Thank you, great post as usual. Yes, God is dead, as Nietzsche proclaimed and all hell broke loose. But I don't see a reason why we should return to the old ways, the pedo Church, the corrupt Vatican or whatever. If it were so easy to kill them maybe it's not worth it. Another question is how much of this so called science is science and how much is magick and the occult. The occultists created modern science. A lot of science is the occult. And another question for me is - if humans need so much a father figure who tells them what is good and evil, maybe humanity is still in some infantile state. My everyday experience confirms humans are infantile and need somebody to take care of them. These are infantile psychopaths.. it is much worse than babies. People tend to think that we have only 2 options - God or Hell or... God or Satan... or God or Psychopathy... God or beyond good and evil. I don't know about this, I don't think so. And I don't think the occult elite are "materialists". Not really. They just killed the God of the slaves to create trauma and fill in the void with all kind of bs... in my opinion.
Good comments and you raise a lot of issues. We don’t wanna go back to totalitarian church but we don’t want to go forward to totalitarian global techno state either.
Chemistry evolved from alchemy. Astronomy evolved from astrology. That doesn’t mean that magic is real because it is not. Modern science should have freed everyone from superstition.
So we need to forge a new future that is neither the old world order nor the New World order… Call it a natural world order or a divine world order whatever you like, but we are heading into the unknown imho.
There is another substantial reason for DEI. To maintain permanent control of WHO....gets to first spend into circulation i.e., new electronic / paper fiat. It is therefore, critically important to maintain their purchasing power, Globalist's need to ensure that every peon under the DEBT-PEONAGE SYSTEM, be a collect of "TAX", which removes from circulation, the intrinsically worthless currency, and maintains the Globalist's power over all. Kind Regards to All, THE UNKNOWN MARKET author on Substack
Agreed fully. What The World should really face up to is it's inherent socialism and tendency to towards centralisation and collectivism. We are where we are because the collective has brought us here. It has chosen to join country blocs and groupings of nations, and it has chosen to campaign for centralization globally - integrationism & multiculturalism in various forms, the global anti-apartheid movement being one of them ... - so centralization globally has arrived everywhere on the same model: The "Rainbow Nation" of Saint Nelson Mandela's "New South Africa" based on "Unity in Diversity" and "Ubuntu". (Remember the heady 80's and 90's when absolutely everybody was on this bandwagon?)
Is this not what the entire world wanted for South Africa? Seems they still want it for S.A. just not for themselves ... - there's a lot of grumbling going on about too much immigration, "inclusivity" and "diversity", but the global anti-apartheid movement was just the forerunner of the global woke movement - can nobody see that? - they're based on exactly the same principles:
See: Apartheid vs. Apartheid in the time of ‘wokeness’:
Now B.R.I.C.S, of all collectives - which is as socialist as they come - just look at the member states (with Rainbow Nation South Africa being a prominent member), is supposed to "save the day" (?)
In relation to B.R.I.C.S in a recent essay, I've commented on this tendency towards centralisation (by choice) as follows:
"We are all products of our environments. People living within centralised frameworks may struggle to conceptualise anything beyond them. Even when contemplating regionalism or localism from a centralised perspective, it is often thought of as having to be managed and administered centrally.
The result would be centralised decentralisation, essentially encapsulating the current form of the concept of ‘multipolarity’. However, real decentralisation would involve a thorough decoupling from centrally managed systems, giving rise to decentralised decentralisation (i.e. authentic multipolarity).
If several diverse countries were to join an enlarging group of nations, intending to preserve their unique civilisation models, this process would still result in a form of centralisation. Sooner or later, the outcome would mirror the existing structures.
Central expectations for standardisation and universal compliance inevitably increase over time, as these are usually the original long-term objectives. Otherwise, centralisation projects would lose their purpose. Structurally, the centralisation trajectory can only lead in one direction – the opposite (and the antidote) being authentic decentralisation.
In practice, within the current framework of increasing centralisation, ‘multipolarity’ would inevitably result in a dilution and loss of depth for incorporated civilisations, despite stated objectives to the contrary. For example, all member states of major country groupings on the world stage (East and West) are presently engaged in accelerating standardisation processes in line with global centralisation trends.
The fact that developed countries within country blocs (such as within the EU) are wholeheartedly committed to advancing globalisation, and the eagerness of peripheral nations to join expanding groups of nations (BRICS being a case in point) continues to be observed.
Furthermore, the majority of citizens in member states on both sides of the equation seem to support these centralisation projects in which their nations participate. It can therefore be concluded that the majority of people continue to desire centralisation.
To conclude, there are two types of decentralisation: (a) centralised decentralisation (a current trend within the context of ‘multipolarity’) and (b) decentralised decentralisation (a future trend), and only one of them could be considered truly authentic.
In the long run, centralised decentralisation will structurally yield to decentralised decentralisation. Nations, cultures, and communities will eventually return to more sovereignty and independence, but first a shift in the spirit of the nations must take place."
Thank you, great post as usual. Yes, God is dead, as Nietzsche proclaimed and all hell broke loose. But I don't see a reason why we should return to the old ways, the pedo Church, the corrupt Vatican or whatever. If it were so easy to kill them maybe it's not worth it. Another question is how much of this so called science is science and how much is magick and the occult. The occultists created modern science. A lot of science is the occult. And another question for me is - if humans need so much a father figure who tells them what is good and evil, maybe humanity is still in some infantile state. My everyday experience confirms humans are infantile and need somebody to take care of them. These are infantile psychopaths.. it is much worse than babies. People tend to think that we have only 2 options - God or Hell or... God or Satan... or God or Psychopathy... God or beyond good and evil. I don't know about this, I don't think so. And I don't think the occult elite are "materialists". Not really. They just killed the God of the slaves to create trauma and fill in the void with all kind of bs... in my opinion.
Good comments and you raise a lot of issues. We don’t wanna go back to totalitarian church but we don’t want to go forward to totalitarian global techno state either.
Chemistry evolved from alchemy. Astronomy evolved from astrology. That doesn’t mean that magic is real because it is not. Modern science should have freed everyone from superstition.
So we need to forge a new future that is neither the old world order nor the New World order… Call it a natural world order or a divine world order whatever you like, but we are heading into the unknown imho.
Great!👏
There is another substantial reason for DEI. To maintain permanent control of WHO....gets to first spend into circulation i.e., new electronic / paper fiat. It is therefore, critically important to maintain their purchasing power, Globalist's need to ensure that every peon under the DEBT-PEONAGE SYSTEM, be a collect of "TAX", which removes from circulation, the intrinsically worthless currency, and maintains the Globalist's power over all. Kind Regards to All, THE UNKNOWN MARKET author on Substack
There are those in who belong to organized religion who do not go along with the globalist agenda and fight t tooth and nail against it.
Yes, that’s true… There were only a handful of churches who stayed open and defied the lockdown mandates
Agreed fully. What The World should really face up to is it's inherent socialism and tendency to towards centralisation and collectivism. We are where we are because the collective has brought us here. It has chosen to join country blocs and groupings of nations, and it has chosen to campaign for centralization globally - integrationism & multiculturalism in various forms, the global anti-apartheid movement being one of them ... - so centralization globally has arrived everywhere on the same model: The "Rainbow Nation" of Saint Nelson Mandela's "New South Africa" based on "Unity in Diversity" and "Ubuntu". (Remember the heady 80's and 90's when absolutely everybody was on this bandwagon?)
Is this not what the entire world wanted for South Africa? Seems they still want it for S.A. just not for themselves ... - there's a lot of grumbling going on about too much immigration, "inclusivity" and "diversity", but the global anti-apartheid movement was just the forerunner of the global woke movement - can nobody see that? - they're based on exactly the same principles:
See: Apartheid vs. Apartheid in the time of ‘wokeness’:
http://archive.today/2021.12.06-084018/https://ac.news/apartheid-vs-apartheid-in-the-time-of-wokeness/
Now B.R.I.C.S, of all collectives - which is as socialist as they come - just look at the member states (with Rainbow Nation South Africa being a prominent member), is supposed to "save the day" (?)
In relation to B.R.I.C.S in a recent essay, I've commented on this tendency towards centralisation (by choice) as follows:
"We are all products of our environments. People living within centralised frameworks may struggle to conceptualise anything beyond them. Even when contemplating regionalism or localism from a centralised perspective, it is often thought of as having to be managed and administered centrally.
The result would be centralised decentralisation, essentially encapsulating the current form of the concept of ‘multipolarity’. However, real decentralisation would involve a thorough decoupling from centrally managed systems, giving rise to decentralised decentralisation (i.e. authentic multipolarity).
If several diverse countries were to join an enlarging group of nations, intending to preserve their unique civilisation models, this process would still result in a form of centralisation. Sooner or later, the outcome would mirror the existing structures.
Central expectations for standardisation and universal compliance inevitably increase over time, as these are usually the original long-term objectives. Otherwise, centralisation projects would lose their purpose. Structurally, the centralisation trajectory can only lead in one direction – the opposite (and the antidote) being authentic decentralisation.
In practice, within the current framework of increasing centralisation, ‘multipolarity’ would inevitably result in a dilution and loss of depth for incorporated civilisations, despite stated objectives to the contrary. For example, all member states of major country groupings on the world stage (East and West) are presently engaged in accelerating standardisation processes in line with global centralisation trends.
The fact that developed countries within country blocs (such as within the EU) are wholeheartedly committed to advancing globalisation, and the eagerness of peripheral nations to join expanding groups of nations (BRICS being a case in point) continues to be observed.
Furthermore, the majority of citizens in member states on both sides of the equation seem to support these centralisation projects in which their nations participate. It can therefore be concluded that the majority of people continue to desire centralisation.
To conclude, there are two types of decentralisation: (a) centralised decentralisation (a current trend within the context of ‘multipolarity’) and (b) decentralised decentralisation (a future trend), and only one of them could be considered truly authentic.
In the long run, centralised decentralisation will structurally yield to decentralised decentralisation. Nations, cultures, and communities will eventually return to more sovereignty and independence, but first a shift in the spirit of the nations must take place."
Full essay:
https://energyshifts.net/a-crisis-in-thinking-and-the-way-out/