Many atrocities have been committed for the sake of paying the mortgage.

People rationalize their participation in evil systems, in part because they are trapped by the system. If some CDC bureaucrat realizes that the corruption is untenable, how easy is it to walk away? These are professionals with specialized skills (if any), earning high salaries and likely up to their ears in debt. The Machine has also indoctrinated them into believing that they deserve to have high-status careers and commensurate salaries. How many would quit and take a job as a gardener?

The same principle applies to employees of so many industries that shouldn't even exist – from defense contractors to tech-startups to advertising agencies. The system self-selects for workers who are able to compartmentalize away the evil externalities of their jobs. Just focus on processing the pile of paperwork on your desk. Jacques Ellul said, "In the whole of our technological society the work is so fragmented and broken up into small pieces that no one is responsible. But no one is free, either. Everyone has his own, specific task. And that's all he has to do."

To reclaim sovereignty, we must see through these ways that the system traps us. We need to relearn practical, down-to-earth skills and become less dependent on evil systems for our survival and well-being. Someone who has grown up with a sense of entitlement to the professional managerial class will have a hard time avoiding becoming a cog in the Machine, if only because fear of the unknown will keep him trapped.

Expand full comment

Truth is none of us know , i cannot say if its a conspiracy to depopulate or inject people with Graphene and Nano tech which around 30 scientists now claim from all over the world or not.

Maybe those scientists are delusional , wrong , conspiracy theorists , smoking to much purple haze .

I am with you that we cannot say either way fully so i keep an open mind but i find it hard to believe these idiots in power do not plan and scheme as thats their entire way of life in business . Its their nature to plan and scheme and conspire .

I think we each cling to a fixed theories and a polarity that best suits our personality and need for a safe space or fixed belief but at some point a Truth will become clear to all .

The rudderless ship theory is a popular one with the esoteric community , its a fairly idiotic concept as the men and women up top are highly organised types of people , they are planners , they are architects and they plan , the idea they do not is laughable.

Why the hell would they have all these clubs and organisations if they were not ' organising ' and in secret ?

So they do Conspire , in business they do ? so the question is more

' Would they seek to depopulate or create a new control mechanism via medicines and technology whilst collapsing the worlds economy slowly so they can then re boot the ponzy scheme '

Well go look at the history of these people , the arms deals , the lies , Epstein , Gates , etc etc .

Scary though isnt it , the idea that they went this far as a collective of Narcissists and Psychopaths which is what many of them are . ( a fact )

There may not be some grand ' eugenics program ' at work , there may be , you dont know any more than i do .

What if we all admit we do not know

On the idea some or all this Facade was planned theres a ton of evidence from people like Catherine Austin Fitts etc . You now have Mike yeadon ex vice president of Pfizer saying its a conspiracy , why he would say its a conspiracy i dont know ?

Reiner fuellmich is another , why would a top lawyer objectively study all the facts and conclude its a conspiracy ? planned and centrally controlled ?

I respect your position but you have to ignore a lot of objective evidence to get there .

Time will tell

Expand full comment

To me, this article somewhat mis-characterises what conspiring is. It is a valuable and effective dismantling of something that needs to be dismantled, but one that misses a different perspective.

To borrow from the sheep metaphor. A pack of wolves can start a stampede. The pack's members 'conspire' – secretly from the sheep's point of view, element of surprise and all that – to initiate a stampede in a particular way, a way that maximises the wolves' chance of getting easy meat at low risk to themselves. But the wolves are not evil. Indeed, their 'conspiring' serves the sheep, the herd, by keeping it 'fit'. Further, just because the wolves conspire to trigger a stampede and manage it successfully, does not mean they will succeed.

Ditto Schwab and Co. They may well not be geniuses, but that does mean they do not 'conspire' to effect events, to steer history, in a direction they think is best. Knowing, as they do, that the herd majority, addicted as it is to the Old Normal, will not want this change of direction, Schwab and Co are constrained to some degree to conspire. This is all regardless of how imaginative and certain of success their plans are. Further, that Schwab wrote a book and published it does not mean there was no conspiring behind its emergence. I'm not saying I know one way or the other, but I cannot rule it out.

My own position is that some degree of conspiring was involved regarding the covid lockdowns and all that attaches to them. That conspiring – which I deduce must have taken place – triggered the stampede you accurately describe. I see that triggering as necessary for a variety of reasons, which I won't go into, but feel now there is virtually no need for it for all the reasons you detail in your article. In other words, although I still remain persuaded that there must have been some degree of conspiring here, there may as well not have been. It is the herd-like response that matters in the end.

