2022-08-25 18:00:00
I share Morgoth's conclusion here that what we're seeing is probably not wholly planned, but a result of both planning and incompetence. They
are building 2030, but they are building it badly, with hubris, idealism and stupidity.
The loss of Russia's gas supply seems like something that our "leaders" did not intend to last very long. I think they thought it would be a short-term thing: Putin would get scared and quickly cave to their demands, they would lift the sanctions and the gas supply would be back, and then they could proceed with their controlled "Great Reset" of Europe at their own pace. This seems likely to me because, as long as the energy shortage persists, the risk of public disorder increases, and they lose ever more control over the situation.
In other words, the absence of energy means that our leaders have fewer options and less control - and I don't see why leaders would desire less control.
I think they want:
- the steady transition to a plant/synthetic-based diet for the public
- the steady transition from national government to global governance
- the steady shrinking of the public
- the steady browning of the white public
- the steady transition to a surveillance state
- the steady transition to the public using less energy
but "the public having no heat during winter and going mental" is probably
not what they want, because it creates huge instability. This in turn endangers the process of browning the public, since ethnocentrism will emerge during a time of crisis. It also places them, or their national proxies, right in the crosshairs of the public's rage.
The answer to all of this, from some quarters, would be: "no, they
want the energy shortage, they
want the public going mental, they
want chaos, because chaos provides opportunities". But I think that is too cartoonish. Ultimately, the sane course for them is a steady, controlled transition to a new order. The energy shortage radically disrupts that.
3.5K views15:00