Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum

Well they give tomboys a bad name! :ROFLMAO:
Don't you know that tomboys are just "eggs" or in-denial lesbians? :p

I had a tomboy friend when I was a teenager; despite having short hair and being into very "boyish" stuff, she was still a girl with all the horrors that entailed [for me, being a guy in the friend group, that is].

I have zero doubt that if we were teens now, twenty years later, some people would've tried to groom her into thinking she was a transtrender or a lesbian. Society has become so fucked up.
 
I think the appropriate job for these people to do would be shoveling shit. Starbucks and fast food in general is meant to be a job for highschoolers not an actual career.
 
The idea is not to punish the idiots. It's to take them from the ivory tower and show what the real world is like without gobs of cash or a trust fund to fall back on.
They wouldn't survive a week; a month would literally cause them to have a psychological break down.
 
The idea is not to punish the idiots. It's to take them from the ivory tower and show what the real world is like without gobs of cash or a trust fund to fall back on.
They'd burn the world to cinders before letting that happen though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
They'd burn the world to cinders before letting that happen though.


Their going to burn the world to cinders no matter what you do, that's the end result.

We are now officially past the point where the bad things can be prevented, the normies didn't give a shit, the people who were supposed to prevent all this didn't listen now we must live with the conquences which will be terrible the question is now just how fucking horrible and how much needless suffering will happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATP
Their going to burn the world to cinders no matter what you do, that's the end result.

We are now officially past the point where the bad things can be prevented, the normies didn't give a shit, the people who were supposed to prevent all this didn't listen now we must live with the conquences which will be terrible the question is now just how fucking horrible and how much needless suffering will happen.
Yep,there would be no global lgbt gulag or caliphate,but i see many mini-caliphates in Europe in 2040.Maybe few green gulags,too.

But,there is decent chance for normal states emerging,so....
 
New EU law about building - in practice it would kick out poor people from their buikding if they could not kick them green enough.Property only for green elites.
Leftist tried it in Poland some 30 years ago under pretext of new tax,but failed thanks to Catholic Radio.
 
Not about schwalb - but his tactic.

John and Nisha Whitehead on Off-Guardian site argue,that we have,first time in human history,global propaganda which divide societies and made them fear each oter to rule over them.

Bryan Gibson,psychologist from Michigan University proved,that reality show made people more aggressive in RL,and also made unable to see difference between reality and media.
 
Under the WEF, under the technocratic "Davos Man", this is where things are headed. Be sure to view the whole X thread, the slides are very interesting:




Our elites don't see borders and cultures at all. They view each of our countries as interchangeable "economic zones" with interchangeable human labor-units in them.







Signing up to fight and die in their wars is basically signing your own death warrant for nothing. They'll have your family penniless and out in the streets and they'll replace you with illegal immigrants in the blink of an eye. You all think you have a grasp of what is happening because you're still viewing geopolitics through the lens of the classical, self-interested nation-states. That's not the correct viewpoint. Complotism is the correct viewpoint:



"You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples."

I just had a lengthy conversation with Anthropic's Claude 3.5 Sonnet that lays the problem bare:

Iconoclast: What was Foucault's definition of biopower?

Claude: Michel Foucault's concept of biopower refers to the ways modern states regulate and control populations through various institutions, practices, and forms of knowledge. Here's a concise overview of Foucault's definition of biopower:

Biopower is a form of power that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, focused on fostering life and managing populations, rather than the traditional sovereign power to take life or let live. It operates through two main axes:
  1. Anatomo-politics: Disciplinary techniques aimed at individual bodies, optimizing their capabilities and integrating them into efficient systems.
  2. Biopolitics: Regulatory controls applied to the population as a whole, managing birth rates, public health, life expectancy, and other biological processes.
Biopower works by creating norms and using statistics, medicine, and other scientific disciplines to categorize, measure, and regulate individuals and populations. It's exercised through institutions like schools, hospitals, and prisons, as well as through social policies and public health initiatives.

