For all those who argue that the UN, WEF, WHO, Biden, Trudeau, et al are doing good for the world just because they say they are, think again. Most people seem to hold onto this belief that the people who have money and power on this planet wake up each morning blessing the little people of the world and hold their plight through poverty, middle classism, and “just not wealthy enough to be elite” foremost in their minds—hoping every moment for a solution to world hunger, wars, human humility, depression and hopelessness. Actually they do hope for a solution, but it isn’t a solution any of us would be happy with.
Willful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan explains a lot. And Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski is another favourite of mine. Evil tends to rise to the top, but idiots believe there is altruism at the top. I had a chat with a liberal from California the other day while we were floating in a lake in northern Ontario. Biden is great, Gavin Newsome is great. It's like she inhabits an alternative universe where nothing of any significance happened in the last 3 years. It was shocking to realize that a lot of people don't notice ANYTHING.
I appreciate your literary works Todd and keen insightful thoughts. I pass items along simply hopeful that there will be an opening in the Amour of some people
They are “stupid” simply because they wholeheartedly believe their persona’s are above the Almighty God. “ Pride goeth before the fall” After all He created them with a free will. It will be a very rude awakening someday!
Elites. I find it such a funny term. They are fools, they are the chiefs among fools.
This world is illusory. As the great sage Ashtavakra pointed out; you are not made of earth, of water of air or fire. You are the witness of all things, the presence between the end of one thought and the start of another. Vast are you, and timeless, endless joy.
Let the fools play their foolish game, so far from understanding that they will forever be called back to this charade by their stupidity and lusts.
And the most foolish of their desires? Transhumanism! They actually want to stay in this illusory reality indefinitely?!
What clowns. What pitiful lost creatures. I struggle to think of anything more blinded and stupid.
As with so much in this world, reality is the exact opposite of what it appears to be. Materialism is absurdity, the high lords of materialism are the greatest of its idiots. Architects of grand immortality projects of breathtaking scope and egotism. Saving the world in their private jets, no less!
Look to the greatest of us for the real answer, Diogenes the Cynic, who lived in a barrel and threw away his cup in disgust after watching a child drink from a fountain with his hands, or Ramana Maharshi, who belonged to only a loincloth and an old kettle, or Dattatreya, who wandered naked and ever blissful.
To paraphrase the great Ashtavakra once again; understand your true nature, go about and be happy.
Thank you Todd, I wish I could get my family to read this and to really think about it, because you have used such clarity to state this unavoidable truth. But they are too busy to read or to think deeply about anything, besides - Netflix is calling.
I agree. And the sheep mentality as well. Almost everyone in my family has seen it and think it's wonderful. I watched a few clips (after listening to them rave about it) and found it to be such unbearable nonsense, I couldn't watch any more.
The blatant programming is astounding!
One of my daughters (who is 51) said: 'I think there is a deeper message but I can't be bothered trying to figure out what it is.' I said: 'Ya think?' And that was the end of that conversation.
Once again, I just shake my head and wonder what gene pool my kids came out of - it just couldn't have been mine!
You say the elite would NOT "come right out and tell us they plan to strip the world of all of its resources and keep it all to themselves? And in the process kill off as many of us as they can in order to bring about a little more manageable balance to the globe." And yet, if you've read Schwab's output wherein the 2030 Agenda is shared, it's RIGHT THERE IN B&W! "You will own nothing and be happy", and Gates has already talked about reducing population by 15% (and remember those Stones in Georgia? world population of 500 million?)as a sidebar in his vision of vaccinating the whole world ... and Harari's comment about "useless eaters" in his transhumanist discussion of "hackable" humans. Shades of the Reich! They have already revealed it ALL, and yet ... the choruses of, "ba-a-a, ba-a-a, ba-a-a ... yoo-hoo-'re a conspi-hi-racy-y-y the-e-eoris-s-st!" just get louder. And apparently we're going back to masking and pov to travel and fullscale lockdowns in October 2023, so ...🎶"get ready ... cuz here I come!"🎶 ... remember those lyrics?
Yeah, I think us shrews hear it loud and clear, I honestly do not think sheep hear it the way you say it is. But while reading your comment, I was saying, "yeah, that's right, that is pretty clear"...maybe I am part sheep and just don't want to believe it!!
The Georgia Guidestones were not necessarily erected by the current "powers that be"...Schwab, Gates, Harari etc. It also doesn't say directly, "and we will reach that level of 500 million by killing off 7.5 billion people"...although it may as well have said that...
I don't think it was Harari that used the term "useless eaters" but again, he may as well have. If you have a source of Harari's where he uses that term, please send it on. I thought that term came from some Nazi reference regarding disabled people...but I had read it in a more recent book and now for the life of me I can't remember where that was...it is buried in my research notes somewhere...
Explaining to others what you write here is impossible.
At the heart of our present time is a war of destructive, prideful, greedy evil against the good, and ignorance of this fundamental situation is bliss for the majority who refuse to recognize and acknowledge this.
I know people who actually believe that there's a ceiling to psychopathy. There's a certain level, beyond which it does not penetrate. Hence there are no psychopaths in the judiciary, industry, police, banking, and certainly not politics. They're all altruists and want to serve us and make the world a better place.
