Canadian PM Just Confirmed The "Great Reset" Is Not A Conspiracy

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
@MatheusPN , You have proven yourself to be a militant for Socialism/Marxism/Communism, over and over again. You are always here reversing things and trying to muddle the waters. Fuc* you and your Marxism/Communism/Socialism militancy. Listen up brainwashed marxist, there is no such thing as your "equality" socialist dream. It has always been the authoritarian violent rulers (the communist party) and the governed, the slaves living in your socialist misery. Marxism/Socialism was never good and never will be. Besides, even if it was about your "equality", fu*k that! , we don't want your equality! Equality is a concept for idiots- socialist militants, little dictators. I don't want to be equal to you. We all are already equal in principles before the Constitution, with the same rights. Equality beyond that is Marxist/socialist garbage ideals. It is about Freedom, Individual Freedom!, not Socialist Garbage! Stop spreading your Marxist indoctrination and confusion everywhere. You should just shut the fu*k up, gather your socialist buddies and go live your socialist dream in Cuba.
Some days ago you quoted me and then deleted, and only now you come up with the courage to talk to me!? Pathetic

You have proven yourself to be retarded by bashing communism and egalitarianism while entirely dumb of it. Swallowing with pleasure the junk of the elite, you serve as an easy prey to be utilized by capitalists and fascists.
You seem scared of communism, dont be, you can read and understand it.

Communist egalitarianism: "Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development."

I'm not a Marxist. IDK well marxism. I know much more about anarchism.
Russia was a Capitalist State, workers had no self-management, a necessity to be considered at least Socialist.

One of the most famous Marxist:
"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of 'justice', but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If 'freedom' becomes 'privilege', the workings of political freedom are broken."

State communism is a ridiculous oxymoron:
"state "communism," which obliterate man, kill popular initiative, and finally dishonor the very idea of communism." -Guerida
"Being communists means being against the State" -Negri
"The Russian economic system is state capitalism, there called state-socialism or even communism, with production directed by a state bureaucracy under the leadership of the Communist Party. The state officials, forming the new ruling class, have the disposal over the product, hence over the surplus-value, whereas the workers receive wages only, thus forming an exploited class." -Antonie Pannekoek
 
Last edited:

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
@PxD - great posts.. I'm also a fan of "Fooled by Randomness" - Taleb.

Your points about energy/EROI are spot on. Even Michael Moore's Planet of the Humans surprisingly showed the limitations and false advertising of the "renewables". Some cities are advertising they will be carbon-free / green energy in a decade or so - but they plan to do this in part by simply buying energy sourced by wind & solar farms outside their area. But they will actually get this through the existing grid, and electricity is "fungible" so it is a meaningless claim - it is simply a contract.

I worked in water & power SCADA years ago. Utilities are fighting an uphill battle to get the politicians and activists to understand the concept of base load. Rolling blackouts here we come!

Speaking of rolling blackouts, in the US, California is furthest along with this green model and it's already a failure, yet they keep charging ahead. Attempts to solarize Germany and Spain have also been commercial failures. In Denmark and China electric vehicle sales collapsed when the governments withdrew subsidies over the past couple of years. Their inability to produce a financial return is an indication that solar/wind cannot produce an energy return, since money and energy are analogous. An energy product that cannot produce a return is a horrible product. A good energy product should be cheap and should produce enough surplus energy that it can throw off tax revenues to the state, so that a complex society's public goods and overhead (roads, public schools, water treatment, govt bureaucracy) can be funded.

There was a study out of MIT from a couple of years ago that calculated that fully electrifying just California's grid, including overbuilding capacity to account for intermittency, would bring the price of electricity as high as $2 per kWh. Let that sink in. At that price, there is no economic activity, no SUVs, no orange mocha frappucinos, all business grinds to a halt. We go back to living in the 1890s.

