WEF 2023

[eyeball]

51 minutes ago, West said:

Now I don't necessarily support violence per se but it's an inevitability when you use tactics such as what we are seeing deployed right now.

I've asked many times when enough is enough, I mean people are dropping dead in their tracks right from vaccine.

What are you people waiting for exactly, permission or something? 

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, West said:

1.. I would equate it to midevil ages where kings etc would rule via an iron fist. Eventually when you trample on the neck of people, sh^t starts to bubble under which is what you saw during Covid. 

2. Now I don't necessarily support violence per se but it's an inevitability when you use tactics such as what we are seeing deployed right now.

1.  Well are we talking about morality, as in what you think is "right" vs "vile and disgusting" or what the people want ?  Because those things don't really align.  Don Cherry's firing was... mildly unpopular.  If it was wildly unpopular then I doubt it would have happened.

2. People say that about BLM but it's because they think cops are shooting them, not that they'll get a dirty stare from not using they/them.  But like I say - we have to work on a framework for dealing with people (you) who think others (me) are vile/disgusting (me).  

You know after the reformation they had a 100 years' war over this kind of thing and they worked it out.  But they didn't have web forums at that time, I'm guessing it was all USENET.

[West]

31 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1.  Well are we talking about morality, as in what you think is "right" vs "vile and disgusting" or what the people want ?  Because those things don't really align.  Don Cherry's firing was... mildly unpopular.  If it was wildly unpopular then I doubt it would have happened.

2. People say that about BLM but it's because they think cops are shooting them, not that they'll get a dirty stare from not using they/them.  But like I say - we have to work on a framework for dealing with people (you) who think others (me) are vile/disgusting (me).  

You know after the reformation they had a 100 years' war over this kind of thing and they worked it out.  But they didn't have web forums at that time, I'm guessing it was all USENET.

Right... the Civil Rights movement is another good example. The government imposed themselves onto the autonomy of black people and it eventually erupted to violence. 

I would hope that there would be some lessons learned to that, tho doesn't appear to be the case. 

[West]

40 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

and how many certified financial analysts and fund portfolio managers do you think are meeting with top company execs and asking how many rainbows they paint on their corporate headquarters?  

Do you know how often this comes up in conference calls, shareholder meeting etc?  

Not really.  The point of stakeholder capitalism is to consider future risks and liabilities to a company's reputation and operations.  Look at BP oil and their disaster, or Activision-Blizzard and their (alleged) culture of harassment, or even CIBC, who just settled for 153 million in a class action for unpaid overtime.  The point is that focusing only on your shareholders can end up costing you bigtime in the long-run, and not just in legal fees and settlements.  

Neither am I.  I did go to business school, and even back then when ESG was only starting to be mentioned, there was substantial time and effort expended on teaching students that there was more to being a good leader than the short-term bottom line.  You can no doubt boost your numbers in the short-term by cutting corners and standing on your employees' necks, but that incurs a debt to the future.  When your employees are all suing you, leaking info or whistleblowing on you, you're in trouble.  When the local government is levying huge fines and charges against you, those have costs.  When your brand is completely trashed by all of the negative attention you bring, those cut corners come home to roost.  When you stick your head in the sand and ignore the technological and social progress, you risk getting left behind.  

1. How many are "meeting"? I don't know... I would assume the WEF would be one of the catalysts to coming up with cracked out nonsense about diversity programs etc.. 

2. Not really... marketing influences culture... not the other way around. (In my view anyway). 

3. Sure.. but been a huge shift in trends now in business schools to the sh^t I'm talking about. 

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, West said:

1. The government imposed themselves onto the autonomy of black people and it eventually erupted to violence. 

2. I would hope that there would be some lessons learned to that, tho doesn't appear to be the case. 

1. Yes  ... bloodiest conflict in US history (The Civil War)
2. Really the numbers don't support an uprising.  And the organizations are already responding to what people want, just not you.

[West]

20 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes  ... bloodiest conflict in US history (The Civil War)
2. Really the numbers don't support an uprising.  And the organizations are already responding to what people want, just not you.

2. The Donald Trump phenomenon in the US, which was largely a backlash to this bullshit, would suggest otherwise. 

[Moonbox]

43 minutes ago, West said:

1. How many are "meeting"? I don't know... I would assume the WEF would be one of the catalysts to coming up with cracked out nonsense about diversity programs etc.. 

None of them are, or at least so few as to not matter.  

The point with diversity in ESG is to not get caught with your pants down, rather than to push the agenda.  Things like the glass ceiling for females, or making sure not to enable/promote cultures of harassment or exclusion.  

If I tried asking a portfolio manager how much time they spend making sure that companies have gay and black board members, they'd think I had 12 heads.  

