A key issue in tomorrow’s exciting world of stakeholder ‘capitalism’ is - exactly who selects those stakeholders, why, and for what purpose? Because - regardless of who - you better hope they represent your interests. And in that regard, hope is the appropriate word.
Well researched and analyzed. The mirror image is those excluded forming the controlled opposition so as to create the dialectic and absorb any real opposition. I am sure that that group is formed, controlled, bankrolled and owned so as to end up with the synthesis desired by the oligarchs in control. you demonstrate well that this is not an organic thing.
I hope you don't consider critical feedback on writing style untoward (rules would suggest writing such a message in private but DMs/PMs aren't really a thing on Substack).
Your use of images is good, however your article needs to start with, and proceed to (continuously) answer the question of: why should the reader care? Why would a busy mother with four children take time out of her day to read about innocent-seeming pro-environmentalist documents? Protecting forests is good, protecting tribes is good, protecting animals is good, etc etc.
The answer need not be literal response to the literal question, and I will be honest I often forget to answer it myself time-to-time, but for the reader to care, they must be told the how and why it will affect them. What are the consequences if they don't learn this information or act on it?
To me, I see the usual globalist scheming, paperwork, documentation, but I can throw it under 'emissions excuses depopulation agenda'. Why would I care about GEF or WWF specifically? This is a frame challenge, and not asked as something I'm seeking an answer to, but ought to be woven into the article itself.
I eyeballed your article history and noticed despite your hardwork your like counts have generally not increased over the span of a year (fluctuates between 3 to 5, with the exception of the David E Martin article which clearly resonated with people). It tells me people aren't 'connecting' or don't find relevance in the story (my American audience almost never upvotes any UK-centric reporting).
I'm sure the story is extremely relevant, but you will have to spell it out to a reader what the consequences are if they ignore it, be explicit and up-front about it. Otherwise it comes across as a sort of 'my magical jaunt into the world of some boring globalist documents'.
For example, we know the consequences of UN NGOs financing migration is mass murder, human trafficking and rape. We know the consequences of vaccine mandates are people being denied access to healthcare and dying. What happens if I were to rhetorically ignore these GEF documents? Why should I, the interested reader, care?
(Best way to get them to care is to spell out the consequences that directly or indirectly threaten them.)
Oh, and almost forgot, make use of subheaders, having them act as bullet points, so if someone skim-reads your article, they will at least take away the headers. Subheaders are also clickable in article and can turn into direct reference URLs for subsections of a page, which can be extremely useful if you write a lot of information and need to point someone to a specific section without referring the entire thing.
Constructive criticism welcome of course, and for sakes of gathering interest you are almost certainly right, but there are a few reasons why I write as the case is;
First off - these topics are complex, and that’s by design. Hence, my emphasis is on solid documentation and creating an evidentiary trail for others to follow in the event they don’t believe my interpretation, or if they seek further information on specialised topics.
Second - What I hope to achieve is for people reading to not only understand what’s actually taking place, but also understand how, who, when, and the extents to which our language has been corrupted, because virtually all key terminology is express double-speak.
Third - as part of that, it’s also my hope that people who read these articles, through observing and confirming similar elsewhere - will write about it in hopefully easier to grasp language, because I’m well aware of my limitations and I’m for sure no wordsmith. Regardless, I prefer a few people genuinely understanding as opposed to optimising for likes. And that’s obviously not what I say that you do. Just to clarify because a while back we went massively off tangent ultimately due to a misunderstanding.
Once I’ve gone established just a few more parts the plan is to write a summary article, detailing exactly how those crooks are planning to rip off the world population using the prior articles as source. That’ll be with somewhat more flexibility in terms of language, and hopefully will be more readily accessible.
Anyway, i spent a few hours a while back running through articles with ChatGPT to make them sound nicer and appeal to a broader audience but I didn’t really like the reformatting. Consequently decided against it. Having said that, you make some good points and I’ll try to put them to good use. Thank you.
I wouldn't use ChatGPT because it bows to the particularly censorship models of OpenAI and comes off as too 'brown-nosey'.
