boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/348912458
national-justice.com/waukesha-a … rorist-who
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE1bNLmolTc[/youtube]
There are still uncensored videos of the perpetrator plowing through the Christmas parade and swerving to the left side of the road, taking out children.
EDIT: (on bitchute)
WARNING: this next comment is not corroborated and not yet verified…
WARNING: this next comment is not corroborated and not yet verified…
This is just my opinion, it kind of looks to me, in one photo, that Kropotkin is in the front passenger side, instructing the driver to speed up.
Again, this is not yet verified… still waiting to get info back on this detail.
Of course UR has no information, only his name
has been released, but to UR, anyone who ‘‘might’’
be black, is believed to be part of BLM… UR is just making shit up
in hopes of causing fear and violence in America because
he doesn’t live in America… it is the creation of violence
that is the goal…truth and justice are irrelevant to UR…
the goal for UR is to destroy America due to his fear or hate,
which UR has advocated for plenty of times including this thread…
It is a shame that UR and Observe and Pedreo only ‘‘cure’’
for what ails our modern soul is violence and hate…
but hate and generating violence is the easy path…
the real agenda ought to be creating and building,
but like the children they are, destruction and violence
is a far easier thing to do then the act of creation, building…
it is easy to be nihilists as UR and Observe are then, to engage
in some positive actions like creating or building the future…
it is easier to stomp on a sand castle then to build a sand castle…
as any four year old will tell you…and that is why
those like UR and Observe pray for hate and violence,
because they are children
Kropotkin
You are the disease, and the cause of why these children died.
You.
K: that you must resort this this childish behavior, doesn’t surprise me at all…
I hope that someday you grow up and become a responsible adult…
Kropotkin
K: my conscience is quite clean in this matter…your conscience on the other hand
should give you pause…I am not advocating hate and violence as you are…
Kropotkin
How else can evil move so quick and effectively?
I know he’s against America. Otherwise, He would stop sending hurricanes and tornadoes and earthquakes and floods and droughts and all those other deadly disasters our way. And He sure as shit would unplug that super-volcano under Yellowstone. That’s due to erupt and bring America to its knees. Millions will die or wish that they were dead.
In fact, given all those extinction events that have virtually wiped out all life on Earth, He’s not too keen on the planet either.
And, if what I’ve been told about you by someone here is true, He has no choice but to send you to Hell.
By now it should be obvious the ACLU, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo and so on are trying to foment some sort of race and/or civil war with their hyper-inflammatory anti-white, anti-conservative, anti-libertarian rhetoric and gross mischaracterization of the facts surrounding the Rittenhouse case, and everything else.
They’re inciting terror and they know it.
If the globalists can’t own America, they’d rather see it destroyed.
In this century so far, America’s fortunes, and respect, in the rest of the world have been at their highest when the US chose Obama as preseident, and never lower in history when the hateful Trump was in office.
Americans are being killed by Americans.
Get over it.
No one wants to hate you - just stay out of our affairs, because where ever you go, you just fuck everything up.
In fact they’re not just anti-conservative and anti-libertarian, they’re anti-liberal, real liberals like Tulsi Gabbard are demonized and vilified by the globalists.
The globalists aren’t liberal, they’re illiberal.
It’s a cult, 0 dissent is tolerated.
The globalists control both the shitlib ‘left’ and the neocon ‘right’.
You’re free to think within an increasingly small box.
They alone set the parameters.
K: Some time ago, I ask for someone to defend the concept of "globalist’’
What does it mean and who does it apply to?
so, I offer this chance to you Gloom, please feel free to name names
and tell us what a “Globalist” wants and who are they…
you have proclaimed yourself an expert on Globalism, so, please
share your vast knowledge with us…
Kropotkin
The globalists are like the Tao. To name them is to not. They are everywhere but nowhere. When you have found them, you have lost them. When you lose them, they are there. Stuff like that, keter.
