Connect with us

Business

Arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov signals an increasing threat to digital freedom

Published

27 minute read

Pavel Durov of Telegram speaks during the Digital Life Design conference (DLD) at HVB Forum on January 24, 2012, in Munich, Germany

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas

The message being sent to every tech visionary, journalist, or outspoken citizen is if you don’t play by the new rules, the state will come for you. They’ve got the global mandate to ensure that dissenting voices are silenced, one way or another.

Picture this: a tech billionaire, who’s made his fortune building a platform that prioritizes privacy and free speech, is arrested at a Paris airport. Sounds like the plot of a dystopian thriller, right? Except it’s real life. Pavel Durov, the brain behindĀ Telegram, found himself in handcuffs at Le Bourget airport over the weekend, marking another dark chapter in the ongoing war against free speech.Ā 

What’s Durov’s crime, you ask? Well, it depends on which bureaucrat you ask. According to the official indictment, he’s guilty of everything short of kicking puppies – fraud, drug trafficking, organized crime, encouraging terrorism, and, just for good measure, providing encryption. The French authorities must have felt ambitious that day, throwing in the entire criminal code just to be sure. Let’s not forget that this whole circus started because Durov reportedly had the audacity to support free speech. Apparently, in 2024, that’s enough to get you a one-way ticket to a Parisian jail cell.Ā 

READ:Ā Telegram founder Pavel Durov arrested in FranceĀ 

Durov’s detention has been extended by 96 hours. Because, you know, it takes a while to figure out which of these ludicrous charges will stick when the real crime was defending free speech.Ā 

French President Emmanuel Macron assures everyone that Durov’s arrest is nothing more than a purely ā€œjudicial,ā€ non-political act. You know, the kind of legal housekeeping every free society must endure to keep its otherwise robust freedoms from accidentally going rogue. Because, clearly, when you find the head of a privacy-focused tech giant behind bars, it’s all about upholding legal standards, right?Ā 

But before we crown France this month’s champion of authoritarianism, let’s take a quick tour around the globe. In the European Union’s ever-benevolent grasp,Ā a high-ranking official isĀ threatening to drag U.S. social media platformsĀ  through the censorship ringer. What’s the endgame? To ensure that the EU’s favorite brand of speech policing crosses the Atlantic. Forget about free expression – it’s all about toeing the line, or else.Ā 

Not to be outdone, Brazil’s Supreme Court is adding its own flair to the global crackdown with secretiveĀ censorship orders slapped on online platforms. The idea here is simple: if you can’t kill the message, just gag the messenger. No court hearings, no appeals – just pure, unfiltered control.Ā 

So, here we are, watching as the pillars of free speech are bulldozed in broad daylight, with tech moguls like Durov tossed behind bars for daring to build platforms that don’t kowtow to government censorship. The arrest of a billionaire for refusing to censor, a prime minister having citizens arrested for social media posts, an EU official threatening American companies with censorship demands, and a Brazilian judge unleashing secretive orders – this isn’t just a bad month for free speech; it’s a full-on assault.Ā 

What’s the message being sent to every tech visionary, journalist, or outspoken citizen? Simple: if you don’t play by the new rules, the state will come for you. They’ve got the handcuffs, the secret orders, and, apparently, the global mandate to ensure that dissenting voices are silenced, one way or another.Ā 

This isn’t just about Durov or Telegram. This is about the battle lines being drawn between governments that want absolute control and a shrinking pool of platforms still willing to fight for freedom. These are dangerous times for free speech, and if we don’t pay attention, we might just wake up to find it gone for good.Ā 

Durov, who departed Russia in 2014 following disagreements with the Kremlin over internet freedoms, particularly related to his refusal to close opposition groups on the VK social network which he founded at the age of 22, has since dedicated his efforts to developing Telegram.Ā 

Yet, after escaping Russia and its oppressive censorship demands, it’s now Western governments that have been the ones to make censorship demands.Ā 

Created with his brother Nikolai in 2013, Telegram initially functioned similarly to other messaging services but has evolved into a more complex social network, facilitating large-scale communication through channels and groups.Ā 

Despite residing in Dubai, where he enjoys citizenship alongside France and the UAE, Durov champions the app as a bastion of neutrality and free speech in an increasingly monitored digital world.Ā 

