Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 409  Next >
Are people being held down and injected?

Pretty much. They are being told that they can't go to the hospital or to shopping centers if they don't get the injection:

"From the beginning of August, the health pass will apply to cafés, restaurants and shopping centres, as well as in hospitals, retirement homes and medical and social establishments, and also on planes, trains and buses for long journeys. Again, only those who have been vaccinated and tested negative will be allowed access to these places," Macron said earlier this week.

Quote from: Rama Set
Ask your government why they tried to balance individual rights against collective rights.

Just a few posts ago you were arguing in favor of breaking the Nuremberg Code to force or coerce people into taking the experimental vaccines. Now you are arguing that being put into quarantine infringes on rights.  ::)

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 23, 2021, 08:01:05 PM »
Tom supports the CCP welding people in to their homes and lying about COVID cases to bring numbers down. Interesting strategy.

Pretty sure forced quarantine is more morally justifiable than forced experimental injection.
What do you think happens to you when you are on board a ship and your shipmates are found to be communicating a contagious disease? Quarantine.

How is it that China knew what to do, but other countries led many thousands to their deaths?

So the Nazi's just had to say "it was to save lives" and their forced medical experiments would be okay?

False equivalence.

Germany had invaded Poland first, and then other countries within Europe. There was a war on, with France, UK, and latterly the USA, all joining as allies to fight back the Germans, defend their own countries, and halt what the Germans were doing to the Jews and others.

None of that applies here and now.

Uh, what? The Nuremberg Code was created because of Germany, but wasn't directed only at Germany. Not sure why you think only the Nazis can do unethical things.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 23, 2021, 06:22:10 AM »
The Hypocritic Oath isn't legally binding either. People value it for reasons other than legality.

Quote from: Tumeni
It is not for the purpose of an experiment. It is to save lives.

So the Nazis just had to say "it was to save lives" and their forced medical experiments would be okay?

Quote from: Tumeni
600k deaths in less than a year should make it clear to you that the standard 10 to 15 years were not available.

China didn't have a problem with extinguishing Covid without forcefully or coersively injecting experiments into people. Their pandemic only lasted about a month and a half or so. What's the problem with your country?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 22, 2021, 04:31:55 PM »
The repeated word/phrase in the code is experiment/experimentation.

Applying a vaccine to prevent the spread of a pandemic is not experimentation. It's a treatment.


"The Nuremberg Code (German: Nürnberger Kodex) is a set of research ethics principles for human experimentation created by the USA v Brandt court as one result of the Nuremberg trials at the end of the Second World War. In a review written on the 50th anniversary of the Brandt verdict, Katz writes that "a careful reading of the judgment suggests that" the authors wrote the Kodex "for the practice of human experimentation whenever it is being conducted.""

The vaccines haven't been tested long term. They are new, and involve never before deployed genetic programming which permanently reprograms our bodies to produce a substance it does not normally produce. How in the world is that not experimental?

It usually takes a long period of time to test drugs and vaccines:

Drug Animal Testing:

"This stage of safety testing usually takes about 4 years. Drug companies test for mutagenicity (ability to cause genetic changes) and carcinogenicity (ability to cause cancer). The drugs are also tested to confirm that they do not cause infertility (inability to have children) or birth defects. This stage of safety testing takes many years, because it may take a long period of time for animals to develop cancer or infertility as a result of a toxic drug."

It takes years for a reason.

The whole process of human drug testing typically takes a long time:

"Clinical testing is complex and time-consuming, averaging 14 years to complete Phase I through III testing to gain FDA approval."

Typical vaccine development:

"Vaccine development is a long, complex process, often lasting 10-15 years and involving a combination of public and private involvement."

So it takes 10 to 15 years normally. Why is that? Because they don't want to give people things which might cause adverse effects down the line.

Obviously if Nazi Germany was claiming that its experiments during WWII were "approved" and "fine", and "in our estimation it's safe" and "we tested it on some mice for a short time," that would still violate the Nuremberg Code when they forced it on people. The government's opinion is irrelevant. They are still experiments, no matter what the government claims.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 21, 2021, 11:28:26 PM »
That's not what the New England Journal of Medicine think it's for.

