You Will Own Nothing And Be Happy | What The WEF & Klaus Schwab Really Mean With Carol Roth
The New York Times bestselling author and entrepreneur investigates what would happen if a new financial world order took hold, one in which global elites own everything and you own nothing—and yet you are somehow happy.
When Carol Roth first heard that one of the World Economic Forum’s predictions for 2030 was “You will own nothing, and be happy,” she thought it was an outlandish fantasy. Then, she researched it. What she found was that a number of businesses, governments, and global elites share a vision of a future that sounds utopian: Everyone will have everything they need, and no one will own anything.
From declines in home and vehicle ownership to global inflation and government spending, many of the trends of modern life reveal that a new world that is emerging—one in which Western citizens, by choice or by circumstance, increasingly do not own possessions or accumulate wealth. It’s the perfect economic environment for the rich and powerful to solidify their positions and prevent anyone else from getting ahead.
In You Will Own Nothing¸ Roth reveals how the agendas of Wall Street, world governments, international organizations, socialist activists, and multinational corporations like Blackrock all work together to reduce the power of the dollar and prevent millions of Americans from taking control of their wealth. She shows why owning fewer assets makes you poorer and less free. This book is essential guide to protecting your hard-earned wealth for the coming generations.
So you will own nothing, as you probably know, is a phrase that comes out of the World Economic Forum, their 2030 projection, eight predictions for 2030.
And the number one prediction is you'll own nothing and you'll be happy.
And so when you first hear about this, being somebody like me who's very common sense and spends a lot of time on social media and hears a lot of things that aren't really true, I'm kind of like, yeah, there's no way that this organization that is littered with the political elite and business elite and all these other powerful people are predicting the end of private property in like seven years.
There must be some mistake.
And you go and you look at the research, which by the way is not very difficult to do.
And there it is out in the open.
You know, this video where the number one prediction is, as we said, you'll own nothing, you'll be happy.
And then when you do more research, you note that the World Economic Forum actually likes to recycle and repackage ideas.
So this has been around for quite some time.
The video came out in 2018 and was shared by the WF on Twitter.
But there was an article that predated that in 2016, where some of those concepts were coming out that I don't own anything and look at how great my life is.
And then in 2017, they did a video that says, can you rent everything that you need in your life?
And you're, you know, kind of like a library where you're going to check out, I guess, everything that you need.
And so this was an idea that they have been trying to seed in different ways.
And as somebody who comes from the industry of helping people create wealth and opportunity, one of the things I know at the center is that the way that wealth is created is via ownership, very specifically ownership of assets that have the opportunity to at least maintain their value, but hopefully appreciate in value.
So the idea that people are predicting that we're not going to have these wealth creation opportunities didn't really sit right with me.
And then you go to their number two prediction, which is the U.S. will no longer be the world's superpower.
And you start getting into something that sounds like another conspiracy, a new world order, a new financial world order, which again, if you go and you do the research, you will see people like our current president, Joe Biden, has talked about this.
And it's on his remarks to the business roundtable in March of 2022 that talk about this are on the White House's website right now.
So you can go see it.
And he says very clearly, you know, there's going to be a new global economic order, a new order overall.
It happens every three to four generations.
And then, of course, he says, you know, there will be a new world order out there and we've got to lead it.
Now, I don't know who he thinks we are.
He was talking to the business elite.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not included in that we, and you probably aren't either.
But you're included.
You are.
Well, congratulations on being part of the global elite.
We can talk about that too and your plans.
But, you know, it was really clear to me, because this new sort of global financial order does happen on a regular basis.
Our run is about 80 years old.
And before us, it was the British.
And before the British, it was the Dutch.
So these things happen throughout history.
And all the people who are really smart and connected, it's pretty clear, are talking about these things.
They're understanding these things.
And as I dug deeper, it was really clear that they see these shifts coming financially.
And so what they're doing now is they're jockeying to come out on top and control every resource.
Because right, if you see a shift happen, you could just hope it works out for you.
Or you could, if you're in a position of power, try to influence Influence that.
And in the process of that, if they own everything, you will own nothing.
