DR. JOHN CAMPBELL GRAPPLES WITH SCIENTIFIC TRUTH

 OK, you grey eminences, awaken from your dogmatic slumbers and ponder this -   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FckD6qL76uA&authuser=0

It's been an education watching Campbell's evolution in this unfolding 

drama. Steadfastly truthful throughout, he has followed, as must we 

all, the 'evidence' provided by his authorities, in whom he thereby 

demonstrated his trust.  "Science is about trying to find out what is the 

nature of reality" he exclaims, laying bare his credo, but equally laying 

bare the core problem science cannot reach: it's all ultimately based 

on trust!  He asks whom (or what) do we follow, "science, or scientific 

officers? There's a big...difference." Really?

Because this opens the entire can of worms - beyond the scope of his 

video - which addresses his statement about the purpose of science. 

What, in the final analysis, is the difference between science and 

scientists? Is Dr. Campbell now going to experiment directly on bat 

viruses, furin cleavage sites, and what have you, so as to sidestep the 

fallibility of scientists?

No, he isn't. And even if he did, would we then infallibly learn the truth? 

From him? He'd be just another scientist! To be faithful to the belief that 

there's a difference between science and scientists we'd have to do our 

own experiments too!  The only infallible yardstick of truth is direct 

experience. Everything else has to pass through the medium of fellow 

humans - whom we have to trust. And verification? This returns us to the 

beginning.  It's a circular argument.  All ultimately relies on trust. And trust 

assumes truth. And truth is experience, and... Round and round.

The goal of science - to uncover objective truth - is unachievable. 

Scientific papers? Written by human beings. Data? Compiled by human 

beings. (Yup - even data are suspect: no less than the British Office of 

National Statistics has right now been caught with its pants down, 

manipulating death stats to favour the C-19 vaccinated.)  Apply better 

safeguards, you say? Conducted by whom? The Lancet? Discredited. 

The police? Puh-lease! The judiciary? Surely you jest. 

The entire project depends on trust.  It isn't about a supposed objective 

science at all.  It's about morality!

Even bloody Piers Morgan has a point, when he excuses his venomous  

condemnation of the unvaxxed by claiming that he was simply articulating 

what the 'experts' had said. Indeed he was - he was following his trusted 

authorities, which were flawed, if not actually corrupt (there's another 

distinction we need to explore).  The integrity of the authority structure is 

paramount, and based on trust, which is ultimately unverifiable, absent 

direct experience.

The authority structure is fallible? So what else is new? Morality turns out 

to be the only absolute guide to human behaviour, and that's internal and 

unmeasurable - beyond the purview of science, at least as presently 

conceived.

____________

Pablo

DISMANTLING BRITAIN

Forbidden Knowledge - FKTV - has just circulated Neil Oliver's blistering attack on what appears to be the insanity now ruling Britain. 

That read, I then opened the GB News link for November 24.  

 

It's all starting to look... pretty scary. The overwhelming impression I'm getting, reinforced by every edict handed down by the people with big mouths and no ears, is that the takedown is approaching its final phase.  

 

What is a societal takedown?  What are its key elements?  The above two links may provide a clue.  To me, they show a process of devaluation. People are struggling to make sense of a crumbling world using the upbringing, education, morality and life experience that got us this far.  But the foundations upon which humanity stands - the evolutionary history that informs our behaviour - is not applicable to the Fourth Industrial Revolution into which we are being herded. That web of value is being destroyed, and without it people are rudderless. 

 

We are experiencing a progressive transformation from the behavioural guidance of shared values - predicated on belief in an underlying good of which we are expressions - into rule by numbers, for which values, being unmeasurable, do not exist. This is the essence of scientism, which is the new religion, whose prophet is Yuval Noah Harari, whose avatar is Klaus Schwab, whose temple is the World Economic Forum. and whose handmaiden is technocracy. 

 

From the wildly successful, wholesale application of technology to get what we want, has emerged a technocracy which, by its very ubiquity, has become its own justification. All problems, all solutions, are digital. The digital medium becomes the message that replaces the old medium in which we swam, which was a shared system of beliefs (values) . Shared beliefs (values) were the unquestioned matrix within which societal interactions - mutual understanding - effortlessly took place.  Borders signified different belief systems, for which diplomacy was required. Today the societal medium is computers, cellphones, satellites which recognise no borders. We are now in a value flatland.

 

Machines have their own demands to which, unless you are prepared to exit society, you must conform. The  principle of social participation - that to communicate we must all agree - hasn't changed, but the medium of communication has. The applications and devices through which we share values have become those values themselves (viz. Marshall McLuhan and Noam Chomsky). 

 

Built as we are we can only attempt to shoehorn the new paradigm into our sentient selves. This, it seems to me, is impossible. But our controllers believe otherwise. To them we are machinery, and as such can be made to conform to whatever mold into which our social engineers choose to press us.  

 

So humanity at present continues to live by values, as it must, but to interact with the digital matrix that now controls us requires a new kind of agreement; one that demands our intimate connection to the internet of bodies (IoB).  Only in this way can the communication occur which previously took place via direct human interaction, and on which our ability to understand each other still absolutely relies. From now on all knowledge will be unified.  There will be one truth (c.f. NZPM Jacinda Ardern).  The holy grail of the religious quest has been replaced by a digital replica fashioned virtually, externally, digitally, in a simulation of sentient reality. Ersatz nirvana. 