You raise good points. You will have to consider, however, at some point, you will be de facto the 'best versed expert' of your own research, where you will have many months, years worth of understanding of context and nuance from research and reading that new readers will never be able to grasp, and therefore, 99.9% of readers won't be able to 'interpret the data for themselves'.
Of the .1% they will understand your interpretations come with a bit of speculation (and if you're concerned, you can always explicitly say 'I think', 'I feel', 'it is my unevidenced opinion that..' and similarly to highlight areas of speculation).
What happens when you pile up a lot of well researched evidence is... nobody reads it! Not out of malice - some folks don't have the memory space for it all, some folks are far, far too busy in their 9-to-5 paperwork slog job, some find it 'boring'.
It's why there's abstracts in peer-reviewed papers, and misleading newspaper articles with titles that don't match the body of the text (as they know folks don't read beyond the title in most cases).
You might feel that's 'lowest common denominator only' things and that your audience is clever and sophisticated - however based on my years of experience, the majority of folks cannot process such information. It is why TikTok is so popular. And the ones smart enough to process large amounts of data are off, doing smarty-brain things, like extensive research (which ironically means they're too busy to digest a lot of new data).
I always want to see high quality Substacks like this flourish, having seen how terrible mainstream journalism has become. You downplay a gift - the ability to consume and digest vast sources of information - and fear flaws in your research.
The truth is, everybody, myself included (I've got a bunch of retractions) makes mistakes - don't let the fear of making mistakes in your self-interpretation of your research put you off from publishing your observations. They are, after all, your opinions, and all opinions contribute to the sum of human knowledge. So long as we hold we don't know everything, and act with that in mind, and keep our views in good faith, your interpretations of your own work should be fine - necessary, even.
Some folks may misinterpret the data or miss things you think are "obvious", that's the thing with smart folks like yourself - your big brain processor makes all the conclusions obvious *to you* - no-one can see inside your head. Most folks with slower clock speeds like myself need it spelled out.
Distilling down knowledge in order to educate is probably one of the greater services to humanity you can provide. Even teachers have to distil things down for children so they may learn.
Well researched and analyzed. The mirror image is those excluded forming the controlled opposition so as to create the dialectic and absorb any real opposition. I am sure that that group is formed, controlled, bankrolled and owned so as to end up with the synthesis desired by the oligarchs in control. you demonstrate well that this is not an organic thing.
I hope you don't consider critical feedback on writing style untoward (rules would suggest writing such a message in private but DMs/PMs aren't really a thing on Substack).
Your use of images is good, however your article needs to start with, and proceed to (continuously) answer the question of: why should the reader care? Why would a busy mother with four children take time out of her day to read about innocent-seeming pro-environmentalist documents? Protecting forests is good, protecting tribes is good, protecting animals is good, etc etc.
The answer need not be literal response to the literal question, and I will be honest I often forget to answer it myself time-to-time, but for the reader to care, they must be told the how and why it will affect them. What are the consequences if they don't learn this information or act on it?
To me, I see the usual globalist scheming, paperwork, documentation, but I can throw it under 'emissions excuses depopulation agenda'. Why would I care about GEF or WWF specifically? This is a frame challenge, and not asked as something I'm seeking an answer to, but ought to be woven into the article itself.
I eyeballed your article history and noticed despite your hardwork your like counts have generally not increased over the span of a year (fluctuates between 3 to 5, with the exception of the David E Martin article which clearly resonated with people). It tells me people aren't 'connecting' or don't find relevance in the story (my American audience almost never upvotes any UK-centric reporting).
I'm sure the story is extremely relevant, but you will have to spell it out to a reader what the consequences are if they ignore it, be explicit and up-front about it. Otherwise it comes across as a sort of 'my magical jaunt into the world of some boring globalist documents'.
For example, we know the consequences of UN NGOs financing migration is mass murder, human trafficking and rape. We know the consequences of vaccine mandates are people being denied access to healthcare and dying. What happens if I were to rhetorically ignore these GEF documents? Why should I, the interested reader, care?