This does seem odd, but I agree it seems that way for sure. People seem to think that if a person is seriously mentally ill (psychopathy, as you say) it would be really obvious and limited only to dysfunctional people...it may be pretty obvious, but is also very present in highly functional people...and you are right, the average person doesn't seem to think that is possible.
Six percent of the entire population is considered the nucleus of intelligent, complicated people who should dictate the terms of existence to all others. Six percent. According to the social scientists re-ordering society today at the UN, WEF, WHO, Biden, Trudeau, et al.
In 1963 a prominent philosopher and legal scholar, Walter Berns, wrote a piece about what was called "Experimental Jurisprudence." The application of "science," an emerging social science, specifically "behavioral science" to the law. Noting that it is a pseudoscience, reminding that eugenics also claimed the mantle of science, when the reality is it's a pseudoscience. Infused with political science and the agendas of those with power to manipulate and control others.
Berns devotes the first half of the piece (p186-198) to a sort of game-theory application of behavioral science, I'll just shorten that to BS to deciding court cases. The second half (p199-212) of this piece he gets into the reasoning and theory behind "Experimental Jurisprudence," aka BS laws adopted as unchallengeable governance - follow the science, obey the science! He focuses his analysis on the popularization in legal circles at the time on a book written by Frederick K. Beutel, "Experimental Jurisprudence.
There is much wisdom in this Berns piece that I encourage all readers to avail themselves to. And many cautions, warnings of what a BS law system of governance would look like. Cautions and warnings that unfortunately went unheeded. Explaining how we got here, because we got away from government of wise, humble leaders. We must know where we came from, how we got here to know where we need to course adjust to. The first half of the book is rather dry, so if your time is limited go ahead and skip that. Though it is useful to understand how Chief Justice John Roberts and other behaviorists on the nation's high court come to their case decisions, their theory of the law that defies conservative-liberal labels. Sixty years ago. This article written sixty years ago foretold our present circumstances.
Law and Behavioral Science
Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter, 1963 (Duke University)
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
You know, it was certainly bound to happen. Once we got past the caveman phase, and started to build cities, grow plants and animals to eat, and figure out a few other interesting things...it was bound to happen that a couple of people would get together and believe they had it all figured out...how to rule the world...
I suppose this all really started to happen once they killed God...and the pope lost power. I am not saying this as a religious statement...but really, the world, or at least the civilized world, was held together more or less by religion. Once that was out of the way, then "powerful people" started to tinker with it...
The Marxists, and all totalitarians either ban religions or make them subservient to the state. They cannot abide an alternative authority to theirs. No appeals to a higher God to contradict them, their edicts. Mankind cannot be free without God.
And Walter Berns also had this to say that his obituary highlighed:
"Dr. Berns’s career, “reflects the classical view that democracy depends on the character of the citizens, so their opinions and beliefs, their personal habits and degree of self-discipline — in a word, their virtues — will matter to the prospects of democratic government.”
Dr. Berns argued against unbounded individual rights and for restrictions on pornography, which he believed eroded self-restraint.
“Those who are without shame,” he remarked, “will be unruly and unrulable; having lost the ability to restrain themselves by obeying the rules they collectively give themselves, they will have to be ruled by others.”"
"social scientists generally are excited at the prospect of playing a new role in the law, that it becomes necessary to enter a word of caution. These thirty-two may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now."
"More than a quarter of a century earlier Virginia had gone to the Supreme Court with a statute requiring compulsory sterilization of all mentally defective inmates of state institutions. The social scientists involved in the sterilization movement (and it was a national movement) were convinced that human inheritance was governed by Mendel's findings regarding pea plants"
"The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Holmes, and Holmes, like the eugenicists, believed that "wholesale social regeneration... cannot be affected appreciably by tinkering with the institution of property, but only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race." The eugenicists wanted this and something that Holmes would not have wanted.
One of Virginia's "expert" witnesses had plans to sterilize hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. As co-editor of the Eugenical News, he reprinted an entire speech by Dr. Frick, Reichsminister of the Interior, entitled "German Population and Race Politics." An editorial in the same journal stated openly that one "may condemn the Nazi policy generally, but specifically it remained for Germany in 1933 to lead the great nations of the world in recognition of the biological foundations of national character."
""Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmnelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today,"" but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible."
"Certainly moderation does not characterize the principal work of scientific jurisprudence in our day," Frederick K. Beutel's Experimental Jurisprudence. If Beutel is to be believed, we are on the threshold of a solution to man's most fundamental problems; all that is required is the transfer of "the techniques and knowledge so successfully developed in the physical sciences ... into the field of social control" .... His book is to be understood as a defense and an illustration of such transfer. It is with his defense that we shall be primarily concerned.
Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx."""
"Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."'"
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
"Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
It is much safer, he says, to have "enlightened theories of law and government carefully worked out by rational experimental processes rather than be left to rely on the speculation of cloistered philosophers or the mad dreams of imprisoned fanatics.""
"Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government. It would be possible, by careful selection, to present a thesis from his book that is not wholly incompatible with a certain view of democracy, one in which experimental jurisprudence appears as no more than a means of effecting or of institutionalizing a pragmatic ethics."
"Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there -will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:"'
What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Great job of laying it all out there, exactly as it is. A characteristic of psychopaths is their total disdain for those they can fool easily. Another is the enjoyment they get from tormenting such people. Since the population of the world is overwhelmingly such people, it's easy to understand why we are where we are. How does a minority who sees them clearly get traction? I wish I knew.
I think the population the psychopath leaders deal with fall into two categories (and probably many subcategories). 1. The people that work for them, their competition in politics, or even their peers. These are "fellow entities" to them...I won't say "fellow humans" but if they consider themselves human, then this category does represent "humans" to them...but still, if below them, subordinates...but still close to what they are. 2. The ants. Us. I do not believe they think of all of us as humans at all. They see us no different than they see ants, or fish, or goats, or sheep, or whatever. We are of no concern to them...we are useless eaters.
Agree. I've known some psychopaths (certainly meet the checklist anyway) very well and got along with them fine. If they know you're not fooled, they have some respect for you and even like working with you. It's to their advantage to get along with some people, after all. That's my experience anyway. You can never really count on them, that should go without saying. Never kid yourself just because things seem so pleasant.
The sad part is that some people, the 🐑 ( and yes I will still call them that ), actually believe these people are looking out for us. Linking as usual. Todd @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Thank you for the link!! Yes, that is the main thrust of the article, that the sheep think all of these people are working for us, and love us, and are doing everything for us.
I'm sure some of them are stupid (I am writing an article about stupid). But I am afraid many of them are quite clever. But they are narcissists, self absorbed, selfish, bullies, etc. Which can be very stupid.
Another quote from Wood's book:
"May I pause here to make clear that the so-called "elite" are nothing more than elit-ists who view themselves as vastly superior in every way to the rest of the human race. In fact, they are self-deluded snobs whose actions betray them as the very dregs of the earth, NOT the saviors of the world."
It's impossible to understand how things work, and why they work like they do, without a good understanding of psychopathy, and just as importantly, how normals react to psychopaths. Anyone baffled by it all needn't be. I started with Cleckley's seminal work, then Hare and Stout, all very illuminating. Might be some newer works even better, although I doubt it.
People in power (and their puppets) seem to be disintegrated on the psychic level — fractured personalities, narcissistically disordered. I spent a great deal of time with a woman who I once considered to be an intimate friend. She was very clever on one level — clever and sly in how she would manipulate. She flattered, agreed with me on much, led me on some merry romps in the gaslight. Ultimately I caught her in a significant lies and then my own denial shattered and her whole house of cards fell down. Big lies, little lies, lying to everyone, lying to herself. All to one purpose: to present herself as the heroine in her own story and to project that story to everyone else in her sphere. She never, ever shouldered responsibility for her own mistakes or bad behavior. Instead it was a game of blame-shifting. Her behavior seemed to be knee-jerk (programmed) and not even conscious at times. I dislike labels, but for the sake of clarity she is a textbook Narcissist, Including having little or no empathy for others — pets, children and adults alike.
That experience gave me a real clue about the world’s Con-Trollers. Honesty, empathy, compassion, true courage, and ethics are all lacking if not non-existent. How this happens to a human is, undoubtedly, a tragic tale of abuse and mind control at its most basic and hideous level. Factor in greed — for material resources, self-aggrandizement, and power. And factor in significant fear — fear of discovery, loss of control, loss of image, possessions and even life. And you have a recipe for evil.
Ignore-ant, foolish me! In the case of my former ‘friend’ I simply could NOT imagine a walking, talking, breathing incarnation of such a magnitude of denatured humanity. I was in denial for a while (just as I was with regard to the geo-political Agenda) until it was right in my face. I forgive myself, though. People of this ilk have a way of ‘acting’ (performing) in a manner that mimics human qualities. And some are highly functioning on some levels of perception -- as they pertain to their own survival. For those who are not aware it can be seductive. My personal goal remains: examining my own susceptibilities and tendencies to deny the existence of actual evil in this world. It can be dangerous to assume others share my own moral compass, or even are in possession of any morals. Just because I would never dream of such deceit, deviousness and heartlessness doesn’t mean that all others share my natural aversion. Narcissistic disorder can go hand-in-glove with true psychopathy.
On one level I do feel great empathy for such soulless entities. No baby comes into this world with an evil plan to become a mass-murderer or an assistant to one. And there must be a long history of suffering. But my empathy for what was once an innocent baby/child no longer interferes with my perception of what they are and what they do as adults. They must be called out, blocked, ostracized, defended against and disempowered. They must be denied any supply (fuel/suuport) for their endless and irrational drive for control.
Fundamentally the flaw lies in some base characteristics of humanity
Goodness - we truly believe in the good of others and want to be good ourselves so it has hard to wrap our heads around the incredible criminality being witnessed
Forgiveness - we forgive out of control compassion amd empathy
Laziness - we think truth will take care of itself and we don't have to contribute actively
Evil on the other had is always working relentlessly because it knows its foothold of power which relies on lies and deceit and hypocrisy will tumble down in a single instant when truth stands up. In solidarity
You left out stupidity. If believing in the goodness of others, who obviously are the opposite, is not stupid, then what is? if forgiving those who would enjoy taking everything you have, raping your women, and torturing you to death isn't stupid, what is? If thinking truth will take care of itself, when history shows the opposite over and over isn't stupid, what is?