 

To make humanity fully operational in this new, digital society requires the reliable tracking of all human interactions, everywhere. Universal jab passports, being mandated in the UK as I write, are the insurance for this, as are the jabs they document.  Bill Gates', Anthony Fauci's, and Klaus Schwab's separate calls for 'a jab in every arm' highlight this as the non-negotiable stepping stone to interface humans with supercomputers and AI, linked to us via 5G and satellites. The target is control of the human body itself, transhumanism the process, and Homo borg genesis the final product.   

 

And the majority of Britons, and in fact the human race, are sleepwalking into it, duly documented, having consented to be jabbed.

 

____________

Pablo

 

FREEDOM, CONTROL, AND THE G20

 

https://twitter.com/i/status/1579759795225198593

 

The full Expose article that includes the short video clip linked above refers to the concluding declaration of the G20 Summit in Bali (Can't transport the world elites by train to Scunthorpe, can we), the purpose of which can be summed up in one bureaucratic sentence:

 

Secure the seamless interoperability of all systems planetwide.

 

Desirable? Achievable? Surely neither, even to an authoritarian. Some control, certainly, but global control? With the above accomplished, all life (human, trans- and post-) would be by top down edict. Yes, that appears to be the plan.  Down the global pyramid it would go, level by level, with everyone 'just following orders', and human freedom (which Yuval Harari conveniently dismisses) would be gone, perhaps forever. 

 

The trigger for the universal takeover towards which the G20 Summit is one more step, is The Jabs, which are the enabling tool of the Great Reset, which is overtly the brainchild of unelected engineering-, economics- and public administration graduate Klaus Schwab. Climate mandate compliance (carbon credits) to follow shortly.

 

Care is always taken in these global initiatives to express respect for national laws and edicts, which at present may conflict with those recommended by the UN. 

Everything must be legal! Hence the obscene document bloat that characterises everything the UN and EU do. But unaligned states will in due course be quietly subsumed under an all-embracing, international constitution, as is already the case with the WHO. Hence the G20 meeting.  Buried in its excruciating verbiage are ample backdoor provisions – deliberate vagaries - that permit doing anything to anyone, given a sufficient 'emergency' as defined, of course, by the same people who make the rules.

 

I thought theTrudeau-Xi confrontation particularly significant for us ants.  Xi scolded Trudeau for flouting a rule insufficiently understood by those not in authority, but which Trudeau well knows: diplomacy is not transparent! Borders denote the perimeters of incompatible systems. Statements made in confidence are not for sharing. Our confusion about 'misinformation', and 'fake news' - and indeed our faith that conspiracy theories are unfounded, because 'someone would talk' – centres on ignorance of this cardinal rule, which is a corner-stone of the CCP chain-of-command power structure. 1984 illustrates this. Truth is what the party says it is. Anything that publicly contradicts this is a lie - anything. Confidences are above and outside the fenced-in masses. Confidences occur outside the rule of law. This is the realm of the gods in which those in authority operate.  Political power is the ability to create rules for others. 

The  Achilles Heel of the masses is to believe that rules – political fences - are in some sense absolute and 'The law applies to everyone'. 

 

It doesn't. 

 

But, naked tyranny excepted, those with power must appear to be within the law themselves. Occasionally the mask slips. Matt Hancock, British ex-Health Secretary, is an example. Lacking sufficient power, resignation was the proper public outcome. The ability not to resign when caught breaking the rules is consequently the prize of sought political power (Think parties at Downing Street during lockdowns). Since cheating is the perk of privilege, the best methodology for avoiding accountability is control of a military-style police and, optimally, the law courts. The other weapon of control is of course censorship and control of the press. Democracies everywhere today enjoy all of these safeguards.

 

The 'seamless interoperability' that is the aim of the UN (and the EU, and the CCP...) is to ensure that all humans below the elite march to the same tune, believe the same 'truths', and answer to the same laws. In this way all conflict is eliminated - theoretically. Comfort is the carrot. The chief casualty is creativity, self expression, and, in a word, freedom. And as totalitarianism (which is what we are discussing) takes hold, comfort among the masses, whether it previously existed or not, is only sustainable by criminality (c.f. Cuba). Thus Schwab smugly intones: ‘You will own nothing’, continuing 'and you will be happy' in a display of naked authoritarianism chilling in its matter-of-factness as in its scope.  

 

The elites, however, have their own Achilles Heel - as did even invincible Achilles. It is simply that, being above the law, they have to trust each other, which of course they can’t. Theirs is consequently an honour system, as once was ours. In stark contrast to the rest of us, nothing said between elites is made public! ‘A gentleman honours his word.’ But does a thief? The trust the elites precariously depend on is the very thing we now lack. Instead we slowly suffocate in red tape. Well, that's what you get for being part of the insubordinate masses. Trudeau, of the elite, betrayed their bond of trust, and was ironically reprimanded (can one head of state tell another how to behave?)  

 

If there's order to be found it has so far eluded us. But the definition of insanity is to keep pursuing the same course while expecting a different outcome. The endless attempt to control others has now progressed to the entire planet. Predictably, as total control appears almost within reach, the destruction that now threatens is also planetary. The solution?  More control.  Even as the threat of nuclear annihilation demands the dismantling of nation states, Klaus Schwab cleverly transforms our existential angst into a medical problem: 'As long as not everybody is vaccinated, nobody will be safe,'  The G20 Summit has accordingly made universal vaccination passports a priority.

