How will this work?

a reply to: daskakik

A "what if" article endorsed by the World economic forum if the picture I posted is not fake..

Competition is going by the wayside with the participation trophy culture and if everybody will receive free "education" you can be sure that education will be inclusive of the lowest common denominator.

With all the brainwashing, lies and propaganda in the current media environment, we are on a slippery slope with no sign of correcting the course.

Why do you think that ridiculing Christianity is en vogue right now? Think it will stop at that religion?

Cultures will become obsolete. When you have everybody streaming across borders people will come into conflict. One will ultimately dominate the other its a question of numbers. Us and them can't be untangled from culture. That's just the way it's always been.

And you don't opt out of globalism, as the name implies.

The same people who put a rothschild bank in 99% of countries through sheer force are behind this movement.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
A "what if" article endorsed by the World economic forum if the picture I posted is not fake..

Endorsed in the sense that they thought it was something to think about not that it was their goal.

Competition is going by the wayside with the participation trophy culture and if everybody will receive free "education" you can be sure that education will be inclusive of the lowest common denominator.

So the "lowest common denominator", whatever that might mean, shouldn't be included?

How many "pencil pushing" jobs have been created over the past decades just to keep people "working"?

The buzz is the 4th industrial revolution. What does that mean? Maybe it means people will no longer have to put in 40 hours a week to make ends meet.

With all the brainwashing, lies and propaganda in the current media environment, we are on a slippery slope with no sign of correcting the course.

The correct course is subjective.

Cultures will become obsolete. When you have everybody streaming across borders people will come into conflict. One will ultimately dominate the other its a question of numbers. Us and them can't be untangled from culture. That's just the way it's always been.

That is a contradiction. If cultures become obsolete why would people crossing borders create conflict?

Then again, cities all over the world have ethnic neighborhoods and parades/celebrations and often even people from other cultures join in the festivities. Where is the conflict?

And you don't opt out of globalism, as the name implies.

But the article on which the picture in the OP was based on did posit that option so maybe you jumped the gun in calling it globalism?

The same people who put a rothschild bank in 99% of countries through sheer force are behind this movement.

You mean the same people who have been in control of the US since you were born? Sounds like you are already in. What are you fighting for?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: 19Bones79
The "I own nothing" thing comes from this article.

It is just a "what if" article published to open a discussion on the possibility of that type of society:

Author's note: Some people have read this blog as my utopia or dream of the future. It is not. It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse. I wrote this piece to start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.

Ok....I spent the requisite 2-3 seconds pondering the author's question. I continue to think it's among the craziest, most #ed up, twisted thought exercises ever conceived, that in all likelihood was dredged up from the fluffy-clouded psychosis of a person that had every one of life's resources and conveniences handed to them.

I mean .... sure, yup, nobody will own anything. We'll all just "rent" stuff, air lifted to our doorstep by Amazon drones! I'm not making that up; this hair-brained scenario is all part of the 'shroom/acid-induced propaganda video from the same group as this author.

It is a scenario showing where we could be heading - for better and for worse

Is this actually a legitimate question?! "For better or for worse"?!

originally posted by: daskakik
Who said globalisation eliminates competition or the need to survive?

I will ask you this question, and I expect an honest reply. IF there are no personal possessions, no private property, anything can be rented and delivered by a drone...where is the incentive to put in more hours at work, learn new skills to add to your resume, or take a shot at that promotion in your company? In our NWO dystopia, anything that the Jones' down the street have, you can apparently e-mail Jeff Bezos and a copter-bot will parachute it down to the threshold of your holding pen door.

originally posted by: daskakik
What do people do when they are not rallying against some bad guys the rulers have identified or maybe even made up?

Isn't it obvious? In between shifts, we return to our holding pen, waiting for tonight's dinner plates & utensils, laptop and TV to drift down from the sky from our benevolent overlords. We have to make sure we lick the plates clean and return all our rentals back outside the holding pen so as the drones can whisk them away in the morning before the next shift.

originally posted by: daskakik
Why would globalisation not allow for different cultures? Some of the more extreme cultures might not want to opt in but that would be on them.

