April 21, 2007

Virginia Tech Check

My first reaction on learning about the mass murder at Virginia Tech on April 16, was that here was another pathetic victim of the modern spiritual wasteland who decided he'd be a 'perpetrator' for a change-- in his last desperate act. And there's plenty of evidence to support that basic idea. He was a loser and a loner, a classic, alienated young man, who, in another society, would have been a prime candidate to be a 'freedom fighter,' or a suicide bomber. But in the 'reality game' that is modern America, there is practically only one avenue for such disturbed minds-- grab some fire-arms and head for a place you will be sure to find a concentration of young people, the hope of the future. We know by now how the rest of the script goes... in a blaze of false glory.

That's primarily the approach taken by most of the talking heads, pontificating on the event itself. Then there are the media, making a story about whether they should have broadcast the 'press kit' sent by the killer to NBC. And in each new 'reality video game,' the question of gun control arises anew. We're all starting to know how the story runs, and the sad eventual outcome to expect is that society, as a whole, will become accustomed to these massacres. Oh, they will always appall us; will continue to strike grief in the hearts of the survivors of the victims. But overall, we are getting used to this kind of 'senseless killing' by deranged gunmen.

But, my second reflection on the event went off in a new direction, one that I wouldn't have dreamed of a few years ago... back in the good, old days of the 20th Century. Yet, there it is... again. A 'funny' date-- April 16, 2007; or put it as 16-04 of 07. Now (bear with me): 1+6=7+4=11. Yes, eleven-- that curiously favorite number of the secret, globalist cabal. Okay, it's just a coincidence, I realize. But, the assassin just 'happened' to kill how many people? Oh, it was 32, plus himself, making 33. Now, 33=3X11; and 33 is another trademark Illuminated number, being also the highest order of the Masonic sect. What else?, some may demand. Well, there's a strong indication that the local police were under stand-down orders from federal authorities for a couple of hours after the initial killing of the first two victims. (You can check this on the 'Net for yourself.) The description of the killer, Cho Seung Hui, and his modus operandi, suggest a 'programmed, robotic murderer.' (Again, I won't go into details; you can find them even in mainstream media stories.) He seemed to be well trained in the use of the weapons, killing 32 people with guns that would not be expected to achieve such a high death rate. He had barred the doors of the selected rooms to prevent escape, further suggesting preparatory training. His press release suggests he was in a 'dissociative state' of mind. In other words, it is not far-fetched to surmise that he may have been functioning under some sort of 'hypnotic command.'

So, putting the disconnected pieces of the puzzle together, compels me to the conclusion that it is entirely possible, even likely, that the horrendous event was orchestrated by the Illuminated conspiracy.

Why would 'they' want to do such a heinous thing? For the same reasons they do every heinous act they're behind-- they believe it will further their agenda for world domination by an elite. Their primary lever is fear; fear of crime, fear of terrorism, and now, fear of random acts of senseless violence. Using the fear lever, they create a climate of fundamental distrust among all 'ordinary citizens.' This fear will inevitably lead some people to call for 'gun control measures,' which will generate a backlash from the gun lobby, which sets up another no-win, duality struggle. The cabal is ready with their 'solution' to the problem they created-- it will be martial law, and the end of personal freedom.