The article says that it applies to ulterior form of constraint and coercion, not just direct forced injection:

1.The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision

It then goes on to give an example with the malaria treatment from Andrew Ivy, co-author of the code:

Ivy explained that these common-sense principles mirrored the understanding shared by everyone in practice in the medical community.12 The first principle was that a physician would never do anything to a patient or subject before obtaining his or her consent. Ivy also asserted that, unlike Leibbrand, he did not consider prisoners to be in an inherently coercive situation and thus unable to give consent, because in democratic countries where the rights of individuals are respected, prisoners can always say yes or no without fear of being punished.12 He testified:

"The American malaria experiments with 800 or more prisoners were absolutely justified, scientifically, legally and ethically even if they bring with them danger to human life. To treat malaria was an important scientific problem, and so long as the subjects volunteer and are explained the hazards of the experiments, there is no ethical reason against it. . . . If prisoners condemned to death are volunteers, then it was ethical to do just that."

During cross-examination, Ivy acknowledged that there were no written principles of research in the United States or elsewhere before December 1946 and that the principles adopted by the American Medical Association were expressly formulated for the Doctors' Trial.12 Ivy also recognized that the right of the research subject to withdraw from an experiment may not always exist, as in the malaria experiments in which the subjects had already been infected, or in dangerous experiments in which the subjects could be severely injured or fatally harmed. Ivy agreed with Leibbrand that researchers must refuse to conduct experiments on human beings when ordered by the state in order “to save lives,” because in such cases subjects would not be volunteers. He declared that “[t]here is no justification in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred” and that “no state or politician under the sun could force [him] to perform a medical experiment which [he] thought was morally unjustified.”12 Ivy also stressed that the state may not assume the moral responsibility of physicians to their patients or research subjects, arguing that “[E]very physician should be acquainted with the Hippocratic Oath [which] represents the Golden Rule of the medical profession in the United States, and, to [his] knowledge, throughout the world.”12

See the last bolded piece. It doesn't matter if the treatment saves many lives. It's still unethical to coerce people into taking it.

The article also emphasizes the right to withdraw:

Medical Ethics and Human Rights

The judges at Nuremberg, although they realized the importance of Hippocratic ethics and the maxim primum non nocere, recognized that more was necessary to protect human research subjects. Accordingly, the judges articulated a sophisticated set of 10 research principles centered not on the physician but on the research subject. These principles, which we know as the Nuremberg Code, included a new, comprehensive, and absolute requirement of informed consent (principle 1), and a new right of the subject to withdraw from participation in an experiment (principle 9). The judges adopted much of the language proposed by Alexander and Ivy but were more emphatic about the necessity and attributes of the subject's consent and explicitly added the subject's right to withdraw.

Since one party got 5% and the other party got 0% it would suggest that people didn't just select it as a joke.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 21, 2021, 05:36:20 PM »
Anyway, back on topic, France is upping the ante.

Macron is done politely pleading with the French to get vaccinated.

He is now playing hardball and came with the shock announcement that life for the unvaccinated will become miserable.

"From the beginning of August, the health pass will apply to cafés, restaurants and shopping centres, as well as in hospitals, retirement homes and medical and social establishments, and also on planes, trains and buses for long journeys. Again, only those who have been vaccinated and tested negative will be allowed access to these places," Macron said earlier this week.

The prospect of not being able to do anything fun during the summer and beyond made people jump into action.

In the first 24 hours after the speech, more than a million people booked vaccination appointments – 20,000 per minute. A record since the start of the campaign.

Vive la France!

Please familiarize yourself with the Nuremberg Code.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 08:18:26 PM »
There are experiments in there showing that the effect aligns with the equivalence principle.
The first one of those is from NASA. I didn't think you trusted them? Or do you only trust them when you get results which you think back up your views?

If the mainstream narrative is saying that the equivalence principle is being verified to high altitudes, you can't turn around and tell me that it's not. You are arguing yourself into a corner about these gravitational variations that supposedly exist but lack evidence.

The word 'emperical' isn't even in there. You appear to just be making things up.

