The habits of authoritarianism run deep. Obedience is only the most superficial. Deeper is to look to authority as a source of truth. Deeper still is to look first for “who is in charge” when seeking to understand and change a given situation.
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.
It isn't usually so obvious to those in such institutions that what they are doing is wrong. Sometimes it is as you say, "Well, this is wrong but I have a mortgage to pay." More often, I think, people engage all kinds of subconscious filters and distorting lenses to convince themselves that what they are doing is justifiable. Not too different from hedge fund executives believing that their operations contribute to market liquidity or risk optimumization or somesuch. Not so different, perhaps, from the way you and I also rationalize our participation in larger systems that are destroying the earth.
Yes — my past professional relationships with pharmaceutical representatives promoting various ADHD medications showed these people to be ‘ordinary’ folks who believed in helping kids using chemical formulae they thought really worked.
Charles, while I support your call to our innate sovereignty as the way forward, I would disagree that 'no one is driving the bus'. We are looking at many decades of efforts to mold the current psyops being perpetrated on humanity, going back to Edward Bernays, and the Rockefeller Foundation, and now with vast computing capability the programming of our post-modern simulacrum is almost complete. We can look at this as merely a cultural phenomenon where corporations and governments are taking advantage of an increasingly weakened and compliant society for financial and political reasons but this does not go deep enough. Your view of Klaus Schwab as just one of the technocratic elite who "have power only in a vacuum of true power, the vacuum left from our own abdication" is true, as is your list of societal factors that drive this abdication, but to minimize the effect and purpose of the WEF in its role to coordinate the making of new world order is a huge mistake. Schwab may not be a great communicator, perhaps by design, but he wields huge influence by virtue of the WEF’s organization power, especially now when so much power has been allowed to aggregate . The WEF acts as the tip of the spear, in the control governments, their corporate financiers, the WHO, the media, all towards the goal of the complete abdication of our sovereignty, generation by generation. So it’s not just in choosing sovereignty as the essential piece of this struggle, and beyond struggle in our awakening, but unceasingly engaged in calling out all the forces at work that would strip us of what is true and good in our humanity and our essential nature, slowly, inexorably, creating a world where the last few years of dystopian madness is just a test. They have even said as much. And make no mistake the goals of these efforts are not just world government but a new world technocratic, transhumanist religion. Have you listened Schwab’s ‘spiritual’ advisor, Klaus Noah Harari? https://rumble.com/embed/vu8jix/?pub=4 . These guys are not fucking around. And all in plain sight.
And the most sinister piece of this the on-going ritual sacrifice of our children to the transhumanist god. Hard to admit we have harmed our children so we just keep looking the other way.
I’ll leave you with the following:
"Once upon a time there were clever philosophers. They did not believe in the Creator.
“We follow our own light,” they said. And in all matters they only relied on the light of introspection. Then they came across the Devil.
“What a monster!” said one of them. “What a comfort to know that nothing is real and everything is a mere reflection of ourselves!”
“You are right,” put in a second philosopher. “Everything is subjective; nothing is objective.”
Then the Devil opened his mouth and swallowed them.
When they arrived inside the Devil’s body the clever philosophers said with a superior smile: “Is it not obvious that we were right? The monster has disappeared.”
Hi, i am curious to understand how do you explain the black mail of getting "vaccinated" with the lens of the "Situationist" analyses that many times you refer in your work. From what i understand from it i find it quite useful, but to me it can became quite limited when used to explain (and excuse) everything. Did you never conspire to steal a chicken from the grumpy neighbor? Dis you not refuse to wear a mask and smile in some situations the last year? Would like to know your thoughts about this. Thanks
I am not denying the existence of conspiracies. I am not excusing anything or anyone. A lot of people are getting the wrong idea -- I will post a followup in the next week or so. I think conspiracies exist at much higher levels of power than most people imagine. What I am talking about here is the psychological habit of the explanation "someone is doing it on purpose" and the unconscious forces behind that habit. People seem to be reading this as taking a position on whether conspiracies are real or not. The matter is much more subtle than that.
I noticed this may have come through clearly (to me) in one particular sentence of yours. In my experience, excessive clarity is often required to lay the groundwork for a broad understanding - often well beyond what the communicator may believe is excessive or redundant. I've become painfully aware of that too many times.
See this video by James Corbett. In particular the discussion on Cecil Rhodes and his secret society. The WEF and the CDC are not inner circle. But there is an inner circle. That is how we explain the cordination and control of global public opinion on important matters. https://www.corbettreport.com/how-can-a-global-conspiracy-work-qfc-074-video/
Yes! I have a career in a field I believe in (supporting libraries), but I still ponder my complicity by paying taxes. Most of us would have to change everything drastically to stop being tax-payer cogs. I compartmentalize paying that blood money no less than a defense contractor employee compartmentalizes their role in manufacturing weapons.
One of the greatest and most widespread misperceptions is that taxes are “funding the government” and its activities for good or ill. They do not — though the reality is a bit difficult to “grok” upon first hearing.
We have a debt-based currency system. Money is issued in budgetary cycles. It enters the economy through government spending and loans by the central banking system, then has to be drawn out through a combination of taxation and loan repayment, so that the next spending cycle can happen — otherwise it would cause inflation.
Since the spending initiates the cycle, it can be immediately applied to whatever the legislators and managers choose. (You’ll note for example that when the Pentagon needs another half a trillion, there is no debate about which taxes to raise in order to get the funds - and they don’t wait until April 15th of the next year. They just spend the money *now*.)
Yes, if you wanted to disrupt this system, withholding taxes would be disruptive, but since taxation happens further along in the cycle, it is not going to stop the initial funding of evil. Instead it will only cause inflation by increasing the money supply. Of course that will make the leadership unhappy, yet as we currently see, the Fed’s response is austerity for the masses rather than penalizing bad actors at the top.
If we are unhappy with what is being done with public funds, the most direct response is to pressure legislators with public action and more aggressive prosecution of mishandled of public funds.
However, the problem being there is no longer a working public system. There are simply oligarchs at the helm, and the agencies they "govern" are completely captured. Hence, the plandemic, hence the Russia-Russia-Russia Collusion hoax, hence the 2+ million illegal immigrants who have invaded the United States this year alone. The list goes on and on, but suffice it to say that the entire system has become completely corrupted and overtaken, and we along with it .. both by design and by each our own unique complicity. The good news is that in the final analysis it will have failed as did Rome and all other previous corrupted dynasties, and yet that too will be the bad news for humanity. And on we go.
