Having ChatGPT artificial intelligence see what the WEF has in mind for world trade
 Mao's "Four Olds" slogan reminds one of the objectives of today's woke folk at the World Economic Forum (WEF). Mao sought to obliterate "old ideas, old habits, old culture and old customs". How different is that from the doctrine of the WEF, which is emerging as something of a command and control centre of the Woke World in combination with the UN and its increasingly powerful agencies.
Given these thoughts, we sought out the WEF plan for international trade in the years to come by calling on artificial intelligence (AI) portal, Chat-GPT.org for news of the future.
One recalls the old WEF video which predicted "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy". First, how different is that from the Marxist-Leninist goal, which says restrictions on ownership of private property would set people free. One assumes that a disregard of consitutional rights would be included as a necessity in ridding the world of the "Four Olds".
The AI essay concludes blandly: "As we enter the next era, the World Economic Forum envisions a transformative future for international trade. The WEF's vision encapsulates the importance of digitisation, sustainability, resilience, inclusiveness and innovation."
Already there is clash with human rights. To many, mostly men, find this alarming because the WEF would enforce social equality and curtail individual liberty, the right to assembly and the freedom of speech. And, implicitly, the right to disassociate with inviduals and groups of whom wanted no part.
The AI essay continues: "By embracing the potential of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, prioritising sustainable practices, reshaping supply chains, and driving inclusive growth, the WEF seeks to create a more prosperous, equitable, and interconnected global economy."
First, the "Fourth Industrial Revolution" is entirely a WEF invention. An enormous erasure of freedom of choice may well come in its wake with the WEF "prioritising sustainable practices". In the Orwellian NewSpeak of the age "sustainable" means environmentally friendly, which can mean almost anything a gathering of eco-geeks wants to ban. But the dictionary says "sustainable" means being "able to maintain at a certain level or rate".
Then we come to "create a prosperous, equitable, and interconnected global economy". More red flags appear. The often unfathomable ebb and flow of trade is usually explicable through the retropectoscope, whose growth is not assisted by regulation which invariably limits growth except in rare circumstances when it improves trade by absenting itself entirely.
And when it speaks of an "equitable, and interconnected global economy", that reeks of the need to hire non-essential personnel, accompanied with ladies with clipboards, insisting that one associates with people who are not wanted, but want to be included. All in all it is not an inviting prospect for most people engaged in international trade. Major companies may like it, at least the C-suites of major companies, because high regulatory compliance costs drives out small fry by criminalising ways that might have been found to escape costs if options they once had, had not been closed.
To many, mostly men, that is, about half of the Western world's electorate find alarming the machinations of the Deep State as personified by Klaus Schwab's WEF because it would enforce social equality and curtail individual liberty, the right to assembly and the freedom of association. And, implicitly, the right to disassociate with individuals and group.
For those - overwhelmingly men - who have come to love the freedom of the seas and the trucker's open road have felt the constraint of regulation and restriction, as more human activity cannot be pursued without express permission in the form of permits and licences. Hours of Service regulations hobbles those who could and would do more work faster if allowed to do so.
What men fear is implicit in the WEF and the UN's social development goals "you'll own nothing and be happy". First, it is utopian vision that is attractive to women, but not to men. Women's traditional goal is to find a provider with the wherewithal to support them and their families comfortably. This is the sort of promise communists make when not in power. But between intentions and results there is a great gulf fixed. And macro experiments with the communist plan have always failed to produce what was initially advertised.
But what concerns men are not the wonderful intentions of such grandiose plans, but their costs and likely results. Manly men are not seeking to be cared for, but an opportunity to thrive.
Famous pubic intellectual Dr Jordan Peterson, as a teenage Canadian socialist worker went to his local restaurant owned by two brothers. He pitched the free this and free that his party offered. But no sale. The brothers were hoping a local bank would back their business plan to expand their operation. They didn't want a hand out with strings attached. That was the first fissure in Dr Peterson's socialist edifice, but it would not be the last.
Without saying so, the AI essay subtly, if not obliquely, speaks of state control, and the rule of the central planners, which indicates a communist drift. Take this passage that speaks of "prioritising sustainable practices, reshaping supply chains, and driving inclusive growth". Only in communist countries do governments "shape supply chains". As soon as you talk of "inclusiveness" and "sustainability" one enters the regulatory nonsense of the politically correct.
One does not blame artificial intelligence (AI) for arriving at these conclusions, as it was asked to produce the thoughts of the WEF. One finds that the WEF's idea of the "great reset" is itself a misnomer because a reset is meant to restore a malfunctioning computer to its proper functioning. What WEF actually proposes is a reconstruction of society in a manner prefered by the good and the great.
In this, it is no better than a more palatable form of communism, in which acceptable practice is redefined. The generalities of a measure may have been legislatively and democratically enacted, like "measures to improve the environnment", but the actual teeth only appear in the regulations banning this and restricting that, and making rules created by civil servants and the self-serving experts they hire.
Perhaps it is time to actively resist the WEF plans and those who benefit from them. We might first return to reflect on how much, the WEF ideas are like Mao's "Four Olds" and what good they did. |
