As a practitioner of elections for more than four decades, much in this excellent post is not new to me. Democrats, in particular but not exclusively, have long made it their strategy to make as many people dependent upon them as possible, including Social Security and Medicare (45-60 million people) supplemental nutrition assistance programs (another 40 million), and of course the growing legion of Medicaid recipients (I've lost count). That is why Democrats seek to nationalize all health care, expand Social Security (going broke in 10 years), and throwing all sorts of money (see: Inflation Reduction Act) at favored constituences, especially in the green energy sector. The next battle is over nationalization of pensions and other retirement programs. And get ready for your "social credit score."
This idea goes way back to the beginnings of Christianity, if not before that. There is a reason the Gospel of Thomas was not included in the books of the Bible, even though it contained important messages. Its main message was that people could have their own *direct* relationship/communion with God (without the need of religion or a church). This was a threat to the Catholic Church, for it removed a lot of their control. Over the years, the use of fear (God will punish you if...) was integral to their religious doctrines with some periods being more radical than others (think The Crusades, among others).
Voltaire also frequently touched upon this subject in his philosophical writings. "Si Dieux n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer" comes to mind ("If God didn't exist, we would have to invent him.") The gist of the idea here being that through his presence in society, it serves as a means to "control" a society , especially so as to not have the masses rebel against the monarchy.
Since the earliest times, people instinctively have had sense of attachment to authoritative figures which could provide them with a sense of security. Those in power know these constructs very well and have perfected, adapted, and honed their methods to the "modern" (technological) world, primarily in the form of a 'technocratic autocracy'. That is their religious dogma. They see themselves as God-like rulers (full of arrogance and other evils). They manipulate and exploit through these mechanisms of fear to enlarge their webs of control while destroying the spiritual fabric of their subjects.
One of the main reasons why it works is because they were cunning enough to remove God, or spirituality from the masses. As people lose their inner sense of spirit and light, they are more prone to become entangled into the darkness. Wokeism, transgenderism and the like are prime examples of how these souls have been usurped into states of unswerving compliance.
Until the scales tip back in favor of spirituality and light, their dark machinations will continue to ruin humanity.
Fear is the root motivator for all actions (or the decision to not take some action). Today, it's perceived as safer to one's life, social status or job to NOT step outside the group as a contrarian or dissenter. So our rulers David identifies also take advantage of the fact that people will want to support "the current thing" (aka the narrative). The credentialed elites tell us what we should be afraid of ... and that they alone can protect us from these threats. So the masses are afraid of various Boogey Men created by the ruling classes ... AND they also fear not being a part of the "in" crowd. As a result, just about everyone ends up complying ... based on fears. Most of those fears are irrational (this virus was NOT going to kill you if you were under 70 and healthy). But one of those fears is rational - if you DO become a contrarian and don't agree with the ruling class or challenge the narrative, you will face personal, social or career harm.
Great article. a few of thoughts. 1.) The concept of dependence on the State is fundamentally changed if the State can accurately make the peoples' health dependent on resources that only the State controls. Sick and scared people are easier to control. What if the State actually injected a shot into the populous that so ruins their health, they have to rely on the State whether they want to or not. Drug dealers have no need to persuade citizen junkies. 2) Everybody's that injected can never be un-injected, so even if they want to reject the State dependence they may still be dependents. 3.) The State doesn't actually need to make people dependent it just needs to make people "think" they are dependent. To do this, the State often has to lie, create a "State Truth". As the Asch Conformity Experiment showed, a lie only lasts as long as the one being lied to never hears the truth. Non-conforming thoughts are very dangerous to the State because once the truth is widely disseminated, i.e. Covid vaccines don't work, people think for themselves and massively reject (~15% last Booster uptake) the prior State Truth. It also, hopefully, inoculates the public against future State lies.
Brilliant! This elegant essay succinctly shines a light on the common thread linking a variety of authoritarian trends that are striving to replace the individual with the collective as the central focus of our civilization.
Nice and thought-provoking piece. But I have a problem with this:
"There is nothing conspiratorial about this."
It's true there isn't necessarily anything conspiratorial about it, but it's also just as true there can be conspiracies working within the framework of "raisson du monde". Given the terrain, likely even.
The author follows with:
"Thinking of things in this way also helps us to understand the vitriol with which the ‘new populism’ of anti-globalist movements has been treated."
If there is no conspiracy, there shouldn't be such a monolithic vitriolic response. It's only because the entire regulatory, media, academic, and governmental institutions have been captured that the visceral attacks are so universal. An orchestrated capture seems at least as likely as a spontaneous one, since their positions are so harmful to all of us except those who might be the conspirators.