If I vote for a certain candidate and he/she wins and begins to put specific policies in place, am I responsible for those policies, even if I do not agree with them? If I determine that I do have some measure of responsibility, even though it may be miniscule, how should I seek to absolve myself of that if I do not approve of what my preferred candidate is now doing? If I vote for the "lesser of two evils", am I voting for an evil outcome?
Of course, compartmentalizing voting means that I can feel good about the person, party, policy, or practice I just voted for. After all, I am trying to change the world for the better and, if I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils", then the world would be even worse off than if I had not voted at all.
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 .
This is generally my take as well (we don't actually know, but there is far too much objective evidence to ignore certain realities of the powers that be and the plans they are attempting to implement).
I think what Charles is getting at goes much deeper - especially with the idea that we've abdicated our power (which in turns gives "them" theirs), and that we can take that back.
Trouble is, vast swaths of humanity are completely oblivious to this - and in order to show people that they actually have power, it is critical to expose the "machinations" of those who appear to be driving the bus.
By and large doing so results in being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, and I'm unsure of how we break through that wall.
There are so many ways to terminate any individual that shines a light on the current situation. Yes I remember where I was when JFK was shot and killed. So many amazing minds with powerful insights have been terminated.
As Rachel Chaput and others have mention " still the active censorship from large institutions cannot be ignored". Why is the money trail to Fauci and others so compelling? Why is there no open dialogue with the public? Why, if they are sincerely interested in our collective welfare and health do they refuse to allow responsible people to randomly select from lots of gene therapy, viles that can be rigorously examine? Such a process would put to rest those who are understandably skeptical
It has been said that in general the people of President Lincoln's era were more intelligent than the average person in the USA today. Is that true? I have longed for an open debate about this injectable. I have longed to know why our immune system was left out of the picture? Why robust health is not encouraged? Why since the 1960s when the USA was about 4th in the world in health and longevity, has in fallen to 79th today. Why is it continuing to degrade such that statistics like that will disappear from public access. Why the corporations that poison and pollute the air, water and soil, not to mention bodies and minds with junk food are not held accountable. And when they are (Bayer/Monsanto) seek to delay or stonewall repatriations to those victims of their toxins.
This is not to excuse each and everyone of us for helping to create the conditions in our government and laws that make this all possible. There remains a question though. How can the electorate be held accountable when there is an incestuous relationship between government and corporations. The most glaring example of the trampling of peoples right to express themselves is Citizens United. Money is not speech. But when SCOTUS rules that the constitution does not forbid it free speech is no longer free. It now becomes the domain of those who own the platforms of communication.
There was a time when a point of view was put forward in the media, equal time was made available for apposing views. That means the platform was free and open to those even without means that were qualified to put forward opposing views. With Citizen United that platform disappeared.
I look forward to justification for destroying the commons, of the mind, body and environment for the benefit of the few. And only a few benefit.
Hi James. Certainly we need platforms that are neutral and provide all people a chance to look at various points of view. Until that is the norm it will be especially hard to push through the wall.
Thanks for posing that question! While I can understand there’s not a simple solution here, I appreciate knowing I’m not alone In wondering how to “break through that wall”. Whew!
I agree. There is an effort to steer the ship from the top. Below that there is confusion, but it is more about implementation than goals. Lockdowns we’re promoted by a small group that influenced a larger group of subordinates and then you have all the go-alongs going along. You can see clearly in the covid episode how certain ideas were promoted and others vilified. They didn’t quite accomplish the goal of scapegoating the unvaxxed, but some were promoting it. Trudeau in Canada and the NZ leader. Australia was a police state. This was hardly emergent phenomena. The larger goal may have been some sort of digital ID. There is a lot of sense in this article but there are people with power and money willing to push their ideas on the rest of humanity.
It feels like you have missed the point. Of course they organise, plot and plan. Yet they are still not in full control nor could they ever be. There is no finite material to exploit no other planet to escape to, no telling what other virus, diseases, plagues or other events may happen. There are too many variables. Charles is simply saying that the people can push the dial but that would entail that they recognise they have a finger that can push it or decide not to push it. At present most people have forgotten they have a finger.
Yes absolutely this system is ongoing because of fear. The bus driver will fell safe as long as he can smell fear in the air, as soon as people riding the bus begin to feel and look safe, he will know that his game is up. They won’t need to pay a mortgage if they collectively decide mortgages don’t exist - if they begin to connect to their No or their yes. This would need them to be connected to their body and thus to nature. To be in flow and remember how love feels.
Obviously securing a source of food is crucial but also disconnecting from the whole farce of it.
There has always been individuals and groups intent on "ruling" the world. That is an aspect of humanity. So nothing new. They may form by a confluences of interests. They generally try to eliminate masses of people which has many advantages for them. Humans are unruly, so get rid of a lot of them. Strike fear into the rest and make them slaves. They do not care if they rule over a dung heap so long as they rule. There is nothing new under heaven and earth. And the knuckleheads at the WEF are just mouthing old play books and old dreams of empire. . If indeed they were to kill off billions, all modern civilization would collapse back to the stone age. It takes billions to produce the geniuses that build civilization and keep it running. Only 3% of the population have that level of intelligence. If a genius in born in the muck and mire of a brutal stone age world, his spark will go unfulfilled. We didn't start advancing until we passed a billion in population.
Interesting article but don't know how it relates. The modern civilization is designed to support, feed, clothe, house, care for the billions, that is a noble endeavor. The nearly miraculous jump in human understanding and industry began in 1700. Many factors fed into that, including the increase in population, specialization, etc.
Heinsohn and Steiger argue that overpopulation was planned and brought about by death penalty for contraception (witch-hunts). The plan to create a work force was administered by the church for many centuries, until around 1700 overpopulation set in. If specialization and industry resulted from the total defeat of women, half the population, we should wonder how much culture was lost. Women were traditionally able to support, feed, clothe, house, care for all.
Yes and these 3% geniuses are rapists of our home for profit that is rapidly sunsetting. My mom was born in LA in 1918 and she happily got around by mass transit until the manufacturers and industrialists systematically destroyed it with the infernal combustion engine. Really they aren’t THAT SMART. Unless we work with and follow nature’s design instructions our species is done for. The indigenous been saying this forever. Read Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer, as good a manifesto for life and peace that you’ll find, spoken with truth by a WOMAN.
I fully relate to what you are saying...however at least regarding Reiner Fuellmich it has become apparent in "both camps" (at least here in Germany) that the guy is a fraud who did extensive fundraising in the alternative community promising huge breakthrough class action events only to not deliver and run with the money instead (some say more than 3 million euro). Now he left Germany and is relocating to the US...probably to rinse and repeat.
