All of my life I have been dogged by questions of "why?" Why am I here? Why have I been called into this world? Why does this world exist? Why are you doing this to me? Why are you putting me through this? Why? Why? Why? These are the basic, fundamental questions in philosophy and, specifically, ontology.
These questions cannot be brushed off with platitudes like "God did it. God created it." Because this leaves us with more questions than answers. Who is God? How did He do it? How did this experience we call reality come to be? And what is meant by being?
Because the material world is a large part of what we call reality, or everything that is, (large from our point of view at least…we cannot make assumptions on this ground) we can be informed by materialistic science and it might even lead us on a path towards the answers we seek. However, very quickly, as we endeavor to answer these questions, we find that materialistic science is just one piece of the puzzle. As you will see.
Some other pieces of this puzzle include:
Religious miracles and apparitions
End Times Prophecies
Cryptids : Cryptic Creatures
Mathematics and metamathematics
Extra Sensory Perception ESP
Controls & Instrumentation Engineering
Geomancy and Chinese Metaphysics
Lotteries and Gambling
Runes, Heiroglyphics, and Writing Systems
and much more…
These are a few of the lines I have plumbed in search of the answer to "Why?"
Over the course of my life I have studied:
The Holy Bible
The I Ching
aromatherapy and apothecary
and much more…
I've learned that if you want the bedrock Truth, you can find it in Jesus Christ,
but if you want to study the nuts and bolts of how Maker made the world and holds it all together,
you must delve many long corridors populated by jinns and genies, like Solomon did and I have.
The LORD [is] righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works.
This is the first in a series of blog posts. Stay tuned, but first I must address this material:
The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials
Our aim is to attempt to understand the real motives of the elites, understanding that aside from what they may view as their own agency or intentions, are paradigmatic and formative questions in culture, of which they too are subjects of.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5
For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ
Genocide or Slavery? What do the elites plan for us? In the next several installments, we will address possible competing visions for the Great Reset’s technocratic coup against constitutional republican norms.
The present debate must take into account the status of corporate culture and corporate ideology and ideals in the transition from plutocratic oligarchical norms into technocratic oligarchical norms.
While the corporate elites of the banking institutes centered around the IMF, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, and voiced through the World Economic Forum have a particular vision for the society they want to shape, they do not do so in a vacuum. Rather, they themselves are both shaped and severely limited by the paradigm from which they emerged, and the combined ecosphere of social views within which they swim.
While some form of 4th Industrial Revolution is inevitable for the same reason that the Luddites of 19th century England were doomed from the start, the particular vision of a post-financial order being now enforced by the elites only bears all of the greatest defects and birthmarks of the historical era and paradigm from which their values and visions were formed.
This piece aims to focus on that sphere of values and visions – in short, the corporate ideal.
We have demonstrated that there is a positive version of the 4IR that free citizens can fight for and win, but they must both be engaged in a fight where the freedoms they have to carry out that fight against the Bill Gates and Klaus Schwabs of the world, give shape and form to the same type of society which can be formed on those same constitutional and republican principles of freedom, community empowerment, and individual, bodily, and economic autonomy, and property rights.
The debate surrounds several end-game scenarios of western elites with this Great Reset Agenda for 2030. Primarily, these are;
Whether the eradication of the majority of humanity is preferable;
Whether the enslavement of the majority of humanity is preferable;
Naturally, any varying combination of the above is within play, but we are interested in whether one will predominate over the other.
In other words, is it preferable that some 9/10ths of the world’s population figure is eliminated? Or that some number closer to the present number is sustained, but reduced to complete subservience? By this we mean regimentation, surveillance, restricted movement, and cybernetic controls over cognitive and biological processes. Or is some measure squarely in between these two the most preferable?
Another possibility, is that after some 9/10ths of the population figure is reduced, that some relatively ‘normal’ (in terms of liberal democracy) rights (privileges) are ‘given’ to the remaining global population. This much may be entertained if what we are involved in presently is a broad eugenics program, not just blind population reduction, so that the remaining population will be those who – while not a part of the present financial elite – are considered genetically or socially important in terms of the gene pool or remaining subject/underling population, as part of some idealized vision of a hierarchical society somewhat reminiscent in form of the one we are presently leaving behind. As dark as that seems, we must understand that this is the ‘light’ scenario – which doesn’t speak to any benevolence afoot, but rather to the utter severity of the very ugly and real situation at hand.
In our next installment, we will dig further into these two alternative visions. Within these, various subplots are possible.
