The Globalist Agenda - -

[Will Bouwman]

He can be cruel, Gus.

[seeds]

Everything I write, Ibn-Wilbur al-Boneman, is riddled through and through with ultra-mega-consciousness.

No doubt, but it is only the ultra-mega-consciousness you can muster.

I'm pretty sure he meant to write "ultra-maga-consciousness."
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

You did rather better than anyone would have expected today, Wilbur.

[Will Bouwman]

You did rather better than anyone would have expected today, Wilbur.

No Gus, you are just rather weaker than you fancy.

[attofishpi]

World Economic Forum founder Klaus Schwab told delegates at a conference in China that humanity needs to be “forced into a collaboration” with globalist entities.

Schwab stated that in order to drive the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” forward, elites must aggressively drive their agenda home.

Schwab, the architect of the ‘Great Reset,’ has in recent years said that that he sees a transition into a new age where there will be a “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological dimensions” in a “new world.”


..admittedly this was paraphrased for twitter so may have some distortion - I assume the bits in quotes were actually stated in some context.

Probably worth looking into a bit more of this character Schwab in context of the thread...certainly "forced into a collaboration" doesn't sound like something I'd like to be part of...

[Age]

Be that as it may, my understanding here is that you-plural are incapable of staying on a topic, working through that topic, and arriving at sensible and balanced opinions and views.

My interest is in getting to the core as to why this is so.

Hot rhetoric, calumny, twisted and dishonest rhetoric, in an individual, is a sign of mental and psychological disorder. I submit that this disorder is very common today everywhere we turn. It is nearly a truism to say that all media are corrupt but I think we need to face the fact that we are corrupt. And let’s face another fact: everywhere on this forum, from top to bottom, all conversations suffer because individuals with these intellectual disorders cannot contain themselves at the level of their rhetorical usage.

Putting aside what you may think of me personally, you will get better results if you think through what I am saying.

My involvement in politics and culture — a critical perspective that is taken as “rightwing” — could be said to have begun when I read Ideas Have Consequences by Richard Weaver. A significant part of his work is a critical investigation of rhetoric. And as a cultural critic he maintains that our very culture went off the rails a few hundred years ago and, therefore, has been careening toward “disorder”. If this is so, the disordered individual seeks out a “medicine” to reestablish order within himself. Yes, it is a Platonic view, and Weaver is a Platonist, but for myself a regard his analysis as sound indeed.

So, are 'we' to take that you actually believe that almost everyone else is so-called 'disordered' but that 'you' are not?

If yes, then allow 'us' to see if 'you', "yourself" are actually capable of staying on a topic, working through that topic, and arriving at sensible and balanced opinions and views.

But, maybe you will just say, claim, and blame everyone else for 'you' not being able to stay 'ordered' and do these very things "yourself alexis jacobi".

'We' will have to wait to see right?

Oh, and by the way, pick absolutely any topic at all if your choosing here. I am more than willing and wanting discuss any topic at all with you, until arriving aat what you might call a 'sensible and balanced opinion and view', but which I would call a Truly sound and valid perspective, which obviously noone could ever refute.

Do you actually have the stamina, strength, and/or 'order' to do such a thing? Or, are you going to take the very weak and very immature route and try to 'blame' something else for 'you' not even starting here?

Do examine what went on in this thread and I believe you will conclude: the topic of the thread, starting with a set if assertions encapsulated in a video, is not ever actually dealt with carefully or rationally. What happens then? Examine the principle protagonist of corrupt conversation or dialectic, Mr FDP. Ah but here you, Accelafine, could easily note commonality between his method and tactics and yours.

Both of you are (in the sense I use this term and do not misinterpret it) corrupt at a basic level. Why do I say this? Just examine your use of diseased rhetoric! You for example, speaking generally, languish in a pool of ugly, distorting, condemnatory rhetoric.

What is overheated in it, overflows into whatever exposition of ideas that you pretend to. And FDP is subsumed in the same contaminated waters.

These are intellectual diseases, plain and simple. You and a dozen like you ruin the possibility of conversation because your intellectual disease cannot do else but leap out.

You will not, and you cannot, deal straight on with this and will take it oh so personally. But it is not intended as such! It is intended as a broader critique to be thought through philosophically.

As I have always said: I do not give a rat’s ass about your-plural blocks and incapacities or your ultra-immature games and stupidities. No one should.

The important thing is to get to clear stances about •what is going on in our culture•. We are just so many players or participants in a far larger web of entanglements.

Your criticism has zero effect on how I determine to proceed. Make of that what you will.

Let 'us' see just how 'determined' 'you' really are here "alexis jacobi". What is the actual 'topic', exactly, that you 'want' to 'stay on' here, and which you want to 'stay on' until sensible and balanced opinions and views are arrived at?

Also, are you capable of, and willing to, accept that what are your 'current' opinions and views may, in fact, not be partly sensible nor balanced, nor even at all?

Or, are 'you' just another one of the adult human beings, in the days when this was being written, who 'expects' others to change 'their opinions and views', to 'one's own opinions and views', because it is 'one's own opinions and views', which are the so-called 'sensible and balanced ones'?

Let 'us' see if 'you' are, in fact, 'mentally and psychologically ordered', or, 'mentally and psychologically disordered' "yourself, alexis jacobi".

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh, and by the way, pick absolutely any topic at all of your choosing here.

Soups. You got that right, m’boy, soups.

Not stews but soups. Connected with that we must include soup stocks. I trust you agree?

Do you wish to kick it off or should I?

[Age]

Oh, and by the way, pick absolutely any topic at all of your choosing here.

Soups. You got that right, m’boy, soups.

Not stews but soups. Connected with that we must include soup stocks. I trust you agree?