Guess the spectrum of motivations of people goes beyond "I am a good boy and do what's right" on the one side and "let's kill 90% of humanity and turn the rest into obedient semiconscious slaves while we rule the planet as the gods that we have always been" on the other...
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!
"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.
"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"
Curious if you personally witnessed many (or even any) such incidents yourself.  I work at a college with a nursing program and I've heard many nurses tell the same story, but when pressed, it's just something they heard and not witnessed. 
Opening ourselves to the evolutionary process in alignment with the virus, rather than against it, is a compelling perspective. Could this be part of the new way forward — a more consciously co-creative engagement with the whole of reality and its players? There is such an extraordinary opportunity for personal growth here.
Thanks for sharing Rebekah. Good for you for checking in with yourself for your own personal decisions and for respecting others sovereignty in making their choice. This is an elevated "Yes, and" approach to take, and it's possible to hold both these choices in consideration.
As I was reading this essay (and as I shared above) what came to mind for me was the Karpman Drama triangle of the relationship between persecutor, victim and rescuer. It would appear that this model can play out in healthcare settings rather easily.
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.
Very much agree with this statement from Jung. The long, isolated winter months during lockdown here in Chicago caused me to do exactly what Jung suggests, have a loonnnggg, deep, introspective journey of the soul that has completely changed who I am and my perspectives on reality. I am willing to bet I am not alone and that lockdowns have forced many others onto this journey as well, think it may just be humanities saving grace.
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..
The cycles that are coded in the stars have imprinted on our collective psyche for ages. The ability to consider what may be steering us—without bias, prejudice, or conviction is the first step towards discovering transparent belief filters that shape our responses. Open discussion of how humanity may be influenced and how we might recover our sovereignty will lay the foundation for moving beyond the “right and wrong” game that shackles us today.
Yes, I like this inquiry Pim! I was thinking when reading the essay... just because 'someone' isn't driving the bus, doesn't mean that the proverbial bus isn't being driving. I love the consideration that astrology is a force steering out collective consciousness. Setting stages for cosmic dances.
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.
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.
Thanks for this. I was appalled and then angry as at every turn fear was encouraged with no discussion of risk. Every scientist worth their salt could have known in summer 2020 that only the sick and elderly were truly at risk. It’s inescapable to conclude that there were some powerful people who wanted things to go down this way. You mentioned the PCR tests and the overcounting of deaths with covid. Those were deliberate choices. I’m not sure why so many people were willing to ignore everything they knew for the new normal, but fear does create group cohesion. Also not to be underestimated is the tendency to go along with authority. Does anyone have any practice saying no when the boss asks for something?
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.
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.
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the generally understood sense of some Shadoway organization like the world economic forum pulling calling all the shots. To Charles's point, Klaus Schwab and most of the "young leaders" are basically buffoons. It's a clown show. On the other hand, there is a clear profit motive at play in the various interlocking industries that are all largely controlled by a small number of institutional investors like Blackrock and Vanguard. There's no doubt in my mind that those large institutional investors made it clear that the media organizations and every other industry they controlled would need to fall into line to support their biggest cash cow, which is the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry has desperately been trying to regain control of the medical narrative since the dawn of the World Wide Web era. However, at the end of the day, I don't think any of these institutional investors or anybody in the pharmaceutical industry really cares about a particular social or cultural agenda. They only care about the message that drives their share price the highest. Hollywood has ensured that the only message that will get the desired result is one that is pro woke and pro trans. Doesn't really behoove them to cater to the Republican base, which is mostly a bunch of old people with multiple comorbidities who are either not going to matter very soon or are so utterly dependent on the products of the pharmaceutical industry already that it doesn't really matter what they say or do. Grandma can't stop taking her high blood pressure drugs just because the company that makes them organizes regular Black Lives Matter struggle sessions on the company campus.
Vaccines generate lots of money. That in and of itself is enough to explain just about everything that took place over the past couple of years. With the oldest generation of drug users on the way out, the market in statins and antihypertensives is going to go into the toilet. The new large market are the millennials who are not yet physically sick enough to require those type of medicines. So, it behooves the drug industry to convince many of them that they were actually born in the wrong body and need drugs to medically transition to the opposite sex. Psychotropic drugs are another big category. Anti-depressants and antianxiety drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is also going all in on psychedelics. Even though they can't patent psilocybin, I have a colleague who is a principal owner in a growing area of the pharmaceutical industry, which is to patent drug delivery methods for generic chemicals. Finally, every commercial break on the CW Netwerk includes a commercial for one of several newish drugs that allow you to supposedly have gay sex without transmitting the so-called HIV virus. I guess we could call this category lifestyle drugs.
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.
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.
Humans in their natural state (pre agriculture & urbanization) by and large lived in fairly egalitarian roaming bands. Some would have authority in a particular area of expertise, but true hierarchies were rare. So maybe some pack-like features, but more like a herd.
It’s a common bit of techno-arrogance to think that we’ve evolved far beyond our animal origins. The truth is that we are still animals, and our behavior isn’t, for the most part, any more rational than that of a goose or a hippopotamus.
So there’s a lot to be learned about how we can live our best lives, and create the best future, from studying the incredible variety of cultures that came before whatever you want to call what we have now.
There's a lot to question there. First the notion that herds are egalitarian (tell that to bulls, or to the elephant matriarchs). Second the notion that the wandering mass of ruminant herbivores is a better metaphor for human societal structure than the hunting bands of pack animals or ... well, monkey or chimpanzee troops ... where the latter are far, far closer to our instinctive form of social organization.
I'm also curious as to your definition of a 'true' hierarchy. From my own reading, it seems to me that most neolithic human societies are profoundly hierarchical. As but one example, only 1 in 17 males in those societies apparently reproduced, indicating that access to females - a prime form of wealth in H/G societies - was far from evenly distributed.
Fact remains: most men didn't reproduce, according to the best genomic data we have. That indicates hierarchy, and an unforgiving one at that.
I'm profoundly skeptical of modern (actually it isn't even that current, what is this, the 70s?) narratives that try to shoehorn prehistory into fashionable feminist ideas such as all - or even a majority - of tribal societies were matriarchal. Some were. Others weren't. Chimpanzees and bonobos are evidence enough that matriarchies and patriarchies likely predate Homo sapiens.
Native person here who disagrees. Most native tribes were strictly hierarchial long long before colonization or serious agriculture. Most did have de-centralized governments and a pretty good balance of power between the sexes. I would call them mixed patriarchical AND matriarchical for the most part.
BTW Matriarchical is Hierarchical.
If you think animal herd groups don't have hierarchies, then I would suggest more in depth study. Kangaroos daughters for instance inherit their own status in the herd from their mothers. I believe it is the same for elephants. Are you saying that inherited status is not hierarchical?