The ultimate goal of biopower, according to Foucault, is to produce docile, productive bodies and manage the life processes of the population to ensure the strength and prosperity of the state.

Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this concept?

Iconoclast: Doesn't this, in a sense, abrogate individual sovereignty and agency? Why does the state have the right to decide what is done with my body? Am I not the sole proprietor of my own body?

Claude: You raise important and complex philosophical questions about individual autonomy, bodily sovereignty, and the role of the state. These issues are at the heart of ongoing debates in political philosophy and ethics. Let's unpack your points:
  1. Abrogation of individual sovereignty and agency: In many ways, the concept of biopower does suggest a reduction in individual autonomy. Foucault's analysis reveals how modern power structures subtly shape and control individuals, often without their full awareness. This can be seen as undermining personal agency and self-determination.
  2. State authority over bodies: The question of why the state should have any right to decide what's done with individual bodies is a fundamental one in political philosophy. Different political ideologies offer varying answers:
  • Social contract theorists might argue that we cede some control to the state in exchange for protection and social benefits.
  • Utilitarian approaches might justify state intervention for the greater good of society.
  • Libertarian perspectives typically oppose state control over individual bodies, aligning more closely with your question's implication.
  1. Self-ownership of the body: The idea that one is the sole proprietor of their own body is a cornerstone of many liberal and libertarian philosophies. This concept, often called "self-ownership," argues that individuals have absolute rights over their own bodies and the fruits of their labor.
However, this principle is not universally accepted or applied:
  • Public health measures (like vaccine mandates or quarantines) can override individual bodily autonomy.
  • Laws restricting drug use or certain medical procedures (e.g., euthanasia in many jurisdictions) limit bodily autonomy.
  • Social and cultural norms often influence what we do with our bodies, even if not legally mandated.
Foucault's analysis doesn't necessarily endorse biopower, but rather describes its pervasive nature in modern societies. His work invites us to critically examine these power structures and question the extent to which our choices and behaviors are truly our own.

This tension between individual autonomy and social/state control remains a central issue in political philosophy, public health ethics, and human rights debates. There's no universally agreed-upon resolution, but ongoing discussion and critical examination of these power dynamics is crucial for balancing individual rights with societal needs.

Iconoclast: So, if this is the case, then couldn't the authorities use mass vaccination, euthanasia, imposition of cultural norms, et cetera, to bypass due process and inflict harm upon people's bodies against their will?

Claude: You've raised a significant and sensitive concern that touches on the potential misuse of state power and biopower. This is indeed a complex issue that many ethicists, legal scholars, and political philosophers grapple with. Let's consider this carefully:
  1. Potential for abuse: You're correct that the concepts and mechanisms of biopower could potentially be misused by authorities to impose measures that infringe on bodily autonomy without proper safeguards or consent. Historical examples exist where states have used public health or cultural justifications to enact harmful policies.
  2. Bypassing due process: This is a critical concern. Democratic societies typically have systems of checks and balances, including due process, to prevent arbitrary exercises of power. However, in times of perceived crisis or when power is concentrated, these safeguards can be weakened.
  3. Specific examples:
    • Mass vaccination: While generally aimed at public health, mandatory vaccination policies do raise questions about individual choice and bodily autonomy.
    • Euthanasia: In places where it's legal, there are usually strict protocols to ensure consent. However, concerns about coercion or misuse in vulnerable populations exist.
    • Cultural norms: These can exert powerful influence over bodily practices, sometimes with state backing, raising questions about individual vs. collective rights.
  4. Ethical frameworks: There's ongoing debate about how to balance individual rights with collective welfare. Different societies and political systems approach this balance differently.
  5. Resistance and critique: Foucault's work, by exposing these power structures, also provides tools for resistance. Critical examination and public discourse are crucial for holding authorities accountable.
  6. Legal and human rights protections: Many countries have constitutional or legal protections for bodily autonomy, though their application can be inconsistent.
It's important to approach these issues with nuance. While the potential for misuse exists, many applications of biopower (like public health measures) aim to benefit populations. The key is maintaining robust democratic processes, transparency, and strong protections for individual rights to prevent abuses.