'your trust' here has misled you.

Do you wish to kick it off or should I?

you can, since 'soups' is 'your topic of choice, in a philosophy forum, and 'a topic' that you reportedly want to 'stay on', until arriving at sensible and balanced opinions and views.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Very well: what region of the World, in the time that this is being written, do you live and what are the regional souls there? And have you “age” cooked them yourself?!

[Age]

Oh, and by the way, pick absolutely any topic at all of your choosing here.

Soups. You got that right, m’boy, soups.

Choosing the topic of 'soups', within a philosophy forum, and out of all the topics that one could have chosen to discuss, again in a philosophy forum, shows just how 'mentally and psychologically disorded' some people had really become.

[Age]

Very well: what region of the World, in the time that this is being written, do you live and what are the regional souls there? And have you “age” cooked them yourself?!

So, are you 'now' changing topics?

If yes, then what is the topic, exactly?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Soups. “The philosophy of soup” if that works for you.

[attofishpi]

He who makes the soup, enjoys the soup the most.

[Age]

Soups. “The philosophy of soup” if that works for you.

How do you even define the 'philosophy' word, exactly?

[Iwannaplato]

The video moves very rapidly through ideas, often without much justification. That's not it's function. It's rhetoric, trying to draw a bunch of patterns/ideas together and give the speaker's conclusions. That true of any side's propaganda, but let's call it something neutral like persuasive speech or advocacy. One person's propaganda is another person's advocacy.

This kind of speech works fine for people on the same side as the speaker, but is problematic for those who don't agree because justification isn't there, and then, they disagree. They probabIy wouldn't be convinced, but they might treat it differently if there was justification.

He dips into justification about the WEC, by asking if the WEF has no power, why to they bother meeting. Could be lots of answers to this. The implied argument is that powerful people could only have one possible goal for such a meeting. I don't think that's convincing and if he's going to dip into implied justification, it should be stronger. (note: I think these kinds of meeting serve many functions and I do believe the organization has a lot of power and influence. What I am doing is looking at the video to see what it is doing and how weII it's doing it - then I'II weigh in with my views)

He then moves into the liberaI non-Iiberal split. This is one area I have issues with this guy's perspective. I think he both asserts and denies what I think is going on. To some extent liberals don't mind WEC simply because it isn't really looked at by most media. Not because they are aIigned with the current social poIicies the WEC supports. They just don't think about it. Just as both conservatives and liberals haven't thought much about most of these eIite assembIies. The Left used to look at these clumpings of people in power much more than the Right. The Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations , The Bilderberg Group and so on. It was the Left, which is not the same as liberals, who mentioned these groups and was critical of them. Now this has shifted to a more Right, if anyone, concern. But I doubt most conservatives are aware of these groups.

It's unclear listening to him if he thinks the elites actually are post-marxist or they are simply, right now using post-marixist ideas. He does seem to catch on that they are not really interested in equality, lol. Me, I think that social policy support is done precisely to split people without much power, to make sure they keep having little or no power. Why don't y'all fight.

Now we move into ideas around the tabula rasa nature of humans (or not). While there are aspects to the liberals believing in tabular rasa ideas of the mind/personality, I see conservatives and liberals giving very mixed messages around this. Even current woke culture which generally is very anti-essentialist, is essentialist when it wants to be, for example about people really being women or men,despite biology. That can seem anti-essentialist, but actually it's just a dualist essentialism. They may not use the word soul, but the moment you have someone who was born in the wrong biology and they are essentially a soul that should have a different body, that's essentialism, that's not tabula rasa, and there is an extreme resistance to the idea that the person merely thinks this due to environmental factors. On the conservative side there is official essentialism. Boys are boys, girls are girls, but then you'll notice that there is vastly greater push in conservative circles to making boys be more boy like, training them out of any girlish tendencies. If religion is involved we also have a much more interventionist approach there also.

I think however that when these things get pushed, as in the current extreme wokism, this is tool. It is being used to split people - and I think also mystify/confuse/undermine people. The main goal is to make sure that people focus on issues that do not challenge the power and what the power is doing.

So, I have a real issue with the speaker right around this point. He moves through communism with an image of Mao, to saying that this tabula rasa idea leads to political powers molding people into what they want. Great, true. But this is missing how much this is not a left/marxist thing, it's a power thing. And conservatives/the right wing/religious orthodoxy have a long history of supporting authority moulding people into what power wants.

To aim this kind of criticism at anyone pulling this stuff is good, but if it includes the assumption that this is a left thing, you are actually continuing the very kind of dichotomous thinking that the powers that be want the not very powerful to use. The powers that be are happy to align with pretty much any social attitude, as long as it gets people upset, controlled, and at odds with other not very powerful people. And certainly not able to align across political parties or social outlooks. Why would sociopaths care about whether some trans person is stuck in the wrong body? They don't. The power players in the WEC are not sitting at home worrying about trans people's feelings of body or gender dysphoria. Oh, we gotta make sure those people feel better about themselves and life. No.

So what? if there is truth in the video, who cares if it doesn't carry the whole truth? Because it becomes the core end-product of an advocacy video like this one. It hardens the lines, solidifies the myth of two teams. Gets people think that those people over there with relatively little power are the problem.

Everyone should be humbled by how they have been used, and if conservatives think they haven't happily increased the power of the elites they hate, they are confused.

I think that a more realistic starting point actually makes a huge difference.

That's a reponse to just a little ways into the video. And he's about to enter an area I am more in agreement with: the radical capitalist dreams of the financial power sector.

Perhaps more later.

Edit: what's the globalist agenda (that I'm concerned about first): consolidation of power and the ability to surveille and control.