This theory of us roaming in small band before we figured out how to built cities and grow grains has been quite well disproved by the new discoveries in anthropology and archeology. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Graeber and Wengrow also cover how our ancestors knew how to live our best lives.
I would suggest Kirkpatrick Salle's " After Eden, the evolution of human domination"
He points to the strong evidence that human society evolved into more hierarchical forms post ice age 70,000 years ago. Hierarchical organization was a way to organize and hunt larger animals, protect diminishing resources and livable territories. Basically human hierarchies evolved to help us survive extinction. Agriculture and cities further devoloped those hierarchies and codified them, but the hierarchies themselves existed long long before agriculture.
You did not say this, but it has been implied in these comments that heirarchies are a 'bad' thing and not part of who we naturally evolved to be. Yes heirarchies can go bad. But the structure of hierarchy itself has directly served the survival of inumerable animal species as well as humans for unknown milleniums. So let's just say totalitarianism is bad, but not hierarchies themselves.
OK. I may not be up to speed on the 'latest' findings but it is certainly not accurate to limit the idea of this theory to western men. I am a woman and a native who has intensively studied early tribal history and well, at least within the framework of early native america, there was an awful lot of hierarchical hunting going on.
Dear Rainbow, well, if you are like me, you probably often assume that most of ppl here are males. So, forgive me.
I think you would LOVE Graeber's and Wengrow' s work because they are going into great details about the life at several Native American settlements (precolonial). In them---as in all the rest of the human settlements on this planet before kingdoms asserted themselves---women produced food (and once they started glowing it, they OWNED the land) and produced and reproduced humans. Men were their friends, lovers, sons, etc. Who do you think was in charge then?
Things changed dramatically obviously after the European barbarians invaded and who was the one "writing history" we read now? The Churchmen. Perhaps, we also having an argument about etymology too, the meaning of the word hierarchy.
Maybe you would like to read my novel about all these things too?
Thank you LunaRidge for you reply and clarification. Yes I think we may not have the same definition of hierarchy. My earlier point was that strong healthy hierarchies existed in many human groups long before agriculture. I see hierarchy as a useful evolutionary survival tool which works so well that many species in nature, including us, have used it for hundreds of thousands of years. However in our modern world we have a form of toxic hierarchy that is being misused and abused and is seriously out of balance, ie totalitarianism and world domination. I do not see this as a failing of the inherent nature of hierarchy per se. Rather I see this as a failure of the other participants in the system to insist on the needed balancing factors being implemented. For example in my own tribe, my ancestors always had patriarchical male chiefs and men's councils which controlled the government, but the women's councils and especially the clan grandmothers maintained a very strong matriarchical presence and had the ultimate power of veto on anything the men decided. The male leaders wisely ran all the important decisions by the women's council first If they did not do this, there could be serious consequences. Basically men ran the government and women ran the clans and they did so in a heirarchical way and both were incredibly important to tribal survival.
In many mammal groups females inherit status from their mothers and males fight for status against other males. In matrilineal tribes, men tend to inherit status from their mother's clan, so there is no need for chiefs and leaders to continually fight to maintain their leadership. This created generational stability and enhanced survival. This was not always the pattern however and it is quite illuminating to research the eruption of male dominated empires out of the basic matrilineal clan systems. This has happened many times with many races, ie mayan, aztec inca chinese, east indian , roman, british etc. There seems to be an almost overwhelming progressive movement towards the creation of these empires which eat up the resources and enslave those around them. Eventually they all fall because they are unsustainable. I do not see how hierarchy itself is to blame for this, but I do see how an out of balance hierarchy leads to ever more tendency to dominate and abuse until it all comes crashing down and we have to start over.
Interestingly, when the first european colonists arrived at Jamestown Virginia, the Powhatan tribe was on their second generation of empire building. Pocahontas's father's father had conquered many smaller tribes by giving them a choice, join forces with him or he would massacre all the men and take the women as wives. If the colonists had landed 100 years later it is quite possible they would have found a Mayan type empire in the making instead of a confederation of a few local tribes. My own tribe avoided the empire building tendency by refusing to create centralized government and by executing anyone who tried to dominate the nation. This worked until colonialization when we were forced to create a centralized government to deal with the britsh and americans.
All of this is incredibly complex and open to various interpretations of course. I just don't feel that blaming hierarchy itself for our problems is useful as it has proven to be a very durable system of human social organization for a very long time Other systems that have been tried either fail or they end up being even worse.
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...
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.
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.
Yes, love this: "Enlightened action can take many forms."
If one is thinking eliminating opportunistic elite would solve the problems, what would they do next? Does anyone sit and meditate with this line of inquiry. If the driver is to eradicate external problems, wouldn't just more problems to eradicate emerge?
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?
I like the inquiry of "who benefits?" - what if there is such an entanglement where no one is truly benefitting. Would that be emergence of unintegrated subconscious karma?
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.
It isn't usually so obvious to those in such institutions that what they are doing is wrong. Sometimes it is as you say, "Well, this is wrong but I have a mortgage to pay." More often, I think, people engage all kinds of subconscious filters and distorting lenses to convince themselves that what they are doing is justifiable. Not too different from hedge fund executives believing that their operations contribute to market liquidity or risk optimumization or somesuch. Not so different, perhaps, from the way you and I also rationalize our participation in larger systems that are destroying the earth.
Yes — my past professional relationships with pharmaceutical representatives promoting various ADHD medications showed these people to be ‘ordinary’ folks who believed in helping kids using chemical formulae they thought really worked.
Charles, while I support your call to our innate sovereignty as the way forward, I would disagree that 'no one is driving the bus'. We are looking at many decades of efforts to mold the current psyops being perpetrated on humanity, going back to Edward Bernays, and the Rockefeller Foundation, and now with vast computing capability the programming of our post-modern simulacrum is almost complete. We can look at this as merely a cultural phenomenon where corporations and governments are taking advantage of an increasingly weakened and compliant society for financial and political reasons but this does not go deep enough. Your view of Klaus Schwab as just one of the technocratic elite who "have power only in a vacuum of true power, the vacuum left from our own abdication" is true, as is your list of societal factors that drive this abdication, but to minimize the effect and purpose of the WEF in its role to coordinate the making of new world order is a huge mistake. Schwab may not be a great communicator, perhaps by design, but he wields huge influence by virtue of the WEF’s organization power, especially now when so much power has been allowed to aggregate . The WEF acts as the tip of the spear, in the control governments, their corporate financiers, the WHO, the media, all towards the goal of the complete abdication of our sovereignty, generation by generation. So it’s not just in choosing sovereignty as the essential piece of this struggle, and beyond struggle in our awakening, but unceasingly engaged in calling out all the forces at work that would strip us of what is true and good in our humanity and our essential nature, slowly, inexorably, creating a world where the last few years of dystopian madness is just a test. They have even said as much. And make no mistake the goals of these efforts are not just world government but a new world technocratic, transhumanist religion. Have you listened Schwab’s ‘spiritual’ advisor, Klaus Noah Harari? https://rumble.com/embed/vu8jix/?pub=4 . These guys are not fucking around. And all in plain sight.