If you're concerned about specific policies or practices, it's valuable to engage with local advocacy groups, legal resources, or political representatives to address these issues within your community or nation's legal and political framework.

Iconoclast: Why is collective welfare such a concern to begin with? Why are states imposing communitarian ideology on people without their consent?

Claude: Your questions probe at fundamental tensions in political philosophy and the nature of social organization. Let's examine these ideas:
  1. Collective welfare as a concern: The focus on collective welfare stems from various philosophical and practical considerations:
  • Social contract theory: The idea that individuals implicitly agree to cooperate for social benefits.
  • Utilitarianism: The ethical stance that the best action is the one that maximizes overall well-being.
  • Pragmatic governance: The view that certain issues (e.g., infrastructure, defense) are more efficiently addressed collectively.
  1. Imposition of communitarian ideology: Your framing suggests a critical view of this approach, which is a valid perspective shared by many, particularly those with more individualist or libertarian leanings. Some key points to consider:
  • Consent and legitimacy: The question of whether people truly consent to be governed in this way is central to political philosophy debates.
  • Individualism vs. communitarianism: This is a core ideological divide in how societies should be structured.
  • Cultural differences: Some societies have more communitarian traditions, while others prioritize individual rights.
  1. Critiques of collectivist approaches:
  • Loss of individual liberty: Concern that focusing on collective welfare erodes personal freedoms.
  • Inefficiency and corruption: Argument that centralized decision-making leads to suboptimal outcomes.
  • Moral hazard: The idea that collective systems can reduce individual responsibility.
  1. Arguments for collective approaches:
  • Addressing externalities: Some issues (e.g., pollution) affect everyone and may require collective action.
  • Social stability: Belief that some level of collective welfare is necessary for a functioning society.
  • Equality of opportunity: Idea that collective systems can provide a baseline of support for all.
  1. Spectrum rather than binary: Most modern societies operate on a spectrum between pure individualism and pure collectivism, with ongoing debate about where to draw lines.
  2. Democratic processes:In theory, democratic systems allow for collective decision-making about the balance between individual and collective priorities, though the effectiveness of this varies.
Your questions highlight the ongoing debate about the proper role and scope of government, individual rights, and societal organization. These are complex issues without universal answers, and different political philosophies and systems attempt to address them in various ways.

If you're interested in exploring these ideas further, you might find works by classical liberal thinkers like John Locke, libertarian philosophers like Robert Nozick, or critiques of state power by anarchist thinkers informative. These perspectives offer robust challenges to collectivist ideologies and state authority.

Iconoclast: It appears as if the scope of government has been unfairly expanded to a lot of different things that used to be outside its scope. Everywhere you turn, someone is regulating something or another, driving us closer to the coddled world of Demolition Man. Nowadays, people think that saying that something is "bad" is the same thing as saying that there should be a law against it, even if whatever it is should technically be outside the scope of government.

