Monday, 29 February 2016
Sunday, 28 February 2016
Tat and bellies
It's all about monies
As made-up tarts
Play alluring part
Of red colouring
That mire the view
For the poetic few.
No culture here
Just plenty of beer
To drown out the fear
Of what's most near:
The cycle of need
Yoked by greed
- An insufficient feed
For snobs like me.
Saturday, 27 February 2016
"a system of economics in which production is based on profit for those who control the capital." - Carroll QuigleyAs Quigley notes, those who control the capital aren't necessarily the owners since in large scale enterprise with widely dispersed stock ownership management is more important than ownership. Accordingly, profits are not the same as dividends and, in fact, dividends become objectionable to management, since they take profits out of their control.
In addition capitalism per se does not equate with free markets. You can have free market capitalism but you can also have dictatorial capitalism as occurred under the Nazi regime in Germany. Strict free markets may indeed foster prosperity and political freedom but in practice the term 'free market' is lip service paid to what is in fact a rigged, controlled and crony-ist control of wealth and production in a few hands, with heavy governmental input in bed with established profit-driven corporate entities.
Selling State owned assets to private hands, often at a loss to the taxpayer, is part and parcel of dictatorial capitalism since it is a practice that assumes governmental impetus and governmental oversight. Hitler engaged in this practice - as well as the destruction of labour rights and the labour movement - which puts paid to the notion that he was a socialist completely at odds with the policies of, say, a Margaret Thatcher.
Friday, 26 February 2016
Although the ugly concept of 'economics' comes from the Greek root for household, οἶκος, an origin which makes me think that the 'science' of economics is at bottom one of household management, of its incomes and outgoings, of its production and consumption, particular to our era of radical technological domestication, the ancient Greeks themselves had no use for a science of economics, and I think they were better for it.
True enough Xenophon did publish a treatise, known as Oeconomicus, on household management and agriculture as did the Roman Cato the Elder who was very explicit as how to best exploit the labour of one's slaves. But mainstream economic theory, which does not question the creation of money as a debt through centralised banking procedures in league with governmental say so, and prostitutes itself to political agendas of mass control and enslavement, is, simply put, a very bad joke.
Thursday, 25 February 2016
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
If you're employed you are in someone's employ in return for a compensatory emolument.
In effect, they can use you as they wish, in a moral or immoral manner, government regulation (not)withstanding.
If you are self-employed you use only yourself, excepting the possibility of having others under your employ whom you can also use at will.
If you are unemployed you are in no one's employ including your own, therefore not useable or used by yourself or someone else, whereas an employee is someone who is in some other's employ and is useable and used by that other.
To be employed thus means being used within a certain professional context and to be unemployed means to be unused.
Moreover, to say that someone is employable means that they are useable professionally, and to say someone is unemployable means that they are not useable professionally.
It follows that employers are users.
Monday, 22 February 2016
In recent months I have found myself lying or bending the truth to protect myself from negative repercussions. The main motivator for my lying - which I hate doing - is my own cowardice, i.e. the fear of people getting upset or turning against me if they know the truth, because the truth is socially unacceptable.
It is cowardice that made me pretend to colleagues in my voluntary jobs as well as a medical professional that I am still undergoing university study when I lucidly and voluntarily opted out. It is cowardice that has made me make up false reasons why I was unable to attend certain commitments. I have also made exaggerations to external parties for monetary reasons.
Lying does feel wrong in my soul in that I'm violating the right of others to know the truth. It is purely done out of fear of consequences and a psychological prediction that were I to tell the truth it would lead to discomfort for me and others. In that sense I am still very much in the prison of what people think and the actions they may take based on those thoughts.
What I have noticed, however, is lying itself has caused me to have to make more lies to cover the original lies. There is some truth in the statement that
"telling the truth affects the present. Telling lies affects the future"although telling the truth can also affect the future as well as the present depending on how people react to it. Is lying justified when it's done to avoid (perceived) harm such as friction with people whom I'm not comfortable to be myself with on account of possible prejudice?