The evidence for a Flat Earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat, the movement of the Sun; these are all examples of your senses telling you that we do not live on a spherical heliocentric world. This is using what's called an empirical approach

That's an entirely different article and talking about one type of approach. I don't see what you are ranting about.

You are basically screaming at us to ignore evidence, to ignore your logical errors and to just accept uncontrolled experiments.

I'm suggesting you be logically consistent. You are not - a good example of that you have inadvertently exposed in this thread. You claim the results of an experiment as backing up your view. The results of which come from NASA, an organisation who you distrust...except, apparently, when they produce data which you think backs up what you believe. So NASA are faking all their missions...oh, but not the one whose data you want to cherry pick. You see the issue?

Nope. It's completely logical. It presents it as the mainstream narrative on the non-variations seen with time dilation. Mainstream says there are no detectable time variations by altitude, so the RE position is that there are no detectable time variations.

By your logic we should accept the scale experiments that very by latitude, even though they are uncontrolled and we know the atmosphere affects them.

By your logic we should discard the other contradictory experiments by latitude where variations do not manifest.

By your logic, even if the mainstream narrative is that there are no variations seen with time by latitude or altitude, we should discard that data and assume that there are experiments somewhere that prove your spinning globe and gravity.

Totally ridiculous. Totally illogical. The conclusion from these experiments isn't that you are somehow right. The conclusion from the experiments is that you appear to be incorrect unless you have some compelling new data to present.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 10:01:51 AM »
Incorrect. There is a link in that section with references to various experiments on that.

Do you mean the "Gravitational Time Dilation" link? Fair enough if so, it wasn't clear that was even about the same topic.

The altitude variations section links to this page:

There are experiments in there showing that the effect aligns with the equivalence principle.

And the latitude experiments referenced in the link contradict each other, as well. One has variations and the other does not.

You do this consistently - any "empirical observations" which you think back up your views are readily accepted without scrutiny. You then claim that your theories are based on "empirical observations".

The word 'emperical' isn't even in there. You appear to just be making things up.

The level of scrutiny you apply to any experiment is entirely dependent on whether the results confirm to your world view.
It's pretty disingenuous.

There are a number of references showing that the environment affects the scale. If you are insisting on those scale experiments without acknowledging that it is affected by the atmosphere it makes you the disingenuous one. You are basically screaming at us to ignore evidence, to ignore the logical errors and to just accept uncontrolled experiments. A terrible way to argue. You would do better by actually collecting evidence that is in your favor rather than your tactic of arguing that you don't have to.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 09:23:12 AM »
Its quite a amusing that you have a paragraph on "Altitude Tests" where you claim that "gravity does not deviate from the Universality of Free Fall or the Equivalence Principle", with no evidence presented.

Incorrect. There is a link in that section with references to various experiments on that.

Literally the next paragraph "Latitude Tests" you note that gravity measurements vary by latitude and then explain away why that might be.

And the explanation is that the experiment is not controlled against the environment, with references showing that the environment affects the scale. This hurts your insistence that we take uncontrolled experiments as fact.

There is also a link in that section which shows latitude tests which did not see variations by latitude, in contradiction to Einsteins's prediction and the scale latitude experiments. You ignored this.

You claim to base your opinions on empirical observations, but when observations don't back up what you believe you simply explain them away.

You ignored the links in those sections that show contradicting experiments to the idea. You saw the links, ignored them, and came here to tell us about 'no evidence'. That is dishonest.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why do objects fall at dofferent speeds?
« on: July 20, 2021, 01:46:33 AM »
But the reality is that you do not experience the same gravity everywhere on earth. Because the Earth is not a perfect sphere, you can have a variable distance to the Earth's center, which has a tiny, but measurable effect on the gravity you experience.

There's a Wiki article on that -

Feel free to address it.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Terrible Political Memes
« on: July 17, 2021, 07:06:04 PM »

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 05:12:52 PM »
I'm of the opinion that we don't need to change the nature of capitalism because of Covid or climate change.
Tom, you cannot possibly believe there is anything remotely resembling capitalism in action in today's world.

Well yes, we are already so socialized with heavy regulations, taxes, and social programs that it's obvious that these are just socialists and communists who want to go all the way with it now. Give a hand, they take an arm.