But to really understand things, will require a deeper discussion into the nature of rulership, of power, of control, of whether pain and suffering are tools towards an end, or ends in and of themselves. And while this part of the discussion will no doubt be a more dazzling encounter with the grim, the underlying thesis will be lost without an understanding of the corporate ideology which shaped the present discourse, which is our immediate subject today.
But nevertheless it came to pass that crimes against humanity; mass imprisonment, regimentation, and human experimentation towards a type of reified transhumanist dystopia, had come to characterize the trajectory of a totalitarian societal development in the western world.
With this, of course we refer to the Covid-19 measures and the Great Reset Agenda for 2030.
The division of humanity into essential and non-essential human beings, meaning a two-tier system of rights within nation-states which resembles the two or three tiered system of rights that now exists in and between nation-states, should be a central focus for social critics capable of making a rigorous and thorough analyses of the present crisis. And yet it isn’t. Why not?
A note on the Interpolation crisis in Academia: From Critic to Enforcer
A feature of this crisis is that institutions which may educate, foster, and employ such critics have long ceased to exist. In their place, teams of compliant machine cogs whose only similarity with the social critics and organizers of yesterday, are their titles and positions.
These former critics of society, are now critics of members of society, the target being the masses themselves. From ‘punching up’ against the role of capital’s domination over social life, their roles are now to ‘punch down’. Between sensitivity trainings and the creation of ‘safe spaces’, there is no more room for an actual assessment of the real problem of society – at least not without the ceaseless ritualized preambulatory flagellations on various intersectional oppressions, and how each member of society however disempowered and actually disenfranchised is truly and chiefly responsible for them.
And naturally, they cannot in any way see their own assimilation of technocratic social norms – the Ideological State Apparatus or ISA – into themselves, in a phenomenon where the ideology of the ISA is internalized by members of society, as described by the French social theoretician Louis Althusser, in his tracts on interpolation.
The Corporate Ideal versus State Legitimacy
Centuries ago, the splendor of a sovereign state (and the status of its rulers) was a question that balanced between number of subjects, and the conditions within which they lived. This tied a type of anthropocentric principle to social relations and societal conditions and how we evaluated them. We may or may not ascribe ideas or ideals as the motivating factor here. Because of the state of technologies, including both productive and coercive technologies, and the requirement that human beings’ productive labor was a deciding factor in the wealth and power of nations and states, it was at the very least rational that a system of internalized self-discipline among the population was maintained, based upon a rationalization that society itself was generally good and organized towards the general welfare of the citizens. In that sense, society had to make, at the very least and to varying degrees of actualization, empirically observable gestures in that direction.
This view held sway until just recently. Corporate culture as it rose to challenge the authority of states, and in order to be seen as positive contributors to society in the eyes of a public, had elements of this legitimacy as well.
But corporate culture in its infancy was concealing that to the contrary, unlike the system of international states, it does not really hold either the condition of citizens or their numbers (which also has a strong military correlation), as the marker of power and success.
Corporate culture, for its part, prioritized an increasingly digitalized bottom-line; with the primary aim being to externalize costs, upwards distribute gains, and downwards distribute losses.
Incoming then was the eventual corporate culture of ‘downsizing’. This marked the final and last cleavage between how societies viewed success and how corporations viewed success.
Downsizing: Prologue to Genocide
Downsizing cannot be overlooked as the prologue in this process of eugenics or genocide (population reduction). It is, first and foremost, the foreshadowing of the IMF/WEF version of the 4th Industrial Revolution as promoted by Klaus Schwab in his 250 page primer, Covid-19: The Great Reset.
The culture of downsizing and redundancies was the critical turning point in the devolution of human social organization of scale. It is a fundamentally misanthropic principle, which may subsist in a certain benign way within a cost-externalizing corporation that exists upon a broader society which, in the case of the latter, may be expected to shoulder those costs in the name of decency or legitimacy, or both. But once society itself embraces this corporate ethos, it has entered into the sort of new Dark Age thinking embodied in Kissinger’s conception that non-essential members of society are useless eaters.
Once fully introduced, no longer would General Motors, IBM, or Lockheed be seen as powerful or important based in any way upon the number of workers in its employ, the size and scope of their operations, the square footage of their productive centers, the number of floors in their corporate headquarters, the number of cars in their corporate fleet, the scale and scope of benefits and perks and corporate retreats delegated among the varying strata, and at varying levels, of its internally organized hierarchical structure – but based now entirely upon the its speculated future value in terms of stock valuation.
