The food on your supermarket shelf, the pesticides your local farmer can use, and the agricultural policies your government pursues are all influenced by international bodies who operate through two distinct channels: hard enforcement via trade rules, and soft enforcement via norms, ratings, and advisors
I'm extremely cautious with any criticism of Vadana Shiva and suspect her failures were not ideological but agency-based. How much could she actually influence given farmers ties to debt based on trade that is international in scope not local. I think there well maybe many devils in that detail. Few have worked as tirelessly and relentlessly to combat the 'green revolution' which has been a direct road to local starvation and servitude.
the green revolution no doubt boosted yields, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that financial actors are exploiting the economic aspect of that transition.
Oh yeah they are for sure. I would argue they likely created the 'international' pressure to initiate the green revolution to pay back sovereign debt...
.Yes I’ve met her quite a few times now. Lovely lady. i don’t blamed her for the fact we’ve left it this late to start challenging agricultural pharma.. If we’d been listening to her all along we’d be in much better shape. She's basically the opposite of the codex alimentarius.
Your research reads as if a whole team is supporting you in finding and reading all the documents on matters that have been my topic for 15 years (or is that AI), as The Netherlands are one of the main 'agenda'-supporters since the 70's, and developers (pe Natura 2000, habitat directive etc). Is it possible to contact you, as you are an excellent candidate for an interview for the Dutch newspaper I write for: you may contact me, Rypke at +31 6 24162988. Thank you for al the good work and inspiration
I mean it more in general, not just this post: your productivity and depth of research outcompetes me with more than a factor 2, how do you do it? More colleagues of me in the 'alternative' community ask the same question, best Rypke
i tend to look for structure, not necessarily the content itself. my discovery of jantsch's 1970 paper in essence fundamentally changed how i viewed what they're doing - and how to do this work myself. it took a while to fully grasp, but once you do, it all makes a hell of a lot of sense.
purposive - normative - pragmatic - empirical.
random matter/topics (empirical), organised into a hierarchy (pragmatic), shaped by the same ethic (normative), derived from the same objectives (purposive)
it can be applied virtually everywhere in contemporary society, because it's the fundamental architecture everything relies on.
(this link is valid, but some browsers may refuse to load it)
anyway, all spell checks, grammar, even drumming up the odd source i throw at ai to cut down on time. but in the case of short essays like this, it's just locating old essays, summarising detail from those, and connecting them to other summaries. all in all, took probably around 3-4 hours yesterday evening and 2 hours this morning to write, then 30 minutes to source and add links to past essays.
the other thing to understand is that i probably spent around 18-24 months diving through so many documents in so many different domains that you start to pick up on these similar patterns. and once you 'grasp' those, applying them to others become progressively easier.
finally - i've known where this was all going since i wrote, probably, the first essay on Cybernetic Thomism. and once you know where you're going, it becomes a matter of locating how to get there, which greatly reduces the amount of material you have to dive through.
the other thing i commonly do is look for irregularities. like, for instance, when you out of the blue discover a paper on central banks and biodiversity, think to yourself 'why the hell are they worried about that', do a few google searches - and discover that there's a wealth of primary source reports on this already, which no-one bothered to tell you.
that signals a clear red flag in my mind, and indicates that perhaps, just perhaps they're worth reading.
then locate the key reports, speed-read the parts of importance (the executive summary gives the first hints about which parts), and then look especially around 2/3rds through reports because that's where they tend to hide the detail they don't want you to know.
incidentally, i detailed a large part of how to structure information in probably my most pivotal essay, Discovery.
that was the moment i realised that we'd been outright lied to about history, and not in a minor way, certainly since May 23, 1972,
one thing to understand about Erich Jantsch is that he wasn't an outsider. he was an OECD/Club of Rome specialise, who in that paper detailed how the system works - and how to apply it across disciplines, 'holistically'.
that this system also maps precisely to systems theory in computer sciences is no coincidence. contemporary fields like adaptive management, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics to a very large extent draw on this same schematic
the pyramid is essentially foundational. yet, i don't really see anyone else snapping to it, and that's a damn shame.
once i'd discovered that, i eventually reverse engineered the path back to Alexander Bogdanov using the method outlined above in Discovery. and Bogdanov is essentially centric to the computational implementation for starters. probably one of the smartest men in history.
no-one even speaks of Bogdanov these days. is that by intent?
t/y - learn the blind spots of AI; the different implementations employ different 'AI Ethics' (the central steering mechanism).
so the topics DeepSeek will refuse to discuss are very different to those ChatGPT refuses.
