Skip to content

Encroaching Global Fascism

It may sound melodramatic and cliché to talk of an encroachment of global fascism, but I think this is a key part of what we are currently witnessing in the world. Covid 19, whether it exists as a new version of the flu virus or not, seems pretty irrelevant, when you bear in mind that the flu virus mutates all the time, and recognise that the data has clearly been in for all to see now for some time with the death rates, that this virus is at the most a slightly worse than regular flu.

The conclusion of this sentence should mean the conclusion of our obsessive concern with this virus. But, instead, the virus is being used as a trojan horse to bring in all sorts of fascistic measures of government control over the population. The fear people have being exploited by turning peoples attention from deaths to “cases” of Covid 19, in the summer months, when very inconveniently for our would be controllers and their minions, very few people die of these types of viruses. One has to bear in mind here when the word “government” is used not to confuse it with the puppet politicians we see in the foreground. The true “government”, includes primarily the rich elite owners of powerful corporations in the world and the intelligence agencies and “sources” that prompt the mainstream media with their daily narrative and agenda.

This slightly worse than regular flu virus, is being claimed as a “pandemic”, and restrictions are encroaching ever more on all of the free human beings and citizens of this world. From censorship on social media to more and more impositions on our daily activities, the combination allows them to mask the truth, while they put masks over our mouths in a symbolic act of acquiescence with this grand lie.

The primary cause of this collapse of western civilisation and its freedoms, is an over reliance and increased over dependence on the welfare state safety net, combined with the continued rampant individualism of selfish materialism. Both of these factors are two sides of the same coin that come from the adoption of the “faith” of humanistic atheism. This faith renders people only able to find meaning in pursuing material wealth, whilst also relying on a welfare state due to the fractured community mistrust this pursuit of material wealth promotes.

That welfare state has now turned into a behemoth. The rich can no longer maintain it. The influx of mass migration helped delay the inevitable, but the refusal of communities already deeply fractured to allow any further fracturing with more migration, combined with the increased refusal of following or pursuing the materialistic road to success and “meaning” in life, have created a crisis for the rich controllers, who know no longer how to motivate people to act. The carrot on the stick that we are supposed to chase has gone. This was meant to keep us on the right track with their agenda. So, how else can they keep us on the right track?

The new approach we are now seeing: Rather than lure people with a carrot on a stick, people are being nudged into a self imposed enslavement with a stockholm syndrome style of intimidation, that gradually imposes on you piece by piece, like the frog slowly being boiled in the pot of water.

It had to happen at some point that materialistic selfishness and over extended welfare states would no longer be able to combine to create a meaningful path and goal for people in life. The crisis is now here, the behemoth created is now eating itself, and this is the global fascism now encroaching upon us all. The challenge for humanity is to find a new path forward for a meaningful life, now that the humanistic atheist project has clearly and terminally been defeated. Global fascism represents its failure, and for the sake of the world and future generations we now have to discover another way, with quiet and steady determination in the face of grave dangers and constant intimidation.

Much of my thoughts and ideas for this post inspired by this David Icke conversation with his son from today: Fake Tests – Fake Cases – Fake Reasons for Lockdown

Marxism and Nihilism

There is an important connection between Marxism and Nihilism that is underplayed and not without good reason. For it exposes some of the true desires of its followers. In the modern times, one of the primary motivating factors that draws someone towards Marxist views is a fear of an encroaching Nihilism. The Marxist has accepted as his basic ontological premise the materialistic understanding of human beings provided for him by a science that reduces humans to a materialistic nature of pursuing impulses, desires and wanting economic material gains for themselves. He accepts this premise and it is his first and most critical blunder. For he has fallen into the trap of envy of presuming that better material conditions of life brings greater happiness and meaning in life.

Yes, we all feel this envy at times. The neighbour with a bigger, flashier car, the person with multiple cars, a bigger house, a bigger television etc.. The problem is when this envy is projected on to the object of that envy as somehow having some sort of happier or more “privileged” life. It is a problem, because it is simply not true. More wealth does not bring more happiness in these kinds of circumstance, and it certainly does not bring more sense of meaning to ones life. Witness the growing suicide rates in more advanced countries to realise this immediately.

So, why do followers of Marxist style societal views fall into this trap? The trap comes because they have assumed an ontological view of reality as a flattened out, neutral arena. The secular, nihilistic malaise with no higher meaning in it. As a result, the only source of meaning to be found is in materialistic things. And so the only meaningful life to live is to indulge in one’s envy of the rich, covet their wealth and to pursue it as a moral mission.

