Tuesday, July 13, 2021

Today, a little optimism: Corona – a dogma exposed

[Beneath the uploaded image is my translation of a German article I feel well represents a contagion corroding the edges of that country’s mainstream with the arguments and criticisms long voiced by the German “Querdenker” protest movement, not to mention countless others internationally. The article does not go as far as it might, but the panicked majority are still far beyond reach when it comes to any suggestion of deliberate, planned wrongdoing by those who rule over us. My sense is of a cult-like Stockholm Syndrome that desperately, existentially needs to be right. There has been a profound emotional-psychological investment in the narrative that operates on a number of levels, not least of which is the meaning and importance the official c19 narrative affords those who so fervently believe it. At the same time, lawyers fighting this global tyrannical takeover, internationally, on multiple legal fronts, are making slow but steady headway against a rotten system hell bent on preventing, by all means available, every attempt to bring it to justice. The corruption is deep and broad, the system fearfully hateful of the sunlight these brave lawyers, and others, are shining upon it.

Of course, those of us fighting the wrongdoing are also emotionally invested in our cause. This makes effective communication between the two halves of a deliberately divided humanity extremely difficult, if not at times downright impossible. For my part, I want to see an open discussion of the facts and logic. If lockdowns work, if viruses are pathogenic, if the medical industry is not thoroughly corrupted, if science is not for sale, if ethical compassion and impartiality rule our global systems, I want to see that demonstrated. From the evidence I have seen, it is clear the opposite is true. The way this ‘pandemic’ has been handled, from the start, is as clear an attempt to stymie impartial discussion as one could possibly hope to see. Below the article, I link to an interview of a patent lawyer of the highest international standing, who brings to light clear evidence of a global conspiracy that is, in my opinion, beyond reasonable doubt. It should be watched by everyone.]

A character in the series finds out he's been fooled.


By Wolfgang Herles

Human lives still count. Caution is not pointless. But more and more of us are losing faith in the logic of the dogmatists. No, the virus cannot be defeated. But we can live with it.

We – whether we realise it or not – were handicapped for one and a half years, physically and, increasingly, mentally. In trying to lock out the virus, the mental walls were built higher and higher. The attempt has locked out life. If you thought differently from the masterminds and their adherents, you were out of your mind or an inhuman being. But unless I am wholly mistaken, the “case-incidence Stalinists” are losing their domination of the skies.

I
Human lives count. Nothing else does. Caution is the only wisdom. Fear is not only allowed, it is required: This is the composition of the C-politics paradigm. Paradigms undergird decisions that may never be questioned. That is why they quickly become dogma, articles of faith. Those who call for paradigm shifts usually only want to replace one dogma with another. What is happening now is not a paradigm shift. Human lives still count. Caution is not pointless. But more and more people are losing faith in the logic of the dogmatists. No, the virus cannot be defeated. But we can live with it.

II
They claimed from the start that they only followed “the science”. There was no bigger lie. Worse, this paradigm harmed both politics and science. Virologists and mathematicians basked in their importance. That is why they allowed themselves to be corrupted by the politics that gave them so much power. They insisted on being right and thus kissed their futures as serious researchers goodbye. Scientists falsify their own claims. They invite divergent opinions. Politics popped its clogs and buried itself behind supposedly objective science.

III
For a year and a half, there was practically nothing but talk about how to avoid infection, at any price. Not about how best to treat the disease. In this way, medicine also cost lives. Today we know that too many sick people were put into intensive care units too quickly, that a large percentage of severe cases died from the side effects of tortuous intubation, not from the virus. Asthma sprays would often have been more effective. Instead, the weak, the elderly and those with serious co-morbidities were subjected to inhuman treatment. Medicine was also infected by the panic. Medicine and politics should and could have learned faster how to live with the virus. They were fixated on the burden on the health system, not the burden on society. Scientists who played it straight early on were not taken seriously, countries that deviated were berated. What remains is the certainty that the world has failed in the face of a foreseeable danger.

IV
Now the signs of the times are unmistakable. Britain's Prime Minister Johnson wants to end all the measures he himself imposed – despite rising incidence figures. He will set an example. Germany's future chancellor Laschet is moving away from his predecessor's policy, easing up in NRW just as Manu Dreyer did in Rhineland-Palatinate. Söder refuses to read the writing on the wall and will be handed the bill in Bavaria. Obsessive-compulsives and corona populists no longer dominate the debate. We would be well advised not to let the next wave drive us crazy. Although it will come. Because the deprivation of liberty has not helped. Because the chaotic measures cannot be justified. Because the failure of politics is clear. Because fear-culture is not culture; it destroys culture. Because patience has run out. Because “stay home” must not become the norm. Because life is intimate, not remote. Because showing your face is normal, covering it is not.

V
Am I overly optimistic? Surveys show how deep-seated the fear, which most media outlets have driven into the minds of citizens, has become. Surveys tell us most still dare not return to society, still disinfect hand and heart. Corona-spook Lauterbach still haunts talk shows and rants publicly about how he would like to be health minister. His intent rings like a threat. The ruling obsessives and their media troops still command attention. In this respect, too, the country is more divided than ever. What drags on and on is the true disaster.


Saturday, June 12, 2021

The logic of dissent

Humans are social animals. People who choose love of truth over submission to peer pressure choose what they feel is right despite the serious risks that often follow. Dissenters like Galileo are seldom popular with the authorities or masses. Dissent is not idle vanity, it is the lifeblood of democracy and good science. People who inhibit open discussion fear the truth and are thus anti-democratic and anti-scientific.

Dissent is thus rooted in love and truth. It has nothing to do with selfishness.

Follow the facts and the soundest logic you can find. Forget what you can imagine is possible. Neither truth nor logic is governed by what we can imagine is true. Full understanding is only attained once we have let go of all our beliefs; beliefs limit what we allow ourselves to perceive.

And remember that we want the same things: honesty, freedom, love, adventure, true health, a future. In truth, we are more united than divided.

Dr Wolfgang Wodarg, a lung specialist, exposed the fake (swine-flu) pandemic of 2009-10, as it was ruled by the Council of Europe in 2010. His important, expert, uniquely experienced analysis of the covid19 situation has nevertheless been ignored and suppressed. His website was shutdown in April 2020. The vaccines manufactured to combat the swine flu were withdrawn because several hundred young people developed narcolepsy after being injected. Vaccines are not “safe and effective” merely because their contents are collectively called a “vaccine”, especially while the medication in question is still experimental.

Why is “vaccine hesitancy” equated with “domestic terrorism”, selfishness and being “antisocial”? These are wildly defamatory comparisons, surely the epitome of hate speech.

What happened to the informed consent enshrined in the Nürnberg Code?

Why are eminent scientists, lawyers, doctors and politicians being censored by Big Tech and Big Media?

Why has open, fact-based discussion between all sides of this most important issue, perhaps the most important in history, been deliberately poisoned to the point that now only invective seems possible?

How often in history has the media pumped out unending cumulative death counts for any disease? What purpose does this serve? How experienced is the public with such figures?

Why is risking a policy as untested as global lockdown presented as the only safe option?

How healthy is it to live in a constant state of fear?

Why are countries and US states that ‘risked’ no or very mild lockdowns not greeted with hope, with warm support? Shouldn’t we want to end lockdowns? Shouldn’t we prefer it if dissenters prove to be right? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all the fear proves to have been unfounded?

A year ago, staying inside saved lives. Today, being outside saves lives. For 17 months and against much expert advice, PCR-test positives have counted in the statistics as “cases”. In January 2021, the WHO advised otherwise; only symptomatic people should count. On 7 June 2021, the NHS agreed with this scientifically sound position and changed their policy accordingly.

Do the ‘authorities’ know what they’re doing? Are they being honest about what they’re doing?

For 17 months, the Wuhan-lab-leak claim was dismissed and censored as “conspiracy theory”. Today it is fast becoming “conspiracy fact”. What was nonsense yesterday is true today. Dr Fauci, four decades in his post, has been asked to step down by the US Senate for illegally diverting tax-payer dollars to bio-weapon, gain-of-function research into corona viruses at the lab in Wuhan. Again: do the authorities know what they’re doing? Or are they deliberately keeping us afraid and confused? Such powers of mass behavioural manipulation exist; you might want to read the UK government’s MINDSPACE document, published January 2010, as a good starting point (“This means that citizens may not fully realise that their behaviour is being changed – or, at least, how it is being changed”, p66), and then check out a BBC documentary called The Century of the Self.

If you find yourself hating those of us who see something very sinister being rolled out globally under cover of a second fake pandemic, do you really think dissenters enjoy vilification, dread? Imagine a film in which a group of people clearly sees evil approaching but is hated for trying to point it out. Would they be heroes if they lost their resolve? The French Resistance were hated during WWII. Today they are called heroes for fighting on despite the risks. Their behaviour was not selfish; it was loving, courageous.

If you believe dissenters are deluded, surely open discussion between all sides – not hatred, invective, oppression – is the solution. And who is stoking the fear and hate? It didn’t have to be managed this way.

What solid evidence supports the claim of “asymptomatic spread” of SARS-CoV-2?

Why is the average age of death from covid19 at or above life expectancy?

If you believe dissent is causing the disease to spread, what solid evidence supports that belief? Surely you would want rock-solid evidence to justify calling dissenters “mass murderers”, rather than discussing matters with them openly. How do you explain Sweden, Belarus, and 24 US states? How does their success make you feel? How do you know lockdowns work if there is no control group, or no permissible comparison? For scientific reasons alone, we should welcome states that responded differently; we need controls to generate meaningful conclusions. Without, we are flying in the dark, forced to trust people who merely claim to know better. 

And does directing anger at divergent responses benefit science? Does it benefit anyone?

