“Heaven is always one more booster away.” That may be true—but not in the way they think.

Charles, I always appreciate your nuanced takes as well as your solutionary (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/becoming-solutionary/201903/becoming-solutionary) approach. You not only expose and examine the challenges we face, but you also offer counter-positions to combat the destructive narratives.

To deepen your understanding of the tyrannical technocratic vision, I highly recommend this video featuring a speech by Dr. Yuval Noah Harari, top advisor to Klaus Schwab:


Here is a teaser to whet your appetite:

“Now, in the past, many tyrants and governments wanted to do it, but nobody understood virology well enough, and nobody had enough computing power and data to hack millions of people. Neither the Gestapo nor the KGB could do it.

“But soon, at least some corporations and governments will be able to systematically hack all the people. We humans should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls. We are now hackable animals.

“Data might enable human elites to do something even more radical than to just build digital dictatorships. By hacking organisms, elites may gain the power to re-engineer the future of life itself, because once you can hack something, you can usually also engineer it.

“And if indeed we succeed in hacking and engineering life, this will be not just the greatest revolution in the history of humanity, this will be the greatest revolution in biology since the very beginning of life 4 billion years ago.

“For 4 billion years, nothing fundamental changed in the basic rules in the game of life. All of life for 4 billion years, dinosaurs, amoebas, tomatoes, humans, all of life was subject to the laws of natural selection and to the laws of organic biochemistry.

“But this is now about to change. Science is replacing evolution by natural selection with evolution by intelligent design, not the intelligent design of some god above the clouds, but our intelligent design. And the intelligent design of our clouds—the IBM cloud, the Microsoft cloud—these are the new driving forces of evolution.”

Expand full comment

Mother nature is and created the "best technology" there is. Through their Descartes lens, I know the technocrats like to believe their new stuff is so very "man made" genius and pure creation, but EVERY SINGLE piece of mod tech, is a pale reflection/mimic (and usually flawed) copy of mother natures technological perfection. We see flaw in her mechanisms that we must correct, simply because we dont recognise our own stupidity/ignorance of understanding her logic or vision. So we seek to correct. Like a 7yr old, who doesn't understand a problem as an adult does, but determines a solution, that can seem pure genius, depending on the perspective.

We have understood mothers tech, from the purely Descarte perspective. We used to understand it at a soul level from the wholistic perspective, but as our villages and tribes expanded, I think we grew outward focused and forgot our soul technology focus.

I love your ever hopeful style Charles, hold that tight, as I think darker days are coming and those of us will need it to help light our path to the dawn.

Expand full comment

I agree with your alternative vision of our future 100%, but...

I'm uncomfortable that you chose the word "progress" to describe it.

"Progress" implies movement from some sort of bad-ness in the past to some sort of good-ness in the future. To use the word "progress" is to impose a mythological arrow of time pointing upward, and to claim the moral superiority of a particular vision or goal. "Progress" has no meaning until we have agreed upon the "bad" or "old" which we associate with negative concepts/emotions (violence, disharmony, anger, hatred, isolation) and the "good" or "new" which we associate with positive concepts/emotions (peace, harmony, love, community, etc.).

From my perspective, we need to not just re-envision "progress" from its materialist technocratic form but to understand that the concept of "progress" is itself problematic. It prevents us from falling in love with the world, as it exists, in the present. It creates a moral dichotomy between the "good people" who believe in a particular trajectory of progress and the "bad people" who question or reject that vision. It shapes time as a line with a positive slope, rather than as a series of great cycles or an ever-weaving tapestry of unimaginable intricacy.

So by all means let us create a more peaceful, more harmonious world in which we acknowledge the wisdom of nature, the consciousness and intelligence of the universe, and the limits of our finite planet. But please let's not call it "progress".

Expand full comment

Wow, you tackled a big one head on.

Well expressed. . . my blood is thumping in my chest: this is a tough one for me.

The one piece I see missing is the acknowledgement of how bad bad is.

I truly believe the Old is dying, the New already born and all we see are the death throes of the end of a very sad age. . .

However, this has been a life and death struggle for the heart of humanity.

Scott Peck defined evil as "militant denial". The militant deniers march on destroying all that matters. This cannot be neutral. To deny truth is to align with destruction.

I was personally faced with the "heart of darkness" in the systems and hierarchy of my own world. I almost lost my mind, literally. When I had looked fully, accepted how bad it really was, I was able to take my energy away and walk on. Richard Rohr spoke of how at some point you must take your energy away from evil or it will take you. (my paraphrase)

Love has died in those who move forward, by denial of the wonder of Life.