It is not for nothing that envy is seen as a sin, and it is the thing that ties together an ontological nihilism followed by an adoption of marxism in a vicious circle of envy, hatred and covetousness and in a spiral expanding out of control, or burning itself out in repetitious mundanity and redundancy. The Marxist fears nihilism precisely because he has accepted it as his one true ontological premise, and the Marxism is a distraction from this fear.

If he could face the fear of nihilism head on, he may take a braver and more honourable course through life, or he may commit suicide or crimes in an ultimately self destroying process trying with futility to fill that emptiness within. Facing nihilism is a risky proposition, and Marxism is the opium for those who accept somewhere in the core of their being, the nihilist, materialist ontology, but refuse to face it down with their minds.

In this sense, the appeal and the serious dangers of this movement are brought to light. Because there is no end goal of satisfaction of meaning to be found for the Marxist. There is only a perpetual cyclical process of indulging in the sin of envy to create an illusion of some holy grail of meaning possessed by some more privileged group of people. The Marxist, for all his rhetoric, does not want to defeat the “bourgouise” or the privileged class, he wants to become one of them, only failing to realise that his displacement of his fear of nihilism will only become rekindled as soon as he does become one of them. As a result, he will look for some other perceived oppressed group to be his source of hope for an ever elusive sense of meaning.

Needless to say, meaning is never discovered, because from the beginning their ontological foundation of presumed nihilism and materialism was inherently meaningless. The only escape is a personal, spiritual struggle against the ontological premise of nihilism head on. Through this journey, the most difficult one to travel along, the limitations, and cracks in this initially fearsome looking leviathan of nihilistic despair can be seen. And glimpses of a different world can be perceived. Not a utopia, neither a dystopia, but a place where one can find joy, simply in Being.


The Changing Definitions of Humanity

It is interesting to track over the generations, how we have come to refer to and define humanity in different ways. Back in the 1300’s the word “man”, that we now use to refer to men only was applied to all human beings. And when referring to a man one added “Wer”, and when referring to a woman one added “Wif”. Wifman, is the origin of the word woman, and it could be suggested it is also the origin of the word “wife”. “Wer”-man is the origin of what we think as just man, and is connected to the word werewolf. One could perhaps think of it as wifeman for woman and wildman for man. The interest of this is that there is a common misconception that masculinity and patriarchy are the reason that the word woman seems to be an offshoot of the word for a man. As if in our ancient history women did not even get a word for them. When, you look into it, though, you see that the history suggests a less patriarchal time, where gender was a secondary differentiation between men and women,

The reason this whole topic comes to my attention at this moment, is looking through the latest twitter ramblings today, I see some people complaining about a CNN post referring to women as individuals with a cervix, arguing that this objectifies real women. I have seen myself some websites referring to people in this way. Referring to men as individuals with a penis and women as individuals with an ovum. I think it does objectify people, both men and women, trying to make their animality, rather than their humanity the primary factor about them. For a long time Christianity ensured that humanity was the primary distinguishing factor. This based largely on its connection in the Western world with the Greek philosophical tradition of thought. Greek thought saw human beings as having the distinguishing faculty of Reason, that made us distinct from all the other animals.

But, in recent times, thanks to the growing influence of evolutionary thought, and the successes and growing power of science in general in Western culture, the notion of Reason or of anything else as distinct about human beings, has been waning. In favour of a focus on emphasising our commonality with other animals. The end result is that these kinds of objectifying definitions of human beings based primarily on their animality are going to become more prevalent. I have always worried that western society is becoming less and less a civilisation and more and more a case of domestication. The more we deny our distinct humanity and personhood, in favor of our animality, the more we will be treated as such, so that the goal will not be a free civilisation of beings, but a domesticated warren of animals.

Looking back to our earlier times and the “wer”- man one could guess that this is a tactic being used by the few remaining “wer” – man or wild men, or “wolves”, to have easily available prey for them. It is not for nothing, I expect, that Jesus talked of being a shepherd to his sheep, he was aware of the threat of the wolf. We have removed the guiding shepherd from our society, yet we have not eradicated the predatory wolves. Somehow I feel that those wolves are salivating over the use of the terms: “individuals with a cervix”, and “individuals with a penis”, instead of dignifying them with the title as people and human beings first and foremost.