My final comment has to do with that issue of gun control. The gun lovers love to say that 'guns don't kill people, humans kill people,' (or something like that). Their opponents think that easy access to fire-arms makes it all too simple for anyone to kill anyone else... which is patently true. However, I have to say that by making the issue 'guns vs. no-guns,' we drastically oversimplify a complex situation, and we thereby completely overlook a myriad of contributing factors that may be even more significant than access to guns. For example, the ever-increasing parade of violent dramas on television, reinforced in gory video-games, creates a climate in which children are, fundamentally, brainwashed from an early age to the spectacle of violence. And note that it's not just violence, it's casual violence, all too often-- i.e. it's presented in an almost mundane context. The mind-conditioning is so continual, so omnipresent, that society hardly notices. (I still have newspaper clippings of stories decrying the increasing violence of TV programs, dating from the 1970s... that would look quaint but prescient in today's world.) But the proponents of gun control rarely talk about such ethereal effects any more. Most of the mass murderers have shown signs, or been confirmed of using mind-altering prescription products (such as Prozac); but again, this misuse of legal narcotics is rarely discussed as a causative factor. We have apparently lost the ability to conduct a public debate of any substance, having been habituated to having our thinking dichotomized by the US media into convenient but sophomoric debates between 'left' and 'right.' Hence, the availability of deadly fire-arms-- in a society that glorifies violence and is in a state of social disintegration-- makes the incidence of murder and mass murder virtually unavoidable. So, my take is that whether guns are controlled or not is essentially immaterial; at this point, if someone really wants a hand-gun, they can get one, legally or otherwise. Unless we can heal a morbidly sick society, starting with healthy, positive, uplifting, mind-conditioning, there will be no end to the murders. You can be sure that the shadowy 'powers that be' will do everything possible to insure that the world continues on its downhill slide into depravity and chaos.

As I've stated in other essays, we all have to raise our awareness, and train ourselves to see the true picture behind the events, especially behind the news we are fed by the mass hypnotists, the media. History, again as I've pointed out elsewhere, does not simply appear out of purely random, disjointed happenstance-- it is being propelled by powerful, secret forces towards goals that they create. Every newsworthy event is potentially another move in their long-standing game of world domination. Events may look random, but the puppeteers love to leave their obscure fingerprints on them, in the guise of number codes in the dates and other details, and in a variety of occultic symbols. To the majority, these details are either completely missed, or else dismissed as 'coincidence.' With these clues hidden in plain sight, the conspirators are taunting the few who are capable of perceiving them. They can only get away with this arrogance as long as the majority continue to hold themselves under the self-sustained illusion that history is accidental, and the world is basically orderly, if increasingly subject to coincidence. You, dear reader, must educate yourself before it's too late and you find yourself a quick graduate of the school of incredibly hard knocks.

April 6, 2007

Sociopathic Dichotomy?

At this writing date (April, 2007) there seems to be a jarring dichotomy between the 'developed world' and the 'developing world.'
The former is enjoying record high levels of economic activity and prosperity... while the latter (excepting China and India) is sliding backwards or sideways. It's almost a frenetic orgy of conspicuous consumption booming in the western world; a final party blast before the lights go out.

While the voice of concern over climate change grows more strident and urgent, the average consumer in the wealthy world hardly notices. After all, gasoline is still ridiculously cheap in realistic terms; sales of pick-up trucks and SUVs haven't dipped much despite eco-awareness; car manufacturers are producing vehicles with ever-bigger engines with ever-higher horsepower... it's a new golden age of the automobile! In real-estate, prices of homes in virtually every city and town keep rising faster than people's heaps of recycled Starbucks cups. The avalanche of garbage from the consumer paradise keeps clogging the overburdened 'land-fill' sites. Airlines ferry huge numbers of passengers-- for business and pleasure-- all over the globe. And so it goes.

Meanwhile, in the poorest countries-- even those with 'oil wealth'-- ordinary people lead desperate lives, counting themselves fortunate if they work for a multi-national company for pathetic wages, while the ex-pat managers and far-away CEOs earn exhorbitant salaries for pulling off this legally blessed rip-off. As the consumers of the northern hemisphere go about consuming feverishly, generating vast amounts of 'greenhouse gases,' in truly cruel irony, it's the peons in the southern hemisphere who, so often, bear the negative consequences of that prodigious economic activity. Places like Bangla Desh and Honduras, and large parts of Africa, suffer extremes of drought, then floods, and hurricanes-- disasters linked to climate change, and which they are hardly in any condition to deal with.

Back in the US of A (and its confreres) the populace is hearing about impending doom from the effects of their profligate consuming lifestyle; but more than that, they are feeling the effects directly! We all witnessed the devastation of New Orleans; homes lost to brush fires in California; tornadoes in the mid-west; lives have been lost. Yet, overall, there is remarkably little impact on the socio-economic euphoria. And why not? Sure, there may be some problems here and there, but we can still drive our Hummer to the local gas station and fill 'er up. And pop over to the supermarket and load up heaping carts of 'goods', including cartons of bottled water in throw-away plastic containers. And book our flights to Hawaii, London, Tokyo, or wherever. So, what's to worry?

