Saturday, October 29, 2011

Occupy Everything & Begin Anew

A constant motif of the Occupy movement is that there is elite’s money in “our government.” But, what Occupiers must comprehend is that there is no such thing—and never was—as “their government.” For ages governments, referred to oft as States, have been used as a tool of submission and domination by ruling classes. States, no matter how small, have served elite interests against populist needs. That’s the way it’s always been.

And so therefore, it is trite for any populist movement on any continent, in any country, to call upon a government to regulate the managers of the global economy. Populist reform and regulation of ruling classes is not what governments are designed to do. They protect ruling classes. Many protestors are calling on the government to regulate the ruling class through taxes and laws.

In the event new legislation is passed and new taxes collected, Occupiers would be ignorant and weak-minded to believe that this wealth would be redistributed to actually improve the plight of the poor. What would happen, contrarily, is that the government would eagerly tax millions who make an honest, albeit privileged, living, and then use the newly generated wealth for its own largesse—for aggressive wars, general imperialism and self-rewarding corruption—as well as for welfare to the illuminist corporate and banking establishment.

The State steals money and gives it to those who have fought for control over society and culture for millennia. This culture, above and beyond the money system, above and beyond trends and styles, has studied and tried to perfect a philosophy of control that goes back centuries. This bounty is then handed over by those above and beyond this System.

Through a systematic, psychological torture, those who are born individuals, become slaves to a mythological greater good, which boils down to merely servicing the State. People generally believe the State is a formidable means by which to develop people morally, to teach them to be virtuous individuals. Therefore, they believe the State is necessary to ensure people work towards virtuous and good means.
To believe the State is a means towards a more virtuous world is akin to believing the study of Justin Bieber lyrics could bring enlightenment. Albert Einstein once said the very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Governments have been tried before, and the result is clear: they implement taxation schemes through straight taxes, fines and fees, which represent nothing more than theft. It is these government tools that have allowed Wall Street—a front for international demise-of-the-state globalist institutions—to conduct the largest wealth confiscation in the history of mankind in the form of money owed by future generations.

Occupiers know this. They know the solutions to their problems are not political, not through government. The first solution to all of our problems is a move away from the political. To simply become less dependent on the systems into which we were all born. Thus, first and foremost we must work hard, and save our hard earned cash in alternative monies, such as gold and silver, to stock up on necessities anticipating a further devaluation of the US Dollar—in other words, to build up our assets, viewing assets as everything from the aforementioned precious metals to food and water to toilet paper.

We must envisage our problems as natural problems, not political. The order of our community has a foundation in our natural. By design, politics is everything, as George Orwell said. But, in a truer sense, nature is everything. By embracing that which makes us human—such as empathy, ethics, love and consciousness—we can begin imagining how it is we can tear down the matrix and learn to be free.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

To the State for Peace, Away from the Free-Market, And Into Chains

Nineteenth century Western Culture, generally speaking, was marked philosophically, at least in part, by the belief in man’s innate goodness. This belief had its roots in the eighteenth century when it appeared to many that man was born good and free, but, all over the world, was corrupted and enslaved by society’s institutions. Rousseau once said, “Man is born free yet everywhere he is in chains.”

During this period, what arose was a romanticism for nature (hence, perhaps, the popularity of evolutionary theory at that time), and the belief that, if only man could be freed of the corruption of society and its contrived conventions—of the state, of the clergy and, for some, of matrimony and of private property—then man, therefore, would be poised to achieve heights undreamed of hitherto.

It was these conditions which gave rise to the French Revolution, which, ironically, came to depend on the keystone mechanism of the State—violence—and gave way to a period during which France conquered swathes of Western Civilization. Still, from 1770 until 1914, many have argued that a culture of staunch self-reliance generally attitudinized Western Civilization, sometimes summarized by the concept of laissez-faire.

Much of this self-reliance held that, if society is evil, then the State—which is merely the organized vertical force of society—is doubly evil. If man is innately good, then, he ought to be completely freed from this coercive power of the State. Indeed, nineteenth century Liberalism believed man should be freed from all coercive power, among which might be included the church, army and other institutions. Society, in this case, would have little power other than the power required to restrain the strong from oppressing the weak.

The idea of a “community of interests” was also very strong during this period. This “community of interests” was a realm in which what was good for one was good for all. Somewhere, according to this belief, there did exist a reality where everybody would be secure, free, and prosperous, and that this pattern could be achieved over time. In it, each person could fall into that place in society best suited to his abilities. Implicit in this belief was that human ability is innate and can only be suppressed or altered by social discipline and that each individual is the best judge of his own self-interest.

In 1880, the belief that the current generation,and indeed all generations,was the culmination of a long process of history. Oftentimes, this long process is referred to as progress, a phenomenon that had lasted millennia and would continue forevermore. This belief ran so deep that progress, by many, was seen as inevitable and automatic.

These nineteenth century epistemes have, in the twentieth century, been considerably modified—or so it would seem at first glance. Wherefore such a change? Four traumatic decades at the onset of the twentieth century, and five decades of intense militarism by two premier Empires, led to a perceivable sea change in the disposition of men. Included in these shattering experiences are the First World War, world depression, world financial crisis, and the Second World War. These were then followed by the Cold War.

