Congress Demands Answers From Media Alliance Linked to WEF Over Suspected Antitrust Activities

Ever heard of the “WFA” or “World Federation of Advertisers” while reading articles or listening to a podcast?

If you’re thinking, “this sounds familiar,” then you’re not alone. Consider “World” followed by the next term beginning with letter “f” as in “Federation.”

And if you’re thinking whether the WFA is affiliated with an international organization supporting public-private partnerships and central bank digital currencies—drumroll, none other than the WEF or World Economic Forum—then again, you’re not alone.

And you’re correct.

The WFA is a “global association” that represents over 150 of the world’s biggest brands and over “60 national advertiser associations,” according to its website.

“We are the voice of marketers worldwide, representing 90% of global marketing communications spend,” the about section states, “Roughly US $900 billion per year.”

With a team of designated “experts,” the WFA works with global names such as WEF, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) to determine “the best practice standards for marketing to help brands deliver on societies’ expectations.”

Well, isn’t that just so … responsible?

This watchful eye and instigator of designated proper advertising standards was reportedly founded in Italy in the early 1950s, and is now headquartered in Belgium with offices in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Singapore.

And now, the U.S. Congress has raised concerns that an initiative established by the WFA has been targeting media outlets with conservative leanings to limit them of advertising revenue.

The Global Alliance for Responsible Media (GARM) reportedly aims to address “the challenge of harmful content on digital media platforms and its monetization via advertising.”

And now, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee has summoned GARM Co-founder Robert Rakowitz to explain the alliances’ involvement in a continuing investigation into the alleged financial suppression of media outlets that produce “disfavored content online.”

(To that end, a translation might be the type of “content” that deviates from left-of-center to progressive left biases rife within mainstream media outlets.)

It is also worth noting—surprise, surprise—that as of late 2019, GARM is a flagship project of the WEF’s “Platform For Shaping the Future of Media, Entertainment and Culture.”

According to a letter that Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee Jim Jordan dispatched in April, the GARM co-founder is requested to appear voluntarily for a transcribed interview, given that Rakowitz possesses “unique and specialized information that will advance the Committee’s oversight and inform legislative reforms.”

Previously, a letter dispatched in late March revealed Rep. Jordan (R-OH) obtained documents that led to the conclusion that the WFA, through its GARM initiative, is suspected of facilitating advertising corporations such as Adidas, Mastercard, Mars and Procter & Gamble on the organization’s “steering committee” to limit or cut ties with “disfavored” media outlets—including Fox News, Daily Wire, and Breitbart.

And let us make no mistake: GARM wields a significant level of influence, boasting a coalition of over 60 top global advertisers. Its mission is to push for changes that will encourage GARM members—advertisers, media agencies, and media platforms—to distance themselves from outlets judged as promoting “harmful content” on digital platforms. 

Global social media giants steeped in advertising, including Facebook, Google/YouTube and X (formerly Twitter), are also involved with GARM.

Indeed, regarding the social networking platform X, the company announced in August 2023 an expansion of its partnership with Integral Ad Science (IAS), offering a “premium, vetted inventory” of advertisements in alignment with GARM’s Safety & Suitability Framework guidelines. 

Well, isn’t that just so … responsible … and fair?

How could any of these “guidelines” be taken advantage of to restrict or completely strip away advertising ties from media outlets that have the slightest bent towards the political center-right?

X, now owned by entrepreneur and businessman Elon Musk, signed this exclusive partnership with IAS as a way to “classify the content on behalf of marketers before they run their ads to ensure that the environment is brand safe and brand suitable for the advertiser,” as expressed by IAS CEO Lisa Utzschneider in an interview with CNBC.

With communication over the Internet accelerating the speed at which information is imparted from one person to another, it’s not surprising to learn that the IAS is partnered with the Global Disinformation Index (GDI), a not-for-profit organization based in the United Kingdom (U.K.) that is committed to “reduce disinformation” by removing “the financial incentive to create it.”

Go, figure.

Within its mission statement, the GDI defines “disinformation” as “deliberately misleading information, knowingly spread, or the omission of certain facts in service of a particular narrative.”

To expand upon such a definition, in a 2022 report that analyzed 69 U.S. news outlets, the GDI provided a more extensive definition as “adversarial narratives, which are intentionally misleading; financially or ideologically motivated; and/or, aimed at fostering long-term social, political or economic conflict; and which create a risk of harm by undermining trust in science or targeting at-risk individuals or institutions.”

Would it be, at all, surprising to learn that fact-based media outlets associated with the political right were categorized as the “riskiest sites,” including the New York Post, RealClearPolitics, The Daily Wire, and even The Federalist?

(Oh, and the “least risky sites” included NPR, The Washington Post and Huff Post among many other sites that lean to the political left.)

