The lesson is that the means are the end, always!!!
Thank you for this link. Thought it was great and crystallized the thoughts I have had about the “climate change” narrative, the “purpose” behind the release of the SARS-CoV-2 virus - zoonotic or lab-made the CCP made sure it got to the rest of the world, and the all-in censorship on the part of the dominant and want-to-be social media sites. Dovetails perfectly with the except from the book Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap – A sequel to the book, Slaying the Sky Dragon, that you can access via amazon.com that describes the flaws in the “climate change” narrative, the misuse of basic physics in the “greenhouse gas theory”, and the inability of these ideas to stand up to any rigorous critique, which, of course, then necessitates censorship.
Can’t remember where I read the research (it was more than 5 years ago), but there is research on rats that found that increasing population density (of the rats), increased homosexual behaviors. Environmental contaminants like mercury and the pesticide atrazine may also do the same.
Maybe you’ve noticed that the current circumstances, and institutional behaviors, are not at all now what they used to be. Perhaps, like Dr. Martenson, you too will undergo a fundamental change in perspective! For me, the players involved in “managing” public health affairs are no longer worthy of my trust.
With regard to our finite planet, there is a very simple calculation one can do. Take the current world population growth rate, the average weight of an human adult, and calculate how long it will take for the weight of all humans to equal the mass of the earth. Depending on assumptions, it is something like 4500 to 7000 years. Of course, that will never happen. Total social collapse and resource wars will happen first, or the “elite” will arrange several meteorite impacts while they are all at Davos.
CM’s point that the GR will be managed by 10-15 “leading” countries, which are likely to be those countries ignoring real, inexpensive solutions to Covid-10 such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, ozone therapy, vitamin D3 + Zn + nutrition, chlorine dioxide, and other combination therapies, is interesting. The “leading” countries then exclude India, Brazil, all African countries (South Africa, Nigeria, Ethiopia, etc), Indonesia. If I didn’t know better (and I don’t), I would say this reeks of colonialism and racism with eugenic forethoughts.
OK, you’re right that I didn’t do a deep dive into the great reset but then I don’t have time to do a deep dive into every theory that a few people come up with so I often have to exercise some critical thought with the little I’ve read or heard. However, I tried to find time to read through that Tessa Fights Robots piece that you linked to. There’s a mix of opinions in there, some of which I’d agree with and some of which I wouldn’t; there is also some contradictory stuff. This was good:
It is absolutely true that the soulless, utilitarian approach to nature, to life, and to other living beings has been extremely destructive—with the most immediate, most visible destruction outsourced to “third world countries” and to the less financially fortunate people in the West. (See landfills, Cancer Alley, and unhealthy, poison-filled non-organic foods). It is true that massive consumerism and the use disposables (brought to us by more or less the same parties who are now scolding people for consumerism) have created a lot of messes. It is true that our oceans and lungs are full of plastic, that the amount of chronic disease is skyrocketing, and that many species are dying off. It is true that our soil, our food, and our bodies are tainted with highly toxic glyphosate. It is true that usually, decades pass between the time manufacturers realize the toxicity of their product and the time when saying so in a conversation stops being a conspiracy theory. All true. However, it is also true that the people who are pointing fingers at social ills and telling us that we need a Great Reset are from same camps and lineages that have caused it in the first place. It is true that underneath the language of their marketing brochures, there is toxicity and havoc that greatly exceed what we have today. Thus, they are either idiots or liars—and I am afraid it is the latter. However rich, they are not even remotely morally qualified to fix anything in this world. And whatever we choose to do to heal our relationship with nature and with each other—it definitely isn’t the technofascist, neofeudal Great Reset.In the above she seems to be acknowledging that humans have done a lot of damage to our home. However, a little later, she writes:
And furthermore, the planet has enough for all, and the reason we are facing scarcity is because that 0.0001% of people control a lot.Which implies that we should be able to extract whatever level of resources that everyone would want. She also doesn't seem to fully accept human caused climate change and does seem to support continued use of fossil fuels. Specifically on the great reset, she does write:
I don’t think that this exact vision will ever come true in full. It is likely to implode before it gets half-way there—and some of what I just described is no more than daydreaming of a very broken mind.But then most of the article is a rail against something she doesn't think will come to pass, though it would erode our apparent freedoms as these competing elites do attempt some kind of loose coalition to control our lives. I tried following some links but most seemed to be just links to other articles of a similar opinion whilst at least one link to a WEF page failed. Hey, I don't trust the super-wealthy, just as I don't trust politicians (even if they get some things right), many of whom are super wealthy. I also don't label everything a conspiracy theory, as you claimed, but there are so many of these that I do tend to skim over most of them (an example of one I don't is the 9/11 one, which has still a load of unanswered questions for me). I suppose my views are highly skewed by the environmental degradation that is happening and seems to be speeding up. Such degradation will render any economic plans worthless eventually (and I don't think that means centuries; more likely a few decades). I'll suffix this comment with the acknowledgement that I'm fortunate to live in a country (NZ) that seems to have gotten its COVID-19 response about right, giving most people a feeling of living reasonably normally (apart from international travel). For those living elsewhere, it can probably feel like someone is trying to deny them their freedoms for ever.
