|A Parasitic System|
Excerpt: Parasitic System
parasitic system that does everything it possibly can to distort the ability of its hosts to recognize truth.is somewhat open to debate, however the situation humanity now finds itself in has become more obvious — a
In simplist terms, life is a consciously engineered to counteract entropy by generating negative entropy. Life in particular, and matter in general, are of consciousness, which is embeded in both. On earth, the intelligence of reciprocal maintenance has been coopted (for thousands of years) by various individuals and groups of individuals into what is now known as corporate globalism.of biological machines
The way I see it, a parasitic system can be described on two levels — in cosmological terms and from a psychological point of view. Perhaps it is not necessary to get into speculating about the cosmology of a parasitic system, as the psychological aspects are more evident and verifiable, but I’ll go there anyway (Cosmology Tab), as it seems to me that the Universe is fundamentally a parasitic system.
|last update on 24 Jan 2019|
Religion, old money and monarchy invest a lot in retarding change and development of consciousness.
“Perhaps one of Gurdjieff’s strangest claims was the implantation and subsequent removal in human beings by higher powers of an organ called ‘Kundabuffer.’
“… Gurdjieff claimed that the Organ Kundabuffer was removed when the cosmic evolutionary danger passed. However, the Higher Powers had not foreseen that one of the consequences of implanting the Organ Kundabuffer in human beings for so many years was that its properties would become fixed as a predisposition and transmitted by heredity to subsequent generations, even though the organ was eventually removed. The result was the development by humans of negative characteristics like pride, envy, hate and egoism.” [LINK]
“… reflections on the idea “Kundabuffer” which Gurdjieff introduced in Beelzebub’s Tales to His Grandson, a theme that runs as a litany through the entire book. To recapitulate briefly, …Kundabuffer was an organ implanted by “archangels” in man “at the base of the spinal column,” whose effect was to make them perceive reality upside-down and to experience “pleasure and enjoyment.” The archangels feared that if people “prematurely” understood their slavery to cosmic purposes and that the reason for their existence was that when they die they were meant to be “food for the moon,” they might “make a great deal of trouble” and even “end their existence.” Kundabuffer was later removed by other archangels, but its “consequences” had become crystallized in Man and are the chief cause why life on earth is so full of evil.
“What we are proposing is that Kundabuffer is something that is implanted at the foundation of certain “religions” or “traditions” that enables people to see things as other than they really are, and in particular to think of themselves as the pinnacle of creation, as if they had been given charge of the world for their own use and pleasure. The signature of this kind of religion, … is the hypostatization of a hierarchical order of differing Gods who are responsible for various matters in earth and heaven and in particular for all the bad and good things that happen to people, and who can often be induced by rituals, prayers, and sacrifices to do whatever a person wants.” [LINK]
The evolution of man can be taken as the development in him of those powers and possibilities which never develop by themselves, that is, mechanically. Only this kind of development, only this kind of growth, marks the real evolution of man. Humanity, like the rest of organic life, exists on earth for the needs and purposes of the earth. And it is exactly as it should be for the earth’s requirements at the present time … The evolution of huge masses of humanity is opposed to nature’s purposes. But the evolution of a certain small percentage may be in accord with nature’s purposes. Man contains within him the possibility of evolution. But the evolution of humanity as a whole, that is the development of these possibilities in all men, or in most of them, or even in a large number of them, is not necessary for the purposes of the earth or of the planetary world in general … But, at the same time, possibilities of evolution exist, and they may be developed in separate individuals with the help of appropriate knowledge and methods. Such development can take place only in the interests of the man himself against, so to speak, the interests and forces of the planetary world. The man must understand this: his evolution is necessary only to himself. (17)
The activity of the universe, through thousands of millions of years up to the present, can be regarded as a blind but not unreasonable attempt to produce consciousness in man. Although the universe may seem to be moving without a purpose, from the anthropocentric point of view it has progressed. It has, of course, made innumerable trials, and produced innumerable failures, but it made a hit in producing consciousness. And this consciousness is now asking itself, ‘What is existence?’
The blind pushing on of existence, which wanted to recognize itself without being aware of this desire, proved successful when it created human consciousness and therefore obtained its own eye with which to examine itself. Human existence has succeeded in becoming conscious of its own beauty. To this extent it has raised itself to a higher level than can be found in the animal world or in the plant and mineral worlds. This level is rising continuously, and new beauty is now consciously created. This is intentional evolution. (22)
(17) P.D. Ouspensky In Search of the Miraculous (New York: Harcourt, 2001), pp. 56-58.
(22) Katsuki Sekida Zen Training: Methods and Philosophy (New York: Weatherhill, 1981), p. 162.
"From this point of view all organic life can be regarded as a long work of experimenting with the idea of producing a self-evolving being. If man can reach a higher state it is because he is made that way — he is created to be self-evolving. Other beings are only experiments for developing different features, they do not possess all the qualities that man possesses." The Fourth Way p. 211
"In speaking of evolution it is necessary to understand from the outset that no mechanical evolution is possible. The evolution of man is the evolution of his consciousness. And 'consciousness' cannot evolve unconsciously. The evolution of man is the evolution of his will, and 'will' cannot evolve involuntarily. The evolution, of man is the evolution of his power of doing, and 'doing' cannot be the result of things which 'happen.'
"People do not know what man is. They have to do with a very complex machine, far more complex than a railway engine, a motorcar, or an aeroplane — but they know nothing, or almost nothing, about the construction, working, or possibilities of this machine; they do not even understand its simplest functions, because they do not know the purpose of these functions. They vaguely imagine that a man should learn to control his machine, just as he has to learn to control a railway engine, a motorcar, or an aeroplane, and that incompetent handling of the human machine is just as dangerous as incompetent handling of any other complex machine. Everybody understands this in relation to an aeroplane, a motorcar, or a railway engine. But it is very rarely that anyone takes this into account in relation to man in general or to himself in particular. It is considered right and legitimate to think that nature has given men the necessary knowledge of their machine. And yet men understand that an instinctive knowledge of the machine is by no means enough. Why do they study medicine and make use of its services? Because, of course, they realize they do not know their machine. But they do not suspect that it can be known much better than science knows it; they do not suspect that then it would be possible to get quite different work out of it." In Search of the Miraculous pps. 65-66
"The evolving part of organic life is humanity. Humanity also has its evolving part but we will speak of this later; in the meantime we will take humanity as a whole. If humanity does not evolve it means that the evolution of organic life will stop and this in its turn will cause the growth of the ray of creation to stop. At the same time if humanity ceases to evolve it becomes useless from the point of view of the aims for which it was created and as such it may be destroyed. In this way the cessation of evolution may mean the destruction of humanity." In Search of the Miraculous p. 313
"Of course there are very many people who consider that the life of humanity is not proceeding in the way in which according to their views it ought to go. And they invent various theories which in their opinion ought to change the whole life of humanity. One invents one theory. Another immediately invents a contradictory theory. And both expect everyone to believe them. And many people indeed do believe either one or the other. Life naturally takes its own course but people do not stop believing in their own or other people's theories and they believe that it is possible to do something. All these theories are certainly quite fantastic, chiefly because they do not take into account the most important thing, namely, the subordinate part which humanity and organic life play in the world process. Intellectual theories put man in the center of everything; everything exists for him, the sun, the stars, the moon, the earth. They even forget man's relative size, his nothingness, his transient existence, and other tilings. They assert that a man if he wishes is able to change his whole life, that is, to organize his life on rational principles. And all the time new theories appear evoking in their turn opposing theories; and all these theories and the struggle between them undoubtedly constitute one of the forces which keep humanity in the state in which it is at present. Besides, all these theories for general welfare and general equality are not only unrealizable, but they would be fatal if they were realized. Everything in nature has its aim and its purpose, both the the cost of losing many other things which perhaps were much more important for it. Speaking in general there is every reason to think and to assert that humanity is at a standstill and from a standstill there is a straight path to downfall and degeneration. A standstill means that a process has become balanced. The appearance of any one quality immediately evokes the appearance of another quality opposed to it. The growth of knowledge in one domain evokes the growth of ignorance in another; refinement on the one hand evokes vulgarity on the other; freedom in one connection evokes slavery in another; the disappearance of some superstitions evokes the appearance and the growth of others; and so on.
"Now if we recall the law of octaves we shall see that a balanced process proceeding in a certain way cannot be changed at any moment it is desired. It can be changed and set on a new path only at certain 'cross-roads.' In between the 'crossroads' nothing can be done. At the same time if a process passes by a 'crossroad' and nothing happens, nothing is done, then nothing can be done afterwards and the process will continue and develop according to mechanical laws; and even if people taking part in this process foresee the inevitable destruction of everything, they will be unable to do anything. I repeat that something can be done only at certain moments which I have just called 'crossroads' and which in octaves we have called the 'intervals' mi-fa and si-do." In Search of the Miraculous p. 314
"Are we able to say for instance that life is governed by a group of conscious people? Where are they? Who are they? We see exactly the opposite: that life is governed by those who are the least conscious, by those who are most asleep.
"Are we able to say that we observe in life a preponderance of the best, the strongest, and the most courageous elements? Nothing of the sort. On the contrary we see a preponderance of vulgarity and stupidity of all kinds.
"Are we able to say that aspirations towards unity, towards unification, can be observed in life? Nothing of the kind of course. We only see new divisions, new hostility, new misunderstandings.
"So that in the actual situation of humanity there is nothing that points to evolution proceeding. On the contrary when we compare humanity with a man we quite clearly see a growth of personality at the cost of essence, that is, a growth of the artificial, the unreal, and what is foreign, at the cost of the natural, the real, and what is one's own.
"Together with this we see a growth of automatism.
"Contemporary culture requires automatons. And people are undoubtedly losing their acquired habits of independence and turning into automatons, into parts of machines. It is impossible to say where is the end of all this and where the way out— or whether there is an end and a way out. One thing alone is certain, that man's slavery grows and increases. Man is becoming a willing slave. He no longer needs chains. He begins to grow fond of his slavery, to be proud of it. And this is the most terrible thing that can happen to a man.
"Everything I have said till now I have said about the whole of humanity. But as I pointed out before, the evolution of humanity can proceed only through the evolution of a certain group, which, in its turn, will influence and lead the rest of humanity.
"Are we able to say that such a group exists? Perhaps we can on the basis of certain signs, but in any event we have to acknowledge that it is a very small group, quite insufficient, at any rate, to subjugate the rest of humanity. Or, looking at it from another point of view, we can say that humanity is in such a state that it is unable to accept the guidance of a conscious group." In Search of the Miraculous p. 316
Throughout history certain esoteric teachings have indicated that the evolution both of the earth and of humanity are directed by a superior level of intelligence and consciousness. In The People of the Secret, Ernest Scott argues that biological evolution and human history are directed by a hierarchy of Intelligences who are the agents of the process of evolutionary transformation:
- "History is not the equilibrant of chance and hazard. It does not just happen. The script for the long human story was written by intelligences much greater than man’s own. Certain gains and goals for mankind – and for the biosphere of Earth – must be attained within certain intervals of Earth time. These gains are essential for the balance and growth of the solar system of which the Earth is a part. The solar system may itself be subject to a similar pressure in the interests of the galaxy of which it is a part. The direction, speed and end of this process is “the Will of God.” The Will of God is the aspiration of Divinity that the universal process shall proceed in a certain way to a certain end while leaving open the possibility that it may elect to proceed quite otherwise to quite else. Very high intelligences direct the evolution of the universe in an attempt to ensure that the Divine aspiration shall be realized. These intelligences are coercive in proportion as their material is unconscious. They are persuasive in proportion as their material is conscious." (22)
"The task is to bring into existence beings capable of providing the earth with a soul, by achieving such a degree of mutual love and such wisdom as to be able to act as one and yet retain their individual freedom. Mankind today represents an early stage in the accomplishment of this task. The very high Intelligence I am postulating is neither human nor divine. It is neither perfect nor infallible, but its vision and its powers far transcend the wisest of mankind. I shall call it the Demiurge, from the word used in Athens to designate “worker for the people,” the artisan or craftsman who provided the demos, citizens of Athens, with the instruments of well-being and culture. The word was taken over much later by Aristotle to stand for the Great Artificer, the power that creates and maintains life on the earth. It was natural to think of the Great Artificer as the prime mover, the transcendental source from which all existence flows." (24))
(22) Ernest Scott The People of the Secret (London: Octagon Press, 1983), pp. 230-231.
