift. George Gao from China CDC is part of this cabinet, and a majority of people are willing to take the experimental vaccine. We need action. Although we are better off in terms of food, clothing, and information, we don't own anything. China is swiftly recovering from the crisis, and we will see a political realignment. Our focus will be on working men and women, not the elites on Wall Street, corporate America, or the party of Davos.

I am grateful to the World Economic Forum for giving me the chance to express my disagreement with Klaus Schwab and his vision of a new world order. We, the people, value our freedom and will continue to do so. To all the globalists present, including those in this room, I express my strong opposition.

The speaker discusses the so-called Great Reset, insisting it is not a conspiracy theory and noting that it has been referenced by prime minister Trudeau in a United Nations speech. The speaker explains that Pierre Polyev, the federal conservative finance critic, recently raised concerns about this concept and was criticized by some in the media and by liberals for allegedly promoting conspiracy theories. According to the speaker, the Great Reset is the name of Klaus Schwab’s book. Schwab’s thesis, as described, is that governments and societies should “seize the opportunity of the public health and economic crisis to reimagine the world and radically change policies.” The speaker characterizes the proposed changes as a “grab bag of left wing ideas” that would mean less freedom and more government intervention, including policies that would “create massive poverty,” with particular emphasis on energy policy. Klaus Schwab is identified as the president and founder of the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos Summit. The speaker labels Davos as “the biggest gathering of global hypocrites in history,” describing it as a ski village in Switzerland where, every February, thousands of wealthy individuals, including billionaires, millionaires, global CEOs, and politicians, fly in with private airplanes to spend a week lecturing the world, including working people, about reducing their carbon footprint. The speaker asserts that the Great Reset is advocated by influential people and even alluded to by Trudeau, though the discussion centers on what the reset entails and how it would impact policy, government power, and energy policy.

Allowing citizens to speak freely makes them stronger. This brings me to Munich, where conference organizers banned lawmakers from populist parties on both the left and the right. We don't have to agree with everything, but when political leaders represent a constituency, we should engage in dialogue. To many, it appears that entrenched interests are hiding behind terms like misinformation and disinformation. They dislike the idea of alternative viewpoints, different opinions, or, even worse, different election outcomes.

The speaker states they won't take policy direction from Klaus Schwab. They assert the "Great Reset" is not a conspiracy theory, but a set of proposals advocated by influential people, including Prime Minister Trudeau. Klaus Schwab's book, "The Great Reset," argues governments should seize the public health and economic crisis to reimagine the world and radically change policies. The speaker describes it as a grab bag of left-wing ideas for less freedom and more government intervention, leading to poverty, particularly through energy policy. Schwab is the president and founder of the World Economic Forum, also known as the Davos Summit, which the speaker calls the biggest gathering of global hypocrites.