Resisting the Future the Global Elite Have Planned for Us

 

The Global Elite…represented by the folks who fly to Davos and Climate Change conferences on fleets of private jets… have plans for the world. These plans were summarized as “You will own nothing and be happy.” And also, eat bugs. For some reason, forcing “the poors” (i.e., anyone who does not have a private jet to fly to Davos) to eat bugs is a really big deal to the Global Elite. However, the people who would be the subject of their global governance schemes are less enthusiastic, and this is very vexing to the global elite.

“The good news is the elite across the world trust each other more and more… the bad news is that the majority of people trusted that elite less…”

Yes, the more people become aware that the future the Global Elite have in mind for us is one in which we are crammed into urban pods and fed bugs (while they keep their private jets, mansions in the Hamptons, and Wagyu steaks), the less enthused the common people are about these plans. And this is a problem for them.

This lady quoted above (I don’t know who she is) is verifying something that’s been said for a long time; the trans-national global elite considers themselves above the citizens of their respective countries. If billionaires from the USA, Europe, the Middle East, and China get in a room together; they are all going to be quite chummy. Concerns about differences in ideology, in human rights, seem a lot less important when you’re discussing whether to trade up from a Gulfstream G700 to an ACJ350.

Sort of related, the Smithsonian Museum has a new exhibit on their version of the future. It aligns with what the World Economic Forum envisions and it’s so depressing Morrissey would have written at least eight songs about it back in the eighties. Whereas seventy years or so ago, visions of the future meant flying cars, robot workers, and colonies on the moon, the Smithsonian vision of the future is one in which cars are illegal, we make our own clothes, and live in buildings constructed from garbage.

And the Global Elite wonder why we’re not enthusiastic about their plans for us.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 91 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Ed- you may find this article of interest.  A bit dated, but still.  An excerpt:

    In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn – that’s how much money has been drained out of the global south over the past few decades. To get a sense for the scale of this, $16.3tn is roughly the GDP of the United States…

    Most of these unrecorded outflows take place through the international trade system. Basically, corporations – foreign and domestic alike – report false prices on their trade invoices in order to spirit money out of developing countries directly into tax havens and secrecy jurisdictions, a practice known as “trade misinvoicing”. Usually the goal is to evade taxes, but sometimes this practice is used to launder money or circumvent capital controls. In 2012, developing countries lost $700bn through trade misinvoicing, which outstripped aid receipts that year by a factor of five.

    So.  Food for thought.

    • #61
  2. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Another way of looking at it: anybody who lives in the West is part of a global elite. The plebes live in places like India, China, Africa and Latin America. Otherwise the same dynamic applies.

    No.

    Rubbish.

    I get the concern about “Your shower will be colder, your toilet less enthusiastic in its flushing, your gas grill replaced with an electric device powered by the breath of Zeus, your house replaced with an apartment, your car replaced with mass transit, your steak replaced with as protein wedge” but you’re ignoring that for most of the planet this is already their reality (except for the protein wedge part, where you can replace with ‘nothing or a few pulses or rice’ (and your toilet does not exist). The only reason you have more than them is that you’re part of a global elite. Not on point with the pity party, but that’s fact.

    And yes – obviously all poor people don’t live in the Global South, and all rich people don’t live in the Global North (which strangely includes Australia) but more or less that’s the reality. And even poor people in the Global North are not. that. poor. when it comes to things like nutrition, clothing and housing. (Or toilets.)

    It’s not the wealth that makes the elites the elites. It’s the power. Yes, westerners, even poor westerners live better than most of the world materially. But, that doesn’t make all westerners elites. Nor does the relative poverty of people in non-western countries make them plebes. It’s the power to rule over other people’s lives (which, yes, usually involves being wealthy) and make decisions affecting how they live that makes the ruling elites elite. In that sense, those of us not in the ruling class are plebes, even if we’re relatively well-off. We are subject to the whims of the Davos crowd. They just know so much better, right? Otherwise why would they be wealthy? They’ve got it all figured out.

    And the Davos crowd writ large is the group capable of determining that you get debanked.  So, yeah, when they control the money they control the country.

    • #62
  3. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Right. Communism, socialism, and culture have nothing to do with it. Right.

    You forgot society crushing corruption and thievery.  I’m thinking of Africa, but it’s everywhere, even heretofore wealthy South American countries, and most of Asia, and even — by the looks of what’s happening the last two years — the US and Australia.

