Hmm..
Orwells Wallet
would be a good name for a new Forum Category for such discussions.. may only be accessible after solving a validation of age and mental state?
4 Likes
This reminds me of a thread here on the forum about a digital indentifiâŚoh wait a minute 
3 Likes
a)
b)
How could b) be possible without breaking the principle set by a) ?
Pandoraâs Box would be a more appropriate title 
Guys like you, who make fun of any critical opinions, are not a little complicit in these conditions.
Right! I am one of those âinsane criminals around the worldâ that should go to jail 
âMaking funâ aside, here it is
Firstly, you know next to nothing about me to come to such a conclusion:
Secondly, regarding
I apply the same critical approach to âany critical opinionsâ. If I find inconsistencies in their reasoning, then I might find the absurdities âfunnyâ.
Have a good day!
3 Likes
what does rainbow flag mean ?
In this context, diversity of perspectives. At least in the bubble of my own mind.
3 Likes
Invest in assets.
No matter who or what âmoneyâ is in the future. Gold silver and land (although this one isnât quite guaranteed if a government takes it) always have value.
Always have enough on hand to get you safe passage to somewhere else at minimum.
1 Like
or people can fight against government
Sure, by waving their rainbow flags âŚ
2 Likes
nope i mean fight
I do not believe in any flag
as it only spreads Nationalism
i hate Nationalism
and rainbow flag means something completely different where I come from
Lease a tank?
tank is for cowards only
Sorry, that was also meant as sarcasm âŚ
ups my bad
sorry for misunderstanding 
1 Like
Sarcasm in writing barely works the way it was intended.
2 Likes
Thank you, thats a valid explanation, i was beginning to worry about why nobody posted anything. Should have thought of that.
So I did look into it and a large amount of articles suggested to me were either Breitbart or similar stuff. Not really known for good journalistic work. Besides that I found a Reuters article explaining how the âyou will own nothing. And youâll be happyâ slogan that got posted here isnt their goal but was an example for how 2030 might look like. It wasnt exactly convincing, but valid arguments nonetheless.
I also found an article regarding the âgreat resetâ that you have referenced. It explains how its basically about different stages of how they see capitalisms future. I mean, besides giving us the name and thus alluding to certain implications, you didnt even say anything about it. Thats just very awful logic on your part.
Besides that also found an article by the transnational institute about the WEF that describes it as a
âsocializing institution for the emerging global elite, globalizationâs âMafiocracyâ of bankers, industrialists, oligarchs, technocrats and politicians. They promote common ideas, and serve common interests: their own.â
I want to focus a bit longer on this part. Because its exactly what i mean when i criticize your approach that the WEF is the âheadâ of something. The quote describes the WEF as a conduit, not a head in itself. And thats exactly what I meant. The interests the WEF displays are just the amalgamation of the interests of neoliberal figures, trends and tensions.
Thats exactly your problem, you dont think about this in a framework based on historical development but as something created out of thin air by people with bad intentions to target you. Do you think there is some guy out there that just happened to invent sexism one day, or do you think it might be a tad more complicated? My lacking explanation is that its a complex network of actors (both individuals and groups, even cultures or milieus) having certain convictions, beliefs, incentives and acting based on those, often with self-interest in mind. But the incredible complexity our society has can not be explained holistically through âhard rulesâ that just lead to our current outcome, like a game theoretical approach might say.
The world economic forum was created by a shared belief in neoliberal policies by people with the interest to promote them. This can be explained by their important positions that obviously correlated with their belief in the system that brought them there.
My point is that they certainly shape the world we live in, but not to the degree you believe and not in the way you believe. They are a conduit and thus express the beliefs and goals of the members. Those members are individually in positions of power and obviously make the beliefs that they also represent in the WEF to policies. So the WEF doesnt sit down and decides âwhat do we doâ. People in the WEF that were shaped by their environment come to the WEF with ideas what they could do, express them in a unified fashion through the WEF and are again shaped by the new ideas that come up in the meetings. They then go on to implement those policies, shaping other people around the world.
So there is no unified head forcing certain things, the complex interactions in our world brought by the incentives inherent to the system are sufficient enough to explain the WEF, but a holistic approach is not feasible in explaining the WEF in general.
Yes, exactly. Existence shapes consciousness, but consciousness in turn shapes the (social) existence.
And my point is that tyranny doesnt require evil intentions like you constantly imply. It can also be much more boring than you imply. If you already allude to WW II, you should be just as aware of the banality of evil. That it doesnt require a bad cabal. Its enough that people get normalized to certain beliefs, in turn replicate them and then bring them to their objectively terrible conclusions. Funnily enough this is exactly what i was talking about when i mentioned structural anti-semitism. Getting normalized to believing in shadowy cabals can easily bring you to the objectively terrible conclusion that it âmust have been the jewsâ. Thats why i campaign for a system of thought that focuses on systems instead of singular observations of âevilâ.
I personally think its completely unfeasible to bring a supposed âhuman natureâ up as an argument. Thats exactly what i meant when i talked about game theoretical holistic approaches. I mean, from a hypothetical position the natural conditions of humans is anomy, a state of 0 rules where nobody can rely on anyone. The supposed âbad human natureâ as an axiom then leads to Hobbesâ war against all. This realist view of the world might have its merits, but unironically arguing that you can explain the entire world through this perspective is just empirically wrong. The idea of a monolithic human nature as an explanatory approach has to be abandoned, either entirely or replaced by pluralistic ideas of the individual.
1 Like
OMG is this what i have to wake up to? This is just balderdash. 
I can see the questionnaire:
- how old are you?
- how mental are you?
Now divide those 2 values and if it is bigger than 1 you may enter.
1 Like