It really depends on how you define "stupid"...as you use it here I agree. If stupid is defined as taking an action with no understanding of the consequences, then yes, these people are very stupid...ultimately their plan will kill them all. That's stupid.
All that stems from laziness... It takes work not to be ignorant and long-term ignorance for sure leads to stupidity ie dumbing down of the population to gain undue advantage. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.. So all those public services come with a price, we are paying that price now
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc Paddy Chayefsky told you how things work a long time ago. the masses are helpless to see it. the schooling so successful. you know. the cherished public schooling. sprung from the minds of weirdos. Kant. Hegel. etal. hmmmm. how do we get these humans to stay on the battlefield? on the sweatshop floor? get them off the farm? people who can feed themselves are autonomous. often autodidacts. how do we stamp out thinking? skool. i love to imagine a time when the people will chuckle about the era of schooling. the belief in nonsensical concepts. virus's. man made global warming, etc. then i fear it will never happen. they're not done with us shrews. our antiquated notions of personal liberty. the freedom to think. i sense the shiny black boot. hovering above.
too glum for a sunday morning having, grown from seed, tomatoes on homemade toast.
Yeah, I just discovered all of my posts on FB linking my articles that are on Off-Guardian were removed, due to the new law: Online News Act, which, in its disguise, was designed to control social media and search engines from posting news stories basically bypassing the news source...thus causing them to lose revenue. Really? Now they have carte blanche to regulate the news on any format other than the original source (which is coming, of course).
If a person in the US posts a link to a news story, say in the Washington Post, it will not show up in a Canadian's FB feed. There will be a little disclaimer saying "this post is not allowed in Canada"...Canadians are not allowed to see it...wow...the internet is now filtered by the Canadian government.
Willful Blindness by Margaret Heffernan explains a lot. And Political Ponerology by Andrew Lobaczewski is another favourite of mine. Evil tends to rise to the top, but idiots believe there is altruism at the top. I had a chat with a liberal from California the other day while we were floating in a lake in northern Ontario. Biden is great, Gavin Newsome is great. It's like she inhabits an alternative universe where nothing of any significance happened in the last 3 years. It was shocking to realize that a lot of people don't notice ANYTHING.
Just put those two books on my wishlist...
I am continuously blown away as you...
I appreciate your literary works Todd and keen insightful thoughts. I pass items along simply hopeful that there will be an opening in the Amour of some people
You are SO kind!
They are “stupid” simply because they wholeheartedly believe their persona’s are above the Almighty God. “ Pride goeth before the fall” After all He created them with a free will. It will be a very rude awakening someday!
I agree with that wholeheartedly.
Elites. I find it such a funny term. They are fools, they are the chiefs among fools.
This world is illusory. As the great sage Ashtavakra pointed out; you are not made of earth, of water of air or fire. You are the witness of all things, the presence between the end of one thought and the start of another. Vast are you, and timeless, endless joy.
Let the fools play their foolish game, so far from understanding that they will forever be called back to this charade by their stupidity and lusts.
And the most foolish of their desires? Transhumanism! They actually want to stay in this illusory reality indefinitely?!
What clowns. What pitiful lost creatures. I struggle to think of anything more blinded and stupid.
As with so much in this world, reality is the exact opposite of what it appears to be. Materialism is absurdity, the high lords of materialism are the greatest of its idiots. Architects of grand immortality projects of breathtaking scope and egotism. Saving the world in their private jets, no less!
Look to the greatest of us for the real answer, Diogenes the Cynic, who lived in a barrel and threw away his cup in disgust after watching a child drink from a fountain with his hands, or Ramana Maharshi, who belonged to only a loincloth and an old kettle, or Dattatreya, who wandered naked and ever blissful.
To paraphrase the great Ashtavakra once again; understand your true nature, go about and be happy.
Very nice writing! Thank you.
Yes, a lot of people have issue with using the word "elite"...the word fails on many counts.
Thank you Todd, I wish I could get my family to read this and to really think about it, because you have used such clarity to state this unavoidable truth. But they are too busy to read or to think deeply about anything, besides - Netflix is calling.
I hear the Barbie movie has gotten a lot of their attention...they seem to love it. It speaks to the sheep heart.
I agree. And the sheep mentality as well. Almost everyone in my family has seen it and think it's wonderful. I watched a few clips (after listening to them rave about it) and found it to be such unbearable nonsense, I couldn't watch any more.
The blatant programming is astounding!
One of my daughters (who is 51) said: 'I think there is a deeper message but I can't be bothered trying to figure out what it is.' I said: 'Ya think?' And that was the end of that conversation.
Once again, I just shake my head and wonder what gene pool my kids came out of - it just couldn't have been mine!
Thank you!