Notice that the liberals here can't muster even the weakest defense on the views of needing to "reimagine capitalism" to deal with Covid. It's extremist and ridiculous on its face. They are also hesitant to disavow it, because if you are still a Democrat at this point you are practically a full blown socialist/communist wanting to see through anything that falls in line with your views, even if they appear to be crazed rantings of a bond-villain born in Nazi Germany.

Listen to this short clip of how Fidel Castro described his system of government and compare it to what the Democrats and liberals are chanting:

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 09:31:48 AM »
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.

Even in her response to the criticism she suggests that she thinks that it's a scenario that we're heading for, "for better and for worse". Was she writing an article about what she doesn't think is going to happen? No. She clearly wouldn't be writing something she didn't think could happen. The video was about what the WEF predicted, and was paraded around with their logo. The article describes the vision more at length.

Her vision is nearly identical in its themes to Klaus Schwab's vision in his article. You did not even address that. I also notice that you didn't address all of the Marxist and socialist crap that they spew, and their wanting to 'reimagine capitalism', redistribute wealth, or anything else that fits hand-in-glove with this.

She's in the Global Leader Under 40 group and is on the Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization of the World Economic Forum:

Ida Auken is a Young Global Leader and Member of the Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization of the World Economic Forum

Obviously she represents that organization and the argument that she doesn't represent WEF is blatantly wrong.

Quote from: stack
Lastly, the article and video were from like 2016. You know, a few years before Covid. So how is it relevant to this thread?

They are using Covid to push through their Great Reset that 'reimagines' and 'resets' capitalism.

"The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world" - Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum.

The World Economic Forum has called for a great reset of capitalism in the wake of the pandemic.

I'm of the opinion that we don't need to change the nature of capitalism because of Covid or climate change. Maybe you can tell us in your own words why capitalism needs to be changed because of the Covid. Lets hear your arguments in favor of this.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 07:45:40 AM »
The debunk article which claimed it was false that the World Economic Forum wanted us to own nothing was clearly a lie. The WEF authored a Forbes article about it:

That's the exact same article the Reuters piece discussed, and I linked to it a few posts back. You haven't discovered anything new here; you're just revealing that you haven't been paying attention to the things you're responding to. So, like the Reuters piece said, the existence of that article does not mean that the scenario described therein is a "goal" for the WEF or something they've set an "agenda" for, and like I said, the scenario is impossible with today's technology.

Are you talking about this Reuters article?

The Reuters link is talking about a video. The Forbes article is neither linked or mentioned in the Reuters article at all. That's incorrect. The Forbes article is clearly trying to sell us the concept as a utopia, and goes into it with more depth than the video did, which represented it as a prediction. They like the concept enough that they are making videos and writing articles about it, and imagining a society based on the concept.

At the bottom of the Forbes article it says that it was written ahead of their annual meeting

This blog was written ahead of the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting of the Global Future Councils.

Ida Auken is a Young Global Leader and Member of the Global Future Council on Cities and Urbanization of the World Economic Forum,

The person who wrote that article is a Danish Politician and former Minister of the Environment:

Other articles on the site talk about it as well. That's what all of the "changing capitalism" stuff is about.

Among its predictions in the Forbes article it predicts that transportation costs will drop:

First communication became digitized and free to everyone. Then, when clean energy became free, things started to move quickly. Transportation dropped dramatically in price.

In another article about the Fourth Industrial Revolution by Klaus Schwab it's making similar predictions:

The Fourth Industrial Revolution: what it means, how to respond
Klaus Schwab
Founder and Executive Chairman, World Economic Forum


In the future, technological innovation will also lead to a supply-side miracle, with long-term gains in efficiency and productivity. Transportation and communication costs will drop, logistics and global supply chains will become more effective, and the cost of trade will diminish, all of which will open new markets and drive economic growth.


The Fourth Industrial Revolution, finally, will change not only what we do but also who we are. It will affect our identity and all the issues associated with it: our sense of privacy, our notions of ownership, our consumption patterns, the time we devote to work and leisure, and how we develop our careers, cultivate our skills, meet people, and nurture relationships. It is already changing our health and leading to a “quantified” self, and sooner than we think it may lead to human augmentation. The list is endless because it is bound only by our imagination.