Ultimately if they find out that I have been lying won't the repercussions of what they think of me be even more negative than if I'd told them the truth to start with? Is deceiving your enemies, such as the government, immoral when done for reasons of self-preservation?
As I wrote elsewhere (The Habit of Justification), to justify is to invent a law or right that is not in keeping with moral, natural law. Even self-preservation does not, in my view, justify immoral action but I do it regardless, accepting as I must whatever negative consequences this has on my future.
It was Kant I think who said lying to others (as opposed to oneself) is immoral because it devalues language as a vehicle for the expression of truth, and prevents others from making informed judgements and decisions, whether based on your person or not. Of course in contract law, misrepresentation is something that makes a contract voidable.
Anyway the effect of my lies have been to create a distance between myself and others and isolating me from people who are kind-hearted but not, I feel, in a position to understand where I'm coming from, and even though this is a supposition, this supposition is informed by both experience and gut instinct.
An example of this is when I'm asked 'What do you do for a living?'. This is a loaded question for someone like me who is out of work and claims on the State for his living. I could tell the truth but I know I would often be chastised and the object of disapproval which my psychology is too fragile to deal with in situ, depending on whom I'm talking to.
It does appear that lying creates negative consequences in Natural Law and should be avoided but can also help avoid bad consequence as well. It is fear of what other people think and the actions they may take based on those thoughts as well as, much more rarely, the motivation for gain (such as underplaying my relationship with someone to possibly have a relationship with another) that have ultimately made me lie in the past and in the present.
I must conclude that not only am I a coward but that in lying I am human, all too human. Yet in admitting that I'm a liar, I am in some way beginning to tell the truth.
Addendum - Perhaps lying is less immoral when done to avoid harm to self and is more immoral when done to do harm to others. Yet the distinction between the two is not as watertight as it may at first seem, as one can do harm to others in order to prevent harm to oneself.
And as a friend of mine pointed out, a system - such as Stalinism - that forces you to lie merely so as to stay alive is itself immoral. On a cruder note, another friend simply said
"Lying is justified because people are dicks."In other words, not everyone is deserving of the truth and there is no good reason to open yourself up to people who will predictably and necessarily use your truth-telling against you, either by judging you or for purposes of manipulation.
Sunday, 21 February 2016
Recent exchanges with someone who subscribes to anarcho-capitalist ideology has helped me clarify my own thinking on the issue of money.
This individual appears to think that money is a thing that has no consciousness and only rules the minds of imbalanced individuals. Seeing the benefits of money as a unit of exchange and the material benefits that can and do occur through free trade and free markets, he believes that capitalism, i.e. the system that runs on capital, is a force for good.
I, on the other hand, do not think money exists as an objective thing. Rather I know that it is a quantity that exists only in consciousness and therefore the mind control aspect of money cannot be divorced from its practical uses. Money has for only value what we decide to give to it through our care and attention on a collective scale.
The British Isles used to use tally sticks as their measure for exchange which are no doubt objective things but the value they had in people's minds existed only in their consciousness. Tally sticks, much like gold, have no objective value: you can't eat them, can't use them to protect yourself against the elements, can't use them to build, can't use them as a weapon of self-defence.
I agree with thinker Mark Passio (whatonearthishappening.com) that it spells danger to allow proxy currency, even as mere unit of exchange, to determine the value of the fruit of our labour and nature's resources. The result will always be to divert people's energy away from themselves to suit whatever nefarious elite agenda of the day - money having always been centrally controlled - and encourage the totalitarian quantification of all that is under the sun, such as Conservative ministers in the UK valuing in pound sterling the entirety of Britain's public forests, whose value are simply not quantifiable for those who are not perverted and closed hearted enough to think like that.
if care and attention is what it takes to produce goods and services, why the need for a unit of exchange when these fruits can be based on mutual aid as well as a critical mass insight into the benefits of collective cooperation without coercive control?