That said, we will see what sort of opposition is elicited by a mass awakening and subsequent change of direction, should said awakening transpire!

Expand full comment

"The reflex to ask, “Who is doing this to me?” comes from the same consciousness as “Who can fix it for me?” It is the consciousness of looking toward someone-in-charge for salvation or blame. This is an abdication of our innate sovereignty."

Yes, exactly. I'm a COVID moderate. As a healthcare worker (RN), I have seen the damage caused by COVID and was happy to get the vaccine (though I'm less enthusiastic about this endless regime of boosters). At the same time, I understand and respect the reasons people didn't trust it, and don't trust the medical-industrial complex in general, for many of the reasons you name.

I have, at times, been deeply dismayed and frustrated by the people who have convinced themselves COVID is not real, sometimes attacking healthcare providers when they receive a diagnosis, even as they struggle to breathe in the ICU. I have also been frustrated with the priggish COVID moralists who would have us never leave our houses without constantly updated boosters and an n-95, ignoring the fact that viruses and viral endemicity are an inevitable part of the evolutionary process.

When I pondered whether to get the vaccine, I checked in with my own inner knowing and trusted that I truly would be safe receiving the vaccine. I also trust that I am truly safe not going beyond the 3 shots I've already had. There are many friends I have who truly believed the vaccine was not right for them. And I respected their sovereignty in making that choice. This attitude is infuriating to the scientists who believe there is only one way of knowing.

My own sense is that the virus is an entity with its own purpose, and the the various choice people are making in response to vaccination and COVID response in general is part of an evolutionary differentiation process that will find us occupying differing, and necessary, ecological niches. And when I approach things from that perspective, I don't have to find someone to blame or someone to fix everything. I can be open and curious about what is unfolding, and trust my own role or niche in all of it.

Expand full comment

Lets cut to the chase and share one quality, lets cherish the humanity in others, not just for their sake but for our own.

The ideas we have about someone else exist in our mind. An idea, in which we deny someone else’s humanity, can be projected, but it will never leave its source, our mind.

Without seeing humanity in others, we will never embrace our humanity. We will never find our own freedom without valuing freedom for all others.

Our sense of identity is related to our thinking, to our very mind itself. Our subjective experience of identity itself is quite malleable and is a function of our own mind, which is to say we are actively participating in the moment-by-moment creation of our experience of identity.

o quote Jung, “Therefore the individual who wishes to have an answer to the problem of evil, as it is posed today, has need, first and foremost, of self-knowledge, that is, the utmost possible knowledge of his own wholeness.” In our current catastrophic times, knowledge of the innermost foundation of our being—our intrinsic wholeness—is absolutely imperative. Jung concludes, “Individual self-reflection, return of the individual to the ground of human nature, to his own deepest being … here is the beginning of a cure for that blindness which reigns at the present hour.” Whenever we reflect upon ourselves we are bound to encounter the living frontiers of the unconscious itself, which is where the very medicine that heals our blindness is to be found.

Expand full comment

Hi Charles, have you ever took a dive into astrology as a vehicle for analyzing the archetypal forces that steer collective consciousness? The bus may not be driven by us, but the planets speaking to us like a clockwork seem to really predict both our individual and collective behaviour. I notice my own tendency to rebel against the status quo at the moment, but am also aware that rebel Uranus is in square-off with authoritarian Saturn. Being aware, it helps to let these contradictory forces play out in my being. Although it influences my writing..

Expand full comment

Great article as always Charles! I appreciate your exploration of the nuances and complexities of how we got here. I tend to agree more with Bret Weinstein and Naomi Wolf though. It was simply impossible to get the covid response so very very wrong on so many levels, by accident. And let us not forget that there was dissent in the CDC among top scientists at the very beginning which was deliberately shut down by Fauci. And some at the CDC/FDA have quit over this anti-science mess. So maybe not surprising that those that remain at the CDC are the ones who are willing to wear blinders and at least pretend to toe the party line. People will convince themselves of the necessity of pretty much any horrible thing if they are sufficiently rewarded for complying and an illusion of order ,stability and security is created for them personally. I think this whole thing clearly illustrates the lack of moral courage, both individually and collectively; especially in our medical and science institutions. It takes intestinal fortitude to seek and embrace truth and that is not comfortable. Unless folks are willing to dig deep and find the guts to take off the blinders ( masks) and clearly see and engage with the reality around them; we will remain forever stuck in a stagnant fog of fantastical unreality. We now have alot of very frightened sheep who have chosen to follow the fearmongering shepherds who want to exploit and eat them. And that is a choice they are making. I have compassion for their suffering; but at some point we all must decide in this life if we are going to be real or if we are going to be comfortable.

