Utopia Talk / Politics / Diaper-Shitting Ped0 & Totalitarians #4

Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 25 02:10:24 Full title: "Dementia/Parkinson’s Diaper-Shitting Ped0phile and Totalitarian Ass-Clowns and Sycophants" the thread series! \:D/ Although the UP trolls are implicated by this thread (they are totalitarian sycophants), their impotent attempts to derail will not stop this collection of totalitarian machinations. Notice, also, that those trolls do not target the left-wing psychosis threads by tw, which are far less reasoned. -- Contained herein is the ongoing totalitarian-globalist strategy of ESG/DIE Malthusian eugenics, Republic-ending machinations, back-door owning of global legislative bodies, and the signals of the impending industrial genocide at their hands. If you have not heard of ESG/DIE, which is the coordinated effort to control the world economy under a singular totalitarian framework by infiltrating corporate governance and appealing to the slave morality of LGBTQ+NAMBLA Marxists, then your ignorance here may find a cure.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Jul 25 02:10:29 Thread #3: http://uto...hread=90141&time=1658730585986 Thread #3 topics covered: • ESG/DIE strategy to be delivered directly to the Federal Reserve's governance via H.R.2543 (passed in the House, awaiting Senate). • Robert Reich propaganda and DNC's abortion/vaccine hypocrisy driven by authoritarian desire for power. • The DNC's uni-party–totalitarian dominoes endorsed by Elizabeth Warren, AOC, Ayanna Pressley, and others. • A list of left-wing doublethink, including their revisionism of "our democracy", which is mob rule under directed oligarch propaganda. • AOC espousing Marxist dogmas to justify getting her nails done. • Funny video of two Marxists trying to out-Marxist each other. • DNC totalitarian propagandist Jason Stanley projects the DNC's totalitarian strategy onto the GOP. • Saudi Arabia could join the BRICS group, which is a separate totalitarian collective of sovereign nations competing with the ESG/DIE totalitarians and rejecting the ESG/DIE scheme. • Constitutionalist judges preventing ESG/DIE infiltration in the U.S. with the EPA and Roe rulings. • NY Governor and masked Satanic blood-orgy participant Kathy Hochul attempting to bypass Constitutionalist Supreme Court decision by re-disarming her citizens. • Marxist propaganda attempting to shame people who celebrate Independence Day. • WTB shits the bed, showing that any education he achieved was wasted on his sad and ineffective mind. • Trump was correct in 2018 about Germany's ESG/DIE obedience setting them up for a massive energy crisis. • Biden's abortion policy showing that "privacy" is important to the DNC in order to protect the DNC's racialist eugenics strategy. • July 9th, 4chan applies Hunter Biden's password to his iCloud, getting access to more crack-orgy videos, evidence of Hunter Biden breaking federal prostitution laws, evidence of Hunter and Joe's pedophilia, and more evidence of Hunter Biden funneling Ukrainian money into his family's wealth. • ESG/DIE and connections to the Bilderberg Group, Klaus Schwab of the WEF, D.C. law-makers, global totalitarians, global banks, Bilderberg propagandists (e.g., Fareed Zakaria), the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the ESG/DIE Malthusian eugenics strategy. • ESG/DIE toppling Sri Lanka via executive action on behalf of the E-Index; a closer look at the individual E-, S-, and G- indexes. • Biden's spiral into dementia continues. • The DNC's willingness to spread the story of a 10-year-old rape victim before vetting its sources — and for once they were at least *partially* correct. • ESG/DIE disenfranchises Dutch farmers who are being coerced into giving up their land for the Netherlands' "hub" status in the arising totalitarian order. • DNC-Politburo propagandist Robert Reich lies about the pay gap; the pay gap explained in terms of ESG/DIE — a means of infiltrating corporate governance. • The BRICS Group prepares its own reserve currency to resist the ESG/DIE totalitarians. • G-Index as an indicator of totalitarian infiltration of a country's corporate structures and law-making under ESG/DIE. Those countries that had the most totalitarian measures during COVID are also the countries with the highest G-Scores. • A closer look at the G-Index and its association with E-Index and S-Index. • Biden's plans to do the same as the Sri Lankan president: boosting E-Index with executive action on the environment while hoping that S-Index and G-Index will follow — potentially collapsing the U.S. economy in the process. • Bolshevik Politburo's "January 6th Committee" spreads propaganda about Senator Hawley "running from" protestors. • Lee Zeldin assaulted on stage at a campaign stop by an Iraq War veteran. • Biden passes EO 14076 to hide the DNC's racialist eugenics program. • Bloomberg and The Economist complain about ESG/DIE, with The Economist still supporting the end-goal and simply wanting to make it more successful. • Police shooting in Portland, Oregon.
Dukhat Member	Mon Jul 25 07:48:33 I feel so sorry for your family.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Jul 25 09:37:15 Now Nimatzo must kill you using an ancient Tae Bo technique he learned in the mountains of Tibet
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jul 25 12:33:04 I could kill you both with my mind alone, but my Tibetan masters taught me to pity the post modern fools.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 26 01:22:00 The World Economic Forum, • founded by Klaus Schwab, • with funders such as Prince Charles of Wales¹, Kristalina Georgieva of the IMF, Sharan Burrow of the ITUC, Microsoft President Bradford Smith, BP CEO Bernard Looney, Mastercard CEO Ajay Banga², and hundreds more billionaires and trillionaires, • with direct connections to the Bilderberg Group via near-total overlap of World Economic Forum participants with Bilderberg Group participants³, • with near total sponsorship by the largest banks and monetary funds in the world⁴ E.g., - Alibaba Group ($1.7 trillion in assets), - Allied Bank ($2 trillion in assets) - Allianz ($1.1 trillion in assets), - Amanat Holdings ($3.5 billion in assets), - APG Asset Management ($627 billion in assets), - JPMorgan Chase ($4 trillion in assets), - Mitsubishi ($3.7 trillion in assets), - HSBC ($2.9 trillion in assets) - Citigroup ($1.9 trillion in assets) - China Construction Bank ($4.5 trillion in assets) - ICB of China ($5.9 trillion in assets) - Barclays ($1.5 trillion in assets) - Deutsche Bank ($1.46 trillion in assets) • with direct backing by the United Nations, which launched ESG/DIE formally in 2004,⁵ • Which openly used COVID-19 as a "Great Reset" to institute "stakeholder capitalism" and completely overhaul the world economy¹,², ..here outlines its entire strategy in one easy infographic which elucidates the entire interconnected plan of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG); Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE); "systemic racism" propaganda, COVID-19/pandemic logic, stakeholder capitalism, migration, supply chain disruption, global health, and social justice: [World Economic Forum dot org; Strategic Intelligence] http://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006DI8yUAG Topics include the usual totalitarian strategy of implementing collectivism and infiltrating via Corporate Governance. All strategies have the common theme of making it easier to control every aspect of public life from the top down (where the "top" is no longer even individual nations but the World Economic Forum totalitarians), using propaganda to manufacture "grassroots" movements for bottom-up compliance. Here are some excerpts: • India: "About one million people join India’s workforce every month, and this country of roughly 1.3 billion is poised to hit a demographic sweet spot in about two decades - when the percentage of its population that is of working age reaches historic proportions. However, in order for India to successfully graduate from lower-middle-income status and comfortably take over from China as the world’s fastest-growing major economy, its government institutions must be rewired, its labour force and infrastructure must be better nourished, and its economy must become more open." I.e., the WEF needs to further infiltrate India's Corporate Governance, since India currently sits at 48.5 out of a WEF "ideal" of 100. "More open" is for "more infiltrated". • Digital Identity: "Having a trusted, verifiable identity is essential. As digital interaction increases at unprecedented rate, not least due to the COVID-19 crisis, the information comprising our identities is being widely shared in ways that create both opportunities and risks. If designed right, digital identities can provide countries with economic value equal to as much as 13% of their GDP, save hundreds of billions of hours through streamlined e-government, and cut trillions of dollars in costs for businesses by 2030, according to one estimate. For the roughly one billion people going without official proof of identity (and the more than three billion people unable to effectively use an identity on digital channels), collaborative and user-centric digital identity models guided by shared principles can be empowering." • The Digital Economy: "The disruption caused by the Fourth Industrial Revolution has been accelerated by COVID-19, and increased our need for agility, adaptability, and positive transformation. As the global economy rapidly digitalizes, an estimated 70% of new value created over the next decade will be based on digitally enabled platform business models. However, nearly half of the world’s population remains unconnected to the internet. While digital technologies have the potential to enable new value for everyone, they risk further exacerbating exclusion, the unequal concentration of power and wealth, and social instability. Companies must use digital infrastructure and data to collaborate, develop innovative business models, navigate disruption, and transition to a new normal - post-pandemic, purpose-driven, sustainable, and inclusive." The WEF wants to have total tracking of every single economic interaction. This is why the propaganda-meme of "You are not worth microchipping" is an outright lie — tracking is vital to the WEF's controls. World governments hope to boost their revenues, totalize control of all labor, and control all transactions via a 100% digital economy. This relates also to shortages in metal coins due to pandemic controls and Fed circulation interference,⁶ the intentional $4 trillion inflation of the M1 money supply in early 2020 along with the manipulation of individual savings reporting and the Fed's expansion of asset-purchases,⁷ the Fed's Yellen attempting changes that would flag and tax even small digital transactions,⁸ and the intentional directing of the world economy into government-controlled crypto-currencies such as Central Bank Digital Currencies where the government gets a cut every time you pay for something.⁸ "Inclusion" in this context is expanding Internet to poverty regions not to help those people but to own the labor of those people, enrich the oligarchs, and reduce the carbon impact of the poor via economic genocide (capping how much the poor can spend and on what they can spend it). • Health and Healthcare: "COVID-19 has highlighted fundamental problems with our capital-intensive, hospital-centric model of healthcare. According to the World Health Organization, half the world still lacks essential health services - and 90% of countries have reported disruptions to healthcare services during the pandemic. One of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals seeks to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all by 2030; in order to achieve this, health systems will have to change how they connect with patients and communities. To ensure every person on Earth has equal access to the highest standards of preventive health and clinical care, a coordinated and data-enabled approach is necessary - as are new models of collaboration." • Global Health: "Powerful forces have undermined efforts to protect and improve global health, necessitating changes to how we prevent, track, and respond to crises like COVID-19. Global demographic shifts, environmental degradation and climate change, escalating humanitarian emergencies, technology innovation, and a growing global commitment to a universal right to healthcare are all driving change in different ways - and being addressed by global governing bodies and multi-stakeholder partnerships that increasingly recognize the links between health, poverty, and sustainable development." This is another example of top-down control sold as a bottom-up benefit. The lie sold to progressive useful idiots is that universal health care is a "human right" (a United Nations propaganda initiative from its "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" developed in 1948 that has slowly infiltrated Corporate Governance as a legal framework). This is, of course, an absurdity, since it cannot be a "human right" to be *given* products or services that cost the labors of others — except in collectivist structures such as totalitarianism. But, to the useful idiot, they are again sold the "value" of government taking care of them. In reality, universal health care is part of a larger control mechanism wherein world governments will have a direct legal pathway to owning human bodies. In the U.S., this was performed via the Affordable Care Act and further consolidated via the CMS legal framework's revision under emergency authorization via Biden's CMS mandate executive order EO 13999, which, in January 2022, precipitated a Supreme Court decision which solidified federal control of hospitals accepting federal dollars (nearly all of them).⁹ The idea here is that if the government "owns" human bodies, then it can make demands on diet, consumption habits, fitness, birthing rights, and the very right to live. • Systemic Racism: "COVID-19 laid bare the systemic racism plaguing much of the world, and the killing of George Floyd prompted efforts to recognize and remedy the situation. Institutional discrimination and injustice have long torn at the social fabric, and now threaten to derail efforts to implement a post-pandemic reset that could put the global economy on a more equitable and sustainable path. Leaders everywhere are being called upon to respond to this challenge in a meaningful way." The lie of "systemic racism" is built on the CRT delusion that any outcome which is not equal between races must be due to racism — rather than outcomes being driven by meritocracy, culture, and the individual value of labors. That is, where a racial group fails to succeed, the WEF does not attribute this to the racial group's cultural faults within discrete communities but to the "system" which does not elevate the racial group despite itself. Thus, the "equity" of DIE is designed to elevate these culturally inept peoples into positions of power. This "sustainable path" is as such ("sustainable" via Marcusean Malthusianism) because inept peoples put into positions of power will produce less carbon, being as they are without the requisite competence to wield capital. This is similarly effected through the mass migration of unskilled laborers from states that were directed to fail. In other words, the infiltration of Corporate Governance via DIE erodes the profitability of businesses and countries by intentionally handicapping its workforce. The business is positioned to be less productive — its "value" is via "stakeholder capitalism". • Stakeholder Capitalism: "Stakeholder capitalism is a form of capitalism in which companies seek long-term value creation by taking into account the needs of all their stakeholders, and society at large." http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/ "Capitalism" here is a lie. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods and services and typically includes the Milton Friedman idea that the "social responsibility" of a business is to make money.¹⁰ However, for the WEF totalitarians, "stakeholder capitalism" refers not to the imperative of any one business to turn a profit but to the globalist agenda of creating a "sustainable" world. That is, the "stakeholders" are the peoples of the world — though, more pertinently, the oligarch collective that seeks to control those people. Thus, the WEF totalitarians outright admit that the design here is not to enable capitalist meritocracy but to control all outputs under a Marxist framework where no business can be more successful than it is "needed" to be by the globalist elitist oligarchs. This is why Biden himself has been able to claim that he is a "capitalist"; he is the totalitarian revision of this term, compliant to the interdependence model of a global anti-competitive scheme designed to stifle the global economy to reduce carbon. • Fourth Industrial Revolution: "The Fourth Industrial Revolution represents a fundamental change in the ways that we live and work. It is a new chapter in human development, enabled by advances that are commensurate with those of the first, second and third industrial revolutions - merging the physical, digital, and biological worlds and fusing technologies in ways that create both promise and peril. The speed, breadth, and depth of this revolution has forced us to rethink how countries should develop, how organizations create value, and how people from all walks of life can benefit from innovation. Now, as the world grapples with COVID-19, there is an opportunity to further embrace this revolution in ways that create a more inclusive, human-centred global economy." Words like "should" and "an opportunity" should worry people, given that this global economic reset — which has already caused mass inflation, energy shortages, supply chain disruptions, famine, and global turmoil — is at the direction of often un-elected bureaucrats and their WEF puppets. Their wielding of technology is built on the frame of Chinese governance initiatives such as the Social Credit Score and mass control through AI convenience. • Vaccination: "In the past few decades, morbidity and mortality attributable to vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles, mumps, and polio have dramatically declined as immunization coverage increased - especially in countries with routine vaccination programs. However, global vaccine uptake has stagnated as misinformation and anti-vaccination propaganda have spread. Now, amid efforts to vaccinate populations against COVID-19 as swiftly as possible, technology giants are under pressure to remove harmful associated distortions and inaccuracies from their platforms." Under the guise of "misinformation" they intend to control global social media so that the masses can be "correctly" propagandized by the totalitarian messages. "Under pressure" is particularly revealing, though it should not be a shock to anyone who has paid attention to BigTech censorship. For their successes to manifest, there can be no dialogue — only compliance with the ESG/DIE message. • Global Governance: "Global governance is a means to manage issues that cut across national borders - whether it is a pandemic, a financial crisis, climate change, or a geo-economic dispute. Though traditionally centred on diplomacy and international organizations, a wide variety of public and private actors now engage in cross-border governance. The work itself has expanded well beyond treaty-making to include formal and informal monitoring, standard-setting, enforcement, and financing. Effective governance is essential to secure peaceful, healthy, and prosperous societies, particularly now amid COVID-19, worsening ecological crises, mounting geopolitical tension, and growing nationalist backlash against globalization." • "Weaponizing Interdependence": "Once-distant people and places are increasingly being tied together by globalization. This involves not only the creation of economic links through cross-border trade and investment, but also stronger social bonds, increased communication, and heightened shared vulnerabilities to pandemics and environmental degradation. COVID-19 has vividly highlighted the challenges involved in managing this new, deeper level of global inter-dependence, as the World Health Organization seeks to keep everyone informed about the crisis and aligned on ways to combat it, despite persistent criticism. As globalization has advanced, the ability to guarantee peace and prosperity for any given society is increasingly affected by decisions made elsewhere. The creation and distribution of problematic mortgages in the US can lead to workers in Iceland losing their jobs, for example, while interaction with infected wildlife in one part of the world can devastate the health of people on every continent. Meanwhile carbon emissions that occur in any single place can affect the future of the climate everywhere. Managing this interdependence is the central task of global governance. And that task is only getting harder. After World War II, global governance became increasingly robust; it created the necessary conditions for globalization. When businesses branched out into foreign markets, they developed multinational models and value chains that increased their need to support effective governance wherever they operated. That in turn enabled other businesses to become more globally distributed, resulting in a self-reinforcing interdependence ... Making that interdependence effective is now more important than ever for tackling shared challenges and ensuring prosperity." This cannot be understated. This is not some old CT-nutter delusion of a globalist takeover: this is in the very dogma of these quadrillions-funded elitists. The very structure of ESG/DIE is to infiltrate every single major business at the level of Corporate Governance. I have said before, but people can pick any major business, look at that business' legal framework, and see that it has been re-written in the last 10–20 years by overt ESG/DIE legal language. This is not merely corporations responding to the "needs" of the LGBTQ+NAMBLA community from the ground up goodness of a spontaneous social movement of "evolved" progressives — this is the top-down control of those useful idiots to further infiltrate Corporate Governance worldwide. This "Civic Participation" by the LGBTQ+NAMBLA useful idiots was a *goal* of the world totalitarians. Notice also that sub-categories of the strategy of weaponizing interdependence include global taxes, trade and investment controls, COVID-19, Global Health, "Future of the Environment", Vaccination, Climate Change, Internet Governance, Emerging-Market Multinationals, and the Future of Computing. Its critique of "Anti-Globalism" further includes Migration, Workforce and Employment, Civic Participation, and Development Finance, where it makes enemies of nationalism and populism. Their section on Anti-Globalism even draws the exact connection I have made: that ESG/DIE's first "success" was the 2008 economic crisis: "These [anti-globalist populist and nationalist] movements are at least partly a reaction to real failures [for Global Governance] to effectively function, for example during the 2008 financial crisis (some might add the global COVID-19 response to this list)" Finally, the WEF's stated policy shows their overt strategy of a Great Replacement, the deprioritization of men (men as a barrier to success), and the prioritization of the slave morality of LGBTQ+NAMBLA: • Social Justice: Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: "Entrenched structural shortcomings have made inequality a reality in just about every part of the world. While Apartheid in South Africa was easily recognized as abhorrent, similar types of systemic bias continue to sustain patriarchy and privilege - and are either not-well-understood or wilfully ignored. These systems are often presented as meritocratic and fair, while in fact they serve to keep certain groups of people far from power and influence. Despite the aspirations of human rights activists and policy-makers, humanity still has not realized its collective talent potential - as significant parts of the population remain effectively excluded from obtaining a quality education. Structural discrimination rests on the twin pillars of prejudice and failure to prioritise systemic change. Some of the many factors at play include race in the US, caste and religion in India, sexual orientation in Uganda, gender in Saudi Arabia, immigration status in Europe, and statelessness in Haiti. Societies constructed on explicit or implicit bias require a retracing of the steps that got them there, a recalibration of historical attitudes, and more forward-looking approaches. "Prejudice is born of insecurity, and ensures that particular groups dominate. It is perpetuated by people (usually men) from dominant ethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic communities, with any departure from their “norm” treated as deviant and harmful, In previous centuries this fuelled colonization and false notions of the value of one civilization over others. This legacy is deep-seated, and continues to enable the subjugation of native populations, making their ancestral territories and resources subservient to dominant political powers. The general exclusion of women and others deemed “deviant,” such as the LGBTI community, has continued - though modernizing social norms are steadily outstripping ancient prejudices. Women’s voices are coming to the fore, as seen in the #MeToo movement, racial intermixing and immigration are reshaping societies, and widespread support exists for the types of systemic change called for by Black Lives Matter and other movements. The scale and complexity of global problems requires tapping the broadest talent pool to find solutions; relying only on a relatively small portion of the population based on its privileged identity would be foolhardy." In other words, the WEF totalitarians know that men are more likely to fight for sovereignty and individual rights, so men must be displaced by women. Additionally, the "small portion" of the population that is productive and independent (via the unavoidable reality of the Pareto Principle) must also be displaced. This is why the ESG/DIE strategy necessitates legal frameworks which close "wage gaps" by artificially promoting LGBTQ+NAMBLA-compliant ideologues into positions of power where they are individually paid more than the productive people who have now been forced into positions of subservience. The WEF totalitarian strategy thus manipulates the world into a matriarchal social structure (appeasing the perceptions of the useful idiots) while in practice it merely uses that matriarchal social structure as a control mechanism for the masses that assures global subservience to the oligarchs. The WEF totalitarians under the Marcuean dialectic of transferred sexual energies (yes, a real thing that Marcuse adopted from Freud into a Marxist framework — hilariously reminiscent of Dr. Strangelove), have determined that capitalists can best be controlled if a collectivist mob of weaklings outnumber them and have been placed in legally-enforced positions of power. The diffused sexual energies of these capitalists (again, their own hilarious dialectic) are thus minimized through the "Internet of things" and "radical hedonism" (pleasure sought without procreation), where psychosis obedience to the social degradation of non-productive sex stems their will to power, leaving broken boys lost in the WEF's propaganda signals — fighting to instate not their own freedom but their own domination under the totalitarians who design to rule them. This is how the world masters manipulate the masses into putting them into power. Joseph Goebbels, "Downfall": "I feel no sympathy. I repeat, I feel no sympathy! The German people chose their fate. That may surprise some people. Don't fool yourself. We didn't force the German people. They gave us a mandate, and now their little throats are being cut!" ¹ "Fourth Industrial Revolution: Klaus Schwab and Prince Charles on why we need a Great Reset"; World Economic Forum official website; June 4th, 2020; http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/the-great-reset-this-weeks-world-vs-virus-podcast/ ² "'A golden opportunity' - HRH the Prince of Wales and other leaders on the Forum's Great Reset"; World Economic Forum official website; June 3rd, 2020; http://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/great-reset-launch-prince-charles-guterres-georgieva-burrow ³ "Bilderberg Meeting 2022"; Official Bilerberg Website; June 2022; http://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/press/press-release/participants ; see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_participants ⁴ "Our Partners"; World Economic Forum: http://www.weforum.org/partners/#search ⁵ World Economic Forum Organizations, The United Nations; http://www.weforum.org/organizations/united-nations ; see also UN's 2004 declarations of ESG, "Who Cares Wins: Connecting Financial Markets to a Changing World" http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/events/2004/stocks/who_cares_wins_global_compact_2004.pdf ⁶ "What Happened to America’s Quarters?"; New York Mag; January 2022; http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/01/national-coin-storage.html ⁷ FRED dot org; Economic Research; M1 money supply tracker https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL ; see also "The Federal Reserve is expanding its asset purchases to include municipal bonds"; CNBC; March 20th, 2020; https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/20/the-federal-reserve-is-expanding-its-asset-purchases-to-include-municipal-bonds.html ⁸ "Remarks from Secretary of the Treasury Janet L. Yellen on Digital Assets"; The Federal Reserve dot org; April 7th, 2022; http://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0706 ⁹ Supreme Court Opinion 21A240; January 13th, 2022; http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21a240_d18e.pdf see also my Vaccine Mandate Litigation thread http://www.utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=88805&time=1636130551282 ¹⁰ "A Friedman doctrine‐- The Social Responsibility Of Business Is to Increase Its Profits"; New York Times; September 13th, 1970; http://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 26 01:52:02 DIE-Come on guys, this acronym is so bad it sounds like the writers from Robocop could would make it sound less horrid. The hill had a lobbyist lawyer on recently and said, you can find pro choice, pro gun control Republicans, you cant find one pro ESG Republican, not one.
Habebe Member	Tue Jul 26 02:00:08 http://www...spired-anti-esg-takeover-wave/ The Friedman fund. The idea is a fund devoted to making $ (Like all) but specifically targeting ESG companies buy shorting them if they are over valued and buying them if they are undervalued.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Jul 26 03:09:21 "DIE-Come on guys, this acronym is so bad it sounds like the writers from Robocop could would make it sound less horrid." They figured that the GENOCIDE acronym was too obvious and more difficult to remember, so they shortened it. G - Global Gimme-dat scheme E - End your life N - Negate all noble values O - Occult sex parties C - Children must be targeted I - Inclusion D - Diversity E - Equity .. Friedman fund is pretty hilarious :D And we know, for instance (per thread #2 and #3), that Biden's recent EO on ESG/DIE is a reflection of his June 23rd meeting with Offshore Wind. After that meeting, White House Fact Sheets revealed that they were about to invest about $10 billion in the Northeast Offshore Wind projects alone. The recent EO additionally added Gulf Coast wind. Of NorthEast Wind, included were these businesses (via thread #2): • Dominion Energy • Vineyard Offshore • Ørsted/Offshore North America An issue is, the EO was held largely under government contracts, which means that you can only (easily) short-sell two: Dominion and Ørsted, and Dominion is a regional energy provider, so it's protected from total failure via baseline income from a cornered consumer base (people in those states who are on the Dominion grid). • Dominion Energy — currently up about $2/share from 6/23 after some pump-and-dumps occurred. http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=D • Ørsted/Offshore North America — up about $10/share from 6/23 http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart.html?symb=DOGEF It might be worth doing a deep-dive into the full list of ESG/DIE businesses ( http://www.investors.com/news/esg-companies-list-best-esg-stocks-environmental-social-governance-values/ ), but most of them seem to immediately spike after investment announcements, hemorrhage funds, but then get propped up. This goes to the pyramid scheme nature of this: ESG/DIE businesses are propping up other ESG/DIE businesses, so most of their evaluation is going to be inflated, and you'd have to know which businesses were *not* going to be protected by Corporate Governance to short-sell them (designated "too big to fail" due to having good G-Index compliance). This is the error of "go woke, go broke". The anti-competitive protections are designed to prevent "woke" ESG/DIE businesses from going totally broke — they get propped up. That was a major point of the 2008 crisis under ESG/DIE: infiltrate those banks with ESG/DIE, get them to fail, and force the creation of "too big to fail" schemes like Dodd-Frank (I spoke about this in thread #2 under "Mon Jun 13 08:35:58"). Short-sellers succeeded there because "too big to fail" frameworks were not yet in place. But, I mentioned in the last thread that a good indicator of an impending collapse may be the disparities between a country's/business' E-Index and its G-Index. Having a high E-Index means a lot of government funds going into "Green" energy, but simultaneously having a low G-Index means that that country may not be saved by the anti-competitive scheme when those "green" practices implode. This was the case with Sri Lanka. If you find businesses with high E-Index that have, for some reason, failed to boost their G-Index, you may be seeing a business primed to fail — with no donor support to save them. A problem is that no rational business would implode via E-Index if they have not already been assured protections via the G-Index. *Countries* will, though. My next immediate project was to chart that. Hopefully, I can have a working format to post for today (July 26th).