I have nothing constructive to add but would like to share 'Klaus' singing 'Imagine,' and hope that you enjoy!
https://wentworthreport.com/2023/08/17/klaus-schwabs-imagine/
You say the elite would NOT "come right out and tell us they plan to strip the world of all of its resources and keep it all to themselves? And in the process kill off as many of us as they can in order to bring about a little more manageable balance to the globe." And yet, if you've read Schwab's output wherein the 2030 Agenda is shared, it's RIGHT THERE IN B&W! "You will own nothing and be happy", and Gates has already talked about reducing population by 15% (and remember those Stones in Georgia? world population of 500 million?)as a sidebar in his vision of vaccinating the whole world ... and Harari's comment about "useless eaters" in his transhumanist discussion of "hackable" humans. Shades of the Reich! They have already revealed it ALL, and yet ... the choruses of, "ba-a-a, ba-a-a, ba-a-a ... yoo-hoo-'re a conspi-hi-racy-y-y the-e-eoris-s-st!" just get louder. And apparently we're going back to masking and pov to travel and fullscale lockdowns in October 2023, so ...🎶"get ready ... cuz here I come!"🎶 ... remember those lyrics?
Yeah, I think us shrews hear it loud and clear, I honestly do not think sheep hear it the way you say it is. But while reading your comment, I was saying, "yeah, that's right, that is pretty clear"...maybe I am part sheep and just don't want to believe it!!
The Georgia Guidestones were not necessarily erected by the current "powers that be"...Schwab, Gates, Harari etc. It also doesn't say directly, "and we will reach that level of 500 million by killing off 7.5 billion people"...although it may as well have said that...
I don't think it was Harari that used the term "useless eaters" but again, he may as well have. If you have a source of Harari's where he uses that term, please send it on. I thought that term came from some Nazi reference regarding disabled people...but I had read it in a more recent book and now for the life of me I can't remember where that was...it is buried in my research notes somewhere...
Explaining to others what you write here is impossible.
At the heart of our present time is a war of destructive, prideful, greedy evil against the good, and ignorance of this fundamental situation is bliss for the majority who refuse to recognize and acknowledge this.
Yeah, what I write here is pretty intense, but damn, I am amazed the average person (sheep) do not see this as obvious as it is.
most are too busy with the trees and so do not see the forest
I know people who actually believe that there's a ceiling to psychopathy. There's a certain level, beyond which it does not penetrate. Hence there are no psychopaths in the judiciary, industry, police, banking, and certainly not politics. They're all altruists and want to serve us and make the world a better place.
This does seem odd, but I agree it seems that way for sure. People seem to think that if a person is seriously mentally ill (psychopathy, as you say) it would be really obvious and limited only to dysfunctional people...it may be pretty obvious, but is also very present in highly functional people...and you are right, the average person doesn't seem to think that is possible.
Six percent of the entire population is considered the nucleus of intelligent, complicated people who should dictate the terms of existence to all others. Six percent. According to the social scientists re-ordering society today at the UN, WEF, WHO, Biden, Trudeau, et al.
In 1963 a prominent philosopher and legal scholar, Walter Berns, wrote a piece about what was called "Experimental Jurisprudence." The application of "science," an emerging social science, specifically "behavioral science" to the law. Noting that it is a pseudoscience, reminding that eugenics also claimed the mantle of science, when the reality is it's a pseudoscience. Infused with political science and the agendas of those with power to manipulate and control others.
Berns devotes the first half of the piece (p186-198) to a sort of game-theory application of behavioral science, I'll just shorten that to BS to deciding court cases. The second half (p199-212) of this piece he gets into the reasoning and theory behind "Experimental Jurisprudence," aka BS laws adopted as unchallengeable governance - follow the science, obey the science! He focuses his analysis on the popularization in legal circles at the time on a book written by Frederick K. Beutel, "Experimental Jurisprudence.
There is much wisdom in this Berns piece that I encourage all readers to avail themselves to. And many cautions, warnings of what a BS law system of governance would look like. Cautions and warnings that unfortunately went unheeded. Explaining how we got here, because we got away from government of wise, humble leaders. We must know where we came from, how we got here to know where we need to course adjust to. The first half of the book is rather dry, so if your time is limited go ahead and skip that. Though it is useful to understand how Chief Justice John Roberts and other behaviorists on the nation's high court come to their case decisions, their theory of the law that defies conservative-liberal labels. Sixty years ago. This article written sixty years ago foretold our present circumstances.
Law and Behavioral Science
Law and Contemporary Problems, Winter, 1963 (Duke University)
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2953&context=lcp
"The laws to be enacted or recommended should be those which lead to the greatest sum total of satisfaction of needs, demands and desires, in that order of rank. Thus a more complicated person is certain to have greater wants than a simple individual, and his combined interests as a whole will therefore weigh heavier in the scientific scale than those of a less complicated (less intelligent, if you will) individual."
But supposing the "less complicated" people object to this dispensation?:
"If ... sufficient public interest is to be developed in adopting new scientific methods, it will be necessary for this small [at most "six percent of the entire population"] nucleus from which come the able scientists to convince the great majority to agree to types of governmental and legal devices which the overwhelming mass of people cannot even understand. Under the circumstances, the development of popular pressure for adoption of scientific discoveries into the legal and governmental field sufficient to overcome the inertia of those in control of the machinery is difficult, if not impossible, to achieve."
(additional selected excerpts in reply comment)
Excellent information, thanks for this....