If all of the old markers had to be destroyed and cast aside in pursuit of an ever-more roboticized, automated, out-sourced, and down-sized bottom line, then so be it.
Their values to the political class were no longer seen as a factor relating to the number of households reliant upon its internal upstream and downstream productive economies in terms of goods and services, employment, and philanthropic endowments, but rather to its social weight to engage in new and creative forms of lobbying, with new legislative measures in place which until that time would have been illegal forms of bribery.
This stark realism-as-reality created a crisis in public perceptions of corporations and the corporate ideal. In order for a technocratic agenda to be realized, a major public relations about-face would be required for corporations to once again be seen as arbiters of moral right.
From this we find the standardization of 4th wave feminism, critical race and gender theory, and environmentalism as corporate ideals towards a new legitimacy, concealing their actual processes of downsizing, outsourcing, and upwards wealth and power distribution.
In the same way that in the corporation, problems in the bottom line could be blamed on the laziness of workers, tardiness, apathy, a lackluster approach to work, lengthy breaks, extensive and extended vacations and sick-days, overly generous retirement plans (and not problems with the actual product and its relation to market itself), so too society could adopt this orientation;
Rather than problems of gender pay disparity, racial discrimination, prejudice and discrimination be laid upon those steering society – punching up – instead these could be transformed into personal characteristic problems of every member of society – punching down.
The fundamental crisis now is that all of these come together as part of a broader misanthropic and genocidal narrative which divides humanity between essential and non-essential.
With the introduction of the plague, with its entirely pre-planned and manufactured political ‘response’, it is exposed as an agenda of repression and regimentation of society into essential versus non-essential, of masked versus unmasked, of vaccinated versus unvaccinated, all while the rights of all have been suspended as if under conditions of imprisonment, military occupation, dictatorship, or all of the above.
To understand the end-game scenario in their aims – genocide or slavery – requires a discussion on the nature of power, forms of hierarchy, and whether pain and suffering is a means towards an end or perhaps the end itself. In our next installment, we will do just that.
Our aim is to attempt to understand the real motives of the elites, understanding that aside from what they may view as their own agency or intentions, are more broadly paradigmatic and formative questions in culture, of which they too are subjects of. We often view the elites as drivers of culture, and do not always adequately assess the paradigm and culture from which their own particular sense of solutions and drives stems from.
In short, the corporate culture of externalizing costs and downsizing worked for the bottom line, but as a legitimating ISA it could only lead to the final problem with its own final solution: the ‘carbon footprint’ human beings are now the redundant workforce to be done away with. With automation and roboticization, no human being will be essential. All human life is inessential.
Have The Great Reset Technocrats Really Thought This Through?
The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.
With the UN World Food Program announcing that some 270 million people worldwide now face starvation, the ongoing debate about the real aims of the technocracy is profound. The question is whether their aim tends more towards major population reduction, or more towards a new type of slavery.
It appears that philosophical and long-term practical questions remain a mystery. We will argue that evil, not simply the influence of the base upon the superstructure, is at the core of this endeavor. We have defined evil as inflicting the highest degree of pain upon the greatest number of resisting subjects. In short, we have defined evil as sadism, inflicting evil because it brings satisfaction to those inflicting it.
Because evil is fundamentally a destructive force, it cannot create anything: nothing in it is truly novel nor of use to humanity. Its pleasures are short-lived and spurious. It is unsustainable, self-defeating, ultimately leading to self-destruction.
We have adequately assessed from any number of sources that nefarious interests are behind this process, who seek to make the process also about the exercise of power, in addition to several other aims (remaining in power, exercising power in ways consistent with their occult beliefs about evil, etc.). We understand that they are ‘evil’ because they involve a type of ‘power-over’ (as opposed to power-with/consent) which derives this power from fear-mongering and terrorism upon the population. Terrorism here is defined as the operationalized use of fear, pain, and other injury towards socio-political aims.
Had their plans not been rooted in evil, they would have used soft-power tactics like manufacturing consent, to arrive at their ends.
The aim of the Great Reset is to transition the ruling plutocratic oligarchy into a technocratic one. The basis of plutocracy is finance, and the introduction of AI and automation eliminates the basis for finance as the foundation of an economy of scale. This is because automation and deflation move in tandem, making new technologies net losers. Therefore a new paradigm accounting for this post-financial ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’, must be introduced.
