by Igor Chudov, Activist Post:
Unless you have lived under a rock for the last several years, you probably heard the famous prediction from the World Economic Forum:
As the idea of being happy while owning nothing sounds ridiculous to many of us, the fact-checkers tended to write this forecast off as another futuristic fantasy of the WEF, needlessly amplified by crazy right-wing conspiracy theorists.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Far from it, plans to “make us happy and own nothing,” with the definition of happiness tightly conforming with the priorities of the globalist world masters, are well underway, as this recent WEF agenda article exemplifies:
What is “Well-being,” and What Is the Problem?
According to Merriam-Webster, well-being is the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous:
Despite a simple one-sentence definition, the true meaning of happiness is elusive. This is because happiness is deeply individual – as we are wonderfully different.
A retired homebody may be happy staying home and watching TV all day. A young globetrotter would find such life most unappealing and will yearn for new impressions and chances to meet exotic people and visit scenic places. An activist, for example, a climate activist or an antivaxxer, would be the happiest fighting for their favorite cause while amidst a community of like-minded people. (I belong to the latter category and thank each of you for being with me.)
The people in the collage below are happy, and yet what makes them happy is completely individual:
Can we measure the above persons’ happiness — their well-being — using the same exact scale for each of them? I hope you, my dear reader, would agree that it would be crazy to apply a one-size-fits-all scale of happiness to everyone!
And yet, this is what the WEF and its ideological parent, the Club of Rome, want. In its book Earth 4 All, the Club of Rome defines well-being as:
Conspicuously missing from the definition of well-being is freedom and choice.
That omission is not accidental.
The Club of Rome suggests that instead of focusing on the GDP, our leaders should define “wellbeing” in the same way for everyone — and then strive to maximize it.