Thank you for your opinion Ben. Whilst I do my best to unravel the bigger picture (from as many publicly available sources of information possible) by interpolating what I can from within all of the noise, I am certainly no expert. Therefore, please bear with me and my assumptions.
1. Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda, and that the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards?
2. What are the end goals of the plan in your opinion?
3. How sure, as a percentage out of 100, do you feel about your 'rabbit hole'?
I will come back with a lot more once I more fully understand what you are specifically alluding to, if you like.
>> "Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda..."
No. The agenda is quite plain to see. If one cares to look.
>> "the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards"
No. They were reckless, and have created a mess, which is far outside their understanding or control.
>> "What are the end goals of the plan...?"
I dont think it's a plan. I think it's ideology, sometimes appearing as plans or projects with particular intentions, such as lawfare and parts of ESG. I think it will end up in more chaos. The agenda is incoherent. It has no tests in reality. It has no democratic legitimacy. It is bound to failure.
>> "Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda..."
No. The agenda is quite plain to see. If one cares to look.
"The question you have in front of you, Alice, is how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go to understand why this government, and the other parties of recent governments are so bent on this agenda?
It's not a matter of PMs being hoodwinked by scientists and their modelling exercises. It's not a simple matter of there being insufficient scrutiny of policy. It's not even a simple matter of a cascade of accidental policy failures."
>>> You finished with this mysterious allusion to something(s) more than all that you have mentioned in your reply. I'm trying to cut through the cryptic ending which, from your reply, you would say refers to a collective 'ideology'? Please don't take offence, but wouldn't it be easier to communicate that at the end, rather than Alice?
Further, are you also saying that you don't believe any UK government - past or present (or any, really) - has ever developed, funded and then attempted to implement covert policies (agendas)?
>> "the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards"
No. They were reckless, and have created a mess, which is far outside their understanding or control.
>>> This is something that I really struggle with. I'm frightened to think of how low into the depths of apathy I would need to slide, or how much distortion to my world view would come of the cognitive dissonance required by my brain, to be able to process the following, non-exhaustive list, as just happenstance.. ever increasing percentage of bad policy outcomes/wasted tax-payer money; evidence of gov corruption; off-shore bank accounts; publicly recorded crimes committed by trusted reps; flagrant dishonesty; media collusion; and 'vip lane' style corporate venality.
Does it make me a conspiracy nut to think that thinktank's hadn't 'thought it all up' beforehand? No. Do I think that there is a load of recklessness, incompetence, hubris and compromat playing a part of it all? Yes, I do think the individuals operate exclusive of the collective and fuck things up or get them right even. But, I have little reason from the evidence available, publicly, to think that there are far more nefarious, unknown agendas being pursued under convenient guises. One example is COVID19 & mRNA experimentation disguised as a very deadly pandemic.
In this context, though, I believe that 'mismanagement' would be far too kind. Outside of 'their' understanding.. well, I just don't know who you mean exactly?
As for understanding the implications of closing our largest NATGAS storage facility just a few years back, it like asking whether I think for a second that neo-liberalism (the ideology and the proponents) might have been a little too 'pollyanna' when delivering the short term savings (if there were any) of such a move. Do I think that the plausibility of our elite calculating for a conflict over Ukraine (and inherent supply issues) was high enough at the time to be considerable as a national security priority? Well, the answer ben is also a "yes".
And that's just the most salient example of 'poor' forward planning, pumping the oligarchs and elites bank accounts on one hand, crushing the rest as it leads the UK further down a road to Malthusian inevitability.
But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe that's something worth trying to disprove, to?
>> "What are the end goals of the plan...?"
I dont think it's a plan. I think it's ideology, sometimes appearing as plans or projects with particular intentions, such as lawfare and parts of ESG. I think it will end up in more chaos. The agenda is incoherent. It has no tests in reality. It has no democratic legitimacy. It is bound to failure.
>>> Again, I don't know whether you are referring to successive administrations, PMs, or whom?
I will just simplify here for brevity and say that, ultimately, all of the chaos is likely derivative of some key problems (and many, many others).
- governing complexity on a scale beyond human emotional & intellectual capabilities;
- technology evolving far too fast for our species;
- power, greed & the biological drive for gene dominance;
- existentialism;
- and so on.
From this basis, I can only say that power has evolved to dominate. Once power structures are established, the object (from ev biology) is to maintain dominance. It's oversimplified ofc, but I think the chaos and incoherence you correctly identify is more symptomatic of what happens when power attempts the application of simplistic & self-serving solutions to enormously complex problems. Rinsed and repeated to the point of de-humanised cynical technocracy (today) - again, very simplified.
>> "How sure...".
Nothing I've said is untrue, is it?
>>> Well, I haven't detected any factoids, but I would need to get acquainted with your hole, as previously mentioned above, to be in a position to best discern your 'truth'.
You seem quite angry in your writing. I hope its a salve, your writing, and not who you are in everyday life because then you have already lost your battle...
You seem preoccupied with the 'rabbit hole' point. I don't claim anything is secret. All the information I have obtained and reproduced here is in the public domain.
I have only so much time to read long passage of text which don't make their point clear, and which dwell on nebulous ev.psych. You might say, "but you wrote a long piece above", which is true, but you don't have to read it.
And your closing paragraphs, to the extent that I can follow the sense in them, do not suggest as much a desire for a good faith discussion as an attempt to psychologise yours truly. So I will indulge it no more.
Thank you for your opinion Ben. Whilst I do my best to unravel the bigger picture (from as many publicly available sources of information possible) by interpolating what I can from within all of the noise, I am certainly no expert. Therefore, please bear with me and my assumptions.
1. Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda, and that the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards?
2. What are the end goals of the plan in your opinion?
3. How sure, as a percentage out of 100, do you feel about your 'rabbit hole'?
I will come back with a lot more once I more fully understand what you are specifically alluding to, if you like.
>> "Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda..."
No. The agenda is quite plain to see. If one cares to look.
>> "the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards"
No. They were reckless, and have created a mess, which is far outside their understanding or control.
>> "What are the end goals of the plan...?"
I dont think it's a plan. I think it's ideology, sometimes appearing as plans or projects with particular intentions, such as lawfare and parts of ESG. I think it will end up in more chaos. The agenda is incoherent. It has no tests in reality. It has no democratic legitimacy. It is bound to failure.
>> "How sure...".
Nothing I've said is untrue, is it?
Thanks for your reply, Ben. Please see below.
>> "Are you suggesting that successive govs have a 'secret' agenda..."
No. The agenda is quite plain to see. If one cares to look.
"The question you have in front of you, Alice, is how far down the rabbit hole do you want to go to understand why this government, and the other parties of recent governments are so bent on this agenda?
It's not a matter of PMs being hoodwinked by scientists and their modelling exercises. It's not a simple matter of there being insufficient scrutiny of policy. It's not even a simple matter of a cascade of accidental policy failures."
>>> You finished with this mysterious allusion to something(s) more than all that you have mentioned in your reply. I'm trying to cut through the cryptic ending which, from your reply, you would say refers to a collective 'ideology'? Please don't take offence, but wouldn't it be easier to communicate that at the end, rather than Alice?
Further, are you also saying that you don't believe any UK government - past or present (or any, really) - has ever developed, funded and then attempted to implement covert policies (agendas)?
>> "the chaos you opine on is a result of what is being worked towards"
No. They were reckless, and have created a mess, which is far outside their understanding or control.
>>> This is something that I really struggle with. I'm frightened to think of how low into the depths of apathy I would need to slide, or how much distortion to my world view would come of the cognitive dissonance required by my brain, to be able to process the following, non-exhaustive list, as just happenstance.. ever increasing percentage of bad policy outcomes/wasted tax-payer money; evidence of gov corruption; off-shore bank accounts; publicly recorded crimes committed by trusted reps; flagrant dishonesty; media collusion; and 'vip lane' style corporate venality.
Does it make me a conspiracy nut to think that thinktank's hadn't 'thought it all up' beforehand? No. Do I think that there is a load of recklessness, incompetence, hubris and compromat playing a part of it all? Yes, I do think the individuals operate exclusive of the collective and fuck things up or get them right even. But, I have little reason from the evidence available, publicly, to think that there are far more nefarious, unknown agendas being pursued under convenient guises. One example is COVID19 & mRNA experimentation disguised as a very deadly pandemic.
In this context, though, I believe that 'mismanagement' would be far too kind. Outside of 'their' understanding.. well, I just don't know who you mean exactly?
As for understanding the implications of closing our largest NATGAS storage facility just a few years back, it like asking whether I think for a second that neo-liberalism (the ideology and the proponents) might have been a little too 'pollyanna' when delivering the short term savings (if there were any) of such a move. Do I think that the plausibility of our elite calculating for a conflict over Ukraine (and inherent supply issues) was high enough at the time to be considerable as a national security priority? Well, the answer ben is also a "yes".
And that's just the most salient example of 'poor' forward planning, pumping the oligarchs and elites bank accounts on one hand, crushing the rest as it leads the UK further down a road to Malthusian inevitability.
But hey, I could be wrong. Maybe that's something worth trying to disprove, to?
>> "What are the end goals of the plan...?"
I dont think it's a plan. I think it's ideology, sometimes appearing as plans or projects with particular intentions, such as lawfare and parts of ESG. I think it will end up in more chaos. The agenda is incoherent. It has no tests in reality. It has no democratic legitimacy. It is bound to failure.
>>> Again, I don't know whether you are referring to successive administrations, PMs, or whom?
I will just simplify here for brevity and say that, ultimately, all of the chaos is likely derivative of some key problems (and many, many others).
- governing complexity on a scale beyond human emotional & intellectual capabilities;
- technology evolving far too fast for our species;
- power, greed & the biological drive for gene dominance;
- existentialism;
- and so on.
From this basis, I can only say that power has evolved to dominate. Once power structures are established, the object (from ev biology) is to maintain dominance. It's oversimplified ofc, but I think the chaos and incoherence you correctly identify is more symptomatic of what happens when power attempts the application of simplistic & self-serving solutions to enormously complex problems. Rinsed and repeated to the point of de-humanised cynical technocracy (today) - again, very simplified.
>> "How sure...".
Nothing I've said is untrue, is it?
>>> Well, I haven't detected any factoids, but I would need to get acquainted with your hole, as previously mentioned above, to be in a position to best discern your 'truth'.
You seem quite angry in your writing. I hope its a salve, your writing, and not who you are in everyday life because then you have already lost your battle...
Look forward to more, if you want. :)
You seem preoccupied with the 'rabbit hole' point. I don't claim anything is secret. All the information I have obtained and reproduced here is in the public domain.
I have only so much time to read long passage of text which don't make their point clear, and which dwell on nebulous ev.psych. You might say, "but you wrote a long piece above", which is true, but you don't have to read it.
And your closing paragraphs, to the extent that I can follow the sense in them, do not suggest as much a desire for a good faith discussion as an attempt to psychologise yours truly. So I will indulge it no more.