Figures today of deaths from and severe adverse reactions to the various covid-19 ‘vaccines’ far exceed those of the swine-flu vaccine that was destroyed in 2010 (where is the swine-flu virus today, where is SARS-CoV-1?). And yet the ‘vaccines’ are aggressively pushed. Indeed, Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, tempted the “vaccine hesitant” with free fries and a burger, as cheap a sales pitch as I have ever seen. President Biden is now trying to scare kids of 12-19 into taking experimental ‘vaccines’ because the scary “Delta variant” is coming to get them. The Lancet recently published a paper pointing out that the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of the various ‘vaccines’ is around 1%, possibly lower. The 95% effectiveness claimed in fact represents their relative risk reduction (RRR), a far less important, almost meaningless figure. Why is this finding not discussed openly by all major media outlets? The German government and ‘vaccine’ manufacturers have stated that the jabs do not confer immunity, do not prevent contagiousness, that they only offer suppression of mild to medium symptoms. They’re neither safe nor effective. Why, then, are they being so aggressively pushed? Why is natural immunity viciously derided when many experts argue it is safer and more robust than medical interventions? 

The ‘vaccines’ only have emergency authorisation. If there were no emergency, it would not be legal to administer these ‘vaccines’. Is the state of emergency artificially maintained by manipulating statistics to satisfy Big Pharma’s ambition and greed? Several major German media outlets (Bild, Spiegel, Stern) are currently headlining (12.6.21) the Merkel regime’s falsification, since January 2021, of intensive-care occupancy rates at German hospitals to create the appearance of a crisis. These media giants are now suggesting that dissenters were right after all, that the media simply passed on uncritically what the government told them, and that the government has stolen citizen freedoms. 

As the Wuhan-lab, bio-warfare story gathers intensity, it would be wise to recall that the WHO agrees with John Ioannides’ calculation that covid19 has an IFR between 0.14-0.15%, similar to influenza (that disappeared when c19 arrived). Not a particularly effective weapon of war. And if it is a “gain of function” virus (gains in lethality as it mutates), why has China been so comparatively relaxed about the whole affair since March/April 2020? Is the Wuhan-lab story needed as cover for the anticipated catastrophic spike in deaths due this coming autumn/winter when the vaccinated start being confronted with live influenza and corona viruses, as reasoned by whistleblowers and experts leaking information and giving testimony to Dr Reiner Füllmichs Corona Investigative Committee?

Does a flu-level IFR justify continuation of the lockdowns? Do symptomless positive PCR-test results? 

Was there really a pandemic?

Finally, why are vaccine passports such a pressing issue? If vaccines are effective, vaccine passports are pointless. If vaccines are ineffective, vaccine passports are pointless.

Even though it can hurt, we grow spiritually, emotionally and psychologically when we accept we have been wrong and learn from our errors. 

We want the same things: honesty, freedom, love, adventure, true health, a future we create together. We are more united than divided.

Let all that is not rooted in truth and love wither and fade away.

Monday, April 12, 2021

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

We are witnessing in real time the impossibility of totalitarian control.

Governments want us to believe they follow “the science”. They imply this makes their rulings valid and wise and thus beyond dispute. But there is not now, nor has there ever been, only one ‘science’. Such is an immature fantasy. Science is never in total consensus about anything; even the most rigorously produced and unambiguous data can be interpreted in multiple ways. 

But even allowing that One Science is real, there follows the problem of developing wise or clear policy from its decrees. For example, what if science were to definitively prove that TV is bad for humans? What is the scientifically correct policy response to that truth? And how easy would it be to address the finding that the profit motive is primarily destructive to the environment? More generally, what if science were to prove the opposite of what governments need to be true? This simple thought exercise tells us all we need to know: governments cannot follow objective science; they wield The Science in a way that suits their purposes, that delivers only those interpretations of the data that support their ambitions and requirements.

In “following” (whatever that means) “the science” (whatever that means), governments forcefully imply there can be no disagreement with their rulings and guidelines. Even accepting the idea that government should issue laws that cannot ever be disputed, how could such total power be practically implemented? How can all argument be halted? Can totalitarianism accomplish this eery ambition? Can government, or science, or the greatest genius communicator alive, issue constant instructions about how all 7.x billion of us are to behave from moment to moment such that there is no room for confusion or interpretation? And how healthy or desirable would machine humans in a machine system be? No matter how much we might want it to be so, humans are not programmable machines. (And even programmable machines behave like wilful children much of the time!) Life is not a programmable machine.

The more we reach for control, the more we create its opposite. The genie the Powers That Be have released – in their ivory-tower wisdom – is inadvertently exposing the impossibility of top down rule. Lockdown and relentless fear mongering have set people against each other so profoundly that there is now no possible way of agreeing on the best way forward. Each side has scientists. Each side has authorities and data to support their position. How can the ever-growing mountain of that data be correctly interpreted? We’re assessing effects and ramifications of an invisible particle – SARS-CoV-2 – that cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt. And on top of that, even if we could agree on how deadly it is (if it is deadly), how can we agree on what best to do about it? If Sweden or Texas or Florida or South Dakota or wherever achieves herd immunity in the next few days or weeks – if we can even ‘prove’ to everyone’s satisfaction this has occurred – comparing one country to another is deemed unscientific by many. In the absence of comparisons, there can be no healthy scientific debate. We’re thus left with The Science that produces what each government needs it to ‘prove’. 

Which brings us back to totalitarian control. Which is impossible.

Can top-down rule work at all now that debate and discussion can happen between billions of people 24/7? How is that policeable? How can all that chatter be effectively censored? How can humanitys endless talking be orchestrated such that its outcomes are invariably favourable to The Powers That Be? With AI? But how would the AI instructions be implemented, interpreted? By a separate AI system? By robot armies? How would they be controlled? And so on.

All this seems to beg these final questions: Are we being directed towards direct democracy even though we’re not ready for it? Are our amazing communication technologies inexorably herding us towards a challenge most don’t want to face?

And doesn’t history always do this to us?

Friday, April 2, 2021

Civilisation: technics vs. organics?

Identifying dynamics common to all civilisational forms – while firmly rooting civilisation in nature, not outside it – is a very important undertaking in my eyes. I look for properties that are still evident in our thinking and thus in all state forms and institutions, in market ideologies as in corporate and business structures and ambitions generally that were also common across recorded history, albeit with varying degrees of emphasis. I intuit that identifying fundamental civilisational dynamics opens a window onto a healthier path through what I see as the difficult transition from Civilisation 1.9.99 to Civilisation 2.0. Because it is difficult to capture all of this in a single post, I come at it again and again from different angles in hopes of hitting the sweet spot for as many readers as possible. Each of these posts is like a little twist of the kaleidoscope I use to make sense of reality.

We begin this time with three interlocking definitions of qualities I believe to be common to all civilisations forms. They are no doubt familiar to regular visitors. Together they constitute the foundation we then use to examine how technics – used naïvely by civilisation as something of a defence against the unpredictable or ‘valueless’ or ‘wild’ organic world – defines humanity’s civilisational vector, aka recorded history. We also look at how thinking in dichotomies – technics vs. organics, wild vs tame, civilised vs. barbaric – is a fundamental feature of the challenge we face as a species now evolving to Civilisation 2.0 – or devolving to global totalitarianism. The 2.0 path cannot be followed unless we first address the us-and-them thinking (“othering”) that currently mires us in its swamp-like futility.

Conspiracy 

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace in a continual state of alarm (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken

I see conspiracy as a necessary component or tool of civilisation; necessary because civilisation entails the accumulation of power into the hands of a few, which then entails the challenge of keeping large numbers of people on the same mythical page, such that they see themselves as One People. Those few, those powers that be, must therefore make decisions whose consequences cannot be beneficial, indeed most likely must be harmful, to a significant portion of the thousands, millions, or today, billions of people affected by those decisions. Consequently, such decisions must be made in private (while hierarchical structures dominate decision-making processes at this scale). As the Stalinist saying goes, you have to break eggs to make omelettes, and those eggs earmarked for breakage would far rather it were other eggs. Put in less sinister terms, you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Ergo, secret planning (conspiring) that leads to the suffering or death of thousands and perhaps millions is a structural necessity of civilisation. See democide and genocide by way of example.

No doubt you’re aware of a less controversial term for the definition above: “realpolitik”. Doubtless many will find my definition too broad, believe it fails to address illegal or unlawful activity. Criminals plotting to syphon off millions from plump pension funds are obviously conspiring to inflict harm. In contradistinction, realpolitik attempts to do what is required to protect the system that protects the many while causing minimal harm. This is an important and helpful distinction but insufficient to render my definition irrelevant. I propose a sliding, necessary-evil scale for conspiring because “conspiracy theory” and other related phrases are pejoratives used to silence criticism of the powerful. Such silencing ought not to be the case. That this pejorative is so loudly and pervasively in force and instantly wielded today to suppress almost all criticism strongly suggests there is much to hide. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Anything that stubbornly refuses fundamental criticism and has the power to carry on refusing and even oppressing critics is in desperate need of exactly that criticism. How can eternal vigilance be remotely possible when analysis critical of the powers that be is verboten?

As made abundantly clear by behavioural economics, humans self-justify their behaviours. Fraudsters might use survival-of-the-fittest reasoning, or argue they know better what to do with the money they steal, or that might makes right, or that morality is for the meek, etc. Being common to all humans, it is reasonable to assert that self-justification also occurs in all governmental institutions, corporations, and everywhere else there are humans. Indeed, I have come to view the state as a legalised protection racket, one that does the bare minimum needed to keep those who suffer most at its hands from rebelling and threatening its bottom line. After millennia of practice, it is now a slick, well advertised, mostly attractive protection racket that today can boast an echo-chamber media that uncritically propagates a sanctioned version of reality in which we are all daily immersed and through which we perceive the world. And yes, I’m arguing this is the case across the world, though to moderately varying degrees. How could it be otherwise?  If we were not socialised and normalised by state-sanctioned propaganda (information) to accept the interpretation of reality that most benefits the state system, there’d be no stability, no state. Further, socialisation and normalisation are requirements for human societies of every stripe. The point is not that this is somehow abhorrent, but that it is hidden even though it is an obvious necessity. Probably because we can’t handle the truth. More of which below.

