In 1968, Buckminster Fuller published ‘Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth‘ — a book detailing humanity sailing through space aboard a planetary vessel requiring careful management of finite resources.
Our ‘benevolent masters’ have spent all this time attempting to eliminate human unpredictability - why would they want to replace it with a computer version of same?
What they want is a predictable output given inputs. AGI doesn’t deliver that.
AI/AGI appears to lead into delusion and psychopathy for some. As its use increases, perhaps it fosters that for many.
It is reasonable to conclude that these tools (a multiplicity now appear in place) also foster a double "benefit"...one being the eugenic 'final solution'?
Also rarely discussed, AGI would run on electricity which runs on coal and the mining industry which is on land somewhere. This is controlled or owned by people - spiders web types most likely on the board of Merryl Lynch.
@Thumbnail: Also rarely discussed is that Money is the root of much good! It promotes trade, abundance, and harmony! A fact the Godly Pilgrims’ Governor Thomas Bradford discovered in 1600s New England, America. (According to his diary!) He first tried a [Marxist-style] collectivist economy, i.e., a "From each according to ability to each according to his needs,” which brought Disharmony and Death! (As later demonstrated by 110 million+ commie deaths!) So Gov. Bradford switched to a free-market style economy, which brought harmony, abundance, and wealth! (And our first Thanksgiving!) (According to his diary!) As
[1 Timothy 6:10] tells us: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Without God, it's just a Hell on earth world, so live with it!
God being love and a state without fear, yes good advice however money tied to usury is theft and becomes a lure to the path away from spirit into the preoccupation with form. Of itself money is neutral but oh does it foster neutrality I think not. I get your point though.
You are a true hero, we need to feed this information to all the fence sitters in an easy to understand way to get them interested enough to start their own deep dives. Most importantly we must say no to the Digital ID and any attempt to get the CBDC implemented. Total surveillance is the name of the game of the one world order crowd administered via an AI Technocracy and tell us how wonderful it would be to fool us. The western world is being invaded and this is part of the takeover plan. So many are waking up so they are all in right now via geo engineering depopulation agendas and brainwashing school children to believe CCBS. JUST SAY NO
Great summary that is easily understood, thanks, this is a useful summary to give to people who don't fully understand what is happening.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
“The machines will do what we ask them to do and not what we ought to ask them to do.”
I understand that the current leadership really doesn't give a crap about anything humanitarian.
As long as they lead, none of these policies are useful to people and will be used to curtail their rights as has happened since the UN was established.
However, right now there's an open genocide going on with the USA and most of the security council playing dumb with blaming Hamas. It's beyond reproach to blame Hamas now.
What does that show? You would think if these clowns were serious about human rights, they would have some power to at least get a cease fire.
Nope, all we got was a court show that didn't change a thing.
What's the point of this among a population that no longer blindly supports our genocidal ally whether due to humanitarian or economic means?
I feel like it's by design to usher in the next order, much like the UN came about because of the horrors of WW2.
In that case, would they continue with the same unliked policies that they pushed before the genocide?
Perhaps not.... And yes, this means they intend to hijack the people's trust but these days people aren't as stupid as people in the past were.
Remember, even liberals were against gay marriage even in the 90s....
A ship at sea requires an all powerful captain for the ship to survive. Those who want to be emperor of the planet for the sake of their own power LUST want you to think they are in a similar position to be captain of the Planet.
With AI they plan to make that arrogant delusion look real. Little problems: no one knows the resources of the planet and no one knows what resources future technology will need. No one has "captain of ship" knowledge of the planet. No one can steer the earth, alter its spin, change its tilt, etc. like a helmsman can steer a ship.
We have allowed a ruling class of power lusters to begin to commandeer humanity for their own gratification in the name of treating the planet like a ship at sea. Buckminster Fuller was far too intelligent and well informed not to know this. After all, in his books he called the Globalists, the GREAT PIRATES who use sea power to create the British Empire which they rather obviously have attempted to morph into World Government.
He noted that by mastering the seas the Great Pirates obliterated the idea of a near infinite planet to be explored and shared, replacing it with a finite thing that could be controlled.
Ships at sea need guidance, just like people on earth! I.e., why God Jesus gave us the Bible [and his blood to save and guide us!] We can always dump the compass and navigate on feelings, can't we!
Very nice big picture exposition. Nobody else I know of does it as well as you do.