Highlighted on its website, this “disinformation” group has been funded by five U.S. nonprofit organizations, including the Argosy Foundation, which is rooted in Wisconsin; the Catena Foundation and Bohemian Foundation based in Colorado; the Floridian John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; and none other than the Open Society Foundations steeped in New York.

To that end, according to a report by The Washington Examiner in early 2023, the GDI also received $330,000 from two entities supported by the U.S. State Department, undoubtedly prompting some Republican members of Congress to vocalize concerns that pertain to violations of the First Amendment—and eventually driving one of the groups to sever its financial association with the U.K.-based “disinformation” tracking organization.

Unraveling the interwoven connection of nonprofit and not-for-profit organizations, seemingly dedicated to suppressing the oxygen of media outlets that lean politically right through smears of “disinformation” and encouraging their demonetization, eventually leads to the realization that these highly connected entities are very much internationally connected—with heavy roots in the U.K. and the United States.

Consider the range of non-governmental entities clearly working with governments and social media giants to filter information accessible to the public by scrutinizing the online locations (i.e., the media outlets) where digital advertisements are placed and encouraging the demonitization of unfavored outlets.

Here’s a reminder. From the:

• World Federation of Advertisers or WFA based in Brussels, with offices in London, New York City (NYC) and Singapore;

• to the World Economic Forum or WEF headquartered in Cologny, Switzerland with offices in NYC, San Francisco, Beijing, Tokyo and Navi Mumbai, India;

• to the Global Alliance for Responsible Media or GARM established by the WFA and now partnered with the WEF;

• to the U.S.-based Integral Ad Science or IAS headquartered in NYC and with offices in Singapore and Germany, offering services worldwide to analyze the “value” of media outlets where digital advertisements are displayed;

• to the Global Disinformation Index or GDI rooted in London, U.K., but funded by many U.S.-based nonprofit organizations in addition to groups within the U.K. and European Union.

Ladies and gentlemen, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

In fact, we left Kansas several decades ago, especially when advancements in mass communication technology, such as the radio and television, gave a broader audience quicker access to information than the pace of the telegraph or printed word.

We really left Kansas on the cusp of the 20th century when progress in communication technology and research in behavioral psychology enabled the kind of thought control over the masses that our ancestors from bygone eras could have never experienced.

So. Now. What?

Identifying and having an awareness of a problem can help to facilitate a counteract or radical solution altogether.

The problem, dear reader, as many of us have come to appreciate, is the systematic, formulaic, international attack on all beliefs, values and outlooks that deviates off course—even by the slightest ideological longitudinal slope— from a socially liberal and politically progressive disposition within the Anglosphere and Eurosphere.

But here, in the United States, we have the opportunity to use diverse technologies, be it the Internet, snail mail or even handing out leaflets to locals, to connect with individuals who might quietly, or otherwise vocally, desire to do something—through their daily life choices—that collectively, over time, not only inspires the youth to preserve their foundation of Natural Rights but hardens the foundation of American liberties that our Founding Fathers sought to enshrine in the U.S. Constitution.

Like-minded parents and educators could form homeschooling pods to inspire our children with a strong foundation of American history and civics, to instill within their psyche a core American value of the freedom to live their lives with limited intervention and control by the government. Indeed, as expressed in an article entitled, “Demographic Changes Are Real, More Reason We Need a ‘Manifesto’ in Fostering a United Love of Country,”

“[T]he American “can-do” mentality will seek opportunities to build solutions, including businesses, schools and new infrastructures, instead of finger-pointing their perceived problems at those who might have achieved high social status and positions of influence through a strong work ethic and excellent networking.”

The current high political tensions in the United States are having the greatest impact on its youth. This troubling reality is exacerbated by the fact that young Americans, especially those in Generation Z, have a lower sense of patriotism compared to earlier generations when they were in their late teens.

As expressed in the article “A History and Civic Education for Every American,” Hillsdale College, which describes itself as “a small, Christian, classical liberal arts college,” offers students and educators a patriotic approach to learning U.S. history through its 1776 Curriculum on American civics, American founding, and the Civil War:

“It has a remarkable ability to deliver the good (no, the brilliance), the bad (actually, the corruption), and the ugly truth about the United States in a candid and compassionate style, fostering a deep sense of gratitude and love of country.”

And on that note, change starts at the grassroots level. Change starts now. Further elaborated in a previous article entitled, “While Elon Musk Appeals to Freedom Loving Americans, Never Forget the Role of We the People,”

“It is we the people—everyday parents, students and educators, content creators, novelists and journalists, city workers, truck drivers and farmers, small business owners working remotely or in their local community—who recognize that the country is facing serious cultural and socioeconomic challenges, who actually care about and want to live up to America’s core ideals, and will act to promote those ideals.”

Indeed.

I. Believe. In. US.

How about you?