To repeat, we powerless eggs don’t want to learn how expendable we are in the state’s eyes when new omelettes need to be made. It’s a truth we’d rather ignore. Hence conspiring is a necessary ‘evil’ to keep the system stable.

But power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Corruption is a boiling-frogs process; you don’t really know it’s happening to you, especially when it’s happening to all your peers at more or less the same slow rate, and that’s before we consider peer pressure and self-justification/-deception. The cocktail of power and group-think is heady indeed. So, conspiring is conspiring even when the self-justified ‘good guys’ (superior ones) are doing it for the ‘good of the whole’ (as they see it).

The state (hierarchical) system

For me, the state system (hierarchical, dynastic or institutionalised rulers ruling the ruled) is roughly synonymous with civilisation. For example, the state system includes the market (trade or ritualised exchange, internally and externally) and shares its growth imperative. Better put, all market and state bodies together constitute the hierarchical control systems that, as an interlocking set of parts, perpetuate themselves, and thus society, across great tracts of time, despite often finding themselves in conflict with one another. 

Corporations and states have much in common. This is clear to all who take an analytical look at both. Today they are attempting to fuse yet more tightly – fascia, fascism, muscle. Or, more accurately, they are simply being more open about this natural state of affairs. Both want … the state system wants to keep history’s vector under its practiced control. This is natural; living systems want to survive. Direct democracy – more anarchic systems of governance –, as made potentially viable by technological advance, threatens its bottom line. People’s fears and ignorance support the state system’s bottom line; fear and ignorance blind us to the rich potential direct democracy offers. We are deliberately kept in the dark and fed a highly filtered and infantile version of the truth because the state system prefers us malleable, meek, obedient. Were we otherwise, we would already have redirected history towards more direct democracy and freedom than has been the case, a path that would dissolve the state system.

Money, price and market are essential tools for remotely guiding the behaviour of billions, which is what statecraft is all about. Without them, the rest of the state system’s machinery would be far less effective. Indeed, today it wouldn’t work at all at such vast scale. Together, money, price and market embody the base operating equation that drives civilisation: value = money and property accumulation (power), success = acquiring more stuff than the other guy and using status symbols to advertise that success. While we accept these equations uncritically, we are at the mercy of money and market. Money, price and market necessarily fuse together all institutionalised expressions of power by making them possible in the first place, just as oil makes cars and roads possible. 

State and market cannot be meaningfully separated even though various of their own core dynamics often conflict. The state system is thus that collection of bodies that together perpetuate the system across time. Being hierarchical, it falls primarily to the infamous ‘elite’, as guardians and primary beneficiaries of this system, to keep its complex machinery functional, breaking eggs as required to feed the machine the omelettes it demands.

Propaganda

“It was, of course, the astounding success of propaganda during the war that opened the eyes of the intelligent few in all departments of life to the possibilities of regimenting the public mind. It was only natural, after the war ended, that intelligent persons should ask themselves whether it was not possible to apply a similar technique to the problems of peace. The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.” – Edward Bernays

Propaganda – re-coined as “public relations” by Bernays – is all state-sanctioned (power-sanctioned) information output – perception management, damage limitation, behavioural programming, normalisation etc. This output of course includes how money, market and price are presented and discussed. It includes corporate-news outlets, academia generally, education from kindergarten through university and beyond, entertainment in all its forms, etc. It includes corporate science. In short, it includes all information sanctioned by any manifested power grouping, institutional, corporate or otherwise. This does not make all propaganda false, far from it. It just makes it sanctioned. Whether true, false or subtly misleading, well-meaning or cynical, propaganda need only serve the interests of those propagating it. It is that true and important information persistently hidden from public view that is most instructive about state-system interests and what it feels it needs to control.

Brief summary

The above three definitions are meant to serve as a trinity of interlocking concepts that together take the fear out of the unpalatable idea that powerful people and organisations engage in egg-breaking activities (conspire) as a matter of course. Conspiracy and propaganda are logical consequences of the state system, requirements even. This goes unnoticed through most historical stages but when history stands at pivotal crossroads – this time between, in my view, tyranny and direct democracy – these egg-breaking activities become far more sinister; the desires of the few then gravely outweigh the needs of the many. At such moments, the “eternal vigilance” so necessary to preserve liberty – doubtless an unlearned cultural reflex by this stage – becomes a more urgent need than at any other time and thus all the more radical and revolutionary.

Is the above good or bad? Neither. Tens of thousands of years ago, humanity embarked on a path that led to civilisation. The intended and unintended consequences of that innocent experiment with seed planting somehow led to today’s world.

The infamous question is, can we infantilised many handle the truth? We are cajoled into an infantile ‘adulthood’ devoid of any liminal period or rite of passage that might put us firmly on a spiritual- or moral-growth path. In the absence of such rituals, we are tasked with taking matters into our own hands, both as individuals and collectively. The first stage of this challenge will be clearly understanding its nature by bringing into sharp focus how our normalised thought patterns and perception – systems structure perception – hide most of what we need to see. A pivotal part of that will be dealing with dichotomies more creatively, i.e., becoming less polarised.

To paraphrase Jefferson, we get the system we deserve, the system that is the truest expression of what we are. When we gaze into the mirror of society ‘out there’, what do we learn about ourselves as individuals? Are we currently mature enough, moral enough, free thinking enough to identify and choose more humane leaders capable of building more humane systems? 

As the saying goes, we are the ones we are waiting for. ‘We’ are many. ‘They’ are very few. But we are all The System. The System is us. If we knew what to do to create a wiser system, and if we really wanted to, surely we would do just that. I see pressure building towards that very break-through realisation, towards a profound change of historical direction. As yet, only a small percentage can even hear the call and feel the need. Perhaps that number is growing as the crucible of global lockdown pressures humanity towards radical action. If we do begin the work towards direct democracy, if we recognise that doing so will be like growing up as a species into new possibilities, then we will need to address the themes we now turn to in the remainder of this article. 

Technics vs. organics

I’m drawn again and again in my thinking to how civilisation sees itself as tamed nature, ‘civilised’, refined, and how it views the wild as barbarous, bestial, messy, a pool of worthless resources to be turned into valuable commodities by being fed through civilising machinery. This seems to be civilisation’s defining dichotomy. Today, the ‘value’ of the ‘natural’ world does not compute unless depicted in dollar terms. Even that act of measuring the immeasurable – the earthly wonder of organic reality – is a controlling violence that seeks to tame it into mechanical servitude, to make the wild fit into the boxes bureaucratised civilisation can perceive and digest. Recently of course the science of ecology has done much to address this barren hubris. But there is also the cerebral, patrician appraisal of ‘nature’ as that which much be protected from us useless eaters by means of a Great Reset. “Useless eaters” are “useless” precisely because of how we understand value as a money-measurable thing. The Great Reset aims to house us in retooled, ‘smart’ cities that will ration our ‘freedoms’ and ‘rights’ in accordance with The Science. The Great Reset is mechanically icy, hubristic, pathological. Ecology a vital endeavour still in its infancy.

On the whole, though, the dichotomy between ‘tame’ and ‘wild’ pervades. Everything is measured in money. Efforts to abandon GDP in favour of more nuanced measures of a nation’s wealth disappear down the many memory holes created daily by the endless news tsunami that buries everything in its path, even yesterday’s tsunami. Even ‘re-wilding’ city spaces to make them safer for ‘wildlife’ feels bureaucratic, interfering, oddly incompetent because subordinate to machine thinking, market fundamentals, money. It’s how the state system survives; all its reflexes have evolved to protect those core elements. Without them it would fall apart, cease to be in an eruption of chaotic collapse.

But reality is not mechanical. The system’s need to grow and turn the rest of reality into itself – like a narcissist converting everyone it can into yet another acolyte orbiting its insatiable hunger – has finally met the iron wall of its own demise. Something has got to give. Naturally enough, the powers that be want a Great Reset, a ‘technological leap’ into yet more control, with AI and learning machines telling useless humans where to go and what to do: a machine solution, the graceless brainchild of a defunct worldview, a clunky Athena sprung from the head of a senile Zeus. Technics trumps organics by mechanising the organic bestiality perceived in useless eaters – those input-output bio-units digesting and egesting to no useful end – by slotting us into sockets that will prevent us from doing too much harm. We infants, we accidents of evolution, we viruses on the face of the earth; is meek submission to our machine-assigned destiny the best of our potential?

Do we too see reality this way? Do we eagerly await tighter control of our bestial instincts, of our potential for violence? Do we crave freedom from scary uncertainty? How hopelessly conditioned are we? How much of our spirit, of our love of endless exploration survives? Can we still close our eyes and feel reality as organically beautiful in all its wild splendour?

Were my responses to this flowery rhetoric pessimistic, I wouldn’t be writing these articles. Let’s dissolve some dichotomies and see where it gets us.

Technics is a subset of organics; can we not see a rainforest as a ‘technical’ masterpiece far beyond our comprehension, an accomplishment of slow evolutionary design? ‘Mess’ is a manifestation of ‘order’, both because free will is an organic ordering principle of consciousness whose consequences cannot be known, and because we simply cannot understand reality down to its finest details. We perceive ‘mess’ and ‘order’ into existence by understanding neither. And because we tend to fear what we cannot control, the messy, organic world seems threatening, something to be tamed. This is an artefact of the bloody trials our civilisational vector meted out to us. Increasing control and mastery of our environment – technics vs. organics – proved the solution almost every time, however temporarily. 

