The bbc actually telegraphed the rise of the wef with their childrens tv show Dr Who. The really evil dude was called Davros. Coincidence ? I think not. Come to think of it, they slipped the one world govt WHO slap bang in the title and hero’s name. Philanthropaths one and all.
Thank you for the informative, yet witty and entertaining essay. You made me LOL several times, and I was grinning all the way through like the Cheshire Cat. :)
Gates is probably planning to infect normal crops with his GMO poisons, turning everything infertile.
And the Hunger Games are going to be held among law-abiding Americans. Only one will survive! Not sure, why, but will.
As for the appetizer for the racket, the Wise Ones modified the original slogan to "You will own nothing and will live a life of fulfillment." By that, they meant that you'll live in a virtual reality in a tiny hole, eat bugs, while your body is permanently connected to their central network AI. Once you are deemed to be useless by the AI, it will activate your kill switch. Until then, you will be able to collect brownie points by being a nice and obedient cyborg slave. But bad boys will only get roaches; no crickets for those abominations!
The ESG mania is all over the banking industry as well. At some point we will be forced to discard well-functioning (risk) models, because they do not have an explicit ESG component, and replace them by some fashionable nonsense that can not be parameterized from historical data anymore.
It kind of reminds me of the 'quality' cult that seemed to infect businesses like a virus. ISO9001 certification got introduced in the company I worked for back in the nineties. A more useless set of prescriptions and procedures could hardly be imagined - it became a kind of religion, a set of articles of faith. All it really did was to reduce productivity whilst reams of worthless reports were written to 'prove' we were working to a 'quality' standard.
I remember getting my car serviced one day. I turned up to find the garage I used had gone all ISO9001 - certificates on the wall, people in suits instead of overalls booking the cars in etc. I found a different place after that.
I think the ESG thing is similar in the sense it has the same degree of 'religion' and cult-like adherence, but I think the underlying goals are a bit more sinister.
"Also, keep your child in a cage." I've seen that WEF picture before, but it gets funnier every time.
The serious point I want to make is about the absurdity of the WEF's Food Innovation Hubs. I looked at the press release where they explain what they're all about. The contradictions are so strong it almost seems like parody. In the aid sector, where I've worked a bit, 'local' food production is a big thing and it's notable that the WEF stress the 'local' of the new food production plants to be set up in poor countries which will replace existing food producers in the countries they're supposed to feed, including presumably the Netherlands. The press release is full of statements from CEOs of large multinational cos - anathema in the aid world because of their terrible track record of exploiting under-developed countries. It will be interesting to see where the major aid agencies such as Oxfam go with this.
So, this is why the "they are trying to divide us" perspective simply doesn't work.
It implies that there is a vast majority who- if not for a few ideological wedges being driven- unite against the WEF and its objectives.
But the divide IS between those who support the WEF and those who don't. Who WANT to own nothing and be happy, who want a fully globalized racialized society crammed into centrally controlled megacities with no rights and no arms and no job.
It isn't as though people are "distracted" by things that don't have to do with their plan. Vaccine damage, postmodern deconstruction, and postnationalism IS the plan.
They haven't got us fighting over red or green hats.
I don't know why they are promoting division but I'm reasonably certain they are. If we take Desmet's prescription for mass psychosis formation then one necessary component is a general feeling of threat or unease - although I think this is supposed to be 'untethered' and when a "real" threat comes along people are very susceptible to latching on to that. Not sure I have that wholly correct - but I think there's some play along these lines going on. Whether this fits in with Desmet's framework is questionable, but some coordinated manipulation of the whole moral frameworks under which we operate is going on.
Look at how many perspectives have changed in a very short period of time. If you argue for some form of border control you're a racist. The term 'right wing' is seen as synonymous with being selfish and practically a Nazi (and I'm saying this as someone who would describe himself as broadly centre left - the demonization of those on the 'right' is appalling). If you think biology is kind of vital for issues of sex and gender you're a bigot. White supremacy, colonialism, structural racism - all essentially meaningless terms - are taken as some kind of articles of faith. Words can be 'violence', even reasoned arguments get described as hateful, and there's a general acceptance that 'misinformation' is harmful and something needs to be done about it.