And how clever of them to try to get you to buy into that upfront and say that you will be happy about it.
Because I'm pretty sure if I check my history, every time people haven't owned things, they were not only unfree, they were pretty unhappy.
So there are different sort of sets of individuals that I've grouped into three buckets.
Certainly, the Fed and the U.S. government are trying really hard to hold on to their positions of power and to, if it's not own things, at least set their friends up to own things so that they can keep that power position.
And a lot of the things that are taking away your ability to create wealth and to have that ownership are certainly squarely coming, the call is coming from inside the house, so to speak.
Then there's sort of this broad range of what I call bad actors.
And it's everybody from the World Economic Forum and the big business elites and other NGOs that are working again to make sure the people who are connected with them come out on top.
And then the third bucket, it just has to stand alone is big tech, because the way that big tech has evolved is really, you know, not sort of in a capitalistic way.
It's a very monopolistic or oligarchistic kind of way, because there are only a handful of choices that you have in big tech for everything.
And, you know, as you sort of alluded to, what they're looking to do is to take your life and the things that you have and to rent them back to you as a subscription or a service.
And so ultimately, they are the ones who are seeking the rents and gaining the ownership and the benefit while you become the person that's just beholden to them and continually paying for that.
So obviously, this would be a challenging battle for us if we had any one of those groups that we had to push back against at one point in time.
But right now, we have to push back on all of them.
So it really makes it a, you know, sort of all-out financial war.
And it's kind of weird if you think about it, because when you think about war in a historical context, it was always a country and those leaders, and they dominate somebody else.
They dominate another country and they seek their resources and their people's resources and they confiscate them.
But in this case, many of these entities are right here at home.
So it's, you know, our own government and the people who are connected who are coming to take our resources.
And so it takes on a little bit of a different flavor than maybe what we were used to.
This is something I've been struggling with, because obviously I follow the World Economic Forum and everything that they say is exceedingly alarming to me.
But what is the actual source of the World Economic Forum's power?
I have a hard time seeing how it's more than like a glorified think tank.
Yeah, but I mean, if you couldn't, if you're trying to cast a villain in a Bond movie, you wouldn't come up with a more perfect casting.
I mean, it's just incredible.
And when you look at him, you know, he looks like a crazy Yahoo.
It's like amazing how he has been entrenched in sort of in these areas.
When he first started it, it was called the European Management Forum.
And while his core ideas have always been the same, he's always been talking about stakeholders instead of shareholders.
The idea that some group of people can influence versus the people who actually own something, that idea has been core since the early 1970s.
Things really evolved for him as sort of politics and geopolitical situations came to pass in the mid 70s.
And so more political people started to get involved.
And I think that the reality is that it did kind of start out as this kind of networking scenario.
But as he's tried to push these ideas and people have come together to share ideas, I think that as the global stakes have shifted, that has been sort of the center piece of them trying to carry water back into governments, back into the business realm.
And I don't think that everybody who's involved actually knows what they're doing.
I think that they see the benefits of going and connecting and having a boondoggle and being seen as part of some elite group.
And so even the people who are carrying back bad ideas like ESG is a huge one.
A lot of the people I call the useful idiots and to some extent the profiteers either don't know what's going on or just trying to make some money off of it.
And so I don't think there it's like the cabal where like it's like they even know that like we're part of this evil thing.
We just know that things are changing.
Here's a way for me to like angle in and to kind of get get what I can.
And, you know, it just kind of comes down to fundamental human nature of greed and power and not any sort of principles or even necessarily an intention behind it.
So I could be wrong, but I did some research into Klaus Schwab, and I'm sure you found that he's a sort of a notoriously difficult person to find any real background on.
He seems to sort of have manifested out of out of hell.
But when I looked into his dad, it seemed like his dad was seriously involved in Nazi research into nuclear weaponry.
And so the reality is I have heard similar things in terms of his father's background, but also I don't hold people accountable for what their family members believe in.
And, you know, I'm Jewish, so this is obviously a very sensitive subject for me, but he's certainly nuttier than a jar of peanut butter.