I recently met a young US Airforce pilot who's training to fly F16 fighter jets. When I asked him what it was like, he said "I'm basically a sensor manager."
So much of our world is now monitored with ubiquitous sensors and as you point out the parameters are then silently evaluated by the hidden algorithms.
To be honest, this process isn’t unique to SDGs or even government agencies planning. This is standard practice in every field.
Eg corporations set goals for how much profit they want to make, they compare to baseline (current year or previous year), they monitor sales data and expenses data monthly / weekly to see if the business is on track to hit that target; they adjust their business operations if it doesn’t seem on track. Eg getting more efficient software or better marketing.
If you set up a small bakery in your local town, you would do the same for your bakery - make sure you are earning enough to pay overheads and hopefully also a bit of profit so you can afford your a house one day. That does require tracking and monitoring. And it can be stressful!
Same if you’re trying to train for a marathon and haven’t done much running before. You’d do the same - set a goal, compare to baseline, track performance, adjust based on how you’re going. You don’t need biometrics to do this for yourself but occasionally an excel spreadsheet can help lol
Although of course I agree if you’re doing planning for more than just yourself and your family, you do need to decide collaboratively with others what your goals and targets are, how you want to keep track/check in on them, what kind of tech is acceptable to do this for what kind of thing etc.
EG if I want birds to return to my neighbourhood and so do my neighbours, we might agree that monitoring via morning five-minute bird counts from our gardens is acceptable (ie just listen with your ears and count!), taking pics of birds is ok to ID them , but remote sensing tech /drones are not because emfs etc . And we might collaboratively agree actions to help achieve that goal eg planting more flowers, bushes, trees in our backyards for bird food/shelter etc. We do need to have a baseline and some kind of consistency in when /how we track (time of day, season, duration of bird count, location) to compare data across time.
So this is all to say - having goals and targets isn’t bad (we all do it), and keeping track of stuff isn’t bad, it’s just when you have no way in the matter that it’s bad.
Yes, individuals and small groups set goals, track progress, and adjust based on feedback. But that's fundamentally different from applying corporate-style KPIs to entire societies through externalized, non-democratic enforcement mechanisms.
Running a budget for your bakery is about you managing your own resources. But when international institutions—often unelected and unaccountable—set global goals, define the indicators, determine the thresholds, and build automated systems to trigger interventions, it's no longer “goal-setting.” It’s governance by algorithm, often without local input or democratic consent.
More importantly, when the financier sets the metrics, the data flows one way. It’s not collaborative, it’s contractual. It’s no longer about what we value — it’s about what they measure.
The issue isn't goal-setting or tracking per se. It's who sets the goals, who defines the thresholds, and who benefits from the outcomes being measured.
Am I missing something? You seem to be saying that both the triggers and the mandated interventions are explicitly part of the SDGs- can you point to these aspects in an SDG doc from the UN or WEF.
I’m asking about the interventions, not the indicators. Your article makes it sound like it’s a fact that the indicators are used to measure “progress” AND that there’s a particular point considered failure, which is the trigger for interventions. I’ve seen plenty of specific indicators - how they measure progress towards the SDGs, but where are the definitions of the triggers and the following mandated interventions? Perhaps you were painting a picture via the overall pattern and global knowledge but cannot literally point to interventions spelled out in black and white? I don’t particularly doubt that the powers that be are aiming towards such interventions (eg. “Global wealth redistribution,” or individual carbon allowance) but I am doubting that the documents state that these interventions are required consequences automatically triggered by reference points in the indicators.
you're narrowing the frame too much. your argument is based on demanding a line that says, “If indicator X is not met, intervention Y must occur.” But that’s not how global governance functions - especially the UN.
the power of SDG-linked indicators isn’t that they mechanically trigger interventions like a vending machine; it’s that they justify and normalise them within a feedback system that makes intervention appear inevitable, rational, and moral - a soft-power structure more dangerous precisely because it avoids hard codification.
look at the Pandemic Treaty drafts, the Global Biodiversity Framework, or the World Bank’s Results-Based Financing. They all treat SDG-aligned indicators as operational inputs for funding decisions, regulatory nudges, or even legal harmonisation. No need for a single clause to say “trigger = intervention” — the whole architecture is built on institutional discretion guided by indicator dashboards, and not through serving what is in effect straight up admission, which can be used agains toyu.