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 27 04:25:25 (finished transcribing all country data into Excel; still need to do a write-up) .. In the mean time.. This very concerning video was released by the White House on July 26th, 2022: "President Biden delivers virtual remarks to the [National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives] NOBLE Conference." [The White House, Official YouTube Account] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhWp1nE7PO0 Transcript on Rev.com (an auto-transcription site): http://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/president-biden-delivers-virtual-remarks-to-the-noble-conference-7-25-22-transcript Notice how open his eyes are. He is *high* on uppers. Also notice strange cuts at these time points — probably when brain.exe froze: 0:51 1:11 1:56 2:14 4:05 6:12 6:16 6:22 8:26 — This one is particularly funny; it's like he just did a line; he's suddenly speaking faster, his eyes are wide open, and he gets angry. 10:09 ... 2:45 — "If you can't support banning weapons of war on American streets, you're not on the side of police." That's absurd. "Weapons of war" is a false premise, of course, given that the weapons used in warfare typically have select fire capabilities, are often capable of automatic fire, and were banned already by FDR in 1934 under the National Firearms Act (NFA). This is just the DNC's disarmament talking point — a false premise to trick the useful idiots into voting away weapons that most law-abiding citizens possess. And allowing law-abiding citizens to have weapons *helps* police, since it means police have less on their plates. It also helps citizens more directly, since citizens are not beholden to the mercies of a police force. He again gives his "it's not a right that's absolute" totalitarian's line about the Second Amendment, which explicitly says, "shall not be infringed". 3:35 — "I believe that we should protect you." By disarming law-abiding citizens? No, he means only to remove their liberty to rule them as a tyrant. No free citizen should want that kind of protection racket. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety ... it is next to impossible to guard effectually an extended Frontier, settled by scattered single Families at two or three Miles Distance, so as to secure them from the insiduous Attacks of small Parties of skulking Murderers ... if his Hands are still weak or unable, he ought only to blame himself, or those who have tied them." — Benjamin Franklin, 1755 [Archives dot gov] http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-06-02-0107 This president means to tie the hands of the American people, remove their ability to defend themselves by totalitarian incrementalism, and enable the murderers of his anarcho-tyranny. 4:00 — "[The American Rescue Plan is] one of the biggest federal investments in law enforcement and public safety in our history, and every single Republican in Congress voted against it, knowing that this fund would be used for law enforcement and public safety." False premise and misrepresentation. He falsely states that this bill's purpose was "investments in law enforcement". "Law enforcement" is a partial lie with "and public safety" being the qualifier to save it from an outright lie, and, even accepting "law enforcement" momentarily, that was a *fraction* of its purpose, with that purpose only being downstream of its stated purpose (i.e., it had no explicit section on law enforcement). H.R.1319 was a massive spending bill absolutely filled with ESG/DIE. Its total value was estimated at $1.9 *trillion*, and so-called "law enforcement" funding was $10 *billion*, with less than $2 billion going to police proper. Here is the full text of the bill: [Congress dot gov; H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021] http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1319/text Here are some highlights: • Nutrition / Agriculture — "address racial equity issues within the Department of Agriculture" (p13); funding programs that get natives into federal Agriculture positions; fund, in particular, members "of a socially disadvantaged group" (p14) (i.e., to qualify for federal dollars, farmers must have a protected identity) • Education — "maintenance of equity" (p25); they set funding for, in particular, schools that "qualify" by being in designated "poverty" districts, the disabled, and protected identity schools. • COVID funding — more dollars for their mandate programs; covered in mandate litigation thread • Childcare — with funding allocated based on "diversity of communities and participants... including racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, linguistic, or geographic diversity" (p36) • "Fair housing activities"; keep people from being evicted, especially protected status people. • VA funding, including $100 million to "supply chain modernization" and $80 million for VA employees who wish to take time off. • Federal unemployment compensation — gotta get those Marxists into the streets; I wonder what the overlap is between Marxists and people who collected maximum unemployment. • Medicaid / Medicare — further infiltration of hospitals via federal dollars • Department of State funding — including $204 million for a rainy day fund (p238); $3.8 billion to fight AIDS, TB, and malaria worldwide (Bill Gates has entered the chat, p239) • Native American funding — $10 billion to tribal development, $5.8 billion to "Indian Health Service" (p240), including $100 million to improve tribal housing, $772 million to infiltrate tribal governance (G-Index), $850 million to tribal education (p244), and $750 million into a rainy-day fund (p242). The $10 billion cited by Biden for "law enforcement" was money listed for programs such as "Family Violence Prevention and Services" (p35), which is money to "support culturally specific community-based organizations that provide culturally specific activities to promote strategic partnership development and collaboration in responding to the impact of COVID-19 and other public health concerns on survivors of sexual assault and domestic violence." In other words, the original text of the bill had NO funding for police. Not a single dollar. There is NO mention of police, policing, or funds to be given to departments. So, when Republicans voted for it, there was NO section which indicated that this was a bill supporting police — that is a revisionist lie. Thus, the claim that Republicans did not support police is false from the fact that this was a bill packed with ESG/DIE BS and from the fact that police were not even mentioned in the bill. It was not until a year later that funds from H.R.1319 were redirected to police — and, even then, it sure was not "$10 billion": "FACT SHEET: President Biden Issues Call for State and Local Leaders to Dedicate More American Rescue Plan Funding to Make Our Communities Safer – And Deploy These Dollars Quickly" [White House dot gov; May 13th, 2022] http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/05/13/fact-sheet-president-biden-issues-call-for-state-and-local-leaders-to-dedicate-more-american-rescue-plan-funding-to-make-our-communities-safer-and-deploy-these-dollars-quickly/ The breakdown of reallocated funds *from* H.R.1319: • "$1 billion in bonuses for front-line public safety workers to help recruit and retain these public servants." — notice "public safety workers"; this does not necessarily mean police • "Over $2 billion to prevent crime and ease the burden on police," — Notice, "ease the burden ON police"; i.e., this money did not go to police, it went to programs like "mental health services" — not necessarily to police proper. • "Over $350 million in job training and other assistance to help formerly incarcerated individuals" • "$450 million in public safety technology and equipment – like new police cars, upgraded radio systems, body-worn cameras, and gunshot detection systems" — $450 million to police! • "$600 million to help clear court backlogs and support victims of crime" • "Over $1 billion in proposed ARP investments" • "$1.2 billion Medicaid Mobile Crisis Intervention Services" — Again, not to police. • "$1 billion Family Violence Prevention and Services Program" — Again, not to police. So, the bulk of that $10 billion did not go to police. That said, millions did. The Fact Sheet lists dozens of cities that received money from funds redirected from H.R.1319. The bulk of police-specific funding was the hiring and training of new police officers. E.g., • Kansas City: "hire up to 150 police officers, increase pay for officers and civilian staff" • Detroit: "an updated police training facility, $30 million for enhanced police patrols" • Tulsa: "$3,000 stipends for Academy Police Officer hires – with $2,000 at the beginning and $1,000 at the end of the Academy training." • Chandler, AZ: "$3.8 million for early hiring of additional police officers ... 27 new police officers" • Chesterfield County, VA: "$1.5 million to purchase land to accelerate the construction of a new police station" See the scheme here? They claim to be "funding police", but, in practice, they are exemplifying the exact attitudes of the defund movements but simply pretending that they're funding police by putting the majority of those funds into programs that the defund movement wanted (i.e., community "policing", mental health services, crisis prevention). So, again, they can say, "law enforcement and public safety," but really, it's mostly just "public safety" — which is mostly criminal safety. The funds that *did* go to police were part of seed money designed to institute a federal police force. The design of the police funding was simple: • designate law enforcement as federal contractors (essentially) by making local police beholden to federal dollars for their survival, • demand ESG/DIE compliance from those police forces. That is, police must comply or they are bankrupted; government restrictions crushed police budgets (the defund movement, lockdowns, etc.), and government then steps in to "help" to complete the circle of the protection racket. This is the same strategy that the government used with so many other businesses via the looming vaccine mandates (I spoke about this at length in the vaccine litigation thread). I also talked about defund in thread #1 under comment "Sat May 28 00:26:19" too, btw. They changed their talking point ("defund!" -> "fund!") while maintaining the same scheme: mostly funding DIE communities, and giving police federal dollars only to infiltrate them. 4:50 — "It creates a new national law enforcement database" Oh good, more federal empowerment. :| 9:50 — Biden lies about "lives were lost" during the Capitol riot (whose lives?), floats the January 6th propaganda that Trump wasn't doing anything, saying, "Donald Trump lacked the courage to act." "You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-cop." "You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-democracy." "You can't be pro-insurrection and pro-American." That's impressive doublethink. "Insurrection" is a lie, the DNC isn't even "pro-cop", "pro-democracy" means pro-ochlocracy, and the DNC is not pro-American, given how much they hate America and sell it to the global totalitarians. Even the psychosis useful idiots wouldn't agree with the possibility of being "pro-cop", so this was clearly just a propaganda technique to say, "insurrection" three times and make the useful idiots respond in agreement with Biden's anger at the GOP. Cheap tricks by a president on so much cocaine that he should be wearing sunglasses indoors.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Jul 27 23:48:32 ESG has finally gone mainstream. After an incredibly impressive media blackout where almost no politicians mentioned ESG by name at all despite its global infiltration, Ron DeSantis appeared on Tucker Carlson to talk about steps Florida is taking to shut out ESG from Florida money: (no good links to the full episode yet, since this just aired a few hours ago) "Tucker Carlson with Ron DeSantis on the fight against ESG" ["News Bytes" on Rumble; July 27th, 2022] http://rum...e-fight-against-esg-72722.html While it's not great for it to go mainstream via Carlson, since the left-wing useful idiots can simply dismiss this as "Fox News" nonsense, this could at least raise awareness. DNC media will now have to talk about ESG by name, rather than hiding behind ESG's infiltration words (e.g., DIE, CRT). The useful idiots may now have to defend ESG head-on rather than pretending that it's just a conspiracy theory. This may wake some people up, since the useful idiots may realize that their belief in subjects such as DIE and CRT was fueled by trillions of dollars in investments by an international anti-competitive corporate scheme. They may finally put the pieces together that the reason that mega-corporations were flying the LGBTQ+NAMBLA flag was because they were trying to get the useful idiots on board for a totalitarian empire. So, it would at least be nice to see people talking about this while being informed on the subject — even if they'll only be informed by their propagandists.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Jul 29 10:32:36 Another potentially good development: "Treasurer Moore Adds Five Firms to State’s Restricted Financial Institution List" [West Virginia Daily News; July 29th, 2022] http://wvdn.com/38954/ • "Treasurer Moore has determined that BlackRock Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo & Co. are engaged in boycotts of fossil fuel companies, according to a new state law, and are no longer eligible to enter into state banking contracts with his Office." • "As Treasurer, I have a duty to act in the best interests of the State’s Treasury and our people when choosing financial services for West Virginia,” Treasurer Moore said. “Any institution with policies aimed at weakening our energy industries, tax base and job market has a clear conflict of interest in handling taxpayer dollars." That is, the West Virginia treasurer is ending contracts for ESG/DIE banks. With Florida, that is at least two states now rejecting ESG/DIE. And it boils down to this: it is a difference between classical "shareholders" and ESG/DIE "stakeholders". ESG/DIE "stakeholders" are holding "stake" only in a pyramid scheme that holds the pseudo-altruistic goal of a "green" (Malthusian) future which necessitates worldwide decline, whereas classical shareholders have some right to be concerned with the dollar-growth of their investments and thus can complain if a company makes suicidal financial decisions. People have been pointing out for weeks now that this may be the way to individually act towards breaking up the ESG/DIE anti-competitive strategy: not unlike Ol' Musky's Twitter tactics of fiduciary responsibility, people can act as *shareholders* instead of "stakeholders", demanding accountability from the businesses that have adopted ESG/DIE. Since ESG/DIE is not concerned with dollar investment success, shareholders can rightly petition ESG/DIE businesses to stop putting their money into these deranged designed-to-fail asset management banks. This also makes one wonder if division in the U.S. will similarly take an ESG/DIE versus sovereign framework (similar to BRICS Group and ESG/DIE nations); states rejecting the anti-competitive strategy would be at odds with the totalitarian states. This has already begun via the Supreme Court's decision to allow individual states to adopt individual environmental actions (a positive decision in breaking up the totalitarians). I would hope, though, that the nation at large will wake up to the perils of ESG/DIE before yet more division takes root.
Rugian Member	Fri Jul 29 11:04:10 It really is too bad that no one reads these threads, because the ESG/DEI trend is a gigantic escalation of the culture wars. In their effort to insert politics into EVERYTHING, the left wants to weaponize *your* money and *your* labor to further their pet causes. Do you just want to invest in the market in order to make a good return? Well too bad, because fund managers now believe that they should prioritize using your money to invest in ESG-compliant products, rather than trying to make you as much product as reasonably possible. Do you just want to go to your job and earn a paycheck every week? Well too bad, DEI means that companies and their employees are now supposed to become social justice warriors who advocate for political change in both their own internal organizations and the outside community. God I hate how insidious this stuff is.
Rugian Member	Fri Jul 29 11:08:41 *as much product -> as much profit
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 29 11:14:54 Me and you Rugian :,)
nhill Member	Fri Jul 29 11:45:53 I read these threads, but a lot of the concepts are new to me and require cross-referencing and research. Hence why I don't post much. I r learning
nhill Member	Fri Jul 29 12:09:51 I do occasionally ask for clarification, but CC has so much sand in her vagina she calls it "trolling" and "derailing". >UP trolls are implicated by this thread (they are totalitarian sycophants), their impotent attempts to derail will not stop this collection of totalitarian machinations Sensitive as a baby's butt.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 29 12:12:03 (assuming it refers to me and WTB, of course, hence the word "trolls" and not "troll")
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Jul 29 13:19:29 They had my attention at "unelected cabal of financial oligarchs" trying to social engineer the world.
nhill Member	Fri Jul 29 13:34:28 Yeah a ton of great information here.
Pillz Member	Fri Jul 29 20:01:51 Any post by wtb should be ignored
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 30 08:31:55 Yeah, the trolls often avoid reading — so they haven't noticed — but I have said several times now that I'll always re-engage with a previously burned bridge if some measure of good faith is present, but persistent trolls can do a close-reading of the lyrics to "The Remedy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivxFBB87-Y ♫ Should you choose to react like an imbecile, You in turn will be treated so, Yes, we're being condescending, Yes, that means we're talking down to you, With all that racket from you lips a-flapping, We assumed you didn't notice, Haters, isolators, No one misses these, Bitches receive stitches, Trolls receive 86's, ♫ -=-=- For convenience, I did a 2-minute edit of Biden's NOBLE Conference speech to show the White House's 10 hard-cuts. These cuts pretty clearly occur when Biden begins to slip into brain-dead stupors. The producers likely used these moments to remove coughing fits, coach Biden into waking up or delivering lines differently, or, in the last cut, probably to give him uppers: http://twitter.com/i/status/1553361561061888000 Sadly, some of the right seems to be sticking with an inane theory that the White House is using deepfakes to cover for Biden not even being physically present. This allowed Vice (considered "variable" reliability and "skews left" by AdFontes) to publish a sarcastic story making fun of these people: "Is Joe Biden Dead, Replaced by 10 Different Deepfake Body Doubles? An Investigation" [Vice; July 29th, 2022] http://www.vice.com/en/article/wxnn54/is-joe-biden-dead-replaced-by-10-different-deepfake-body-doubles-an-investigation In particular, they cite GPRime85, who posted this: "My eye can detect the uncanny valley instantly. This is 100% deepfake technology. They pasted Biden's face on an actor. I'd bet my career on it." http://twitter.com/GPrime85/status/1552331245123735553 GPRime85 is known for making highly sarcastic comments and letting outsiders take the bait, so this cannot be taken fully at face value. Even "I'd bet my career on it" seems like a joke, since he has no career and has made fun of himself for being a starving artist cliché. I.e., he loses nothing by being wrong. Still, if we take it seriously, the mistake a lot of these "deep fake" people seem to be making is in using highly edited and degraded videos for their claims. The montage that GPRime85 posts even has motion stabilization and cropping applied to some of the clips — this was not present in the original. The colors are also blown out in the montage, but the original has no artifacts. Anyone who sincerely thinks this was deepfake probably made no effort to seek out the source videos. This opportunity for Vice (capitalizing on low-information comments by imperceptive and/or sarcastic people on the right) is an unfortunate misdirection, since, as I discussed in comment "Wed Jul 27 04:25:25", in addition to Biden being a drugged-up puppet, his speech-writers sent him out with mountains of lies regarding his supposed support for the police. If these people do not recognize these lies, then they will not understand the DNC's full manipulation of "fund" and "defund" propaganda. The short version is that the DNC's new "fund the police" refrain is, in practice, exactly the same as the DNC's previous "defund" policy. They changed the words, spent about $1 billion to infiltrate key police departments with training and new-hires, and spent the rest of the money on Social-Index policies that do not actually go to departments. This sort of information gets buried by "deepfake" misdirections.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Jul 30 11:21:41 This article is partially redundant, but it shows that more sources have noticed the connection between ESG/DIE, the UN/WEF, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates, Western oligarchs, and the intentional implosion of world economies under the lie of Marcusean "sustainability": "UN, World Economic Forum Behind Global 'War On Farmers': Experts" [Zero Hedge; July 30th, 2022] http://www...ind-global-war-farmers-experts via [The Epoch Times; July 26th, 2022] http://www.theepochtimes.com/un-and-world-economic-forum-behind-global-war-on-farmers-experts_4622598.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge • "The escalating regulatory attack on agricultural producers from Holland and the United States to Sri Lanka and beyond is closely tied to the United Nations’ “Agenda 2030” Sustainable Development Goals and the U.N.’s partners at the World Economic Forum (WEF), numerous experts told The Epoch Times." • "Indeed, several of the U.N.’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [ http://sdgs.un.org/goals#icons ] are directly implicated in policies that are squeezing farmers, ranchers, and food supplies around the world." • "Around the world, almost every national government says it’s incorporating the SDGs into its own laws and regulations." • Further cementing the UN–WEF Connection: "the WEF has been explicit with its goals. It recently launched a “Food Action Alliance” (FAA) that acknowledges on its website that Agenda 2030 “informs the ambition of the FAA to provide an enduring and long-term platform for multi-stakeholder action on food systems to meet the SDGs.”" ( http://weforum.ent.box.com/s/wenkz4o4x5s1eegt20wpz8s2l4hknye2 ) • Rockefeller connection: "The Rockefeller Foundation, which recently released a report on how to “Reset the Table” and “Transform the U.S. Food System,” is also a key player." ( http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/RF-FoodPolicyPaper_Final2.pdf ) • "High-level Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members within the U.N. system helped create the SDGs and are currently helping lead the organization’s implementation of the global plan, The Epoch Times has previously documented." • "If left unchecked, multiple experts said, the U.N.-backed sustainability policies on agriculture and food production would lead to economic devastation, shortages of critical goods, widespread famine, and a dramatic loss of individual freedoms." • "Experts interviewed by The Epoch Times say that some of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful corporate leaders are working with communists in China and elsewhere in an effort to centralize control over food production and crush independent farmers and ranchers." • "According to critics of the policies, though, the goal isn’t to preserve the environment or fight climate change at all. Instead, the experts warn that the “sustainability” narrative and the other justifications are a tool to gain control over food, agriculture, and people." • "The U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), led by former CCP Vice Minister of Agriculture and Rural Affairs Qu Dongyu, is helping to lead the charge." • "“As far as the World Economic Forum is concerned, you can’t have a Great Reset if you don’t reset the food supply, because food is necessary to everybody,” he said. “Stalin recognized this: Whoever controls the food controls the people. Same with energy.”" • "Citing numerous U.N. officials and documents, DeWeese says the agenda isn’t to save the climate, but to transform the planet and centralize control over the populace." I mentioned under thread #2 under comment "Sun Jun 05 05:41:12" that the UN/WEF previously believed that they could work with China to make a global empire that *included* China and Russia. But, as the Marxist strategy infiltrated the rest of the world, the BRICS Group saw the blood in the water and emerged to resist ESG/DIE Marxism. This re-ignited Thucydides Trap, wherein BRICS may have been gladly allowing (and likely encouraging) the rest of the world to collapse via ESG/DIE while knowing that they could maintain energy independence and displace the Western powers. For instance, this is why the BRICS Group has maintained practical powers, such as anti-LGBTQ+NAMBLA social policies, an imperative to capture food and energy (e.g., Ukraine, African mining, Hong Kong, Taiwan), and a rejection of Corporate Governance. While the rest of the world engages in a self-destructive anti-competitive pyramid scheme, the BRICS Group will be positioned to have strong economies that can outlast the impending Western collapse, allowing BRICS to become a singular world power ruling over a West that can no longer produce enough food or energy to be a threat. I should remind (on theme with comment "Wed Jul 13 08:29:23" in the last thread) that in a situation of competing totalitarians (ESG/DIE totalitarians and the BRICS totalitarians), there is not necessarily a "good" side so much as two "bad" sides — and in the West, it is not the nations themselves that are "bad"; it is ESG/DIE infiltration. Informed people know that ESG/DIE is self-destructive and will lead to mass genocide via social engineering (famine, energy shortages, water shortages) and hot conflict, but it is not like the BRICS Group is our salvation. China is not exactly an open society, and Russia has too many bears driving cars. An obvious question, then, is whether or not the BRICS and ESG/DIE-nation binary is itself intentional. It may be a question of informed manipulators/traitors versus uninformed useful idiots among the Western oligarchs: 1) Uninformed useful idiots: the Western oligarchs were too stupid to realize that the BRICS Group would hold onto independence and power while the West imploded under ESG/DIE — not seeing the double-cross coming as the West cemented ESG/DIE policies and BRICS did not. This type of immense stupidity would show an ignorance of decades of Chinese politics (e.g., their reverse-engineering of Western goods, their willingness to pollute themselves to become a world power, their accepting Western business only as a means to infiltrate the West) and an incompetence regarding a phased mutual stand-down (i.e., only accept as much ESG/DIE in the West as BRICS is willing to accept themselves). In such a case, their efforts in Ukraine against Russia are sincere, and the Pacific strategy is designed to close the noose around China's neck, with the pincer forcing ESG/DIE compliance — i.e., they are true and ignorant believers in ESG/DIE and are trying to patch their fuckup. 2) Informed traitors: The Western oligarchs are intentionally collapsing the West with ESG/DIE on behalf of the BRICS Group, being as they are infiltrated by BRICS ideologues. They know that ESG/DIE will make the West a soft target, and BRICS will become the unopposed power. This means that the informed oligarchs are simply trying to cash in while betting that BRICS will succeed. They have likely been promised their Marxist empires under the tutelage of Russia and China, and, after the proxy wars conclude, Russia and China would be able to unmask, de-converting their capitalist-hybrid economies and consolidating the world Marxist government that they always wanted. We know, for instance, that • the Biden family has been enriching itself via Chinese dealings, such as Hunter Biden's multi-million-dollar deals with CEFC China Energy (Washington Post; March 30th, 2022 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-china-laptop/ ). We also know that.. • China's largest banks, including China Construction Bank and ICB of China, are taking part in the anti-competitive ESG/DIE framework in the West (see comment "Tue Jul 26 01:22:00"). But, we also know that.. • the Biden family has been enriching itself with Ukraine money-laundering, seeding and supporting the proxy war against the BRICS Group. This leads to another question: Why engage in proxy wars in Ukraine and Taiwan? I.e., do those proxy wars not demonstrate Western opposition to BRICS? As such, wouldn't it make no sense for an informed Western oligarch to support them? Sadly, it does make sense. The best way to actually *win* the proxy wars would be to at least temporarily disband ESG/DIE and out-produce BRICS. That is not the strategy we are seeing. ESG/DIE erodes the Western economies, and engaging in a proxy war while one's economy is failing is suicidal. This is ideal to the informed Western oligarchs, since this speeds the collapse of the West. And, if world economies are imploding under ESG/DIE, world nations can be fooled into believing that they must adopt ESG/DIE to "stand up to" the BRICS Group. In reality, this is a coalition of a shared collapse. Newly-minted ESG/DIE nations believe that uniting makes them stronger against their shared enemy, but uniting forces them to adopt ESG/DIE policies which actually make them weaker against that same enemy. An ESG/DIE world coalition no longer has the economic power to win a sustained proxy war. They will slowly erode their powers through self-destructive energy and food policies, drop billions more into the proxy war to accelerate the transition, and disarm their populations; while BRICS can slowly out-produce the ESG/DIE nations by securing food and energy. I mentioned in thread #2 comment "Mon Jun 27 02:17:07" that China, Russia, and India all have massive nuclear energy plans for the next decades. The West has been dismantling nuclear power, slowing coal power, and converting to fucking wind and solar panels. An inevitable phase on this trajectory is that when the West sees that they are losing, a strong Western leader may disband ESG/DIE, but the damage may already be too severe. This may end the immediate proxy war, but that would be akin to ending WWI (the complicity of progressive-totalitarian Woodrow Wilson) while still being on a trajectory for WWII. And the goal would still be accomplished: massive depopulation, instead of through social engineering and famine — through open war. The left-wing has a particular meme that "[Hitler *also* returned after losing an election]" (mentioned also in comment "Sun Jul 03 07:55:21" in previous thread). This meme was seeded by the DNC sock puppets and popularized among the left's TDS useful idiots. It is possible that this seeding of the narrative was intentional — not just to demonize Trump but to solidify further a planned division moment. Trump would be coming into office in 2024 to stop ESG/DIE, but with the left's propaganda apparatus in place, as reflected by the U.S. S-Index (societal belief in the benevolence of ESG/DIE), excising ESG/DIE from captured minds may feel like removing a brain parasite. This would act as a kind of fail-safe for ESG/DIE — Manchurian candidates awaiting activation. It may well be in the DNC-Malthusians best interests to select Trump again, as they did in 2016, since civil conflict would be further destabilizing. A sound strategy would be to warn the populist left about ESG/DIE so that a unifying candidate could be possible, but if DNC leadership intends to provoke political killings leading into 2024, reason may sleep again.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Jul 30 11:42:38 It’s sad that the leftist on this board choose to troll and ridicule, you would think they would make natural allies on this.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 31 07:44:29 True. The next great conflict is the people versus the totalitarians. If people do not wake to this threat, they will fight each other on behalf of these same totalitarians. ... ... A left-wing useful idiot on Twitter (@nathanoseroff) decided to collect news stories with "woke" in the headline, believing that he was revealing a mistaken trend of things being mis-identified as "woke" (i.e., pretending that "woke" does not mean anything). Twitter user @MaxNordau responds to all of @nathanoseroff's examples basically saying, "[Yes, all of these businesses/cultural institutions have indeed been captured by ESG/DIE]." It's a good reminder list of how much ESG/DIE has infiltrated: [@nathanoseroff and @MaxNordau Twitter; July 30–31, 2022] http://twitter.com/MaxNordau/status/1553373980442169344 Thread unroll: http://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1553373980442169344.html • corporations • medical education • dance schools • the West • Capitalism • Netflix's adaptation of Austen's "Persuasion" • Boy Scouts • Asset/Fund Managers • The Federal Reserve • LGB issues (i.e., now LGTBQ+NAMBLA) • Antisemitism • Math textbooks • Macron's education policies • American culture • UK Education policy • Native Land Acknowledgements • Wall Street • UK Sports • The Church of England • BlackRock and Vanguard (obviously) • News media (e.g., USA Today) • Islamic Fundamentalists • ESG (obviously) • DoD • Corporate Culture • NYC Prosecutors • Yale, and universities and schools in general • The FBI • MLB • ACLU • Hollywood and scriptwriters • PayPal • Children's books • Investment strategies • Second Amendment attacks towards disarmament • Major corporations • Race Equality Charters in universities • UBS Group AG • Co-Founder of private equity giant Carlyle Group • UK Welfare • U.S. Department of State • George Soros Foundation • Prison reform • The CCP • The BBC • Comedy • Game of Thrones: House of the Dragon • Google • Cambridge • Security Services • NHS/WHO • Biden-Admin policies • Biden-Admin economists • The content of historical tours (e.g., Monticello) Particularly funny about @NathanOseroff is that he's listing all of these details without understanding the binding principle. He even jokes, during his list, that it's absurd that even the rising dictators are "woke", which contradicts his earlier hypothesis that "[things called 'woke' must simply be the things that the 'fascists' do not like]". This is an issue of failed perceptions not seeing what is directly in front of them. Nathan has a good share of the pieces now, but, by dismissing them, he misses the larger picture. This sort of imperceptive low-information mental processing is why people are able to dismiss real truths as "conspiracy theories". That is, they are so ignorant of the truth that anything they have not already heard must not be true — the media, surely, would have notified them if it were! And yet, the picture is clear from the very documents of the UN/WEF totalitarians — their money trail, their actions, their sponsors, their advocates, and their stated policies. I attempted to summarize the full weight in a reply to Nathan: "Here we see the benighted on the cusp of a realization—should he put the pieces together in good faith. The common thread here: the UN/WEF seeded ESG/DIE globally via Gramsci's vectors: family, culture, religion, education, media, and law."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jul 31 08:33:02 Pronouns in bio, is always a bad sign, pronouns AND “background in philosophy of science”, that’s a WTB type of character.