(Best way to get them to care is to spell out the consequences that directly or indirectly threaten them.)
Oh, and almost forgot, make use of subheaders, having them act as bullet points, so if someone skim-reads your article, they will at least take away the headers. Subheaders are also clickable in article and can turn into direct reference URLs for subsections of a page, which can be extremely useful if you write a lot of information and need to point someone to a specific section without referring the entire thing.
Constructive criticism welcome of course, and for sakes of gathering interest you are almost certainly right, but there are a few reasons why I write as the case is;
First off - these topics are complex, and that’s by design. Hence, my emphasis is on solid documentation and creating an evidentiary trail for others to follow in the event they don’t believe my interpretation, or if they seek further information on specialised topics.
Second - What I hope to achieve is for people reading to not only understand what’s actually taking place, but also understand how, who, when, and the extents to which our language has been corrupted, because virtually all key terminology is express double-speak.
Third - as part of that, it’s also my hope that people who read these articles, through observing and confirming similar elsewhere - will write about it in hopefully easier to grasp language, because I’m well aware of my limitations and I’m for sure no wordsmith. Regardless, I prefer a few people genuinely understanding as opposed to optimising for likes. And that’s obviously not what I say that you do. Just to clarify because a while back we went massively off tangent ultimately due to a misunderstanding.
Once I’ve gone established just a few more parts the plan is to write a summary article, detailing exactly how those crooks are planning to rip off the world population using the prior articles as source. That’ll be with somewhat more flexibility in terms of language, and hopefully will be more readily accessible.
Anyway, i spent a few hours a while back running through articles with ChatGPT to make them sound nicer and appeal to a broader audience but I didn’t really like the reformatting. Consequently decided against it. Having said that, you make some good points and I’ll try to put them to good use. Thank you.
I wouldn't use ChatGPT because it bows to the particularly censorship models of OpenAI and comes off as too 'brown-nosey'.
You raise good points. You will have to consider, however, at some point, you will be de facto the 'best versed expert' of your own research, where you will have many months, years worth of understanding of context and nuance from research and reading that new readers will never be able to grasp, and therefore, 99.9% of readers won't be able to 'interpret the data for themselves'.
Of the .1% they will understand your interpretations come with a bit of speculation (and if you're concerned, you can always explicitly say 'I think', 'I feel', 'it is my unevidenced opinion that..' and similarly to highlight areas of speculation).
What happens when you pile up a lot of well researched evidence is... nobody reads it! Not out of malice - some folks don't have the memory space for it all, some folks are far, far too busy in their 9-to-5 paperwork slog job, some find it 'boring'.
It's why there's abstracts in peer-reviewed papers, and misleading newspaper articles with titles that don't match the body of the text (as they know folks don't read beyond the title in most cases).
You might feel that's 'lowest common denominator only' things and that your audience is clever and sophisticated - however based on my years of experience, the majority of folks cannot process such information. It is why TikTok is so popular. And the ones smart enough to process large amounts of data are off, doing smarty-brain things, like extensive research (which ironically means they're too busy to digest a lot of new data).
I always want to see high quality Substacks like this flourish, having seen how terrible mainstream journalism has become. You downplay a gift - the ability to consume and digest vast sources of information - and fear flaws in your research.
The truth is, everybody, myself included (I've got a bunch of retractions) makes mistakes - don't let the fear of making mistakes in your self-interpretation of your research put you off from publishing your observations. They are, after all, your opinions, and all opinions contribute to the sum of human knowledge. So long as we hold we don't know everything, and act with that in mind, and keep our views in good faith, your interpretations of your own work should be fine - necessary, even.
Some folks may misinterpret the data or miss things you think are "obvious", that's the thing with smart folks like yourself - your big brain processor makes all the conclusions obvious *to you* - no-one can see inside your head. Most folks with slower clock speeds like myself need it spelled out.
Distilling down knowledge in order to educate is probably one of the greater services to humanity you can provide. Even teachers have to distil things down for children so they may learn.