In the popular imagination, the World Economic Forum is almost synonymous with Klaus Schwab, the bespectacled, German-accented, vaguely Sith Lord-esque figure who presides over the annual conference of globalist shills and social engineers at Davos. Every year, the Davos forum generates a new set of ominous soundbites forecasting a bleak collectivist future governed by platitudes about eating bugs, owning nothing, and being happy. You know the drill, provided you've been paying attention. If you've been keeping an eye of scrutiny on Davos, you've also likely encountered the public intellectual and amateur futurist Yuval Noah Harari. A new darling of the PR and marketing arm of Globalism Inc., this sleight, balding professor of history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has become a fixture in meetings of the elite cartel. Harari most recently received headlines for provocative comments on AI and the future of religion made in May 2023. Likening AI to the “superhuman intelligence” behind world religions, Harari remarked: “In a few years, there might be religions that are actually correct. Just think about a religion whose holy book is written by an AI. That could be a reality in a few years.” (Side note: If the gibberish generated by new “King James AI” software is any indication, this is hardly a promising prospect.) Harari's comments on AI and religion are only the most recent in a long history of creepy hot takes on technocracy, transhumanism, surveillance, and social engineering. Few areas of futuristic speculation have escaped his comment. An atheist, Harari claimed in an interview with Huff Post that “we really are becoming gods in the most literal sense possible,” and remarked that technologies such as Google and Facebook are making deity obsolete. In a TED Talk, he argued that artificial intelligence was slated to render entire classes of humanity useless, concluding that “we just don't need the vast majority of the population.” During peak pandemic panic, Harari was also suspiciously enthusiastic about seizing opportunities for social engineers to exploit the COVID crisis. “Covid is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance,” he told the WEF panel. “We need not just to monitor people, we need to monitor what’s happening under their skin.” In a BBC interview, he remarked that "People could look back in 100 years and identify the coronavirus epidemic as the moment when a new regime of surveillance took over, especially surveillance under the skin which I think is maybe the most important development of the 21st Century [...] this ability to hack human beings." But who exactly is this so-called intellectual who speaks with such relish about ushering in a techno-dystopia? What are his qualifications, and how did he achieve his present level of influence? Readers may not be surprised to learn that Harari's pretensions of expertise as a leading futurist are dubious at best (as is the field of futurism itself, for that matter). His academic background has precious little to do with anything remotely technical or scientific: Harari's early bibliography is comprised of work on medieval and early modern military history (a rather obscure academic niche which he probably should have stuck to). His career made an apparent about face when he ambitiously pivoted into writing on popular science, publishing titles like Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind (2014), Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow (2016) and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century (2018). His popular science books have been met with mixed reviews, garnering praise from the likes of Barack Obama and Bill Gates, while receiving far more critical reception from the academic and scientific community. Harari's questionable professional rebranding from niche historian to globalist guru seems to have served him well, as he has managed to ascend from a relatively unglamorous academic career to the echelons of elite think tanks. But in spite of all this worldly success, Harari's credentials are ultimately fraudulent. As Darshana Narayanan observes in an excellent critical profile of Harari in Current Affairs magazine: If you are not yet disquieted, consider: among Harari’s flock are some of the most powerful people in the world, and they come to him much like the ancient kings to their oracles. Mark Zuckerberg asked Harari if humanity is becoming more unified or fragmented by technology. The Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund asked him if doctors will depend on Universal Basic Income in the future. The CEO of Axel Springer, one of the largest publishing houses in Europe, asked Harari what publishers should do to succeed in the digital world. An interviewer with The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) asked him what effect COVID would have on international scientific cooperation. In favor of Harari’s half-formed edicts, each subverted their own authority. And they did it not for an expert in any one of their fields, but for a historian who, in many ways, is a fraud—most of all, about science. Admittedly, Harari strategically tempers his enthusiasm for social engineering with vague gestures of circumspection about the potential abuses of technological power. Yet, while it would appear from certain angles that he is a critic of such abuses (as claimed by spurious debunking articles), his faux caution is toothless and overgeneral. When he criticizes surveillance and social engineering, it is generally only in context of nation states using technology to flout global interests. (He cites a speculative example of a North Korean techno-dictatorship, for instance.) Conveniently, the potential for future abuses of surveillance and social engineering by global governing bodies are quietly omitted from his considerations. For the discerning, Harari's egregious comments, coupled with the very fact that he has entered league with Schwab and the WEF on the globalist project, is evidence that he and his friends are cooking up a main dish of tofu totalitarianism, with a sparse garnish of civil liberties at best.