Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!

? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)

Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.

?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:

1. Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
2. Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
3. Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
4. WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
5. Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
6. Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
7. Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
8. Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
9. Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
10. Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!

Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually! 

Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.

Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.

Now available at all major retailers!

The eBook will be available shortly.

The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.

Book description:

“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.

So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.

On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.

The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.

There is something that does not add up. If the objective is peace, then why was one of the most contentious parts of the negotiations the demand that hostilities in Lebanon also come to an end? Reports indicate that the U.S.-Iran framework includes de-escalation in Lebanon. Yet almost immediately Israeli officials declared they would not withdraw from southern Lebanon and would continue to reserve the right to act independently. Defense Minister Israel Katz stated plainly Israel would remain in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza regardless of the agreement.

This is where the entire story begins to unravel. Trump has been publicly insisting that Netanyahu will have to accept whatever agreement Washington negotiates, reportedly saying: “I call all the shots. He doesn’t call the shots.” At the very same time, reports emerged that Trump was furious over Israeli actions in Beirut that nearly derailed the negotiations altogether. According to multiple reports, strikes in Lebanon came dangerously close to collapsing the entire framework before it was finalized.

The issue is not Iran. The issue is that Netanyahu appears to have viewed this conflict very differently from Washington. Reports suggest that Netanyahu hoped military pressure would fundamentally weaken Iran’s position throughout the region and perhaps even contribute to regime change. A negotiated settlement that leaves Iran standing, releases frozen assets, reopens the Strait of Hormuz, and begins another round of diplomacy was never the outcome many hardliners were seeking. That is why Israeli officials immediately began attacking the agreement while insisting they would maintain military freedom of action in Lebanon.

The uncomfortable reality in Washington is that every politician knows exactly how powerful the pro-Israel lobbying network has become. AIPAC has spent decades directing enormous sums into congressional races. Politicians on both sides of the aisle understand the consequences of crossing that machine. Whether one supports Israel or not, pretending this influence does not exist is absurd. Entire careers have been built and destroyed based upon foreign policy positions relating to Israel. The result is that American politicians often place the interests of foreign conflicts ahead of the interests of American taxpayers who will ultimately pay the bill. The growing divide between Trump and Netanyahu demonstrates that even within traditionally pro-Israel circles, there are limits to how much foreign policy can be subordinated to another nation’s strategic objectives.

The Economic Confidence Model and the war cycle never suggested that 2026 would bring peace. Quite the opposite. This is a Panic Cycle year. The international war cycle turns up into 2027, with 2028 bringing economic stress and civil unrest before the major geopolitical turning point into 2029. People keep searching for a treaty that ends the crisis. That is not how these cycles work. The danger comes when political leaders become prisoners of their own narratives. Netanyahu has spent years presenting Iran as the defining threat of our time. Leaders who build their careers on war rarely become the architects of peace. That is why I remain skeptical. The greatest threat to this agreement may not come from Tehran. It may come from those who never wanted a negotiated settlement in the first place.

The financial press is celebrating reports that traders are betting shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz could begin returning to normal by August. Oil prices have fallen sharply on hopes of a U.S.-Iran agreement, and prediction markets are assigning better-than-even odds that vessel traffic will recover during the second half of this year. Yet when you look beneath the headlines, even the traders themselves remain skeptical.

The proposed agreement between Washington and Tehran contains several conditions that sound impressive on paper. Iran has reportedly agreed not to pursue a nuclear weapon, the Strait of Hormuz would reopen to commercial traffic, some $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets could be released, and a 60-day negotiation period would begin to address sanctions, uranium enrichment, and broader regional security issues. Oil markets immediately celebrated the news because roughly 20% of global oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The mere prospect of reopening the waterway sent crude prices lower as traders rushed to price in a return to normality. Yet the actual details remain incomplete, portions of the agreement have not been published, and multiple versions of the terms are already circulating.

Kalshi markets still show considerable doubt that traffic will fully normalize anytime soon, and major shipping firms are refusing to return to normal operations until mines are cleared, insurance costs fall, and security can be guaranteed. Reuters reports that many shipping companies believe a complete recovery may take many months, and some estimates extend into 2027 before flows return to pre-war conditions.

