But why do you feel the need to smear people whose thoughtful rebellion against the decline of critical thinking and moral clarity happens to have struck a chord with so many others that they now have strong platforms? Do you really think that Weiss and Peterson are in it for the money?
But why do you feel the need to smear people whose thoughtful rebellion against the decline of critical thinking and moral clarity happens to have struck a chord with so many others that they now have strong platforms? Do you really think that Weiss and Peterson are in it for the money?
Regarding the ARC video, you wrote "It is structured very much like the WEF promos with similar тАШupliftingтАЩ music and stock footage, plus тАШinspiringтАЩ buzzwords at key points."
I just watched them both and was struck not by similarity of presentation style, which is pretty standard and widely used, but by the dramatic difference in content. WEF's is thoroughly technocratic, while ARC's is focused on human values and a rejection of the nihilistic notions that are robbing so many of hope. I'm saddened that erudite people are fostering a bleak outlook. No human venture is perfect, but I can't find any value in demeaning a strong effort to promote positivity. Relentless negativity is killing us.
We may seem тАШnegativeтАЩ but actually, there is joy to be had in rejecting the GloboCap entities and embracing authentic, local groups like the PeopleтАЩs Health Alliance.
Exactly. The World Council For Health are also doing great work in my personal opinion... although I do think they should not have used the word "world" or anything to that effect in their name. Too much of a negative connotation associated with that now imho.
I don't object to critique, and Peterson certainly doesn't either. But the article's conclusions are displaying the negative outlook that diminishes more than enlightens. Following the money is a useful investigative procedure, but implying that the project is about making money is a disappointingly narrow perspective that distracts from a broad understanding.
Respectfully, I thought our conclusion is outlined pretty clearly in the closing paragraphs and even in the sub-heading (the Lenin quote) but maybe it's not so let me make it crystal clear and unambiguous:
The objective of ARC is to be Controlled Opposition capturing the attention and supposedly delivering on the aspirations of the disillusioned conservative (and mostly religious) crowd.
Legatum & Co. definitely don't mind (and even hope) to make bucket loads of money in the process (just like those associated with the WEF do) but the primary objective is, as always, controlling the narrative and simply control in general.
I think the industry funded WEF conspiracy of depopulation and climate change being a hoax to control our every move was deliberately fed to medical freedom and most have sucked it up. This led to support for oil and animal ag in the face of overwhelming negative evidence and the creation of the industry funded ARC and JP who spout climate denial nonsense with tired old tropes.
We're not in danger of being controlled by the WEF nor ARC. We (the US at its vassals) are controlled by industry and US neocons as we always were.
The only way for green policy to work is to make them economical by promoting peace and to go big; just what China is doing. Massive government investment making it the biggest producer of electric vehicles and a transition economically viable. Fortunately the Chinese are not controlled by WEF, ARC nor neocons. A bright future awaits us when we crawl out from under the US thumb and make a place for ourselves in the multipolar world.
Wow! This "expos├й" has drawn out some high-level conspiracy thinking. And the "green" warpage of critical thinking shows the power of propaganda to keep most people from checking the climate doom mantra against the data. Efforts to encourage critical thinking and independent thought face a steep hill in countering the claims of "overwhelming negative evidence". Belief is all you need; data can go hang.
Jeez. I am of course talking about data as evidence. By critical thinking and independent thought are you referring to Jordan Peterson's ridiculous use of a single ice core in the Arctic and Toby Young's amazement at a tiny part of West Antartica that is cooling which they claim debunks climate change? Both men of course being funded by fossil fuels. A steep hill indeed against such powerful lobbyists.
I don't see any point in engaging with conspiracy theorists, especially of the climate cult variety. Do doomsters think that northern folk prefer winter vacations in warm places so they can see what hell awaits if average temperatures eventually rise another degree?