As a practitioner of elections for more than four decades, much in this excellent post is not new to me. Democrats, in particular but not exclusively, have long made it their strategy to make as many people dependent upon them as possible, including Social Security and Medicare (45-60 million people) supplemental nutrition assistance programs (another 40 million), and of course the growing legion of Medicaid recipients (I've lost count). That is why Democrats seek to nationalize all health care, expand Social Security (going broke in 10 years), and throwing all sorts of money (see: Inflation Reduction Act) at favored constituences, especially in the green energy sector. The next battle is over nationalization of pensions and other retirement programs. And get ready for your "social credit score."
This idea goes way back to the beginnings of Christianity, if not before that. There is a reason the Gospel of Thomas was not included in the books of the Bible, even though it contained important messages. Its main message was that people could have their own *direct* relationship/communion with God (without the need of religion or a church). This was a threat to the Catholic Church, for it removed a lot of their control. Over the years, the use of fear (God will punish you if...) was integral to their religious doctrines with some periods being more radical than others (think The Crusades, among others).
Voltaire also frequently touched upon this subject in his philosophical writings. "Si Dieux n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer" comes to mind ("If God didn't exist, we would have to invent him.") The gist of the idea here being that through his presence in society, it serves as a means to "control" a society , especially so as to not have the masses rebel against the monarchy.
Since the earliest times, people instinctively have had sense of attachment to authoritative figures which could provide them with a sense of security. Those in power know these constructs very well and have perfected, adapted, and honed their methods to the "modern" (technological) world, primarily in the form of a 'technocratic autocracy'. That is their religious dogma. They see themselves as God-like rulers (full of arrogance and other evils). They manipulate and exploit through these mechanisms of fear to enlarge their webs of control while destroying the spiritual fabric of their subjects.
One of the main reasons why it works is because they were cunning enough to remove God, or spirituality from the masses. As people lose their inner sense of spirit and light, they are more prone to become entangled into the darkness. Wokeism, transgenderism and the like are prime examples of how these souls have been usurped into states of unswerving compliance.
Until the scales tip back in favor of spirituality and light, their dark machinations will continue to ruin humanity.
Fear is the root motivator for all actions (or the decision to not take some action). Today, it's perceived as safer to one's life, social status or job to NOT step outside the group as a contrarian or dissenter. So our rulers David identifies also take advantage of the fact that people will want to support "the current thing" (aka the narrative). The credentialed elites tell us what we should be afraid of ... and that they alone can protect us from these threats. So the masses are afraid of various Boogey Men created by the ruling classes ... AND they also fear not being a part of the "in" crowd. As a result, just about everyone ends up complying ... based on fears. Most of those fears are irrational (this virus was NOT going to kill you if you were under 70 and healthy). But one of those fears is rational - if you DO become a contrarian and don't agree with the ruling class or challenge the narrative, you will face personal, social or career harm.
Also explains the state's drive to a secular society, the fear of the family unit and the driving of SME's to the wall.
Great article. a few of thoughts. 1.) The concept of dependence on the State is fundamentally changed if the State can accurately make the peoples' health dependent on resources that only the State controls. Sick and scared people are easier to control. What if the State actually injected a shot into the populous that so ruins their health, they have to rely on the State whether they want to or not. Drug dealers have no need to persuade citizen junkies. 2) Everybody's that injected can never be un-injected, so even if they want to reject the State dependence they may still be dependents. 3.) The State doesn't actually need to make people dependent it just needs to make people "think" they are dependent. To do this, the State often has to lie, create a "State Truth". As the Asch Conformity Experiment showed, a lie only lasts as long as the one being lied to never hears the truth. Non-conforming thoughts are very dangerous to the State because once the truth is widely disseminated, i.e. Covid vaccines don't work, people think for themselves and massively reject (~15% last Booster uptake) the prior State Truth. It also, hopefully, inoculates the public against future State lies.
Brilliant! This elegant essay succinctly shines a light on the common thread linking a variety of authoritarian trends that are striving to replace the individual with the collective as the central focus of our civilization.
Nice and thought-provoking piece. But I have a problem with this:
"There is nothing conspiratorial about this."
It's true there isn't necessarily anything conspiratorial about it, but it's also just as true there can be conspiracies working within the framework of "raisson du monde". Given the terrain, likely even.
The author follows with:
"Thinking of things in this way also helps us to understand the vitriol with which the ‘new populism’ of anti-globalist movements has been treated."
If there is no conspiracy, there shouldn't be such a monolithic vitriolic response. It's only because the entire regulatory, media, academic, and governmental institutions have been captured that the visceral attacks are so universal. An orchestrated capture seems at least as likely as a spontaneous one, since their positions are so harmful to all of us except those who might be the conspirators.
L'état c'ést moi.
Foucault was a pederast:
“Besides, to die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful?”