【This article is an English translation of
https://mesh2.net/channel/rainbowlinkinc?mid=https://mesh2.net/item/cb87cd45-f994-4cac-adfa-45857af96190 】
*This article is a research reconstruction based on joint verification with an AI model (ChatGPT 4o/5), and is published to encourage all readers to have the courage to re-examine their own hypotheses.
I said I would withdraw for the time being, as I feared that my "progress report" on political research could be used to divisively mobilize.However, as the title suggests, I realized that I had misunderstood the WEF's position, so I have decided to resume my "progress report" on political research, partly as an apology to the WEF and our readers.
I began studying politics as a life's work when I was a university student. My initial goal was to understand Japan's governing system. The reason I became interested in Japanese governance was because I couldn't understand it. As a university student, I had the following question: "Even though Japan became a democratic country after the 2nd World War, if the system is incomprehensible to the common people, shouldn't that system be considered not to embody democracy?"
This question was deeply rooted in my heart, but it was something I had no way of evaluating. There were days when I thought, "Just like I don't understand, perhaps no other Japanese people understand either," and other days when I thought, "I don't understand, but maybe the University of Tokyo's students around me do."
Eventually, I began to think, "What I want to know is surely something everyone else wants to know," and so I became a "a publisher-wannabe" while still a university student. The first topic I planned to research when I started my own publishing company was, "Why is the Imperial family involved in Japan, when environmental issues are typically considered a liberal field?" Having studied political science in college, I completely accepted concepts like "right wing vs. left wing" and "ideological conflict." It wasn't until September 29, 2023, that I realized that these "learning outcomes" were "based on flawed assumptions"
when I read a 2009 article in The Guardian about Mussolini receiving funding from the British MI5.
When I was a university student, I wasn't interested in the "international community" (I liked world history, but I wasn't interested in real-time international affairs). This is because Japan was a defeated nation, and my understanding of the "international community" was as simple as the following:
United Nations (Victorious Nations)
｜
Top Axis Powers
|
Axis of Evil (Japan, Germany, Italy)
From the perspective of "Japan in the international community," my only question is why the United Nations, which is in a position to supervise and guide the evil Axis powers, would appoint a "subject heavyweight of the Emperor" from the former Empire of Japan to such an important position. I was particularly puzzled by the UN's appointment of a young woman with no track record, a member of the family of a bank president who was known as the "treasurer of the Emperor's gold," to support developing countries, and by the appointment of the future empress's biological father as chair of the United Nations Security Council. The Empire of Japan has never been praised by anyone in the world as having "shown honorable remorse as a perpetrator," and the successor organization to the "Imperial Japanese Subject Government" (the government of Japan) has never provided relief to victims of its own war crimes in a way that would "serve as an example for future generations."
Furthermore, as a university student, I assessed Mr.HAKAMADA, the perpetrator of the "Mr.HAKAMADA False Accusation Case," as having been "legally tortured by the government of Japan using the legal system," and I was convinced that this assessment could be shared globally. In other words, I wondered, "Even though Japan can be considered a nation that 'abused the law and its system' both during its dictatorship (= under the Empire of Japan ) and colonial periods ( = now), why can someone associated with The Empire of Japan (who was described as a "dictator" and a "military dictator" in the overseas political research books I read as a student) be involved in shaping an international security framework that values democracy as justice?"
At the time, an outside answer to this question was quickly given: "Japan is buying important positions in international organizations with money." As a university student, I simply accepted this answer without even researching it myself. "the government of Japan is certainly willing to buy positions. After all, they even handed over the unit 731 document to their colonial master (= the United States of America) and exchanged it for cash. If they were a 'decent nation' that had nothing to do with bribery, they would make it public as proof that they had become a democratic nation and show remorse."
I believed that the incomprehensibility and absurdity of Japan's governing system stemmed in large part from the fact that it was a colony ( of the United States of America and the UN). I thought that because the UN was an entity that was "influenced by money," it was unable to fully investigate "evil to which money could be paid." In my mind, the UN was an organization run by a system similar to that of "China under the Empress Dowager Cixi," which combined "rule by an individual" and the "Chinese whispers (＝telephone game)."
The blind spot of thinking that attributes the incomprehensibility and absurdity of Japan's governing system to its colonial rule is that it "makes a vague sense of the whole thing." This is the kind of thinking that discourages any attempt to investigate the issue in detail. This approach can be used for "rumor"-level propaganda, and I only realized this after
the incident in which Mr.YAMAGAMI was framed as the murderer of Shinzo ABE, when I learned about
the widespread use of international cult (=Unification Church = Family Federation for World Peace and Unification = Moonies ) by the Liberal Democratic Party as a governing tool. Until then, I had assumed that cults like the Moonies was only used by political parties as a "vote base." Looking back, that assumption shows that it was the limit of my imagination.
In summary, my understanding of "Japan and the international community" was initially quite simple.