(24) John G. Bennett The Masters of Wisdom (Santa Fe: Bennett Books, 1995), p. 16.
"…humanity has been enslaved from its inception to today … humans are biological hosts of infinite beings, suppressed by deceptive programs designed by entities from a different dimension. Humanity is unaware that we live in a designed reality, and that that designed reality includes… everything." 5th Interview, p.2
…they needed to create a physical vessel like an astronaut would require a spacesuit to inhabit space. They tried hundreds of experiments … this vessel is the human body. … physical uniform … human instrument. 5th Interview, p.9
The human machine is the equivalent of a spacesuit with artificial intelligence and a sense-and-respond sensory system. The astronaut — us — is infinite. The astronaut cannot be killed or hurt or destroyed. 5th Interview, p.32
Tthe Protocols are a sort of game plan
of world domination, said to have been
leaked from a meeting of Jewish or
Zionist leaders in the late 19th century.
by Miles Mathis ♦ First written April 25, 2015
This paper is by request. One of my regular readers asked me my opinion of the Protocols, and I thought it was time I had one. Up until today, I didn't. I can see why my readers would wish for an opinion on this, and assume I had one, especially considering my recent paper on Karl Marx — which sort of plays right into the theme of the Protocols. But although I have long known of the Protocols, I have never really studied them. I think today was the first time I read them all the way through. Some will think this makes me a naif, but I just think it allows me to look at them with a fresh eye. Either way, as usual I will come down on a third side. I think I will be able to say some things about them that aren't usually said, which is the only excuse for adding to the literature on any subject.
For a grin, I will tell you exactly what my reader said when requesting this paper. He said,
- If there’s one person on the planet I trust to do an honest review of that, it’d be you. Figured I’d mention it. Keep up the awesome work in the service of truth.
So here goes. The usual argument concerning the Protocols seems to be concerning their authenticity. The promoted mainstream opinion is that they are a hoax and a forgery. Others find them genuine. Although I will choose a side here, I don't think that is the most important question. Even “forged” documents can be interesting, provided that they contain some amount of truth. We will see how much truth the documents contain, and where that truth leads us.
For those who don't know, the Protocols are a sort of game plan of world domination, said to have been leaked from a meeting of Jewish or Zionist leaders in the late 19th century. For several decades they were sold as genuine. Henry Ford accepted their authenticity and republished them. In the 1920's they were exposed as a forgery in mainstream publications. But since these publications usually were controlled by Jewish interests, this debunking was not seen as definitive. It was argued that those trying to quash the Protocols had a vested interest in doing so, which was true enough.
One of the main arguments against the Protocols has been that they mirror Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell in several passages, as well as borrowing from other works. Although this is true, it isn't really to the point. Almost everything that has ever been written has borrowed from previous works, sometimes quoting from them, and sometimes just borrowing from them with no credit or footnote. Since this was never sold as a scholarly work, the lack of footnotes should be no surprise. Leaked notes from a secret meeting would not be expected to be annotated. Just because a document lacks footnotes or borrows from previous writings does not make it a hoax or a forgery. If the Elders of some group had decided to create a white paper, they might have used a previous document as a starting point or outline, retaining some traces of the older document in the newer. This is how the world works, so finding traces like this is proof of nothing.
In my opinion, the Protocols are neither a hoax nor a forgery. They are not what they claim to be, but that does not make them a hoax or a forgery. What they are, technically, is a political feint.
What I mean by that is this: the Protocols appear to me to be a cloaked attack. They are an attack by the aristocracy upon the financiers that had just defeated them. More than that, they are a focused attack upon one party of the financiers: the Jewish financiers.
In this sense, they are exactly what the Anti-Defamation League says they are. They are an attack upon Jewish (financial) leadership, and they are not the minutes or white paper of any real Jewish conference. They are a fiction.
I will be told I am contradicting myself already. I have said they are not a hoax or a forgery, but that they are a fiction. What could I possibly mean? Well, I consider “hoax” too strong a dismissal, since a hoax is normally something completely or mostly false sold as true. I will show this doesn't apply to the Protocols, since although they are credited to the wrong party, they contain a lot of truth. And they aren't a forgery, since a forgery is a document signed by someone who didn't write it. No one signed the Protocols, that I know of. The Protocols are not forged, they are misdirected. You may find the difference subtle, but I don't. By calling the Protocols a hoax or a forgery, it is implied they are false, unimportant, and uninteresting. I will show they are none of those things.
The Protocols were written at
the behest of the Prince of Wales,
as part of a wider operation
ongoing at the time.
First things first. Why do I think the Protocols are fiction? Because they taste like fiction. They don't read like the real minutes of a meeting, nor like a game plan, nor like a white paper. The psychology is all wrong. People don't talk about themselves this way. Jewish leaders would whitewash their own actions far better than this, even talking amongst themselves. Despots never call themselves despots, for example. No matter how Machiavellian leaders are, they always try to sugarcoat their actions, especially to themselves. As an example, we can study Protocol 4:
- WE SHALL DESTROY GOD
- But even freedom might be harmless and have its place in the State economy without injury to the well-being of the peoples if it rested upon the foundation of faith in God, upon the brotherhood of humanity, unconnected with the conception of equality, which is negatived by the very laws of creation, for they have established subordination. With such a faith as this a people might be governed by a wardship of parishes, and would walk contentedly and humbly under the guiding hand of its spiritual pastor submitting to the dispositions of God upon earth. This is the reason why IT IS INDISPENSABLE FOR US TO UNDERMINE ALL FAITH, TO TEAR OUT OF THE MIND OF THE "GOYIM" THE VERY PRINCIPLE OF GOD-HEAD AND THE SPIRIT, AND TO PUT IN ITS PLACE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATIONS AND MATERIAL NEEDS.
Although most readers focus on the last part, it is the first part that sticks out like a sore thumb. If this were really written by Jewish materialists, why would they insert this little idyll concerning the brotherhood of humanity, with a wardship of parishes and the guiding hand of a spiritual pastor? These two sentences blow the entire document.
In the same way, the title “WE SHALL DESTROY GOD” is overplayed. Although I think the financiers have long been trying to destroy organized religion, I do not think they would put it this way in their own documents. They don't need to “destroy God,” since they don't believe in him. They might talk about destroying Christianity, or destroying belief in God, but not about destroying God. For them, that would be like saying WE SHALL DESTROY SANTA CLAUS.
Protocol 4 was obviously written by someone who believed in God as a real entity, and who was trying to insert a subtle promotion of the “brotherhood of humanity.” In hindsight, it lacked all subtlety.
So, on to the next question. Why do I think this was written by the aristocracy? Well, the clue is in the Preface, where we are told the Protocols were translated from the Russian by one Victor E. Marsden. Victor E? Victory? C'mon, why not be obvious? They are hoping for a Victory in the Den of Mars. Mars is the Roman god of war, of course. This document is an early infowar.
This is also curious:
- Mr. Marsden's connection with the MORNING POST was not severed by his return to England, and he was well enough to accept the post of special correspondent of that journal in the suite of H.R.H., the Prince of Wales on his Empire tour. From this he returned with the Prince, apparently in much better health, but within a few days of his landing he was taken suddenly ill, and died after a very brief illness.
They admit Marsden was special correspondent to the Prince of Wales, but then they expect you to be too stupid to draw the obvious conclusion from that connection: the Protocols were written at the behest of the Prince of Wales, as part of a wider operation ongoing at the time. We see more indication of that in the body of the text, where the aristocracy is whitewashed again and again.
For example, in Protocol 1.21, we find this:
- from this the conclusion is inevitable that a satisfactory form of government for any country is one that concentrates in the hands of one responsible person. Without an absolute despotism there can be no existence for civilization which is carried on not by the masses but by their guide, whosoever that person may be. The mob is savage, and displays its savagery at every opportunity. The moment the mob seizes freedom in its hands it quickly turns to anarchy, which in itself is the highest degree of savagery.
Hmmm. Curious that this cabal of Jewish financiers would be promoting monarchy, isn't it? “One responsible person” isn't a cabal of financiers, it is a King or autocrat. But the financiers don't promote autocrats, except as figureheads behind which they can hide. In their own meetings, the Jewish financiers wouldn't be promoting absolute monarchy, would they?
And again in Protocol 1.26:
- As you will see later, this helped us to our triumph: it gave us the possibility, among other things, of getting into our hands the master card - the destruction of the privileges, or in other words of the very existence of the aristocracy of the GOYIM, that class which was the only defense peoples and countries had against us. On the ruins of the natural and genealogical aristocracy of the GOYIM we have set up the aristocracy of our educated class headed by the aristocracy of money. The qualifications for this aristocracy we have established in wealth, which is dependent upon us, and in knowledge, for which our learned elders provide the motive force.
The aristocrats who wrote and promoted
The aristocracy is the only defense against these Elders of Zion? Interesting. Also notice that the aristocracy is called here “natural and genealogical.” Would the real Elders of Zion call the aristocracy “natural”?
No, the Protocols are a pretty transparent fiction, and it is clear they were written and promoted by the aristocracy. But does this make the aristocracy the bad guys and the Jewish financiers the good guys? No.
As I have said before, when you get these warring parties, they often tell the truth about eachother, but lie about themselves. We see the same thing here. Like almost everything else promoted in the past two centuries, this document is a strange mixture of truth and propaganda, and you have to enter the bog with a pretty good map to make it to the other side. The aristocrats who wrote and promoted this document are revealing a great deal of genuine information about how the world is being controlled, and by whom. This is why when Henry Ford was asked about the Protocols, he said only, “They fit in with what is going on.” True enough. A reader comes away with the idea — not promoted until then — that the world was being run by a group of powerful and hidden financiers intent upon remolding the world on a master plan. The reader also came away with the idea that this plan included destroying religion, undermining education, quashing liberalism and Republicanism, and hiding behind Marxism. In addition, this plan included controlling the press and all other information, lying as a primary form of governance, and a total destruction of the individual.
Yes, the big things the aristocracy is leaking here are all true, which is why I say the document is both important and interesting despite the fact that it is fiction. It is a fiction that is mostly true.
For many people, that will seem like a contradiction, but it isn't. Many people think that anything that is fiction is false. But just because something is fiction doesn't mean it is false. You can make up a story to tell the truth, or you can make up a story to lie. The fact that you made it up doesn't make it false. If you then tell your readers that God wrote it, say, that part is a lie. But the story itself could be either true or false.