43 minutes ago, West said:

2. Not really... marketing influences culture... not the other way around.  (In my view anyway). 

That's silly.  They both influence each other, but culture influences marketing much, much more.  That's why book covers for the same novels are different in Canada vs the US.  A good marketer taps into regional culture and rides the current, rather than wasting time and energy trying to redirect it.  

43 minutes ago, West said:

3. Sure.. but been a huge shift in trends now in business schools to the sh^t I'm talking about. 

First off, unless you go to business school, you wouldn't know that, and even if you did you wouldn't be able to speak about most of them.  As a topic, ESG would not itself be a big part of the curriculum, though many of the criteria it relates to might.  The stuff you get yourself upset about, however, doesn't get nearly the oxygen you suppose.  The overwhelming focus of good programs is on practical matters, much of it boring and numbers based.  You're probably looking at a 3:1 course load comparing stuff like accounting, economics, finance, operations etc. vs anything that would even mention the scary things that keep you up at night.

Edited January 23 by Moonbox

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, West said:

1. The Donald Trump phenomenon in the US, which was largely a backlash to this bullshit, would suggest otherwise. 

 1. Well he will have another chance to run.  Let's see if he can make it 2/3.

[West]

24 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

None of them are, or at least so few as to not matter.  

The point with diversity in ESG is to not get caught with your pants down, rather than to push the agenda.  Things like the glass ceiling for females, or making sure not to enable/promote cultures of harassment or exclusion.  

If I tried asking a portfolio manager how much time they spend making sure that companies have gay and black board members, they'd think I had 12 heads.  

That's silly.  They both influence each other, but culture influences marketing much, much more.  That's why book covers for the same novels are different in Canada vs the US.  A good marketer taps into regional culture and rides the current, rather than wasting time and energy trying to redirect it.  

First off, unless you go to business school, you wouldn't know that, and even if you did you wouldn't be able to speak about most of them.  As a topic, ESG would not itself be a big part of the curriculum, though many of the criteria it relates to might.  The stuff you get yourself upset about, however, doesn't get nearly the oxygen you suppose.  The overwhelming focus of good programs is on practical matters, much of it boring and numbers based.  You're probably looking at a 3:1 course load comparing stuff like accounting, economics, finance, operations etc. vs anything that would even mention the scary things that keep you up at night.

1. Gender diversity stuff is basically in every major corporation. And as I already told you, there's certainly a PUSH to invest in companies with the ESG nonsense.. 

2. I don't think so.. mass media is an entire industry built on shaping perception... billions if not trillions of dollars per year is spent on telling you this product is great, you must have this product, etc etc... your product could be sh^t but you'd still pay to tell everyone how great it is.. 

Businesses also give a sh^t load per year in education grants etc... all to shape perception. 

3. I did go to business school... apparently more recent than you have... have visited probably about four thereafter when planning on a masters program and the Sustainable Development material is plastered all over their business programs... 

[Army Guy]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Ok, I can accept this.

2. The members are worth billions.  The organization?  I couldn't find anything beyond meetings and networking.

3. Yes, it's the wealthy who belong.  What are they doing beyond meetings?

I found 3 sources, not very reliable or recognize sources, they quote anywhere from 600 mil to 4 bil , also found othe sources that have attached a couple on monetary funds worth from 1.7 bil to 43 bil which they say has ties to the WEF, all hearsay or rumor, nothing confirmed.

Found a new source for Soros wealth status, He is worth 24.3 bil and has donated a total of 8 bil, almost every of web site gives a different figure, this one comes from a WEF web site...

The 20 most generous people in the world | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

Well what does all these billionaires do with all that money buy another car, house , rocket ships, it seems like in this case they are looking at a power base, one that has influence globally...in case of the WEF it is stated in there policies laid out in the below web sites...They are in the business of influencing global affairs, WHY is that should be the question...maybe they are just concerned about the planet, i doubt that very much...How much money is in Climate change...

No Privacy, No Property: The World in 2030 According to the WEF | Mises Wire

8 predictions for the world in 2030 | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

[Army Guy]

17 hours ago, Moonbox said:

Look at the first post in the thread.  If that's not garbage, than nothing here is.  

You can debate about the WEF and whether or not it's helpful or harmful, but you grossly conflate what is actually happening there and how much influence the organization itself has.  When folks start talking about the "cabal" and pointing at it as a bogeyman pulling strings everywhere, it shows a pathetically small-minded view of our world and how it actually works. 

They may as well just disband the WEF, pick a different location, and have leaders meet at a different location at a different time of year from now on.  The conspiracy clown parade loves their three-letter acronyms and shadow-groups, so instead we could call it, "Leaders from Around the World Getting Together and Talking about Stuff Once in Awhile".  