He certainly has done things to put himself in this position of power, and he has surrounded himself with the right people.
I've also heard, and this is, I'll just be upfront, this is complete speculation.
I've not done the research on it, but that he was a protege of Henry Kissinger as well and that he was part of the group.
But again, that just being straightforward is just something that I've heard.
I have not done the research on it because for me, what's happening and the plan to fight back is sort of my area of expertise versus, you know, how did he sort of come to be?
But, you know, if you know James Lindsay, I bet he has the answer to that because he's done a deep dive there.
So he would be a good resource to kind of find out more about this, how this crazy person came to pass.
Yeah, it's really interesting how this seemingly inconsequential person has put himself in a position where annually he's shaking hands with the most powerful people in the world.
So this has become, you know, they have a $300 million US dollar equivalent budget and the US both, you know, under the Trump.
administration although they cut back i think some of it and you know um obama and biden you know we're paying millions of dollars a year to help fund him and while he you know wants to tell you how we need more equity and you know ceos are paid too much he also takes a salary um that's reported to be one million swiss francs which is about equivalent on par with the u.
dollar right now.
So a million dollars a year, plus all whoever, who knows what else is going on in that power circle, plus this, you know, entity is funded.
But I will say in terms of perseverance, you know, the fact that the same ideas that he's been pushing them since the early 1970s, I think 71, just the level of perseverance that I am going to make this particular set of ideas happen and let things grow out that, you know, come from this core thing of mine is pretty staggering.
And so, you know, as we know, sometimes just perseverance and time allows you to rise into those positions and connecting powerful people around you with you at the center also puts you in that position.
But the crazy thing about them, and again, to try to take some of the conspiracy thing out of the discussion is when I'm looking into any of these kind of ideas and concepts, their name pops up over and over again, as by the way, does one of their allies, the United Nations.
And when you see the same names pop up a couple times, you can dismiss that as coincidental.
But when like every single time you look into something, they're near it.
It kind of is hard to believe it's a coincidence.
And you'll also find that language like reshaping and transforming and rethinking anything.
I mean, even food.
Yeah, everything is in that same kind of language.
So when you hear that pop up, this has happened many, many times.
Somebody says, oh, you know, there's this concept about reshaping this or reimagining or re, and I'm like, oh, is the WEF involved?
And they're like, yeah, how did you know?
Like, because this is their shtick.
And unfortunately, I mean, you know, we're in a situation right now where the new CEO of Twitter was an executive chair.
And the first language she comes out with is that she wants to help transform Twitter.
And it's like, oh, come on, you're not helping yourself here.
You know, this is not what people wanted to see, that connection between that person and the World Economic Forum.
I mean, this is a great, trying to get into the mind of Elon Musk is, you know, right.
Yeah, that could be a whole other thing.
But my guess is, you know, he's obviously one of the first challenges that he had is turning off the advertising community.
And certainly he overpaid for the business.
It's one that leads a lot of money.
And so it needs some good revenue sources.
I don't think Twitter Blue was the runaway success that he imagined it would be, or at least as quickly.
And this is, again, all speculation, but just, you know, based being a business person, sort of my guess.
So she kind of pitched, hey, I'm a power broker in the advertising community, which she absolutely is.
And she has all these connections.
And I think there was sort of a thought like it will look like there's an adult at the table for the advertisers who have left Twitter en masse to feel comfortable and she can kind of create that connection and drive that revenue piece.
And he said, and again, that's kind of where she's going to be focused.
She's not going to be as focused on product or whatever.
But from that standpoint, why not make her the head of advertising or the head of revenue?
And, you know, there are people who are bringing about the new financial world order, some of them intentionally and some of them unintentionally.
But certainly, you know, China and Russia are actively doing things like de-dollarizing and they really want to affect that change because they believe it's going to benefit them and it's going to take somebody like the United States down a peg.
But I think a lot of it is just history.
I mean, you've got the Fed and the government, as you mentioned, the things that they have done with currency debasement and the eroding of purchasing power and the taking on of lots of debt.
And it threatens their power structure.