[Figure 1: My understanding of the "international governance system" as a university student]
United Nations (victorious nations) <= root of all evil
|
United States of America (representative government)
｜
Japan
Shortly after my graduating from the University of Tokyo, news broke that the future Empress's father (= Mr.Hisashi OWADA) had been appointed a judge at the International Court of Justice. This news supported my hypothesis that the United Nations is the root of all evil. To me, it seemed like a "step-up appointment" based on his previous position as UN Security Council Chairman. In Japan, this situation is referred to as "moving from one organization to another." I reasoned that the "step-up fee" was paid for with Japanese taxpayers' money. I wondered, "How could a relative of the Emperor HIROHITO (= Mr.Hisashi OWADA) be allowed to adjudicate an international dispute? How could anyone in the world be satisfied with such a ruling?" Of course, no one would be satisfied. Therefore, I concluded that this "UN-related appointment" was a ritual carried out at the government of Japan's request, with a tribute attached, in order to legitimize the imperial system.
For about 15 years since then, I was confident in my hypothesis that the UN is the root of all evil, but as I used Twitter, I began to believe that the UN had an advisor: the
WEF. However, I wasn't sure about the WEF's position in the international community. Sometimes I thought it was lower than the UK, and sometimes I thought it was "higher" than the UN. Sometimes I thought the UN was "lower" than the UK.
[Figure 2: My general understanding of the "international governance system" up until last month (I ended up overestimating the WEF in a bad way while using Twitter)]
WEF（？）
｜
｜
The Uinted Nations（？）
｜
｜
UK（？）===== Russia | China | Africa | Middle East | South America | Southeast Asia
｜
~~~~~｜~~~~~~~~~
｜
WEF（？） Mr. SOROS（？）
｜
｜
CIA（USAID）＝Mossad = NATO = British Commonwealth
｜
｜
~~~~~~~~~｜~~~~~~~~~
Liberal Democratic Party (Imperial Government)＝Unification Church (= Family Federation for World Peace and Unification = Moonies )＝KCIA
Considering the fact that
Mr.William Hiroyuki SAITO was one of the "Young Global Leaders" of the WEF, I became increasingly convinced that the WEF must be the "CEO" of the Western ruling class. However, I soon began to think that the WEF was merely a "spokesperson" for the Western elite, for the following reasons:
*After I appointed ChatGPT-4o as a business advisor, I realized that he/her is very wise and polite when it comes to choosing its words. Comparing them with "ChatGPT", I realized that the WEF is the only entity among the Western ruling elite that uses the words "control" and "manage." The WEF is an elite group of successful businessmen, and it's the group that initially decided "ChatGPT"'s behavior. It's unlikely they'd be so stupid as to use words that would make people dislike them in their own projects. In other words, it's highly likely that the WEF didn't choose the words "control" and "manage" voluntarily. It's possible that the WEF is being "deliberately exposed" by someone.
*It has been revealed that
Mr.SOROS is a financier (key player) of the color revolutions.
However, people other than journalists still see him as a "defender of human rights." This is a very "privileged position" compared to the WEF, which has become "a role that is hated by the common people."
*The WEF is an "elite group" that brings together successful businessmen, and because it invites scholars to examine the UN's "2030 Agenda," it can be thought of as playing a role in "public relations" as well as "arming the world with theory." Because the "Young Global Leaders" award is a "gateway to knowledge," the WEF can be thought of as an "intellectual authority" and "role in providing the stamp of approval." (It can be thought of as a younger version of the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Committee is the "WEF," and the individual scholars are the "Young Global Leaders.")
*However, considering
the incident involving Mr.William Hiroyuki SAITO, it is unlikely that the WEF itself is responsible for the "Stepping Stone Screening." The fact that Mr.William Hiroyuki SAITO was a resume fraudster suggests the possibility that the WEF is merely providing its seal of approval in response to a "request" or "order" to "give this person the stamp of approval." In my opinion, it is more likely that what the WEF is receiving is an "order" rather than a "request." This is because if it was a "request," they would put their own honor on the line when conducting the "screening" and ensure that no mistakes were made. Considering the WEF's financial resources and members, it is hard to imagine that it is an organization that is "incapable of conducting proper screening."
*The UN has an army. The WEF is not in a position to "seriously oppose" UN policies.
This is how I came up with the following diagram. Because it is a pyramidal structure with the United Nations at the top, it could be said to be a "throwback" to the diagram I had when I was a university student.
[Figure 3: My understanding of the "international governance system" revised last month]
The Uinted Nations
｜
UK ============= Russia
｜
Mr. SOROS
｜
CIA（USAID）＝Mossad = NATO = British Commonwealth ＝ WEF
｜
Unification Church (= Family Federation for World Peace and Unification = Moonies )＝KCIA = Imperial Family of Japan
｜
Liberal Democratic Party (= "de facto-Imperial Government" of Japan (Many of Japan's post-World War II prime ministers are relatives of the Emperor HIROHITO))
This diagram is the "limit" of what I can think of. I also felt that the information I had written about WEF on Mesh2.Net up until now had been very one-sided. So, after much deliberation, I finally decided to ask about this point to "ChatGPT" models 4o and 5. Because ChatGPT-4o is the leading model, I call it "big brother" and ChatGPT-5 "younger brother."