The article mentions something similar where those in the city live a certain way and those outside are not part of whatever it is that they have.

You make it sound like urban living is this idyllic existence that is the pinnacle of civilzation. I personally think it'll be the other way around in the future: the folks crowded into the concrete jungles will be trying to get out to where food is produced, clean water exists and nobody is burning/looting their property because "Well hey, it's insured right?? Amazon will just air-lift you a new one!"

originally posted by: SleeperHasAwakened
I will ask you this question, and I expect an honest reply.

Why would you be asking me? I didn't pen that article and I'm not advocating for this type of society.

You make it sound like urban living is this idyllic existence that is the pinnacle of civilzation. I personally think it'll be the other way around in the future: the folks crowded into the concrete jungles will be trying to get out to where food is produced, clean water exists and nobody is burning/looting their property because "Well hey, it's insured right?? Amazon will just air-lift you a new one!"

Again, I didn't write that article. I didn't make anything sound like anything.

dbl

a reply to: 19Bones79

Hunger Games meets 1984. Get ready!

Seriously, this started with 9/11 and the manufactured terror organizations run buy TPTB.
Now we are entering into a more realized plan with the invisible enemy of covid.
This is getting us closer to the 1984 level with the invisible threat by 'terrorists'.

Once the future of covid mutates (all fake of course), you won't be able to leave your district out of safety and because in other areas the strains will be different and could kill you (all lies of course)

Eventually, in the not so distant future, they will monitor all movement from the sky and you will only be allowed to leave your house for about one hour a day.

If you are outside, you could be shot from above.
The may or may not always happen but the fear will be real - just like the fear is now for the majority of the masses.

Not good!

Look into places like Patagonia to live out the rest of your life if you don't want to be bothered and really like your freedoms.

I feel like the answers to the OP’s question are obvious, and already in play....worldwide pandemic...and climate change. Things that can be used as a rallying cry to first unite us “for the greater good” then slap all kinds of restrictions and regulations on us all. It’s genius really, who could argue against something that sounds so good on paper??? Sustainability will be the motto of the NWO.

a reply to: daskakik

You're absolutely right.

The lowest common denominator need not feel disenfranchised.

a reply to: AlecHolland




I agree with everything you said, but I also think that that is still the soft touch.

People will become tired of stepping in line all the time which might lead to worldwide riots.


They're going to have to come up with something a little more intimidating than a challenger for the common cold like this china virus.

I have no doubt they will.

a reply to: 19Bones79

You'd a figured it out if you listen to Pink Floyds "Welcome my friend! To the machine".

And..."We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control".

This above? Sung in unison...by children.

We are seeing everything, and nothing creating...something. (Herd mentality? Lemmings to the sea?)

We can find our future in the past. It's our "present" thats screwed up.....

Ying..requires Yang

a reply to: EmmanuelGoldstein



Patagonia seems idyllic I wouldn't mind living there.

a reply to: daskakik

I dunno, what wasn't 'what if' was the sustainable economics and development course they forced on me in university. Probably the most useless class ever, except it confirmed pretty much every conspiracy theory about this all.

Cut the population down to no more than 1 billion people

The three legs of the sustainable economy
-environment
-social
-economic

A move away from growth
Global free trade without borders and restrictions

This is all crap actual ecologists and economists taught us the future should be.

This # isn't a conspiracy theory. It's literally being taught in schools. That was back in 2010.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Thats an interesting question and someone could probably write a book in response.

Globalism isnt only just about raising the standard of living in bung hole 3rd world countries, its also about free movement of populations via open borders. And of course its about altogether free trade. Rather than perpetuating government by way of the dichotomy, it creates homogenity of subsistence, (paycheck to paycheck) existence amidst a condition of constant consumer commodity shortages. (obviously we are being conditioned to that by COVID 19).