Listen, I'm not just being annoyingly sarcastic. In historical terms it would be almost unprecedented for a society to turn its behavior around 180 degrees within a few years, even in the face of looming catastrophe. We humans need at least one, preferably two or three generations in which to make the kind of drastic adjustments demanded by a worldwide threat like climate change. Sadly, we don't have that kind of time cushion. In geological terms, climate change is supposed to take place on a time scale of centuries, not years. For reasons still unknown, our current rate of warming is accelerating at a gallop. For a while, in the earlier years of industrial pollution, we had the 'negative feedback' effect (beneficial) of 'global dimming' caused by hydrocarbon particles in the upper atmosphere that were actually shading the planet from solar radiation. Today, though, that effect has been swamped by positive feedback effects (harmful) such as widespread forest fires that deplete the main resource in cooling and purifying the atmosphere-- vegetation. Heat is causing arctic permafrost to thaw-- releasing trapped methane gases that exacerbate greenhouse gas effects. Desertification of already dry areas reduces vegetation still further. In sum, all the cycles are now vicious.

So, in case you haven't got it, the point is that while we currently party madly on, the stresses are building up for imminent and colossal disaster. Yes, of course, this is not a popular message for anyone to countenance. Denial feels so much better! But will denial help when the disasters hit your home? When widespread crop failures make food scarce... as well as expensive? Okay; you want to cling to the straw of optimism offered by the professional doubters, the skeptical scientists (employed by whom?). We can survive this one if we just buy smaller trucks, recycle more garbage, and switch to decaf... right? Well, you see, as the feedback mechanisms are now compounding the runaway heating, the climate, as a control system, is heading toward greater instability. Without damping factors, an unstable system eventually collapses into a new stable state... usually in a condition we'd call 'destroyed.'

That's the pertinent message of our times-- the end of the age. It's just a question of timing. Scientists thought that the present level of global warming would take about a century. It has taken more like three decades. We'd all like to think that surely we've got several more decades before things get 'really bad.' In reality, it could happen any time. We've known about climate change for at least 30 years. The first official studies on global warming appeared back in the late 1970s. After a little ripple of interest, the subject got shuffled to the back pages by 'more pressing' matters. Politicians and the public just weren't much interested in 'unproven scientific speculation.' Thirty years later, and things have changed. We can no longer shrug and ignore the perfidious and destructive weather aberrations. It's real... and still, anyone delivering this message is given all the respect of a guano disturber; a doomsayer, not to be invited to the party. Any day now, however, the same messenger could be proved a modern prophet. You prefer to believe in science than in prophecy? Fine; this time they essentially agree. The information is in your hands. It's time to sober up and face the world.

Systemic Subversion by Stealth

"There are none so enslaved as those who think they are free... when they are not!" (Goethe)

We coddled citizens of the Western world grow up, most of us, in pretty congenial circumstances relative to the rest of this planet. While psychological stresses are plenty, we don't contend with inadequate food, water, and shelter, on an everyday basis. If we are involved in an accident or fall sick, we can count on getting health care in modern hospitals. We own a lot of things; we take mobility for granted; we generally take security as normal. In short, our world is peaceful and stable enough that we don't expend much reflection on its underlying assumptions, beliefs and institutions... and their effect on us individually and as a society. That's too bad, because it makes us highly resistant to understanding why we behave as we do, and how we are manipulated into a desired group mindset.

In fact, virtually all our institutions (ie. school, church, business establishments, government) exert a covert as well as overt influence over every individual, whose purpose is to homogenize our thinking and hence, behavior in a particular direction. Now, I should state up front that I'm not saying there's always a concerted conspiracy behind these institutions... at least not originally. I think most of them evolved in a rather organic manner, seeming to make sense at the time of inception, often emerging in very simple, unsophisticated form that may have taken centuries to reach the level we have today. For example, the idea of 'school' as education for the masses of all classes emerged out of the industrial revolution. As parents were herded into batteries of factories, their children were herded into buildings where they could be trained to become useful cogs in the industrial wheels. Originally, Christianity was more of a cult as we'd call it today. Then some well-meaning pastors took the Roman bureaucratic model and applied it to their communities and came up with the notion of church as a group of people of a like religious persuasion who sit in a big building once a week, and listen to a professional adept preach to them.