WEF/Schwab et. al are counting on green renewables to underpin their vision of the future. Either they 1) are high on their own arrogance and ignorance, typical IYI behavior or 2) energy dense fossil fuels will be reserved for the 1% global elites and everyone else will be forced to live on low-density renewables = massive global population reduction. I think option 1 is the far more likely one.

My prediction? We will continue banging our heads against the low-carbon wall for some years, at great expense, until we realize complex societies can't function on sunshine and then fossil fuels will come back in style with a vengeance, for however much lifespan they have left. There are some good values out there right now in oil stocks - out of favor in the stock market, undervalued, but cash rich and paying strong dividends.

Going 'clean' by buying electricity from outside of your jurisdiction just means you're outsourcing your CO2 emissions. The world is a closed system, so that really means the rich countries will lower emissions by buying products and services produced from cheap fossil fuels from poor countries while at the same time pouring $$$ into expensive solar/wind (anti-growth), while poorer countries will assume higher emissions and export fossil fuel energy products and/or goods and services produced from cheaper fossil fuels (growth). This would be a huge wealth transfer from developed world to developing world, for no reason other than to meet arbitrary atmospheric CO2 goals. This is what the Paris Accord is about. Again, Trump was ahead of the curve on this.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
Some days ago you quoted me and then deleted, and only now you come up with the courage to talk to me!? Pathetic

You have proven yourself to be retarded by bashing communism and egalitarianism while entirely dumb of it. Swallowing with pleasure the junk of the elite, you serve as an easy prey to be utilized by capitalists and fascists.

Communist egalitarianism: "Do not make the mistake of identifying equality in liberty with the forced equality of the convict camp. True anarchist equality implies freedom, not quantity. It does not mean that every one must eat, drink, or wear the same things, do the same work, or live in the same manner. Far from it: the very reverse, in fact. Individual needs and tastes differ, as appetites differ. It is equal opportunity to satisfy them that constitutes true equality. Far from levelling, such equality opens the door for the greatest possible variety of activity and development."

What's comical here is that you're describing a free market, which functions inside of a capitalist system, but you label it as "communist egalitarianism". If it's individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and a lighthanded government that you want, then you're a classical liberal, which today is considered a "right wing extremist" by the mainstream in most Western countries.

I'm not a Marxist. IDK well marxism. I know much more about anarchism.
Russia was a Capitalist State, workers had no self-management, a necessity to be considered at least Socialist.

Up is down, left is right, war is peace, ignorance is strength.

One of the most famous Marxist:
"Freedom only for the members of the government, only for the members of the Party — though they are quite numerous — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters. The essence of political freedom depends not on the fanatics of 'justice', but rather on all the invigorating, beneficial, and detergent effects of dissenters. If 'freedom' becomes 'privilege', the workings of political freedom are broken."

"state "communism," which obliterate man, kill popular initiative, and finally dishonor the very idea of communism." -Guerida
"Being communists means being against the State" -Negri
"The Russian economic system is state capitalism, there called state-socialism or even communism, with production directed by a state bureaucracy under the leadership of the Communist Party. The state officials, forming the new ruling class, have the disposal over the product, hence over the surplus-value, whereas the workers receive wages only, thus forming an exploited class." -Antonie Pannekoek

Communism is the communal ownership of property, especially productive property, and to implement that in the real world you end up with a totalitarian regime that dictates what everyone can and can't do. It has to be that way, or it can't work. The people you're quoting above are pointing out one of the main reasons why communism fails to deliver (human corruptibility) while seeming to be oblivious to it and attempting to explain it away as "no, no, no, that wasn't REAL communism...REAL communism is great!"
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
Oil is abundant. It's a fake scarcity like the one created for diamonds, but this is not about money, it's about power.

Oil is nothing like diamonds. Diamond supply was deliberately throttled by DeBeers to keep prices high. Oil is much more of a global free market with many players and has gone through many cycles of glut and scarcity over the past 120 years. On top of that, as the saying goes, diamonds are forever. Oil is consumed and oil wells have declining production over time. The declines are so great that we have to replace a Saudi Arabia's worth of production every two years just to keep global oil production flat.

