THE more one thinks about the craziness of this world, the more difficult it is to make sense of it.
It’s very clear to most observers and commentators that whatever the forces of darkness are doing, their objective is to build a world where every citizen is a code and every electronic communication is a permanently stored piece of data. (See Paula Jardine’s recent articles in TCW).
What is the purpose of storing this data? Control? Safety? Security? Or is it one step closer to artificial intelligence (AI) controlling and dominating every individual and every aspect of human interaction on the planet without the need for any form of democratic process or government? This raises the question: where are we heading as a civilisation? Why are we rushing headlong and recklessly into this Orwellian nightmare without any public debate? What is the purpose of democracy if the people (the ‘demos’ that give rise to the word) are never invited to give their opinion on important issues?
You would think that these questions would never arise in a true democracy, but during the current Conservative Party leadership selection process none of the candidates addressed any of these issues. Even if they are aware of the direction of travel, how can we be sure they are not just pawns in this dystopian scenario? We know that that several world leaders have closer links to the World Economic Forum than is desirable, and Sunak and Truss are enthusiastic followers, if not active participants, of the WEF and its Build Back Better agenda.
If the people are to take back control of their democracy how do they do it without resorting to a pitchfork rebellion? We see signs of growing unrest amongst the farming communities in Sri Lanka, the Netherlands and Canada against the net carbon zero agenda that their authoritarian leaders (WEF lackeys) are trying to impose on them.
How successful these protests are will depend on how the elites react. It’s unlikely that the elites will give up their pursuit of world domination, which they perceive as benign and in the best interests of the planet. But another, less generous, interpretation might be they have an agenda to depopulate the planet and retain its resources for a reduced population and themselves.
Where has it all gone wrong? Why has humanity lost its way? Lessons can be learned from the past and I think the root cause of our woes has been the disconnect between our traditions and our present obsession with science as the only solution to society’s problems. This is particularly relevant to Covid and climate change. Scientists convinced naïve politicians that the only route out of the ‘pandemic’ was a vaccine based on experimental mRNA technology. Another select band of scientists and environmentalists have dominated the imaginary problem of global warming with their policy solution of Net Zero carbon which everyone is beginning to realise will impoverish large swathes of society. Neither of these problems nor their proposed solutions are workable, nor are they based on sound science.
Without question the scientific progress over the last two hundred years has changed life immeasurably and mostly for the better. At the same time it has created life-threatening problems that scientists try to rectify with more scientific solutions. The bedrock of society for thousands of years has been the religious and cultural traditions of our forebears. We ignore this wisdom at our peril and the guardians of this wisdom, our church elders and other spiritual and religious leaders, need to shout out and grab the attention of our politicians and billionaire elites that man does not live by bread alone. They especially need to remind the arrogant and aloof members of the scientific community that man is a part of nature and that no human designed, transhumanist therapy or technology (vide Klaus Schwab’s mentor Yuval Noah Harari) will ever match nature’s infinite complexity, intelligence, beauty and inter-connectedness.
Traditionally we were taught to enliven our connection with nature and the divine by regularly attending a church or a temple for prayer and meditation. Besides the spiritual nourishment this provided it was a template for a more orderly society and, despite some of its obvious drawbacks, did accomplish incredible architectural, artistic and technical achievements.
Prayer and meditation provided an anchor that provided stability in times of chaos. Today we are in danger of losing that anchor unless we wake up and realise what it is that we are about to lose. Blaise Pascal wisely said ‘All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.’ To restore some sanity to our troubled world perhaps a little bit of quiet time each day would not go amiss in order to centre and anchor one’s awareness to the infinite intelligence and organising power at the heart of nature.
As our scientific knowledge of the physical world we inhabit expands exponentially, it doesn’t necessarily translate into a better quality of life. In many cases one could argue that we are actually destroying life through science. mRNA vaccines and other novel gene-based technologies are a case in point. Even more serious is the hypothesis that these dangerous technologies are affecting our cognitive abilities; data on autism, ADHD and other illnesses such as MS, ME and dementia over the last 60 years or so correlates with novel pharmaceutical-based therapies being mandated throughout the population (Guy Hatchard and Dr Toby Rogers have both written about this).
My point is that society needs to have democratic control over its own destiny. We cede power and control to a select group of individuals every four or five years, but in between we have little oversight of their decisions and their policies. Elected politicians may have our best interests at heart but irrespective of which party is elected to office very little changes from one parliament to the next. The people themselves need to write the manifesto of how their country is run, not the politicians. The politicians would be elected based on their skills and commitment to implementing the people’s manifesto. In addition we need to develop a mechanism which allows the people to hold the government to account during a parliamentary session. Otherwise, judging by the performance of most democracies over the last two and half years, we are heading for totalitarianism.
If we don’t control the narrative, the narrative of the elites will control us. We need Magna Carta 2.0.