The Benefits of a Chaotic World
[This article was originally published on Off-Guardian]
It seems there is a clear global effort to make information uniform, and in particular, to make science uniform—One Science, Under Singular Rule, For the Good of All…I’m not making this up (well, I did just make up that phrase, but I’m not making up the central gist of it). Here is a quote from an article on the UN claiming to “own the science” on Robert Malone’s substack:
The thing is - when you listen to the full panel discussion linked above, the UN speaker -Ms. Fleming is not just saying that the UN is censoring speech on climate change. She also suggests that the UN with the WEF is censoring many scientific discussions, such as the topic of COVID-19, and the UN is in the process of setting up the tools to censor ALL misinformation that the UN deems unhelpful for a “stable, peaceful, harmonious and UNITED world.
Let me repeat: “stable, peaceful, harmonious and UNITED world.” You know, common sense (there’s those two pesky words again) tells me that there has never been a time when all humans all agreed on one thing. That has always been considered healthy—debate, discussion, picking apart opposing ideas, new ways of seeing old things, etc. etc. So how in tarnation does anyone think censoring information that the “UN deems unhelpful” so there is only one “harmonious” truth, for a singularly “united world,” is a good thing? Are people really buying this? This is what Hitler wanted, Lenin wanted, Stalin wanted, Mao wanted, Saddam Hussein wanted, Osama bin Laden wanted, to name just a few recent ones (and maybe I am not being accurate here because what these men really wanted could have easily been manipulated by the media…but you get my point I am sure).
Since when has weeding out the misinformation from the real information ever been a job of the government, and using censorship no less…i.e., we are not allowed to even SEE what they are sorting out. If they just told us, “this is good, this is bad” but we still got to see it, which would be one thing (still not a good idea, but they have basically always done that, “We suggest, or recommend, or approve of, or whatever”). But censoring?? Are people really that daft that they think it is best that some authoritative body should be trusted to tell us what is good and bad and leave us entirely out of it? What would the government’s (or in this case, the UN’s) incentive be in doing this? Duh, really? Control? Dominance? Ya think?
When I say there is a concerted effort to flatten the world out into a one thought pancake, I am not meaning that any of the people doing this think it is a good idea for the people who largely inhabit the planet. It isn’t some ideological “perfect way” for all of us. It is instead much like the Great Reset mantra “in the future you will own nothing, and be happy.” The point is to get as many people as possible on the same page so they are easy to manipulate and manage…one truth, one medicine, one science, one currency, one religion, one way to be a human—one way for all. Easy peasy, eh? No one has to think, no one has to deal with much of anything. We will all be a clone of one another and as such follow one rule, one government, one ideal.
It is funny how all of this is cloaked in a “diversity, equity, inclusion” bullshit sound bite. They don’t want “diversity and inclusion” any more than they want us to “be happy.” Just like they don’t want the climate stabilized so we can enjoy a healthy planet. None of this is as it seems; what they are pushing has zero benefit to the masses. The UN statement is the same, they don’t want a stable, harmonious, united world, they want a controllable world, a world where the people are like numbers, faceless, uniform, NOT diverse, NOT unique, NOT inclusive. They do not want troublemakers, they do not want thinkers, they do not want diverse, interesting, and creative minds.
Once again I point you to Orwell’s brilliant 1984. Take a look at THAT culture if you want to see what “they want.” It is a pretty good example.
The world is supposed to be chaotic, filled with diversity, different species, different ways of taking the essential elements of physical reality and making something of it in a dissimilar and special way. There is unity in diversity, as all living creatures seek an expression of life often in very unique ways, but they all have a common goal to express life. Humans, in particular, have even a greater variety of expression. This is one of the unique things about us as a species. We create outside of the limitations of our instincts. We create music, art, dance, cuisine, architecture…in fact the variety of our creation is unlimited. We have active critical minds that think and think of all sorts of things. We make decisions about what is good for us, individually and collectively, by putting our minds into action with very few limitations. We can create a nearly perfect life if left to do this on our own resources without some elite criteria to meet set by an individual or a small group of individuals that benefits only them.
This is tyranny. Without tyranny we live in a chaotic world, but a world where the very chaos is what brings mystery, purpose, and meaning to our lives and spawns creativity. Chaotic confusion cannot be nailed down, it cannot be easily controlled nor is it easy to exert our singular, unifying, will onto it. It has a spirit of its own.
Carl Jung, the eminent Swiss Psychologist, stated many times in his work that the truly expressive life is lived in the tension of the opposites. The “in between two clear objective stances.” This is where mystery lies—chaos, uncertainty, and non conformity. This is the grey area, the unknown. This is the antithesis to singularity, the antithesis to “stable certainty of unilateral living.” The effort to destroy our uniqueness and our diversity in thought and perspective is the absolute worst thing that could happen to humanity—we cannot dismiss our thinking minds, and our individual compulsion to find meaning in a world that may seem chaotic and unharmonious due to its refusal to be controlled.
What seems to be overlooked quite often in any discussion that falsely dichotomizes the choice between chaos and order, is precisely that which was put forward by Ilya Prigogine, in his chaos theory. According to this theory we do not actually make a choice between allowing chaos or imposing order. Rather, we choose the level at which we perceive the world.
This theory applies the principle underlying Mandelbrot equations, originally a mathematical mapping of economic trends. Such mapping found that economics seems to be fractal, that is, the same trends reflecting some kind of internal order are discoverable at an infinity of scales. For example, day-to-day trends exhibit the same curves as month to month trends, as do year to year trends, ad infinitum.
Chaos theory may apply this notion of fractal reality beyond the limits of economics, and find that what looks chaotic up close - that is, appears to be composed of random data - resolves into an ordered, and therefore predictable, array of information when viewed at a larger scale.
Societally, then, we need not panic when things look disorderly, because over time and over larger measures- i.e., larger data sets, whether they be of population, of specific demographics or other vatosbles of interest - order arises.
This chatacteristic of data sets qua sets definitely points to the need for a more sophisticated and widespread appreciation of history, as it is the prime source of data which, when considered soberly in depth, may best assist in the development of common sense strategies in preparation for predictably unfolding situations.
It looks like Tolkien was right:
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them.