The net effect of globalism by way of mass migration and uncontrolled immigration will be to losen the ties that bind a nation state together. So with the triumph of Biden/Harris we can rightfully expect a huge increase in immigration from China. The result of this and massive migration to the US from other countries will most asuredly weaken the "born in US
"population allegiance to the US Nation state.......they will no longer really be able to identify with it.

Its already the case that the MSM Ministry of Propaganda reports that youngsters today and the bulk of the Millenials identify themselves as "Citizens of the World" rather than Citizens of the US.
www.weforum.org... ty/

I would guess that what this portends for the future is that the US Federal government will decline in relevance all the while the Tyranny of the One Party State will slowly encroach into every aspect of the subjects lives. More and more freedoms will be curtailed if not altogether cancelled.........and the subjects will dutifully remain mute or even cheer lead it.

a reply to: 19Bones79

I honestly hadn’t thought about that. Riots or unrest could be the excuse for the martial law or “strong arm” of the NWO.

a reply to: TonyS

I am not against any other peoples as a blunt generalization.

In a perfect world globalization sounds like harmony and peace, we are at the furthest opposite end of the spectrum regarding that. The people leading us there are sociopaths.

Globalisation is the worst possible outcome right now.

I would star your post twice if I could, for what it's worth.

"Globalism" is a pretty broad term, and one that should be approached with care. In an age of weaponized language and exploited ideals, it is one of the terms at the core of it all.

Its crafted in such a way that "everyone" will either fight for, or against, the corporate-political Narrative.

In truth, it is an inevitable process of civilization itself.. with as many options, choices, and paths as humanities imagination collectively contains. Yet, we fight over a single, specific path as if it is the only choice.

That ensures that the social & cultural momentum of those that support it will be focused and cohesive. Whereas those that oppose it will be disparate, with the only focused momentum is targeted at perpetuating the Narrative that "globalism" is a very specific thing. This not only embeds the paradigm further, it ensures a lack of meaningful competition.

Given that globalization is a natural accompaniment to the progress of our civilization.. its a serious problem if the single Narrative everyone fights over is based on absolute power & control, manipulation, threats, & coercion. Which it is. Kind of a SSDD scenario in that respect, but upgraded with modern tools.

I believe we are essentially choosing between two methods of globalization: 1) a centralized system of near absolute authority, neatly outlined by anyone wanting to look into it (Agenda 21/30, SDG's, blah blah) or 2) globalized decentralization, where we supply the tools for civilization at a granular level.

There might have been more of a spectrum possible between the two if path number 1 wasnt so tyrannical, disingenuous, and pervasive.. with horrific possibilities that are somehow successfully sold to folks with flowery, feelgood language.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Tulpa

And how will the elite bloodlines hide their opulent lifestyles?

Can't preach equity from within an ivory tower.

Hide it?

They'll put it on TV and tell you that you can also be like that.....

Get the right job, the right clothes, the right thoughts and you'll fit right in.

Anaesthetic for the masses.

a reply to: dug88

I think that is why the author of the article wrote that piece, this talk of sustainability could end up in this effed up situation, discuss.

It's a given that extreme CT ideas will be part of the discussion but that doesn't mean that those are the goals or that it won't end up in dystopia but, either way, there is no done deal.

I can't help but think that it will just further perpetuate the reaping of resources from poor regions to be used in future mega cities. Mega city will replace the states as defined by borders on maps. Either you live in the mega city areas walled in from the outside and under constant propaganda. Or you live outside the walls of the mega cities either forced to work in factories, farms, or living a meager life off of the land without the benefits of society within the walls of the mega city states.

Of course there will be many who would prefer not to deal with city life, but I could see very easily the lack of trade and commerce between city and non-city residents.

No new fancy technology outside of the walls except for what is smuggled out. No cutting edge medical care. No retirement system.

If forced to work in factories, warehouses, farms etc. those goods will be moved to within city walls to benefit those who live in the city and those who live outside of the cities will get scraps and whatever they can keep under wraps.

And any news of someone hoarding goods and resources will most likely lead to raids as those goods will probably be deemed to belong to the city-state.

But I'm just speculating and going off on a tangent.