And the most sinister piece of this the on-going ritual sacrifice of our children to the transhumanist god. Hard to admit we have harmed our children so we just keep looking the other way.
I’ll leave you with the following:
"Once upon a time there were clever philosophers. They did not believe in the Creator.
“We follow our own light,” they said. And in all matters they only relied on the light of introspection. Then they came across the Devil.
“What a monster!” said one of them. “What a comfort to know that nothing is real and everything is a mere reflection of ourselves!”
“You are right,” put in a second philosopher. “Everything is subjective; nothing is objective.”
Then the Devil opened his mouth and swallowed them.
When they arrived inside the Devil’s body the clever philosophers said with a superior smile: “Is it not obvious that we were right? The monster has disappeared.”
- Theodore Illion, from 'Darkness Over Tibet'
Ed
Hi, i am curious to understand how do you explain the black mail of getting "vaccinated" with the lens of the "Situationist" analyses that many times you refer in your work. From what i understand from it i find it quite useful, but to me it can became quite limited when used to explain (and excuse) everything. Did you never conspire to steal a chicken from the grumpy neighbor? Dis you not refuse to wear a mask and smile in some situations the last year? Would like to know your thoughts about this. Thanks
I am not denying the existence of conspiracies. I am not excusing anything or anyone. A lot of people are getting the wrong idea -- I will post a followup in the next week or so. I think conspiracies exist at much higher levels of power than most people imagine. What I am talking about here is the psychological habit of the explanation "someone is doing it on purpose" and the unconscious forces behind that habit. People seem to be reading this as taking a position on whether conspiracies are real or not. The matter is much more subtle than that.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/toxicology-vs-virology-rockefeller-institute-criminal-polio-fraud/5786537 . The psycological habit may be true, but it does not change the fact that there are those who conspire to fuel this habit, mind control for profit and political ends (also for profit).
I noticed this may have come through clearly (to me) in one particular sentence of yours. In my experience, excessive clarity is often required to lay the groundwork for a broad understanding - often well beyond what the communicator may believe is excessive or redundant. I've become painfully aware of that too many times.
See this video by James Corbett. In particular the discussion on Cecil Rhodes and his secret society. The WEF and the CDC are not inner circle. But there is an inner circle. That is how we explain the cordination and control of global public opinion on important matters. https://www.corbettreport.com/how-can-a-global-conspiracy-work-qfc-074-video/
Yes! I have a career in a field I believe in (supporting libraries), but I still ponder my complicity by paying taxes. Most of us would have to change everything drastically to stop being tax-payer cogs. I compartmentalize paying that blood money no less than a defense contractor employee compartmentalizes their role in manufacturing weapons.
Thoreau wrote about refusing to pay taxes that were funding war. We can all perform civil disobedience, in whatever way seems appropriate.
I think the world is asking us to “change everything drastically”, as the status quo is untenable.
One of the greatest and most widespread misperceptions is that taxes are “funding the government” and its activities for good or ill. They do not — though the reality is a bit difficult to “grok” upon first hearing.
We have a debt-based currency system. Money is issued in budgetary cycles. It enters the economy through government spending and loans by the central banking system, then has to be drawn out through a combination of taxation and loan repayment, so that the next spending cycle can happen — otherwise it would cause inflation.
Since the spending initiates the cycle, it can be immediately applied to whatever the legislators and managers choose. (You’ll note for example that when the Pentagon needs another half a trillion, there is no debate about which taxes to raise in order to get the funds - and they don’t wait until April 15th of the next year. They just spend the money *now*.)
Yes, if you wanted to disrupt this system, withholding taxes would be disruptive, but since taxation happens further along in the cycle, it is not going to stop the initial funding of evil. Instead it will only cause inflation by increasing the money supply. Of course that will make the leadership unhappy, yet as we currently see, the Fed’s response is austerity for the masses rather than penalizing bad actors at the top.
If we are unhappy with what is being done with public funds, the most direct response is to pressure legislators with public action and more aggressive prosecution of mishandled of public funds.
However, the problem being there is no longer a working public system. There are simply oligarchs at the helm, and the agencies they "govern" are completely captured. Hence, the plandemic, hence the Russia-Russia-Russia Collusion hoax, hence the 2+ million illegal immigrants who have invaded the United States this year alone. The list goes on and on, but suffice it to say that the entire system has become completely corrupted and overtaken, and we along with it .. both by design and by each our own unique complicity. The good news is that in the final analysis it will have failed as did Rome and all other previous corrupted dynasties, and yet that too will be the bad news for humanity. And on we go.
Apply this thinking to voting.
If I vote for a certain candidate and he/she wins and begins to put specific policies in place, am I responsible for those policies, even if I do not agree with them? If I determine that I do have some measure of responsibility, even though it may be miniscule, how should I seek to absolve myself of that if I do not approve of what my preferred candidate is now doing? If I vote for the "lesser of two evils", am I voting for an evil outcome?
Of course, compartmentalizing voting means that I can feel good about the person, party, policy, or practice I just voted for. After all, I am trying to change the world for the better and, if I did not vote for the "lesser of two evils", then the world would be even worse off than if I had not voted at all.
Here, here!
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
This is generally my take as well (we don't actually know, but there is far too much objective evidence to ignore certain realities of the powers that be and the plans they are attempting to implement).
I think what Charles is getting at goes much deeper - especially with the idea that we've abdicated our power (which in turns gives "them" theirs), and that we can take that back.
Trouble is, vast swaths of humanity are completely oblivious to this - and in order to show people that they actually have power, it is critical to expose the "machinations" of those who appear to be driving the bus.
By and large doing so results in being dismissed as a conspiracy theorist, and I'm unsure of how we break through that wall.
There are so many ways to terminate any individual that shines a light on the current situation. Yes I remember where I was when JFK was shot and killed. So many amazing minds with powerful insights have been terminated.