    • #63
  4. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Another way of looking at it: anybody who lives in the West is part of a global elite. The plebes live in places like India, China, Africa and Latin America. Otherwise the same dynamic applies.

    Nonsense. I am an upper-middle class American, and I have no more influence on policy than an African bushman or a Chinese slave laborer. George Soros, Bill Gates, and Zhong Shanshan, on the other hand, have a great deal of influence on global policy.

    If you have so little influence on policy why are you rich while people in the Global South with similar skill sets to yours are poor?

    You intermingle ethnicity and geographic location.  But you ignore in your terminology the cultural determinants of moral cultural psychology.  The global north I think you called it, or the West, particularly the Christian world (or perhaps “tenuous post-Christian” world), differs from India, China, Africa and even Latin America, in its unique Christian culture which stresses far more than any other culture, both outright and subliminally, independence, individual worth, individual freedom, and caring for others as a matter of course.  This is so rather than a culture of fundamental capriciousness and fatalism.

    It seems that the populations of every one from the geographic locations and countries you’ve mentioned want to enter the Christian (or now tenuously Christian) cultures that you blame as elitist.  They are not elitist, but vulgar and individualistic, which a lingering sensibility of individual freedom.  Everyone wants to live in a what are post-British-colonial-rule countries, even after a hundred or two hundred years of separation.

    This is not because they want to join the “elites” but because they want to join those who still have a modicum of freedom and allow more self-determination than their native countries or anywhere else in the world.  In the US I know that every immigrant knows that the US offers upward mobility and prosperity, as well as the freedom to enjoy it. This is the opposite of being within the elite, it is the greatest expression of empowering the people, that is, each person individually.

    There are things wrong with Christian cultures, and are going wronger, but where else on earth would anyone want to live?

    In the past few hundred years the inhabitants of this relatively tiny island did not inhibit the advancement of other peoples and cultures but actually advanced them, that is, left them better — closer to the modern Western ideal of individuality and prosperity — than they found them.

    • #64
  5. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Just by being a US citizen you’re part of a global elite.  You can vote and influence who forms your Government. Your Government is deeply influential across the globe.

    Not really, no. You can vote for a Democrat who’s a 100 MPH globalist, or a Republican who’s a 60 MPH globalist. That’s if your vote even counts at all.

    • #65
  6. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How is saying colonialism made India poor and Britain rich different from saying Davos makes Elites rich and Plebes poor?

    The Government responses to Covid (which were aligned with the policy preferences of the Global Elite) destroyed tens of thousands of small businesses, made Jeff Bezos and Pfizer immeasurably wealthier. Meanwhile, 500 new billionaires joined the ranks of the Global Elite. At least 40 of the new billionaires derived wealth directly from Government responses to the Covid pandemic. The Bipartisan Infrastructure bills and Build Back Better bills were loaded with wealth transfers in the name of “Green Energy,” a primary obsession of the global elite.

    • #66
  7. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How is saying colonialism made India poor and Britain rich different from saying Davos makes Elites rich and Plebes poor?

    The Government responses to Covid (which were aligned with the policy preferences of the Global Elite) destroyed tens of thousands of small businesses, made Jeff Bezos and Pfizer immeasurably wealthier. Meanwhile, 500 new billionaires joined the ranks of the Global Elite. At least 40 of the new billionaires derived wealth directly from Government responses to the Covid pandemic. The Bipartisan Infrastructure bills and Build Back Better bills were loaded with wealth transfers in the name of “Green Energy,” a primary obsession of the global elite.

    That’s kind of lining up with my post on the Raj, so it’s fine to say both?

    • #67
  8. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Just by being a US citizen you’re part of a global elite. You can vote and influence who forms your Government. Your Government is deeply influential across the globe.

    Not really, no. You can vote for a Democrat who’s a 100 MPH globalist, or a Republican who’s a 60 MPH globalist. That’s if your vote even counts at all.

    How come there is no party advocating for more trade barriers or more protectionism?

    • #68
  9. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Flicker (View Comment):

    You intermingle ethnicity and geographic location.

    I don’t believe I mentioned ethnicity.  What does ethnicity have to do with it?

    But you ignore in your terminology the cultural determinants of moral cultural psychology.  The global north I think you called it, or the West, particularly the Christian world (or perhaps “tenuous post-Christian” world), differs from India, China, Africa and even Latin America, in its unique Christian culture which stresses far more than any other culture, both outright and subliminally, independence, individual worth, individual freedom, and caring for others as a matter of course.  This is so rather than a culture of fundamental capriciousness and fatalism.

