The 2024 World Economic Forum became a coming-out party, displaying the WEF’s love of paganism. WEF concluded its Wednesday forum on “Climate and Nature” by inviting a shaman to carry out a pagan ritual for the healing of the planet, because “the healing is spiritual.” The moderator, Gim Huay Neo, closed the discussion by inviting “a very special guest,” Chieftess Putanny Yawanawá of Brazil’s Yawanawá tribe, whose “cultural and spiritual identities” let them “protect and steward the lands… over thousands of years.” Neo continued, “We know that in order for us to look forward and build this future, we also need to look back and harness the wisdom of our ancestors.”

Although legacy media apologists insist the World Economic Forum (WEF) “has no authority to enforce” its mandates, the WEF claims it unites “the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
The WEF’s most recent conference left no doubt that the world should resist being shaped by the secular-progressive, globalist agenda on display, included taking part in a pagan ritual, advocating for a universal and biometric ID and a global tax, “public-private” government censorship of the internet, and reining in elected officials’ ability to deliver for their voters.
The World Economic Forum held its 54th meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from January 15-19, 2024. Its speeches included Al Gore tying climate change ideology to the Bible, John Kerry’s daughter rambling incoherently, and John Kerry boasting that “no one politician anywhere in the world can undo” efforts to impose the WEF’s agenda. Here are some of the conference’s most significant moments.
1. A Pagan Ritual
The 2024 World Economic Forum became a coming-out party, displaying the WEF’s love of paganism. WEF concluded its Wednesday forum on “Climate and Nature” by inviting a shaman to carry out a pagan ritual for the healing of the planet, because “the healing is spiritual.”
The moderator, Gim Huay Neo, closed the discussion by inviting “a very special guest,” Chieftess Putanny Yawanawá of Brazil’s Yawanawá tribe, whose “cultural and spiritual identities” let them “protect and steward the lands… over thousands of years.” Neo continued, “We know that in order for us to look forward and build this future, we also need to look back and harness the wisdom of our ancestors.”
None of the panellists, who represent the power and wealth created by Western civilisation, were descended from the Yawanawá tribe. Nor do most Americans have any desire to live like the Yawanawá tribe, whose entire population consists of about 1,200 people in 12 villages.
Chieftess Putanny began her healing ritual by saying she represented “the voice of all the forest people” and “the voice of the forest.” She then asked the crowd of elite secularists to “hold hands and unite our hearts, unite our thoughts in the same direction for healing of the planet. And the healing is spiritual.” She then rubbed her hands together, chanted an incantation, and proceeded to breathe on the foreheads of the panellists. Some of the WEF’s secular elitists, not knowing how to react, briefly broke out into applause.
The recipients of the shaman’s spirit included Klaus Schwab’s wife, Hilde Schwab; the president of the World Bank Group, Ajay S. Banga; the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Kristalina Georgieva; the CEO of IKEA, Jesper Brodin; billionaire André Hoffmann; the moderator, Neo; and one figure of particular importance to evangelical Christians.
“Fun little cameo for Southern Baptists. See the second person on this panel, having a pagan ritual performed over her? That is Dr Katharine Hayhoe, who promotes climate alarmism among evangelicals,” noted evangelical investigative journalist Megan Basham.
She noted the president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Danny Akin, “has promoted [Hayhoe] to students” of the ministry school. Hayhoe spoke at a 2021 SEBTS conference on “The Goodness of Creation and Human Responsibility,” where she said she embraced climate change because of her faith, and was interviewed on the seminary’s “Christ and Culture” podcast.
(Interestingly, Al Gore would also tie climate alarmism to the Bible at the WEF on Wednesday, insisting, “Every night on the television news is like a nature hike through the Book of Revelation.”)
Some may have thought it over the top when Larry Taunton, who attended WEF 2024, referred to its attendees as “members of a godless, secular cult” on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” last Thursday. But those who watched this pagan ritual can hardly find a more fitting illustration of Jesus’s words, “Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of!” (Luke 9:55). Most Americans do not want anyone possessed of such a spirit making their laws, writing their HR regulations, or teaching their children.
2. A Digital ID to Track Your Whole Life
One of the elitists’ central conceits is that they have the right to surveil every aspect of their subjects’ lives, for their own good. One invaluable tool in the effort is a mandatory identification card that puts as much information as possible at the government’s fingerprints — as noted during WEF’s Thursday panel on “financial inclusion.”