As Rachel Chaput and others have mention " still the active censorship from large institutions cannot be ignored". Why is the money trail to Fauci and others so compelling? Why is there no open dialogue with the public? Why, if they are sincerely interested in our collective welfare and health do they refuse to allow responsible people to randomly select from lots of gene therapy, viles that can be rigorously examine? Such a process would put to rest those who are understandably skeptical
It has been said that in general the people of President Lincoln's era were more intelligent than the average person in the USA today. Is that true? I have longed for an open debate about this injectable. I have longed to know why our immune system was left out of the picture? Why robust health is not encouraged? Why since the 1960s when the USA was about 4th in the world in health and longevity, has in fallen to 79th today. Why is it continuing to degrade such that statistics like that will disappear from public access. Why the corporations that poison and pollute the air, water and soil, not to mention bodies and minds with junk food are not held accountable. And when they are (Bayer/Monsanto) seek to delay or stonewall repatriations to those victims of their toxins.
This is not to excuse each and everyone of us for helping to create the conditions in our government and laws that make this all possible. There remains a question though. How can the electorate be held accountable when there is an incestuous relationship between government and corporations. The most glaring example of the trampling of peoples right to express themselves is Citizens United. Money is not speech. But when SCOTUS rules that the constitution does not forbid it free speech is no longer free. It now becomes the domain of those who own the platforms of communication.
There was a time when a point of view was put forward in the media, equal time was made available for apposing views. That means the platform was free and open to those even without means that were qualified to put forward opposing views. With Citizen United that platform disappeared.
I look forward to justification for destroying the commons, of the mind, body and environment for the benefit of the few. And only a few benefit.
Hi James. Certainly we need platforms that are neutral and provide all people a chance to look at various points of view. Until that is the norm it will be especially hard to push through the wall.
Thanks for posing that question! While I can understand there’s not a simple solution here, I appreciate knowing I’m not alone In wondering how to “break through that wall”. Whew!
I agree. There is an effort to steer the ship from the top. Below that there is confusion, but it is more about implementation than goals. Lockdowns we’re promoted by a small group that influenced a larger group of subordinates and then you have all the go-alongs going along. You can see clearly in the covid episode how certain ideas were promoted and others vilified. They didn’t quite accomplish the goal of scapegoating the unvaxxed, but some were promoting it. Trudeau in Canada and the NZ leader. Australia was a police state. This was hardly emergent phenomena. The larger goal may have been some sort of digital ID. There is a lot of sense in this article but there are people with power and money willing to push their ideas on the rest of humanity.
It feels like you have missed the point. Of course they organise, plot and plan. Yet they are still not in full control nor could they ever be. There is no finite material to exploit no other planet to escape to, no telling what other virus, diseases, plagues or other events may happen. There are too many variables. Charles is simply saying that the people can push the dial but that would entail that they recognise they have a finger that can push it or decide not to push it. At present most people have forgotten they have a finger.
Yes absolutely this system is ongoing because of fear. The bus driver will fell safe as long as he can smell fear in the air, as soon as people riding the bus begin to feel and look safe, he will know that his game is up. They won’t need to pay a mortgage if they collectively decide mortgages don’t exist - if they begin to connect to their No or their yes. This would need them to be connected to their body and thus to nature. To be in flow and remember how love feels.
Obviously securing a source of food is crucial but also disconnecting from the whole farce of it.
Two papers by independent scientists on graphene oxide and the unexpected/unexplained objects found in blood samples of the Covid Vaxxed:
DETECTION OF GRAPHENE IN COVID19 VACCINES BY MICRO-RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY
TECHNICAL REPORT, Almeria, Spain, November 2, 2021
Prof. Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid
ASSOCIATE UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR
PhD in Chemical Sciences
Degree in Biological Sciences
Download in English:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tnnq4ftw818chmx/FINAL_VERSI%C3%93N_CAMPRA_REPORT_DETECTION_GRAPHENE_IN_COVID19_VACCINES.pdf?dl=0
Download links for both the Spanish & English versions at: https://www.laquintacolumna.net/
Here is another paper published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research:
Dark -Field MicroscopicAnalysis on the Blood of 1,006 Symptomatic Persons After Anti-COVIDmRNA Injections from Pfizer/BioNtech or Moderna
Authors are: Franco Giovannini, MD1, Riccardo Benzi Cipelli, MD, DDS2, and Gianpaolo Pisano, MD, OHNS
https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/47/86
There has always been individuals and groups intent on "ruling" the world. That is an aspect of humanity. So nothing new. They may form by a confluences of interests. They generally try to eliminate masses of people which has many advantages for them. Humans are unruly, so get rid of a lot of them. Strike fear into the rest and make them slaves. They do not care if they rule over a dung heap so long as they rule. There is nothing new under heaven and earth. And the knuckleheads at the WEF are just mouthing old play books and old dreams of empire. . If indeed they were to kill off billions, all modern civilization would collapse back to the stone age. It takes billions to produce the geniuses that build civilization and keep it running. Only 3% of the population have that level of intelligence. If a genius in born in the muck and mire of a brutal stone age world, his spark will go unfulfilled. We didn't start advancing until we passed a billion in population.
"If a genius in born in the muck and mire of a brutal stone age world, his spark will go unfulfilled" etc. FYI, this anthropologist argues otherwise: https://anthroecologycom.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/thoughts-on-human-evolution-what-if-modern-behaviour-and-cognition-come-first/
Interesting article but don't know how it relates. The modern civilization is designed to support, feed, clothe, house, care for the billions, that is a noble endeavor. The nearly miraculous jump in human understanding and industry began in 1700. Many factors fed into that, including the increase in population, specialization, etc.
Heinsohn and Steiger argue that overpopulation was planned and brought about by death penalty for contraception (witch-hunts). The plan to create a work force was administered by the church for many centuries, until around 1700 overpopulation set in. If specialization and industry resulted from the total defeat of women, half the population, we should wonder how much culture was lost. Women were traditionally able to support, feed, clothe, house, care for all.
Yes and these 3% geniuses are rapists of our home for profit that is rapidly sunsetting. My mom was born in LA in 1918 and she happily got around by mass transit until the manufacturers and industrialists systematically destroyed it with the infernal combustion engine. Really they aren’t THAT SMART. Unless we work with and follow nature’s design instructions our species is done for. The indigenous been saying this forever. Read Braiding Sweetgrass, Robin Wall Kimmerer, as good a manifesto for life and peace that you’ll find, spoken with truth by a WOMAN.
I fully relate to what you are saying...however at least regarding Reiner Fuellmich it has become apparent in "both camps" (at least here in Germany) that the guy is a fraud who did extensive fundraising in the alternative community promising huge breakthrough class action events only to not deliver and run with the money instead (some say more than 3 million euro). Now he left Germany and is relocating to the US...probably to rinse and repeat.