I paint a picture based on system logic. It's not speculative — it’s grounded in how adaptive management, performance-based financing, and algorithmic governance actually function.
Yes I understand all that. Yet, there’s a difference between saying the above in your reply here and saying it’s written in black and white and I thought your piece overall sounded like it was saying the latter but glad to understand it was not.
there isn’t a meaningful difference — and framing it that way obscures how enforcement actually works. The point is that “black and white” doesn’t mean a single clause in a UN charter; it means enforceable conditions embedded in financing instruments, contracts, and funding policies — which are written, binding, and operational.
this is how the UN and its partners function: through systems of soft coercion embedded in conditional finance, performance verification, and access control — not through overt mandates. if that architecture isn’t recognized as “black and white,” it’s only because people are looking in the wrong places.
you might want to look into how the UNFCCC and CBD introduced “soft law” enforcement mechanisms as early as the 1990s — it’s the same playbook.
"The people who set the reference values that triggered everything remain invisible behind layers of technical complexity and institutional obscurity."
The circularity of the logic in place is and remains the fallacy in the room while a social ratchet is continually wound, which is a required result ensuring the end point of tyranny.
It all has a contrived feel and the sense of a model playing out in an attempt to achieve or obtain validation.
The relative simplicity of circumstance and tyranny that played out in the French Revolution will repeat, must repeat, even as an invisible cabal betray themselves now, revealing their fragility by clinging for survival to their invisibility.
The withdrawal of social license and submission to government is the winning card that will some day play, the card of the loser with nothing left to lose. Then the real game is on, to hunt down and exterminate the parasites...?
Outstanding work. So very clearly lays out the HOW and I like how you reiterate that humans are in charge, none of this ‘AI is sentient’ BS. Thankyou.
AGI is an irrelevance. A red herring.
Our ‘benevolent masters’ have spent all this time attempting to eliminate human unpredictability - why would they want to replace it with a computer version of same?
What they want is a predictable output given inputs. AGI doesn’t deliver that.
AI/AGI appears to lead into delusion and psychopathy for some. As its use increases, perhaps it fosters that for many.
It is reasonable to conclude that these tools (a multiplicity now appear in place) also foster a double "benefit"...one being the eugenic 'final solution'?
That's what this short life is all about, i.e., the "Final Solution", i.e., God's or Satan's.
Also rarely discussed, AGI would run on electricity which runs on coal and the mining industry which is on land somewhere. This is controlled or owned by people - spiders web types most likely on the board of Merryl Lynch.
@Thumbnail: Also rarely discussed is that Money is the root of much good! It promotes trade, abundance, and harmony! A fact the Godly Pilgrims’ Governor Thomas Bradford discovered in 1600s New England, America. (According to his diary!) He first tried a [Marxist-style] collectivist economy, i.e., a "From each according to ability to each according to his needs,” which brought Disharmony and Death! (As later demonstrated by 110 million+ commie deaths!) So Gov. Bradford switched to a free-market style economy, which brought harmony, abundance, and wealth! (And our first Thanksgiving!) (According to his diary!) As
[1 Timothy 6:10] tells us: “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Without God, it's just a Hell on earth world, so live with it!
God being love and a state without fear, yes good advice however money tied to usury is theft and becomes a lure to the path away from spirit into the preoccupation with form. Of itself money is neutral but oh does it foster neutrality I think not. I get your point though.
You are a true hero, we need to feed this information to all the fence sitters in an easy to understand way to get them interested enough to start their own deep dives. Most importantly we must say no to the Digital ID and any attempt to get the CBDC implemented. Total surveillance is the name of the game of the one world order crowd administered via an AI Technocracy and tell us how wonderful it would be to fool us. The western world is being invaded and this is part of the takeover plan. So many are waking up so they are all in right now via geo engineering depopulation agendas and brainwashing school children to believe CCBS. JUST SAY NO
But they aren’t and won’t. Not people I work with.
Great summary that is easily understood, thanks, this is a useful summary to give to people who don't fully understand what is happening.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”
“The machines will do what we ask them to do and not what we ought to ask them to do.”
—Norbert Wiener
I understand that the current leadership really doesn't give a crap about anything humanitarian.
As long as they lead, none of these policies are useful to people and will be used to curtail their rights as has happened since the UN was established.
However, right now there's an open genocide going on with the USA and most of the security council playing dumb with blaming Hamas. It's beyond reproach to blame Hamas now.