Queen Máxima of the Netherlands (whose grandfather, Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld, co-founded the Bilderberg Group in 1954) urged governments to adopt a “ubiquitous” ID card that is “digital” and “biometric.” Such an ID can not only provide surveillance over the financial industry, she said: “It’s also good for school enrolment,” and to see “who actually got a vaccination,” as well as facilitating the redistribution of wealth to see that welfare recipients and other favoured classes “get your subsidies from the government.”
The WEF has discussed digital IDs and apps for years. In 2022, Alibaba Group President J. Michael Evans announced that he was developing new technology “for consumers to measure their own carbon footprint.” This device would monitor “where are they travelling, how are they travelling, what are they eating, what are they consuming on the platform.”
Of course, if the individual can measure his or her carbon footprint, so can the government — which can then microtarget and micromanage individuals’ lives. “We don’t have it operational yet,” Evans said two years ago, “but this is something that we’re working on.”
For his part, former President Donald Trump vowed this month he’d “never allow the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency,” or CBDC. “Such a currency would give the federal government absolute control of your money,” a proposition he called a tool of “government tyranny” and “a dangerous threat to freedom.” (He credited his position, which he adopted the day after the Iowa Caucus, to Vivek Ramaswamy.)
3. A Global Tax
True global governance requires money and authority — and the WEF discussed measures that would expand both at your expense. One speaker at the 2024 World Economic Forum advised that global bodies impose, not one, but two global taxes on the entire world.
“Let’s start taxing carbon,” advised Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard at Friday’s WEF panel on “global risks.” She added that governments should enact “not just [a] carbon tax. The UN General Assembly has adopted a resolution … on the necessity to have a global tax regime, so that actually we can raise the money required for all [the UN’s proposed] changes. … Let’s tax the corporate interests.”
The Biden administration took the first step toward such a tax in 2021, when it supported a “Global Minimum Tax.” The Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) agreed to an outline on a 15% tax, which would allow foreign nations to tax US-based corporations. According to the OECD’s latest update, 55 nations have begun adopting the putatively voluntary guidelines, “with the rules coming into effect in 2024.”
President Joe Biden has also taken advice from carbon tax advocates. The Obama-Biden administration’s science czar, John Holdren — who wrote a book outlining an Orwellian global regime, including forced abortions for Americans with discredited climate alarmist Paul Ehrlich — “worked closely with the Biden campaign,” according to The New York Times.
Read More
Related Posts:

“While it is good to see the Biden administration acknowledge that these attacks are a problem, they must do more,” Perkins states. “The Biden Department of Justice has so far largely ignored these growing attacks on churches and that is creating an environment of lawlessness around the country.” “Christians must not live in fear. We must not be intimidated,” concludes Perkins. “We must continue to stand upon the truth of God and defending the freedom of all to live out their faith.”

A Christian leader has blasted the Biden administration for “creating an atmosphere of lawlessness” by ignoring attacks on churches and houses of worship nationwide, which have nearly tripled over the last four years, according to a startling new report.
These assaults ranged from deadly to defacing, covered every region of the country and denominational background, and often sprang from pro-abortion domestic terrorism or other forms of left-wing enmity against biblical morality.
Offenders committed at least 420 acts of hostility against 397 separate churches in the United States between January 2018 and September 2022. These cases include everything from arson and gun-related violence to vandalism and bomb threats, the copiously documented, 84-page report specifies.
The attacks show the comprehensive nature of anti-Christian violence. Assaults against churches occurred in 45 states and the nation’s capital, Washington, D.C. Victimized congregations span the theological gamut from evangelical, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, mainline Protestant, non-denominational churches, Seventh-Day Adventist, to Unitarian-Universalists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (formerly known as Mormons). Assailants targeted parishes primarily attended by white, black, and Asian (specifically Korean and Taiwanese) Christians, as well as multiethnic congregations.
The report documents one homicide, numerous arsons, bomb threats (real and fake), and a pervasive desecration of holy items. Vandals regularly smashed crosses, statues, and headstones in cemeteries; vandalized carvings of the Ten Commandments; set fire to a Nativity scene; and smeared feces on a statue of the Virgin Mary. They tore up a Bible and desecrated an American flag in a Primitive Methodist church in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Denver’s Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary Catholic Church suffered two drive-by shootings this August. Smashed windows and spray-painted doors became ubiquitous. The number of assaults peaked this May through July but has remained elevated compared to historical figures, which usually number in the single digits.
