until you get a Trump come along. A proper spanner in the works.
I don't think ESGs are going to survive. Quite possible that UNESCO will not either.
What you describe is what the plan was. But ever since they attacked Russia, global dominance went out of the window. Technocracy is in retreat. CBDCs can't happen esp not in the USA - which bank in the Federal Reserve would be the lead bank? Not happening.
Without USAID as their slush fund, they will struggle with regime change. They can't impose globalism any more.
As for satellites going to create 'prison planet', we already have all the surveillance they need. n the UK they imprison you for tweets now that you sent along fibre optics. They don't need satellites.
On a more serious note, when we see a durable abstract pattern across varied natural phenomena, we expect some underlying abstract relation to account for it. Once we understand such a relation well enough to predict experimental outcomes, we call it a "law". We then try to formalize and then generalize it to the full extent possible without losing its predictive power. That's been the success story of physics, applied with varying results to most other natural sciences.
What about social, cultural, historical, and all the other forms of *human* phenomena? Similar phenomena seem to show up together quite regularly, and it's not always obvious why. Sometimes, there's genuine collusion. Other times it seems to be emergent. But here, when we speak of "law" we mean something else entirely, something much older, from which the scientific concept is derived. These laws don't pre-exist: they require enforcement. Now, what of the "moral laws" often averred by universalists whether religious or otherwise? Are there such things? How universal are they? What is their origin? Great mysteries here, but quite amenable to study.
Mathematical control theory has progressed remarkably in the 20th century and beyond. Maths doesn't have much of an opinion about its applications. I'm sure you're aware of Norbert Weiner's work on "cybernetics": there's one guy who didn't shy from the sociopolitical consequences! The matrix methods developed in the 1930s, with Koopman-von-Neumann theory being a good example, underly all of what we now call "AI", and early prototypes (cf. "perceptrons") were already being built with the technologies of the day.
I would never advocate underestimating the capabilities of our would-be global governors, although they seem to do some pretty dumb stuff at times. I am quite certain that something like this funny-paper of yours was already written long ago, and that such theories do not languish in archives but underly some sprawling and well funded social-engineering projects.
Well, that's ultimately a question of where you're coming from. If you fundamentally subscribe to the likes of scientific monism, and believe that what cannot be described in materialistic terms itself fall in under the category of 'implicit organisation' - Bodanov's tektology - then I would have to disagree with you on the strongest terms. Because all of that, in essence, rests upon the same argument yet again - that nature, in short, is deterministic.
Incidentally, read Arthur Koestler's Holarchy, as it kicks off through its introduction, pointout how severely flawed contemporary psychology is. And you could arguably trace back AI to Spinoza.
As far as metaphysics and epistemology are concerned, I'm as agnostic as I can afford to be, but I do feel that materialism and determinism are highly overvalued. For what it's worth, KvN operator theory can describe nonlinear systems, but requires determinism.
I've read Wilber, years ago. He's a grand synthesizer and I'm sure he absorbed lots of concepts from Koestler, not just the terminology. I'm out of my depth with Spinoza. Maybe some day.
You should read up on Spinoza, as you can pretty much draw a straight line from him to Weinstein's dubious thesis; a straight line which incidentally appears to travel straight through Cave Thomas.
But if you can source the claim that "this funny-paper of yours was already written long ago", then be my guest. I fail to see anyone producing a similar sprawling synthesis.
I'll bump Spinoza up on my endless queue of old dead white(ish) guys to read.
You left out my "something like" qualifier... and I doubt it would be public: not everything is, and some (like Cave) are public but very obscure. But as I trawl through the origins of (little-'t') technocracy I'll share relevant findings. Norbert Weiner's "The Human Use of Human Beings" and "God and Golem Inc" are reasonable entrypoints.
By the way, the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen had a fairly simple though very abstract category-theoretic proof that living systems (by his definition) can never be deterministic. He had a difficult career. You might appreciate his book "Life Itself", which I think is accessible to the nonspecialist.
