When I die, the minimum I want to leave behind is no debt; enough money so that my next of kin or spouse doesn’t have to cover the expenses to bury or cremate me; at least NT$2 million/$70,000/€60,000/R1 million to assist my spouse financially in the first year or so after my passing.
After reaching 65 or 70, there are a few ways you can stay alive:
1. Keep working until you die.
2. Hope someone takes care of you until you die.
3. Hope your pension fund keeps paying out until you die.
4. Hope the money the state gives you every month is enough so you don’t starve to death.
5. Hope your savings last until you die.
It makes one think: It’s not necessarily a good thing to grow old.
And even if you have enough money that keeps you going until you die in your eighties or nineties, there are always greedy kids or grandchildren who can cheat you out of your money, or so-called legal guardians who can convince a judge that you are senile and can no longer handle your own finances, and that they have to take over your finances for your own benefit.
Again it hits: Unless you’ve raised really good children, or have a particularly kind and generous family, it might just be a nightmare growing old.
According to some people on social media, the World Economic Forum (WEF) is an evil organisation bent on world domination.
Other people call this doom and gloom a textbook conspiracy theory and point to good work the WEF is doing in areas like health and science.
Here’s what we know: The WEF was formed in 1971 by Klaus Schwab. The objectives of the organisation are no secret. Its own website states the following:
The World Economic Forum is the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The Forum engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. […] The Forum strives in all its efforts to demonstrate entrepreneurship in the global public interest while upholding the highest standards of governance. Moral and intellectual integrity is at the heart of everything it does. […] We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.
In an article titled, “How do we do our work?”, the WEF explains that they hold four annual meetings: a meeting in Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, that aims to shape global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of each calendar year; a meeting in the People’s Republic of China on innovation, science and technology; a meeting in the United Arab Emirates that brings together experts in the knowledge community to share their insights on major challenges facing the world; and a meeting that aims to shape industry agendas and explore how industries can shift from managing change to pioneering change.
The WEF’s founder has also authored two books: The Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2016, and Shaping the Fourth Industrial Revolution, published in 2018. The objectives of his organisation are again spelled out in the two publications.
At least they can’t be accused of being secretive about their goals.
It is also true that they have a program for young and promising leaders in politics, business, and other sectors of society: the Forum of Young Global Leaders, for leaders under 40, started in 2004, and the Global Shapers Community for potential leaders between 20 and 30, started in 2011. The aims of these forums are to train potential leaders of the future in the objectives of the organisation. Leaders who have been part of the program include high-profile US Democrats (Peter Buttigieg and Tulsi Gabbard) and Republicans (Tom Cotton and Daniel Crenshaw); the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, Chrystia Freeland; the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern; Emmanuel Macron, the President of France; the Prime Ministers of Belgium and Finland; the Crown Prince of Norway; several other members of European cabinets; several high-profile politicians in the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Then there are Elon Musk; Mark Zuckerberg; co-founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel; the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales; co-founder and CEO of YouTube, Chad Hurley; and other influential members of media, arts, culture, sports, and sciences in countries over the world.
The [WEF] suggests that a globalised world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations, which it expresses through initiatives like the “Great Reset” and the “Global Redesign”. It sees periods of global instability – such as the financial crisis of 2007–2008 and the COVID-19 pandemic – as windows of opportunity to intensify its programmatic efforts. […] The World Economic Forum and its annual meeting in Davos have received criticism over the years. Challenges raised about the conference and the WEF include: the organization’s corporate capture of global and democratic institutions, and institutional whitewashing initiatives; the public cost of security, the organization’s tax-exempt status, unclear decision processes and membership criteria, a lack of financial transparency, and the environmental footprint of its annual meetings. As a reaction to criticism within Swiss society, the Swiss federal government decided in February 2021 to reduce its annual contributions to the WEF.
So, are they evil and bent on world domination? Call it a conspiracy theory if you will, but it certainly raises eyebrows if a “self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments, and civil society organizations” decide on their own what the best way is to manage a “globalised world”. [Counterpoint: Why shouldn’t people who are already in positions of power and responsibility get together to learn from each other and optimise their efforts? This is not saying their efforts are noble, but it’s surely not outlandish that these specific people would come together and talk politics.]
To make it more interesting, some people also mention the Open Society Foundations of George Soros, and his veritable army of Non-Governmental Organisations that operate in 37 countries. Stated aims: advancing justice, education, public health, and independent media. However, there are people who have accused some NGOs of serving Western interests rather than those of local communities since the end of the Cold War. One example: “The NGO Invasion of the Arab World”.
It could be argued that the WEF’s aim is in a way similar to that of the Bolsheviks after the revolutions of 1917 in the old Russian Empire. The plan was for an elite to rule absolutely over the masses in the name of a noble cause. In the case of the Bolsheviks the cause was “The proletariat and the landless peasant”. In the case of the WEF their mandate to rule would be no less a noble goal than “The Continued Survival of Humanity on Planet Earth”. Of course, when you are acting in the name of such a lofty goal, when you are acting for the good of humanity, what type of dissent can be reasonable and legitimate? Is there any hope that heterodox thought, and protest in any form will not be crushed?
The WEF is, however, not the only group with plans that might look to some like world domination. There are people who can be described as on the “old” left of the political spectrum (Consortium News, The Grayzone) who make solid arguments about US ambitions to remain the number one power in a unipolar world (one example: “The Target is China”), where the resources and national concerns of other countries are subject to American needs (again, an example: “Super Imperialism: The economic strategy of American empire with economist Michael Hudson”). This is a world where countries that are recalcitrant or less than enthusiastic to play supporting roles to the US’ sole dominant power are punished, or isolated until they redeem themselves.