He's definitely a troll, and so far hasn't done anything but make himself look like a dumbass outside of the conservative base.  Amplifying the anxiety over the WEF isn't anything but that.  It's this sort of rabble-rousing populism that will allow him to defy all reason and logic and somehow manage to lose to Prime Minister Unicorn Farts.  

Forget what is posted, don't play the player, play the ball...

Well lets see how much influence the WEF has, well it has attracted most world leaders to attend, most billionaires, a lot of celebrities. ya no influence there...the fact that most WEF talking points or projects the liberals have out of thin air  also picked up build back better, just transition, all the rest of them either Justin has no imagination or WEF ideas and policies are sliding across the table and being adopted as National policies... 

And it is a little more than the leaders from around the world getting together, i mean they have the UN or the countless other organizations to do that, since when did anyone need the WEF and the whole dog and pony show they bring to make policies here in Canada...Have you seen any of the u tubes from the WEF i posted, they are not your average "there is nothing to see here organization web sites, it reminds me of some cult web site...

 

 

[Goddess]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Governments have to sell any policy at home and get elected on it.  

Not any more.  The last 3 years should have opened your eyes to that.  They only have to control the narrative, via the media, enough to fool most of the people.

If someone had told you in 2018, that everyone would have to show a QR code testifying that they had obeyed a public health order to inject an experimental pharmaceutical into themselves and have that information available to countless strangers just to eat in a restaurant, would you have believed them?  Would the government have been able to sell that to any us of?

Did you know that before vax passports were introduced to the public they were trialed on university campuses like UCI's "Zotpass"?

Students, and later the pubic, were conditioned to accept interdicts and strictures that would have sounded insane a year before.  Even after nearly 100% of students and staff were vaxxed at Columbia U, new measures were introduced that prohibited students from having guests over, visiting the other residence halls, or being in a group of more than 10 people.  Administrators had determined through seized contact tracing data that there were some "cases" that appeared to come from "students socializing at other residence halls, and off-campus bars, apartments and residences."  Imagine the horror - college students hanging out in bars, dorms and restaurants.

Journalist Michael Tracey said " the new powers conferred by this infrastructure, the ability to micromanage the private lives of young adults, track and judge the propriety of their movements, is probably creepily intoxicating on a level these administrators may not be overtly conscious of, and in any event would never admit."

To wind back this biomedical security regime would take enormous psychological effort.  Here's how Tracey described it:

Benign "cases" ie: a positive PCR test would not have even been detected if it weren't for the compulsory and constant asymptomatic testing students were subjected to, which was a burdensome and invasive regime of frequent testing, completing daily symptom checklists, vaccine and booster verification at every doorway and monitoring of all movements.

It's a self-perpetuating system, feeding on itself constantly.

Students and staff at universities all over were encouraged by administrators (who have no medical knowledge)  to snitch on each other for minor infractions such as not wearing your mask completely over your nose. U of Chicago students had to sign a Soviet-style affidavit pledging that they would snitch on fellow students for even  minor violations.

At Georgetown (98% vaxxed) and at USC Law School, students were not allowed to take their masks down during lectures, even for a sip of water.  Instructors were allowed, as it was deemed necessary for them to "hydrate".

Few people realize that indiscriminate asymptomatic testing violates sound principles of medical practice and creates more problems than it solves.

Even before covid, did you know much about the complaints that Amazon employees have about the conditions they work under?  Were you aware that Amazon developed an app that employees must use to monitor productivity and efficiency, monitoring bathroom breaks and lunch times?  And other companies expressed desires to do the same.

Amazon monitors its warehouse staff, leading to unionization efforts - The Washington Post

There are clear signs of just how invasive, just how micro, how specified and how determined the biomedical security regime's demands will become.

Imagine what will happen with climate change now that the powers that be know how much we will give up to feel "safe", which we did for a virus that has an IFR not much higher than the seasonal flu and a +99% survival rate for everyone who is not very elderly AND has multiple comorbidities.  But it did have EXCELLENT marketing.

Now, I know you have said obedience to authority is extremely important to you and that you believe governments and other authorities would never do anything bad to the citizenry.

You do understand how childishly naive that sounds to many of the rest of us, don't you?

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

You do understand how childishly naive that sounds to many of the rest of us, don't you?

Right back at you.

You think that the government controls the media?  The people prefer the Conservative Candidate, and were against the convoy protest and yet sympathetic to them.

They're a little more nuanced than you know-it-alls give them credit for.

[Goddess]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Right back at you.

You think that the government controls the media?  The people prefer the Conservative Candidate, and were against the convoy protest and yet sympathetic to them.

They're a little more nuanced than you know-it-alls give them credit for.

OK.

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Forget what is posted, don't play the player, play the ball...