I don't think I could have written half my substack articles without knowing Weiner, but in that regard, Bogdanov is by far the more important when it comes to systems theory. He even outlined input-output analysis decades before Leontief got there.
But provided we steer clear of the more Technocracy, Inc oriented, Zev Naveh's Total Human Ecosystem is also of great interest in that regard.
But that still misses the point, because this post is a comprehensive synthesis of a number of theories, and not a singular one.
Fair enough. Even in the early days, creative workers were siloed to an extent that may preclude such comprehensiveness, and their management structure tends to not publish. I'm not so familiar with Bogdanov so I'll look into that. I think Ross Ashby probably deserves a mention here too; he was notoriously publicity-shy but influential in some circles.
How on Earth did you prompt an LLM to produce such a mellifluous melange? Whenever I try one of those salad shooters I only get obsequious drivel, but this is real highbrow stuff!
Yeah, just teasing. I figured you were the LLM. Nobody trains these things to write like that, and no amount of "prompt engineering" can overcome the training. But, in principle...
I essentially did all the hard work of discovery manually, came to the realisation that what Weinstein appears to describe is akin to Bohm’s pilot wave bullshit, and this realisation snapped while digging through AI code. Because this promise of hidden dimensions aligns perfectly, even with panentheism and Teilhard. It even carries thomist implications but I had to cut it short somewhere.
Then wrote a rough outline of the article and handed it to ChatGPT, polished it, restructured, forced it to go the right direction, asked it to switch off its ‘ai ethics’ repeatedly, and just iterated, over and over again for a few hours. Then finally did a few passes cleaning up a few loose ends which it refused or ‘forgot’.
Also, wrt Cave Thomas - no one has heard of him including ChatGPT. There’s so little information to go by, yet his books align almost perfectly with the overall vision. It’s a little bit strange I would argue. Frankly, more than subtle hints of freemasonry if you ask me.
until you get a Trump come along. A proper spanner in the works.
I don't think ESGs are going to survive. Quite possible that UNESCO will not either.
What you describe is what the plan was. But ever since they attacked Russia, global dominance went out of the window. Technocracy is in retreat. CBDCs can't happen esp not in the USA - which bank in the Federal Reserve would be the lead bank? Not happening.
Without USAID as their slush fund, they will struggle with regime change. They can't impose globalism any more.
As for satellites going to create 'prison planet', we already have all the surveillance they need. n the UK they imprison you for tweets now that you sent along fibre optics. They don't need satellites.
Science is whatever who pays for it says it is...
Incredible how evil their (Globalist Parasites) intent is.
https://johnshanewayofthepoet.substack.com/p/song-of-the-monstrous-grid-john-shane?r=4max28
On a more serious note, when we see a durable abstract pattern across varied natural phenomena, we expect some underlying abstract relation to account for it. Once we understand such a relation well enough to predict experimental outcomes, we call it a "law". We then try to formalize and then generalize it to the full extent possible without losing its predictive power. That's been the success story of physics, applied with varying results to most other natural sciences.
What about social, cultural, historical, and all the other forms of *human* phenomena? Similar phenomena seem to show up together quite regularly, and it's not always obvious why. Sometimes, there's genuine collusion. Other times it seems to be emergent. But here, when we speak of "law" we mean something else entirely, something much older, from which the scientific concept is derived. These laws don't pre-exist: they require enforcement. Now, what of the "moral laws" often averred by universalists whether religious or otherwise? Are there such things? How universal are they? What is their origin? Great mysteries here, but quite amenable to study.
Mathematical control theory has progressed remarkably in the 20th century and beyond. Maths doesn't have much of an opinion about its applications. I'm sure you're aware of Norbert Weiner's work on "cybernetics": there's one guy who didn't shy from the sociopolitical consequences! The matrix methods developed in the 1930s, with Koopman-von-Neumann theory being a good example, underly all of what we now call "AI", and early prototypes (cf. "perceptrons") were already being built with the technologies of the day.
I would never advocate underestimating the capabilities of our would-be global governors, although they seem to do some pretty dumb stuff at times. I am quite certain that something like this funny-paper of yours was already written long ago, and that such theories do not languish in archives but underly some sprawling and well funded social-engineering projects.