As I've written before true money is mon-eye (see Money and Mon-eye), spiritual vision located in the third eye chakra of the pineal gland, and that the only (bank) accounts that matter is what we're ultimately account-able for in terms of our life's thoughts, emotions and actions. If these accounts don't shape up and stand in the negative then we are bankrupt in the true, non financial sense of the word (see Accounts and Accountability).
Saturday, 20 February 2016
Friday, 19 February 2016
Thursday, 18 February 2016
Carroll Quigley's understanding of European identities is demonstrably profound in his great work Tragedy and Hope. To neatly sum up his understanding we may say that
- The British are the most socialised of Europeans
- The French the most civilised
- The Italians the most gregarious
- The Spanish the most individualistic
- The Germans the most disciplined
Of course each nationality contains all of these traits but I find that this generalisation has some worth, particularly if read in the context of the book.
Wednesday, 17 February 2016
Words can be seen as consciousness vibrations, some beneficial, some harmful.
Symbols, colours and images also work as consciousness vibrations and, of course, sounds.
Be mindful of what you look at and listen to, as well as what you eat and drink.
The quality of your consciousness and body depend on it.
Tuesday, 16 February 2016
Free education isn't the slightest bit 'free' when it's coercive, authority-based and centralised, regardless of the money issue.
In a very early post Truthfulness and Money I pinpointed how the monetary hold on things infects the meaning of words, so that all words revert back to a pecuniary sense.
"What is spoken is never, and in no language, what is said." - Martin HeideggerWhen a politician talks about free education we immediately know that he means monetary freedom - at taxpayer's expense of course - rather than true freedom of learning and un-coerced personal flourishing through open minded guidance, semination (seminars contain the French word semer which means to sew) , and creative inspiration.
Monday, 15 February 2016
The words community and communion come from the assembly of two Latin words; the prefix com which, like con, means 'together' and the verb munio, to build, to fortify.
As such community and communion mean to fortify, to build together.
Contrast with the word network which, in its morphology, means to work within a net, like the inter-net.
Sunday, 14 February 2016
Saturday, 13 February 2016
Money isn't wealth per se. It is a (contestable) claim on collateral in the shape of goods and services, which constitute tangible material wealth.
Yet even material wealth isn't spiritual wealth: mon-eye, the vision of the mind.
Friday, 12 February 2016
The food you eat doesn't just affect your body, it affects the quality of your consciousness.
By poisoning the food (and water) supply, social engineers disrupt the mind body complex which, once unified, alone enables the coming to prominence of spirit, which is the force that animates all beings under creation, nay, creation itself.
Thursday, 11 February 2016
One reason I have a taste for conspiracy and the occult is that my temperament leans towards the forbidden as opposed to the given, the margins as opposed to the conventional, the banks as opposed to the current, the corners as opposed to the centre.
It was a Nietzsche who saw a taste for the forbidden as a pre-requisite for truth-seeking.
Wednesday, 10 February 2016
Applying due diligence in order to get to grips with one's political thinking is a bit like doing one's bank accounts. It's unpleasant, drawn out, divisive, you rarely win but is unavoidable to find one's place in the quagmire of varying human perception and rapports de force just as keeping a tab on one's outgoings is unavoidable to stay afloat in the quagmire of monetary society and commercial predation.
Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Twitter is in large part a platform for the phenomenon of word warfare, including invective, between competing and discordant understandings.
Indeed, λόγος πόλεμος ἐστιν, the word is strife, especially in the realm of political discourse.
If we all agreed on everything, perhaps language itself would disappear as we would always fall in line with the thoughts of others, needing no verbal exchange.
That said by forbidding drawn out exchanges and forcing soundbite assertions in the paltry character limit that is Twitter's, the platform is one of superficial jousting and ephemeral alliances.