On the byway of these traumas, major adjustments were made in the western brain. Men now had viable reason to doubt their entrenched belief in the innate goodness of man. Evil was no longer merely the absence of good.

In the course of these events, millions were killed and billions of dollars wasted. Impossible to comprehend for most, such a blow altered man’s disposition on their own species. The First World War was seen as an aberration—and one from which they must quickly move on and forget.

For ten years a fa├žade was created, a lie. In 1929, the stock market crashed. World depression ensued, and was followed by financial crisis. In the late thirties, sabers rattled as rearmament and aggression.

After 1945, a new world was evident. Opposed with the nineteenth century view of man as innately good and society as corrupting, increasingly the belief that man had a seemingly infinite capacity for untold evil insinuated itself into the minds of men. Without a society—that is, large institutions designed to quell man’s beastly desires, to nudge them towards desired beliefs and behaviors—man would certainly destroy himself. Efforts hinting at such a belief can be seen in the attempted erection of the League of Nations after the First World War, and the establishment of the United Nations (UN) after the Second World War.

The former western belief that human philosophies and abilities are innate and should be free from social duress in order to display individuality was replaced by the idea that the personality is a result of social repetition and training and must be coerced to socially acceptable ends. The laissez-faire economics of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were to be replaced by social discipline and central planning.

The “community of interests” of the free market would take backseat to the welfare community, which must be organized by wise-men. An intellectual environment would arise friendly to assertions of some sort of “de-evolution” or social retrogression or human extinction. Democracy would now be replaced by authoritarianism, and the laissez-faire Capitalism by State-Enterprise or command-and-control.

Now, here in the twenty-first century, it has grown clearer that progress is not a steady force with inevitable outcomes. Rather, man’s social development can be seen as a more anarchic, spontaneous process, no matter how much rulers attempt to ensure things remain predictable. These same notions are increasingly amending Darwin’s theory of evolution, or progress, towards more perfect forms.

The eighteenth and nineteenth century were schizophrenic times, as has been so much of human history. Nationalistic tendencies undermined royal empires, and out of this flux came a vibrant forum of idea sharing. Thoughts of a laissez-faire lifestyle wherein individuals were freed from the European caste system led to the mythology of the New World, even if the New World only reflected such a lifestyle pre-Constitution, and scantily so.

A way of understanding that was promoted, if too often implicitly and not explicitly, by eighteenth and nineteenth century sentiments, holds that the natural ought to be esteemed before the political. Even today, too often do our philosophies on how life should be grow politicized, thereby undermining their original power. Humans are not political beings. They are natural beings. The questions of how we should live our lives are unanswerable by politics, for politics is merely a means of ordering life by way of the state or government. The questions of how we should live our lives are answerable only by naturalism; that is, by recognizing that which makes us humans.

Our consciousness blossoms as a beautiful aberration from other life in the natural world as we know it. The cognitive niche, inherited from nature, that we inhabit gives us an axiom from which our understanding of the world stems. This can be easily interrupted and distorted by the data and information we are fed. Whether it be outright war, depression or manipulative fiction on television or in the movies, we are all easily victimized by the campaigning of pathological behavior by the trendsetters-that is, the ruling class—and our peers who follow. They have adopted the cynicism passed down by a century marred by two Great Wars, a deep depression, and a long standoff between two nuclear powers.

The cynicism bequeathed unto us by a violent twentieth century has led us to the belief that we need centralized governments and rulers to keep us from doing violence to one another. But, what we see are large institutions, instead of forcing people to be peaceful, projecting violence down civilization's ladder, and turning individuals against themselves, thus creating the precise environment people hoped the behemoth Institution of the State would prevent. Indeed, governments and private tyrannies were all along the impetuses of the bloodletting and carnage people were attempting to escape.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

How Transnational Corporations and Governments Will Destroy The Occupy Movement

The Occupy movement now dances along the streets of the world, growing like a dandelion in sunlight. It is impossible to predict when such passionate awakenings will spring onto the scene, since this movement comes three years after the 2008 banking revolution which transformed the global economic structure into an Occupation by the Ruling Class of the People of the World, and more than a decade after 9/11 and the invasions of the Middle East.

Either way, the movement has arisen, and we can be sure that the powers-that-be will do EVERYTHING they can to ensure that this movement is CO-OPTED (commercially adopted), repackaged and USED for the furthering of their command-and-control agendas. If this cannot be done, then the movement will be destroyed through hard power; i.e. bloodletting.

As does any movement at its incipience, this growing movement has much to learn about its enemy, who currently maintain a way of the world that ensures subservience of the so-called “99%”, a phrase that really functions as a catchy metaphor. It, like the way in which the movement uses the term “Wall Street,” is really a catch-all phrase referring to a deeply embedded power structure run by a merciless ruling class that views this 21st century as “the century of change.” This ruling class, like all ruling classes down through history, have inherited a matured philosophy of control that instructs in the techniques of control. By “century of change,” this ruling class sees this century as a prime-time to overthrow freedom on the planet, and institute dismal conditions so that no people could ever undermine their power.

