Anons research, use logic, evaluate, use expanded thinking and do not engage overly with emotional reaction.
- This is the logo for the APEC CEO summit for ONE year, hosted by THAILAND. It is NOT a WEF logo, or the logo of any permanent organization.
APEC = Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
- It is a logo developed by Thailand for THEIR hosting event. Each nation hosting APEC develops a unique logo, often one that reflect and highlights their cultural heritage. (Note the logos used by Peru, Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, New Zealand)
Philippines APEC CEO Summit logo (2016)
Peru APEC CEO Summit logo (2016)
Viet Nam APEC CEO Summit logo (2017)
Papua New Guinea APEC CEO Summit logo (2018)
Chile APEC CEO Summit logo (2019)
Malaysia APEC CEO Summit logo (2020)
New Zealand APEC CEO Summit logo (2021)
Now in context:
Thailand APEC CEO Summit logo (2022)
Note the many other iterations on the broad backdrop of what appears to be a very thailand-ish motif.
Also:
Thai Folk Art
https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/thai-folk-art-pattern-flower-shape-647023225
Some more Thai design/imagery
This logo will no longer be used after the summit is finished. Next year, the APEC CEO Summit will have a new logo. APEC CEO SUmmit 2023 is scheduled to be held...... in the USA.
While we know that the Cabal behind the WEF has worked to infiltrate all institutions, and we can be confident that APEC is one of those, it seems to me that it's an irrational leap to somehow conflate the logo for the APEC 2022 CEO summit with some new symbol Klaus Schwab is establishing. Maybe, but its a big leap and far more likely simply the expression of ignorance on the part of Westerners who don't really know anything about the history and culture of the East or of Thailand itself.
While the USA 2023 Summit logo does have echos of the swastika, over-estimation of the impact of this (it's a temporary EVENT logo that will be shelved the following year) combined with a lack of research and context, a smattering of ignorance, fueled by emotional leaps - this approach really does NOT serve the Q agenda, imo.
By the way, here's a few neat pics of your favorite President addressing the APEC CEO Summit in Vietnam, 2017.
That's not the point either. People pointed this out because it's Klaus Schwab standing under a friggin swastika. It could definitely be a loud dog whistle.
Kids and stuffed bears with panda eyes aren't always symbols of pedophilia either, but Balenciaga is sure taking heat over it right now.
Ah, OK. I only saw the GAW post (which does not show Schwab). I'll admit, looking at the original tweet, it's kind a .... ironic.
Schwab in front of what looks like a swastika. Which it isn't (it's going in the opposite direction).
But then, what do you make of the context? Considering all the logos, and the fact that this logo is a one-off thing.
The Balenciaga things completely different, imo.
I suppose. I don't see much significance in it myself, but we're just dealing with opinions here.
I don't put much value in it either. Just something to go "hm" at. Glad it was posted here so I could hm at it.
I have to admit, I have a bias. I tend to see such emotionally charged conclusions (as expressed by some of the commentators in the original post) by a lot of pedes to be less than diligent in the application of Q's principles.
I guess all anons are different, but I do think (my opinion) that some anons place WAY too much emphasis on the symbolism factor, to the extent that they see the symbols everywhere, I mean everywhere. And, I think that can be counter-productive.
But possibly, its just one area that doesn't resonate with my thinking, and I'm wrong or don't see the connections. In my stock and trade, context is CRITICAL to evaluating ANY meaning, and I think sometimes meaning that isn't there can be extracted because the observer isn't taking sufficient notice or isn't sufficiently contextualizing the information.
Agree generally. We could make some formula for it.
requisite attention = (probability of signal vs noise) * (impact if true)
Both variables are low here, so imo, low attention is called for. The symbol is likely benign and even if not, its low impact because we already know Klaus is a baddie.
But I do think it's good to avoid mistakenly assigning a zero value to things like this. Requisite attention is nonzero here, but still very low, imo.