    I’ve heard this pov before on Ricochet.  Personally I think it glides over things like the Indian Wars and settlement, colonialism, slavery and a lot of morally questionable foreign policy.  Which certainly doesn’t make the GN worse than anybody else, it makes it really similar.

    It seems that the populations of every one from the geographic locations and countries you’ve mentioned want to enter the Christian (or now tenuously Christian) cultures that you blame as elitist.  They are not elitist, but vulgar and individualistic, which a lingering sensibility of individual freedom.  Everyone wants to live in a what are post-British-colonial-rule countries, even after a hundred or two hundred years of separation.

    India and Nigeria are also post-British colonial rule countries. Rethink?

    This is not because they want to join the “elites”

    As someone who’s actually immigrated to the West I assure you, a lot of immigration is driven by the desire for prosperity.  Call prosperous countries elite or call them something else if you wish.  I think you’re kidding yourself if you believe that personal freedom is what creates prosperity with no reference to some darker parts of history or economics.

    In the past few hundred years the inhabitants of this relatively tiny island did not inhibit the advancement of other peoples and cultures but actually advanced them, that is, left them better — closer to the modern Western ideal of individuality and prosperity — than they found them.

    So two centuries of siphoning off economic surplus was worth it for India?  Remember, 1.2% growth rate almost triples to 3.5% almost immediately after independence.  I think you have a hard case to argue.

     

     

    • #69
  10. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    One thing you can say is zero sum economics where non-westerners are poor because westerners are rich is either fantasy or excuse-making. Wealth has increased globally by orders of magnitude over time. But, rather than imitating what works (free enterprise in a law abiding society), we can complain about how some have it so much better than others. The politics of envy.

    Yes, that’s partly true. So if you think India should just suck it up and not make Britain feel ‘uncomfortable’ about two centuries of colonialism why wail about Davos Elites and being made to eat worms? How is that different and not the politics of envy?

    Edited to add:

    How is saying colonialism made India poor and Britain rich different from saying Davos makes Elites rich and Plebes poor?

    I’ll explain to you why this is different. The key here is individual choice. America has been the center of that concept since its founding. It still is barely hanging on. The global elite of Davos are working to create one world government in which individual choice will be eliminated. The very existence of America has uprooted and disappeared those colonial powers of the past like Great Britain that has really gotten under your skin apparently. We are trying to look at what the future holds and your points all reflect evils of the past that have absolutely no bearing on what we face now. This is not as much about rich and poor as it is about individual freedom for all of mankind. Nothing in the past is comparable because nothing in the past destroyed the individual’s ability to make a choice to go a different way.

    • #70
  11. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Victor Tango Kilo (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How is saying colonialism made India poor and Britain rich different from saying Davos makes Elites rich and Plebes poor?

    The Government responses to Covid (which were aligned with the policy preferences of the Global Elite) destroyed tens of thousands of small businesses, made Jeff Bezos and Pfizer immeasurably wealthier. Meanwhile, 500 new billionaires joined the ranks of the Global Elite. At least 40 of the new billionaires derived wealth directly from Government responses to the Covid pandemic. The Bipartisan Infrastructure bills and Build Back Better bills were loaded with wealth transfers in the name of “Green Energy,” a primary obsession of the global elite.

    I haven’t had time to read all through the comments, so I need a little (brief) history lesson here. Was India rich before it was colonized by Britain? And then Britain stole its wealth? And by “rich,” do we mean how the west is rich? That ordinary people had homes and cars (modern transport of the times) and phones (modern communication) and their biggest health challenge was obesity? That kind of rich?

    • #71
  12. Victor Tango Kilo Member
    Victor Tango Kilo
    @VtheK

    Zafar (View Comment):
    How come there is no party advocating for more trade barriers or more protectionism?

    Perhaps because there are very powerful people who don’t want that.

    There was one politician, you may have heard of him, who wanted to put the brakes on global integration. Every Government, academic, corporate, and media tool was used against him to remove him from power.

    • #72
  13. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    I don’t believe I mentioned ethnicity.  What does ethnicity have to do with it?