Start here:
[b]Klaus Martin Schwab (German pronunciation: [klaʊs ˈmaʁtiːn ʃvaːp]; born 30 March 1938) is a German engineer and economist best known as the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum. His wife, Hilde, co-founded the Schwab Foundation for Social Entrepreneurship with him. Due to his involvement in plutocratic structures such as WEF Annual Meeting in Davos, his “Global Re-Design” strategy that suggests the world should best be governed through a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments and select civil society organizations (CSOs) as well as initiatives like the “Great Reset”, Schwab has become a controversial figure within large parts of society in recent years.
Capture of democratic structures and institutions
Schwab as publisher of the World Economic Forum’s 2010 “Global Redesign” report postulates that a globalized world is best managed by a self-selected coalition of multinational corporations, governments (including through the UN system) and select civil society organizations (CSOs).[25] He argues that governments no longer are “the overwhelmingly dominant actors on the world stage” and that “the time has come for a new stakeholder paradigm of international governance”. The WEF’s vision includes a “public-private” UN, in which certain specialized agencies would operate under joint State and non-State governance systems.
According to the Transnational Institute (TNI), the Forum is hence planning to replace a recognised democratic model with a model where a self-selected group of “stakeholders” make decisions on behalf of the people.[27] The think tank summarises that we are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are “a silent global coup d’etat” to capture governance.[/b]
[b]Davos and its danger to Democracy
We are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are not laughable billionaire playgrounds, but rather the future of global governance.
It’s an all-too-easy event to mock. It’s hard to keep a straight face when the world’s rich arrive annually in their private jets to the luxury ski-resort of Davos to express their deep concern about growing poverty, inequality and climate change. US comedian Jon Stewart has labelled the World Economic Forum (WEF) the ‘money oscars’ and lampooned the media’s giddy sycophantic coverage of the event; Bono, himself a regular at the summit, jokes that it is a summit of ‘fat cats in the snow’.
This year will be no different. 2500 corporate executives, politicians and a few Hollywood stars are expected to descend this week on Davos to discuss both the growing jitters about the faltering global economy as well as pontificate on the the official theme of the conference, namely the “fourth industrial revolution” (Think robots, AI and self-driving cars).
The real concern about the WEF, however, is not the personal hypocrisy of its privileged delegates. It is rather that this unaccountable invitation-only gathering is increasingly where global decisions are being taken and moreover is becoming the default form of global governance. There is considerable evidence that past WEFs have stimulated free trade agreements such as NAFTA as well helped rein in regulation of Wall Street in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Less well known is the fact that WEF since 2009 has been working on an ambitious project called the Global Redesign Initiative, (GRI), which effectively proposes a transition away from intergovernmental decision-making towards a system of multi-stakeholder governance. In other words, by stealth, they are marginalising a recognised model where we vote in governments who then negotiate treaties which are then ratified by our elected representatives with a model where a self-selected group of ‘stakeholders’ make decisions on our behalf.
Advocates of multi-stakeholder governance argue that governments and intergovernmental forums, such as the UN, are no longer efficient places for tackling increasingly complex global crises. The founder of WEF Klaus Schwab says “the sovereign state has become obsolete”. WEF has created 40 Global Agenda Councils and industry-sector bodies, with the belief these are the best groups of people to develop proposals and ultimately decisions related to a whole gamut of global issues from climate change to cybersecurity.
Corporations are put at the heart of this model, because they provide in the view of Klaus Schwab and corporate elites, the possibilities of“agile” governance, drawing on the private sector’s experience of “adapting to a new, fast-changing environment”. Governments are encouraged to tackle every issue by allying with private sector in public-private partnerships. And a few carefully selected civil society representatives are invited in to legitimise the process. Questions of how issues are framed, who is chosen, from what sectors, for whose benefit, and accountable to whom are brushed under the carpet.