That is what we see here. The claim that this document is a white paper from a Jewish meeting is false. And yet many of the facts about world governance leaked in the document are true. That is the way things are in real life. They are a mixture, and you have to sort through them. As we have seen again and again, they are usually a very tangled mess of a mixture, and the tangle is purposely tangled more and more by those who come after, to prevent you from unwinding it. But with some effort — and a constant nod to logic — we can unwind any tangle.
Strip-mining the world is not governing it.
Lying all the live-long day is not governing.
So let's unwind the next tangle. I have said that the aristocrats have leaked a lot of true information about their opponents. But does that mean that everything they say here is true? Of course not. To start with, they are trying to pin everything on the Jews, but we know that all the top financiers are not Jews. So why would the aristocrats imply they are? Because some of the top financiers are Gentiles who ditched the aristocracy and put their cards in with the new money. But since the aristocrats are all about blood, they don't wish to attack their own. In this way, they are like the Jews they criticize. For all of them, blood is blood, even after it has committed treason. Maybe they hope to turn these treasonous Gentile bluebloods back to the true path. More likely they hope to shame them for the alliances they have made with the Jews.
That is a big lie, but it isn't the biggest lie the aristocrats are telling here. The biggest lie concerns human nature. The entire document is set up as Old World versus New World. They want to expose the New World as a fraud perpetrated by financiers. But once they have convinced you of that fraud, they want you to go back to the Old World, which they ruled. So they repeat all the Old World myths about mob rule, about the majority of people being bad, and so on. They mix this with some halftruths about hierarchies, and the reader is expected to give up on liberalism, Republicanism, freedom, and individualism once and for all.
In this way the document is very seductive. It tells you a lot of truth about the way the world works, it gives you a clear enemy, and then shows you what looks like a logical path beyond the muddle. This is what most people want. But the solution here is just one more conjob — a very old conjob at that. It is the conjob of blood and old families — which is just the conjob of GOLD with a subtle twist.
Remember, the aristocrats are blackwashing GOLD and GREED, because they know those two words are easy to connect to the Jews. But how did the aristocrats get where they were? That's right. GOLD and GREED. Blue blood is just blood that has had GOLD for many generations. It is OLD MONEY instead of NEW MONEY. But still, it is all about money. Blue blood is no guarantee of ability of any kind, as we know. Or, it is about the ability to steal and hoard gold and nothing else.
What these aristocrats who wrote the Protocols are trying to do is connect natural hierarchy to ruling families, but there is no such connection. Yes, there are natural hierarchies. Yes, people are not equal and never will be. Yes, some people are adept at some jobs and some are adept at others. Yes, society should be led by leaders, and not all people are leaders. Yes, democracy — taken too far — leads to endless squabbles and chronic inefficiency. But does that mean the only viable government is a vicious top-down control by vulgar rich people who a) don't believe in God, or b) believe they are God's chosen rulers? No and a thousand times no. The answer is not either an anointed aristocracy or a self-appointed cabal of financiers. The answer is NEITHER.
The rather obvious fact of the matter is that neither the aristocrats nor the financiers have done a good job of ruling. They have only done a good job at tooting their own horns and preying on the rest of us. I have news for both of them: looting your constituency is not governing it. Strip-mining the world is not governing it. Lying all the live-long day is not governing.
I have made some nods to the aristocracy recently, admitting that art was far more healthy under it than under the financiers. But even so, I would not wish this to be read as an apology or promotion of the aristocracy. If pressed, I would probably choose the aristocracy over the financiers, but that is likely due to two specific factors that are prejudicial. One, I am an artist. Although a chosen few artists were better off under the aristocrats, it doesn't mean the average person was. Two, I have lived under the financiers and know what a disaster it is. If I lived under the Kings and Popes in a past life, I don't remember it and no longer feel it keenly. But from reading history we know it wasn't anything to brag about.
Since people are suggestible, they can be
moved either way. The point being that
force is not required. Good leaders will
move them toward the good and bad
leaders will move them toward the bad.
What I do know is that both have been tried and neither has been any sort of success, by any meaningful standard. Just the opposite. Both have been nightmares. The arguments and excuses both groups have made and continue to make are pathetic, and no sane person would listen to more of them for a moment. Both have made such a bad job of governing that most people now believe this world is a predestined hell, including the governors. Even the financiers and aristocrats believe this is some predestined armpit of the universe, which not even their genius can mitigate.
But I don't. It is their predation posing as governance that has made it a hell, not any old curse or predestination. With a small dose of beneficent governance, 9/10ths of the misery would immediately evaporate. Yes, this beneficent governance would have to include a large dose of new discipline, but most humans have a natural talent for discipline when it is required and encouraged. Even now, when it is least encouraged, most people show incredible amounts of discipline and restraint — which is what the false governors rely on.
You will say that Modern people, especially Americans, are fat, lazy, no-nothing louts who will have to be forced to do anything good or meaningful. And while I admit that the contemporary human being is not a proud beast, not one to immediately give one confidence, I think he retains all the potential he ever had — which is to say a great deal.
Let me put it this way: did anyone have to force all these louts to buy all the shit they have bought, enriching the billionaires and debasing themselves in the process? No. Our corrupt leaders only had to suggest that everyone go out and buy everything on the shelves, and they did. You may not think that is a great argument in favor of the louts, but just reverse the process. Instead of suggesting to the people that they go out and make constant fools of themselves, new beneficent leaders could suggest they do the opposite. Instead of using all the media and the government to corrupt and vulgarize the populace, our leaders could be using them to un-corrupt and un-vulgarize the populace. Since people are suggestible, they can be moved either way. The point being that force is not required. Good leaders will move them toward the good and bad leaders will move them toward the bad.
As a good analogy, think of domestic pets. Dogs or cats in a house run by intelligent and kind people are glorious little beasts, loving and happy around the clock. Their fur glows, they are beautiful and shining, and they purr or wag for hours on end. Conversely, dogs or cats in a house run by corrupt and predatory people are likewise corrupt. They are dirty, ugly and miserable. They tend to be either vicious or neurotic.
Well, don't we see precisely the same thing in human society? Yes, in contemporary society, we see a fantastic number of vicious or neurotic people: miserable, ugly, and shedding their anger and discontent all over the house and town. But does this mean that people are naturally bad? No, not any more than the vicious and neurotic dogs and cats mean that dogs and cats are naturally bad.
As pets are a reflection of their owners, citizens are a reflection of their leaders.
A well-run society will still have problems. It will still have its bad apples, since nurture is not everything. But such a society will look and act nothing like our current society.
The problems in the world now are, by and large, not problems that come from human nature. Yes, there are problems with human nature, and those problems will persist under any governance, benevolent or not. But the wickedness of human nature has been vastly oversold, and it has been oversold to mask the real cause of wickedness in the world: leadership by the corrupt. The more corrupt the leadership is, the more it tries to sell you the idea of corrupt human nature.
Which is probably why the Protocols have never been suppressed in the United States. Within a few decades of their publication, the war between the aristocrats and financiers was over, ending roughly with the fall of the Romanovs and the end of WW1. Yes, the financiers won, and they won pretty decisively. But the aristocrats were able to strike a bargain, by which they saved face and kept a tithe of their old privilege. They were able to do this only because the financiers needed someone to hide behind. Having all the charisma of a bag of dirty socks, they could not rule in the open. So they have ruled since then by hiding behind Kings and Queens and Presidents and Parliaments and Congresses, padding the Congresses with actors and other celebrities. In exchange for this, the aristocrats agreed to no longer trouble the financiers with their plots and schemes. Both the financiers and the aristocrats conspire to build the MATRIX you live in, and all you have to do is follow their suggestions.
It isn't mainly human nature that
is corrupt. It is specific individuals
n the ruling class that are corrupt.
Well, the Protocols have now been subsumed within that MATRIX. Some Jews still don't like them, for obvious reasons, but the Protocols are actually more useful to the ruling class than not, since they so successfully sell the idea of corrupt human nature. As you have seen, that idea is useful to the aristocrats and financiers both, since it acts to misdirect blame away from them. According to the Protocols and similar documents, the problem isn't that corrupt governors have sucked you dry of all useful property and inspiration, or that they have mis-educated you via a constant confusion into an intellectual coma. No, according to them the problem is that you are a wretched human, born to misery. You are paying for the sins of your fathers. You are on a cursed planet, cast out of all rational society. You are stuck in a hellish cycle of repetition, a cycle you can only break by renouncing all earthly connections, giving your last dime and crust of bread to a billionaire, and floating away on the wind like a leaf in autumn.
You see, no matter what country you were born in, you are raised on the same lies. Both Christ and the Buddha — as promoted now — have no good advice for you beyond that you give Caesar more of what he already has and go live under a Banyan tree, eating grubs. That's convenient for the Caesars and the Brahmins, wouldn't you say?
But it isn't mainly human nature that is corrupt. It is specific individuals in the ruling class that are corrupt. You can't address general corruption, anyway: you can only address specific corruption. I am telling you that is the specific corruption that must be addressed.
If aliens are watching us — as some think — and if they were given permission to break the noninterference clause, they would change human society most quickly by targeting a few dozen people. If they replaced the right 50 people, say, with benevolent look-alikes, human history would reverse overnight.
With that idea in mind, ask yourself how that could be achieved without alien interference. It won't be achieved by voting, will it, since those 50 people aren't elected. It won't be achieved by murder, since even if those 50 could be killed, they would just be replaced by the corrupt ones around them. It won't be achieved by legislation, since those 50 are above all laws. It won't be achieved by an infowar, since those people and their minions control far more means of suggestion and influence than you and yours ever will.
Seems like a stumper, doesn't it?
My papers are — in part —
a seed posted to the 50.
But here's an idea: why not talk to those 50 directly, as if they are actually human beings? Instead of assuming they are evil lizard people, transported from the 9th circle of Hell, why not talk to them as if they have ears and a conscience? You plant the seed where it has to grow.
You see, the irony of it is, if you can convince them that They Will be Happier Themselves after the revolution, you don't even have to have a revolution. A revolution that takes place in the heads of those 50 people is already done, and the streets don't even have to be swept afterwards.
Of course, to convince those 50 of it, you have to believe it yourself, which may be an even bigger revolution. I have met very few people who genuinely believed it; perhaps none. So here is another question to ask yourself: why should those 50 believe it if you don't?
The thing is, I DO BELIEVE IT. I believe it can happen and I believe it will happen. I don't believe it will happen just because I believe it. I am not selling you a “happy thoughts” philosophy, understand. I don't believe you can change the world just by sending out a positive vibe (although that doesn't hurt). I am also not selling you an age of Aquarius, where everything is perfect. When I say I believe, I don't mean I believe all problems will be solved and everyone will be blissful. I just mean I believe things don't have to be like this. The ways things currently are is not the way things must be. Life on this planet can be much much better than it is, and it actually wouldn't take much to bump it up. Technology is not the answer. Better governance is.
If those aliens are watching, they are waiting for us to make that jump and finally show the potential we have. I suspect they are amazed we have been stalled for so long. They must be amazed that an entire planet can be purposely stalled by a few families for many centuries, just for their personal enrichment — while those same families remain miserable. We are all caught in the manufactured nightmare of a few hundred related people, and since they cannot wake we also cannot. A strange circumstance, assuredly, but nothing is predestined or necessary about it. It could end at any moment.
As I say, I believe it will end; but it won't end because of my belief or yours either. It will end because something changes, and something will change because something new will get done. In each of our minds, something must change which will change our actions. You have to get yourself to a point where you see a solution, you believe in the solution, and you act on it. This paper is not me sending out a positive vibe. This paper is an action.