Each individual act of violence or vandalism could cause tens of thousands of dollars in damage to the local congregation.
The annual pace of hostilities against churches, the author warns, is only increasing. “The first nine months of 2022 saw more than double the number of reported acts of hostility against churches that occurred in the entirety of 2018,” notes Arielle Del Turco, assistant director of the Center for Religious Liberty at Family Research Council.
The spike in anti-Christian hate crimes cannot be dismissed as an anomaly of one report, since the FBI counted 240 anti-Christian hate crimes in 2021, up from 172 in 2018.
The report found these destructive, often-violent assaults against houses of worship are often precipitated by political upheaval, typically on the Left.
“Within the past few years especially, outpourings of political anger have sometimes correlated with vandalism and other acts against churches,” says Del Turco. “When faced with such blatant violence and disrespect against churches (and religion more broadly), our response must be to condemn these acts and reaffirm the right of all people to worship and live out their faith freely—including the freedom to live without fear that they will be the next target of such an attack.”
The report cites two major motivators: the still-unsolved leak of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade on May 2 and the “Black Lives Matter” riots over the killing of George Floyd in the summer of 2020. But radical pro-LGBTQ activism, support for COVID-19 church closures, secularism, Satanism, Islamic fundamentalism, and anti-Americanism also wrought havoc in parishes nationwide.
Abortion: By far the most destructive of these was liberal opposition to the Christian Church’s 2,000-year history of opposition to abortion, which reached a fever pitch after the Dobbs leak.
In the first nine months of 2022, pro-abortion extremists carried out at least 57 attacks against Christian houses of worship—an 1,140% increase over the past four years. Between 2018 and 2021, only five abortion-related attacks took place against churches, with zero in 2018.
Days after the Dobbs leak, vandals covered a Roman Catholic church and school in Armada, Michigan, with Satanic symbols and “messages calling for the death of Republicans.” The same week, protesters spray-painted pro-abortion messages on the doors of Holy Rosary Catholic Church in Houston, interrupted Mass in Los Angeles dressed as characters out of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” and harassed a Franciscan friar at a Basilica in New York City.
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., co-chair of the bipartisan Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, accused abortion radicals of waging “a kind of war on the advocates for life” on “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” in June.
Black Lives Matter/Canadian Schools ‘Mass Grave’ Hoax: The report found that 10 church attacks emanated from riots precipitated by the Black Lives Matter movement. This September, vandals wrote “Kill MAGA/Pigs,” BLM,” and “Antifa” on a Unitarian-Universalist building in California.
Read More
Related Posts:

The Supreme Court ruled on June 21 that state education budgets can’t discriminate against Christian schools — but the most significant aspect of the case came more than six months earlier. In a revealing exchange during the oral arguments of Carson v. Makin last December 8, an attorney for the state of Maine essentially confessed that the government wants to discriminate based on religion, because politicians have “values they want to instill” in public schoolchildren. Multiple Supreme Court justices then explained precisely how they wish to discriminate against traditional Christian and religious believers.
The state of Maine maintains public high schools in fewer than half of its school districts. Instead, Maine’s Town Tuitioning Program allows parents in rural districts without a public school to send their children to a neighboring public school district or to a private school of their choice. But the state began excluding “sectarian” (read: religious) schools from the program in 1981. As we shall see, the state seemed most interested in excluding religious schools, because it wishes to teach religious principles of its own.
Carson v. Makin
Chief Deputy Attorney General Christopher Taub, who represented Maine at the Supreme Court, defended the religious exclusion on the grounds that “Maine has determined that, as a matter of public policy, public education should be religiously neutral.” But the court’s conservatives immediately ripped through his façade.
Justice Samuel Alito asked Taub if there were a church that didn’t “really have any dogma,” but its “salient religious beliefs are that all people are created equal and that nobody should be subjected to any form of invidious discrimination … and that everybody has an obligation to make contributions to the community and engage in charitable work.” Taub replied, “That would be very close to a public school. Public schools often have a set of values that they want to instill: public service, be kind to others, be generous.”