David I think this post is being sarcastic (?) You realise where the term тАШconspiracy theory (thinking)тАЩ originated I hope? ItтАЩs just not helpful to use that cliche anymore tbh. Can you address the evidence presented, rather than post contradictory comments? IтАЩm happy to corresponded personally if you need clarification.
If you're referring to the donny post, I think his reply confirms his cultish belief that it's conspiratorial action from the hydrocarbon industry that is interfering with full adoption of green dogma. I won't waste any more time countering believers who don't bother with general data and can't accept the possibility that they're being misled. Climate4you.com is probably too much information in their book.
David, thanks for your comment, but this also sounds patronising and contradictory. You still haven't answered my question, which I repeat here - what exactly is the 'authentic rebellion' that Peterson refers to, how is it to be funded and who is it 'against'?
BTW, I'll look at the your link you posted, but can see immediately it is written by a single retired Prof based in academia in Norway - presume you know about the impact investment funding the Gov and university receive from Legatum, or maybe you are a beneficiary of it too? Just asking.
I'm not commenting on funding, which I understood to be the focus of your very lengthy post. Knowing I didn't have the time to commit to that and that every venture requires funding, I skipped to the conclusion, only to discover that it started with casting aspersions on Peterson, Weiss, and ARC in general rather than on suspect funders. It's those aspersions that I've focused on and tried to answer your questions.
Im not sure how anyone can hope to comment on any event or entity, without knowing what the source of the funding is? ArenтАЩt those facts entirely central to our ethical standards as human beings? And arenтАЩt the contradictions inherent in Peterson et alтАЩs words, when we know the true intent (impact investment), obviously something we need to address? That is what we are doing here, highlighting the clear hypocrisy and manipulation. But if you are wilfully blind to that truth, then that is no fault of ours.
Knowing something of funding sources isn't worthless, but it's much less important than the substance and veracity of the ideas and discussion that a venture like ARC is promoting. No one gets it right all the time, but this very negative focus on the funding of a new venture looks like an attempt to discredit it and distract from its substance. I don't see value in that.
China has increased its use of coal in the last decade, not decreased it. In fact coal is probably irreplaceable in some industries, such as producing steel.
Hi David, thanks for commenting. Can you explain why you might think that Peterson has a legitimate claim to any 'thoughtful rebellion'? Out of interest, what exactly do you think he thinks he might be 'rebelling' against?
It started with opposing compelled speech, something our "progressive"-dominated federal government imagined to be a good thing. He began to see a hunger for guidance in effective living and making moral choices, a hunger that was especially apparent in young men perplexed and disheartened by a society that too often regarded them as inherently problematic. As he began speaking outside his normal university lectures, he soon found a growing audience, further strengthened after the publication of '12 Rules for Life'.
Considering that he was in Canada's socialist party when a young man, being called a conservative now certainly suggests rebellion against and rejection of socialist dogma (as well as a shift in the political spectrum).
Peterson is a deep thinker well-versed in what psychology research has learned about human nature, which he frequently references in challenging ill-founded notions.
But why do you feel the need to smear people whose thoughtful rebellion against the decline of critical thinking and moral clarity happens to have struck a chord with so many others that they now have strong platforms? Do you really think that Weiss and Peterson are in it for the money?
What I think is irrelevant. The article is all about FACTS which anyone can (and should!) go and verify for themselves.
The Truth does not care the slightest what you, I or anyone else thinks. It's just is.
The financial web behind ARC shows definitively (as Ursula and I have hopefully proven) that what they SAY they are is NOT what they ACTUALLY are.
Regarding the ARC video, you wrote "It is structured very much like the WEF promos with similar тАШupliftingтАЩ music and stock footage, plus тАШinspiringтАЩ buzzwords at key points."
I just watched them both and was struck not by similarity of presentation style, which is pretty standard and widely used, but by the dramatic difference in content. WEF's is thoroughly technocratic, while ARC's is focused on human values and a rejection of the nihilistic notions that are robbing so many of hope. I'm saddened that erudite people are fostering a bleak outlook. No human venture is perfect, but I can't find any value in demeaning a strong effort to promote positivity. Relentless negativity is killing us.