How is that, you may ask? Well, I know the aristocrats and financiers are reading my papers. Or, at least some of their hostages in Intelligence are. They have to read them to plan their little operations of misdirection and inundation. So I talk to them directly. These papers are not just written as letters to the other side of my brain. And they aren't written to my choir of fellow travelers, either — although I love you guys. They are written to those people in Intelligence, too, and to those they report to. My papers are — in part — a seed posted to the 50.
What matters is that I assume
they are intelligent enough
to recognize a reasonable
argument when they see it.
If you have read a lot of my papers, you know I include asides to these people in Intelligence and to their masters. Although I am resisting them, that doesn't mean I think they are soulless automatons who hate me because they are ordered to. Nor are they Satanists who must do evil because they were born to it. Maybe they hate me for the moment and maybe they don't, but that isn't what matters. What matters is that I assume they are intelligent enough to recognize a reasonable argument when they see it. They are, after all, made of the same stuff as you and me. The same charge pulses through their molecules, the same mitochondria drive their cells, the same Muses guide them who guide us all. So if I am hurling seeds to the winds, why hurl them only to the most fertile fields? Isn't the most logical thing to hurl them to the so-far barren fields as well? Isn't that the only place new shoots can grow?
Christ damned the fig tree for failing to bear fruit, but that has never been my favorite passage in the literature. If Christ could pour wine from water flasks, and raise Lazarus from the dead, couldn't he exhort the poor fruit tree to wake up and do better next season, giving it a bit of water and a gulp of fertilizer while he was at it?
Some will accuse me of blasphemy for second-guessing scripture, but we are at a point in history where all scripture must be second-guessed. My Muses have tapped me to second-guess all scripture from all sources, sacred and profane — though you will have to take my word for it. Although I am far more interested in second-guessing profane scripture — which is what the Protocols might be called — no document in history is too sacred to be looked at in the light of reason. No bald contradiction like the fruit tree should be allowed to stand, since it is these contradictions that perpetuate the old confusions.
So, to anyone reading this for whatever reason, the near future I foresee is not one where everyone is living in the same size house on the same meager rations. It is not one where all the rich are marched over a cliff or stripped of their possessions. It is not a Marxist or Socialist revenge, where the meek inherit the Earth and turn it into a vast mediocrity. All the dystopiae you have seen in the movies and literature have been manufactured to make you fear the future, so that you will accept the slightly less repellent present. But I foresee none of that. Nor do I see a plastic neverland of automation and robots, with people relegated to some form of navel gazing. Again, that is a Hollywood future manufactured to make you glad things aren't worse than they are.
No, the future I see is just a subtle nudge from what we have, but so much better. For instance, if the looting by the rich were to stop, trillions would immediately be freed up to be spent on necessary projects. If the looting were to stop, all the projects by which they currently loot would also stop, including the planned destruction of art history, the planned misdirection of science, the planned misdirection of literature and poetry, the planned misdirection of farming, and the planned misdirection of environmentalism. All the fake drugs would go away, all the fake psychiatry, all the fake food, all the fake advertising. The military would shrink by 95% and the spy agencies by a similar amount. By the same token, all the lies told to promote all these things would go away, as well as all the lies told about history — which are mainly cover for the looting projects.
As their nightmare ends,
so does everyone's nightmare.
You will say that if all these things go away, the economy will collapse. But that isn't true. That is just one more lie you are told by the superrich to protect their looting projects. Only the false economy that enriches the billionaires way beyond their needs would go away. The real economy would remain, and that is the only economy that touches you in any positive way. In fact, that economy would expand greatly, since it would no longer be sucked dry by the fake economy. As I said, trillions would be freed up yearly to be spent on useful projects. Those useful projects would be part of the economy, of course. Those trillions wouldn't just evaporate, would they? No, they would simply be redirected away from the billionaires and into real projects.
You will say the billionaires, the military, and the spy agencies will never allow that.
They will if they are convinced that future is better for them as well. You see, I don't think anyone yet understands what that economic expansion will entail, or how magnificent it will be. Just think about it: the trillions looted yearly by the very wealthy are looted from real sources: taxdollars, natural resources, goods manufactured from those resources, and human productivity. Well, all that will remain in the new economy, it just isn't siphoned off by the four hundred families. Those families will live off accumulated fat for a few hundred years while they develop some useful skills. In the meantime, those trillions start going to real projects. Anyone can get involved in those new projects that wants to, including ex-military, ex-Intelligence, or ex-looters. I am not suggesting that everyone in the military and Intelligence go on unemployment or go to jail. I am suggesting they redirect their energies, and it may be they wish to redirect their energies. It may be that the majority of them would welcome new work, if it were both interesting and lucrative.
Yes, I said lucrative. Many people seem to think that “the brotherhood of man” entails everyone work for minimum wage, live in a hut and eat dry beans. But just the opposite is true. Your average person will be far richer under a brotherhood of man, simply because his paycheck won't be looted first by the billionaires. And he will be far happier, because the work he is doing is necessary and he knows it. He won't be spying on people who are doing nothing, making weapons to stockpile, or marching around foolishly and aimlessly, firing expensive ammunition at targets. He won't be manufacturing events, inciting fake wars, or stealing resources from poor black people in far-off lands who need them far more than he does.
Even the billionaires will be happier, because they will find that by turning off the money faucet, the manufactured nightmare in their heads begins to end. The constant call of the coin subsides, and they begin to hear other voices. They may begin to hear their Muses speak to them, and those Muses will tell them what they should have been doing all along.
As their nightmare ends, so does everyone's nightmare.
But since we are indeed talking about
You will say I am just exhibiting my naivete again. I will be told the privileged will never give up their privileges, whether they are miserable or not. I will be told that people like this never quit: they have to be defeated. That is what history tells us.
But again, that is not exactly true. History probably does give us more examples of the latter, but it is not without examples of the former. People — including rich people — do quit sometimes. Sometimes they concede a bad position, and sometimes they just get tired of defending it. And so it may seem that they allow themselves to be defeated without that much effort. Sometimes when people are in the wrong, they stop believing in themselves. The late Roman Empire gives us many, many examples that could be read that way, and that often are read that way even by mainstream historians. More recent examples will come to mind without much effort.
In fact, the fall of the aristocracy can be read that way. Could the financiers have so quickly defeated a power structure so long entrenched if the aristocrats had still believed in themselves? It is doubtful. More than anything, the financiers simply inserted themselves into a void that was already there, and which only they perceived.
You also have to consider the fact that all the privileged people do not have to decide simultaneously to quit looting the world. If that were necessary, of course it would never happen. But since we are indeed talking about a hierarchy here, with top-down control, only a handful of top people would have to decide to make a change. If the captains decide, it is done. When the captains decide they are harming their own interests and their own children by looting the world they live in, they will begin the clean-up. I have to think that some of them aren't that far from that realization now.
Again, I beg you to notice the wording I used in that last paragraph. I am not naïve enough to think that the superwealthy will suddenly become altruistic overnight. I am not completely unaware of human nature and its limitations. If these people stop, it will not be because they are concerned that you are miserable. They have ways to put that out of mind. It will be because they are concerned that they are miserable. They have purchased every other form of mitigation for their misery, to no effect, so they may be intrigued by my claim of a cure — even though I offer it to them for free. They may be the more intrigued in that it is neither an old or new age religion, and that I am not a guru or a priest.
In fact, it is entirely possible I am a turned demon.
It is possible we all are.
He chooses the light side not because it
is the only thing he can do, but because
it is better for him than the dark side.
By that I do not mean that we were actual consorts of Satan; only that we are beings that chose to leave the dark side because it wasn't doing anything for us. We were assured that wearing the black hat was more thrilling, but found with experience it wasn't so. Even Yoda tells us the dark side is more seductive. But is it? Not really. It is sold with a greater fanfare, but I have found its levels of seduction to be minimal. I am a demon that has been seduced by the light side.
I like to simplify things down to a bare minimum, so let me do that again here. I talked about household pets above, since most of us have them. You have a choice how to live with those pets, and that choice is pretty much a one-way street. You have the power, and they don't have much to say about it. In most cases, they can't harm you, so you can do whatever you like. So if you treat them well, that is only because you choose to. You like to be the generous guy who is kind to his pets, because you like that image of yourself. But it goes beyond that. You like the response from your pets, who treat you like a god. They come when you call (even if they are cats)*, they sleep next to you like loving children, and they fill the house with beauty and contentedness. You feel like a beneficent ruler of your house, where all is magical and blessed. You amaze yourself that you created that. No, you didn't create the pets or their responses, but you created the atmosphere, and you didn't have to. Many people don't.
But unless you really are a saint, odds are you created that atmosphere mainly for yourself. That sort of household appeals to you not because you are so concerned for the well being of those beasts, but because you are so concerned about your self image and your own contentedness. You find that household preferable for yourself.
Now, that is putting it bluntly and perhaps overstating it for effect. I think I do care for the well being of other creatures. But I think I would act the same way even if I didn't. That is what I mean by being a turned demon. A saint treats all creatures well only because he or she loves them, and for no other reason. A turned demon treats all creatures well because he likes how it makes him feel. He chooses the light side not because it is the only thing he can do, but because it is better for him than the dark side.
It is doubtful a saint ever chooses the light side. It is more likely a saint was born to the light side, and couldn't think a dark thought if he wanted to. But a turned demon must choose. And, as it turns out, a demon can choose. In fact, it is marvelously easy. As soon as the demon starts being nice, the hellish household or society evaporates and is replaced by a domain of health and vigor.
* Yes, my cats come when I call them. If your cats don't come when you call them, it isn't because they are “independent”: it may be because they don't like you very much.
Loved rulers need far less
security than hated ones.
In this as in everything, there are hierarchies, and all of us (who treat our pets well) fall somewhere between saint and demon.
Of course, not all of us treat our pets well. If you are one of those, you have to step up to even become a turned demon.
Anyway, I don't think it is hard to blow this household pet story up into an analogy of human society. You probably saw where I was going before I got there. Those currently running society don't suddenly have to become saints for things to change. They just have to come to the (perhaps wholly selfish) realization that ruling a contented society is far more pleasant and satisfying for them than tyrannizing one.
We know these people have god complexes, but rather than ridicule that, I would work with it. I would say to them that this god complex would be far easier to maintain — and to sell to themselves — if they looked more like gods in their own eyes. To see what I mean, return to the pet analogy. Does someone who tyrannizes his pets look like a god to anyone? Does he look like a god to the pets? No. Does he look like a god to himself? No. He just looks like a sad human being picking on those weaker than him.
But again, it isn't that “being a good ruler is its own reward.” That may or may not be true, but there are loads of more tangible rewards. Good rulers are more likely to like themselves and be surrounded by people who like them, which is not an intangible reward. Because of this they are more likely to sleep well and have good digestion. This leads to fewer ailments, better health, and higher levels of physical beauty. All tangible. They also age more slowly, which appears to be high on the list of the superwealthy.
Because they aren't looting the world, they also aren't polluting it to the same extent, which means they themselves don't have to dodge those pollutants. Again, better health for them and their children, which is tangible.
For the same reason, they don't have to worry so much about security. Loved rulers need far less security than hated ones. Spying on your constituents all day and night takes a lot out of you. If the superwealthy wish to live longer and healthier, they should start by being better rulers. Just think about it: If you aren't lying and stealing all the time, you don't need all the security and spying. Once all that is gone, it will be like removing a clamp from your chest: you will breathe so much easier. Tangible.
