Economic Forum of the World (EFW)

Is Elon Musk the Wealthiest? Or just the wealthiest of the 99%? It is perhaps unknown individuals who would stand as symbol of the elite, but also of a far more enigmatic machine. The elite, the minuscule fraction at the zenith, now find themselves battling the burgeoning tide of this new Information Age. Their obscurity is their brilliance; for to remain unknown is to remain unchallenged. We stand at a precipice, marked by unprecedented uncertainty. In the shadowed corners of the world’s consciousness, Elon Musk stood towering, not as a symbol of the elite, but as a testament to the ever-blurring lines of the socio-economic construct. The figures touted by revolutionaries during the days of “Occupy Wall Street” became the world’s mantra: The 99% and the 1% Yet, like so many mantras, they have been diluted and repurposed. A Conspiracy Theorist, akin to a relentless detective, is imbued with an insatiable thirst for the truth, especially when obfuscation is evident, wrought by corrupt bureaucrats or the affluent and their vast conglomerates. No group had ever treaded so close to the precipice of omnipotence, of ensnaring every soul, as this current generation of would-be rulers. On the topic of privilege, isn’t it ironic that the puppeteers, these ‘aspiring deities of our realm’, with an innate cunning and a mastery over doublespeak, perceived the irony long before it became apparent to the masses. Perhaps the outlier, the one who defies the odds, the one who touches the stars and tunnels through earth, might yet have an answer. Medium: https://ericleeworldloop.medium.com/who-are-the-0-00000375-3bda4b25863f?sk=37f507c7ee8b0a2c9a71f93c63335963 Substack: https://bogdus.substack.com/p/who-are-the-000000375 Worldloop@eWorld.Media.com

Is there any meaningful difference between: “To Own” and “To Control”? Let’s take a look at the terms `to own’ and ‘To control’. Let’s compare these terms to see if there is any meaningful difference between ‘owning’ something and ‘controlling it’ when it comes to a government, real estate, and the means of production. Especially since you can’t take anything you with you when you die. Then let’s look at Communism and Socialism and in light of these terms ‘to own’ and ‘to control’ and explain if there is any meaningful difference between them when you consider that the ruling classes, or someone, is always in control of a government. When this is considered, does that make communism look a whole lot like Feudalism in terms of de facto distribution of wealth, power, and control? Well to start, we have to ask ourselves, what system would make it easier for the ruling classes to maintain control? What would allow them absolute power? Well, Feudalism would, of course. That’s the way the old school ruling classes did things. At least before the Gutenberg Printing Press induced information age gave us literacy, science, and democracy, that is. Back then the ruling classes, or Feudal Lords, owned ALL the property. Everyone who wasn’t them, were serfs, or slaves. To Own To own something means to having legal or moral rights to something, including property, assets, or resources. Ownership often entails the ability to use, sell, or dispose of something as one sees fit, within legal and ethical constraints. To Control To control means having power or authority over something or someone, often with the ability to direct or influence its behavior or use. Control can come in many forms, such as direct physical control, legal or regulatory control, or social or cultural control. For “The Ruling Classes”, To Rule may as well mean the same thing as to own. And in fact, they will continue to rule, only uninhibited by anyone else, no middle classes, no “New Money” upward climbers, Not in a Classless Society where private property is forbidden. Forbidden for the 99% that is. In terms of communism and socialism, the concept of ownership is central to these ideologies. However, in both communism and socialism, control is centralized in the state, which is supposed to represent the collective will of the people. The ruling class in these systems are the ones who control the government, which controls the means of production and directs economic activity. Communism takes this a step further than socialism by advocating for the abolition of private property altogether. In theory, this would mean that everyone is supposed to have equal access to resources and wealth, and there would be no need for ownership in the traditional sense. So it would all come down to who is in control. In this sense, communism and socialism share more than a few similarities with feudalism, which was a hierarchical system in which power and wealth were concentrated in the hands of a ruling class of lords and nobles. In feudalism, the lord owned the land, but the serfs worked it and were subject to the lord’s control. So while communism and socialism may have as their stated mission, to create a more equitable society by redistributing wealth and resources, the reality is that someone still needs to be in control of the government and the allocation of resources. This can lead to a de-facto concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a few — the ruling classes, much like in feudalism or other authoritarian systems, which is basically a hierarchical system of land ownership with all power and control in the hands of a small ruling elite. So Why Do the Ruling Classes Want a Marxist Revolution? It’s hard being the Ruling Classes in a Democracy, or Constitutional Republic. The constant challenge of constantly controlling the narrative, all the while remaining mostly invisible, What a tangled web that is to weave. Feudalism by any other name still abolishes private property for the serfs, and that’s all that matters. The Ruling Classes will still rule, only now, they will rule absolutely. But those are PEOPLE’S Movements, you say. Grass Roots movements growing from the ground up!?, not from the Top of the hierarchy, why would the richest and most powerful want a people’s revolution of the working class proletariat to throw off the chains of the Owners of production? Escapees from Communist China and the Soviet Bloc have inoculated America from the evils of Marxism in the past, but it seems every generation needs a new lesson. - Miranda Devine