We may seem тАШnegativeтАЩ but actually, there is joy to be had in rejecting the GloboCap entities and embracing authentic, local groups like the PeopleтАЩs Health Alliance.
Exactly. The World Council For Health are also doing great work in my personal opinion... although I do think they should not have used the word "world" or anything to that effect in their name. Too much of a negative connotation associated with that now imho.
I couldn't disagree more about the pompous World Council for Health, industry insiders every one of them https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-healthy-future-does-not-lie-with
Thank you. Going to have a proper read of this before commenting further.
Thank you ЁЯЩПЁЯП╜
David it's not sacrilege to critique Jordan Peterson. I'm quite fond of doing the same.
I don't object to critique, and Peterson certainly doesn't either. But the article's conclusions are displaying the negative outlook that diminishes more than enlightens. Following the money is a useful investigative procedure, but implying that the project is about making money is a disappointingly narrow perspective that distracts from a broad understanding.
Respectfully, I thought our conclusion is outlined pretty clearly in the closing paragraphs and even in the sub-heading (the Lenin quote) but maybe it's not so let me make it crystal clear and unambiguous:
The objective of ARC is to be Controlled Opposition capturing the attention and supposedly delivering on the aspirations of the disillusioned conservative (and mostly religious) crowd.
Legatum & Co. definitely don't mind (and even hope) to make bucket loads of money in the process (just like those associated with the WEF do) but the primary objective is, as always, controlling the narrative and simply control in general.
Hopefully this is clearer.
I think the industry funded WEF conspiracy of depopulation and climate change being a hoax to control our every move was deliberately fed to medical freedom and most have sucked it up. This led to support for oil and animal ag in the face of overwhelming negative evidence and the creation of the industry funded ARC and JP who spout climate denial nonsense with tired old tropes.
We're not in danger of being controlled by the WEF nor ARC. We (the US at its vassals) are controlled by industry and US neocons as we always were.
The only way for green policy to work is to make them economical by promoting peace and to go big; just what China is doing. Massive government investment making it the biggest producer of electric vehicles and a transition economically viable. Fortunately the Chinese are not controlled by WEF, ARC nor neocons. A bright future awaits us when we crawl out from under the US thumb and make a place for ourselves in the multipolar world.
What makes you think China is not controlled by the WEF? You do realise that both Xi and Putin are young global leaders, right?
Xi is an "Agenda contributor" no less.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/xi-jinping/
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/01/address-chinese-president-xi-jinping-2022-world-economic-forum-virtual-session/
https://www.foxnews.com/world/world-economic-forum-chair-klaus-schwab-declares-chinese-state-tv-china-model-many-nations
You do realise that the young global leader program consists of online blah blah and a 2 week networking jolly?
Lots of people have spoken about all sorts of stuff at Klaus Schwab square pant's vanity project. I'm sick of hearing about this nonsense.
Alright. We'll agree to respectfully disagree and end it there... ЁЯЩВ
Wow! This "expos├й" has drawn out some high-level conspiracy thinking. And the "green" warpage of critical thinking shows the power of propaganda to keep most people from checking the climate doom mantra against the data. Efforts to encourage critical thinking and independent thought face a steep hill in countering the claims of "overwhelming negative evidence". Belief is all you need; data can go hang.
Jeez. I am of course talking about data as evidence. By critical thinking and independent thought are you referring to Jordan Peterson's ridiculous use of a single ice core in the Arctic and Toby Young's amazement at a tiny part of West Antartica that is cooling which they claim debunks climate change? Both men of course being funded by fossil fuels. A steep hill indeed against such powerful lobbyists.