The first problem is that reopening the Strait is not as simple as issuing a press release. Reports indicate that mines must still be cleared, security guarantees must be established, and shipping companies remain cautious after months of disruption. Tanker operators, insurers, and cargo firms have all learned that one missile, one drone strike, or one political disagreement can instantly shut down the route again. Commerce may resume, but confidence takes far longer to rebuild than headlines would suggest.

The second issue is that the core dispute has not actually been resolved. The agreement merely opens a negotiation period regarding Iran’s nuclear program, sanctions relief, and uranium enrichment. These are the very issues that helped create the crisis in the first place. Israel is already criticizing the arrangement, arguing that it fails to address missiles, regional proxy groups, and broader security concerns. Iranian hardliners are attacking the deal from the opposite direction, claiming Tehran is giving away leverage for uncertain promises. When both sides are unhappy before the ink is dry, that is usually a warning sign rather than a guarantee of peace.

The mistake people continue to make is assuming that reopening a waterway ends a geopolitical crisis. It does not. The Strait of Hormuz is merely a symptom of a much larger conflict that remains unresolved. Roughly 20% of global oil and LNG trade passes through this corridor. The war exposed just how fragile the global supply chain has become. Alternative routes have already been developed, exporters have adjusted logistics, and shipping companies have learned the hard way that one political decision can disrupt trillions in commerce. Even if the Strait reopens tomorrow, the distrust remains. Insurance premiums do not instantly collapse. Tanker operators do not suddenly forget that vessels were attacked. Capital does not immediately return to a region once it has been burned.

From the perspective of the Economic Confidence Model and the broader war cycle, this was never about one shipping lane. The arrays have been warning that 2026 is a Panic Cycle year. We have entered a period where geopolitical tensions are expanding, not contracting. The public always wants to believe that one treaty, one summit, or one ceasefire will restore stability. History shows otherwise. The First World War was supposed to be over by Christmas. The Middle East has seen countless ceasefires that merely served as intermissions before the next round of conflict. The forces driving this confrontation remain in place, including regional rivalries, religious tensions, sanctions, energy competition, and the growing split between East and West. Those factors do not disappear because diplomats shake hands.

I do believe shipping traffic will eventually return. Commerce always finds a way because governments can wage war but businesses still need to move goods. Yet do not mistake this as the finale of the conflict. The war cycle points toward increasing geopolitical volatility into 2027. Markets are celebrating the reopening of Hormuz because they are focused on next week’s oil prices. The cycle is looking much further ahead. As long as the underlying disputes remain unresolved, this agreement risks becoming another ceasefire that lasts only until the next catalyst appears.

For years, South Africa’s rolling blackouts became a symbol of national decline. Businesses bought generators. Families planned their lives around power schedules. Factories lost production. Politicians blamed everyone but themselves. Now, after years of crisis, South Africa has achieved something many thought impossible. The country recently passed 300 consecutive days without load-shedding, and Eskom’s energy availability factor has climbed to nearly 66%. Diesel spending has fallen dramatically, and for the first time in years the power grid is no longer the country’s biggest economic problem.

The IMF projects South African GDP growth of just 1.0% in 2026. Even more troubling, real GDP per person has fallen from roughly $5,954 in 2010 to about $5,715 in 2024. After fourteen years, South Africans are approximately 4% poorer on a per-capita basis despite commodity booms, government plans, infrastructure spending, and now an improving electricity system.

This is where governments consistently misunderstand economics. They identify a visible problem and assume solving it will automatically create prosperity. It rarely works that way. South Africa’s blackouts were certainly damaging, but they were never the sole cause of economic stagnation. Weak investment, deteriorating infrastructure, high unemployment, declining productivity, capital flight, and government inefficiency were already undermining growth long before the power crisis reached its peak. The blackouts simply made the deeper problems impossible to ignore.

The labor market tells the real story. Official unemployment has climbed to 32.7%, while youth unemployment has reached an astonishing 45.8%. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, employment reportedly fell by 345,000 jobs. An economy growing at 1% simply cannot absorb a rapidly expanding labor force. Young people entering the workforce find themselves competing for opportunities that often do not exist.

The investment numbers are equally concerning. Gross fixed capital formation stands at just 14.5% of GDP, well below the levels typically seen in emerging economies that experience sustained growth. No country becomes prosperous without investment. Factories, railways, ports, power plants, technology infrastructure, and housing all require capital. When investment remains weak, growth inevitably follows.