But it was never ‘mess’ that needed ‘taming’. It was and remains our immature relationship with fear that needs to be brought to the fore. 

Growing up is the process of embracing fear, of learning to work more creatively with it by recasting it into new understandings. Kept infantile – our servitude and controllability benefit the state system – we remain fearful beings. To the ‘elite’ – structurally tasked with mass population control to keep the system running smoothly –, we non-elite hordes appear as a mob that must be tamed, kept in place. Part of how that is accomplished is via infantilisation, much as pet dogs are reared as perpetual puppies. Raised by the system as perpetual children, we suppress rather than face our fears, then pose as adults throughout our lives. We remain unaware of how our fears control us. Psychologists, propagandists and public-relations experts know them well; our fears are the buttons and levers they operate to keep us in line.

The gate we must pass if we want choose a direct-democracy path towards more freedom and adult responsibility is made of our fears. It opens to reveal that path as we grow up into true adulthood.

Growth as endless change characterises existence, with the unhealthy falling away in favour of the healthy. Physical growth – as economics currently promotes it – is unsustainable, unhealthy. Health is thus reality’s guiding principle even if, in our habituated dysfunction, we can not pick it out from the information overload that surrounds us, or want it, rejoice in it. Nonetheless, the healthier alternatives will prevail. Similarly, the truth must out regardless of how skilfully we deceive ourselves, and how much ‘power’ we wield, or submit to, in doing so.

Growing up is embracing a paradox expressed by Jung decades ago: free will is doing gladly that which we must do. True power is in part the wise and humble acceptance of powerlessness, of unpredictability, and of what the ego – consciousness in the service of fear – sees as tragedy. It is this more mature approach to reality, this structuring principle, that healthily recasts dichotomies and fears alike. 

Why are we so afraid of viruses? They are the very foundation of biological life: constant challenge and mutation. Is it because they are invisible to us and so escape our control? Do we understand them at all? Does our fear of viruses blind us to what they are? Is our fear of them the perfect control mechanism for those afraid of the change and challenge we represent to them? 

Vaccines are a technics we use to passively acquire – ‘without risk’ – the ability to prevail against viruses (claim vaccine salespeople). It is but one technology we prefer over living with danger wisely, over living maturely with the vicissitudes of life. Instead of designing truly healthy living systems and health-oriented institutions that encourage moral responsibility, instead of prioritising the healthiest options we can discern, we choose techno-fixes that benefit the profit motive while weakening us by making our lives easier, safer, less challenging. To repeat the logic developed above; kept infantile we remain polarised – individually and collectively. Our control buttons remain easy to detect and push. Confused and afraid, we are easily seduced by ‘authority figures’ who shepherd us towards the solutions they prefer. We inhabit an us-and-them world powered and patterned by fear. 

Addressing our fears and stepping out of our stagnant comfort zones creates the healthier path out of this historical bifurcation point. Vaccination (technics) acts as a seduction to those too afraid to grow.

Know them by their deeds. Those who seek to shunt the status quo over to a “new normal” pervert common-sense wisdoms to further their graceless ends. The truth that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure becomes the passivity of vaccination described above, while the allopathic medicine that suppresses symptoms rather than encouraging lasting cures is advertised as a comfy safety net for those who prefer short-term ‘cures’ over taking responsibility for their own lives. This is not to say, necessarily, that allopathic medicine and vaccines are entirely cynical at root, but rather that the profit motive – part of what sustains the state system – most certainly corrupts Big Pharma away from promoting the genuine, adult attitude to healthy living that would fatally harm its bottom line.

The wages of health is health; health is its own reward. The wages of money is power to control others in pursuit of ever more power. There is a fundamental difference. In its current design, money is incompatible with health. While money dominates decision making, debt builds and builds but cannot remain unpaid indefinitely (this is the subject of other articles). The longer we wait, the bigger the bill gets and the more disruption and destruction that will follow in its wake.

We are social creatures. Part of health is meaningful contribution to the whole; for humans, health includes being needed in some way. For as long as value is defined by money – and now that we need each other less and less economically and are therefore less likely to be rewarded for our labour with the money that ‘measures’ our ‘value’ – how then can we feel valued, needed? My answer has always been: By deliberately evolving our sense of what value is. Wouldn’t that be the healthiest way forward? We suffer from a paucity of meaningful lives, a gasping thirst to be valued that can only be healthily addressed by re-conceiving value at a deep cultural level. That would take lots of work – by all of us, for all of us. 

The lazier, more convenient option – the Great Reset – won’t work; it stubbornly ignores the organic nature of value, of health, of life. The Great Reset doubles down on the current mechanical paradigm, attempts a kind of debt-equity swap on what we owe ourselves, and thus reality, after decades of refusing to stare bravely into the mirror of civilisation and humbly, courageously inhale the virus-like truths that gazing would unleash.

Sunday, February 28, 2021

Of viruses and convenience (rewritten)

[Added Jung quote 10 March 2021] 

Without pain, there is no awareness. People do everything, no matter how absurd, to avoid an encounter with their own soul. We do not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by becoming aware of the darkness. (Carl Jung)

Oh how we love convenience! Isn’t civilisation at root a process that removes the inconvenient from our lives and replaces it with more and more convenience? “I just want an easy life!” Civilisation: flight from the jungle, escape from danger, mastery of nature … a veritable factory for convenient things!

Yes, I’m being provocative; civilisation is much else besides, good and bad, and humans can and do romanticise everything, including Nature and The Wild. But because nothing is perfect and all human creativity produces unintended consequences, it’s healthy to take a critical look, especially when civilisation has turned decadent yet again and things are falling apart. 

Why do we repeatedly end up here? Partly, I argue, because we’re drawn, accustomed and then addicted to an easy life, a life filled with convenience. Once there were slaves. Today, there are smart phones and microwave ovens: modern slaves even the poor can afford. But they’re slaves that enslave, as all slaves do in the end. It’s part of the curse-blessing of Convenience, Divine Child of Civilisation.

It is also fantasy, an advertiser’s confection. Advertisers know what they’re doing. Check out the work of Vance Packard and Edward Bernays if you don’t believe me, or simply consider how much money is spent on advertising every year. Our fantasies and fears are the fields advertisers plough. Armed with the information they harvest, they create worlds we cannot help but desire, and associate those worlds with products. These products, we then believe, will make our lives better, even though they never do. We’re addicts blind to the obvious: the drugs don’t work. Failing to see this, glued glassy eyed to our gadgets and TVs because … well, what else is there, frankly … we remain hooked into the pursuit of The Next Best Thing but end up living vicarious lives of empty circularity.

Convenience is a powerful myth, immaculately conceived dark aeons ago by innocent seed planting and the taming of animals: the birth of the domestic sphere, the hearth, the fixed abode. Fast forward tens of thousands of years, and now, apparently, we save buckets of time thanks to washing machines and fridges, but choose to use that time for far less vital and meaningful activities, a set of things we might today call Netflix And Pizza and the jobs we have to do to afford it. How bestial civilisation has made us. We are dehumanised, stagnant machine beings programmed to want to consume whatever they’re selling, too numbed to notice how empty we’ve become. Then we’re enticed into causes like Black Lives Matter or The Environment, which act as vessels for all that repressed impotence-rage that grows and festers in the unexamined shadows cast by our emptiness. (Yes, advertisers and propagandists farm those fields too.)

Mature discussion has become almost impossible. We’re bitterly divided along an unknowable number of fault lines, squaring off, trench to trench, screaming redly into each other’s faces, refusing to budge because we know we’re right. We’re addicted to being right, too. Being right is a tasty morsel that somehow doesn’t quite assuage that odd, at-the-edge-of-our-vision hunger for something real and true; we keep coming back for yet further confirmation that we mean something to someone. We keep returning to Authority Figures who happily lead us by the nose for another empty circuit of the prison yard we’ve learned to call Freedom.

This is the bed we’ve allowed to be made for us, the bed we’ve helped make; again and again we choose convenience over tough struggle, over facing reality as it is, over growing up into genuine adulthood, taking responsibility for our actions and so ridding ourselves of the emotional triggers our rulers know and love. We’re a mess, an embarrassment to history. The Great They are right; we are useless eaters. We’re civilisation’s trash about to be taken out and forgotten. And we richly deserve it.

But then, as if by magic, the virus came. The virus! That thief of convenience yet uniter of all people everywhere who now understand: Yes, we’re at war; sacrifices must be made! We are given to believe that the cherished Old Normal is dead. Long live the New Normal! We shall build back better than ever before, create a world free from freedom this time, blissfully infantile, a good-breast-bad-breast, womb-like utopia-dystopia throbbing with threat and promise. It will stop history in its tracks to finally keep us safe in place, safe at home. We will suckle forever at its many teats content to own nothing and be paid pittance for our uncritical obedience: convenience’s logical end, its zenith and nadir, its mewling doom.

Except the virus is like a gathering storm that never quite makes landfall. It builds and builds in the offing, a non-stop miniseries of endless twists and turns spiralling off in too many directions. The screams and cheap thrills, the dashed hopes and broken promises, the not-quite logic of the measures meant to hold the virus back just won’t add up but keep mounting anyway. It is an overload of spectacle, an endless information tsunami forming to a crucible that fuses each of us to our bitterest foe: our selves. Disintegrated down to isolated individuals, family members set against each other, there’s nowhere left to turn but within. 

Within is the only place the work can be done, the work that could reignite history. Each of us must face this challenge one way or the other. Indeed, it is as an artefact of being human. We are always driven towards it, inexorably, by fate, by the way things are. Mostly we wriggle heroically to avoid it, but now we face an historical moment that has made this confrontation more pressing than ever. Deep in the intimidating shadows cast by the emptiness that is the fruit of meaningless lives are riches we can hardly imagine. 