They implement the aforementioned techniques of control in accordance with the ages in which they rule, and they makeup a percentage of the world's population that is more like .000001%. The cabal atop the world inherits an ancient task, sometimes referred to in religions and some political dossiers as The Great Work, and that is to standardize global culture—in effect, to bring in a World State composed of myriads of aligned national and local institutions (like the UN, which means one in French, national governments, state governments, city governments, non-government organizations, non-profit foundations, and corporations).

By envisaging this century as a sort of turning point, the powers-that-be have decided that a revolution must take place, but not the sort of revolution Occupiers believe they are taking part in. Rather, this revolution falls more in line with the revolutions of the past—like the French Revolution or the Bolshevik Revolution—whereby a more concentrated and acute power structure becomes the way things are.

Knowing that, in order to achieve the transformation of society desired—towards a more totalitarian way—wealth confiscations through economic warfare are mandatory. Thus, we have seen in the second half of the 20th century and on into the current one the “structural readjustments” of nation after nation, the world over, through IMF and World Bank programs. Today we see that, since the world is satisfactorily standardized in the eyes of the central planners of the neo-soviet, it is now time to overturn the economic order of the United States; i.e. make us a much poorer.

It is the establishments' obsession with data and information, wealth accumulation, and the maintenance of their own power that allows them to function as a sort of oracle of the way of the world. That is why in government documents for at least the past decade institutions, like the State Department, have predicted the protests we now see today in Europe, the Middle East, South America, Africa and the United States. They also predict these will soon turn into food riots.

For many technocrats—a technocrat being an empowered expert in the controlling of resources—movements like the worldwide Occupy movement are mouth-watering, for it provides an opportune time to utilize the technique of “cognitive infiltration.” This is a technique in controlling the mind, which is considered by the self-declared “masters of the universe” an economic resource. Platforms like Occupy create fertile environments in which new ideas can flourish. Using their vast and easily acquired resources—made possible by their manipulation of the money supply through the Federal Reserve System—illuminist transnational corporations can ensure that it is their ideas which gain the most support through sophisticated –although outwardly simple—and well-financed advertising and marketing campaigns, and the institutionalization of these platforms through their control of virtually each government in the world.

They WILL intend to STEER the Occupy movement towards DESIRED OUTCOMES, and therefore catchy slogans imploring the government to raise TAXES, increase CONTROL, and call for radical, more TOTALITARIAN ways of society and culture will become popular. The REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED, but only those revolutionary ideas conjured up by think-tanks who work tirelessly on the algorithms of everyday life. They WILL NOT promote FREEDOM and LIBERTY. Instead, they WILL promote COLLECTIVISM and GOVERNMENTAL INTERVENTION into the economy; i.e. our daily lives.

Of course, not everyone will be fooled. We are wise, and the flux of society, brought on by the “global insurrection against banker occupation” and the actions of these hijackers of mankind themselves, will cause increasing numbers of people to awaken to the true power-structure. So then, how will the establishment maintain their management of man?

There are many cards the powers-that-be could play, such as a false flag terror attack, wherein the transnational corporations plot some sort of fear-inducing event to be televised on the world stage. The powers-that-be could invade some country, such as Iran, by way of the US military, thereby furthering the current world war started and stoked by the United States and its management.

Seeing as how they control amounts of wealth well in excess of the GDP of the planet, planetary rulers essentially dictate the economy. They will, eventually, pull the rug out completely from underneath the people in the west, plunging the entire world into a collapse surpassing conditions during the Great Depression. While I believe this is already bound to happen, this event can be hastened if a global awakening begins to threaten the real power structure. Anybody who wishes to be free must prepare themselves mentally and physically for such conditions. Stock up on water and stock up on food. There are myriads of supplies that we must have on hand, if we wish to become independent from any system of exploitation.

Food riots will be thwarted by force, and people will depend on government welfare programs for food. In order to maintain order on the streets, TSA-like checkpoints will be rolled-out onto city streets, whilst a monumental surveillance system will be utilized. Inside those stores which do have food, food prices will be setup in such a way so that the poor and middle classes can only afford GMO food and food loaded with preservatives and pesticides. Thus, another way in which any true movement for freedom will be neutralized is through genocide. The critical mass any such movement would need to affect true change will be impossible, due to endemic sickness and death of the population.

That is why not only demonstrations and protests are the way towards a freer society. We must also become less dependent on any system. If the power goes out, we need to have flashlights, candles, transistor radios, access to clean water and nourishing food, et cetera. That is one way in which to become freer. Worst case scenario, put away canned food now, and save on the inflation later.

At the level of ideas, any freedom movement must move beyond the collectivization of the individual. Women's rights, black rights, gay rights, pothead rights: these are collectivist movements that define the individual in terms of a grouping. It is this collectivist belief system which got these aforementioned groups ostracized in the first place. Instead, we must stress the value of the individual, and his or her right to engage in the complex fabric of human relationships in the way he or she pleases, so long as this individual does not engage in any form of violence against others. Fostering an environment in which the individual can excel and find him or herself is the first step towards realizing cultural freedom.