Well, the 'Stakeholders' monicer ALWAYS refers to a sub-set of the people that term is addressed to.
So, when addressed to the conference, the conference think each of them are the stakeholders. But really only a few of them will be allowed in the conference rooms where the important members meet.
And the important members in the conference room always think THEY are the 'stakeholders'. But really, only a few are included in the privy councils.
And in the privy councils THEY will think they are the Stakeholders. But really only a few will be in the inner circle.
And in the Inner Circle THEY will believe themselves to be the 'Stakeholders'. But actually, they will get all their directions from one or two who get them from shadowy unknown actors who are the REAL power set.
And those shadowy power sets will think they are the 'Stakeholders'. But it is really only one.
And that is always the nature of Evil's plan for the world: One World of Chattel at the Merciless Direction of One Capricious Overlord.
It has never changed, in all the years of humanity's existence.
In a word, that entire philosophy is the philosophy of Evil: Honey to catch the Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Thieves of this world.
But both are constructs of a group of people who have well publicized their hubris to think they know better how to conduct the business of EVERYONE than do the people whose business it is...
This is Plato's philosophy from his book "Republic".
The problem is that it has NEVER EMPIRICALLY PROVED OUT in all the thousands of years since written.
Meanwhile every narcissist, or group of narcissists, in the world have conspired to place themselves in that god-king role to decide everything for everyone.
And they have universally failed to produce better results than random leaders.
Did you know Klaus Schwab was an acolyte of Henry Kissinger?
Did you know it was Kissinger who suggested Schwab start the WEF?
Did you know that Kissinger became prominent due to his esteem by Nelson Rockefellar as a "Nuclear Strategy Expert" while a graduate student at Harvard?
Did you know that this "expertise" and "esteem" occurred BEFORE his 1957 book "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy"? Lacking that book, at that time Kissinger was just a grad student who had written an excessively long thesis for his Harvard History B.A. So...how did the "esteem" occur?
Did you know that Kissinger reputedly paid for his Harvard education with the G.I. Bill?
How does a WW2 refugee afford a Harvard education and postgraduate work with the G.I. Bill which covers only part of tuition from much less expensive schools???
How did Kissinger, while a private in the US Army 84th Infantry Division get trusted to establish a government in a German city based only on his German skills, when at that time 40% of the US population spoke German natively at home?
And how did he become a member of the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) closely connected to the OSS -forerunner of the CIA- while being a 21-year-old non-naturalized German refugee in 1945?
There are too many exceptional coincidences here that lead to Schwab and the WEF's existence.
All of these odd coincidences are connected at most ONE LINK AWAY from Europe's largest banks and banking families.
Why would it not be a highly probable conclusion to say that those banking interests ultimately are responsible for the WEF just as they are for the existence of Communism itself?
Did it ever occur to you that Trump's abrasive framing is intentional, causing PMs to rise?
Did it occur to you that rising PMs, in turn, makes the Euro-Banksters attempts to cover their paper-leverage on the LBMA with physical increasingly unlikely?
Did it occur to you that if LBMA becomes totally discredited, then so will be the banks who compose it? Which also happen to be the biggest banks in London, and Europe in general?
Did it occur to you that the only common element amongst all the tentacles of Leftist activism from 1848 until today is the persistent active support for it from the Largest European Banks?
Did it ever occur to you that Trump's abrasive framing is intentional, causing PMs to rise?
Did it occur to you that rising PMs, in turn, makes the Euro-Banksters attempts to cover their paper-leverage on the LBMA with physical increasingly unlikely?
Did it occur to you that if LBMA becomes totally discredited, then so will be the banks who compose it? Which also happen to be the biggest banks in London, and Europe in general?
Did it occur to you that the only common element amongst all the tentacles of Leftist activism from 1848 until today is the persistent active support for it from the Largest European Banks?
These statements show a degree of adherence to form over substance that is so exaggerated as to approach insanity.
Linking of prizes to Greenland is an explanatory predicate; i.e. "I thought of this because of that". While adding color, and displaying exceptionally bad diplomatic form, it does not have any bearing on the rest of the letter.
Alternately, the Left's reaction is based upon the proposition that Trump's stated predicate for thinking of the issue as being related to peace means that Greenland is not a security issue for the United States. That is insane thinking inasmuch as the conclusions do not follow from the precepts.
Observe:
"While watching Snidely Whiplash on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, it made me reflect on the fact that high speed bullets are harmful to the human body, and that whether or not a threat is as villainous as Snidley, obtaining body armor is prudent and necessary for prominent persons."