A basic tenet of the Fourth Way is that man is a machine (bio-machine).
“All the people you see, all the people you know, all the people you may get to know, are machines, actual machines working solely under the power of external influences, as you yourself said. Machines they are born and machines they die. How do savages and intellectuals come into this? Even now, at this very moment, while we are talking, several millions of machines are trying to annihilate one another. What is the difference between them? Where are the savages and where are the intellectuals? They are all alike . . .” – Gurdjieff [LINK]
Another way of saying this is that all men are slaves to external influences. Slaves they are born and slaves they die. There are many sites that speak of man being a slave – a concise explanation is at the site, Understanding Our Slavery. [LINK] But like every other site about human slavery, there is no mention about children being slaves and how their consciousness is moulded by their parents and society into being obedient slaves.
It is difficult for me to see how anybody with an open mind can read Osho’s chapter on Conditioning [LINK] and not see his point that “the greatest slavery is that of the child”.
The body of knowledge and ideas expressed in the Fourth Way offer the most complete and accurate description of human beings, which are unquestionably the most complex machines (bio-machines) known to mankind. The tremendous advances in the scientific understanding of the human being, at the physical/biological level, far exceed the advances in the scientific (read: accepted by the mainstream) understanding of the human being at the psychological level — primarily due to a lack of scientific (mainstream) understanding of consciousness.
The ideas of the Fourth Way are both simple and complex — the simple, most fundamental ideas are easily verified by most anyone who is open to the idea that human beings are machines (bio-machines) controlled by and operated with consciousness.
ll living things hold and use consciousness, the more advanced forms of life having greater ability to hold and use consciousness than the less advanced forms of life, however other than human beings, all forms of life — both more advanced and less advanced — use consciousness to receive information (from both within the organism and from outside the organism) and to automatically respond to the received information. Less advanced (than human beings) forms of life have only evolved the ability to receive and respond to stimuli automatically (stimulus/response), and have little or no ability to not automatically respond to the received information with the programmed, automatic response to that given stimuli.
Human beings, exclusively among all (known) life forms, have the ability to not respond to given stimulus, or to respond in a way that is not automatic/programmed. However, this ability to choose how to respond is seldom used and for the most part is a dormant ability. The ability to use consciousness does not develop/evolve unconsciously, but only through conscious effort to change automatic/programmed responses.
“People who are not in conscious control of themselves are open to control by something else, whether momentarily or permanently. Almost everyone is susceptible to being momentarily influenced when not paying attention.” [LINK]
Remember that consciousness varies in three ways: by frequency, duration, and depth. [LINK]
- Frequency is how often we try to remember ourselves.
- Duration is for how long we are able to maintain self-remembering.
- Depth is the penetration of this self awareness, the extent to which we are aware of ourselves in our surroundings.
Parents are often deemed to have absolute rights over their children, to the extent that parents are allowed to cut off the foreskin of an 8-day old baby boy without a single voice of protest being raised. The parents' belief system literally has an effect on the little boy's bodily integrity.
He is parentally "branded". He had no say in it at all. His consent was neither sought nor required. His parents were treating him as an object, a slave, a thing to which they could do anything they liked.
Is that acceptable? Isn't it the worst thing imaginable? The function of parents is to love, nurture and support their children, it's not to impose their own beliefs on them.
If we genuinely say we are advocates of freedom, how can we let children be the slaves of their parents? Every baby is embraced by freedom the moment they are born. No major decision can be taken about their future without their consent. The function of parents and the State is to provide children with a framework that keeps all options open until the child is mature enough to make his own free choices.
Over and over again in the West, the message goes out that the parents must be allowed to decide the fate of their children: what beliefs to give them, to what school to send them, what values to instil in them, how to discipline them.
It is regarded as outrageous that the State should interfere.
But look at what's happening in the East, in China. It's rapidly becoming the world's top economy, and churning out entrepreneurs, mathematicians, engineers, musicians, and so on, of a fantastically high calibre - all within a centralised command and control system run by the Communist Party. In China, it's regarded as entirely natural for the State to set the tone, not parents. The State even decided how many children a family should have. Chinese parents have internalized the values of the State and, given the population of China, have realized the imperative of maximizing their children's talents. The phenomenon of the "Tiger Mother" - the mother determinedly pushing her children to achieve great things through constant hard work and practice - has now started to create waves in the West too. China has, as yet, no privileged elite (other than those associated with the Communist Party) to ruin and corrupt it, but that will change over the next few decades unless the Chinese introduce enormous inheritance taxes to stop the new breed of multi-millionaires forming a future dynastic elite.
Historically, China has always seen the State as more important than individuals while the West, on the other hand, has championed the individual over the State. In fact Western individualism is regarded as one of the reasons why the West proved so much more successful than the East after the birth of Western science (before then, China was more advanced than the West).
The optimal solution is one where the purpose of the State is to create autonomous individuals whose talents and strengths have been maximized.
Who is better able to accomplish the task? - the family unit which has, typically, two mediocre parents as its controllers, or the State which has, potentially, the finest minds out of hundreds of millions of people to direct it? To put it another way, since the State can assemble the nation's greatest geniuses to determine how to bring up children in the best possible way while the family can, at best, muster only two religiously brainwashed, academically average parents, which of the two alternatives is likely to know best how to produce the finest, highest achieving children? You would need to be insane to trust the job to parents. And what about dysfunctional one-parent families, families where the parents are working all hours, parents who are illiterate and of subnormal IQ, parents who are alcoholics, religious fanatics, drug addicts, parents suffering mental health problems and so forth? How can this disastrous range of parental types lead to sensible, optimised outcomes? Why should children have their futures ruined by inept parents? But if all children are put under the full control of the State, they can all expect exactly the same maximised education, regardless of the failings of parents.
The sad fact is that most parents ruin their children's lives because they don't know any better. They do the best they can, but most are hopelessly inadequate. How many parents have detailed knowledge of the latest psychological and sociological research regarding how the mind and society works? Why are ignorant, stupid, religiously indoctrinated parents regarded as the fount of all wisdom? It's crazy.
It has suited the Old World Order, with their doctrines of "family first" and "negative liberty" - minimal State interference - to have the family as the central unit of society. That model has given them the power and control over society that they have always sought. The last thing the OWO want is a State full of supremely talented, autonomous individuals who will no longer tolerate being treated as second-class citizens. The OWO, as a matter of policy, have always undermined the power of the State. The Illuminati, on the other hand, as exponents of positive liberty - the doctrine that the State should seek to produce a perfect world - have always seen the State as the sole means of bringing heaven to earth. Stupid families will never manage it, nor selfish, self-absorbed individuals always looking out for No.1.
Hegel, one of the Illuminati's greatest Grand Masters, is often accused of "State worship". The Illuminati do indeed revere the State, but only the meritocratic State run by the finest minds - not the sort of monstrous State we see in America run by a privileged elite in Washington D.C., controlled by lobbyists and the super rich, promoting the interests of Zionist banks and corporations at all times. Such a State is an abomination, a catastrophe, an absolute inversion of the true meaning of the State. The real State can have only one function - to optimize ALL of the people. There can be no privileged elites, no two-tier societies, no "them and us", no "one law for 'us' and another for everyone else", no "looking after No. 1" and so on. The State must be seen to be acting in everyone's interests, and there should be no conceivable doubt about that. There can be no entrenched elite.
The anti-State, pro-family propaganda of right wing conservatives has been a catastrophe for the world. The State, not the family, is the sole guarantor of universal standards of fairness, justice and equal opportunity. The State is a fundamentally left wing conception while the family is invariably right wing. The family, as history has demonstrated all too clearly, is always preoccupied with its own interests.
The world of the family is a world of vicious competing units striving with all their might to climb up the status tree and push everyone else down. The Old World Order is the inevitable and logical product of a society based on the sacrosanct family. Inheritance is an intrinsically family-centric doctrine. It cares nothing for the Commonwealth. This is the central problem with the family: it is always seeking its own maximum advantage and cares nothing for others. In fact, one of the family's doctrines of success is that others must fail. All families secretly want other families to trip up so that they will then enjoy an advantage over them. That's no basis for a healthy society.
The central philosophy of the State is that the best world is the one where cooperation between people is maximized, not minimised. If we all do our utmost to help each other, we all prosper. Your good fortune is my good fortune, and mine yours. We are not trying to cut each other's throats, as in the family model. Cooperation is imperative and critical. It must be ingrained in every fibre of society.
The best model for society is the scientific community. All scientists share and share alike. Each scientist is reliant on all of the work of other scientists. Every scientist wants to make a huge discovery of course, so an element of competition is always present, but every scientist knows that science would collapse if all scientists jealously guarded their research and never shared anything with their peers. Collaboration and sharing are essential to the enterprise. Science is optimized not through competition but through cooperation.
The right wing view of the world is that the best society is a product of brutal competition between families. Manifestly, this doctrine is wholly false, but no one intends to change it because it is perfect for the privileged elite. They have no incentive to change anything. The left wing view is that cooperation must be the bedrock of society, but left wingers have never yet come up with a viable model to supersede the family model.
But such a model now exists. It's the meritocratic model of the Illuminati. The key to this model is psychological profiling. The reason why all left wing utopias collapsed was that there's an inherent problem with the human race - personality types that are so different as to render them like warring tribes, seeking entirely different things from life and disagreeing with each other over everything. These tribes resemble the competing families of the right wing model of reality. But psychology provides the answer. We can now tailor the world for the members of all the different tribes. We can separate those tribes that are likely to be in conflict with each other, and unite those that will cooperate. Inter-tribal conflict will be minimised and cooperation maximised. The left wing model of a caring, sharing, collaborative, cooperative, meritocratic society based on the Commonwealth can become a reality. We really can build utopia by using our knowledge of psychology and sociology.
The right wing "game theory" of life where ruthless units of self-interest savagely compete with each other but manage to attain a state of sullen, suspicious equilibrium - just as America and Russia did in the Cold War - has had its day. Now we must adopt the left wing view of life that reflects the strengths of the most successful group in the history of the world - the scientific community. We have the knowledge to achieve it. All we need now is the will. We can build a world of merit rather than privilege where everyone has an equal opportunity, and where we are surrounded by friends rather than enemies and we all want to cooperate with each other because we have finally grasped that we will all be much happier and more successful if all of our neighbours are happier and more successful.
In the context of society, the past must never be allowed to determine the future. The success or failure of parents should have no bearing at all on the success or failure of their children. The law must be constructed so as to ensure that all children start with an equal opportunity in life. The law must therefore automatically prohibit inherited wealth because such wealth can have no effect other than that of providing an unfair, unearned advantage to those who inherit it. The State must provide a tailored education for everyone, hence the influence of parents on their children's fates will be minimized. Stupid, dysfunctional parents will not be allowed to ruin their children's lives.
The State is the sole guarantor of human freedom from the past. The Old World Order have been determined to ensure that the past dictates the future. That's the whole point of inheritance and privilege. The concept of hereditary power and wealth extending down through the centuries is the essence of the ideology of the dynastic elite families that have perpetually ruled our world to their supreme advantage and the supreme disadvantage of everyone else.
Meritocracy, the keystone of the New World Order, is all about removing inheritance, privilege and hereditary rule once and for all. Only in such a world are equal opportunities and genuine freedom possible.
If you are an advocate of freedom, merit and an equal chance for all then you must be opposed to inheritance, privilege and the family as the key unit of society.