They have no interest in the destroyed billions who have been twisted through their experimentation. Their goal is not healing and transformation. These "miserables" are simply the cost of progress, dust beneath their feet, an inconvenient reality that will soon be dealt with. Thankfully, I believe they misread the Deep Magic and are about to be surprised.

I agree with your description of where we head. . . my heart sings to the music of it!

I feel it wise to own the depth of terror from which we are being extracted.

Thank you, Charles for owning the challenge of discourse in these liminal days. . .

I am enriched.


Expand full comment

I'm fully convinced that it is more productive as well as more honest to approach every person as a full human soul with needs and desires and dreams like our own.

But some things the Billionaires do are easier to understand and sympathize with than others. What about false flag terrorism? Bioweapons labs devoted to engineering natural viruses to make them more lethal? Designing vaccines to release the spike protein, which is the toxic payload of the COVID bioweapon? Suppressing early treatments that effectively treat COVID?

Do we take at face value the many simulation events in which Gates and the WEF have planned out scenarios for dealing with a hypothetical Coronavirus that mutated to increase human infectivity? Or do we believe that the COVID virus was deliberately released?

The stories that "Everyone is doing the best they can" and "I would do the same if I were in their circumstances" are important and beneficial stories. They are effective antidotes for the polarization that divides us. But they are only stories, and there are facts they cannot explain.

Expand full comment

Scientism or positivism is a philosophy, or some may call it religious belief, that holds that the scientific method of understanding the world yields optimal outcomes (whatever those might be). What we are witnessing today may be the denouement -- or some might say last hurrah --of scientism. As countless science fiction movies and stories beginning with Mary Shelley in the nineteenth century have revealed to us, the final common pathway of scientism is a technologic nightmare. The road to hell indeed is paved with good intentions. When one becomes too wedded to one's self-constructed path towards "progress" one is able to justify all kinds of horrors, including those such as the Nazi atrocities committed by Mengele and his cohorts. Thus, depopulation, promoting toxic medical products, destroying fertility and chem trails are horrible crimes that it is beyond the scope of many of our imaginations could possibly be connected with any benign intentions. Most of us are not in a position of power high enough to corrupt our minds sufficiently to justify such crimes in the name of some supposed higher goal. That such crimes might be conceived in the name of good is testimony to the corruptive effects of wealth and power. Insanity might be a better word than corruption to describe the effluents of the minds of the rich and powerful. The corruptive influences of wealth and power could go a long way towards explaining the tendency to demonize the people who develop these plans. While demonization may be an oversimplification of their motives, the fact remains that their actions are immoral and evil. They have become untethered from morality in the name of morality. In short, they have lost perspective. This of course assumes benign intentions in the first place. The situation is likely to be far more complex than this, with different players having different kinds of motivations, some more based on maximizing profits for their companies, some more based on power, some based on ego, and some based on more superficially benevolent motivations. Some may be even based on friendship or loyalty rather to other globalists or powerful people or organizations. However, the diversity of motivations does not in anyway undo the immorality of the projects conceived by these individuals, or exonerate those individuals. Justin Trudeau, for example, may be acting in fealty to the WEF, or to benefit Canadians, but it doesn't justify shutting down people's bank accounts, trampling protestors with a horse (although I acknowledge he didn't directly order this himself) or jailing protestors (this was done on his direct orders). The human tendency to disconnect from morality when given power is one our Founding Fathers of the United States attempted to regulate in the Constitution, by creating a "more perfect union." This union certainly has a long way to go to approach perfection, and it is now sorely in need of improvement, to reign in the unbridled powers of government, NGO's and big corporations.

Expand full comment

"No technology is inevitable." This is a hugely important point -- I fear that most people do not share this view. Creating systemic environments that allow for people to regain the helm in building tools in service to all humans strikes me as a key challenge in this moment.

Expand full comment

"A New Conception of Progress" you speak to this so beautifully and articulately, as you always express yourself this way.

And it is wonderful to write this down. But... it is not new.

Many live this way and always have. With beautiful connection and beautiful respect.

Stopping to see and wonder is always good and necessary.

There are many on both 'sides' of this present day insanity who live this way.

And I see how important it is to strive towards compassion and understanding of others. But be careful you are not seeing through a distorted lens because you so desperately want to see the good.