Technically, you're right that hydrocarbons are abundant but that's not the issue here. The issue is that we used all the easy-to-get, cheap stuff between 1950 and 2005 or so, and now we are going for progressively lower and lower quality resources (e.g. heavy oil sands). It takes more effort (and therefore money) to get the same amount of oil-energy out of the ground, which in turn means less surplus energy available for economic use and therefore less and less economic growth. Ditto for coal and natural gas. Have you noticed how for the last 10-15 years in the developed world we basically lurch from monetary stimulus to monetary stimulus (debt), with piss poor GDP growth along the way? No one seems to be able to create growth without buying enormous amounts of their own debt, like never seen before in history. This is a symptom of low energy returns.

Anyway, I just can't see this WEF Great Reset world being any kind of successful, if the premise is that we will switch from high energy density fossil fuels to low energy density solar/wind without any hiccups and the new global system will be run like that. The idea is delusional. Humanity has never, ever gone from high density to low density energy sources. Only way it "works" is if half the planet's population dies off very, very quickly. Ain't gonna happen.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
This, many times over!
In fact, general AI may very well be impossible to emulate digitally. The false belief in possibility (or even inevitability) of general digital AI stems mostly from the (wrong) assumptions that laws of physics: (1) do not change and (2) can be emulated by a digital computer, and (3) information <=> knowledge. More on the topic.
Artificial intelligence is impossible

So, what passes for AI should be more aptly named "domain-specific knowledge optimization". Keyword is optimization, as in working more efficiently within already established (natural general intelligence-derived) bounds. This is quite different from knowledge creation. Knowledge can only be extracted from matter, and that process requires consciousness in order to continuously evaluate ever-changing context. Knowledge != information. Knowledge = information (ever growing) + structure/context (ever changing). Knowledge and consciousness cannot be separated, so true digital general AI cannot be realized as a digital computer cannot even come close to a level of consciousness a human has. So, digital AI does not even work with knowledge but only with information. In a world where everything is context-dependent such highly specialized, context-free information (sold to us as "knowledge" or "intelligence") is mostly useless.
Just look at medicine for solid evidence in that regard. The field has seen tremendous specialization over the last 100 years, combined with (naturally) increased digitization. Yet, if anything, it is becoming worse and worse at treating just about ANY disease.

Btw, Big Tech routinely lies and cheats about any of its hyped advances in AI. I would be more trusting of a Nigerian prince offering me $20m in a bank account somewhere than a PR from a Big Tech touting some AI "advance" or "breakthrough". Here are some links on the topic.
Uh, Did Google Fake Its Big A.I. Demo?
Did Google Fake Its Duplex AI Demo? - ExtremeTech
Why Was IBM Watson a Flop in Medicine?
Full Page Reload
Did IBM overhype Watson Health's AI promise?

@JudiBlueHen

In constructed games/regimes, e.g. chess or gambling, where rules are universal and time-stationary, "AI" can be trained to outperform humans. Even then, I wonder about these achievements because the amount of man-hours and resources invested into building and training an AI to beat a human chessmaster are probably equivalent to birthing, raising, and training a human chessmaster, lol.
 

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
What's comical here is that you're describing a free market, which functions inside of a capitalist system, but you label it as "communist egalitarianism". If it's individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and a lighthanded government that you want, then you're a classical liberal, which today is considered a "right wing extremist" by the mainstream in most Western countries.



Up is down, left is right, war is peace, ignorance is strength.



Communism is the communal ownership of property, especially productive property, and to implement that in the real world you end up with a totalitarian regime that dictates what everyone can and can't do. It has to be that way, or it can't work. The people you're quoting above are pointing out one of the main reasons why communism fails to deliver (human corruptibility) while seeming to be oblivious to it and attempting to explain it away as "no, no, no, that wasn't REAL communism...REAL communism is great!"
Lets stop hijacking, I am very well aware of right wing "anarchism" and of "Libertarian" right-wing. Both pro-hierarchical, anti-anarchical and pro-oligarchy ideologies.
The original Libertarianism is anarchism, both are left ideologies. Anti-hierarchical ideologies are left principles.