Family versus State; privilege versus merit; inherited opportunity versus equal opportunity. That's the stark equation of our world. That's the Old World Order versus the New World Order. Now CHOOSE!
Scotsman J. M. Barrie is famous for being the author of Peter Pan, or the Boy Who Wouldn't Grow Up, but he ought to be much more famous for his play The Admirable Crichton, one of the most subversive works ever written and greatly admired by the Illuminati.
Crichton is a butler to a British Lord. When the Lord and his rich family and friends go on a sailing expedition, their ship is wrecked and they are stranded on a deserted island far from any major trading routes. The chance of rescue seems remote. At first the Lord is in charge of the group, but it soon becomes apparent that neither he nor any of the other toffs have any clue how to do anything. Only Crichton has any practical skills and he now becomes the undisputed leader and the rest refer to him as "the Guv" (the Governor, the Boss). Crichton is in his element and completely dominant. He has shown himself to be the natural leader and by far the most meritorious in this natural environment where privilege counts for nothing.
Crichton creates a thriving island community where everyone is happy. The Lord's daughter falls in love with him, even though she is engaged to another Lord back in England. Just as they are about to be married, a rescue ship appears. "Civilisation" has returned. Instantly, Crichton is reduced to a butler once more and his wedding is off forever.
Back home, one of the toffs is hailed as a hero on the basis of a false account he gave of events on the island in which he and the Lord share the honours for all that was accomplished, and Crichton is barely mentioned. The presence of Crichton is now utterly embarrassing and everyone feels awkward in his presence. His role on the island is never discussed. The Lord's daughter marries her fiancé; what happened between her and Crichton on the island is a taboo subject. The play ends with Crichton announcing that he will be leaving, to everyone else's great relief.
This play shows how fake and damaging privilege is, and how it's the absolute enemy of merit and capability. Privilege is a system of signs, symbols and coded relations that construct a false reality and which conceal the truth. The whole point of privilege is to ensure that the truth is never allowed to show its face. In The Admirable Crichton, only the disaster of the shipwreck allows the natural, truthful order to be established. As soon as "civilisation" intervenes, the fake order of privilege is resurrected. Crichton is immediately made a nobody again. An extremely capable man must go through life as the servant of fools. That's the story of our world thanks to the great evil of privilege.
Note that everyone has a first name other than Crichton. He's a second-class citizen in a two-tier society. He might as well be given a number rather than a name. He is the symbol of all talented people who are victims of the pernicious system of privilege.
We will never have a just, fair and meritorious world until privilege is crushed. It cannot be stressed enough that the end of privilege is the prerequisite for a New World Order, and The Admirable Crichton provides a graphic depiction of why it's so necessary. People must be judged on their real talents not on their status and connections. The Old World Order's creed of "It's who you know that counts" must be destroyed. In the system of privilege, your worth is judged by your postcode or zipcode (i.e. whether you're from somewhere nice and privileged or from some vile ghetto) and your "name" (i.e. whether you have the name of a good, well-connected, privileged family or you're from the "great unwashed" with no social standing).
What does the Children's Liberation Movement teach about the rights of children?
- Do they have a right to freedom of association, education, and religion?
- Should they be free from the authority of parents?
- Should parents be forbidden by law to spank or give corporal punishment?
- How will the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child implement and enforce the principles of Children's Liberation?
- Should the government be free to remove children from their parent's home whenever child "experts" believe it is in the best interest of the child?
- Should children be able to report their parents to international bureaucracies?
Although this sounds repellent, the question must be raised whether it's any more moral for parents to brainwash their children.
- The ultimate aim is to create an environment where zero brainwashing takes place, but, in order to get there, the brainwashing performed by parents must be undone.
Children versus Parents
Parents are often deemed to have absolute rights over their children, to the extent that parents are allowed to cut off the foreskin of an 8-day old baby boy without a single voice of protest being raised.
- The parents' belief system literally has an effect on the little boy's bodily integrity.
- He is parentally "branded". He had no say in it at all. His consent was neither sought nor required.
- His parents were treating him as an object, a slave, a thing to which they could do anything they liked.
Is that acceptable? Isn't it the worst thing imaginable?
- The function of parents is to love, nurture and support their children, it's not to impose their own beliefs on them.
- If we genuinely say we are advocates of freedom, how can we let children be the slaves of their parents?
- Every baby is embraced by freedom the moment they are born.
- No major decision can be taken about their future without their consent.
- The function of parents and the State is to provide children with a framework that keeps all options open until the child is mature enough to make his own free choices.
“Does a child not have as much right to privacy and freedom from parental conditioning as the parents expect for themselves? It is one of the most fundamental problems facing humanity today. The future depends on how we solve it. It has never been encountered before. For the first time man has come of age, a certain maturity has happened - and as you become mature you have to face new problems.” - Osho, lede paragraph for Conditioning [LINK]
I think that statement by Osho is indicative of the situation with the so-called Power Possessing Beings that more or less control life on earth — this understanding is only recently acquired by those same beings, and they find themselves boxed in by this revelation, and realize to counteract this would require disclosure that they are unable to make. (for more on this "revelation" by Osho, see, The Dog that didn't Bark)
I regard consciousness as fundamental.
Sun Absolute (Infinite Consciousness) figures out that his source of nourishment (energy) is from His World, and that slowly but surely the source of nourishment in His World is being diminshed and eventually will shrink to nothing (entropy).
Sun Absolute figures out a plan: Create a Physical Universe from which to feed off of. Sure, entropy is eventually going to reduce this Universe to nothing, but with a few tricks it can be designed to last a very long time — perhaps to eventually regenerate. (worry about that eventuality, later.)
Working with the only "stuff" available — consciousness, energy and eternal tme — Sun Absolute creates something outside of His World — a great chain of being (the universe) — which can be manipulated to create physical containers for consciousness (life) which can reproduce and evolve to create more containers for consciousness.
A summary in lay terms
G's cosmology makes more sense
This summary is not intended
If Max Planck's supposition is true — consciousness as fundamental – then what sustains consciousness? It seems like it must be some form of consciousness? Are conscious moments atoms of consciousness?
Can Sun Absolute (Infinite Consciousness) have a soul – the soul of the Universe? Somewhere I read that “attention is the matter of the soul”. Similarly, Rodney Colin wrote: “the soul can be viewed as the cumulative sum total of all conscious moments that one has experienced throughout ones life.”
“Everything that exists maintains and is maintained by other existences.” Peculiar to Sufism and appearing in no other religion, it states that the whole of the universe is a web of mutually supporting systems, “apparatuses for transforming energy”, each one of which produces the means of sustenance for others. … He must “pay the debt of his existence” by nurturing that which nurtured him. [LINK]
“Subatomic particles were introduced with this universe as evolutionary building blocks within space and time. … This universe is contained within another structure that is responsible for its evolutionary development that I like to call Infinite Consciousness. The universe is continuously evolving into Infinite Consciousness and absorbs, retains and distributes energy throughout time and space as a result of this containment.
“Before this universe was introduced there was consciousness and a pure form of light energy and a pure form of dark energy everywhere. … this consciousness made a decision to conjoin the two frequencies together in a more powerful way than what had already existed using a will with a purpose of design which this universe came from. When these two frequencies conjoined with the design concept for this universe; the first subatomic particle that was created was the Higgs Boson.
“Because this was the first subatomic particle that came from the conjoining of these frequencies this required the least amount of force which contained no resistance to the evolutionary process. The Higgs Boson comes from Infinite Consciousness so this represents the most powerful energy associated with infinity. … When the design process moved forward this introduced time into space; and introduced evolutionary development into the universe. …
“… The Higgs field is like the DNA of this universe. …”
“You mean Indians claim they get molecularly verifiable information from their hallucinations? You don't take them literally, do you?”
… Crick writes [about DNA]: “It is quite remarkable that such a mechanism exists at all and even more remarkable that every living cell, whether animal, plant or microbial, contains a version of it.” … Life as described by Crick was based on a miniature language that had not changed a letter in four billion years, while multiplying itself in an extreme diversity of species.
“… My hypothesis suggests that what scientists call DNA corresponds to the animate essences that shamans say communicate with them and animate all life forms. … My hypothesis is based on the idea that DNA in particular and nature in general are minded.
“… Current biologists condemn themselves, through their beliefs, to describe DNA and the cell-based life for which it codes as if they were blind people discussing movies or objective anthropologists explaining the hallucinatory sphere of which they have no experience: They oblige themselves to consider an animate reality as if it were inanimate.
“… According to my hypothesis, shamans take their consciousness down to the molecular level and gain access to biomolecular information.”
The Matrix is a system of systems:
There is an earthly Matrix, of which we are subjected to here on Earth. There is a cosmic Matrix that pervades the cosmos. As above, so below.
The Matrix, now hiding under the cover of Globalization, is the collective effect of purposeful and amoral manipulation that seeks to centralize economic, political, technological and societal forces in order to accrue maximum profit and political power to global banks, global corporations and the elitists who run them.
Modern servitude is voluntary, consented to by the mass of slaves who trudge along the face of the Earth. They themselves buy the commodities that enslave them every day more. Slaves procure alienating jobs that are bestowed upon the tamed. They, themselves, choose the masters whom they will obey.
For this absurd tragedy to play-out, it has been necessary to breed in them the ignorance of their own exploitation and alienation. Behold the bizarre modernity of our time. As with the slaves of antiquity, serfs of the Middle Ages or the working-class of the first industrial revolutions, today we bear witness to an emerging class of the totally enslaved. The difference being that they don’t know it or better yet choose to ignore it.
The nature of group minds depends on the amount of control they have over their individual members. There are roughly four levels of control, though each integrates with the next. These can be verbalized as co-operation, persuasion, coercion, and compulsion.
- Co-operation is working with others because your mutual interests coincide, and the shared effort is of mutual benefit without major concessions on the part of either party involved.
- Persuasion is essentially barter: "I'll do this for you if you'll do that for me."
- Coercion is similar, but the barter is negative: "I'll do harm to you unless you do some particular thing for me."
- Compulsion is direct control of someone else that transcends that other person's volition.
“I write about the United States so much partly for the same reason I’d keep an eye on a guy at the bar who was always walking around knocking people off their chairs and drinking their beer, and partly because a conscious relationship with the concept of sovereignty is so very, very important if we’re to learn to survive the troubles we’re facing as a species. Sovereignty is what personal, political, and societal problems all ultimately boil down to. Becoming conscious of all the myriad ways we extend beyond our own sovereign boundaries and intrude into the sovereignty of others, be they personal, ideological, national, or ecosystemic, is the path toward creating a world wherein we can all collaborate with each other and with our environment in the interests of the greater good.” [LINK]
The excerpt above by Caitlin Johnstone (a blogger that seems to 'get it' and the only site that I've subscribed to for email updates) is typical. No mention of where it all begins — unconscious procreation and the slavery of children to their parents and society. The sovereignty of a child is a topic that is simply not discussed!
Excerpted from Chapter 9 - High Energy Astrobiology [Vidal, 204-5]
“Extraterrestrial intelligence could maximally
Why is ETI likely to be more advanced? To answer this question, we need to estimate the maximum age of extraterrestrial intelligence. I refer here the review of Dick (2009b, pp. 467–468). The reasoning starts from our knowledge of cosmic evolution (see e.g. Delsemme 1998; Chaisson 2001). Dick elaborates:
- Recent results from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) place the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, with one percent uncertainty, and confirm the first stars forming at about 200 million years after the Big Bang (C. L. Bennett et al. 2003; Seife 2003). Although these first stars were very massive – from 300 to 1,000 solar masses – and therefore short-lived, it is fair to assume that the oldest Sun-like stars formed within about one billion years, or about 12.5 billion years ago.
