“There is obviously great ideological conformity among the Davos attendees, but this is just a reflection of the hegemony of liberalism over the global system - blaming this on Davos is like saying the Oscars are setting the Hollywood agenda.”
This is true but I think this argues in favor of the schizo position on Davos/WEF/Globalism etc.
Criticizing the Oscars, the people who attend & the things they say is a useful strategy to counter the propaganda machine that is Hollywood. Has it worked? In 1998, 57 million people tuned into The Oscars. Now they are pretty well scorned, have terrible ratings and Hollywood is in truly bad shape.
Likewise criticizing the WEF & the Davos crowd necessarily signals “globalism bad, nationalism good”. Has this message not resonated? I’d say yes and it’s why Klaus Schwab is unironically looked at as Klaus Blofeld.
In both cases, I’d argue you want people to think something like “Just who in the fuck do these people think they are, anyways?” The actual legal or state power of these institutions is beside the point.
I understand a couple of the chief concerns of “schizo” thinking (aside from some of the obvious absurdities you mentioned) is that it distracts from the true nature of the regime and also has an in-built danger of veering off into QAnon territory.
The latter is certainly true to an extent, it’s a short rabbit hole from Klaus Schwab to 5G sterilization nanobots. But I think that could be said for almost anything nowadays. It’s simply the nature of the modern online experience. In the end, I’d prefer people to be naturally skeptical of the regime, even if it carries a bit of kookiness along with it.
As for the former, I think addressing issues singularly, without reference to “the true power” is reasonable. It’s not hiding the ball to criticize “this” without always naming “them”. To demand so every time would be frankly a little schizo in my opinion.
Credibility is important, especially for political dissidents. If we want to move the ball we can’t be viewed as irrational spergs chasing our tails around or as the Pepe Silvia meme.
But credibility is also the reason why criticizing and deriding these meetings of elite jerkoffs is important. Ask yourself, why do nationalist have to perform a cloak and dagger operation every time they wish to meet up for a conference? It’s because their enemies know that a successful conference without incident increases the credibility of the movement and the attractiveness of the ideas.
These meetings might not exercise any hard power, but they don’t need to because of liberal hegemony as you say. That’s why criticizing them is a good thing.
Exactly. Take the Bilderberg conferences as a parallel. No one talks about it anymore, but a few years ago (deep in the mists of time, pre April 2020!) everyone spoke about it. It was a peephole in to the machinations of the rich and powerful. It caught people's attention and caused many to delve further. These are the 'attention hooks' that many require. But I also take the point that it can lead to unhelpful caricatures of how the world works.
Quick point about the 'Schwab to 5G nanobots pipeline': I actually found ethnonationalism via the 'truth movement'. So... I'm saying that there is a Schwab to nationalist pipeline. It's just a road less travelled!
As to offering rational critiques of the WEF, I think all one has to say is that it’s at the very least worrisome that politicians attending these events on a semi-political/semi-personal manner speak about matters of national interest behind closed doors, and the content and nature of these discussions are held out of the view of the broader public.
According to the regime itself, transparency of government is an essential principle. Therefore, any event promoting closed-door talks and conferences with legally binding decisions being made is a direct and flagrant violation of this supposedly sacred principle.
What’s being discussed? What has been agreed upon? Who said what? Who agreed? Who disagreed? Who wants to work with whom?
No one can completely know as this is, again, kept confidential.
WEF morphed heavily out of Qanon and picked up a lot of people who weren’t exactly into the “arrests are coming, military tribunals!” stuff the Qanon folks were about.
However, everyone on the right was affected by a shade of Q before, during, and immediately following Covid.
I hear you, but it appears that your argument is based on the premise that these people don't lie when they give a talk or statement. You take what they say.
“There is obviously great ideological conformity among the Davos attendees, but this is just a reflection of the hegemony of liberalism over the global system - blaming this on Davos is like saying the Oscars are setting the Hollywood agenda.”
This is true but I think this argues in favor of the schizo position on Davos/WEF/Globalism etc.
Criticizing the Oscars, the people who attend & the things they say is a useful strategy to counter the propaganda machine that is Hollywood. Has it worked? In 1998, 57 million people tuned into The Oscars. Now they are pretty well scorned, have terrible ratings and Hollywood is in truly bad shape.
Likewise criticizing the WEF & the Davos crowd necessarily signals “globalism bad, nationalism good”. Has this message not resonated? I’d say yes and it’s why Klaus Schwab is unironically looked at as Klaus Blofeld.
In both cases, I’d argue you want people to think something like “Just who in the fuck do these people think they are, anyways?” The actual legal or state power of these institutions is beside the point.
I understand a couple of the chief concerns of “schizo” thinking (aside from some of the obvious absurdities you mentioned) is that it distracts from the true nature of the regime and also has an in-built danger of veering off into QAnon territory.
The latter is certainly true to an extent, it’s a short rabbit hole from Klaus Schwab to 5G sterilization nanobots. But I think that could be said for almost anything nowadays. It’s simply the nature of the modern online experience. In the end, I’d prefer people to be naturally skeptical of the regime, even if it carries a bit of kookiness along with it.
As for the former, I think addressing issues singularly, without reference to “the true power” is reasonable. It’s not hiding the ball to criticize “this” without always naming “them”. To demand so every time would be frankly a little schizo in my opinion.
Credibility is important, especially for political dissidents. If we want to move the ball we can’t be viewed as irrational spergs chasing our tails around or as the Pepe Silvia meme.
But credibility is also the reason why criticizing and deriding these meetings of elite jerkoffs is important. Ask yourself, why do nationalist have to perform a cloak and dagger operation every time they wish to meet up for a conference? It’s because their enemies know that a successful conference without incident increases the credibility of the movement and the attractiveness of the ideas.
These meetings might not exercise any hard power, but they don’t need to because of liberal hegemony as you say. That’s why criticizing them is a good thing.
Exactly. Take the Bilderberg conferences as a parallel. No one talks about it anymore, but a few years ago (deep in the mists of time, pre April 2020!) everyone spoke about it. It was a peephole in to the machinations of the rich and powerful. It caught people's attention and caused many to delve further. These are the 'attention hooks' that many require. But I also take the point that it can lead to unhelpful caricatures of how the world works.
Quick point about the 'Schwab to 5G nanobots pipeline': I actually found ethnonationalism via the 'truth movement'. So... I'm saying that there is a Schwab to nationalist pipeline. It's just a road less travelled!
As to offering rational critiques of the WEF, I think all one has to say is that it’s at the very least worrisome that politicians attending these events on a semi-political/semi-personal manner speak about matters of national interest behind closed doors, and the content and nature of these discussions are held out of the view of the broader public.
According to the regime itself, transparency of government is an essential principle. Therefore, any event promoting closed-door talks and conferences with legally binding decisions being made is a direct and flagrant violation of this supposedly sacred principle.
What’s being discussed? What has been agreed upon? Who said what? Who agreed? Who disagreed? Who wants to work with whom?
No one can completely know as this is, again, kept confidential.
WEF morphed heavily out of Qanon and picked up a lot of people who weren’t exactly into the “arrests are coming, military tribunals!” stuff the Qanon folks were about.
However, everyone on the right was affected by a shade of Q before, during, and immediately following Covid.
Patriots in command
Truth
God
Did you remember to turn the oven off?
White hats
Patriots
Q
I hear you, but it appears that your argument is based on the premise that these people don't lie when they give a talk or statement. You take what they say.
Javier looks an awful lot like a chubby Keith doesn’t he..? Makes you think...🤔🤔🤔