NO TRUTH WITHOUT AGREEMENT

 

In his Substack article "Discrediting Our Cause" (7 Aug., 2023) James Delingpole takes to task those fence-sitting "purple pillers" who, he claims, though themselves partially red-pilled, effectively sabotage our attempts to create awareness of government lies by cherry-picking for public endorsement only those they deem palatable, while still dismissing as absurd those others which they judge too outlandish to be taken seriously. Thereby, he points out, they encourage the logical fallacy that "if a person thinks A then they must perforce be wrong about B", further discrediting the source by false association, and unjustifiably appropriating the role of judge with their unfounded assumption that the stranger the theory the less likely it is to be true.

If you have accepted the truth of even one conspiracy theory, no matter what it is, moon landings, JFK, whatever, then you have abnegated the right to declare any other conspiracy off limits.

The reason for this is simple. You have already acknowledged that there are forces out there so corrupt, powerful, devious, entrenched and malign that they have happily and gleefully lied to you about something really big. And if they happily and gleefully lied to you about one really big thing, who are you to say that they haven’t happily and gleefully lied to you about lots of other really big things (and small things) too?

Yes, sure, you can be agnostic about this or that other ‘conspiracy theory’. But what you can no longer do is be dogmatic about its falsehood – at least not until you’ve put in the necessary research, and perhaps not even then.

continuing -

What usually happens to the purple-pilled when this logical sloppiness has been pointed out to them is that they retreat to their second line of defence.

“Well... we just shouldn’t go there because it just frightens off the Normies and we need to focus on the issues that matter.”

But this line of defense is at least as weak as the first.

It presupposes that there are commonly agreed ‘issues that matter.’ But there is no such common agreement – as we saw, inter alia, during the ‘Pandemic.’

In the name of pragmatism and unity – ‘Let’s not frighten the horses’, ‘We need to build a broad coalition’, etc – the resistance movement was hijacked by a claque of suspiciously well-organized activist groups like Together which declared that certain areas of discussion should be off limits.

Apparently, it was OK to campaign on issues like ‘vaccine mandates’ and the importance of bodily autonomy. But questioning the safety or efficacy of these ‘vaccines’, or the malign nature of the corrupted institutions pushing them, or the agenda behind the ‘vaccines’, was deemed a step too far because such ‘unproven conspiracy theories’ might alienate potential allies.

OK, it's true that one confirmed conspiracy that was previously merely a contemptible theory undoes all the pretended logic behind continuing to bad mouth other theories still unredeemed. But it’s not really logic that the world runs on, so much as common sense, and the sanity which that collective agreement confers on its adherents. As one staunch blue-piller has objected to me as I regaled him with yet another “theory”; “Yes, but is it likely?” We inescapably evaluate all new evidence in the existential light of the “facts” we already believe, and by no other means. From where I stand theory X is indeed likely. From his it simply isn’t, and if I insist on him admitting to it as a theoretical possibility, well, our friendship is likely to suffer, because friendship and community and trust all depend on things – sense – we have in common. What we have in common is the defining character of our group, whether family, fellow hobbyists, religious brothers, comrades-in-arms, or even physicists. There is always a group orthodoxy, its center of gravity, whose affirmation confirms our membership, while its repudiation brands us heretics, or rank disbelievers.

It’s not that we don’t know everything. It’s that we don’t know anything. Our group membership is our only claim to knowledge! What we describe as "truth" is what we collectively currently believe. Our task is always to gain adherents; to convince as many significant others as possible to agree with us, in order to validate our belief by pointing to its popularity. Now there’s a heresy for you, but there’s no escaping that there’s safety, or at least reassurance in numbers. The truth is not the truth unless and until significant influencers believe it. At that point it becomes true – for now. Those outside the fold identify themselves precisely by their unbelief in our truths. We validate our truth by fighting, and winning, by whatever means available. Might is right – another heresy which unfortunately appears to be “true” for now, and perhaps for the foreseeable future.


TV talking heads know which side their bread is buttered, which (as Ambrose Bierce quipped) is the purpose of deliberation. Martyrs who fearlessly bare all their unorthodox beliefs may or may not in time be vindicated. The rest of us mostly go along to get along.





Pablo

WHAT IS TRUTH? LOOKING BEYOND THE PERIMETER FENCE OF SHARED BELIEF

 

No man is an island. 

We can, I’m sure, agree on the fundamental importance of our connection to other people. Aside from their emotional support, there's strength and productivity in numbers.  Shared values and behaviors define the many, nested groups we’re in, that hold us together – our family, club, religion, work, our society at large - as distinct from other groups, and groups of groups. 