Know my opinion here about that: Deliberation Makes People Consistently Selfish
Ancaps/ right-wing libertarianism: "The natural outcome of the voluntary transactions between various private property owners is decidedly non-egalitarian, hierarchical, and elitist...” Rothbard, the father of right-wing libertarianism.

Communism is a vast ideology. Communism is not the communal ownership of property unless through free association, ppl desire it. There is a difference between private and personal property. That is the misconception you created to formulate why communism isnt pro-freedom.

Another misinterpretation by you is that they arent criticizing communism, all the people I quoted were all Marxists and communists. Nonetheless thanks for a more civil conversation.

The quote I posted about egalitarian communism is clearly leftist, how could you think it was any type of right-wing stuff!?! "It is equal opportunity to satisfy them constitutes true equality."

Free Market is much more coherent as a truly free market in a socialist system. There is a huge misconception that Adam Smith was capitalist, quite the contrary he was much more inclined to socialism. Adam Smith was clearly against free market capitalism.
Adam Smith the most famous free market guy and the inventor of modern free market ideology.
 
Last edited:
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
In constructed games/regimes, e.g. chess or gambling, where rules are universal and time-stationary, "AI" can be trained to outperform humans. Even then, I wonder about these achievements because the amount of man-hours and resources invested into building and training an AI to beat a human chessmaster are probably equivalent to birthing, raising, and training a human chessmaster, lol.

Spot on. In fact, the resources invested to reach this level of say chess-proficiency or Go-proficiency (many billions of collars over the course of many decades) not only dwarf the resources required to raise a world-class human player of those games, but arguably have small (none) ROI. What is the ROI on having a world-class chessmaster computer algorithm? How does that investment positively affect the basic aspects of human existence such as discoveries in basic science, efficiency of energy use, let alone new energy sources development and extraction? From that point of view I'd argue that these developments in "AI" are a solid net loss. Those resources could have been used much more productively for something else. However, the "career" computer scientists have a lot of political clout and just as their theoretical physics ilk are capable of extracting billions in funding without producing anything tangible/useful in return.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Particle Physicists Continue To Make Empty Promises

where rules are universal and time-stationary

My point exactly. Not only are those rules universal and time-stationary (which has no real-world significance) but they were created by humans and the "AI" is only learning to play better according to them. I don't know of any "AI" development that demonstrates some algorithm inventing an actual new game like chess or Go. And even at the relatively useless tasks of pure computation where computers excel it turns out that the human brain is actually much more energetically efficient.
“The brain works with 20 watts. This is enough to cover our entire thinking ability.” | Munich Re

So, even if we give computers the benefit of the doubt that somehow they will one day be able to display "intelligent" behavior, it would be at such a massive energetic cost that humanity will probably collapse just trying to support that energetic drain, which is to your point that energy cost is always ignored by the technocrats when the are selling their sick visions of the future.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
Only way it "works" is if half the planet's population dies off very, very quickly.
Would “their” plan for population control address the energy issue you mentioned with relation to population?

I must admit your posts are smart and stimulating. I read them to my husband and enjoyed as well. Giving some hope.
 

boris

Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
2,345
Oil is nothing like diamonds. Diamond supply was deliberately throttled by DeBeers to keep prices high. Oil is much more of a global free market with many players and has gone through many cycles of glut and scarcity over the past 120 years. On top of that, as the saying goes, diamonds are forever. Oil is consumed and oil wells have declining production over time.