Fascism vs Socialism vs Communism vs Capitalism Define the terms: Fascism, Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism. Compare and contrast these terms giving examples of each both historically and in modern times. Fascism: A political ideology characterized by extreme nationalism, dictatorship, and a focus on the power of the state over the individual. It often includes suppression of political opposition, control over the media and corporations, and glorification of the military. Historical examples include Nazi Germany under Hitler and Fascist Italy under Mussolini. Socialism: A political and economic ideology that advocates for collective ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. It aims to reduce wealth inequality and provide equal access to resources and opportunities. Historical examples include the Soviet Union and various Eastern European states during the 20th century. Communism: A political and economic ideology that aims to create a classless society by eliminating private ownership of property and the means of production. It calls for the establishment of a single party state to control the means of production and distribution of goods and services in the interest of the working class. Historical examples include the Soviet Union and China. Capitalism: An economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit. It is characterized by a market-based economy, competition, and the freedom to buy and sell goods and services. Historical examples include the United States and Britain. In terms of similarities, all these ideologies aim to create a more equitable and efficient economic system. However, they differ in their approach and the degree to which they prioritize individual freedoms and the role of the state. Fascism and capitalism can be seen as opposites as fascism prioritizes the power of the state over individual freedoms and the economy, while capitalism prioritizes individual freedoms and a market-based economy. Socialism and communism are similar in their aims to reduce wealth inequality and provide equal access to resources, but communism is more extreme in its call for the elimination of private property. Fascism, socialism, and communism are similar in the sense that they prioritize the role of the state in the economy and aim to reduce wealth inequality. However, they differ in their approach, with fascism prioritizing extreme nationalism and dictatorship, socialism advocating for collective ownership, and communism calling for the elimination of private property. Fascism vs Socialism vs Communism vs Capitalism What does ChatGPT have to say about them? https://ericleeworldloop.medium.com/fascism-vs-socialism-vs-communism-vs-capitalism-e403de1ca779?source=friends_link&sk=52af481117a5bb350c39b47298d6bf61

https://ericleeworldloop.medium.com/what-that-ex-kgb-agent-was-saying-8301b22a9d22?source=friends_link&sk=7409f123f2cdf1626f566ee82eb07fc6 https://open.substack.com/pub/bogdus/p/what-that-ex-kgb-agent-was-saying-8301b22a9d22?r=jj1t5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web The Four Stages Of ‘Ideological Subversion’ A Warning To America From an ex-KGB Agent BOGDUS FEB 20, 2023 Yuri Bezmenov was a former KGB agent for the Soviet Union who had defected to the West in 1970. Photo by Steve Harvey on Unsplash The Four Stages of a Communist Takeover During his time as a KGB agent, he had witnessed first-hand, the methods the USSR had used to cause Communist revolutions to erupt throughout the world. In a series of interviews and speeches, Bezmenov outlined the four stages of ‘Ideological Subversion’ that he had witnessed firsthand during his time as a KGB agent. According to Bezmenov, ideological subversion is a covert strategy used by the KGB and other Soviet agencies to undermine and ultimately overthrow Western governments by spreading propaganda and disinformation. Grassroots revolutions do not exist. Only revolutions that are engineered by a professional, organized group will ever come to pass. Bezmenov explained that the process of ideological subversion has four stages, which are: Stage #1 — Demoralization (This stage can take up to 20 years to complete.) Bezmenov described the first stage, demoralization, as a process of gradually eroding the values and beliefs of a society until its members no longer have a clear sense of right and wrong. This involves the gradual erosion of traditional values, such as patriotism, family values, and religion. This is achieved through the spread of propaganda that promotes moral relativism and undermines the authority of traditional institutions, along with psychological warfare, and infiltration of key institutions such as education and media. Stage #2 — Destabilization (This stage can last for 2–5 years) The second stage, destabilization, involves creating economic, social, and political chaos in a society. Bezmenov explained that this can be achieved through various means, including the creation of social unrest, the promotion of radical groups, and the undermining of government institutions. This creates a state of crisis and chaos in society by promoting unrest, economic instability, and political polarization. The goal is to create a sense of hopelessness and despair that makes people more susceptible to radical ideologies. Stage #3 — Crisis (this stage can be completed in as little as six weeks) The third stage is a crisis, where the chaos created in the destabilization stage reaches a boiling point and a state of emergency is declared. Bezmenov stated that this stage is characterized by violent clashes between different groups and the breakdown of law and order. The society is plunged into a state of crisis, with political, economic, and social upheaval. The goal is to create a power vacuum that can be exploited by radical groups and individuals. Stage #4 — Normalization (can last for decades) The fourth and final stage is normalization, which involves the imposition of a new, authoritarian regime that claims to restore order and stability to the society. Bezmenov explained that this stage can last for decades and involves the complete suppression of dissent and the establishment of a totalitarian state. A new political order is created that is favorable to the subverter’s agenda. This is achieved through the manipulation of public opinion and the use of force if necessary. The word normalization is derived from Soviet propaganda that seeks to downplay a drastic change in a country as a normal phenomenon. The Ideal Recruits of the KGB Yuri was instructed to surround himself with media personalities, rich filmmakers, academics, and cynical, egocentric people. The best recruits in the eyes of the KGB were narcissistic, greedy, morally devoid individuals