Monday, 8 February 2016
Puppet Gary Johnston's speech in the movie Team America: World Police is priceless. Here it is in full.
We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!This is politicking at its crudest level.
Left-wing 'pussies' who want a nurturing government and negatively react to social justice offences hate the right-wing 'dicks' who want a government that polices and punishes. These dicks troll said social justice people, because, as Gary Johnston points out, dicks love to fuck pussies. But while the dicks are fucking the pussies, engendering in turn more pussies and dicks through their procreative intercourse, psychopathic 'arseholes' shit on both left-wing pussies and right-wing dicks who are so busy fucking each other they don't realise they're being covered in shit by the political system of controlled opposition which is owned by arseholes (essentially bankers and dark occultists) who, to quote Gary, "just want to shit on everything."
To be sure, the point Gary is making is that right-wing dicks are the only ones capable of fucking arseholes as left-wing pussies can be so full of shit in their righteous indignation they turn into arseholes themselves. Unfortunately right-wing dicks rarely fuck arseholes at the top because you need balls to fuck arseholes and being right-wing usually means having no balls and fucking those pariah groups who aren't really shitting on the dicks which is the preserve of arseholes. As Gary says, dicks fuck when it isn't appropriate and it takes a pussy, e.g. someone with social justice concerns, to show them that.
Ultimately we all have dick and pussy within us, some being more dick than pussy and some more pussy than dick, but it takes the anarchist finger to point the pussies and dicks at both the shit they're covered in and the arseholes responsible.
Addendum - It's an error, I think, to subscribe to the view that pussies are weaker than dicks. Dicks like to fuck pussies, sure, but are also afraid of them, i.e. their power. Put differently, pussies get fucked by dicks but can turn dicks down for sex, whence dicks being pussy-teased and pussy-whipped. And babies come from pussies, not dicks. In that sense pussies rule the world even though they occasionally get fucked by dicks when it suits them (rape withstanding). Moreover, some people think they're dicks when they're pussies and vice-versa. Perhaps it is best to embrace both the dick and pussy within us and use our finger to point at and screw the arseholes.
Addendum 2 - For a later, more developed, take on the concept of 'pussy' see later post Who are the "Pussies"?.
Sunday, 7 February 2016
Anarcho-capitalists protest no end against government but rarely question public and private sector slavery in the form of jobs culture.
Anarchy means no hierarchy, i.e. no ruler. Yet most jobs involve having a boss who tells you it's my way or the highway, destroy all your free time, force you to tasks that often contribute nothing to the welfare of society (often the reverse), invade your private life, make you exhausted and irritable, harm your physical and mental health and so on.
These same anarchists then argue that you are free not to take a job offer or to quit a job you already have.
Yet not having a job, under strict capitalism, means being out of money's reach, meaning you are de facto barred from interaction with monetary society, where all goods are priced, i.e. accessible only via money's purchase.
Most people aren't free to quit or turn down jobs because the monetary system is so entrenched and living without money would require giving up on all the amenities that are subject to pricing.
They could of course become self-employed, like James Corbett of the corbettreport.com, and that is a free-er option, but even James Corbett is a slave to money for his survival, let alone his output.
I applaud attempts at freeing up the monetary system, where different currencies are in usage and money is not created as a debt from the start designed to enslave working populations.
Money can be a useful tool although currently is not just a tool but an end in itself. The whole of financial capitalism, which brings no real wealth to the table in terms of goods or services as opposed to commercial or industrial capitalism, is premised on money as a value in itself, not as a value of exchange.
More to the point money is a social technology, an artificial resource, and depending on how technology is used - in the case of money it is far from being a moral usage - technology can either enslave of liberate.
And indeed the majority of workers hate their jobs according to worldwide polls but are forced to work them to survive. Where's the anarchic freedom in that?