Expand full comment

I love the concept of dispositionism and I agree that it describes a reality about human nature. I recognize myself in the description, as a medical and public health professional, in the 'before times.'

However, those of us who have been involved in human subjects research in recent decades have been forced by law and regulation to take specific, detailed, regular training in how to ethically conduct such clinical research. In clinical trials, the 'bus drivers' are the Principal Investigators (PIs) whose signatures appear on all those required forms. Those who *chose* *not* to conduct the COVID injection clinical research by those laws and rules knew what they were doing and not doing, they knew the terrible history of what happens when such laws and rules either do not yet exist or are not followed (it's part of the required training), and they used the excuse of an 'emergency' to do what is clearly not allowed; there is no 'emergency exception' to ethics. Can one then use the thinking of dispositionism to pretend that one is doing good? At the same time, other, less lofty, scientists conducting human subjects research in less politically-favored areas were being corrected by their institutional review boards and research offices for tiny issues that could not logically bear on ethics or safety, threatened with withdrawal of their status as a PI and with the authorization to conduct any human subjects research at all. Imho the rationale that must have been used was one under which so much evil has been done in the world - the ends justify the means. That is, the leap forward in mRNA technology which otherwise would take decades will result in so many wonderful new products to benefit humankind (and many bank accounts and professional standings) that skipping the ethical steps will be shown to have been worthwhile (if you are not a subject who suffered an adverse event nor a recipient of a product that, oops, turned out to be defective, not to mention that all were tricked into accepting it because no one made it clear that for these products the laws and rules were tossed or that there were alternative treatments one could use). That certain communications, documentation, and contracts were hidden until exposed by FOIA and that people like former CDC Director Redfield were excluded from discussion and planning to, in his view, enforce only one 'message,' tells you that the 'bus drivers' knew exactly what they were doing and not doing.

Further, in my former profession of public health (I'm retired), it has been taught for decades that risk should be communicated to the public in a way that is calming yet factual. These principles were turned upside down, with panic being purveyed at every turn, with risk being overestimated both by faulty modeling and by use of PCR and case definitions in a way they never have been before, i.e., defining a 'case' as a positive PCR result only, with no requirement for clinical signs or symptoms, using a PCR primer that turned out not to distinguish between flu and COVID and using so many reproductive cycles that a positive result had no meaning regarding viable virus at all. Dr. Birx briefed on national television that they were calling all 'positive' hospital deaths as COVID deaths, which also overestimated risk in such a way as to induce panic (and so cooperation with mandates and 'suggestions'). Since these practices broke with prior normal practices, as did those involving human subjects research, how could the people involved rationalize this 180-degree flip-flop and remain silent? "We're good, we're so good that we can suddenly do the opposite of what we were taught and taught others in turn and still be good?"

The 2019 international guidance on pandemics by the World Health Organization was essentially tossed, since the evidence base for so many of the non-pharmaceutical interventions that were *mandated* was flimsy at best and commonly non-existent. Everyone involved in pandemic planning knew all of that and then lied repeatedly. https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/1257621/retrieve

Finally, physicians who practiced clinical medicine in the 'before times' know that we practice under and at the risk of our own licenses to practice medicine (we are the clinical 'bus drivers') and that prescribing medications 'off-label' (for indications not approved by the FDA) is a *daily* occurrence across the nation, because regulatory requirements make it so expensive to achieve a label indication that, once there is *any* FDA label, the drugs are then used for any scientifically/medically valid indication, some of which become known over time as the drug is used for its original indication. When doctors were being fired and having their professional privileges and credentials threatened or revoked for doing just that (Dr. Simone Gold was the first I heard describing her ordeal) and when pharmacists were refusing to fill valid prescriptions because they disagreed politically with the indication for which it was prescribed, I knew that the medical world had suddenly turned upside down, in a very dangerous way, and yet the vast majority of clinicians seem to have simply shut up and complied, prioritizing something other than their physician-patient relationship and the health of their patients. I do not forgive my former profession of clinical medicine for prioritizing retaining a job over taking care of their patients. As Dr. Mike Yeadon has said about the Big Pharma ('Harma') scientists who are his former colleagues, you can't commit a crime just because you have a mortgage.