Claude's AI model is a better implementation than ChatGPT's. that also opens up gaps one can exploit.
mention 'POSIWID' to AI, and you're telling AI to behave as though it's a machine - it does, in the process skipping at least some of the 'Ethics' applied to its processing. give much more honest results. I call it 'AI God Mode' for that reason.
"a world managed by technical experts rather than elected politicians."
the progressives have been busy for 100+ years. i don't know if you have something on H. G. Wells? your writing output beats my reading capabilities by 10-15x i.e. by the time i manage to read 1 you have already written 10+. i know how much it takes to write. at least in my case, the last time a wrote something for publish it was 5+ days 8 working hours a day...
A Modern Utopia is a 1905 novel by H. G. Wells.
The novel is best known for its notion that a voluntary order of nobility known as the Samurai could effectively rule a "kinetic and not static" world state so as to solve "the problem of combining progress with political stability".
The Shape of Things to Come is a science fiction novel written by H. G. Wells published in 1933. It takes the form of a future history that ends in 2106... skilled technicians eventually seizing worldwide power and sweeping away the remnants of the old nation states. A benevolent dictatorship is set up, paving the way for world peace by abolishing national divisions, enforcing the English language, promoting scientific learning, and outlawing religion.
The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution was published in 1928 by H. G. Wells. Wells begins by discussing religion, arguing that its essence is the subordination of self. "Modern religion," according to Wells, is the application of this human characteristic to the realization of "better order in human affairs."
the goal is to establish the "new feudal system". serfdom! socialism, communism, fascism, welfare... or any more modern name will do the trick. the ruling of the "enlightened elite". benevolent leader. technocracy. that is to say, subjecting others to your governance. to your plan and organization...
this new rulers are noble as the old ones, the kings, the aristocracy. but, not by (blue) blood or divine providence, but, by their noble intentions: equity, social-justice, planed economy... all of it incompatible with: equality, justice and home planning. and those new "rulers" are only the pawns, the front end. the real technocracy is in banking, not in engineering, philosophy or natural science. because, there are billions of people who know the laws by which the planets move, how to create electricity, how to program a complicated piece of software or how to calculate complex economical equations that mean nothing... but, how many of those understand monetary policy? and why there is a monopoly on every currency?
all of them are in it, the famous SF writers: Asimov, Clarke, Sagan... selling the ideas of technocracy - ruling without a vote. they are all pawns of the elite, producing the culture that shaped us we were kids
funny thing is, one can read 10 huge books on the greatest conspiracies and still would not be competent about conspiracy, because there are millions who have read 20 books on conspiracy. but, one can read only one 200 page book about classical liberalism and see the truth. it is enough to understand what they are after. to make you a serf, they must abolish liberalism. that is why so many intellectuals glorify socialism. they tell you it is for the good of the nation/humanity, but it is because in the process of it - you say goodbye to you individual rights and economic independence. you become subjugated
some say, but... but... what if planed economy rises the standard of living to all more than liberal economy? some defend this with (still) the fact that the more the liberal the economy, the more it produces wealth. but, as Frédéric Bastiat said: "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended,"
the goal of Liberalism is Liberty, not wealth
ps - progressivism is a not political and social reform movement emphasizing societal improvement through change. it is a progressive implementation of socialism vs via a revolution. like it is done in the west
I'm extremely cautious with any criticism of Vadana Shiva and suspect her failures were not ideological but agency-based. How much could she actually influence given farmers ties to debt based on trade that is international in scope not local. I think there well maybe many devils in that detail. Few have worked as tirelessly and relentlessly to combat the 'green revolution' which has been a direct road to local starvation and servitude.
Great bloody info though.
those are two different topics, though.
the green revolution no doubt boosted yields, but that doesn't eliminate the possibility that financial actors are exploiting the economic aspect of that transition.