Guess the spectrum of motivations of people goes beyond "I am a good boy and do what's right" on the one side and "let's kill 90% of humanity and turn the rest into obedient semiconscious slaves while we rule the planet as the gods that we have always been" on the other...
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!
It may have started with little ambition, but their success in controlling people gave them ecstasy and they no longer can stop their drive to rule.
"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.
"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"
Curious if you personally witnessed many (or even any) such incidents yourself.  I work at a college with a nursing program and I've heard many nurses tell the same story, but when pressed, it's just something they heard and not witnessed. 
Have you really considered that there is no virus - pcr is a fraud. All a cover for the effects of an increasingly toxic world by those who poison us.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/what-is-making-people-sick:b
Opening ourselves to the evolutionary process in alignment with the virus, rather than against it, is a compelling perspective. Could this be part of the new way forward — a more consciously co-creative engagement with the whole of reality and its players? There is such an extraordinary opportunity for personal growth here.
Thanks for sharing Rebekah. Good for you for checking in with yourself for your own personal decisions and for respecting others sovereignty in making their choice. This is an elevated "Yes, and" approach to take, and it's possible to hold both these choices in consideration.
As I was reading this essay (and as I shared above) what came to mind for me was the Karpman Drama triangle of the relationship between persecutor, victim and rescuer. It would appear that this model can play out in healthcare settings rather easily.
Yes, absolutely! I come out of left-wing activist scenes, and I wrote a whole essay about how the drama triangle plays out in those communities
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.
Very much agree with this statement from Jung. The long, isolated winter months during lockdown here in Chicago caused me to do exactly what Jung suggests, have a loonnnggg, deep, introspective journey of the soul that has completely changed who I am and my perspectives on reality. I am willing to bet I am not alone and that lockdowns have forced many others onto this journey as well, think it may just be humanities saving grace.
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..
Yes, I think astrology can tell us a lot about ourselves.
Not to mention the Warrior who wants to raise the collective of our spirits into a win/win situation! eg all those mama bears!
The cycles that are coded in the stars have imprinted on our collective psyche for ages. The ability to consider what may be steering us—without bias, prejudice, or conviction is the first step towards discovering transparent belief filters that shape our responses. Open discussion of how humanity may be influenced and how we might recover our sovereignty will lay the foundation for moving beyond the “right and wrong” game that shackles us today.
Yes, I like this inquiry Pim! I was thinking when reading the essay... just because 'someone' isn't driving the bus, doesn't mean that the proverbial bus isn't being driving. I love the consideration that astrology is a force steering out collective consciousness. Setting stages for cosmic dances.
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.
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.
Thanks for this. I was appalled and then angry as at every turn fear was encouraged with no discussion of risk. Every scientist worth their salt could have known in summer 2020 that only the sick and elderly were truly at risk. It’s inescapable to conclude that there were some powerful people who wanted things to go down this way. You mentioned the PCR tests and the overcounting of deaths with covid. Those were deliberate choices. I’m not sure why so many people were willing to ignore everything they knew for the new normal, but fear does create group cohesion. Also not to be underestimated is the tendency to go along with authority. Does anyone have any practice saying no when the boss asks for something?
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.
Hannah Arendt's "the banality of evil"?
exactly this yes
(and this aint a bad time to break out her "Origins of Totalitarianism" either)
The wrong side of history is determined by the winner.
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.
I don't think it's a conspiracy in the generally understood sense of some Shadoway organization like the world economic forum pulling calling all the shots. To Charles's point, Klaus Schwab and most of the "young leaders" are basically buffoons. It's a clown show. On the other hand, there is a clear profit motive at play in the various interlocking industries that are all largely controlled by a small number of institutional investors like Blackrock and Vanguard. There's no doubt in my mind that those large institutional investors made it clear that the media organizations and every other industry they controlled would need to fall into line to support their biggest cash cow, which is the pharmaceutical industry.
The pharmaceutical industry has desperately been trying to regain control of the medical narrative since the dawn of the World Wide Web era. However, at the end of the day, I don't think any of these institutional investors or anybody in the pharmaceutical industry really cares about a particular social or cultural agenda. They only care about the message that drives their share price the highest. Hollywood has ensured that the only message that will get the desired result is one that is pro woke and pro trans. Doesn't really behoove them to cater to the Republican base, which is mostly a bunch of old people with multiple comorbidities who are either not going to matter very soon or are so utterly dependent on the products of the pharmaceutical industry already that it doesn't really matter what they say or do. Grandma can't stop taking her high blood pressure drugs just because the company that makes them organizes regular Black Lives Matter struggle sessions on the company campus.
Vaccines generate lots of money. That in and of itself is enough to explain just about everything that took place over the past couple of years. With the oldest generation of drug users on the way out, the market in statins and antihypertensives is going to go into the toilet. The new large market are the millennials who are not yet physically sick enough to require those type of medicines. So, it behooves the drug industry to convince many of them that they were actually born in the wrong body and need drugs to medically transition to the opposite sex. Psychotropic drugs are another big category. Anti-depressants and antianxiety drugs. The pharmaceutical industry is also going all in on psychedelics. Even though they can't patent psilocybin, I have a colleague who is a principal owner in a growing area of the pharmaceutical industry, which is to patent drug delivery methods for generic chemicals. Finally, every commercial break on the CW Netwerk includes a commercial for one of several newish drugs that allow you to supposedly have gay sex without transmitting the so-called HIV virus. I guess we could call this category lifestyle drugs.
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.
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.
Humans in their natural state (pre agriculture & urbanization) by and large lived in fairly egalitarian roaming bands. Some would have authority in a particular area of expertise, but true hierarchies were rare. So maybe some pack-like features, but more like a herd.
It’s a common bit of techno-arrogance to think that we’ve evolved far beyond our animal origins. The truth is that we are still animals, and our behavior isn’t, for the most part, any more rational than that of a goose or a hippopotamus.
So there’s a lot to be learned about how we can live our best lives, and create the best future, from studying the incredible variety of cultures that came before whatever you want to call what we have now.
There's a lot to question there. First the notion that herds are egalitarian (tell that to bulls, or to the elephant matriarchs). Second the notion that the wandering mass of ruminant herbivores is a better metaphor for human societal structure than the hunting bands of pack animals or ... well, monkey or chimpanzee troops ... where the latter are far, far closer to our instinctive form of social organization.
I'm also curious as to your definition of a 'true' hierarchy. From my own reading, it seems to me that most neolithic human societies are profoundly hierarchical. As but one example, only 1 in 17 males in those societies apparently reproduced, indicating that access to females - a prime form of wealth in H/G societies - was far from evenly distributed.