Notice that the cartoon character predicate has nothing to do with the conclusion? Notice that bullets really are harmful, and body armor really is prudent?
Now, observe an analog to the Left's response:
"He said that bullets are harmful because of a CARTOON character! He must be insane! There's no threat of bullets! He is insane to suggest body armor!"
"Bullets are harmful therefore body armor is necessary" is a logical statement.
"Bullets are harmless because connected to a cartoon character" is an insane statement.
"Adversaries seek to control US shipping through the arctic therefore Greenland must be held by someone who can defend it, which necessarily means US" is a logical statement.
"Trump linked Greenland to the Nobel Prize, therefore Greenland is an insane diversion" is an insane statement.
If Greenland were unnecessary the US would never have seized it in 1941, nor made its return to Denmark in 1951 CONDITIONAL to Denmark's acceptance of US security concerns there. Nor would the US have garrisoned so many troops there throughout the Cold War that it DOUBLED the population of Greenland during that period.
More curious is Europe's formulation that garrisoning of Greenland during the old Cold War was necessary, while simultaneously saying this is a newer MORE SERIOUS Cold War that somehow DOES NOT require garrisoning.
European leadership continues to ignore realities for slavish adherence to linguistic framing customs.
A Public sector union is an organization that sits on both sides of the negotiating table, deciding how much of taxpayers substance to consume while the taxpayers have NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND.
It is fundamentally an anti-American concept, based upon predation.
And if it doesn't happen, then it is because it cannot happen.
And if the Federal Government CANNOT impose discipline in this field, then that is proof that it should never have taken up responsibility for either Education or Union charters.
Taxpayers are not obligated to pay taxes to unions dedicated to their genocidal erasure.
The Federal Government is not obligated to charter an organization styling itself as a union but factually acting as a foreign directed subversive organization.
Federal Money given to a federally chartered organization that is subsequently used for purposes other than those specified, is feloniously misappropriated money.
Shortly, either the Union is NOT A UNION, or its leadership is liable for FELONY TAX THEFT.
The EU is defacto rejecting this 1951 treaty, in which Denmark already agreed to essentially everything the US wants there.
Prior to that agreement Greenland had been held as a protectorate of the US since the US seized it from the Nazi's.
Before the Nazis held Greenland, the Danes had it, theoretically, since 1814. I say theoretically, because it was held in much the same way that Colonial territories were almost always held in that era: Someone landed on the coastline, planted a flag, and declared it to be theirs without first mapping it, without knowing much less polling the current inhabitants, or whether other simultaneous claims were unwittingly made by others landing on the same geography.
In 1814 Mariners were still searching for the NorthWest Passage through North America to Asia.
Throwing in the claim from Viking Age is simply ridiculous.
Firstly the viking settlement failed.
Secondly the viking settlement was purely theoretical prior to the 1950s. No one had yet found evidence of it.
Thirdly, there is no legal connection between the particular vikings who lived on Greenland and the modern Kingdom of Denmark. The King of Denmark has never claimed to be their descendant, or the descendant of any particular viking ruler with sovereignty over Greenland.
Fourthly, Vikings were not exclusively Danish. They included others from around the region. And the region was not limited to Scandanavia.
The Kingdom of England was established by the descendant of a Viking. Does that mean that King Charles owns Greenland? Even though he is not descended from William the Conqueror?
Do you see the problems with this line of thinking?
Once you dismiss the ridiculous claims, the real claims are these:
Denmark annexed Greenland in 1814.
Denmark became Nazi in 1940.
Denmark lost Greenland to the US in 1941.
The US CONDITIONALLY returned Greenland to Denmark in 1951, contingent on basing.
Denmark established a social services relationship with Greenlanders in the 1950s and 1960s.
The EU began to make sovereignty claims incompatible with the 1951 Treaty in 2017.
The US began to talk about reacquiring Greenland in 2018.
Recent Comments
But will anything happen while much of DC is in on it, and disapproves of Law fundamentally?
$9 billion we know of so far.
And the MN government 100% covered it up, and even retaliated against whistleblowers.
How far down the rabbit hole does it go?
Maybe all the way.
Do not think that this small admission portends a change of heart.
Socialists dont have hearts.
They fill the place where hearts should be with stolen wealth.
It turns out that...FACTS MATTER.
But Socialists dont like them.
So they use magic words to dismiss them.
The EU lacks guns, butter, and industry.
What they have is an increasingly questionable Casino Banking System.