Oh yeah they are for sure. I would argue they likely created the 'international' pressure to initiate the green revolution to pay back sovereign debt...
oh i'll leave that argument to you, i have to stop somewhere :)
You never stop!!!
Coffee must run in your non-certified veins
no, i'm pretty much there I think. I only really wrote this as a quick summary essay as I'd never really put UNFAO at the centre of things.
if i had more time, I'd do a write-up on CIEL; yet another of those organisations literally no-one has properly covered.
shes awesome. Love her to bits.
She hated Bill Gates before any of us did! Her work preserving rice varieties goes back decades.
.Yes I’ve met her quite a few times now. Lovely lady. i don’t blamed her for the fact we’ve left it this late to start challenging agricultural pharma.. If we’d been listening to her all along we’d be in much better shape. She's basically the opposite of the codex alimentarius.
Your research reads as if a whole team is supporting you in finding and reading all the documents on matters that have been my topic for 15 years (or is that AI), as The Netherlands are one of the main 'agenda'-supporters since the 70's, and developers (pe Natura 2000, habitat directive etc). Is it possible to contact you, as you are an excellent candidate for an interview for the Dutch newspaper I write for: you may contact me, Rypke at +31 6 24162988. Thank you for al the good work and inspiration
this essay doesn't really include anything new. the fine-grained, detailed one is this one - fully sourced.
will get back to you, on the move atm.
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/something-is-rotten-in-the-state?utm_source=publication-search
I mean it more in general, not just this post: your productivity and depth of research outcompetes me with more than a factor 2, how do you do it? More colleagues of me in the 'alternative' community ask the same question, best Rypke
i tend to look for structure, not necessarily the content itself. my discovery of jantsch's 1970 paper in essence fundamentally changed how i viewed what they're doing - and how to do this work myself. it took a while to fully grasp, but once you do, it all makes a hell of a lot of sense.
purposive - normative - pragmatic - empirical.
random matter/topics (empirical), organised into a hierarchy (pragmatic), shaped by the same ethic (normative), derived from the same objectives (purposive)
it can be applied virtually everywhere in contemporary society, because it's the fundamental architecture everything relies on.
(this link is valid, but some browsers may refuse to load it)
https://www.sci-hub.ru/10.1007/bf00145222
anyway, all spell checks, grammar, even drumming up the odd source i throw at ai to cut down on time. but in the case of short essays like this, it's just locating old essays, summarising detail from those, and connecting them to other summaries. all in all, took probably around 3-4 hours yesterday evening and 2 hours this morning to write, then 30 minutes to source and add links to past essays.
the other thing to understand is that i probably spent around 18-24 months diving through so many documents in so many different domains that you start to pick up on these similar patterns. and once you 'grasp' those, applying them to others become progressively easier.
finally - i've known where this was all going since i wrote, probably, the first essay on Cybernetic Thomism. and once you know where you're going, it becomes a matter of locating how to get there, which greatly reduces the amount of material you have to dive through.
the other thing i commonly do is look for irregularities. like, for instance, when you out of the blue discover a paper on central banks and biodiversity, think to yourself 'why the hell are they worried about that', do a few google searches - and discover that there's a wealth of primary source reports on this already, which no-one bothered to tell you.
that signals a clear red flag in my mind, and indicates that perhaps, just perhaps they're worth reading.
then locate the key reports, speed-read the parts of importance (the executive summary gives the first hints about which parts), and then look especially around 2/3rds through reports because that's where they tend to hide the detail they don't want you to know.
incidentally, i detailed a large part of how to structure information in probably my most pivotal essay, Discovery.
that was the moment i realised that we'd been outright lied to about history, and not in a minor way, certainly since May 23, 1972,
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/discovery?utm_source=publication-search
one thing to understand about Erich Jantsch is that he wasn't an outsider. he was an OECD/Club of Rome specialise, who in that paper detailed how the system works - and how to apply it across disciplines, 'holistically'.
that this system also maps precisely to systems theory in computer sciences is no coincidence. contemporary fields like adaptive management, artificial intelligence, and cybernetics to a very large extent draw on this same schematic
the pyramid is essentially foundational. yet, i don't really see anyone else snapping to it, and that's a damn shame.
once i'd discovered that, i eventually reverse engineered the path back to Alexander Bogdanov using the method outlined above in Discovery. and Bogdanov is essentially centric to the computational implementation for starters. probably one of the smartest men in history.
no-one even speaks of Bogdanov these days. is that by intent?
https://escapekey.substack.com/p/alexander-bogdanov?utm_source=publication-search
You are an exceptional human being escape,❤️
Thank you for these in depth explanations.