What we can learn from the history is that definitions are changing all the time, and these changes effect how we view the reality. We need a rejuvenated notion of what it is to be a human being and a person. It is the only way to stop the current descent into domesticated herds defined purely by outward physical features. The BLM obsession of the left of late is another symptom of this malaise. They have lost anyway to define their personhood, so they try to define it via some perceived oppressed group. When there is no oppressed group, they make one up, based on whichever group of people happen to be most dissatisfied and making the most noise at this current time.

What the left will never learn is that the wild in man can never be totally tamed while still keeping the man. It is a part of our human nature that the ancients realised a whole lot better than we do. The bad consequences of this basic denial of our natural reality, are ironically tied to a weak and failed attempt to define human nature based on some objectified feature, such as a cervix or a penis. It is a classic case of confused cause and effect. The effect of all that natural energetic being, is taken as being the cause of it, when it is merely an end product of it. The result of all this convoluting is a denial of ones natural energetic being, a stultification of ones energy, and a society of domesticated beings too weak and ashamed to even show their faces among their fellow men.

What is Society, and how definitions of Society can become a Prison for our Minds.

How does one describe the kind of society we live in today? What words best capture it?

There have been a few attempts in different directions, and the way you choose to start by defining society, tends to greatly influence how you end up seeing the reality of society.


In some circles there may be talk of us living in a secular society. I have done a lot of analysis of this notion of a secular society, and I have read some lengthy studies on the subject, such as Charles Taylor: A Secular Age. It is a great effort on his part, and he does capture well a sense of disenchantment that followed on the heels of enlightenment and how this is all tied in with secularisation. However, if one sees reality through this lens, one has to ignore counter trends and outliers, such as time and again we see small pockets of religious movements arising against aspects of western society. We call them cults as we are seeing them relative to the assumption that we are becoming ever more secular. But this assumption of perpetual progress towards secularisation is largely a belief itself, rather than a long term established fact in history. Its success relies on an attendant notion of democracy being well worked out and supported. For it is a version of democracy and equality that secularisation is supposed to take us towards by flattening out certain religious, cultural and ethnic hierarchies in society. But, what happens when democracy fails or it is seen to be clearly failing like now? When there is a clear push towards imposing the authority of experts on people in more and more aspects of their lives, rather then letting the people decide for themselves? The result is that the secular is lost sight of in favor of what is called progressivism. A perpetual push to flatten out perceived inequalities in society, not with the goal of democracy, but with the goal of appeasing whatever group feels a bit unhappy about current society. It becomes a placeholder for activism, rather than a real description of society. And so falls down the notion of this being a secular society.


Another common description is to call our society a Capitalist one. Or to place it somewhere on a shifting spectrum between capitalism and communism. Many people on the right and left see society solely through this lens. And so on one side they will bemoan the evils of selfish capitalism ruthlessly exploiting all with no sense of human values, and on the other side they will bemoan the evil authoritarian and collectivist communists imposing their own values on people against their will. I don’t think this is an adequate way to demarcate our society at all. When you look into this historical development of capitalism, you won’t find a clear point where it suddenly becomes selfish and based on greed and profit motive. Because it has always been partly motivated by this, while also it has always been partly motivated by other factors. This view is guided by a fallacious materialistic interpretation of human “Being”. The reality is that market capitalism was traditionally and still in some areas is as much about the promotion of the community as it is about feeding selfish individuals desires. The view that it is about selfishness only is an example of historical revisionism we have been living with ever since Karl Marx and his book Capital. Which, still for many, defines what they think of capitalism as, His faulty analysis revolves around his interpretation of the surplus value, and his presumption that all that surplus value was unjustly expropriated from the workers by selfish capitalists just looking to make profit and personal gain. He imagines that only workers produce and that the business owners merely came in to scrape the surplus value off of them. But this is a terrible over simplification of the reality. The workers produce because they are directed into a profitable direction of production by the business leaders. They can’t just blindly produce profit, working away in blissful ignorance. It requires to be directed into specific profitable avenues of production. It is not to say workers cannot choose to direct this process themselves, but then, there is a good reason why traditionally some people work, and some others direct the workers, and that is the efficiency of this division of labour.

Centuries of this fallacious notion of capitalism has created a deep resentment among more and more people about working to earn a living. I don’t say it is all wrong and misguided. But, it is very much a case that when you start seeing society through this lens you limit yourself quite drastically in what you are able to see in society. You have committed yourself to a materialistic view of human motivations and incentives. A view that now we are seeing backfire as it becomes ever more alienated from human reality. We are realising that giving materialistic motivations to people, consumerism, economic growth etc does not satisfy a lot of core human needs. I suppose the 1980’s was the height of that particular failure. Only, since then, we have reacted not by trying to view society in a different way, but instead just embracing anti-capitalist practices out of an absence of alternative guide posts. The anti-capitalist left of today, still does not have a clue what it wants in society. It has some vague ideas of secular flattening, equal outcomes for all, etc.. which are no more than feel good ideas, and never implementable in a real environment, only in “safe spaces”.