I didn‘t mean they used equal tactics to create scarcity, I meant the scarcity is equally fake. I think you are underestimating those people who are planning at least 200-300 years ahead. Now it‘s COVID, after the vaccine rollout the stupid testing and counting practices will stop and all the brainwashed enthusiastic mask wearers, social distancers and vaccine lovers can pat their backs and feel special for saving humanity. Later it’s climate change. When the upcoming global cooling starts, all the brainwashed planet savers and CO2 haters, who are ironically destroying the planet with their battery powered cars, can pat their backs and praise their thoughtful and responsible leaders for saving humanity once again. And then the next common enemy that will unite us will be the coming ice age. But there will probably be many inbetween. The green energy agenda is not about immediate profit, it‘s foremost about gaining power, possibly also over other entities (weakening the middle east and their best export product).
 
Last edited:

Nighteyes

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2015
Messages
411
Location
Europe
Oil is nothing like diamonds. Diamond supply was deliberately throttled by DeBeers to keep prices high. Oil is much more of a global free market with many players and has gone through many cycles of glut and scarcity over the past 120 years. On top of that, as the saying goes, diamonds are forever. Oil is consumed and oil wells have declining production over time. The declines are so great that we have to replace a Saudi Arabia's worth of production every two years just to keep global oil production flat.

Technically, you're right that hydrocarbons are abundant but that's not the issue here. The issue is that we used all the easy-to-get, cheap stuff between 1950 and 2005 or so, and now we are going for progressively lower and lower quality resources (e.g. heavy oil sands). It takes more effort (and therefore money) to get the same amount of oil-energy out of the ground, which in turn means less surplus energy available for economic use and therefore less and less economic growth. Ditto for coal and natural gas. Have you noticed how for the last 10-15 years in the developed world we basically lurch from monetary stimulus to monetary stimulus (debt), with piss poor GDP growth along the way? No one seems to be able to create growth without buying enormous amounts of their own debt, like never seen before in history. This is a symptom of low energy returns.

Anyway, I just can't see this WEF Great Reset world being any kind of successful, if the premise is that we will switch from high energy density fossil fuels to low energy density solar/wind without any hiccups and the new global system will be run like that. The idea is delusional. Humanity has never, ever gone from high density to low density energy sources. Only way it "works" is if half the planet's population dies off very, very quickly. Ain't gonna happen.

Thank you for describing the energy point of view so well. Very interesting and I really Think you have a good point.
 

Peater

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Messages
2,631
Location
Here
This, many times over!
In fact, general AI may very well be impossible to emulate digitally. The false belief in possibility (or even inevitability) of general digital AI stems mostly from the (wrong) assumptions that laws of physics: (1) do not change and (2) can be emulated by a digital computer, and (3) information <=> knowledge. More on the topic.
Artificial intelligence is impossible

So, what passes for AI should be more aptly named "domain-specific knowledge optimization". Keyword is optimization, as in working more efficiently within already established (natural general intelligence-derived) bounds.

This sort of explains why they are trying to "optimise" the world to fit into the framework of Artificial Intelligence. With enough data I think you could simply keep writing scripts to keep up. They want EVERYTHING to have an ID.

Ice Age Farmer is good for this sort of thing. It sounds tin foil hatty, but all he does is report on things. It's just that the plan really is that crazy.

 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
Would “their” plan for population control address the energy issue you mentioned with relation to population?

I must admit your posts are smart and stimulating. I read them to my husband and enjoyed as well. Giving some hope.

Yes, it would. Here's how:

A self organizing system like an economy will, when faced with a shortage of available inputs, shrink in on itself and freeze out parts of itself from consuming too much of the available resources. A real world example of this is what happens when companies face a recession and falling revenues. They could give every employee a 10% pay cut or fire 10% of the employees. Which do they do? 99% of the time, it's the latter. Why? Because it makes no sense to have some employees standing around doing nothing, there's no work for them. The work is the input.

Same thing in a society - if energy availability drops, and the resulting goods and services become harder to produce or more expensive, some workers get "frozen out" of being able to afford products and services they might previously have been able to afford and they fall from the middle class to the lower class, creating greater income inequality. This is the system's way of retreating and preserving itself. It has to maintain prices high enough to keep producers producing, and if that means producing less for a smaller group of consumers, then so be it - better than the alternative, which is producing at a loss and then having the entire system collapse (e.g. government price fixing in Venezuela).