The ball was the bozo OP.  😐

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Well lets see how much influence the WEF has, well it has attracted most world leaders to attend, most billionaires, a lot of celebrities. ya no influence there...the fact that most WEF talking points or projects the liberals have out of thin air  also picked up build back better, just transition, all the rest of them either Justin has no imagination or WEF ideas and policies are sliding across the table and being adopted as National policies... 

Most of the world leaders attend because most of the world leaders attend.  It's an opportunity for face time with global leaders, where they otherwise might not get it, or see new ideas etc - kind of like the old World Fairs of times past.  It's really interesting that the Davos summit never garnered much interest before, but then the conspiracy circus starts pointing at it and talking about it all of the time and it goes from being a forum for leaders and to talk about things to the reincarnation of the Illuminati.  

[Zeitgeist]

No one is talking about the WEF being Illuminati.  The issue continues to be a small group of unelected, unaccountable rich and powerful people influencing government policies and subverting democracies in nation states.  The current level of union between big business and government hasn’t been seen since 20th century fascism because this is fascism.  Read about ESG and stakeholder capitalism.  I and others keep explaining it and you keep jumping to “conspiracy theorist!”   

[Goddess]

This 2020 report from the WEF:

The Future of Jobs Report 2020 | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

....predicts that by 2025, the next wave of automation, accelerated by the pandemic, will disrupt 85 million jobs (not their jobs) around the world.

Quote

"Businesses, governments and workers must work together to implement a new vision for the global workforce."

This is said with an air of arrogant inevitability, like human choice plays no role.

And how much input do you think "the workers" will have?  Likely not much, since at least 85 million of us will be out of work.  About as much "input" as the Amazon workers have, is my guess.

[Goddess]

11 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 I and others keep explaining it and you keep jumping to “conspiracy theorist!”   

I consider myself a "conspiracy expert" at this point. 🤣

 

[Zeitgeist]

4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I consider myself a "conspiracy expert" at this point. 🤣

 

Yeah I don’t respect people who bury their heads in the sand pretending that none of this is taking place.  Our liberty and living standards are under assault.

[Goddess]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yeah I don’t respect people who bury their heads in the sand pretending that none of this is taking place.  Our liberty and living standards are under assault.

The frustrating part is the complete and utter refusal to even consider it as a real possibility.

It's like when they FINALLY and grudgingly admitted that natural immunity was real and was superior to jab immunity.  Most people cannot comprehend the next logical steps or thinking.  They're still stuck in the brainwashing of "Unvax people BAD, EVIL."

That means that it's highly likely that the vast majority of the small number of unvaxxed people are already likely immune and therefore SAFER to be around than vaccinated people, who are catching reinfections repeatedly.  The Alberta lab ICHOR tested thousands of unvaxxed people and found a large percentage had immunity and that some of that immunity came from past SARS/corona infections.  And some people have very good immune systems, so if they do catch it, it will be like every other cold or flu.

Instead, we have the braindead still insisting that perfectly healthy but unvaxxed people be separated from society, jailed and fined and demanding health purity passports, even though it's already well-known that vaxxed people catch and spread it.

Mass hypnosis is real, man.

Edited January 24 by Goddess

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

No one is talking about the WEF being Illuminati.

You talk about them as being a cabal of Nazi Commie dictators. Probably the same ones running the vaccine/COVID world domination scam.   

You're all completely and irretrievably bonkers and I bet we probably still haven't seen anything yet.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

You talk about them as being a cabal of Nazi Commie dictators. Probably the same ones running the vaccine/COVID world domination scam.   

You're all completely and irretrievably bonkers and I bet we probably still haven't seen anything yet.

You’re just in denial of the radical changes that actually unfolded in our lives over a few years.  Yeah just don’t worry about it.  

[Moonbox]

16 hours ago, Goddess said:

This 2020 report from the WEF:

The Future of Jobs Report 2020 | World Economic Forum (weforum.org)

....predicts that by 2025, the next wave of automation, accelerated by the pandemic, will disrupt 85 million jobs (not their jobs) around the world.

This is said with an air of arrogant inevitability, like human choice plays no role.

And how much input do you think "the workers" will have?  Likely not much, since at least 85 million of us will be out of work.  About as much "input" as the Amazon workers have, is my guess.

So by 2025, something like 2-3% of jobs will be obsoleted. 

 

Every single one of those people are totally doomed.  It's not like we've ever had any previous technological shake-ups that disrupted jobs before. 

Oh wait...

 

[Michael Hardner]

39 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

So by 2025, something like 2-3% of jobs will be obsoleted. 

The thing is: we DON'T have a say as to how/when/whether technology will be adopted.

What tends to happen is social change catches up after the fact.  We might be part way there already.

[Moonbox]

We never did have any say.  Disruptive technologies and competition for your industry are coming regardless of whether or not you want it or try to resist it.