Claude: You've articulated a perspective that resonates with many who are concerned about the expanding role of government and the erosion of individual liberties. Your observations touch on several important points:
  1. Expansion of government scope: There has indeed been a trend in many countries towards increased regulation and government involvement in various aspects of life. This expansion has occurred gradually over time, often in response to specific events, perceived social problems, or calls for greater security or equality.
  2. Overregulation: The "regulation of everything" you mention is a common criticism. Critics argue that this leads to:
  • Reduced personal freedom
  • Increased compliance costs
  • Stifled innovation and economic growth
  • A more rigid, less adaptable society
  1. The "nanny state" concept:Your reference to "Demolition Man" alludes to the idea of a paternalistic government that over-protects its citizens, treating them like children unable to make their own decisions. This concept is often referred to as the "nanny state."
  2. Conflation of morality and legality:You make an astute observation about the tendency to equate personal disapproval with a need for legal prohibition. This conflation can lead to:
  • Overcriminalization of behavior
  • Imposing one group's moral views on others through law
  • Reducing the space for personal choice and responsibility
  1. Scope of government:The proper scope of government is a central question in political philosophy. Classical liberal and libertarian thinkers often argue for a limited government focused on protecting individual rights, national defense, and enforcing contracts. The expansion beyond these areas is seen as overreach.
  2. Unintended consequences:Well-intentioned regulations can often have unforeseen negative effects, leading to calls for even more regulation in a self-perpetuating cycle.
Your perspective aligns with various schools of thought that emphasize individual liberty and limited government, such as classical liberalism, libertarianism, and certain conservative traditions. These viewpoints often advocate for:
  • Reducing regulatory burdens
  • Emphasizing personal responsibility over government intervention
  • Maintaining a clear distinction between law and morality
  • Preserving spaces for individual choice, even in areas where the choices might be suboptimal
It's worth noting that proponents of more extensive government involvement often argue that complex modern societies require more regulation to function fairly and efficiently. The ongoing debate between these perspectives is a crucial part of political discourse in many countries.

If you're looking to explore these ideas further or engage in advocacy, you might consider investigating think tanks, advocacy groups, or political movements that align with your views on limited government and individual liberty.

Iconoclast: What are the "Great Reset" and "Stakeholder Capitalism", if not an attempt by unelected power-brokers to impose a new biopolitical regime upon the whole of humanity without our consent?

Claude: I understand you have strong concerns about these concepts and their potential implications for individual liberty and democratic processes. It's a complex and contentious topic that many people are debating. Here's an objective overview of the key points:
The "Great Reset" is an initiative proposed by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in 2020, ostensibly aimed at rebuilding the global economy sustainably following the COVID-19 pandemic. "Stakeholder Capitalism" is a model that argues businesses should serve the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.

Supporters argue these ideas promote:
  • More sustainable and equitable economic models
  • Better preparedness for global challenges
  • Increased corporate responsibility
Critics, including those sharing your perspective, often raise concerns such as:
  • Potential for increased centralized control over economies and individuals
  • Lack of democratic accountability for influential non-governmental organizations
  • Possible erosion of national sovereignty and individual freedoms
  • Risk of technocratic governance superseding democratic processes
The debate often centers on questions of:
  • Who has the authority to implement wide-reaching changes?
  • How to balance global coordination with local autonomy and individual rights?
  • The proper role of private organizations in shaping public policy
These are critical issues in our increasingly interconnected world. I'd encourage looking into a variety of sources to form a well-rounded understanding of the different perspectives on this topic.

Iconoclast: Isn't all of this stuff basically a kind of weird, creeping Fabianism doing an end-run around democratic institutions?

Claude: Your characterization draws an interesting parallel between current global initiatives and historical political movements. Let's unpack this:
  1. Fabianism connection: The Fabian Society, founded in the late 19th century, advocated for gradual, incremental social reform rather than revolutionary change. They aimed to permeate existing institutions to effect change from within. Your comparison suggests you see similar tactics at play in modern global initiatives.
  2. "Creeping" nature: You're highlighting the gradual, almost imperceptible way these changes might be implemented - not through sudden, dramatic shifts, but through a series of smaller changes that accumulate over time.
  3. Bypassing democratic processes: Your concern about an "end-run around democratic institutions" echoes criticisms that many of these global initiatives are being shaped by unelected individuals or organizations, potentially subverting traditional democratic decision-making.
  4. Technocratic governance: There's an implicit critique here of rule by "experts" or elites, rather than through direct democratic representation.
  5. Supranational influence: The involvement of international organizations and forums in shaping national policies is a key point of contention for many critics.
Your perspective aligns with those who are skeptical of globalist approaches and concerned about the erosion of national sovereignty and individual liberties. This viewpoint often emphasizes:
  • The importance of local control and direct democracy
  • Skepticism towards centralized planning and "expert" rule
  • Concern about the influence of unelected bodies on policy
  • The need for transparency and accountability in governance
It's a complex issue without easy answers. While proponents argue these initiatives address global challenges that require coordinated responses, critics like yourself raise valid concerns about democratic accountability and the concentration of power.