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jul 31 22:34:30 Not to forget the Star of David. As part of the Terry Davis aspect of this thread series (i.e., being willing to look directly into items that were designated wrongthink by the left), I've entertained 4chan's hyper-antisemitism to see if there is indeed a Judaistic element to these Marxist designs. My data-collection on that is only 10 pages currently, but it is troubling that nearly all of the bankers behind the UN's and WEF's launching of the global strategy are Jewish and that so many pro-totalitarian propagandists such as Nathan Oseroff are Jewish as well. My intuition is that it's a simple ideological standalone-complex (i.e., like-minded people simply wanting to participate in the same outcomes without any direct conspiracy). For instance, too many Jewish people — even many who wield cultural power — are against these exact same designs, having adopted more libertarian/conservative belief structures (e.g., Bret Weinstein, Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager). And, of course, it never makes sense to throw any total ethnic group under the bus, since it is ideological capture that is the enemy, and any moral person can wake from that capture. Oseroff could, for instance, discover the truth and reject the Malthusian strategy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Aug 01 06:01:47 Hmm yes, I think in part their prominence in banking and media (conservative Jews are at a disadvantage) puts them in the front row. It becomes the same effect that has them winning so many noble prizes. Jews have always been big on the left, but even on the right they are the most positive towards pluralism, for obvious reasons. But I think you are right about the acceptance of idea complexes, I think this can be observed among black Americans as well, while they predominantly vote D, a break down of ideas shows very diverse range of opinions. I see some version of this in exile Iranians in Europe. With us there is an additional self-selection aspect, but also that the only rightwing/conservative political tradition we grew up with is a theocratic/deeply religious one. In ways comparable to how European right and christian church forced Jews into a political corner. Breaking such chains takes generations and reduces the percieved options as being whatever is least like that which triggers PTSD.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 02 01:43:04 "but even on the right they are the most positive towards pluralism, for obvious reasons." This is a worry of mine. There's a strong case for many Jews being resentful of all white people following WWII. This is part of their blaming not just the German people but Western nations that they feel did not respond quickly enough to their plight. This was a major theme of the Frankfurt School: how can the Jewish people use Marxism and massive propaganda to seize world governance and control Israel (i.e., how can they learn the lessons of the Nazis to their own advantage)? (The "Dialectic of Enlightenment" may have been one of the more shocking texts I read, btw — written by Marxist Jews, including Marcuse.) If that were not simply an idle thought but an actionable treatise, in such a narrative, they would systematically infiltrate the West in order to set the stage for the genocide of white people in the same exact strategy that Hitler used (i.e., weaponized slave morality, a definite target for the resentful, systematic exclusion, law-infiltration, and annihilation). And the parallels between this Frankfurt School strategy and the current Marxist infiltration is enormous. This relates heavily to the "Great Replacement Theory", which itself was given the media's thought-terminating clichés (e.g., "conspiracy theory", "white supremacy") despite there being great evidence that a directed effort is being made — just a question of "by whom?" Jewish elitists or people merely using their same literature? But, like you point out, "I think in part their prominence in banking and media (conservative Jews are at a disadvantage) puts them in the front row." My take on that follows from a point I've seen: many white people are similarly in positions of power in the West. Does this implicate them as well? Of course not. This is why identitarian tricks do not necessarily float well. Strong cultures may simply make successful people. Seeing only a racial lens is myopic. A counter to that, of course, is that many Jews in power exhibit these Marxist ideologies. But, universities have similarly been overrun with Marxist white people — and Marxists of all shades. Who are the useful idiots? Diverse as well. Another issue is that many progressives in the DNC (including every member of the "Squad") are openly antisemitic. Would they not love Jewish people if Jewish elitists were enabling their genocidal strategy? Maybe. Maybe not. The Squad may simply not know the plan, being only a useful Vanguard. AOC isn't exactly Inner Party material, as much as Pelosi grooms her. But, the Squad are composed of identitarians, so, surely they would notice if their power came from Jewish people. They might resent that while still playing along for short-term goals. And there are other holes: much of the Marxism we see seems to have origins in Chinese influence. China does not have Jews in their Inner Party leadership. But, again, China is not necessarily on board with the entire ESG/DIE strategy. They may be letting the West destroy itself to make an easier enemy, and they would applaud *any* mechanism that allows that. Anyways, this is just in-process. I was still preparing a write-up with source lists. .. .. In a much lighter note, Scott Adams' follower-base just caught him up to speed about ESG. 4chan, in particular, has made a project out of red-pilling him by degrees. It seems not to make sense to him: e.g., 17 hours ago he said, "Companies don't INTENTIONALLY destroy their own economic engine to serve wokeness" ( http://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1554089641266991104 ) — i.e., he doesn't think that even a woke-infected company-culture would allow itself to hemorrhage money; he does not know that losses are subsidized. So, he's still resisting as of Monday. But, previously, on July 30th, he posted this: "Do I need to make ESG go away for you? Put your ESG nightmare stories in the comments and I'll turn them into Dilbert comics. Give me six months. This one will be easy." http://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1553376637881683968 So, even if he still doesn't get it, people are feeding him comic ideas that he can use in real strips. I tried to address his statement today by feeding him this idea: "If we adopt ESG, we have to support their social initiatives." "What if our customers don't like those initiatives and we see losses?" "Those losses are subsidized by other corporations and the government." "What happens if everyone takes losses?" "We short-sell ourselves." .. Obviously, short-selling oneself isn't legal, but I hope he gets that that's the joke. It might have been better to write, "Is it possible to short-sell ourselves?", but anyways.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 02 09:55:23 The left is hyping a pretense that a call for a Convention of States is an attempt by the right to re-write the Constitution. "NEW: The conservative movement’s next big play for their power in the states is to “scare the hell out of Washington' with an unprecedented convention to rewrite the Constitution. And they're willing to play the long game to win." [Grace Panetta of Business Insider; July 31st, 2022] http://twitter.com/grace_panetta/status/1553734332254134275 This is, of course, projection. It is the DNC that is attempting to consolidate powers. The DNC is bedding the totalitarians who would abolish the Electoral College, pack the Supreme Court, and abolish the Senate. Comments under the Panetta story show as much. These people would have the entire country under the rule of a single dictator, removing the ability of any minority party to exist. These people seem to have no concept of the pitfalls of groupthink and coalitions of cities dictating the country against the wishes of separate states — unsurprising thinking patterns for collectivists. This is the Roman mob attempting to transition from a Republic to a dictatorship under the Caesar — "and they blink". The go-to authority is Mark Meckler's website: [Convention of States dot com] http://conventionofstates.com/news/powerful-mark-meckler-explains-how-convention-of-states-can-be-used-to-decrease-political-division At worst, a convention is a *discussion* of possible remedies to growing conflict in the U.S. The right would be *discussing* (not even implementing) additional protections for regional sovereignty (state's rights) and the removal of unchecked powers wielded by the federal government. Thus, removing power from the federal government is not a "play" for "power" — it is a protection *against* that exact consolidation of totalitarian powers, protecting individual liberty. Other potential items would be to affirm the number of Supreme Court justices at 9 so that disputes about Supreme Court decisions are not exacerbated by a back-and-forth packing strategy. There has also been talk of abolishing the 17th Amendment, which was instituted under totalitarian Woodrow Wilson. Doing so would further remove powers from the federal government, since people would need to pay more attention to local elections, and the law-abiding nature of the Senate would be returned (rather than the senate being a mere cudgel of mob rule; they were never meant to be directly elected). It is endlessly comical when the left pretends that it is the right that is being anti-Constitutional, when the left is perpetually advocating for the "living" document theory of the Constitution and is asking for so many destructive, Republic-ending measures. The common thread is that they complain any time the right attempts to protect themselves from the madness of mobs. Affirming commitments to the Constitution would provide these protections. I do not necessarily think a Convention is the best tactic, but if people cannot be awoken to the Marxist infiltration, firm lines may need to be drawn. But, I do hope they can be awoken.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 10:43:41 Scott Adams is right. Tech companies do not "intentionally serve wokeness" the vast majority of the time. The algorithms don't work that way. There's no "wokeness" parameter for machine learning. That's tech illiterate conspiracy. If you knew how machine learning worked you'd be embarrassed to claim something so silly. These algos take in a dataset (e.g. all Tweets in history) and target metrics, primarily user engagement, and tune for optimum results. What you see as a conspiracy is simply a reflection of user behavior. The majority of the users engage with content that has wokeness in it. Changing how google search or Twitter bans work will not solve anything, and you are simply wasting your time and effort thinking that it's more than a reflection of the zeitgeist.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 10:46:45 Where the "wokeness" could come into play is through the manual intervention processes. Stopping that is also pointless. The vast majority of this is automated, and the "woke policies" are, once again, created as a *reflection* of user behavior. If it became more profitable to avoid "wokeness", the algorithms will tune it that way. And the policies will begin to reflect it as KPIs get skewed.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 11:24:35 This whole "losses are subsidized" BS isn't actually how it works in the real world, btw. Each individual team and employee has their own career. They aren't going to subsidize an engineer or team tuning a model that results in a degraded performance measurement for things like user engagement during their annual review. The engineer is going to try to advance his career, and, outside of a few outliers, 99% of them will operate in accordance with their best interests, woke or not.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 11:59:05 The problem now is that Project Veritas caught an outlier or two (although the main one wasn't actually an engineer so he was mostly irrelevant) and now silly people extrapolate that to an entire industry. XD
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 13:00:14 That said, there is something to be said about our machine learning output reflecting and encouraging toxic aspects of the zeitgeist. The ever toxic bubble grows over time, and becomes something of a blackhole. As users become more trained into their bubble, the algorithm will encourage them to devolve further into it to increase engagement. The ethics of that are questionable.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 13:04:09 What happens when the most profitable way to run an enterprise also cultivates negative emergent behavior in our society? That's the question people avoid because it's difficult to answer. Elaborate conspiracies are crafted instead of addressing that question. Easier to have an enemy and feel like you're making "progress" on it by turning everyone against the enemy. Instead of solving the root problem. We call this trying to "fix side effects" in software engineering (probably applies to medicine too). It doesn't work.
nhill Member	Tue Aug 02 13:12:19 Case in point: Truth Social. Setting aside it steaming pile of garbage from a technical standpoint (and easily hacked due to running an outdated version of mastodon), it's a failure. Has about 1% of the engagement on Trump's posts that Twitter had obtained on Trump's posts. And his posts are basically the whole app (they suggest you follow him automatically on install). Everyone else has almost no engagement outside of him. Turns out that the work Twitter engineers have done to get higher engagement was effective.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 02 22:32:28 Looks like a thread troll has stumbled in with a vitriolic comment series that clearly does not understand the subject enough and is only making surface arguments based on a one-dimensional understanding from one aspect of his limited expertise — completely disregarding previous evidentiary collection in this thread series that details how ESG/DIE permeates the legal frameworks of Corporate Governance. It's at least incredibly easy to see who has actually read the arguments and evidence in this thread series before dismissing it to reduce cognitive dissonance. It's further telling that such a person would call Adams "right" on this subject when Adams only even heard of ESG a few days ago — i.e., Adams is clearly uninformed on the subject, as is likewise the troll. Where intelligence and reading comprehension can be momentarily minimized, one's very character often determines one's ability to address information. The eulogies of such people have been pre-written by the overlords. But, this was to be expected. I'd re-refer to this: "the trolls often avoid reading — so they haven't noticed — but I have said several times now that I'll always re-engage with a previously burned bridge if some measure of good faith is present, but persistent trolls can do a close-reading of the lyrics to "The Remedy": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HivxFBB87-Y ♫ Should you choose to react like an imbecile, You in turn will be treated so, Yes, we're being condescending, Yes, that means we're talking down to you, With all that racket from you lips a-flapping, We assumed you didn't notice, Haters, isolators, No one misses these, Bitches receive stitches, Trolls receive 86's, ♫ -=-=-=- =-=-=-= As a potential optimism moment, on July 29th, 2022, North Carolina's Representative Dan Bishop introduced a resolution co-sponsored by 10 Congressional GOP members including Boebert and Massie: "H.Res.1303 - Establishing the Marxist roots of critical race theory and detail the threat this divisive ideology poses to the American republic." [Congress dot gov; Full text, H.Res.1303] http://www.../house-resolution/1303?s=1&r=1 The text of the resolution is about 2 pages and every paragraph is valuable, but here is a slightly abridged list: • "Whereas critical race theory is a newly prominent vein of thought that has arisen in the United States with the purpose of calling into question the founding and moral legitimacy of the United States, both here and throughout the world, and is for many reasons a pressing issue of debate for the American people" • "Whereas critical race theory teaches children that they are either oppressors or oppressed based solely on the color of their skin;" • "thus establishes therein a racial hierarchy within the United States" • "critical race theory explicitly frames this racial-class antagonism as structural in nature under the terms “structural racism” and “systemic racism”, sees it as structurally determinant upon the character of United States citizens, and defines it in terms of a structural dialectic analogous to Karl Marx’s doctrines of structural classism, material determinism, and dialectical materialism;" • "critical race theory claims that “structural racism” is the fundamental organizing principle of United States society and its “ordinary state of affairs”, thus framing the United States as an intrinsically unjust, oppressive, and racist nation, and this being in direct analogy to Karl Marx’s views on the structural nature of capitalism, which was his caricature of the free-market principles that underlie United States society, especially inalienable property rights;" • "critical race theory contends that its purpose is to awaken a racial-class consciousness pursuant to, in its own defining words, “calling into question the very foundations of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and the neutral principles of constitutional law”;" • "thereby affirms the dialectical conception of the world and man’s role in it put forth by Karl Marx in such a way that its implementation by the government threatens to violate of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment;" • "critical race theory claims that the only solution to this state of affairs is to “abolish whiteness”, explicitly eschewing “incremental and step-by-step progress”, in perfect analogy to Karl Marx’s demand in the “Communist Manifesto” to abolish bourgeois private property, with this being the clearly stated purpose of raising the racial consciousness;" • "certain prominent advocates of critical race theory have publicly called for the principles of critical race theory to be insinuated not only into all vital and secondary American institutions and businesses under terms with deceptive specialist definitions, including “diversity”, “equity”, “inclusion”, and “antiracism”, but also into the United States Government with power over all public policy on the local, State, and Federal level, in effect establishing a “dictatorship of the antiracists” analogous to the Marxist vanguard concept of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” and inimical to the American way of life and republican form of government;" • "the creators of critical race theory openly describe themselves as Marxists and recognizing that critical race theory is the primary tool of the twentieth century movement called “Critical Marxism”;" • "prominent critical race theorists have explicitly declared that the only remedy to past discrimination is present and future discrimination in the reverse direction to the “structural racism” from those with access to “whiteness” to those allegedly excluded from it, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause;" • "the response from critical race theorists to this resolution will be to accuse this resolution, its authors, and its supporters of malicious and racist intent" The resolution was clearly written by people who understand what's going on here. I don't know if Bishop himself wrote it, but, looking at his Twitter, he or his staffers follow James Lindsay, since they re-Tweeted this Lindsay Tweet on July 31st, 2022: "Critical Race Theory is Race Marxism." http://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1553882023185498113 This resolution would be a good step towards another round of McCarthyism — which the country and the world likely needs right now. McCarthy was right to weed out Communist infiltration in the U.S., with the metaphor of "The Crucible" only truly applying where people are innocent of the charges — and, in this case, many people are *not* innocent of Marxism. Marxism has become an open facet of a controlled demolition of the U.S. under the Malthusian totalitarians. As a cancer, it has infiltrated nearly every aspect of public life, meaning to do terrible harm to the world.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Aug 03 04:17:42 In the DNC's latest attempt at Newspeak, in late July they presented the "Inflation Reduction Act" (H.R.5376): [Senate dot gov; Inflation Reduction Act; https://www.democrats.senate.gov/inflation-reduction-act-of-2022 [Full Bill text] http://www...tion_reduction_act_of_2022.pdf The bill is an extension of the "Build Back Better Act" (also H.R.5376), which was first introduced in September 2021 but which floundered thereafter with only a narrow "220 - 213" win in the House in November 2021, meaning that the DNC stopped for revisions in order to give it a chance in the Senate, since the DNC currently sits at 48 senators (+2 Ind.) to the GOP's 50: [Congress dot gov; H.R.5376] http://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376 The new revision was introduced by Senators Chuck Schumer (Bolshevik, NY) and Joe Manchin (Bolshevik, WV). Early economic reports indicate that it would have almost zero positive effect on inflation: "Inflation Reduction Act: Preliminary Estimates of Budgetary and Macroeconomic Effects" [Penn Wharton, Univeristy of Pennsylvania; ] http://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2022/7/29/inflation-reduction-act-preliminary-estimates "The Act would very slightly increase inflation until 2024 and decrease inflation thereafter. These point estimates are statistically indistinguishable from zero, thereby indicating low confidence that the legislation will have any impact on inflation." Exxon CEO Darren Woods was somewhat pleased with initial reports on the bill, saying that — although he had not gone into the specifics — this version of green energy initiatives gives oil/gas "a more comprehensive set of solutions" (Bloomberg; July 30th, 2022; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-29/exxon-s-woods-calls-manchin-bill-step-in-the-right-direction ). Woods was drawing a distinction between the former bill, which did not subsidize gas much for green transitions, merely regulating the industry while subsidizing wind and solar, and thus would have collapsed oil/gas industries further. With the government subsidizing oil/gas for transition, oil/gas does not take the losses directly — this falls on taxpayers and the government. Woods was also referring to previous pushes by ESG/DIE Asset manager BlackRock, which in 2021, while the former iteration of H.R.5376 was being pushed, attempted to threaten oil/gas and remove Woods from power at Exxon: "Capital Calls: BlackRock tests Exxon and self too" [Reuters; May 25th, 2021] http://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/capital-calls-blackrock-tests-exxon-self-too-2021-05-25/ • "Investment firm Engine No. 1 and others want a reluctant Exxon to pay more heed to its future, or lack thereof, as a purveyor of fossil fuels. If successful, the effort to replace directors might precipitate both the boardroom shock and the new ideas required." • "BlackRock, meanwhile, has ramped up its voting against companies’ recommendations, notably when they show insufficient attention to climate change. The $9 trillion asset manager voted against two Exxon directors and in favor of an independent chair last year, according to its disclosures. All of this bolsters BlackRock’s credentials when it comes to promoting responsible corporate ownership. That’s no bad thing since Fink is facing his own shareholders on Wednesday, too." In other words, BlackRock's strategies in infiltrating businesses include forcing the directors of other companies out to produce more ESG/DIE-compliant directors. ESG/DIE asset managers are also openly against businesses that are profit-oriented (shareholder businesses), favoring businesses that are ESG/DIE-oriented (stakeholder businesses) — this being the stated policy of the WEF, elucidated in particular by Klaus Schwab, restated on the WEF website, and codified in the Corporate Governance structure of businesses that allow their legal frameworks to be re-written by WEF-compliance teams. This is, yet again, an example of how these UN/WEF asset managers attempt to control businesses against their rational self-interest (i.e., profit motive). Exxon could best make money by following their own corporate structures (i.e.; their own internal algorithms, spreadsheets, and quarterly growth initiatives), but the Corporate Governance framework of the UN/WEF's ESG/DIE plan necessitates that these businesses prioritize not a direct accumulation of assets and expansion of capital but an ESG/DIE framework. Businesses that do not comply face these kinds of pressures: • Billions of dollars dedicated to eroding those businesses by corrupting their board of directors (as above). • Isolation from ESG/DIE-compliant businesses (i.e.; under the anti-competitive framework, non-ESG/DIE businesses are iced out of the ESG/DIE-monopolized market). • Harsher government regulation (e.g.; the earlier draft of H.R.5376, which placed caps on production, caps on carbon output, harsh penalties for non-compliance with ESG/DIE plans, greater payments to the EPA for monitoring, denial of access to oil/gas leases if businesses do not convert to the ESG/DIE framework, and a termination of those leases if those businesses do not convert to ESG/DIE by their expiration dates — see p.370–373 and p.942 of the House draft of H.R.5376). As stated before in these threads, that is part of the "stick" mechanism. The "carrot" is often subsidization, grants, and tax credits. If, for instance, Exxon is to be brought into the ESG/DIE framework, its CEO is threatened with his own replacement by a shifting board of directors who may vote against him, and he is cajoled by government subsidies and bonuses from asset managers (this same strategy was used in 2008, by the way — people wondered why CEOs were given huge bonuses after imploding their businesses). The Exxon CEO could plainly see from the first draft of H.R.5376 that oil/gas was being intentionally collapsed, but, with the new draft of H.R.5376, that collapse is subsidized. Thus, Exxon's immediate losses will be aided by the government's investment in their ESG/DIE transition strategies, so Exxon can expect a strong Q3 and Q4 so long as the ESG/DIE market can incorporate more businesses into the pyramid scheme to hide the losses from the wider market. If the market collapses, Exxon will still be assured its bonuses, with it being only the people who bear the cost in a depression. To the new draft of H.R.5376, This Act would cause more inflation and precipitate global collapse under "green" energy policies and Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE). The "Inflation Reduction Act" is similar in composition to the former "American Rescue Plan" (H.R.1319) in that it is packed with a multi-pronged funding of ESG/DIE businesses, DIE social infiltration, native/indigenous funding initiatives, and a conversion of the economy from energy-efficient methods to inefficient, low-energy "sustainable" initiatives designed to limit the "carbon" that is humanity. One of its income sources includes $124 billion in "tax enforcement" (an extension of the Fed's larger umbrella of tracking individual purchases, as mentioned regarding Yellen in comment "Tue Jul 26 01:22:00"). It will also increase taxes on $1-billion businesses, encouraging them to look for ESG/DIE tax breaks, allowing further Corporate-Governance infiltration if businesses are unwilling to report those losses and instead seek ESG/DIE grant/credit/subsidy relief. Other fun highlights: • "Drug Price Negotiation Program" (p.41) — The government will use medicaid and medicare to make $288 billion off of insurance programs and hospitals. • "Environmental and Climate Justice" (p.694) — Under these provisions, the bill sets aside about $3 billion for items such as "facilitating engagement of disadvantaged communities in State and Federal public processes, including facilitating such engagement in advisory groups, workshops, and rulemakings" (i.e., the DNC paying $3 billion to ensure it produces a reliable voting bloc and further infiltrates local ESG/DIE activism). Another aspect of this is that if the government organizes a collapse of society but bribes the "disadvantaged" voting bloc at the bottom, a surge of populism is delayed. This is why governments need to improve their S-Index: if there is not directed social infiltration via these multi-billion-dollar investments in Marxist DIE culture, more people will be aware of the collapsing world economies. • Throughout the bill, a large emphasis is placed on "qualified facilities/properties". These facilities/properties are typically non-gas/oil businesses that produce electricity (e.g., wind, solar; see p.469) or facilities that produce or use carbon-capture technology. These businesses receive the largest amount of tax credits. Thus, despite not having great energy production compared to oil/gas, wind/solar receive the most tax credits, subsidies, and grants from the government under H.R.5376 — which, I remind, calls itself the "Inflation Reduction Act". • "Neighborhood Access and Equity Grant Program" (p699) — This directs billions into "equity" initiatives for designated DNC communities, putting aside another $1.8 billion into a fund that will re-release funds in 2026. Much of it is practical: building structures which minimize the impact of the new "green" initiatives (E.g., sound walls, drainoff from the new facilities). But, unsurprisngly, their initiative most benefits "public participation in transportation planning by individuals and organizations in disadvantaged or underserved communities", with additional grants going to those community organizers that enter into "a partnership with an eligible entity" (i.e., extra money for those that comply with ESG/DIE — entering into the anti-competitive framework). • Several hundred million for "Tribal Climate Resilience and Adaptation" (p.720). • A perhaps singular saving grace of the bill is its nuclear tax credit (p.298). However, this credit is only given to ESG-compliant nuclear energy producers that meet a zero-emission requirement, and these sectors will receive *less* funding even than tribes even if they are rated at total compliance. In short, the "Inflation Reduction Act" (H.R.5376) is not a measure against inflation. This is an ESG/DIE initiative. Its short intent is to reduce the production incentives of oil and gas (subsidizing their collapse) while giving grants and tax credits to and subsidizing wind and solar (incentivizing their money-losing existence) and creating additional DNC-led bureaucracies. The qualifications they place on their rewards are nearly entirely tailored to wind and solar. The jobs that it "creates" are at *best* jobs given to the initial building of new facilities, with its "transition" strategy only meaning that oil and gas sectors will hemorrhage employees to cut losses while wind and solar will add maintenance employees. The supposed "1.5 million additional jobs" (a number reported from "Energy Innovation", a WEF sycophant) will thus be numbers *recovered* from this bill's own negative effects on the job market. It would at least have been more honest if the DNC had left the original "Build Back Better Act" label on H.R.5376, since this is an infrastructure Act — not an inflation reduction act. The DNC clearly just focus-group tested a new name, found that most people were concerned with inflation, and figured that a bill that would actually *cause* inflation via massive government spending into inefficient businesses would be better sold if it were named its opposite.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Aug 03 07:38:30 Soros "wrote" (i.e., probably had someone write for him) an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal on July 31st: "Why I Support Reform Prosecutors Justice or safety? It’s a false choice. They reinforce each other." http://www...ice-police-funding-11659277441 Available as an image: http://pbs.twimg.com/media/FZGbK-7UsAAZ94k?format=jpg&name=900x900 • "We need to invest more in preventing crime with strategies that work—deploying mental-health professionals in crisis situations, investigating youth job programs, and creating opportunities for education behind bars." • "The goal is not defunding the police but restoring trust between police and the policed, a partnership that fosters the solving of crimes." • "This is why I have supported the election (and more recently the re-election) of prosecutors who support reform. I have done it transparently, and I have no intention of stopping." • "Judging by the results, the public likes what it's hearing" Compare this to the recent White House Fact Sheet on H.R.1319 expansion and White House talking points (discussed above in comment "Wed Jul 27 04:25:25") • "Over $2 billion to prevent crime and ease the burden on police" • "Over $350 million in job training and other assistance to help formerly incarcerated individuals" • "the answer is not to defund the police, it's to fund the police" This brings Soros into total alignment with the DNC's White House strategy on "defund"/"fund". The White House strategy is to continue with defund policies while calling it "funding" by throwing a small percentage of their total redistribution into departments (typically, funding training and the new-hiring of officers — those more likely to be DIE-compliant) while throwing the bulk of it into DIE policies to bribe local communities into the DNC. They then claim that dollars spent on pre-crime count as "police" funding, and so they inflate their numbers. It should be zero surprise to anyone that Soros is just an extension of the DNC. It is known, for instance, that the DNC itself has been funding prosecutors in order to reduce sentencing for their brown-shirt useful idiots (e.g., Kamala Harris funding 2020 BLM-insurrectionists), and DNC-totalitarians such as Raskin are openly working with the FBI to make sure that crime statistics paint a false image of the "real" threat in the U.S.; so Soros is just an extension of this same practice of Marxist repressive tolerance (supporting and excusing their own criminality while calling the law-abiding Constitutionalists the "enemy"). So maybe the real story here is that he's publicly making himself a target with his "I have no intention of stopping" line. Perhaps the DNC is hoping for more political violence, and they are painting a target on him for some misguided psychopath. If Soros' writers were concerned with self-preservation, they likely would have chosen his words better, such as saying, "[I have done it transparently because I think it is the right thing to do]", but, instead, he made himself a villain here. He even ends with the mocking line of "Judging by the results, the public likes what it's hearing", which is, of course, absurd, considering that the public "likes" the candidate that has millions of dollars of Soros-funding to squash non-Bolshevik options and run smear campaigns and Cardinal Richelieu crime-finding operations against opposition. He is not simply putting candidates forward and marveling at the public for seeing virtue in these designs — he is coercing and intimidating both the public and the candidate pool in order to enact his schemes. Naturally, the World Economic Forum lauds Soros for his contributions: http://www.weforum.org/organizations/soros-fund-management-llc Soros Fund Management is in complete alignment with the WEF's ESG/DIE strategies (e.g., globalism / global governance, funding/incentivizing migration, bank infiltration), and his Open Societies Foundation has given over $32 billion to to ESG/DIE strategies and supports "constructive partnerships between government and civil society groups—in line with the aspirations of the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda" ( http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/who-we-are ). I spoke about the UN's Sustainable Development Goals/Agenda above — in direct quotations of the WEF's shared belief in these goals ("Tue Jul 26 01:22:00"). Soros is sharing talking points with both the DNC and the WEF. There is no daylight between these fixtures of society. The DNC is simply the U.S. arm of the WEF, and Soros is another proud champion of this totalitarian strategy.
