Is It Working?

submitted by StillLessons from self.WorldPolitics

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Ordo ab chao. The top nations are pitted against each other, which wears away their weak points. Constant collapse means constant opportunity for rebuilding.

There can't be "the great reset" as per the WEF unless it first collapses. And that includes both Russia and the US.

Only thing that is clear to me is they're deliberately tanking so many things, in order to create the atmosphere that will lead to their "solution" being accepted in whatever "revolution" comes next

[–]StillLessons[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Good response, as usual.

You touched on the piece I didn't address in my initial post, but which is profoundly important: is "Davos" actually Western (=opposed to Russia) or directing both Russian and Western policymakers. There is good reason to believe they are giving both countries the woodchipper treatment.

The piece of a plan like that which is questionable, however, is "will people in Russia or in the West accept some super-national body rather than a national body based on the culture of a country within which we have lived for centuries?" In other words, tearing down existing societies is possible (ugly as hell, but they are very good at it, and I agree with you that this is entirely the explicit plan), but that still doesn't get them the last mile to their goal. Even if the US government reaches the point of no return with its people, for example, is there evidence the people will choose this super-national beast (UN-like, under whatever name/structure is put forth by the owners of the corporatocracy) as a trustworthy body? That seems a stretch, not just in the US but in any country around the world.

But who knows? We're way the hell out of Kansas by this point. The future is a complete mystery to me.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You touched on the piece I didn't address in my initial post, but which is profoundly important: is "Davos" actually Western (=opposed to Russia) or directing both Russian and Western policymakers. There is good reason to believe they are giving both countries the woodchipper treatment.

Well, the way I see it, the WEF and Klaus Schwab just "kicked out" Putin from the WEF because of his invasion of Ukraine. So he was already a long-time member.

It's possible this is genuine split. It's also possible this split is orchestrated theater to create the appearance of a conflict where in reality there is none. Perhaps they just needed a war to justify a shift the petrodollar away from USD to yuan or rubles. Perhaps they just wanted a distraction from the corruption being uncovered in regards to covid and the shots, as well as the Maxwell/ Epstein network that is one of their primary levers of control.

"will people in Russia or in the West accept some super-national body rather than a national body based on the culture of a country within which we have lived for centuries?"

I see this as a pointless question, as nation-states are already a super-national body compared to the district-level governments that humanity has traditionally had for millennia. What's another step up in that progression?

In other words, tearing down existing societies is possible (ugly as hell, but they are very good at it, and I agree with you that this is entirely the explicit plan), but that still doesn't get them the last mile to their goal.

Problem, reaction, solution. If you make the existing circumstances so unbearable that everyone is breaking down, they will happily accept a larger governing body if it gives the appearance of fixing the problems. So you just manufacture a bunch of fake global problems, and then as soon as some larger governance gets an ounce of power, you turn down the intensity knob on the global problems. Then the global population associates the global governance with peace and prosperity in their individual lives. It's like a pavlov's dog association. If this positive emotion of relief from nonstop disaster is coupled with the advent of global government, people will accept it just like they accepted nation-states. Especially if there is the illusion of competition ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia") that gives people the illusion of choice, then they will even more willingly accept it.

Of course some people are going to pick up on this grift and ring the alarm bells, but most people are to emotionally affected to truly listen.

To me, the true point of fragility is where does it go after that? That global government (or 2-3 governments that "compete") will slowly become more authoritarian and corrupt too, once it is established by doing actual good things. Then it will become an absolute nightmare. Then it might become so brittle it will actually break, because the illusion of choice will have come to an end. That might be a very interesting time, that could be when humanity takes off our authoritarian shackles once and for all, because the system of governance will have nothing left to evolve to, no larger stage to conquer. That might be the beginning of the end for these who seek to have authority over billions of others.