So let’s explore this a little, because the feeling's abroad that something’s amiss. Group membership requires sacrificing competing values, beliefs and behaviours, in the expectation of resulting benefits which, if realized, strengthen our group identity, and foster loyalty.  Loyalty, when you come right down to it, equates to habit. It's economical - we don't want to be continually reinventing the wheel. What's tried and tested becomes habitual, and that’s pretty much everything we comfortably share with our group. Whatever’s habitual is the way "things are supposed to be", because habit attests to what endures, what works, whatever is able to run on automatic, i.e. effortlessly. Habit repeats by rote what someone initially learned by experience. That the vast majority of what we do is automatic testifies not only to its success, but also to the imperative of economy (what Bertrand Russell, as I recall, dubbed “the law of cosmic laziness”).  And as it is for the individual, so it is for the group.

 

Gossip aside, because we’re social beings the habit out of which we in fact overwhelmingly operate approaches new information not as something to be thought about, but by the shortcut of who said it. “Is this a reliable source?” we ask, i.e., did it come from one of us and our shared belief system, or from outside our group? From friend, or "foe"? New information can thus be ignored, or easily dismissed as false, or at least suspected as such unless and until endorsed by our paid thinkers – our designated authorities. Conversely, new information from our authorities will be accepted as “independently verified” and factual, even though independent verification is prohibited by the very terms of our group membership, as outlined above. Fact checkers themselves must align with the beliefs espoused by those in authority, or be deemed untrustworthy! A fact checker is anything but independent. He or she is, precisely, a card-carrying adherent to our belief system, whose job it is to ferret out deviance. In China or North Korea we’d recognize him or her as a member of the Thought Police.

 

Without thought we intuitively know that entertaining unauthorized advice is ipso facto an act of betrayal of our group. Facts are not free-floating objects that exist on their own terms, detachable from us and from each other; they are facts because we and our designated authorities have assigned particular, agreed values to them. Facts are attached to us. They are ours. This is how the group holds together as a group. Groups are and can only be echo chambers of habitually shared values, beliefs, and thoughts. In all this our separation of truth from lies is primarily a process of discrimination between us and them. If a pronouncement by a designated authority conflicts with a previously accepted “fact” we humbly accept the former and quietly ditch the latter.

 

It can, I hope, readily be seen that group membership is not rational in any classic, intellectual sense. Rather, it’s based on mutual trust. The rational part resides right there, in the trust, which exists because repetition produces the predictable results we call “facts”, from which habits can be formed. What is deemed true is what endures. (Interesting factoid: the ancient, Indo-European root of the word “true” is “dru”, or “duru” meaning “hard”, or durable, hence reliable, predictable - enduring). Trust engenders loyalty, and is the basis of the habits we need to run our daily lives. We do not question what or whom we trust! On the contrary, we feel good, i.e. right, secure, confident, proud, supported and affirmed by our membership of and participation in our group, and most especially by the recognition of those in authority.

 

Our trusted authorities accordingly seldom need to signal their disapproval of competing narratives by marshalling rational arguments against them. The falsity of competing narratives from external sources is deemed self-evident by virtue of their origin, confirmed by their conflict with accepted truths as defined by our group. Invitations to, for example, debate with pushy outsiders are either rejected as a “waste of time”, “lacking merit”, and “not worthy of consideration”, or, if accepted, invariably fail to achieve resolution for lack of fundamental agreement about whose authority to accept on each and every issue tackled. To keep group members on track, external threats to authority are fended off not by rational counter-arguments, but by censorship, shadow banning, and ridicule. Would-be dissenters from orthodoxy within the group are similarly dealt with; by shaming, punishment, and ostracism. Repeat offenders are summarily expelled. In none of this is independent thought encouraged, or necessary.  Like any self-determining organism, all group thought runs upon, turns in upon, is nurtured by its own self-generated parameters and limits.

 

All this I see as the way in which societies actually work. To which you may well respond “So what’s new? I know all that! Why the fuss?”

 

Because it reminds me we’re mostly visceral. That’s why. Which makes us more vulnerable than I would like to admit to manipulation and control by people who may not have the interests of our group at heart.  Technology has put unprecedented power in the hands of such people, and we are consequently, right now, in my view, the victims of subterfuge and subversion as never before.  I’m therefore trying to illuminate what I see as the Achilles Heel of human social organization that is allowing this to happen, so as to give breathing space to what I also see as legitimate, alternative views that can shine a light on where we are, and provide a basis for constructive push back.

 

OK, I hear you: How do we discern if voices coming from outside the perimeter fence of our belief system are more legit than those of our esteemed authorities? Good question! The outsider begins from a position of weakness: he’s viewed with hostility and suspicion. A simple mannerism or tone of voice can obscure the value of even the most important message. Words and phrases themselves can be a tripwire that slams the door shut on further engagement. I know; I’ve been there. And once you dare to question the soundness of the platform you’re standing on it’s hard to know where to stop, which can put paid to the entire exercise: What does this outsider stand to gain from holding this opinion? What are their credentials? What are their sources? Where do my best interests lie? Is this outsider’s a lone opinion, or widely held? Widely held? OK, but by what caliber of people? And – oh dear! - by what standard now is “caliber” to be measured? Is it class? No way! Wealth? Let’s pretend not! Academic attainment? But from what accredited institution? Awards received? Ditto! Help!