They can never have you disarmed enough, until they walk you into the ovens.
Both wrong.
Neither even knows why they say it.
Or they would think more closely about the underlying assertions therein.
Well, the 'Stakeholders' monicer ALWAYS refers to a sub-set of the people that term is addressed to.
So, when addressed to the conference, the conference think each of them are the stakeholders. But really only a few of them will be allowed in the conference rooms where the important members meet.
And the important members in the conference room always think THEY are the 'stakeholders'. But really, only a few are included in the privy councils.
And in the privy councils THEY will think they are the Stakeholders. But really only a few will be in the inner circle.
And in the Inner Circle THEY will believe themselves to be the 'Stakeholders'. But actually, they will get all their directions from one or two who get them from shadowy unknown actors who are the REAL power set.
And those shadowy power sets will think they are the 'Stakeholders'. But it is really only one.
And that is always the nature of Evil's plan for the world: One World of Chattel at the Merciless Direction of One Capricious Overlord.
It has never changed, in all the years of humanity's existence.
In a word, that entire philosophy is the philosophy of Evil: Honey to catch the Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Thieves of this world.
Thats where you are wrong.
The flourishes and rifs change.
The name of the song changes, as does the name of the band.
But the tunes themselves have always been exactly the same.
Ignore the rifs and flourishes.
Look directly what is asserted. Listen to the tune itself.
It was the same in 10,000 BC as it is today.
But both are constructs of a group of people who have well publicized their hubris to think they know better how to conduct the business of EVERYONE than do the people whose business it is...
This is Plato's philosophy from his book "Republic".
The problem is that it has NEVER EMPIRICALLY PROVED OUT in all the thousands of years since written.
Meanwhile every narcissist, or group of narcissists, in the world have conspired to place themselves in that god-king role to decide everything for everyone.
And they have universally failed to produce better results than random leaders.
Narcissism has little to do with ability.
But they will always try.
Except empirical results of two centuries support it.
And the results of Communism over the same period are damning.
But who is to believe evidence on matters of religion?
Did you know Klaus Schwab was an acolyte of Henry Kissinger?
Did you know it was Kissinger who suggested Schwab start the WEF?
Did you know that Kissinger became prominent due to his esteem by Nelson Rockefellar as a "Nuclear Strategy Expert" while a graduate student at Harvard?
Did you know that this "expertise" and "esteem" occurred BEFORE his 1957 book "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy"? Lacking that book, at that time Kissinger was just a grad student who had written an excessively long thesis for his Harvard History B.A. So...how did the "esteem" occur?
Did you know that Kissinger reputedly paid for his Harvard education with the G.I. Bill?
How does a WW2 refugee afford a Harvard education and postgraduate work with the G.I. Bill which covers only part of tuition from much less expensive schools???
How did Kissinger, while a private in the US Army 84th Infantry Division get trusted to establish a government in a German city based only on his German skills, when at that time 40% of the US population spoke German natively at home?
And how did he become a member of the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) closely connected to the OSS -forerunner of the CIA- while being a 21-year-old non-naturalized German refugee in 1945?
There are too many exceptional coincidences here that lead to Schwab and the WEF's existence.
All of these odd coincidences are connected at most ONE LINK AWAY from Europe's largest banks and banking families.
Why would it not be a highly probable conclusion to say that those banking interests ultimately are responsible for the WEF just as they are for the existence of Communism itself?
Why would that even be a controversial assertion?
Did it ever occur to you that Trump's abrasive framing is intentional, causing PMs to rise?
Did it occur to you that rising PMs, in turn, makes the Euro-Banksters attempts to cover their paper-leverage on the LBMA with physical increasingly unlikely?
Did it occur to you that if LBMA becomes totally discredited, then so will be the banks who compose it? Which also happen to be the biggest banks in London, and Europe in general?
Did it occur to you that the only common element amongst all the tentacles of Leftist activism from 1848 until today is the persistent active support for it from the Largest European Banks?
Did it ever occur to you that Trump's abrasive framing is intentional, causing PMs to rise?
Did it occur to you that rising PMs, in turn, makes the Euro-Banksters attempts to cover their paper-leverage on the LBMA with physical increasingly unlikely?
Did it occur to you that if LBMA becomes totally discredited, then so will be the banks who compose it? Which also happen to be the biggest banks in London, and Europe in general?
Did it occur to you that the only common element amongst all the tentacles of Leftist activism from 1848 until today is the persistent active support for it from the Largest European Banks?