All peoples struggle with their shadows, their internalized messages of worthlessness. (maybe not all, I can't know)

For some those shadows take the stage.

Sometimes people do bad things to other people with ill intent. Sometimes people are not integrated or able to stand in integrity.

We are complicated beautiful beasts and we can do great harm intentionally because we move from a place of hubris.

Expand full comment

Ah Charles, undoubtedly your best piece of writing yet!

Thank you for pouring the balm of sanity over what is becoming an increasingly polarised world, as we seek villains for our discontent everywhere, except within ourselves.

As for your last 10 points, whatever happened to Keep it Simple? I believe a better world is one where we can pursue peace, liberty and happiness. Peace and liberty are inter-related and largely bring about happiness. And I think they can be achieved in the following order:

1. Pure and present observation of "what is", followed by a complete acceptance of it. This defines our frame of reference within which we live. Without sitting still and observing Nature and the rush of humanity we cannot see who and where we fit in the big picture. Accepting "what is" means understanding we cannot change the picture, but we can change how we react to it.

2. Dedication to a simplification of life. Use less of everything, and make do with less stuff. This lets in more room / time for the true pleasures of life, which are family, friends and fun. This self-reinforcing philosophy on its own will lead to the downfall of our current destructive way of life, and the building of a more sustainable, healthier and happier life for all.

3. Slow down and help people. Charity, like its sister mercy, blesses those who give as well as those who receive. The African concept of "Ubuntu", when lived without expectation of personal reward, means that helping others should be our default mode. "I am, because you are". To get there we need to first build "Sisonke", which is the bridge of human togetherness that spans our differences.

Expand full comment

“You have to consider the possibility that God does not like you, never wanted you, in all probability he hates you. It's not the worst thing that could happen.”

— Tyler Durden, Fight Club

Expand full comment

I recognise the first part of your description of the technocratic view of progress from the 1990s, when I was teaching bioethics as part of a philosophy course. Back then, among both the public and experts, the prevailing view went something like: 'Our technological abilities are increasing very fast, possible ahead of our values. Developments such as human cloning have the potential for good or for evil; it depends how we use them'. In the intervening years, that sense of perspective seems to have been lost - with the rise of the internet, the more cautionary voices were drowned by by those celebrating digital utopianism and a sort of 'it's here - we must'.

Anyway, my problem comes with your latter presentations of the technocratic mission. Here, it seems to me to be inherently controlling, anti-pluralistic and consequently, against human flourishing. I think this, as just I've just written in my own piece on here, is because its become political perfectionism - a kind of utopian drive which is so obsessive that its adherents feel anything is justified to realise their dream. So in that sense, its main actors are doing wrong. They are not listening. They are not considering other perspectives. They are, in Hannah Arendt's terms, 'refusing to share the world'.

BUT/AND these political forces aren't exclusively a property of certain evil individuals and here I think you're right about the foolishness of trying to pin all the blame on certain villains. What would be more fruitful - and I what i think we used to do in British society much more until the last decade or two - is ask the broader questions about actions, policies which are in turn underpinned by values. Then the particular political figures become much less important, just the latest executives and experts who are part of the whole, as they should be.

Expand full comment

I was given four months to live two years ago after being diagnosed with a acute high risk form of blood cancer. Although I was advised to “ let nature take its course” I took the treatment instead. So new stem cells, new immune system and DNA.

I also took the Covid vaccines afterwards.

I came very close today death from a blood infection after my heavy chemo that was used to destroy my old immune system.

Although I didn’t die, experienced what people commonly hear about spiritual near death experience. It was then that I came to understand things I could never before have imagined to be true.

I actually took the Covid vaccines in a show of solidarity with all the medical professionals that cared for me during the darkest hours of my life.

So I decided to take them for a reason that will likely seem irrational to you. I took them in as a display of my love for those who cared for me and my fellow cancer patients at the blood cancer clinic.

I also value our system of socialized Medicare in Canada. I believe that I wouldn’t have made it in the US. That’s because I’m not financially well off.

Perspective is everything I believe.

For me everything boils down to intentions.

And I don’t believe that we even experience the world as it is, rather I believe we experience it as we are. Although I was given a poor prognosis, I’m certain that I am cured. I’m also certain that the vaccines cannot harm me. And I know this from what I learned on the other side.

And I trust my intuition.

Expand full comment

I'm sorry but anger is a productive emotion.

You didn't lose your job because of these fascists, comfortable with your stay at home job. You don't know the stress and trauma of losing your job to these pieces of crap corrupt people. It's easy for you to act high and mighty because you are not a casualty...