nhill Member	Wed Aug 03 09:27:02 Is no surprise to me to see you ignore practical advice and be unable to extrapolate how the limited scope applies to ESG...thinking is harder than providing "best of" summaries of zerohedge. Keep on keeping on! Appreciate the tl;drs so I don't have to sort through zerohedge's terrible interface anymore.
nhill Member	Wed Aug 03 10:25:10 >vitriolic comment series Once again, sensitive as a baby's ass ;) No vitriol or hate. I pointed out where Scott Adams is right. Not sure where vitriol comes into it. Maybe you are emotionally invested in people repeating the stuff you read online, dunno. >that clearly does not understand the subject enough and is only making surface arguments based on a one-dimensional understanding from one aspect of his limited expertise — completely disregarding previous evidentiary collection in this thread series that details how ESG/DIE permeates the legal frameworks of Corporate Governance. Reading comprehension, hunny. I was pointing out where he was right and providing a real world (may want to get out there sometime, it's a fun place) example of how causality gets skewed in these discussions. In no way was it a refutation of the other material. Try not to be so emotionally invested in your copy-paste abilities. ;) >It's at least incredibly easy to see who has actually read the arguments and evidence in this thread series before dismissing it to reduce cognitive dissonance. Never dismissed it, and do not have any discomfort in the subject. But keep randomly lashing out, as it shows your true colors and inability to synthesize information out of your bubble. :D
nhill Member	Wed Aug 03 10:34:47 As for the limited experience comment, yes, that is by design. Spent decades building up expertise in systems design, computer engineering, and finance. Whether you want to benefit from that is completely up to you. Meanwhile, I'll continue to benefit and learn from your zerohedge summary service. :)
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Aug 03 20:54:52 ♫ Should you choose to react like an imbecile, You in turn will be treated so, Yes, we're being condescending, Yes, that means we're talking down to you, With all that racket from you lips a-flapping, We assumed you didn't notice, Haters, isolators, No one misses these, Bitches receive stitches, Trolls receive 86's, ♫ -=-=- =-=-= Scott Adams today revealed further ignorance of ESG, but people are still trying to help him, and he seems willing to learn in good faith, which sets him apart from the brain-death multitude: "If corporations are going to get an ESG score, shouldn’t they also get a “crippled by wokeness” grade as well? You need both." [August 3rd, 2022] http://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1554888066929610752 A top comment points out: "They’re the same score." I posted this: "To develop "same score" comments: ESG is not one score—each letter has its own Index with its own sub-categories. E.g., S-Index: ground-up social-infiltration; how much woke doctrine has permeated groups. G-Index: Corporate Governance infiltration; legal framework infiltration." I've been trying to throw together a website where I can divide my cultural reviews (e.g., movie reviews) from political talk, but needing to communicate the contents of this thread on Twitter in the short term may just push me to make a SubStack. I'll probably do that today before I move into my current projects.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 04 05:06:25 My notes on Sweden and Finland being added to NATO are in patom's thread: "Senate vote on Sweden and Finland" http://utopiaforums.com/boardthread?id=politics&thread=90362
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 09:28:04 [ZeroHedge Summary Bot]: *insert some cringe lyrics from someone...lyrically challenged* Imagine being trapped in your own bubble so much that thinking explaining things is a troll just because there's one barb thrown in the mix. lmao Speaking of barbs, zerohedgesummaries.com is available for your website, you have a good copy-paste, no original though thing going here. zerohedgebestof.com is also available.
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 09:28:44 I'm sure this next website will be as popular as your abandoned tumblr ;)
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 04 10:08:09 What I like about this sycophant is that he is a great example of Poe's Law. Option 1: He's being genuine when he makes his bad points, in which case, he's too stupid to realize that his points are non sequiturs, misrepresentations, and fallacies and that he's not actually challenging anything of substance. Option 2: He's just trolling. This makes far more sense, since how stupid would someone have to be to so freely produce logical fallacies as he has done while simultaneously expecting these idiocies to be engaged in the good faith that he himself cannot produce? Quite stupid. Abysmally stupid, even. Such an abysmally stupid person might feel obligated to post his C.V. in a fallacy of authority to see if that gives him the credibility that he could not gain in a genuine intellectual effort — such as actually attempting to generate a coherent argument. If Option 1 is at play, dumbing things down even further would accomplish nothing. Every comment he makes is so filled with fallacies that I would have to first explain his own thinking errors to him before even addressing the tiny morsel of a steel man argument buried beneath his deficiencies. Further, he has demonstrated a persistent inability to read or comprehend, so there would be no effect in any explanation. Words directly to him are wasted, much as would be measured words to a petulant child. As with the petulant child whose temper must flair into nap time, only clinical measures such as speaking over him make sense. If Option 2 is at play, he is simply an immature manchild desperate for attention. In such case, his desperate impotence is in direct competition with his irrelevant intellect, thus his only objective is to derail and waste the mental efforts of people that he can only envy, since he is without any concerted mental efforts of his own, resigned as he is to a wandering life without character or morality — lost to history like so many perishable items dropped from the sides of ships. So, despite this troll's attempts to undermine the below mantra, his lack of character has demonstrated that it is still very much the final word on the matter: ♫ Should you choose to react like an imbecile, You in turn will be treated so, Yes, we're being condescending, Yes, that means we're talking down to you, With all that racket from you lips a-flapping, We assumed you didn't notice, Haters, isolators, No one misses these, Bitches receive stitches, Trolls receive 86's, You speak like someone who has never been, Smacked in the fucking mouth, That's OK: we have your remedy. ♫ -=-=-=- =-=-=-= In a minor note, people might notice that many politicians wear a circle of colors on their lapels. This is the "Global Goals" wheel, signifying participation with the WEF: [Global Goals dot org] http://www.globalgoals.org/ As the website's front page explains, "In 2015, world leaders agreed to 17 Global Goals. Seven years on, we have made progress, but there is still work to be done, and the Goals are more important than ever. The climate crisis. Ensuring no one goes hungry. Human rights abuses. Extreme poverty. Problems of this scale can be overwhelming, but the Global Goals (also known as the Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs) are the solution to tackling them." As already covered in comment "Tue Jul 26 01:22:00", the "Sustainable Development Goals" are derived directly from the United Nations, which were subsequently adopted by the World Economic Forum. The "Global Goals" website is thus the social face of the WEF, designed to capture useful idiots with environmentalism while directing them into the WEF's overall plans.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 10:18:24 Maybe I can bridge the two continents here :P. It is true that the algos create a bubble of our own making, I am get suggested rightwing and conservative videos on youtube. Or leftwing and liberal depending on choices I have made, I can see this. However it’s more than algos, it’s the contents of the community guidelines, it’s the heavy progressive leanings of the people who work in these companies, activism within the companies, threats of and actual employee walk outs etc. You don’t need conspiracies when people are in a cult. They will behave according to ”script” so to speak without meetings. If we take the youtube ”adpocalypse” as an example, it is true that the changes made to the algo decimated independent source regardless of political leanings and boosted traditional news sources, but they still rank traditional leftwing sources over rightwing ones. At least from my understanding about youtube, it’s not just a bubble of your own making. It is more subtle at times, and without conspiratorial intent, just that if the people who are writting the guidelines are mostly left/progressives, the things they commonly find ”beyond the pale” often happens to be rightwing or conservatives beliefs, like ”a man isn’t a woman” or demonetization of videos about gun maintenence. It’s a complex issue I grant you, more so than I would have thought 3 years ago, there are just more loonies on the left at the moment and they will impact the zeigeist that informs algo. However they are getting a lot of help from their fellow cult members inside these companies, simply based on sharing the same ideas and ideologies. The nuances isn’t as subtle when >googling< current events, it’s the traditional liberal rags and sources that are rankes highest.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 10:19:35 CC Ment to respond to previous conversation. Reasonable thoughts. One thing I want to stress is that one can not underestimate the power of (collective) trauma. Not that you are, but I want to underline that. Likewise and in line whith what I said earlier that it takes generations to break free, observing Israel’s tranformation from a European leftist project to a much more diverse and currently rightwing led one. ”All” it took was a new set of circumstances. The plurality of ideas emerged once the Jewish people where not second class citizens in Europe. While they are still under pressure, they are the helm of their own destiny. Pretty amazing when you think about it, it happend within 2 generations!
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 04 10:55:54 [Nimatzo]: "However it’s more than algos, it’s the contents of the community guidelines, it’s the heavy progressive leanings of the people who work in these companies, activism within the companies, threats of and actual employee walk outs etc. You don’t need conspiracies when people are in a cult. They will behave according to ”script” so to speak without meetings." Exactly. Years ago I was posting the video of Jack Dorsey and Twitter's community lawyer admitting (in a conversation that they did not expect to have on Joe Rogan in 2019; they thought they would just promote Twitter and call it a day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ ) that their community guidelines and algorithm manipulations are directly in support of a progressive bent. That is, they did not simply create a magically neutral algorithm that simply shows people what they want or simply follows perfectly objective mathematical rules. They directed Twitter's outcomes with a specific Overton Window in mind, adding exception after exception into their coding structure to direct a certain political outcome. They ultimately decide the reach of approved users, leave moderation decisions to people who were hired under their stated DIE framework, isolation certain phrase-usages, and prune their "trends" to redirect issues in the favor of progressive beliefs. Much of this is a deliberate human over-coming of any passive algorithms, and any "neutrality" of algorithms is over-programmed with guided criteria where automation is used. In that same interview, they also confirmed that the left is far more likely to simply follow themselves. This can still be confirmed today by going to Ground.News and checking the interactions of various politicians (a list I've been populating for this exact example). Even the right's most controversial politicians consume a fair amount of left-wing content, but the left almost exclusively consumes left-wing content. This is a major source of left-wing psychosis. Part of this is the algorithm, and part of it is collectivism creating people who do not have a desire to see beyond their walls. I myself have about a 50% consumption of left-wing sources, 37% center, and 13% right when it comes to traditional media. Despite the most recent troll's "Zero Hedge" fixation, as evidenced by this thread most of my citations are directly from dot gov websites and the primary bodies mentioned — bypassing the narratives to see the actual legal arguments. More people need to do this rather than waiting for the news to tell them what was in those bills. I tend only to use articles to find those primary sources, and I post those articles so that people can see who is actually talking about these issues with high-information arguments. Back to algorithms.. [Nimatzo]: "just that if the people who are writting the guidelines are mostly left/progressives" Yep. I spoke with earthpig about this before, but this is not just a simple matter of well-educated people just "reasonably" becoming left-wing because of some inherent city-based enlightenment (his claim of a "natural" left-wing becoming). This was a directed infiltration. ESG, in particular, incentivizes hiring and educating along progressive lines. They very much want coders who will tow this progressive bent, since progressives tend to fail the Chesterton's Fence test. This is a theme that Marxists have seen for over a century now: progressives will look before they leap, then "inventing" conservative structures when they land on nails.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 04 11:15:44 [Nimatzo]: "One thing I want to stress is that one can not underestimate the power of (collective) trauma. Not that you are, but I want to underline that" Oh, true. That's informed my opinion on a possible Jewish resentment. I took classes specifically on Jewish trauma in the Holocaust. That included works such as.. • Lanzman's "Shoah", • Levi's "Survival in Auschwitz", • Caruth's "Unclaimed Experience" • Vidal-Naquet's "Assassins of Memory" As well as the genocide works of other countries (e.g., Rwandan genocide works such as "Book of Bones"). A great deal of this trauma logic gave birth to postmodernism in film, such as the way that things are considered beyond "representation" (e.g., how "Schindler's List" covered up certain trauma with events that did not take place). We see this in books like "Slaughter-House Five" and "Hiroshima", where the closer to a "bomb" a person is, the more likely they are to not actually experience it — e.g., because they died or because their nervous system was overcome and thus ceased to function correctly. Even Christopher Nolan experimented with this Jewish-postmodern technique in "Dunkirk" (2017), where he refused to represent Nazis or death at their hands — that's directly from Jewish postmodernism. A major theme coming out of these works was that they needed to use the full weight of their intellectual capacity to prevent such traumas from occurring in the future — to prevent being overcome again. That was a big part of why the Frankfurt School was so feverish for a hyper-vigilant Marxism and why Walter Benjamin's works are still taught (he killed himself in 1940 when he thought he would be captured by Nazis). We even see practical examples of this hyper-vigilance in the way that Israel dealt with Munich, how they used apartheid for Zionism, and how they direct U.S. foreign policy to stabilize an entire region for themselves. They certainly have not forgotten and have certainly passed on a specific set of lessons.
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 13:47:35 >It is true that the algos create a bubble of our own making, I am get suggested rightwing and conservative videos on youtube. Or leftwing and liberal depending on choices I have made, I can see this. This is true, but want to point out that they create more than that. They make a collective bubble and an individual bubble. The individual bubble is well understood by laymen, it's the collective bubble that people don't get, and, like anything humanity doesn't understand, there tends to be magical explanations (see: religion explaining death). >However it’s more than algos, it’s the contents of the community guidelines, it’s the heavy progressive leanings of the people who work in these companies, activism within the companies, threats of and actual employee walk outs etc. You don’t need conspiracies when people are in a cult. They will behave according to ”script” so to speak without meetings. This is all true. Two things I'd like to point out: * This doesn't address causality, the most important factor. * Manual intervention is a very small percentage of cases by design (that's why we code algorithms, to avoid it). As for causality, these policies are nearly always driven by the results of the algorithms (exceptions during bootstrapping phases). Our options for causality here are thankfully simple, it's either 1 or the other: 1. The algorithms are derived from the policies. 2. The policies are derived from the algorithms. Only one of these is technically feasible (the latter) *at scale*. People forget that most engineers have access to code from tech companies through our networks (we all have friends that work at Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook eventually). Hence my comment above. It sounds silly when people talk about "wokeness parameters" in AI (especially when they don't even know that's what they are saying logically). It's one of those things that seems incredulous to postulate because it vastly overestimates the sophistication of the AI. Policies are defined by algorithm outputs and data analysis. That's how it works in tech, it's the process. Engineers and product analysts are taught and trained on that. It's very weird for people to think these roles are different at the big tech companies...think a bit about job mobility, please. Note I'm mainly talking about the big companies here (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Facebook). Smaller shops have more experimental approaches. >If we take the youtube ”adpocalypse” as an example, it is true that the changes made to the algo decimated independent source regardless of political leanings and boosted traditional news sources, but they still rank traditional leftwing sources over rightwing ones. At least from my understanding about youtube, it’s not just a bubble of your own making. There's an easy way for this to happen, assuming liberal and conservative representation is close to 50/50 in society. Only one thing has to be true: Liberals use the Internet more. That's it. That's the only fact that needs to accepted in order to understand why things get skewed by algorithms over time (and in a compound way, exactly as predicted by my model here). Not a huge leap to make, considering liberals (of which I am not one) are generally a younger and more tech-literate populace. >It is more subtle at times, and without conspiratorial intent, just that if the people who are writting the guidelines are mostly left/progressives, the things they commonly find ”beyond the pale” often happens to be rightwing or conservatives beliefs, like ”a man isn’t a woman” or demonetization of videos about gun maintenence. It’s a complex issue I grant you, more so than I would have thought 3 years ago, there are just more loonies on the left at the moment and they will impact the zeitgeist that informs algo. However they are getting a lot of help from their fellow cult members inside these companies, simply based on sharing the same ideas and ideologies. That's mostly the point here. When you don't get the causality (it being a side effect of the zeitgeist) nailed down, you end up crafting elaborate conspiracy theories, some of which end up to be true, but, they are all irrelevant and a wasted effort to combat. But because it's more difficult to fight the spirit of the times, we have people attacking side effects and never addressing the root cause. Which is fine. Anyone can feel free to waste their time doing something insignificant in order to help their feelings of frustrations. It only becomes tragic when people spend their whole life on an endeavor they thought was useful, but was actually a pointless exercise in mental masturbation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 15:03:51 1. The algorithms are derived from the policies. 2. The policies are derived from the algorithms. Surely, you can do both? The algorithms are tweaked all the time to produce more desired outcomes, in line with company policy, the wishes of advertising clients, regulators and community guidelines. At least by the admission of youtube there is a top down aspect. But to add another dimension, people figured out that there is a significant bottom up aspect to algorithms and organized for that very purpose. Progressives have a long tradition of collective effort and social activism and better at this. The right and conservatives have had to play catch up. It may be that my ignorance is showing here, but I don't understand why tweaking an algorithm, a process that itself may be influenced by human bias wouldn't work at scale. Tell the script to boost MSNBC over Fox, regardless of views/likes. This very thing that youtube did, was exactly that, (changed) policies informed/tweaked the algorithm. And the policy itself was changed as a direct result of traditional leftwing media and activist creating a shitstorm over a pewdiepie video. You know to raise awareness about the fact that youtube ad money was supporting "nazis" and alt-right incels :) "Liberals use the Internet more." And/or certain groups are more likely to report political content, collectively organize and digitally picket the fences. In the case of youtube, the reverse is true though. Youtube is (was?) bigger among men and in extension right wingers. You know it is the 1 star rating effect to some degree, not every happy customer will leave a review, but offended people/trolls have a higher likelihood to leave a shitty one. There are factors here that can produce asymmetrical effects even if the demographics are 50/50.
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 16:08:02 >Surely, you can do both? They do interact with other. And it's a good point, you're right in that there's a third possibility, at least theoretically, of it being 50/50, although highly unlikely. Engineers and their teams are measured on how much revenue they grow and that's measured through metrics, e.g. user engagement (the primary metric for social apps). AI is trained specifically to stimulate engagement because engagement is the primary unit of account for ad spend. >It may be that my ignorance is showing here, but I don't understand why tweaking an algorithm, a process that itself may be influenced by human bias wouldn't work at scale Trained AI models are a black box. To give Twitter example, a post would be processed through the engagement boosting model and return a score indicating how valuable it would be to make a post more visible (e.g. in Topics). When you start to add conditionals, like "if topic.contains("MSNBC") { do.something() }" it simply does not scale well. That's why we use AI. The reason we lean on AI so heavily is primarily to avoid having to enumerate all the logical branches needed to make a decision. You tell the AI something ("tell me how valuable this Twitter post is") and it spits out a response. The logical branches are still there but they are a black box. Nobody in the world can understand them other than a computer, and even the computer only understands how to use them, and doesn't understand the qualitative attributes. This is getting into the weeds a bit, but either way we're going to end up back where we started, that this is primarily a reflection of the zeitgeist. Think of it this way: Imagine we stamped out all the "conspiracies" and put neutral people only in charge of all the development of social media apps, and they made algorithms that prioritized posts that got higher engagement. Do you think that the algorithm would determine "woke shit" gets higher engagement or not?
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 16:38:38 >There are factors here that can produce asymmetrical effects even if the demographics are 50/50. Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think demographics are 50/50, I was using that as a given to factor out a variable. >Youtube is (was?) bigger among men and in extension right wingers. Looks like it is 53.9% men (http://blog.hootsuite.com/youtube-stats-marketers/) according to one source, which is bigger among men but not by much of a margin. Another source says it's over 50% women. I'm not sure it follows from there that the userbase is majority conservative. People here often talk about how the left wing in the USA is equivalent to the right wing in Europe, and the left wing in Europe is far left of ours. Is that true? Remember, we are talking globally. >And/or certain groups are more likely to report political content, collectively organize and digitally picket the fences. In the case of youtube, the reverse is true though. You know it is the 1 star rating effect to some degree, not every happy customer will leave a review, but offended people/trolls have a higher likelihood to leave a shitty one. Sure I would group that under that category of using it more. So, if we accept that as true, then the outcome is inevitable.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 17:36:36 So there is another aspect of this and that is that _experiences_ will be different because not all these platforms are the same, or populated by the same kind of political creatures. Twitter profiled itself early as a tool for journalists, a progressive group of people inherently. So what Twitter does there and the impact on the localized zeigeist will be different. In fact some actions that twitter took, led to an an outcry and exodus of progressive people. The experience has been different on youtube. "Do you think that the algorithm would determine "woke shit" gets higher engagement or not?" There is no doubt, if not supporters, then then haters will engage it, and most commonly it is both. I see your point, it isn't necessary to have "woke" algorithms, the progressive mob is sufficient. It may be that the algorithms, that are their own set of problems, is a red herring in this debate, ulimately it is an empirical question, I just don't know how to formulate the proper question. I lost contact with the details and data of this issue over a year ago, so I don't know what the data shows. There is the suggesting part of the platforms, then there is the part that blocks, demonetizes and on twitter hides tweets. There is an automaticity in that as well and that machinery is triggered by specific words and, no matter how crudely, patterns of behavior. I will concede that even the latter is in at least in part driven by whatever the community is offended by and end up reporting. What you say is reasonable, but due to the opaqueness of the systems, almost total ignorance about the technical details in the general population, what the people in charge of these companies say and perceived outcomes, it is difficult to internalize. But I will repeat, woke algorithms are not necessary, the progressive zeitgeist is sufficient. What this would mean, is that this is a much harder problem. If the problem was software algorithms, that would be a relatively easy fix, but it's the neurological algorithms in human brains. Must ruminate on this.
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 17:54:16 It's amazing what we can accomplish when we can have a reasoned discussion as opposed to plugging our ears and crying "wahh troll poor me" when encountering something uncomfortable. So thank you for that. ;) But yes, you understand now. One thing I would add is back to my original comment: What happens when the most profitable way to run an enterprise also cultivates negative emergent behavior in our society? That's the question people avoid because it's difficult to answer. We do have algorithm problems, but it's not of the conspiracy variety. It intrinsically morphs and molds society to devolve into a progressive mob, as you put it. This is where things get interesting...should we regulate AI even if it reduces profitability of our biggest companies? What about the free enterprise? The problem is so hard that people don't want to even start the discussion. Along with the problem of neurological algorithms in human brains. You can see quite quickly why people would rather focus on unfounded conspiracy claims. It becomes much easier when you have an enemy.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 18:16:01 "I'm not sure it follows from there that the userbase is majority conservative." Just based on the fact that men are more likely to vote right/conservative. I am using those words interchangably, they overlap a lot, but not perfectly. Youtube is/was pretty big on rightwing and conservative content. My point was that it was not used mostly liberals, if anything more towards the rightwing. "Is that true?" Philosophically? No. Policy by policy, yes. The (western) European right is tempered by a very dominant leftwing and the historical fact that they never fell behind the iron curtain. You go to eastern Europe and it is a different story. "Sure I would group that under that category of using it more." I think the qualitative break down are distinctions that matter, because it skews reality offline if you have a small but vocal minority that is driving the conversations. There are actual numbers on this, a pareto principle on tweets. "the most prolific 10% create 80% of tweets from adult U.S. users" http://www...04/24/sizing-up-twitter-users/
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 18:36:08 "It intrinsically morphs and molds society to devolve into a progressive mob, as you put it." I find it very interesting. It is the logical confluence of a bunch of things going on and observed. Women as a group are more likely to be democrats/left/progressive. For all of humanities history there was nothing that scaled feminine toxicity and aggression which, until social media emerged. Social media is great at scaling their brand of terror.
nhill Member	Thu Aug 04 18:52:42 I do think we've reached a natural conclusion to the original discussion. It's a lot to think about. But these offshoots are interesting. I think you're on to something with social media amplifying female toxicity and aggression (even to the point where dude's with dicks start to act like women too). It's plausible we've awoken the beast. :o It's up to the real men to fight this and put her back to sleep. Let's get on it. :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Aug 04 20:28:32 lol, but seriously! It may be the most sexist thing to underestimate women's capacity to bring about the end of civilization. All this time we were worried about war and nuclear weapons, the peak of male of violence. Nope, Social media. I think the issue with AI's is the perfect storm to confuse and inflate. At the bottom are the very real problems of feeding us the kind of bad news we are triggered by, compounded by all the possible future human extinction scenarios involving AIs. Then the more near term practical ways in which the algorithmic outcomes entangle with other issues. This conversations serves well in disentangling them. So here are a question, with the assumption that it is possible to code AIs to be politically biased. As the zeitgeist is driving the algorithmic outcomes, wouldn't that also largely obscure any potential bias coded into them?
