Globalists

[fj1200]

Evil geniuses or incompetent technocrats? What does the evidence say?

[SassyLady]

Both.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The usual, evil, greedy, POWERMAD, HUNGRY, do not give a damn about anybody else bastards.
The same kind as history has revealed so many times to be concerned about only Self and Wealth AND POWER.
In other words, sub human scum that truly do serve a hot piece of lead flying a super-sonic speeds -right between their ffkking eyes, imho.
And yes, they are not imaginary, fairies, unicorns- elves, or trolls.
They are people that are totally evil and so very deserving of a quick dispatching, imho....
since they do seriously champion eliminating at least 3 billion humans from this planet.
Sceptism of the very real threat, to me shows, a total and truly massive ignorance of truth, reality and the wherewithal to understand that one must open eyes to see a threat, in order to meet it and hopefully survive once in its path....
A little wisdom/insight that my brilliant, brave and honorable father made damn sure that his seven sons had in spades.
Sarcasm always being a damn poor very, very poor substitue for having intelligence, bravery and a conviction/willingness to take counteraction against a very real threat, n'est-ce pas ... --Tyr

[fj1200]

Both.

It's kind of hard to be a genius AND incompetent. At least in the context of the question. :shrug:

The usual, evil, greedy, POWERMAD, HUNGRY, do not give a damn about anybody else bastards.
...... --Tyr

All of that is not evidence.

[Gunny]

Evil geniuses or incompetent technocrats? What does the evidence say?

What DOES the evidence say?

[fj1200]

What DOES the evidence say?

As laid out in my previous musings;

"I see societies advance that choose the environments that allow advancement... So based on the evidence presented I've determined that they are do-nothing technocrats who have largely zero impact on a free world. The other option is that they're not what I think they are at all and are in fact doing a great job (which I don't believe). As I've mentioned before I don't really see the logical outcome of granting freedoms, economic liberties, etc. for those that choose and then all of a sudden taking it all away. There is no logic to it.

...

My issue is that either these insitutions are so inept that they've failed, for close to 80 years now, to impose their governmental control on the world to the detriment of countries who choose liberalized economies; or that they've been controlling things so much that those countries that have liberalized their economies will have all their economic gains wiped out when the powers that be impose massive controls. The latter making no logical sense."

I'm going with incompetent technocrats... if there are any out there that identify as globalists.

But I await submittal of further evidence.

[fj1200]

Other previous musings:

"I just don't see what you see. We can both look at post WWII history and see the growth of international organizations, partnerships, global corporations, etc. and see completely different things. I see liberalization of global trade that will benefit everyone who chooses to take part and you see coalitions of organizations to take power away from the people. The thing is that I look at the benefits that have come to the world with increased freedoms for billions of people with increases in almost any measure of economic advancement... I don't know if you agree with that last sentence or not but it is not a logical conclusion to me that all of this liberalization has been granted until the rug gets pulled out from underneath the whole thing. All due respect I just don't see that."

[revelarts]

As laid out in my previous musings;

"I see societies advance that choose the environments that allow advancement... So based on the evidence presented I've determined that they are do-nothing technocrats who have largely zero impact on a free world. The other option is that they're not what I think they are at all and are in fact doing a great job (which I don't believe). As I've mentioned before I don't really see the logical outcome of granting freedoms, economic liberties, etc. for those that choose and then all of a sudden taking it all away. There is no logic to it.

...

My issue is that either these insitutions are so inept that they've failed, for close to 80 years now, to impose their governmental control on the world to the detriment of countries who choose liberalized economies; or that they've been controlling things so much that those countries that have liberalized their economies will have all their economic gains wiped out when the powers that be impose massive controls. The latter making no logical sense."

I'm going with incompetent technocrats... if there are any out there that identify as globalists.

But I await submittal of further evidence.

So says the Council for the Defense, FJ1200 esquire.