Essentially, in our centralised, monopolistic monetary system, if you have money you have freedom to live and consume but that is a very narrow, reductive understanding of freedom, since it is basically ruled by the necessity of self-preservation.
Hannah Arendt saw freedom as the opposite of necessity; where there is necessity, the need to sustain bare, biological life, there is no freedom and where there is freedom, the protection of the world manifested in the public realm, there is no necessity.
This is why the Ancients, she argues, had slaves; to be free from the necessities of life preservation to be able to dedicate themselves to the freedom of the public realm where being 'a speaker of great words, and a doer of great deeds', like Achilles in Homer, is preserved beyond one's mortal lifespan for all posterity to re-member.
Jobs by contrast, which belong to the techno-social realm, are, in theory at least, about the preservation of biological life, the task of slaves in the Ancient World.
Of course, modern technological jobs hardly ever aim directly at the preservation of life as opposed to the making of money (usually for shareholders/CEOs in return for a pay cheque), with monstrous results (e.g. Monsanto destroying food ecosystems, necessary for human survival, for profit).
The rise of the techno-social realm means that necessity, bare life considerations and its offshoots of 'entertainment' (distraction), consumption, base-pleasure seeking, which are all animal drives, have turned human being into domestic cattle.
[A propos, as I've written elsewhere in Economics as Domestication, the rise to prominence of the economic worldview is possibly linked with the domestication of mankind into jobholding householders with the State being the giant household overseeing all the others, economics of course coming from the Greek οἷκος meaning household.]
As Mark Passio from whatonearthishappening.com states, we have been reduced to animals in a pen. And the way we treat other non-human sentient beings in factory farms speaks volumes about the level of our collective consciousness as a species.
To conclude this post I will quote anarchist philosopher Kropotkin:
"There is no civil liberty as long as you are an economic slave."
Saturday, 6 February 2016
Social media are called social media, not public media. This is because in the Modern World, as Hannah Arendt exposes in her wonderful philosophical treatise The Human Condition, the public-private divide inherited from the Ancient World has been all but obliterated.
The social sphere is a nebulous zone that blurs the public, political realm with the private, individual realm. This is is one of the phenomena, Arendt argues, that contributes to the coming to prominence of totalitarian regimes which have the atomised mass-ification of human beings as their basis.
Philosopher Giorgio Agamben has elaborated on this thesis, namely that the bare, naked life of labouring self-sustainment, what the Greeks called ζωή, whether through jobholding or its converse, consuming, is one that allows for a large margin of control and manipulation.
On the other hand, dignified, purposeful, free life, i.e. unbound by the necessity of self-preservation, what the Greeks called βίος, such as the βίος πολιτικός (life as a free citizen of the πόλις) or the βίος θεωρητικός (life of the contemplative philosopher), is not so easily controllable.
National sovereignty (natio, in Latin, meaning birth) or governmental power is essentially founded upon ζωή, naked life which gives rise to the phenomenon of biopolitics, the control and manipulation of the life process itself and the human body as vehicle for that process, as evidenced in the gathering of biometric data, genetic interference, production of GMO foods, and other technocratic methods of control.
Social media also contribute to the mass gathering of data for the powers that (should not) be and are reflective more, I would argue, of naked life than dignified life in that they belong to the nebulous social sphere where the private invades the public. The reason social media do not count as public media in my books is that they fail to provide a physical space, distinct from the realm of the social, for the exchange of deeds and words, i.e. the apparition of freedom, the end of politics being freedom, not management, in Arendt's thinking.
In other words social media are social rather than public media in that they encourage and sustain the invasion of the public sphere by the private sphere, although this is more the case of Facebook than platforms like Twitter (which is very political) or the fairly artistically driven Tumblr. It is only in the public sphere, Arendt argues, that the world, that which binds us and separates us at the same time, comes to manifestation.
Friday, 5 February 2016
A common expression of abuse, especially online, is when someone tells another to 'grow up'.