- By that time enough heavy element generation and interstellar seeding had taken place for the first rocky planets to form (Delsemme 1998,p. 71; Larson and Bromm 2001). Then, if Earth history is any guide, it may have taken another five billion years for intelligence to evolve.
- So, some six billion years after the Big Bang, one could have seen the emergence of the first intelligence.
- Accepting the WMAP age of the universe as 13.7 billion years, the first intelligence could have evolved seven and a half billion years ago. By the same reasoning, intelligence could have evolved in our galaxy four billion to five billion years ago, since the oldest stars in our galaxy formed about 10 billion to 11 billion years ago (Rees 1997).
You’ve read correctly, ETIs could maximally be 7.5 billion years our senior! More fine-grained estimates by Lineweaver and collaborators (Lineweaver 2001; Lineweaver et al. 2004) show that Earth-like planets on other stars are on average 1.8 ± 0.9 billion years older than the Earth. Indeed, they show that 75% of stars suitable for life are older than the Sun. Furthermore, Bradbury et al. (2011, p. 161) have a good point when they add that since “the set of intelligent societies is likely to be dominated by a small number of oldest and most advanced members […], we are likely to encounter a civilization actually more ancient than 1.8 Gyr (and probably significantly more)”.
These considerations raise disturbing questions. What if life on Earth is late, or even too late to make any meaningful contribution to the universe? What if humanity was born too late? In a more optimistic view, could being late be an advantage? Could we be “spoiled children of the cosmos” who are destined to follow the path of our elderly cosmic cousins? Is it really terrific if a child realizes that adults are smarter and stronger than him, that they know more and do strange things that disgust him — at present? No, we can act as children eager to learn from our cosmic cousins in order to see what is possible and desirable for us in the long-term future.
What else do these important insights imply? We need not be overcautious in our astrobiological speculations. Quite the contrary, we must push them to their extreme limits if we want to glimpse what such advanced civilizations could look like. Naturally, such an ambitious search should be balanced with considered conclusions. Furthermore, given our total ignorance of such civilizations, it remains wise to encourage and maintain a wide variety of search strategies. A commitment to observation, to the scientific method, and to the most general scientific theories remains our best touchstone.
Artificiality of the gaps: Unless proven otherwise, assume phenomena to be of artificial origin.
If we hold this principle, we generate false positives; i.e. detection of extraterrestrials where there are only natural phenomena. Ufologists hold it when they quickly jump from some strange light or object in the sky to the conclusion that it was an alien. They make the mistake of not systematically reviewing other explanations (unusual meteorological phenomenon, human artifact, secret military weapon, or hoax). They reason: “We don’t understand how it works, therefore it’s ETI”.
The principle of artificiality of the gaps is unscientific because any terrestrial or astrophysical phenomenon that is hard to model would be driven by extraterrestrial intelligence. This leads to “extraterrestrials-of-the-gaps” explanations that, like god-of-the-gaps explanations, explain everything and nothing at the same time.
We must acknowledge that it would be normal not to fully understand a system more advanced than us by millions or billions of years. But it remains a fallacy to say that because we do not understand something, it is the manifestation of advanced intelligence. Difficulty of modeling is a necessary condition for advanced ETI, not a sufficient one. It will not be easy to model advanced extraterrestrials with known astrophysics.
History offers much deeper roots to the idea of a naturalistic intelligence advanced enough to make a universe (see also Dick 2008). This advanced intelligence is not a supernatural god but a natural demiurge. In contrast with a god, a demiurge is not omnipotent and, like an architect, has to work within the constraints of the material world. Such a non ex nihilo creation myth was elaborated in Plato’s Timaeus. However, for Plato the demiurge made the cosmos from an ideal blueprint (see also Kragh 2007, p. 23). Plato’s myth thus retains an idealistic component.
In the context of the search for advanced extraterrestrial life, Tough (1986, p. 497a) speculated that an advanced civilization would try to avoid a cosmic doom scenario, heat death, or big crunch. For this grand purpose, “some way may be found to break out of this Universe into another one, either existing parallel to it or arising subsequent to it. That is, perhaps the best of our knowledge, consciousness, and genes can somehow be transferred to this other universe.”
Finding an extraterrestrial bacterium is very different from finding advanced civilizations 2 billion years older than us.
Strangeness heuristic: Advanced extraterrestrial manifestations will not be easy to model.
An ETI 2 billion years more advanced than us will not exhibit trivial behavior. As we mentioned, difficulty of modeling is a necessary condition for advanced ETI, but of course not a sufficient one (see Rubtsov 1991, p. 307).
A High Energy Astrobiology Agenda: The Starivore Hypothesis
Current research in astrobiology focuses on searching for extraterrestrial life that is less advanced than us, such as bacteria or traces of a biosphere in an exoplanet. This makes sense, because these are features of life on Earth that we know and that we know how to recognize. A naive symmetry argument would suggest we divide our resources in two, and use one half to search for less advanced extraterrestrials and the other half for more advanced ETI. But even that is not enough, since we saw that ETI may be on average 2 billion years older than us. So it would actually make sense to spend much more in the search for advanced extraterrestrials.
Our time is unique. Humans are connecting both via and with more and more networked and pervasive computers, creating a new level of planetary intelligence best conceptualized as a global brain. We are also on the brink of confirming the existence of extraterrestrial life, via astrobiology or high energy astrobiology, which would refute biocentrism or intellicentrism.
ETIs could maximally be
7.5 billion years our senior!
If ETIs could be 7.5 billion years our senior, why is no consideration given to the possibility that ETIs have intervened in the development of organic life on earth?
Of course, Lloyd Pye's Intervention Theory is not mentioned (next tab).
An easy to read book packed with hard evidence that aliens exist and have intervened in the evolution of life on Earth.
Lloyd Pye is known for his hard-hitting combination of scientific facts with jargon-free, easy to understand explanations.
Filled with "see it with your own eyes" evidence ranging from the moment that the Earth came into existence, to recent discoveries in our own DNA, this book will make you question many of the fundamental theories that are often mistaken for proven fact.
This eBook is the updated and revised version of Part 1 of Pye's best seller "Everything You Know Is Wrong," crammed with page after page of brand new archaeological and scientific evidence that was not available when the original print book was published.
No solution to this problem of Child Slavery can be achieved through eugenics programming or a geopolitical mandate, only through individual accountability.
The Gaian Army is only a possible partial solution.
However, no solution will come from denial of this "fact of life" facing every child born.
For instance, the evolution of humanity
Humanity is a part of organic life; this
But, at the same time, possibilities of
Gurdjieff's stance on the evolution of humanity is another tenet of the Fourth Way, but unlike many of the ideas he conveyed which can be verified, this assertion must be taken on faith.
However, Gurdjieff goes on to say that life could be different with the proper efforts, the requisite resources and the necessary time for personal transformation — for those who "work" as being distinct from the mass of humanity who were too "far gone" to be saved.
As long as this information remained obscure, Domination, the Matrix's ultimate source of power would not threatened by the small group of people who might happen upon/discover and subsequently utilize this information.
For more on this division of humanity, see: What is the 'Work'?
Girls are programmed to be mothers. Boys are programmed to be fathers.
Boys get special emphasis on competition, fighting, military, sports.
Human beings are, at what point in a child's life should they be given that information? Personally, I wish that I was given that information at an early age, rather than having to discover it on my own at age 20.
Seven primary obstacles to self-awareness — practical information.
Withholding this basic information is the same as lying to children.
And here it is necessary to note that all psychological systems and doctrines, those that exist or existed openly and those that were hidden or disguised, can be divided into two chief categories.
- First: systems which study man as they find him, or such as they suppose or imagine him to be. Modem 'scientific' psychology or what is known under that name belongs to this category.
- Second: systems which study man not from the point of view of what he is, or what he seems to be, but from the point of view of what he may become; that is, from the point of view of his possible evolution.
When we understand the importance of the study of man from the point of view of his possible evolution, we shall understand that the first answer to the question: What is psychology? — should be that psychology is the study of the principles, laws and facts of man's possible evolution. [LINK]
Conscious Procreation is a natural form of birth control — the only natural birth control for the apex predator, human beings.
Demand transparency and truth from every person, every organization, every government. Consider this the modern information-era equivalent of the Golden Rule.
Ultimately, this is about reaching the culmina[ing point for humanity's next stage of consciousness, what some call Panarchy, others the World Brain, Global Brain, Global Mind, or Web 4.0. This is about connecting all human minds, all information in all languages and mediums, all the time.
Panarchy is an ideal condition in which every individual would be conneeted to all relevant information and able to participate in every decision of interest to them, from local to global. Panarchy thus represents direct democracy within a nonhierarchical, open-source context. In the ideal state of panarchy, every citizen is:
- Fully actualized,
- Deeply steeped in integrity and intelligence, and
- Able to participate creatively in the constant social reproduction of their world.55
We, Homo sapiens, are defined by what we know in the context of the Cosmos and the Earth - larger Whole Systems.
We, Homo sapiens, were in harmony with the Cosmos and the Earth during earlier centuries when indigenous wisdom prevailed. The evolution of social forms and technology toward ever-greater levels of complexity is part of our human development toward deeper consciousness and self-awareness.
The technosphere, as Jose Arguelles and others have realized, is the necessary detour that takes us from the pristine biosphere to the psychically collectivized state of the noosphere.
Click for Noosphere definition
Panarchy is the end-state, Radical Man is the soul, Reflexive Practice is the process, and Web 4.0 - all people connected to one another and all information in all languages all the time - is the means whereby we create and actualize a World Brain and Global Game, a Noosphere, and achieve evolutionary collective consciousness.
The goal is to reject money and concentrated illicitly aggregated and largely phantom wealth in favor of community wealth defined by community knowledge, community sharing of information, and community definition of truth derived in transparency and authenticity, the latter being the ultimate arbiter of shared wealth.
When we relate and share knowledge authentically, this places us in a state of grace, a state of "win-win" harmony with all others, and establishes trust among all.
Truth is the foundation for all discourse and wise decision-making.
There is no such thing as truth in isolation. The definition of meaning is a contextual and communal process, as the following two statements2 communicate succinctly:
- Put enough eyeballs on it, no bug is invisible.
- The truth at any cost lowers all other costs.
The first concept makes clear the role of community in arriving at the truth of any matter.
The second makes clear the moral and financial value of truth, reducing all manner of costs across all domains including time and space.
Neither of these concepts matter to the greedy, selfish one percent, they matter very much to the ninety-nine percent.
Our concept of truth becomes more universal as we reach higher levels of consciousness and awareness, taking in a wider spectrum of information and possibility. As we adapt a more expanded perspective on our reality, our concept of what is true and meaningful changes - from local to regional, regional to global, beyond global to the galaxy, and then to the cosmos.
The evolution of our species and possibly the Earth depends upon the realization of an ever-expanding concept of truth. Anything less keeps us small...
The truth is what one shares that one believes to be the case. It may not be true in an absolute or objective sense, but if one believes it to be true, one is not telling a lie or misrepresenting what he or she believes.
It is our obligation to speak of what we know as we know it, not dissembling or deceiving. This could be considered the "moral truth," and ultimately it is what can be validated by others so that a consensus can be arrived at and shared. Many aspects of truth can be known - within the limits of individual human discernment and with the advantages that accrue from a collective endeavor (collective intelligence).