I mean, lots of debt and power are completely at odds with each other because they're sort of running out of ways to continue their expansion.
And, you know, it's at the end of the line.
And so I think a lot of it is as you get late stage in the financial cycle, those same kinds of things happen.
And so they are bringing it about in some ways unintentionally.
And as all of this is happening, I think a lot of it is just that jockeying to come out on top is saying, you know, this is something that we can do today that we wouldn't have been able to do, you know, 50 years ago because the financial foundation and situation was very different.
But now that we're like nearing this period of potential chaos, we've got to make sure that we're prepared for that.
I think the outlier in all of this is big tech.
And it's really interesting because if you think about the evolution of technology over time, it really has not only made our lives better, I think, net net, but also helped to create more broad wealth for people.
And I think this latest iteration of technology, where you have for many things that have really become basic infrastructure, just a few choices.
Apple and Alphabet have more than 99% of the operating system control in the entire world.
Not a lot of freedom, not a lot of choice there, not a lot of capitalism, somebody being able to come in and compete.
And the operating systems on your phones, kind of the gateway to everything.
So I think that this last iteration of big tech has really shifted and has changed the opportunities to create wealth broadly and really consolidate that.
And I think we need to look at that shift in a different way, which, as somebody who is more free market-oriented, is an interesting, different lens, I think, to put on something.
It's not even like a point of speculation from, you know, it just seems odd to me that all these actors are sort of on the same page about the Ukraine thing.
Yeah, no, I mean, again, I think that there's certainly something with the shifting of alliances and the positioning for that in the global future.
One of the challenges we face, which is not in the book, but in a recent piece that I've done, is that our alliance as the United States, our partners are really, really weak.
I call them the kids in the group project, where we're the ones that do all the work and they're the ones who just like hang around for the A. And they're very much also paper tigers.
And if you look at what they've done in terms of their energy policy and the fact that they're not energy independent, don't have the resources to even turn that around, their aging demographics, their money printing, because the ECB's done quite a lot, as has the Bank of Japan.
It's not just the United States and the Fed.
They're not really going to be strong allies.
They're not positioned for strength going forward.
These are not really exciting growth empires, so to speak.
They're on the decline.
So as you have the world reshifting and you have the BRICS Plus sort of emerging, it's really concerning to not just what's happening in the United States, but the people that we have partnerships with.
And ultimately, they may have to leave the alliance because of their energy dependence and the cost of the dollar and all those kinds of things.
So I don't think it really positions us for strength in that new scenario either.
Yeah, so that's part of the case that I make in general about good ideas and bad outcomes, because I think in principle, these are things that we all agree with.
Environment, we all want to be good stewards of the planet.
We don't want to see it go up in a ball of flames.
Pretty much everyone agrees to that.
Diversity is a wonderful thing.
People who have diverse inputs and diverse experiences add a lot of context to businesses and other outcomes.
Having strong governance is a good thing for company.
Like nobody disagrees with this.
But the idea that some group of people get to codify what it means and hilariously, their codification is vague so that they can shift and change what it means depending on their whim.
You know, the Ukraine example is a great one where at one point in time, weapons were anti-ESG.
It was very bad for your ESG score to be related to weapons.
But now we need to arm Ukraine.
So we should probably ship that and say that's a good thing.
So we can direct capital in that way.
It changes with the whim.
And the question is who gets to decide?
And particularly in companies where this concept of stakeholder is nonsense.
It's their stakeholders.
They have no stake in the business, that the stakeholders are the shareholders, the people who have ownership, as well as the employees and the customers.
And that's what companies should be focused on, not some outside group that is using the equivalent of business social credit in order to bully them in order to say, if you want to get capital and you want to be successful, you have to fall in line with whatever it is that we say at this point in time.
And we have self-appointed us, the arbiters of what's right, what's good, what's moral for your business that we know nothing about and that we actually don't have a stake in.
Or even if we do have a stake, there are other stakeholders that need to be considered as well.
And so that's a very concerning piece of this.
The other problem with ESG is that it's also in many cases.
So you've got the business social credit piece.
And then there's sort of the scam piece of it.