I have the data; your belief in these numbnuts and industry propaganda can go hang https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/climate-change-hasnt-been-debunked
I don't see any point in engaging with conspiracy theorists, especially of the climate cult variety. Do doomsters think that northern folk prefer winter vacations in warm places so they can see what hell awaits if average temperatures eventually rise another degree?
Omg congrats on posting such entertaining comments. (Did you really just say тАШengaging with conspiracy theoristsтАЩ?!)
David I think this post is being sarcastic (?) You realise where the term тАШconspiracy theory (thinking)тАЩ originated I hope? ItтАЩs just not helpful to use that cliche anymore tbh. Can you address the evidence presented, rather than post contradictory comments? IтАЩm happy to corresponded personally if you need clarification.
If you're referring to the donny post, I think his reply confirms his cultish belief that it's conspiratorial action from the hydrocarbon industry that is interfering with full adoption of green dogma. I won't waste any more time countering believers who don't bother with general data and can't accept the possibility that they're being misled. Climate4you.com is probably too much information in their book.
David, thanks for your comment, but this also sounds patronising and contradictory. You still haven't answered my question, which I repeat here - what exactly is the 'authentic rebellion' that Peterson refers to, how is it to be funded and who is it 'against'?
BTW, I'll look at the your link you posted, but can see immediately it is written by a single retired Prof based in academia in Norway - presume you know about the impact investment funding the Gov and university receive from Legatum, or maybe you are a beneficiary of it too? Just asking.
I'm not commenting on funding, which I understood to be the focus of your very lengthy post. Knowing I didn't have the time to commit to that and that every venture requires funding, I skipped to the conclusion, only to discover that it started with casting aspersions on Peterson, Weiss, and ARC in general rather than on suspect funders. It's those aspersions that I've focused on and tried to answer your questions.
Im not sure how anyone can hope to comment on any event or entity, without knowing what the source of the funding is? ArenтАЩt those facts entirely central to our ethical standards as human beings? And arenтАЩt the contradictions inherent in Peterson et alтАЩs words, when we know the true intent (impact investment), obviously something we need to address? That is what we are doing here, highlighting the clear hypocrisy and manipulation. But if you are wilfully blind to that truth, then that is no fault of ours.
Knowing something of funding sources isn't worthless, but it's much less important than the substance and veracity of the ideas and discussion that a venture like ARC is promoting. No one gets it right all the time, but this very negative focus on the funding of a new venture looks like an attempt to discredit it and distract from its substance. I don't see value in that.
China has increased its use of coal in the last decade, not decreased it. In fact coal is probably irreplaceable in some industries, such as producing steel.
yes it has.
Imagine a world with 8 billion cars and 8 billion humans.
Which part of that is unsupportable, whether EV or ICE?
Your conclusion starts out with demeaning Weiss and Peterson. Why is that? Your insinuations are opinion.
Hi David, thanks for commenting. Can you explain why you might think that Peterson has a legitimate claim to any 'thoughtful rebellion'? Out of interest, what exactly do you think he thinks he might be 'rebelling' against?
https://open.substack.com/pub/informedheart/p/more-musings-on-legatum?r=q9aq0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web incidentally, I've just published another post with further info about Legatum (ARC) here: https://open.substack.com/pub/informedheart/p/more-musings-on-legatum?r=q9aq0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
It started with opposing compelled speech, something our "progressive"-dominated federal government imagined to be a good thing. He began to see a hunger for guidance in effective living and making moral choices, a hunger that was especially apparent in young men perplexed and disheartened by a society that too often regarded them as inherently problematic. As he began speaking outside his normal university lectures, he soon found a growing audience, further strengthened after the publication of '12 Rules for Life'.
Considering that he was in Canada's socialist party when a young man, being called a conservative now certainly suggests rebellion against and rejection of socialist dogma (as well as a shift in the political spectrum).
Peterson is a deep thinker well-versed in what psychology research has learned about human nature, which he frequently references in challenging ill-founded notions.
Still waiting for an answer to my question, in light of the evidence we have summarised about the ARC claims. ?