Even South Africa’s freight network reveals the problem. Rail volumes have recovered from recent lows, but remain nearly 30% below the levels recorded less than a decade ago. The country may have restored electricity, but moving goods efficiently across the economy remains a challenge. Growth is not merely about producing power. It is about transmitting economic activity throughout an entire system.

What makes South Africa particularly important is that it serves as a warning for many countries facing similar pressures. Around the world, governments are confronting aging infrastructure, rising debt, slowing productivity, demographic challenges, and declining living standards. Politicians continue searching for single solutions to what are fundamentally systemic problems. There is no magic switch that restores prosperity once confidence has been damaged.

The lesson is simple. Electricity matters. Infrastructure matters. But confidence matters more. Capital flows where it feels secure. Investment follows confidence. Jobs follow investment. Living standards follow productivity. South Africa solved the crisis everyone could see. The challenge now is solving the problems that remain hidden beneath the surface.

The lights came back on. The harder task is reigniting economic confidence.

UK Debate Intensifies Over Free Speech and Hate Crime Enforcement Rules

Discussions in the United Kingdom continue over how police handle alleged racist abuse and hate incidents, with critics arguing that enforcement can risk criminalizing speech based on perceptions, while… pic.twitter.com/N5ZCS4hwcc

— Washington Eye (@washington_EY) June 5, 2026

I have said many times that governments in decline always become more concerned with controlling what people say than solving the problems people are complaining about. Britain appears to be following that historical pattern. Reports showing roughly 12,000 arrests annually linked to online communications have ignited a growing backlash against Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the political establishment.

Thirty people are arrested every single day over words. Yet, someone can commit murder on camera and that is overlooked if they are a non-citizen. Non-citizens can violently assault cops on camera. Rape cases have multiplied under the new two-tiered justice system under Starmer. These are FACTS. Sorry if FACTS hurt your feelings.

The Henry Nowak case became a symbol of rage after video footage showed the dying teenager pleading for help while officers focused on allegations made by his attacker, who had accused him of racism. The police arrested Nowak who bled out and died in handcuffs. Cruel injustice shattered the government’s narrative on hate speech. The people have been forced to see the truth, and a growing portion of the population now sees WHY the government demands silence.

Starmer’s approval ratings continue to deteriorate as voters watch economic stagnation, record migration levels, rising crime concerns, and growing restrictions on speech converge at the same time. Civil unrest is growing in Britain as the Nowak case has propelled the cycle of declining confidence.

The timing could not be worse for the government. Britain is struggling with more than £3 trillion in national debt. Economic growth remains weak. Productivity has stagnated for more than a decade. Living standards have failed to keep pace with inflation. The National Health Service is under constant pressure. Crime remains a growing concern in many communities. Against this backdrop, many Britons are asking why the political class appears more focused on monitoring speech than addressing the economic decline unfolding around them.

UK Police just told an elderly man that asking someone to “speak English” could be perceived as a hate crime.
He was partially deaf and simply asked them to speak clearly.
This is not policing. This is the weaponisation of “hate crime” laws against ordinary British people.
While… pic.twitter.com/ssUDZEsRYr

— Right over Left Everytime (@RightSide_Uk) June 8, 2026

(Above: Police threaten to arrest a partially deaf elderly man for hate speech after he asks an immigrant to speak up)

She told her mum that the female cop looked like her real nana (gandmother, who is lesbian). Then the sensitivity police came out in force.
THIS IS WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE UK:
Broad "hate speech"/public order laws (e.g., stirring up hatred, "grossly offensive" communications). UK… https://t.co/iTcnmlMpKM

— The Information Doctor! (@Ram0n_Argila) June 5, 2026

The government has lost control of its carefully constructed narrative. If citizens can be arrested for comments, memes, or controversial opinions posted online, then free speech does not exist. It is forbidden. Take it a step further and question WHY they must silence the public. The video footage of cops arresting a man bleeding out, pleading for help, explained it all.

The issue extends far beyond Britain. Across Europe we are witnessing a steady expansion of laws regulating speech, online content, and digital communications. Governments justify these measures as necessary to combat misinformation, extremism, or hate speech. Critics argue that such powers inevitably expand beyond their original purpose.