And this is where they turn to another way of viewing our society, which is to raise the idea of technology and talk of a technological era. Much of this is a combination of two motives. On the one side there are people who see technology as providing some sort of salvation to a faltering process of human progress. The right sees technology as allowing more economic gains, while the left sees it as primarily a means to enforce aspects of its progressivism on to the world. On the other side technology is seen as a means to control people and to control the world, by making every body into more passive and compliant consumers who can be tracked and predicted in more and more of their actions. A bit like the matrix style dystopian vision.

Once again, I don’t think the notion of a technological era is adequate to describe the reality of our society. Technology is a relative term. Really it amounts to instruments that give us more power and control. Allowing us to do things quicker, more conveniently, at longer distances etc. It is a means of overcoming certain spatial and time based boundaries between people. But it is only a relative over comer of these boundaries. There are still and always going to be boundaries between people. The idea that there won’t be is where it moves from being about technology to something else altogether. which is where the idea of globalist control is trojan horsed in, under the guise of technology. Now, this is a real threat in society. But, we would misunderstand it and be gullible fools to this particular trojan horse, if we just complacently sat back on a notion of our society as a technological one, and of course, that is part of the trick and the game that is being played with people.

All these concepts of what are society is, they may seem to be freeing and fascinating and to give us an understanding of something we did not understand before, but they are also prisons for our minds and for our ability to connect with the deeper reality of human Being. Once you are committed to seeing this as a technological era, you are going to be trojan horsed with control measures disguised as technology, as the manipulators know that you are one step behind the game and unable to filter and distinguish from this concept properly. Likewise with seeing this as a capitalist or communist era. You are then easily infiltrated by people who are not so simplistic in their view of human reality, who will exploit your view to play off your sense of injustice or resentment or envy of others wealth and success. And with the secular view of society. If you really think that is where we are at, then you will be unable to comprehend powerful influences of particular people in society. You will be looking for some general law of where society is going, totally unaware of specific individuals who are directing us in where society will go.


This finally brings me to a fourth notion of society: Industrial society. This is an older notion that was largely applied to the times of the industrial revolution. It was reading about this notion in the Unabomber manifesto that made me think of writing this piece, as I felt originally that this was quite an archaic term for him to be using to describe our society. But, in one sense I can see now what he was doing, which was to avoid some of the pitfalls of describing society in the other ways I considered above. One can see Industrial society as capturing the facts of increased mechanisation of the production process, of the inertia this process now has, of the push and need for relentless progress and growth in to avenues that includes technology etc. It can draw on features of all the above definitions of our society without being overly and singularly committed to any of them.

These are just some thoughts on the subject. I have not gone on to analyse in more detail this notion of society. I guess, there is with the focus on Industrial society the danger of falling into the trap of an old fashioned dichotomy between mechanisation and luddites. And some attendant romanticisation of human life in a natural setting, when the reality of such a way of life is much more cruel, torturous and forbidding. Regardless the purpose here, was to highlight the dangers of committing too soon to a particular conceptual diagnosis of what our society is or has become, because then you are committed to viewing society through that particular lens. Once you are committed to that kind of blinkered view, you will be cannon fodder for the manipulators out there who are more willing to hedge their bets and to use the more predictable among us to unwittingly further their plans.

Scientific Heretics: Truth and Insight

Many scientists have to deal with the fate of being silenced by their peers for having dangerous ideas. The current mainstream position on science has become ever more stuck in its way. This is what happens when truth becomes institutionalised. Each generation tends to accelerate the process in a case of positive feedback, with the conditioning of each succeeding generation happening faster and at a younger and more tender age.

I considered a couple of these scientific heretics in An Underground Journey Through 20th Century Philosophy, in the guise of the ideas of Rupert Sheldrake and David Bohm. Their heresy consisted primarily in denying the all-pervasiveness of the materialist arena of space and time, where everything must and can only act locally via mechanical causes and nothing can act non-mechanically or at a distance. Their respective notions of Morphic Resonance in Biological organisms and of the Implicate Order in quantum phenomena, flew in the face of this space-time pre-determining framework.