Why the unending search for security?  Could the problem lie in the very desire for control itself? The pursuit of absolute security requires the elimination of uncertainty, of which death is the final unknown.  This futile quest all boils down to the desire to cheat death! But immortality is not about living forever.  Rather it's about living in the now, which we moderns appear to have forgotten how to do. If immortality is pursued as a medical problem, then self-destruction - either through war, or through transhumanism - would ironically seem inevitable. 

Someone once said that ‘To conquer death you only have to die’, which is an invitation to accept the apparently unthinkable.  It proposes that only by abandoning the obsessive drive for total security are we going to recover the balance that life in all its rich variety seems to require, and which we, trying forever with all our cunning to seize, hold, and own, only kill. The solution to our terminal problem – die naturally, or die in a Holocaust of our own making – would seem to lie in ourselves, not in what we demand should be the behaviour of others.

 

Pablo    

IF GOD DID NOT EXIST...

then scientism would come to rule how we think, if only briefly, and the world discussed in the podcast linked below is perhaps how things would temporarily look. 

"How can we prepare for this?" a friend just asked, and indeed, as one searches mentally for ways to dodge first one, then another, and still another technology-enabled threat touched on (sometimes quite humorously) in this podcast, the picture starkly emerges of a thinking, planetary species absurdly at war with itself.  The scientistic mindset by which we are now all controlled, thanks to the global embrace of the technology it has promiscuously enabled, reveals itself as glaringly and dangerously wrong.  And I think one must eventually come to the realisation that, in their near universality, the consequences of this world view can no longer be evaded, or protected against. For our species to survive we have to evolve beyond - transcend - the mindset itself. Only then will healing occur.  Step one, though, is to recognise that here on spaceship Earth, Houston, we humans have a problem - of perception -

(Starts at the 8:30 minute mark)

https://www.brighteon.com/468e7fb1-d91d-423e-9f26-56fb5bb93f34

__________________

Pablo

FACTS ARE BELIEFS

In email debate with a friend over the interpretation of a very important and presumably real event, as recorded in pictures and videos uploaded to the internet, we have reached an impasse of interpretation.  We have had to 'agree to disagree'. We are not, as far as I know, disagreeing about the veracity of  the evidential pictures and videos in themselves (were they doctored? are they fake?), but rather over what they reveal, or conceal, accepted as they are. On the interpretation of this event, as I say, a very great deal of a political nature hangs, but each of us would I think insist this has no influence whatever on our interpretation of the event itself as depicted!  Our interpretation, we would each say, is dispassionate. We're each describing 'the facts'.  We're rational creatures. Political loyalties are irrelevant!   

So how come we don't reach the same conclusion?  And, further, how come no amount of debate, it appears, will change our respective positions?

Our stubbornness reflects our certainty; but more than that: our commitment.  We have each reached a floor of belief below which we can't, or won't dig. The buck has stopped. To go deeper (this is vital, friends!) would, we each seem to argue, be unnecessary, because we each already know everything necessary to the issue at hand. We have, as we say, made up our minds.

This isn't a trivial debate.  We're not arguing semantics, like Do snakes bite or sting? So do you sense the utter unsatisfactoriness of this situation? Facts are facts, right? The inarguable bedrock of belief. Right?

The hell they are. Facts are beliefs! To bolster an empty claim to unassailable authority we have put the cart before the horse, and switched their roles. Each of our positions is, at best, an act of faith. You don't know what you don't know. You cannot - ever - know all there is to know. On the other hand (there you go!) to act at all requires a commitment to a particular interpretation of the way things are, and a concomitant exclusion of whatever conflicts with it. That decision made, the action that required the prior commitment now takes place, and the results of that action confirm or refute the prior commitment as appropriate, or mistaken. Even putting one foot in front of the other requires an act of faith which however is so often vindicated that we can safely consign it to the automatic - until (like my sister, or David A. here) we trip and break something!  There follows a reevaluation of belief ('Gosh! Getting older; need to take more care!') as a result of augmented experience.

But much that we're committed to may be believed without the need for proof, because our belief in it (unlike walking) is self-validating. Our professed belief itself demonstrates our membership of and commitment to a particular collective. One can say that in this case the belief is the proof. It is self-evidentiary. Religion, and war propaganda fall squarely into this category, and to varying degrees so does any membership in general.  Our community participation is confirmed by affirmation of a shared belief without which that community would not exist, and for whose definition a credo may therefore be necessary, and explicitly recited, to establish and maintain its identity, its reality - a pledge of allegiance. To hold a contrary opinion about any element of a collective belief is thus a form of disloyalty, even heresy, which if neither renounced nor able to bring about a change to the credo, must result in excommunication of the offending 'heretic', who accordingly becomes an outcast. That is the way human affairs are conducted, and I think in no other. Facts, let me reiterate, are shared beliefs.

We find ourselves today divided to a degree unprecedented in my lifetime. The division manifests as increasing, mutual incomprehension, as adherence to previously shared credos falls away, and what were 'facts' are questioned. If members of an organisation lose faith in its beliefs then 'How can they not see these facts?' the remaining members will ask. 'What idiots!  How stupid!'  And either repentance and recantation, or excommunication of the miscreants must inevitably follow. 

So what has happened? The supposed 'facts' were actually a declaration of faith in a shared, community system. The two are indivisible; they define each other. They are in an important sense one and the same. The breakaway community now shares a different interpretation of the 'facts', and accordingly has its own adherents, and detractors, and deviants, and heretics, just like the original! 