Expand full comment

Evil has different shapes and sizes. People need to realize the harsh reality:

Evil vs. Incompetence - Is There a Difference?

https://twitter.com/B33Mello/status/1461406225028075525 (Twitter thread)

All those who find themselves on the wrong side of history arrived there of their own choosing. They always had a choice. A choice to self-reflect, look at and consider the arguments from the opposite side, reconsider their stance and beliefs, etc. Therefore, no matter the motivation, or justification of the people who actively supported crimes against humanity, they still need to face punishment. People in positions of influence and power betrayed the public trust. Yes, it includes mere bureaucrats at CDC and other institutions. Crimes of that magnitude cannot be forgiven, no matter how good and virtuous (or clueless) the person committing the crimes was.

Expand full comment

That’s really, really good. There is still the active censorship from large institutions that makes me think there are people in power who know what’s going on and who are suppressing information. But I think what you describe accounts for large percentage of what’s going on here. Thank you for that.

Expand full comment

I was literally driving the bus when this popped up on my iPhone screen!! I laughed and thought wow how significant is that? For me, the being solid in My yes or no is how I create change. What is true for me is not necessarily true for others and that’s okay. I’ve done my share of rabbit holes and who done it’s and have decided that that only thing I have dominion over is me and how I show up in this world.

By keeping my vibration as high as I can and behaving in the way I want people to behave toward me is driving my bus through the space between story and into the more beautiful world my heart knows is possible.

This change that is coming is not coming from who is or is not driving the bus, but from one heart at a time beating to the rhythm of beauty.

Expand full comment

We're behaving like a herd of sheep, yes; being stampeded too and fro. But there are other forms of social organism - the hive, the colony, the pack. Perhaps the problem is that we think of ourselves using the wrong metaphor.

Expand full comment

I appreciate your thoughts, Charles--and in some ways, resonate with a lot that you say in terms of no cabal of evil authoritarians collectively orchestrating outcomes that are self-serving, that are born from collaborative corruption. And I've often wondered, considering that I believe, as you say, that there are actually many--in the medical field, in health organizations, etc.--who truly believe in mRNA technology and vaccine effectiveness: where, then, does the "chain" break? At what "link" in this hierarchical chain do those who are "true believers" become the corrupt, power-hungry dictators who want to bring social order to its knees? At what point does true belief become corrupt orchestration by the few upon the many? While "there is no one driving the bus" has a lot of truth to it, still, it's hard to believe that there aren't those dictatorial types--Claus Schwab, Bill Gates, etc.--who haven't seized on the moment, who have not made of this pandemic something of their own nefarious choosing. And hard to believe, too, that there isn't some collaboration of some sort amongst those greedy, soulless, power mongers to ensure that their scheme succeeds...at all costs. I do believe that human beings are more powerful than they realize, that being led by the nose is only possible with some degree of acquiescence exhibited by those who are led. I believe, too, that we, as a collective of imaginative and soulful people, have the power to make bold choices about the direction of humanity. But, as I say, it's hard to imagine that there's not more to what's been taking place for the past two years and beyond than random corrupt players attempting a loosely-conceived plan. There's just much more of a dark and disturbing feeling to the whole thing...

Expand full comment

The irony of course being that someone could be driving it (or a few), people with money could wreak havoc on the status quo by doing outrageous things with it. Bill Gates can give his farmlands to organic farmers. Fund them for a few years. Bezos can buy the Amazon, then set it free. Musk could fund (real) research into energy technology. Home Depot and Lowes can start fixing things instead of selling them.

Expand full comment

What I commented on Mattias Desmet's latest post applies here too:

This level of analysis is uncomfortable for most people; it’s unsatisfying for our egos. But on a higher level of analysis it is very true:

To think that eliminating the opportunistic elite would solve the problems we are dealing with today dovetails, in essence, or is consilient with the kind of thinking that sees the new frontier in depopulation and the establishment of a technocratic world order. These ways of thinking both pivot around the issue of control. Of changing the “given”. New or Old, in the end, it is still a struggle for a Normal.

The danger, as Charles Bukowski so brilliantly put it, remains: “They begin by railing against society and end up on the same power trip.”

But of course, on another level of analysis, when push comes to shove (as it has in March 2020): civil disobedience is the right action, be it chanting and singing and marching on the streets or silently meditating in a room. Enlightened action can take many forms.

The point is: A problem cannot be solved by the same consciousness that creates it. That’s why spiritualism or cultivating clarity of consciousness via inquiry (~Truth Speech) is indeed the best foot forward.

Expand full comment

Thank you Charles for your insight and understanding. In connecting the 'dots" I strive for "reality goggles" so I may see truthfulness. Which is a challenge given the gas-lighting, gate keepers, narratives, algorithms, deceptions, lies by omission, and general B.S. Your piece escaped all that noise. But there is the "master dot" Cui Bono - who benefits?

Expand full comment