“You really are discriminating on the basis of religious belief,” replied Alito, who said he had outlined the basic beliefs of the Unitarian Universalists. What Taub really wants, Alito exposed, is to choose which religious beliefs that state will allow schools to inculcate in children: “That religious community … can have a school that inculcates students with their beliefs, because those are okay religious beliefs, but other religious beliefs, no.”
“Unless you can say that you would treat a Unitarian school the same as a Christian school, or an Orthodox Jewish school, or a Catholic school, then I think you’ve got a problem of discrimination among religious groups,” Alito concluded.
Justice Neil Gorsuch agreed during arguments that the law would “discriminate against minority religious viewpoints” and “favor religions that are more watered down,” churches that teach “what a bureaucrat in Bangor might say.”
We should begin by listening to what one bureaucrat in Bangor did say: “Public schools often have a set of values that they want to instill,” said Taub. Public school officials see teaching “values” — their values — as part of their mandate for your child.
Some of the justices exposed which beliefs they want taught, and which they want excluded. Retiring Justice Stephen Breyer groused that Bangor Christian Schools and Temple Academy “have admissions policies that allow them to deny enrollment to students based on gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and religion, and both schools require their teachers to be born-again Christians.” That is, Christian schools require their teachers to believe the faith and do not allow students to rebel against it openly.
“Legislators did not want Maine taxpayers to pay for these religiously based practices — practices not universally endorsed by all citizens of the [s]tate — for fear that doing so would cause a significant number of Maine citizens discomfort or displeasure.” He then cited a Maine senator who opposed funding religious schools, because “public funds could be used to teach intolerant religious views.” Likewise in her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor called it “irrational” and “perverse” for the Supreme Court to “protect against discrimination of one kind” while requiring Maine “to fund what many of its citizens believe to be discrimination of other kinds.”
In other words: You’re intolerant; that’s why we’re excluding you. But if the government is giving out a benefit to everyone except Christians — while forcing Christians to pay for it with their taxes — who’s discriminating against whom?
Read More

Bible-believing Christians say they will not cede the definition of marriage—or endanger believers’ ability to make their voice heard in the United States. 
A Republican senator has said he will “absolutely oppose” a bill redefining marriage nationwide, warning that liberal activists plan to “use it as a weapon” to drive Christians out of the public square.
During Wednesday’s episode of “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins,” Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) announced for the first time that he will vote against H.R. 8404, marketed as the “Respect for Marriage” Act, if it comes to the Senate floor.
“It removes all protections from marriage,” Lankford told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. The legislation, which the Senate could consider shortly, imposes a top-down mandate for every state to recognize any “marriage between two individuals.” That could include “time-bound marriages, open marriages, marriages involving a minor or relative, platonic marriages, or any other new marriage definition that a state chooses to adopt” — including any definition imposed by a judge or state Supreme Court, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom.
“I want to bring this bill to the floor,” said Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.). “We’re working to get the necessary Senate Republican support to ensure it would pass.”
“The far-Left is trying to say we want to be able to push this to the next step” of the sexual revolution and “take it where it has not ever gone before,” said Lankford. “And we are going to absolutely oppose that.”
Part of that effort involves silencing religious Americans from speaking out against them. If the Senate passes H.R. 8404, “in all likelihood, this bill will then come straight at every nonprofit that believes in traditional marriage, biblical marriages — quite frankly, historic marriages across all of time,” he added. Any tax-exempt group that upholds scriptural marriage “will be challenged on their tax policy and will immediately become a target of this federal government.”
Overzealous federal bureaucrats, left-wing legal groups, and LGBTQ pressure groups are no longer saying, “We demand recognition” of same-sex marriage, said Lankford; they’re now saying, “We’re going to crush anyone that opposes our belief in gay marriage.”
That is no mere speculation. The California state Senate passed the “Youth Equality Act” in 2013 to strip some state tax exemptions from organizations accused of “discriminating” on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. The law “brings our laws into line with our values,” said its sponsor, then-state Senator Ricardo Lara, who is now the California’s Insurance Commissioner. The drumbeat to place organizations that affirm biblical sexual morality beyond the pale has since continued apace, as professors have lobbied regulators to reinterpret existing standards. Obama-era IRS Commissioner Lois Lerner, who crusaded against the Christian Coalition in the 1990s, mired the Obama administration in scandal by denying nonprofit status to Christian, pro-life, and limited government applicants.
Read More