Here are some random examples of belief-based 'facts': same-sex marriage is currently inadmissible in the Roman Catholic Church, within which system it does not exist.  You cannot as a Catholic at one and the same time claim to be married, and this to someone of the same sex. The thing is impossible, because it violates the faith you claim to believe in. If the whole world were Roman Catholic the apparently hard factuality of this belief would be inarguable. Queen Elizabeth the First did not have lovers. How could she?  She was the Virgin Queen.  Again, any claim to the British throne, that is incompatible with the officially approved genealogy cannot, by definition, be factual. It is verboten.  You cannot object to an ex-male beauty queen on the grounds that she is a he, because the law says she is no longer a he, so the objection has no factual basis.  And you may not even be able to object to a previously-defined male weight lifter competing against conventionally defined women, if no such sexual differentiation is acknowledged by law to exist. That our 'common sense' may rebel against this contortion arises from our adherence to more fundamentally held beliefs about the supposed biological differences between men and women. To continue, you cannot plausibly claim that the Sphynx is at least 9000 years old, because that would violate the archeological orthodoxy in which we are currently invested, as would belief in the existence of UFOs/UAPs, although such things are gradually creeping into factuality - materialising! - at a rate our authorities gauge the public can handle. You cannot as an American accept that JFK was assassinated by several shooters, because your own government says L H Oswald did it all on his own, even as it keeps extending the release date of the documentation that 'proves' it (or doesn't). You cannot accept that Mike Lindell, the 'pillow man', has proof the November 2020 election was stolen, because he's a white, Republican, Trump-loving bigot who can't live with the 'truth'.  Nor can you claim Covid 19 shots are dangerous, because no less than the CDC, the WHO, the FDA and Rachel Maddow have declared them 'safe and effective', and to publicly claim otherwise is a punishable heresy. 

In each and every case cited above the 'facts' are declarations of loyalty to a credo; sort of mini religions. Membership of this or that community of believers dictates the facts.  And so to a final, concrete (and steel) example -

This, we're authoritatively informed, is a controlled demolition (CD), using meticulously placed charges, to bring down a tall, steel frame building whose uncontrolled collapse would be uneven, causing it to smash into neighboring structures.

And here's the actual case that prompted this post (you can click on the bottom right of the video to enlarge it): a tall, steel frame building, also brought down symmetrically, but we're as authoritatively informed, not by controlled demolition, but by the kind of damage - random fires - that supposedly make CD necessary. 

  

I anticipate a certain amount of resistance to some, maybe all, of the above examples, plucked, except for the last, rather carelessly as they were from my current thoughtscape, and not yours. They're intended to highlight how our allegiances determine what we deem to be facts. We see what we believe. What is actually 'out there' who on Earth knows? But insisting that facts are beliefs does not mean I might take a fancy to leap from my office window, believing I could fly (as Rene has triumphantly invited me to do more than once)!  No, of course not, but not because facts are hard and independent, unlike Peter Pan fantasies, but, more subtly, because chains of similar experiences that we continuously link together to make sense of the world (like my sister's, and David A's fall) forcefully suggest it wouldn't be a good idea, which is not quite the same thing. Knowing the effects of gravity from daily experience I won't launch myself wingless from my office window, hoping to soar skywards! But as wretched Eric Clapton will testify, a very small child may make exactly that mistake, for lack of prior experience, not for lack of a degree in physics, or from a failure to  respect 'objective  reality'. 

Even a goat knows its limitations where heights are concerned, and Newton's theories be damned! Physical laws manifest in the act of being experienced. It's only later that we start to develop theories to explain them - and maybe in the process even dethrone Newton. 

Who wouldn't experience cognitive dissonance if, like Winston in George Orwell's 1984, their Maximum Leader held up four fingers and insisted they were five? Structural engineers suffered a similar conflict of loyalties when shown what looked exactly like a controlled demolition on 9/11/2001 only to be told, after three years in which NIST struggled to come up with a plausible computer simulation that squared with the observable collapse without revealing a conspiracy, that it was caused by random fires. They may have 'gone along to get along', but their professional knowledge rebelled against such intellectual violence, and a community championing countervailing facts was born - Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911). Mainstream mouthpiece Wikipedia, true to form, calls them a group of 'conspiracy theorists', and thus the battle lines over 'facts' are drawn up. We see the same phenomenon again with the Covid-19 debacle; doctors everywhere suffering cognitive dissonance as they tried to square their medical training with the unprecedented and destructive medical mandates enforced by political authorities. And so, again, 'dissident' medical groups sprang up to counter the accusations of misinformation with platforms of their own, such as Children's Health Defense, America's Frontline Doctors, and La Quinta Columna. Not that their facts are more objective, but that they are loyal to, they claim, more long-lasting beliefs about disease and health than those advanced by politicians with power and an agenda to ram through without consultation with - or even ignoring - impartial, expert advice.

Fundamental beliefs and values will in general be ignored by a public brow-beaten by authority into violating them, as both the Milgram and the Asche experiments troublingly revealed. The Nuremberg trials notwithstanding, 'I was just following orders' is the universal get-out-of-jail-free card that excuses any and every action and inaction committed in obedience to authority. 'No man is an island'. Forced to choose, we respond more to herd pressure - authority - than to rational appeals, because the former represents the fund of experience upon which society has been built. Ours is generally not to reason why, because to question authority is an act of disloyalty to that upon which our security depends. Whistleblowers, like martyrs, are rare, because they risk excommunication and worse by challenging the authority structure with an assault on the accepted facts which dictate thought itself.        