- Supply-side miracle = Robots will make everything
- Low Transportation Cost = Automated drones and cars
- Sense of Privacy = Loss of Privacy
- Notions of Ownership = Ownership not as important

Same themes as the Forbes article. Not a coincidence. And mastermind Klaus Schwab wrote this article himself. Straight from the horse's mouth. The difference between that Forbes article and this one is that it is apparent that Schwab is being a bit vague about the specifics. But it's apparent that the other lady is stating the same vision.

Schwab and Co. keep going on and on about how we need to "reset capitalism" and an endless array of similar phrases. They are clearly seeking radical change.

An Australian Senator also interprets the aims of the WEF as extreme:

The Great Reset is ‘crazy, kooky stuff’ which aims for ‘no private property by 2030’
November 17, 2020 - 23:18PM

Nationals Senator Matt Canavan says the World Economic Forum’s plan for the Great Reset is “crazy, kooky stuff”.

Mr Canavan said the Forum recently released a video clip outlining that by 2030, “they don’t want anyone to own property”.

“You’ll own no property and you’ll be happier apparently,” he said.

“This stuff is crazy, kooky stuff.

According to his bio he's an Australian Senator, an Economist, and former Minister of Resources. How is it that he understands that the material they produce represents what they want and what this is but you don't?

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 16, 2021, 12:19:26 AM »
The debunk article which claimed it was false that the World Economic Forum wanted us to own nothing was clearly a lie. The WEF authored a Forbes article about it:

Quote from: World Economic Forum
Welcome To 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy And Life Has Never Been Better
World Economic Forum

Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city - or should I say, "our city." I don't own anything. I don't own a car. I don't own a house. I don't own any appliances or any clothes.

It might seem odd to you, but it makes perfect sense for us in this city. Everything you considered a product, has now become a service. We have access to transportation, accommodation, food and all the things we need in our daily lives. One by one all these things became free, so it ended up not making sense for us to own much.

Really, how do you make food free?

Some kind of crazy communist or socialist scheme, undoubtedly.

They also want us to have no privacy. They put that right in the title. What an attractive plan for us.

Living arrangements will be shared:

Quote from: World Economic Forum
In our city we don't pay any rent, because someone else is using our free space whenever we do not need it. My living room is used for business meetings when I am not there.

Real practical. As if anyone wants to hold their business meeting in someone's living room, or that people want to have their living rooms look like a meeting room. I guess in our new life we're going to be living in office spaces and letting our masters know when we're leaving the premises or want to schedule time in the communal make-shift living room. It seems from that quote of having people use free living space when not needed that they want us to share bathrooms and kitchens too. Exciting.

At the bottom of this page from the World Leaders part at the bottom that the Presidents of China, France, the European Commission, South Africa, South Korea, Chancellor of Germany, the Secretary General of the UN, Prime Minister of Italy, and Prime Minister of Japan are all interested in implementing the utopian visions of this insane organization for us, as well as Joe Biden and Prince Phillip when he was alive, as we saw on the previous page.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 05:42:23 PM »
Tom spends alot of time on current trends of a capitalist society.

What he calls "communism" is actually just extreme capitalism.

Ever heard of a car lease?  Its a great way for dealerships to make money by having you "rent" a car and giving you another one after a period of time, all while ensuring you never stop paying a monthly fee that is equal to or higher than a car loan.  And you don't own the car at the end of the period. (Unless you buy it which will cost more than its worth)
And if you don't want it, they sell it as a used car.  Its a win-win for capitalism! (Just not consumers)

From the consumer's point of view that's pretty close to communism. Under communism the state owns everything. In this case it's just a matter of defining the big businesses as 'the government'. And seeing as the World Economic Forum comprises of big companies conspiring with world leaders to reshape the economy and the nature of capitalism, 'because of Covid', those businesses basically are the governing body.

They also want to reinvent capitalism to make "society" a stakeholder, suspiciously like the underlying ideas of communism/fascism of years past.