Try not to yield to fear. Though alone with the work, which is as it must be, you are not on your own. I am rooting for you, you are rooting for me. Underneath it all, the emptiness and desperation are in fact born of something almost painfully beautiful: love of love. How else could meaninglessness be so bitter? 

Evil, the product of unchecked and wounded fear, insatiably perverts good to bad: fatherhood becomes tyranny; motherhood, smothering, devouring concern. Sensuality becomes pornography; friendship becomes social-media likes; wise governance becomes party politics; commerce, corporate greed and sociopathy; freedom and responsibility, narcissistic infantilism. 

Love, the product of true maturity and wise transcendence of fear, walks a very different path, a path created by the gentle desire for the healthiest possible outcomes. It has nothing to do with utopia, or romance, or escape from difficulty and tragedy. Love is a fluid, ever-evolving process of looking out for each other while encouraging, in everyone, true maturity, reasonable self-sufficiency and robust independence. That is the alternative that lies before us. It won’t be easy to set it in motion, but nor is it impossible. I like to think it’s unstoppable.

The virus is an anti-convenience, a shadow-projection called into being to shepherd us into ever smaller pens the so-called ‘elites’ would rather we occupy. But it must, by virtue of this very function, also force us out of our convenience zones toward the difficult work of growing up into true adulthood. Only a minority will do the work, but will then be on hand to help others through the challenges ahead should evil fail, as it must sooner or later through its inherent malfunctioning. The work begins when we awaken to our emptiness, intuit what must be done and no longer want to avoid it. 

Does evil possess sufficient finesse to neatly steer us all into those pens – with many falling along the way –, expertly deceive us such that we prefer what evil offers – prettily decorated conveniences masking steady moral decay – over walking the path toward true freedom and maturity? I don’t think so.

Let all that is not rooted in truth and love wither and fall away.

Wednesday, January 27, 2021

The claimed SARS-CoV-2 mutation from England is a sham

[Another article from Corona_Fakten I felt worthy of translation. While I find the author's unconcealed exasperation regrettable – I dont believe expressing these emotions in articles of this type helps –, much of the content itself is valuable, particularly the details on the alignment process said to constitute isolation of a virus, as well as the humanisation of viruses virologists express. My interest in this broad area remains; I believe virology has a case to answer, though of course as a lay person I might be wrong and have missed something obvious or complicated.]

By Corona_Fakten • 22 December 2020

When the “new variant” of the SARS-CoV-2 virus appeared on the scene, the whole of Greater Brexitania was tossed into turmoil. Neighbouring countries lost no time in sealing their borders. It was a royal feast for all mass-media outlets. They sipped from the information as if it were fine champagne and once again excelled at their most holy mission: incite panic as loudly and far as possible from the rooftops of the world. Of course Drosten rushed into the spotlight to offer up his two cents, whereby one must honestly say his six cents (because within three days he changed his mind three times, but more about that later ...).

The wooly mammoth of a question looming in the room – who verified the claims? 

I’m getting a stomach ache; it seems there isn’t a scientist out there who takes the trouble to read and learn what’s actually in all these publications. Their apparent reluctance is an important causal factor of this confected Plandemic. That said, right at the start of this “pandemic”, German radio successfully peered through the fog of what is currently afoot in our scientific circles. 

Once again I feel obliged to bring some light to the darkness. Perhaps you still belong to those people who, despite the many false claims of the last few months, still hold to their belief that science produces only honest work and checks everything rigorously.

“In research topics such as coronavirus, there is a fundamental conflict between disseminating the latest findings as quickly as possible and making sure the statements are accurate.”

“The trend is towards quick, untested pre-release.”

“Quality journals published without peer review of the content submitted.”

“Reports had to be withdrawn (by the Lancet) because they were released without peer review.”

“Occasionally, nonsense is published as apparent science; we learn from BioRxiv that the coronavirus comes from outer space.”

You should bear in mind that half of the most important publications, also referenced by the World Health Organization (WHO), come from this self-same source: BioRxiv.

Undeterred, acolytes of Scientism would then argue, “The vast majority of work is sound even though no peer reviews were carried out.” But how can any work be deemed sound if not subjected to examination? And look at the vocabulary that confronts us: “quick”, “untested”, “without peer review”, “flawed”, “withdrawn”, “no controls” and so on.

Please keep the following in mind: most scientists and physicians still have not studied the two publications from the CCDC, which were instrumental in shaping the course of the corona crisis [1] [2]. The third publication, which led to this “pandemic” being called, was the one from Prof. Christian Drosten [3], also left unexamined by the vast majority for a long time. Only after we and a few others drew attention to the flawed details in these studies month after month[4], have some started to pay closer attention. All come to the same conclusion: Drosten’s paper is riddled with an incredible number of scientific errors.

[1] A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019

[2] A new coronavirus associated with human respiratory disease in China

[3] Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR

[4] Der Wissenschaftsbetrug durch Prof. Christian Drosten (Prof Christian Drosten’s Scientific Fraud)

Claims asserting viral mutations are pure speculation. One look at the study in question should suffice to learn that no new virus has been found. We begin with a simple two-part question: What are mutations in the first place, and who benefits from claiming viruses mutate?

When Chinese researchers took bronchial lavage fluid (BALF) from a patient in January, the BALF was aligned against a bat corona-virus gene sequence and processed on a computer via various algorithms to [in effect] create a new sequence. In other words, a fictitious model was created that was not in fact observed in reality. If a PCR test were developed that tested for every single gene attributed to this new “virus”, it would not yield a single positive case, except of course for the false-positive artefacts resulting from the PCR procedure.

This procedure sequences all of the BALF. The human sequences in the mixture of genetic materials already “known” to us are screened out (alignment via database entries). The overlapping sequences are then filtered out from the remaining set.

Before any overlapping sequences are extracted from the BALF for further assessment, the sequenced 150-nucleotide pieces are computationally subdivided into 21-kMers: 1-21, 2-22, 3-24 ... 129-150. Then the overlaps are searched for from among these 21-kMers (in the alignment program Megahit; 25-kMers in the alignment program Trinity), and of course many are found. 

Everything that overlaps is called a “contig”. Everything that does not is filtered out of the alignment.

Next, those sequences that match the given genome (bat coronavirus) using the BLAST program are used for alignment.

The percentage of the entire genome that has gaps is not specified (1% to almost all???).

A gap-filling program closes these gaps by calculating what kind of gene (for a protein of the virus) might fit at each relevant position.

Then further smoothing is carried out to comply with ORF rules (Open Reading Frames).

It follows logically, then, that that which has been brought into being, artificially, via all manner of steps, each guided by asserted-though-never-verified assumptions, has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality!

The RNA is then “isolated” from the BALF for sequencing.

To “infect” cell cultures (e.g., Vero E6) [test for pathogenicity], a portion of the BALF, including all of the dying protein soup, microbes, and contaminants, is injected into a poisoned and starving cell culture.

This is the trick virology uses to present you with a new virus. Everyone should realise by now (at the very latest), that this generation of new hereditary strands, which are passed off as a new dangerous and disease-causing virus, have nothing at all to do with reality. New “viruses” could be discovered on a daily basis. We could, if we wanted, model a new virus for each and every symptom, claim each as a new discovery and assert them as the alleged causes of each relevant symptom. But the modelled genome (hereditary strand) does not actually exist in reality. It is just the product of particular algorithms that piece together new compositions of several short sequences, with “gap fillers” liberally added as needed.

To understand this in more detail, we politely ask you to read our articles (German) entitled:

1. Corona: Die nachvollziehbare und überprüfbare Widerlegung der Virus-Behauptungen (Corona: A plausible and verifiable refutation of the virus claims)

2. Eine große Bitte an Frau Prof. Ulrike Kämmerer (An important request for Professor Ulrike Kämmerer)

So what actions did the British undertake to arouse belief in this recent mutation? Our educated guesses – before having read the paper – were:

Most likely, they only amplified a gene from a spike protein (using PCR), or another protein they considered essential to the infection process.

They then sequenced this short product of the PCR test, which one would never otherwise do, and detected a (real?) change in gene sequence as compared to the primary alignment. (Readers will recall the alignment process [from other articles].)

They probably took samples from people in whom the symptoms were particularly severe, which is why they were compelled to assume – as guided by the strictest logic of course – that the virus must have become more dangerous.

It is highly unlikely that they conducted a new alignment. Our suspicion that no alignment can EVER be replicated [and yield the same results] is growing stronger by the day.

After plowing through the British publication, we found our suspicions to be right on the money.

When those involved claim they sequenced thousands of (viral) genomes, this is instantly disproven by referencing the following verifiable facts:

1. No genome has been published.

2. No alignment was conducted.

3. Only sequenced bits of gene fragments were attributed to much larger gene regions.

4. Since this sequencing delivers different results on each iteration – as per the nature of DNA (constant structural change independent of the components) –, these naturally, ever occurring changes can be passed off as viral mutations. [The strange fruits of a] circular argument.

5. This virus is obviously an intellectual construct and cannot reasonably be asserted as extant, when applying proper knowledge of biology!

Were it an intent or a compulsion of viruses to continually improve and accelerate their propagation by means of mutation – which would constitute a clear contradiction of the observations, laws and logic of thermodynamics, for which there has never been any exception – mankind would have been exterminated long ago … unless we credit viruses with perceptive and reasoning faculties sufficient to avert their own destruction by deliberately choosing not to destroy us.