 

Slow down! Maybe “outsiders” gave the wrong impression. OK, heretics then. No, that sounds too religious. Turncoats? That'll do. These turncoats were previously with us, and of us. They’re not aliens! Very much to the contrary, they were mostly once highly esteemed, respectably credentialed, often multi-awarded members of our society, as measured by our standards – who have fallen foul of our shared authorities. My painful point is that, at least from my POV, they’re on our side by every measure except that last one. I submit to you that it’s our authorities that are, by the standards they themselves erected, off the rails.

 

Attempts are being made to explain our acceptance of the enormous cognitive dissonance now upending our lives as a kind of hypnosis. (viz. the “mass formation psychosis” posited by Mattias Desmet of Ghent University). In sheer scale that may be true, but what I’m suggesting is that historically the wagon-circling, self-protective defense reflex exhibited by people in response to external threats is entirely natural. This is how we’ve evolved to operate. What is unnatural now is, yes, the sheer scale of it, and, more importantly, the disturbing fact – ok, call it a suspicion if you like - that it’s being engineered from within our own belief system. Our necessary trust in our authorities is being exploited to socially engineer and channel novel myths that run counter to those that have throughout history until very recently held us together. That last sentence was a roundabout way of saying we are being lied to, because by lies I mean the violation of our collective myths, not the misrepresentation of the supposedly independent objects we mistake “facts” to be. As I have tried to tease out above, what we hold to be truths are temporary constructs manufactured from collective agreements about the way the world works. Our evolving, collective mythology is what we experience as goodness.  

 

Truth and goodness are two sides of the same coin. Associated words that come to mind are oneness, integrity, innocence, openness, generosity, humility and love. Words I associate with lies include secrecy, greed, certainty(!), cynicism, contempt, cruelty and alienation. Understanding that all indirect knowledge is in the manner of collective myths, or agreed interpretations expressing a necessarily limited, relative, human perspective, facts can be seen as deeply personal, albeit shared, and perennially provisional; they are the best interpretation of the situation of which I am sincerely capable from my perspective at the present moment. (Whew!)

 

And now for a practical test. Here’s a list of links to a number of recent articles and videos that illustrate different facets of the above thesis in relation to “where we’re at”. The first link (also in the text, above) expands on the overall theme. The rest are to targets of censorship, and the information being censored by our authorities.  I found all compelling. Please take a look and see if there’s anything there that piques your interest, and see where it leads.

 

Pablo

____________________

Alastair Crooke tracks our “descent into Madness”, in this, the third of a series. Thanks to Sergei for this illuminating article. (12-15 minute read. OK, ten, if you skip the italicized intro.) –

https://strategic-culture.org/news/2022/08/22/descent-into-madness/

 

Pre-eminent U.S. cardiologist and virologist Dr. Peter McCullough, addressing Members of a Pennsylvania Senate Hearing. Don’t skip this! (Video, 55 information-packed minutes!) -

https://youtu.be/XoMAR9rOCrk

 

Dr. John Campbell: More media silence as Swiss study of Moderna booster shots shows 1 in 35 of 777 subjects suffered post-jab cardio-vascular injury. Disturbing, hard data. (Video, 5 minutes) –

https://twitter.com/TheChiefNerd/status/1684206667494203392?s=20

 

Sasha Latypova, former pharmaceutical executive, whistleblower, and deep researcher, on deaths from “non-compliant injectables”. A deeply disturbing dive. (Video, 52 minutes) –

https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/exposing-the-vaccine-military-machinery-behind-the-global-covid-19-response-sasha-latypova-5335644

Jimmy Dore: Lancet review of 225 autopsies of jab-related deaths removed after 24 hours. Indicative of the extent of capture of the medical information space. (Video, 11 minutes) –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUOCeV33Aw0

Ed Dowd, ex-Blackrock financial analyst, on unprecedented 60-standard deviations increase in the incidence of blood abnormalities linked to C-19 jabs. Important! (Scroll down to video, 1 hour… 52 minutes if you start at 8-minute mark) -

https://ac.news/ed-dowd-drops-bombshell-data-hematological-blood-related-claims-up-522-above-trend-in-2022-video/?utm_