In a statement on Telegram, the company said, ā€œTelegram abides by EU laws,ā€ mentioning theĀ Digital Services ActĀ in particular and adding that Pavel Durov ā€œhas nothing to hide.ā€Ā 

The sight of Russian officials donning the mantle of ā€œfree speech defendersā€ is like watching a fox petition for chicken rights. Yet, here we are. Moscow is outraged – not at the idea of censorship (they do enough of that themselves) but because they’re not the ones holding the keys to the cell. French authorities, evidently too busy trying to build a legal house of cards against Telegram’s founder have somehow managed to snub their Russian counterparts, who are now demanding consular access and throwing diplomatic shade from the Russian embassy in Paris.Ā 

Enter Vladislav Davankov, the deputy speaker of Russia’s State Duma, who’s managed to turn Durov’s arrest into a soapbox moment. Davankov’s allegation? That Durov’s detention is nothing more than a thinly veiled scheme by the West to hack into Telegram’s treasure trove of user data. According to him, this kind of violation of privacy ā€œcannot be allowed.ā€ That’s rich, coming from a regime that’s never met a dissident it didn’t want to silence or a data packet it didn’t want to intercept. But his allegations against the French government may actually be pretty close.Ā 

To understand why Moscow is crying foul over Durov’s arrest, one must rewind the clock to 2014, when a 29-year-old Durov found himself at odds with the Kremlin. Back then, the Russian government was trying to twist his arm to shut down opposition groups on VK, the social network Durov had built from the ground up. Instead of capitulating, Durov took a stand for internet freedom, packed his bags, and left Russia for good. Fast forward a decade, and Durov is now based in Dubai, where he enjoys triple citizenship and a lifestyle reportedly far removed from his Kremlin-tangled past.Ā 

Durov’s masterpiece, Telegram, started as just another messaging app, but has since morphed into a digital juggernaut. With 950 million monthly users, it’s a lifeline for news, a platform for both truth (and yes, like any other platform or legacy news outlet, misinformation) and, much to the chagrin of various governments, a symbol of digital resistance. In the chaotic storm of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Telegram has become a critical tool for both reporting on the conflict and narratives that governments find increasingly difficult to control.Ā 

The irony in all of this is that after fleeing Russia’s oppressive demands, it’s now the so-called free world coming after Durov. The man who said ā€œnoā€ to the Kremlin’s censorship now finds himself in the crosshairs of Western governments, who are just as eager to force his hand. While the West has long championed itself as a bastion of free speech, Durov’s recent experience suggests otherwise.Ā 

Telegram’s official statement makes this clear enough: ā€œTelegram abides by EU laws,ā€ it reads, with a polite nod to the much-vaunted Digital Services Act. But the real interesting part comes with the company’s assertion that Durov ā€œhas nothing to hide.ā€ This could be true – or it could be the last defiant proclamation before the doors are kicked in by the data-hungry enforcers of digital orthodoxy.Ā 

For Durov, this ordeal must feel like a twisted rerun. The same man who once resisted Moscow’s censorship demands now finds himself dodging the West’s increasingly sharp regulatory spears. It’s a grim reminder that no matter which flag flies over the government building, those in power seem to share one common goal: control.Ā 

The arrest, coupled with the Kremlin’s performative outrage, lays bare the truth about the state of global free speech: it’s under attack from all sides. Whether it’s through overt censorship, as seen in Russia, or the subtler, but equally insidious, pressures from the West, the aim is the same: silence dissent, control the narrative, and pry open every digital lock that doesn’t fit the state’s key.Ā 

In the EU, the Digital Services Act has been rolled out with all the fanfare of a revolutionary triumph, marketed as a safeguard for user ā€œsafety.ā€ The truth, however, is far more sinister. What the EU is really doing is tightening its grip on the digital world, muzzling dissent under theĀ guise of combatingĀ ā€œmisinformationā€ and ā€œhate speech.ā€Ā The arrest of Durov in France is just the latest – and most brazen – example of this creeping authoritarianism dressed up in bureaucratic language.Ā 

The DSA is the EU’s shiny new tool for keeping social media and tech companies under its thumb. ItĀ mandates that platforms like Telegram must now answer to Big Brother, swiftly addressing so-called ā€œdisinformationā€ or risk facing severe penalties. The law is designed to force companies to do the dirty work of governments, effectively turning them into enforcers of state-approved narratives. It’s not about protecting users; it’s about controlling them. And in the world of modern governance, where the line between regulation and repression is blurrier than ever, Durov’s arrest is a warning shot.Ā 