What does that show? You would think if these clowns were serious about human rights, they would have some power to at least get a cease fire.
Nope, all we got was a court show that didn't change a thing.
What's the point of this among a population that no longer blindly supports our genocidal ally whether due to humanitarian or economic means?
I feel like it's by design to usher in the next order, much like the UN came about because of the horrors of WW2.
In that case, would they continue with the same unliked policies that they pushed before the genocide?
Perhaps not.... And yes, this means they intend to hijack the people's trust but these days people aren't as stupid as people in the past were.
Remember, even liberals were against gay marriage even in the 90s....
It's more just a Satan-inspired world vs. a Creator-inspired world!
What difference does it all make if you wind up in Satan's Hell?
Impossible to understand without acknowledgement of the demon in the machine.
God's Bible can help one understand how hateful evil works, vs how God's love and good works! Check it out!
A ship at sea requires an all powerful captain for the ship to survive. Those who want to be emperor of the planet for the sake of their own power LUST want you to think they are in a similar position to be captain of the Planet.
With AI they plan to make that arrogant delusion look real. Little problems: no one knows the resources of the planet and no one knows what resources future technology will need. No one has "captain of ship" knowledge of the planet. No one can steer the earth, alter its spin, change its tilt, etc. like a helmsman can steer a ship.
We have allowed a ruling class of power lusters to begin to commandeer humanity for their own gratification in the name of treating the planet like a ship at sea. Buckminster Fuller was far too intelligent and well informed not to know this. After all, in his books he called the Globalists, the GREAT PIRATES who use sea power to create the British Empire which they rather obviously have attempted to morph into World Government.
He noted that by mastering the seas the Great Pirates obliterated the idea of a near infinite planet to be explored and shared, replacing it with a finite thing that could be controlled.
Ships at sea need guidance, just like people on earth! I.e., why God Jesus gave us the Bible [and his blood to save and guide us!] We can always dump the compass and navigate on feelings, can't we!
I like I.R.S. better, I Refuse to Submit!
Very nice big picture exposition. Nobody else I know of does it as well as you do.
I recently met a young US Airforce pilot who's training to fly F16 fighter jets. When I asked him what it was like, he said "I'm basically a sensor manager."
So much of our world is now monitored with ubiquitous sensors and as you point out the parameters are then silently evaluated by the hidden algorithms.
To be honest, this process isn’t unique to SDGs or even government agencies planning. This is standard practice in every field.
Eg corporations set goals for how much profit they want to make, they compare to baseline (current year or previous year), they monitor sales data and expenses data monthly / weekly to see if the business is on track to hit that target; they adjust their business operations if it doesn’t seem on track. Eg getting more efficient software or better marketing.
If you set up a small bakery in your local town, you would do the same for your bakery - make sure you are earning enough to pay overheads and hopefully also a bit of profit so you can afford your a house one day. That does require tracking and monitoring. And it can be stressful!
Same if you’re trying to train for a marathon and haven’t done much running before. You’d do the same - set a goal, compare to baseline, track performance, adjust based on how you’re going. You don’t need biometrics to do this for yourself but occasionally an excel spreadsheet can help lol
Although of course I agree if you’re doing planning for more than just yourself and your family, you do need to decide collaboratively with others what your goals and targets are, how you want to keep track/check in on them, what kind of tech is acceptable to do this for what kind of thing etc.
EG if I want birds to return to my neighbourhood and so do my neighbours, we might agree that monitoring via morning five-minute bird counts from our gardens is acceptable (ie just listen with your ears and count!), taking pics of birds is ok to ID them , but remote sensing tech /drones are not because emfs etc . And we might collaboratively agree actions to help achieve that goal eg planting more flowers, bushes, trees in our backyards for bird food/shelter etc. We do need to have a baseline and some kind of consistency in when /how we track (time of day, season, duration of bird count, location) to compare data across time.
So this is all to say - having goals and targets isn’t bad (we all do it), and keeping track of stuff isn’t bad, it’s just when you have no way in the matter that it’s bad.
That's not the same thing at all.
Yes, individuals and small groups set goals, track progress, and adjust based on feedback. But that's fundamentally different from applying corporate-style KPIs to entire societies through externalized, non-democratic enforcement mechanisms.
Running a budget for your bakery is about you managing your own resources. But when international institutions—often unelected and unaccountable—set global goals, define the indicators, determine the thresholds, and build automated systems to trigger interventions, it's no longer “goal-setting.” It’s governance by algorithm, often without local input or democratic consent.