Dr. Paul Thomas’ medical license suspended by the Oregon Medical Board for answering their request to publish proof of his claims concerning child vaccination. Significant. (2.25 minutes) –

https://www.bitchute.com/video/RGJ9ruoQOsLS/

RFK, jr. describes how the CDC committed scientific fraud, and attempted to bury the data when they discovered a link between the Hepatitis B vaccine and autism. Yes, the vaccine damage saga is a long one. (3 minutes) -

https://www.bitchute.com/video/xOFNHWpMdK3l/

Chase bank closes account of Mercola Marketing for owner being actively critical of the C-19 jabs. Indicative of totalitarian social credit system already unfolding – (6-minute read) -

https://flvoicenews.com/retail-health-company-has-chase-accounts-suddenly-terminated-owner-critical-of-covid-vaccines-fda/

 

Ex-NZPM Jacinda Ardern has acquired a new censorship role at Harvard! (6-minute read) -

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/new-zealands-former-covid-tyrant-jacinda-ardern-appointed-to-censorship-role-at-harvard/?utm_source=popular

An Allegory and a Link

The creaking assortment of push carts, wagons, caratellas and sleds that for three, wearying years has borne along our ragtag band of fellow travelers finds itself at a fork in the road. What once formed the core of this motley collection of tribes is even now lurching off down the left branch of the fork. Others (I among them) have chosen what seems a more direct, but narrower path, to the right. We've been jeered at by our erstwhile companions, accused of desertion, threatened with reprisals unless we rejoin the main group, and many have even been publicly whipped back into line. Neither party can clearly see the path ahead that we've separately chosen, but each group is shouting across the widening distance between us that theirs/ours is obviously the 'correct' route - to whatever destination it is that we're heading for; even that isn't clear. 

We're none of us unskilled in the art of trailblazing, and there were signs along the way that encouraged us to continue. But it was those very signs that caused the split that's now occurred. Previously welcomed by all, the signposts are now illuminating differences in our nature which weren't earlier so apparent. For instance, there was a large, clear sign before the fork, in Roman script, 'THIS WAY!' and the painted silhouette of a hand, with index finger authoritatively outstretched, pointing to the left branch. The main force unthinkingly turned as one in that direction. But then a voice from the rear called out 'Who put that sign up?' and a smaller sign was brandished, that had just been discovered, kicked over and half buried on the other side of the trail, on which was written 'Take the path less traveled.' 

This was the proximal cause of the physical parting in our ranks now occurring. 

But it was but the final straw. For yes, where are we all headed? On our individual answers to that, as well as our assessment of the integrity of our group, depends the route we severally choose to take. Aside from the general grumbling and complaints that accompany all groups of travelers, at various bivouacs along the way we 'right forkers' (as we now are) had been picking up disturbing snippets of conversation here and there from companions who, until recently, have been acknowledged and even rewarded for their contributions to our collective survival. What they have been saying was in troubling contradiction to the instructions our leaders have been loudly and insistently broadcasting through the public address system. Those dissenters too beholden to the main group have been publicly punished for their disloyalty. This sends a signal to the rest to toe the line - which is not, however, without its rewards, having provided them (indeed, all of us) with comfort and security up to this point. By contrast, deviance seems only to promise at best an uncertain future, which begs the question: What's in it for all these contrarians and right forkers? 

Those in command have ears everywhere, and have been quick to get wind of any dissention. Unauthorised pamphlets and fliers have been seized and destroyed, pirate address systems shut down, and meetings have been regularly convened at which we are sternly warned against 'troublemakers': 'We know best, ' our leaders assure us. 'Trust us. We will tell you what to do, and if you believe anything to the contrary we urge you to contact us and we will tell you why you are wrong.' 

Whom to believe? Yes, our leaders are by definition in charge, but the advice of our erstwhile wise men is surely ignored at our peril. They know how to read the signs in ways superior to ordinary men, and to ignore their advice - if and when we are able to hear it - seems to me to be inviting disaster. 

And here's another disturbing thing that I may as well share, before we say goodbye. These top leaders of ours are not the ones I recognise as having been elected from among our own ranks. We don't actually know them at all, except for the little they let slip on the public address system, or is leaked by subordinates who remain loyal to the morals and traditions that got us this far. There's a rumour that their entire plan of action is available for anyone to read, should they take the trouble to ask to see it, but very few have actually done so - it's considered an act of disloyalty - and consequently those that have are too few and in too little regard to be paid attention to. Not only that, but what these contrarian researchers have to say frankly defies belief. They claim that our entire, top leadership - who were not, as I say, elected by us and who believe we know not what - are steadfastly determined to destroy everything we tribes traditionally, collectively value and believe in. And I do mean everything... 

(The ff link is to the full English voice edition of a conference presentation in Seville, Spain in March, 2023, featuring a thorough revelation of the contents and intention of the mRNA jab technology as revealed so far by multiple researchers through microscopy. Of this full, 3 hour presentation the first 90 minutes are essential listening. Please note the first 35 seconds of the intro are silent.)

https://www.bitchute.com/video/dcvIfVY8m1Jh/

____________________

Pablo

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