Digital speech under siege: Europe’s march toward censorshipĀ 

Let’s not mince words: the EU’s relentless push to ā€œenhance user safetyā€ is a euphemism for ramping up censorship. By couching these regulations in the language of public good, the EU manages to dodge the inconvenient truth that its real goal is to control the flow of information. The Digital Services Act, hailed as a ā€œsignificant overhaulā€ of the EU’s digital policy, is little more than a power grab disguised as a public service. And the timing of Durov’s arrest in France – an EU stronghold – couldn’t be more telling.Ā 

Durov, who’s spent years fighting back against censorship, now finds himself in the middle of a battle over the future of online speech. He’s built his reputation on refusing to bow to government demands, whether from the Kremlin or the West. But with his arrest in a supposedly free country, we see just how far the EU is willing to go to enforce its new digital regime.Ā 

The DSA gives the EU unprecedented control over tech companies, demanding rapid responses to whatever it deems unfit for public consumption. For Telegram, this means beefing up content moderation or facing the wrath of Brussels – a stark choice between betraying its principles or suffering the consequences.Ā 

READ:Ā Christian doctor in Germany receives 2,500-euro fine for warning about COVID jab dangers in 2021Ā 

The global chill: Durov’s arrest as a warning to tech CEOsĀ 

Durov’s arrest sends a clear and chilling message: no one is safe from the reach of the state. If a billionaire tech CEO can be nabbed at an airport and held on dubious charges for daring to defend free speech, what hope is there for anyone else? The EU’s new laws and the arrest of Durov mark a dangerous escalation in the global war on free expression. Other tech leaders who have championed privacy and resisted censorship must be watching with a mix of fear and trepidation, wondering if they’re next on the hit list.Ā 

The implications are profound. Durov’s stand against censorship has made him a symbol of resistance, but it’s also turned him into a target. The arrest coincides with an era where tensions over digital freedom are reaching a boiling point. Governments across the globe are tightening their noose on online platforms, and the EU’s DSA is the latest weapon in this fight. What we’re witnessing is the opening salvo in a broader campaign to control the digital public square, to ensure that only the ā€œcorrectā€ information sees the light of day.Ā 

The digital guillotine: How the EU’s DSA is reshaping the internetĀ 

In the tradition of authoritarian overreach, the EU’s DSA represents more than just regulation – it’s the construction of a digital guillotine. The law doesn’t just keep tech companies in check; it keeps them in fear. With the power to fine, sanction, or even shut down platforms that don’t toe the line, the DSA is a blueprint for modern-day censorship, one that’s already beginning to claim its first high-profile victim in Durov.Ā 

Tech bosses are increasingly finding themselves in the crosshairs of powerful states eager to bend digital platforms to their will. Just ask X owner Elon Musk, who has escaped the wrath of both Brazil and the European Union this month.Ā 

Musk’s crime was refusing to play ball with their censorship demands. Brazil, never one to shy away from the strong-arm approach, even threatenedĀ to lock up X employeesĀ if they didn’t secretly censor users. Musk and X CEO Linda Yaccarino’s response was toĀ shut down operations in Brazil entirely – an audacious move, but one that highlights the growing tension between tech innovators and authoritarian government actions.Ā 

But the Durov saga takes this conflict to a new, terrifying level. While it’s not Brazil’s first rodeo – remember when they threw Facebook’s Diego Dzodan behind bars in 2016 for WhatsApp’s encryption? – Durov’s arrest marks a grim first: the CEO of a major messaging platform being jailed for refusing to censor. The message to tech leaders is crystal clear: stand up to government overreach, and you might just find yourself in a cell.Ā 

A screenshot of a Washington Post 2016 article titled, "Senior Facebook executive arrested in Brazil after police are denied access to data."The Washington Post – 2016

A chilling effect on innovationĀ 

Durov’s arrest is a dire warning to anyone who dares to innovate in the realm of communication.Ā 

The chilling effect this could have on innovation cannot be overstated. Imagine the next generation of tech entrepreneurs, who might now think twice before developing a revolutionary new app or encryption tool, fearing they’ll end up like Durov.Ā 

This crackdown could particularly cripple the burgeoning crypto industry, where privacy and decentralization are core tenets. If tech CEOs are too scared to push the boundaries of free communication, the progress in these fields could grind to a halt. The digital market would be poorer for it, as the space for free expression shrinks and the room for government surveillance expands.Ā 