There are all of these companies and funds that are slapping ESG labels on things to extract more fees.
So this started very heavily in the financial services industry.
BlackRock, which is the largest asset manager in the world who has very deep ties to the WEF and who has been sort of kind of at the center of forcing this basically on the business community in the US because they do have access, not their own money, to other people's money that they're leveraging and using to hold these companies, in my opinion, hostage.
You know, a lot of that is slapping labels on things and saying, oh, well, this is ESG.
And so we can charge a higher fee than something that's just your plain vanilla fund.
And you see it across the board.
If you go and you look at, and I have an example in the book, some of these funds, you'll look at them and you'll like, well, why is this not just like a big cap fund?
What is it about this that makes it ESG?
And then you had one of the rating agencies drop Tesla from their ESG index, but they have ExxonMobil, not because the company isn't environmentally sound, but they don't like what Elon Musk has been saying and doing in his defense of free speech.
So that, again, is business social credit.
We're going to punish you because you're not falling in line.
You have wrongthink and we're going to use that and we're going to hold your company and all of its shareholders hostage because you're not falling in line.
And so it's very, very scary.
And kind of layered on top of that is you have the Biden administration.
They have come out with a rule that now says that fund managers don't have to do their fiduciary duty, do not have to keep your financial interests at heart when they make choices in managing retirement funds, that they can prioritize ESG over what you're doing.
So if we tie that back to you alone, nothing, right?
You have the capital allocation that could be killing not only your business, but resources like energy that we need to flourish, traditional energy sources.
And then we have the decisions that are made to increase your wealth that you've earned and allocated to retirement funds.
And they're going to say, no, we're going to prioritize something else for our benefit.
And the scariest part is that so many people who are involved with this have never heard of the WEF, don't know where ESG was started and how it came about, and are just running around doing everything they can to protect it because they're profiting from it.
So it's a frightening thing.
Now, we do have some pushback from some of the states, which is encouraging, but this is just one of many big battles that we have to fight.
So one of the things that I want to point out about the book is that it's meant to empower you to know where all of these challenges are coming from.
And then it's meant to give you a plan to fight back.
Because if you don't know all the different areas that you need to be looking at, it's hard to create and affect that plan, but it's not meant to be a hopeless scenario.
We individually cannot stop financial orders from happening.
Like it's going to happen.
History dictates that it happens.
The U.S. will not be at the global pool of the financial universe for all of time.
What we can do is hopefully slow it down and maybe massively slow it down.
And what we can also do is put ourselves in a position that if things do shift and usually there's a period of chaos that happens as one sort of financial order is going away and another one is coming to bear, that we can put ourselves in the best position from both a behavioral standpoint and a financial standpoint to be able to push back.
And obviously the specific way you do that is going to be different depending on where the threat's coming from.
And I've laid out lots and lots of different areas that you need to be thinking about.
But let's take something that we haven't really talked about, the CBDC, a central bank digital currency, which is where the government is trying along with the Fed to completely consolidate the power and ownership over your money, so much so where they can track it.
So imagine you have a dollar bill that has a microchip in it.
And Chase, you go to your favorite burger place and you go and you want to buy a burger and you're going to pay for it.
And they say, oh, sorry, we've scanned the microchip and the government said you've had too many burgers this month and burgers are bad for the environment.
So we're just going to cut it off completely.
Well, you need to be thinking in that particular scenario, if the government is going to continue to consolidate money about mediums of exchange, things that you can use to exchange and get the goods and services you need that may be outside of the system, as well as stores of value.
Because as you correctly identified, you have this debasement of the currency.
And if they have a CBDC, it's going to be even worse because they're probably going to say, well, instead of having this dollar, I'm going to give you four digital dollars.
Wouldn't that be great?
Most people don't have the financial wherewithal to understand that all that does is just debase the pricing of each individual digital dollar.
So they're going to be like, oh, that's great.
I'm going to get four.
I'm going to be a millionaire.
So I think you need to be thinking about something like that.
So that may be where taking more of your money over time, putting it into things like precious metals.
Some people think cryptocurrency and Bitcoin fits that bill.