I watched a new video today with Mark Vernon and Rupert Sheldrake discussing the ideas of David Bohm and an upcoming movie about him:

They talked about the ideas of Bohm and the resistance he faced due to being against the dominant materialist paradigm, and in the comments section someone remarked how strange it is that science is still so dogmatic. Asking, where are the open minds. I responded by pointing out that science has become a social institution, and as such, its first priority is toward maintaining its status as that institution, rather than upholding truth and sincerity. So, when the latter get in the way of the former, it is most often the latter now that must fall by the wayside. Here is my response in full:

Science is a social institution, and look how much power it is scooping up in the current world via mainstream education of young kids whose parents have less influence over them being too busy both working full time jobs. The techniques of manipulation in advertising and the mainstream media that indoctrinate the young kids. The medicines people are forced to take, that can create addictions and withdrawals. All of this is part of science. Not just the trailblazing theoretical physicists like Einstein, etc. I think there is a lot of romanticisation of science based on that era of success from around Newton to Einstein, which is just not connected with the reality of what most science has now become. The more institutionalised in the ways I mentioned above that it has become , the less flexibility it has to talk freely about many subjects. It has become more and more crystallised into a hardened structure. So, in sum, don’t let science take the lead on your thinking. Let your thinking take the lead on science. Of course, in this latter route, you will face many attacks and much ridicule from those defending the status quo, but such is the way it always has been and probably always will. I think we need to lose this newly acquired western notion of dependence on the benevolence of certain social institutions and putting too much trust in them, that has led us into complacency and got us right now into a lot of spiritual trouble.

The insight moment for me in writing this was the freeing notion that we need to break away from a reliance on an institutional back up to our ideas. Be it science, religion or anything else. The Western World has become hypnotised by a sense of the state and social institutions as a required overseer on all things. But, they cannot be an overseer on truth and reality. Only truly independent, individual insight and creativity can be a source for this. We need to stop imagining that social institutions are going to catch up to and reinforce and respect our ideas when they are true. Far from it, social institutions will knock down those ideas as dangerous, particularly because they are true. There was a honey moon period when science was indeed in touch with truth and reality, but that is now long gone. It’s scattered remains were finally spread sometime around the 9/11 catastrophe, though it had actually died around 30-40 years earlier than that.

The recent new alternative ideas attacking the mainstream media and the leftist consensus found in popular culture and celebrities, is suffering from the same mistake in imagining that by pointing out truths and reality, they are going to get some sort of validation from “the system”, from social institutions. The ideas will not get that validation, because this is not the lot, this is not the hand that has been dealt to heretics throughout pretty much any period in history. Expect resistance, expect screaming and shouting, expect mindless rage, don’t expect a reasonable discussion or appreciation. And stop looking for legitimisation from the very institutions that are currently in place to suppress your ideas, thinking and appreciation of truth and reality. This was a mistake, and a lesson we are now learning very fast. And on the positive side, this is all very good, ultimately for our personal journeys towards spiritual growth.

Book Review: Things That Bother Me, Galen Strawson

Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc.Things That Bother Me: Death, Freedom, the Self, Etc. by Galen Strawson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

There was quite a good thematic continuity to this book and to the philosophical perspective he promotes on various subjects from free will, to the self, to consciousness. However, I find myself disagreeing with him at various points along the way. And, most of my criticism comes down to the fact that he always tries to revert to safety with his view of naturalism, that he distinguishes from pure materialism as naturalism.

The problem is that he relies very heavily on a tautological and changing definition of naturalism depending on what the latest science articles might have to say. It is good to be informed by science. But, it seems more that he is trying to use science as a shield to hide his own, at times, dubious ontological position behind. The good thing about many naturalists is that they are consistent in line with a materialist ontology. Good, because this makes them clear and predictable, though, to my mind, terribly wrong. Galen Strawson, though, has a much more chameleon like definition of naturalism that changes depending on the subject at hand.

For instance, when talking of free will, his argument amounts to saying that if we have responsibility for something we have to have responsibility for everything, including our very emergence into existence, otherwise somewhere in the chain luck, as he says, would swallow it all. If at some point we are reliant on luck in having a strong mind, or constitution, or whatever, however far back we have to go back for that lucky and arbitrary genesis, we cannot then claim moral credit for having free will in relation to those things.

It seems good, when combined with a materialistic, deterministic naturalism where we are determined from the outside, and that is the kind of naturalism he draws upon here to defend this view.

Unfortunately, in a later chapter he defends the existence of consciousness, appealing to a different kind of naturalism. One where we are sure of it from the inside, and connects it up with something like a panpsychic view of nature.

