Some rough thoughts on the WEF, US Imperialists and Critical Social Justice

WEDNESDAY, 23 MARCH 2022

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.

According to Wikipedia:

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.

If there’s doubt that the adherents of this ideology act and speak with the certainty and sense of moral superiority reminiscent of fundamentalist religious disciples, consider the following cases: “Why America Needs College Football — Part 2”, “Good-bye, Theresa. Hello, Boris?” (scroll down to the sub-heading, “New York City’s Illiberal Education Department”), and “Evergreen State and the Battle for Modernity Part 2: True Believers, Fence Sitters, and Group Conformity”. And some video footage: “Yale University Students Protest Halloween Costume Email” and “Campus Argument Goes Viral As Evergreen State Is Caught In Racial Turmoil”.

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?

______________________

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support?

TUESDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2021

I saw this satirical headline on Twitter: “Parents who think that their children don’t belong to the State are dangerous, explained.”

Of course, most people won’t accept this idea (right?) and the headline itself is from a non-existing website with satirical headlines. Yet, if an article like this were to appear on mainstream media like CNN or BBC, I bet at least 20% of readers would support the idea.

Imagine being the editor of the online media that publishes such an article. The person truly believes in the concept that children belong to the state. They are committed to pushing this idea.

Now imagine this editor is not alone. Hundreds of other editors, journalists, reporters, and presenters at high-profile media outlets agree with them.

Imagine thousands of academics also support the idea. So do TV and movie stars, and other celebrities – once it has been convincingly framed as “progressive”.

Parents who believe they have a right to educate and raise their children as they see fit, and that their rights supersede any claim the state has over their offspring, are presented in hundreds of TV shows, talk shows, academic journals and newspaper and magazine articles as “traditional”, “unbearably conservative”, “radical” and even “fundamentalist”. Because the idea that children belong to the state is being presented as cool and progressive, teenagers increasingly show their support to the idea, and in timeless fashion influence their younger siblings to do the same.

And yet, is the idea good? (Remember: the state claiming your kids is just a useful example.)

Is it possible for a fundamentally bad idea to receive broad support amongst those with the most powerful voices and with access to millions of minds through social media and educational spaces? And how many millions of readers and viewers would support such an idea simply because of its favourable framing?

______________________

Media and other voices creating a narrative

______________________

Even the cruellest behaviour and the most senseless policies can be justified

TUESDAY 21 SEPTEMBER 2021

15:00

Someone puts a plate with something that’s supposed to be edible in front of you.

You look at the plate and try to work out what it is.

“This is not a banana,” you then declare. “It’s not a piece of meat. And it’s definitely not a potato. I don’t know what it is, but if people claim it’s a banana, a piece of meat, or a potato, they are definitely trying to deceive you.”

[click here if tweet doesn’t load]

Are all these mandates and regulations part of an evil conspiracy to regulate ordinary people with an ever heavier-pressing iron thumb? I don’t know. But it’s becoming increasingly clear that this is not about Covid-19, or people’s health.

15:12

The Nazis justified it in academic works at university, sermons in the church, lessons at school and in public speeches, and clearly explained why Jews should be deprived of their German citizenship, and why the government should come up with … a final solution.

For decades, the Soviet government justified why dissenters should be thrown into prison, deported, or executed as enemies of the state.

In South Africa, white governments for decades convinced the public that Apartheid is the only solution for South Africa’s racial relations. Pastors justified it to congregations from the Bible, and teachers explained it to pupils.

In Mao Zedong’s China in the 1960s and early 1970s, teenagers with red booklets in their hands could justify why teachers should be humiliated, and why it was absolutely necessary to kick people’s doors off their hinges in the middle of the night to search for Western musical instruments and books which could undermine the revolution.

Fact is, anything can be justified. Words are extremely useful means of spinning just about anything to make wrong look right, and right wrong.

Be aware of what you are saying. Express, as a matter of principle, the other side’s argument in such a way that that person must admit that you understand it correctly.

Can’t do it, or don’t do it because some crisis currently doesn’t allow the luxury? Then I have bad news for you: Your opponent is also inventing excuses as to why your argument is not worthy of proper consideration.

Do you furthermore find that you increasingly think of your ideological opponent as a caricature, not someone with a complex personality and dreams and fears just like you? Guess what? On the other side of the dividing line are people who make a similar caricature of you.

______________________

In short, the Individual, the Community, and the State

MONDAY, 30 AUGUST 2021

A personal manifesto on political beliefs should begin with your view on three concepts:

1. The Individual

2. The Community

3. The State

Without consulting a search engine or a dictionary, I’d say the State is an organised effort by adults within a geographic area with historical and other ties to manage common interests. These interests include infrastructure, education, international relations, military defence, and the drafting and enforcing of laws that represent the values of the community.

Community can be your neighbourhood, but also people who share a particular language, ethnicity, or religious belief.

And the Individual is a single child or adult.