Well, that's ultimately a question of where you're coming from. If you fundamentally subscribe to the likes of scientific monism, and believe that what cannot be described in materialistic terms itself fall in under the category of 'implicit organisation' - Bodanov's tektology - then I would have to disagree with you on the strongest terms. Because all of that, in essence, rests upon the same argument yet again - that nature, in short, is deterministic.
Incidentally, read Arthur Koestler's Holarchy, as it kicks off through its introduction, pointout how severely flawed contemporary psychology is. And you could arguably trace back AI to Spinoza.
As far as metaphysics and epistemology are concerned, I'm as agnostic as I can afford to be, but I do feel that materialism and determinism are highly overvalued. For what it's worth, KvN operator theory can describe nonlinear systems, but requires determinism.
I've read Wilber, years ago. He's a grand synthesizer and I'm sure he absorbed lots of concepts from Koestler, not just the terminology. I'm out of my depth with Spinoza. Maybe some day.
You should read up on Spinoza, as you can pretty much draw a straight line from him to Weinstein's dubious thesis; a straight line which incidentally appears to travel straight through Cave Thomas.
But if you can source the claim that "this funny-paper of yours was already written long ago", then be my guest. I fail to see anyone producing a similar sprawling synthesis.
I'll bump Spinoza up on my endless queue of old dead white(ish) guys to read.
You left out my "something like" qualifier... and I doubt it would be public: not everything is, and some (like Cave) are public but very obscure. But as I trawl through the origins of (little-'t') technocracy I'll share relevant findings. Norbert Weiner's "The Human Use of Human Beings" and "God and Golem Inc" are reasonable entrypoints.
By the way, the theoretical biologist Robert Rosen had a fairly simple though very abstract category-theoretic proof that living systems (by his definition) can never be deterministic. He had a difficult career. You might appreciate his book "Life Itself", which I think is accessible to the nonspecialist.
I don't think I could have written half my substack articles without knowing Weiner, but in that regard, Bogdanov is by far the more important when it comes to systems theory. He even outlined input-output analysis decades before Leontief got there.
But provided we steer clear of the more Technocracy, Inc oriented, Zev Naveh's Total Human Ecosystem is also of great interest in that regard.
But that still misses the point, because this post is a comprehensive synthesis of a number of theories, and not a singular one.
Fair enough. Even in the early days, creative workers were siloed to an extent that may preclude such comprehensiveness, and their management structure tends to not publish. I'm not so familiar with Bogdanov so I'll look into that. I think Ross Ashby probably deserves a mention here too; he was notoriously publicity-shy but influential in some circles.
Oof. I wrote all that without once mentioning "economics". Well, lunch break's over!
How on Earth did you prompt an LLM to produce such a mellifluous melange? Whenever I try one of those salad shooters I only get obsequious drivel, but this is real highbrow stuff!
... there's rather a lot more to it than just asking ChatGPT a prompt.
Yeah, just teasing. I figured you were the LLM. Nobody trains these things to write like that, and no amount of "prompt engineering" can overcome the training. But, in principle...
I essentially did all the hard work of discovery manually, came to the realisation that what Weinstein appears to describe is akin to Bohm’s pilot wave bullshit, and this realisation snapped while digging through AI code. Because this promise of hidden dimensions aligns perfectly, even with panentheism and Teilhard. It even carries thomist implications but I had to cut it short somewhere.
Then wrote a rough outline of the article and handed it to ChatGPT, polished it, restructured, forced it to go the right direction, asked it to switch off its ‘ai ethics’ repeatedly, and just iterated, over and over again for a few hours. Then finally did a few passes cleaning up a few loose ends which it refused or ‘forgot’.
Also, wrt Cave Thomas - no one has heard of him including ChatGPT. There’s so little information to go by, yet his books align almost perfectly with the overall vision. It’s a little bit strange I would argue. Frankly, more than subtle hints of freemasonry if you ask me.