Elon Musk, never one to shy away from controversy, wasted no time showing solidarity with Durov. His ā€œ#FreePavelā€ post accompanied a video clip of Durov praising X for fostering innovation and freedom of expression.Ā 

Musk’s tweet was a clear shot across the bow, aimed at governments who think they can bully tech leaders into submission. But he didn’t stop there. In a further swipe at the powers that be, Musk called out the hypocrisy surrounding Durov’s arrest by questioning why other tech leaders – looking at you, Mark Zuckerberg – haven’t faced similar legal heat.Ā 

Musk’s point is as sharp as it is damning. Zuckerberg, the poster child for compliance, has avoided the kind of scrutiny that’s now falling on Durov.Ā 

Musk pointed out the glaring double standard: while Durov is arrested for standing up to censorship, Zuckerberg seems to skate by, despite Instagram being plagued by a ā€œmassive child exploitation problem.ā€ According to Musk, the difference is simple – Zuckerberg ā€œalready caved into censorship pressureā€ and ā€œbackdoorsā€ making him a darling of the same governments now going after Durov. In Musk’s eyes, it’s not about justice or protecting users; it’s about punishing those who refuse to kneel.Ā 

The future of free speech: A digital Cold WarĀ 

Durov’s arrest, coupled with Musk’s pointed critique, highlights a deepening divide in the tech world. On one side, we have leaders like Durov and Musk, who are willing to fight for digital freedom, even if it means taking on the most powerful governments in the world. On the other hand, there are those who’ve chosen to play it safe, complying with censorship demands to avoid the kind of fate that’s now befallen Durov.Ā 

But the stakes in this digital Cold War are high. If governments succeed in making examples out of leaders like Durov, the era of free and open digital communication could be nearing its end. Innovators might retreat from building the next Telegram or X, knowing that doing so could land them in jail.Ā 

If you needed another sign that the battle for free speech is turning into a full-blown exodus, look no further than Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski, who has just packed his bags and left Europe after a visit.Ā 

Pavlovski, a vocal critic of government censorship, could be staring down the barrel of the same threats that led to Durov’s detention. But unlike most tech CEOs who prefer quiet compliance to public defiance, Pavlovski is making it clear: he’s not going down without a fight.Ā 

Rumble, a platform built on the promise of free expression, has been under fire from France for some time. The French government has beenĀ relentless in its push to censor content on the platform, leading toĀ ongoing litigation. But Durov’s arrest has pushed Pavlovski to escalate his stance. On X, he blasted France for crossing a red line, calling Durov’s arrest a blatant violation of fundamental human rights. ā€œRumble will not stand for this behavior,ā€ he declared, vowing to use every legal weapon in his arsenal to defend free speech. His message is clear: the fight for digital freedom is global, and it’s far from over.Ā 

Pavlovski’s critique of the French government’s actions goes beyond mere rhetoric. By linking Durov’s arrest to a broader crackdown on free expression, he’s framing this as a global issue – one that tech companies can no longer afford to ignore. The implications of Durov’s arrest are chilling. It’s not just about one CEO being dragged off a plane; it’s about the growing power of governments to intrude into private communications on platforms that were once considered safe havens for free speech.Ā 

READ:Ā Expert: US intelligence agencies using psyops to thwart Trump, undermine democracyĀ 

Pavlovski’s words resonate with a fundamental truth: the war on digital freedom is escalating, and it’s playing out in courtrooms and boardrooms across the world.Ā 

The question now is how many other tech leaders will join in taking a stand. Will they rally behind Durov, Musk, Pavlovski, or will they buckle under the pressure, opting for the safety of compliance over the risk of resistance? One thing is certain: as the war on free speech heats up, the choices made by today’s tech CEOs will determine the landscape for years to come. And for those who believe in the sanctity of free expression, there’s no room left for complacency in this fight.Ā 

Reprinted with permission fromĀ Reclaim The Net.Ā 

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Bjorn Lomborg

Net zero’s cost-benefit ratio is crazy high

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By BjĆørn Lomborg

The best academic estimates show thatĀ over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Canada hasĀ made a legal commitmentĀ to achieve ā€œnet zeroā€ carbon emissions by 2050. Back in 2015, then-Prime Minister TrudeauĀ promisedĀ that climate action will ā€œcreate jobs and economic growthā€ and the federal governmentĀ insistsĀ it will create a ā€œstrong economy.ā€ The truth is that the net zero policy generates vast costs and very little benefit—and Canada would be better off changing direction.