Perhaps they mean grow in personal responsibility or in awareness but I suspect that usually they want you to agree with them or bow down to their own preferred worldview.
My contention, however, is that growing up is not primarily about responsibility, especially as understood in the monetary sense, nor it is directly to do with growing in awareness in the sense of consciousness expansion but is an entirely negative process of ever increasing disillusion-ment, that is, the losing one's ment-al illusions.
Perhaps the law of diminishing returns applies to ageing. One's hopes (i.e. illusions) and beliefs in the world, in its goodness or fairness, its beauty and curiosity, often diminish with age as we grow in knowledge of how this place called earth really works, how fallen in both physical and psychological terms the human condition really is, how unpleasant so many people are, how money is really a methodology of enslavement and control, how most food and medicine is poison, how depraved elites are and I could go on for weeks.
Some it is true retain a youthful optimism and a belief that there is a natural balancing between good and evil, that there is hope, that the present human condition has much in it to be commended.
However for many others, disillusion does set in. An example of this is one's relationship with one's parents. As children we depend on them, perhaps even admire them (like many boys their fathers), learn from them, think they have all the answers and are practically omnipotent. Starting with adolescence and moving on to maturity this belief usually falls victim to dis-illusion, that is, our faith in our parents in these terms we realise to be an illusion as we learn that they are just as fallible, vulnerable and flawed as anyone else out there. We also learn about the physical, sexual component responsible for our coming-to-the-world realising that having children is nothing special.
Perhaps as children we admire the working world of adults and are inspired, say, by airline pilots. Yet as we grow in disillusionment, i.e. grow in years and maturity, we learn that this trade is just as humdrum and nasty as any other, good salary withstanding. Same with other popular trades; while I admired boxers, cowboys and astronauts and wanted to become one of them as a child - a desire my mother used to make me eat my greens - I certainly no longer have any misplaced illusions as to the reality of these 'professions'.
Even in our adult years, long after school-leaving age, we can still grow in disillusion as we learn more and more about political, economic and military realities desiring as we do to gain in knowledge and awareness of the world. Truth can set you free but it can also be bad for your well-being, depending on your emotional and intellectual strength when reading up on and engaging with bleak realities.
Another example of disillusionment that occurred for me in an academic context was my undertaking study of the classical civilisations Greece and Rome which I romantically admired as being the be it and end all of culture and successful civilisation. Digging deeper into the social and political realities of those traditions made me quite grateful not to be alive in those times.
Other mainstream examples abound.
Many grow disillusioned with romantic love or members of the opposite sex after so much neurotic interpersonal baggage in their love life. Many divorce. Many students grow disillusioned with university, which they saw as a moment of liberation and rite of passage, and later with the jobs system as they realise jobs are fascistic, life denying contrivances for monetary survival. Many grow disillusioned with institutions, such as the State, the police, the media or medicine. Many grow disillusioned with the moralities and worldviews of other people. Many grow disillusioned with human nature itself. Many grow disillusioned with the entertainment industry and the childish messages of the good guys versus the bad guys or with theme parks which are indulgent money making platforms for the thrill-seeking unimaginative. Many grow disillusioned with social media which at first seemed to them an appealing, attractive idea.
Again, I could go on for weeks but I don't wish to belabour the point. Growing-up is disillusionment and disillusionment is growing-up. But disillusion need not be a bad thing for it merely means, as I said earlier, the losing of one's mental illusions. And that, in its way, is a form of liberation from the influences, some of which nefarious, that have imbued us since childhood, whether on a conscious or subconsious level.
Thursday, 4 February 2016
That truth should be absolute upsets the human ego. Thus it is often said that
"Every truth is a half-truth."Of course this can only mean that the statement "every truth is a half-truth" is itself a half-truth and, arguably, my pointing that out is just as much of half-truth as well.
Talk about a dog chasing its tail!