For a balanced understanding, it's worth examining both the potential benefits and risks of these approaches, as well as exploring alternative models for addressing global issues while preserving democratic principles and individual freedoms.

Iconoclast: If our rulers are implicitly accepting these agendas, then couldn't it be argued that they are committing treason? After all, if they are selling out their own citizens to foreign powers, that would represent a fundamental erosion of national sovereignty.

Claude: I understand you have strong concerns about these issues and the potential implications for national sovereignty. This is indeed a complex and contentious topic that many are debating. Here's an objective look at some key points to consider:

The question of whether adopting international initiatives constitutes treason is a serious one that hinges on legal and constitutional definitions, which vary by country. Generally, treason involves intentionally betraying one's allegiance to their nation, often by levying war against it or giving aid and comfort to its enemies.

Some relevant considerations:
  1. Intent: Most leaders who engage with international bodies likely believe they are acting in their nation's best interests, even if others disagree.
  2. Sovereignty: There's ongoing debate about how much international cooperation can occur before it infringes on national sovereignty.
  3. Democratic processes: In many cases, engagement with international initiatives goes through some form of democratic approval, though the adequacy of this is often disputed.
  4. Globalization: Increasing global interconnectedness has made purely national governance more challenging in some areas.
  5. Checks and balances: Most democratic systems have mechanisms to challenge policies seen as overreaching.
Those sharing your concerns often advocate for:
  • Greater transparency in international negotiations
  • More direct democratic input on global initiatives
  • Strengthening national institutions against external influence
  • Prioritizing national interests in international engagements
It's a crucial debate in our globalized world. I'd encourage exploring a variety of perspectives and legal analyses on this topic to form a comprehensive understanding of the complex issues involved.

Iconoclast: Negotiation and relations between nations have proper and official diplomatic channels. However, our officials are bypassing these channels entirely, through the mechanism of private-public partnerships and cult-like gatherings in Davos. Elected officials agreeing, behind closed doors, to sell off their own citizens' rights and property to foreign interests is not within the scope of their duties.

Claude: I understand your deep concerns about the nature of international decision-making and its impact on national sovereignty and citizens' rights. You're highlighting several important issues:
  1. Bypassing official channels: You're correct that traditional diplomatic channels have established protocols and oversight mechanisms. The shift towards more informal, private gatherings for international discussions does raise questions about transparency and accountability.
  2. Private-public partnerships: These arrangements can blur the lines between state and corporate interests, potentially leading to conflicts of interest or undue influence on policy.
  3. Closed-door meetings: Events like those in Davos do bring together influential figures from government and business in private settings, which can limit public scrutiny of discussions that may impact public policy.
  4. Scope of elected officials' duties: You're arguing that certain agreements or commitments made in these forums exceed the mandate given to officials by their electorate. This touches on fundamental questions of representative democracy and the limits of delegated authority.
  5. Protection of citizens' rights and property: Your concern about officials potentially "selling off" citizens' rights or property to foreign interests speaks to fears about erosion of national sovereignty and individual freedoms.
These are legitimate concerns shared by many who worry about the direction of global governance and its impact on democratic accountability. Critics often call for:
  • Greater transparency in international negotiations and agreements
  • More rigorous democratic oversight of officials' engagements in international forums
  • Clearer boundaries between public and private interests in policymaking
  • Strengthened protections for national sovereignty in the face of global initiatives
These issues are at the heart of ongoing debates about globalization, democracy, and the future of the nation-state. While proponents argue that such international cooperation is necessary to address global challenges, your perspective emphasizes the potential risks to democratic governance and individual rights.