Well and good, a common view, however if he would apply this panpsychism consistently to the free will discussion, he would see that it is actually quite easy with that kind of view of nature to imagine how an entity could be responsible for everything in its own existence, including its own genesis. For, if it is entities with minds all the way down and all the way up, then there is no point at which those entities are arbitrarily formed from the outside by an event of luck.

This vacillation between an external naturalism and a more internal one allows Strawson to stay very much in touch with common sense, but not in touch with a consistently applied ontology. And it is his inconsistency on this latter notion that concerns me. Alongside his over reliance on the use of purely anecdotal arguments. So many times, in his critique of the narrative view of the self, his argument reduces to a personal anecdotal assertion that he does not have this narrative view of himself and so it is not important. But, what if most people do have it, and what if you have it yourself in subtle ways without realising because you have not engaged in the right kind of reflection?

I am willing to grant that he has searched well and genuinely and not found any narrative self in his own experience, but it still falls flat as a general philosophical argument. When you combine this with his weak and vacillating view of naturalism, you get a flavour of his strategy for coming at all philosophical problems. He makes some good points along the way by using this approach. But also, some big problems are underplayed.

For instance, he talks of the denial of consciousness as the silliest claim, and refutes it easily with his own experiences and his version of panpsychic naturalism, but in the process I think he fails to appreciate how strong a tidal pull the view of denying consciousness has, due to a particular dominant consensus narrative view of reality that has a grip on many people’s minds. Maybe the narrative will never fool him, or some others, but it can fool many and they are not likely to be drawn out of their view by isolated individuals calling them out based on their own experience. They have the authority of tradition and consensus among loads of people backing them up. And I think he underplays how that can lead to people ignoring, undermining denying, or not even fully seeing their own experience of something. A person can be so clouded by an ideological or narrative perspective, and take much heart and confidence from the amount of people sharing that view with them, that an isolated individual talking about his anecdotal experience is not going to be able to overcome the force of that. They will strongly affirm the emperor has clothes on when he has none, and it feels like the only way to counter that belief is to dissect their whole belief system piece by piece, applying critical reason at every stage. In this way the imposing and intimidating authority of the viewpoint can be overcome.

View all my reviews

Media Incited Riots, Editors disguised as Fact Checkers. Another day in a Western Paradise!

Trump has taken a recent action to put a stop to the censorship and bias of social media. In recent times these organisations employed teams of editors disguised as fact checkers, and so, became publishers, rather than merely neutral platforms. They cannot have this both ways. They must accept the accountability that comes with being a publisher, including that they can be sued legally for the content that they publish, or they must go back to being a neutral platform and stop the censorship of opinions their editors, disguised as fact checkers, don’t like.

The whole notion of fact checkers has become a bit of a farce. For starters, the very notion of fact checking assumes an accepted factual consensus in political areas of discourse where of course there is no such consensus. Alongside this, they have clearly and inevitably been used and weaponised by certain leftist organisations to create an echo chamber of opinion which backs each other up by echoing back at each other, as if this echo represents some factual consensus in the objective world, when it is merely people bouncing their own opinions off the wall, and claiming the echo to be confirmation of their opinions.

Combine these censorship attempts with the mainstream news that is keen to censor social media in line with its narrative and you have a very dangerous combination. It is so sad to see the recent events. Here in the UK, a witch hunt was conducted by the media on an individual that the media doesn’t like, while in the US a race war has been stoked through various news stories the mainstream media has decided to spotlight over the last few weeks, often with partial and misleading information about these events being provided. From the infamous “jogger” to the hysterical woman in a New York park, scared of losing her dog who called the police on the African American man who had threatened to lure her dog away from her.

The result of these has now led to the latest Minnesota incident. The mainstream media had primed people to feel a deep sense of injustice, based on these prior false narratives, and so this real, and tragic incident, has led to a terrible reaction of riots and violence. These riots won’t help serve justice for the individual concerned. They won’t help the communities who are the victims of these vicious cycles of crime either. They will only reinforce them all the more. It is a very sad thing to see, and I think a lot of the violent action is from radical activist leftist groups who are taking advantage of this incident to cause mayhem and chaos, rather than from the communities themselves in the area.

The mainstream media stokes peoples emotions. The fear of Covid was waning, and they had to replace it with something else. A lot of pent up frustration was used and abused by the mainstream media to whip up a frenzy of felt injustice. The result has not been justice being served, the result has been that justice has been removed from the whole equation in favor of mindless violence and riots.