Without anger, people will just follow the herd and keep following this corrupt system.

No, not anger at the individuals but anger at everyone that serves this corrupt fascist (state corporate) system.

History shows that nothing changes until people are angry and fight evil.


Expand full comment

And beware, please, of the way those values can be hijacked and manipulated. This statement, with all its truth and beauty and wisdom, would sound suspicious now, sadly, from the official narrative or someone I didn't already trust. "Now is the time to turn the technologies of control toward a new purpose: to serve life and beauty on earth. That starts with healing the damage we have done." - Yes, of course yes. However the Digital IDs will be sold as ways to be inclusive, to help each other belong. Connecting things with carbon footprint, and ability to see the carbon footprint of businesses, will be sold as ways to heal the damage done to Earth's life support systems. . .

As other things, horribly dangerous things, were pushed as ways to protect each other. And on the threads of compassion, so many lives were destroyed from these injections. And the hate / division from believing them.

How sad to need to be skeptical about things that talk about inclusion and healing and earth, and love. . . and diversity and regeneration ...

(Please don't misunderstand, I'm not questioning Charles' integrity when he says those things, but because they *Are* such expressions of authentic being and honest attempts to heal .. and are so obviously needed in these times ..

they are the cords,

like compassion,



equity ...

On which all sorts of things may attach,

to be allowed in,

even welcomed, celebrated,


Some of those things (like digital IDs .. everyone's human Right, they say),

can lock us


into a grid of being controlled.

Reclaim, live, and love what makes us human,

and always be skeptical,

of technology that claims to have solutions ...

Expand full comment

Your best column yet, Charles. How might the mass of humanity evolve toward a very different worldview? And how does this new order of things police the sociopaths among us, eager to take advantage of altruism? Can this be done without primary human organization being tribal in level, so that what everyone does is highly visible to others? In principle, what to do to improve ecologies is not as difficult as reforming human behavior and beliefs in practice.

Expand full comment

This essay is wonderful, and wonderfully timed, Charles, thank you. Yesterday I read a story from Wendell Berry's book The Wild Birds, entitled "It Wasn't Me". It was about exactly this New Story. Here's an excerpt: "It's no use to want to make it on your own, because you can't. Oh, Glad Pettit deals in a kind of property you can put in your pocket. Or he thinks he does. But when you quit living in the price and start living in the place, you're in a different line of succession." I know you've quoted from Berry in some of your books, and I often wonder how deeply you feel connected to his work and writings. He was featured in The New Yorker last month, and has a new collection of writings coming out. In my wildest dreams, you, Wendell, Marilynn Robinson and maybe Robin Wall-Kimmerer would all get together and just take over the world and tell us what to do! Just kidding.

I also often wonder about your relationship with Owen Barfield. I know you did that excellent course with Orland Bishop, and I remember you saying in that course that you had read the beginnings of some Steiner books. I'm reading Barfield in a much more focused way these days, and I am finding a lot more clarity on Steiner's thought through reading Barfield. In particular, I wonder if you've given thought to the "adversaries," named Ahriman and Lucifer in Steiner's (and Barfield’s) writings. So, rather than one triumphant narrative of progress, there are in fact, two, both of which need to be held in check by the human being who can go deeper into conscious relationship. Here is an excerpt from Unanscestral Voice by Barfield that I'm reading right now: "The aim of Lucifer is to conserve the past too long; to maintain, in the present, conditions that rightly obtained in the past, but should now be superseded. He adores tradition. In particular, he seeks to maintain the permeation of the mind by the “given”, the physical, the instinctive warmth, which men bring with them from the past and must indeed use, but which should no longer permeate, or at least not involuntarily, their mental powers. . . . The aim of Ahriman is to anticipate the future, precociously: to bring about, long before their appointed time, conditions which, if all goes well, will rightly obtain in the future, but which can only appear in the present as a wicked caricature. In pursuit of this aim he will persuade you, if he can, to eradicate the past instead of transforming it. He abhors tradition. History is his bane. He operates, in the present age, principally in the field of mind, leaving the feelings for Lucifer to exploit. He freezes. His purpose is to destroy everything in human thinking which depends on a certain warmth, to replace wonder by sophistication, courtesy by vulgarity, understanding by calculation, imagination by statistics.” Anyway, all of this is to say I’m excited by the synchronicity between what I’m studying, and what you are writing about. Cheers, Brother Charles.

Expand full comment