The institutions start off innocently, with good intentions for improving things for the people they are supposed to serve. Once in place, though, they become ideal vehicles for ultimate mischief. Ideal because they hold a captive audience, are already organized around some unifying concept (education, religion, democracy, whatever) and by nature, have some kind of command structure or hierarchy. All that's missing in such a matrix is the mischief... and that seems to inevitably arise in every case, in one guise or another. In the case of school, it's the gradual, subtle, insidious construction of a mind-box around every graduate of the 12-year assembly line. This box instructs the products exactly how this world operates, how to fit in, and how to play the game by the rules. The irony is that even if this system should teach students how to think, they do it in a way that conforms to an orthodoxy that almost invariably channels their thinking in predesigned paths. Even 'free-thinking' graduates of this system rarely spawn truly 'breakthrough' ideas. Heaps of Ph.D's are awarded annually to good students who've played the game properly, put in their time, paid homage to the right sacred cows, and haven't pissed off their thesis advisor. Many of the 'revolutionary ideas' have come from persons whose mental state treads the fine line of madness-- the only real escape mechanism for most of us. We recognize what we call indoctrination when we view it in another society-- for example, in the communist states. We are far less successful in acknowledging the indoctrination that occurs routinely in our own.

Your church is promoting a denominational agenda, a view of the world that was designed by back-room boys who are sold out to some specific dogma. Religion is another of those ideal vehicles for exercising mind control. It's all about belief in the first place, so it's just a question of what beliefs (or whose). The members are either born into the system, or likely, they have chosen to join it. If they are born into it, they can be indoctrinated either by 'osmosis' or by the well-known methods of education. If they join, that indicates an a priori willingness to accept the doctrines favored by the organization. Until recent decades, the custodians of the faith had merely to thunder the dogma from the pulpits, and append suitable pictures of ethereal rewards to come in the hereafter, plus threats of hideous punishments to torment the unfaithful. Only in the 20th century did adherents start to question the fundaments of their faith, and either demand some changes or walk out the door to seek some other purveyor of ultimate truth. But overall, the religion game has stayed much the same for ages. While religions all fervently proclaim their dedication to truth, the objective onlooker must conclude that there are as many truths as religious beliefs. But truth, by nature, must be unique... a conundrum of cosmic proportions, indeed! Another problem: virtually all religions claim to believe in, and promote, peace among mankind. Yet how many wars have been fought, not just between different religions, but even between different flavors of the same religion? It's small wonder that so many thinking people have shunned the obvious irrationality of religions, and sunk into unreflective atheism or New Age humanism.

Here in the Western world, we have our 'free press,' by which we now include all the mass communications media. But how free, really, are the media? Let's not forget that their raison d'etre is to make money-- we should think of them as the 'free enterprise press.' This means that their devotion to the notion of truth in reporting is always subordinate to the prime objective of making a profit. We may like to think that presenting the most genuine truth will always be rewarded in the marketplace, but global experience, particularly in the 20th century, has supplied ample proof that truth is a highly malleable thing in the minds of those who control the media, and very often, the 'enhanced truth' sells much better than the raw truth. The last century produced the concept of propaganda as government sponsored 'information' disseminated via the mass media. It also gave us the new field of advertising-- paid commercial messages-- and then the related field of 'public relations,' which is a natural child of a liaison between propaganda and advertising. With the convergence of two big factors-- media integration and mega-mergers-- the stage was set perfectly for mass manipulation. Integration means the acquisition of one media type (e.g. a newspaper) by another type (say, a television channel). Mergers, of course, refers to the joining of two former competitors of a like genre into a bigger company. Thus we see in the USA all media being controlled by a handful of major corporations. If market forces do not ensure the homogenization of news, then less obvious forces certainly operate. Since the vast majority of Americans do not have access to, or interest in, news from foreign sources, they have virtually no idea to what degree they are brainwashed by their domestic media. And yet, in any democratic society, it is the media that play the essential role of public scrutineers of government conduct. Sensational events have demonstrated the vital role that media play in 'free societies.' The assiduous investigation of a duo of reporters was instrumental in bringing down Richard Nixon for his abuses of the office of President. In 2002, the near unanimous media endorsement of George Bush's fabricated 'War on Terror' ushered the US into the disastrous Iraq invasion... which they now characterize in harshly critical terms. The power of media in the modern world was predicted, eerily accurately by George Orwell, and has been analyzed cogently by Noam Chomsky.