[Gunny]

As laid out in my previous musings;

"I see societies advance that choose the environments that allow advancement... So based on the evidence presented I've determined that they are do-nothing technocrats who have largely zero impact on a free world. The other option is that they're not what I think they are at all and are in fact doing a great job (which I don't believe). As I've mentioned before I don't really see the logical outcome of granting freedoms, economic liberties, etc. for those that choose and then all of a sudden taking it all away. There is no logic to it.

...

My issue is that either these insitutions are so inept that they've failed, for close to 80 years now, to impose their governmental control on the world to the detriment of countries who choose liberalized economies; or that they've been controlling things so much that those countries that have liberalized their economies will have all their economic gains wiped out when the powers that be impose massive controls. The latter making no logical sense."

I'm going with incompetent technocrats... if there are any out there that identify as globalists.

But I await submittal of further evidence.

I am going to ponder this a bit before responding. It's a complex topic. I don't necessarily disagree with your point(s). It narrows the topic down too far.

[fj1200]

So says the Council for the Defense, FJ1200 esquire.

In for evidence that the devil exists while your at it.

I am going to ponder this a bit before responding. It's a complex topic. I don't necessarily disagree with your point(s). It narrows the topic down too far.

Just trying to get some discussion going.

[Gunny]

In for evidence that the devil exists while your at it.



Just trying to get some discussion going.

I got that part.

In as far as "why?" goes ... the movie "The Matrix" provides the best answer. Humans with no reason to live make lousy batteries. They don't perform well nor last very long. Humans need hope. They need to believe that they will be rewarded for excelling. If you're just another sheep, what's the point of working harder than the next guy? Give humans hope and they strive to be more productive and innovative.

That would be the best reason I can think of to keep the pretext of "freedom" and "choice". If there's no hope, there's no point. When you blow off the smoke, the reality is, we all work to pay taxes to keep a bureaucracy (machine) moving.

Having been part of that "machine", I don't think there is a conscious, collective awareness by those that support and defend it. They believe what they are taught by the bureaucracy and it's satellite tentacles. At all level of our society, you comply or you get locked up.

I believe there are globalists as much as I believe there are Marxists fighting for control of our government. I just don't think they are this one, big group of global elites sitting at the Round Table deciding the fate of mankind. Their very nature says otherwise. Each individual/group calling itself globalist envisions global power with themselves, respectively, at the top of the food chain. I've not heard of one that doesn't have a person or group ruling others. Given that, any cooperation toward globalism is either advantageous at the moment, or coincidental. None are willing to nor are they going to share power.

The biggest threat of any real globalism is China because they are Hell bent on dominating and subjugating the entire planet. China IS the real, global enemy and should be treated as such at every turn. Hard to do when our President is empowering them while simultaneously weakening us at every turn.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

tech·no·crat
/ˈteknəˌkrat/

an exponent or advocate of technocracy.
a member of a technically skilled elite.

hmmmm, a fairly broad definition.
One that gives a great amount of leeway when using to describe a group and/or its supposed political positions/ambitions.
In fact, gives no hint at it being a group , just describes it as an individual.
As such, I see it as no basis for a counter to or refutation of the term-- "globalist"-- or the globalists, one world order/, one world government agenda.


To me seems like when discussing apples and oranges, somebody cites , mangoes or else coconuts!
And then walks away.. , n'est-ce pas?

Nothing imaginary about this below...---

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/...a-great-reset/

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Now is the time for a 'great reset'
Jun 3, 2020

In every crisis, there is an opportunity (note this--RJL), especially so when one manufactures the desired crisis in the first place, eh? RJL

Image: Space Uptopian/Unsplash

Klaus Schwab
Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum

Share:

OUR IMPACT
What's the World Economic Forum doing to accelerate action on Sustainable Development?