It's not sort of my area of expertise, but certainly worth exploring if it's in your area of expertise, other hard assets like productive land, things that are going to allow you to have that store of value.
And then for mediums of exchange, what are you going to be able to barter?
What are you going to be able to use, whether it's smaller amounts of gold and silver or Bitcoin or product, maybe it's like guns, ammo, baby formula, whatever it is that you can use to barter during a period that if they try to shut down your financial access, that you and your community still have the ability to get the goods and services that you need.
I think that's a, yeah, that's a really good insight.
Think about the time we're in now where we have inflation, right?
And so the Fed is using its tools to try to fight inflation, which we could go into a whole story about why that doesn't make any sense, but we'll just run, we'll just, we'll just accept that for now.
Now, imagine their new tool is that they have access to everybody's money.
Say, well, we're going to shut down inflation.
We do that by controlling spending.
So we're just going to limit access to everybody's money and we're just not going to let you spend.
And they just shut it down because they need to control inflation.
And that in effect, right, creates a rationing situation because, you know, there's only so many dollars to go around.
Or as, you know, obviously rationing can come in other directions, but it is that centralized control that lets them do things that are very nefarious.
And while five or 10 years ago, I might have said, well, you know, that could happen, but it's probably not likely, having lived through the COVID era and seen the things that were done that were against your individual rights and non-constitutional, it's not much of a leap to think that even if it starts somewhere else, that that's eventually where it ends up, that the temptation to have that power of control and to pull those levers are too great.
And so, certainly, I think that UBI, devaluing the currency by bribing people to get in, being able to control inflation, all these things that they shouldn't have central planning control over and takes us very far away from the individual liberties, let alone the wealth creation opportunities that we have, are very realistic.
I'm concerned, in the context of my limited understanding of history, that I can't think of an extended period of time in which corruption like this and power conglomeration like this was peacefully reversed.
But what I'll tell you is that not every war brings about a new financial world order, but every new financial world order in modern times has been preceded by war.
And the reality is, and I think this is exactly what you were homing in on: is that the people who have the power and control aren't going to give that up.
And so, if things are going to shift, there needs to be a catalyst and there needs to be a cover, you know, whether it's from a revolutionary standpoint, whether it's, hey, we need this in order to reset this because the debt situation on a global basis has gotten out of control, whether it's China taking advantage of, you know, just kind of the shifting situation and the weakness in the G7, there are all different ways that could come about.
But I think that is a very realistic consideration as a mark for a shift in the new financial world order, just based on history rhyming, because it gives an opportunity, gives several opportunities, right?
It gives this chaos period and people saying, do something.
It gives a cover for these countries to come together and iron out a new plan.
And, you know, it's a challenging situation, but that's the reality of how it's worked before.
So I think it's possible.
You know, being in this technological age that we're in now, it's possible that maybe that doesn't happen.
And it is something that relates to this digitization that's the catalyst.
But it's much easier when you have the war.
And oh, by the way, you also then, after the war, have the rebuilding period, which creates, unfortunately, prosperity for those who are doing the rebuilding.
So I think it's not a guarantee, but it's certainly something that should be considered along the way and something that people should think about as you prepare.
Hey, this is probably not like the likely outcome that's going to necessarily happen, but what do we do in this scenario?
What do we do in this scenario?
And having that diversification of assets, having things that you can control and kind of having free thought about this will help you because when it happens, it's going to be a big shock to a lot of people.
And if you've already gone through that process and gone and kind of gotten through it and thinking about the next steps, it's going to let you kind of move more quickly.
It's going to put you in the pulled position and help to prepare you and hopefully preserve some of the hard-earned wealth that you've created for your family.
And, you know, in that particular case, it could be a matter of life and death.
This next question I want to ask you may be beyond the scope of your research, but I was very intrigued to listen to the episode of Joe Rogan's podcast where he had guest Peter Zihan on.
And I'm not sure if you took the time to watch that or if you've studied any of his work, but he basically made the claim that China is doomed in the next 10 to 20 years because their population is aging so rapidly.
Does that play into this at all?