----------------------------

Pablo

 

CONFRONTING THE UNTHINKABLE

The fringes are, by definition, the habitat of the abnormal. This is where us crackpots, conspiracy theorists, and the generally mentally deranged hang out 😂  But is this to say that the mental operations of the mainstream are rational?  Where our social interactions are concerned, I would argue that they are not. On the contrary, when 'normality' is threatened a deeper, more ancient and primitive mental region is retreated to. This part of the brain is impervious to rational appeals. It is concerned simply with the defense of the collective, upon which the survival of the community depends, and for which task any critical thinking must be directed outwards, at the attacker, and not at our own beliefs.  This is a knee-jerk reaction, not a rational one.

 

Accordingly, your response to the attached interview will at least initially be dictated by which side of the Covid divide you're on. The pro-C-19-vaxxer will as instantly recognize the enemy as would a Ukrainian hearing a Russian accent; while the anti-  will hang on every word, energized by the same truths that have pro-vaxxers reaching for the DELETE button.  That's how we are, and it's only our unfounded assumptions about the preeminence of the thinking faculty that blind us to the deeper and more powerful drives of which thinking is as much the handmaiden as the boss. 

Thinking is, first and foremost, harnessed to the task of defending the community of agreements with which our beliefs identify. Criticisms directed at that are a potential threat to us. Persons thus threatened are not intellectually separate from the community with which they identify. On the contrary, the two are very much welded together. 

 

This is why – forgive the leap - our communities tend to be ruled by sociopaths. Sociopaths are 'wild', whereas those they govern are 'tame'.  Because they are unconstrained by 'normal' humanitarian impulses, sociopaths can move freely outside the moral boundaries community members are instinctively committed to, and are thus able to focus on and implement such emotionally neutral concerns as the efficient attainment of goals that their subjects would reject as morally unthinkable.

 

After sixteen years as worldwide research head and Vice President for Pfizer’s respiratory unit, and thereafter CEO of a successful biotech company, Dr. Mike Yeadon found himself led by logical deduction in 2020 and beyond to the reluctant conclusion that the populations of the Western world are being deliberately culled. 

His naturally humanitarian self at first refused to entertain such a ghastly possibility, but the excuse of sheer governmental stupidity became increasingly untenable as he witnessed decision after decision being taken that ran counter to the accumulated medical wisdom with which he was familiar, and which until then had defined the medical community.  Feeling morally compelled thereafter to alert the wider public to what was being done to them, Yeadon immediately ran foul of both the power of those pushing the agenda, and the community resistance of a public whose instincts were the same as his had been, but who lacked either the medical expertise or, alternatively, the disenchantment to confront the unthinkable and accept his conclusions.

 

Now time has all but run out, but the tide is gradually turning as more and more people lose their freedoms, their livelihoods, and their health. Although demonetized and de-platformed Dr. Yeadon continues courageously to speak out about the genocidal – some are now calling them democidal - crimes being perpetrated on the public by their governments through, especially, their so-called health services. Here he is interviewed by Maajid Nawaz -   

 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/former-lead-pfizer-scientist-mike-yeadon-all-is-planned-and-theyre-coming-for-you/

----------------------

Pablo

TRUTH AND LIES

First, to briefly recap: 

Facts are collective beliefs, or agreements, about the way individual things are thought, by experience, to actually be. To say they are of the nature of conventions is not to belittle them: they're all we have! But they can be, and continually are, legitimately changed when they conflict with more foundational, or better connected facts. They can also be, and too often are, illegitimately changed when they conflict with the will to power.

Trust is where the buck of verification of facts ultimately stops. The entire community edifice of agreed facts is built on trust. Trust is tautological, or, better, self-referential: we trust what we take to be true. The truth is simply that which we trust.

Lies are malicious breaches of trust. 

Evil is the practice of lies as a means to illegitimately satisfy the will to power.

 

What was all that about?  Well, there are some really good articles on LifeSite News right now! Today's editorial contains important links; do please click on any that seem of further interest.

 

And so, to cut finally to the chase, whenever people refer to Hegel's Problem, Reaction, Solution to suggest the Machiavellian manipulation of events, where others may jeer ‘Conspiracy theory!’ I've tended to mentally go 'Yeah, yeah, heard that; understand that,' without actually, it now appears, internalising the real evil (see recap, above) involved in the execution of this fiendish formula. 

 

And now I find we're buried in it! 

 

It seems to me it can be convincingly argued that everything that justifies the direction in which we are all being driven is deliberate, manufactured fiction – lies - woven often from whole cloth, whose believability by we dupes has been made possible by the methodical capture of all the trusted  institutions and individuals responsible for overseeing the management of facts. I like to think that we all know at some level that this is true, but there's a powerful, governing principle apparently still inside me, and maybe inside you, that insists on behaving as if at the very least the main messages of control governing our political life are founded on honestly verified fact.

 

They aren’t.

 

I am therefore shaken up, and energised, by these LifeSite articles, which are dismissing mere institutional reform and rehabilitation as inadequate to the task now facing humanity, or at least America.  They are calling instead for nothing less than the abolition of dozens, if not hundreds of government institutions! That is a very radical position. Why such extremism?

 

The reason they are doing this is because they themselves are facing extermination. 

 

And so are we.  Not to be melodramatic, but it’s us or them.