What concerns me most is that public trust is evaporating. Governments survive on confidence. Once confidence disappears, every institution comes under scrutiny. Britain is entering a period of economic stress, political polarization, and rising civil unrest. Attempts to suppress debate have ignited the growing fire of resentment. The stronger the pressure applied to public opinion, the greater the reaction eventually becomes.

Back in 2016, when Pokémon Go exploded across the world, I wrote that people should be asking a simple question: why would investors spend billions creating a game that encouraged hundreds of millions of people to walk around with GPS-enabled devices, cameras, and location tracking operating continuously? At the time, most people laughed. They saw a harmless game. What they failed to understand is that in the digital age, data has become more valuable than oil.

Now we are discovering that nearly 30 billion images collected from Pokémon Go users over the past decade helped create one of the most sophisticated three-dimensional mapping systems ever assembled. According to recent reports, Niantic Spatial used those scans to build a visual positioning system capable of allowing robots and drones to navigate even when GPS signals are unavailable. Researchers claim that this technology is now finding applications not only in commercial robotics but potentially in military systems as well.

Think about what has actually happened. Millions of people, children included, believed they were simply catching virtual creatures. In reality, they were helping build an extraordinarily detailed digital reconstruction of the physical world. Every building scanned, every landmark photographed, every street corner mapped became part of a massive geospatial database. Niantic Spatial itself has acknowledged that its system has been trained using more than 30 billion images gathered through years of player participation.

The most remarkable aspect of this story is that the public largely financed and built the database themselves. They supplied the images. They supplied the location data. They supplied the training material and carried the cameras. They volunteered years of labor without realizing they were helping create a valuable artificial intelligence asset. Convince people they are playing a game while simultaneously constructing one of the most comprehensive mapping projects in human history.

What is particularly troubling is that the reports suggest the technology developed from Pokémon Go data may help drones navigate even when GPS signals are jammed or unavailable. Modern battlefields increasingly rely on electronic warfare, with both sides attempting to disrupt satellite navigation systems. By training artificial intelligence on billions of images collected by players around the world, Niantic’s mapping technology allows machines to recognize buildings, roads, landmarks, and terrain visually rather than relying solely on GPS coordinates.

In practical terms, that means a drone could potentially continue operating, identifying its location, and reaching its target even after traditional navigation systems have been disabled. Few participants, if any, could have imagined that hunting for Pokémon would assist government kill machines.

Every smartphone user is contributing to systems far larger than they imagine. Every search query, every location ping, every photograph, every online interaction becomes part of a data ecosystem that can be analyzed, monetized, and repurposed in ways never envisioned when the information was originally collected.

The world is rapidly moving toward a digital infrastructure where everything is mapped, tracked, modeled, and analyzed. The race is no longer merely about information. It is about creating a real-time digital replica of the physical world itself. Pokémon Go may ultimately be remembered as one of the most successful data collection operations in history. Millions thought they were hunting Pikachu. What they were really helping to build was the foundation for a new generation of artificial intelligence, robotics, and autonomous navigation systems. The question is not whether this technology will be used. The question is who will control it once it becomes indispensable.

For years, politicians have been obsessed with tanks, artillery, missiles, and troop counts while the real battlefield has quietly moved into space. The latest reports suggesting that Russian satellites may be capable of disrupting GPS signals on a continental scale should be sending shockwaves through military circles. If these findings prove accurate, then we are looking at a capability that extends far beyond simply making a driver’s navigation system malfunction. GPS is embedded in aviation, shipping, banking, telecommunications, emergency services, power grids, financial transactions, military operations, and virtually every aspect of modern infrastructure.

According to researchers, dozens of GPS interference events detected across Europe since 2019 may have originated from Russia’s EKS satellite constellation. These satellites were originally designed as part of Russia’s missile early-warning system, but testing suggests they may also possess the ability to transmit powerful signals capable of disrupting GPS reception across vast regions. The significance is not whether a disruption lasts a few seconds or a few minutes. The significance is proving the concept works. Once a nation demonstrates it can interfere with navigation systems from orbit, the entire strategic equation changes.