    Well, this is about the elites, and frankly, I’ve never heard of the Global North and Global South until you mentioned it.  I don’t think you meant the equator as the dividing line (but maybe you did) and if you did, but most of the world’s population is north of the equator, and I believe is mostly not-brown sinned but predominantly light-skinned.  And I think most of the population south of the equator is brown-skinned.

    Some people have been using the term the “10 – 40 window” which is rather definable and relates to economic disparity.

    Anyway, the elites are mostly light-skinned and I am light-skinned and if I had any power whatsoever the elites would not be doing today, what they are doing today.

    • #73
  14. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I’ve heard this pov before on Ricochet.  Personally I think it glides over things like the Indian Wars and settlement, colonialism, slavery and a lot of morally questionable foreign policy.  Which certainly doesn’t make the GN worse than anybody else, it makes it really similar.

    Are you saying that British colonialism did deter the developments of the West from occurring in colonized countries.  What do you think India would be like today if it hadn’t been colonized?  You probably have a much more practical and deep perspective than I do.

    • #74
  15. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):
    India and Nigeria are also post-British colonial rule countries. Rethink?

    Yes, I believe that you should rethink.  I did not specify only British colonized areas, But Christian countries.  And I did not say all of British colonized areas, but they are the so to speak the freest and and consequently the most prosperous countries, and the most desirable to immigrate into.  

    • #75
  16. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):
    As someone who’s actually immigrated to the West I assure you, a lot of immigration is driven by the desire for prosperity.

    Prosperity does does make anyone one of the elites.  Not even all billionaires are among the elites.  And not all elites are billionaires.  Believe me, you overestimate me if you number me among the elites of the world.  They are mostly European and coincidentally white, among other notable characteristics.

    • #76
  17. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):
    So two centuries of siphoning off economic surplus was worth it for India? 

    From what I understand, and you can certainly correct me, the British did not take from the cultures as cultivate land, producing products that would not have been produced otherwise.  And the Protestant Christian countries did not enslave people but create businesses and employ them at low wages that were still above the prior economic level.  And granted, the French and the Italians were not good at this, and coincidentally were less successful as empires.  I am not saying that the empires were wholly good, bright shining cities on their hills, but some, spectacularly the British, were a net benefit for the lands they colonized.

    They ended sati.  That saved probably tens of millions over the last century or two. 

    • #77
  18. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    I haven’t had time to read all through the comments, so I need a little (brief) history lesson here. Was India rich before it was colonized by Britain? And then Britain stole its wealth? And by “rich,” do we mean how the west is rich? That ordinary people had homes and cars (modern transport of the times) and phones (modern communication) and their biggest health challenge was obesity? That kind of rich?

    Oh Westie, I thought you’d never ask!  Was anywhere in the 1700s rich the way the West is today?  Was Britain?  The comparison you’re asking to make is more about human progress over time than anything else. Unless I’ve misunderstood what you’re trying to say?

    Re whether India was prosperous or not by the measure of the times, consider:

    People don’t bother conquering or colonising places that lack resources. There’s no point.

    What measure would you suggest, if we were to compare different places at that time?

    • #78
  19. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):
    I’ll explain to you why this is different. The key here is individual choice. America has been the center of that concept since its founding. It still is barely hanging on. The global elite of Davos are working to create one world government in which individual choice will be eliminated. The very existence of America has uprooted and disappeared those colonial powers of the past like Great Britain that has really gotten under your skin apparently. We are trying to look at what the future holds and your points all reflect evils of the past that have absolutely no bearing on what we face now. This is not as much about rich and poor as it is about individual freedom for all of mankind. Nothing in the past is comparable because nothing in the past destroyed the individual’s ability to make a choice to go a different way.

    I’m not sure I understand your point.  Nobody chooses to be colonised, and being colonised does destroy an individual (and society’s) ability to go a different way.

    • #79
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I’ve heard this pov before on Ricochet. Personally I think it glides over things like the Indian Wars and settlement, colonialism, slavery and a lot of morally questionable foreign policy. Which certainly doesn’t make the GN worse than anybody else, it makes it really similar.

    Are you saying that British colonialism did deter the developments of the West from occurring in colonized countries. What do you think India would be like today if it hadn’t been colonized? You probably have a much more practical and deep perspective than I do.

    Colonialism shaped the development that did occur to the colonising country’s advantage (in India’s case Great Britain) rather than India’s, and yes, I do believe that exporting capital the way they did retarded development in India.