 

Transhumanism – yes, that’s where we’re headed - is beyond a mere proposal now. It is actively being pursued, and it is an assault on the very core of our humanity. As such, it can only be deemed evil,    because it is built entirely on a different set of life premises than those by which we at least claim to be factually governed, and which are moral. The springboard for the transhumanist project is amoral. Not to see the intrinsic evil of this is either to misunderstand it, to underestimate it, or to side with it and therefore against humanity.

 

Indeed, the enormity of what's unfolding is too overwhelmingly revolutionary to grasp in its entirety. In broadest outline, transhumanism seems to me to require being on the outside, looking in on human life and affairs as one would a diorama, a chessboard, or a fishbowl. This is the mindset of despots. It is also the methodology of scientism. And it is engaged in by human beings, who like everyone else are wholly immersed in the universal continuum, but have artificially separated themselves from it by a total investment in thought. To suffer such alienation as our inevitable human condition is one thing, but to embrace it as a religion is something else entirely, and that is exactly what is happening. 

 

It's really quite - biblical!

 

So this is what we're up against. And we really are. And it seems to me to require two responses.  The first is to recognise that we are an intrinsic component, an expression, of the Universe. There is nothing whatever outside that experience. Everything that exists does so and can only do so through our experience of it, as an experience.  Life is experience - and experience is value. Consequently, everything is value. It’s self-referential. A rose is a rose is a rose. Self incarnate is what we are; our very nature is Self, and nothing else. Ours is a moral universe, through and through. 

 

We are not inhabiting a machine. Nor are we machines. We are living expressions. Scientism has the entire train of existence backwards. 

 

That understood and accepted as our existential reality, our second response, it seems to me, has to be to recognize the evil that is transhumanism, and denounce it. Buddhism calls evil Error, and so it may be, but whatever we choose to call it – evil, badness, or error – it is antithetical to the healthy evolution of the living organism that is our planet, and of which we are a part. And right now it is taking charge.

 

A titanic struggle is under way between lies and truth. The degree to which human affairs have been coopted by lies can be judged by the fanaticism with which all alternatives to government narratives concerning alleged threats to humanity, and their solution, are being crushed. These alternatives are being presented by people heretofore considered experts, i.e. repositories of agreed facts. Their views are being smothered by politicians with power, and corporations with money, both driven by agendas for which these truths (not to be ironical) are inconvenient, their actions justified by the amorality of an overarching scientism that lets them put profit (either money, or power, or both) first.  Distrust in government is consequently escalating rapidly, and rightly. 

 

We are on the cusp of a new world order, but whose will it be?  The paradigm – the religion – of scientism, handmaid of Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, will not usher in transhumanism unchallenged. If thwarted in its bid to assume total control after the planned chaos that’s coming, competing world views will rush in to fill the vacuum. In clearing the rubble and righting wrongs let us not succumb to the temptation of mere ‘reform’ of the institutions – LifeSite has named some of them - that led us to this debacle. And lead us they did! Let us rather keep in mind the moral heedlessness that permitted human affairs to reach this perilous stage, and proceed with humility to rebuild integrity – the baby that scientism, unable to tell the difference, threw out with the bathwater - with new institutions, from the ground up.

To learn more about transhumanism, go here.

--------------

Pablo

HOW TO RUN A MAD WORLD

In this podcast, Russell Brand shares the spectacle of UK PM Liz Truss assuring the British public (to spontaneous applause!) that she'll opt for Mutually Assured Destruction if push comes to shove, to defeat those who oppose our democratic way of life. In the same podcast Brand also shares that the Biden Administration now 'refuses to publish military expenditure', i.e. the American public are not to know how much of their money he's spending on ‘defence’. 

What?

Meanwhile, Dr. John Campbell is wondering what might be causing double the rates of 'long Covid' in the U.S. than in the UK - what U.S. authorities are calling a 'mass disabling event'. Listing several possibilities, he ends cryptically with 'Is it related to factors we're really not at liberty to discuss?'  

Slipping that slyly in without further elaboration, he adroitly forestalls the question this lacuna begs - namely, might it have something to do with the higher American rates of mRNA injections? - by volunteering that 'We don't have data that compares vaccinated with unvaccinated people for the level of long Covid. We don't have that data. We simply don't have it. We simply - don't - know.'  

 

Once again, What?? 

 

Because this is another can of worms that Dr. John Campbell, and indeed the entire, politically correct MSM cannot open. It is sealed in a conspiracy of silence.

 

But Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, outside the sealed, secular order, has a can opener. Just the other day he opined in an interview here that 

'[T]he vaccination of an experimental gene serum must be imposed on everyone so that people will not see that the adverse effects and deaths affect only the vaccinated...' 

 

We're not conspiracy theorists, are we, but if this naked slander were true, then indeed it would become necessary to hide the data if it would reveal such a difference. Right? Fortunately this cannot be the case, or we'd all be f*ck*d, and Vigano, were he a news anchor, would be rightly silenced for letting the side down for even suggesting it. 

 

Which leaves us, however, with this conundrum - Why do we consider it thinkable that our leaders might order our annihilation by means of a potentially imminent nuclear exchange, but not that they might be already more selectively culling us by potentially lethal injection? 

Let me propose a simple, if unflattering answer: the former requires us to do nothing except present a united front, demonstrating our national solidarity by our applause. It hasn't yet happened, it may never happen, and in its sheer magnitude it's all but unthinkable. PM Truss’s affirmative also displays an uncharacteristic, almost humourous candour on the part of a politician.  Her very assertion of it practically amounts to a denial. Politicians do not speak the truth about such momentous, indeed monstrous, issues.