Your personal political manifesto will need to pay attention to the relationships between Individuals, between the Individual and the Community, and the relationship between the Individual and the State, and relations between respective Communities and the State. It will also set out the rights of the Individual and duties of the Individual (if any) towards both the Community and the State, and the duties of the State towards Individuals and Communities.

______________________

Two possibilities and a few questions about accepting responsibility

SUNDAY, 14 MARCH 2021

Possibility one:

We are largely responsible for how we experience life. We don’t usually choose what happens to us, but we have to a significant degree control over how we respond to what happens to us, and therefore we have some control over what impact it has on our lives.

This would mean that people who were on the wrong side of government policy, such as during the apartheid years in South Africa, or similar periods in America, also had a significant degree of control over their reactions. Other people were responsible for the unethical and sometimes cruel policies, but the people on the wrong side of it had control over how they reacted to it, and this reaction – from acceptance to armed opposition – in turn influenced their experience of reality.

Possibility two:

We have no control to any significant degree over how we experience life. We have no control over what happens to us, and our reactions have little impact. Plus, our reactions and attitudes towards what happens to us are anyways largely dictated by our culture and how we have been programmed since childhood. This means people on the receiving end of unethical policies and cruel governments and other institutions that exercise power over them are victims who have to take what comes their way. That’s just how it is. Sometimes you’re on top, and sometimes you get crushed, and then you die.

The questions:

Which of the two views on life would ideologues of Apartheid South Africa have preferred black and brown people embrace in the decades prior to the 1990s? You have the power to do something about your suffering, or accept your fate?

Which of the two views on life would ideologues of the resistance movements during the apartheid years, people like Nelson Mandela and Steve Biko, have preferred black and brown people embraced? What about civil rights leaders in America in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries – people like Frederick Douglass, Marcus Garvey, W.E.B. du Bois, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King? Did they think people had the ability to improve their experience of reality, or did they believe people simply had to accept their fate?

* * *

For the record, the person who commits a crime, or who plans or executes an unjust political or social order, does so out of free will. He does not have to do it. He chooses to do so and is therefore morally and legally responsible for his actions.

* * *

A fundamental aspect of this whole discussion was articulated by Scott Adams a few years ago after Kanye West made headlines over his remarks about slavery. In response to someone else who said Kanye West was guilty of “disgusting victim blaming”, Adams said: “I believe the proposition on the table is that giving yourself a victim identity is less productive than looking forward.”

* * *

Steve Biko, Malcolm X and even W.E.B. du Bois were not exactly non-racial integrationists. One could even argue that especially Steve Biko and Malcolm X (at least earlier in his career) were Black Supremacists. What I say about victim mentality, historical oppression, accepting responsibility even for your own suffering as a way to empower yourself is not affected at all. If you think non-racial integration is more ideal, you might have a problem with Biko or X. But at least they had a positive outlook on the future, right? They looked at a future where black and brown people would do better because they would actively create a better future for themselves, which included convincing white people with political and bureaucratic power that a more just order is better for all.

Quotes from Steve Biko (1946-1977)

“Obviously the only path open for us now is to redefine the message in the bible and to make it relevant to the struggling masses. The bible must not be seen to preach that all authority is divinely instituted. It must rather preach that it is a sin to allow oneself to be oppressed.”

“So as a prelude whites must be made to realise that they are only human, not superior. Same with Blacks. They must be made to realise that they are also human, not inferior.”

“The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed.”

“It becomes more necessary to see the truth as it is if you realise that the only vehicle for change are these people who have lost their personality. The first step therefore is to make the black man come to himself; to pump back life into his empty shell; to infuse him with pride and dignity, to remind him of his complicity in the crime of allowing himself to be misused and therefore letting evil reign supreme in the country of his birth.”

Quotes from Malcom X (1925-1965)

“Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you’re a man, you take it.”

“Any time you beg another man to set you free, you will never be free. Freedom is something that you have to do for yourselves.”

“No, we are not anti-white. But we don’t have time for the white man. The white man is on top already, the white man is the boss already … He has first-class citizenship already. So you are wasting your time talking to the white man. We are working on our own people.”

Quotes from Marcus Garvey (1887-1940)

“Ambition is the desire to go forward and improve one’s condition. It is a burning flame that lights up the life of the individual and makes him see himself in another state. To be ambitious is to be great in mind and soul. To want that which is worthwhile and strive for it. To go on without looking back, reaching to that which gives satisfaction.”

“The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind.”

“The white man has succeeded in subduing the world by forcing everybody to think his way. The white man’s propaganda has made him the master of the world, and all those who have come in contact with it and accepted it have become his slaves.”

“Liberate the minds of men and ultimately you will liberate the bodies of men.”

“Before we can properly help the people, we have to destroy the old education … that teaches them that somebody is keeping them back and that God has forgotten them and that they can’t rise because of their color … we can only build … with faith in ourselves and with self-reliance, believing in our own possibilities, that we can rise to the highest in God’s creation.”

Quotes from Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

“We have to do with the past only as we can make it useful to the present and the future.”

“No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.”

“I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.”

______________________