Achieving net zero carbon emissions is far more daunting than politicians have ever admitted. Canada is nowhere near on track. AnnualĀ Canadian COā‚‚ emissionsĀ have increased 20 per cent since 1990. In the time that Trudeau was prime minister, fossil fuel energy supply actuallyĀ increasedĀ over 11 per cent. Similarly, the share of fossil fuels in Canada’s total energy supply (not just electricity) increased from 75 per cent in 2015 to 77 per cent in 2023.

Over the same period, the switch from coal to gas, and a tiny 0.4 percentage point increase in the energy from solar and wind, has reduced annual COā‚‚ emissions by less than three per cent. On that trend, getting to zero won’t take 25 years as the Liberal government promised, but more than 160 years. One studyĀ showsĀ that the government’s current plan which won’t even reach net-zero will cost Canada a quarter of a million jobs, seven per cent lower GDP and wages on average $8,000 lower.

Globally, achieving net-zero will be even harder. Remember, Canada makes up about 1.5 per cent of global COā‚‚ emissions, and while Canada is already rich with plenty of energy, the world’s poor want much more energy.

In order to achieve global net-zero by 2050, by 2030 we wouldĀ alreadyĀ need to achieve the equivalent of removing the combined emissions of China and the United States — every year. This is in the realm of science fiction.

The painful Covid lockdowns of 2020 only reduced global emissions by about six per cent. To achieve net zero, the UNĀ points outĀ that we would need to have doubled those reductions in 2021, tripled them in 2022, quadrupled them in 2023, and so on. This year they would need to be sextupled, and by 2030 increased 11-fold. So far, the world hasn’t even managed toĀ startĀ reducing global carbon emissions, which last yearĀ hit a new record.

DataĀ from both the International Energy Agency and the US Energy Information Administration give added cause for skepticism. Both organizations foresee the world getting more energy from renewables: an increase from today’s 16 per cent to between one-quarter to one-third of all primary energy by 2050. But that is far from a transition. On an optimistically linear trend, this means we’re a century or two away from achieving 100 percent renewables.

Politicians like to blithely suggest the shift away from fossil fuels isn’t unprecedented, because in the past we transitioned from wood to coal, from coal to oil, and from oil to gas. The truth is, humanityĀ hasn’t made a real energy transition even once. Coal didn’t replace wood but mostly added to global energy, just like oil and gas have added further additional energy. As in the past, solar and wind are now mostly adding to our global energy output, rather than replacing fossil fuels.

Indeed, it’s worth remembering that even after two centuries, humanity’s transition away from wood is not over. More thanĀ two billionĀ mostly poor people still depend on wood for cooking and heating, and it still provides aboutĀ 5 per cent of global energy.

Like Canada, the world remains fossil fuel-based, as it delivers more than four-fifths of energy. Over the last half century, our dependence hasĀ declinedĀ only slightly from 87 per cent to 82 per cent, but in absolute terms we have increased our fossil fuel use by more than 150 per cent. On the trajectory since 1971, we will reach zero fossil fuel use someĀ nine centuriesĀ from now, and even the fastest period of recent decline from 2014 would see us taking over three centuries.

Global warming will create more problems than benefits, so achieving net-zero would see real benefits. Over the century, the average person would experience benefits worth $700 (CAD) each year.

But net zero policies will be much more expensive. The best academic estimates show thatĀ over the century, policies to achieve net zero would cost every person on Earth the equivalent of more than CAD $4,000 every year. Of course, most people in poor countries cannot afford anywhere near this. If the cost falls solely on the rich world, the price-tag adds up to almost $30,000 (CAD) per person, per year, over the century.

Every year over the 21st century, costs would vastly outweigh benefits, and global costs would exceed benefits by over CAD 32 trillion each year.

We would see much higher transport costs, higher electricity costs, higher heating and cooling costs and — as businesses would also have to pay for all this — drastic increases in the price of food and all other necessities. Just one example: net-zero targets would likely increase gas costs some two-to-four times even by 2030, costing consumersĀ up to $US52.6 trillion. All that makes it a policy that just doesn’t make sense—for Canada and for the world.