As for governments, well, again, we clearly notice how regimes of our adversaries exercise control over the lives of their citizens. In the days of the former Soviet Union, the joke that the savvy populace bestowed on their two main media outlets was that 'there is no pravda (truth) in Izvestia (News) and no izvestia in Pravda. Both institutions were under the beady eyes of government censors, and there was no alternative press allowed. Today, in the free enterprise paradise, governments understand that similar control can be more acceptably achieved by subtler means. With the media in the hands of a few conglomerates that often need a favor from their regulators, it's pretty easy to seek payment in kind. Since the swing to the political right that began in the 1980s, the intercourse between corporate officers and government officials became plainly promiscuous. Dick Cheney can go from CEO of Halliburton Inc., to VP of the Incorporated States of America, hardly skipping a beat. Democratic governments have learned the necessity of establishing official bureaus of 'information,' and of having media-savy spokespersons to explain the many benefits they bestow on their citizens. Even despite constitutional safeguards and built-in auditing functions, our governments constantly abuse the bounds of their authority and the law to pursue goals that have, traditionally, been financial in nature, but that are lately more directed to wresting greater control over the populace. To do the latter, they employ time-honored techniques, namely fear of some threat, in concert with promises of peace and security. The 21st century started with a spectacular demonstration of the use of those age-old techniques, as a terrifying new enemy was introduced in the guise of the rather vague notion of 'terrorism,' conveniently abbreviated to 'terror' by its principal and illustrious proponent, G.W. Bush. The Bush administration has made Herculean efforts to leverage the 9-11 events into a pretext for worldwide military hegemony. That their plans have hit serious obstacles is a tribute to the persistence of 'traditional democratic values' by ordinary citizens... and to the truism that power always attracts competitors. However, in the first Bush administration, we were subjected to a chilling demonstration of the kind of scenario described by Orwell's dreary '1984' in what could be achieved when the media are co-opted by government. In the final analysis, governments down thru the ages have always desired to direct the thinking and energies of their people into channels of docile serfdom.

Perhaps the most successful institutions in manufacturing consentual reality are the corporations. While 'companies' have been around for centuries, even as mega-entities (think of the Hudson Bay Co., and East India Co., for e.g.) it is in the 20th century that they really gained in size and influence. By the 1920s, they had become so powerful that the US government introduced 'anti-trust' legislation in an attempt to curtail their steroidal growth. Regardless, companies grew into what we call 'multi-national corporations'-- and what they prefer to characterize as 'international companies.' These artificial entities now go anywhere in the world, seeking the lowest wage labor and the most favorable tax environment in which to conduct their business. Wherever they go, the agenda is basically similar-- use local resources with the lowest costs possible, and that generally means little regard for the ecology and for the poor workers. Every modern corporation now employs an army of 'spin doctors' whose task is to present a benign and beneficent face to the public in whatever circumstance or scandal that may arise. If the PR function is not in-house, they hire other corporations that specialize in molding public opinion. Whether consciously or not, big corporations in diverse industries work in cooperation for PR purposes. For instance, the media companies foster the inherent assumption that corporations are essential for prosperity, providing good jobs to the working class, and paying taxes to governments. In the 'Incorporated States of America,' this underlying doctrine has always held mythical status. The revulsion most Americans maintain towards, not just the hated Communism, but even for socialism, is truly amazing for the rest of the civilized world to behold. Despite the obvious fact that so many citizens have been excluded from the wealth generated by corporations for their executives and major shareholders, they are nevertheless trained from birth to revere corporatism and revile socialism. An amazing demonstration of 'the power of persuasion,' as one ex-advertising executive describes it.