These statements show a degree of adherence to form over substance that is so exaggerated as to approach insanity.
Linking of prizes to Greenland is an explanatory predicate; i.e. "I thought of this because of that". While adding color, and displaying exceptionally bad diplomatic form, it does not have any bearing on the rest of the letter.
Alternately, the Left's reaction is based upon the proposition that Trump's stated predicate for thinking of the issue as being related to peace means that Greenland is not a security issue for the United States. That is insane thinking inasmuch as the conclusions do not follow from the precepts.
Observe:
"While watching Snidely Whiplash on the Rocky and Bullwinkle show, it made me reflect on the fact that high speed bullets are harmful to the human body, and that whether or not a threat is as villainous as Snidley, obtaining body armor is prudent and necessary for prominent persons."
Notice that the cartoon character predicate has nothing to do with the conclusion? Notice that bullets really are harmful, and body armor really is prudent?
Now, observe an analog to the Left's response:
"He said that bullets are harmful because of a CARTOON character! He must be insane! There's no threat of bullets! He is insane to suggest body armor!"
"Bullets are harmful therefore body armor is necessary" is a logical statement.
"Bullets are harmless because connected to a cartoon character" is an insane statement.
"Adversaries seek to control US shipping through the arctic therefore Greenland must be held by someone who can defend it, which necessarily means US" is a logical statement.
"Trump linked Greenland to the Nobel Prize, therefore Greenland is an insane diversion" is an insane statement.
If Greenland were unnecessary the US would never have seized it in 1941, nor made its return to Denmark in 1951 CONDITIONAL to Denmark's acceptance of US security concerns there. Nor would the US have garrisoned so many troops there throughout the Cold War that it DOUBLED the population of Greenland during that period.
More curious is Europe's formulation that garrisoning of Greenland during the old Cold War was necessary, while simultaneously saying this is a newer MORE SERIOUS Cold War that somehow DOES NOT require garrisoning.
European leadership continues to ignore realities for slavish adherence to linguistic framing customs.
Ignore customs, you get frowns.
Ignore reality, you get extinct.
Europe is poised to become extinct.
A Public sector union is an organization that sits on both sides of the negotiating table, deciding how much of taxpayers substance to consume while the taxpayers have NO REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND.
It is fundamentally an anti-American concept, based upon predation.
Now... watch nothing happen.
And if it doesn't happen, then it is because it cannot happen.
And if the Federal Government CANNOT impose discipline in this field, then that is proof that it should never have taken up responsibility for either Education or Union charters.
Taxpayers are not obligated to pay taxes to unions dedicated to their genocidal erasure.
The Federal Government is not obligated to charter an organization styling itself as a union but factually acting as a foreign directed subversive organization.
Federal Money given to a federally chartered organization that is subsequently used for purposes other than those specified, is feloniously misappropriated money.
Shortly, either the Union is NOT A UNION, or its leadership is liable for FELONY TAX THEFT.
I lean toward the former being the actual case.
A couple of facts:
The EU is defacto rejecting this 1951 treaty, in which Denmark already agreed to essentially everything the US wants there.
Prior to that agreement Greenland had been held as a protectorate of the US since the US seized it from the Nazi's.
Before the Nazis held Greenland, the Danes had it, theoretically, since 1814. I say theoretically, because it was held in much the same way that Colonial territories were almost always held in that era: Someone landed on the coastline, planted a flag, and declared it to be theirs without first mapping it, without knowing much less polling the current inhabitants, or whether other simultaneous claims were unwittingly made by others landing on the same geography.
In 1814 Mariners were still searching for the NorthWest Passage through North America to Asia.
Throwing in the claim from Viking Age is simply ridiculous.
Firstly the viking settlement failed.
Secondly the viking settlement was purely theoretical prior to the 1950s. No one had yet found evidence of it.
Thirdly, there is no legal connection between the particular vikings who lived on Greenland and the modern Kingdom of Denmark. The King of Denmark has never claimed to be their descendant, or the descendant of any particular viking ruler with sovereignty over Greenland.
Fourthly, Vikings were not exclusively Danish. They included others from around the region. And the region was not limited to Scandanavia.
The Kingdom of England was established by the descendant of a Viking. Does that mean that King Charles owns Greenland? Even though he is not descended from William the Conqueror?
Do you see the problems with this line of thinking?
Once you dismiss the ridiculous claims, the real claims are these:
Those are the facts.
Dispute them if you can.
The USA needs Ukraine?
For what, precisely?
Mueller?