What many fail to appreciate is how dependent modern warfare has become on satellite navigation. Precision-guided weapons rely on GPS. Drones rely on GPS. Aircraft, ships, logistics networks, battlefield communications, and intelligence systems all depend on accurate positioning data. Remove that capability and armies suddenly find themselves operating under conditions that resemble an entirely different century. During the Ukraine conflict, both sides have aggressively pursued electronic warfare, jamming systems, and signal disruption technologies. What appears to be emerging now is the possibility of extending those capabilities far beyond localized battlefields and into continental-scale operations.

Financial markets depend on precise timing synchronization. Cellular networks require timing signals to coordinate traffic. Shipping companies use satellite navigation to move trillions of dollars worth of goods annually. Airlines depend on navigation systems to safely manage thousands of flights every day. Even modern agriculture relies heavily on GPS-guided equipment. The public views GPS as a convenience. Governments and corporations know it has become a critical piece of economic infrastructure.

This development also highlights something I have warned about repeatedly. The next major conflict will not resemble the wars of the twentieth century. Future wars will target infrastructure before populations even realize an attack has occurred. A cyberattack can disable communications. A satellite disruption can interfere with transportation networks. Financial systems can be disrupted electronically. Power grids can be targeted remotely. The battlefield increasingly consists of networks, satellites, data centers, and communications systems rather than simply soldiers crossing borders.

The timing is noteworthy. We are entering the most dangerous phase of the geopolitical cycle. The 2026 Panic Cycle year has already begun exposing vulnerabilities across the global system. Relations between Russia and NATO remain strained. The United States and China are engaged in a rapidly escalating technological competition. Military spending is rising globally. Governments everywhere are preparing for contingencies that most citizens never consider. Space is no longer a peaceful frontier. It has become a strategic domain where the major powers are competing for dominance.

What should concern policymakers is not merely that Russia may possess this capability. The real question is how many nations are developing similar systems. The United States, China, Russia, and other powers have invested heavily in electronic warfare, anti-satellite technology, cyberwarfare, and space-based military assets. Every major power understands that controlling information, communications, and navigation systems may prove more decisive than controlling territory itself.

The primary driver of the rupee’s recent movement has been the conflict between the US-Israel alliance and Iran. India has stated that the conflict has had a “debilitating impact on the global economy and energy supplies.”  As a major importer of oil, India is vulnerable to price shocks and supply chain disruptions. The rupee hit an all-time low primarily due to the war. The currency appears poised to strengthened sharply on the back of falling crude oil prices, if President Donald Trump can at least extract the US from this conflict.

The Reserve Bank of India has actively managed the situation. It has been intervening in the forex market to prevent excessive volatility and has announced specific measures to attract dollar inflows, which has helped stabilize the currency.

The conflict between George Soros and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a clash of ideologies and interests. Soros, a supporter of his “open societies,” and is an outspoken critic of Modi’s Hindu nationalist politics. This has led the BJP to label him a foreign threat attempting to destabilize India by funding opposition parties and critical media.

Soros has openly criticized the Modi government for its policies, which he views as creating a “Hindu nationalist state” and threatening India’s secular fabric. At the World Economic Forum in 2020, he specifically expressed concern over policies in Kashmir and the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). His “open society” ideals fundamentally clash with the BJP’s “Hindu nationalist” agenda.

Nevertheless, George Soros has been funding opposition to Modi and many see this as his political meddling to force his political views upon the world. This has had the realization that people like George Soros and Bill Gates share a specific worldview where they try to alter societies based on personal beliefs.

This dynamic duo seem to believe that solving big global problems (pandemics, climate change, extreme poverty, political instability) is good for everyone, including themselves and their descendants. A world with fewer refugees, more stable democracies, and less disease is a safer, more predictable, and more prosperous world for their businesses and families. This is their egotistic Enlightened Self-Interest.

Both have signed the Giving Pledge (started by Gates and Warren Buffett), committing to give away the majority of their wealth. They argue that if you have been extraordinarily lucky—born in the right country, with the right talents, at the right time—you have a moral obligation to use that wealth to help others, not just pass it to your children.

Unlike traditional charity (feeding the hungry today), Gates and Soros practice strategic philanthropy. They identify a root cause (e.g., malaria is caused by a parasite, weak rule of law enables corruption) and fund targeted interventions. They are not imposing a random opinion; they are imposing what they believe to be the most effective, evidence-based solution. In finance, we call this a crime as market intervention.