who can help destabilize their country of origin. In the United States the KGB recruited professors and civil rights activists to subvert and destabilize the country. “They will be lined up against the wall and shot” Interestingly, even though those journalists were idealistically leftists, the KGB eventually wanted them dead, as ‘they knew too much’. It was the true believers in Marxism and Soviet socialism or Communism that became targets. Once these leftists become disillusioned, they become their worst enemies. Some recruits hoped they would gain position within the party, but that would never happen. After the ‘useful idiots’ served their purpose, they were either executed, exiled or sent to the Gulag. Yuri explained that KGB was more concerned about the psychological warfare against the American government, through ideological subversion rather than espionage activities, which constituted only 15% of their work. He highlighted how brainwashing techniques were used on the American population to infuse an ideology, distinct from Americanism, and raise suspicions through media propaganda and academia. Manipulation of public opinion can make people reject the obvious. Facts soon become meaningless. “As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it… That’s the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.” — Yuri Bezmenov [1983] According to Bezmenov, the process of ideological subversion is a long-term strategy that requires patience and persistence. It can take decades or even generations to achieve the desired outcome. However, once the subverter’s goals have been achieved, they can exert total control over the society. The idea of using propaganda and disinformation to manipulate public opinion remains a potent tool for those who seek to gain political power. For a population self-absorbed in a world of propaganda, and theories of Marxism and Leninism, truth loses its grip on the society. The older generation also loses control over the population due to consistent attacks on their moral fabric. When Bezmenov arrived in the United States in the 1970s, he believed that America was in the demoralization stage. He argued that leftist ideas were being promoted in schools and media, and that American culture was being eroded by moral relativism and the rejection of traditional values. Bezmenov warned that unless the country woke up to these dangers, it would inevitably move into the destabilization stage and eventually fall to communism. Some argue that the country is now in the destabilization stage, with increasing polarization, social unrest, and political chaos. Others point to the rise of cancel culture, political correctness, and the erosion of free speech as evidence that the country is still in the demoralization stage. Bezmenov’s observations continue to be influential, particularly among those who are concerned about the spread of leftist ideas and the erosion of traditional values in Western societies. For many they serve as a reminder of the dangers of ideological subversion and the need to remain vigilant in the defense of our democratic values. “This will happen in America if you allow the Schmucks to bring the country to crisis, promise people all kinds of goodies and paradise on Earth, destabilize your economy, eliminate the principle of free-market competition, put a Big Brother government in Washington DC with benevolent things,” he remarked. Yuri Bezmenov believed that America was in a state of undeclared war against the principles on which it was founded. Unless the United States wakes up! The time bomb is ticking every second and the disaster is coming closer and closer. “Unlike myself, you will have nowhere to defect,” Key Terms (from ChatGPT) Ideological Subversion: Ideological subversion refers to a covert process aimed at undermining and destabilizing a targeted society or system by infiltrating and manipulating its ideological beliefs, values, and institutions. It involves spreading propaganda, disinformation, and manipulating public opinion to gradually shift the ideological foundation of a society towards a different ideology or worldview, often one that opposes the existing system. Normalization: Normalization refers to the process of making something more acceptable, commonplace, or normalized within a society or culture. It involves shifting societal attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors so that what was once considered unusual, deviant, or controversial becomes widely accepted as normal or typical. Normalization can occur through various means, such as changes in laws and policies, shifts in public opinion, or increased representation in media and popular culture. Political Polarization: Political polarization refers to the division and divergence of political opinions, attitudes, and ideologies within a society, leading to distinct and often opposing political camps or factions. It occurs when individuals or groups develop increasingly extreme and mutually exclusive positions on political issues, resulting in a heightened level of conflict, hostility, and inability to find common ground or compromise. Moral Relativism: Moral relativism is the philosophical viewpoint that moral judgments and principles are not universally or objectively true, but rather depend on individual or cultural perspectives and beliefs. It suggests that there is no absolute or universal moral standard by which to judge right or wrong, and that moral values are subjective and can vary across different societies, cultures, or individuals. Moral relativism recognizes the diversity of moral beliefs and emphasizes the importance of tolerance and understanding of different perspectives. Demoralization: Demoralization refers to a state of discouragement, loss of hope, or a decline in morale, often resulting from persistent negative experiences, disillusionment, or feelings of helplessness. In a societal or political context, demoralization may refer to the deliberate effort to weaken the morale, motivation, and resilience of a group or population. It can be achieved through various means, including propaganda, disinformation, psychological manipulation, or systematic suppression of dissenting voices, with the aim of undermining unity, resistance, or opposition. What do you think about Yuri Bezmenov’s observations in relation to what is happening in the US today? Do you believe these observations on the four stages of a communist takeover to be applicable to what is going on in the United States currently? Why or why not?