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Aug 04 22:13:46 "1. The algorithms are derived from the policies. 2. The policies are derived from the algorithms." [Nimatzo]: "Surely, you can do both? The algorithms are tweaked all the time to produce more desired outcomes, in line with company policy, the wishes of advertising clients, regulators and community guidelines." Absolutely. This is undeniable. We see this all the time with, as you say, advertising initiatives. Part of the social aspect of this is that political organizations have leveraged their weight with advertisers to pull advertisers even from high right-wing engagement zones. The DNC can "problematize" advertisers for not complying, and, with its long-standing media monopoly (which preceded algorithms by decades), it can direct its marketshare with propaganda — forcing that business into compliance. On social media, policies themselves direct the construction of the algorithms. We see this most frequently with the idea of "hate speech". This is a left-wing algorithm initiative. I.e., there is no such thing as "hate speech" under Western free speech values (most particularly the U.S.), but, because policy-makers do not want certain speech, they designate certain speech "hate speech" in order to narrow the Overton Window in their favor. This can be done consciously by directing algorithms, and it *is* done consciously. [Nimatzo]: "And/or certain groups are more likely to report political content, collectively organize and digitally picket the fences" Exactly. It was propaganda, not algorithms, which seeded memes of an absolute "Nazi" enemy who must be reported, flagged, dog-piled, and silenced at all costs. The result of this is a social group that is wielding those algorithms asymmetrically, even as others continued to use the same services. We see this all the time on YouTube and Imgur: when left-wing comments enter a discussion, those discussions are shut down via manipulation of the down-vote and report UI. On YouTube, comments that receive too many down-votes (even though down-vote numbers are hidden) result in the entire thread being shut down. No one can respond publicly to the person who received the excess downvotes, that down-voted person at first can only respond with hidden comments, and if too many down-votes are accumulated, no one can respond to anyone in that particular thread or on that particular video. It's likely a simple downvote counter with simple reaction thresholds, but it was designed to reduce "volatile" discussions (itself a political motivation), but who would this system favor? That is, even if an algorithm is a blank slate (it is not; those downvote attributes are themselves political since they are a designed system of "vote" tallying, and shadow-banning itself is highly political), who is more likely to abuse that algorithm? Given the left's "[there is no discussion with Nazis]" rhetoric, I think it is painfully obvious who. A summation point here: downvoting systems are themselves political, with their engagement/exposure programming being an inherently political act. [Nimatzo]: "There is an automaticity in that as well and that machinery is triggered by specific words and, no matter how crudely, patterns of behavior." Exactly. Keyword algorithms are a big entry-way for political bias, sites such as Twitter have made these language-usage tools a big part of their control mechanisms, and they enforce this both via moderation and crowd-sourced reporting. For instance, if someone on Twitter says, "Ellen Page", that term will be flagged in at least two ways: 1) It can now be indexed by Twitter's basic search functions, meaning that left-wing activists looking for thoughtcrime can personally search, "Ellen Page", and flag anyone who used it. 2) "Ellen Page" is indexed by Twitter's moderators. When it is used, moderators may automatically receive a notification asking them to address the context of the usage. Twitter consciously flags certain words and phrases as priority based on organized talking points. They then organize their reaction to favor their desired outcome. (And, aside, Twitter also has warning features that tell users to second-guess their own comments before posting if certain words/phrases are used; I do not think they do this for Ellen Page, however.) In either case, the implicit bias underwrites the algorithm: Twitter assumes that dead-naming is wrong (a political stance), and its algorithm merely facilitates their pre-existing beliefs on the matter. The algorithm itself did not decide this from some mathematically pure calculation; Twitter had to manually tell the algorithm that "Ellen Page" was thoughtcrime. This, again, was pointed out by Jack Dorsey himself in his Rogan appearance (linked above). Twitter expressly admitted that left-wing biases drive their moderation and algorithm-writing policies. They admitted this particularly on the subject of dead-naming and trans identities. This was not merely a harassment policy with general protections for flame wars or obvious swear-word name-calling; this was a political belief that simply calling someone by their "dead name" was wrong and would thus result in bans and algorithm-directed limited engagement (i.e., people who say certain things have their engagement artificially limited; people may well want to engage with that material, but Twitter hides the ease with which that material can be engaged). And that's another thing: Certain keywords limit or boost the engagement that people receive. This can be politically directed, since Twitter has to manually input which phrases/thoughts receive engagement and which do not. Examples: • the left is more likely to use the word "insurrection" to describe January 6th. Twitter can thus boost trending opportunities for "insurrection" by giving it an extended timer in the trending section. • When the right gets a term or phrase trending, Twitter often steps in to remove it from trending. Thus, while an algorithm may have revealed true engagement, Twitter policy directs the visibility of this algorithm (e.g., Hunter Biden in October 2020 — "designated EC-10, condemned") [Nimatzo]: "Youtube is/was pretty big on rightwing and conservative content. My point was that it was not used mostly liberals, if anything more towards the rightwing." Good example. YouTube has a lot of right-wing channels and receives a lot of right-wing engagement, but its algorithm nevertheless gives artificial priority to left-wing content. We saw this very apparently with engagement with the White House YouTube channel in 2021. It was mass-downvoted, so YouTube removed the downvote counter. YouTube also bypassed former engagement/visibility algorithms that would have down-ranked these downvoted videos, forcing these videos onto their generic (no-cookie) users despite poor performance and engagement. They did the same with CNN and MSNBC, which, despite having low engagement, were given front page visibility. They even created a permanent bar on their front page that would deliver mainstream narratives on policy and politics (this seems to come and go now; I most recently saw it a few weeks ago, but it's not currently there). Most often, those videos had nearly zero engagement. I.e., it is demonstrably not engagement that defines visibility. This is being directed. In other words, wherever the algorithms *may* produce a level playing field, the explicit biases of those who manage the algorithms can nevertheless step in to produce the desired outcome. This is, in itself, a belief in "equity", which, incidentally, is an explicit direction of the WEF's policies on A.I. They are open about their knowledge that algorithms can be manipulated for their benefit, and they encourage and fund this exact type of organized handling of algorithm performance. And while I appreciate that nhill has begun making good faith arguments, I have to say that it is disingenuous to call the WEF's stated policy "conspiracy theory". As I posted in the start of this thread, this is a quadrillion-dollar enterprise, with these being its own words: http://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1Gb0000000pTDYEA2 • "Behavioral Sciences" — "The behavioural sciences are a powerful tool that can be wielded to engender responsible decision-making and improve the quality of life. Whether by helping people improve their eating habits or boost their retirement savings, helping a company engender better team spirit, or helping governments encourage the payment of taxes, the behavioural sciences have a significant role to play in smoothing society’s path amid the dramatic changes accompanying the Fourth Industrial Revolution." Sub-categories for "Behavioral Sciences": • "Business and behavior" • "behavior, economics, and finance" • "human development" • "changing behavior for sustainability" • "technology, digitalization and behavior" Sub-categories for "technology, digitalization and behavior": • "Future of media, entertainment and sport" • "Digital identity" • "Data science" • "Health and Helathcare" • "Digital communications" • "Internet of Things" • "Mobility" • "Cybersecurity" • "The digital economy" • "virtual and augmented reality" • "Artificial Intelligence" The WEF's summary of A.I.: "Artificial Intelligence is rife with contradictions. It is a powerful tool that is also surprisingly limited in terms of its current capabilities. And, while it has the potential to improve human existence, at the same time it threatens to deepen social divides and put millions of people out of work. While its inner workings are highly technical, the non-technical among us can and should understand the basic principles of how it works - and the concerns that it raises. As the influence and impact of AI spread, it will be critical to involve people and experts from the most diverse backgrounds possible in guiding this technology in ways that enhance human capabilities and lead to positive outcomes." (I.e., they overtly use DIE politics to direct the development of A.I.) I think it is not rationally disputed that algorithms can be manipulated. The idea of an apolitical mathematics is typically limited to how math itself functions — not how it is directed. We saw this with "IBM and the Holocaust" (2001), where mechanical practices were used to facilitate directed extermination — the Nazis were not *told* by machines to simply obey; they consciously used machines for their objectives. Another example from recent semi-nonfiction is "The Imitation Game" (2014). The story departs somewhat from the technical aspects, but take the metaphor: with a proto-AI machine, they were able to direct a strategy against the Nazis. They even calculated how much they could "win" incrementally while hiding that they had broken the Enigma Code. A.I. and algorithms absolutely can be directed, the question is whether or not this direction is benevolent or not. If we consider a singularity moment, a good question to ask of the singularity is whether or not the programmers are Malthusians or Prometheans. • Malthusians would program a "Skynet" scenario — intentionally or not — where the algorithm truly does overcome the directives of humanity, making decisions that limit the human population, potentially causing total genocide or a "sustainable" equilibrium wherein further innovation becomes impossible, which also effectively ends the potentials of the species. • Prometheans would instead program creative problem-solving and a life-impulse. This itself can produce dystopias (e.g., the "Oblivion" A.I. that wanders the universe assimilating energy), but it is more likely to produce A.I. that truthfully presents information for human decision. And I simply do not trust that the WEF has much interest in the second possibility. It is quite clear from their own economic activity that they are intentionally directing artificial intelligence and algorithms for their personal benefit, with humanity being pawns merely to be controlled by the shadows they wish to project on the wall.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 05 05:34:56 To take a moment to address a subject completely unrelated to the UN/WEF plan to draw down the world economy and reduce the population through soft eugenics, famine, and hot conflict, here's a recent opinion piece from professors Robert N. Procto and Londa Schiebinger published in the Yale School of Environment: "How Preventing Unwanted Pregnancies Can Help on Climate "Voluntary family planning is too often ignored as a means to lower carbon emissions. But by making reproductive technologies more freely available, we can reduce global population — and human-caused emissions — in a manner that is consistent with personal liberties." [Yale dot edu; July 21st, 2022] http://e36...-proctor-and-londa-schiebinger • "With 8 billion people on Earth, this means that each human adds an average of 4.5 tons of carbon into the air annually." • "by making contraception and abortion freely available globally — would significantly reduce births and therefore (over the long term) human-generated carbon emissions." • "If the world’s total population were eventually reduced by 10 percent, this would reduce carbon emissions by 3.6 billion tons per year, which is more than the total combined emissions of Germany, Japan, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, and Australia." Don't worry! They're aware that eugenics has an optics problem: • "Even after the collapse of the eugenics movement, population control got a bad name as a result of state-sanctioned efforts to limit fertility, especially in poorer parts of the world." And don't worry! This in no way aligns with the WEF's stated goal of instituting matriarchies in order to decrease the desirability of reproduction: • "As a result, the focus of global policy agencies shifted away from controlling population to reproductive health, with the goal now being to promote gender equality, education, and empowerment of women." And nationalism is NOT an enemy of the globalists! • "According to a recent study by the United Nations, the proportion of countries with pro-natal policies has risen from 10 percent in 1976 to 28 percent in 2015. State-sanctioned pro-natalism — a form of nationalism — is at odds with the reality that population remains a significant driver of global greenhouse gas emissions." And getting abortion legalized it totally about "choice"! • "And many nations ban abortion entirely." If choice doesn't work, what about postcolonialism critiques? • "Many of the laws governing abortion in these regions are holdovers from a colonial era, imposed by European countries that long ago abandoned such restrictive laws for themselves." And anything helps! No strategy is too immoral! • "an “all hands on deck” approach is required, recognizing that some solutions take a bigger bite out of the problem than others." Hey! Who could argue that reducing the world population would give us more space to move around? Checkmate, libertarians! • "Reducing population in this manner is consistent with the enlargement of human liberties" Certain populations need to be culled more than others: • "By one calculation, each new baby born in the U.K. will generate 35 times more greenhouse gas emissions than a baby born in Bangladesh." Hmm. I wonder what such a strategy would look like... A strategy that.. ..wants to decrease the population of people who have a higher per-capita production of carbon, ..wants politically to enable LGBTQ+NAMBLA matriarchal structures because they're lower carbon, ..uses Marxist rhetoric such as postcolonialism to enable depopulation, ..makes abortion an absolutely vital component, ..uses globalism to level nationalism and populism because those political profiles are too high carbon, ..uses environmentalism to enable such Malthusian strategies, ..uses every weapon in its arsenal towards the ultimate goal of depopulation, Okay then! The computers have decided that you are making too much carbon. Report to your local disintegration chambers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvtD4aHfB6Y You must simply have a "high consciousness of duty". There is a certain logic to it — accepting annihilation because your betters will it.
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 05 07:23:23 Here the World Economic Forum makes another propaganda video lying about the function of the "Inflation Reduction Act" (which will cause inflation): "New US Climate Deal: What's In It And Why It Matters" [World Economic Forum dot org] http://www...limate-deal-and-why-it-matters
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 05 08:35:21 Open plea Please be nice. Remember we are on the same side. Let that sit at the base of the disagreements and any perceived or real misunderstanding or factual errors. Let the water flow under the bridge. I have read about WEF 4th industrial revolution. I know that these people are not the villain for their own story. I know the when Clause Schwab says the things he says, he actually believes in them. But so did Cyberdyne Systems. There are the not so distant future concerns about AI's broadly. Then there is the set of question about how much AIs are manipulated centrally to produce desired results and the qualitative break down of those manipulation. We all agree the Zeitgeist is what it is and I think CC would agree that this would be sufficient. With that said I think my previous question is valid, wouldn't this also obscure manipulations? The large mass of "the Woke" wouldn't notice if the algorithms are also nudging, if even ever so slightly towards a regression point of sorts. It wouldn't hurt the bottom line as it would only compound the engagements. Even dissenters would engage, only very small portion of people actually leave these platforms in protest over censorships and such things. These kinds of things do not need to be very large, small but significant effects across many iterations compound. Elections are increasingly decided at the width of a hair. Honest questions, but at the end of the day, this is all theory, we need data.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Aug 05 08:36:00 Klaus*
nhill Member	Mon Aug 08 10:15:09 >So here are a question, with the assumption that it is possible to code AIs to be politically biased. As the zeitgeist is driving the algorithmic outcomes, wouldn't that also largely obscure any potential bias coded into them? Yes, you understand the point here. As I predicated above, and, the reader may choose to accept it as true or not, the primary metric for social media is engagement, and, as long as we are tuning our AI models to increase engagement, we will continue see the most grotesque parts of society reflected back in an exponential way. And we'll continue to see useful idiots like CC try to unmask the grand conspiracies. Which do exist, mind you, but, as we proved in the thought exercise above, are of little relevance. Provided you want to solve the root cause of this. Some people just want to mental masturbate their life away at a cause they perceive noble.
nhill Member	Mon Aug 08 10:29:26 Oh I didn't read the followup posts from after my quote (but I have now). Just catching up on the thread, back from camping. :) Ok I will be nice. ;)
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Aug 15 20:16:52 (Had a busy week IRL; back now) [Nimatzo]: "Open plea Please be nice. Remember we are on the same side. Let that sit at the base of the disagreements and any perceived or real misunderstanding or factual errors. Let the water flow under the bridge." Fair. I've said before, but I've been trying to improve on this front by returning to my former temperament of attempting to remain detached. That said, we have only so many hours in the day, so civility may require moving past certain arguments. I'll simply say that if I do not respond to a particular argument, it is likely because it has been covered in this thread series already. Also, I finally received the Zeihan book. It was sold out for a while. I'll try to read that this week, though I'm finishing something currently. Back to it. .. .. As we continue to see that "conspiracy" denial (i.e., dismissal of overt designs which have a clear evidentiary trail which I have raised here via direct links and direct quotations from the primary sources) borders on mundane ignorance, we can see people such as ep are able to dismiss the simple realities of the UN and WEF in threads such as this one: "Inflation Reduction Act of 2022" http://uto...hread=90332&time=1660224625241 (I'll respond here since that thread is dead, and this plays more to this thread's purpose than that thread's purpose). That is, Earthpig is a good example of this dismissal of difficult truths as "conspiracy theory" because he is a very low-information person. I have pointed this out before, but ep tends to return to UP periodically with talking points that the DNC was floating months ago — things that high-information DNC-affiliates no longer use because their Celebration Parallax has already shifted. -=-=-= This enclosed section: A side note on the Celebration Parallax, which reads, "That’s Not Happening, and It’s Good That It Is". Part of how the Celebration Parallax "works" in the Zeitgeist is by having multiple propaganda streams for people of different levels of information exposure. A single person may state the entire Celebration Parallax at once (i.e.; in doublethink, believing that a circumstance is not happening while simultaneously giving himself a fall-back position by saying that "it's good" that it's happening), but this Parallax exists more readily within tribal groups having differing levels of information exposure. That is, the weekly news viewer or the meme-news viewer (low information) may repeat the "that's not happening" narrative, while someone in the same tribe who consumes higher quality information more regularly will have moved on to the "it's good that it is" point. Irony abounds when the higher information person (even within the same tribe) is shut down by his own tribe for attempting to raise the information level to the latter talking point. An example can be seen with Hunter Biden's laptop. Watch as we move from the lowest-information takes to the highest — where even the high-information take must comply with the Celebration Parallax: • is Russian disinformation. (false) • was planted by Russians and isn't even real. (false) • isn't his laptop and was just bloated with fake files. (false) • isn't his laptop but has some real images but nothing bad. (partially false) • isn't his laptop but has real images that are bad but only for him. (still partially false but attempts to bargain and reconcile more information) • isn't his laptop; the bad information is all from a separate iCloud breach, and the president is not indicated. (more bargaining) • is his laptop, contained iPhone backups, led to his iCloud breach, but is just harmless drug use. (more bargaining) • is forensically proven to be his laptop, led to real information about Hunter breaking federal laws which are currently being investigated for prosecution, but it's a separate issue from the president and is a good thing because drugs are not bad and they should not be stigmatized. (Parallax complete) (Much of this played out under this propaganda thread on Imgur by high-volume propaganda account "mfrybeasley" http://imgur.com/gallery/IxTeg5N/ ) This is about as far as I've seen any Party Member reach on the laptop. The Overton Window closes even in the high-information dens such that anyone who seeks further information is purged from the tribe for wrongthink. It's likely that those who know the details (which I've listed in the last two threads) are unable to communicate them to anyone for fear of reprisal. Those that know that Hunter's criminal activities directly implicate the president have, at best, decided that no *new* criminality must be afoot or at the very least understand that prosecution will be limited due to plea deals that Hunter took after the 2021 inauguration and due to a sitting president having some legal protections as part of functioning governance. Imgur is a great collection of this Parallax on multiple issues, having millions of examples — with hundreds of new ones every day. If someone within the tribe gets too far ahead of the group's willingness to hear new information, that person, despite being a loyal Party-Member, will be shut down and demonized — suspected of being of the opposing tribe and dog-piled with accusatory "Nazi"/"fascist" memes. This is another chilling effect of tribalism: do not get too far ahead of even the Party's own dogmas. The Good Party-Member must therefore "read the room", only exposing people to the next layer of information if the tribal psychosis allows for it in that moment. People would find, for instance, that tribal psychosis is particularly amplified on Imgur in the four months before an election (they began their pre-election psychosis-boost a few weeks ago). It is at this time that the mob will be far less willing to hear new information that deviates from current dogmas — total obedience to the current narratives must be observed, and thus the discourse level falls to its all-time lows of absolutism and hate and is resistant to nuance or reason. This inner-tribe conflict is why propaganda has to have multiple discourse levels if it wishes to funnel a multitude of tribalists and would-be tribalists into the Party's Mega-Identity (its culled Overton Window). As I discussed in the previous thread under comment "Tue Jun 14 10:06:39", tumbleweed is trapped in the low-information and low-quality discourse level. He frequently sources from the low-information propagators, such as Acyn, Ron Filipkowski, and the extended list of tribal cross-references that I listed under that comment. These listed accounts typically cite each other and source their opposition arguments only from propaganda think tanks such as Media Matters and OccupyDemocrats, thus, they do not even understand the edited arguments and clips of the opposition to which they are exposed but are still ultimately complying with corporate-DNC directives that have been only lightly disguised as grassroots knowledge for their consumption. This is how their hatred of figures such as Trump, MTG, and Boebert can be solidified so readily (i.e., their ignorance is exploited). This is also part of why tw is in such a psychosis: with low-quality and low-information sources, he is only reacting to emotional half-truths which he does not understand because his information exposure has been capped at the level of his ability to move beyond his cognitive dissonance — this dissonance activating at a very low-information threshold. And the scale of these discourse levels is easy to track since it works on the same exact framework as any movie-company's demographic marketing (i.e., selling the same stories to different people with tailored marketing tactics which overlap with key demos only in select subjects). Sites such as Ground.News and AdFontesMedia even organize this with their own parallel terminology, e.g., http://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/ Low-information left-wing psychosis people are in the bottom left quadrant of the AdFontesMedia chart, deriving information from a cluster of sources around OccupyDemocrats labeled "hyper-partisan left" and "Selective or Incomplete Story / Unfair Persuasion / Propaganda". This is the domain of Acyn, Ron Filipkowski, JoJoFromJerz, Media Matters, and so many other Twitter propaganda repeaters. The right-wing equivalent would be YouTube channels such as "Congress News" and Twitter users such as @BaldPaulis (these accounts often release clips and stories that are weeks old — without developed information). Interesting, however, is that outside of the corporate news of Fox, much of the independent news of the bottom-right quadrant is high-information. E.g., Alex Jones has been demonized and is sensationalist, yet he has high-level knowledge for those willing to look beyond the emotion. The right tends to seek information and logic (logos), whereas the left seeks emotional appeals (pathos) and confirmation from Party Members (ethos). Ep is only slightly above and to the right of this section, living in the Millennial-pop section of Trevor Noah, Jon Oliver, HuffPost, Reddit, and establishment media sources (e.g., Disney, Marvel, Hulu). This places him in low-information propaganda with only slightly less emotional manipulation. The high-information section of the left-wing Celebration Parallax receives news directly from AP, Reuters, NPR, BBC, and PBS. Sadly, however, many people only *border* the high-information section, browsing news topically rather than looking at news by home page. This is because many people simply do not invest a large amount of time looking for high-quality news, since it is cognitively taxing (incidentally, this expectation is itself a strategy of the Frankfurt School under the "culture industry": that people will be cognitively depleted before they can access the bigger picture). Additionally, the Celebration Parallax caps the value of these sources because these are all DNC-managed sources. As an example, when the January 6th Capitol event first occurred, the central propaganda arms of the left (those of the mid- and low-level discourse sources listed above) all adopted the "insurrection" and "coup" logic near unanimously. Moving towards sources with higher reliability and higher quality of factual-reporting, this language moved from incendiary language to more factual language such as "riot", "storming", and "mob". Once outside of the Celebration Parallax, the language maintained "riot" and "storming" but admitted "protests" in their headlines. This language was widely adopted by the right and center — even among those right-leaning sources dubbed "propaganda" by the left, meaning that it was from the left's propaganda apparatuses that "insurrection" and "coup" were launched, with those adopting that vocabulary being within the target psychosis and those still maintaining that language having not been exposed to contradictory information after more than a year — at least not without being told to disregard that information due to tribalism. In short, a person is only able to look beyond the next level of the Celebration Parallax — or beyond it — if willing to move past • cognitive dissonance (a belief that the information is too difficult/conflicting to be accepted), • chilling effects (pushing beyond the acceptable speech of the tribe), • ethos fallacies (a belief that the information is only credible if delivered through favored authorities), • and righteous ignorance (that one must already know all information worth knowing), among other variables. If a chasm of ignorance and dissonance is too deep, contradictory and new information is easily (yet erroneously) dismissed with thought-terminating clichés such as "conspiracy theory". Ironically — but not unexpectedly — this same information will reach these people eventually and will be accepted, but only after the Celebration Parallax has extracted the full value of the propaganda from useful voting blocs. -=-=-= This is part of the erroneous belief that "[if the story were relevant enough, surely, we would all have been informed by corporate media]." This is, of course, an error, because • corporate media has largely become a distraction with the "news of the day" logic, • corporate media has a vested interest in keeping the wheels in motion until plans cannot be reversed, and • because a person's own willingness to learn this information has stopped them at their own gatekeepers. For low-information people, it is very easy to pretend that any mass-effort is just "conspiracy theory". This is similar to critiques of the 9/11 truthers (much of which was valid) in that a major CIA talking point was: "[The bigger the conspiracy, the less likely anyone is to be able to keep it a secret]." Yet, undermining this thought-terminating cliché is the simple reality that this is *not* a secret — it's just not talked about outside of the terms of the Celebration Parallax. That is, those who critique it must be touting "conspiracy theory", while the thousands of sources confirming that this is indeed happening are accepted with the meme logic of "[it's just good climate change policy]". Back to that thread, ep says, "I read that Glenn Beck book too. It's science fiction fyi." (I have not myself read "Agenda 21", by the way.) EP then listed two review sources that he must not have read, since one of them even mentions that Glenn Beck was *not* the author — Beck simply put his name on it to cannibalize book sales ( http://blogs.seacoastonline.com/seacoast-nh-books/2013/02/15/agenda-21-by-harriet-parke-with-glenn-beck-book-review/ ). This article also makes errors which were visible even in 2012 when the "Agenda 21" fiction book was published. The article states, • "No socializing is allowed. No worshipping is allowed." • "It was stipulated that the Republic was better suited to raise children the way they saw fit, not families." • "perform the duties assigned to them or break the rules are considered a waste of resources" • "They knew what was best for their people and the planet. The rules became more strict, punishments more severe, and freedoms were removed one by one until there was nothing left." • "Food production is down, births are down and lies are perpetuated." • "Agenda 21 is a worst-case scenario dystopia created in response to the real Agenda 21, a voluntary action plan issued by the UN for the United States and other industrialized countries. If you haven’t heard of it, you should read up on it. It is a plan issued by the UN in 1992 to promote sustainable development and parts of Agenda 21 are already in regular use at the city level in the United States. • "Although Agenda 21 lays out plans at localized levels (not federal), certain parts of this unenforceable document have been interpreted by some to read: Stripping property rights and forcibly taking away land, moving all citizens into centralized communities and eliminating private transportation. Half of the land taken from individuals would be dedicated to a “re-wilding” effort while the rest would be dedicated to food production controlled by the government. Some farmers have already had their land taken away for “re-wilding” purposes, purportedly due to Agenda 21. And some states have completely banned Agenda 21 from entering legislation. But the extreme plans I mentioned above are merely suggestions and interpretations – completely unenforceable suggestions. Most of Agenda 21 has to do with guidelines for city planners, and those guidelines have been in effect for years." Notice the Celebration Parallax. I.e., the book is based on "completely unenforceable suggestions", yet these things are in fact being enforced by city planners and by guidelines that are in effect. The second author even says, "And there’d be no fossil fuels, a fact that doesn’t necessarily sound so bad" ( https://bigthink.com/health/agenda-21-a-wild-conspiracy-theory-reignited-by-coronavirus/ ). I.e., "[No one is trying to eliminate fossil fuels, and it's good if they are]". The article authors both claim that this was a "nonbinding UN resolution"/"unenforceable document", seemingly unaware that these imperatives were indeed formalized in the legal frameworks of Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance, in particular in 2004 and 2008/2009. I spoke about this in the very first thread of this series (comment "Tue May 31 01:47:34"), but these policies were solidified in a 2004 UN endorsement as well as via the Dodd–Frank Act (second thread comment "Mon Jun 13 08:35:58"), which • established an asset-manager anti-competitive monopoly, • instituted "too big to fail" logic to solidify government–corporation protections in ESG's "shareholder" plans, and • held entire legal sections on Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) requirements under ESG for asset managers, ensuring that the world's top asset managers would all disseminate DIE into corporate frameworks (effecting ESG in nearly every corporation). These plans were further solidified worldwide via, e.g., • NATO, UN, WEF, and Bilderberg unanimity, • Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), • Indo-Pacific Framework, • Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), • UKUSA Agreement • Memorandum of Cooperation (MOC) between New Zealand and California, • Memorandum of Understanding (CA–China), • European Union / European Commission FTAs • NAFTA and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) This is not just voluntary, "unenforceable", and "nonbinding". This is the simple recognition of reality: that these massive asset managers are putting trade frameworks in place which monopolize their powers on the international stage, squeezing out anyone who does not comply. Call it "late stage capitalism" if that's what memes in your echo chamber demand, but it's happening. This monopolization of power has direct imperatives under ESG, which includes corporate-Marxism, slave morality, and a complete overhaul of world energy. Again, this is happening. Call it "common-sense climate change policy" if that helps soften the blow. Under the Celebration Parallax, it's far more useful to at least arrive at "it's good that it's happening".