THE BIG PICTURE
Explore and monitor how Sustainable Development is affecting economies, industries and global issues

CROWDSOURCE INNOVATION
Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale
Stay up to date:

Sustainable Development
This article is part of:
COVID Action Platform
Visit the Great Reset microsite here.
Hear Klaus Schwab on these podcast episodes: the Great Reset launch and his book.
We can emerge from this crisis a better world, if we act quickly and jointly, writes Schwab.
The changes we have already seen in response to COVID-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.
This is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism - and here's how it can be achieved.
COVID-19 lockdowns may be gradually easing, but anxiety about the world’s social and economic prospects is only intensifying. There is good reason to worry: a sharp economic downturn has already begun, and we could be facing the worst depression since the 1930s. But, while this outcome is likely, it is not unavoidable.

To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/...a-great-reset/

DISCOVER
What is the World Economic Forum doing about the coronavirus outbreak?


There are many reasons to pursue a Great Reset, but the most urgent is COVID-19. Having already led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history. And, with casualties still mounting in many parts of the world, it is far from over.

This will have serious long-term consequences for economic growth, public debt, employment, and human wellbeing. According to the Financial Times, global government debt has already reached its highest level in peacetime. Moreover, unemployment is skyrocketing in many countries: in the US, for example, one in four workers have filed for unemployment since mid-March, with new weekly claims far above historic highs. The International Monetary Fund expects the world economy to shrink by 3% this year – a downgrade of 6.3 percentage points in just four months.

All of this will exacerbate the climate and social crises that were already underway. Some countries have already used the COVID-19 crisis as an excuse to weaken environmental protections and enforcement. And frustrations over social ills like rising inequality – US billionaires’ combined wealth has increased during the crisis – are intensifying.

Have you read?
What risks does COVID-19 pose to society in the long-term?
COVID-19 is a litmus test for stakeholder capitalism
Left unaddressed, these crises, together with COVID-19, will deepen and leave the world even less sustainable, less equal, and more fragile. Incremental measures and ad hoc fixes will not suffice to prevent this scenario. We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.

The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream. In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles. Almost instantly, the crisis forced businesses and individuals to abandon practices long claimed to be essential, from frequent air travel to working in an office.

Likewise, populations have overwhelmingly shown a willingness to make sacrifices for the sake of health-care and other essential workers and vulnerable populations, such as the elderly. And many companies have stepped up to support their workers, customers, and local communities, in a shift toward the kind of stakeholder capitalism to which they had previously paid lip service.

Clearly, the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need. That will require stronger and more effective governments, though this does not imply an ideological push for bigger ones. And it will demand private-sector engagement every step of the way.


The Great Reset agenda would have three main components. The first would steer the market toward fairer outcomes. To this end, governments should improve coordination (for example, in tax, regulatory, and fiscal policy), upgrade trade arrangements, and create the conditions for a “stakeholder economy.” At a time of diminishing tax bases and soaring public debt, governments have a powerful incentive to pursue such action.

Moreover, governments should implement long-overdue reforms that promote more equitable outcomes. Depending on the country, these may include changes to wealth taxes, the withdrawal of fossil-fuel subsidies, and new rules governing intellectual property, trade, and competition.

The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability. Here, the large-scale spending programs that many governments are implementing represent a major opportunity for progress. The European Commission, for one, has unveiled plans for a €750 billion ($826 billion) recovery fund. The US, China, and Japan also have ambitious economic-stimulus plans.

Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.

The third and final priority of a Great Reset agenda is to harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to support the public good, especially by addressing health and social challenges. During the COVID-19 crisis, companies, universities, and others have joined forces to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and possible vaccines; establish testing centers; create mechanisms for tracing infections; and deliver telemedicine. Imagine what could be possible if similar concerted efforts were made in every sector.


The COVID-19 crisis is affecting every facet of people’s lives in every corner of the world. But tragedy need not be its only legacy. On the contrary, the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.


Explore The Great Reset Transformation Map Image: World Economic Forum

[fj1200]

tech·no·crat
/ˈteknəˌkrat/

an exponent or advocate of technocracy.
a member of a technically skilled elite.

hmmmm, a fairly broad definition.
One that gives a great amount of leeway when using to describe a group and/or its supposed political positions/ambitions.
In fact, gives no hint at it being a group , just describes it as an individual.
As such, I see it as no basis for a counter to or refutation of the term-- "globalist"-- or the globalists, one world order/, one world government agenda.