    India is very hard to meaningfully compare to another country – in many ways it is sui generis – but you can compare places like Thailand (never colonised) and Myanmar (colonised by the British) – both Buddhist majority – and draw your own conclusions.

    • #80
  21. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    India and Nigeria are also post-British colonial rule countries. Rethink?

    Yes, I believe that you should rethink. I did not specify only British colonized areas, But Christian countries. And I did not say all of British colonized areas, but they are the so to speak the freest and and consequently the most prosperous countries, and the most desirable to immigrate into.

    Maybe it’s Christianity, though I doubt most migrants would tell you that. (But what do they we know?)

    Perhaps one salient difference is that the places where people want to go are (1) rich and (2) the descendents of the colonisers rather than the colonised (honourable exception: Ireland – which also has the famine thing in common with India).  Great Britain treated North America and India completely differently when it came to extracting capital and investing capital.  With results that should be predictable just based on the hard numbers.

    In most situations I think there wouldn’t be much resistance among Conservatives to go to the source and ask the people it happened to. (And it’s well within living memory.)  In this instance there seems to be a real reluctance.  So I’m curious: why are conservatives to so invested in seeing the British Empire as a Good Thing for the colonised rather than the blight the colonised and their descendents tell you that it actually was?  What’s going on here?

    • #81
  22. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Zafar, all of these posts and side discussions – what’s your point? Colonization bad for the colonized? Exploitation bad for the exploited? Does that mean you agree with the OP that we should resist the future the global elite have planned for us?

    • #82
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    India and Nigeria are also post-British colonial rule countries. Rethink?

    Yes, I believe that you should rethink. I did not specify only British colonized areas, But Christian countries. And I did not say all of British colonized areas, but they are the so to speak the freest and and consequently the most prosperous countries, and the most desirable to immigrate into.

    Maybe it’s Christianity, though I doubt most migrants would tell you that. (But what do they we know?)

    Perhaps one salient difference is that the places where people want to go are (1) rich and (2) the descendents of the colonisers rather than the colonised (honourable exception: Ireland – which also has the famine thing in common with India). Great Britain treated North America and India completely differently when it came to extracting capital and investing capital. With results that should be predictable just based on the hard numbers.

    In most situations I think there wouldn’t be much resistance among Conservatives to go to the source and ask the people it happened to. (And it’s well within living memory.) In this instance there seems to be a real reluctance. So I’m curious: why are conservatives to invested in seeing the British Empire as a Good Thing for the colonised rather than the blight the colonised and their descendents tell you that it actually was? What’s going on here?

     

    @zafar a lot of what you say here makes sense but I assume the post is written from the perspective of individual American people. I don’t see the British Empire as a good thing and I don’t think America’s founders did either. Feudal traditions were dying and the American approach was that all are created with equal natural rights and that should also apply under the law. It took some time and much effort to get that operating as envisioned but we were getting close after the work of Martin Luther King. During that time we had a smaller Elite in America working with others in the Western world in the direction of things as we are seeing them now with a significant Marxist tint or maybe even glow and more recently going global and also taking hold in our large urban cities.  Many Americans like myself attach an exceptional label to the individual liberty and equality of opportunity born into all humans. Christianity gets an entry point here. When the American Ideal and Christianity come together there is no room for exploitation of others. That is what we work for and that is what explains the opposition to the promoters of worldwide Marxism. True Americans are different from others in the world in this manner of thinking but we favor all others to have the same opportunity to make that choice. At this time the American common people are divided but the Biden Administration is unifying them, as promised.

    • #83
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Zafar, all of these posts and side discussions – what’s your point? Colonization bad for the colonized? Exploitation bad for the exploited? Does that mean you agree with the OP that we should resist the future the global elite have planned for us?

    If you believe it’ll exploit you of course you should. Why wouldn’t you?

    • #84
  25. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    Zafar, all of these posts and side discussions – what’s your point? Colonization bad for the colonized? Exploitation bad for the exploited? Does that mean you agree with the OP that we should resist the future the global elite have planned for us?

    If you believe it’ll exploit you of course you should. Why wouldn’t you?

    Which is why agree with the OP.

    • #85
  26. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Maybe it’s Christianity, though I doubt most migrants would tell you that. (But what do they we know?)

    Perhaps one salient difference is that the places where people want to go are (1) rich and (2) the descendents of the colonisers rather than the colonised (honourable exception: Ireland – which also has the famine thing in common with India). Great Britain treated North America and India completely differently when it came to extracting capital and investing capital. With results that should be predictable just based on the hard numbers.