Prof. Christian Drosten changed his mind about the claimed new virus mutation almost daily

On 20 December, Christian Drosten tweeted it was line B.1.1.7. This implies an amplifying and an attenuating mutation (ORF8). Important to note: “Not yet analysed in the lab”, [he said]. (It’s essential to be one of the first [with your statement]!)

On December 21, we read how virologist Drosten reacted cautiously to reports from the UK: 

 “The claim of a 70% higher infection rate compared to the original variant is just an estimate, Drosten told Deutschlandfunk radio. The data remains highly incomplete and scientifically unreliable. British scientists have made it clear that they need at least until the middle of the week to make accurate statements.”

On 22 December (Tagesspiegel) – Virologist Drosten concerned about virus mutation: “This does not look good!”

Drosten classifies the new findings:

“Following a publication of new data on the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus B.1.1.7 mutation, which is spreading rapidly in the UK and now in other countries around the world, Berlin-based Charité chief virologist Christian Drosten expressed concern: “Unfortunately, this does not look good,” he commented on Twitter. Nevertheless, he is confident we are not completely unprotected against the new variant.”

And again on December 22: Drosten sees no cause for concern regarding coronavirus variant:

“According to virologist Christian Drosten, the new coronavirus variant is already in Germany. He does not see this as a problem for the time being.”

Please draw your own conclusions from these sham theatrics. A scientist’s first and foremost task should be to verify claims independently by trying to disprove them via control experiments. But it is precisely this that has yet to happen. A violation of the clearly stated rules of science that are part of [Drosten’s] employment contract. A paper may not be deemed a scientific work if its authors disregard these authoritative guidelines [on control experiments]. The German Research Foundation codified this 1998.


When virologists are asked what a virus is and what intentions this dead nucleic acid has, it becomes obvious we are dealing with fanatics who have long since left reality behind.

I don’t want to get into the whole swine-flu scandal here. You can check out the excellent documentary (Arte – Profiteure der Angst (“Profiteers of Fear”)) and the article (Rubikon - Schweinegrippe 2.0 (“Swine Flu 2.0”)). But I would like to reproduce a statement of Drosten’s from “Profiteers of Fear” – which was so aptly answered by a Raphael-Viaveto post of Wed 25 Mar 2020 that I agree 100% with his description. It could not have been expressed any better. 

It is without question well worth watching the entire film. But one particular interview segment initially caused me great amusement, and then caused me to shudder. A virologist describes how viruses mutate (from 27:30):

“One might say this virus could adopt certain gene segments from other, very dangerous viruses, e.g. from bird-flu viruses, and itself become a very dangerous virus. But even there, one should always speak cautiously: the current virus is actually already very, very successful and one wonders what such a virus would gain from [such an act]. Because a sudden mutational leap of this kind is almost always accompanied by the virus being worse off than before, at least for a while. Viruses do not want to kill people, they just want to exist. A virus can do this particularly well if its hosts continue to move inconspicuously about their social environment, i.e. are not seriously ill.”

I almost collapsed with laughter at the sheer ridiculousness and quasi-religious, medieval belief informing this account. Then I wanted to take another look at who was yapping such nonsense. To my quickly mounting horror, it was none other than Prof. Christian Drosten, developer of the current corona PCR test and well known co-discoverer of the cuddly corona virus.

The belief system behind these statements is, for me, indicative of an almost incomprehensible, childlike ignorance. The alleged virus, i.e. a simple membrane shell with RNA content, is assumed to have a will and the ability to make decisions. The virus is said to have the ability to make mutational leaps at will when it feels its outlook is bad (whatever that means; how does membrane-enveloped RNA feel bad? – there’s nothing about “random mutations”, the virus decides when it mutates)! The virus is said to have a survival instinct (it doesn’t want to kill, it just wants to exist)!!

Such abysmally silly humanisation cannot even be called unscientific. It is akin to the purest pre-scientific, infantile belief in ghosts. It is not easy, after the many, many years of dealing with the rubbish that passes for modern science, to surprise, or even shock me with nonsensical statements. But this account, combined with the position this man holds today, actually appalls me. It is the most bone-chillingly stupid thing I have heard from an academic’s mouth in the last ten years. 

But it makes you realise a few things about virology.

An interview on the German TV station “mdr” with Prof. Gerd Liebert, Institute of Virology, Leipzig, also reveals the childlike thinking these gentlemen use to create phantoms. We will comment on a few of these “lapses” in immediately subsequent paragraphs.

Prof. Gerd Liebert: “That is a philosophical question. Some say they are living beings. Others say they are not living beings. I am one of those who say it is not an independent living being because it cannot reproduce autonomously, that is, independently.”

Corona_Fakten: So we now know that virologists are in fundamental disagreement about whether a virus is alive or dead. All virologists assert that a virus has no metabolism of its own and is biochemically dead. Now please try to imagine the following: How on earth can something dead develop the power to enter an organism through skin, fasciae, organ derma, vessel linings and against the mucous flow of mucous membranes to penetrate the tough connective-tissue mass (which surrounds all cells)?

This is no longer an open question, but a disproven myth that we develop below.

Prof. Gerd Liebert: “He describes a virus as DNA snippets in an envelope. They are wrapped fragments of genetic material that – on their own – are incapable of doing anything. Viruses cannot move, have no metabolism and cannot reproduce. It is possible that they were the first life form or life pre-form on this planet. There are different theories about that too.”

Corona_Fakten: They are incapable of anything, cannot move, have no metabolism and cannot reproduce. There are various theories about their origin. So we can conclude that a DNA/RNA envelope that is actually incapable of doing anything can, however, as just described, develop the power to fight its way through a number of barriers. It can even float in midair without decaying (RNA decays very quickly).

Prof. Gerd Liebert: “But this initially dead packet of DNA begins to become active when it comes into contact with other cells, with bacteria or our mucous membranes. After years in road dust, after a brief stop on a doorknob, after being transported by a breeze or the cough of a sick person, it reaches a new cell. The most stable viruses are those that are built like a twenty-corner sphere, almost like a football. They are highly stable and can remain infectious for months and years, possibly even decades. That means they are lying in street dust somewhere, and if these viruses get into the body, they can multiply again.”

Corona_Fakten: Not only are these biochemically dead “viruses” not actually capable of anything themselves, they lie in wait until a child comes along to play in the sand and brings this dead “structure” to life, whereupon it becomes one of the cleverest entities on earth. To put it in Prof. Drosten’s words:

“Viruses do not want to kill people, they just want to exist. A virus can do this particularly well if its hosts continue to move inconspicuously about their social environment, i.e. are not seriously ill.”

So it has a conscience, a will and clear goals!

Prof. Gerd Liebert: “As small as the DNA snippet inside a virus is – it contains a plan that is as ingenious as it is devious. At the mere touch of a cell wall, the virus awakens and initiates its program, clawing at the cell and injecting its DNA into the cell interior. This is the only chance a virus has to become a living being – to change sides, to awaken from the realm of the undead.”

Corona_Fakten: We have now entered the realm of science fiction, probably where all those film ideas come from. 

So let’s nail this down:

Viruses have a will

Viruses have an ingenious and devious plan

Viruses are intelligent

Viruses are said to have intent and the ability to make decisions

Viruses are said to have a survival instinct (they do not want to kill, but to exist)

Viruses decide for themselves when they mutate and make such decisions if their outlook is bad 

Viruses are wired with a masterful program that rewrites the source code of cells

The dead DNA/RNA can do nothing at first, but can [when brought to life] penetrate all barriers, make its way to the cell, where it then (and I quote): “claws at the cell and injects its DNA into the cell interior. This is the only chance a virus has to become a living being – to change sides, to awaken from the realm of the undead.”

Aha. That hits the nail on the head.

Prof. Gerd Liebert: “If a viral-DNA snippet integrates into the cell’s genome, the virus is suddenly part of a living organism. Now the virus has no time to lose. It begins to make virus copies in the cell. The cell dies under the viral load; it bursts and out pour thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of new viruses that storm other cells.”

Corona_Fakten: What more can one say. The virus is simply not of this world. Far too clever to become extinct, far too clever to wipe out its host (humanity, because that would wipe it out ...).

The human body recognises the danger too late; millions upon billions of virus copies course through it. The body had no chance; the enemy is too intelligent. And yet the body, er I mean the immune system, which at first did not even notice the attack, regains the upper hand. Only when the body is at its worst is it able to regain the upper hand and defeat this insidious and sentient foe. 

And they lived happily ever after! 

Please don’t take me the wrong way; I can only stomach this material with humour. The virologists themselves provide the laughs.

Sunday, November 29, 2020

Divided and conquered

 


In 1958, Mao Zedong ordered that sparrows be exterminated throughout China.

For three days, the Chinese went hunting for sparrows. It was the beginning of an ecological and humanitarian disaster leading to millions of dead.

In a state-sponsored announcement and as one of his first initiatives, Mao declared war on the “four pests”: mosquitoes, flies, sparrows and rats. The impact on China’s ecological balance was catastrophic. The sparrow – which Mao identified as a pest – only rarely eats farmed grain from the field. The main components of its diet are in fact insects such as locusts, which can reproduce undisturbed in the absence of their main predator.
From Dr Wolfgang Wodarg’s Telegram feed [my translation]
 

Systems prepare for their overthrow with a preliminary period of petrification.
R. H. Tawney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism


This post extends “Why I ‘support’ Trump over Biden” and analyses different aspects of the material in Part I of “Only the intensity has changed. Nothing will ever be the same again.” In the former, I briefly touched on the deep divisions that bedevil the American people, and by extension the world’s peoples. In the latter, I examined at some depth a few logical derivations we might tease out from the dogged phenomenon of inter-group antipathy at a broader scale than narrowly focussing on it as productive ground for sustaining an ancient strategy we know as “divide and conquer”.