But the ideology of the Great Reset is based within the old financialist paradigm, which is one of cost externalization. When human beings are no longer involved in the valorization process in the production of goods and services, then humanity itself is the cost that requires externalization – elimination.
But how it is that sadism became the occult religion of the ruling class, presents a “chicken-or-the-egg” type of question. That is, did the corporate ideology mutate into occult sadism, or did occult sadism find its expression through the corporate ideology? This question will no doubt form the basis of later inquiry.
We often defer to nefarious motivations or processes in terms of ‘greed’, or ‘self-interest’, ‘power obsession’ or the ‘crisis of capital accumulation’, ‘speculative bubbles’.
And these do not suffice in the final analysis, though they provide explanatory power. The problem arises in predictive power, because while we face a crisis of diminishing returns due to automation (as the increasing tendency towards net loss on new large capital investments), the real psychological needs that motivate the present plutocracy as a power-group are actually undermined in significant and sudden population reduction, or new post-coercive technologies that eliminate human agency. This may seem counter-intuitive, but in light of an understanding of the self-defeating nature of evil, we will explore this question.
When we map out the probabilities of three intersecting policy vectors, we can understand this question even better. Those policy vectors are a.) neuralink/AI/Neural Implants/magneto proteins and related transhumanism, b.) depopulation as part of stated Agenda 2030 goals, c.) automation/roboticization, 4IR, and IoT.
This will follow from our last piece on the subject, The Great Reset Morality: Euthanization of the Inessentials:
The development and introduction of neural implants, magneto proteins, etc., can go in any number of directions. Some types of these promise to give elites ‘super-human’ cognitive abilities. However, another very practical application is to mandate that these are used on the general populace as to handicap them or control their thoughts in some way.
In that sense, neural implants can work like pharmaceuticals are used in psychiatry. In the creation of this sort of Huxleyesque ‘Brave New World’, we can easily see the continuation of a paradigm already existing today. This is one where it is common-place to find various predictable depressions, anxieties, and neuroticisms caused by contemporary social conditions, but treated psychiatrically instead of resolved socio-economically.
Neural implants can also perform a similar function, but go even further. Beyond emotions or basic effect on the re-uptake of certain hormones like serotonin, etc.; neural implants can direct thoughts or change whole cognitive processes. Beyond feelings, drives, and impulses, neural implants promise to produce actual thoughts in the minds of the subject.
In between these two is a hybrid form – nanotech and chemogenetics working with optogenetics. Because the delivery system to the brain can be through injection, nanolipids and other compounds can come in the form of shots. These can be delivered as part of a required ‘vaccination’ regimen (insofar as that term has been redefined), as nanotech features already in the Covid-19 shot.
Therefore, such can be included – whether disclosed to the public or not – in required vaccinations.
The development of these would seem, however, to be a technology that would support slavery, but does not rule out genocide. Certainly the ability to control the thoughts of a population would greatly mitigate risk in the view of the state apparatus, especially as it moves towards genocide.
Depopulation: Myths vs. Facts
Population control and population reduction have long been policy at various institutions and think tanks committed to global governance, from the UN to the World Economic Forum. It was a part of the UN’s Millennium goals, and since the dawn of the 21st century, has been part of UN Agenda 2030.
It is important to now introduce a framework for understanding the problem of population in light of economic development. The long standing view is that economic development leads to population stagnation, even decline. The idea here is that education and urbanization are processes which lead towards better knowledge of basic family planning, in tandem with improved access to abortion and birth control.
The underlying postulate is that people naturally do not want to be burdened with children, that children are an affront to freedom in the abstract. The formula is that as people are better educated and have more meaningful work and interesting lives, they know both how to prevent pregnancy and also no longer have ‘primitive’ inclinations towards large family building.
This mythology was built up around a notion that people are fundamentally self-interested in the narrowest sense, to the exclusion of other desires, needs, and impulses. They are presented as the norm such to furthermore create a broader culture which opposes procreation.
Instead, the real mechanism pushing population stagnation in the 1st world are increased pressures of work, and increased costs of living. Rather than ascribing population stagnation to improved conditions of life, these are more related to austere conditions imposed by late modernity. The costs of property, of rents, of food, and also because of the decline in quality of goods through increased planned obsolescence, has placed more economic pressure on individuals and couples. It has led to the requirement that both members of a household are working full-time. And even with this, home ownership in cosmopolitan centers is practically impossible for most. Austerity has also led to stagnation in life expectancy.