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Aug 15 20:50:15 On the subject of the FBI raid of Mar-a-Lago, Scott Adams clipped a longer segment into a short video catching up his new viewers with how hoaxes function in the media: "HOAX Pattern, An Excerpt from Episode 1836" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmIivm6ZaKw Transcribed summary: • Start by leveraging "anonymous" sources. • Initiate legal action for the appearance of legitimacy. • Amplify "what if" (i.e., present speculations and smears as reality). • Adam Schiff misinterprets and lies about original documents for effect. • Draw out through the voting period the litigation process for propaganda effect. • After the target election period has passed, finally enable investigations that can lead to actual information, which is ultimately uninteresting. • Do not correct the useful idiots with the investigation's conclusions — their belief in the hoax is still useful. • Note well: NBC is a major route of the CIA into the Zeitgeist; they openly present former CIA officials as authorities and then adopt those talking points as reality; NBC amplifies "what if" scenarios as "reality". • Note well: the same propagators repeatedly initiate this play - Adam Schiff - Kevin Delaney, an ESG/DIE activist, WEF partner, Time and WSJ columnist, - Andrew McCabe, former FBI director Adam Schiff being on the January 6th Committee should have been even more of a red flag than Liz Cheney. I already pointed out that Raskin was a huge red flag in thread 2 ("Mon Jun 06 08:09:01"). The people who believe in these hoaxes are typically not tracking the motivations and credibility of the show-runners.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Aug 15 21:11:15 In a lighter note, the European Commission is not helping the "conspiracy theorists" dismiss the idea that the WEF wants people to live in BlackRock rental-pods and eat bugs due to bugs having a low-carbon cost. This was posted on the official Twitter account of the European Commission on August 12th: http://mob...ion/status/1558014414447644673 • "Whether a snack or a food ingredient, did you know there are currently three insects authorised in the EU 'novel food'? ‘House cricket’, ‘yellow mealworm’ and ‘migratory locus’ are the three types of insects authorised as ‘novel food’ in the EU market" • "The @FAO indicates that insects are a highly nutritious and healthy food source. Insects contain high fat, protein, vitamin, fibre, and mineral content, and can facilitate the shift towards healthy and sustainable diets." • "Eating insects is safe. Novel Food can only be authorised if it does not pose any risk to human health. It must undergo a scientific assessment prior to authorisation to ensure its safety." • "The environmental benefits of rearing insects for food are founded on: ✅ high feed conversion efficiency of insects ✅ less greenhouse gas emissions ✅ less use of water and arable lands ✅ use of insect-based bioconversion for reducing food waste" • "It is up to you to decide whether you want to eat them or not! The use of insects as an alternative source of protein is not new and insects are regularly eaten in many parts of the world. Let’s give it a try?" Again, per the Celebration Parallax, it's only real if you're okay with it. I spoke about the WEF's stated goal of converting the world into a vegetarian diet wherein "we will treat meat as a treat rather than a staple" under thread #1 comment "Mon May 30 01:21:33". Since then, we have seen further consolidation of this strategy through overt government measures, such as in Sri Lanka, Ireland, and The Netherlands. As part of this conversion, initiatives such as the EU's plan to remove caged-livestock by 2027 have taken root: "European Citizens' Initiative: Commission to propose phasing out of cages for farm animals" [European Commission; Press Releases; June 30th, 2021] http://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_3297 This again combines a benevolent imperative (social-index; ground-up) with a directed strategy (corporate governance; top-down). • The benevolent imperative is that animals should be treated well, even if they were merely bred for slaughter. • The directed strategy is that by banning cage-raised stock, farms are unable to raise as much meat on the same amount of land. This decreases the carbon impact of farms.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Aug 15 23:15:56 Even Jordan Peterson is now speaking out against the ESG/DIE scheme. "Peddlers of environmental doom have shown their true totalitarian colours "Corporations and utopians are offering authoritarian solutions to crises only democracy and free markets can solve" [The Telegraph; August 15th, 2022] http://www...own-true-totalitarian-colours/ It's pay-walled, and there are bypasses for that, but he reads the article on YouTube: "Article: Back Off, Oh Masters of the Universe" [Jordan B. Peterson; Official YouTube; August 15th, 2022] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--QS_UyW2SY For those of us already informed on this, he does not necessarily say anything new. One thing he potentially gets wrong is his belief that the poor will not be incorporated into this globalist plan and will suffer the most. That's a hair worth splitting because part of the WEF strategy is to boost mass migration in order to spread out the poor. This decreases the birth rates of the migrating poor while replacing high-carbon first-worlders (i.e., they *will* be incorporated somewhat). But, he *is* correct that the mass death that will be effected by ESG/DIE will mostly affect the poor, since — even considering migration — most people will not be able to migrate and will die where they are. We'll see mass death in particular in nations fitting a combination of a few criteria: • Most populus • Highest carbon-per-capita rankings • lowest GDP • lowest corporate governance compliance Most that fit this bill are obvious: African nations. Almost all of them. But, in particular, • Ethiopia • Nigeria • D.R. Congo • Tanzania • Kenya Outside of the BRICS Group (e.g., the obvious India which will be shielded if it can remain anti-ESG), this also puts pressure on the East, which is why Ardern's role is important (she is tasked with expanding corporate governance in the region): • Pakistan • Bangladesh • Philippines • Myanmar • Uzbekistan These nations have high populations, are high per-capita polluters, and have not accepted corporate governance to manage their collapse. This means that the citizens will be driven to conflict as they suffer the effects of poor economies and food shortages. They will only know to blame their local governments and each other, not seeing the bigger picture. This list is somewhat early, however, since I'm still filling key fields in my spreadsheet and need to track which nations have added ESG trade agreements. The primary comparison I'm using is the E-Index minus the G-Index for nations with average S-Index. The larger the E-G disparity, the more unstable the public's willingness to participate and the more overtly draconian the executive actions to control them. Peterson focuses in particular on London-based "Deloitte", which is a major owner of private assets and an open proponent of ESG/DIE: [Deloitte's ESG Statements] http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/environmental-social-governance.html?icid=top_environmental-social-governance I really cannot stress enough how many of these major asset holders have ESG/DIE in their legal frameworks. I've said before, but you'd be better off asking who does *not* have ESG/DIE. Typically, you would find small businesses — like those that were meant to be destroyed by COVID policies. People have started making lists of anti-ESG/DIE small businesses so that consumers can support parallel economies, e.g., "Public Square" in the U.S.: http://www.publicsq.com/ Another issue with Deloitte that Peterson raises is its use of data analytics as its model to attempt to effect ESG/DIE policies. Deloitte has a section on their DIE policies in the workplace, which use analytics essentially to see how well the social initiatives of ESG/DIE are being received: http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/tech-trends/2021/ diversity-equity-inclusion-tools.html "Deloitte as a firm has championed DEI for years, but until recently, we had not deeply explored how technology and data-driven insights can help us deliver more diverse, equitable, and inclusive experiences across Deloitte’s talent life cycle. The unique societal moments of 2020 inspired us—as they did leaders at many other organizations—to openly discuss our commitment to workforce DEI as top priorities for the firm and to follow through by taking actions that accelerate our progress." This is a major vector for DIE into businesses because people seek Deloitte's methodology in implementing Corporate Governance frameworks to bring about ESG policies. Deloitte is essentially an HR mirror of the WEF's same control web. Just compare the Deloitte website to the WEF's intelligence web ( http://intelligence.weforum.org/topics/a1G0X000006DI8yUAG ). It's all the same talking points about an A.I. Panopticon to implement ESG/DIE.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 16 15:27:35 I know Scott Adams is just one fish with 748.2k followers, but as of today he's realized that ESG is indeed causing people to invest recklessly and against their own interests. This is a turn from his earlier statement: "Companies don't INTENTIONALLY destroy their own economic engine to serve wokeness". He did a podcast today where he realized that BlackRock is indeed causing companies to invest in poor-return investments, with the lost money going into social initiatives instead of high-yield strategies (Around 40 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3ZmsiZ1Dho ). He does not yet seem aware that the low-yield investments are subsidized, but he'll get there. He's said that he'll be releasing his anti-ESG comics shortly. Part of his research led him to this update on U.S. states rejecting ESG: "AG Pax­ton Demands Black­Rock Account for its Under­per­form­ing, Poten­tial­ly Ille­gal ​‘ESG’ State Pen­sion Fund Investments" [Texas Attorney General dot gov; Press Releases; August 8th, 2022] http://www...illegal-esg-state-pension-fund • "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton joined 18 other states in a letter to BlackRock CEO Larry Fink challenging his company’s reliance on Environmental, Social, and Governance investment criteria rather than shareholder profits in managing state pension funds. “ESG” goals, while ostensibly well-intentioned, make little economic sense, and have a direct adverse effect on Texas’s oil and gas economy and state pension fund performance. BlackRock’s actions may also violate state and federal law." • "“Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. The time has come for BlackRock to come clean on whether it actually values our states’ most valuable stakeholders, our current and future retirees, or risk losses even more significant than those caused by BlackRock’s quixotic climate agenda,” the letter states." • "BlackRock, which has $10 trillion in assets under management, is a global leader in advancing the ESG agenda." In other words, ESG strategies are negatively cutting into markets where performance *must* be good in order to support state pension plans and state investments. By subsidizing poor-performers, ESG is causing issues that are going to be progressively more obvious to investors. This is good news for stopping ESG. I've been saying for months now that ESG is a massive anti-competitive strategy. This was not exaggeration. It is likely illegal, and Texas legislators and a coalition of 18 states are recognizing that. Combining this with the Supreme Court's rejection of the EPA's federal powers, U.S. states may be positioned to reject the ESG/DIE strategy. I've discussed above how this move could be countered by the ESG oligarchs, so I'll leave it at the good news for now.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Aug 17 05:50:50 I envy you, that you can read a book in a week :( I used to be able to do that, then I had kids… Anyway, looking forward to hear your thoughts on the book :)
jergul large member	Wed Aug 17 08:11:24 CO2 per capita (tons/year) DR Congo 0,02 Ethiopia 0,1 Tanzania 0,18 Kenya 0,33 Nigeria 0,44 Bangladesh 0,47 Pakistan 0,87 Uzbekistan 3,48 Romania 3,48 (lowest European country) But don't let fact get in the way of fancy :D ========= "We'll see mass death in particular in nations fitting a combination of a few criteria: • Most populus • Highest carbon-per-capita rankings • lowest GDP • lowest corporate governance compliance Most that fit this bill are obvious: African nations. Almost all of them. But, in particular, • Ethiopia • Nigeria • D.R. Congo • Tanzania • Kenya Outside of the BRICS Group (e.g., the obvious India which will be shielded if it can remain anti-ESG), this also puts pressure on the East, which is why Ardern's role is important (she is tasked with expanding corporate governance in the region): • Pakistan • Bangladesh • Philippines • Myanmar • Uzbekistan "
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 19 03:46:23 [jergul]: "But don't let fact get in the way of fancy :D" As I warned: "This list is somewhat early, however, since I'm still filling key fields in my spreadsheet" In other words, that list was not meant to be scrutinized. Please be patient on that one. .. [Nimatzo]: "I envy you, that you can read a book in a week :( I used to be able to do that, then I had kids…" Lulz Count your blessings! :D
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Aug 19 04:36:01 Clips of this interview are making the Twitter rounds right now: "Sam Harris: Trump, Religion, Wokeness" [Triggernometry; August 17th, 2022] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDqtFS_Pvcs Harris (known as one of the "Four Horsemen of New Atheism") basically reveals himself to be a Bolshevik. This is sadly appropriate for a popular atheist-movement member, since atheism can easily be hijacked by people who wish to give nihilists a new god: the state. Compare this to Enlightenment and Romantic atheism (e.g., Diderot, Bakunin), which rejected any gods — even metaphoric gods such as what the state might become in the minds of the masses. • Harris celebrates Trump's removal from Twitter by tech oligarchs (15:00), not seeming to realize that the "private business" argument does not work when corporations have united with government to enforce state powers. • A key segment occurs at 33:00, where he happily admits that "a left-wing conspiracy" ("a conspiracy out in the open") of tech oligarchs removing the Hunter Biden story with the specific aim of helping Joe's election chances was necessary. His reasoning? He totally bought into the psychosis narrative that Trump was the ultimate evil. He even says that Hunter Biden could have had the bodies of children in his basement and Joe's known Ukraine corruption could have been yet more immeasurable still, and that would be "worse" than "the corruption we know Trump is involved in" (i.e., the phantom of Trump's corruption — always without proof — is worse to him than any reality). Unable to explain away the totalitarian logic of this, he seems to cite the movie "Don't Look Up" (2021) as his justification for oligarchs making these decisions (i.e., an "existential threat" demanded it). What's particularly sad about this psychosis logic is that Harris' perceptions of Trump — like the perceptions of so many others who fell into the media psychosis — were based in the smoke and mirror propaganda of the totalitarians themselves. The totalitarians had their entire corporate media empire shaking the brains of their captive public to make them see emergency after emergency. Trump was just one more item on their list that could be used to enable that "existential threat" lie. "Don't Look Up" itself was the fictitious *representation* of a threat — not the threat itself, which was the representation. And the game was effective. Before COVID-19, I'd often wondered if a pandemic would be the one thing that would justify authoritarian measures even in the hearts of libertarians. It proved to me instead that there is no measure that justifies those measures. The only imperative is liberty, as liberty would not meddle in the lives of men with a useful psychosis, a "Noble Lie", or immoral social engineering. If indeed it were virtuous to behave in such a way as the totalitarians of COVID-19 commanded, a free person would take such action from wisdom, truth, principles, and virtue. The totalitarians do not use these tools, being without virtue and principles, suffering their causes under the scrutiny of truth, and having only the "wisdom" of their narcissism to guide them. Liberty should not compromise, not even in the face of Armageddon.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Aug 27 23:26:42 Rugian made a good thread that is on topic for this one: "The Great Reset is here." http://uto...hread=90505&time=1661614630861 Topics so far: • Macron admitting that the worldwide economic drawdown is necessary for their "climate goals". • The UK converting its population to the WEF's vegetarian diet; Henry Dimbleby, a WEF disciple, sponsors this propaganda. • Epidemiologist Professor Neil Ferguson describing the West's surprising willingness to adopt totalitarian policies under the guise of a pandemic response. • Spain banning air conditioning below 27 degrees. • The White House hiring 87,000 tax agents to gouge the middle class and its connection to the totalitarian "Green New Deal". This connects also to digital ID and government controlling all individual assets as a means of controlling carbon output.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Aug 28 00:05:29 I almost posted this in that thread, but in the interest of shortening my comment there, I'll post this here instead: [Henry Dimbleby] (above article): "“If we fail on this ... we will fail to meet our biodiversity or climate goals in this country. We also have a huge opportunity to show thought leadership worldwide, and show them that this can be done, that we can farm sustainably and still feed people.”" I've pointed it out in the totalitarians thread, but it might be good for people to ask, "What happens if 'we' do not meet 'our' goals?" Will the climate spiral out of control? No. Will rising oceans turn the planet into Water World? No. The UN's 2030 and 2050 goals are not about preventing some climate cataclysm — the *goals* are man-made. Climate is just their excuse to wield perpetual emergency powers and consolidate a permanent world government. Rushing to meet these goals, then, is likely more about what they intend to do if the world does not self-subjugate: hot conflict. If they cannot convince the West to starve itself through soft power manipulations, sovereign nations will be attacked to reduce their populations. These WEF sycophants want their culling regardless of how the public responds to any one initiative. Defeat on one issue is followed by a spin move right into the same run down field. The wildest thing is seeing how many politicians are owned by this strategy. Even with all of this being transparent and readily available from the source documents (UN, WEF, and published laws), the media has a near total blackout and is actively running interference. It's usually just talked about as positive "climate change" measures with no interest in driving motivations, with useful idiots still calling it "conspiracy theory". The Zeitgeist itself must be interrupted, but the totalitarians think they have all of the studios owned to prevent that.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Aug 28 05:25:02 This following Twitter thread is a good example of the totalitarian sycophants taking climate-change policy to its next absurd conclusion. Jason Hickel is a climate activist born to American parents in Swaziland, now serving as an activist professor/indoctrinator in Barcelona, and is a WEF contributor who has appearances on totalitarian-captured media such as BBC and NPR ( http://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/jason-hickel ). He has given talks on his belief in population collapse due to man-made decisions — an argument which falls apart when taken out of isolated examples of long-since dead cultures, such as the Rapa Nui people of Easter Island experiencing a population collapse due, perhaps in part, to deforestation (never mind that Easter Island may have suffered a rat infestation, experienced plagues due to external visitation, is very small at 63.2 miles², is isolated in the middle of the Pacific, and thus was likely a doomed experiment for even a "sustainable" people with no ambitions) ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-2gN31R0O4 ). In this same video chat (above), which took place in 2017, Hickel even parrots the WEF's "sustainable" imperatives and cites "Earth Overshoot" and the "Global South", the WEF's models and buzz words of deciding which cultures are consuming at "appropriate" levels. The principle is typically that certain peoples of certain countries consume more or less than the planet could sustain if everyone on Earth consumed as much as they did — never mind that this hypothetical is not the worldwide reality, that perhaps consumption differences are not automatically negative, and that supporting technology can advance with population growth. His "solution" is also the WEF's: "equitable distribution" as a means of getting people to accept the planned worldwide destruction of economies in the name of "climate justice". He says this overtly. Again: this WEF strategy is not at all hidden. This is not "conspiracy theory"; this is a stated plan being carried out actively by indoctrinated academics, politicians, and the WEF's great multitude of global elitists. Hickel even describes the managerial state who must manipulate politicians into destroying their economies in the name of this plan. And how? • Via factors such as ESG and the "Genuine Progress Indicator" (GPI), which by definition intends to redirect the motivations of the globe into one of Marcusean "sustainability" and "inclusive" economics (of ESG's Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) platform). • He also talks about the WEF's transition from "shareholder" businesses to "stakeholder" businesses, where businesses are no longer concerned with profit and fiduciary responsibilities but instead "change [the] laws" that govern businesses in order to make them compliant with GPI. • He even cites the social aspect of this (see ESG's S-Index): "we're all revolutionaries now". I.e., climate activists such as himself believe that they are the necessary vanguard of this Marxist catastrophe. • He also justifies the "productivity drop". That is, people who work hard to drive profits are consuming more resources and creating more commodities (to Marxist Malthusians, this is bad). By forcing fewer work hours and capping productivity, businesses have lower output and thus create less carbon. By "redistributing" labor, the business can hire larger numbers of unproductive people, with the highly productive people of a business pulling weight for those in managerial sinecures, again supporting the managerial state by enslaving the productive and essentially capping their efforts in "Harrison Bergeron" fashion. • He also talks about "removing" debt structures, which, while noble on the surface, is a function of the shared-wealth state where people cannot own capital and are thus permanent renters of the state's property. The state thus owns permanent and inescapable debt via serfdom: people work the state's lands, eat the state's bread, and are permitted only the level of existence that the state determines appropriate with its carbon-tracking apparatuses. Oligarchs are likely exempted. Academics, despite their efforts in selling the "goodness" of this propaganda, are not, though many believe that they will be rewarded for selling out their species. • And, seeming to address the notion that the WEF's term "stakeholder capitalism" is a lie, Hickel even states, "This kind of economy is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism." That is, the WEF's model is, effectively, a Marxist takeover of capitalism. In the Marxist vision of inevitable "history" (the Marxist "becoming"), they believe that this is the next stage of the world, and they will call it whatever they think will sell it best. While Hickel ends the video with what many may dismiss as political platitudes of a "loving" and "more intimate" future, his political thought here couples with his Moral Foundations Theory alignment: he is more concerned with "harm reduction" and "fairness" than in the liberty of humanity. This makes him a perfect acolyte for the Malthusians, who wish to "reduce harm" in the same way that Peta "reduces harm" on stray animals: by euthanizing them and preventing the "suffering" of their offspring. This same logic, incidentally, has been adopted by the pro-abortion crowd, who, as a "grassroots" movement (one merely owned by the Malthusian propaganda), believe that by self-selecting out of the gene pool they are preventing future suffering. This is the psychology of a people with no imagination for the future, who cannot see past the pain and resentment that has spread over their entire lives. That introduces Hickel's latest insanity. And I saved this thread just in time; Hickel deleted it a few hours ago: http://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1563502217537081349 @JasonHickel, 6:22 AM, August 27th, 2022: • "What's happening in Pakistan right now is pure horror. 30 million people without shelter. Nearly 1,000 killed, more than 500,000 houses destroyed, close to 1 billion livestock deaths. Climate chaos isn't some future possibility, it's happening right now." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/26/pakistan-floods • "This is a straightforward case for reparations. The rich countries are responsible for over 90% of the excess emissions that are causing climate breakdown. Pakistan, by contrast, is still *under* its fair share of the safe planetary boundary for emissions." https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542519620301960 • "Pakistan needs urgent international assistance, and it should come in the form not of aid, or charity, but reparations for climate damages, shouldered by the elites and corporations that control and profit from fossil capital." • "Please note: when this article was posted 6 hours ago the deck read "30 million are without shelter" (as can be seen in the thumbnail above, and in the archive here). This has since been corrected to "30 million affected"." https://web.archive.org/web/20220827070559/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/8/26/pakistan-floods • "The Guardian is reporting more than 33 million people displaced." https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/aug/27/pakistan-floods-death-toll-nearing-1000-say-officials This kind of insanity might be overlooked by people not paying attention to ESG/DIE. That is, someone who believes in all of the climate change propaganda would indeed blame the West for floods in Pakistan. You could probably even get them to blame the West for a volcanic eruption in Iceland or a surfer hitting a rock in California (the swell was just that big!). All weather events or Earth activity is now the fault of the carbon-producing world. Humanity's future must therefore be annihilated so that we revert to Rand's "Anthem" dystopia: all potentials maximized at candlesticks and street-sweeping. Or, as the WEF would have it: humanity maximized at an A.I. singularity "gifted" with the anti-spirit of a civilization that convinced itself that it must die so that a perfect river running through a canyon could be viewed only in digital — or by the immortal transhuman oligarchs who sleep in Tessier-Ashpool cryo-pods. Or, where Virgil would triumphantly say, «[Per aspera] ad astra» ("[through hardships,] to the stars"), the Marxist useful idiot, being a nihilist with no spirit, would instead say, "Humans Should Not Colonize Mars" ( https://philarchive.org/archive/STOHSN ). Because, after all, does not post-colonialism make any colonization "evil"? Should we not perfect the Marxist "Utopia" on Earth before bringing our baggage elsewhere? This is the self-suffocating logic of Nietzsche's Last Men. With this logic in place, the useful idiot is drawn to believe that all political action must be globally minded collectivism: to "save" Pakistan they must accept mass migration from the undeveloped world or force companies to convert to ESG and GPI frameworks that siphon their funds into WEF social initiatives. All world economies must be leveled to the lowest common denominator of "planetary boundary" — a new metric conceived by fools without imaginations, convinced by their myopic narcissism that they are at the end of history because they themselves wish to die. Where slave morality such as this has a storied tradition of being weaponized against an enemy that has been selected for destruction by competing powers, perhaps these climate activists would some day ask if their entire identity were merely the product of Marxist propaganda. They might ask: if climate change is not truly going to doom the world by the 2030 and 2050 UN/WEF deadlines, then what utility is effected in making the West intensely weak under ESG/DIE while the BRICS group consolidates food and energy independence on the same timeline? Or: who truly benefits from the fall of the West? Who would boost the voice of the climate alarmists for such an end?
jergul large member	Sun Aug 28 07:05:44 Who benefits from the decrease in relative privilege for the golden billion due to pursuing climate change? Well, the other 7 billion? Given that they definitely cannot follow a carbon growth model? Is that the conspiracy you are looking for?