The sharing of truth in the form of widely available information creates a foundation for cost-effective transparent decisions that are inherently anti-corrupt in nature. In the field of open-source intelligence, one could say that truth equals all the information critical to any subject, translated into any language, available all the time.
Where the philosophy gets interesting, even challenging, is when it confronts the reality that dogma, opinion, and deception can create in the mind a view of reality that is not real, but that one considers to be truthful.
This gets to the heart of why education is the root requirement and right of each individual in any true democracy, and why democracy dies when dogma, ideology, and propaganda flourish. Truth is our best effort to see reality as it really is, and make the most of it. And please note that science, faith, and philosophy should not be considered antithetical to one another.
Truth does change, both in the mind of man and in the larger reality where man resides. On the one hand, advancing knowledge and paradigm shifts can render old truths sadly insufficient, while bringing forward new, more robust truths. At the same time, actions taken by man while operating under old truths (for example, assuming that the Corps of Engineers can pave over the Mississippi wetlands and levee the largest river in the continental U.S. without having a Katrina-like consequence) create new truths - severe weather events that are not an Act of God but rather an Act of Man acting very badly over time and space.
The truth in philosophy is nuanced. It is not just an intellectual truth that is recognized, but a spiritual and sensual one as welL Truth involves discerning moral values to live by. It appears to prosper when citizens are educated and enjoy civil liberties including freedom of expression.
The moral truth is worth dying for - sometimes a burning monk (Viet-Nam) or fruit vendor (Tunisia) is the catalyst needed to illuminate the culture of fear and lies such that the public reconnects to its own power to be the truth, to define the truth, to demand the truth. How we seek, sense, and share with one another is a function of, among many variables, one constant: whether we are in a state of grace such that the truth is the primary attribute of all that we see, smell, touch, and sense.
My own mouo since the 1990s:
E Veritate Potens
From Truth, We (the People) Are Made Powerful4
Truth is one of the core philosophical concepts most applicable to open-source everything.
Truth is the currency for collective consciousness, vital as a means of earning trust, which is itself a currency and a major factor in creating wealth within and among nations.
The philosophical reflections of many great thinkers help put the value and socio-cultural significance of "truth" in perspective. They frame the larger questions of who we are, how we wish to live, and how we relate to one another and to the challenges of our time. They also frame the role of truth in relation to the paranormal and the extraterrestrial, as well as the cosmic consciousness that could ultimately be where science, philosophy, religion, and ideally our individual existences become "One."
In order for us to live within this finely balanced constellation of complex systems, in order for the Earth to show resilience and last for centuries into the future as an environment for human life, we have to embody three things: a respect for Earth systems and their details in balance; a commitment to discovering and sharing the truth and only the truth at all times about all things; and a commitment to doing no harm.
We have failed on all three counts since abandoning the wiser ways of our indigenous forerunners and falling into the abyss of empire, domination, and separation
Complex whole systems are almost impossible to address functionally in the absence of intelligence and integrity.
Resilience begins with a demand for and a commitment to the rigorous application of intelligence that is not restricted or deformed and can take all factors into account. Such a commitment to public intelligence requires an environment of open-source transparency in order to propagate itself.
3. A multidisciplinary library of documented lessons from the past, drawn from all cultures, permits new generations to build on the hard-earned experience of our ancestors, minimizing expenditure of blood, treasure, or spirit.
Implicit in each of the above is the expectation that the current generation wants to leverage history, will respect history, and seeks to be responsible in relation to future generations. That is in fact not the case, and therefore "lost history" becomes the norm for many impoverished societies.
There exists both a vitality to history when learned and leveraged, and an often significant "opportunity cost" of failing to be responsible about understanding history.
The second point, that "the only lasting revolution is in the mind of man," is one that our forefathers clearly appreciated.
The only lasting revolution is achieved through education, and ideally universal education including women and all minorities. Education is not a privilege, it is a necessity.
I like to point out that the only inexhaustible resource we have on Earth is the human brain.
Put in another way, it is not possible to divine, discuss, or share the truth of the present without an appreciation for the truth of the past.
Not only do we need to delve deeply into the truth of the past, we must extend ourselves to embrace multiple truths from the past - multicultural truths and multi-class truths.
In the context of humanity on Earth, there can be little doubt that religion and spirituality are forces that likely did not exist until ten thousand years ago . . .
[Edit: Religion, yes, Spirituality, no — read Supernatural
Before I go more deeply into the emergent convergence of science and religion and philosophy - the absolute heart or, in code terms, "root" for operating Spaceship Earth and restoring the consciousness of humanity - I want to focus very briefly on the human mind, heart, and soul (the scientific, the philosophical, and the spiritual), but in an agnostic sense.
Regardless of what religion we each mayor may not embrace, regardless of our level of sophistication in science or philosophy, we all share the blessings of being human, of being able to seek, sense, and share.
Transparency and truth, and their multiplicand, trust, are what allow the above human inclinations to yield enormous returns on investment of time and energy. It is the human mind, the human heart, the human soul that are at the root of all that we might call progressive (as well as all that we might call evil).
This Open-Source Everything Manifesto seeks to shift the power away from the one percent that exploit and diminish the ninety-nine percent, and back to that ninety-nine percent who are capable of creating a world that works for all.
This manifesto concludes with a model for public intelligence in the public interest and a model for informed participatory democracy, within which I will introduce both a strategic analytic model helpful to whole-systems or whole-Earth reflections and a concept for panarchic self-governance in which all citizens have access to the truth - all of the information critical to any subject, translated into any language, available all of the time.
It is apparent that truth - the combination of intelligence and integrity as well as transparency - is the foundation for both understanding and eradicating these threats, while moving as quickly as possible in the direction of what should be the human mantra toward the Earth and all species including our own: "First, Do No Harm."
Integrity, in my view, starts with the individual human being and grows in a compounded manner from there. The citizen must be an "intelligence minuteman."
Below are thirteen common lies and their countervailing "possible truths" as put together by Jock Gill, a strategic communicator with a strong sense of ethics. It is not possible to appreciate the importance of transparency, truth, and trust without first understanding the deep roots that these thirteen common lies have grown — The Open-Source Everything Manifesto is in large part a primal scream against lies and a plea for integrity as a common good.
LIE 1. The Earth is an open system with infinite supplies and sinks. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Earth is a closed system, and changes that used to take ten thousand years now take three. Humanity is "peaking" the entire system.
LIE 2. Everything must be monetized. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Money is an exchange unit and an information unit. In the absence of holistic analytics and "true cost" transparency, money is actually a toxic means of concentrating wealth and depriving communities of their own resources (e.g., land).
LIE 3. The extreme unregulated free market is the only option for a modern economy. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Information asymmetries and "rule by secrecy" have been clearly documented, proving that the free market is neither free nor fair. A modern economy needs to be transparent, resilient, and hence rooted in the local.
LIE 4. Centralized organization is the only and best option; the network begins in the center and radiates out. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Epoch-A, top-down, hierarchical "leadership" has proven itself to be a failure regardless of its ideology (feudalism, fascism, communism, religious dictatorship). Diversity is the source of agile innovation, and Epoch-B leadership is inherently collective, bottom-up, multicultural, and replete with integrity.
LIE 5. Spectrum (atmospheric frequencies) IS a scarce and finite resource best managed by what we knew in the 1920s and '30s. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Open-source everything is "root," and the trifecta for sustainable human evolution is Open Spectrum, Open-Source Software, and Open Data Access.
LIE 6. Houses need furnaces. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Buckminster Fuller, among many others, demonstrated that housing can be created that is self-sufficient in terms of energy, cooling, and heating, and even water catchment and waste disposal.
LIE 7. Power is best generated In remote mega power plants with correspondingly large distribution networks. POSSIBLE TRUTH: WIRED magazine outlined how a two-way energy grid that leverages renewable energy across all localities is vastly superior to centralized systems that "bleed" half of the energy while going downstream.
LIE 8. Copyright must last longer than a lifetime, and patents must last longer than seventeen years. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Both copyright and patent laws have been manipulated by individuals lacking in integrity. Their efforts to keep useful knowledge from the marketplace have been especially harmful. The Founding Fathers got it right in the first place: Creative Commons copyright and "use it or lose it" patent protocols are best.
LIE 9. The United States of America has nothing to envy in others; we have the best healthcare, the best education, the best broadband, the best lifestyle. POSSIBLE TRUTH: An educated citizenry is a nation's best defense (Thomas Jefferson). The U.S. is now a Third World nation for all practical purposes, with a ten-percent "elite" that has concentrated wealth and a ninety-percent "animal class" that is losing its housing, its health, its clean water, its entire quality of life.
LIE 10. Corporations are people. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Corporations exist on the basis of public charters. Public charters are being granted and managed by government officials who take direction from politicians who have sacrificed their integrity and fail to represent the public interest.
LIE 11. Inconvenient costs and truths may be treated as externalities that do not need to be carried on our "books." POSSIBLE TRUTH: In the absence of an educated citizenry, the public perception of "truth" can be easily manipulated - fog facts, missing information, lost history, manufacturing consent, propaganda, and most recently, weapons of mass deception. There is no counterweight to "power" that wishes to lie.
LIE 12. More of the same old same old will get us new and better results In plenty of time to avoid environmental disruption. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Among intelligent people with integrity, "doing the right thing" instead of doing the wrong thing "righter" is clearly beneficial to all. We can create a prosperous world at peace for a fraction of what we now allow to be spent on war and waste. Pollution is a waste product, an indicator of an inefficient process. Those who persist in defending any status quo are certainly lacking in intelligence (decision-support) and, more often than not, also lacking in integrity.
LIE 13: Tax cuts and trickle-down economics work and create good-paying jobs. POSSIBLE TRUTH: Tax cuts favor the one percent who have already concentrated most of the wealth in the USA, and they invest their gains overseas or in assets that appreciate, not via jobs in the USA.
Lies kill. Lies are a like a road sign that says "Detour" but points over a cliff. Lies prevent the larger public from understanding, evaluating, and responding to any given situation with collective intelligence or wisdom. For example, if the lie "nuclear power is totally safe" is combined with a second "we can trust the government to oversee safety, and the energy company to take all necessary precautions," you get - inevitably - a Chernobyl or a Fukushima.
We live in a culture of lies. Information pathologies such as I reviewed in Chapter 1 have been created over centuries to benefit the few at the expense of the inattentive, distracted, and complacent many. This manifesto is our non-violent articulation of how we can stop being exploited and disadvantaged, and restore the sovereignty of We the People.
We currently have a political culture of epidemic corruption, where facts are distorted to serve the interests of a few, with leaders of both parties, most corporations, and many religions accustomed to deception as a matter of routine. In such a situation, "philosophy" cannot serve its proper function of providing desirable aims and constituting a method based in integrity to fulfill them. In a political culture founded in corruption and deception, it is impossible to achieve balance or stability, and such an inherently unsustainable situation will ultimately collapse.
On the other hand, if one establishes a philosophically grounded culture of clarity, where appreciation for diversity and commitment to integrity are societal norms, one has a promising foundation for progress.
Information costs money, Intelligence makes money. Intelligence is tailored actionable information.
All the kum-ba-ya in the world and all the micro-issue think tanks and advocacy groups are ineffective because they lack a strategic analytic model, a process for doing intelligence so as to do informed activist democracy, and a call to arms that brings us all together centered on taking back our government or routing completely around it.
Open-Source Conscious Wiki for Humanity