From a biological and Peaty perspective - faced with a shortage of energy/calories, the body system will forego investing energy in peripheral functions such as hair and nails in order to prioritize core functions and you end up with hair loss and breaking nails, but the internals still function reasonably well. Same concept.

If we give "them" the benefit of the doubt (and that's a big IF) then a population reduction plan would fit this framework. If the "core" of the world's population (1 billion? 500 million?) walled itself off and was able to afford high-density energy sources, the rest of humanity would fall into energy poverty and with that energy poverty comes actual poverty and a very rapid fall in population and fall in life expectancy and living standards as well. The only difference here is that instead of this happening naturally through market forces, it would be forced on an accelerated schedule by the globalists. Fewer people on the planet = more energy to go around, per capita, especially for the so-called elites.

The reason I say "IF" is because based on what I've read, I don't think the globalistas understand the energy conundrum very well, if at all (I could be wrong though). I think they think solar/wind are viable options for running a globalized world where every person alive can be tagged and tracked, basically maintaining highly centralized social order over the entire planet. This ain't gonna happen in a world that's rationalizing its energy resources because there are too many people around. That kind of world would be very chaotic. It would not be a friendly world to complex bureaucracies and superstructures, and sophisticated social-engineering undertakings. Think of the collapse of the Soviet central government and the immediate aftermath (political breakups, localized turf wars/rebellions, rise of the mafia, weakening of the police state apparatus and sudden newfound personal freedoms, "Wild West" atmosphere, etc.)

That's why I think it's more likely their plans fall to dust, although I think along the way they will try to implement some pieces of it, with varying degrees of success.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
That article is f
@JudiBlueHen
Abiotic oil, I have heard about that, but never really looked into it either. Sounds really interesting indeed.


I was referring to this:
The Irony of Oil Abundance: Way Too Much Supply, Not Enough Demand

That article is from 2016, in the middle of a cyclical glut due to the peak of (unprofitable) shale oil fracking. Market has adjusted for that now.

It might look like there is tons and tons of oil around but always remember, depletion never sleeps. Every minute of every day, every oil well on the planet produces a little less than it did the minute before. It's the Red Queen syndrome, running all the time just to stay in place. There is a huge amount of investment and activity that has to take place just to keep production level, let alone climbing. When the oil market goes into a supply deficit that abundance of oil in storage starts to disappear just as rapidly as it built when the market was in surplus.
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
Yes, it would. Here's how:

A self organizing system like an economy will, when faced with a shortage of available inputs, shrink in on itself and freeze out parts of itself from consuming too much of the available resources. A real world example of this is what happens when companies face a recession and falling revenues. They could give every employee a 10% pay cut or fire 10% of the employees. Which do they do? 99% of the time, it's the latter. Why? Because it makes no sense to have some employees standing around doing nothing, there's no work for them. The work is the input.

Same thing in a society - if energy availability drops, and the resulting goods and services become harder to produce or more expensive, some workers get "frozen out" of being able to afford products and services they might previously have been able to afford and they fall from the middle class to the lower class, creating greater income inequality. This is the system's way of retreating and preserving itself. It has to maintain prices high enough to keep producers producing, and if that means producing less for a smaller group of consumers, then so be it - better than the alternative, which is producing at a loss and then having the entire system collapse (e.g. government price fixing in Venezuela).

From a biological and Peaty perspective - faced with a shortage of energy/calories, the body system will forego investing energy in peripheral functions such as hair and nails in order to prioritize core functions and you end up with hair loss and breaking nails, but the internals still function reasonably well. Same concept.

