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