Because they “IMPOSE” their personal views upon the world using money instead of military interventions, this is why people get uncomfortable. They don’t have armies or governments, but they have two powerful tools. With tens of billions of dollars, they can fund think tanks, university departments, legal advocacy groups, and media outlets buying the press to boost their images, which Gates is famous for. They can launch global health campaigns (Gates) or pro-democracy civil society organizations (Soros) in dozens of countries simultaneously. This scale can drown out local voices or less-funded alternative views.

They have mastered the Conditional Grants. This is the key. When they give a grant, it almost always comes with strict conditions. For example, the Gates Foundation admits:

“We will give your country $10 billion for vaccines, but you must adopt these specific electronic health records, meet these quarterly reporting metrics, and co-fund the delivery system.”

Soros’ Open Society Foundations states:

“We will fund your anti-corruption NGO, but your advocacy must focus on judicial independence and freedom of information laws, not on economic nationalism or religious identity.”

This is imposing a view. They are using money to buy leverage, requiring recipients to adopt their preferred methodology and priorities. Buying politicians is very anti-democratic and funds the very corruption they claim to oppose.

These tactics are highly controversial, while we don’t criticize a local billionaire for building a hospital, but far too often the strings are hidden. There is just no Democratic Accountability. A government is voted in. A corporate board answers to shareholders. Soros and Gates answer to nobody. They have immense power to shape policy on education (Gates’ early school reform push was widely criticized as a failure that imposed a top-down model) or criminal justice (Soros’ funding for progressive prosecutors has outraged conservatives who see it as importing American ideology into their local elections).

The assumption that a computer programmer (Gates) and a hedge fund manager (Soros) know the best way to run agricultural policy in Tanzania or public health in India can seem deeply condescending. Critics call it a new age of imperial “colonialism”—extracting local problems and forcing solutions designed in Seattle or New York. They may not be kings seated on a throne, but they have self-anointed themselves to oversee the world.

Critics note that Gates made his fortune with monopolistic business practices that crushed competitors, and Soros made his by speculating on currency devaluations (e.g., “breaking the Bank of England” in 1992). They argue it’s galling for these men to now pose as the world’s moral architects.

Why Do They Do It?
From their perspective, they have unique resources, a clear view of the most urgent global problems, and a moral duty to act on their evidence-based beliefs. Not acting, they’d argue, would be irresponsible.

From a neutral perspective, they trying to shape the world according to their values. They simply have an almost unimaginable amount of money to do it with. The debate is whether their specific values (liberal democracy, scientific rationalism, globalism) and methods (top-down, conditional funding) are beneficial or harmful.

From a critical perspective, they are unelected oligarchs using tax-free foundations to override local democracies and impose a narrow, technocratic worldview that serves the interests of global capital under the guise of altruism. Merely having the resources to act, and the pretense of modern philanthropy allows them to impose conditions on their gifts. This is not a heroic problem-solving venture, but a problematic power-grabbing agenda that all depends on their character.

An example of someone imposing their views on another country is none other that Carl Christian Schurz (1829-1906) who was a refugee from Germany fleeing to the USA after their failed 1848 European Revolution. It was Schurz who deliberately sought political power in the USA to impose what he failed to achieve in Germany. They became known as the Forty-Eighters. Schurz became an adviser to Abraham Lincoln and  recommended Lincoln enter the American Civil War.

Schurz was a crucial asset to Lincoln, primarily for his ability to mobilize the German-American vote, a key constituency for the Republican Party, which at the time was counting on the refugees from the 1848 European Revolution. In recognition of Schurz’s efforts during the 1860 campaign, Lincoln appointed him as Minister to Spain in 1861.

Once the war began, Schurz was eager to serve directly, initially requesting to raise a cavalry regiment. The correspondence between them shows Lincoln actively managing Schurz’s career, hoping to make him a brigadier general over German regiments.

In this sense, you have a non-American, seeking to gain political access, to instigate the civil war after failing and having to flee from Germany as was the case for Karl Marx. This immigration is what infected the United States with Marxist theories that fermented during the second half of the 19th century. Many in Europe today see the vast influx of immigrants, especially into Britain, which has altered its very culture and character.

PRIVATE BLOG – Iran & Peace Deal

Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.

https://ask-socrates.com/