They were NOT 'profoundly hierarchical,' but largely egalitarian and matriarchal. "Access to females" that's patriarchal lingo--shudder, shudder
read
The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Seriously (not trying to be a victim here hahaha)
Oh no. Patriarchy. The horror.
Fact remains: most men didn't reproduce, according to the best genomic data we have. That indicates hierarchy, and an unforgiving one at that.
I'm profoundly skeptical of modern (actually it isn't even that current, what is this, the 70s?) narratives that try to shoehorn prehistory into fashionable feminist ideas such as all - or even a majority - of tribal societies were matriarchal. Some were. Others weren't. Chimpanzees and bonobos are evidence enough that matriarchies and patriarchies likely predate Homo sapiens.
Native person here who disagrees. Most native tribes were strictly hierarchial long long before colonization or serious agriculture. Most did have de-centralized governments and a pretty good balance of power between the sexes. I would call them mixed patriarchical AND matriarchical for the most part.
BTW Matriarchical is Hierarchical.
If you think animal herd groups don't have hierarchies, then I would suggest more in depth study. Kangaroos daughters for instance inherit their own status in the herd from their mothers. I believe it is the same for elephants. Are you saying that inherited status is not hierarchical?
This theory of us roaming in small band before we figured out how to built cities and grow grains has been quite well disproved by the new discoveries in anthropology and archeology. The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity. Graeber and Wengrow also cover how our ancestors knew how to live our best lives.
Oh, I know. It’s a great book. I was thinking about it when I wrote the last paragraph.
There are better ways I could have made my first point. I regret not taking a bit more time.
"the noble savage" dream. It is not reality of the brutal subsistence life.
I would suggest Kirkpatrick Salle's " After Eden, the evolution of human domination"
He points to the strong evidence that human society evolved into more hierarchical forms post ice age 70,000 years ago. Hierarchical organization was a way to organize and hunt larger animals, protect diminishing resources and livable territories. Basically human hierarchies evolved to help us survive extinction. Agriculture and cities further devoloped those hierarchies and codified them, but the hierarchies themselves existed long long before agriculture.
You did not say this, but it has been implied in these comments that heirarchies are a 'bad' thing and not part of who we naturally evolved to be. Yes heirarchies can go bad. But the structure of hierarchy itself has directly served the survival of inumerable animal species as well as humans for unknown milleniums. So let's just say totalitarianism is bad, but not hierarchies themselves.
Kirkpatrick Salle's account is false!
This has been throughly debunked by the recent archeological findings but I understand it holds strong emotions appeal to some western men.
OK. I may not be up to speed on the 'latest' findings but it is certainly not accurate to limit the idea of this theory to western men. I am a woman and a native who has intensively studied early tribal history and well, at least within the framework of early native america, there was an awful lot of hierarchical hunting going on.
Dear Rainbow, well, if you are like me, you probably often assume that most of ppl here are males. So, forgive me.
I think you would LOVE Graeber's and Wengrow' s work because they are going into great details about the life at several Native American settlements (precolonial). In them---as in all the rest of the human settlements on this planet before kingdoms asserted themselves---women produced food (and once they started glowing it, they OWNED the land) and produced and reproduced humans. Men were their friends, lovers, sons, etc. Who do you think was in charge then?
Things changed dramatically obviously after the European barbarians invaded and who was the one "writing history" we read now? The Churchmen. Perhaps, we also having an argument about etymology too, the meaning of the word hierarchy.
Maybe you would like to read my novel about all these things too?
Thank you LunaRidge for you reply and clarification. Yes I think we may not have the same definition of hierarchy. My earlier point was that strong healthy hierarchies existed in many human groups long before agriculture. I see hierarchy as a useful evolutionary survival tool which works so well that many species in nature, including us, have used it for hundreds of thousands of years. However in our modern world we have a form of toxic hierarchy that is being misused and abused and is seriously out of balance, ie totalitarianism and world domination. I do not see this as a failing of the inherent nature of hierarchy per se. Rather I see this as a failure of the other participants in the system to insist on the needed balancing factors being implemented. For example in my own tribe, my ancestors always had patriarchical male chiefs and men's councils which controlled the government, but the women's councils and especially the clan grandmothers maintained a very strong matriarchical presence and had the ultimate power of veto on anything the men decided. The male leaders wisely ran all the important decisions by the women's council first If they did not do this, there could be serious consequences. Basically men ran the government and women ran the clans and they did so in a heirarchical way and both were incredibly important to tribal survival.
In many mammal groups females inherit status from their mothers and males fight for status against other males. In matrilineal tribes, men tend to inherit status from their mother's clan, so there is no need for chiefs and leaders to continually fight to maintain their leadership. This created generational stability and enhanced survival. This was not always the pattern however and it is quite illuminating to research the eruption of male dominated empires out of the basic matrilineal clan systems. This has happened many times with many races, ie mayan, aztec inca chinese, east indian , roman, british etc. There seems to be an almost overwhelming progressive movement towards the creation of these empires which eat up the resources and enslave those around them. Eventually they all fall because they are unsustainable. I do not see how hierarchy itself is to blame for this, but I do see how an out of balance hierarchy leads to ever more tendency to dominate and abuse until it all comes crashing down and we have to start over.
Interestingly, when the first european colonists arrived at Jamestown Virginia, the Powhatan tribe was on their second generation of empire building. Pocahontas's father's father had conquered many smaller tribes by giving them a choice, join forces with him or he would massacre all the men and take the women as wives. If the colonists had landed 100 years later it is quite possible they would have found a Mayan type empire in the making instead of a confederation of a few local tribes. My own tribe avoided the empire building tendency by refusing to create centralized government and by executing anyone who tried to dominate the nation. This worked until colonialization when we were forced to create a centralized government to deal with the britsh and americans.
All of this is incredibly complex and open to various interpretations of course. I just don't feel that blaming hierarchy itself for our problems is useful as it has proven to be a very durable system of human social organization for a very long time Other systems that have been tried either fail or they end up being even worse.
We are a pack animal and we think together, it's an evolutionary advantage. Unfortunately, there is no longer any pack (society, that is)
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...
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.
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.
Yes, love this: "Enlightened action can take many forms."
If one is thinking eliminating opportunistic elite would solve the problems, what would they do next? Does anyone sit and meditate with this line of inquiry. If the driver is to eradicate external problems, wouldn't just more problems to eradicate emerge?
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?
I like the inquiry of "who benefits?" - what if there is such an entanglement where no one is truly benefitting. Would that be emergence of unintegrated subconscious karma?