You know, it was certainly bound to happen. Once we got past the caveman phase, and started to build cities, grow plants and animals to eat, and figure out a few other interesting things...it was bound to happen that a couple of people would get together and believe they had it all figured out...how to rule the world...
I suppose this all really started to happen once they killed God...and the pope lost power. I am not saying this as a religious statement...but really, the world, or at least the civilized world, was held together more or less by religion. Once that was out of the way, then "powerful people" started to tinker with it...
The Marxists, and all totalitarians either ban religions or make them subservient to the state. They cannot abide an alternative authority to theirs. No appeals to a higher God to contradict them, their edicts. Mankind cannot be free without God.
And Walter Berns also had this to say that his obituary highlighed:
Washington Post, January 14, 2015
https://archive.ph/5lgZM#selection-395.0-1371.206
"Dr. Berns’s career, “reflects the classical view that democracy depends on the character of the citizens, so their opinions and beliefs, their personal habits and degree of self-discipline — in a word, their virtues — will matter to the prospects of democratic government.”
Dr. Berns argued against unbounded individual rights and for restrictions on pornography, which he believed eroded self-restraint.
“Those who are without shame,” he remarked, “will be unruly and unrulable; having lost the ability to restrain themselves by obeying the rules they collectively give themselves, they will have to be ruled by others.”"
"social scientists generally are excited at the prospect of playing a new role in the law, that it becomes necessary to enter a word of caution. These thirty-two may state their purpose modestly, but Feuer and Fromm want to reorganize society; Myrdal may disclaim any policy role for his science as science, but Harold Lasswell has in mind the establishment of what one of his critics has called a "psychoanalytocracy"--that is, rule by psychoanalysts.
If men are certain that they know the cure for the ills of society, they are likely to become impatient with traditional legal principles and procedures which have always been thought important precisely because of the great difficulty in knowing what is good for man, and what is good for man here and now."
"More than a quarter of a century earlier Virginia had gone to the Supreme Court with a statute requiring compulsory sterilization of all mentally defective inmates of state institutions. The social scientists involved in the sterilization movement (and it was a national movement) were convinced that human inheritance was governed by Mendel's findings regarding pea plants"
"The Supreme Court's opinion was written by Justice Holmes, and Holmes, like the eugenicists, believed that "wholesale social regeneration... cannot be affected appreciably by tinkering with the institution of property, but only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race." The eugenicists wanted this and something that Holmes would not have wanted.
One of Virginia's "expert" witnesses had plans to sterilize hundreds of thousands of Americans annually. As co-editor of the Eugenical News, he reprinted an entire speech by Dr. Frick, Reichsminister of the Interior, entitled "German Population and Race Politics." An editorial in the same journal stated openly that one "may condemn the Nazi policy generally, but specifically it remained for Germany in 1933 to lead the great nations of the world in recognition of the biological foundations of national character."
""Perhaps the day will come when, as Judge Miller said in the Parmnelee case, "social scientists can advise not only courts, but the people generally; just as physicians ... do today,"" but Buck v. Bell illustrates the hazards potentially involved and as well the failure of the courts to scrutinize a program cast in the language of science. This was science polluted by a vicious brand of politics, but when science asserts itself in the law, there is always the danger, and the strong possibility, that it will become irresponsible."
"Certainly moderation does not characterize the principal work of scientific jurisprudence in our day," Frederick K. Beutel's Experimental Jurisprudence. If Beutel is to be believed, we are on the threshold of a solution to man's most fundamental problems; all that is required is the transfer of "the techniques and knowledge so successfully developed in the physical sciences ... into the field of social control" .... His book is to be understood as a defense and an illustration of such transfer. It is with his defense that we shall be primarily concerned.
Man, he says, has achieved power over nature but not over himself; the "philosophy of social control" has not kept pace with "the revolutionary developments of physical science," which has engendered grave "mental, political and social maladjustments." This disproportion is largely the responsibility of "obsolescent practices," a reliance "upon ancient theories, institutions and dogmas about the nature of man fomented by clerics and philosophers [such as] the Bible, Aristotle, Plato, Adam Smith, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Montesquieu, Bentham, Blackstone and Marx."""
"Beutel says that when "law as a matter of regular practice enters the field of thought control, as is already the case in some totalitarian states, then the findings of the psychologists as to the working of the mind in reaching subjective choices will be of great use to the jurists."'"
"Looking far into the future, it may be predicted that the methods of legally directed thought control may eventually take over the direction and control of what some now call human values and that this power may be turned to scientific purposes. If this is to be accomplished, it should be along the lines of Experimental Jurisprudence. When this is done, there will no longer be any basis for the belief that social science is impossible because it contains no elements of control such as those found in physical sciences. The means of social control by law are now developing and increasing all about us. Mankind may soon be required to make the choice whether these powers are to be exercised for greed, lust and caprice of individuals or are to be used in the scientific advancement of the race."