More importantly, when the financier sets the metrics, the data flows one way. It’s not collaborative, it’s contractual. It’s no longer about what we value — it’s about what they measure.
The issue isn't goal-setting or tracking per se. It's who sets the goals, who defines the thresholds, and who benefits from the outcomes being measured.
Thanks for your AI generated response!
I agree. I think this could’ve been made clearer in the original article
heh, i wrote a few sentences, decided it was practically indecipherable and asked 4o to clean it up for me as i was busy elsewhere :)
A message from the cockpit: "I think Man is the most interesting insect on Earth. Don't you?"
--Marvin the Martian, 7:24ff https://youtu.be/R4__2iwAiVY
MAN was made in the image and likeness of God! NOT insects! So live with it!!!
Am I missing something? You seem to be saying that both the triggers and the mandated interventions are explicitly part of the SDGs- can you point to these aspects in an SDG doc from the UN or WEF.
are you serious?
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/indicators-list/
https://www.cfocoalition.org/blueprints/p4-1-3-impact-on-the-sdgs
there are so many of these, but let's have o3 provide a decent range
https://chatgpt.com/share/68900e05-c8e4-8005-9c50-2dc61da4f1e5
I’m asking about the interventions, not the indicators. Your article makes it sound like it’s a fact that the indicators are used to measure “progress” AND that there’s a particular point considered failure, which is the trigger for interventions. I’ve seen plenty of specific indicators - how they measure progress towards the SDGs, but where are the definitions of the triggers and the following mandated interventions? Perhaps you were painting a picture via the overall pattern and global knowledge but cannot literally point to interventions spelled out in black and white? I don’t particularly doubt that the powers that be are aiming towards such interventions (eg. “Global wealth redistribution,” or individual carbon allowance) but I am doubting that the documents state that these interventions are required consequences automatically triggered by reference points in the indicators.
you're narrowing the frame too much. your argument is based on demanding a line that says, “If indicator X is not met, intervention Y must occur.” But that’s not how global governance functions - especially the UN.
the power of SDG-linked indicators isn’t that they mechanically trigger interventions like a vending machine; it’s that they justify and normalise them within a feedback system that makes intervention appear inevitable, rational, and moral - a soft-power structure more dangerous precisely because it avoids hard codification.
look at the Pandemic Treaty drafts, the Global Biodiversity Framework, or the World Bank’s Results-Based Financing. They all treat SDG-aligned indicators as operational inputs for funding decisions, regulatory nudges, or even legal harmonisation. No need for a single clause to say “trigger = intervention” — the whole architecture is built on institutional discretion guided by indicator dashboards, and not through serving what is in effect straight up admission, which can be used agains toyu.
I paint a picture based on system logic. It's not speculative — it’s grounded in how adaptive management, performance-based financing, and algorithmic governance actually function.
Yes I understand all that. Yet, there’s a difference between saying the above in your reply here and saying it’s written in black and white and I thought your piece overall sounded like it was saying the latter but glad to understand it was not.
there isn’t a meaningful difference — and framing it that way obscures how enforcement actually works. The point is that “black and white” doesn’t mean a single clause in a UN charter; it means enforceable conditions embedded in financing instruments, contracts, and funding policies — which are written, binding, and operational.
this is how the UN and its partners function: through systems of soft coercion embedded in conditional finance, performance verification, and access control — not through overt mandates. if that architecture isn’t recognized as “black and white,” it’s only because people are looking in the wrong places.
you might want to look into how the UNFCCC and CBD introduced “soft law” enforcement mechanisms as early as the 1990s — it’s the same playbook.
"The people who set the reference values that triggered everything remain invisible behind layers of technical complexity and institutional obscurity."
The circularity of the logic in place is and remains the fallacy in the room while a social ratchet is continually wound, which is a required result ensuring the end point of tyranny.
It all has a contrived feel and the sense of a model playing out in an attempt to achieve or obtain validation.
The relative simplicity of circumstance and tyranny that played out in the French Revolution will repeat, must repeat, even as an invisible cabal betray themselves now, revealing their fragility by clinging for survival to their invisibility.
The withdrawal of social license and submission to government is the winning card that will some day play, the card of the loser with nothing left to lose. Then the real game is on, to hunt down and exterminate the parasites...?