 

The latter, however, displays none of these qualities, except the unthinkable  magnitude part. If true, it's already happening; we ourselves may actually be its victims, and although we know our politicians lie for a living, that's the forever unspoken part of the social contract whose spell must never be broken if, like hens in a chicken coop, we are to accept our present, more or less comfortable role in the social hierarchy. For the sake of our sense of community the myth of political transparency and a harmony of goals between us and our elites must be maintained.  That is the conspiracy!

 

Pablo

WHO CARES?

 

A friend sent me an article on Yuval Noah Harari, of which here are some excerpts (emphasis mine).  This has set me off on a rant which I've added at the end. 😊 

----------------------------

(LifeSiteNews) – Yuval Noah Harari is rightly regarded by the thinking population as one of the most dangerous intellectuals alive. 

[I]n Harari’s eyes, we are no higher than the animals, and the “vast majority” of the world’s population is now unnecessary…  Harari believes in what is understood to be a fundamental tenet of cultural Marxism: There is no truth, only power.

… While he acknowledges there is an objective scientific reality, Harari has openly rejected the existence of objective values… in a recent interview... [h]e said that human rights are “not a biological fact,” but a “story we have constructed.” 

“It was a very good story…But it’s also dangerous to confuse a story we have constructed in a particular historical setting and think that we can just apply it to any other historical period…”

“We need to differentiate two types of power in history. You have the power over objective reality, like to build bridges, or cure diseases, or building an atom bomb. And then you have the power over humans and their subjective feelings, their imagination, making them believe in something.”

[T]hose in power can manipulate society’s values to their own ends, and with no such thing as objective values — including human rights — society is enslaved to the arbitrary ideas and whims of its rulers.

In 2018, Harari wrote, “… If you want power, at some point you will have to spread fictions. If you want to know the truth about the world, at some point you will have to renounce power. You will have to admit things – for example about the sources of your own power – that will anger allies, dishearten followers or undermine social harmony.”

“As a species, humans prefer power to truth… if you dream of a society in which truth reigns supreme and myths are ignored, you have little to expect from Homo sapiens. Better try your luck with chimps.”

Considering Harari’s position as adviser to the head of the World Economic Forum, which has massive government and corporate influence, we should further ask: What does this statement by Harari say about himself, and the WEF?

------------------------------ 

Harari is following the scientism of the West to its logical conclusion. Once you accept scientific materialism - that there is an objective, knowable world, separate from mushy, human sentiment - as your guiding principle, then everything else follows that Harari and the WEF advocate.

Let’s start by being clear about one thing: values and objectivity are mutually incompatible. You cannot, to quote CS Lewis, get an ought from an is. That is, you can't derive value from supposedly external, independent facts. 

Which raises the second, far less obvious but absolutely critical point: facts are not separate, external realities.  That Harari is apparently comfortable with belief in the independent reality of ‘biological facts’ suggests that he hasn’t fully examined his own assumptions.  Facts are formulations of collective experience; that is, of shared values. All of them. Some experiences – biology, bridges - are more durable than others, but the means by which they are all elevated to the status of ‘facts’ is broadly the same: we agree about them. That, folks, is about all there is to it.  Any belief in a solid, independent world ‘out there’ is just that – a belief. It isn’t an external, objective fact at all. Everything is belief. Consequently, everything, not just human rights ‘stories’, but also biology and bridges, has value, and is in fact composed of value.

‘But no!’ I hear you indignantly cry. ‘The world is independently real!’ Forgive me, but you have absolutely no way of knowing that.  All you know and all you can ever know is your own experience, locked away inside a totally black, totally silent prison – your skull. What you filter and interpret as externally originating ideas and values become part of your belief system in the same way as your presumed knowledge of biology and bridges. What is fact, and what is fiction? Only you can decide... with a little help from your friends, real and assumed. That entire, shared view is an agreement about what exists. That a factual world exists independent from you is a theory, only hardened into fact by repetition of yet more experience. Objective fact is nowhere to be found. This has to be understood for once and for all, or, frankly, we're doomed to the nightmare world of power hungry globalists, driven by their faith in the dead hand of an objectivity whose only principle is 2+2=4. 

To Harari’s human rights ‘stories’ we must therefore add everything that’s tangible. It all has to be made sense of – our language itself reveals what’s actually going on. The degree of ‘truth’, then, is a reflection of the integrity of those inventing the stories that describe experience. The only test of truth is sincerity in the process of negotiating agreement about the nature of ‘facts’. Truth and facts are therefore inseparable - are you listening Yuval?  Determined with integrity, with sincerity, truth confers authority.  Thus determined, authority in turn confers power. Those who crave power are not thereby exempt from the obligation to uphold the truth! It is in the very nature of the social contract that they must have integrity. However, whether they do in fact uphold the truth is a matter of faith, for their integrity depends on their honour – something Harari would no doubt also deny the existence of.  If they dismiss moral responsibility (as Harari allows) then they are forthwith and by definition disqualified from office, except that of course their amoral philosophy permits them to pretend whatever the public wants to hear, in order to gain and hold the power they crave. 

This is the Existential Dilemma: Who controls the controllers? As Voltaire remarked, ‘If God did not exist it would be necessary to invent Him.’  But no; we have free will - another attribute Harari denies, as if lying were beyond our control.  