"Beutel is not altogether clear as to what he means by the "scientific advancement of the race," and the laws appropriate to this advancement; but he does have a test, of sorts, of good laws:
That the scientists should be restrained by the need to get the consent of the ("less complicated") governed is reassuring, but perhaps only temporarily, since we know that this restraint does not derive from any principle to be found in the book. The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed," but Beutel dismisses its "theories" as mere "fictions," even more "advanced in the realm of fiction" than the notion of the "divine right of kings.' Never lacking in boldness, he goes right on to state his lack of interest in any of these "theories":
"The experimental jurist as such has little interest in the general theories advanced to explain the purposes of government as a whole or to justify certain lines of policy. As a scientist he must recognize that these expressions are largely fictional. While he might possibly desire to examine the factual effectiveness of various devices used to disseminate these fictions in persuading the public to submit to the general policies of a particular government, his immediate attention preferably would be directed toward the effect of a particular law in accomplishing the real purpose for which it was created."
It is much safer, he says, to have "enlightened theories of law and government carefully worked out by rational experimental processes rather than be left to rely on the speculation of cloistered philosophers or the mad dreams of imprisoned fanatics.""
"Rule by experimental jurisprudence is not imminent, and there would seem to be little danger of its ever coming about, at least in all its manifestations. Nevertheless, what this book represents must be taken seriously: an impatience with the "unscientific" aspects of democratic government. It would be possible, by careful selection, to present a thesis from his book that is not wholly incompatible with a certain view of democracy, one in which experimental jurisprudence appears as no more than a means of effecting or of institutionalizing a pragmatic ethics."
"Doubtless there have been "phenomenal technical and scientific" advances during the past century, as Beutel says, and that there is a "social lag"; and perhaps it is true that the "general science and art of lawmaking" has not developed "since the days of the Roman Empire"; but this is no reason for law to imitate physics or engineering. On the contrary, a grasp of the fundamental problems might reveal that there is an irresolvable tension between science, in its old or its new sense, and politics, and that any attempt to resolve the tension is likely to have terrible consequences in the political world; that the political world must be ruled not by science but by prudence., This requires at a minimum the recognition that there -will always be a "gap" between theory and practice, and that the recalcitrant or intractable political problems cannot be wholly resolved-at least, not by a government of free men. True, Socrates said that "cities will never have rest from their evils no, nor the human race ... until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy"; but Socrates, who failed even in his attempt to rule his wife, Xanthippe, knew and taught that it is extremely unlikely that the conditions required for the rule of the wise will ever be met. As Leo Strauss has said:"'
What is more likely to happen is that an unwise man, appealing to the natural right of wisdom [to rule] and catering to the lowest desires of the many, will persuade the multitude of his right: the prospects for tyranny are brighter than those for rule of the wise. This being the case, the natural right of the wise must be questioned, and the indispensable requirement for wisdom must be qualified by the requirement for consent. The political problem consists in reconciling the requirement for wisdom with the requirement for consent."
Great job of laying it all out there, exactly as it is. A characteristic of psychopaths is their total disdain for those they can fool easily. Another is the enjoyment they get from tormenting such people. Since the population of the world is overwhelmingly such people, it's easy to understand why we are where we are. How does a minority who sees them clearly get traction? I wish I knew.
I think the population the psychopath leaders deal with fall into two categories (and probably many subcategories). 1. The people that work for them, their competition in politics, or even their peers. These are "fellow entities" to them...I won't say "fellow humans" but if they consider themselves human, then this category does represent "humans" to them...but still, if below them, subordinates...but still close to what they are. 2. The ants. Us. I do not believe they think of all of us as humans at all. They see us no different than they see ants, or fish, or goats, or sheep, or whatever. We are of no concern to them...we are useless eaters.
Agree. I've known some psychopaths (certainly meet the checklist anyway) very well and got along with them fine. If they know you're not fooled, they have some respect for you and even like working with you. It's to their advantage to get along with some people, after all. That's my experience anyway. You can never really count on them, that should go without saying. Never kid yourself just because things seem so pleasant.
The sad part is that some people, the 🐑 ( and yes I will still call them that ), actually believe these people are looking out for us. Linking as usual. Todd @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
Good article, sir!!!
Thank you for the link!! Yes, that is the main thrust of the article, that the sheep think all of these people are working for us, and love us, and are doing everything for us.
Allow me to summarize... We are for the most part governed by psychopaths, and some of them are stupid psychopaths.
I'm sure some of them are stupid (I am writing an article about stupid). But I am afraid many of them are quite clever. But they are narcissists, self absorbed, selfish, bullies, etc. Which can be very stupid.
Another quote from Wood's book:
"May I pause here to make clear that the so-called "elite" are nothing more than elit-ists who view themselves as vastly superior in every way to the rest of the human race. In fact, they are self-deluded snobs whose actions betray them as the very dregs of the earth, NOT the saviors of the world."
It's impossible to understand how things work, and why they work like they do, without a good understanding of psychopathy, and just as importantly, how normals react to psychopaths. Anyone baffled by it all needn't be. I started with Cleckley's seminal work, then Hare and Stout, all very illuminating. Might be some newer works even better, although I doubt it.
You are absolutely right. Sociopathology, and lack of empathy...we are just ants to them. Easily destroyed to meet their demands and desires.