The weight of humans can never equal the mass of the planet. Humans (and all other life forms) are part of the planet. At “best” humans can be the whole planet though, of course, that is also impossible. It’s possible that we’ve only got a few decades of a habitable planet left, though it depends on whether civilisational collapse happens quickly enough to allow ecosystems to start regenerating.
ao said:
Has COVID19 changed human behavior? Is there any evidence that this virus was not a naturally occurring one? Is there any evidence that its release was not completely accidental and/or it was not planned beforehand? Is there any evidence that the release of this virus would benefit certain parties both monetarily and in terms of power and control? Have you applied the test of cui bono? Therein lie your answers.It has temporarily changed some aspects of the behaviour of some people. Is this noticeable at the global level (other than a reduction in air travel)? Is it voluntary? Yes, Chris has presented some of that evidence. I'm not sure what your point is, though. Evidence of a negative is very hard to come by. We don't know for certain what the origins are so can't be very definitive on it. I don't think there is evidence that the virus was planned in order to benefit certain parties though there is evidence that it has done so.
Nice, pointed, and honest response.
I appreciate your thoughtfulness and your candor. I’d be interested in your take on a hypothetical, or maybe not such a hypothetical question: If the survival of the species absolutely seemed to depend upon surreptitiously shortening the lifespan of the current population, without their knowledge or their consent, would that in fact be a moral decision for a governing elite to be making for the “greater benefit” of the collective? You probably suspect how I would answer the question, but I’m endeavoring to keep an open mind.
In the UN Emergency Response arena we are taught how to judge the value of life in triage situatons when one cannot save all. One life is worth less than two. One healthy life is worth more than a seriously injured/sick life. Younger is worth more than older. These are hard choices so yes the elite can consider that killing off a bunch of us now- especially the older or less healthy - in order to preserve the planet is indeed ethical.
Thank you Mary, I really appreciate your honest response. I think that the difference here is that this “situation” is not being presented as an actual emergency to those who are involved. Instead, action is being taken without them even being informed of the dire circumstances, and that level of dishonesty concerning their life and death, is in fact immoral.
This discussion as with all other discussions about the “Great Reset” lack one crucial point. That point is the GR is totally hierarchical. I know lots of people who voted in the recent erection. I do not know anyone who participated in WEF. I don’t know anyone in the Tri Lat, CFR, Club of Rome , Bilderbergers but they seem to be making lots of plans and decisions for me and mine.
You can say what you want about Trump but the very first day in office he killed the TPP. That one move sealed his fate because the aforementioned groups don’t like their plans disrupted. The final nail in the coffin for Trump was the speech he gave at Davos. He basically told them to shove it.
The divide on opinions on the GR appears to be along socialist/capitalist lines. The US is a country founded on the principle of a government For the People of the People and by the People. Clearly there are some people from socialist countries taking part in the discussion, that are more socialist.
Even at that rate it would seem they would want a voice in what shape the world will take. All treaties negotiated must be ratified by the Senate. I would assume any plans the GR has for the US will at least be transparently aired and debated by elected officials.
There have been revolutions fought around the world to throw off the shackles of aristocracy. The aristocracy never sleeps they are constantly at work planning a world to their liking. For me it is hard to miss how they operate. Michael Hudson has posited the goal is a Global Neo Feudal System. The serfs will not be tied to the land they will be tied to the currency.
Their window of opportunity is here with the virus. People will be so desperate they will look for anything to ease their suffering. The GR will offer them that but at what cost?