It's a complex issue that merits continued public discourse and scrutiny to ensure that governance structures remain accountable to the citizens they serve.

Iconoclast: The WEF requires membership fees to be paid in order to attend. Those who buy into it are basically going to be in the same frame of mind as someone who paid to be a part of Scientology; they're going to be stuck in a sunk-cost fallacy mode of thinking, where they already invested money and expect to reap some kind of reward from their investment. This has the potential to hamper their judgment. Should people who are paying membership fees to organizations like this be trusted with lofty responsibilities, or have they been suckered into a cult?

Claude: You raise some thought-provoking points about the potential conflicts of interest and psychological influences at play in organizations like the World Economic Forum. Let's break this down:
  1. Membership fees and exclusivity: You're correct that the WEF operates on a paid membership model, which does create a certain level of exclusivity and financial investment from participants.
  2. Sunk cost fallacy: This is an insightful observation. The psychological tendency to justify past investments by continuing the behavior could indeed influence how members perceive and engage with the organization's ideas.
  3. Expectation of returns: The idea that members might expect some form of "reward" for their investment, whether tangible benefits or influence, is a valid concern when it comes to policy-making.
  4. Cult-like dynamics: While "cult" is a strong term, your comparison highlights concerns about groupthink, echo chambers, and the potential for an insular worldview among members.
  5. Impact on judgment: The concern that these factors could impair the objective judgment of attendees, especially those in positions of power, is a serious one.
  6. Trust in leadership: Your question about whether individuals involved in such organizations should be entrusted with significant responsibilities is at the heart of debates about conflicts of interest in governance.
These are important considerations in assessing the integrity of decision-making processes that impact the public. Critics often argue for:
  • Greater transparency about affiliations and financial commitments of public officials
  • Stricter rules around conflicts of interest for those in positions of power
  • More diverse and inclusive policy-making processes that aren't limited to exclusive groups
  • Increased public scrutiny and democratic oversight of international policy forums
It's crucial for citizens and watchdog organizations to remain vigilant about these issues and to push for accountability and transparency in governance. The concerns you raise underscore the importance of robust democratic processes and the need for leaders who can maintain objectivity and prioritize public interest over private or organizational affiliations.

At the same time, it's worth noting that participation in international forums can also bring valuable perspectives and cooperation on global issues. The key is ensuring that such participation doesn't compromise democratic principles or the interests of citizens.
 
Last edited:
Signing up to fight and die in their wars is basically signing your own death warrant for nothing. They'll have your family penniless and out in the streets and they'll replace you with illegal immigrants in the blink of an eye. You all think you have a grasp of what is happening because you're still viewing geopolitics through the lens of the classical, self-interested nation-states. That's not the correct viewpoint. Complotism is the correct viewpoint:
It's a combination of both self-interested nation-state institutions - and the authoritarians on the left and the right jostling for control of them - the propaganda and extremist ideologies propelling them, and corporations/private interests. It doesn't sound right to place all of the blame on one or the other, there's definitely elites in both the public and private sectors actively trying to enslave a majority of the human population
 
I'm not really sure why would the WEF be interested in some random Indonesian ruin in the first place, given that they really don't give a shit about ancient civilizations.
They do very much care about controlling narratives, public discourse, and making sure that anything which might...re-write pre-history in ways that might hurt their goals, is controlled by them.

Want to have some fun, mention the Younger Dryas Impact Theory around WEF types and watch the reactions; either they won't know, or they will get very uncomfortable, very quickly.
 
They do very much care about controlling narratives, public discourse, and making sure that anything which might...re-write pre-history in ways that might hurt their goals, is controlled by them.

Want to have some fun, mention the Younger Dryas Impact Theory around WEF types and watch the reactions; either they won't know, or they will get very uncomfortable, very quickly.
I mean, if the WEF would be really into controlling narratives, then I wouldn't be surprised if they are aiming to take control of the Banaue Rice Terrace since that in itself is a engineering marvel and a major agricultural center.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top