People in power (and their puppets) seem to be disintegrated on the psychic level — fractured personalities, narcissistically disordered. I spent a great deal of time with a woman who I once considered to be an intimate friend. She was very clever on one level — clever and sly in how she would manipulate. She flattered, agreed with me on much, led me on some merry romps in the gaslight. Ultimately I caught her in a significant lies and then my own denial shattered and her whole house of cards fell down. Big lies, little lies, lying to everyone, lying to herself. All to one purpose: to present herself as the heroine in her own story and to project that story to everyone else in her sphere. She never, ever shouldered responsibility for her own mistakes or bad behavior. Instead it was a game of blame-shifting. Her behavior seemed to be knee-jerk (programmed) and not even conscious at times. I dislike labels, but for the sake of clarity she is a textbook Narcissist, Including having little or no empathy for others — pets, children and adults alike.
That experience gave me a real clue about the world’s Con-Trollers. Honesty, empathy, compassion, true courage, and ethics are all lacking if not non-existent. How this happens to a human is, undoubtedly, a tragic tale of abuse and mind control at its most basic and hideous level. Factor in greed — for material resources, self-aggrandizement, and power. And factor in significant fear — fear of discovery, loss of control, loss of image, possessions and even life. And you have a recipe for evil.
Ignore-ant, foolish me! In the case of my former ‘friend’ I simply could NOT imagine a walking, talking, breathing incarnation of such a magnitude of denatured humanity. I was in denial for a while (just as I was with regard to the geo-political Agenda) until it was right in my face. I forgive myself, though. People of this ilk have a way of ‘acting’ (performing) in a manner that mimics human qualities. And some are highly functioning on some levels of perception -- as they pertain to their own survival. For those who are not aware it can be seductive. My personal goal remains: examining my own susceptibilities and tendencies to deny the existence of actual evil in this world. It can be dangerous to assume others share my own moral compass, or even are in possession of any morals. Just because I would never dream of such deceit, deviousness and heartlessness doesn’t mean that all others share my natural aversion. Narcissistic disorder can go hand-in-glove with true psychopathy.
On one level I do feel great empathy for such soulless entities. No baby comes into this world with an evil plan to become a mass-murderer or an assistant to one. And there must be a long history of suffering. But my empathy for what was once an innocent baby/child no longer interferes with my perception of what they are and what they do as adults. They must be called out, blocked, ostracized, defended against and disempowered. They must be denied any supply (fuel/suuport) for their endless and irrational drive for control.
Fundamentally the flaw lies in some base characteristics of humanity
Goodness - we truly believe in the good of others and want to be good ourselves so it has hard to wrap our heads around the incredible criminality being witnessed
Forgiveness - we forgive out of control compassion amd empathy
Laziness - we think truth will take care of itself and we don't have to contribute actively
Evil on the other had is always working relentlessly because it knows its foothold of power which relies on lies and deceit and hypocrisy will tumble down in a single instant when truth stands up. In solidarity
https://open.substack.com/pub/hsog/p/the-criminal-elite?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1n48li
You left out stupidity. If believing in the goodness of others, who obviously are the opposite, is not stupid, then what is? if forgiving those who would enjoy taking everything you have, raping your women, and torturing you to death isn't stupid, what is? If thinking truth will take care of itself, when history shows the opposite over and over isn't stupid, what is?
It really depends on how you define "stupid"...as you use it here I agree. If stupid is defined as taking an action with no understanding of the consequences, then yes, these people are very stupid...ultimately their plan will kill them all. That's stupid.
All that stems from laziness... It takes work not to be ignorant and long-term ignorance for sure leads to stupidity ie dumbing down of the population to gain undue advantage. There really is no such thing as a free lunch.. So all those public services come with a price, we are paying that price now
These monsters would actually prefer to rape your little boys. Dunno what I was thinking earlier when I figured they'd like women.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuBe93FMiJc Paddy Chayefsky told you how things work a long time ago. the masses are helpless to see it. the schooling so successful. you know. the cherished public schooling. sprung from the minds of weirdos. Kant. Hegel. etal. hmmmm. how do we get these humans to stay on the battlefield? on the sweatshop floor? get them off the farm? people who can feed themselves are autonomous. often autodidacts. how do we stamp out thinking? skool. i love to imagine a time when the people will chuckle about the era of schooling. the belief in nonsensical concepts. virus's. man made global warming, etc. then i fear it will never happen. they're not done with us shrews. our antiquated notions of personal liberty. the freedom to think. i sense the shiny black boot. hovering above.
too glum for a sunday morning having, grown from seed, tomatoes on homemade toast.
Enjoy the simple beauties...
Yeah, I just discovered all of my posts on FB linking my articles that are on Off-Guardian were removed, due to the new law: Online News Act, which, in its disguise, was designed to control social media and search engines from posting news stories basically bypassing the news source...thus causing them to lose revenue. Really? Now they have carte blanche to regulate the news on any format other than the original source (which is coming, of course).
If a person in the US posts a link to a news story, say in the Washington Post, it will not show up in a Canadian's FB feed. There will be a little disclaimer saying "this post is not allowed in Canada"...Canadians are not allowed to see it...wow...the internet is now filtered by the Canadian government.
that sucks. yet it shows panic. desperation. fear. of us. well done everyone.
I just learned of this (through a Canadian friend. Not surprising, however.
Busy on an article on this...
Very much looking forward to it, T.H.