How do the people of the WEF/Open Society – mostly Europeans and/or non-Americans – see their aims play out on a planet where one powerful country sees itself as fulfilling a God-given mandate to be Undisputed Rulers of the World?
Another question is what effect Critical Race Theory is going to have on American society in the next decade or two.
In case you’ve been too busy to notice: Critical Race Theory emerged from academic obscurity in the last quarter of the previous century to dominance in especially the English-speaking academic, political, corporate, educational and entertainment worlds. Some thinkers, notably John McWhorter, make a good argument that Critical Race Theory/Critical Social Justice qualifies as a religion. What does he mean by this? A review of McWhorter’s book, Woke Racism, sums it up nicely:
McWhorter’s case rests on identified similarities between wokeness—disciples of which he calls the “Elect” – and religion. The Elect have internally inconsistent views, which require dogmatic commitment to hold. They have “superstition,” which is to say questions they deem it impolite to ask or try to answer. They have “clergy,” in the form of woke influencers like Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X. Kendi. They have “original sin” in the sense that being born white confers an irremovable moral stain. They evangelize. They have an eschatology, a belief in a coming “racial reckoning” when America will own up to its racial sins and be purified. And of course they “ban the heretic” wherever possible.
What long-term effect will this ideology have on American society? Will its foundations be hollowed out? Will conflict and differences of opinion become too much for the union that has held since the end of the Civil War in 1865 to remain standing? Does Critical Race Theory serve the goals of the WEF/Open Society? Will a revolt against the new religion favour the imperialist goals of the US political establishment?
What if it turned out a conspiracy theory was right? And this applies to conspiracy theories in 1500, 1900, 2000 and in March 2022.
It would mean the lone intellectual, or the minority group of thinkers, were maligned, mistreated, their careers destroyed, and in earlier times possibly tortured and killed by a majority of community leaders, politicians, and intellectuals supporting the established narrative.
It would mean the lone intellectual, who stood up for what he believed in – who literally stood up when everyone else remained mum and seated, who expressed his unpopular opinion at the inconvenience of the powerful majority, was crushed – even though it turned out they were wrong, and he was right.
How do we know in March 2022, what with Covid-19 and the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the cesspool that is US politics, that the so-called conspiracy theorist isn’t actually right, and the establishment with their fingers at the controls of politics, traditional mass media, social media, academia, and mass entertainment wrong? How can you know unless debate and intellectual curiosity and the free exchange of ideas and opinions unhindered by political correctness and pre-approved ideology are allowed to continue?
Here’s one test: Who is suppressing free speech? Who is maligning scientists, bloggers, podcast hosts and thinkers and journalists who dare speak outside approved narratives?
I know, I know. The phrases “establishment”, “approved narratives”, “political correctness”, and “free speech” already give me an odour of the conspiracy theorist, right?
I thought earlier today that these seem to be interesting times for reasonable and reasonably intelligent non-conformists. But we all conform to rules and regulations in everyday life – I mean, do you speed through every red light? Maybe it’s more appropriate to say these times are shaping up to be interesting for anyone who considers themselves reasonable, and reasonably intelligent.
Then again, isn’t that how we all think of ourselves?
1. I hope for all concerned, especially civilians and military personnel directly involved that the conflict will soon be over.
2. I have sympathy for the Ukrainians who will suffer because of this military operation.
3. Know that NATO and the Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations are the primary cause of this conflict. Their foolishness, ignorance and the greed of weapons manufactures always looking for new markets led directly to this situation.
Kim Iversen, American radio-host and journalist, mentioned, to the chagrin of several people of Twitter, that the best thing Ukraine can do is to give up. According to her, fighting or resisting will only make the situation worse and postpone an inevitable Russian victory.
Excellent discussion with Lt Colonel Daniel Davis about the reality for Ukraine. Ukraine doesn’t stand a chance against Russia. Lay down arms and prevent bloodshed by agreeing to become neutral. The west should have never put Ukraine in this situation. https://t.co/42kTBDX7Hi
One could add: Doing so might be the quickest, least painful, and least costly way to counter the foolishness of NATO and the recklessness of US administrations over the past three decades. Eventually Ukraine will have amicable relations with both the EU and with Russia, but will not be a member state of NATO, and will thus never host NATO soldiers, nor missiles and military hardware pointing in only one direction.
This morning I was reminded again of a good mind hack I learned a few years ago. If you accept responsibility for something for which a reasonable argument can be made that you really are to blame, it sends a message to the subconscious: “If something was your fault, you are capable of making such a thing happen. And if you were able to make it happen, you are quite possibly able to prevent it, or avoid it. Maybe you didn’t do it this time because you were silly or stupid, or irresponsible or reckless. But you are capable of it. And if you are capable of doing it, you have the choice to try harder next time, or to do better. Or you have the choice now to change your behaviour to avoid it next time, or to improve your skill to enable you to avoid it next time. You are capable.”
Consider the opposite. “It wasn’t my fault,” when a reasonable argument can be made that you were, in fact, at least partly responsible for it. It sends a message to the subconscious that you could not avoid or prevent it. You were a victim of a situation beyond your control, or of someone else’s behaviour. You were unable to improve the situation or minimise the consequences. You are not capable. You are, more or less, powerless.