BjĆørn Lomborg

Continue Reading

Business

ā€˜Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Jonathon Van Maren

Schwab’s World Economic Forum became a globalist hub for population control, radical climate agenda, and transhuman ideology under his decades-long leadership.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum and the face of the NGO’s elitist annual get-together in Davos, Switzerland, has resigned as chair of WEF.Ā 

Over the decades, but especially over the past several years, the WEF’s Davos annual symposium has become a lightning rod for conservative criticism due to the agendas being pushed there by the elites. As the Associated PressĀ noted:Ā 

Widely regarded as a cheerleader for globalization, the WEF’s Davos gathering has in recent years drawn criticism from opponents on both left and right as an elitist talking shop detached from lives of ordinary people.Ā 

While WEF itself had no formal power, the annual Davos meeting brought together many of the world’s wealthiest and most influential figures, contributing to Schwab’s personal worth and influence.

Schwab’s resignation on April 20 was announced by the Geneva-based WEF on April 21, but did not indicate why the 88-year-old was resigning. ā€œFollowing my recent announcement, and as I enter my 88thĀ year, I have decided to step down from the position of Chair and as a member of the Board of Trustees, with immediate effect,ā€ Schwab said in a brief statement. He gave no indication of what he plans to do next.Ā 

Schwab founded the World Economic Forum – originally the European Management Forum – in 1971, and its initial mission was to assist European business leaders in competing with American business and to learn from U.S. models and innovation. However, the mission soon expanded to the development of a global economic agenda.Ā Ā 

Schwab detailed his own agenda in several books, includingĀ The Fourth Industrial RevolutionĀ (2016), in which he described the rise of a new industrial era in which technologies such artificial intelligence, gene editing, and advanced robotics would blur the lines between the digital, physical, and biological worlds. Schwab wrote:Ā 

We stand on the brink of a technological revolution that will fundamentally alter the way we live, work, and relate to one another. In its scale, scope, and complexity, the transformation will be unlike anything humankind has experienced before. We do not yet know just how it will unfold, but one thing is clear: the response to it must be integrated and comprehensive, involving all stakeholders of the global polity, from the public and private sectors to academia and civil society …

The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a ā€œquantifiedā€ self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation.

How? Microchips implanted into humans, for one. Schwab was a tech optimist who appeared to heartily welcome transhumanism; in aĀ 2016 interview with France 24Ā discussing his book, he stated:Ā Ā 

And then you have the microchip, which will be implanted, probably within the next ten years, first to open your car, your home, or to do your passport, your payments, and then it will be in your body to monitor your health.

In 2020, mere months into the pandemic, Schwab publishedĀ COVID-19: The Great Reset, in which he detailed his view of the opportunity presented by the growing global crisis. According to Schwab, the crisis was an opportunity for a global reset that included ā€œstakeholder capitalism,ā€ in which corporations could integrate social and environmental goals into their operations, especially working toward ā€œnet-zero emissionsā€ and a massive transition to green energy, and ā€œharnessingā€ the Fourth Industrial Revolution, including artificial intelligence and automation.Ā 

Much of Schwab’s personal wealth came from running the World Economic Forum; as chairman, he earned an annual salary of 1 million Swiss francs (approximately $1 million USD), and the WEF was supported financially through membership fees from over 1,000 companies worldwide as well as significant contributions from organizations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Vice Chairman Peter Brabeck-Letmathe is now serving as interim chairman until his replacement has been selected.Ā 

Featured Image

Jonathon’s writings have been translated into more than six languages and in addition to LifeSiteNews, has been published in theĀ National Post,Ā National Review,Ā First Things, The Federalist, The American Conservative, The Stream, theĀ Jewish Independent,Ā theĀ Hamilton Spectator,Ā Reformed Perspective Magazine, and LifeNews, among others. He is a contributing editor to The European Conservative.

His insights have been featured on CTV, Global News, and the CBC, as well as over twenty radio stations. He regularly speaks on a variety of social issues at universities, high schools, churches, and other functions in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

He is the author ofĀ The Culture War,Ā Seeing is Believing: Why Our Culture Must Face the Victims of Abortion,Ā Patriots: The Untold Story of Ireland’s Pro-Life Movement,Ā Prairie Lion: The Life and Times of Ted Byfield, and co-author ofĀ A Guide to Discussing Assisted SuicideĀ with Blaise Alleyne.

Jonathon serves as the communications director for the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform.

Continue Reading

Trending

X