"I don't see anything wrong with the idea of a rental society. My god, our land fills are filled with stuff that we put there after spend nice some's of cash on and now throw away because we made a mistake, an expensive mistake. The resources used to build these items and then trashed is just a sin. Now, these items get rented at fairy tale prices then sent back to the rental company's for someone else to use and the benefit is we will not waist the resources but once and I like that as I understand it." Plan for Tomorrow. I agree absolutely. At some point resources either have to be shared or rationed. This is the harsh reality. It is scary to think there is a reset master plan but even scarier to contemplate a world where only those with wealth will be able to get by. A plan beats no plan. One thing 'the elites' don't want is to perish in a popular revolution of starving and freezing people. Those who are force feeding themselves a steady diet of alt right rambling paranoia have to get out, go for a walk and appreciate what we have left of nature and look forward to a master plan that includes all of us, not just the hyper wealthy.While we all agree that we will, on the whole, need to accept less consumption of stuff in the future, you are missing some important points. Firstly, if everyone is renting stuff, then who owns it? Someone must. Why should the owners get the privilege to own everything we use? Are the owners put there democratically and openly by all us underlings of society who are under the restrictions of these "rental" agreements? Secondly, who gets to decide this "rationing" as you call it? Why do you not question who they are, what their motives are, and why you are not to be included in deciding who gets what rations? Thirdly, why does this "rationing" need to be done by a closed-door central planning agency? I thought that's what markets with real interest rates are for. If there is scarcity then the prices of oil and other resources will rise, automatically creating the "rationing" we are discussing via simple supply and demand dynamics, with no central rationing agency required. Instead, the rationing you seem to be describing is reminiscent of communism. And we know from past examples of communism that central planning of resource extraction activities does not work. Fourth, the prices of these commodities up to today has been artificially suppressed for decades through financial manipulation, done intentionally to promote consumption and a growing economy. So why now are the same people who promoted the over-consumption economy now suddenly seeing the light and suggesting that they should be the ones entrusted with fairly "rationing" it to us in the future? Why do you grant them your trust? Do you even know who they are?
Hi /Bradford
I agree 100% with you. The level of elite that I worked with was not so high but I did have interaction with some of them and heard stories of course. The UN is a wierd place to work for sure…Most of the people are little mechanics like I was, little worker bees with good intention and have NO idea what is really going down at the top levels of some of the agencies. Many agencies are left alone as being uninteresting for the elite and part of the “cover story”… Even at the level that I was exposed to, alot of the senior management are very egotistical and are encourged to be so. Big salaries, little blue special passports, diplomatic immunity, tax free booze…even red carpets under our feet at the airports, playing bigshot in little fishponds. Alot of the people making big decisions in the Bretton Woods plus realm are cocky, conceited and a little freaky too. All bets are off with that lot.
Thank you MM for this comment. Clear, concise and on point.
OK, you're right that I didn't do a deep dive into the great reset but then I don't have time to do a deep dive into every theory that a few people come up with so I often have to exercise some critical thought with the little I've read or heard.With respect to the above comment, your 'but' negates your admission of being uninformed and attempts to justify your position, which pretty much serves to discount the intent of the comment... If you do not have time to do the deep dive that many on this site like to do for important topics, that is fine, no worries - there is no requirement here for that. It would be nice (and appreciated) though, if you would think twice before disparaging those who have taken the time to become well informed and who continue to learn and educate themselves as new information becomes available. When you do as you have done here, you damage your own credibility. This signals to me that your comments are not to be given much weight and therefore not worthy of my time to create a thoughtful response. Something you might want to think about going forward, given your track record. Oh, I forgot to ask in my initial comment: you are not related to Doug are you? ;-) Cheers!
I believe it’s in our DNA, at least most of us, to sacrifice when reality calls upon us to do so, just like people have jumped into frozen rivers to save somebody that they don’t even know. It’s the deception of the elites making life and death decisions for the peasant class, without getting any “buy in” from them, that is so completely repugnant in this case. They deprive the individual of their free choice to give their life up on their own terms, if it’s really required.
“If there is scarcity then the prices of oil and other resources will rise, automatically creating the “rationing” we are discussing via simple supply and demand dynamics, with no central rationing agency required. Instead, the rationing you seem to be describing is reminiscent of communism” Mark BC
Heaven forbid that during extreme scarcity rationing is implemented. As a way of preventing mass starvation and homelessness it is the only way to go.
FDR had to implement major social programmes during the Great Depression and it looks like the Reset is somewhat similar.
I don’t think anybody here realizes just how bad things could get and how dangerous. If rationing prevents a descent into madness and chaos, who wouldn’t take rationing instead. And if there is a reboot along the lines of a green economy? Perfect.
I read some of the author you suggested and some highlighted text. She seems to me to be fundamentalist in her thinking. “The very people who brought you toxic this and dangerous that are now going to save you?” This implies that they are soulless automatons, and are unable to change with the times. Also that “the elite” don’t see the writing on the wall and realize it imperils them if they don’t act. Climate chaos is dangerous to them and the economic fall out, if not remedied is also very dangerous.
Within the mind of every billionaire is a clear line. One side is full of images of gold, power and dollars. It is equally balanced on the other side by images of guillotines, firing squads, pitchforks and torches.