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