So what we're seeing is the pushing of a particular threat model where the 'threat' is coming from all of those hateful, nasty, bigoted people on the 'right wing' - the compassionate, humane, righteous and virtuous people (the 'left', or those who don't consider themselves to be on the 'right') see themselves as the defenders of goodness and life. Or, rather, I should say they are being to conditioned to think in this way.
All of the proposed 'solutions' to these largely imaginary problems are more control, more coordinated and global control, more legislation and more restrictions on freedoms.
You're not wrong, but here's the problem- one group's ideology is broadly aligned and serves the purpose of the ones doing the dividing, and one does not.
Concession or compromise on either side is rightly viewed as self-destructive. I don't want to give globalist elites who want to turn me into a tech-serf and ultimately kill me the slightest concession, and given the stakes, I think my position is justified.
So, how do I rationally come together with someone who wants the opposite?
It's a cost benefit thing. Nuclear waste is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. But the whole issue with the climate change hysteria is that the waste from fossil fuels is also very damaging. We need to compare the cost/benefit in terms of per kWh produced. Are the harms of fossil fuel per kWh produced greater or worse than the harms per kWh for nuclear? I don't know the answer but I suspect nuclear comes out massively on top.
“Darth Schwab”—I can’t believe I didn’t think of that!
On another note, “psychophilanthropy” can be more succinctly referred to as “philanthropathy” 😁 (https://margaretannaalice.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-philanthropath-dreams)
thanks for this!
yes a much more succinct (and much better) terminology - thank you
The bbc actually telegraphed the rise of the wef with their childrens tv show Dr Who. The really evil dude was called Davros. Coincidence ? I think not. Come to think of it, they slipped the one world govt WHO slap bang in the title and hero’s name. Philanthropaths one and all.
Thank you for the informative, yet witty and entertaining essay. You made me LOL several times, and I was grinning all the way through like the Cheshire Cat. :)
Gates is probably planning to infect normal crops with his GMO poisons, turning everything infertile.
And the Hunger Games are going to be held among law-abiding Americans. Only one will survive! Not sure, why, but will.
As for the appetizer for the racket, the Wise Ones modified the original slogan to "You will own nothing and will live a life of fulfillment." By that, they meant that you'll live in a virtual reality in a tiny hole, eat bugs, while your body is permanently connected to their central network AI. Once you are deemed to be useless by the AI, it will activate your kill switch. Until then, you will be able to collect brownie points by being a nice and obedient cyborg slave. But bad boys will only get roaches; no crickets for those abominations!
It's just too damn bad Gates of hell wasn't/isn't infertile. 😖😟
And, allegedly, the best sperm won when he was concieved!
Oh, boy, let's not imagine the rest... :)
Thank you. I needed a good chuckle—— make that “a totally excellent chuckle”!
The ESG mania is all over the banking industry as well. At some point we will be forced to discard well-functioning (risk) models, because they do not have an explicit ESG component, and replace them by some fashionable nonsense that can not be parameterized from historical data anymore.
If only we had tanks full of manure as well.
It kind of reminds me of the 'quality' cult that seemed to infect businesses like a virus. ISO9001 certification got introduced in the company I worked for back in the nineties. A more useless set of prescriptions and procedures could hardly be imagined - it became a kind of religion, a set of articles of faith. All it really did was to reduce productivity whilst reams of worthless reports were written to 'prove' we were working to a 'quality' standard.
I remember getting my car serviced one day. I turned up to find the garage I used had gone all ISO9001 - certificates on the wall, people in suits instead of overalls booking the cars in etc. I found a different place after that.
I think the ESG thing is similar in the sense it has the same degree of 'religion' and cult-like adherence, but I think the underlying goals are a bit more sinister.
