4 ms·

He's proposing to make companies and central banks factor in environmental costs and climate change into their decisions. As opposed to the current model where

He's proposing to make companies and central banks factor in environmental costs and climate change into their decisions. As opposed to the current model where the board is required to act exclusively in the financial interest of shareholders. He then proposed maybe incentivizing and paying for carbon removal. What exactly is so evil and nihilist about it?

motohagiography 5y ago
While that's almost disingenuous, specifically, the belief that there is no truth, especially one that is separate or meaningful from official power narrative, is nihilism. A close relative of it used to be called "the banality of evil," which was about thinking in similar self justifying cliches. The climate narrative is just one movement his organization has co-opted and used as a host - one that originally opposed him when it was a part of the progressive anti-globalization movement of the 90s that specifically called out his Davos cronies. Now, climate is just the logic of an idea, it is an exogenous threat that can be used to justify literally anything once you have decoupled narrative from accountability to truth. Most of it is just a bunch of gibberish theory designed to confuse, pacify, and above all, neutralize criticism and opposition to the underlying action behind it. I would ask: Why should central banks be accountable to him and the organizations he controls? Why are he and others so indexed on zero-sum redistribution of carbon "rights" instead of investing in developing new energy technologies and efficiencies? Why did he coin the phrase "great reset" in his rambling book of the same title, designed to leverage a global crisis to reshape the world in his vision? The answer is always the same: because it puts him and his network in the center of the chaos they create, and invents new conflicts for the sole purpose of managing them. It's straight political infiltration and demolition of existing successful economies using a network of fifth columnists he has groomed and orchestrated the installation of - which he has openly bragged about. His appeals to climate narrative are straw men, they have nothing to do with the technology and economics of energy use, and they all resolve to central global governance and a zero sum view of power over the entire planet. He, and his acolytes also believe there is no accountability to truth in discourse (I live in one of their countries), and they use words mainly as a distraction and a kind of perfidy. Who is going to "make" those companies and central banks factor in his agenda to their decisions? Sounds like a technocratic rule by people who have seized the underlying service mechanisms of the economy, and one that cannot be left or escaped. We live in a post-totalitarian world, and that means guys like this are going to periodically rise and be an ongoing threat to our species' ability to live and thrive. It is our responsibility to challenge them and call them out for what they are, because the 20th century showed us the consequences of ignoring them until it was too late.

motohagiography 5y ago

While that's almost disingenuous, specifically, the belief that there is no truth, especially one that is separate or meaningful from official power narrative, is nihilism. A close relative of it used to be called "the banality of evil," which was about thinking in similar self justifying cliches. The climate narrative is just one movement his organization has co-opted and used as a host - one that originally opposed him when it was a part of the progressive anti-globalization movement of the 90s that specifically called out his Davos cronies. Now, climate is just the logic of an idea, it is an exogenous threat that can be used to justify literally anything once you have decoupled narrative from accountability to truth. Most of it is just a bunch of gibberish theory designed to confuse, pacify, and above all, neutralize criticism and opposition to the underlying action behind it. I would ask: Why should central banks be accountable to him and the organizations he controls? Why are he and others so indexed on zero-sum redistribution of carbon "rights" instead of investing in developing new energy technologies and efficiencies? Why did he coin the phrase "great reset" in his rambling book of the same title, designed to leverage a global crisis to reshape the world in his vision? The answer is always the same: because it puts him and his network in the center of the chaos they create, and invents new conflicts for the sole purpose of managing them. It's straight political infiltration and demolition of existing successful economies using a network of fifth columnists he has groomed and orchestrated the installation of - which he has openly bragged about. His appeals to climate narrative are straw men, they have nothing to do with the technology and economics of energy use, and they all resolve to central global governance and a zero sum view of power over the entire planet. He, and his acolytes also believe there is no accountability to truth in discourse (I live in one of their countries), and they use words mainly as a distraction and a kind of perfidy. Who is going to "make" those companies and central banks factor in his agenda to their decisions? Sounds like a technocratic rule by people who have seized the underlying service mechanisms of the economy, and one that cannot be left or escaped. We live in a post-totalitarian world, and that means guys like this are going to periodically rise and be an ongoing threat to our species' ability to live and thrive. It is our responsibility to challenge them and call them out for what they are, because the 20th century showed us the consequences of ignoring them until it was too late.