If we give "them" the benefit of the doubt (and that's a big IF) then a population reduction plan would fit this framework. If the "core" of the world's population (1 billion? 500 million?) walled itself off and was able to afford high-density energy sources, the rest of humanity would fall into energy poverty and with that energy poverty comes actual poverty and a very rapid fall in population and fall in life expectancy and living standards as well. The only difference here is that instead of this happening naturally through market forces, it would be forced on an accelerated schedule by the globalists. Fewer people on the planet = more energy to go around, per capita, especially for the so-called elites.

The reason I say "IF" is because based on what I've read, I don't think the globalistas understand the energy conundrum very well, if at all (I could be wrong though). I think they think solar/wind are viable options for running a globalized world where every person alive can be tagged and tracked, basically maintaining highly centralized social order over the entire planet. This ain't gonna happen in a world that's rationalizing its energy resources because there are too many people around. That kind of world would be very chaotic. It would not be a friendly world to complex bureaucracies and superstructures, and sophisticated social-engineering undertakings. Think of the collapse of the Soviet central government and the immediate aftermath (political breakups, localized turf wars/rebellions, rise of the mafia, weakening of the police state apparatus and sudden newfound personal freedoms, "Wild West" atmosphere, etc.)

That's why I think it's more likely their plans fall to dust, although I think along the way they will try to implement some pieces of it, with varying degrees of success.
I am rooting for your perspective here. It makes the most sense of pretty much everything I have read. Thank you for taking the time.
 

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
The reason I say "IF" is because based on what I've read, I don't think the globalistas understand the energy conundrum very well, if at all (I could be wrong though). I think they think solar/wind are viable options for running a globalized world where every person alive can be tagged and tracked, basically maintaining highly centralized social order over the entire planet. This ain't gonna happen in a world that's rationalizing its energy resources because there are too many people around. That kind of world would be very chaotic. It would not be a friendly world to complex bureaucracies and superstructures, and sophisticated social-engineering undertakings. Think of the collapse of the Soviet central government and the immediate aftermath (political breakups, localized turf wars/rebellions, rise of the mafia, weakening of the police state apparatus and sudden newfound personal freedoms, "Wild West" atmosphere, etc.)

That's why I think it's more likely their plans fall to dust, although I think along the way they will try to implement some pieces of it, with varying degrees of success.
I pretty much have the same opinion with you about Oil, AI and central planning. Thanks mostly to Ray and Haidut. You'te spot on, about their depopulation program. The AI, monopoly and eugenism is Rockfellers wet dream.

I would add that they are pushing solar and eolic energy, because they lost the conflict against the Rothschild. Promoting oil would benefit the Rothschild, they are pushing against it. If they lose the war, the Rothschild, will easily become a monopoly over the economy of the world. A monopoly over real wealth.

Rothschild and Trump, zionist agenda:
MintPress News (@MintPressNews) Tweeted:
What Rothschild, Murdoch, Cheney, and #Israel love most about #Syria What Rothschild, Murdoch, Cheney, And Israel Love Most About Syria
https://t.co/SbTZFca36o https://twitter.com/MintPressNews/status/842129557733924870?s=20

Derrick Broze (@DBrozeLiveFree) Tweeted:
If - after 4 yrs of Goldman Sachs, Big Oil, Big Pharma, More Drone Bombings, connections to Epstein, being bailed out by the Rothschild bank, etc - you still think Trump is an outsider/anti-establishment candidate, you are still not awake my friends. https://twitter.com/DBrozeLiveFree/status/1323266343735562242?s=20

Who can destroy the most powerful dynasties? Who is obstinate to destroy the oligarchy? Who is openly against the most powerful oligarchy, the Rockefeller and Rothschild?
Again, the Soviets rising against Zionism and imperialism. Fighting Rockefeller and Rothschild:
Danny Roddy (@dannyroddy) Tweeted:
"As industrialization was underway, conditions worsened for the great majority of Russian people. This spurred protests and riots & a 'young Stalin himself led the agitation against the Caucasian oil industry in general & the Rothschilds in particular.'" https://t.co/0FIfKWcmCB https://t.co/FWKBu6YSkm https://twitter.com/dannyroddy/status/1288098704029700096?s=20

And I retract my opinion that we were hijacking.
 