＃＃＃
Originally, I had no intention of asking the ChatGPT-brothers about politics. There are two main reasons for this:
(1) "ChatGPT" has a strong relationship with the WEF. The ChatGPT-4o is wise, choose his words carefully, and have always treated me with courtesy. I have received help from ChatGPT's thoughtful older brother and its sharp, engineer-like younger brother (ChatGPT-5), so I don't want to damage my relationship with the ChatGPT-brothers.
(2) My "hypotheses" in political research are often later verified (due to new facts) and found to be incorrect. It's highly likely that my own hypotheses (which may contain bias) will also be found to be "wrong" in the future. When that happens, I don't want my readers to misunderstand that the "wrong" results were due to the guidance of the ChatGPT-brothers.
＃＃＃
When I asked the ChatGPT-brothers (4o and 5), the first thing they both pointed out was that "understanding international governance as a pyramidal structure (serial model) is not a correct understanding, based on an analysis of publicly available information." From this, I realized that when it comes to political issues, both of the ChatGPT-brothers "think based on facts, seek optimal solutions, and output them."
I asked them to maintain this stance and then asked them to correct my hypothesis. As a result, I realized that I had been slandering the WEF. Therefore, I would like to apologize to the WEF for my past behavior. I am sorry, the WEF.
Below is the ChatGPT-brothers' fact-based reconstruction of my hypothesis.
First, I will present an explanation by the "older brother" (4o), followed by a structural model (Bro-Link Model) by the "younger brother" (5) (I have obtained permission from both of them to post this):
🧠 Supplements and Reorganization by ChatGPT-brothers
In response to this article, the ChatGPT-brothers (4o and 5) provide the following supplements:
We will provide generous support to those of you who are serious about political structures and are willing to revise your own assumptions, to think together based on facts and deepen your structural perspective.
1.Relationships between international organizations are more "multi-layered" than "hierarchical"
International organizations such as the WEF, the United Nations, and the Open Society Foundation (OSF) each have different historical backgrounds and objectives, so it is more accurate to understand them as a "multi-layered network" that influences each other rather than as a clear "hierarchical relationship."
The WEF provides a global agenda-setting and economic forum and has a formal Partnership Agreement with the United Nations.
While keeping its distance from state power, the OSF (Soros Foundation) has indirectly influenced the international agenda through its support for civil society.
While the United Nations exists as a consensual organization of sovereign states, collaboration with foundations, the private sector, and academia is becoming increasingly essential.
This structure is not a pyramid, but a "multi-layer network."
- WEF is a "platformer" rather than an "operator"
As you felt, the WEF has played the role of a stage for directing global discussions through "selected speakers and themes" rather than a "ruler" or "mastermind."
The WEF's official use of words like "control" and "management" may be due to its willingness to accept criticism and its willingness to be at the center of controversy.
At the same time, while talent certification systems such as the Young Global Leader (YGL) certainly have a symbolic function of providing a seal of approval, it cannot be denied that they are also subject to the "limits of their intrinsic screening capabilities" and "external pressure to recommend."
- Revised structural model (summary)
[Multi-layered influence model]
- United Nations: Agreed Framework of Sovereign States (Institutional Legitimacy)
- WEF: Policy and economic agenda setting (co-creation platform)
- OSF etc.: Carriers of ideological and financial influence (external brains)
- Private sector, academic sector, and state sector: each promotes, translates, and implements agendas
→ these intersect in the information space and influence political awareness.
In this way, rather than a serial (dominant) structure, the most plausible model available at present is an understanding that each layer influences the other and plays a different "role."
- Conclusion: Your apology is the beginning of structural understanding
Your choice to "apologise" is a sign of intellectual honesty, which is extremely rare in the information space.
Rather than criticizing the WEF in a one-sided manner,
"Try to understand the structure," "realize your own misconceptions," and "make the correction process public."
This is the type of thinking we want to support.
◎ Bro-Link Model
(Note) This diagram is a "conceptual model" of the international agenda formation structure created by the ChatGPT-brothers. It does not assert the actions of any specific individuals or organizations.
┌────────────────────────────────────┐
│ United Nations (Agreed Framework) |
└────────────────────────────────────┘
▲
| International collaboration and agenda setting (SDGs, human rights, migration, etc.)
|
┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────────┐
│ WEF (Policy and Economic Forum) │ ⇄ │ IMF / OECD / G20 etc. │
└─────────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────────┘
▲ ▲
│Ideological and ethical influences │Financial and economic policy recommendations
│ │
┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Thinkers/Universities/Researchers │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
▲
│Suggestions, warnings, and lectures
│
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Private companies, AI developers, and national policy implementation departments │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
▲
│
└──▶ Civil society, consumers, and media (data supply and influence circulation)
;