Within that narrower remit, we here consider why societies and groups can be divided and set against each other, why so often we fail to see it happening, and what we might do about this understandable dynamic going forward. The article is structured as expositions of two civilisational building blocks – specialisation and hierarchy – that, taken together in the remainder of the article, serve to illustrate why divide and conquer is such an effective strategy for controlling very large numbers of people. We close by peering into the nature of reality, for it is among these deepest of fundaments that robust ideas supportive of a possible Better Way are to be found (I assert). 

This article is familiar ground but it is, I feel, absolutely pivotal to our historical moment. My hope is that examining this territory from multiple angles will make the analysis more accessible to more people.

Specialisation

Civilisation without specialisation is almost unimaginable (see Idiocracy). One of the fundamental properties distinguishing civilisation from non-civilisation is the incredible societal complexity it can sustain over large tracts of time. Specialisation cumulatively permits this growing complexity – or more accurately is an expression thereof – and is an accomplishment with roots in numerous civilisational accomplishments such as grain stores, geometry and metallurgy. These and countless other technologies free up time some use to become experts in something very narrow, like viral infection vectors or endocrine disruption. Over time, areas of expertise cumulatively and mutually advance each other, spawn yet others and generally interact in countless ways to, put crudely, produce wealth – lots of wealth. (We’ll talk about wealth later.) 

But this simplistic, progressivist rhetoric does not account for the problem highly focussed specialists can have when communicating with other highly focussed specialists, especially when their respective areas of expertise are remote from one another, yet both are suddenly relevant to some urgent social issue. Add ideological conflict to the mix, and specialists so thrown together can have a very hard time reaching agreement. More mundanely, we might also reflect on how hard it would be for primary-school teachers from north London to truly appreciate the worldviews and interests of Tibetan monks or Cebu’s street children.

And our account should also include vested interests that agglomerate around particularly valuable specialisations while thwarting or suppressing the findings of others that might harm those interests. After all, scientific research has to be funded by something, and not everything that can or should be investigated will yield financial profit – much may even harm it. In a world ruled by money, even science itself, not to mention politics and law, is for sale to a large degree. This problem is compounded by the challenge of staying humble while possessing the extraordinary ambition and skill needed to become a world-leading expert or figure of power. And then really identifying with that lofty status. As Max Planck put it, “Science advances one funeral at a time.”

But the domain of specialisation most important to our discussion here is politics (within which I include the mythical, semi-mythical or wholly real yet invariably disturbing ‘Deep State’). Politics – beyond parliaments to all institutional power structures – could be characterised as a societal process evolved to protect wealth (aka power) and determine its distribution through society. A second relevant quality politics possesses is its structural function as intermediary between Business and The People. The tensions characterising this triad’s interdependencies also characterise human history. How transparently and honestly can politics perform this role? How wisely responsive to cumulative change can it be? Does ‘runaway specialisation’ in fact fatally impair politics’ ability to be a transparent mediator? How does our cultural sense of wealth / wealth generation govern which group has more power over political processes, regardless of any moral or ethical considerations? And are this triad’s just-asserted constituent groups in fact the result of an ideological perspective, a mirage-like emergence of our acquired cultural reflexes around wealth?

Hold those thoughts.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy is a social structure that tends to emerge from advanced specialisation. Decentralised, more anarchic/democratic structures can emerge from specialisation but are far less likely, as history attests. Currently and for a while yet, hierarchical social forms have their hands on history’s steering wheel. 

What does this mean, fundamentally speaking? It means politics’ function as protector and distributor of wealth operates within a hierarchical dynamic that must, by virtue of this dynamic’s structuring pattern that is ever operant, ‘autonomically’ favour the pyramid’s upper over its lower layers over time. I would argue this is the case in state communism and socialism, in ‘free-market’ capitalism, indeed in any institutionalised hierarchy. In other words, the wealth-power any hierarchy generates flows cumulatively to the top. The degree to which a rising pyramid lifts all boats depends on circumstances, which include but are by no means limited to the relative balances of power available to each level. One contemporary example would be trade-union relative to corporate/business power.

To continue with trade unions by way of further explication, they tend to be structured hierarchically. This is hardly surprising; in societies that have been hierarchical for centuries, we would expect almost every member therein to be reflexively hierarchical, to reflexively expect leaders and followers and to not know how to organise differently. To be effective, trade unions must have power and wealth. Hunger for power is probably the best predictor for which personalities within a union’s membership will make it to leadership positions and be effective in those roles. As such, they are likely to have more psychological affinity – even if hidden from conscious view – with the leadership of corporations and politics than with the members they represent. This makes them easy to corrupt and separate from their members. I don’t mean this disparagingly, I’m simply teasing out logical derivations from the components under discussion.

To recap, organisations, groups, unions, political parties, etc. have particular defining dynamics. If these happen to be inflexibly or ideologically hierarchical, the decisions, solutions and discoveries they will tend to favour will conform to or serve the dynamic outlined above; favouring upper over lower levels of the hierarchy over time. And yet despite this systemic tendency, the vector history takes cannot be controlled completely; unintended consequences will slip out from under all attempts to control history and have their unpredictable way with it.

In the case of politics generally, this tendency will underpin, in both the most hidden and obvious of ways, how politics continues to conceptualise its role – romantically and pragmatically – and will also reinforce its perception and understanding of the wealth it is solemnly sworn to protect. Systems structure perception. And all of this somewhat in the manner of a positive feedback loop that one day must crash against the mounting cliffs of perpetual change.

Groupings: antipathy, mistrust, conspiracy

Combined, the two civilisational building blocks presented above generate seemingly endless groupings: sub-groups within groups, fringe groups, dominant groups, tiny groups and huge meta-groups, and we may not be particularly conscious of the many groups to which we belong; sociology does a dizzying job of discovering new groups, and most laypeople have probably never heard of them. The more we look, the more we reveal. Who can say what part fantasy and what part reality play in this process. 

Not all groups have antithetical interrelations but any two can be coaxed into that relationship. Propaganda, public-relations and behavioural-programming powers are by now highly advanced skills. Should it serve the interests of those with the means to wield these skills – those at the very tip of the hierarchical pyramid whose duty is to sustain that pyramid by any means possible –, they can create new groups as if out of nothing, and set them against each other. Of course, to be effective, such efforts must be sufficiently psychologically grounded, e.g. those who fear viruses and those who fear authoritarian power, or those wanting the freedom to question claims made about vaccines and those believing such criticism leads to widespread disease and death. It seems fault lines develop along axes of fear. Fear goes viral in ignorance, and ignorance is a hard thing to defeat in highly specialised societies, especially when education is designed to dumb down the vast majority of us.

But this tempting civilisational tool is something of a double-edged sword. Societal continuity over time is an existential matter. Our ideas around what reality is about – pursuit of happiness, property accumulation, success and accomplishment, humble service to God, humanism, science, etc. – are cohering forces that power us through time, structure us, guide us, unite us. Were an entire civilisation to lose faith in their deepest convictions and beliefs over night, the resultant chaos would be terrible, regardless of how noble or cynical the establishment of those cohering beliefs had been. Hence, the continuity that is the core remit of the political layer in guarding and distributing generated wealth – one critical part of which is sustaining consensus about what wealth is – is fiercely protected. No individual or group is as valuable as that continuity; every group and individual would be plunged into the abyss were that continuity to suddenly snap. Of course, this does logically make the group guarding continuity the most important group, and there’s the hierarchical rub. 

These hard facts mean states and other powerful interests will play groups against one another if such is perceived to be helpful in protecting societal continuity. This sort of realpolitik could be termed conspiring. As Stalin put it, you have to break eggs to make omelettes. I’d add that one tends not to reveal which eggs are going to be sacrificed, to extend the metaphor to its logical limit. Such decisions are thus made in secrecy (for the good of the realm!).

The problem is the temptation to abuse this great power that politics must wisely manage – forever. This challenge is made steadily more difficult as the pyramid’s tip loses touch with its lower levels, as it loses connection with ‘reality on the ground’, as it struggles to properly understand specialist advisors, as it fails to resist the persuasive charms of lobbyists etc. It takes a rare set of individuals indeed to handle these sorts of pressures: making life-and-death decisions at mass scale while staying wise and compassionate.

Recalling the communication issues that bedevil specialisation and how this relates to the above paragraphs, we might recast this phenomenon as one of several co-factors eroding community cohesion over time. For example, a 50-strong hunter-gatherer band is going to be a far more cohesive community than, say, the population of Great Britain. The social complexity of the latter far exceeds that of the former. This complexity can be viewed as a rich attack surface offering an endless number of fault lines that might be exploited for divide-and-conquer purposes. In other words, because we don’t know each other very well, we can easily be induced to become suspicious of each other. Some have called this the atomisation of society. An episode from the first season of “Black Mirror” (“Fifteen Million Merits”) depicts one dystopian version of extreme atomisation. And it is dystopian, not utopian, precisely because humans are social animals. Distrust is poison to us, depresses us, corrodes our emotional, psychological and physical health.

So what are we to do if we want our civilisational cake and eat it too? My answer is that we have to revisit what we mean by wealth, by hierarchy and anarchy, value and other foundational concepts. The concluding section will now turn to these matters.

Closing observations towards a Better Way

Underneath both building blocks discussed above, and I believe also under any others we might advance, lies value. All decision making is guided by our value systems, whether ‘civilised’ or ‘primitive’, ‘humanist’ or ‘animal’. Value is thus somewhat synonymous with wealth; wealth is what we value. But neither is a distinct object impervious to change. Over the last two or three centuries, both terms have become profoundly influenced by materialism. Materialism requires the measurement of all things so as to mechanically describe and thus control them. Measurement is of course nothing new, but materialism’s dominance has reached unprecedented levels in this time period, though is now past its zenith, in my view. 