One thing, though, can be safely extrapolated from that statement and that is the following: only a truth has a claim to being a half-truth whereas an error contains no truth at all. Error means the complete absence of truth.
Furthermore, one could argue that if every truth is a half-truth, every half-truth is a truth! Which also means that every half-error, being also by definition a half-truth, is a truth.
So let us embrace half-truths and half-errors as the closest approximations to truths proper!
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Given the unending rise in hate crime and prejudice, the relentless pursuance of illiberal public policies destructive of civil liberties done in the name of security, the great sways of financial destitution and food poverty across the country, the money-obsessed psychopathic hold on people's energy and working lives, the blatantly impartial and skewed media, the scorn-filled rhetoric of commentators, the low level of education and high level of ignorance of the masses, the systemic and sustained attacks on the vulnerable, the populist vulgarity of mainstream entertainment, the redistribution of monetary wealth to the top, the normalisation of denigrating speech, the shafting of workers on all fronts conceivable, the so-called United Kingdom is a far cry from being the beacon of enlightened civilisation it is erroneously believed to be.
As the British band The Smiths knew well, Barbarism Begins At Home.
Tuesday, 2 February 2016
Portrayal of Elite Psychopathy, A review of the leaked document Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars
Genuine or fabricated, this 'leaked' document from the top is a fascinating read in its own right, both for reasons of content and the underlying worldview-psychology on display. It is very short but covers much ground in a short space.
This is a partial document and is not complete. What does feature prominently in this text is the huge role given to economics as a science of control, whether it be the control of human energy through centralised monetary currency, control of the party political system that reflects the hypocrisies of a taxed population, control of the mass media designed to keep people dumb, control of public education to keep the youth below any threshold of independent awareness and technical ability and the control and ultimate destruction of the family unit.
Human beings are but cattle, useless eaters to be enslaved and exploited for the benefit of a self-appointed ruling class looking after its own interests. There are many mathematical formula that permeate this text, which I could not make head or tail of, save to notice that people are but numbers and symbols in these carefully drawn out equations.
Reading this text should allay any doubts as to the low opinion and downright contempt the controllers of this world have for the masses and in many cases the observations made as to the inherent hypocrisies and weaknesses of common people are not necessarily untrue, unfortunately. You and I are seen as worthy of being enslaved due to our lack of self-determination and ability to free ourselves from the methodologies of mass control, including the monetary system.
This text is somewhat dated in that the technological paradigm we live under now is far more advanced than that suggested and alluded to in the text, which makes our era far more frightening than that described in Silent Weapons, particularly in terms of data collection, surveillance and moves towards a cashless society with a microchipped population.
One thing I would like to note about the psychology of this text is that it is the fruit of a very cynical, power-driven mind and however correct the narrative is in terms of how to hoodwink and control the masses, it does betray a lack of imagination and appreciation of life, completely ignoring as it does whole sways of human activity such as art, philosophy and personal enlightenment, which all contribute to raising consciousness.
As is portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy, Satan may well send the masses to burn in flames, but he himself is encaged in ice. And indeed, whoever wrote this text and whoever subscribes to this ideology of control is not only unenlightened, but is a slave to fear and its need for external control making him or her a pathetic excuse of a human being, a genuine 'hollow man' to use T.S. Eliot's expression. The dark side of the force is indeed one of self-destruction.
Monday, 1 February 2016
The mainstream media falsely poison your worldview.
The alternative media realistically poison your worldview.
Social media carelessly poison your worldview.
Is freedom of information such a good thing?
I would argue that it is better having a dark view of the world based on facts than having a dark view of the world based on lies. For as the evangelist John said
"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."False worldview poisoning which shuts down consciousness enslaves while truthful worldview poisoning is in fact worldview healing because it makes you get to grips with the root causes of suffering and pain on this planet, liberating you from resentments and fears promoted by the control system which disempower rather than enable the implementation of solutions.