How sad and pathetic the whole thing is. Will the mainstream media be held accountable? Will their corporate status be broken up? If they are going to use their power in over reach to control even all of social media to fit in line with their opinions, then they are asking for trouble. You cannot put free thought in strait jackets. You cannot control everybody’s reactions by reducing them to emotive beings. If you try, either society collapses, or you fail and the people who refuse to be manipulated rise up against you. I am hoping and counting on the latter.


Breaking the Spell of the “Scum” Media

Now that the corona virus appears thankfully to be waning in its impact, at least within much of Europe and starting to happen also in the US, we face, unfortunately, a media that will need to find something else to cackle on about to fill their 24 hour news cycle. Here in the UK, a country with probably the most corrupt and disgusting media in the whole world, in terms of the level of control it has over the public and politicians, they have decided as a monolithic entity to pursue a witchhunt of a pro brexit politician in the cabinet called Dominic Cummings.

I won’t go into the details of this story, only to say that it has led to the hash tag ScumMedia trending on twitter, for the way in which they have gone about harassing this person, for something that happened weeks ago, which they decided to only bring it up now, with Covid fear waning and needing to replace it, I suppose, with provoking another one of our strong emotions, a sense of hatred and injustice. The actual occurrence is so minor as to barely warrant discussion, suffice it to say that it has been blown up out of all proportion and has got me thinking about a more general failing of the mainstream, corporate, media.

The failing is that the profit and financial motive in pursuing stories has led to a situation where, rather than the cream coming to the top, of the media establishment, the scum has risen to the top, like on the surface of a pond. The only way to make it in this industry is to toe a party line of a certain narrative, and to be prepared to abandon your own personal sense of decency and awareness of what is right, what is true and what is real.

I think this lock down period has given a lot of people a chance to reflect and for some time to distance themselves from the spell that is the mainstream media narrative, and they are now seeing it more transparently for what it is. My personal musings on this have led me to the view that we need to seriously consider disbanding all corporate media. In looking to the details of how this could be done, I am thinking that we clearly have the technology for citizen journalism to be sufficient to help us all keep track of what is happening to each other around the world, via cheap phones, cameras and readily accessible internet media, in real time.

So, why bother keeping the corporate media? What purpose do they serve anymore other than to be used and weaponizjorued against their own people as a means of social control? I know it is easy to say these things, but of course, the reality of just switching off all corporate media would be a difficult thing for many people. And there is also the legality and practical way of enforcing it.

But my thinking is that if all money is simply taken out of journalism. If, funding cannot be given to, and is strictly forbidden from, corporate media institutions, but only allowed for individual journalists, then citizen journalism could thrive, and the motivation in the reporting would then once more be in line with a personal sense of wanting to discover and show the truth of certain events important to you in the world, and the judge of their importance would be purely the people who decide and choose to follow what you have to share.

When you have a corporate media that is driven first and foremost by pleasing their superiors in the organisation and pleasing their shareholders and advertisers, you have a system rife for corruption that has become more and more distanced from the reality that everyday people care about and want to embrace.

So, could there be a way to practically implement a total disbanding of corporate media organisations in favor of pure citizen journalism? The technology is there to achieve this, but is the will power in people there to help bring it about? And are people willing to permanently break the spell from the comfortable, lazy, mainstream mononarrative, which, although being obviously fake and contrived, does seem to provide a sense of comfort and helps garner in us a lack of personal unease and responsibility for what is going on in the world?

I hope so, I hope we can make ourselves more accountable as citizens for what is going on in the world, and render corporate media obsolete. So much corruption we think of as purely governmental corruption is actually largely due to the corporate media. For at least 2 or 3 generations the politicians have had to abide by whatever image the corporate media decides for them, under threat of some dirt being dug up on them and plastered in the public eye. It is easier than ever to find some dirt on anyone if you dig enough and put it in the spotlight enough. And over time, this led to media being able to set the political agenda, much more than the politicians themselves.

Trump was merely the beginning to a reaction to this endemically corrupt state of affairs. The next steps need to now be considered seriously and pondered over, for where we are going to take our society in the future? I don’t think a mere emphasis on free market capitalism and populist nationalism is going to be sufficient to get us very far. More specific and positive visions need to be found. I think one could be something like the approach I have began to try and outline above regarding a move to a pure citizenry journalism.