To me seems like when discussing apples and oranges, somebody cites , mangoes or else coconuts!
And then walks away.. , n'est-ce pas?

Nothing imaginary about this below...---

I don't think there was a claim made that globalists were imaginary; I've seen countless threads and references to actual people. My opening question was evil geniuses or incompetent technocrats (both plural)? Further I think incompetent technocrats is redundant especially as the technocrat usage was pejorative. Can you find references to whomever one wants to describe as a "globalist" and links to many egghead conferences and working papers? Without a doubt. My question gets to what the evidence says about their impact on the globe, so to speak. If I were a globalist I wouldn't publish a working paper.

[fj1200]

I got that part.

In as far as "why?" goes ... the movie "The Matrix" provides the best answer. Humans with no reason to live make lousy batteries. They don't perform well nor last very long. Humans need hope. They need to believe that they will be rewarded for excelling. If you're just another sheep, what's the point of working harder than the next guy? Give humans hope and they strive to be more productive and innovative.

That would be the best reason I can think of to keep the pretext of "freedom" and "choice". If there's no hope, there's no point. When you blow off the smoke, the reality is, we all work to pay taxes to keep a bureaucracy (machine) moving.

Having been part of that "machine", I don't think there is a conscious, collective awareness by those that support and defend it. They believe what they are taught by the bureaucracy and it's satellite tentacles. At all level of our society, you comply or you get locked up.

I believe there are globalists as much as I believe there are Marxists fighting for control of our government. I just don't think they are this one, big group of global elites sitting at the Round Table deciding the fate of mankind. Their very nature says otherwise. Each individual/group calling itself globalist envisions global power with themselves, respectively, at the top of the food chain. I've not heard of one that doesn't have a person or group ruling others. Given that, any cooperation toward globalism is either advantageous at the moment, or coincidental. None are willing to nor are they going to share power.

The biggest threat of any real globalism is China because they are Hell bent on dominating and subjugating the entire planet. China IS the real, global enemy and should be treated as such at every turn. Hard to do when our President is empowering them while simultaneously weakening us at every turn.

A Matrix reference. Nice. I understand where you're going with that. My counter is that life in liberalized countries is pretty good and we should either grant globalists all the credit in the world for advancing capitalism or understand that they had nothing to do with it at all and are actually a drag on the livelihoods of the poor in the world. I think the evidence suggests the second part.

To the latter part of your post I think that there are people in various countries and EU type entities that have ideas on how things should be but really are not in a position to impact things globally; only in their country and others that share their viewpoints.

[Gunny]

A Matrix reference. Nice. I understand where you're going with that. My counter is that life in liberalized countries is pretty good and we should either grant globalists all the credit in the world for advancing capitalism or understand that they had nothing to do with it at all and are actually a drag on the livelihoods of the poor in the world. I think the evidence suggests the second part.

To the latter part of your post I think that there are people in various countries and EU type entities that have ideas on how things should be but really are not in a position to impact things globally; only in their country and others that share their viewpoints.

That's a mouthful

In context, the problem with globalization as I assume you mean it is, every time some jackass country goes off the rails like Russia, China or even the US, it impacts everyone. In that regard, I am all for self-sufficiency. Yes, it would be nice if free trade made everything hunky-dory for everyone, but it does not. I'm not even including what Biden has done to our balance sheet in that.

If global free trade (I'm assuming since that's where you usually go) is done responsibly and everyone gets what they're after in the end; sure, it's a nice dream. When it is what it is, not so nice. The current administration is putting us upside down on everything.

Problem with free trade is corrupt government meddling, at time in collusion with other governments. I do believe that is the context in which the term "globalists" is used most on this board.

I'm wondering how all this free trade/global economy works once China replaces us at the top of the heap. Lest anyone mistake where I'm going with THAT ... WE are doing THAT to ourselves. Then maybe we won't have it so good here but it'll be too late for the crybabies starting all the shit to get a do-over.