Klaus Schwab: WEF Young Global Leaders’ Brains ‘Will Be Replicated with AI’ When They Die

World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab has told his unelected globalist organization’s so-called “Young Global Leaders” that they will continue to live on even after they die.

According to Schwab, WEF members can continue to expect to enjoy more than just a “career of 50 years.”

Through the use of technology and “injections,” Schwab says WEF Young Global Leaders “will continue to live.”

Schwab promises young globalists that, even after they die, their brains “will be replicated through artificial intelligence and algorithms.”

He made the comments in a leaked video which was recorded during a private indoctrination session for WEF Young Global Leaders.

“You have the chance to look forward to a career of 50 years, maybe more,” Schwab told the crowd.

“Your avatar will continue to live, and your brain will be replicated through artificial intelligence and algorithms.”


The video has emerged as the WEF continues its push to advance the globalist elites’ technological dominance.

The WEF is now pushing to associate online “disinformation” with human rights abuses as the Switzerland-based group seeks to empower itself and suppress wrongthink.

According to the WEF, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics can prove valuable for evaluating platforms on their handling of disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material.

In a new report published on June 6, 2024, the WEF’s white paper states:

“In an increasingly interconnected world, it is essential to measure digital safety in order to understand risks, allocate resources, and demonstrate compliance with regulations.”

Slay the latest News for free!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

If measuring digital safety is considered to be essential, what then are the actual online harms that would necessitate measuring digital safety?

The latest white paper, titled “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online,” only gives three examples: Disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material.

“ESG metrics present another valuable perspective for evaluating online safety,” it adds.

One method for evaluating online safety described in the latest WEF white paper is to leverage ESG scoring.

ESG is basically a social credit score for companies to make them fall in line with globalist ideologies.

Companies are expected to comply with this agenda even when these ESG policies are detrimental to their bottom line.

“Within ESG investing, companies are assessed based on their environmental impact, social responsibility, and corporate governance practices,” the report reads.

“Similarly, online platforms could be evaluated based on their efforts to promote a safe and inclusive online environment, and the transparency of content moderation policies.

“Online platforms can also be evaluated based on their processes, tools, and rules designed to promote the ‘safe use’ of their services in a manner that mitigates harm to vulnerable non-user groups.”

Conveniently, the WEF believes its own bureaucratic officials should lead regulations and censorship efforts online.

While the latest WEF white paper only lists disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, it builds upon an August 2023 insight report entitled, “Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms.”

The report expands the scope of what constitutes online harm into various categories:

  • Threats to personal and community safety
  • Harm to health and well-being
  • Hate and discrimination
  • Violation of dignity
  • Invasion of privacy
  • Deception and manipulation

Many of the harms listed in last year’s report have to do with heinous acts against people of all ages and identities.

However, there, too in that list of online harms, the WEF highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving a single, solitary example of either one.

With misinformation and disinformation, the typology report states:

“Both can be used to manipulate public opinion, interfere with democratic processes such as elections, or cause harm to individuals, particularly when it involves misleading health information.”

In the same report, the unelected globalists admit that it’s almost impossible “to define or categorize common types of harm.”

The authors say that “there are regional differences in how specific harms are defined in different jurisdictions and that there is no international consensus on how to define or categorize common types of harm.

“Considering the contextual nature of online harm, the typology does not aim to offer precise definitions that are universally applicable in all contexts.”

By not offering precise definitions, they are deliberately making “online harm” a vague concept that can be left wide open to just about any interpretation, which makes quashing dissent and obfuscating the truth even easier because these “online harms,” in their eyes, must be seen as human rights abuses.

“By framing online harms through a human rights lens, this typology emphasizes the impacts on individual users and aims to provide a broad categorization of harms to support global policy development,” the WEF report notes.

Once again, the authors are deliberately putting misinformation, disinformation, and so-called hate speech in the same category as abuse, harassment, doxing, and criminal acts of violence under this “broad categorization of harms.”

That way, they can treat anyone they deem as a threat for speaking truth to power in the same manner as they would for people who commit the most egregious crimes known to humanity.

READ MORE – WEF Calls for ’24-Hour Monitoring’ of the Public

join telegram


Who is the best president?

By completing this poll, you gain access to our free newsletter. Unsubscribe at any time.

By Frank Bergman

Frank Bergman is a political/economic journalist living on the east coast. Aside from news reporting, Bergman also conducts interviews with researchers and material experts and investigates influential individuals and organizations in the sociopolitical world.

Notify of


Would love your thoughts, please comment.x