"Also, keep your child in a cage." I've seen that WEF picture before, but it gets funnier every time.
The serious point I want to make is about the absurdity of the WEF's Food Innovation Hubs. I looked at the press release where they explain what they're all about. The contradictions are so strong it almost seems like parody. In the aid sector, where I've worked a bit, 'local' food production is a big thing and it's notable that the WEF stress the 'local' of the new food production plants to be set up in poor countries which will replace existing food producers in the countries they're supposed to feed, including presumably the Netherlands. The press release is full of statements from CEOs of large multinational cos - anathema in the aid world because of their terrible track record of exploiting under-developed countries. It will be interesting to see where the major aid agencies such as Oxfam go with this.
So, this is why the "they are trying to divide us" perspective simply doesn't work.
It implies that there is a vast majority who- if not for a few ideological wedges being driven- unite against the WEF and its objectives.
But the divide IS between those who support the WEF and those who don't. Who WANT to own nothing and be happy, who want a fully globalized racialized society crammed into centrally controlled megacities with no rights and no arms and no job.
It isn't as though people are "distracted" by things that don't have to do with their plan. Vaccine damage, postmodern deconstruction, and postnationalism IS the plan.
They haven't got us fighting over red or green hats.
I don't know why they are promoting division but I'm reasonably certain they are. If we take Desmet's prescription for mass psychosis formation then one necessary component is a general feeling of threat or unease - although I think this is supposed to be 'untethered' and when a "real" threat comes along people are very susceptible to latching on to that. Not sure I have that wholly correct - but I think there's some play along these lines going on. Whether this fits in with Desmet's framework is questionable, but some coordinated manipulation of the whole moral frameworks under which we operate is going on.
Look at how many perspectives have changed in a very short period of time. If you argue for some form of border control you're a racist. The term 'right wing' is seen as synonymous with being selfish and practically a Nazi (and I'm saying this as someone who would describe himself as broadly centre left - the demonization of those on the 'right' is appalling). If you think biology is kind of vital for issues of sex and gender you're a bigot. White supremacy, colonialism, structural racism - all essentially meaningless terms - are taken as some kind of articles of faith. Words can be 'violence', even reasoned arguments get described as hateful, and there's a general acceptance that 'misinformation' is harmful and something needs to be done about it.
So what we're seeing is the pushing of a particular threat model where the 'threat' is coming from all of those hateful, nasty, bigoted people on the 'right wing' - the compassionate, humane, righteous and virtuous people (the 'left', or those who don't consider themselves to be on the 'right') see themselves as the defenders of goodness and life. Or, rather, I should say they are being to conditioned to think in this way.
All of the proposed 'solutions' to these largely imaginary problems are more control, more coordinated and global control, more legislation and more restrictions on freedoms.
Everyone is being played.
You're not wrong, but here's the problem- one group's ideology is broadly aligned and serves the purpose of the ones doing the dividing, and one does not.
Concession or compromise on either side is rightly viewed as self-destructive. I don't want to give globalist elites who want to turn me into a tech-serf and ultimately kill me the slightest concession, and given the stakes, I think my position is justified.
So, how do I rationally come together with someone who wants the opposite?
No nukes or electric cars for me; we never did figure out that nuke waste thing; it's a large problem nobody likes to remember.
It's a cost benefit thing. Nuclear waste is an issue, but not an insurmountable one. But the whole issue with the climate change hysteria is that the waste from fossil fuels is also very damaging. We need to compare the cost/benefit in terms of per kWh produced. Are the harms of fossil fuel per kWh produced greater or worse than the harms per kWh for nuclear? I don't know the answer but I suspect nuclear comes out massively on top.
You're probably right, considering how much it generates.
I know. 😕
"I love democracy. I love the Republic. Once this crisis has abated, I will lay down the powers you have given me!"
Don't be too surprised if you hear this in the US before November.
Thanks for the chuckles! I needed something that would make me smile today.
𝚃𝚘𝚘 𝚏𝚞𝚗𝚗𝚢.