This truth is exposed in actual policy papers like “New strategies for slowing population growth” (1995). Here, the doublespeak is evident, with easily decipherable phrases within it; “…reduce unwanted pregnancies by expanding services that promote reproductive choice and better health, to reduce the demand for large families by creating favorable conditions for small families…”. What could possibly be meant by ‘create favorable conditions for small families’?
Economic development does not reduce population, but if we add austerity and demanding and inflexible work obligations, then we land on an answer. Economic prosperity, as it has for time immemorial, promises to greatly increase the population in the absence of a program of population reduction. Because an organic 4IR not brought in by the technocracy would decrease work obligations and increase quality of life markers, we would expect a population boom.
Consequently, projections that that population will top off at just under 10 billion by the 2060’s are as erroneous as they are linear. Without a technocracy working to actively reduce population, as they believe, an economy based on automation and AI would see a population explosion.
It is still likely that the would-be technocrats have indeed thought out the end-game, and that there are any number of possibilities that will allow them to harvest sadistic pleasure as an exercise of absolute power, in perpetuity. This might mean increasing fear of extermination far beyond actual population reduction. It could mean maintaining many aspects of agency for the controlled population, so that their pains are internalized in multivariate and complex fashions, that include confused feelings of self-blame, identifying with the abuser, resentment, regret, and also violations of will and dignity. Again, if will is not a factor, then all of these potential arenas of psychological pain are not present.
To frame the following, it is fundamental to understand that in a post-labor civilization, the status of humanity no longer exists upon a metric of utility. Either civilization exists to improve the human condition, or to increase human suffering. There are no trade-offs or costs. Society is either good or evil.
But evil is short lived and short-sighted, and this is why: Sudden population reduction is a fire-cracker, it explodes just once. The pleasure in the process of eradicating billions of people, and the fear, pain, and suffering this would cause, within the span of a few short years, only gets to be enjoyed once. It’s a sacrificial ritual upon the altar of Moloch that can only be performed one time.
Likewise with post-coercive technologies: Without agency, controlling people serves no purpose in terms of violating their own will or desire. Causing pain on a subject that does not resist because he has no will, gives the sadist much less pleasure than would pain on a subject against their will.
Moreover, the position of being elite is relative to a number of factors such as distribution of wealth, power, and/or privilege, and the sheer numbers in terms of population, that one possesses these advantages over.
If there are only elites remaining, then they would have merely introduced a new kind of egalitarian society on the foundation of superabundance and a miniscule human population. If living conditions of an existing humanity can be greatly reduced, then the relative privilege and luxury enjoyed by the elites grows in that proportion.
Absent some radical life-extending technology, it is conceivable that science and technology have already reached the zenith point at which privilege and luxury cannot be furthered. A reasonable solution would be to reduce living conditions for others so as to enhance their own relative privilege. The greater number of people who live in reduced conditions, the more privileged one’s position of privilege actually is.
Likewise, it would seem that maintaining some human population as ‘possessions’ would serve to augment ownership over human beings, perhaps the most valuable type of possession because they are aware that they are owned – but only if that humiliates them. For what other purpose is there for slavery, in a world without human labor?
Does it have any meaning, or is any satisfaction achieved, by governing over people without the possibility to have the will to either consent, or conversely, resent the ruler? Here we can understand it along these lines: the possibility for agency means that governing can happen with their support, or against their will.
But neural implant control over cognitive processes, eliminates the possibility for will, which would deprive technocrats of the pleasure of ruling with or against the will of the ruled.
Therefore, the destructive evil framework of those behind the Great Reset is revealed. The use of strategy, planning, and cunning to achieve their desired result is prevalent. But have they examined the foundation of their desires? Do they understand what their victory would deliver to them?
The only thing left to destroy in a world populated by elites alone, are other elites. It would seem that the desire to dominate others does not simply come to an end on its own.
For these reasons, it is likely that some elites have seen the problem in this end game. This would explain the inter-elite conflict which we have explored previously, and will return to in the near future.
Geopolitics expert warns China preparing for total war against the United States 2021-06-11 05:47
The long-term global domination plan has always been for China to invade and conquer the continental United States by launching attacks from Mexico, while Russia plans to attack and take Alaska, then proceed to conquer Canada.
What has changed recently in all this, however, is that China has sharply accelerated its timetable of attacking America due to emerging revelations about the origins of the covid-19 biological weapon, which was developed under the supervision of the communist Chinese military.
China now knows it must attack and attempt to destroy America before these investigations show China deliberately built the bioweapon and released it on the world.
See the full podcast here.