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Aug 30 01:25:56 This is only peripherally related to the thread's subject, but this is pretty interesting: People who have been using Twitter in the last few months have probably noticed psychotic content from "Dash Dobrofsky". http://twitter.com/DashDobrofsky Dobrofsky joined Twitter only in April of 2022 but currently has 106.1k followers. His Twitter selfie-videos are typically composed of insane low-information takes — basically restating DNC talking points from downstream sources with absolute belief, like a tw thread. This means maximum TDS, delusional belief in Party narratives without any attempt at evidence-tracking, and an often *too* awkward "vote Democrat" refrain. When I encountered these videos, I could not tell if Dobrofsky was just a satire account, since the takes were just *that* bad and he was just *that* animated and expressionless, so I just laughed and moved on. I even made this super low-effort Jaws reference/clip in early August (not my best work): http://twitter.com/CherubCow/status/1554427630115602432 Not helping this "satire?" perception was that many comments under his videos respond to him as though he's sincere or that his points are at all valid. That is, people who knowingly follow a satire account would probably respond with their own satire, but his followers seem to be genuine believers. Complicating things still further is that he's a minor B-celebrity with an imdb page, so there was the lingering question that this was some kind of Andy Kaufman experiment in method-actor comedy. But, YouTube user "NuanceBro" (whom I have not watched before this) did a video with slightly more research than a cursory Google search: "The Left's Newest Rising Social Media Star: Dash Dobrofsky" [NuanceBro; August 25th, 2022] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbpUNh1BtM4 The short, between-the-lines version of his theory is that Dobrofsky comes from a family of immoralist screen-writers and actors (a family of Hollywood Jews) who made their money by writing to the audience, and Dobrofsky is simply following that same model of immoral money-making (i.e., grifting). This is common in (former) Hollywood*: have no principles and simply write to what sells. *(though this has changed somewhat now that Hollywood feels it can be more overt with their Marxism, having secured perpetual funding through ESG) This seems to fit well. Dobrofsky may simply be recognizing that the left are currently more likely to interact with insane content such as his, so Dobrofsky can build a name for himself, get subscribers, get page clicks, and cash in on the useful idiots and the DNC sock puppets that want to sell these narratives by promoting accounts such as his. The grift goes where the money is. And this model makes sense to immoralists. That is, if trillionaire asset managers are directing funding to any social movements or ideologues expressing the "correct" positions, then immoralist grifters who simply want to cash in will run with those positions. Immoralists are far more likely to vote DNC–totalitarian anyways, so it's not even a stretch of his politics; but the extra "grift" factor is that he is not providing insights — he's hyping absurd positions to appeal to the unthinking multitude that browses Twitter for quick-dopamine content. His content is: • Highly emotional • Highly animated • Absurd • Inflammatory • Sensationalist • Misinformed • Unhinged • Short in length It's left-wing yellow journalism, and Twitter absolutely loves that. It's how people such as JoJoFromJerz, Acyn, Ron Filipkowski and others I mentioned in thread 2 comment "Tue Jun 14 10:06:39" attract so many useful idiots. The left-wing psychosis *is* the key demo on social media. So, he's selling them "their own fat asses back to them". The dumber the content, the better. I'd honestly be surprised if tw doesn't follow this account already. The added dimension not brought up in the video is Dobrofsky's apparent drug usage or *real* psychological instability. That is, acting or not, his expression in his videos is braindead and psychotic. People have pointed out that his pupils have whitespace below them ("Sanpaku eyes"). In the videos that NuanceBro shows of Dobrosfky's reality-TV appearances, Dobrosfky has this same condition, masked only partially by youth. That is, Dobrosfky likely *is* insane, but he's just hamming up his insanity for his grift like a homeless man smearing poop for effect while believing that he's not really *that* crazy.
Habebe Member	Tue Aug 30 01:40:06 "basically restating DNC talking points from downstream sources with absolute belief, like a tw thread." This is an accurate description.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Sep 01 10:36:04 jergul "Given that they definitely cannot follow a carbon growth model?" Who/what is stopping them?
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Sep 04 16:28:05 Totalitarian psychopath PedoPete* is at it again with some fresh division: @POTUS, September 4th, 2022, 10:50 AM "MAGA proposals are a threat to the very soul of this country." http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1566468635165687812 *(or his handlers) See also: @POTUS, September 4th, 2022, 9:51 AM "The MAGA agenda represents an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our Republic. It doesn’t respect our Constitution. It doesn’t believe in the rule of law. And it doesn’t recognize the will of the people." http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1566453888810717185 @POTUS, September 3rd, 2022, 10:02 AM "The MAGA ideology looks at America and sees carnage and darkness and despair. I see an America with an unlimited future. An America that is about to take off." http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1566094250743418889 @POTUS, September 2nd, 2022, 6:06 PM "MAGA Republicans in Congress look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th not as insurrectionists but as patriots. That is not who we are." https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1565853646402764801 He even has this hilarious mental gaff video where he once again shits the bed on quoting the Declaration of Independence — and unsurprisingly stopping right before "unalienable rights": @POTUS, September 2nd, 2022, 11:45 AM "America is an idea — the most powerful idea in the history of the world. And it beats in the hearts of the people of this country." http://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1565757762973335552 -=--=- =-==-= So, the enemy of "democracy" is now competing/populist: • agenda • ideology • politicians This is the part of his tyrant's game of pretending that he's not really demonizing the voters while he nevertheless demonizes the politicians that voters chose and the policies that made those politicians popular among these same voters. Downstream, this makes totalitarian sycophants see an enemy in their fellow citizens based on their political beliefs — the same psychopathy that was used leading into 2020 to get useful idiots such as tw to start using words such as GQP, MAGAt, fascist, Nazi, insurrectionists, and "cult" (Oh, the projection). It is becoming ever increasingly clear that Biden himself was installed specifically to bring about division and conflict, with this desperate pre-midterm rhetoric being the uniparty's attempt to polarize its base, get these useful idiots to see an "existential" threat in the *other*, and turn out in large numbers despite this administration's abysmal economic failures and its self-destructive ESG/DIE policies. The totalitarian state needs 2022 midterm wins if it is to further consolidate its goals of ending the Republic, installing perpetual oligarchy, and depopulating on behalf of the Malthusians and the BRICS Group.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 05 00:57:37 Here's a particularly low-information psychosis moment that the left seems to be experiencing. Forgive the right-wing Twitter account as a source because this is about people's uninformed reactions more so than the evidentiary chain. Posobiec gets trolled by the left, so he's a good source for how the deranged left deal with counter-claims. From @JackPosobiec, September 3rd, 2022, 2:01 PM "Holy shlit now they are admitting the Mar-a-Lago folders were empty" http://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1566154313747120130 Posobiec is likely referring to the documents list released by the DoJ and Florida Courts: [US Courts dot gov; August 30th, 2022; Florida Courts document] http://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763/gov.uscourts.flsd.618763.39.1_1.pdf In many boxes, there are mentions of "Empty Folders with [various classification markings]". Posobiec is being sensational by saying, "(the) Mar-a-Lago folders" instead of "(some) Mar-a-Lago folders", but narrowing in on "some", the new left-wing conspiracy theory is that those empty folders show that Trump "sold" the contents. This is absurd and shows their immense ignorance as well as their willingness to distort based on non-evidence. After all, how can a reasonable person conclude the presence of something from its absence? This is a religious argument, not a reasoned one. For that claim to have substance, they would need to establish a chain of custody. They do not have one. Some comments try to explain this to the left-wing trolls by saying that the contents of those empty folders were likely already declassified, but even this argument presumes the existence of those documents (i.e., it entertains the same religious argument). In reality, people should know this: Classifying authorities (i.e., authorities who can classify documents) and security-cleared authorities (i.e., those authorities that deal commonly with classified documents), including the FBI/DoJ, DoS, DoD, and White House, all keep empty cover sheets on hand. This is standard practice. This is the government equivalent of common offices keeping blank paper, empty folders, and Post-Its on hand for use by employees. Thus, for government workers, classified cover sheets are kept on hand so that documents *can* be classified. While these cover sheets are not magical (i.e., not typically given security strips and water marks as are currency), they are typically printed on heavier stock paper and are sometimes printed with control numbers and thus are maintained for usage and re-usage rather than just shredded. Whether or not any cover-sheet control numbers were assigned pagination on corresponding documents is to be seen (i.e., a numbered cover sheet may not have its number transcribed on attached documents and a cover sheet may not have even had unique numbers *to* transcribe). Also, a cover sheet itself is *not* the level of clearance of the sheet. I.e., someone with a "Top Secret" (TS) cover sheet with nothing attached to it is NOT in possession of a TS document. In other words, those "empty" folders prove nothing more than that a cleared authority had access to office supplies. If the left's useful idiots do not want to be captured by yet another hoax, they will have to stick with the documents that were actually catalogued.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 05 07:30:18 This is almost a couple weeks old now, but it's worth listing: "Nate Silver: ‘Liberal elites’ pressured Pfizer to delay vaccine until after 2020 election" [New York Post; August 25th, 2022] http://nyp...pfizer-to-delay-covid-vaccine/ • "In a subsequent tweet, Silver wrote that “liberal public health elites” pushed Pfizer to “change its original protocols” that govern its authorization of vaccines so that the decision would be put off until after Election Day two years ago." • "Silver noted that Pfizer’s decision “had the convenient side-effect of delaying any vaccine announcement until after the election” and that the story “deserves more scrutiny.”" • "The FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief said most public health officials “tend to be strong [Democratic] partisans” and that their push for Pfizer to take its time in announcing a vaccine “may have been politically motivated in whole or in part.”" Sadly, this is nothing new. I myself said in this very forum months before the 2020 election that whoever won would take credit for the shots. It was not exactly unexpected. We also knew from people such as NYC's Cuomo and Michigan's Governor Whitmer that it was very much a DNC strategy to kill as many Americans as possible via COVID protocols and inflate death numbers via "with/from" COVID logic in order to build negative sentiments about Trump. The useful idiots even continued blaming COVID deaths on Trump all the way into 2022. So the DNC's hand in delaying the shots for this effect is only being *further* confirmed here. And why is this being "revealed" now? We have now begun reaching a stage where the "conspiracy theories" about the COVID shots causing health issues is breaking into the mainstream. The DNC knows that it can only play the "safe and effective" lie for so much longer before the public sees the data on myocarditis on CNN, so they're preparing to blame Trump's "Operation Warp Speed" for pushing the shots onto the public by bypassing safety protocols under emergency use. Sadly, they have plenty of evidence for this, since Trump himself — against the wishes of people in his ear who warned him about vaccine safety in 2020 and 2021 — celebrated the shots as an achievement of his administration, telling people that they should get the shots (though he would not mandate them). There are seemingly hundreds of clips of Trump advocating for these shots, and the highlight reel was already assembled specifically because the left was for a time pretending that Trump himself was enabling the "Anti-vax" movement (another DNC hoax). This is, of course, going to be immense gas-lighting operation by the DNC, since the DNC totalitarians pushed for mandatory vaccination far and above the GOP, which was the party filing the lawsuits to stop those mandates. It was central to the DNC's erosion of liberty for the global compliance model, and thus the side effects ultimately will fall on them. But, we know good and well that if the DNC employs this strategy of blaming Trump for side effect studies, the DNC's useful idiots will likely buy the next narrative, despite it contradicting their earlier narratives. This is the magic of doublethink in the common prole. That said, this strategy may be even too much for the DNC to pull off, hence why they pivoted back to their division and fear model of social engineering. They may simply be hedging by planting the seeds just in case incoming long-term side-effect studies make them look bad. Given their regulatory capture, this is only a defense behind several layers of defense.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 05 08:32:55 People may have seen K3ffals (spelled wrong for Google indexing) and Kiwi Farms trending frequently on Twitter in the last few weeks, and while it appears to merely be a spat between deranged Internet weirdos who spend too much time online, it has become something much more volatile that implicates the Five Eyes apparatus. This is the very short version: • KiwiFarms (previously KiwiFarms.net) is a kind of Encyclopedia Dramatica that uses direct sources to catalogue the misdeeds of toxic and typically left-wing Internet users. Despite its 4chan-like ethos, it is moderated and does not permit illegal content or even porn (separating it from say, Twitter). • They made a page about trans-activist "K3ffals" (142.1k Twitter followers), which included his "dead name". • K3ffals is a transwoman with a very bazaar history, including getting his dying father to pay for transition services in Thailand, making fart porn after his father's death, and overtly grooming minors both for sexual gratification and as a means of directing them to transition as well. • K3ffals is also a perfect example of the left-wing Panopticon lynch mob, weaponizing a follower base to mass-report opposition and "ratio" people who speak negatively about the trans community (e.g., J. K. Rowling, Destiny, Timcast, Rekieta Law), and even scouring the likes on "problematic" posts and pre-blocking people. • Rekieta was targeted recently because he talked about this issue and then interviewed KiwiFarm's owner "Null" on August 27th, who was able to explain that the Kiwi Farms Wiki page is effectively owned propaganda by activists (video still available but likely not for long: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gP92u3ld1-w ) • K3ffals thus targeted KiwiFarms, attempting and later succeeding in getting KiwiFarms to lose their CloudFlare hosting via fed-posting on KiwiFarms to make them look bad (i.e., making new accounts that called for violence against K3ffals and possibly even launching the SWATting attacks that targeted Marjorie Taylor Greene via a Kiwifarms connection), DDoS, and simple complaint campaigns. • KiwiFarms successfully migrated to https://kiwifarms.ru/ yesterday, but, that site has now been taken down, with the new development being this: http://twitter.com/BuckBreakMan/status/1566755675883159561/photo/1 From the link, effectively, KiwiFarms' "Null" is recognizing that the Australian government's new Internet censorship protocols mean that APNIC IP allocation may no longer support the protection of sites that do not comply with the totalitarian's Overton Window, and DDoS protections may not be willing to deal with this level of attacks. I.e., sites deemed too "offensive" or "problematic" that are noticed by "protected" persons are denied their very ability to host on the Internet. Other competing sites that have hosted content *related* to Kiwi Farms and its supporters are also being attacked, such as the more or less open platform of Rumble — a direct YouTube competitor — which was DDoS attacked yesterday. On the one hand, the counter-argument is that Kiwi Farms was a soft-core doxxing site that gives people the tools to make life uncomfortable for semi-public figures, but, on the other hand, Kiwi Farms' moderation policy forbids doxxing and this is clearly a massive DDoS by trans activists (i.e., illegal). This is also an extension of other issues seen on the right, such as the targeting of Parler when it was a threat in the 2020 election, the propaganda that downplayed TruthSocial, the de-platforming of Alex Jones, and the fed-posting that invariably attacks any free platform to de-legitimize it. While Kiwi Farms may be limited to one site owner experiencing an "isolated" attack from insignificant Twitter dramas, it may also be another canary showing the consolidating powers of a controlled Internet. These edge cases are typically propagandized to make them "acceptable" removals to low-information people who hear about the details in passing, but this directed pruning is incrementalism, slowly drowning counter-thoughts until only the total state's narrative remains.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 05 19:55:09 I had to pop in to see tw's insane takes in the "FBI V Trump 4" thread: http://uto...hread=90533&time=1662355235617 It's pretty hilarious. This is a great example of the deranged mind's underlining of spectral evidence: [TDS Bot]: "over 200 documents, over 1000 pages... you want to place your bets on Trump, of all people, having kept nothing at all inappropriate?" There are multiple errors at work here. 1) The assumption that a large number of classified documents must have *something*. 2) The assumption that Trump would be the one to have kept that "something" in error (i.e., that Trump had such control of those documents that he must have put something interesting in them and that his supposed tendency towards mistakes would result in that "something" being present). 3) That there are "inappropriate" documents at all. 1) This is, of course, a fundamental misunderstanding of how classified protections work for documents. What immensely ignorant and easily misled people such as tw do not understand is that even documents with these high classification markings are often not that interesting. A document may be labeled, "Top Secret" (TS), but only contain a memo saying that a particular diplomat will be visiting a particular place at a particular time. Why is it TS, then? Because that information could be used negatively if known by malicious actors; by making that information TS, it is easier for security protocols to be effective. And yet, that same document may remain TS after that visit occurred not because it's still TS by any measure of its current value but because there may simply not be the willpower or time to go through dated documents and remove their previous cover sheets. It's still *technically* TS in that case, but it is a valueless document, since that visit would have passed into the public record. Classified-document offices are *filled* with these sorts of documents. Documents.. • Listing employee phone numbers • Listing minutes for a meeting • Listing daily threat reports that no longer have value (value that only lasts a few hours) • Listing security threats that no longer exist • Noting pre-public discussions • Noting troop movements that have since been made public • Noting executive actions that later made the news • Noting actionable information which similarly resulted in action that made the news And on top of the mundanity of that information is that bureaucrats who do not know how valuable that information is will simply over-classify the information to err on the side of caution. For example, if someone does not know how important a troop movement is, they may give it the highest classification just to be safe. But, again, that troop movement may have been little more than a scheduled mass movement that made the news anyways. 2) It is in this way that offices may end up with huge classified stocks that are effectively meaningless. Office managers typically have to go through all of this stock frequently specifically to cull this extra baggage, but if an office has to relocate suddenly (as in the case of an outgoing president who dragged his feet leaving), this declassification process is stunted. Thus, in mundane reality, Trump likely left the White House with a bunch of filler paper that the FBI is now simply processing as an officer manager might have done. It's not exciting, but that's the most likely situation, as reflected by simple bureaucratic protocols surrounding classified documents. Not nuclear secrets (yet another hoax that tw believed: "hasn't been confirmed or disproven yet"), not sellable state secrets, not spectral evidence of criminal action that "might" exist simply because tw doesn't have any fucking clue. 3) And so, despite all of these cover sheets, there may be no interesting information whatsoever. This may ultimately be a complete waste of the news cycle; just another hoax designed to rile up useful idiots such as tw; the DNC's directing of their TDS-psychosis voting bloc for the incoming midterms (See also the "HOAX pattern" above). This was also funny from that thread: [TDS Bot]: "plastered w/ markings (which get crossed out if declassified)" I explained declassification above (comment "Mon Sep 05 00:57:37"). The short is that tw is unsurprisingly wrong again. This is again the difference between technical classification and real classification; the contents of documents behind a cover sheet will maintain the technical classification, but those documents are likely ultimately meaningless due to simple bureaucratic neglect. [TDS Bot]: "there is no defense... no one gets to just keep 100s of classified docs, or 1 classified doc (plus the 11,000+ other docs aren't his either)" This is, of course, completely false. There is indeed a defense — there are many, in fact. A president has been exposed to some of the highest classifications because of the nature of his job. These exposures do not suddenly end at the termination of presidency, and a president in transition will need access to classified documents as part of the simple security protocols of still being a major public figure who still has remnant governmental powers. Many Twitter meme-sters have been floating the idiotic trope that, "[hur hur, I dealt with classified materials, and I would have gone to jail if I kept any!]" but these idiots seem not to realize that they were not *presidents*. Forwyn points this out ("None of them the President"), but random office workers and low-classification employees taking photos or keeping these things would indeed be in trouble, but presidents have a special purview, having access to some of the highest levels of state secrets. Pretending that a president should be charged for having access to state secrets is the height of absurdity, since the executive branch cannot be effective without this access. This is the entire structure of presidential function, archival processes, and historical record-making. Former presidents have a lasting public life which necessitates access to these documents — they have special privileges to documents which could be part of their legacy (e.g., autobiographies, insider accounts to be released outside of classification windows). To claim that "no one gets to just keep" these documents is a simple and gross error of massive ignorance — and so is a cornerstone of tw's deranged thinking. Tw, being lost to the psychosis, will see spectral evidence as real truth, showing where he always failed to understand the subjects from practical reality. He simply obeys the hoax pattern as the terminal useful idiot that he is. His automatic presumption of Trump's guilt causes him to fall for the hoax every single time rather than following the evidence to determine the value of the information. This is why he always believes DNC media's narrative and continues to trust them despite their lies being overt from the very first misstating of the known evidence. Look how he even denies himself the oxygen of understanding by funneling his errors into limited (and absurd) possibilities: "yet it’s an order that makes no sense to make, the -only- possible reason to give it is the exact scenario he’s in" This is how the imbecile denies reality to maintain the delusion. He cannot make from this delusion. He has been in the DNC Matrix for too long, and waking now would break him. No argument can convince such a mind. And, in ultimate irony, such a person, so vulnerable to the DNC's myth-making, becomes a projection apparatus for the DNC: "quit being gullible idiots". But who is gullible? The people who actually understand these processes, or tw, who has no comprehension but simply wants to see "guilt" in Trump at every turn and will thus believe any lie — no matter how many times those lies turn to sand and run through his fingers? This is also an explanation which shuts down tw's idiotic questioning here: "he's sitting in the office someday & says 'you know what, let's declassify anything i ever take home'... why... why would that happen? how would that ever make sense as a way to decide what is declassified?" Again, it's simple bureaucratic process. An outgoing president may not have *time* to process those documents *in* the White House (i.e., not "sitting in the office someday"), so the cover sheets will remain while the move is made. That is, a president can indeed mass-declassify at that time, but the cover sheets will remain to save time while permitting better sorting later. The FBI now accounting for these documents is simply a formality to remove those cover sheets — a formality that was timed and highlighted for political capital. What's interesting about that is that it may even have been the Trump family that highlighted it for this capital. If they had not reported the "raid", then this may have simply been nothing more than the FBI declassifying those documents "officially" and returning them to the Trump family. As a signout for this, think of the psychosis that events like this spin into tw's mind, as these events similarly spin into the generally deranged left-wing useful idiot's mind. All of his spectral evidence will again evaporate, but he will still believe the general narrative despite the dozens of mistakes that he made in that thread series. He was repeatedly called on these errors, but he nevertheless remained immune to reason. Now, if someone continues to believe these lies despite the narrative falling apart, where does that place them in the hoax pattern? They will miss the quiet retractions by DNC media as the facts are revealed, but they will continue to believe them. Thus, when Trump is not charged, a useful idiot such as tw will believe that a grave injustice has occurred. Presuming guilt, he grows angry that no punishment has been doled. "[He got away with it again! How can the guilty remain free?]" This spins the psychosis still further, because such a person who has departed reality is now living in the DNC fantasy, believing that consequences should exist for an originating cause that does *not* exist. That sentence is, in short, how the DNC has made these people so hopelessly insane.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 05 23:18:34 *"He cannot [return] from this delusion." -=-=- Law bloggers (e.g., Robert Gouveia, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5IitFdWOLc ) have been highlighting this section of a Florida Courts document on the FBI's processing of Trump documents: [Ignore the file host; this is the official PDF from Florida District Judge Aileen Cannon; "Special Master Order" granted to Trump] http://2ur...uscourts.flsd_.618763.64.0.pdf From page 2–3: "On May 10th, 2022, NARA informed Plaintiff that it would proceed with 'provid[ing] the FBI access to the records in question, as requested by the incumbent president, beginning as early as Thursday, May 12th, 2022'". Re-written with the parties highlighted: "On May 10th, 2022, [the National Archives and Records Administration, which was tasked with reviewing White House documents] informed [Trump] that it would proceed with 'provid[ing] the FBI access to the records [at Mar-a-Lago], as requested by [President Biden], beginning as early as Thursday, May 12th, 2022.'" In other words, President Biden himself ordered on or before March 12th, 2022, that the FBI be granted access to the documents at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate. Additionally, Trump had privilege over these documents which was to last "for several years after the conclusion of a President’s tenure in office" (below doc), and Biden himself removed that privilege so that the FBI could have access for a review; Trump was allowed to maintain those documents under executive privilege, but Biden *removed* that privilege. The May 10th memorandum cited in the September 5th document further elucidates this point: [Just National Security dot org; National Archives, Letter to President Trump Attorney; May 10th, 2022] http://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/National-Archives-letter-to-President-Trump-attorney-May-10-2022-1.pdf "NARA informed the Department of Justice about that discovery, which prompted the Department to ask [President Biden] to request that NARA provide the FBI with access to the boxes at issue so that the FBI and others in the Intelligence Community could examine them." In addition to this showing that the Biden White House did indeed put the FBI into action against Trump, people are highlighting this also because the White House Press Secretary potentially lied when she claimed on August 9th that no one in the White House had been briefed or knew about the raid: "Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre" [White House dot gov; August 9th, 2022] http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2022/08/09/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-6/ [Zeke Miller]: "On a different topic, the FBI has served a search warrant on the former President’s residence in Florida. Was the President or anyone at the White House aware of that search warrant? Or had — has anyone at the White House or the President been briefed in the aftermath of that search warrant being executed?" [Karine Jean-Pierre]: "No. The President was not briefed, did not — was not aware of it. No. No one at the White House was given a heads up. No, that did not happen." This exchange is particularly strange given that the question was asked by Zeke Miller, who I pointed out in Thread #2 comment "Thu Jun 02 06:54:14" was one of the White House's chosen affiliates via the WHCA (i.e., a Bolshevik Party Member), and Jean-Pierre did not at all hedge on this point — she was definitive. In other words, the White House likely had access to this question before it was asked, and their response was thus pre-prepared rather than an off-the-cuff mistake by the incompetent Jean-Pierre. They made this statement with eyes open. Why, then, would the White House lie? They would have to know that there would be an evidentiary trail showing that the White House did indeed put the FBI into action, so perhaps they are simply splitting hairs and pretending that, while the White House gave the FBI permission to seize the documents (the evidentiary facts), they were not aware of *how* the documents would be seized by the FBI (their statement). In effect, they are saying that they did not know the *specifics*, such as the text of the search warrant itself, but they did indeed know that the FBI had been given their direct authority to seize those documents. It's like hiring a hitman but then claiming "ignorance" because they did not know what kind of pistol the hitman would use — a slight of hand that gets them through a news cycle. Additionally, the Special Master Order filed in Florida (first document link above) means that the FBI must immediately cease its investigation of the documents (i.e., the judge granted the order in part). A "special master" is to be appointed who will determine which documents the FBI can use for its investigation and which documents were covered by Trump's presidential privileges. The FBI cannot proceed with its investigation of these documents until this process is completed or until another court order goes into effect. Other points covered in the order: • Leading into the raid, Trump was complying with all requests to turn over documents. • The FBI determined that they had "incomplete" access (this can mean either that they wanted more access than they were allowed or they believed that they were allowed access but did not receive it — the judge of this order indicates the first). • The FBI thus sought a judge who would provide an all-encompassing search warrant (completely unrestricted warrant to find and seize *anything*; pretty remarkable and not a good faith action — this is a stain on the FBI and the judge who issued the warrant). This is why the document count was so high and why they went into Melania's and Barron's effects: the FBI had no limitations on what they could seize. • The DoJ denied access to the affidavit, which may list any limitations to the search or limits to the FBI's purview (if any). • "Jurisdiction": the judge reviewing the Order does indeed have the authority to stop the FBI's investigation while a special master mediates. This is a good check on the FBI's powers. • "Standing": Trump does indeed have standing and a legal interest to possess these documents per the Presidential Records Act, thus a special master can be assigned to sort the government's purview of its investigation versus Trump's legal possession. The FBI was wrong to assume that it had a legal right to possess all documents (i.e., its likely illegal seizure of Trump's passports and personal effects will be brought into question by the special master). • Even before the special master is appointed, the judge and even the FBI recognize that at *least* 520 pages of documents were personal effects and some effects were "in fact privileged" but seized nonetheless. • "Need for Further Review": The judge and the special master do indeed have the authority to return personal effects and privileged documents to Trump. The FBI does not have limitless discretion under the warrant. The FBI also made at least two mistakes in its chain of custody, allowing tainted investigators to continue searching (i.e., they had been exposed to privileged information which could direct their search, but they were allowed to continue searching), leading the judge to believe that a special master is necessary to review the FBI's internal processes of determining which documents are privileged. • "former presidents may assert claims of executive privilege" (Supreme Court ruling) • While Biden had the authority to push for his own privilege, "The Supreme Court did not rule out the possibility of a former President overcoming an incumbent President on executive privilege matters". In other words, Trump has legal standing to claim executive privilege over documents that were generated during his term — even if Biden claims privilege over those documents. • The FBI did NOT screen documents for executive privilege; they simply seized all documents. Thus, this special master is necessary. • A temporary injunction and appointment of a special master are also necessary because, on the merits, Trump may win due to his executive privilege. It should be interesting to see how long this pause lasts while a special master is appointed. This will likely be an *office* of a special master rather than just one person, btw, and the special master in charge of this office will be an appointee of this judge. Once the special master is selected, he/she will have certain privileges: • Can evaluate chain-of-custody for errors. • Can omit tainted evidence from the FBI's investigation. • Can designate documents as private via attorney–client privilege. • Can designate documents as covered by executive privilege. • Can effectively limit the scope of the FBI's investigation. Naturally, this check on the FBI's powers is already upsetting the totalitarians, who are now blaming the judge and asking whether a special master is even allowed here: "U.S. judge agrees to special master in Trump search case, delaying probe" [Reuters; September 5th, 2022] http://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-request-special-master-raid-case-granted-part-by-us-court-filing-2022-09-05/ Their arguments are basically non-existent — just bland claims of "special treatment" which do not at all contradict this judge's use of Supreme Court rulings to establish precedent for her own ruling. This judge will also be an obvious vector of attack by DNC propaganda since she was appointed by Trump in 2020. This will allow useful idiots such as tw to evade their cognitive dissonance, ignoring the legal issues listed above. That is, whether or not this judge was appointed by Trump, a president does indeed have privileges over executive documents which extends several years after his presidency, and, at the end of the day, Biden himself removed those privileges in order to authorize the FBI to seize those documents.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Sep 06 00:09:15 Something I forgot to mention: Part of the Biden White House's mounting claim is that exerting privilege over these documents and having the FBI seize them was necessary for ensuring that the new administration had all of the intelligence it needed for its transition of power. *If* that is the case, then waiting until before midterms to activate the FBI is highly suspect. I.e., if the White House truly needed those documents, then it would have been in a hurry to acquire them in January/February of 2021, *not* in March of 2022. If those documents were indeed needed for a transition, any competent officer manager would have raised complaints *immediately*. So, 1) Either the White House is admitting to massive incompetence at establishing its transition bureaucracy, or 2) The White House delayed this activation of the FBI in order to control the news cycle for midterms. I think there is evidence for both of these, though, if I were a psychopath such as tw, I would proclaim that the "-only- possible reason" could be "2)". 1) • We know that the DNC White House was complaining about having a truncated transition due to ongoing litigation leading up to January 2021's inauguration. Typically, after an election is declared, transition can begin. In 2020, even without fraud allegations, issues with mail-in ballots and new voting structures delayed transition by a week. Then, deadlines for contesting the outcome pushed transition back further. However, even with these issues, the GSA initiated the transition around November 24th ( https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/23/politics/transition-biden-gsa-begin/index.html ). • Further evidence against this is that Biden's transition team was largely composed of Obama's transition team (i.e., they had done this before and were prepared), and it is estimated that about 50% of the Obama White House transitioned into Trump's White House, with that figure likely being similar for Trump to Biden — i.e., a large amount of the White House staff remained and were able to communicate their expertise directly ( https://www.georgetown.edu/news/former-white-house-official-says-smooth-transition-process-necessary-daunting/ ). • Most transition actions do not require a passing of the baton. I.e., the Biden White House was already hiring its personnel in December — regardless of election litigation. In early November 2021, it was even reported by the NYT that Trump's White House was acting in good faith for a transition even despite election litigation ( https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/us/politics/joe-biden-donald-trump-transition.html ). • in January and February 2021, Biden flew out of the gate with EO after EO, with all of his plans clearly being premeditated and not at all affected by any transition delays. 2) • A big contributor here is that the White House had no complaints about its transition after January. An August 2021 puff piece even declared that Biden's transition was an inspiring "successful transition", citing only the fraud litigation as a distraction that did not deter Biden's White House due to its institutional knowledge and experience ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psq.12732 ). • Few, if any, articles exist complaining about the transition after January 2021. It was not a factor. • So what changed? Nothing. Until February 2022, when the NARA flagged the FBI while reviewing its documents ( https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/12/us/politics/trump-classified-records-timeline.html ). • In other words, the Biden White House had no pressing need for any of these documents for its transition. The only initiating factor was that the NARA gave the White House and DOJ a vector of attacking Trump, and Biden took it, likely seeing the results of his failed policies and needing to direct further attention away from the economy. This "[documents needed for transition]" argument is hot air.