Value, it is claimed, is measured by money. One effect of this peculiar claim is that we have come to see value as almost entirely contained in and created by money, and is thus expressible in numbers. 

Money, being little more than numbers attached to some currency symbol and imbued with purchasing power, simplifies and thus cheapens how we conceptualise and structure the economic domain. Economics should concern itself primarily with wise husbandry of the environment by protecting biodiversity. Instead it casts itself as an impartial science of market mechanisms, which are asserted as laws of nature steered by price discovery via supply and demand in the market place of life. If market forces are left to their own devices, the rest of reality will take care of itself, including the environment, which is conceived as an endless pool of idle resources. This intellectual framework actually places money at the heart of society, but this reality is artfully concealed by the orthodoxy that money is a “veil”, or almost meaningless consequence of buying and selling, a necessary but neutral tool invented to make trading more efficient. 

Money is so much more than this disingenuous description.

Money, being made of numbers, can grow forever, especially when it is created as interest-bearing debt. Try as humanity might, its attempts to anchor money-as-numbers to something real, like gold, always fail. Money’s core logic – more is better than less –, combined with human invention and ambition, tends to grow the economic domain beyond what is sustainable. Only the big and powerful survive (until they collapse). Numbers can grow forever. Human imagination can grow forever. The constant battle for scarce resources adds fuel to this growth conflagration, whispering into our collective ears to escape constraints, to completely ‘tame’ the ‘wild’, to get everything under control. But resources are only scarce because human imagination is inexorably steered towards greed by the poor definition of value under discussion: tautology as positive feedback loop.

Health, on the other hand, isn’t like money. Health is an expression of biological systems that cannot grow forever. Perpetual growth of health makes no sense, not even as an idle notion. Health is something we must always tend, much as we might tend a garden, not that it expands, but that it stays functional, perhaps beautiful. Health and beauty can be thought of as synonyms. 

Something about perpetual economic growth appeals to our civilisational instincts to escape the limits of reality (see transhumanism). What we value governs what we choose, how we steer our lives. If money is value, then money and its ‘infinite’ potential governs our lives. Were we instead to perceive health as value, how different would civilisation be? What effect would such a simple but profound change have on specialisation and hierarchical systems?

Aside from measurement, number and the illusion of control emerging from mastery thereof, another consequence of materialism is a pervasive victim-centred passivity that leads to depression, apathy, cynicism, nihilism, etc. ‘What’s the point? I’m just material stuff knocked this way and that by forces beyond my control.’ ‘There’s no such thing as free will; I’m a biological robot.’ 

This psychological stance sees health in a mechanical light, a perspective that makes health seem less attractive, dull somehow. The greeds and appetites that are the products of this stance desire primarily what cannot nourish: pornography rather than love; romance instead of relationship; quick and easy junk, not inconvenient home-cooked food etc. Such desires, expressed as economic demand, end up rewarding those powers that need our needs to forever remain in that narcissistic frame, in that painful emptiness. How is this a recipe for health, for meaningful success?

Hence too-big-to-fail banks, hence Big Pharma, hence Big Ag, hence dumbed-down populations who prefer not to think for themselves, who don’t have the time to do so anyway, who just want a ‘quiet life’ in the face of all the existential angst around money, career and meaning. It’s a vicious circle and there can seem no way out.

All this adds up to one sad truth: humanity is suffering an unprecedented crisis of trust. There’s too much divide and conquer, too much hierarchical control, too much nefarious meddling and nudging … all to keep the system going as it fights to survive rapidly accelerating technological change. And though this basic pattern – dawn to decadence – is as old as history, there is far more at stake now than there has ever been. Whether our response to the crisis takes us in a healthier or a yet more dysfunctional direction depends on whether we can learn to wisely manage the structural tensions and challenges detailed above. The healthier way is the harder; the slippery slope into totalitarianism the easier, the more passive.

The causes of this crisis are of course more complex than I have captured here, but concealed beneath them all is, as argued, the low quality of our cultural reflexes around value and wealth. As the saying goes, we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The wholly out-of-date constitutions and instincts of our governing bodies confront a situation they can only respond to with ever more control. These instincts – civilisation’s DNA as it were – are, naturally enough, honed to self-protection, but this time the ‘elite’s’ egotistical inflexibility may prove catastrophic.

At root, cultural and societal reflexes become unfit for purpose for the simple reason that change is the only constant. The way things were is not the way things are. “Systems prepare for their overthrow with a preliminary period of petrification.” And we cannot stop change unless we transform reality into absolute nothingness. Can we be more flexible and wise in how we handle inevitable change? I strongly believe so. The trick lies in redefining, or newly appreciating, value.

I should point out here that I do not advocate throwing all babies out with all bath waters, nor do I advocate a return to any prior ‘normal’, an ugly concept at the best of times. Besides, despite repeating patterns, return itself is an impossibility. As Heraclitus put it, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man.”

In pursuit of the healthier path and as far as we are able, we should try to rid ourselves of all ideologies; they censor perception. Traditionalism (conservation of the good) partners radicalism (perpetual change) via trial-and-error, seesawing exchanges. Patterns repeat eternally while the contexts within which they iterate, great and small, are always changing. Spring comes every year, but every spring occurs within a unique context and is composed of only unique events. Further, spring itself can be seen as a symbol for life cycles that characterise conscious processes of growth and decay that both precede and will last beyond this planet’s existence, a claim that takes us neatly to the nature of reality.

As chance would have it, I recently came across an article entitled “Scientists Reveal a Multidimensional Universe Inside the Human Brain”. Though still rooted in materialism, I believe it is indicative of a turn in science that will inexorably lead to a cultural acceptance that consciousness is reality’s true foundation. Donald Hoffman’s investigations into consciousness are another indication of this turn. 

For a large number of reasons that I won’t set out here, I am confident almost to the point of certainty that what we call matter and energy, or rather what we experience as matter and energy, occur entirely within consciousness, not the other way around. In much the same way – metaphorically at least –, pixels on a computer screen behave like ‘real’ trees and rocks to the pixel-based avatars we conscious humans operate when playing, say, League of Legends. From the point of view of a character within the game, the rules (code) defining the matter-like behaviours of trees, rocks, light, gravity, etc., are invisible, or behind the scenes. Similarly, the set of continuous experiences we call physical reality is governed by rules – we could think of them as the Laws of Physics – that structure our universe. A switch from matter to consciousness as foundational would not mean all scientific discoveries would have to be discarded, just that they are couched in an error of perception that puts the cart before the horse. In Hoffman’s terms, physical reality is a constructed user-friendly “interface” that enables us to do what consciousness generally feels it needs to get done … for some as yet unknowable reason. Our lives on earth serve some conscious purpose we cannot as yet discern.

In my view, the crisis of trust that is the bitter fruit of decadence includes the erosion of materialism this time around. One of materialism’s tenets is a universe of lifeless objects. As touched on above, this foundational perception (weltanschauung is perhaps a better word) fosters the objectification, and by inexorable extension the commodification of nature/reality. Materialism undergirds the hubristic notions that nature (Other, NotMe) is a subset of the economy (experienced as ‘my material needs and desires’), and that perpetual economic growth is possible and good, and so has ultimately given rise to soulless, narcissistic consumerism. 

As humanity increasingly dislikes what it sees in the mirror, as modern humans search in vain for a soul, as economic growth refuses to reignite, as advanced robotics and the historically rapid approach of AI turn most of humanity into little more than vessels of demand through which to pour a very conditional universal basic income, so the structures that got us here desperately need a redesign. To co-create something healthier and wiser than previous versions, for our co-creation to be lovingly open rather than psychotically totalitarian (i.e. The Great Reset), a profound evolution of consciousness is needed. Though profound, however, this required evolution is in fact quite simple conceptually – once the unnecessarily complicated and superfluous detail of modernity is pierced. As Charles Eisenstein has it, though the sky seems impossibly far away, it starts at the ground and rises from there.

Systems structure perception. We are each constrained by a matrix of beliefs that filters what we perceive. Fear of identity collapse, of betraying the group, of losing face, of being wrong, of dying, of being a powerless incompetent fool … all of it is currently rooted in a now instinctive belief (oddly we rarely believe it when pressed) that value = money = price = property accumulation. The antidote to fear is always courage. Courage is – among other things – a readiness to be wrong and the strength to persevere in developing understanding and wisdom regardless of setbacks along the way, and not permitting ourselves to be held back by beliefs. In short, being scientific in the noblest sense of that word. This is our healthiest path as conscious beings. 

There are many ways to pierce the convoluted matrix of modernity but each would be assisted greatly by the realisation that there is nothing but God, that there is only God. Or, that there is only consciousness. I believe this realisation is dawning. It’s not the only way to break the spell, but it might be the most effective and lasting because it describes reality more accurately; consciousness cannot arise from matter but the experience of ‘matter’ can occur within consciousness. 

Whatever path we take, rerooting our cultural sense of value in health and love will produce wealth-generation systems that enhance beauty, fecundity, freedom and truthful living everywhere. Were we to earnestly take on this task, I suspect social-organisation systems – politics – would become a fluid mix of anarchic and hierarchical. Natural authority is a beautiful thing, authority by brute force is not. Anarchy – leaderless decision making – is at its healthiest when our systems of education promote independence of thought and a willingness to be wrong, to learn by doing, to know in youthful excitement that learning never ends. As such, anarchy and hierarchy are not opposites at all; they are compatible decision-making modalities that can be used like any tools: as needed. The desire to treat Other with respect, to want its health to flourish and prosper, is simply a healthier way to be. It is love’s way. Love exposes how deceptive the selfishness-selfless dichotomy is; as I do unto Other, so I do unto Self. And all this would sustain civilisational complexity while presenting a minimal attack surface to divide-and-conquer tactics. 

What’s not to like!