No matter what institution you consider, the aim is basically similar-- to harness the minds of the masses of people. The reasons for corralling the thinking of the population may have changed over the ages. Long ago, in the heyday of kings and nobles, it was a way to keep the 'common people' in line, compliant with royal rule. The church and aristocracy worked in tandem to promote 'social order,' wherein everyone knew his/her place-- especially the serf/layman. In the Industrial Age, the same systems persisted, joined now by the education system that reinforced the assimilation. However, since technology arose from the science that came with 'enlightenment,' cracks began to appear in the cultural conditioning. Widespread education, while programmed, still inevitably provoked some independent thinking. And the advance of science brought corresponding breakdowns in the grip of religion on the mental landscape. Hence, we had some genuine progress in the social sphere: the triumph of democracy in Western society, the abolition of slavery, hard-won benefits for the working class through collective action by trade unions, social safety nets for the lowest economic class, and in most countries, some degree of medical coverage.

The very fact that all of these advances have, in our modern world, come under attack from faceless forces that would roll them back, is demonstrable proof that there are, indeed, conscious agencies guiding the programming undertaken by our institutions. The freedoms achieved as a consequence of the Enlightenment are regarded by these agencies as an unfortunate, collateral development; an aggravation that must be retracted at all costs. And so, they have used their wily means to gain control of all the institutions in order to twist them to their purpose. That purpose, as I say, is to return society-- now the global populace-- to a feudal state wherein the few wealthy, powerful families exercise absolute control over the majority who are kept in poverty and servitude to the overlords. Those who don't believe that our social gains are under attack are more stuck in the illusion than they admit. The big shift to 'conservatism' that began in the 1980s was the vanguard of the trend, and entails 'privatization' of many former public functions. In the process of putting public services into the hands of corporations, the profit motive is sold as ensuring new efficiencies, while in fact, it too often brings degraded service levels and higher costs. Literal slavery has been replaced by de-facto bondage to low-wage, Mc-jobs, with no benefits and scrambled schedules. Even white-collar workers have lost ground in real terms, and realize that their jobs, too, could be sent off-shore if their employers hear exsessive complaints from them.

In the past, this grasping of control was almost invariably conducted by force, by violence. In the present world, the preferred method seems to be more circumspect-- let the people (at least those in the 'free' nations) believe they are free, but rig the systems-- as described above-- to achieve what's wanted. It's far more cost effective in the end. Only when 'common people' start to question the mesmerizing power of their institutions can they hope to regain a measure of freedom. This will not be easy, as the manipulators behind the institutions/corporations have stepped up their efforts to control society, and they are using every means available. A century ago, people conceived of 'food' as consisting of fresh produce and meat bought at local shops. Today, food for most Westerners means something that comes in a package of some kind-- a manufactured product, with natural elements processed out of it, and artificial ingredients added. The studied effects of this kind of diet over several years is a general breakdown in the body's systems, leading to obesity, and numerous chronic diseases that have exploded in occurrence in the last century. But another effect is impairment of people's thinking ability. This impairment is augmented greatly by the hypnotic effects of hours spent in front of the television. While a direct food connection may seem incredible (unless you're the parent of a child with 'ADD'), the TV influence over young, developing minds is a fact. The cumulative effect, over time and over channels, on the tacit beliefs and thinking processes of the great masses of humanity cannot be underestimated!

Some have referred to the collective influence of our institutions as 'the Matrix,' after the sci-fi movie. And make no mistake-- the Hollywood movie industry is another co-opted institution, producing its powerful, visual narcotic to numb and dumb the minds of viewers, and prepare them, using a favored medium, for predetermined attitudes. For example, you have to wonder why we've had such a run of 'disaster flicks' in the past decade. And then there's the series of 'alien visitation' movies. Are they all simply random ideas cast into cinema-- or are they part of a plan to acculturate us for future events? Although The Matrix seems highly fanciful, it embodies an obvious allegorical message... Could it be a warning for our times? Time will tell.