See this on the Great Reset from the Foundation for Economic Education:

Leaders of the World Economic Forum are seeking to implement a Great Reset of capitalism whereby “global stakeholders” cooperate to achieve “shared goals.” In the true spirit of not letting a crisis go to waste, they see the COVID-19 pandemic as presenting a unique opportunity to push their agenda.

"The level of cooperation and ambition this implies is unprecedented. But it is not some impossible dream," World Economic Forum Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab recently observed. "In fact, one silver lining of the pandemic is that it has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles."

Of course, when they say “our lifestyles” they mean your lifestyle, not their own. Their preferred vehicle for achieving their goals is other people’s businesses. In short, what they want is for private businesses to serve the interests of their own curated list of stakeholders rather than (as they see it) concentrating on returning profits to business owners. They want governments to pass laws and tax regimes to cajole businesses towards their favored ends. Since this arrangement still involves a modicum of private ownership of the means of production, they call it “Stakeholder Capitalism.”

It is important to recognize the subversive use of language here. Such a system is all about sidelining the true stakeholders, and undermining capitalism. This is Orwellian Newspeak at its best, since it misuses the word “stakeholder” and is actually closer to economic fascism than capitalism.


Why Stakeholder Capitalism Is Socially Destructive

When global re-setters insist that “all” stakeholders should be represented, what they really mean is “I neither eat pizza nor help to produce pizza… but WHAT IS THE PIZZA SHOP DOING FOR ME?!”

It is a boldfaced attempt to substitute the interests of non-stakeholders for the interests of stakeholders, using surreptitious language to blur the line.

“Society as a whole” has no unified goal, and if it did there would be no way to ascertain what it was. So those who try to install “society” as a stakeholder in the activities of corporations, are eager to insert their own goals and interests.

Murray Rothbard puts it well:

    "Whenever someone begins to talk about ‘society’ or ‘society’s’ interest coming before ‘mere individuals and their interest,’ a good operative rule is: guard your pocketbook. And guard yourself! Because behind the facade of ‘society,’ there is always a group of power-hungry doctrinaires and exploiters, ready to take your money and to order your actions and your life. For, somehow, they ‘are’ society!"


A system that replaces the goals of true stakeholders with the iron will of ruling elites, which retains nominal private ownership, but uses government force to pressure firms to serve centrally determined goals, looks and smells an awful lot like economic fascism.


Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 02:13:51 AM »
The "debunk" admits that it's a video from the WEF, but suggests that it's unrelated to what the WEF actually wants. The WEF was asked about it and they said it was just what might happen "for better or worse". Wow, compelling. ::)

On its site the WEF is literally calling for wealth redistribution, reformation of capitalism, and government provided incomes:

"Wealth needs to be more broadly redistributed"

"Governments will need to intervene more to ensure better and fairer outcomes from private sector investments"

"Capitalism as we know it needs to be reformed"

"Capitalism and socialism will need to merge"

"Wealth has become abundant, thanks to capitalism, but it now needs to be more broadly redistributed, as socialists have long called for."

"In the new institutional context, governments will need to intervene more to ensure better and fairer outcomes from private sector investments. One way this can be done is by introducing a universal basic income (UBI) funded by taxing wealth and passive income, and by making better use of public savings."

One article is titled:

And you are arguing that their video was just an example of what might happen "for better or worse" and is totally unrelated to what these extremists actually want?

The World Economics Forum thinks that maybe that Karl Marx guy was right after all:

The Nation -

Strange as it may seem, debates on the dangers of rising income inequality are now de rigueur at the annual gathering of the global business elite at this snowbound Swiss mountain resort. During this year’s four-day meeting of the World Economic Forum, 2,600 corporate CEOs, investment bankers, fund managers and assorted social and intellectual entrepreneurs brainstormed and networked frantically during the day. Then, by night, they slithered from party to party in the old tuberculosis sanitariums—now five-star wellness hotels—along the ice-covered promenade.

More than half the 1,200 investors, analysts and traders consulted in a Bloomberg poll published on the eve of the summit agreed that inequality damages economic growth. “Marx was right; capitalism creates obstacles to its own advancement,” said Roubini. The audience nodded in agreement and then headed off for sessions on new investment opportunities in “frontier markets” like Mongolia and Azerbaijan.