Last edited:

Rooster

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
61
That article is f


That article is from 2016, in the middle of a cyclical glut due to the peak of (unprofitable) shale oil fracking. Market has adjusted for that now.

It might look like there is tons and tons of oil around but always remember, depletion never sleeps. Every minute of every day, every oil well on the planet produces a little less than it did the minute before. It's the Red Queen syndrome, running all the time just to stay in place. There is a huge amount of investment and activity that has to take place just to keep production level, let alone climbing. When the oil market goes into a supply deficit that abundance of oil in storage starts to disappear just as rapidly as it built when the market was in surplus.

That is so false I nearly gagged on my drink. Oilmwells are not producing a little less every day because oil is running out. Oil inconstantly being replenished. Its a myth that oil is the remnants of dinosaurs. Its being made in the ground as we speak. Not onlynthat but if you knew history you would know Adolf Hitler and Germany used synthetically made petroleum products.

Go sell crazy someplace else. We're stocked up here
 

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Implementing a complex, sophisticated globalist one-world government where everyone is tagged and chipped would require tremendous amounts of surplus energy production from dense energy sources.
P.S. Also, A.I. is not everything it's cracked up to be. It's not intelligent at all. It's really more like an idiot savant, lines of code that are able to perform a very specific set of tasks that they've been created to do over and over again with speed and precision. It's only as good as its programmer.
There is this German association of lawyers that is acting like an extra-parliamentary investigative committee looking into this corona scandal. They are interviewing lots of experts.

Yesterday artificial intelligence was discussed in the context of transhumanism. Prof. Claudia von Werlhof (economist, sociologist, political scientist) said something along the lines that humans are seen as a resource. Robots (machines) need a lot of energy; humans integrated into systems of machines not so. Humans unlike Elon Musk's pigs are intelligent enough to follow orders. To make this globalist agenda work resource-wise would require to massively reduce the world's population.

Here is a direct link to this meeting (in German). I assume that this will be translated to other languages.

....

An example of humans seen as a resource:

Microsoft Patents New Cryptocurrency System Using Body Activity Data
 

MatheusPN

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
547
Location
Brazil
Its officially being spread as true, nonetheless some journals continues to propagate as fake news — its a conspiracy against us.

☭NovaShpakova☭ (@NovaShpakova) Tweeted:
Here's the WEF's plan for the domesticated proletariat. See how the bourgeoisie portray themselves as caring benefactors only to make us 100% dependent upon them in every way!
Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy & life has never been better! Here's how life could change in my city by the year 2030 https://twitter.com/NovaShpakova/status/1333770118741053446?s=20

A quick 15s and nice video to understand, from the same Russian woman:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1308184634287587330/pu/vid/592x368/HcfxKKMJZBP1DGcA.mp4?tag=10
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20201201_151742.jpg
    IMG_20201201_151742.jpg
    89.9 KB · Views: 17

BleuCheese

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2020
Messages
15
@MatheusPN , You have proven yourself to be a militant for Socialism/Marxism/Communism, over and over again. You are always here reversing things and trying to muddle the waters. Fuc* you and your Marxism/Communism/Socialism militancy.

☭NovaShpakova☭ (@NovaShpakova) Tweeted:
Here's the WEF's plan for the domesticated proletariat. See how the bourgeoisie portray themselves as caring benefactors only to make us 100% dependent upon them in every way!

It's fascinating that people on this forum can read works of people like Ray Peat and somehow come to the conclusion that the proto-facist corporatocracy of the right is their friend. It is, in fact, the very essence of what Ray argues against. In this interview with Danny, Ray very clearly expresses anti-corporate, anti-capitalist views. I've linked a moment where these views are pretty glaringly expressed:
.

Socialism is about workplace democracy, not a "big government" which controls everyone's lives. Anarchism, which is about as left as it gets, is quite clearly about the abolishment of power structures in favor of a more democratic and dynamic form of governance.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom