We are all confused, but if we step away from the ardency it becomes easy to begin to elevate from confusion. The most confused people are those who believe, ardently, they are not confused.
In the United States, confusion is an effective and oft-used tactic of the institutional status quo, which limits social thinking and, in turn, inhibits true social progress. And the worst confusion today can be summed up as an intentionally distorted perspective on the differentiation between the rights of individuals and institutions. It seems we’ve forgotten who is working for who.
Long ago, in primal times, it may have served us to be confrontational and to see the world in opposition, but today these tendencies just provide leverage for institutions. All around the world, we face the left/right wing dynamic which divides societies and hinders them from reaching mutual and progressive solutions. This of course functions to benefit the oligarchs who, lacking direction except increasing their monies, create fear and discord with misinformation and then offer short sighted, extremely profitable “solutions” to the “market” – in place of the genuine, inclusive progress we all know is needed.
Most people openly identify themselves as Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, right wing or left wing. But this identification just lends more power to those at the top of the piles (Republican or Democrat) who are visibly money and power at our collective expense, and hiding under a thin veil of divisive party “philosophies”. And yet this institutionalized notion of right and left wing is still supported by the public majority, who are somehow convinced that an institutional body whose job it is explicitly to gain and maintain power and influence in competition with others has our society’s individual and collective best interests in mind.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats begins with rifts so great it might seem they could never have parallel direction, and yet they end up doing exactly the same things and support/are supported by the same elements of the status quo. For instance, in the U.S.A. Republicans generally state that individuals alone or in personal groupings can best empower us all, while Democrats essentially state that the collective of individuals can best help empower us all. Well, they are both right, but both wind up being horribly wrong in their implementation and as a result, neither approach is encouraged.
The dividing line of the right and left wing is not as smooth as the spine line of an eagle or any bird, it is more like a zig zag zipper line, but they still fit neatly together, limiting public debate to the narrowest field of difference while creating the illusion of genuine deliberation. Ultimately though, they’re still two cheeks around the same bunghole. The Republicans riding the right wing and Democrats riding the left wing, both end up setting up institutions firstly instead of directly uplifting and empowering individuals to freedom and happiness, as they claim is their pursuit. And institutions inevitably go oligarchical, serving those at the top at the expense of all others.
The Polarity of Healthcare
In the U.S.A. individual healthcare has recently become a political issue that is perfectly demonstrative of the right wing/left wing dynamic, and how it benefits controlling institutions over real human beings.
The Democrat approach to individual healthcare was to build up a health insurance mandate instead of just building up individual healthcare systems that provide services to individuals, like open hospital care without insurance institutionalization combined with free medical education – just like, say, Cuba and Germany offer. The insurance mandate was implemented as a medium because the Republican perspective insists we should all fend for ourselves and allow the market to decide – which is to say, if you’re sick and poor then you have failed to adequately present yourself to market and may therefore be left to die.
The left and right wings settled on and built up what is an institutionalization hole. Their healthcare industry formula conveniently ignores the ‘square root’ of institutionalized corruption – the notion that immorality is justified by legality. At its core, the ins-and-outs of many day-to-day functions represent the straight-out gouging of sick and desperate people. But instead of overhaul, there was simply more institutionalization – the opposite of what both left and right first claimed to represent.
Does this pattern sound familiar?
Perhaps the Republican perspective to proceed without interference or assistance would be sensible if Republican and Democrat “industrialists” had not operated without interference for the last couple of hundred years, polluting every drop of water and every breath of air from here to Kingdom Come, so that we all need more healthcare, more often. Or maybe it would work if the nation’s medical institutions were not all so heavily corrupted by pharmaceutical profiteering. Perhaps it would make sense if our grandchildren and their grandchildren were not destined to be born into a world contaminated by toxins generated by this century’s institutional and industrial failings.
In the broader context, the “compromise” seems less sensible and more a corruption of intent.
Throughout recorded time, the right wing/left wing dynamic has degraded and distracted us. But we forget that both ‘wings’ operate via the same brain, and are part of the same duality. In our dualistic reality, opposing positions can both be true, as we understand via the matrix of four forms of critical thought:
Is it so? Is it not so? Is it neither? Is it both?
But the left/right paradigm draws our attention only to a limited scope of thinking: “Is it so? Or is it not so?”. The “both” (the compromise) and the “neither” (the infinite other possibilities) positions are never considered or explored. Rather, such possibilities are typically marginalized, as are their messengers.
Since the existence of the right wing/left wing dynamic seems a near constant in human history, and since our history has led humanity up to this point in time – which politically speaking is a mess – I declare myself independent. Independent of such polarizing identifications, and independent of the narrow, divisive mindset those identifications engender, to the benefit of greedy strangers. I declare myself not a Democrat or Republican, or Green or Libertarian, or Anarchist, or Majority of Love parties or a pagan esoteric sun worshipper. I declare my independence from the Left/Right Paradigm.
The Final Word
Look where this system of competition over cooperation has gotten us – a world at war, a corrupted food supply, massive economic and social inequality, and a life permanently on the precipice of further petrolithic or radiological ecological disaster. We have been betrayed by our own systems of governance, and all to benefit some greedy strangers.
Our society’s post-modern institutional focus has steered us to a point where we live to work, instead of working to live - and most of us accept it as normal. As individuals, we work to build up institutions and their power, not individuals and their empowerment. We are each dispensable to institutions, which are increasingly being granted the rights of living breathing beings, and far more protections. The authorities that once operated by the spirit of the law now operate by the word of law; words that are progressively being twisted and changed by, and for the benefit of, self-regulating institutional powers. Our so-called protectors enforce their ‘laws’ as harshly as only a lifeless uncaring mechanization can, stomping over land, locals and liberty, and all the while spouting institutional rhetoric like “I’m just following orders” or “… because it’s the law”.
To move forward, opposing ideals must be balanced. The role of our social leaders is not to eliminate and invalidate opposing views through a process of competitive jousting, but to try to integrate both and all views into unified – and unifying – solutions. I beg you to support the rights of the independent individual, and to think beyond the limited, institutional left/right polarity that led us here.
I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favorable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you add the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.
~ Lord Acton’s Dictum, John Acton, English Historian
“Dreams of the far future destiny of man were dragging up from its shallow and unquiet grave the old dream of man as god…” – C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength, 1945
In 1945, George Orwell, famous for his stunningly accurate portrayal of a future police state in 1984, commented on prominent author C. S. Lewis’ book ThatHideous Strength. Hideous Strength revolves around the National Institute for Coordinated Experiments (NICE) and the organization’s plot to seize control of all life. Orwell’s commentary was published in the Manchester Evening News in 1945 with the headline “THE SCIENTISTS TAKE OVER.” Orwell wrote,
“All superfluous life is to be wiped out, all natural forces tamed, the common people are to be used as slaves and vivisection subjects by the ruling caste of scientists, who even see their way to conferring immortal life upon themselves. Man, in short, is to storm the heavens and overthrow the gods, or even to become a god himself.
There is nothing outrageously improbable in such a conspiracy. Indeed, at a moment when a single atomic bomb – of a type already pronounced “obsolete” – has just blown probably three hundred thousand people to fragments, it sounds all too topical. Plenty of people in our age do entertain the monstrous dreams of power that Mr. Lewis attributes to his characters, and we are within sight of the time when such dreams will be realisable.”
Do we live in an age when these dreams of power could become a reality? Lewis and Orwell have been proven very accurate in their portrayals of the future 70 years ago. Much of the momentum for the scientific developments that would create these formerly fantastical technologies began in the lifetimes of both Lewis and Orwell. They witnessed the rise of the science of molecular biology, initiated by the Rockefeller Foundation and other tax-exempt foundations who were interested in finding out how the human body operates, with an eye toward better controlling society. The eugenics and social control paradigms that sprung from this foundation sparked scientific revolution in the early 20th century are still in play today among the intelligentsia of western society.
Vannevar Bush became the first Science Advisor to the United States government during World War II under President Franklin Roosevelt. Bush played a vital role in the creation of what we know today as the Military Industrial Complex. Specifically, the method of scientific research of this gargantuan organization – beginning with the Office of Scientific Research and Development – was devised by Vannevar.
The roots of the internet can be traced to Bush’s ideas in 1945. The forerunner to the computer itself can also be attributed to his early designs. From 1935 to 1946 the Rockefeller Foundation funded Vannevar Bush’s development of the mechanical differential analyzer at MIT for a total of $230,500. This device, along with the Hollerith machine, is considered to be one of the forerunners of the desktop computer that we all know and use today.
Scientific developments and new technologies are often spun as beneficial things for humanity, and in fact many of them are. We need to remember that while each development brings power to mankind, it also gives power to some men over other men. As Orwell said, “There is nothing improbable” about such desires for power.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned in his 1961 farewell speech “…in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.”
In 1968 LIFE magazine profiled a man named Herman Kahn. Labeled an “action intellectual”, Kahn is a founding father of future studies. LIFE reports, “Herman Kahn has been a major figure in one of the most fascinating shifts of power in U.S. History: from identifiable public leaders to the ‘action intellectuals.’” The article continues, “As counselors to the decision-makers, men such as Kahn often have access to future technology (what is known, but not yet disclosed) and official intelligence (what is known, but not yet revealed, about the capacities and plans of other nations)… Thus, decisions – based on private knowledge, analyzed by private consultants and debated in private – can become public policy. This is a process of invisible power.”
Scientists from all over the world are warning that robots and artificial intelligence could eliminate humanity. Elon Musk, CEO of SpaceX, a private space exploration company, told CNBC recently that he is worried about a “Terminator-like scenario” as a result of advancing AI technology.
Top A.I. researcher Hugo de Garis provides another example. De Garis explains that the development of super-intelligent A.I. may lead to a devastating “Artilect” war that could kill billions of people. This war could break out when two distinct groups of humanity emerge; One group embraces the god-like artificial intelligence and technological advancement with religious fervor, the other group fights to prevent it from ever being built. He adds that he is more than willing to take the risk, saying, “As a brain builder myself, am I prepared to risk the extinction of the human species for the sake of building an artilect? … yep.”
This mindset, common among scientific elites, was articulated by Arthur Kroker, Professor of Political Science at the University of Victoria and Director of the Pacific Centre for Technology and Culture. Kroker identified these individuals as “Suicidal nihilists” who “…can very happily ally themselves with a notion of nuclear holocaust or perfect exterminism… They’re creating again and again the exterminism of human memory, the exterminism of human sensibility, the exterminism of individuated human intelligence…”
Partly due to popular culture, transhumanism has begun to catch on with the younger generations. As Amanda Stoel, co-founder of the Facebook group “Singularity Network” told the Huffington Post, “Three years ago, we had only around 400 members, but today we have over 10,000 members.”
Another article from the Huffington Post says that the transhumanist movement is “on the verge of going mainstream” due to increasing popular culture references to transhumanist ideas. Art has been used for millennia to initiate and give support to ideas and movements. Transhumanist artwork in the form of sculptures, paintings, and music is now steadily flowing into our society. Movies like Transcendence, and Avatar are two recent examples.
The hotel was the site of the secretive 2013 Bilderberg meeting. The Grove hotel hosted Google’s annual Zeitgeist conference just a few short days prior to Bilderberg’s gathering. Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt, who currently employs top transhumanist Ray Kurzweil as director of engineering, must have felt a kindred spirit at the Grove and its metallic humanoid sculptures.
Transhumanists embrace the idea of radical human evolution aided by technology. Some see an entirely new species emerging when revolutionary technologies begin to be applied to the human race. Technologies for the improvement of human performance are at the center of transhumanist thought. Most of these technologies begin with military applications, and only after a period of use by the military or black operations are they unveiled to the general public. In 2008 the JASON group, the Pentagon’s top scientific advisers, warned that the U.S. military could face enemies with technologically enhanced abilities. These capabilities include brain-machine interfaces and pharmaceutical drugs that enhance cognitive abilities.
This new arms race will eventually force our society into a transhuman future due to the never ending desire to dominate our enemies. The debate over whether or not we should genetically modify or chip our soldiers will inevitably spill over into the general public, who will be using these technologies themselves. According to CNN, human trials in the civilian world for memory enhancing brain chips are set to begin in less than a year. Exoskeletons, which provide super-human strength to those who wear them, were originally developed by DARPA, the Department of Defense’s research agency.
Other examples of technology with possible transhumanist applications include nanotechnology, synthetic biology, genetic modification, and cognitive science. Initial uses of these technologies will be to help the disabled walk, hear, and see. After this, enhancement of normal individuals is an inevitability.
Marc Andreessen is a Silicon Valley tycoon who has founded several multi-billion dollar tech companies including Mosaic (the first widely used web browser) and Netscape. He recently drew criticism from Salon magazine for a “tweet storm” on twitter that praised the god-like power of advancing technology. Salon ran the headline “The tech industry’s God complex is getting out of control.”
Andreessen tweeted “I am firmly convinced many people are fundamentally underestimating the power and potential of these new superpowers in the years ahead.” He continued, “Combine modern bio, 3D printing, & computing–>prosthetics & exoskeletons; superpower: paralyzed to walk, disabled to abled, blind to see.”
Some scientists are predicting that getting chip implants will become mandatory due to overwhelming societal pressure. Cybernetics scientist Dr Mark Gasson told the Sydney Morning Herald that, “It’s not possible to interact in society today in any meaningful way, without having a mobile phone. I think human implants will go along a similar route. It will be such a disadvantage not to have the implant that it will essentially not be optional.”
The experts were expressing grave doubts all the way back in 1977. Right at the beginning.
They were questioning the validity of standard tests used to diagnose Ebola—tests being the only way to say the virus is present in humans.
Of course, if the tests are unreliable, the whole premise of an epidemic caused by a single virus has no value. It’s an unwarranted assumption.
At that point, you can look for illness and death stemming from a number of causes. And you’re driven to the fact that, in Africa, large numbers of people have been dying for a very long time, for reasons that have nothing to do with germs:
Grinding poverty, war, starvation and severe malnutrition, contaminated water, pesticides, lack of basic sanitation, extreme overcrowding, stolen farm land, toxic medicines, and so on.
Not a viral epidemic.
The 1977 reference here is: “Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever: Proceedings of an International Colloquium on Ebola Virus Infection and Other Haemorrhagic Fevers held in Antwerp, Belgium, 6-8 December, 1977.”
This report is 280 pages long. It’s well worth reading and studying, to see how the experts hem and haw, hedge their bets, and yet make damaging admissions:
For example, “It is impossible to consider the virological diagnosis of Ebola virus infection loose [apart] from the diagnosis of haemorrhagic fevers in general. The clinical picture of the disease indeed is too nonspecific to allow any hypothesis as to which virus may be responsible for any given case.”
Here is a particularly illuminating quote: “…it is becoming clear, to us at least, that the more work you do with the FA-Test [an antibody test for Ebola diagnosis] the more interesting, the more complicated and the more biologically sloppy the results become. I would urge very great caution in making any kind of final interpretation of what you have just heard [from other presenters]…I cannot explain how a Panamanian Indian can have antibodies to Ebola virus. I don’t think these are real antibodies. Of course if these are not, it means that any others in a given serum [blood sample from a patient] may not be as well. It is clear that we must have an alternative and a much more specific method with which we can answer these questions. Several facts suggest endemicity of Ebola in Zaire…I’m beginning to believe that the virus may in fact be endemic in Zaire.”
What do the last two sentences mean? They mean there is a significant chance that Ebola has been present in Zaire for a long, long time, and people have developed natural immunity to it, as they would to, say, measles or mumps.
Hardly the stuff of “outbreaks” and viral “hot zones” and recent “epidemics.”
Here’s an add-on, 18 years after the 1977 Colloquium in Belgium: of the 55 million people living in Zaire, 20% were estimated to have antibodies to the Ebola virus. In other words, they had developed natural immunity to Ebola. (Citation: Dietrich J., 1995. Der Tod aus dem Regenwald. Die Woche, 19 May, p26-27.”) Again, not the stuff of an epidemic.
And finally, on a CDC website page titled, “Ebola (Ebola Virus Disease): Signs and Symptoms,” there is this quote: “People who recover from Ebola infection develop antibodies that last for at least 10 years.”
The meaning of this is ominous: such people, if they receive an antibody test for Ebola, even though they are now healthy, can be labeled “Ebola,” and treated accordingly: shunned, quarantined, attacked.
Thanks to Felicia Popescu for her article, “The Ebola lie exposed!—a historical analysis.” The article analyzes, in depth, the 1977 Colloquium on Ebola.
Jon Rappoport is the author of two explosive collections, The Matrix Revealed and Exit From the Matrix, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Note by SiNeh~
In this post we can read:"At that point, you can look for illness and death stemming from a number of causes. And you’re driven to the fact that, in Africa, large numbers of people have been dying for a very long time, for reasons that have nothing to do with germs:
Grinding poverty, war, starvation and severe malnutrition, contaminated water, pesticides, lack of basic sanitation, extreme overcrowding, stolen farm land, toxic medicines, and so on."
This gave me the inspiration to show you via below link a short Video that I posted just a few minutes ago.