Economist -

The World Economic Forum’s annual jamboree in Davos, Switzerland, might well be retitled “Marx was right”.

They have a video titled: Can You Rent Everything You Need in Life?

So is this actually something that they don't want? They are clearly trying to sell us on it.

Based on their other materials these aren't actually extreme communists or socialists producing these ideas?

Be honest. It's a video with 143 likes and 2.3K dislikes. Maybe everyone who watched the video just took it the wrong way and the WEF is really promoting things that they don't want but 'may' happen?

Maybe it will work this time.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You
« on: July 15, 2021, 12:16:38 AM »
From Professor of Economics Dr. Antony P. Mueller at the Misses Institute:

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

Individual liberty is at risk again. What may lie ahead was projected in November 2016 when the WEF published “8 Predictions for the World in 2030.” According to the WEF’s scenario, the world will become quite a different place from now because how people work and live will undergo a profound change. The scenario for the world in 2030 is more than just a forecast. It is a plan whose implementation has accelerated drastically since with the announcement of a pandemic and the consequent lockdowns.

According to the projections of the WEF’s “Global Future Councils,” private property and privacy will be abolished during the next decade. The coming expropriation would go further than even the communist demand to abolish the property of production goods but leave space for private possessions. The WEF projection says that consumer goods, too, would be no longer private property.


In a promotional video, the World Economic Forum summarizes the eight predictions in the following statements:

- People will own nothing. Goods are either free of charge or must be lent from the state.
- The United States will no longer be the leading superpower, but a handful of countries will dominate.
- Organs will not be transplanted but printed.
- Meat consumption will be minimized.
- Massive displacement of people will take place with billions of refugees.
- To limit the emission of carbon dioxide, a global price will be set at an exorbitant level.
- People can prepare to go to Mars and start a journey to find alien life.
- Western values will be tested to the breaking point..



The World Economic Forum and its related institutions in combination with a handful of governments and a few high-tech companies want to lead the world into a new era without property or privacy. Values like individualism, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are at stake, to be repudiated in favor of collectivism and the imposition of a “common good” that is defined by the self-proclaimed elite of technocrats. What is sold to the public as the promise of equality and ecological sustainability is in fact a brutal assault on human dignity and liberty. Instead of using the new technologies as an instrument of betterment, the Great Reset seeks to use the technological possibilities as a tool of enslavement. In this new world order, the state is the single owner of everything. It is left to our imagination to figure out who will program the algorithms that manage the distribution of the goods and services.

World leaders on board:

World leaders pledge a ‘great reset’ after the pandemic

Klaus Schwab, WEF’s founder and executive chairman, invoked the need to help provoke a “great reset” around the world in the wake of the pandemic. “The covid-19 crisis has shown us that our old systems are not fit anymore for the 21st century,” he said in a podcast ahead of events this week.


Faced with these grim conclusions, world leaders, at least rhetorically, rose to the occasion. French President Emmanuel Macron declared Tuesday that “we will get out of this pandemic only with an economy that thinks more about fighting inequalities.


“The capitalist model together with this open economy can no longer work in this environment,” said Macron.

Kristalina Georgieva, managing director of the International Monetary Fund — a global institution once synonymous with neoliberalism — said that “unless capitalism globally brings people closer together, we won’t be winners after this crisis.” She added that the pandemic had widened the gap between wealthy and poorer nations and that global cooperation on addressing a crisis that knew no borders was “not up to par.”

Those sentiments were echoed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who once more used her bully pulpit at Davos to decry nationalism and called attention to the new challenges posed by unequal vaccine distribution around the world. “Let’s not kid ourselves: The question of who gets which vaccine in the world will of course leave new wounds and new memories, because those who get such emergency help will remember that,” she said.

Treaudu on board too: Coronavirus: Trudeau tells UN conference that pandemic provided "opportunity for a reset"

Prince Charles was a big proponent, top execs:

Introducing the 'Great Reset,' world leaders' radical plan to transform the economy


Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP.

Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset.

Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.

Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans.

To defeat the Covid we are now getting rid of capitalism and transitioning to a socialist world where private property is abolished. How exciting everyone.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 409  Next >