Most publishers are not open about how they achieve their results.
You are helping others to expand their "dot joint capacity.”.
I love that you can engage with AI in such a way,that the tool being used against us ,becomes your/ our weapon.
t/y - learn the blind spots of AI; the different implementations employ different 'AI Ethics' (the central steering mechanism).
so the topics DeepSeek will refuse to discuss are very different to those ChatGPT refuses.
Claude's AI model is a better implementation than ChatGPT's. that also opens up gaps one can exploit.
mention 'POSIWID' to AI, and you're telling AI to behave as though it's a machine - it does, in the process skipping at least some of the 'Ethics' applied to its processing. give much more honest results. I call it 'AI God Mode' for that reason.
"a world managed by technical experts rather than elected politicians."
the progressives have been busy for 100+ years. i don't know if you have something on H. G. Wells? your writing output beats my reading capabilities by 10-15x i.e. by the time i manage to read 1 you have already written 10+. i know how much it takes to write. at least in my case, the last time a wrote something for publish it was 5+ days 8 working hours a day...
A Modern Utopia is a 1905 novel by H. G. Wells.
The novel is best known for its notion that a voluntary order of nobility known as the Samurai could effectively rule a "kinetic and not static" world state so as to solve "the problem of combining progress with political stability".
The Shape of Things to Come is a science fiction novel written by H. G. Wells published in 1933. It takes the form of a future history that ends in 2106... skilled technicians eventually seizing worldwide power and sweeping away the remnants of the old nation states. A benevolent dictatorship is set up, paving the way for world peace by abolishing national divisions, enforcing the English language, promoting scientific learning, and outlawing religion.
The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution was published in 1928 by H. G. Wells. Wells begins by discussing religion, arguing that its essence is the subordination of self. "Modern religion," according to Wells, is the application of this human characteristic to the realization of "better order in human affairs."
the goal is to establish the "new feudal system". serfdom! socialism, communism, fascism, welfare... or any more modern name will do the trick. the ruling of the "enlightened elite". benevolent leader. technocracy. that is to say, subjecting others to your governance. to your plan and organization...
this new rulers are noble as the old ones, the kings, the aristocracy. but, not by (blue) blood or divine providence, but, by their noble intentions: equity, social-justice, planed economy... all of it incompatible with: equality, justice and home planning. and those new "rulers" are only the pawns, the front end. the real technocracy is in banking, not in engineering, philosophy or natural science. because, there are billions of people who know the laws by which the planets move, how to create electricity, how to program a complicated piece of software or how to calculate complex economical equations that mean nothing... but, how many of those understand monetary policy? and why there is a monopoly on every currency?
all of them are in it, the famous SF writers: Asimov, Clarke, Sagan... selling the ideas of technocracy - ruling without a vote. they are all pawns of the elite, producing the culture that shaped us we were kids
funny thing is, one can read 10 huge books on the greatest conspiracies and still would not be competent about conspiracy, because there are millions who have read 20 books on conspiracy. but, one can read only one 200 page book about classical liberalism and see the truth. it is enough to understand what they are after. to make you a serf, they must abolish liberalism. that is why so many intellectuals glorify socialism. they tell you it is for the good of the nation/humanity, but it is because in the process of it - you say goodbye to you individual rights and economic independence. you become subjugated
some say, but... but... what if planed economy rises the standard of living to all more than liberal economy? some defend this with (still) the fact that the more the liberal the economy, the more it produces wealth. but, as Frédéric Bastiat said: "The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended,"
the goal of Liberalism is Liberty, not wealth
ps - progressivism is a not political and social reform movement emphasizing societal improvement through change. it is a progressive implementation of socialism vs via a revolution. like it is done in the west
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Should have called it the Codex Rectumus Committee. Even more descriptive.