If we want to try and continue the Western traditions long pursuit of, and embracing of, individual freedoms, then I think some positive and specific ideas like this is what we need to be moving on to. Generic ideologies regarding free-markets and populism may give a good platform from which to criticise certain left-wing collectivist dogmas and authoritarian censorship, but they are lacking a positive vision that needs to be found to allow us to remove dependence on merely criticising the failings of other perspectives. If you have this latter dependence you rely on keeping your opponent alive in order to continue criticising them, but this not a healthy state of dependence, and it is something we all need to begin thinking about specific steps to take, for how we can move beyond this tumultuous chapter in human history once and for all.

The Media Lockdown

It is the media who were keen for this lock down. They were given specific guidelines to put people into a state of fear. They now have most people too fearful to go back to ordinary life, even though the facts of the effect of this virus are that it is not killing the numbers of people they had at first feared. The lock down was supposed to avoid a rush of too many people going to hospital. This has been already achieved, yet the lock down continues.

Our media is run by our secret service agencies, and they have been weaponized against their own people in the name of power and control in service of only the elite few. From this time, I see it that we are in a state of war with our own media and our own governments, and there is no hope until these people have been physically exterminated. No words, no reasonableness, no logic achieves anything because they always just distract and move on to the next emotive lie to propagate among the people.

They cannot be beaten through politics because our democracies our hopelessly corrupted, they cannot be beaten through the media, because they are infiltrated and controlled by those very people that need to be beaten. The only hope is some sort of extermination of them, a physical removal of them from this plane of existence.

The only way this is going to happen is with the revealing of these people who have been weaponized through the media to control us with lies. Once we get some transparency and some actual justice for the offenders and perpetrators of this state of affairs, only then can we start to have a reasonable discussion again about what to do with our society.

Until then, it is like a prisoner trying to have a reasonable argument with their captors. It doesn’t matter how well we argue, because we are always left imprisoned at the end of the day, and they are always free to turn off the lights.

Analysing the Trump Phenomenon

I remember back when Trump was campaigning to get elected and it was all about going against the political correctness and calling out the liberal, establishment media for their one-sided narratives. This was how it started and continued for a long time. I agreed with him on this, and still do, for I still believe that particular establishment media is rotten to the core. Though, of course, the principles of a free press and free speech remain crucial, regardless.

As time passes it is more possible to see the Trump phenomenon in a more calm and neutral light. Initially I was mildly supportive of his approach. Then, when the extreme liberals went into some of sort of crazy and total emotional implosion, based on his success, and tried to accuse him and anyone of his supporters of racism, being nazis and the like, this only made me more determined and adamant in my position. As my grounds for liking the stance were reasonable and well grounded compared to the alternatives.

What was it that irked them so much? I think, on reflection, it was the fact that he is so unashamedly in love with himself and his image. It was the completely antipodean position compared to their own hatred of themselves that they had turned into a whole moral ideological belief structure about the whole of reality. Lack of shame in these cases can be a great and freeing thing. For, there are so many people who rely on targeting your sense of shame to control you in life in various ways.

I could never so much identify with his extreme love of himself and his own image. I am a much more self deprecating kind of person. But, certainly, this made him nothing like a Hitler or authoritarian style figure as was the accusation of many extremists on the left. The key difference here is that an authoritarian figure doesn’t really care what others think about him, as long as they follow the orders, stick to the protocol and keep up the appearance of obedience. Trump, on the other hand, I think he really does care that others think good about him.

We have seen this unfold in recent months in the light of the corona virus pandemic. It has brought out the true personalities of most of us, for there are no longer social masks to hide behind (even though we may be social distancing and wearing physical masks ironically). What we see is that he really wants to be seen to be doing good things and he is frustrated that the media only ever picks up on the bad things and focus on them. The last day or so, it seems the media have finally managed to get their gotcha moment, catching Trump out with a disinfectant comment. But, what does any of it achieve for dealing with this crisis?

Very little, I say, very little at all. The alternative that many of these smirking dissidents would offer is that we obey experts and never draw on our own common sense judgements. We know the road this leads down, it is the road already too much travelled. It is the failed direction that the liberal cult offered people: trust and faith in their appointed experts who can ensure a mono narrative is implanted in us all. Inevitably they would keep us firmly on lock down, centralise the state more, destroy more and more layers of small businesses, and independent workers until there was no human spirit left worth defending.

No, this simply won’t do. Smirking criticism is easy, but when all you can offer in its place is the tricks of an old dog, then its pretty irrelevant and redundant. Trump may clearly love himself and his image and how he is perceived by others way too much, but if the alternative is a puritan cult of self hatred disguised as altruism and all-caringness of the world, then it is the best we have got until we can learn to find some moderation in our moral values such that they don’t always run unhealthily in total opposition to our natural and instinctive way of being.