What, then, are lies? They are deliberate, cynical distortions of and departures from shared beliefs about what is true. If those in authority, those who have earned our trust, dishonour the social contract, how would we know? Understanding the core importance of upholding agreed truth for the proper functioning of human society, one comes to appreciate the nature of evil.

It is of the utmost importance to the integrity of our shared world view that we each honourably express as accurately as possible our interpretation of it.  Harari’s belittlement of the ‘stories’ created by agreements based on human needs is a reflection of the impoverishment of his spiritual outlook. The importance of the ‘facts’ generated by social agreement is not diminished one iota by not being objective. Why? Because it is the only way there is to map reality. That’s how we do it!  Reality is not an external thing. Reality is nothing other than what we believe as a result of shared experience. 

The community agreement a nation imperfectly forges over time as its history is a collective myth - its culture. Its crimes are airbrushed out, creating an ideal both to be proud of and striven to uphold – another value to which Harari is apparently deaf and blind.  Myths are guides to community behaviour. Myths are not lies. They are authentic belief structures. Distorting them in order, as Harari suggests, to exercise power, willfully violates the integrity of a naturally evolving process. That is a moral transgression, which you can only entertain if you allow yourself to believe, like Harari, Schwab, Fauci, Gates, Tedros, et al, that morality is less real than anything else your brain processes. Theirs is the belief that if the powerful hold up five fingers and call them four then four it is – until it’s six. Or if they say that there’s no difference between male and female, then the difference evapourates, unless and until it’s ok to again recognize two sexes… or three, or thirteen. The agreements laboriously built out of shared experience become the malleable possessions of the powerful - mere administrative conveniences. This is nothing less than the deliberate creation of dystopia.

Having assumed the existence of an independent, objective world, and therefore the arbitrary nature of what's important to us, Harari uses his error, call it Error, to conclude that lying - manufacturing myths out of whole cloth - is permissible, because the will to power is the only endeavour worth pursuing.  Thus God is not truth, but power.  In this way the entire, rich, evolving structure of human existence loses its moral integrity, reduced to a pack of lies dictated from above - and connived in by a compliant public, now bereft of organising social values, willing to go along to get along. Once limited to local massacres, the globalization made achievable in a high tech world now entertains the genocide of humanity as  both technologically attainable and logically permissible.  

We're inseparable extensions of the universe, which is unequivocally the Good, but we’re indoctrinated into thinking that we're not, and consequently behave as if nature's a rag to wipe our arses with. Nature does not lie. In fact nature is truth; the two words are synonymous.  Harari declares that whatever exists is by definition natural, yet he seems to be proposing a total departure from truth, and therefore from nature. And indeed one of his solutions for disposal of us useless eaters is that we be fed a constant diet of virtual reality. That is where we're headed, right now, with Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset.

Where then can we find truth? Durable as has been their way of life, and closest to nature, from a Western perspective there's something a bit unimaginative about primitive peoples. Though pregnant with significance their art is as static as their technology. Yes, the spare economy of primitive carvings and paintings is affecting, but our restless modern imaginations crave constant stimulation, and this can only be supplied by endless invention. This restlessness needs examination. It conceals a fundamental inability to be happy.  And of course it's relentlessly tickled by the consumerist advertising of an economic model that requires perpetual growth to sustain itself. All this on a finite planet - a recipe for the cataclysmic disaster that is at last almost upon us, and which the elites hope to survive, merely to continue their rapacious plunder, but now served by robots and unencumbered by the rest of us, as alienated as ever from the nature they (and we) have fatally dismissed. 

The adult obsession with immortality as physically achievable infinite durability is another clue to our subject-object alienation. Immortality does not mean living forever! Immortality is the apprehension of the eternal present; the here and now. 'To hold infinity in the palm of your hand' to quote William Blake (Auguries of Innocence). Children have this capacity, whereas we adults spend our lives futilely seeking to recapture it in ersatz externalities. Here's a key verse from William Wordsworth's Intimations of Immortality - 

 

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The soul that rises with us, our life's star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And Cometh from afar;

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

Shades of the prison-house begin to close

upon the growing boy,

But he beholds the light, and whence it flows,—

He sees it in his joy:

The youth, who daily farther from the east

Must travel, still is Nature's priest.

And by the vision splendid

Is on his way attended:

At length the man perceives it die away,

And fade into the light of common day. 

Tennis pros, aikido masters, actors, athletes, dancers, scientists looking at or through their instruments, achieve their flashes of brilliance by being temporarily ego-absent. Afterwards they may attribute that exhilarating moment to some personal achievement, but the discipline that enables their success is actually self-abnegation. Self-aggrandisement, if it occurs at all, comes later, an artifact, a useless appendage, to which their devotees will pander. But they themselves, if they ponder the matter, will realise their creativity came from they know not where.  They were inspired; they were blessed with insight. They were momentarily egoless.  This is the message of the Zen master, of Meister Ekhart, of Socrates. But not of Harari!

And this is where we're all headed, whether we like it or not: the complete relinquishment at the end of life of all the evanescent but seductively engaging tinsel we valued. Though power may come our way, our task is not to chase it, but rather to achieve detachment before we fall off the twig!  Modern society seems designed to thwart this realisation with a constant flood of distractions, coupled with the commercial glamourisation of our egos through the Achilles heel of vanity.  And now Yuval Noah Harari is attempting to drive the last nail into the coffin of spirituality for humanity as a whole by eliminating the quest for truth altogether.

____________

Pablo

27 August, 2022