    In most situations I think there wouldn’t be much resistance among Conservatives to go to the source and ask the people it happened to. (And it’s well within living memory.) In this instance there seems to be a real reluctance. So I’m curious: why are conservatives to so invested in seeing the British Empire as a Good Thing for the colonised rather than the blight the colonised and their descendents tell you that it actually was? What’s going on here?

    You may phrase colonizing as a “Good Thing” or not, but I said iirc “on balance” left them better off, which is a matter of speculation based on what indigenous people had then compared with what they have now.  But you’re right, any advanced society could easily have taken over the world by a philosophy that involved only acts of kindness, or some degree of greater altruism than the world generally has ever shown, but I think that’s not really possible either.

    Nonetheless, this Post is not about colonialism but about totalitarianism and the future that the global elite plan for the world.

    As it is, the elites have nearly ALL the wealth and power, and Western society has a fraction of that wealth and virtually none of that power.  Power has been aggregated to the elite by the elite and their subservient governmental and quasi-governmental trans-national organizations.  They have published plan for organizing and controlling the world, at least socially, economically, and industrially.  They phrase their plans in terms social and material equality, just as communism does, but they plans the means of doing this by limiting human freedoms, coincidentally just as communism has.  But they also write in terms of “profit” via the corporations that increasingly control the world’s production and distribution of material goods.  This is fascism.

    Communism, socialism, and fascism have been tried over and over again, and have never worked to lift up the material and intellectual and artistic — any — standards of the populations that they rule over, and in fact have led to loss of freedom, oppression,  lawlessness, destroyed economies, famines, and the organized killings of millions at a time.

    The world is facing this now with the Great Reset, which they call corporate socialism in which governments are the instruments of monopolistic corporations rather than the other way around with fascism.  This has nothing to do with the bourgeoisie being the elites.

    • #86
  27. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Nonetheless, this Post is not about colonialism but about totalitarianism and the future that the global elite plan for the world.

    What happened to us, with Great Britain, is what’s happening to you with Davos.  Similar down to the ‘it’s better for you in the long run’ opinion.  India succeeded, eventually, in shaking off the British.  Don’t lose heart.

    • #87
  28. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Nonetheless, this Post is not about colonialism but about totalitarianism and the future that the global elite plan for the world.

    What happened to us, with Great Britain, is what’s happening to you with Davos. Similar down to the ‘it’s better for you in the long run’ opinion. India succeeded, eventually, in shaking off the British. Don’t lose heart.

    You may be right about this very generally, except that this is a whole level higher in that the elites want to lower the standard of living for the world’s population, diminish fundamental freedoms and exchange of ideas, and take away all private property.  They are in no way improving anything, or intent on improving anything, or producing anything, but creating and managing a civilizational decline.

    • #88
  29. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Nonetheless, this Post is not about colonialism but about totalitarianism and the future that the global elite plan for the world.

    What happened to us, with Great Britain, is what’s happening to you with Davos. Similar down to the ‘it’s better for you in the long run’ opinion. India succeeded, eventually, in shaking off the British. Don’t lose heart.

    You may be right about this very generally, there are some similarities, like subordinating local governments and making great profits.

    But this is a whole level higher in that the elites want to lower the standard of living for the world’s population, diminish fundamental freedoms and exchange of ideas, and take away all private property, and take away individuality and enforce uniformity of thought on an individual, this last sort of like the Stasi.  Colonialists didn’t go anywhere near that far.

    They are in no way improving anything, or producing anything, but creating and managing a civilizational decline.

    • #89
  30. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):
    Nonetheless, this Post is not about colonialism but about totalitarianism and the future that the global elite plan for the world.

    What happened to us, with Great Britain, is what’s happening to you with Davos. Similar down to the ‘it’s better for you in the long run’ opinion. India succeeded, eventually, in shaking off the British. Don’t lose heart.

    You may be right about this very generally, except that this is a whole level higher in that the elites want to lower the standard of living for the world’s population, diminish fundamental freedoms and exchange of ideas, and take away all private property. They are in no way improving anything, or intent on improving anything, or producing anything, but creating and managing a civilizational decline.

    I even assume that most of them don’t want decline even. Some think the decline is inevitable while others think it can be improved. The key in either case is getting the world into the harness and giving the reins to the right people instead of letting the herd run free.

    • #90
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.