An examination of the WEF’s board, is illustrative of the sort of elite groups that emerge as a result, given that WEF likes to see itself as a working model of this new multi-stakeholder world. WEF says that on its website that it is “accountable to all parts of society” carefully “blend[ing] and balanc[ing] the best of many kinds of organizations, from both the public and private sectors, international organizations and academic institutions.” But when only 6 of its 24 “exemplary” Board members are women (25%), 16 are from North America and Europe (67%), 22 of the 24 went to universities in US and Europe (10 in fact went to the same university, Harvard) and there is not one African Board member, it does raise questions about what they think accountability and representation looks like.
However its when you look at the careers of the Board members that the real driving force behind this model is clear. While half of the Board (12) are currently corporate executives, if you look at their career history, this rises to two-thirds. Only one member can be said to represent civil society (Peter Maurer of Red Cross). There are no representatives of trade unions, public sector organisations, human rights groups, peasant or indigenous organisations, students and youth.
It is therefore no surprise when multi-stakeholder policy groups rarely, if ever, recommend any binding regulations that would damage corporate profits. University of Massachusetts professor Harris Gleckman, who has closely studied GRI, says that one of its central tenets is that opt-in, voluntaristic approaches are the best way for tackling social and environmental issues. So codes of conduct become the norm, and international binding standards and regulations are rejected (except of course when it concerns facilitating trade in commerce and finance in which case legally enforceable protections for corporations are very welcome). In other words, corporations are free to pick and choose what they act on and not bound by any enforceable legislation that could control their social and environmental impact.
This elite-led model of governance is proliferating globally like a virulent rash. The World Water Forum, the Marine Stewardship Council and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) are just three of thousands of multi-stakeholder groups .They are becoming the default option for global governance, and there is nothing in international law to stop this. What WEF is trying to do is to turn these models into a multi-stakeholder governance system. As Harris Gleckman points out, “What is ingenious and disturbing is that the WEF multi-stakeholder governance proposal does not require approval or disapproval by any intergovernmental body. Absent any intergovernmental action the informal transition to multi-stakeholder governance as a partial replacement of multilateralism can just happen.”
This model is even having a growing impact on existing intergovernmental forums. The recent agreement at Paris COP21, so celebrated worldwide, is typical. Gone was any reference of binding agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol agreed in 1997, or any attempt to tie actions to scientific advice let alone historic responsibility. Instead we got voluntary ‘promises’ of action (known as Intended Nationally Determined Contributions), a call for greater private sector involvement, and a commitment to try and do better in five years time.
The critical issue of food provides another example of what this shift towards corporate-led multistakeholderism can mean in practice. When food prices surged dramatically in 2007 to 2008, causing food riots and social unrest, a plethora of multi-stakeholder initiatives emerged in response. This included the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN), the African Green Revolution Association (AGRA), the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Task Force on the Global Food Security Crisis (HLTF) and its parallel G8 public-private partnership (PPP) initiative, the Global Partnership for Agriculture and Food Security and the Scale Up Nutrition (SUN) initiative. They also included the WEF’s own Global Food, Agriculture and Nutrition Redesign Initiative (GFANRI).
The groups’ proposals all followed a similar very template - advocating for policies that liberalise trade, increase production, encourage corporate investment and help expand agroindustries control of food. They pointedly ignore issues of distribution and waste or the need for democratic access and control of land and food. Moreover these groups systematically sought to close down multilateral spaces, such as the UN Standing Committee on Nutrition (SCN), that actually examined these issues. No wonder, long-time food sovereignty activist, Flavio Vicente calls this corporate capture a “life grab” which “threatens the achievement of food sovereignty and the full emancipation of women.”
The result is that we are increasingly entering a world where gatherings such as Davos are not laughable billionaire playgrounds, but rather the future of global governance. It is nothing less than a silent global coup d’etat.[/b]
https://www.tni.org/en/article/davos-and-its-danger-to-democracy
Holy christ is that shit for real?
You guys need Marx more than ever now. Might be too late tho. Hard to say. Jeez ya know if Lenin didn’t die and instead
Oh nevermind. Carry on.