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Sep 06 04:41:39 A MAGA Democrat espouses his extreme views, 1991, colorized: http://twitter.com/IWontQuitEver1/status/1566888290531381252
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Sep 06 08:14:16 This is a pretty hilarious Twitter thread: @MaxNordau, September 5th, 2022: "Incredible work by the RNC to find a 2003 (!) clip of Jamie Raskin saying that the 2000 presidential election was stolen." http://twitter.com/MaxNordau/status/1566778967926898690 This is no surprise about Raskin, who has long wanted to set the stage for a Marxist dictatorship of the proletariat as a means for Marxist oligarchy. He is a major advocate of abolishing the Electoral College, hence his love of propaganda such as the January 6th show trials. This is attached to a long video that's been floating around by RNC research showing various clips of DNC politicians crying fowl in every election they've lost since 2000. That's not new to people who are aware of the DNC's thoughts regarding this issue, but, of course, the deeper issue is that left-wing psychosis people reject this reality or otherwise pretend that 2020 was blessedly pure while any election that *they* lost was not — something that Biden said in reverse in his apocalyptic totalitarian speech last week. More interesting, however, is that the commentator of this thread, "@MaxNordau", is able to get DNC voters to admit that they do, truly, believe that Gore won in 2000 and that it was merely the Supreme Court that "appointed" Bush — despite Max showing articles dispelling this myth, even by DNC media such as NYT and PBS. But, they do not trust the media's narrative. Sound familiar? So, what makes it interesting is that they are living in total 1984 doublethink, simultaneously believing that the DNC lost in 2000 only due to interference while not being able to apply the same standard to people who question 2020 — and not just in some straw man assumption of their beliefs but all contained within the same short conversation. They are incapable of seeing the opposing position or applying this logic across different scenarios, lacking the ability to self-reflect about the consistency of their argument even within a simplified conversation. This meme about IQ comes to mind: http://i.imgur.com/D3hoZeJ.png And it really may come down to this: IQ. Certainly, some people in a psychosis may well be intelligent, but there is a normal distribution for these sorts of intellectual outputs. People who are more susceptible to this sort of inconsistency may simply lack the intellectual capacity to reason through their beliefs. "Midwit" memes have a kind of power in this regard and may be accurate. For those unfamiliar: • The abysmally low-IQ person may intuit the truth from instinct. • The midwit gets caught in details, gets caught in psychosis delusions and fantasies, and arrives at faulty conclusions. • The high-IQ person arrives at the truth through careful examination. This is, of course, simplistic, yet it is a surprisingly robust model, implicating a good cross section of the political landscape.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Sep 07 07:48:34 This one has been making the rounds (I've seen too many different people's takes at this point), but there's something I haven't heard people saying about it that is worth pointing out: @AJPlus, September 2nd, 2022,: "Mexico City locals are fed up with Americans moving to their city." http://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1566003317074829312 A particularly hilarious thing is the idea that white people cannot flee from their nations. If migrants arrive in Western nations, it is "social justice", but if Westerners attempt to leave to countries that are already majority non-Western, that is "colonialism". This, again, is repressive tolerance, where the negative implications only exist against the *designated* dominant group (e.g., the Westerner, the capitalist, those possessing the means for liberty), since they must fall for the Marxist Utopia to rise. Thus, if the United States fails due to the UN/WEF's ESG/DIE policies, white people must stay. This slave morality propaganda is designed to make white people and Westerners accept the conditions of the inversion: they cannot escape to free nations. As Dostoevsky's Underground Man, they must accept their bad conscience where they are, limit their movement, and die in irrelevance — knowing that no action they make can be "positive" in the eyes of the state. Additionally, "AJ+" or @AJPlus is an affiliate of Al Jazeera news which focuses mainly on promoting slave morality under the guise of the usual Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE) branding (e.g., "amplifying the voices of the powerless"). But, beyond this generic approach, it promotes slave morality from the U.S. Progressive "Squad's" angle, which is to say, slave morality combined with antisemitism, or, to be more kind, substitute "antisemitism" with a mere recognition of the Zionist apartheid. E.g., their "Senior presenter/producer", Dena Takruri, is a Palestinian-American journalist, and AJ+ features stories promoting and humanizing Palestinians hurt by Israeli policies. Not a big deal by itself, right? But it's not isolated: "Palestinian activist Ahed Tamimi catches up with @Dena ahead of the release of their new book, "They Called Me A Lioness: A Palestinian Girl’s Fight For Freedom."" [September 6th, 2022] http://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1567252673908428800 - "Israel is the only country in the world that tries children in military courts." - "They can shoot Palestinians with no consequences." - "[Israeli settlements anger me because they are] on my land." - "We know what kind of violence [the Israelis] are capable of." - "Every Palestinian is a target, every one of us could be killed, imprisoned, injured." - "I hope American people learn from us how to resist and how to struggle and to resist their government which supports the occupation of Israel." In addition to frequent stories about injustices against Palestinians, they'll also feature stories promoting Israelis who turn against the Zionist state, which is a transparent propaganda tactic of encouraging more Israelis to turn against each other: "Four Israeli teenagers refused to join the Israeli army to protest the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza strip. AJ+ spoke with siblings last year who fought back against joining the occupying army. It cost one of them their freedom:" [September 7th, 2022] http://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1567178183195201537 - "I refused to serve the apartheid regime of Israel." - "It was still very clear to me that I'm very privileged. Being a Jewish person in a military prison is different than being a Palestinian prisoner in an Israeli prison. They experience a lot more violence and a lot more torture." This last line is funny because this is a Jewish person *owning* Marxist slave morality via bad conscience (i.e., rather than *wielding* it against others), recognizing that she, a Jewish person, is the "privileged" oppressor in this scenario. This is particularly interesting because the common Marxist Jew will deny their privilege by believing themselves to be the most oppressed and thus the most deserving of slave morality's reversal of fortunes. In slave morality, the worst-off slave population is supposed to become the ruler in the inverted system, so, in a system of many slave populations, it is crucial to claim the *most* oppressed status, lest the spiral of morality inversions claim one's slavish group before the Marxist Utopia is even born. The "most oppressed" status has typically fallen to "indigenous" peoples, but there was an implicit lie within that which understood that these indigenous peoples would merely be entertained as pawns and token props by other oppressed people who wield institutional powers (e.g., the Jew). Or did people really think that the ultimate goal of a massive institutional shift by trillionaire asset managers would be to favor.. people on reservations who had no power to create these changes? In other words, the Jew, naturally, has supported this infiltration of Marxist slave morality in part because they believe it ultimately best serves *them*. But, here we have an Israeli Jew who believes that Jewish oppression of the Palestinians means that *her* life — as a Jew — is less worthy. This useful "bad conscience" acts as Thanatos on the mind: killing one's impulse for life. This makes it extraordinarily useful in cultural destabilization efforts. Her acceptance of slave morality's bad conscience, no doubt, will be seen as a fault in her programming. She is not supposed to feel less worth than the non-Jew, so her parents likely regret not giving her stronger studies for her Bat Mitzvah. In the video, however, they claim that they changed their mother's opinion on the matter. While my intuition from physiognomy is to see them as false flag plants only claiming to be Jewish specifically for Palestinian propaganda (would a Jew accept money to spread anti-Jewish propaganda? I mean..........), • Atalya Ben-Abba and her brother have been noted by Amnesty International (links cut to avoid thread stretch: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/05/ conscientious-objector-atalya-ben-abba-sentenced-to-a-further-30- days-in-military-detention-following-her-refusal-to-serve-in-the-israeli-military/ ), which, presumably, would verify Atalya's Jewish status before supporting her claims. Amnesty also requested that Israeli authorities release her, so, if she had not been imprisoned, they would have debunked the claims and likely would have buried the story. • "Times of Israel" also reviewed the 2019 movie "Objector" which features Atalya, and it takes her Israeli status as a given, though it challenges her opinions of Israel in the last paragraph ( https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/portrait-of-an-israeli-conscientious-objector/ ). • Atalya's prison sentence was also reported by the UK's Independent in 2017, and despite low trust in media, you'd hope they at least made a phone call ( https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/ israel-palestine-idf-military-service-prison-jail-jerusalem-jewish- proud-a7802306.html ). • Israel's Haaretz also legitimized the story in 2017 ( https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-06-27/ty-article/.premium/ israeli-conscientious-objector-freed-after-110-days-in-prison/ 0000017f-e846-da9b-a1ff-ec6fa3300000 ) It's possible that they're Israeli citizens but not ethnic Jewish (perhaps Palestinians with light complexion? Adopted?), but that would require a much deeper search than I have time for at the moment. They do not seem to be famous enough that others have already checked. Taking her status as true, then, • Did her Hebrew schooling fail her? • Was she given financial incentives for this position? One can only speculate on the first, though.. yes.. and for the second, also yes. Atalya and her brother, Amitai, have both seen some level of fame in conscientious objector circles; most of the links on her story are from pro-Palestine groups (e.g., nenjp.org, 972mag, "Drupal" wri-irg.org), and Amitai Ben-Abba has an active Twitter page that catalogues negative acts against Palestinians ( https://twitter.com/amitaibenabba ). Needless to say, this gives Palestinian groups a good propaganda vector, so they would likely pay well for Atalya's interviews. Also interesting is that Atalya's propaganda docu-drama, "Collaborator", was not directed or produced by Jews. • It was directed by Mary Stuart Masterson (who has an established career including "Fried Green Tomatoes"), • was funded in part by Masterson, • funded also by Compton Foundation ( https://comptonfoundation.org/ ), which is a DIE group that spreads climate and activist propaganda for the WEF ("For 75 years, the Compton Foundation has worked to advance peace, a healthy environment, reproductive justice, and a flourishing democracy"). It was founded by investment banker Randolph Compton (*Another* asset manager who invested in progressive propaganda? Surprise!). "Randolph Compton ... helped establish the Fund for Education in World Order, later known as the Fund for World Peace, a nonprofit institution that promotes understanding of problems that threaten human survival" ( https://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/23/obituaries/rp-compton-banker-who-created-foundation.html ). This group also invested in the 2015 UN climate negotiations "Strategic Initiative" — i.e., the 2015 Paris climate accords. It invested in eugenics initiatives (e.g., the mask of "reproductive justice"), actively funds climate and social justice activists, and intends to bankrupt itself by 2025 in order to meet its social reform goals. Yeah. Again, understand that these WEF advocates are not concerned with the profit motive. This is a pyramid scheme where many businesses, foundations, banks, and nations will indeed collapse to meet the UN/WEF's 2030 goals. • funded also by El Dorado Films, which, unsurprisingly, focuses on conflict dramas and states that it is "filmmaking for social change". Its founder, Daniel Bernardi, specializes in Critical Race Theory, being a product of San Francisco State University. His personal works included gender and racialist narratives that emphasize the oppressor/oppressed binary. So, • Is this a splinter group with WEF objectives that is merely making anti-Zionist propaganda without WEF approval, or • Is this use of slave morality against even the Jew an extension of the WEF imperative? The first possibility seems reasonable given that.. • this was one solitary propaganda piece, • few other public counters to Zionists exist from the WEF, • the WEF is largely controlled by Zionists at all levels. But, entertaining the second option is interesting. • Is it possible that the WEF means to apply bad conscience even to the Jew? • Is this an extension of Klaus Schwab's efforts to end the Israel/Palestine conflict? • Will Israel have to dissolve its Zionists in the New World Order, the Jew indeed being an oppressor of Palestinians? I think it unlikely, but, something to consider is that Jewish Marxists may be going along with this strategy without recognizing that a planned inversion of moralities (i.e., slave morality) without a singular group limiting it (e.g., the Jew in charge) means that they will indeed face the inversion themselves. The revolution eats itself; attempts at insulation from the consequences often backfire. To devolve for a moment to Godwin's Law, when the Nazis used slave morality against the Jew (giving its German population «ressentiment» to make an enemy of the Jew), it was one population against another, thus, the inversion was something of a success in the short term: the Jew lost power, and the Nazis gained power (I realize that the Nazis targeted other groups, but this inversion was given a particular primacy). But, this current use of slave morality does not limit itself to *one* group against *one* other group. Instead, this is the intersectional hierarchy — the Marxist ideal of a perpetual revolution leading to Utopia in a kind of Marxist-directed social Darwinism. An example of how the slave morality spiral could function: • The dominant group is removed from power (e.g., white people, Western cultural authorities, Western Constitutions) • With this group displaced, the next group of the intersectional hierarchy ascends — for a brief moment, if not an instant. This might be East Asians or certain Latin American groups. But, their having intelligence, aptitudes, strong work ethics, or conservative values will doom them. • In the next inversion, it may be black communities that ascend. They may reign longer, but they too will be doomed. Their own communities fail to accept an even more "oppressed" group: transpersons, LGBTQ+NAMBLA, invalids, the indigenous, and the psychopaths. • As in the French Revolution, the ultimate inversion is the enabling of the psychopath. With the psychopaths in charge, the insulating efforts end for those who thought that they could stay safe within society by merely funding the movements (e.g., the Jew). The psychopaths see only the immediate: any form of wealth, any power, and any hierarchy. • Eventually, the psychopaths run out of hierarchy and only see hierarchy in their own psychopathy, so, they kill the psychopaths who threaten them. The stable psychopaths win with a collective truce to not kill. Temporarily. The implosion of the psychopaths gives way to the Napoléonic coup. The people desire stability and are sick of the faces and histories of the psychopaths. Perhaps the WEF believes that this is the time of the oligarchs who hid away at private estates in New Zealand or other secluded "nature hubs". But do oligarchs have the military allegiance for a coup? Likely not. People do not follow asset managers. Likely they took their bribes and will own the world without being public figures for the new order. Who, then, will own the West's militaries? It may not even matter. Maybe no one significant. Maybe some woke general who wears pink thongs. The West will at this point be broken, and BRICS will ascend, having survived Thucydides Trap.
Cherub Cow Member	Thu Sep 08 06:40:22 Hillary Clinton decided to appear on Jimmy Fallon to provide clarity on the totalitarian talking points: "Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Talk New Gutsy Docuseries & Trump’s Classified Document Scandal (Extended)" [The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon; September 6th, 2022] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfRmWJ9iDJo After moving quickly past the "classified document scandal" (playing into the low-information talking points and not saying anything that would lift the veil for these useful idiots), they get right into why the totalitarians want you to be okay with the U.S. government sending billions more into the WEF money laundering scheme: Fallon: "As Secretary of State, I know you've been to Ukraine many times. What are the next steps for Ukraine?" Clinton: "Well, look. I am thrilled that they have gotten the support and solidarity of so much of the world. Obviously, Europe, United States, Canada, but Japan, other places. They're getting the weapons they need to defend themselves, and they're now on offense. And, I think we have to keep supporting them, helping them. They were attacked by an unprovoked act of war, and they've held out, and they've done better than anybody could have predicted, and Zelensky has been a true wartime leader. I'm so impressed with him, and I think the United States should stand with him along with all of our other friends around the world." *Stage Manager shows the applause sign. Seals clap.*
Cherub Cow Member	Fri Sep 09 04:18:57 I've mentioned "spectral evidence" a lot in the last few years — particularly in relation to people like tw, the "woke", and people who are just terrible at making their interpretations from reality rather than re-writing reality to fit their interpretations. Descriptions of the woke and "cancel culture" have been compared to the Salem Witch Trials for these sorts of reasons, and Andrew Doyle has now published "The New Puritans: How the Religion of Social Justice Captured the Western World" to discuss these exact topics. He wrote a summary article of the book that has a good list of just how insane the left has become in its reality-denying psychosis: "How to take on the new puritans We cannot shy away from fighting the culture war." [Spiked-Online; by Andrew Doyle; September 8th, 2022] http://www...w-to-take-on-the-new-puritans/ • "For those taking part in the witch-hunt, the total lack of evidence is simply an inconvenience to be brushed aside. This is why my book draws comparisons between the hysteria of the ‘woke’ movement and the witch hunts of Salem in the late 17th century." (tw's TDS logic) • "And when the practitioners of contemporary cancel culture make allegations of transphobia, racism and even fascism, no evidence is required for the accused to be publicly shamed. ‘Lived experience’ is all that counts." • "It wasn’t really the girls who were the problem – it was the magistrates and ministers who lent credence to their lies." This list is good: • "Ten years ago, could anyone have imagined that in a decade’s time British police would be routinely investigating citizens for ‘non-crime ’? Or that a senior member of the UK government would be arguing in favour of laws to criminalise professional comedians for jokes? Or that activists would be demanding that statues of Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi and even slavery abolitionists like Thomas Henry Huxley should be torn down? Or that major corporations would be paying a fortune for visiting speakers to berate their staff for their ‘white privilege’ and telling them they should ‘try to be less white’? Or that one of the most prestigious schools in London would be segregating its pupils by skin colour for after-school activities? Or that a school district in Canada would be burning thousands of books because the contents are offensive to modern sensibilities, and that they would refer to this as a ‘flame purification’ ceremony?" • "Ten years ago, could anyone have possibly conceived that in 2022 politicians would be stumbling and stuttering when asked ‘What is a woman?’ and be unable to answer the question? Or that ‘woman’ would become a dirty word, and that companies, charities, media outlets and even some factions of the NHS would be favouring phrases like ‘menstruators’, ‘people who bleed’ and ‘individuals with a cervix’? Or that a man would be nominated for Woman of the Year? Or that male rapists would be identifying as female and be moved to women’s prisons, where they would go on to commit further sexual assaults? Or that gay children would be encouraged to think they were in the wrong body, and fast-tracked on to medicalisation? Or that the head of the LGBT-rights charity, Stonewall, would be calling lesbians who don’t want to include men in their dating pool ‘sexual racists’ and comparing them to anti-Semites? Or that reputable medical journals would be denying biological reality, claiming that sex isn’t binary at all, but that it’s a spectrum? Or that women would be fired from their jobs and subjected to threats of death and rape for saying that biological sex is real?" His mention of the "magistrates" is good because this is not just random people in a grassroots movement. People deluded into thinking "[this is just society evolving into its next stage]" are fooling themselves — and that historical inevitability claim is, unsurprisingly, the Marxist–Leninist claim, with its inner party recognizing that it is Marxist praxis which *forces* the "inevitable" (i.e., a self-fulfilling prophecy). It is successfully sold to people under the lie that, "[Of *course* a city becomes more progressive-leaning over time!]" — these people are unable to imagine the existence of conservative cities and are unable to see who is directing these cultural shifts. Millions of businesses did not suddenly bend the knee because of some natural momentum of history. The people of the psychosis were mentally vulnerable and had the rug pulled from beneath them. These people always looked outward for answers, and they trusted the managerial state: its immoralist "experts" who were themselves exploited. And so, their weak mental processes were owned by the system-makers. And the system to which these useful idiots contribute their psychosis for its becoming does not have benevolent ends.
Cherub Cow Member	Sat Sep 10 20:32:02 This is the kind of insane take one might see in a tw thread: "You would think a former President of the United States would have attorneys lining up around the block to represent him. The real ones. Not the ones that play lawyer on TV. But here we are." [MeidasTouch; September 9th, 2022] [Clip of "PoliticsGirl", an insane person] http://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1568380960835510274 TLDR: Insane person thinks that it's telling that Trump isn't represented by an Ivy League lawyer. In her insane mind, this must mean that he's guilty, since representing an innocent client must be easy. This is, of course, batshit crazy logic — more spectral evidence. Even an innocent client can be a difficult case. People representing Trump are effectively going against the entire DNC, the DOJ, and the federal government at large. The DNC propagandists floating this "[nothing to hide, nothing to fear]" stupidity are willfully ignorant of Cardinal Richelieu logic and the mechanisms of a bureaucracy. People like this do not seem to understand that this is why the FBI has most of its successes in prosecution: they have so many lawyers working for them on the government dollar that they can continue litigation in near perpetuity — often limited only by political willpower. Even trillionaire asset managers on Wall Street have difficulties with the FBI, and they absolutely have the best defense teams available. This shit-take has over 50k likes from one Twitter source, >11k from another. Garbage thinkers love this kind of garbage thinking. This is the kind of shit-take that substitutes actual understanding of court cases.
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 12 07:03:08 On a lighter note, here's Biden's "hairy legs" video: "Joe Biden's Insane thoughts on Hairy Legs, Roaches, and kids" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs There's something special to hone in on this: "The kids used to come up and reach into the pool and rub my leg down so [the hair] was straight and then watch the hair come back up again. They'd look at it. So I learned about roaches, and I learned about kids jumping on my lap. And I love kids jumping on my lap." In addition to Joe Biden having a clear pedo tone when he mentions that he loves "kids jumping on [his] lap" (fucking creepy), he also uses the word "roaches". "Roaches", from urban dictionary, 2014: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roach "A dirty person. Someone who smells bad,and likes to be shirtless in public this person comes from slums/ projects. Basically a dirty wannabe thug." In other words, Biden's "hairy legs" video is about him creeping on young black children at a public pool — children that he referred to by the slur "roaches".
Cherub Cow Member	Mon Sep 12 07:59:25 Ending this thread with a positive note: Scott Adams has begun his 6-month project of making fun of ESG in order to bring it popular attention and popular critique: [ScottAdams Twitter; September 12th, 2022] http://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/1569293897402306565 Could ending the current totalitarian strategy really be so simple as making a total mockery of their backdoor infiltration strategy? Could the DNC really lose in November, setting back the U.S. totalitarians from their 2030 plans? We can have hope! \\:D/ I do try to keep in mind that this strategy has failed many times in the past. The UN attempted to enable this strategy by 2000 but were slowed. They began it again in 2004 with the asset-manager pact, caused the 2008 collapse to solidify powers, codified those powers further under totalitarian-Obama, and we are today nearing the summation moment of this strategy — but the U.S. must fall for the West to fall in kind. DNC losses here may prevent the worldwide famine that the Malthusians have planned. Denying the DNC its power and reversing its ESG policies can do this. Denying Marxist progressives power can do this. Biden's psychotic speech was a tell: the brain bug behind him is scared. They are desperate for a win in 2022 and are attempting their biggest polarization effort in a generation. If they are denied that win, their timeline falls apart, and they do not have a Trump scapegoat to direct a psychosis in 2023. They will have to wait for that in 2024. Will the DNC accelerate by sacrificing Biden as their Franz Ferdinand? Perhaps not — if we meme the shit out of that narrative ;D
	show deleted posts