Do you think he's right?
Is China a threat?
Are they more threatening if they're vulnerable like that?
What do you, what are your thoughts on his interpretation of the out of the outcome over the next 20 years?
And so I do, there are a lot of people who think that China is the great superpower and the great threat and that everyone's going to rush into their currency, which, you know, for me, it's kind of hard to believe that people want the currency of a communist country.
You know, as much as you don't trust what the U.S. does, you would have even less trust for China.
Part of the reason why they're offering some gold settlements in some of the trading that they're doing outside of dollars right now.
But yes, you know, the people who I don't, China's got a big problem and it's also very self-imposed.
And it does relate to their demographics and the fact that they have all these people who are retiring.
And then you have all of these younger people who are mostly male because of the one China policy and don't have mates.
And, you know, their financial trajectory is a really, really bad one.
I think that's part of why they have done their Belt and Road initiative.
I'm not sure if that's something that you're familiar with.
But basically, the Belt and Road is where China is making investments in all different kinds of countries and particularly emerging areas around the world.
And, you know, it's supposed to be to create this cooperation and whatnot.
But we've seen in places like Africa where they go in and they maybe build an airport or build a port and some infrastructure, and then the country can't pay.
And guess who takes it over?
China.
So they're certainly aware that it's an issue.
And I think that makes them more explosive and vulnerable to try to lash out and to try to conquer while they can.
It also makes them very vulnerable to an internal revolution because when you have a lot of young men who don't have partners and for life, that's never been a really great thing either.
So I do think that they're incredibly troubled.
And so the question is: does that mean that they fizzle out?
Or does that mean that they also lash out in their last ditch effort to try to control things and create a mess in their wake that we have to get through?
Either way, I do kind of think it's hard for them, at least in any sort of realistic period of time, to be the sole superpower of the world, but certainly not impossible.
But I think that's one of the things that we need to really take away here is when we go back and we study these other financial global leaders, the people who are in the pole position in the global economy, the head of the financial world order.
As they were on the decline, there was already always that sort of next heir getting ready to step in and take their place.
As the Dutch, you know, were imploding, London was emerging as a financial center, as by the way, was France.
So it was kind of between the two of them.
And ultimately, based on some wars and things like that, the British ultimately won out.
And then they had this period of prosperity and the Industrial Revolution, whatnot.
And they were also obviously a big protector of property rights.
That's something that really kind of came from them originally.
And then as they kind of went on the decline, then you had the United States that had emerged as sort of the global center of the universe.
And so it was very kind of easy to say, okay, well, that was going to be the next place.
The challenge that we're faced with as we look at us in the late innings.
And one of the things we never know is duration.
You know, this could happen in three months, but it could happen in 30, 50, 100 years.
We don't know.
We just see that we're late innings somewhere.
But there is no sort of obvious air.
There's no bastion of freedom and capitalism and protection of great person to step in here.
The places that are emerging as power centers are even more tyrannical and dictatorial than the United States is trending right now.
So that not only sets up a really scary scenario, but should give everybody the fortitude to say, we got to work really hard to turn this around and to save America because it's not just for your own selfish benefit, but really for the benefit of the globe, not turning into a really dark period of history because the next set of potential heirs look really frightening.
This is not a new hope for tomorrow.
So that should give people hopefully a little bit more of a push to get informed and empower themselves and to really, you know, put work into preserving what we can for as long as we can.
So I spend most of my time on Twitter, although people never see my tweets anymore.
That's one of the sad things.
The algorithm needs to be killed and re, but if you hit notifications, I think that works at Carol JS Roth.
And then the book, You Will Own Nothing.
You can pre-order it now wherever you get your books.
I tell people Amazon's great for rankings.
Bookshop.org is great to support small businesses.
If you can buy it from a local bookstore in your community, that's great.
But whatever it is to get it to you, this is a really important read to empower yourself with knowledge, to help you be able to explain these concepts to other people who are going, no, that's, you know, that's a conspiracy theory.
And then to have this plan to fight back.
And I want people to take action because the global elite may want you to own nothing, but I want you to own everything.
